The evolving role of the teaching librarian
Abstract:
This chapter explores the origins of the academic teaching librarian role and describes how the development of the role has been shaped by librarians’ own conceptions of their professional teaching identity, as well as the conceptions and attitudes of academics. The chapter also explores the rationale for the teaching role, as well as the barriers encountered by teaching librarians in their efforts to integrate with the curriculum. Finally, the instructional knowledge and skills that teaching librarians require in their pre-service and continuing professional education are discussed, including the importance of reflective practice.
Who are we? Where did we come from? The teaching librarian is something of an outlier in library and information work; unlike cataloguers, systems analysts or reference librarians, teaching librarians have only recently been recognised as a specialist sub-group within library and information services (LIS). Mysteriously, the role seems to have evolved and emerged independently, rather than been consciously developed and nurtured; in some respects, the library profession seems to have been almost caught by surprise by the realisation that teaching is a central part of what we do, although the many librarians who have been developing and delivering instruction for all of their professional lives might have a different perception. In recognising the significance of the teaching role, both now and for the future development of the profession, the time has come to seriously address what being a teaching librarian means, from both a practical and philosophical perspective. The first step is to explore some of the key influences which have converged to shape the role, and what they mean to practising librarians, such as you. This chapter presents the bigger picture, and is intended to encourage teaching librarians to think about how their work fits in with the overall mission of library and information work, and what their contribution means to the educational experience of students.
Teaching librarians and the information literacy revolution
It is generally accepted that the term ‘information literacy’ (IL) was first coined in the early 1970s by Paul Zurkowski in his report to the US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (Zurkowski, 1974; Bruce, 1997; Webber and Johnston, 2000; Pinto et al., 2010). This first use of the term was anchored in Zurkowski’s proposal for a ten-year national IL programme and referred to one’s ability to problem-solve effectively, through optimal use of available information tools and resources. The term itself was used only sporadically during the latter years of the 1970s and early 1980s in different contexts, ranging from the ability to locate and retrieve information, to the capacity of the individual to participate fully in the democratic process (e.g. Burchinal, 1976; Owens, 1976; Taylor, 1979). Since then, the phrase has become more mainstream, and the information literacy ‘movement’ has gained pace in the past two decades, during which time a series of predominantly US-based publications and events have converged to establish and advance the IL agenda, and to gradually extend its reach beyond the politically limited library sphere to the point that it is now recognised as an essential life skill by the President of the US (Spitzer et al., 1998; White House, 2009).
While the origins of information literacy reach back to the early library instruction and bibliographic instruction movements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Weiss, 2004), it is only since the beginning of the IL movement in the late 1980s that the potential role of libraries in facilitating, rather than just supporting, learning has received any sort of consideration in domains outside of librarianship. But this has not been without its challenges. Cynical contributors to the debate have suggested that the promotion of the movement constitutes a strategic attempt by librarians to increase their status and visibility, and to ensure a continuing role for themselves in times of uncertainty; for example, Foster (1993) suggests that it represents ‘an effort to deny the ancillary status of librarianship by inventing a social malady with which librarians as “information professionals” are uniquely qualified to deal’ (p. 346), views which have been more recently echoed in Wilder (2005). However, dissenters are relatively few, and it is a more widely held view that it is predominantly the technological revolution, in particular the pervasiveness of the Internet/World Wide Web and its effect on information work, that has stimulated the re-imagining of the role served by librarians, and the growth of the movement. The document that is often cited as the touch-paper of the movement is the American Library Association’s (ALA) Presidential Committee Report on Information Literacy (1989), which produced the most frequently quoted definition of IL:
To be information literate, a person must be able to recognise when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate and use effectively, the needed information. … Ultimately, information literate people are those who have learned how to learn.
Along with Breivik and Gee’s seminal book from 1989, Information Literacy: Revolution in the library, this report was one of the first documents to suggest that the existing learning process should be rethought and restructured to incorporate the principles of IL, such as critical thinking and problem-solving, rather than create a new information studies curriculum. Competency in six information-related areas is deemed to be the essential outcome of the general educational process. Following the report, the establishment of two key organisations in the US – the National Forum on Information Literacy (NFIL) in 1989, and later, the Institute for Information Literacy (IIL) in 1998 – was viewed as a significant step forward in the promotion of the IL movement.
Teaching librarians should be aware of the context that has shaped and moulded the role; having a sense of the history of instruction in library work contributes to a greater sense of identity. To this end, it is instructive to examine the key trends and concepts that have characterised the information literacy revolution since the 1980s. They are discussed below.
Information literacy and learning
The link between the concepts of IL and learning has been a consistent theme, and has strongly influenced how the term is conceptualised and understood. Many definitions of IL centre on its relationship to the learning process. While the various definitions tend to reflect the interests and concerns of the different groups involved in implementing programmes of instruction, there seems to be at least a basic consensus that information-literate individuals are those who have the ability to recognise an information need or a gap in their knowledge; can formulate appropriate questions; can construct and execute effective search strategies, using a variety of media; can evaluate, use and present information. Becoming information literate as part of the formal education process is seen as essential, in light of the ‘dynamic and changing information environment of the last quarter of the century’ (Bawden, 2001). Virkus (2003) points out how IL has ‘permeated strategic thinking’ in the industrialised, English-speaking world, and has been highlighted in several major reports emanating from government and the higher education sector. In the main, IL is viewed not as an isolated skill-set, but as a formative agent central to the whole educational process – a conceptual framework upon which to base the development of general educational models and curricula to foster information competence across society as a whole (Bruce, 1997).
Lifelong learning
The global emphasis on ‘lifelong learning’ has been a key political catalyst behind calls to incorporate IL into educational curricula. Central to the lifelong learning agenda is a conceptualisation of learning and upgrading of one’s skills that continues throughout the individual’s lifetime and does not cease once the formal education system is left behind. Underpinning the lifelong learning ideology are the information society imperatives of eliminating social division and increasing democratic participation through the provision of equal access to information, of building and maintaining economic competitiveness through a highly educated workforce, and of empowering individuals by equipping them with the means to deal efficiently with the information they encounter on a daily basis. Lifelong learning currently represents a major strategic objective for all Western nations (e.g. OECD; European Commission Lifelong Learning Programme; Coalition of Lifelong Learning Organisations, US). Other factors that have contributed to the growth of the IL movement within education are identified as the rapid spread of information technology, and the transformation of libraries, which has led to the replacement of ‘tool-based’ instruction, designed to show users how to effectively use library-based tools and sources, with ‘concept-based’ instruction, which instead emphasises processes and general research principles that can be transferred across different contexts (McCartin and Feid, 2001).
Information literacy in education
In recent times, there has been plenty of evidence that IL activity in educational institutions at all levels is increasing and expanding, although higher education is considered to be the most progressive sector and is the domain in which most IL research is carried out: ‘academic institutions have been engaged in efforts to define information competencies, and integrate information skills instruction’ (Spitzer et al, 1998: 52). However, IL developments in Europe are not considered to have kept pace with those in Australia and the US (Webber and Johnston, 2000). Research on information literacy is also emerging from other sectors, including IL at school level (Thomas, N.P., 2004), in the workplace (Kirton and Barham, 2005) and as a public library function (Eve et al., 2007; O’Beirne, 2006).
Curriculum-integrated instruction
There is a strong emphasis on the need to integrate IL into subject-specific teaching, which involves a restructuring of the existing learning process. This is based on the notion that students will learn skills more effectively if taught as part of a subject, rather than as a separate course. However, a contrasting viewpoint is that IL should be taught as an academic discipline in its own right. In 1996, Shapiro and Hughes suggested that information literacy should be defined broadly, ‘so as to constitute both a liberal as well as a technical art’, and that this definition should be turned into a curriculum. By liberal art, the authors mean ‘knowledge that is part of what it means to be a free person in the present historical context of the dawn of the information age’ (ibid.). Webber and Johnston (2000; 2006) also argue persuasively for the development of IL as a separate discipline, with its own curriculum; specifically, they assert that it should be considered a soft-applied discipline ‘rather than a set of personal attributes’ (2006: 109). This is an interesting polarity, which continues to influence the modes of ILI(information literacy instruction) that are implemented in practice.
Information literacy models and standards
Many IL programmes are designed according to prescribed IL models and standards, which suggest content areas, objectives and learning outcomes to guide curriculum design and evaluation of student learning, such as the ACRL Information Competency Standards for Higher Education (2000). Models usually describe the information problemsolving process in terms of six to ten steps, and variations of the basic model have been developed in many countries. They ‘provide educators with a framework within which specific information skills can be targeted and their coordination can be fostered’ (Moore, 2002: 2). However, a number of commentators have argued against this primarily quantitative view of IL. Webber (2003) suggests that this may lead to a ‘tick the box’ approach to IL education, as the student moves through each standard, although at each stage, the issues may not have been addressed in sufficient detail (p. 7). This is supported by Bruce (1997), who contends that IL or ‘information use’ is a phenomenon experienced by individuals in unique ways, and is not, as such, a measurable or observable entity. More recently, Walton (2010) argues that models such as the Seven Pillars are ‘dangerously oversimplified’ and convey an inaccurate picture of information-seeking behaviour to those using it to develop their programmes. In particular, the affective and social dimensions of learning tend to be omitted from these models.
Continuing innovation in use of technology for IL
Information literacy and technology are inextricably linked. Librarians continue to display inventiveness as they experiment with new and emerging technologies for information literacy instruction. An increasing number of publications are devoted to showcasing the various tools and learning objects designed by teaching librarians to complement the traditional teaching approaches (Godwin and Parker, 2008; Mackey and Jacobson, 2008). In recent times, Web 2.0 applications have attracted particular attention because of their collaborative and interactive possibilities.
Who is the ‘teaching librarian’?
‘Librarians teach. […] the subject of much angst, soul-searching and self-justification by academic librarians […], this statement would now be accepted almost without argument both within the library world and largely by our colleagues in the wider academic community’ (Powis, 2008: 6).
When women and men choose librarianship as a career in the twenty-first century, what do they believe the role will entail? What motivates them to choose this type of work? While it is safe to say that the modern librarian is far removed from this stereotypical image described by Luthmann (2007): ‘[A]n older, single, white woman, generally accoutred with one or more of the following: cardigan, pearls, tweed skirt, hair in a bun and spectacles perched on the nose’ (p. 775), the question of what roles a librarian is typically expected to fulfil proves difficult to answer, particularly in a world where boundaries are constantly shifting and technology acts as an ever-present catalyst for change (Fourie, 2004; Biddiscombe, 2002). The lack of emergence of a ‘new stereotype’, a more positive evocation of the realities of the day-to-day responsibilities of an information professional, has meant that, to outsiders at least, the old image still maintains a grip of sorts; Fourie (2004) notes that ‘librarians seem to have a poor public image’ and continue to be tarred with overtly negative attributes such as ‘introversion, lack of confidence and poor communication skills’ (p. 65). However, Davis (2007) suggests that, to an extent, librarians are themselves responsible for the perpetuation of the stereotypical image, which has a limiting effect on their own role conceptions. Oen and Cooper (1988), amongst others, have described this role uncertainty as a type of identity crisis: ‘Because it is hard to establish a long-lasting identification with a moving target, information professionals have not yet established a strong identity for themselves or even a uniform definition of their field’ (p. 357). Arguably, the seismic shifts in how information is created, stored, transmitted and used, even in the two decades since Oen and Cooper made their assertion, have only exacerbated this problem (Dillon, 2008). Doskatch (2003) affirms this when she refers to a claim, made by members of the profession itself, that ‘a lack of professional self-understanding and self-definition has contributed to an inability to communicate to the academic community what it is we do, and what we stand for’ (pp. 113–14).
The question of the teaching librarian is framed within the broader context of librarians’ professional identity and role, and adds a further layer to what is a much-debated issue (Davis, 2007). Historically, the provision of instruction, although manifestly a part of what librarians have been doing since at least the 1800 s (Weiss, 2004; Thomas, 1999), was not fully acknowledged as an important library function until the 1970s, when librarians who were active in bibliographic instruction, as it was then known, decided to establish a forum for collaboration and support, and ‘banded together […] to talk and share ideas and approaches to teaching and learning’ (Grassian and Kaplowitz, 2009: 19). It was only during this period that teaching librarians developed a unified voice, and national umbrella organisations, such as the California Clearing House on Library Instruction in the US, began to spring up. Arguably, it was at this point that instruction was finally recognised as a core service element in libraries; that alongside collection management, acquisitions and reference services, teaching was something that librarians did.
Defining the teaching librarian role
So, who is the teaching librarian? If the role of the librarian is difficult to define, then that of a teaching librarian is perhaps even more so. There is no model, no prototype, of a typical teaching librarian to guide us. Doskatch (2003) observes that the LIS discourse ‘constructs a complex picture of the educative role of librarians’ (p. 113). The question of whether ‘teaching librarian’ even refers to a specific type of defined role immediately arises, and indeed, the question of whether we ought to attempt to define it at all. The label itself appears interchangeable and arbitrary, with ‘instruction librarian’ at least as popular and used in a number of recognised capacities, including the ACRL Standards for Proficiencies for Instruction Librarians and Coordinators (2008). The latter document defines instruction librarian as ‘any librarian with teaching responsibilities’ (p. 4). However, it also distinguishes between librarians with teaching responsibilities and the coordinators who manage the overall instructional programmes, and separate proficiencies are listed for them. ‘Professor librarian’ is yet another label, suggested by Douglas (1999). However, notably, none of those terms currently appear as descriptors in the online thesaurus of the CSA database Library and Information Science Abstracts; instead, the terms ‘teacher librarian’ and ‘tutor librarian’ are listed as descriptors to enable users to refine their searches. In developing an interview guide for their study of librarians, Julien and Pecoskie (2009) note that they use the terms ‘teacher’, ‘instructor’ and ‘educator’ interchangeably, ‘since librarians use various labels for their educative positions’ (p. 153). The post of ‘learning support librarian’ in the UK has also been advertised recently on the website LISJOBNET.com.
The role is nebulous and difficult to define in terms of specific activities, skills and attributes, although several authors have tried (Kilcullen, 1998; Peacock, 2001; Meulemans and Brown, 2001). It is difficult to say whether teaching librarian is viewed as a defined and viable career path – it’s doubtful that budding information professionals embark on their careers with the specific objective of becoming teaching librarians, although a prospective instructional role may appeal to some (Walter, 2008). Rather, anecdotal evidence has shown that it is more often the case that librarians ‘find’ themselves having to provide instruction, perhaps unexpectedly and, in some cases, unwillingly. Occasionally, in fact, the opposite holds – some individuals seem to become librarians specifically in order to avoid having to teach: ‘Many of us became librarians precisely because we wanted to avoid getting up in front of groups’ (LaGuardia and Oka, 2000: 3). Walter (2005) suggests that despite a long history of involvement in the provision of instruction, and the current demand for the kind of teaching that librarians can provide, ‘few librarians are ever formally prepared to teach as part of their professional education’ (p. 1). A personal account by a librarian at Lincoln Memorial University illustrates the apprehension often experienced by librarians who discover that classroom teaching is part of their job:
When I looked out at the classroom full of students, I could not help but think that it was never my intention to teach […] I’ve spent over six years of my career in technical services departments. My experience with reference and bibliographic instruction was limited.
Thus, a strange kind of dichotomy appears to have emerged, between the acknowledgment and acceptance of the librarians’ teaching role in the professional discourse, and the reality of the novice information professional who is somewhat bewildered to find themselves in a classroom or information skills laboratory, surrounded by expectant faces waiting to be taught. Although it is an unproven assertion, Davis (2007) refers to a ‘general rejection of teaching roles among the ranks’ (p. 81). She also suggests that this is not just the case for novice librarians; that many experienced information professionals ‘have lamented the expansion of their duties into an active teaching role’ (p. 78). Many librarians still tend to distinguish between the ‘traditional’ librarian role they expected to fulfil and the instructional duties they are required to. Douglas (1999) describes this phenomenon succinctly:
I tell people that I am a librarian, but then I hastily add that I teach courses in computer applications […] Teaching credit bearing computer courses is not what people expect librarians to do. Even when I meet fellow librarians, they are surprised by my unusual position. (p. 25)
Davis’s study of teacher anxiety in librarians (2007) revealed that just over one-third of respondents found that they had had to defend their teaching duties to other librarians at some point. Much has also been written about librarians who find themselves to be poorly equipped to deal with the teaching duties that they are required to fulfil (Walter, 2005, 2006; Liles, 2007). Walter (2005: 3) describes the knowledge and skills gap experienced by teaching librarians as ‘mystifying’, observing that it has remained a problem for more than three decades, without ever having been seriously addressed.
It is perhaps helpful, at this point, to distinguish the teaching librarian, as we conceptualise it here, from the quite specific role of the ‘teacher librarian’, ‘school librarian,’ or ‘school library media specialist’, which is defined as a person who ‘holds recognised teaching qualifications and qualifications in librarianship’ (ASLA Standards of Professional Excellence for Teacher Librarians, n.d.). The role of teacher-librarian is officially recognised and incumbents gain certification through fulfilling state or national training requirements. Very clear guidelines exist to explain how one may become a teacher-librarian and obtain certification; for instance, the route to teacher-librarian in the US is usually via a nationally recognised NCATE-AASL (National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education/American Association of School Librarians) reviewed and approved School Library Media Education Programme – it is a well-defined career path (AASL, 2003). However, outside of the school library setting, an equivalent career path does not appear to exist; rather, the teaching librarian is a construct which might be described more accurately as a ‘librarian with diverse teaching responsibilities’, akin to the ACRL definition referred to above; similarly, Julien and Pecoskie’s study of librarians’ teaching experiences refers to the participant population as ‘library staff with instructional responsibilities’ (2009: 150). Every librarian who facilitates learning in their institution most likely has a unique story to tell – about their work, their status in their library, relationships with their colleagues, the client-base they serve and the path which led them to that position.
Do we need to define ‘teaching librarian’?
Why do we need to define the role at all? Colbeck (2008) suggests that labels are important, in the sense that they are inextricably tied up with role expectations: ‘Role labels convey meanings and expectations for behaviour that have evolved from countless interactions among people in a social system’ (p. 10). In their study of convergence and professional identity in academic libraries, Wilson and Halpin describe the frustration of librarians, who had acquired new job titles, such as ‘learning adviser’ and ‘information officer’, which were intended to reflect the professional identity associated with the new, hybrid library: ‘it is generally felt that job titles do not communicate the extent of their skills and experience’ (Wilson and Halpin, 2006: 88). So, role labels matter, both from the perspective of communication to outsiders and the sense of professional identity that a job title conveys.
In the absence of a defined role, there are a number of possible ways to describe a teaching librarian:
A librarian whose principal role is the facilitation of classroom-based or virtual learning support activities – i.e. who spends the majority of their time involved in the planning, design, delivery, evaluation and promotion of information literacy instructional activities, and who is involved in other library services only to a minor degree, or not at all. Some librarians have job titles which reflect this responsibility – e.g. instructional librarian, information skills librarian.
A librarian who is actively engaged in learning support activities, of varying formats and durations, but who also performs other library services, such as circulation desk or reference, on a regular basis – this is more reflective of the traditional ‘jack-of-all-trades’ library role, which sees librarians turn their hands to multiple library functions as required. It can also be a challenging position, which requires a considerable amount of juggling, as librarians attempt to reconcile the varying demands on their time (Walter, 2008).
Any working academic library professional in the twenty-first century – Walter’s study of teacher identity (2008) revealed that the librarians who were interviewed felt that the teaching function pervades every aspect of their work – that it is impossible to divorce their other library responsibilities from their instructional roles (p. 61). One view of academic librarianship is that it is inherently educative – that as the library exists to support the educational mission of the parent institution, it is natural for academic librarians to consider themselves to be educators, regardless of the changing nature of service provision. So, perhaps it is accurate to state that all academic librarians are, in fact, teaching librarians to one degree or another? With this in mind, Webb and Powis (2004) suggest that teaching and learning do not necessarily have to be rigidly defined: ‘Learning is learning, wherever it happens; teaching is teaching, whoever does it. You just have to do it well’ (p. 17).
The following section examines the arguments in favour of a teaching role for librarians.
Should librarians teach?
‘When academic librarians are presenting in an educative environment, are they teaching, informing, or responding?’ (Davis, 2007: 82). The question of whether librarians should teach – or whether the instruction they already provide can be classified as ‘teaching’ in the traditional sense – has also been a topic of debate among the profession. Not all commentators – or librarians – believe that librarians should have a teaching role. A number of arguments have been advanced which support the idea of the teaching librarian. Several of them are explored below.
Librarians ‘get’ information literacy
One argument in favour of a teaching role for librarians suggests that, as a profession, they are more attuned to the needs and requirements of the information society than any other group in the academic community, and are in a strong position of advocacy: ‘To us [librarians] it is obvious that bibliographic instruction merits an important place in every college and university’ (McCarthy, 1985: 142). It is true that librarians have been in the vanguard of the information literacy movement since the 1970s, and have propelled it forward with notable success, building a strong case for the necessity of information literacy in all walks of life – recently, October 2009 was declared National Information Literacy Awareness Month by the US President, Barack Obama, ‘to recognize the important role information plays in our daily lives, and appreciate the need for a greater understanding of its impact’ (White House, 2009). This represents a level of recognition that would have been unthinkable just a few years previously. However, despite the rising profile of information literacy, resistance from academics continues to be a strong theme: ‘Librarians face a constant struggle to convince students and subject faculty that information skills are important and needed by students’ (Fosmire and Macklin, 2002: 1). The argument suggests that if information literacy is to be integrated successfully into academic curricula, librarians are needed to proactively move the agenda forward and to convince faculty that it is crucial to embed instructional programmes where they are likely to be most effective (Orr et al., 2001).
Librarians understand how students really do research
According to this viewpoint, librarians’ long years of experience at the reference desk, dealing with student queries and observing their difficulties, place them at an advantage when it comes to identifying instructional needs: ‘Librarians have always been aware of the problems of information overload and the need to evaluate information according to a client’s specific needs’ (Estrin, 1998: 2). Abson (2003) suggests that academic librarians have developed a special insight into students’ information-seeking and study patterns, as they observe students working in the library: ‘not just the books on the reading list, but the ways they study – the group work, their presentations’ (p. 14).
Allied to this is the long-held notion that academics have unrealistic expectations of students when it comes to doing research and that the assignments they set for students are frequently too complex, in terms of the knowledge of scholarly communication that is required to complete them. Leckie (1996) explores this notion more fully, claiming that the gap between academics’ own experiences of research and the students’ limited conceptions of the scholarly publication and dissemination process increases the degree of information anxiety experienced by students in completing assignments that have been designed by academics. The ‘expert researcher’ model described by Leckie portrays a system of shortcuts, honed by long years of research experience and networking, with a heavy reliance on personal contacts and citation trails, methods which are alien to the student researcher (p. 202). Ellis’s widely cited model of the information behaviour of social scientists supports this image, emphasising the importance of informal contacts, browsing of known journals, and ‘chaining’, which involves following citations from one journal to another (Case, 2007: 260). McCarthy (1985) suggests that faculty do not perceive the value of the library in relation to student work, since they themselves tend not to rely on it as a prime resource for their own research: ‘[Academics] seldom use the library, except perhaps through browsing, to extend the sources of their information … they do not often use indexes, abstracting services or the library’s subject catalogue’ (p. 143). In this context, teaching librarians are seen to act as a bridge between the ‘expert’ and ‘novice’ researchers; while on the one hand, they can assist students in solving the problems set by the academics, they are also in a position to offer advice to the academics regarding the feasibility of their assignments.
Librarians have been teaching for decades anyway
‘Librarians, of course, have always taught’ (Wilkinson, 2000: 37). Although not recognised as a core library function until relatively recently, librarians have a long history of involvement in teaching, stretching back to at least the nineteenth century (Weiss, 2004), and the nature and form of that teaching has evolved alongside the information revolution. For instance, Dennis (2001) suggests that the evolution of library instruction from basic demonstration of bibliographic research tools to a broader conceptualisation of information use, involving the development of critical thinking and evaluation skills, has created an opportunity for librarians to become involved in developing inquiry-based exercises to foster information literacy in students (pp. 124–5). McCartin and Feid (2001) note that the traditional form of bibliographic instruction, defined as a limited form of ‘tool-based’ instruction, has been replaced with ‘concept-based’ instruction that emphasises processes and general research principles which can be transferred across different contexts. Douglas (1999) points out that librarians’ technological expertise combined with years of experience makes teaching a natural occupation: ‘We are expert technology users and we already teach in many capacities. So I believe that the librarian as professor is the next step in the evolution of the profession’ (p. 26).
Librarians are trained information experts
‘Librarians are uniquely situated to collaborate with academics to implement the information literacy agenda – they “live” the information problem solving process; they understand information organisation, access and use’ (McLaren, 1999: 7). Although librarians do not usually have academic qualifications in the subject areas they manage, their role as generalists encompasses a broad knowledge of the structure of scholarly communication in specific disciplines, and they are well equipped to advise on appropriate information sources for a desired purpose: ‘When asked to speak to a class that will shortly be doing term paper research, the reference librarian will probably think immediately of half a dozen basic sources important for research in the field’ (McCarthy, 1985: 144). Rader (1997) observes that it is the librarians’ lengthy experience with the organisation and use of information that has accorded them ‘expert’ status in this regard: ‘Librarians’ experience and expertise in the area of information handling position them uniquely to work with teachers and faculty in the nurturing of student learners so they become critical users of information’ (p. 49).
Academics can’t – or won’t – teach information literacy
In the past, a small number of authors have suggested that academics, rather than librarians, should assume responsibility for teaching research and information skills to students (Lester, 1979; Smith, 1997). From one perspective, it might make sense; students’ motivations and information behaviour are greatly influenced by academics, who set and grade assignments, develop reading lists for their courses, and communicate their expectations about how students should do research. Librarians’ response to this, however, usually centres on the notion that academics have misguided and unrealistic perceptions of how students approach research tasks, a theme touched on earlier (Leckie, 1996): ‘If faculty lack an understanding about the need to develop a progression from elementary to advanced research techniques, then librarians must work to reorient them’ (Carlson and Miller, 1984: 489). Academics’ own lack of expertise with the most up-to-date information resources is often touted as another reason for librarian involvement:
The idea that lecturers should teach library skills seems impractical. Librarianship is a profession; those of us who practice it have years of training and experience behind us: why do we imagine that academic colleagues should add these skills to their own considerable experience when they seldom need or use them? (Price, 1999)
Moore (2002), writing about the school sector, speaks of the sometimes erroneous assumption that the teachers are themselves information literate, and that ‘they apply higher order thinking skills when undertaking complex information tasks’ (p. 8). She describes the results of a study carried out among 91 practising teachers in Australia by Henri (2001), which indicated comparatively poor IL practices among the participants and low confidence levels when confronted with non-traditional information tools. Other studies, such as Starkweather and Wallin’s (1999) research into academics’ attitudes to library technology, reveal a considerable lack of uniformity in their knowledge and use of resources. While some academics are sophisticated and forward-looking users of multimedia formats, others still prefer the traditional mode of print-based information-seeking. A study of academics’ attitudes towards information literacy instruction in Ireland found that many academics believe that they already teach information literacy skills to students and that no additional instruction is necessary; there is a perception that simply through doing assignments, working collaboratively with other students and receiving feedback from their lecturers, students will indirectly develop as competent information users (McGuinness, 2006). Markless and Streatfield (1992) describe this belief as a ‘common trap’, suggesting that a lack of skill support, coupled with unclear course work guidelines, may in fact ‘reinforce inappropriate or incorrect execution of the skill’ (p. 23).
Complex new scholarship practices
Through the application of technology, scholarly publication and dissemination has changed radically over the past two decades. Now, new scholarship practices have changed the face of research and academic librarianship. Dillon (2008) outlines several of the changes that have been wrought:
large data repositories in some disciplines;
many students never visit a physical campus;
libraries assume the role of publishers;
tenure decisions ‘loosened’ from the traditional documentary formats;
special collections become indistinguishable from museums;
Biddiscombe (2000) suggests that librarians, who are at the centre of the changing scholarly paradigm, are best equipped to guide others through the problem-solving process in the new scholarly landscape: ‘Librarians’ training in the organisation of knowledge, matching of need with solution, and a positive and professional approach to the service ethic, provide essential elements that are important in the era of information technology’ (p. 65).
Farber (1995) also asserts that it is the librarians’ technological expertise, and willingness to impart these skills to students, that will lead academics to accept them as having a teaching role in the academic community: ‘Because librarians are the ones to show their students how to gain access to these (technological) sources, and to demonstrate what they provide, academics are much more willing to accept librarians as teaching colleagues’ (p. 432).
Teaching brings librarians closer to the heart of the institution
A common challenge for academic librarians is that they often appear to lack decision-making power and influence within their institutions, and have little or no say in educational and strategic policy-making: ‘Librarians’ sphere of influence may be limited in comparison with that of academic staff, and thus information literacy may be marginalised and trivialised’ (Webber and Johnston, 2000: 384). In developing and promoting their teaching role, Kemp (2006) suggests that librarians can avail of a number of wider advantages in their institutions at large. In the first instance, teaching offers an opportunity for librarians to forge an improved client relationship with students, and to gain deeper insight into their information-seeking and research processes. This has the potential to develop into a symbiotic relationship, insofar as the students may come to see librarians as educators, as well as support staff, and to develop an appreciation for the library as a place where learning is facilitated, rather than a static collection of resources. Another potential benefit of the teaching role involves librarians’ relationships with academic faculty. Kemp suggests that teaching is a form of academic apprenticeship for librarians, through which they can be socialised to the scholarly community; she observes that through their involvement in teaching and learning activities, librarians ‘become sensitized to the issues important to teaching faculty’ (p. 19), including administration, the demands of students, managing workloads and developing effective teaching strategies. Another suggestion by Kemp focuses on improvement of library service; she comments that librarians may choose to adapt their collection development policies, through first-hand observation of students’ actual resource use. Finally, Kemp proposes that the teaching role serves to enhance librarians’ faculty status, which is a long-held goal (Bryan, 2007). The ACRL, which has been extremely active in attempting to set guidelines and standards for the award to faculty status for librarians, views the educational role as key to gaining this status: ‘the function of the librarian as participant in the processes of teaching and research is the essential criterion of faculty status’ (2007a). Kemp suggests that, through engaging in teaching activities, librarians can gain increased recognition and respect from their academic colleagues and reap the benefits of equality of status.
Teaching librarians – what do academics think?
‘Conflicts and tensions underlie the relationship between teaching faculty and academic librarians, between the desired recognition sought by the library and the limited role university administrators will have it play’ (Owusu-Ansah, 2001: 282).
What academics think and believe about the teaching role of librarians is important. If librarians could facilitate student learning in a vacuum, removed from students’ academic curricula, the issue of how they work and collaborate with academics would not be so crucial. However, the desirability of the curriculum-embedded model for information literacy instruction has meant that librarians need to find ways of forging productive, collaborative relationships with academics, to ensure that students see information skills as relevant and meaningful in the context of their education, and beyond. Curriculum-integrated instruction (CII) requires close, long-term collaboration between academics and teaching librarians. Articulations of ‘best practice’ in information literacy instruction routinely list academic-librarian collaboration as an essential criterion for success. One such list is the Final Report of the UK-based ‘Big Blue’ Information Skills project (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2002). The review of the literature which informed the project outlined a set of conditions deemed critical for success in the implementation of information literacy programmes, including:
the need for information skills training to be integrated into the curriculum, rather than be treated as a separate subject removed from the subject content;
the need to establish collaborative working partnerships with all those involved in the teaching and learning process;
the need to engage students in the process through such means as highlighting the transferability and attractiveness of skills both to themselves and to future employers, or by making courses credit bearing;
the need for library and information service staff to feel that they have a relevant role to play;
information skills programmes can provide opportunities for staff training and development activities.
Holtze (in Kraat, 2005: 2) asserts that faculty–librarian collaboration is at the centre of CII: ‘It all comes down to the relationship you have with other faculty at your institution.’ The question of academic–librarian collaboration has dominated the discourse on information literacy instruction. From a practice-oriented perspective, recent research into the subjective experiences of teaching librarians in the US (Julien and Pecoskie, 2009) also demonstrates the extent to which librarians perceive that academic support is the most important factor, which determines whether their programmes will be effective or not: ‘The faculty/librarian relationship is so critical that sometimes instructional “success” was defined by these study participants as successful faculty negotiation and relations, rather than in terms of students’ learning.’ (p. 151)
The ‘faculty problem’
The ‘faculty problem’, as it has been described (McCarthy, 1985), is a common theme in the literature and has grown out of librarians’ dependence on academics for access to subject curricula and their frustration when collaboration fails to happen. Evidence has shown that collaborative working arrangements are difficult to achieve in practice; as Donnelly (2000) points out, the likelihood that students will have the opportunity to develop their information and research skills during their education often depends on the efforts of individual staff members, or ‘academic champions’, and is largely a matter of chance: ‘Most current campus information literacy or bibliographic instruction initiatives are hit or miss. By luck of the draw, some students participate in multiple library instructional sessions because they take courses from professors who value research skills, and who make time for in-class instruction by librarians’ (p. 60). This dependence on ‘academic champions’ (McGuinness, 2007) or ‘library active faculty’ (Hardesty, 1991) is unsustainable, however, since cooperative arrangements may collapse as the academic moves to a different institution, or finds that they no longer have time to devote to information literacy. Loomis (1995) suggests that such short-term collaborations often prove to be ‘shaky foundations for our programs in terms of long-term planning, for they are personality, not program, dependent’ (p. 130). So, while working with supportive, enthusiastic academics might offer a chance for librarians to gain a foothold within the academic curriculum, a longer-term collaborative strategy is required to ensure that information literacy becomes embedded in the curriculum.
Why do librarians need to work with academics, and what are the barriers that prevent them from doing so? The problem has been explored at length by LIS researchers and practitioners. Academics act as the ‘gateway’ to subject curricula for librarians, for a variety of reasons, and are the key to curriculum-embedded instruction. Some of the reasons are outlined below:
Professional autonomy dictates that academics have control over their own teaching and learning environments (Hardesty, 1995; Jenkins, 2005), and are therefore in a position to create learning situations which encourage information-seeking as an element of problemsolving (Smith, 1997). As Chiste et al. (2000) note: ‘Bibliographic instruction is unlikely to find itself ensconced in the academic curriculum without people in positions of power having a very good reason for wanting it there’ (p. 204).
In the context of their academic studies, students’ information needs are, to a large extent, prompted by academics through the assignments they set and the expectations they raise regarding the time and effort a student should devote to course work. Students’ information-seeking and research strategies are also dictated somewhat by their lecturers, who create expectations, and sometimes offer direction about how and where to search for information (Nimon, 2000; Haynes, 1996).
Academics are responsible for grading students’ assignments and determining the rewards of the system; generally speaking, the ‘strategic student’ tends to respond only to course requirements that are set by academic teaching staff, with the aim of getting a good grade, or even just passing the course (Nimon, 2000). Librarians who wish to evaluate the impact of their instruction must, therefore, work with academics on course assignments.
The value that academics attach to library use and information skills can determine how important students subsequently perceive them to be; if an academic is enthusiastic about the library, and links library use to good academic performance, students may be more likely to visit the library than if left to their own devices (Lipow, 1992; Maynard, 1990).
Librarians, as generalists, do not possess enough in-depth subject knowledge to be able to fully integrate information literacy into different subject curricula; therefore, they need to collaborate with academics and to blend their information expertise with the academics’ subject knowledge to create curriculum-integrated programmes (Hepworth, 2000; Jobe and Grealy, 2000).
However, while the reasons for collaboration might seem clear, the task of actually engaging academics in joint teaching and learning partnerships has proved difficult; as Jenkins (2005) points out: ‘Though … many are willing converts, collaborating with librarians is something faculty think about rarely and act on even less frequently’ (p. 23). As a result of their frustration, librarians have frequently branded academics dismissive or apathetic, as research by Julien and Given (2003) has demonstrated; their analysis of librarians’ postings on the ILI-L listserv revealed that librarians have a poor perception of their relationships with academics, suggesting that academics are difficult to work with and deliberately obstructive to their instructional endeavours. In the study, academics were perceived as being territorial and possessive about their courses, as well as being rude, uncooperative, arrogant and uncaring with regard to their students’ needs. However, at the same time, a number of posters were critical of their library colleagues, suggesting that they are unwilling to embrace a wider role for themselves outside of the traditional library functions, or that they hold limiting perceptions of themselves, which reinforce those that are imposed on them from outside.
What do academics think?
Academics’ attitudes to librarians, including their teaching role, have not been exhaustively investigated, but various studies over the years have offered some insight. Studies include research by Cook (1981); Divay et al. (1987); Oberg et al. (1989); Ivey (1994); Maynard (1990); Hardesty (1991); Cannon (1994); Thomas (1994); Dilmore (1996); Leckie and Fullerton (1999); and McGuinness (2006). A summary of the research reported in these papers reveals several themes:
Academics generally think highly of librarians and value their work; they perceive them as professionals, although not as academic equals. The main reason for this is the librarians’ lack of research publications and teaching experience.
Librarians are valued by academics primarily for the support services they provide, including reference assistance, collection development and computer-mediated searching. Academics do not generally rate librarians’ teaching activities as important.
Most academics perceive that librarians make a limited contribution to students’ overall education.
There is some evidence that academics’ perceptions of librarians’ role and status in the academic community differ according to the discipline.
On the whole, academics view information literacy as important to undergraduate education.
However, the teaching methods that they employ to encourage the development of these skills among students often do not involve library staff in design or delivery. Comparatively few academics regularly invite librarians to give a talk to their students.
The main reason that academics do not seek teaching assistance from librarians is that they are not aware that librarians can provide this type of service.
Teaching approaches which require academic–librarian collaboration are viewed as less desirable by academics than methods which are delivered by librarians alone.
Academics believe that ‘we’re already doing it!’ when it comes to information literacy, and that students will develop information skills indirectly through completing course work, researching dissertations, taking advice from lecturers, collaborating with classmates, attending class and generally just in resolving information problems by themselves.
Academics’ perceptions of library service are influenced by the nature of their relationship with library staff. Frequent contact with librarians results in more positive perceptions of library service; equally, positive service perceptions lead to increased use of the library by academics.
Barriers to collaboration
The key to identifying the real barriers to academic-librarian collaboration lies in understanding the demands and attributes of the academic profession, as well as academics’ attitudes towards the library and information literacy.
Hardesty (1995) and Jenkins (2005) suggest that a number of factors relating specifically to ‘faculty culture’ explain the difficulties other groups, including librarians, experience in attempting to forge collaboration with academics. Hardesty, in particular, identifies five attributes of ‘faculty culture’:
An emphasis on research, content and specialisation. The primary occupation of academics is the pursuit, creation and dissemination of knowledge, and they are expected to spend the majority of their time engaged in research activities.
A de-emphasis on teaching, process and undergraduates. In academia, teaching activity is not valued to the same extent as research accomplishments when it comes to recruitment and promotion.
The centrality of professional autonomy and academic freedom. Academics expect to retain full control over their pedagogical practices and research directions
Lack of time. Academics are typically overburdened with professional responsibilities ranging from heavy teaching loads to the pressure to publish that determines promotional opportunity and recognition from their peers in the field.
Resistance to change. Academics are frequently perceived as hostile towards proposals that involve restructuring and redistribution of their time.
Jenkins (2005) also highlights other stressors in the lives of academics, including dealing with their administrative burden, balancing teaching and scholarship, and handling the demands of committee work, which can be numerous. All of these factors add up to a heavy, demanding workload, coupled with a need for and expectation of autonomy – a combination which can certainly militate against venturing into collaboration with librarians.
Recent research (McGuinness, 2004) explored faculty culture and academics’ pedagogical practices as potential barriers to collaboration for curriculum-integrated information literacy. The findings of the study, which was carried out among Irish university-based academics in the disciplines of sociology and civil engineering, pointed to a number of additional factors that can act as obstacles to working together:
Academics have a limited conception of ‘information literacy’, focusing on finding and locating information, or using information technology, at the expense of ‘higher-order’ perspectives, such as knowledge construction.
Academics believe that it is the students’ own responsibility, rather than that of teaching or library staff, to ensure that they develop information literacy skills during their education.
Academics’ interactions with library staff focus mainly on collection matters, such as acquisitions, inter-library loans and making course materials available to students, rather than on teaching and curriculum-related matters.
Academics face many challenges when attempting to introduce innovative teaching methods, including logistical difficulties of managing large student numbers, overwhelming staff and student workloads, a belief among the academics that students will not respond positively to more interactive, independent modes of learning, and fears relating to students’ trustworthiness, particularly with regard to matters such as plagiarism.
Academics are locked into the traditional didactic, lecture-based mode of teaching in higher education, which does not encourage independent student activity and information-seeking, but rather assimilation and regurgitation of set content. Many academics try to ‘package’ course material for students, rather than encourage independent research.
Although many of these barriers seem insurmountable, there is much that teaching librarians can do to engage the support of academics and instil a culture of collaboration in their institutions, if none existed before. Strategies for outreach and promotion will be discussed later in this book.
Teaching librarians and professional education
‘Instructional librarians find themselves thrown in at the deep end as they do not understand, or they lack knowledge of, the educational theories and methodologies that can be applied to information literacy instruction’ (Selematsela and du Toit, 2007: 119).
It is unreasonable to expect librarians to engage in instructional activities without being properly trained; we would not expect a cataloguer to have no knowledge of metadata or a reference librarian to be unfamiliar with key reference sources. Yet, evidence has shown that this is precisely what has been happening for many years within the profession. Until relatively recently, the small number of core, or even elective, modules on pedagogical practice in many LIS professional programmes around the world has meant that librarians frequently have had to ‘go it alone’ when it comes to developing the skills and knowledge required to effectively facilitate teaching and learning (Walter, 2005, 2006; Peacock, 2000; Kilcullen, 1998). This is a cause for concern; as Peacock (2000) observes, while teaching might come naturally to some librarians, ‘many are unprepared theoretically, technically, and practically for the role, and the experience can lead to frustration and prove detrimental to their self-esteem, confidence and enthusiasm’ (p. 182).
The relatively low level of pre-service training opportunities for student librarians has been fairly well documented. Both Meulemans and Brown (2001) and Walter (2005) highlight studies as far back as the late 1970s, which suggest that it has been a gap in the LIS professional curriculum for quite some time. They refer to several surveys (Mandernack, 1990; Shonrock and Mulder, 1993; Sullivan, 1997; Westbrook, 1999) which show that librarians have been forced to ‘turn to self-study, workshops and short courses … to meet their needs for continuing professional education’ (Walter, 2005: 3). In the UK, the issue of ‘who trains librarians in their role as trainers’ was also addressed in the Big Blue Information Skills project (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2002). As part of their nationwide survey of information skills practices in the higher education and post-16 sectors, the project group included a brief survey of LIS schools across the country to establish the extent to which undergraduate and postgraduate LIS students received training, in order ‘to prepare them for their future role as trainers’. The results of the survey, which was based on responses received from 17 LIS schools, indicated that although most students receive some degree of training with regard to general learning styles, presentation and communication skills, only one of the schools included teaching methods and curriculum design in their course content. A survey of information literacy practices in higher education institutions carried out in Ireland in 2007 found that just 11 of the 77 academic librarian respondents had received instructional training as part of their pre-service professional LIS programme; one-third had received no training at all in how to teach (McGuinness, 2009). Research carried out in 2007 across the entire LIS sector in the UK found a similar pattern – out of 463 responses, 59 per cent of the librarians across all sectors confirmed that they had received teacher training ‘on the job’, while just 31 per cent had done either an accredited or non-accredited course. Significantly, 72 per cent revealed that they had developed their teaching competence through ‘trial and error’ (Conroy and Boden, 2007).
While self-study, short courses and intensive workshops can be effective ways of developing and honing instructional skills, Meulemans and Brown (2001) suggest that many librarians who have been self-taught ‘would have preferred to have more opportunities for course work and practice in teaching during their graduate education’ (p. 256). Acquiring a basic grounding in the theories and methods of teaching and learning offers fledgling librarians in their first jobs a distinct advantage over those who find themselves in at the deep end and struggling to catch up.
More recently, however, there have been signs of change. Walter (2008) suggests that the availability of formal course work on instruction in LIS pre-service curricula is now ‘inconsistent’ rather than lacking entirely (p. 57). Many LIS schools in the US now offer instruction-related modules – a frequently updated list of full library instruction courses that are available in accredited master’s programmes in library and information studies is maintained in wiki form by the Instruction Section of the ACRL.1 In Europe, a survey carried out among LIS schools in June 2005, under the auspices of the project ‘Library and Information Science Education in Europe: Joint Curriculum Development and Bologna Perspectives’,2 showed that ‘information literacy and learning’ was covered in the curriculum in 76 per cent (n = 38) of the LIS schools surveyed (n = 50), although it was included as a core component in just 45 per cent (n = 21) (Larsen, 2005). It is unclear, however, how much of this referred to specific content on instructional planning and design.
The desirability of flexible, on-the-job learning options for librarians has also been recognised in two relatively recent instructional initiatives in the UK – both ‘SirLearnaLot’ and ‘Pop-i/Lollipop’ comprise suites of freely available online modules, designed to teach librarians in the public and academic library sectors how to design, deliver and assess information literacy programmes in their institutions. In the case of SirLearnaLot, which was funded by the Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Information & Computer Sciences (HEA ICS), and the information literacy section of the Community Services Group in CILIP, the eight units focus on areas such as ‘Understanding Learning’, ‘Planning a Learning Event’ and ‘Delivering a Learning Event’. The course is delivered via the learning management system ‘Moodle’, and institutions can download the files and deliver the course themselves, as all are freely available under Creative Commons Licence. The online instructional model could represent a real solution for teaching librarians who wish to develop or upgrade their instructional skills and continue to carry out their jobs.
What should be included in LIS instructional modules?
The conference arising from the European curriculum project described above was held in August 2005. Members of the Information Literacy and Learning Group gathered to discuss and debate the kind of instructional content that could be included in LIS curricula. The group proposed that it is essential for LIS students:
to be aware of information literacy as a concept;
to become information literate themselves;
to learn about some key aspects of teaching information literacy (Kajberg and Lørring, 2005: 67).
In essence, there are two key elements that come into play when a teaching role of the librarian is considered – one concerns the librarian’s own personal development and level of confidence as an information-literate individual; the second relates to their ability to conceptualise the learning process and engage the appropriate strategies and methods to facilitate student learning. In many ways, this mirrors the expectations that are laid upon academics, who must demonstrate a high level of subject expertise in addition to teaching competence, to be able to deliver a course effectively. It can be an erroneous assumption that LIS students are skilled information users, although it is a common one; as is pointed out in the report by Kajberg and Lørring, ‘LIS students need to understand themselves as information literate people, and understand IL holistically, before they can start teaching someone else about it’ (2005: 68). How to incorporate both elements into a single module in the LIS curriculum, in light of time restrictions, is a challenge.
Walter (2008) also highlights the importance of focusing on the development of the pre-service librarian’s professional identity as a teacher, rather than just on the mechanistic, pedagogical skills that underpin the teaching and learning process; he notes that ‘how one thinks of oneself as a teacher can affect everything from successful induction into the profession to effectiveness in the classroom to the ability to cope with change and to implement new practices in one’s instructional work’ (p. 55). The notion of professional identity development has been generally neglected in pre-service teaching modules for librarians, while curriculum content has tended to address issues such as instructional design, presentation techniques and design of evaluation instruments.
In terms of what could ideally be included in an instructional module within the LIS curriculum, the European group reached consensus on a set of relevant topics, which they divided into four categories, each with a number of sub-topics (pp. 71–2):
curriculum design and planning: identifying learners’ needs, developing learning outcomes, assessing learning outcomes, alignment of teaching, learning and assessment, use of technology in learning environments, course evaluation;
understanding learners and learning theory: models and theories of learning, different learning styles, needs and characteristics of student groups, information behaviour research;
understanding basic concepts, theories and practice of teaching: concepts of and approaches to teaching, methods, tools, collaborative learning;
understanding the context for teaching and learning: educational policy, lifelong learning, teaching in different sectors, the role of information literacy in LIS profession, role of the teaching librarian, promotion and advocacy for information literacy.
From a general perspective, there is a wide range of opinion, regarding both the competencies required by teaching librarians and the content that could be included in the LIS curriculum to prepare librarians as teachers. Two early studies (Shonrock and Mulder, 1993; Larson and Meltzer, 1987), which attempted to identify required competencies for teaching librarians, are mentioned by Walter (2008). He notes that the competencies rated most highly in the Shonrock and Mulder study ‘relate to principles of instructional design, pedagogical skills and basic instruction in information retrieval’ (p. 58). These were similar to findings in the Larson and Meltzer study. More recently, several authors and groups have attempted to create competency and curriculum frameworks, including Kilcullen (1998), Peacock (2001), Selematsela and du Toit (2007), ACRL (2008) and the European consultation group described above (2005). In particular, the ACRL Standards for Proficiencies for Instruction Librarians and Coordinators (2008) is a detailed document, the outcome of four years of consultation by the ACRL Instruction Section Proficiencies for Instruction Librarians Task Force. It constitutes the first official set of guidelines on competencies for teaching librarians and ‘can be used as standards to create professional development opportunities for librarians with teaching responsibilities in order to improve or expand their skills’ (p. 4), in a similar manner to the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (ACRL, 2000), which are used for IL programme planning.
Having collated and compared the guidelines proposed by the different authors, it is possible to categorise the skills and competencies under three broad headings:
1. pedagogical/andragogical adult learning knowledge and skills and instructional design;
Below each category are listed areas of competence which could form the basis for a teaching module in LIS curricula. However, due to time and resource restrictions, it is likely that not all of the competencies can be included in a single module.
1. Pedagogical/andragogical knowledge skills and instructional design
– theories of learning (e.g. behaviourism, constructivism);
– understanding of, and ability to gather information on, the characteristics of different student groups, including adult learners;
– identifying the instructional needs of different student groups;
– composing instructional goals, objectives and learning outcomes;
– knowledge of different teaching approaches, methods and tools, various media;
– knowledge of when and how to use technology appropriately for teaching; skills in using various e-learning technologies;
– assessment and evaluation techniques and tools, aligning assessment to learning outcomes and teaching approaches;
– ability to facilitate collaborative learning;
– presentation and delivery skills, using visual media, etc.
2. Political and strategic skills
– communication skills, including negotiation, conflict resolution, leading discussions;
– promotional skills – advocacy for information literacy, promoting instruction to academics and students, initiating collaboration with academics, representation at local, national and international level;
– leadership – proactively seeking out instructional opportunities, instigating discussion and debate with colleagues.
3. Professional development and competency
– understanding and development of oneself as an information-literate individual;
– knowledge and understanding of theories of human information behaviour (HIB);
– keeping current within relevant subject areas;
– participation in continuing professional development activities to keep skills fresh;
– engaging in reflective practice, understanding oneself as a teacher;
– understanding the wider context of teaching and learning – lifelong learning, educational and public policy, etc.;
– understanding one’s own role (and the role of the library) in the educational process.
How these topics might be included and taught within a pre-service teaching librarian module is discussed in Chapter 3.
Exercises and reflections
Exercises can be carried out individually or, better still, in groups:
1. Develop a fictional timeline for a typical day in the working life of an academic teaching librarian. What kinds of problems and stresspoints do you believe could arise during the day? Discuss ways in which a teaching librarian can meet the challenges of the day.
2. Identify and discuss the attributes of a ‘teaching librarian’ using the following headings: Key duties of role; Skills and knowledge required to fulfil the role; Pre-service training needs; Appropriate criteria for advancement/promotion. With regard to the skills and knowledge elements, rank your list according to which skills/knowledge you believe are most important for the role and which are of lesser importance.
3. Scenario 1: Your library is currently advertising the position of Instruction Librarian, which has opened up recently in your institution. Your task is to write the advert that will appear in national newspapers and professional journals and websites. Naturally, you wish to recruit the best candidate for the position. What criteria should the job advert specify?
4. Scenario 2: You (or your group) constitute an interview committee for the position of ‘Instructional Librarian’ that has opened up in your library. You task is to develop an interview schedule with the questions you believe should be asked in order to identify the best candidate for the job.
5. Scenario 3: In your library, you have been invited to create a 10-minute promotional video, the purpose of which is to ‘sell’ your instructional services to academics and students. Your task is to create an initial ‘storyboard’ for the video. What are the key messages that you should try to get across, and what kinds of visual images would help you to do it?