Evaluation of Making It REAL!
NYLA 2006 Conference
Sponsored ProgramsStephen C. Maack
July 15, 2007
|
|
REAP Change Consultants |
This interim evaluation report for the Making It REAL! project evaluates one workshop and two sessions held on November 1 and 3, 2006 at the of the New York Library Association (NYLA) annual conference in Saratoga Springs, NY. Two of the presenters were current or former members of the grant external evaluation team and the facilitator of the second session is the author of this report. To reduce bias in the evaluation, the session surveys were written, the data collected and analyzed solely by the report author, the member of the overall evaluation team furthest removed from responsibilities for program delivery.
Library Services to Spanish Speakers Pre-Conference Workshop
Salvador Avila, Outreach Coordinator, Las Vegas – Clark County Library System, presented a three hour workshop using a low-key, informal, friendly style that won over the 13 people in the audience. He presented a great deal of factual information. This included statistics and explanation of variations within the Spanish speaking population related to country of origin and number of generations that families have been in the United States. He also stressed findings from market research about psychodemographic characteristics of the sub-groups within the target population. Finally, he presented information on values and hierarchies within the different Latino and Spanish Speaking sub-groups and implications of that for library services, and discussed linguistic concerns.
Demographic and Professional Characteristics of Audience. White, non-Hispanic females made up most of the audience. Only three women claimed much prior experience with Spanish-speaking communities, either from growing up Latina or in a Spanish speaking community, or providing library services to a Spanish-speaking community. The audience included 6 certified librarians, 5 library administrators, two MLIS students, one library school professor, and one library consultant.
General Workshop Ratings. General workshop ratings were exceptionally good, with 92% agreement or strong agreement on three measures, and 83% to 84% agreement or strong agreement on two others.
Workshop Strengths and Weaknesses. A major strength of the workshop was in the presenter’s personality and presentation approach. This included his knowledge as a librarian, his use of humor, interactive approaches, and anecdotes as well as presentation of statistical information. The audience viewed it as a weakness that there was not even more discussion of specifics such as resources, programs, or specific examples. In addition, there was not enough attention paid to Latino sub-groups found in New York, such as Puerto Ricans. This partly reflects the Mr. Avila’s Western experience.
Workshop Content and Knowledge Gains. All respondents strongly agreed (75%) or agreed (25%) that knowing what motivates Spanish speakers will help them serve the community better. About 58% strongly agreed that they learned at least one practical strategy that they could apply immediately to better serve Spanish-speaking communities. Only 36% strongly agreed, but an additional 27% agreed that the information on diversity within the Spanish-speaking community was helpful new information to them.
What Workshop Participants Learned. About 92% described a concept or approach such as the importance of providing “how to” information, using a personal approach beyond the normal arms-length librarian role. Others noted that English as a second language (ESL), immigration and jobs information are especially important to this community. Finally, an audience member noted that it is important to “transcreate” (communicate the meaning of) library related words rather than literally “translate” them.
Planned Future Actions. All but one strongly agreed or agreed that they would keep themselves informed about the community. One-third strongly agreed and one-quarter agreed that they felt ready to speak in their libraries about the needs of this community.
Evaluative Conclusions. Repeat the workshop, possibly in a longer format so more “nuts and bolts” pragmatic information could be included. Focus more on diversity within the Spanish speaking communities specifically found in New York State.
It Takes a Village: Partners in Creating a New Generation of Librarians.
Context. The original plan for this session was that the external evaluation team would present “best practices” and “lessons learned” from the grant experiences about “teaching libraries.” The evaluators had, however, uncovered few unusual or different teaching library and university interactions after the scholarship student recruitment phase. Therefore, Dr. Suzanne Stauffer, who had left employment on the evaluation team to become a Louisiana State University professor, instead prepared and presented a historical and theoretical paper about what an ideal relationship between “teaching libraries” and universities might look like. This was followed by an open discussion among the audience members and with Dr. Stauffer, facilitated by Dr. Maack.
Session Content. The paper first traced the development of library education and training since 1887 in libraries and library schools. She identified five conditions for a successful program of education and training that gives students practical exposure to library work as well as University academic exposure. She then laid out a “Teaching Library Model” with three feedback loops.
- Loop 1: Practical – the library to the student and the student to the library
- Loop 2: Principles – the library school to the student and the student to the library school
- Loop 3: Collaboration – the library school to the teaching library and the teaching library to the library school
The discussion after the presentation especially focused on loop 3 and practices in loop 2.
Demographic and Professional Characteristics of Audience. About 86% of the post-session survey respondents were female. While 65% were White, five were of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, 3 of mixed ethnicity, and one each identified themselves as African American, American Indian and Asian or Pacific Islander. Two were disabled.
Just under two-thirds were Library school Master’s degree students, mostly from the Making It REAL! program. About 23% of the audience were library/library system administrators, 13% were certified Librarians, two were library school faculty, one person was a library consultant. Although the grant program coordinator had specifically invited Making It REAL! partners, only five of those in attendance (including the two faculty) represented program partners. Including the students, 25 of the 31 survey respondents (81%) had a prior relationship to the Making It REAL! program.
General Session Ratings. Although raters were more likely to “agree” than “strongly agree,” 97% of the audience indicated that participants’ questions were addressed effectively, 96% that Dr. Stauffer, was knowledgeable, and 90% that she related information clearly. Over three-quarters improved their content knowledge of teaching libraries. The session did not have a very pragmatic focus. Only 52% felt they understood the “library service needs” of the communities discussed, and only 50% better understood tools, resources or approaches to serving those needs.
What Session Participants Learned. The professional librarian, administrators, and faculty audience especially noted the need for more interaction between library schools and libraries. In addition to gaining a historical perspective, students indicated an interest in the possible kinds of collaboration that might take place among libraries and universities in regards to their practical as well as conceptual education.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the “It Takes a Village” Session. Students especially appreciated the historical background presented and the presenter’s knowledge. Other people in the audience especially appreciated the collaboration model presented and the discussion at the end of the session.
Students were especially critical of the presenter for not having a PowerPoint or a handout. Other audience members criticized the presentation style (reading the paper), felt it took too long to get to the point, and expected a different session.
Audience Opinions about Teaching Libraries. The historical information about teaching libraries was new to many in the audience, including most Making It REAL! participants. About 71% of the students and half of the partners, as well as half of other participants had not previously known about the history of teaching libraries.
Only audience members who had a prior relationship to the Making It REAL! program perceived themselves as involved in any kind of a “Teaching Library” situation. For the most part that involvement has only been with feedback loop 1 or 2. Few are involved with feedback loop 3 kinds of relationships.
Students see themselves mostly as involved in library school (feedback loop 2), with many not in internships yet, or else in library school and also gaining practical experience in a library (feedback loop 1), but in ways disconnected from library school experiences. Only one or two audience members indicated current or previous involvement with a feedback loop 3 kind of situation in which teaching libraries and library schools would collaboratively approach teaching, research, and professional development/continuing education.
About 82% of respondents, including 100% of Making It REAL! partner representatives and 73% of the scholarship students, agreed that the teaching library model is still relevant today. About 84% of respondents, including 100% of grant partner representatives and 83% of Making It REAL! scholarship students agreed on the feasibility of the model presented in Stauffer’s paper.
Both students and partners focused mostly on benefits of the model to students. Few mentioned the potential benefits to library staff in terms of continuing education or library schools in terms of cooperative interaction with practicing librarians and curricular improvements. Again, the focus is on feedback loops 1 and 2, not 3.
Evaluative Conclusions. This was the least successful of the three sessions at NYLA 2006, with mixed results. It attracted a diverse audience, consisting mostly of students, some practicing librarians, and few faculty. Making It REAL! students but not partners came. The changed focus of the session was confusing. The presenter failed to provide handouts or a PowerPoint. However, the presentation fostered good discussion, provided a historical perspective new to many, confirmed a commitment to teaching libraries, and laid out a new teaching library model. Most present felt the new model was feasible and recognized the desirability of closer university-teaching library collaboration.
Diversity, Libraries and Community: Windows and Mirrors to Your World.
Content. UCLA Associate Professor Clara Chu, an internationally recognized expert on diversity in librarianship, gave a PowerPoint presentation on diversity and took questions.
Demographic and Professional Characteristics of Audience. About 50 attended – more than at most NYLA sessions, including 77% females, 23% males, with only 64% White. About 42% were certified librarians, 20% library administrators, 22% students.
General Session Ratings. With exceptional ratings, 91% to 100% agreed or strongly agreed that they improved their content knowledge, would recommend the program to others, and that the presenter was knowledgeable and relayed information clearly. About 70% to 73% felt they better understood the library needs of the community and tools and approached to serving the community.
What Participants Learned. The audience said they learned that everyone is prejudiced in some fashion, even unintentionally, and that we should try to become aware of and act on reducing prejudice. Masters degree students summarized the concepts of respect for others, and knowing, caring, and acting on one’s own prejudices. The certified librarians also brought out the importance of interpersonal interactions toward change and transformation, and ways to change libraries as organizations by working with individuals. The library administrators focused on open mindedness, learning from one another, and that leaders must set the direction toward diversity and involve staff in addressing it.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the “Diversity, Library and Community” Session. Professor Chu, her presentation and discussion styles got the most positive comments, Some mentioned her research based, philosophical points and intellectual framework. Weaknesses were mostly that people wanted even more pragmatic information – facts and figures about diverse groups, specific cultural information, examples of interactions in a library setting or in libraries, administrative policies that might be put into place – than Dr. Chu provided.
Evaluative Comments about the “Diversity, Library ad Community” Session. This was the best session of the three. There was insufficient time to provide more examples.
Future Programs.
Audiences wanted more, longer programs related to diversity and specific diverse groups, with more pragmatic information. The evaluator recommends greater involvement of NYLA as a membership organization of library practitioners in identifying programs and speakers, and more use of outside speakers who aren’t also grant program evaluators for the sponsoring grant.
This is an interim formative evaluation report to the New York State Library (NYSL) concerning the program Making It REAL! Recruitment, Education and Learning: Creating a New Generation of Librarians to Serve All New Yorkers. The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) funded the program in 2004 under its Librarians for the 21st Century program (Award Number RE-01-04-0053-04), with $995,630 of IMLS funds and a state match of $645,058. The purpose of the grant program is to recruit and educate a next generation of librarians in such a way that diversity in the profession will be increased and new librarians will be well prepared to serve diverse populations. The New York State Library, library systems throughout the state (“Teaching Libraries”) and New York State schools of library and information science, along with the New York Library Association (NYLA), formed a partnership to carry out such a plan. Together the Teaching Libraries and library schools have awarded scholarships funded by the grant to recruit and educate professional librarians, and cultivate a diverse new workforce that is well prepared to serve community needs, especially those of diverse groups and special populations. The library systems and library schools are expected to build strong partnerships and develop new means of collaboration to develop new strategies and alternatives for library education. The Making It REAL! grant also provides funding for NYLA to provide programs at its annual conference related to diversity and other grant related concerns.
Figure 1. Making It REAL! Presentations at NYLA 2006
Session Type |
Topic |
Presenters and Titles |
Date and Time |
Continuing Education Pre-Conference Session CE C |
Library Services to Spanish Speakers |
Salvador Avila Community Outreach/ Adult Services Coordinator, Las Vegas-Clark County Library District, Nevada |
Wednesday, |
Presentation and Discussion |
It Takes a village: Partners in Creating a New Generation of Librarians |
Presenter: Dr. Suzanne M. Stauffer, Assistant Professor, Library and Information Science, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge Discussion Facilitator: Dr. Stephen C. Maack, Owner and Lead Consultant, REAP Change Consultants |
Friday, |
Presentation and Discussion |
Diversity, Libraries and Community: Windows and Mirrors to Your World |
Dr. Clara Chu, |
Friday, |
The New York State Library provided grant funding for three such programs at the NYLA 2006 Annual Conference held in Saratoga Springs, NY from November 1 to 4, 2006, as listed in Figure 1. All three programs were shown in the Annual Conference Final Program as sponsored by the Making It REAL! grant given to NYLA and by the New York State Library. In addition, NYSL took out a one-third page ad that highlighted the three sessions in both the preliminary and the final programs of the conference.
It should be noted at the outset of this evaluation that two of the three presenters, Dr. Stauffer and Dr. Chu, as well as the facilitator of the Friday morning discussion, Dr. Maack, have constituted the REAP Change Consultants external evaluation team for the Making It REAL! project. Dr. Stauffer left employment on the evaluation team in early June, 2006 because of her new position as an Assistant Professor in the School of Library and Information Science at Louisiana State University (Baton Rouge). She had previously been asked by Mary Linda Todd, Making It REAL! Project Manager, and Dr. Maack to present at the NYLA 2006 conference, and agreed to still do so as an independent contractor with REAP Change Consultants. Dr. Chu also serves on the REAP Change evaluation team as an independent contractor and is internationally known as an expert on diversity. Mary Linda Todd asked her to do a presentation at the Friday afternoon session similar to one that she had done in June 2005 for Making It REAL! grant partners.
In order to maintain more objectivity and a more arms-length evaluation of the NYLA 2006 Making It REAL! funded programs, Dr. Maack limited his direct program involvement to facilitating the discussion after Dr. Stauffer’s presentation, and otherwise handled the creation of a program evaluation survey, collection of survey data after each session, and writing of this report without input from others on the evaluation team. Both Drs. Chu and Maack were present at Salvador Avila’s continuing education workshop and Clara Chu completed one of the evaluation surveys as a member of the audience. Dr. Chu also heard Dr. Stauffer speak and may have completed an evaluation survey. The Making It REAL! Program Manager, Mary Linda Todd, also attended all three sessions and completed the evaluation surveys. The responses of these individuals introduce only a slight bias in the results, and their responses are given no greater weight than those of any other audience member. Dr. Maack did not complete any evaluation survey at any of the sessions but attended all three sessions. Because of the possibility of conflicts of interest influencing the NYLA 2006 evaluation, this report will include full disclosure of all comments, as well as presentation and discussion of the quantitative findings below.
Any faults with the NYLA 2006 evaluation and this report are those of Dr. Maack alone. One egregious, unintended, and profoundly embarrassing mistake was his failure to include “African American” as a check-off category in the question on ethnicity. By visual inspection there were no African Americans at the Wednesday continuing education session. No one commented on the error until it was brought to Dr. Maack’s attention by an African American Making It REAL! scholarship student at the end of the Friday morning session. At that point Dr. Maack immediately publicly admitted and apologized for his inadvertent mistake and orally encouraged any African Americans at that session and the next one to specify their ethnicity using the “Other (Specify)” category. He also asked people at the afternoon session to use the “Other (Specify)” to indicate African American status. It is not clear how this affected responses on that question.
At least thirteen people (including the evaluator, Dr. Chu, and Mary Linda Todd) attended the pre-conference workshop that Salvador Avila gave at the NYLA 2006 conference, titled “Library Services to Spanish Speakers: A Cultural Awareness and Best Practices Workshop.” According to NYLA Executive Director Michael Borges, pre-conference workshops usually attract 10 to 20 people, so this workshop had a low to average attendance. Mr. Avila is the Outreach Coordinator, Las Vegas – Clark County Library system and has previously presented on this topic. He used a handout that included statistics on Hispanics/Latinos and talked about differences among Spanish speakers. The handout information included findings from private sector market research on psychodemographics of different Latino sub-groups. He also talked about cultural values and hierarchies among Hispanics/Latinos and related these to considerations of providing library programs to this part of a community. Through the use of anecdotes and examples he indicated a number of successful approaches to providing library services to Latinos, primarily the first or second generation immigrant, low-income portion of the population (who are most likely to be Spanish speakers). He concluded with a listing of five steps required to successfully reach out to provide library services to Hispanics/Latinos:
- Justify entry into Spanish speaking community.
- Ensure that there is management and internal support.
- Attend cultural awareness/diversity training.
- Develop metrics and goals to succeed.
- Build long term relationship with Spanish speaking community.
He also stressed “The three individual ‘R’s’: Reset, Reveal & Respect.”
Throughout the session Mr. Avila used various techniques to obtain audience participation in the workshop, in addition to encouraging everyone to ask questions at any time. For example, he would periodically ask a factual or information question and then give a small prize from materials that he had brought for that purpose to the person who came up with the correct, closest to correct, or “best” answer. At one point he got a volunteer from the audience to try to balance a feather on her finger in order to make a point. Mr. Avila also effectively used humor in his workshop in a way that appeared to engage the audience. The non-verbal responses of the workshop attendees and their gradually becoming more forthcoming and open with questions indicated that the presenter was winning over his audience through his presentation and personality.
“Library Services to Spanish Speakers” Workshop Evaluation Survey Results
Twelve members of the audience completed a survey at the end of the “Library Services to Spanish Speakers” workshop.
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents. The workshop audience was not itself very diverse but typical of the New York State (and national) library profession – mostly composed of White females. Eleven of the survey respondents identified themselves as female, and Mr. Avila and the author of this report were the only males in the room during most of the workshop1Michael Borges, NYLA Executive Director, was in the room during a portion of the workshop according to his self-report and observation by the workshop evaluator.He is not counted in the statistics given above and below since he was not present throughout the entire workshop and did not complete a workshop evaluation survey.. The majority of survey respondents identified themselves as “White” (75%) with one Latina, one woman of “Mixed Race/Ethnicity” and one who preferred not to specify her ethnicity. The Latina had in fact identified her background through her questions and comments during the workshop. She provided an additional Latino/a perspective to what Mr. Avila presented, often underlining his comments and occasionally disagreeing.
Professional Status of Respondents. The survey provided a series of check-off categories for respondents to use in identifying their work or student statuses in multiple ways. The results indicated that the workshop participants were mostly in positions that would potentially enable them to apply what they learned as certified librarians or library administrators. The 12 respondents included five (5) administrators of libraries/library systems/or NY State Library, three (3) who were also certified librarians or information professionals. In all, there were six (6) certified librarians or information professionals (the three who were administrators and three others). Two Masters degree students who were studying library or information science attended, one of whom specified that she was also a library paraprofessional. In addition, there were one (1) library school faculty member and one (1) library consultant who responded to the survey.
By and large the workshop reached eight or nine people who had not been directly involved with the Making It REAL! grant program prior to the workshop. None of the workshop attendees indicated that they were Making It REAL! scholarship students or worked as staff, administrators or faculty members in a grant partner organization.2However, as noted earlier, survey respondents are known to have included a Making It REAL! grant administrator and evaluator.It is possible that one of the students was a Making It REAL! scholarship recipient but did not identify herself as such. One scholarship recipient indicated later during the conference that she had intended to come to the workshop, but could not in the end do so because she arriving too late by car
Figure 2. General Ratings of Library Services to Spanish Speakers Workshop
General Ratings of “Library Services to Spanish Speakers.” The first survey question asked respondents to rate the workshop on seven categories. As shown in Figure 2, two-thirds of the respondents strongly agreed that they had improved their content knowledge about the topics covered, and that the presenter had relayed information clearly. In fact, all respondents either strongly agreed or agreed on these points, making them the highest rated items, overall. Three-quarters (75%) of the respondents strongly agreed and 17% agreed that the presenter was knowledgeable, participants’ questions and concerns were addressed effectively, and that they would recommend the program to others. The combined totals of 92% on these ratings are exceptionally good.
About 84% of respondents “strongly agree’ or “agree” that they have a better understanding of the library service needs of communities discussed in this session than they did before attending it. The worst response on this item was a neutral “neither agree nor disagree” At least two of the respondents are known to have come into the session already having a great deal of knowledge about the Hispanic/Latino community and how libraries might serve them and one indicated during the workshop that she had a substantial amount of direct experience providing service to Hispanics at her library.
While feeling that they had gained a better understanding of the library services needs of the Spanish speaking library community, workshop participants were slightly less certain that they had a better understanding of tools, resources, or approaches to serving the library needs of that community. The overall rating was quite positive (83% “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” with the statement), but only one-quarter strongly agreed – and one person disagreed that they had a better knowledge of tools, resources, or approaches.
What Workshop Participants Learned. Survey respondents were asked to “Please describe briefly one concept or approach that you learned from this program.” Eleven out of 12 (92%) of the respondents were able to describe concepts or approaches that were, in fact, presented in the workshop. The open-ended responses are shown below, roughly organized by topical areas.
That Spanish speakers want to know how to do things. Librarians must have immediate answers -- & personal help – not just point to a book.
Providing “how to” information and a more personal approach to establish a relationship with members of the community.
Reaching out to the “family,” keeping in mind the latino patron may be seeking direct-at-the-moment problem solving.
The idea that a 1st generation person may want actual advice rather than a referral – How to incorporate library use into the advice.
About being more than just a librarian.
ESL, Immigration, + Jobs are most important issues for the community. They want more personal interaction and advice.
That offering how-to/survival-based information is important to new immigrants + Spanish speakers.
1) Length of time to successfully implement new services to Spanish Speakers. 2) FEAR – good reminder + very timely.
Translation vs. transcreation
Transcreation
The last concept refers to use of language, in Spanish, that gets across the concept of the library and its services rather than trying to do a literal translation or to simply use English words. Some English words have different meanings in Spanish. Spanish speakers who are new immigrants to the United States3Early in the workshop Mr. Avila drew distinctions among different sub-groups in the Hispanic population, contrasting foreign-born Latinos (or new immigrants) with native-born Latinos.Drawing on market segmentation research he also distinguished a) most first-generation in the United States immigrants in heavily Hispanic inner-city neighborhoods who prefer Spanish and have "fully Hispanic values" ; from b) U.S. born or long-term resident acculturated, often bilingual Latinos living in suburbs or multi-ethnic neighborhoods but with a strong attachment to Hispanic tradition; and from c) fourth generation or beyond assimilated Latinos living in suburban or mostly Anglo neighborhoods whose language preference is English and who seldom use Spanish even with friends/families (and hardly ever consume consumer media in Spanish). are especially likely to have different or no experiences of libraries in their native lands and to not be aware of the free public library tradition here. Many of the workshop participant comments listed above refer to the first-generation-in-the-United-States portion of the Hispanic/Latino community, and to a lesser extent some of the acculturated (but not assimilated) sub-group. The comments above also reflect a growing awareness on the part of these mostly practicing librarians and library administrators of not just assuming that teaching someone where things are in the library and how to access them will be sufficient. Rather, Avila focused the attention of the workshop on the need to understand the starting cultural assumptions of the Latino population, and the need for librarians to understand that the library clients from the immigrant community in particular may view the library as a place of experts who provide direct, specific advice the way a doctor or lawyer might. Several of the workshop participants struggled with this concept since they were more used to pointing out where and how to find advice rather than offering advice themselves. Avila reassured the workshop participants that even just offering personal empathy and sharing their own experiences (or that of their friends) would help meet the perceived need for/expectation of “direct assistance”. At the same time the librarian could act professionally by pointing out that more information that others had found useful and where such resources were.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Workshop. Questions 3 and 4 were, respectively, “What are the weaknesses of the presentation or its contents? What might be missing?” and “What are the strengths of the presentation or its contents?”
The strengths of the workshop that workshop participants emphasized were:
The speaker
Dynamic. Informative. Subjective. Non-Judgemental.
Humor, vitality, authentic.
The interaction – audience participation.
Interactive, humor, resources used
Informal, many anecdotes
The ability of the presenter to elicit participation / comments about content that librarians sometimes feel shy about.
Personal knowledge of Spanish speaking community culture and of library work.
Practical, first-hand experiences, community knowledge.
Understanding cultural characteristics of the community –
Statistics + charts + info from a variety of resources.
The first six responses relate to the personality and often informal presentation style of Salvador Avila himself. He worked hard to win over the workshop audience as people, and the workshop participants warmed to him over time, opening up and becoming more interactive as the workshop progressed. The workshop participants also appreciated his knowledge of the Spanish speaking community, and ability to clearly share that knowledge both through statistics and anecdotes that kept the presentation from being just a dry reading of a set of statistics. The evaluator noticed a nice pacing and alternating of materials and presentation approaches that helped keep the workshop participants interested and engaged in what was being communicated.
The weaknesses specifically mentioned were these:
Would be helpful to have more specifics in terms of resources, programs, library design, hours, signage for this community.
More specific examples of what to do.
I was expecting nuts and bolts of a program or programs carried out in his library.
Inclusion of Puerto Rican population as subgroup could be stronger.
It needed more inner-city practical issues.
Could be longer – much material to cover, both related to cultural concepts as well as programming, services, etc.
Time.
Could be a full-day workshop.
Two people didn’t respond to the question on weaknesses, and two gave answers of “?” and “I can’t think of any” response.
Considering the above comments on weaknesses, part of the less favorable reaction in the ratings on this question is that some in the audience appeared to expect, and did not receive practical tools, such as a Spanish language bibliography of helpful sources. While Avila pointed out the importance of librarians understanding the need for “how to” information for the Spanish speaking and Hispanic/Latino community, and did discuss specific examples from his experience, he did not offer direct help to the librarians in the form of a bibliography or discussion of where to find appropriate Spanish language materials dealing with the issues identified as most important to the community. As some respondents indicated, part of the problem had to do with the length of the workshop.
Workshop Content, Knowledge Gained and Anticipated Follow-up. Question 6 had eight measures related to opinions of knowledge gained and anticipated use or follow-up on workshop contents. The first five of these measures examined knowledge changes and clarity of presentation of statistical information. The ratings are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Ratings of Knowledge Changes after “Library Services to Spanish Speakers” Workshop
About three-quarters of the respondents strongly agreed and the rest agreed that knowing what motivates Spanish speakers will help them serve the community better and that the non-library scientific research and statistical information was presented in a clear, understandable way. These are the content areas in which individuals were most likely to have gained content information.
The workshop participants were generally positive about each of the other three knowledge change statements shown in Figure 3, but were more likely to “agree” than “strongly agree” with them. At most one person disagreed with each of the other statements, none strongly disagreed, and only one to three were neutral about any of the other statements. Among those three statements the workshop did best in terms of relaying at least one practical strategy that participants could apply immediately to better serve local Hispanic Americans and Latinos (58% strongly agree). While almost all were positive, 42% each of the respondents “strongly agree” that they better understood the cultural characteristics of Spanish speakers. It is not known what the starting level of knowledge of Spanish speakers was, but only three of the respondents (only one of whom did not have a Hispanic cultural heritage) indicated by their questions or comments during the workshop that they had a deep knowledge of Spanish speakers. It is in this area and in provision of more practical strategies that more time might have resulted in a better workshop. While 36% of the respondents “strongly agree” the diversity within the Hispanic community was helpful new information to them, 27% each agreed or were neutral on the matter. Again it is not known for sure what the starting knowledge of the group was about Hispanics/Latinos.
Workshop participant agreement that they planned future actions are shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Planned Future Actions after the “Library Services to Spanish Speakers” Workshop
The workshop certainly encouraged or reinforced participants to keep themselves informed about new or innovative ways to provide effective library service to Hispanics/Latinos (half “strongly agree” and half “agree” on this point), and all but one person also strongly agree (50%) or agree (42%) that they will keep themselves informed about local and national trends concerning this community. Of course, just by paying money to attend the workshop the participants might have been predisposed in this direction. While it was not a specific goal of the workshop to prepare participants to speak to other about the library needs of Spanish speaking communities, one-third “strongly agreed” that they were ready to do so, one-third were neutral on the matter, and one-quarter “agreed” that they were ready. Only one person disagreed. The workshop therefore might have a side effect of creating advocates speaking out to their libraries, Councils, Systems, or University concerning library services to Spanish speakers.
How Could the Workshop Improve or be Made More Relevant? Eight of the 12 survey respondents answered this open-ended question with the following comments:
A more "in-tune" speaker
many Latino citizens of my community are on Welfare. Not addressed.
More locally-based. Bring speaker to Long Island.
Tie it into other initiatives -- such as Every child ready to read
nuts and bolts with respect to program(s) offered in the library for latinos.
More specifics in programs to offer.
longer, more content
I am in library school (and work as a paraprofessional in an academic library) so this was not immediately relevant to my daily work, but essential to my preparation for future work - especially in terms of hitting the ground running.
The tenor of most of the suggestions for improvement harkens back to the presentation weaknesses of not having enough “nuts and bolts,” programming kinds of information that related specifically to the Hispanic/Latino sub-groups found in local libraries in different parts of New York State. The suggestions indicate not so much that the presenter did a poor job – indeed, many of the ratings indicate that he did a good to excellent job – as that the workshop was not focused enough on local New York library situations and specifics of library programs.
Evaluative Conclusions about the “Library Services to Spanish Speakers” Workshop.
The workshop was generally well-received although it attracted only about a dozen conference attendees. The informal, varied, sometimes humorous presentation style of the personable presenter and interactive involvement of the workshop participants worked well with this audience. The content was perceived as informative but insufficient, in that not enough practical information and examples were provided that could be immediately acted on in varied local New York settings.
The author of this evaluation report has experience both with the New York City and Los Angeles area Spanish speaking communities and concurs with the workshop participant who mentioned that the workshop might have served the needs of New York State librarians better if it had been focused more on the Puerto Rican (and other Spanish speaking) populations most frequently found in New York State. East Coast Hispanics differ in country of immigration and in other culturally specific ways from those in the West. Mr. Avila works in Nevada and clearly has experience with the variety of Latinos found in the Western portion of the United States, who are predominantly Mexican and Central or South American in origin. The Spanish Speaking community in New York State is more likely to include Puerto Ricans (who are rare in the Western part of the United States), Dominicans, Salvadorans, and other groups from Latin America. While Mr. Avila talked about diversity within the Spanish speaking community, his examples and approach did not deal very much with the diversity among Spanish speakers from different national backgrounds relevant to the eastern seaboard.
Part of the problem of designing a program focused on serving the library needs of the Spanish speaking community in New York State is the great range of ethnic variability within the state. Spanish speakers are quite numerous in some parts of the state, especially in the greater New York City area, and less prevalent in other parts. Upstate New York has a number of prisons and in some rural areas of upstate New York librarians might only be encountering Spanish speakers as prison inmates, agricultural workers, or as individual or small numbers of families. It is infrequent to find whole neighborhoods of Spanish speakers in that part of New York. In the New York City area, on the other hand, Spanish speakers will hold a variety of jobs, include people from a variety of classes, and in some areas be the predominant residents of a neighborhood, or an important part of the neighborhood population. It would be difficult to design a workshop to satisfy the need for “nuts and bolts” information on how to serve this wide a variety of library clients.
Another problem for the workshop would be the variety of different kinds and sizes of libraries and library systems potentially represented in any NYLA conference audience. A greater focus on inner-city problems (suggested by one workshop participant) would have been especially appropriate for librarians and library administrators working in upper Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx, but then would not have been appropriate for Staten Island or upstate New York librarians and library administrators (including those in rural areas). Mr. Avila did provide several examples of how librarians can work directly with Spanish speaking clients seeking specific information, although the workshop attendees apparently hoped for even more such examples.
If this type of workshop is repeated, more time might be allotted to it so as to allow the presenter sufficient time to cover not only the type of information presented in this workshop, but also more “nuts and bolts” information relevant to library programming and services for different kinds of Hispanic and Latino communities. The diversity within the Hispanic/Latino community would justify an expanded, more immediately pragmatic, and New York State focused workshop in the future. Given sufficient additional time, a speaker might be able to tease out more fully class or income level differences among Hispanic/Latino library clients and how that affects library service delivery. Mr. Avila was very well received as a presenter. In the future either Salvador Avila might be used again as a presenter, but asked to learn more about and focus more on the New York State Hispanic/Latino situation, or a different speaker who is already more knowledgeable about the New York library situation, including inner city service to Hispanics, might be used.
The second Making It REAL! sponsored event at NYLA 2006 took place on Friday morning, November 3, 2006 starting at 8:00 a.m. and lasting to about 9:15 a.m., followed by Making It REAL! grant evaluation focus groups from 9:30 to 10:45 a.m. Over 31 people showed up for the “It Takes a Village” session. This good turnout was partly an artifact of there being a continental breakfast and the grant program manager announcing to scholarship students that she would pass out the forms for travel expense reimbursement forms at the end of the session. The evaluation team had signed up people for three focus groups with Making It REAL! scholarship students and one with partners that started immediately following the main session, which might also have helped increase attendance. The main session consisted of a paper presentation by Dr. Suzanne Stauffer, followed by an open discussion between audience members and Dr. Stauffer, facilitated by Dr. Maack. All three members of the original REAP Change evaluation team and the NYSL grant manager were present, and Dr. Chu and Mary Linda Todd may have responded to the anonymous main session survey.
The participation of the lead evaluator and a former member of the REAP Change evaluation team in this session with the agreement of the grant manager is consistent with the formative nature of this part of the evaluation.
Session Context and Prior Making It REAL! Evaluation Findings. The original thought for this session was that the evaluation team would share what it had learned from the partners about cooperation and interaction between “teaching libraries” and Universities, picking out “best practices” in such collaboration. While the Making It REAL! program has provided important financial support to students and assisted students in attending both the 2005 and 2006 NYLA conferences, and stated expectations that a new model for a “Teaching Library” would emerge from the program, it let both the library schools and its “teaching library” partners decide how to structure their relationships with one another as well as with the scholarship recipients. A new “teaching library” model was expected to emerge as a result of the organizational interactions and changes.
However, when talking to partners, reviewing partner evaluation plans, analyzing a student survey done in summer 2006,4The final report on this survey is dated February 27, 2007 and as of May 24, 2007 is posted online at http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/libdev/imls/survey/survey06.htm .While the final report was not completed until well after the NYLA conference the evaluation team had examined preliminary data from the survey before NYLA 2006 and found that most students were unaware of any collaboration or interactions going on between their library schools, most of which were also grant partners, and "Teaching Libraries" - grant partners or other libraries, except for internship placement. and reviewing progress reports,5A few more examples surfaced during interviews and focus groups held during the conference.These will be discussed in the final evaluation report. the evaluators had been unable to identify much cooperation at all between library school and “teaching library” partners after the recruitment phase of the grant As of late summer/early fall 2006 there appeared to be little communication among partners of any sort (most communications went between NYSL and the partners awarding scholarships and back to NYSL), and evaluators had identified no new model for a “Teaching Library.” There were only scattered instances of any collaboration or contact at all between library school and “teaching library” partners concerning students, and the latter always seemed to instigate what little there was. One Making It REAL! “teaching library” partner had involved library school faculty from the school where the scholarship student would go on the committee selecting its scholarship recipient. It maintained some contact with the library school faculty and administrators while the student was there but did not elaborate much on the nature of that contact even when asked. Another small, rural Teaching Library system had stated in its own evaluation plan that it intended to try to get a University to add more courses related to small and rural librarianship to its online offerings, but had not acted on that plan. No library school partner even mentioned specific plans to work with libraries or practicing librarians other than through their normal internship placement processes.
The Summer 2006 student survey revealed that 97% of the scholarship recipients had academic advisors, but “Teaching Library” scholarship recipients were significantly more likely to be those with librarians mentors that they didn’t already have before starting the program. Those Making It REAL! students with scholarships awarded by library schools had by Summer 2006 mostly not gone on required internships and apparently did not expect to have new mentorship relationships with practicing librarians before their internships. When asked directly in the survey, almost all the students were not aware of interactions taking place between their professors and “Teaching Library” partners. Some of the Making It REAL! students with University awarded scholarships asked what a “Teaching Library” was, and others simply assumed that would be a library where they would do an internship. Only one “Teaching Library” scholarship recipient reported help from a professor in getting a software license placed on her work computer at no cost so that she could do required work for a class on her employer’s computer.
On the other hand, the Summer 2006 student survey yielded two complaints from students that indicated a lack of good relationships between a University and a library. One Teaching Library scholarship student reported having difficulty with her School District in getting unpaid leave time to complete the fieldwork experience needed for her library degree. A University award recipient complained about a University not accommodating her when she has trouble obtaining time off from teaching to do required fieldwork. While such problems might have occurred anyway, the student comments implied that they were on their own in resolving the issues – the University Library Schools and the libraries were not reported as actively involved in discussions toward a resolution. This is not what the evaluators expected to hear if Universities and teaching libraries were collaborating to provide a good educational experience for the students.
Therefore, any presentation about “best practices” in library school-library collaboration would have been very brief, not very informative, and possibly negative based on what was known as Dr. Stauffer started work on her paper. After discussion among the evaluation team members,6The Making It REAL! program manager was not involved with these discussions, which was probably a tactical error on the part of the evaluators. Dr. Stauffer decided to write and present a more historical and theoretical paper about “teaching libraries” and library-University interaction in the United States and develop a model herself about what an ideal “Teaching Library” – University collaboration might look like. While this ran the risk of evaluators leading rather than evaluating program development it seemed to be the more positive and pro-active stance to take, especially since Dr. Stauffer was no longer a REAP Change employee.
The paper was not available for broad distribution during the session but was made available to New York State Library shortly after NYLA 2006 and sent to those who requested it. Dr. Maack had received a draft copy of the paper from Dr. Stauffer and was able to ask lead evaluation questions in the session survey that would provide additional information both for the overall evaluation and for the evaluation of the session itself.
Content of the “It Takes a Village” Presentation. During the “It Takes a Village” session Dr. Stauffer first presented a history of the “teaching library” concept, which dates back to before the first library school opened in 1887. She traced developments in library school/library relationships over time, providing multiple examples of how these were structured. She concluded with a summary of “conditions necessary for a successful program that incorporates both education and application, whether called ‘practical work,’ ‘field work,’ ‘internship,’ or ‘teaching library’ ” and then proposed a Teaching Library model conceived of as three types of feedback loops. At the end of the session there was a good discussion among the audience members and with the speaker as to the advisability and feasibility of the third type of collaborative interaction.
The conditions for a successful program that gives practical as well as University academic exposure to library school students are these, according to Stauffer (2006):
Conditions necessary for a successful program
- Minimum course completion requirements for students so that they have the necessary background to fully benefit from the program
- Minimum standards for participating libraries, including adequate professional and support staff in order to assign qualified and interested individuals to teaching duties, adequate collections that support continuing professional education, and the flexibility to make teaching a priority
- Active and willing participation of librarians and library faculty, including supervision of the student, regular progress reports and regular meetings
- Opportunities for the student to observe and participate in all phases of library work in a variety of libraries and so apply the principles and processes learned in coursework
- Financial support for the student
Stauffer (2006) describes a “Teaching Library” model as involving three kinds of feedback loops. It is the opinion of Dr. Maack that the collaboration of Universities and libraries in the manner specified in the third feedback loop would constitute a new “Teaching Library” approach and that the paper presents a framework for analyzing University-“teaching library” partner interactions in the final evaluation report to see whether they are replicating old patterns (as in the first two loops) or truly creating a new type of “Teaching Library.”
The Teaching Library Model
This model involves students, librarians, and library school faculty in an active reciprocal relationship, with each providing feedback to and influencing the others. It incorporates the traditional internship and mentoring programs, but goes beyond these to include librarians in the classroom and in curriculum development and library faculty in the library. It consists of three feedback loops:
Loop 1: Practical – the library to the student and the student to the library
This loop is primarily concerned with providing an opportunity for the student to practice the principles which have been learned. The library provides:
Internship programs which incorporate experience performing tasks, formal and informal mentoring, and formal training through workshops.
Intern-led projects and programs that improve library services, developed in collaboration with the librarians and library school faculty.
Research site for student projects, theses and dissertations
Financial support: paid internship, funds for library association membership, attendance at library association and other conferences, etc.
Loop 2 : Principles – the library school to the student and the student to the library school
This loop is primarily concerned with teaching principles, processes, and concepts. The school provides:
Curricular support, including appropriate courses and internship program
Collaborate in the development of projects and programs for the teaching library
Provide opportunities for independent study, research projects, theses, and dissertations through outreach to teaching libraries
Faculty advisors collaborate with librarian mentors in developing individual internship goals and objectives
Financial support: tuition remission, funds for research, etc.
Loop 3 : Collaboration – the library school to the teaching library and the teaching library to the library school
Collaboration in teaching:
Librarians serve as adjunct faculty
Faculty invite librarians from the teaching library to speak to classes
Faculty and librarians collaborate in the development of workshops and other training programs for the teaching library
Faculty collaborate with librarians in developing internship goals and objectives
Librarians provide feedback on the curriculum, including developing teaching and training manuals
Librarians serve on appropriate faculty committees, such as mentoring, recruitment and accreditation review
Collaboration in research:
Faculty and librarians collaborate in the development of student interns' projects and programs for the teaching library
Collaboratively develop opportunities for independent study, research projects, theses, and dissertations for students and faculty
Faculty and librarians develop joint research projects, including grant-funded
Collaboration in professional development/continuing education:
Library school offers continuing education series
Librarians present workshops and short courses
Librarians and faculty participate actively in the alumni association
Librarians conduct job interview on campus
Library school serves as clearinghouse for job announcements, etc.
In the absence of any evaluative criteria or more specific examples of new “Teaching Library best practices” emerging from partner interactions, REAP Change Consultants will be using Dr. Stauffer’s theoretical model to organize and discuss partner collaboration in the final evaluation report.
“It Takes a Village” Session Evaluation Survey Results
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents. The “It Takes a Village” session audience was more diverse than at the Library Services to Spanish Speakers workshop partly because of the presence of many Making It REAL! students (who are themselves a diverse group of people). Thirty-one (31) session attendees who completed an evaluation survey at the end of the presentation and discussion, 29 indicated their genders. Typical of NY State librarians and U.S. librarianship in general, 86% were female (with four males, besides the author of this report, in attendance). Two were disabled. When allowed to check multiple ethnicity statuses, one person each identified herself or himself as African American, American Indian, and Asian or Pacific Islander, five indicated Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, three (3) indicated they were of mixed race or ethnicity, and one preferred not to answer the question. Just under two-thirds (65%) indicated that they are White. The latter statistic is much lower than in the New York State library community as a whole and most likely lower than the proportion of Whites at the NYLA 2006 conference.
Professional Status of Respondents. The survey provided a series of check-off categories for respondents to use in identifying their work or student statuses. About 23% (7 people) were library/library system administrators, 13% (4 people) were certified Librarian or Information Professionals, 7% (2 people) were Library School faculty members, 3% (1 person) was a library consultant and 3% (1 person) checked “other” and specified “currently employed by a library system.”
Just under two-thirds (20 respondents) were Library/Information Studies School Master’s degree students. Of the 20 students, 18 (95%) were Making It REAL! scholarship students, and one (5%) was a Library School Master’s degree student who was employed by a Making It REAL! partner organization, but was not a scholarship recipient. Although this is not certain, the other Library School student apparently had no particular connection with the grant program.
There were also five Making It REAL! partner organization employees in the audience. Of these five people, one was both a Certified Librarian or Information Professional and an Administrator of a Library/Library System, and one was a Certified Librarian or Information Professional who was a faculty member in a Making It REAL! partner University Library School as well as a Library/Library System Administrator. The other faculty member also worked in a Making It REAL! partner Library School. One of the Administrators was a Making It REAL! scholarship student but not a Certified Librarian.
It appears, then, that 25 of the 31 survey respondents (81%) had a prior relationship to the Making It REAL! program either as a scholarship student or an employee of a partner organization (or both). In a sense, then, a presentation of the “Teaching Library” concept and discussion of Teaching Library/Library School relationship should have been like “speaking to the choir” – if there were active efforts in place for Teaching Libraries and Library Schools to collaborate with one another in scholarship student education and training under the Making It REAL! program. The discussion after the paper and evaluation survey results suggested that, by and large, this had not (yet) been the case.
General Ratings of “It Takes a Village” Session. Participants rated each of the three Making It REAL! grant sponsored sessions on the same seven general questions. The results for the “It Takes a Village” session are shown in Figure 5. Although two of the measures are not particularly relevant to the session, in general this session was not as well received as the “Library Services to Spanish Speakers” workshop or the afternoon session. Except on one measure the most common response was “agree” rather than “strongly agree.” Nevertheless, 97% of the audience who completed the survey agreed or strongly agreed that participants’ questions were addressed effectively, 96% agreed (43%) or strongly agreed (53%) that the presenter, Dr. Suzanne Stauffer, was knowledgeable, and 90% that she related information clearly.
About 77% of the survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they improved their content knowledge about the topic of teaching libraries and their relationship to University Library Schools over time. While the difference Is not statistically significant, It is of note that 65% of the students versus 40% of the others in attendance agreed that they had improved their content knowledge, and 40% of the others (compared to 10% of the students) strongly agreed with it. The certified librarians, administrators and faculty in the audience who potentially might have had something to do with setting up library school student education and training seemed to have gained the most content knowledge. From an evaluation perspective, one might have expected just the opposite from this audience if there had previously been much active attention to developing new teaching library/library school collaboration under the Making It REAL! grant. Dr. Stauffer’s historical paper and model seems to have been exploring new content for most of the audience.
Figure 5. General Ratings of “It Takes a Village” Session
The two worst rated items concerned matters that this particular paper did not focus on addressing. Just over half (52%) of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they had “a better understanding of the library service needs of communities discussed in this session” than they did before attending it, but about 29% disagreed with the statement. Just half (50%) agreed that they had “a better understanding of tools, resources, or approaches to serving the library needs of the communities discussed,” and almost one-third (32%) disagreed with the statement. The question wording of both the questions is problematic, since it was not so much “library service needs” as the education of library school students that was being discussed. The responses also confirm that the paper was thought of as more conceptual, historical, and theoretical than immediately practical.
What Session Participants Learned. When asked to “describe briefly one concept or approach that you learned from this program, 19 of the 20 students (95%) and 8 of the 11 other people in the audience (73%) replied. The participant sub-group that was not made up of library school students appreciated the audience interaction amongst themselves and with the speaker, and especially noted the need for more interaction between library schools and libraries. One respondent answered “loops,” which refers to the feedback loops in the Teaching Library model, as presented above.
In addition to gaining a historical perspective on past practices in practical education of librarians, student comments indicated an interest in the possible kinds of collaboration that might take place among libraries and universities in regards to their practical as well as conceptual education. The Summer 2006 student survey indicated that for the most part students had been taking core courses in their library school curriculum, and a course in library history is not necessarily a core course. While library history was probably covered to some extent in introductory library courses, it would be quite reasonable to expect that many of the students had not previously been exposed to the particular historical perspective about how students in their profession have gained practical experience. Some appreciated the dialogue that occurred after the presentation, and realized that the paper referred to collaboration that “can happen” between library schools and libraries, and involve librarians as adjunct faculty – whether or not it did. That several students commented on a better understanding of how and why library students are taught as they are underlines lack of student awareness of new approaches being tried.
Figure 6. What Participants Learned from the “It Takes a Village” Session
Subgroup of Session Participants |
Comments |
Certified Librarians, Library Administrators, Faculty or Library Consultant |
Imptance of more interaction with library schools |
Loops |
|
mutual feedback |
|
Taking the theory from the classroom in library school and applying this theory in libraries as interns – practical |
|
The process of libr Education from interns to academics |
|
I learned the history of library schools and their relationship to libraries |
|
Audience, administrators & questioners were very good & articulate -- Speaker less so -- too facile in examples |
|
missed the presentation |
|
Students |
Cooperation between professionals and academics |
Having active librarians teach library students so that the students can hear first hand experience from the field |
|
Issues in adjunct faculty/practitioners being integrate in the formal education of MLS students |
|
To cont. the dialogue between practioners, library school instrotors and students as interns |
|
I learned more of the collaboration that can happen between the library and the school |
|
A better understanding of what the libraries need to consider when taking in students |
|
How some universities approach practical aspects of our profession |
|
The necessity of communication between library schools,students & libraries. |
|
Theories about library mentoring programs |
|
NY teaching libraries partnership /_\ the triangle |
|
The triangle of students/librarians |
|
The 3 loops. The history of the teaching libraries model. |
|
History of LS education |
|
History of libraries |
|
History of library education |
|
The different types of library school available. i did not know what a teaching library was, so it was interesting to learn about it. |
|
Library Teaching Model |
|
I gained a valuable insight into the librarians teaching model |
|
Various perspectives from different individuals in different careers in the field provided added value to the program. |
Strengths and Weaknesses of the “It Takes a Village” Session. The next two questions on the survey were also open-ended and asked about strengths and weaknesses of the session. Figure 7 provides participant perceptions of the session. About 85% of the students and 64% of the others at the sessions specified strengths.
Figure 7. Strengths of the “It Takes a Village” Session
Subgroup of Session Participants |
Strengths of the Session |
Certified Librarians, Library Administrators, Faculty or Library Consultant |
"It takes a village" presentation |
Historical perspectives |
|
good background, lots of time for questions/discussion |
|
Dialog between library instructors and those who work in the field. |
|
collaboration model |
|
Inching along with the possibility of a new paradigm for library education |
|
missed the presentation |
|
Students |
Detailed History |
History of library education. |
|
I liked the history but it was a bit dry. |
|
It was a good historical presentation |
|
It was detailed. |
|
The history of library education was interesting and provides context for what occurs today. |
|
The history adds value and strength to the current practices discussed. |
|
experience/knowledge of the presenters |
|
Knowledge of the speaker |
|
Knowledgeable and effective presenters. |
|
knowledgeable presenter |
|
Organized, presenter knowledgeable |
|
The speakers |
|
knowledge of instrctor. encouragement for open dialogue. |
|
discussion at the end, interesting viewpoints + professional experiences |
|
The discussion |
Six or seven of the students especially appreciated the historical background presented. Six felt the speaker was knowledgeable and presented well. Three specifically mentioned the discussion that followed the presentation. The frequent mention of the historical background provided by the speaker may be an indication that these students had no prior exposure to the “teaching library” concept. Unfortunately, the workshop survey did not have a question that would allow a breakdown of the student responses between those who had received Making It REAL! fellowships directly from universities, and those that had received them from grant program “teaching libraries.”
Four or five of the seven survey respondents in the audience who had greater library experience commented on the collaboration model or the discussion. Indeed, it was the more experienced professionals rather than the students who seemed to participate more in the discussion. While some of the audience had questions about the feasibility of implementing the third feedback loop it was considered and debated openly. The rich and nuanced open discussion that followed the presentation met the goals and expectations of the presenter and session facilitator for this session, and the Making It REAL! program coordinator also indicated later that she felt this was a good part of the session.
Figure 8 shows the weaknesses of the session. About 90% of the students and 64% of the others at the session responded to this question.
Figure 8. Weaknesses of the “It Takes a Village” Session
Subgroup of Session Participants |
Weaknesses of the Session |
Certified Librarians, Library Administrators, Faculty or Library Consultant |
Visuals |
voice projection – too much looking down at paper |
|
Prefer more diverse presentation - practitioners & theorists interacting with each other. |
|
Took a while to get to point of why here. |
|
Not sure what the agenda was ahead of time. |
|
The description of this seminar is misleading. I wanted to hear how culturally diverse librarians can be found and retained. Instead I heard about the history of library schools. |
|
missed the presentation |
|
Students |
A powerpint that summarized important points in the presentation would be helpful. |
A powerpoint would have been nice or for her to remember more and read less from the paper |
|
Power Point |
|
Powerpoint or other visuals (proof?) |
|
A visual |
|
Doesn't address the needs of the visual learner - some slides of library history |
|
Maybe more visual information to liven the presentations |
|
There needs to be visual aids incorporated into the presentation. The content is rich and visual representation of the model discussed would be very beneficial. |
|
Visual aids and handouts would have been helpful. I don't retin ino. that's just verbal -- need something to look at/add notes to. Also, it would have been helpful to give a definition of the teachin |
|
Mode of presentation |
|
too focused on history rather than current issues |
|
The focus on history rather than practical applications |
|
I am still a little confused about this concept. It would have been helpful to have a specific example of this kind of teaching library with people who have been involed. Students, librarian, and pro |
|
It could have been more specific in presenting case studies or comparing specific library schools. |
|
Did not address "Divsity," "the village" at all |
|
It's so cold in this room that I can't concentrate |
|
noise in the hall, room cold |
The primary criticism of the students (10 of 17 responses) was that by not using a PowerPoint or having a handout, Dr. Stauffer failed to meet the needs of the visual learners in the audience. Two students felt that the presentation was too focused on history and not focused enough on current issues or practical applications. One or two apparently did not understand that the model presented at the end was a theoretical model of library education involving teaching library-university-student interactions and expected more specific examples of the model in action, or a comparison of library schools. One felt that the presentation did not meet the expectations of its title “It Takes a Village” and also did not address diversity issues. Two complained of creature comfort issues in a room that was too cold and did have conversations in the hallway interfering with the session at some points in time.
Two of the seven other session attendees also complained about the mode of presentation itself, missing visuals and noting a tendency of Dr. Stauffer to look down at and read from her paper while dropping her voice. One would have preferred even more practitioner-theorist interaction than there was. Three felt that it took too long to get to the point of the session, weren’t sure what it was about, or had expected a completely different type of session than was ever anticipated.
“It Takes a Village” Audience Opinions about Teaching Libraries. As head of the overall external evaluation, Dr. Maack decided to use the session content section of the post-session survey to gather information concerning audience options about current or prior participation in a “teaching library” situation, relevance and feasibility of the teaching library concept presented, and prior knowledge of the history of teaching libraries. He had hoped to use statistical analysis to explore differences among Making It REAL! students and partners compared to those in the audience not related to the program, but this was statistically unfeasible because of the heavy skew in the audience toward Making It REAL! fellowship recipients. Given the audience skew, though, the responses might be viewed as giving an idea of how widespread information about “teaching libraries” is among Making It REAL! participants and what the perceptions of “teaching libraries” are.
Figure 9. Opinions about Teaching Libraries
Figure 9 shows the reactions of all respondents to five questions about teaching libraries. About 82% either strongly agreed (50%) or agreed (32%) that the teaching library concept is still relevant today. About 58% indicated that they had participated in a teaching library situation, and 60% that they were currently participating in one. About 84% felt that the teaching library model presented at the end of the paper is feasible. About 56% disagreed or strongly disagreed that they were previously aware of the history of teaching libraries.
Audience Previous Awareness of History of Teaching Libraries. For the most part, the audience was not previously aware of the history of teaching libraries. As shown in Figure 10, that included those directly involved with the Making It REAL! project.
Figure 10. Previous Awareness of History of Teaching Libraries
The three sets of bars on the left half of Figure 10 exclude survey takers who used “not applicable” responses or chose not to answer the questions at all, so that part of Figure 10 is directly comparable to Figure 9.
About 94% of the Making It REAL! students and 80% (4 out of 5) of the partner employees answered the question. Of those who indicated their prior awareness of the history of teaching libraries, about half of the partners agreed or strongly agreed, which was also true of any other participants in the session. About 71% of the Making It REAL! students disagreed or strongly disagreed that they had previous knowledge of the history of teaching libraries. Since most of the students had completed only about a year of library school by NYLA 2006, it is perhaps not surprising that so few new about the history of teaching libraries. It is, however, unexpected that the same proportion of Making It REAL! partners as other librarians, administrators and faculty in the audience knew this history. Had the Making It REAL! program been very actively involved in developing new ways of relating the program’s “teaching libraries” to the university partners involved, one might have expected that a greater proportion of partners than of other librarians and administrators would have looked at the history of such libraries to see what had been done in the past.
Audience Current Involvement with Teaching Libraries. About 74% of the session participants provided an opinion in response to the statement “I am currently participating in a teaching library situation.” As shown in Figure 9, among those who rated their opinion, almost half (49%) agreed or strongly agreed, and about a quarter (26%) disagreed, while the rest were uncertain that they were participating in a teaching library situation. Looking more closely, we find the results shown in Figure 11.
The three sets of bars on the left half of Figure 11 exclude survey takers who used “not applicable” responses or chose not to answer the questions at all, so that part of Figure 10 is directly comparable to Figure 9. The right side of Figure 11 shows percentages when the “Not Applicable” and “No Answer” survey respondents are included.
Figure 11. Opinions about Current Participation in Teaching Libraries
One conclusion from Figure 11 is that after hearing a presentation about “Teaching Libraries,” ONLY audience members who had a prior relationship to the Making It REAL! program perceived themselves as involved in any kind of a “Teaching Library” situation. Those who were NOT Making It REAL! fellowship students or employees of grant partner libraries or universities all “disagreed” that they were involved in a “Teaching Library” situation, or checked “Not Applicable” or just didn’t answer the question. On the other hand, all employees of Making It REAL! partners and 62% of fellowship students agreed or strongly agreed that they were currently involved in a teaching library situation at that time. However, on the right side of Figure 11 we can see that one-fifth (20%) or one person of the five partner employees and one-tenth (10%) of the 18 fellowship students aren’t sure about their involvement with teaching libraries.
Question 7 of the survey asked those who did think that they were currently participating in a teaching library situation to describe the situation in relation to loop 1, 2, or 3 of the teaching library model laid out in the presentation (see above). Appropriately, only Making It REAL! students and partner employees responded at all to question 7, as shown in Figure 12. Evaluation of the open-ended responses suggests that the Making It REAL! program has made little leeway in creating new models for Teaching Libraries.
The first two students find that they are learning from the “teaching libraries” that awarded them scholarships, but see what they are learning as a supplement to and separate from what they are learning in library school. The responses of the next five students shown in Figure 11 underline even more strongly that they see feedback loop 1 (student-library-student) and loop w (library school-student-library school) as disconnected but with them involved in each of these loops separately. The responses of the next four students indicate that these scholarship recipients see themselves so far only as library school students and the fifth respondent indicates why this may be the case. The Making It REAL! fellowship students were not yet at the point in their library school education when they would be mandated to undertake practicums or library internships by their library schools and New York State law concerning library certification. The last two responses of “Not Yet” and “no” either indicate recognition of that point in their library education, or simply lack of existence to date of any relationship to a “teaching library.” In other words, none of the students perceive of themselves as involved in a teaching library situation that would have included loop 3 that would include a relationship between teaching libraries and universities that might have an impact on their education. Despite their involvement with the Making It REAL! program as students, whether with “teaching library” or university awarded fellowships, the students are only seeing the current situation that has been codified where the student takes part in both formal library school education and practicums run as part of degree requirements, sometimes in a rather disconnected fashion from the university coursework. Only those whose fellowships likely come from Making It REAL! “teaching libraries” have experience with library work to date, and they view that as separate from what they are learning in library school.
Figure 12. Descriptions of Current Participation in Teaching Libraries
Subgroup of Session Participants |
Current Teaching Library Participation |
Making It REAL! Scholarship Students |
Mostly loop 1. Most of my education comes from the experienced librarians i work with |
Loop 1. I have worked with 3 teaching libraries learning skills/concepts that supplement my education. I have been learning things that I won't have an opportunity to learn in school. |
|
I am going to library school and working at a public library |
|
library school studnt. Student - library. |
|
combination of these. 2 and teaching library - student - teaching library |
|
library school - student - teaching library |
|
#4 Student - library - library school |
|
loop 2 (library school – student - library school) |
|
Loop 2 |
|
Library school student |
|
I'm a library student. |
|
I am a library student, and I am required to do 2 practicums in schools. I think in the school library program there is this setup in place already. one reason is because its mandated by NYS. |
|
Not yet |
|
No |
|
Making It REAL! Partner Organization Employee |
Loop 1 student - library – student |
Not much interaction w. lib. Schools |
|
All loops |
Of the three responses from employees of Making It REAL! partner organizations only one indicates involvement with all three loops. The other two employees are only involved with Loop 1 (response provided by a faculty member) or don’t have much interaction with library schools (response given by a certified librarian/administrator who also teaches). The respondents to question 7 are not identifying new “best practices” in teaching libraries.
Audience Prior Involvement with Teaching Libraries. The second statement with responses shown in Figure 9 is “I have participated in a teaching library situation.” Only 60% of the survey takers expressed their level of agreement with this statement, and only 58% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with it. Figure 13 shows the breakdown by type of respondent, with the three sets of bars on the left being comparable to Figure 9 in that the percentages exclude the survey takers who did not answer the question or checked “not applicable.” The three sets of bars on the right of Figure 13 include the “not applicable” responses and those who didn’t reply to the question at all.
Figure 13. Opinions about Prior Participation in Teaching Libraries
Among respondents, all of the employees of Making It REAL! partner organizations strongly agree that they have been involved in “teaching library” situations, although one checked “not applicable” and one didn’t answer. Of the two-thirds of fellowship students who expressed their opinions, only half agree or strongly agree that they have participated in a teaching library situation. More than one-quarter (28%) of the students checked “not applicable” and 6% didn’t answer the question at all. Again, this is perhaps a reflection of the fact that those with university awarded Making It REAL! fellowships most likely had not had their practicums or internships yet. Among other session participants, one-quarter checked “not applicable” and one-quarter didn’t respond. Of the four who did give their opinions, half agreed, and half disagreed or strongly disagreed that they had participated in a teaching library situation.
Question 8 asked those who had previously participated in a teaching library situation to briefly describe it. The descriptions are shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14. Descriptions of Prior Participation in Teaching Libraries
Subgroup of Session Participants |
Prior Teaching Library Participation |
Making It REAL! Scholarship Students |
Loop 1 and 2 |
n/a |
|
N/A |
|
Making It REAL! Partner Organization Employee |
All loops |
Other Session Participants |
first loop 2 then loop 1 then graduation |
More like #1 and to some extent #3 |
While few people responded to question 8, the responses tend to confirm that the norm is separate participation in loops 1 and 2 prior to graduation from library school. The same person who answered “all loops” to question 7, repeated the response in question 8, and only one other person, not involved with Making It REAL! recognized some prior involvement with teaching libraries as similar to that of feedback loop 3 (teaching library – library school – teaching library).
Current Relevance of the Teaching Library Concept. The next two statements whose responses are shown in Figure 9 concern whether the teaching library concept is still relevant today and whether the model laid out by Dr. Stauffer at the end of the presentation is feasible. That model would in particular include participation of library schools and teaching libraries in feedback loop 3. About 90% of survey takers answered the question on relevancy and 84% responded to the question on feasibility. As shown in Figure 9, about 82% of those who expressed their level of agreement felt that the teaching library concept is still relevant (with half strongly agreeing and 32% agreeing).
Figure 15. Opinions about Relevance of the Teaching Library Concept Today
As shown in Figure 15, the strongest proponents of the Teaching Library concept today are those who are employees of Making It REAL! partners. General agreement on relevancy is perhaps not too surprising from this sub-group, since the organizations are Making It REAL! partners, but that 100% “strongly agree” on the relevancy, without any abstentions, is notable. The Making It REAL! fellowship students are less sure about the relevancy of the Teaching Library concept. While none disagree or strongly disagree with its relevancy, only one-third strongly agree and around 40% “agree” – the rest are neutral. Other session participants had 83% strongly agreeing (50%) or agreeing (33%), but one-quarter gave no opinion and one person strongly disagreed.
Feasibility of the Teaching Library Model Presented. Figure 16 shows the reactions to the statement “The teaching library model laid out at the end of the presentation is feasible. This model differs from the historical models in that it includes intensive interactions of library schools and teaching libraries centered on the education of library school students. The model is more a theoretical one than how library schools and libraries generally interact in practice, but most of those present thought it was feasible, except for one person who strongly disagreed. While 84% felt that the teaching library model was feasible, only 15% “strongly agreed” on feasibility, with over two-thirds (69%) only agreeing. All of the employees of Making It REAL! partner organizations agreed (60%) or strongly agreed (40%) that the teaching library model as laid out is feasible. About 83% of the program’s scholarship students did as well, with the rest neutral. While 75% of all other respondents who answered the question agree that the teaching library concept laid out in the presentation is feasible, one strongly disagreed and over half of the potential respondents from this group gave no answer to this question at all or checked “not applicable.”
Figure 16. Opinions about the Feasibility of the Teaching Library Concept Today
Question 9 asked “Do you think teaching library programs would be beneficial to the library profession in general? Why or why not?” Figure 17 shows the responses. All five employees of Making It REAL! partner organizations, almost 90% of the fellowship students and half of other session participants made a comment.
Figure 17. Would Teaching Library Programs be Beneficial to the Library Profession?
Subgroup of Session Participants |
Benefit of Teaching Libraries to the Library Profession |
Making It REAL! Scholarship Students |
I think it would be beneficial because it gives students in field experience. |
more training and participation would be beneficial |
|
Yes -- good for professional experience |
|
Yes – practical experience is so beneficial |
|
Yes. On-the-job experience gives real-life library exp. |
|
Yes. It gives students an opportunity to get practical experience, apply the theory they are learning in school. Most importantly it's an opportunity to learn things you won't learn in library school |
|
Yes. It is a great experience to get to work in a library and see and do the things I learn at school. |
|
Yes indeed. Practical experience is always helpful in any profession. |
|
Yes. Experience is a vital factor when looking for a job, and it is lacking in many programs. |
|
Yes! As long as the teaching library is willing to dedicate time to the student. |
|
Yes, if they were well organized and relevant to the student |
|
Yes, it allows for students and professionals to gain more insight, offer experiences, and mentoring abilities |
|
Yes, the hands on practice as well as the practice of collaboration & information sharing broadens the experience and that will help new librarians. I also believe the mentor librarians learn from the students - new ideas can be shared + refresh librarians in current practice. |
|
Yes beause it has a different focus that would be a great addition to the profession |
|
Yes |
Subgroup of Session Participants |
Benefit of Teaching Libraries to the Library Profession |
Making It REAL! Partner Organization Employee |
Yes, both for the training of students and the edification of library school faculty and administrators. (Good point made by Stauffer about the trianular approach to the model) school -- orientating library - library school |
They would be very beneficial for alll parties involved because of the exchange of information between the different parties |
|
Yes -- We need a combination of the pracitical with the broader principles learned in the classroom -- Hestorically we veer between the 2. |
|
Yes - pracital for the student – applied |
|
Yes |
|
Other Session Participants |
Could be very valuable but need a greater and more integral sense of committment for the long run. Also, should be structured in such a way that it is a genuine learning experience for the student. Frequently, this doesn't happen. |
Distance learning could be a challenge |
|
Yes - important to link theory with practice |
|
yes. Brings confidence to new librarians by the time they're ready to graduate. |
Ten of the 16 library school students, two of five Making It REAL! partner organization employees, and two of four other session participants mentioned only direct benefits to students of gaining practical in addition to theoretical experience. Two students added provisos that the program be well organized, relevant to the student and that teaching libraries be willing to put in the time to the student. One practicing librarian or administrator concurred with the need for structure and long-term commitment to making a genuine learning experience for the students of their work in libraries. One employee of a Making It REAL! partner noted that historically the profession has veered between just library school and just practical library experiences for students. One student claimed that gaining practical library experience “is lacking in many programs.”
Two more students saw benefits to practicing professionals who would act as mentors and both be exposed to and help shape new ideas for librarianship. Two more partner employees saw benefits to all parties involved, including the Teaching Libraries and library schools, because of the greater exchange of information and potential learning of all involved. One practicing librarian, administrator, or faculty member raised an issue of how distance learning (i.e., presumably online library school education) fit in with the Teaching Library model.
Evaluative Comments about the “It Takes a Village” Session.
The audience comments on session indicate that the session was not completely successful. To start with, it was not successful in communicating at the outset the change in focus from the original title and topic. The historical focus was contrary to expectations of several people to a presentation of a more practical nature with current information. However, if the Making It REAL! program is truly to create new “best practices” this program might have been necessary in order to remind people that some kind of a “teaching library” concept is not new to the library profession, and to educate people on how “teaching libraries” were structured in the past to encourage practical training of library school students.
The expectation of a greater focus of the session on practical and current matters reflects the general expectations of practicing librarians, library administrators, and students that this would be the kind of session found at a NYLA conference. The comments of a few in the audience indicated some misunderstanding of even the original intent of the session. This problem might have been avoided by better communication about the session itself and how its focus had changed once the evaluators decided from other evidence that there were few or no “best practices” to report from the Making It REAL! program experience. The presenter, Dr. Stauffer, and the program and discussion facilitator, Dr. Maack, should have conveyed the change in focus in advance to the program coordinator ahead of time and might have clearly stated at the beginning of the program that the focus had shifted somewhat from that implied by the original title.
By failing to prepare a PowerPoint presentation or provide a handout Dr. Stauffer lost a portion of her audience that was not able to easily follow her points. This shows up in the comments on weaknesses of the session and the lack of attention to visual learners in the audience. While there were some attempts to improve the room conditions, these were not successful. The cold room and noise in the hallway during part of the session also interfered with audience concentration on the presentation.
The comments on possible benefits of Stauffer’s Teaching Library model to the profession mostly focused on the benefits to the student of gaining practical library experience before completing their library school degrees. However, library school students are frequently required by their 21st century library school programs to engage in internships or practicums as part of their degree requirements, and obtaining experience is required by law to be a certificated librarian in New York. Stauffer’s paper illustrated how the current requirements developed over time. Well-structured internship or practicum programs can and do give students practical library experience. Granted, the second feedback loop of Stauffer’s paper (student – library – student) might be organized better to produce a better practicum, as some respondents recognized, and some library professionals recognized a need for a greater commitment on the part of the libraries to student learning. The unique feature of Stauffer’s “Teaching Library” model, however, is really in feedback loop three, where there is greater coordination, cooperation and collaboration between library schools and Teaching Libraries. Only some of the partners and practicing librarians/administrators clearly understood, responded to and commented on that point.
The weaknesses of the session relate partly to the make-up of the audience. Masters degree students were in the majority. Masters degree students may not be used to open discussion of theoretical models and some did not even seem to understand that the end part of Stauffer’s paper refers to a partially theoretical Teaching Library model, at least in regards to feedback loop three. Also, the library history presented was new to almost all of the library school students and half of the others present, who were exposed to historical models and then asked to comment on a new theoretical model of teaching libraries being proposed by Dr. Stauffer. Given that most of the audience had just been exposed to the historical information, it might have been too soon to expect the same individuals to immediately shift into discussion about a new model for which no or few actual examples of the model in practice were yet available.
While many in the audience recognized the value in the session of the good discussion after the presentation between practitioners and theorists, the lack of even more discussion than there was also reflects the make-up of the audience. There had been a deliberate effort to get students to the audience that succeeded. Other efforts to attract practitioners and faculty to this session, including Making It REAL! partners, failed to draw many (and some came too late to hear the presentation itself). It is not completely clear why this was so or what might have been done differently. The session was clearly advertised in the conference program, the project coordinator invited the partners, and Dr. Maack had contacted all partners shortly before NYLA 2006 in order to set up interviews or a partner focus group, and had specifically mentioned the session.
From an overall Making It REAL! program evaluation perspective, the lack of many practitioners and faculty in the audience as well as the scarce prior knowledge of the history of “teaching libraries” reflects the general lack of focus even among Making It REAL! partners in a new or innovative “teaching library” model and the general lack of interaction and collaboration among most of the grant partners. If the Making It REAL! program had led to many new models of teaching library/library school relationships by the time of NYLA 2006 one would have expected a different set of responses to question 7 than seen in Figure 11, certainly from employees of partner organizations, but also from students. For the most part, though, as indicated in the responses to the question on current participation in a “teaching library” situation, program participants are only experiencing replication of the current library education situation. In that situation library schools and libraries operate nearly independently from one another, except in regards to arrangement of practicum sites for library school students. As presented in Stauffer’s paper, this is an old model, not new “best practices.” The give and take, mutual learning, and close collaboration among “teaching libraries,” university library schools, and library school students suggested in Stauffer’s model continues to be a rare or unrealized possibility. What happened at the session tended to confirm the evaluators’ prior understanding of the Making It REAL! program situation that led to the change in focus of the presentation in the first place.
There were good aspects to the session in addition to the education of the audience about the history of “teaching libraries.” The thoughtful and open discussion after the presentation was appreciated by many in the audience. The third feedback loop of the theoretical model presented by Dr. Stauffer was recognized by the audience as different than what has taken place in the past in relationships between “teaching libraries” and universities. This was reflected in the responses to questions 7 and 8 (Figures 12 and 14), where most responses referred only to feedback loops 1 or 2. Feedback loop three cannot occur without greater communication and collaboration between universities and teaching libraries in the interest of better educating library students through focused practice of librarianship as well as teaching of methods and theory of librarianship. While failing to advance the matter very far, because too few of the appropriate people in power -- i.e., practicing librarians, administrators, and faculty even showed up to have a truly fruitful library community (“village”) meeting, the session did start discussion. The evaluation survey verified that the audience did broadly concur on the importance of a Teaching Library approach and concept as still relevant and beneficial to the library profession. Based on this session’s feedback and comments, it is appropriate for the Making It REAL! program to focus on the “Teaching Library” idea, but partners may need more opportunities to discuss new ideas and more encouragement toward designing and implementing new Teaching Library models before new Teaching Library models emerge. More of the Making It REAL! partners – practicing librarians, administrators, and faculty – need to become involved in the discussion for Teaching Library model changes to occur.
The third Making It REAL! sponsored presentation took place between 2:15 and 3:30 p.m. on Friday afternoon, November 3, 2006 and focused specifically on diversity. Dr. Clara Chu, Associate Professor at the UCLA Department of Information Studies repeated and expanded on a presentation that she had given in June 2005 to Making It REAL! partners as part of an evaluation training workshop put on by REAP Change Consultants. Dr. Chu is an internationally recognized expert on diversity in librarianship and this session was an attempt to present her comments to a broader audience of any NYLA 2006 conference participants.
“Diversity, Libraries and Community” Session Survey Results
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents. The audience of this session was both the largest and the most diverse of any of the three sessions. The audience numbered about 50 at times and 45 people completed the post-session survey. Of the 45, about 23% were males and 77% females – which, based on visual inspection, appeared to be a greater proportion of males than in the conference as a whole. Respondents were given a chance to check multiple ethnicities as well as specify “other” ethnic statuses. Two (4%) were African-American, one (2%) American Indian, four (9%) Asian or Pacific Islander, two (4%) Latino or Hispanic, two (4%) of mixed race or ethnicity, and 64% White (one of whom specified descent from a German/Czech/Welsh/Irish background). This was a very diverse audience for NYLA 2006.
Professional Status of Respondents. The survey provided a series of check-off categories for respondents to use in identifying their work or student statuses in multiple ways. The results indicated that the workshop participants were mostly in positions that would potentially enable them to apply what they learned as certified librarians or library administrators. Nine (20%) were administrators of a library or library system, 19 (42%) checked that they are certified librarians. Although some probably were certified librarians, none of the administrators checked that category. Ten (22%) people in the audience were library school Masters degree students. However, only one (2%) checked “Library/Information Studies School Faculty Member.” In contrast, seven (16%) specified other titles7The other titles included Coordinator of Department in library, Mgt., Public Relations Staff, Library system employee, Vendor, Children's Services Employer, and Friend of the library. that included a vendor at the conference and a “Friend of the library.” The session, then, attracted members of the broader community of people at the conference than just professional librarians, administrators, faculty, and students.
Only nine people (19% of 44 survey takers) had prior affiliation with the Making It REAL! program seven of whom were students and two employees of partner organizations. The sparse presence of Making It REAL! partner organization employees at the event could be due to the fact that Dr. Chu gave nearly the same talk, with close to the same title, to partners at Making It REAL! evaluation workshops held over two days in June 2005. The partners might have correctly surmised that they had already heard this presentation.
All things considered, the “Diversity, Libraries and Community: Windows and Mirrors to Your World” presentation had the greatest outreach of any of the three Making It REAL! sponsored presentations at NYLA 2006.
General Ratings of “Diversity, Libraries and Community” Session. Using the same general ratings, on four of the seven measures this was the best received of the three Making It REAL! sponsored sessions at NYLA 2006. Over two-thirds (68%) of those providing ratings strongly agreed that Dr. Chu was knowledgeable, and over half strongly agreed that she relayed information clearly (57%), addressed participants’ questions effectively (55%), and that they would recommend this program to others (53%). Most of the rest agreed with those statements. In addition, over half (58%) agreed and over one-third (36%) strongly agreed that they had improved their content knowledge about the topics covered. While still doing well, Dr. Chu was less successful in helping session participants better understand the library service needs of diverse communities (43% agreed and 30% strongly agreed), and better understanding tools, resources, or approaches to serving the community (42% agreed and 28% strongly agreed). These specific, practical areas were ones on which the speaker did not particularly concentrate. Unlike Salvador Avila’s workshop, Professor Chu did not attempt to specify how exactly to deliver library services to any particular ethnic or otherwise diverse group, but to present a general approach to understanding or responding to diversity in the library workplace and in the community. Session participants were challenged to examine themselves and those with whom they were relating to figure out the specifics, which would vary by individual and by local situation.
Figure 18. General Ratings of Diversity, Libraries and Community Session
Because of the nature of the presentation, the post-session survey did not attempt to probe more closely into the content of the presentation, but moved on to ask the three general open-ended questions about it.
What Participants Learned from the “Diversity, Libraries and Community” Session. The lone library school faculty member present, about 80% of the Masters degree students and 78% of the certified librarians, and 80% of those checking “other,” but only 44% of the library administrators responded to this open-ended question. Many mentioned a key concept of the presentation – that everyone is prejudiced in some fashion, even if unintentionally, and we should try to become aware of and act on our overcoming or reducing our prejudices. The reference to the “two doors” refers to the Los Angeles Museum of Tolerance in which to continue into the exhibits area one must choose to go through a door marked “prejudiced” and one marked “not prejudiced.” In fact the “not prejudiced” door is locked and everyone must pass through the “prejudiced” door as a way of recognizing something about oneself. Professor Chu had a frank way of talking about diversity and prejudice that put people at ease in recognition of our common human tendency to be prejudiced in some fashion.
Figure 19 shows some differences in response to the session by type of participant. The Masters degree students focused on personal aspects and nicely summarized the concepts of respect for others, and knowing, caring, and acting on one’s own prejudices. The certified librarians also picked up on that, although some brought out the importance of interpersonal interactions toward change and transformation, and mentioned how to change libraries as organizations by working with individuals, one person at a time.
Figure 19. What Participants Learned from the Diversity, Libraries and Community Session
Subgroup of Session Participants |
Comments |
Masters Students |
8 Preconditions for paradigm shift |
Diversity |
|
Everyone has to go through the prejudice door because it's how we were raised. |
|
One concept was the notion of knowledge, caring, acting. it is important to be aware and understanding of all 3 to provide the most effective services to a diverse population. |
|
Respect & Openness |
|
The idea of prejudice is not negative. We need to acknowledge it and respect all differences. Realizing diversity is a much broader term. |
|
The pervasity of prejudice, even unintentional |
|
To have a different understanding of aspects of prejudiced that must be addressed with an attitude of openess and respect. This is a good attitude to discuss differences that opens a path for better communication. |
|
Certified Librarians |
(2 doors) We can't be neutral we must recognize our biases |
Cultural competence in relation to multicultural librarianship |
|
Discussing diversity with colleagues who have not thought bout or discussed the issue before. |
|
how to address diversity in different aspects of the library organization |
|
IFLA resources |
|
Org. structures should build like an "ant hill" |
|
Prejudice |
|
Prejudice in a positive way |
|
Reminded/re-inspired concerning diversity as strength and knowledge -> caring -> action |
|
The fact that "multicultural" covers a much larger group of persons that I originally thought |
|
The presenter has a very positive understanding of diversity. |
|
The transformation model |
|
transformative potential of life's everyday experieces |
|
Whem implementing diversity a person is changing him/her self |
|
Library Administrators |
how staff deal with diversity |
Importance of open mindness and inclusiveness |
|
praxis -- learning from each other |
|
that diversity represents challenges that must be faced. Leadership sets the direction. |
|
Library School Faculty |
Give personal experiences/examples |
Other |
common definitions of diversity |
don't categorize individuals. Learn to learn from everyone |
|
Educating staff on what divesity is |
|
That prejudices should ber recognized + (& dealt with) are not as negative as generally viewed |
The library administrators focused on open mindedness, learning from one another, and that leaders must set the direction toward diversity and involve staff in addressing it. The library school faculty member brought out how Professor Chu had used her own personal experiences and examples to make points and realized that this approach could be used in communicating with others. Finally, the other kinds of people present at the session picked up on the personal change aspect of the presentation (including that one should start by changing oneself) and educating staff.
Figure 20. Strengths of the Diversity, Libraries and Community Session
Subgroup of Session Participants |
Strengths of the Diversity, Libraries and Community Session |
Masters Students |
great presenter, engaging, |
Presenter was great. |
|
Superb presenter -- practical, reasitic -- I did not loose interest for a second. Very well paced. |
|
The speaker and content |
|
Information deconstruction theory combined with personal anecdote |
|
Excellent viewpoints of ways that diversity can impact librarianship |
|
Understanding concepts of creative thinking, innovation and collaboration within libraries and their communities. |
|
Certified Librarians |
Up-beat! |
By Talking about prejudiced without being judged by what you say |
|
Clear presentation |
|
Conveying ideology. How does one speak the "language" of diversity. |
|
Enlightening info on diversity issues for libs. and the profession |
|
The objectivity ini explaining the concept of prejudice. Calm secure peopleae more willing to listen & change. |
|
- Use of visuals - Explaining how presenter's own experiences led to her exploration of her specialty. |
|
The presenter was wonderfl. All information was useful to library environments. |
|
The speaker & the research-based content |
|
good sources recommended |
|
Introducing new ways to look at diversity. Open discussion. Conveying enthusiasm for diversity in workplace & in library education. |
|
Awareness of the REAL grant and helping to promote diversity in thinking about our profession & the people we serve. |
|
The presenter Expanded on the information in the PowerPoint beyond just reading it. Also, there was good discussion at the end. |
|
Library Administrators |
Anecdotes & asides (e.g., example from her own experiences) |
knowledgeable presenter. |
|
presenter's knowledge, research |
|
the scope of the presentation. the intellectural framework. |
|
good information. food for thought. |
|
Others |
Speaker was wonderful. Visuals very helpful. |
Excellent, scholarly, accessible presentation. Terrific presenter. I appreciated hearing a nationally recognized expert in this area of expertise. |
|
Good info. Supportive resources |
|
philosophical pts |
Strengths of the “Diversity, Libraries and Community” Session. Fewer people (70% of the Masters students, 73% of certified librarians, 56% of library administrators, and 80% of others) provided comments on strengths of the session. Figure 20 shows the responses. Dr. Chu herself and her presentation style garnered the most praise. Some also especially valued her research based and philosophical points and the intellectual framework she brought to the presentation. The way she presented made people more open to hearing what she had to say and led to good discussion after the presentation. Some specifically mentioned references to resources that she did provide in PowerPoint.
Figure 21. Weaknesses of the Diversity, Libraries and Community Session
Subgroup of Session Participants |
Strengths of the Diversity, Libraries and Community Session |
Masters Students |
At the administrative level what are some official policies that can be put in place to increase diversity. |
Real-life examples/scenarios. |
|
Sufficient |
|
No weaknesses |
|
I would have loved to tape this wonderfully presented workshop. – Podcast would be nice to review and internalize this more. |
|
Certified Librarians |
Facts and figures about diverse populations in the U.S. Languages spoken. Cultural practices -- specifics. |
Maybe more specific examples in the presentation of how librarians hae addressed diversity as a process in their library. These came out in the discussion at the end. |
|
less lecture, involve audience |
|
The difficulty in speaking English understandably for South Asian + Asian librarians in the Queens Library system is a problem for both nonAsian staff + customers. In Queens Library I'd like to see this issue raised as I believe it is a problem in other locations as well. |
|
Presenter's research perspective on topic |
|
Shortage of handouts |
|
No handouts. |
|
none -- excellent program |
|
Library Administrators |
It was quite theoretical in nature. |
Good for HR -- not as helpful for b/c of hiring those who need to conversation address patron's needs |
|
Needed practical aspects -- how to recruit this staff, encourage more diverse staff? |
|
Too much reading from the P.P |
|
NA |
|
University Faculty |
More theory, less practical practices. |
Others |
Examples of how a library might implement these concepts. It wasn't clear from the program description that there would be an emphasis on building diversity in library employees, rather than exploring diversity of library users. |
More details on how we should be helping library customers of different backgrounds |
|
Needs more audience participation -- too much powerpoiont reading |
|
noise in next room was disruptive |
|
Title/Status Not Given |
Too commonplace; nothing new to me; I may be just spoiled |
Weaknesses of the “Diversity, Libraries and Community” Session. Participants were more likely to mention strengths than weaknesses of the session. Only about 60% of the Masters students, 44% of the certified librarians, 56% of the library administrators, the faculty member, 80% of others and one of two people who had not specified a professional status mentioned specific weaknesses – and some of the comments weren’t really about weaknesses. The weaknesses were of several sorts. First, in terms of content, several session participants wanted or expected more pragmatic information – facts and figures about diverse groups, specific cultural information, examples of interactions in a library setting or in libraries, administrative policies that might be put into place. Second, similar to the first, is that some criticized the presentation as being too theoretical in nature. Third, a few claimed that Professor Chu read too much from her PowerPoint presentation and didn’t encourage audience participation enough. There were good questions at the end of the presentation and had there been more time available, the discussion might have continued. One person (whose comment suggests that (s)he may not have heard the entire content of the presentation) had a specific complaint related to language facility of immigrant librarians in Queens that (s)he would have liked to have surfaced and discussed. Fourth, there were once again problems with the room setting, in particular disruptive noise from the next conference room. Only one person found the presentation to be “too commonplace,” but also indicated that (s)he might be “spoiled” from having been exposed to this kind of thinking before NYLA 2006. Several people, on the other hand, found no weaknesses at all in the presentation and would have liked to have it videotaped or podcast for further study.
Evaluative Comments about the “Diversity, Libraries and Community” Session.
As indicated by both the ratings and the comments, this was the best of the Making It REAL! sponsored sessions. The audience did a good job of critiquing the session. Many in the audience appeared to need and to be responsive to Professor Chu’s non-judgmental and open way of talking about prejudice and diversity. However, fewer seemed to be able to see specifically by themselves how this might be applied in their library work. Being pragmatically oriented, some librarians and students want pragmatic information and they appear to want it presented to them through facts, figures, and specific information about specific cultures, demonstrations and discussions with their colleagues about their problems.
There was not enough time in the session to do this, so some felt that the presentation was too “theoretical.” One way to get around this critique would be to start with Dr, Chu’s kind of an approach, which appeared to be needed by most to open up minds and discussion, and then spend more time communicating practical information in a workshop kind of environment. However, a critique leveled at Salvador Avila’s workshop was that it didn’t go into enough depth about Spanish speakers/Hispanic culture(s) and would have needed more time to develop. The same would likely be true of a presentation of Professor Chu’s own Asian cultural background. Doing workshops on various ethnic cultures might help, but then would ignore other aspects of diversity (e.g., disability, gender, language, immigrant backgrounds, etc.).
It seems that the Making It REAL! workshop and sessions have tapped into a deep and continuing need for diversity training, information, and pragmatic advice on how to deal with the diverse communities in new York. The audiences seem to feel that sporadic one to one and a half hour sessions are not sufficient, and even a three hour workshop on a specific ethnic/cultural group ends up short of time. What, then, would the participants in the three Making It REAL! sponsored programs really like to see in future NYLA programming? The answers are shown in Figure 22.
Figure 22. Recommendations for Future NYLA Conference Presentations Related to 21st Century Librarians Serving Diverse Communities in New York
Workshop or Session |
Recommendations for Future NYLA Programming |
Salvador Avila “Library Services to Spanish Speakers” Workshop Participant Recommendations |
Adapting some of theh outreach methods to a broader target group -- i.e., effective outreach methods -- regardless of target audience. |
additional programs related to outreach service, perhaps related to best practices for printed material, or for offering ESL/literacy services, or specific programming ideas - health info workshops, job search workshops, etc. Also - how to run a program about easy-to-read health infromation (the NLM has trainers for this). |
|
Bibliography of available Spanish language books. List of reliable vendor(s) of the above. |
|
More programs, covering other cultures, advanced workshop on serving Latinos/Hispanics. |
|
selection of materials |
|
Services for children w/ autism, asperger's, social disorders & their families |
|
Suzanne Stauffer “It Takes a Village: Partners in Creating a New Generation of Librarians” Session |
Good feedback & dialogue from audience -- needs to be encouraged as format with speaker serving only as catalyst not authority of last word |
How you can help people who may have a different culture, economic, educational level from you. |
|
How to give honest, direct feedback to library school interns on your staff -- too many students whom we support with tuition remission turn out to be "products" whom we do not hire!!! (Some of the advice has be about about affective, attitudinal behaviors |
|
I wish the program that you had early on Wednesday would have been on Friday instead to allow more people to participate |
|
more current information. important things to know for new librarians. |
|
Online resources/website accessibililty for all users |
|
Out reach programs, ways to promote library resources, |
|
Programs about the process of looking for a job. |
|
Technology based program -- implementing technology into library |
|
Trends in library service in New York State |
Workshop or Session |
Recommendations for Future NYLA Programming |
Clara Chu “Diversity, Libraries and Community: Windows and Mirrors to Your World” Session |
Academic/Public Libs. Collaborative efforts |
Address the problem that within library systems, nonlibrarian professionals such as marketing, financial and public relations professionals make more than the regular librarians and library managers. This is the case in the Queens Library system where starting slaries in nonlibrarian professional career positions are much higher. |
|
balancing mission + resources. SMALL libraries' community makeup + mission |
|
Continue diverse programs |
|
Cultural, ethnic programming |
|
Dealing with diverse staff members |
|
Diversity in the Art World/Special Libraries. Diversity in the librarianship -- presentations of librarians who are from foreign/American backgraounds. Contrast between East & West, Second generation multi-cultural background. |
|
examples of successful library programs reaching out to diverse populations that were admnistered by libraries of different sizes (small/rural; mid/suburban; large/urban) |
|
How diversity programs & concepts can be presented to children who use the library, i.e. through storytelling, etc. so these concepts become accepted at an early age. |
|
Materials (print + nonprint); available &emerging technologies; programming geared towards communities that are not aware library services are available to them. |
|
More concrete programs that address the effective services that have been implemented in the Universities with diverse ethnic groups |
|
More programs on multiculturalism |
|
More programs on Reference and user Services. Other programs include understanding diverse populations. how to interact and adapt to change. |
|
particular commities & cultural perspectives |
|
Program demonstration |
|
programming & materials -- how to address diverse needs |
|
Services for Older Adults |
|
Something more interactive and small group |
|
Which groups should we be servicing? I.e., Chinese, Latina American, etc. pop. #s |
|
work exchange programs supported by institutions whose employees hold NYLA memberships |
|
Would love more on this topic -- especially this presenter -- perhaps a full day pre-conference workshop. Where we may do more self reflection or prejudice awareness exercises. Transforming of self to provide transformative information services. |
|
Yes |
Half of the Avila workshop attendees, one-third of those at the Stauffer session, and 49% of the Chu session participants made specific recommendations for future NYLA meeting programming. The recommendations varied by session and frequently picked up on or expanded on the theme of the specific session. Some of the topics recommended, such as outreach programs, implementing technology in the library, and general NY library trends, are not especially relevant to the focus of the Making It REAL! grant focus and purposes. Most, however, are quite closely related and illustrate a continuing interest among NYLA conference attendees in the focuses that this grant has had.
Back to the IMLS page | Back to the Library Development page
Footnotes
1Michael Borges, NYLA Executive Director, was in the room during a portion of the workshop according to his self-report and observation by the workshop evaluator. He is not counted in the statistics given above and below since he was not present throughout the entire workshop and did not complete a workshop evaluation survey.
2However, as noted earlier, survey respondents are known to have included a Making It REAL! grant administrator and evaluator. It is possible that one of the students was a Making It REAL! scholarship recipient but did not identify herself as such.
3Early in the workshop Mr. Avila drew distinctions among different sub-groups in the Hispanic population, contrasting foreign-born Latinos (or new immigrants) with native-born Latinos. Drawing on market segmentation research he also distinguished a) most first-generation in the United States immigrants in heavily Hispanic inner-city neighborhoods who prefer Spanish and have “fully Hispanic values” ; from b) U.S. born or long-term resident acculturated, often bilingual Latinos living in suburbs or multi-ethnic neighborhoods but with a strong attachment to Hispanic tradition; and from c) fourth generation or beyond assimilated Latinos living in suburban or mostly Anglo neighborhoods whose language preference is English and who seldom use Spanish even with friends/families (and hardly ever consume consumer media in Spanish).
4The final report on this survey is dated February 27, 2007 and as of May 24, 2007 is posted online at http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/libdev/imls/survey/survey06.htm . While the final report was not completed until well after the NYLA conference the evaluation team had examined preliminary data from the survey before NYLA 2006 and found that most students were unaware of any collaboration or interactions going on between their library schools, most of which were also grant partners, and “Teaching Libraries” – grant partners or other libraries, except for internship placement.
5A few more examples surfaced during interviews and focus groups held during the conference. These will be discussed in the final evaluation report.
6The Making It REAL! program manager was not involved with these discussions, which was probably a tactical error on the part of the evaluators.
7The other titles included Coordinator of Department in library, Mgt., Public Relations Staff, Library system employee, Vendor, Children’s Services Employer, and Friend of the library.