Content provided in partnership with
Plus ca change… - The Library and Undergraduate Education
Library Trends, Fall, 1995 by Evan Ira Farber
One of the few advantages of achieving the status of an elder statesman is the license it gives to reflect or reminisce and still have those reflections or reminiscences listened to or read with a good bit of tolerance, even perhaps with interest--albeit a bemused interest. It is tempting to indulge in these reminiscences--too tempting to resist, probably, but they will be kept to a minimum. This article will encompass some reflections--reflections that take advantage of the experience garnered over thirty years of working with undergraduates, and reflections that look at both some of the changes as well as some of the constants of implementing a successful program of bibliographic instruction. I will then reflect on how those changes--rather, if those changes--will help provide some direction in the years to come.
- Most Popular Articles in Reference
- The importance of understanding organizational culture
- Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- More »
The title, Plus Ca Change, is, of course, only half of the aphorism, loosely translated: "The more things change, the more they are the same." The latter half, plus c'est la mime chose, is the more intriguing part of the saving. In examining library use instruction over the past thirty years, it is easy enough to point to those factors that have changed; all, or certainly almost all, the changes relate to computer technology. Thirty years ago, those in bibliographic instruction (it was not called "BI" then but "library orientation" or "library use instruction"; the first use of the term "bibliographic instruction" in Library Literature seems to have appeared in 1974) were concerned with teaching only a few tools such as the Library of Congress subject heading volumes, a few specialized encyclopedias, some Wilson indexes, other disciplinary indexes or abstracting services, and the use of printed bibliographies. Some introduced students to the Library of Congress classification or reminded them of Dewey's mnemonic devices. Those who worked in libraries that were government documents depositories may have explained the SuDocs classification. One looks at the simplicity of our early handouts with some yearning--but surely that same simplicity would seem almost laughable to younger bibliographic instruction librarians now. Today there are not only many more specialized reference works in print--i.e., encyclopedias, handbooks, and bibliographies--but also students have to be shown the idiosyncracies of our individual systems' OPACs and introduce them to the proliferation of electronic databases available on standalone CD-ROMS or through the OPACs. And most recently--and prominently--we must cope with the Internet and what sorts of information--bibliographic, numeric, and other--are increasingly available through it. These decades, and especially the last few years, have seen an enormous change, or rather a series of changes, in the content of what we feel is necessary to convey to students; we have constantly scrambled to keep up with those changes--or felt very guilty for not giving students the latest and the best. What factors have remained constant? The faculty, first of all, has remained constant.
In the late 1960s, the bibliographic instruction program at Earlham had achieved a widespread reputation: we were working with faculty members in almost all disciplines, reaching a substantial proportion of our students, and the staff's excitement and enthusiasm about the program's successes were obvious. At the same time, we were still frustrated by the fact that we were not working with the other faculty members (more than just a few) whose classes had library-based assignments. It was puzzling. We knew that most faculty were dedicated and conscientious, and really concerned about their students' learning. We thought that they must know that bibliographic instruction would enhance learning, would make students' papers more interesting, and their teaching more fun. With even longer experience, I had begun to understand--not excuse--them and, a few years later, I characterized faculty who resisted our overtures as people who thought they could not spare the time either to talk about instruction or to implement it; were territorial--that is, reluctant to share their classes with anyone; were mostly taught the way they were taught; had fragile egos so that it was risky to criticize their library assignments or even to make suggestions; and they could not think of librarians as peers with whom they could share their students (Farber, 1992, pp. 3-4). All of these, and probably others that I have overlooked, were obstacles to working with faculty. And yet if, as I said, those same faculty were dedicated and conscientious--and there is no question that most of them were--there had to be a way of convincing them that librarians could help their students' learning and their teaching. The key, it seemed, was to take advantage of that dedication while keeping the obstacles in mind and working around them. It took time, patience, perseverance, and more than a bit of politicking, but most faculty were eventually won over.
Find Research Guides for:
Find Featured Titles for: Autos
Most Popular Articles in Reference
- The importance of understanding organizational culture
- Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- More »