Many thanks to Anna Noakes who suggested, introduced, and monitored our discussion on "Taking Care of Business." Anna did an excellent job trying to keep the discussion alive. Unfortunately, our discussion on this and several previous ones has waned after the first few days. Now that spring has come to the northern hemisphere, I am hoping that the brightness of spring will replace the winter blues that have plagued our recent discussions. Thanks again Anna for facilitating our discussion on Business Connections.
We now turn to a discussion of the role of training. Diane Nahl will be leading this discussion. All three of Diane's degrees come from the University of Hawaii, including her doctorate in communication and information sciences (CIS) in 1993. She is currently an assistant professor in CIS at Hawaii where she teaches in the areas of reference services, information retrieval, instructional services, survey of library and information science, and cognitive science. Her research focuses on human-system interaction from the novice user's perspective. Findings of this research have uncovered the common assumptions novices hold about print and online information retrieval systems, the common errors they make using systems, and their systemic information needs. She has published her research in this and other areas (human-system interaction, affective computing, user-centered design, cognitive science) in JASIS, School Library Media Quarterly, Electronic Journal of Virtual Culture, Research Strategies, Database, Internet Reference Services Quarterly, and several other respected publications.
Please join us for our discussion on the role of training.
The influx of novice searchers continues to expand from professionals and students to the general public, as electronic information retrieval (IR) products in libraries attract end users in great numbers. The end user revolution has been fueled by the availability in libraries of CD-ROM and online database products, and lately, of Web search engines and databases. Library automation of catalogs and integrated systems along with the swift growth of end user searching in libraries over the past twenty years have significantly increased the amount of time librarians spend in training both staff and users.
Continual changes and advances in information retrieval technology demand that librarians, information specialists, and end users continuously learn new systems, new functions, new interfaces, and new procedures. Producers of the many electronic products found in libraries today compete with varieties of "user-friendly" interfaces and coverage, continuously refining, revising, and updating their products and adding new ones at a quick pace. And, though systems claim the status "user-friendly", they seldom obtain it in the eyes of end users who do not find most systems transparent enough.
Expertise Eludes Experts
The continuous pressure to innovate has generated several responses from the field. Some researchers and practitioners have identified a new dynamic engendered by the electronic environment that acknowledges the impossibility of ever becoming expert at the many systems we use. In this view, we are all "perpetual novices" or "lifelong novices" because we never have time to learn any system completely. As we add new systems to our repertoire, we only develop a horizontal growth in facility, rather than a vertical growth in our depth of ability with a given system. This frustrates many practitioners who feel pressure to become and to appear to be experts at the systems they use.
Training Programs
The complexity of information retrieval (IR) curricula continues to grow to include: system image; record structure; query formation; concept analysis; term selection; logical operators; field limiting; truncation; search statement composition; database selection; specific system procedures; relevance judgement; etc. Some practitioners, primarily school and academic librarians, have developed and implemented well-articulated training programs for end users and students (K-graduate) that build IR skills and concepts from basic to advanced. This instructional service requires many hours of preparation and teaching time, e.g., a medium-sized academic library may conduct hundreds of hours of classes for thousands of students each year. In addition, the staff need training, or must self-instruct with each new system or update. Some staff resist learning new technology, and may need support with technophobia reduction techniques.
Others, notably administrators but also some librarians, believe that all of the effort spent in instructional services is better spent working with individuals on-demand at reference/information service points. They ask: The cost is significant, but what is the benefit? Are students truly being educated in these classes? Do they reduce the number of questions asked? Aren't the systems user-friendly, not requiring instruction? Don't kids know how to use computers anyway, so they don't need instruction?
Rebuttals to this position include: In a customer-driven model, is reduction in number of questions asked a goal we should be pursuing? How do you measure the effectiveness of instruction? Aren't they asking more questions because there is so much more to learn about the system? (Studies show that novices ask about one question per minute on the average in the first 4-5 hours of their experience searching.) Don't we have a responsibility to teach the IR skills they can use beyond school, in their careers and personal lives?
A Need to Apply ISP Research Findings
Recently, on BI-L, a user education discussion list primarily for academic reference librarians, a discussion arose on how to apply the research findings from studies of the Information Search Process (ISP) that have been conducted in the past decade (e.g., Belkin, Kuhlthau, Nahl, Dervin, Mellon, etc.). Reference and instruction librarians may need curricular support for translating research findings into workable instructional strategies.
Instruction: A Real Job Requirement
An analysis of academic reference job descriptions over the past ten years reveals that experience with instruction and training is listed as highly desirable, since most reference positions specify instructional responsibilities as one of the main activities of the job. Public libraries too feel the pressure to instruct users on Internet access. At least a dozen schools offer such courses as electives, nevertheless, instruction librarians have been critical of LIS curricula because it does not include courses that educate librarians to teach end users. New employees then need on-the-job training from experienced instructor-librarians because traditional teaching methods are not effective in interactive, electronic environments.
Current Teaching/Learning Models
The prevailing model in training favors active and collaborative learning techniques, and focuses on instilling conceptual IR concepts and principles, rather than procedural (how to search a certain database) knowledge. Instructors are thus required to function as teachers, organizers, facilitators, coaches, information counselors, and models of the learning process. Many job interviews now require prospective reference librarians to demonstrate their teaching ability to a group of librarians.
Information Literacy
Back in 1989, ALA initiated the information literacy movement that has progressed in school and academic libraries. Recognizing the importance of IR skills in work and personal life, it prescribes a much expanded role for reference librarians, including an instructional mission for reference service, and a curriculum that includes teaching critical thinking about and evaluation of retrieved information.
I hope I have struck at least a few nerves. In light of these facets of the training topic, consider the questions that follow, and add others that you think are significant to the topic.
Questions:
Many librarians choose their profession because it gave them the opportunity to read, write, search, analyse, classify and develop long term skills. Some found satisfaction in helping ordinary people or specialized patrons.
As information science has been integrated in the commercial/business system, "exhaustive," "long term," free service, have been replaced by "instant," "new," "short term," "survey." Many librarians don't feel comfortable with these values and therefore won't feel the obligation to learn and teach "disposable" retrieval techniques.
As the intellectual searching skills are replaced by CPU speed and RAM capacities, the gap between rich and poor libraries is widening and becoming more obvious. Personnel cutbacks are worsening this situation. Goodwill librarians may simply not have the time to learn new software. How long can you close a library so the personnel could go and learn GIS or HTML?
After teaching 15 years in CEGEP level, I decided to go back to university. I wanted to be a librarian, I will be an information specialist or maybe a cybrarian if I work in a wealthy environment. I consider that it was a marvelous chance to fall in the Internet boom, but that I could not repeat such an exhausting experience every year.
The fact that technology and access tools are changing so rapidly means two things: training never ends, and as information professionals we must know how to train and be trained.
But I want to make another plug for the distinction between education and training. An LIS curriculum should concentrate on educating, not training. It's not a trade school, after all. Regarding IR, LIS students need to be taught the conceptual and evaluative approaches to IR -- just as they are taught, hopefully, to approach traditional print sources. When IR training does occur -- as one part of a conceptual course on IR and perhaps as a special additional "tools" course just before leaving or as CE offerings? -- the relationship to the continuum needs to be pointed out. That is, to the overarching functions of library and information science professions.
The point in BI and IR training always needs to be made that this is NOT "how we do it." Rather, "this is how we do it NOW."
An adequate LIS curriculum teaches an appreciation of this continuum -- meaning that the current point in the continuum is well-known to the faculty (that they are up-to-date in their knowledge of innovations and new tools, even if they don't know how to push ALL the buttons).
If we are taught all that -- solid foundations in concepts and approach -- plus strong communication skills, then surely we learn to convey to others, too? More and more, our jobs seem to center on knowing how to learn first, then how to organize and apply what we have learned.
As for me, with the universe and world composed of microcosms, I fear I'll always be a novice in most things.
In terms of being trained to aid students move from the keystroking to some level of critically understanding the citations they've got, one has to know new and divergent systems, and that will take seeing staff training as a budgeting and a risk decision.
There is a solid group of theories of learning that have stood the test of time because they have been developed in keeping with human growth and development. We need to be sure that librarians understand them early. Because in an really dynamic environment, we may be in a situation where we have to develop educational or training strategies on the spot.
I am not dismissing the need for the training programs but we need professionals at every level who are flexible enough to deal with the unexpected in such a professional way, that users will not really be aware of the change.
I do not know about the other lurkers but I have been busy writing proposals and leading curriculum discussions with our faculty, students, alumni, and employers during the past few weeks. These issues have been part of the discussions.
Less obviously, we should prefer to teach people about systems that are easy to use, intuitive and consistent. For example, the locations of the major controls on an automobile are standardized so that we can drive each other's cars with minimal extra training. If you think this is a trivial example, look up the control layout on a Model T Ford. It is easier and faster to teach people to drive because of this standardization.
At present there are many search packages with different interfaces. Wouldn't it be wonderful if, at least, basic and intermediate level searches used the same syntax and had the same capabilities in all packages?
Librarians are in a wonderful position to survey existing search engines, identify the most user-friendly search methods, and recommend standards. Libraries, as major purchasers of many electronic information packages, probably have the economic clout to enforce standards. Everyone would benefit, from the programmers who design the search packages to the users who get their results more quickly.
Michel Giroux points to a clash of values in libraries which have become electronic environments devoted to end user control in searching, efficiency, and speed. He points out that, "Many librarians don't feel comfortable with these values and therefore won't feel the obligation to learn and teach "disposable" retrieval techniques." This is especially true when staff feel there is no time to squeeze in more training on new systems and techniques.
This set of dilemmas can be dealt with in some ways, including restructuring priorities for staff activities. Institutions are now asking some fundamental questions, e.g., What do we value most? What do our users, clients, patrons, customers value? What do we need to spend time on first? Etc. The pressures to innovate and to do with less can lead to consideration of these fundamental issues. The answers to such questions can be based in impressions of experience as well as in data gathered in the setting. But as Pat Doty points out, these considerations are perceived by organizations as risky.
Pat Hassan sums up the current situation: "The fact that technology and access tools are changing so rapidly means two things: training never ends, and as information professionals we must know how to train and be trained." Her point about the distinction between training and education is important because LIS programs have the opportunity to educate information professionals in learning theories, program design, and instructional design so that they are prepared to design and conduct training. Ben Speller agrees that these theories and methods are the tools information professionals need to have available in their repertoire when faced with growing numbers of new searchers.
Ben Speller reports that North Carolina Central University SLIS is considering curriculum changes: "I do not know about the other lurkers but I have been busy writing proposals and leading curriculum discussions with our faculty, students, alumni, and employers during the past few weeks. These issues have been part of the discussions." I think it would be valuable to know what the concerns of each group are and the solutions you decide on.
Pat Hassan characterizes the current state of affairs for information professionals, "More and more, our jobs seem to center on knowing how to learn first, then how to organize and apply what we have learned." It is significant that information professionals have become clearinghouses for learning, not just for knowledge. This represents a more internal relationship to the community of users, i.e., not only making materials accessible, but also being responsible for preparing citizens who can learn to innovate and navigate in electronic environments. If we make this decision consciously, we will design curriculum and services differently.
David Drummond calls for more participation from librarians in developing standards for IR systems. Much work goes on in this area, including user studies that result in system design recommendations, however, producers have a stake in making their systems distinctive to maintain competitive markets. Many think that standardization is the solution to training, but we still have driver education, and with high accident statistics, many call for more driver training throughout life.
Recent user studies indicate that it isn't likely that systems will become so transparent that the need for training will be reduced in the next decade. It may be that there is conflict over whether to give training a place in curricula and institutions because we expect complexity in the information environment to decrease and simplify itself soon.
Some users or groups of users wish to receive additional systematic instruction. Therefore, different brief introductory courses for catalogue and database retrieval are complementary. Such instruction opportunities should be offered regularly to the customers; it is up to the users to which extend they make use of the offers. The frequency of the courses depends on the number of participants; it goes without saying that only small groups allow successful instruction.
It is reasonable if, within LIS curricula, priority is given to IR concepts and principles. Yet these concepts and principles need concretization. You are able to illustrate them by selecting appropriate IR procedures and demonstrating them in a library or an information site.
It would be an excellent training step for LIS students (and would diminish the work load of librarians or information specialists at the same time) if, during practices, supervising staff could support LIS students to articulate training programs for end users.
"Businesses Poised to Spend More on Technology"
Businesses will spend 5.4 percent more on technology this year than they did in 1995, according to a poll of 346 executives conducted by Computer Sciences Corp. "We're spending more on software than on hardware," says an insurance company CIO. "Our story is very common, considering the costs of software updates." In addition to software upgrades, training and support for networks are claiming a large share of technology dollars, says a Forrester Research analyst. And putting the hardware in the hands of employees has actually created a "hidden IT cost," says the chairman of the International Center for Information Technologies. Every time a highly compensated worker stops what they're doing to fix a printer jam, they become an extremely costly computer technician. "While decentralized client-server computing was supposed to lower IT costs, the opposite has happened. Equipment costs are one-fifth of total costs... firms are now spending on education and support." (Investor's Business Daily 9 April 96 A8)
I-TECH Training Market to Double by 2000
The global market for information technology training and education is rising by 13 percent a year, and will reach $27 billion by the end of the decade, according to International Data Corp. Spending totaled $14.4 billion last year. Leading the trend is corporate America's need to provide continuous training, professional development and employee skill certification. Top training organizations last year were IBM Education & Training, Oracle Education, Knowledge Pool (a joint venture of ICL PLC, Amdahl Corp. and Fujitsu Ltd.), SAP Customer Education, and Global Knowledge Network (formerly Digital Learning Services). (Investor's Business Daily 11 Apr 95 A8)
 Home |
 Discussion |