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.