Theme 2 Blog

Lesson 5. The Reference Interview.

In my partner’s Human Service Work study, he had an entire course on ‘motivational interviewing’ which is asking guided questions to work towards someone becoming motivated to enact a change. It seems to me that reference interviewing is similar in that the user might not be aware of what they want or need, but you still have to have to help them figure it out in a way that empowers them to find their own answers.

“Why didn’t your teacher tell ME you were going to have such-and-such an assignment?” seems like a very bad question to ask a student. I can understand how it would be uttered in the moment. But it’s a really self-defeating question, too. By immediately placing yourself in an adversarial role towards the teacher (and placing the student in the middle), you are ensuring that you will continue to be at odds with the teacher in question.

This links back to Riedling’s measure of success being based on efficient & positive interaction rather than the achievement of an answer. A positive interaction will lead to further interactions; a student or teacher user is much more likely to come back with further inquiries if the ‘failed’ interview was pleasant.

All this talk of cooperative teaching reminds me very much of the co-teaching lessons from Tan Huynh that my colleagues and I have been studying in our monthly English Language Learning meetings. ELL teaching—especially in a small district where there aren’t enough ELLs to form their own cohort—is very much reliant on collaboration in much the same way as being a Teacher Librarian.

Lesson 6. Managing the Reference Collection.

Being a Manager is not the same as being a Gatekeeper. You don’t have to figuratively OR literally be at the Library door with a flaming sword to protect the knowledge within.

In this lesson, I was most interested in how different each district’s attitudes and budgets were for their TLs and SLLCs. Of course each local has its own cultural and academic needs, but the constant is that the TL knows these needs, and plans their selection, acquisition, and weeding accordingly.

I found the stages of collection development easy to understand, so I’m going to repeat it here, with actionable phrasing:

1. Analyse existing collection 
2. Identify user needs 
3. Determine available budget 
4. Identify sources for obtaining resources 
5. Select resources 
6. Acquire resources 
7. Hand/process resources 
8. Promote resources to user groups 
9. Maintain the collection on an ongoing basis 
10. Renew and weed collection on an ongoing basis 

Lesson 7. Evaluating Reference Sources.

I love that ROLES and GOALS rhyme. I found it quite easy to understand how the role of the TL related to the goals of the SLLC. If the goals change, the role must change, and vice versa.

TLs must prioritize providing open access. ACCESS is the word I keep coming back to. In the last decade or so, the substitution of the word ‘accessible’ for ‘disabled’ or ‘handicapped’ has become much more frequent. This reflects not only a politically correct, person-first awareness of disabilities, but it also is a wide enough word to include persons with invisible disabilities. The word can encompass students who are functioning at grade level, but aren’t experts in their fields. And using the word can change the point of view of the speaker, to open up consideration for all people of differing abilities, not being confined to an able-disabled binary.

ACCESS means being able and powerful enough to self-direct. ACCESS means meeting people where they are, providing the scaffolding or bridging they might require to be able to partake in equitable activities.

I wrote at length on how the branding change from school library to learning commons requires a change in the role of the TL for our discussion in Lesson 7. I’m going to post it on this blog separately, because it’s already been published elsewhere.

Gatekeeper and Keymaster

As the School Library has been rebranded into the Learning Commons, a change in the role of the Teacher-Librarian has become necessary. No longer the Gatekeeper of information in a stuffy, quiet library where users can’t self-select or use the resources, the new TL needs to be a Keymaster. (Apologies to Ghostbusters for the terminology.)

A Gatekeeper is in the business of protection, prescriptivism, and guardianship. A Keymaster is in the business of empowerment, access, and free use. A Gatekeeper deals in scarcity; a Keymaster in abundance. A Gatekeeper decides who, when, and how access will be granted; a Keymaster decides how to make materials more and more accessible. The Gatekeeper allows access on an individual basis; a Keymaster can make a single resource available to multiple users at the same time. A Gatekeeper retains a single point of view; a Keymaster encourages plurality and diversity. A Gatekeeper is akin to a feudal lord, restricting access to his land. A Keymaster is akin to the keeper of the commons from which we get the term learning commons, a plot of land that is designated for community use.

If I pull out the keywords from above, that gives us some direction begin our goal-setting:

• empowerment
• access
• free use
• abundance
• multiplicity of uses/users
• diversity and plurality
• community use

The goals of the SLLC, in order to reflect the 21st-century value of freedom of information (access), should be to empower users to find/use information, to improve access on the information-side rather than user-side, to allow freedom to browse, to employ multiple sources and types of references for broad and overlapping user groups, to employ and encourage multiple points of views and diversities, and to make the library a cornerstone of the community.

Blog 1

Theme 1 Summative Reflection 

I've condensed and simplified the main points that stood out to me from the first four lessons in LIBE 467. Here are my conclusions. 

Lesson 1. 

• The TL is the Information Matchmaker, making matches between students and resources, questions and answers. 
• Information ≠ knowledge 
• TL's job regarding research can be condensed to two steps: 
• provide information 
• provide tools/skills to interpret that information
• All the 21st century literacy skills from AASL’s standards (as quoted by Riedling) are metacognitive in nature. 

Lesson 2. 

• There is somewhat of a hierarchy of information search: 

¯       Quick fact check: “When was the War of 1812?”

¯       Directional request: “Where can I find info on the War of 1812?”

¯       Limited search: “What groups of people were involved in fighting in the War of 1812?”

¯       Research: “I need multiple sources to direct my analysis of whether the War of 1812 was a formative event in the identity of Canada.” 

• A literate citizen is simply one who has learned how to learn. 

Lesson 3. 

I shared this table in the discussion, but I wanted to re-post it here. A comparison of inquiry processes: 

Lesson 4. 

• “Isn’t this all on the internet?” I think I hear this every day. On days I don’t hear it, I’m the one who asks it. 
• WHAT information is no longer as important as HOW it’s APPLIED. Information is inexpensive. Analysis and synthesis are valuable. 

The book. 

My interactions with Riedling’s book Reference Skills for the School Librarian have been mostly antagonistic so far. I don’t like the way it's written or constructed, and I suspect it’s out of date even though it’s on its third edition Most of the content sounds really “Boomer”—that is, it sounds like it’s been written by someone who, despite working in an emerging field, is still stuck with a lot of unexamined biases from a time when homogeneity was prized above all. I’ve made my opinions clear in the discussions, but I really don’t want to just tear it apart. I could ‘dunk’ on this book all day (I do love to trash-talk), but in the end I do realize that it was chosen as a resource that someone I’ve entrusted my education to has chosen, for a reason. I’m trying to see that reason.