As time goes by…: revisiting fundamentals - The Library and Undergraduate Education

Library Trends, Fall, 1995 by David K. Kohl

INTRODUCTION

The problem with growing up like Topsy is, well, that you grow up like Topsy. When asked who was in charge of her upbringing, Topsy replied, "I jus growed up." Library instruction is not much different. Even with the creative and committed leadership of Evan Farber, Virginia Tiefel, and others, library instruction pretty much "jus growed up." On the one hand, such frontier freedom contributed considerable energy, creativity, and vitality to the process, on the other, it has left more than a few loose ends. As a library administrator who is now some distance from the instructional "madding crowd," these loose ends have come more clearly into focus and are, I believe, important issues for the continued and productive development of library instruction.

The overall theme of the loose ends has to do with the piecemeal implementation of library instruction. This is by no means criticism ill any dismissive manner. Having been intimately involved with library instruction in four ARL libraries, this author fully understands and appreciates the degree to which practical politics, individual personalities, the vagaries of local organizational structure (both within and without the library), and just practical operational necessity interferes with, and influences, logic and educational theory in the development of an instructional program. Indeed, the wonder is not (to paraphrase Dr. Johnson's celebrated remark about the dancing bear) that our instructional programs are not more developed and widely available, but rather that we have any decent ones at all.

Nevertheless, as creative and resourceful as both librarians and their occasional traditional teaching faculty supporters have been, the development of library instruction has been largely a process of experimentation and discovery, capitalizing on opportunities in an often indifferent or hostile environment with improvisation and make do. While such an approach has been necessary in the past and, given the academic library's status in the academic pecking order, will likely always be required to some degree, library instruction has now established itself well enough for us to pause and consider some broader issues. The trappers, traders, and explorers have explored and mapped the territory and have sent back their reports; now it is time for the settlers. The issues, or loose ends, which now require attention, form an agenda in four primary and intimately related areas.

ESTABLISHING PRIMACY OF INSTRUCTION

One of the fundamental problems we face today in carrying out the "access to information" part of the library mission is the inadequacy of the traditional reference model in a period of chronic funding shortages and ongoing radical technological change. Providing intellectual access to library information resources through one-on-one, face-to-face interactions has never been particularly efficient. In an earlier period, when library funding was better and information needs were simpler, such inefficiency was a more or less manageable problem. The job of the reference librarian, even twenty years ago, was more one of explaining the fine points of information tools rather than teaching basic new technologies. For example, it was possible to assume that most patrons understood alphabetical order when showing them how to use a print tool, whereas it is not wise to make the analogous assumption today (familiarity with Boolean searching or proximity statements, for instance) when explaining the use of electronic tools. Further, there was more continuity in the information experience between academic generations and schooling levels. The size and complexity of the card catalog, for example, may have changed considerably from high school to college to research university, but these all worked on the same basic principle. And the tools which professors used as graduate students were basically the same tools their students were using.

As we all know, the information environment is radically different today. Changes in information tools are so basic and relentless that it is difficult for reference librarians to keep up, let alone provide interpretation and education to patrons in their use. Students are less prepared and have more diverse needs, and a large proportion of the faculty bring a personal experience with information tools that is so outmoded, they cause serious problems for both themselves and their students rather than, as formerly was possible, assisting public service librarians in their mission.

The reference model, with its locus in individual interactions, simply cannot cope with this kind of radical change--especially when reference staffs are more likely to be faced with downsizing rather than massive increases in personnel. The idea that library instruction whose classroom approach multiplies the librarian's ability to provide information access by twenty to thirty times is not new. What does need to be reconsidered, however, is instruction's place in the library organization.