Personal and professional development as a teaching librarian
Abstract:
This chapter explores the means and methods of professional and personal development for teaching librarians and describes a number of individual and collaborative strategies for self-evaluation and reflective practice. The chapter encourages teaching librarians to adopt a reflective attitude towards their instructional work and to use the results of constructive self-evaluation, and evaluation by others, to continually improve their teaching and to gradually build a ‘teacher identity’ that will bolster their sense of confidence and self-efficacy. The chapter also urges engagement with the wider professional community of teaching librarians, as well as other academic stakeholder groups in both formal and informal ways. The approaches to development include: student evaluation of teaching performance; peer evaluation of teaching; applying for teaching grants and awards; creating teaching portfolios; writing reflective journals and blogs; mentoring; professional learning communities; communities of practice; and publishing in academic journals.
[T]he acceptance of our role in teaching and learning also comes with a price. If we are to be teachers, then we need to be fully engaged in training for, and maintaining competence in, this aspect of our professional identity (Powis, 2008).
In Chapter 2, we saw how Walter emphasised the importance of establishing a ‘culture of teaching’ within academic libraries to promote professional development, noting that it is ‘critical to any department or institutional attempt to improve the quality of instructional performance’ (2005: 4). He suggests that a number of supportive structures must be in place, including interest and commitment from administrators, the full involvement of academics, frequent collegial interaction, the provision of professional development resources and the inclusion of teaching performance as a criterion for professional advancement within the institution. A similar notion is articulated by Biggs and Tang, who refer to a ‘SoTL culture’ – namely, an institutional culture that recognises the importance of the ‘Scholarship of Teaching and Learning’, which traditionally has not been afforded the same prestige as other forms of academic scholarship. The authors suggest that the existence of a SoTL culture in academic institutions ‘leads inevitably to several structures that require and support transformative reflection with regard to teaching’ (2007: 264).
The general importance of reflective practice has also been discussed earlier (Chapter 2). Authors such as Jacobs (2008) and Walter (2005) suggest that simply teaching librarians how to teach – by means of a pre-service module, for example – is not sufficient to fully develop an individual as a teacher; rather, such modules ‘must instead be part of a larger endeavour aimed at helping librarians feel more confident in and prepared for their pedagogical work’ (Jacobs, 2008: 257). However, to date there is still a comparatively small body of documentary evidence attesting to reflective practice in librarianship in general. A systematic review of the literature on reflective practice carried out by Grant (2007) identified just 13 papers which dealt with either analytical (6 papers) or non-analytical (7 papers) reflection in library and information work. Grant defines non-analytical reflective accounts as reporting on past events from a retrospective or historical perspective, while analytical accounts ‘attempt to understand the relationship between past experiences and how this might impact on future practice’ (Grant, 2007: 155). She however suggests that the relatively low number of articles on reflective practice might not prove lack of activity, but could instead mean that reflection is considered a private rather than a public process by librarians. However, in recent years, the phenomenon of blogging by librarians (Aharony, 2009) could indicate that public reflection on practice is becoming more of an accepted activity among the LIS professional community – this will be discussed later on in this chapter. In the meantime, however, as teaching librarians, we should recognise the importance of adopting a reflective approach to our work and what it can mean for our confidence and sense of self-efficacy.
As teaching librarians, some of you may be fortunate enough to work in institutions where a strong teaching and learning culture is well established and the importance of teaching is fully recognised; others among you might feel that other aspects of academic work, such as research and publication, are valued more and might feel challenged when it comes to teaching within your environments. The following sections outline the means and methods of professional development for teaching librarians. Some are individual activities; many are group- based and are dependent on the type of culture described above. Interested readers are also directed to a website set up by Scott Walter, which is specifically aimed at compiling resources for instructional improvement for academic librarians: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/swalter/www/instructional_improvement.html.
Evaluation of teaching performance
A willingness to honestly examine your teaching and learning activities in a constructive way and to open these activities to the scrutiny of others is at the heart of your development as a teaching professional. Walter (2005) asserts that ‘while the evaluation of library instruction may have once been the “weak link” in the overall instructional service program of academic libraries, now it is a central concern’ (p. 5). Evaluation of your teaching performance is carried out through a number of different internal and external channels – a rounded overview of your performance is best obtained through using a selected mix of methods to access evidence and opinion. The following sections explore the different sources of evaluation and the methods that are associated with collecting and presenting data from each source. A clear image of your teaching performance emerges through the perspectives of a number of different stakeholder groups:
What do students think? Students’ opinions, as well as their success in attaining learning outcomes, are good indicators of the impact of your teaching work. To collect data from students, the methods used include paper-based or online evaluation surveys, focus groups, classroom assessment techniques and summative assessment results.
What do your colleagues think? The perspectives of trusted and respected colleagues can offer useful insights into your instructional performance, through peer-observation of teaching. Sharing methods and expertise is another benefit of these mutually supportive arrangements, which will be discussed later in this chapter.
What do administrators, senior academics and/or national experts think? The perspectives of outside parties and those who are charged with strategic decision-making can indicate the extent to which your teaching is aligned with institutional, or even national, educational priorities. Feedback in this context comes, for example, from applying for any teaching awards or grants that are open to educators internally, nationally or even internationally. The feedback received from both successful and unsuccessful submissions can be used to introduce improvements and modifications to your practice.
What do you think? Your own perspective is the final part of the jigsaw – honest self-reflection on your teaching, acknowledgement of your strengths and areas for improvement, and your plans for future development can be captured through the use of reflective journals, portfolios or blogs, amongst other methods.
The following sections outline some of the ways in which information can be gathered from each of these stakeholder groups.
Student evaluation of teaching
Student evaluation of teaching is carried out as a matter of course in most institutions of higher education and, for academics, is an important criterion in tenure and promotion decisions. While Grassian and Kaplowitz caution against the inappropriate use of what they term ‘happiness scales’ to assess the pedagogical impact of information literacy instruction, they also observe that this type of evaluation provides ‘valuable information about the affective effect of the instruction’ (2009: 208). However, Biggs and Tang warn heavily against the use of student evaluation questionnaires as the sole measure of a teacher’s performance, noting that typically ‘such across-the-board measures assume that the default method of teaching is lecturing; the students rate teachers on such items as “speaks clearly,” “hands out clear lecture notes” and the like’ (2007: 273). Other problems associated with student feedback questionnaires are that they are also based on the students’ personal rapport with the instructor, as well as their overall ease of engagement with the material. A host of environmental factors can affect students’ perceptions of a learning experience, ranging from their own personal, non-learning-related challenges, to issues with the institution as a whole. Biggs and Tang suggest instead that teaching is more properly evaluated through identifying meaningful criteria for good teaching and through examining the evidence provided by the teacher that these criteria have been met.
This is not necessarily to suggest that the standard student evaluation questionnaire should be jettisoned entirely; rather, it can serve as a useful formative evaluation tool, providing feedback to instructors during a course, to enable modifications or improvements to be implemented in a timely fashion. Webb and Powis suggest that student evaluation could be treated as a reflective activity, in which students are asked to think about ‘what they have learned, and how their learning has been shaped by the teaching session’ (2004: 163). They also observe that explaining to students how the results of the evaluation will be used to effect improvement in the teaching is another means of giving them ‘ownership’ over the process and, consequently, a vested interest in providing thoughtful and constructive feedback.
Realistically, time and resource limitations will often mean that a hardcopy or online evaluation questionnaire is the most efficient means of gathering feedback from your students. While it is probable that your institution will already have a ‘standard’ questionnaire template, it is unlikely that it will be suitable to evaluate information literacy sessions and will be aimed at evaluating full academic modules. The opportunity, therefore, to design your own evaluation instrument is to be welcomed.
Most evaluation questionnaires consist of a mixture of closed or rating-scale questions and a number of open-ended questions designed to obtain more detailed feedback and suggestions about particular elements of the course or session. Often, the most interesting and revealing feedback comes through the answers to the open-ended questions, particularly if students are asked to identify what aspects did not work so well, and to make suggestions about how the course or session could be improved. Also, framing the questions in terms of the students’ experience can have the effect of focusing them on the actual learning experience, rather than the teacher’s performance or personality: for example, rather than asking ‘In your opinion, what were the strengths of the course/session?’ you might instead frame the question as ‘In your opinion, which activities were most effective in helping you to learn during the course/session?’ Some questions along these lines that you might use include:
In your opinion, to what extent did the defined learning outcomes for the course/session reflect your actual learning experience?’
‘In your opinion, which learning activities were not so useful in helping you to achieve the learning outcomes for this course/session?’
‘To what extent do you feel that the assessment for this course/session allowed you to demonstrate what you had learned?’
‘How do you feel that the challenges that you experienced during the course/session (if any) could be overcome in the future’?
‘To what extent (if any) do you feel that the skills and knowledge you have developed in this course/session will be useful to you in other contexts (education, professional, personal)?’
Rating scales, in which students are asked to rate their reactions to a statement along a continuum from positive to negative (usually 1–5), offer only limited insight into the effectiveness of each aspect – often, students will choose a neutral response and circle the middle digit. Closed questions such as this should generally be used to evaluate the practical aspects of the course/session, such as the physical environment, availability of resources, timetabling, etc., rather than learning effectiveness.
Using student assessment as a tool for improvement
In Chapter 3, we discussed how it is important to capture not just the products of student learning (essays, projects), but also the process that led to the attainment of the learning outcomes. It is essential not to view the results of assessment simply as measures of student learning, but also to treat them as indicators of the effectiveness or otherwise of our teaching approaches; Avery suggests that ‘assessment should be student centred and proactive. The results should be used to implement positive changes in the teaching of information literacy’ (2003: 2), while Sonntag and Meulemans stress the usefulness of authentic assessment in informing instructional improvement:
Authentic assessment is, among other things, iterative. Librarians can evaluate student learning, implement changes, and continue this cycle so that improvement via assessment becomes an inherent part of the instructional process. (2003: 8)
Assignments that capture the students’ learning process offer a valuable insight into what works and what doesn’t work in your teaching and learning sessions. McGuinness describes how student reflective research journals in a first-year information literacy module in University College Dublin (UCD), Ireland, were used to implement modifications and improvements to the teaching and learning methods over a number of years (McGuinness and Brien, 2007). The journals, compiled by students of the module to record their experiences of researching and writing an academic essay over a number of weeks, contained a significant reflective element, which offered informal and revealing insight into the challenges faced by them in locating, evaluating and synthesising material for their essays. In particular, the final week’s reflection posed a number of evaluative questions to the students, which allowed them to sum up their learning experience in a personal way:
What was most challenging about the assignment?
What have I learned through this assignment?
What am I proud of with this assignment?
What would I do differently next time I complete a similar task?
The advantage of this form of evaluation is that it is completely focused on the learning experience; the students are unaware that they are evaluating the module, but are rather thinking about their own research and learning. Based on the feedback in the students’ journals, the changes made to the module included:
The length of the journal was reduced from 10 weeks to 6 weeks.
More hands-on lab sessions and interactive lecture content were introduced.
The essay topics were modified from broad and unfocused topics, to narrower, more clearly defined questions.
The ‘portfolio’ component of the journal was increased – more compulsory worksheets based on lecture and tutorial content were included to increase hands-on experience.
More emphasis was placed on activity, rather than on pure reflection.
As teaching librarians, we should always consider the advantages of including reflective elements in our assessment, where appropriate. This does not have to be a full reflective research journal, but could also include asynchronous blog or wiki entries, or 10-minute reflections at the end of a class session.
Peer evaluation of teaching
‘Peer evaluation of instruction involves librarians in conversations about what constitutes good teaching’ (Middleton, 2002: 69).
The process of peer evaluation consists simply of inviting a trusted colleague or friend to observe your teaching, or to critically evaluate your teaching materials, in order to provide an outside perspective on your work and to introduce some fresh ideas about how you could modify or improve your teaching and learning approach. Grassian and Kaplowitz describe it as a ‘collaborative and reciprocal relationship, the goal of which is better teaching’ (2005: 126). Rather than being a critical process, the spirit of peer evaluation is mutual support, encouragement and constructive criticism, with the relationship between colleagues viewed as equal. McMahon et al. (2007) suggest that peer evaluation, or peer observation of teaching (PoT), is most effective when the observee retains control over certain aspects of the process, for example, choice of observer, focus of observation and the form and method of feedback. As Norbury points out, ‘the whole process is owned by the person being observed, which means that it is confidential unless the observed agrees otherwise’ (2001: 89).
However, although peer evaluation of teaching is an essentially ‘friendly’ process, it should still be treated in quite a formal way. The key to effective peer evaluation is clear advance planning, so that both parties can agree unambiguously on the procedure that is to be followed. Biggs and Tang (2007) suggest that peer evaluation of teaching can take place in four stages:
1. A pre-review or pre-observation meeting between the reviewer and reviewee, in order to set out the purpose of the evaluation, the desired outcomes of the process, and the aspects of teaching that should be particularly attended to. For example, both parties should agree on the time, date and location of the review; what the students in the session will be told about the process; what the focus of the review is, and how it will be recorded by the reviewer. Methods for evaluating teaching materials or asynchronous teaching methods should also be agreed at this point.
2. The review itself, which takes place during a live teaching session using pre-established feedback criteria (a ‘feedback pro-forma’) to comment on the teacher’s facilitation of the session.
3. A post-evaluation meeting, to discuss the feedback generated during the session and to suggest ideas for improvement. Both parties contribute to this meeting; the reviewee shares how they felt about the session and what went well, or not so well. The reviewer shares their observations and both parties together create a specific action plan for improvement of the teaching and learning activities.
4. The reviewee writes a post-review personal reflection on the process.
Additional steps might be the implementation of the action plan and reporting on the overall process, if required. McMahon and O’Neill (2010) suggest that a final report could be included in a professional development portfolio, a reflective journal or even published in a peer- reviewed journal to share with the wider library and academic community.
Some examples of the use of peer evaluation of teaching in academic libraries can be found in the literature. Norbury (2001) details a peer observation programme undertaken in the library at Aston University, UK, which was carried out in teams. The overall post-evaluation of the process by the librarians involved highlighted a number of important benefits, including the opportunity to exchange ideas between colleagues, increased awareness of one’s own teaching and the ability to ‘view the process through the students’ eyes’ (p. 93). Middleton (2002) describes the peer-evaluation process in the library at Oregon State University, which was established when the university made it mandatory to include ‘documented evaluation of teaching by faculty peers and by students’ as part of the criteria for promotion and tenure (p. 71). Peer observations of live sessions were recorded on a ‘checklist for observations’, which focused on key criteria, including presentation skills; clarity of presentation; content; relationship with students; relationship with classroom instructor (if appropriate). Kessinger (2004) describes how, in her role as manager, she used performance criteria to structure a peer-mentoring programme in her library. To facilitate consistency between peers, she developed a ‘performance skills chart’ which each mentor could use to guide their observation, highlighting areas of excellence and areas requiring improvement. The categories of observation in the chart included: organisation; presentation style; audience reactions; active learning techniques; technology; and room. Under these categories, different criteria were listed, including ‘attitude’ and ‘energy’ under ‘presentation style’, and ‘participation’ and ‘body language’ under ‘audience reactions’.
Depending on what is viewed as important, teaching librarians are free to develop their own ‘feedback pro-formas’ so that the relevant aspects of the teaching and learning process are targeted in the observation. Pro-formas can include both qualitative (narrative) data, and more quantitative elements, such as ‘rating scales’. It is also crucial to be clear about what will happen to the results of the evaluation – formative evaluation, which is used specifically for the purpose of improving one’s teaching, is a different experience from summative evaluation, in which results might be used as part of a formal performance review to determine promotion or tenure (Middleton, 2002).
Applying for teaching grants and awards
’Institutional and national teaching fellowships offer a real chance to prove to colleagues that we can contribute to teaching and learning’ (Powis, 2008).
In previous chapters, we have discussed how lack of recognition of the teaching librarian role by academic colleagues and administrators can have a detrimental effect, both on librarians’ sense of self-efficacy and professional identity, and on the opportunities available to them to create curriculum-embedded instruction. One means of increasing your profile as a teaching librarian, and publicising the impact of what you do on the student learning experience, is to apply – either individually or collaboratively with non-library colleagues – for any teaching and learning grants, fellowships or other awards that are open to general academics. From a marketing perspective, successful grant submissions or teaching awards can showcase to the wider academic community that librarians are innovative, with a valid and important role to play in student education. From a personal point of view, the benefits are equally obvious: to start, the process of preparing a high-quality grant application requires you to think strategically and systematically about your teaching and how it relates to institutional or national policy. Equally, a successful application represents an opportunity to engage in exciting new activities that will expand your repertoire, will give you the invaluable experience of working on a self-contained project with clearly identified deliverables and boost your sense of self-efficacy. Grassian and Kaplowitz observe that securing teaching development grants ‘offers a way to test out a new idea and even experiment with applying technology to solve a lingering problem’ (2005: 182). In most cases, the grants applied for by teaching librarians are project-based, dealing with a specific problem, or using a new technology to augment teaching and learning. Biggs and Tang suggest that many teaching development projects take the form of shortterm action research projects, applied within ‘real-life’ teaching and learning situations, and using the results to effect modifications and improvements in the instructional approach.
Langille and Mackenzie suggest that there are a number of barriers that affect the ability of librarians to carry out research consistently, one of which may be a lack of funds: ‘One such barrier may be the inability of researchers to secure funding for this work’ (2007: 24). Grants for teaching development are administered at institutional as well as national and international level; Biggs and Tang note that it is extremely important for institutions to set up their own teaching development funding schemes, as many teachers ‘are reluctant to apply for [external] funds and go through all that form-filling to research their own teaching, because they do not consider themselves educational researchers’ (2007: 264). For teaching librarians, who are already uncertain of their own professional status, the prospect of putting their instructional ideas ‘out there’ can be doubly intimidating. One way of overcoming this reluctance is for teaching librarians to consider applying for funds in teams, for example, a mixed group of librarians and academics with a common concern, or a cross-institutional or cross-sector collaboration. A good example of a cross-institutional funded project is the Library Network Support Service (LNSS) project in south-west Ireland, which commenced in August 2008 and was funded by the Higher Education Authority (HEA) Strategic Innovation Fund (SIF), which is ‘directed towards support for innovation in higher education’ and runs from 2006–2013. Under SIF Cycle II, which funded the LNSS project, a total of 31 projects were approved, for a total of €97 million in funding. The LNSS, which consists of a consortium of four higher education institutions, is focused on two areas of strategic development: first, the introduction of an online information literacy training suite for students; and second, the creation of a regional network for staff development.
Grassian and Kaplowitz (2005) and Langille and Mackenzie (2007) write extensively on the most effective ways for librarians to prepare funding applications. In particular, Grassian and Kaplowitz suggest a list of nine important questions that librarians should ask themselves when considering the possibility of applying for external funds, including clearly identifying the problem to be investigated, estimating the time that can realistically be allocated to such a project, as well as honestly assessing one’s own ability to actually carry out the research to the required level (2005: 184). Among the tips for effective grant application writing offered by both sets of authors are the following:
Articulate a solid justification for the importance of the proposed project. To engage reviewers, the proposal should show that the project aims to identify solutions to a real and immediate problem, or that it is significant or original in some other way, e.g. uses instructional technology in a completely innovative way. Both sets of authors suggest that the proposal should ‘tell a story’ – it should have a beginning, middle and end, and should be ‘narrated’ in a positive, enthusiastic and persuasive way. Justifying a project requires you to show that previous attempts to handle the problem have been unsuccessful. Supporting documentation should clearly demonstrate the need for the research; for example, survey results, a promising pilot study that has been carried out, or qualitative comments from the groups it is designed to benefit.
Show that the project is achievable. Grassian and Kaplowitz note that ‘grandiose promises’ and ‘overblown claims’ should be avoided (2005: 205); instead the proposal should clearly show that resource and personnel availability has been taken into account and that the project deliverables have been tailored to what is attainable. It is important to demonstrate that the project team has access to the relevant expertise to enable the project to be carried out; i.e. are there team members with sufficient technical and research experience? Most grant proposals require the inclusion of a short résumé for each team member, proving that the relevant skills are represented. The proposal should also clarify the extent of administrative support that is available to the project team; in the case of teaching librarians, an important factor is the support of management, who can guarantee sufficient release time from other duties in order to work on the project. Finally, the proposal should reassure reviewers that the team has access to the necessary physical equipment to complete the project (other than that for which funds are being sought).
Prepare a clear research plan. Much of the proposal will be given over to a description of the project itself, including a breakdown of the methodological approach that the researchers will take. As well as a brief overview of the project and its objectives, Langille and Mackenzie note that ‘the research plan will include information on the sample or population, sample recruitment, data collection and data analysis’ (2007: 27). The proposal should include a timeline, which clearly delineates when each stage of the research will be carried out and by whom. Possible challenges that might arise should be addressed here, as well as an explanation of how the data will be verified. The proposal should also state how any ethical issues that might arise will be handled.
Describe how the project results will be used and distributed. Funding applications almost always require candidates to explain how they intend to disseminate the results of the project – for example, which journals they intend to publish in, at which conferences they intend to present the findings, or who will be the recipients of any reports that are issued. If the project is a practical, action-research-oriented one, applicants might be required to explicitly describe how and when the learning approaches will be modified in the wake of the research, e.g. the semester in which an improved module is to run, etc.
Ensure that you have ‘ticked all the boxes’. Grassian and Kaplowitz strongly emphasise the importance of carefully and thoroughly reading all of the submission guidelines to ensure that you have included all of the relevant information and/or supporting documentation. Adhering to word counts is essential, as well as ensuring that all institutional signatures and stamps have been obtained in a timely fashion. Applicants must also ensure that the requisite number of copies is submitted, in the desired format(s).
Langille and Mackenzie suggest a useful grant writing timeline, starting from a year before the submission deadline, to assist in planning the process (2007: 29), while Grassian and Kaplowitz offer suggestions for tracking down specific grant opportunities (2005: 197–200).
Teaching portfolios
All of the different sources of evidence described above can be gathered together in a teaching portfolio, which is defined by Biggs and Tang as ‘a collection of evidence about your teaching and your students’ learning, and a reflection on that evidence’ (2007: 266). Hochstein suggests that teaching librarians should use teaching portfolios:
‘To allow our training and habit of documentation to catch up with the reality of our work.
To provide orderly, efficient, and credible documentation of our teaching activities; this is evidence not hearsay.
To give us permission to stop and reflect about what we do and why we do it’ (2004: 140).
She also notes that for teaching librarians, portfolios are a ‘way to clearly communicate our teaching successes to those outside our immediate field’ (p. 141). While the use of teaching portfolios is widespread in general teacher education and practice, it is not especially common amongst librarians. One example is the account given by Lally and Trejo (1998) of their experience of creating a developmental teaching portfolio as part of a doctoral project in which they and other librarian colleagues were invited to participate. The aim of the exercise was ‘to use the portfolio to assess our growth, provide us with a mechanism for reflection, and point us towards areas for improvement’ (p. 776). The items contained in their portfolios included an up-to-date curriculum vitae (résumé), a statement of teaching philosophy, an outline of teaching responsibilities, a number of samples of their teaching work and an overall written reflection.
A teaching portfolio has very obvious personal benefits; however, it can also be a useful professional development tool, which can be used to showcase your teaching work in job interviews and when applying for promotion in your current position. As our teaching role is quite unique, portfolios for teaching librarians will contain a number of items that are not usually included in general teaching portfolios. If you wish to create your own portfolio, you might consider the following structure:
Content of teaching portfolio for teaching librarians
a Your evidence
A statement of your personal teaching philosophy.
Your personal understanding of information literacy and the instructional role of the librarian – how you view your current role.
Your teaching-related qualifications – a description of the type of teaching and/or supervision you have been involved in (e.g. full courses, workshops, one-shot sessions, etc.). This might also include any continuing professional development (CPD) activities you may have undertaken relevant to teaching.
A statement of your teaching responsibilities – sessions, modules or full programmes for which you are, or have recently been, responsible.
Details of any teaching-related achievements – this might include teaching awards, blog awards, publications in peer-reviewed or professional journals, successful grant applications, conference presentations, seminars or workshops that you have given to professional colleagues, innovative programmes and tools you have created, e-learning initiatives you have been involved in, or supervision of research students. For teaching librarians, this might also include participation in collaborative group initiatives or contributions to institution-wide teaching enhancements or projects.
Your relevant administrative responsibilities and duties (e.g. member of teaching and learning committee, academic council, etc.).
An account of how you keep up to date with teaching and learning and information literacy developments – e.g. journal subscriptions, membership of relevant associations, mailing lists, subscriptions to RSS aggregation services, such as Pageflakes, for frequently updated teaching resources on the web (e.g. blogs, sharing services, etc.), book clubs, networking events, and other similar channels.
Design and delivery of teaching – this is concerned with showcasing your teaching approaches and is supported by including self-selected samples of your work:
description of, or reflection on, your general approach to teaching – i.e. use of small groups, active learning methods, problem-based or inquiry-based learning, synchronous or asynchronous remote learning, etc.;
description of the teaching methods you use and your rationale for using them;
description of how you facilitate active, student-centred learning;
description of how you tailor your teaching to different subject curricula;
description of how you promote your teaching services to the academic community;
description of how you engage academics in collaborative teaching;
critical incidents that showcase particular aspects of your teaching experience.
Work samples, or ‘teaching artefacts’ (Lally and Trejo, 1998), that you might attach to demonstrate your teaching include:
DVDs with podcasts or videos of your sessions, e-tutorials, virtual tours, blogs, wikis, or other digital learning objects that you have created;
surveys or pre- and post-tests that you have administered;
promotional materials, e.g. flyers, leaflets, webpage screen grabs, posters, etc.
It is important to include an explanatory statement for each item that you include, explaining its significance and relevance to your teaching work.
Teaching outcomes/impact
Evidence of constructive alignment in your teaching (aligning ILOs to assessment).
Methods of assessment you use and rationale for their use.
Rubrics you have developed for grading assignments.
General facts and figures – grade distributions, attendance rates.
b Evidence from colleagues and students
Written peer feedback and evaluation of your teaching delivery and course materials.
Student evaluations of programmes and sessions; this might include summaries of survey results, sample quotations from open-ended survey questions, notes or recordings from focus group sessions, individual (anonymised) e-mails from students praising your teaching, thank you cards, etc.
Testimonials from colleagues: this might include ‘letters of reference’ from academics whom you have collaborated with, webpage testimonials, (anonymised) thank you e-mails, etc.
c Overall reflection/statement of future plans
Your self-perceived strengths and areas of expertise.
The areas you feel that you need to work on.
Your future plans: innovative approaches you intend to try, CPD that you wish to undertake, conferences you wish to attend or contribute to, ideas for research that you have, etc.
To supplement the above, Hochstein (2004) also offers a detailed and informative account of what a teaching portfolio for librarians could contain and the form it should take. Teaching portfolios can be created in hardcopy or can be maintained entirely online. The main advantage of an online format is that links to video, audio, e-learning objects and other digital artefacts are easily embedded, and a multimedia showcase of your work might be more impressive and a more accurate reflection of the teaching work that you currently do.
Reflective journals and blogs
The use of reflective journals for professional development has traditionally been associated with certain professions, such as nursing and education. Moon speculates that this could be due to the fact that ‘both professions rely on interpretive knowledge which is socially constructed and not rooted in a body of “fact” […] both also rely on decisions made “on the spot” with unpredictable situations being relatively common’ (2006: 72). Arguably, these criteria could apply equally to library and information work, where each day brings different queries and challenges, requiring a flexible approach and rapid judgements. For teaching librarians, whose work and responsibilities are famously unpredictable, there is perhaps even more of a need for this type of in-depth reflective work. Moon distinguishes between two types of professional journal. In the first instance are journals which are used in the development of self as professional, articulated by many as ‘finding one’s voice’ in the execution of one’s work. Journal- keeping in this context encourages professionals to explore the affective side of their work, developing a growing sense of confidence as they identify and work through their fears. The other types of journal are those which enable professionals to relate theory to practice and relate what they have learned in training to real-world situations. These kinds of journals focus on making sense of real-life experiences, containing accounts of ‘critical incidents’ along with reflections on the significance of those events.
It is difficult to get a sense of how many librarians actually use reflective journals in their work, as the practice is not well documented. However, the spreading phenomenon of professional blogging has opened up a whole new channel for reflective practice and sharing one’s experience with colleagues, and one which is easier to access than the private world of journal-keeping. Hall and Davison suggest that the blog can be ‘regarded as the natural successor to the learning journal or learning log, because it serves as a vehicle for individual reflection’ (2007: 167). Crawford describes blogs written by librarians as ‘liblogs’ and the overall blog collective as the ‘biblioblogosphere’ – defined as ‘blogs written by library people or about library issues’ (2010: 58). While the actual number of blogs written by librarians, or about library-related matters, is difficult to obtain, in September 2010 a simple search of the specialist blog search engine Technorati (using the search term ‘library’) retrieved 2,828 blogs; the term ‘librarian’ retrieved 917 blogs. Crawford’s recent analysis of the biblioblogosphere suggests that there are ‘certainly more than 1000 liblogs in all’ (2009: 1). Although these figures are difficult to verify, they offer some insight into the size of the biblioblogosphere at the present time.
How librarians use blogs in a professional context is a topic of increasing interest. A paper by Hall and Davison (2007) identified a number of ways in which librarians have been exploiting blog applications in their work (p. 165). They include:
the provision of news and current awareness services to the LIS community;
as a source of competitive intelligence in the business community, through environmental scanning and monitoring of products and services;
as an additional means of engaging library users with content;
in commercial knowledge management to stimulate online dialogue;
in teaching and learning, to encourage student collaboration, sharing and content creation, as well as the promotion of literacy (Hall and Davison, 2007: 165–166).
A more recent study by Aharony (2009) employed content analysis of blog tags and folksonomies to describe and classify 30 ‘topic-oriented blogs dealing with librarianship and information science’, in order to determine what librarians use blogs for. Aharony’s findings showed that while the blogs mainly reflected library-related and technology-related professional issues, there was also a significant personal element present; he suggests that ‘perhaps the informal nature and platform of blogs enables the professional bloggers to express and share their views about personal issues, even though the platform is a professional one’ (2009: 178). Many liblogs appear to be a mix of the personal and the professional, although Aharony questions whether librarians do see them as a tool of professional development:
Librarians and information scientists may assume that because of the informal nature of blogs, the information conveyed in them is only personal and casual and won’t contribute to their professional development. But they should be aware of the professional potential of the blogs’ content – the opportunity to exploit information on the blogs. (2009: 179)
The main difference between reflective journals and blogs is the extent to which outsiders can potentially contribute to, and shape, the direction of blogs. While blog posts are generally static, readers’ comments can change a post from a personal reflection or opinion to a communal discussion, depending on the privacy settings. Librarians who are open to comment and suggestion could find this a thought-provoking exercise and an interesting way of discussing the issues and challenges that arise on a daily basis. Micro-blogging sites such as Twitter can perform a similar function, but in a much more immediate and rapid-fire way. Both forms of blogging enable networking on a scale that was impossible before the advent of social software, through the use of blogrolls and the ‘follow’ and ‘hashtag’ functions of Twitter. Many librarians avail of both, using micro-blogging to provide ‘snippets’ of their longer reflections and links to their blogs and other social networking sites.
An interesting recent development in the use of social software for reflection is the establishment in October 2009 of the Library Routes Project wiki, which ‘exists to document and link to all those who have blogged or otherwise written about their library roots (how they got into the profession) and their library routes (the jobs they’ve had and how their career has been shaped)’ (Library Routes Project, n.d.). The wiki main page provides links to existing library blog posts, or to newly created wiki entries by non-blogging librarians, containing short reflective pieces about how they came to be in their current position. The entries are highly personal and reflective. This is a good example, both of the potential of blogging for reflective practice and of the power of an online community to contribute to the understanding and development of professional identity in librarianship.
Mentoring
The traditional form of mentoring in libraries and other organisations is hierarchical, defined by Mavrinac as a ‘dyadic relationship between a more experienced, senior employee and a less experienced, junior employee’ (2005: 396). In most cases, traditional mentoring is associated with the smooth induction of new staff members into the workplace, familiarising them with professional and institutional norms, and in effect ‘socialising’ them to the profession of librarianship. As we noted in Chapter 1, a great deal of the acculturation process for librarians occurs through ‘learning on the job’ rather than the acquisition of a large body of professional knowledge, or through an extended period of scholarship. The tenure and promotion process is another situation where traditional mentoring has been used successfully (Miller and Benefiel, 1998). However, Grassian and Kaplowitz note that mentoring ‘can be beneficial anytime we are changing career paths or are taking on new and different responsibilities’ (2005: 118). For librarians who are new to teaching, or who never expected to have to take on an instructional role, mentoring offers potentially invaluable support as they get to grips with their new duties. However, rather than just focusing on the job at hand, the mentoring role also has quite a specific career focus; Bosch et al. note that ‘the mentor provides the mentee with guidance and support so that they can progress in their careers and overcome professional challenges’ (2010: 58). Mavrinec lists some of the benefits that can accrue to the mentee, including ‘job satisfaction, career advancement, psycho-social well-being, induction to the organization, and professionalism’ (2005: 396). Mentoring has been used quite extensively in academic libraries, although it is likely that much of this activity is carried out on an informal, rather than formal basis (Bosch et al., 2010; Heinrich and Attebury, 2010: 119). Heinrich and Attebury (2010) provide an excellent overview of the various uses of mentoring in academic libraries.
Recently, though, there is evidence that the traditional form of hierarchical mentoring is no longer seen as a sufficient model for today’s institutions, where change is rapid and continuous, where interdisciplinary collaboration is more common, and where there is increased emphasis on the ‘learning organisation’ and self-directed learning by the employees (Mavrinec, 2005; Bosch et al., 2010; Heinrich and Attebury, 2010). Mavrinec suggests that the ‘trend is toward multiple relationships and experiences, which places the onus on learners to seek out a variety of learning opportunities to meet their needs throughout their careers’ (2005: 398). Grassian and Kaplowitz also view mentoring as ‘learner- centred’, insofar as it is an arrangement that must be proactively sought by the prospective mentee: ‘These mentoring relationships are self- initiated with individuals seeking out mentors who can assist them at different stages of their professional lives’ (2005: 119). Other, flatter forms of mentoring are thus becoming more commonplace. Bosch et al. describe a new model of mentoring which ‘encourages broader, dynamic networks of support and the use of multiple mentoring partners who work in non-hierarchical collaborative, cross-cultural partnerships to address specific areas of faculty activity such as research, teaching, working towards tenure and striking a balance between work and life’ (2010: 58). Peer mentoring, according to Mavrinac, represents a conflation of various forms of mentoring, including co-mentoring, developmental alliances and spot mentoring, which is short term and focused on very specific objectives. Peer-mentoring arrangements constitute pairings (or larger groupings) of colleagues with the same or similar status, albeit with a knowledge or experience gap; the mentor must have something to offer the mentee. The advantage of peer mentoring arrangements is that the pool of potential mentors is much wider than in the traditional model, where there may be a shortage of experienced librarians who are willing to serve as mentors. A potential disadvantage, however, is that, since the peer mentors are usually of similar status, with comparable levels of experience, there is a natural limit to the extent of wisdom that can be shared once the initial knowledge gaps have been closed.
Group mentoring or many-to-one arrangements are also reported with increasing frequency. For example, Bosch et al. describe the approach taken at California State University Long Beach, where the resource team model involves a trio of senior librarians who serve as mentors to incoming library staff for the first six months of their employment. ‘Mentoring circles’ are another model which is described by Darwin and Palmer (2009) and used at the University of Adelaide – in this case, the ‘circles’ comprised a mixture of tenured and untenured faculty who met on a regular basis for six months, and represented a more fluid approach, in which members of each circle learned from each other and had access to a wider variety of perspectives than would be possible in traditional mentoring arrangements. Heinrich and Attebury (2010) describe the approach to mentoring at the University of Idaho, which more closely resembles the ‘communities of practice’ model, which is discussed separately later in this chapter.
For teaching librarians, a good mentor might be a colleague who has several years’ instructional experience under their belt; or who has completed a teaching qualification, won a teaching award, or who has been a member of a funded educational research team. Mentors do not necessarily have to be restricted to fellow librarians; for example, seeking the counsel of an experienced academic or a member of the teaching and learning department can offer additional insights into how the academic community functions outside the library.
Professional learning communities
The professional learning community (PLC) emerges from the vision of the ‘culture of teaching’ described above (we might also add ‘learning’ to this phrase); Hord (1997) notes that the concept of a learning community was originally grounded in the recognition that ‘teachers who felt supported in their own ongoing learning and classroom practice were more committed and effective than those who did not receive such confirmation’ (p. 1). A PLC in the educational context is defined by Gruenbaum as ‘a community of stakeholders that are all working together, focused on the best interest of the students, where results are measured in student achievement’ (2010: 1). The PLC is an entirely collaborative affair and is forward- focused, targeting areas where improvement is warranted and identifying suitable responses to the challenges that are identified. In her review, Hord (1997) outlines the desirable attributes of PLCs, but in the context of the school system, as with most of the literature on this topic. However, these factors are easily translated to the academic environment and, specifically, to the academic library environment, where we have already identified collaboration as an essential aspect of our operations. The factors are:
Supportive and shared leadership. Maliszewski et al. refer to the desirability of a ‘tight-loose leadership style’ in setting up PLCs, where the leader is flexible in some areas, but firm in others (2008: 4). In the academic library context, supportive leadership is interpreted on two levels; firstly, a sense of shared enterprise between library staff, academics and institutional administrators, and a recognition of the importance of collaboration and continuous learning, particularly on the part of the latter group; and secondly, on a micro-level, the support of library managers, whose leadership and vision is essential to the development of an operational structure within the library which facilitates the establishment of PLC-related activities.
Collective learning. The recognition on all sides of the importance of continuous, shared learning within an organisation, and the fostering of a spirit of mutual inquiry and debate amongst all stakeholders in the community. In pragmatic terms, this could mean something as simple as setting aside regular time for discussion and debate in a non- threatening environment.
Shared values and vision. The primary focus of the PLC is always student learning, requiring a commitment from all stakeholders to instigate whatever actions are required to nurture potential and support student achievement. Hord observes that such a shared vision requires that the common good (i.e. student learning) ‘is placed on a par with personal ambition’ (1997: 4).
Supportive conditions. From a practical standpoint, the institutional environment is highly instrumental in the success or otherwise of a PLC. Hord (1997) cites structural factors, such as the size of the institution, the proximity of staff to each other and communication channels as important factors – for example, do staff members encounter each other regularly, or are they isolated in their different units? Moreover, the quality of collegial relationships is another crucial factor – is there sufficient respect and trust among staff members to permit the sharing of feedback and evaluation without rancour?
Shared personal practice. The final element relates to the concept of peer coaching, or mutual evaluation of each other’s teaching practice. In a PLC, members are always willing to share and discuss their activities, as well as their challenges and successes in the learning environment. In practical terms, this requires the adoption of appropriate methods for evaluating teaching performance in a constructive way.
Hord suggests that a PLC within an educational institution brings obvious benefits for the community as a whole, including staff as well as students (1997: 5–6). However, establishing a community in an institution where different units have traditionally worked independently of one another can be challenging. Maliszewski et al. (2008) describe some of the activities undertaken in their school when the decision was taken to set up a PLC, including setting aside time for common preparation between different grade classes, attending a special summit on PLCs, and frequent meetings to work collaboratively on term plans and developing teaching and learning materials. Gruenbaum (2010) also discusses the means of establishing PLCs, but focuses on online communities. Some of the recommended strategies include:
Book clubs/discussion groups. Gruenbaum (2010) describes the use of a ‘book club’ to introduce staff to the concept of a PLC (p. 2) – the school in which the author was working purchased a book on PLCs for teaching faculty and staff members, and weekly reading from the book for the book club was assigned. A different person led the meeting each week, during which ideas from the book were discussed and debated in relation to the school. The author suggests that this kind of book club can also be facilitated in a remote, virtual environment, for instance using e-textbooks, online forums and instant messaging or video-conferencing applications.
Self-assessment surveys. This involves members of the community taking a survey several times a year to gauge the progress of the institution towards becoming a successful PLC. She also suggests that focus groups can be useful for ‘concentrating efforts where they are needed to make sure that things are on pace’ (p. 2).
Community meetings. In collaborative ventures, such as PLCs, meeting time is essential to foster a sense of collegiality and democracy: as Gruenbaum points out, ‘the key idea is that having all members working together to craft a shared understanding of what we are working toward, and what our expectations are for student results, will make everyone feel like they are on equal ground’ (2010: 3).
Creating and sustaining communities of practice
Just as academics will use their discipline networks to explore the teaching of their subject, we should also recognise the need to develop similar opportunities within our context. (Powis, 2005: 71)
As teaching librarians, we do not work in isolation (although it may occasionally feel that way). Not only are we members of our immediate workplace or organisational community, but we are also active participants in the wider national and international community of academic teaching librarians, and teaching librarians in general. It is up to us to harness the possibilities for learning and development that exist within these communities, and to make our own contributions to the body of knowledge and experience that informs our work.
As an evolving professional role with relatively limited professional training opportunities, teaching librarianship benefits greatly from the creation of ‘communities of practice’ among members of the profession. The concept of community of practice (CoP) was first articulated two decades ago, by Lave and Wenger (1991), and later further developed by Wenger (1998). Wubbels defines CoP as ‘the process of social learning that occurs when people who have a common interest in some subject or problem collaborate over an extended period to share ideas, find solutions, and build innovations’ (2007: 226), while Bolander Laksov et al. note that ‘people belonging to a community of practice are not just a group of people, or a web of interactions. They are a group who share an overall view of the domain in which they practise and mutual commitment to this’ (2008: 123). The importance of practice is emphasised by Wenger, who observes that a CoP is essentially different from geographical communities, or even communities of interest, since the members of a CoP ‘are informally bound by what they do together’ (1998: 2).
Wenger (1998: 2) explains that a CoP is defined along three dimensions:
what it is about (the domain) – refers to the joint enterprise that is understood and continually renegotiated by its members;
how it functions (the group) – that there is a mutual engagement that ties members into a social entity;
what capability it has produced (the practice) – this refers to the shared repertoire of resources that members have created over time, such as physical artefacts, routines, vocabulary, etc.
A CoP for teaching librarians might have the following characteristics:
In addition to their normal responsibilities as librarians, the members have identified a joint enterprise which is the negotiation and elaboration of the instructional role as it fits into library and information work, and the relationship of this work with the overall educational mission of their institutions.
How it functions – members of the group are mutually engaged in the facilitation of learning situations for students and find common ground based on this aspect of their role. They share the same concerns, successes, challenges and dilemmas, and relate to each other on this basis.
Members also create a shared repertoire of teaching and learning resources, research publications, teaching and learning methods, presentations, problem solutions, etc.
How do we know if a CoP exists? Wenger has devised a list of indicators, which, if present, point to the formation of a CoP (1998: 125–6). Some of the indicators include:
sustained mutual relationships;
shared way of doing things together;
rapid flow and propagation of information;
no introductory preambles necessary – the process is continuous and mutually understood;
shared perceptions of who belongs to the CoP;
knowing what others know and what they can do;
specific tools and other artefacts;
local lore, shared stories, inside jokes;
jargon and shortcuts to communication;
shared discourse which reflects a certain perspective on the world.
Heinrich and Attebury discuss the non-formal nature of most CoPs, noting that the use of the actual term ‘community of practice’ to describe the grouping is not always needed: ‘indeed, it is entirely possible that a community of practice may form in an organisation without its members being fully aware of its existence’ (2010: 161). Wenger stresses that although CoPs do exist in most organisations, their membership is usually based on voluntary participation and, as such, they are not ‘bound by organizational affiliations’ and can span disciplines, departments, institutions and even sectors. In the case of teaching librarians, this broader conceptualisation of the CoP makes sense, as it is likely that the cohort of teaching librarians in most institutions is quite small. CoPs can also function well as virtual communities: Wubbels suggests that ‘online communities for sharing ideas and for working on tasks fulfil conditions for creating a CoP’ (2007: 228).
A good example of an attempt to create an international online CoP specifically designed to support teaching librarians is the InfoTeach community established by Chris Powis in 2006, which was funded by a National Teaching Fellowship award (http://www.infoteach.org/wiki/doku.php). Powis’s plan was for ‘a portal with, at its heart, a Wikipedia style information resource [which] would cover the sort of pedagogical issues that concern all those involved in teaching and learning but within a library context’ (2005: 71). Like most wikis, and indeed CoPs, the overall success of the project depends on the contributions of others – as Powis states on the homepage: ‘the community must own it rather than accept the received wisdom of a few.’
A more recent example of a dedicated virtual CoP is the Librarians as Teachers Network (http://latnetwork.spruz.com), a wiki set up in July 2010 by UK librarian Johanna Anderson to facilitate discussion amongst teaching librarians about their instructional experiences. The specific initial focus of the resource was librarians’ experiences of completing a general teaching qualification, such as the Postgraduate Certificate in Education, available to UK instructors. However, discussion has inevitably expanded to include, amongst other topics, essential skills for teaching librarians, and general debate about the role of the teaching librarian.
Although CoPs may initially enjoy lively and active participation from their members, for any CoP to flourish and grow consistently, maintenance work is needed. Wenger notes that, although CoPs can form spontaneously and informally, the extent to which they develop depends on the quality of internal leadership – the individual, or individuals, who take responsibility for organising activities, gathering information, developing the social aspects of the CoP and forging links with other communities and official organisations (1998: 6). For a cross-institutional or cross-sector CoP to thrive, the following attributes can contribute to its longevity:
A ‘home’ – a meeting place, be it physical or virtual, where members can assemble and interact with ease. For physical CoPs, this does not have to be a single location, but can rotate to suit members.
A regular schedule of meetings, held at times to suit the majority of members. The CoP is more likely to continue if the meetings are scheduled in advance and all members have ample time to make arrangements to be present.
A ‘repository’ which holds the resources that are created by the CoP. This can take the form of a wiki, as described above; or a CoP member could be designated the community ‘curator’ and volunteer to keep all documents in one secure place, making them available when requested.
‘Showcases’ – events held at regular intervals (e.g. annually) which give members an opportunity to share their experiences or resources on a wider platform and to publicise and celebrate the activities of the CoP, e.g. annual seminars, conferences, webinars, social events such as Christmas gatherings, etc.
Informal communication channels, through which members can communicate with ease on a very regular basis and which help to maintain a sense of community and collegiality, e.g. discussion boards, online chat, mailing lists, blogs, etc …
Publishing in journals and presenting at conferences
‘Like in any other field, it is important for librarians to continue grappling with IL issues in their research and scholarship in order to continue developing and advancing it within the profession’ (Stevens, 2007: 257).
In Chapter 2, in discussing the importance of advocacy for information literacy, we have already noted the need for librarians to publish in journals outside the field of LIS, in order to promote their instructional activities and to hopefully encourage academics and other groups to collaborate with them on teaching and learning initiatives (Stevens, 2007; Weetman DaCosta, 2007). Generally speaking, writing for publication is an important activity for librarians and LIS in general; as Putnam suggests, ‘journal articles edge us toward tenure; book reviews give guidance to other readers; newsletter articles share our stories’ (2009: 1). Fallon emphasises that academic writing carried out by librarians ‘offers the opportunity to share and disseminate experience, skills and practice that don’t exist in the same framework elsewhere in the University, including a knowledge of collections, copyright, digitization, information sources and information literacy’ (2009a: 421). For teaching librarians, the development of our own ‘scholarship of teaching and learning’ is a crucial support for our efforts, and a further means of legitimising our work. Borrowing from other fields can only take us so far: as Liles notes: ‘While librarians are making progress on producing their own knowledge base regarding teaching, there is a dearth of teaching information designed specifically with librarians in mind and directed towards the unique circumstances of information literacy instruction’ (2007: 114).
At present, the field is relatively healthy; Stevens points to the growing number of information-literacy-related publications, noting that the numbers are proof of ‘academic librarians’ sustained commitment to information literacy research and scholarship’ (2007: 254). However, the culture of writing for publication in the library world is inconsistent from country to country; for example, writing in the context of Irish academic libraries, Fallon points out that while Irish librarians do engage in research, and present at national and international conferences, ‘very few Irish librarians publish in the peer-reviewed literature’ (2009a: 414). Mitchell and Reichel suggest that there are two key barriers which prevent academic librarians from carrying out and publishing research to the same extent as academics (1999: 233):
1. Librarians do not receive sufficient training and support for research and writing on their pre-service professional training programmes.
2. Librarians do not have enough time to carry out research, due to the day-to-day demands of their jobs, which are continuous all year round, unlike academics who use the out-of-term period to advance their research.
Another reason may be the fact that research and publication is, for the most part, not a key criterion in promotion and tenure for librarians; in their US-based study, Mitchell and Reichel found that the requirement for scholarship did not appear to act as a significant barrier to attaining tenure for librarians (1999: 238). In her paper, Fallon notes that the majority of librarians who publish articles tend to work in institutions where there is already a vibrant culture of research and publishing, and where it is considered important (2009a: 416).
To encourage librarians – including teaching librarians – to publish in high-ranking, peer-reviewed journals, support is required, both from a practical perspective and also a personal one, in terms of inspiring confidence and motivation. The mentoring and community of practice approaches described above naturally offer two potential channels for such support. Freely available online tools are another means of support; in a recent publication, Putnam provides a list of such tools, including useful blogs, meta-sites, style manuals and online writers’ communities (2009). Helen Fallon’s Irish-based Academic Writing Librarians blog1 is another useful source that also serves as a kind of virtual community for academic librarians who are endeavouring to have their work published; although hosted in Ireland, it is very much an international resource. Another channel is continuing professional development (CPD), in the form of workshops or short courses, specifically aimed at librarians who wish to see their work in print. A good example of such an initiative is the writing support programme for academic librarians, which was established in Ireland in 2007 by Helen Fallon, a librarian in the National University of Ireland, Maynooth (Fallon, 2009a). Titled ‘Introduction to Writing for Academic Publication’, the programme was set up as a one-day workshop comprising 10 sessions, with each section covering a different step of the process of writing for publication; for example, sessions were included on: ‘Exploring motivation to write and getting started,’ ‘Generating ideas’ and ‘Peerreview and submission’. The format of the workshop was interactive, and participants were encouraged to share their experiences and perspectives with their peers, as well as complete hands-on practical exercises and do some actual writing. The workshop was followed by two peer-review sessions, after four months and eight months respectively, for which participants were invited to send on a sample of their work in order to obtain some peer feedback; the actual feedback session was carried out in pairs during the first face-to-face meeting. In the second session, an editor from a peer-reviewed journal was invited to host a question-and-answer session for the group, which provided them with the expert, insider’s view of the publication process. For an activity such as academic writing, which requires a high degree of self-motivation and persistence, the benefits of such support groups are invaluable; the subsequent publishing success of the librarians who participated in the programme described above is testament to the format’s effectiveness (Fallon, 2009a).
Fallon (2009b) and Grassian and Kaplowitz (2005: 171–2) offer guidance for librarians who wish to write for scholarly publications. Fallon covers the entire nine-stage process, from ‘Beginning to write’ to ‘Publication and celebration’, describing a number of stimulating exercises at each stage which are designed to enhance creativity and confidence, and to deal with writer’s block. Of particular use is her outline of the different elements of peer-reviewed journal articles (2009b: 67) and strategies for finding a suitable journal in which to publish (pp. 68–9). Grassian and Kaplowitz offer general advice about getting original research published, citing a list of tips from Bordens and Abbott (1999), including the importance of ensuring that your methodological approach is sound, and writing clearly and concisely for your target audience (pp. 117–2). Although outside the scope of this book, a useful text on research methods for librarians is Research Methods in Information by Pickard (2007).
For teaching librarians who are only beginning to think about writing for scholarly publications, presenting at conferences is a useful first step and an effective way both to disseminate research findings and to showcase the teaching and learning activities in your library. Most conferences these days are not restricted to the standard 45-minute long paper, but offer a range of formats for participants to present their work, including 30-minute short papers, hands-on workshops, resource demonstration sessions, symposiums, panel discussions, keynote presentations (always invited), poster presentations, and recently the rapid fire ‘pecha kucha’ sessions, during which presenters have 20 slides, which they display for 20 seconds each – each presenter is given just 6 minutes and 40 seconds to discuss their ideas, before it’s the turn of the next presenter. If the thought of a full paper is daunting initially, you could perhaps start off with a poster presentation at one conference and then maybe a 30-minute short paper at the next, before finally giving a full paper and maybe having your contribution included as a full written paper in the conference proceedings, if that option is available. Most conferences now at least make the PowerPoint slides from each presentation available through their website afterwards, which is another good way of getting your work out there.
Exercises and reflections
1. Writing a grant proposal
(Individually or in groups)
Think of a current challenge in your workplace, or an area in which you feel that an innovative approach would be beneficial. Practise writing an application for funding, using the basic template below:
Application for funds
Principal investigator contact details:
Statement of role of principal investigator in project:
Associate investigator 1 contact details:
Associate investigator 2 contact details:
Title of proposed project (maximum 100 words):
Project overview (maximum 300 words):
Starting date and duration of project:
Detailed project description (maximum 1,500 words):
1. Research question and sub-questions
4. How does the project relate to existing research, and how will it contribute to knowledge?
5. What are the proposed practical applications of the research?
6. How will the project results be disseminated?
7. Project timeline – step-by-step breakdown of the research plan, with proposed completion dates.
2. Mentoring
(Individually or in groups)
Sometimes, the reality of doing a job can be quite different from what is stated in the official job description. Based on your own experience, create a comprehensive guide or introductory PowerPoint presentation aimed at incoming teaching librarians in your library. Think of the kind of information that incoming staff members are most likely to need and/or want. You can use the following headings as a guide, or think of your own:
1Academic Writing Librarians Blog: http://academicwritinglibrarian.blogspot.com/