LOEX (Library Orientation Exchange) Conference: Managing Instruction Programs Academic Libraries

Citation

Manuel, K. (2001), "LOEX (Library Orientation Exchange) Conference: Managing Instruction Programs Academic Libraries", Library Hi Tech News, Vol. 18 No. 7. https://doi.org/10.1108/lhtn.2001.23918gac.004

LOEX (Library Orientation Exchange) Conference: Managing Instruction Programs Academic Libraries

"Managing Instruction Programs in Academic Libraries" was the theme of the 29th National LOEX (Library Orientation Exchange) Conference held 4-5 May 2001 in Ypsilanti, Michigan. Presentations highlighted issues with which many library instruction programs currently grapple, such as:

• •

  motivation, training, and development of instruction librarians;

• •

  leadership and strategic planning for instruction programs;

• •

  team approaches to managing programs;

• •

  campus climates for information literacy and partnering on campus;

• •

  moving from one-shot or General Education-based library instruction to for-credit courses or incorporation of information competencies within majors;

• •

  strategies ­ such as peer advising by students ­ for coping with high demand for library instruction;

• •

  collecting data and maintaining statistics;

• •

  using the Web in place of paper handouts, or to promote instruction programs;

• •

  assessment via testing, of students at a distance, or as an integral part of instruction sessions; and

• •

  provision of effective instruction for distance education students, as well as for students who get library instruction as part of several courses.

Keynote speaker Mary Jane Petrowski of Colgate University, and featured speaker, Linda S. Dobb of Bowling Green State University, helped open the way for workshops discussing such a range of concerns by their own talks which broadly addressed the management of library instruction programs and the presence of information literacy on college and university campuses.

Keynote and Featured Speeches

Managing Information Literacy Programs

Petrowski's presentation on "Managing Information Literacy Programs: Building Repertoire" opened with an image of a dog pedaling a tricycle with his hind legs while a cat balanced on top of his head holding in her front paws a bar at one end of which was a mouse juggling balls and at the other end of which was a mouse doing a handstand. This image strikingly embodied the tensions of "balancing" responsibilities felt by those charged with managing today's instruction programs. Instruction coordinators or teams must strive to meet current expectations for developing information competencies among student populations and for expanding the library's influence within their institution while simultaneously planning for changing teaching/learning environments in higher education and for reshaping the library's purpose to meet institutional needs.

According to Petrowksi, managers of library instruction programs must be agents for change and innovation within the curriculum, within the library, and within the academic community. A powerful perceived advantage can be the strongest motivator for adoption of innovations, and assessment data can play an important role in providing perceived advantages. Change is more likely to be resisted when the risks or consequences of failure are higher, thus making important the creation of a climate where it is acceptable to "fail early and often in order to succeed." Change is more likely to succeed when new ideas are "easy to use" instead of "complex," and when people are prepared for change by opportunities to come together as groups for discussion in informal contexts. ("Food events," like monthly dinners, coffees, and brown bag lunches, can be effective.) Big changes provoke more resistance than small ones, so managers should be careful not to undertake too much at once, to start with a manageable product, and to work with a core group that shares ideas and values.

Especially when working with persons outside the library community, it is important to use language intelligible and appealing to non-librarians, Petrowski suggests. Incorporation of new ideas is easier when the ideas are compatible with existing practices ­ meaning that it is much easier to persuade faculty of the value of information competencies if this value is expressed in terms of their own goals and outcomes for student learning. Credible messengers are also key to people's receptiveness to change. Students, for example, find other students more believable than faculty or librarians as promoters of research skills. Reliability is another strong influence upon persons' willingness to change; those with whom one has a good "track record" are often more receptive to one's advocacy of changes. Giving people "easy ins" and "easy outs" also promotes receptiveness to innovations: people adopt new ideas more readily when they must invest little money, time, or effort in these ideas ­ and when they can easily back away after a trial of the innovation.

Petrowksi concluded with ten pieces of management advice designed to keep dogs, cats, and mice balanced on their tricycle ­ and managers of library instruction programs on balance too. These include:

• •

  participating instead of lurking;

• •

  viewing communication as "give and seek, not give and take";

• •

  asking for others' preferences;

• •

  treating mistakes as informational;

• •

  seeking feedback from everyone;

• •

  staying level, relaxed, alert, and good-humored;

• •

  staying unconditionally constructive;

• •

  deciding how to handle mistakes before they happen;

• •

  focusing only on external evidence, not hearsay; and

• •

  staying in the present while working for the future.

Information Literacy on Campus

Linda S. Dobb's "Up, Down, All Around: Permeating the Campus with Information Literacy" was about information literacy within libraries' campus contexts. Dobb, who was trained as a librarian but is currently an Executive Vice President at Bowling Green State University (BGSU), began by noting that she sometimes disagrees with her library's information literacy program about its objectives and its positioning of itself on campus. She thinks, for example, that teaching information technology is appropriate for library instruction programs. Many campuses, in fact, lack departments, programs, or units charged with teaching those students who need help with basic computing or with Web page creation. Unwillingness to do tours ­ because they do not effectively meet cognitive learning outcomes for students ­ can similarly undermine ability to meet students' affective learning outcomes. Tours can serve to convince students that libraries are warm, welcoming places. Librarians also need to be more effective in reaching campuses' "feeder populations" ­ high schools, home schools, and transfer institutions ­ whether by going to their sites or by teaching these institutions' teachers. Dobb voices these differences because she would like to see libraries serve as catalysts for campus change, successfully reach new populations of adult learners, satisfy students' demands, and promote lifelong learning for all.

Dobb notes that BGSU libraries help to attract and retain students and that non-library faculty recognizes the importance of library resources and staff, especially to distance education efforts. Fundamentally, "in tough times, no one questions the need to keep libraries open, stocked, staffed, and at the heart of the enterprise." While the library for popular culture at BGSU is a unique draw, many libraries could help promote retention among students who have not yet declared majors ­ a group prone to dropping out ­ with, for example, laptop loan programs. What is seen as important for and from the library depends upon who is looking, and non-librarians tend to focus attention more favorably upon visible library efforts and those that manifest a direct correlation with institutional learning outcomes. Working with faculty to integrate information literacy into departmental courses allows librarians to foster information competencies among students while increasing opportunities for faculty to develop positive images of librarians and for better meeting departmental student learning outcomes.

Dobb also discussed some challenges currently confronting librarians within the higher education environment. Many of these issues center upon librarians' status and roles as members of the faculty. Can librarian faculty members be respected if they do not teach? If librarians are expected to publish, can their research be descriptions of "best practices"? Is outreach regarded as service, or as just part of the job? Are uses of new methodologies and innovations okay, and what will happen if one fails? Where does technology fit? These are questions without easy, general answers, but there are some answers to related questions out there. Among the solutions for academic librarians to consider are: keeping abreast of the literature (in case clear answers emerge); allowing hybrid models for integrating technology and teaching to exist; and recognizing that while not the "ideal world," the "real world" may be one in which librarians' work is not valued unless it meets institutional goals. As results do equal resources, rewards will likely follow behaviors that bring institutional acclaim.

Workshop Sessions

Instruction for Distant Students

Robin Lockerby and Debbi Renfrow of National University addressed the issue of "How to Provide Library Instruction when the Students Are Missing: Managing a Library Instruction Program for Off-Campus and Online Students." National University serves some 17,000 adult learners (average age of 32), 72 per cent of whom are graduate students. National has one "main" campus and library in San Diego and 24 "learning centers" ­ consisting of a computer lab, classrooms, and student services ­ throughout California. National has open enrollment and a unique system of students' taking one class per month. Students can take classes in person or online, but National has found that one "problem with distance learning is that the students on the fringes feel like they are on the fringes." National's library instruction program seeks to raise students' information literacy levels and awareness of library resources and services through library instruction sessions, an online course, and a Web-based tutorial.

To meet the needs of distance education students taking National's Web-based courses through the E-College delivery system, librarians designed Library 101, a non-credit-bearing online class (http://online.nu.edu). All students who enroll in one of National's E-College courses are automatically enrolled in Library 101 and have the option of working through its 12 self-paced units on topics like accessing the library's resources remotely and using the catalog. The online class includes a self-assessment of learning for the students and various communication/discussion options. Of National's 2,000 online students each month, approximately 20 do the tutorial. While the tutorial was initially optional for students, with the results of the self-assessment going only to the student, some faculty ­ as a results of increasing collaboration with National's librarians ­ have begun requiring students to do the work of Library 101 and email self-assessment results to themselves or to librarians.

Staff at National feel that Library 101 has been successful in helping them reach every online student, in having instruction always available to the students, in supporting various forms of communication with students, in giving to distance students access to library instruction comparable to that for on-campus students, and in having developed an assessment tool. A stand-alone, Web-based tutorial was subsequently developed, and National is working to address issues of staffing, training, communication, and assessment. <

Tiered Library Instruction

Introducing "tiered" library instruction and preventing duplication of content over students' instructional sessions for different courses were the focusses of "Double Jeopardy: Avoiding BI Duplication among Freshmen While Making Library Orientation Fun," a workshop led by Lorene Harris of the University of South Carolina, Lancaster. At USCL librarians were confronted with the "problem of faculty requesting basic and basically repetitive BI sessions" of a small number (3.5 FTE) of library staff. For first-year students, library instruction was "expected" for both English 102 and University 101 ­ a three credit course that is not required but is taken by 80-90 percent of students. Indeed, in UNIV 101, faculty often wanted three meetings with librarians per course section.

Librarians at USCL decided to focus the library instruction for UNIV 101 upon basic skills and experiential, fun learning, while using the library instruction for ENG 102 to reinforce (not repeat) basic skills and to develop higher level competencies. Librarians also developed an online tutorial for use by UNIV 101 students before the library instruction sessions, as a way of introducing some skills prior to the class session and of lessening the teaching demands upon the librarians. During the actual library sessions for UNIV 101, a Jeopardy-like game played upon a hypertext board using answers students obtained during a scavenger hunt furnish students with the benefits of active and peer learning within a popular culture motivational framework.

Effectiveness of the changes was gauged by asking faculty about students' responses to and learning from the online tutorial and the Jeopardy game. Faculty responses were very positive, although one faculty member did note of the tutorial that "anything that takes more than 30 minutes to complete gets mixed reaction from freshmen. But they need it!" Librarians plan to use this "tiered" approach to library instruction for first-year students as a basis for introducing higher-level information literacy skills within the disciplines and majors.

Training for Instruction Librarians

Training of instruction librarians was the focus of "What Do I Do Now? Helping Instruction Librarians Develop Teaching Skills," a presentation by Helene Androski, Dineen Grow, and Carrie Kruse of the University of Wisconsin, Madison. UWM's project began with a survey asking 100 UWM teaching librarians about their interest in various methods of improving teaching skills. Of the 66 librarians who responded to the survey 43.9 percent taught library sessions for UWM's required communication classes, 62.1 percent did other course-related library instruction, and 54.5 percent did drop-in sessions. Of the various modes of improving teaching skills, 75.8 percent expressed interest in workshops on teaching techniques, 54.5 percent in receiving relevant articles, 60.6 percent in meeting for discussions with colleagues, 31.8 percent in videotaping their instruction sessions for their review, 42.4 percent in peer coaching, and 63.6 percent in getting students' evaluations of their teaching. The highest number of librarians (68.2 percent) expressed need for training in teaching techniques ­ 27.3 percent wanted training in dealing with anxiety, 24.2 percent in peer coaching, 50 percent in presentation technologies, 50 percent in building rapport with students, and 10.6 percent in building rapport with teaching assistants.

Based upon the results of this survey, a training video was designed for UWM librarians. The video ­ titled What Do I Do Now? Teaching Tips for Librarians ­ can be viewed on the Web as streaming video at http://www.library.wisc.edu/libraries/instruction/video.htm and addresses preparation for classes, building rapport, preparing students for learning, presenting materials, keeping students' attention, and using interactive techniques.

Assessing Library Instruction for Distant Students

"Assessing Library Instruction for Distance Learners: A Case Study of Nursing Students," by Judy Ruttenberg and Elizabeth Housewright of California State University, Fullerton (CSUF) addressed distance learning, library instruction for the sciences, and assessment. Distance education is presently a major focus at CSUF: its Nursing program begins statewide instruction in 2001/2002, there is a proposal that Business programs be offered globally, and requiring every student at CSUF to take one distance education class has been discussed. The provision of library instruction to two Nursing classes presented a unique opportunity to explore the options for and effectiveness of various options for library instruction for distance education students. As the Nursing classes were also taught on campus, there could be a control group of students receiving "traditional," in-person library instruction. The distance students in this trial were also proximate to the main Fullerton campus, not yet scattered throughout the state or around the globe, allowing for visits by the librarians to the remote sites to see how things were working there.

Fundamentally, this trial revealed that librarians who currently have a range of active learning techniques for face-to-face settings will need to develop new instructional techniques for distance learning environments. While pre- and post-testing of on-campus and distance students revealed no significant differences in student learning, distance education students were less satisfied with the quality of their instruction ­ a finding that was hardly surprising in that these distance education students could not see the face that went with the person instructing them! Distance students specifically asked for worksheets so that they could practice at home and opportunities to prepare in advance of the lesson (e.g. by getting a glossary of terms or a listing of resources to be covered).

While LOEX presentations and informal discussions raised all these weighty issues which managers of library instruction programs must currently confront, the range of potential solutions and thoughtful reflections offered was heartening.

Kate Manuel(kmanuel@lib. nmsu.edu) is Instruction Coordinator at New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA.