Education for Library Instruction, A 1996 Survey

Brigit Shea Sullivan

In 1987, Larson and Meltzer published an article presenting results of surveys of libra y school programs. The surveys asked zf the programs included course work in Iibra y instruction. Two M.L.S. candidates (Sullivan and Davis) at the University of Ma yland, conducted a follow-up survey in 1996. The survey asked American Libra y Association accredited programs in the U.S. whether they included libra y instruction as a separate course or unit in their curricu- lum. The survey gathered data and compared the results to those of Larson and Meltzer. The new data tests Larson and Meltier’s conclusions about libra y in- struction.

I n her article entitled, “Training and Education of Library Instruction Librarians,” Hogan pinpointed the revival of the library instruction move-

ment to 1967.’ Related to this revivalhasbeen the growth in demand for library instruction skills within the job market, and the corresponding demand for professional training in library instruction methods and application? In 1987, Larson and Meltzer’s article “Education for Bibliographic Instruction” in- cluded results of previous surveys and of surveys by the Education for Bibliographic Instruction Committee of ACRL’s Bibliographic Instruction Section. Larson and Meltzer concluded that the number of schools offering library instruction as a separate course had stabilized over the three years of their study. Further, they found that library instruction was offered as a unit in another course more often than as a separate course.3 Sullivan and Davis

Bridget Shea Sullivan is a MLS student at University qf Maryland, 322 Wye Mill Court, Gaithersburg, MD 20879.

Research Strategies, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 271-277 Q1997 by Research Strategies. All rights reserved.

272 RESEARCH STRATEGIES 25M

set out to determine the current status of library instruction in library schools and see if Larson and Meltzer’s conclusions still held true.*

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE After library instruction resurrected in the late 196Os, studies were per-

formed to determine what the best training would be for librarians teaching library instruction and whether or not that instruction was being done. In 1986, Powell and Creth published the results of a survey designed to determine the knowledge and skills that academic librarians need. The survey asked librari- ans to judge how ~owl~geable they felt in certain areas, how important they felt these areas were to their job performance, where they had acquired their relevant skill and where they felt they should have acquired the knowledge. The 1986 paper provides the responses and an analysis of the answers to the first two questions. “Teaching Methods,” one of the areas studied and often associated with library instruction, ranked 26th in importance of knowledge and 28th in the amount of knowledge. ’ “Bibliographic/Library Instruction” ranked 19th in importance and 15th in a perceived amount of knowledge.

In 1988, Powell published a follow-up analysis of the 1986 article. In the 1988 article he concentrated on determining how important participants in the earlier survey had doubt certain knowledge bases were, where they per- ceived they had acquired their skills and where they felt they should have acquired these skills. He looked at the top twenty knowledge bases (“Bibliog- raphic/library instruction” is 19th) and askedwhere participants learned their skills and where they felt they should have learned their skills. Twenty-five percent said they had learned “Bibliographic/library instruction” in library school and 30% said they thought they should have learned it in library school, while another 30% wished to have learned the skill in continuing education and staff development6 The conclusion by Powell was that library schools might need to expand their curriculums to teach these skills7

Smith, in 1982, published the results of a survey that looked at the education and training of a group of instruction librarians. She concluded that the needs of library instruction librarians were not being addressed by library school programs and if programs were developed to meet these needs they should include a teaching practicum, since practicums were considered valu- able by those surveyed.*

These aforementioned studies and surveys hinted at the fact that perhaps library schools should shoulder the burden of preparing instruction librarians to teach library patrons. In this vein, Wittkopf, in 1990, stated, “Surveys in the professional literature report that most BI librarians gain their experience outside the formal library school program and recommend that the situation be remedied.“’

Several surveys carried out in the 1960s and 1970s tracked the progress of library instruction courses in library school programs. Galloway, in 1975 surveyed 55 American Library Association accredited library schools’ pro-

grams in the U.S. to see how many taught courses in library instruction. Four schools covered library instruction as a separate course. Twenty incorporated it into the curriculum, and 31 offered no course work in library instruction at all.‘* In 1977 TDyer conducted a survey which showed that three of the 26 schools offered a separate course in library instruction (12%), 14 had library instruction incorporated into the curriculum (53%), and nine had no library instruction in the curriculum (35%).“’ In 1979, the Committee on Education of the Bibliographic Instruction Section, Association of College and Research Libraries, conducted a survey on library instruction in the curriculum. They found that 11(16%) of the institutions surveyed by Dyer in 1977 had imple- mented separate courses in library instruction. They did not ask in their survey about library instruction incorporated into other classes in the curric~hun.‘~

Larson and Meltzer, in their article, “Education for Bib~o~aphic Instruc- tion“ published the results of the 1979 survey and the results of the collection of syllabi from 1983-1986. They concluded that the “number of institutions offering separate bibliographic instruction courses has stabilized . . . and the bibliographic instruction unit is the preferred method of integrating this topic into the library school curriculum. “13 Since their article in 1987, there has not been a published survey of library instruction courses in American Library Association accredited, U.S. schools.

The viewpoint that library instruction is an important area for librarians is still held and purported in today’s library science literature. Byron, in a 1995 article entitled “Preparing to Teach in Cyberspace: User Education in Real and Virtual Libraries” states that “the literature confirms that many library and information science programs provide no formal course work to prepare their students for a career in user education.“‘* Shonrock and Mulder in 1993 published the results of a survey which examined the skills instruction librari- ans believe they need, where they acquired them and where they thought they should have acquired them. This survey was conducted based on the idea that library instruction is growing in importance. “More and more positions in academic libraries require experience in, or the ability to provide, bibliog- raphic instruction (BI),“r5 stated Shonrock and Mulder. They concluded that library schools needed to examine their programs and see if they might offer more library instruction courses.

White reacted to the study by Shonrock and Mulder pointing out that it is just human nature to blame the library school for not teaching everything possible to the degree candidate. He also pointed out that if library schools were not careful they would end up simply being training programs instead of educational endeavors. l6 White suggested that there was a good deal of potential~perative research in the area of education for library ~~~on~’

In a recent investigation the Education for Bibliographic instruction Com- mittee, Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) delved into whether experience or course work in library instruction is relevant in getting a job for which library instruction training is a stated responsibility. Reporting

274 RESEARCH STRATEGIES 1.5(4)

on the investigation, Avery and Ketchner related that employers considered experience or course work in the area of library instruction a positive factor when hiring librarians.‘*

Methods In the fall of 1996, Sullivan and Davis of the University of Maryland sent

surveys to all of the 48 American Library Association accredited library schools in the continental United States to determine the current trend in education for library instruction. They sent the surveys by postal mail and by E-mail, in case the point of contact found it easier to respond by E-mail. Because they were interested in comparing their results to those of Larson and Meltzer, Sullivan and Davis followed Larson and Meltzer’s methodology by surveying American Library Association accredited schools and by asking whether they offered either independent courses in library instruction or instructional units on library instruction in other courses. Larson and Meltzer did not specify whether they surveyed only schools in the continental United States. Sullivan and Davis used the American Library Directory 2995-2996 to determine the American Library Association accreditation status, the appro- priate points of contact and postal and E-mail addresses. A letter accompanied the survey, explaining that Sullivan and Davis were investigating how many library schools in the U.S. included library instruction courses in their curricu- lum. The survey sent by mail included a self-addressed stamped envelope to facilitate return of the survey. The survey asked if the program included a library instruction course or a unit in library instruction as part of another course. If so, the survey asked the name of the course, how long it had existed, how it had come into being, how many credits it was worth, whether or not it was a permanent part of the curriculum and how well received it was by the faculty and student body. Sullivan and Davis requested also a copy of the syllabus if a course or unit in library instruction existed. Thirty-eight schools responded to the survey, indicating the availability of library instruction training.

Results Table 1 summarizes the results that Sullivan and Davis gathered, and

compares them to information previously published by Larson and Meltzer up through 1986. Results confirmed that the percentage of library schools offering a separate course in library instruction has increased since the Larson and Meltzer survey (see Figures 1 & 2). In the 1996 survey, 19 (58%) of the 33 responding institutions offered library instruction as a separate course. The number of institutions offering library instruction as a unit within another course has decreased, but the combination of institutions offering library instruction as a separate course and as a unit has remained stable from 1986 to 1996. Those schools surveyed related word of mouth and anecdotal reports

Suflioan/Daois 275

Table 1 Schools Offering Library Instruction: Separate, Integrated and None

#Institlltiona Separate Year of Suxvey Resp. Course L.I. Integrated No L.I. in Cum

1975 55 4 (8%) 31(56%) 1977 26 3 (12%)

:: ;zj

not mea& 9 (35%)

1979 11(16%) not measured 1984 z 11(32%) 21(59%) 3 (9%) 1986 z 8 (26%) 16 (53%) 10 (33%) 1996 19 (5J3%) 5 (15%) 9 (2%)

Nofe: 1975-1986 data from Larson & Metzkr, 1996 from Sullivan 62 Davis.

Figure 1 1986 L.I. Survey, Distribution. Data from Lamon & Metzler

separate course 23.5%

Figure 2 19986 L.I. Survey, Distribution. Data from Sullivan 6: Davis

separate course 57.5%

276 RESEARCH STRATEGIES lS(4)

that library instruction courses were well received, and were considered to be a valuable addition by both students and faculty.”

Conclusion The combined percentage of separate library instruction courses and

library instruction integrated into the curricuhun has riot changed signifi- cantly since Larson and Meltzer’s 1987 article. ln that article they concluded that “user education, whether taught as an individual course or as a unit of instruction, is an established part of the library school ~urriculum.“~~ How- ever, the current results show that library instruction as a separate course has increased statistically and as an integrated part of the curriculum has de- creased statistically since Larson and Meltzer’s survey. This contradicts Lar- son and Meltzer’s conchision that “the user education unit rather than the individual course has emerged as the preferred means of integrating bibliog- raphic instruction.“21 In 1987 that may have been true but in 2996 the prefer- ence is for library instruction as a separate course. The results of the study by Sullivan and Davis demonstrate that library instruction is (still) an established part of the library school curriculum, as Larson and Meltzer determined in 1987.

Acknowledgement: Thanks to Anne Marie Davis who helped complete the survey.

ENDNOTES ‘Sharon Anne Hogan, “Training and Education of Library Instruction Librarians,” Library Trends (Summer 1980): 105-125 Suzanne Byron, “Preparing to Teach in Cyberspace: User Education in Real and Virtual Libraries,” The Rejkence Librarian 51/52 (1995): 241-247. 3Mary Ellen Larson and Ellen Meltzer, “Education for Bibliographic Instruction,” Education&r Library and Injimnation Science 28 1 (Summer 1987): 9-16. 4Brigit Shea Sulloivan and Anne Marie Davis, “Education for Library Instruction, A 1996 Survey.” University of Maryland, 1996. 5Ronald R. Powell and Sheila D. Creth, “Knowledge Bases and Library Education,” College and Research Libraries 47 (January 1986): 16-27. 6Ronald R. Powell, “Sources of Professional Knowledge for Academic Librarians,” College and Research_Libmries 49 (July 1988): 332-3-M. 71bid. ‘Barbara J. Smith, “Background Characteristics and Education Needs of a Group of Instruction Librarians in Pennsylvania,” College and Research Libraries 43 (May 1982): 199-207. ‘Barbara Wittkopf, “Proflclencles for BI Librarians: Who Defines Them?” Research Strategies 8 (Summer 1990): 102-103. ‘OS. Galloway, “Nobody is Teaching the Teachers,” Bootlegger 3 (January/February 1976): 29-31. “Esther Dyer, “Formal Library Science Courses on Library Instruction,” Joumal of Educationfir Librarianship 18 (Spring 1978): 361. r2Larson, op cit.

Sullioan/Dnvis 277

%id. ‘%yron# up cit. “Diana Shonrock and Craig Mulder, “Instruction Librarians: Acquiring the Proficien- cies Critical to Their Work,” College and Research Libraries (March 1993): 137-149. IdHerbert S. White, “Bibliographic Instruction and the Library School Curriculum,” @maI OfEducationjbr Libray and Injbvnation Science 32 (Fall/Winter 1991): 194-202.

Herbert S. White, “Bibliographic Instruction and the Library School Curriculum,” pnal of Education@ Library and Iykmation Science 32 (Fall/Winter 1991): N-202. 71bid.

“C. Avery and K. Ketcher, “Do Instruction Skills Impress Employers,” College and Research Libraries 57 (May 1996): 249-253,2!56-258. ‘%ullivan, 0p cit. Tarson, op cit. 211bid.