Apples and Apples: A Comparison of Bibliographic Instruction Programs In Libraries

Shellie Jeffries

When I began teaching library instruction at the University of Illinois's Undergraduate Library, I began grappling with the issues that occupy all instructors of bibliographic education: How much information can I include in a 50-minute session? Has anyone created a model session on which the rest of us can base ours? Is there even one thing that every User Education instructor agrees should be included in each session of instruction? Was there a magic formula I could employ that would make my sessions scintillating, informative, educational, yet entertaining and fun; a formula that would cover everything a student would need to know about how to use the library?

In my search for the ultimate Bibliographic Instruction (BI) session, I read many articles about programs across the country that, while providing interesting discussion and good ideas in general, did not give me the information I was looking for. What I really wanted to know was: What exactly was being taught and in what way? What concepts and tools were discussed? What was actually said and how was the information presented?

Investigating these topics and comparing bibliographic instruction programs on a nationwide basis seemed daunting, even with the help of the BI-L list-serv, which was created to address these issues. After all, librarians are dealing with different online catalog systems, or sometimes no online catalogs; a variety of locations in which Library Instruction (LI) sessions are held (ranging from the Reference area to highly advanced computer classrooms), several different types of indexed databases, and varying requests and degrees of collaboration with the faculty that schedules BI sessions for their students. What I needed was a way of comparing sessions taught in institutions offering basically the same tools and electronic databases to their patrons. To that end, I decided to investigate the state of Illinois' ILCSO libraries to determine whether those librarians working in ILCSO institutions and conducting user education classes, for the most part having access to the same online catalog system and indexing services, agreed on any aspect of what should be taught.

The Illinois Library Computer Systems Organization (ILCSO) is a library consortium made up of all state-supported universities, five publicly supported community colleges; 25 private colleges and universities, a state-supported high school specializing in mathematics and science, and the Illinois State Library, the state library agency and library to state government. "ILCSO's primary online service is ILLINET Online, a union catalog which includes the bibliographic records of the more than 700 Illinois libraries that subscribe to the Illinois State Library's ILLINET/OCLC service. The ILLINET Online database contains over 8 million bibliographic records and holdings of more than 22 million volumes." (ILCSO Report Fiscal Year 1993). Access to ILLINET Online is provided through a menu driven interface called MILO (Mainframe Interface to Libraries Online, which most patrons use, and also through "command mode searching," which accesses two different databases, LCS (Library Computer System, containing circulation records) and FBR (Full Bibliographic Record). Librarians and library staff are the primary users of command mode searching, though it is available on every public access terminal.

In addition to providing access to bibliographic records of the holdings of Illinois Libraries, ILLINET Online offers several other services. One that gets significant use is IBIS, the Illinois Bibliographic Information Service, which allows patrons to search for articles in a variety of databases, including nine H.W. Wilson indexes, Current Contents, ERIC and Psyclnfo.

Because most ILCSO libraries are working with the same online catalog and many subscribe to IBIS, investigating the BI programs they offered seemed like a workable method of determining what similarities, if any, existed in the programs. The results of my investigation would reveal what topics and issues Illinois librarians think are the most important items to include in each BI session.

A literature search discovered no papers discussing the types of BI programs offered by librarians working

242

in libraries that shared an online catalog network. Many states have shared networks, but no research on the effect that network sharing has on the library instruction provided at the library seems to have been published.

A survey was developed to collect data to analyze and compare the ILCSO libraries' BI programs. To make it as easy as possible for busy librarians to respond, questions were very specific and mostly fill-in-the-blank or circle the appropriate answer types. At the time the survey was conducted, ILCSO had 41 participating libraries. The questionnaires were sent to 37 libraries, excluding the Illinois State Library, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, the University of Illinois Health Sciences Libraries and the Illinois Math and Science Academy, the sole ILCSO high school. These libraries did not fit into the perimeters of the research, which focused on Library Instruction sessions offered to first-year undergraduate students. Self-addressed and stamped envelopes were included with the questionnaire to encourage return of the survey. Twenty-one institutions (57 percent) responded.

Of the 21 that returned the questionnaire, 15 were from private institutions, including 10 with religious affiliations. Of the six public institutions, one was from a community college and two were from predominately commuter schools. Student enrollment at these institutions covered a wide range, from very small (602 students) to very large (36,000). Because of the small number of responses and the limited nature of the survey, the data are descriptive, not inferential. Despite this, I feel the following discussion provides some interesting information about the nature of BI in Illinois academic institutions.

One of the questions in the survey asked the librarian if more than one type of BI session was offered at the institution, to choose the typical session offered to Freshmen, perhaps as part of their English or Writing classes, and base their responses on that session. If the library didn't offer specific sessions geared toward first year students, the questionnaire asked the respondent to select her most typical BI class and answer questions based on that session.

The survey consisted of 15 questions covering: where the session was held, topics discussed in a session, teaching methods employed, library instruction personnel and instructors' evaluation of their program.

Bibliographic Instruction has to be provided in some location. Some institutions have classrooms created specifically for the purpose of teaching BI, while others must make due with a corner of the library. Ten ILCSO institutions did not have a special room in which they conducted BI sessions, while 11 did, with two of the 11 maintaining two rooms. For those libraries not having a special classroom, classes were divided into three main areas: a room in the library (3), the reference area, or a room or lab with AV equipment. Some librarians also went to the students' class to teach, although this response was well in the minority. How the utilization of a separate room in which classes can be taught, or lack thereof, affects what is covered during a session will be discussed later. Four of the largest institutions surveyed had a special classroom for BI and only one of the nine largest didn't. Three of the five smallest also had a classroom. Although decisions to provide BI classrooms are obviously not predicated solely on the size of the enrollment of the institution, it seems the larger the institution, the more likely its library will have a special BI room. There seemed to be no correlation between the year in which an institution was founded and its provision of BI classrooms.

One of the great debates in library instruction is whether students should be taught the mechanics of the tools found in the library, so students can use them right away, or if instructors should focus on concepts behind the tools, to enable patrons to better understand the underlying foundation and structure of the organization of library resources.^{1, 2} To determine if the Illinois librarians tended to focus on one theory over the other, the questionnaire asked, "In general, I would say my BI program tends to be (a) more concept based, (b) more tool based or (c) pretty much mixes both." Only one program focused exclusively on concept-based instruction, while five leaned toward tool-based teaching, and 15 felt they mixed both.

Because the ILCSO libraries in general have access to the same tools, it was possible to be very specific about what was taught. The questionnaire included a list of what could be offered during a session and asked the respondents to merely circle the tools and concepts taught in a session. It was hoped that this would not only provide an overview of the session, but also encourage more responses by making the survey as easy to fill out as possible. The questionnaire specified items such as command mode searching, MILO, the differences between MILO & IBIS, as well as more general, non-system specific, non-tool based topics, such as keyword searching, call numbers, evaluation of resources and a research process. Blank spaces were provided for any items not mentioned in the list; only three respondents added topics.

Accompanying the question about what was taught was one that attempted to determine what teaching methods were employed. The choices ranged from lecture with no visuals to group exercises to tours of the library. Again, an effort was made to provide a quick and easy fill-in-the-blank list. The goal of the questions was to present a relatively complete and accurate picture

243

of what each program offered. Of course, the optimal procedure would have been to observe a session at each institution and perhaps in the future research will be done on this; however, it was not possible for this study. In the absence of scripts and observation, formatting the questions in this way seemed the most efficacious method of determining what different ILCSO libraries are teaching their patrons in LI sessions.

Of the 19 options listed as components of the typical BI session (respondents could check as many as applied), five stood out as being tools and/or concepts predominately discussed. Keyword searching, a research process (although no details about what type of research process were included) and subject searching were selected by 18 of the 21 libraries as topics they taught in a session. In most cases, all three topics were taught in the same session. The two remaining topics of the "top five" most discussed items were IBIS, taught in 17 institutions, and the differences between scholarly journals and magazines mentioned in 16 libraries. Thirteen out of the 21 (62 percent) taught all five of these topics in the same session. The next most frequently taught topics were: general introduction to the library system, Library of Congress Subject Headings, print indexes and CD-ROM products. A total of 12 institutions teach all nine of these topics, roughly 57 percent of those who responded. Although, as mentioned earlier, this discussion is more descriptive than inferential, this data does seem to indicate that, to some degree, Illinois academic librarians do agree on what should be taught during a typical BI session, that there is a tendency towards consensus on what is important to teach first-year students.

Concepts and tools mentioned by less than half of the libraries were: the differences between CD-ROMs and IBIS, evaluation of sources, call numbers, online catalog and the differences between MILO and IBIS. Interestingly, in environments where IBIS is often available on the same computer terminals as the online catalog, few BI programs—only 14 percent—specifically mention the difference between the two databases, even though this continues to be one of the most confusing aspects of the ILLINET Online system to patrons. More sessions (47 percent) focus on the differences between CD-ROM indexes and IBIS, which can because of their similar nature, also be confusing to patrons. Not surprisingly, the "command mode searching" available through MILO is not taught as often in a session (38 percent). Surprisingly, MILO is only taught in five of the programs (23 percent), through this may be a testimony to the fact that MILO is a menu-driven interface and is, therefore, assumed to be user friendly, not necessitating specialized instruction. Topics not included on the questionnaire list but written in by respondents include: Modern Languages Association Bibliography, Contemporary Literary Criticism, periodical directory & stacks guide, interlibrary loan, dialing-in, reference materials and very general Internet instruction. In this age of high technology, the Internet and World Wide Web access to the Internet, only one program discussed it. This could be for a variety of reasons, such as the lack of access to the Internet where BI sessions are held, classes on the Internet being offered elsewhere, and/or the topics discussed earlier are perceived as being more important, at least at the introductory stage of the first-year students' initial library experience.

The list of topics most often discussed and the list of those less frequently mentioned seem to indicate a focus on indexing resources (IBIS, CD-ROMs, print indexes) and a move away from explaining online catalogs. Again, this could merely reflect the perceived ease of use of MILO (or whatever online catalog an institution is utilizing) and a lack of need for instruction. But it also mirrors what seems to be an increasing reliance by undergraduate students on periodical articles.³ Undergraduates, because they are instructed by their professors who often specify that the use of articles for their research and because of their topic choices, gravitate toward the currency of information that periodicals can provide.

The survey also explored the teaching methodology employed in BI sessions. The predominate methods used fell into four general categories, with half of the respondents using at least one of the following methods: lectures with visuals, a demonstration of online databases or a CD-ROM product, hands-on experience for students, and a tour of the library. Much less popular were lecture-only sessions, and only two instructors incorporated single person or group exercises within a session (excluding hands-on practice). There appeared to be no correlation between what topics were covered and the teaching methods used by instructors. When comparing topics taught during a session to the location of the session (i.e. whether it was held in a special BI classroom or not), only slight differences appeared for most of the topics. However, some significant differences were discovered. Sessions taught in a classroom tended to focus on Boolean concepts, print indexes and elements of a citation. Instructors working outside a BI room tended to concentrate on keyword searching, subject searching, Library of Congress subject headings and call numbers. Interestingly, sessions not taught in a BI classroom offered more hands-on experience (8 out of 10 libraries) than those with a classroom (five out of 11). This difference seems to point out that while a library may have a special BI classroom, the existence of that room does not necessarily indicate the presence of the appropriate technology for hands-on practice. The difference could

244

also be the result of the needs or requests of the faculty member scheduling the library instruction sessions. For those libraries without classrooms, hands-on was primarily provided at the public online catalog terminals. CD-ROM areas and computer labs were other locations where hands-on experience was provided. The absence or presence of the classrooms seems to have little affect on whether visual presentations were part of the sessions.

When offered, hands-on searching experience predominately focused on databases offered via ILLINET Online Plus. Nine libraries out of the 15 that include hands-on practice in their sessions searched IO+; many looked at both IBIS and the online catalog. Experience using other databases was also a part of some sessions: two searched InfoTrac and two others looked at Academic Abstracts. In addition, two institutions stated that it "depended on the class" which database was searched. Sessions held in a special BI classroom tended to look at IO+ in general, while classes taught elsewhere focused on IBIS.

Seventy percent of the respondents try to incorporate specific assignments into their BI sessions, if they are advised of the contents of the assignment prior to the scheduled session.

The informal, fill-in-the-blank portion of the survey ended with two questions concerning what staff members taught the user education sessions and what library employee, if any, was in charge of each library's BI program. In 13 of the 20 institutions that responded to this question (65 percent), all the librarians in the particular unit surveyed conducted instruction sessions. Three libraries also relied on librarians from other units to teach sessions. One library relied solely on support staff to provide instruction, while five had some portion ranging from 20 percent to 67 percent of the units' librarians participating in instruction. Only the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign included graduate assistants (GAs) as instructors: we are able to utilize 10-11 GAs from the university's graduate school of Library and Information Service to assist with instruction. More in-depth detail regarding how the sessions were distributed among library instructors was outside the scope of this survey.

BI programs in Illinois libraries are coordinated and supervised by a varied assortment of staff. In most institutions, a librarian is the coordinator. Titles of the person doing that job range from Reference Librarian (7) to BI/LI Coordinator (4) to Information Literacy Librarian (1). Other institutions assign this task to the university librarian (1), the Associate Librarian for Public Services (1), and "just plain" Librarian (2). One had no one specifically designated to handle BI, and in one institution a support staff member was responsible for coordinating the program. This data suggests that most institutions have recognized the increasing importance of bibliographic instruction and the need to have one person coordinating and facilitating BI, even if only a few have gone to the extent of having positions specifically titled "BI Coordinators."

About 50 percent of the BI programs surveyed have stated goal and objectives for the program, with two libraries in the process of revising and updating their existing statements. Those with written goals felt very positively about them and thought they were doing a good job of meeting those goals.

Those respondents who answered the question, "What do you feel is the most important feature of your BI program," overwhelmingly stated "hands-on computer experience" (17 out of 21 replies or 80 percent), though not all who wrote in this response actually included hands-on experience in their sessions. This response was evenly split between those with BI rooms and those without. Other features instructors felt were most important were: developing search strategies, learning to evaluate sources, learning how to use the OPACs, visual aids and small classes.

One of the last questions asked, "How would you characterize the teaching of the BI session described above? Are instructors asked to follow a script or outline closely? Are there certain concepts or tools that must be mentioned in each session? Or do instructors mention what each feels is important?" Part of my interest in what specifically happens in any given session was due to the fact that both BI programs with which I am well acquainted are highly structured with specialized handouts and scripts to be followed more or less verbatim. Eight of the 17 respondents' programs provided an outline or script for their instructors, while teachers at the remaining nine institutions customized their sessions according to what each felt was important and what faculty members requested. Given this, the likelihood of quantifying what is actually being taught during BI sessions seems fairly remote, though the preceding discussion should provide some insight into what Illinois librarians think should be offered during a typical Freshman session.

It would have been interesting to have asked for more detail about what hardware and software were included in the BI classrooms and to have explored exactly what types of visual presentations were offered: photographic slides, transparencies, PowerPoint slides, etc. Also, some questions could have been more explicit. However, while the size of the survey is too small to draw many proven conclusions about the nature of BI in Illinois academic libraries, the results of the survey do describe interesting aspects of the state of library instruction in Illinois. To some degree,

245

librarians do agree on what should be taught during a BI session given to first year graduates: keyword searching, subject searching, a research process, IBIS, the differences between journals and magazines, a general introduction to the library system, LCSH, print indexes and CD-ROM products. A significant number agree that one of the most important methods of teaching is to provide hands-on experience. This resounding endorsement of hands-on practice is reflected in the literature as well: "Articles in the literature state that effective instruction of automated library sources should include a hands-on component."⁴ Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the survey is that, while the purpose of the questionnaire was to compare libraries with access to more or less the same technology, only one out of the top six most popular topics was specific to the electronic resources to which ILCSO libraries have access. This seems to indicate there is commonality in the topics covered in Illinois library instruction, which is not limited to or by available technology, This agreement among Illinois librarians about what is important in LI may be echoed in academic libraries across the nation. If that's the case and what's truly important to teach to incoming college students is not limited to the technology available at each library, it appears that LI librarians have more in common than suspected and that various technologies are not a barrier to determining the essential elements that each LI session should cover. We may, yet, be able to perfect the LI session and present a model on which nearly every librarian can base her own LI program.

Although this study did not provide me with answers to all my questions, I have a better understanding and sense of what is being taught in Illinois and what other librarians think is important. While it may not have been necessary to limit the scope of the study to ILCSO libraries, only more research will reveal if the findings of this survey accurately reflect the state of LI today.

There is much more to be studied about the commonalities of library instruction programs across Illinois and across the United States, and it is hoped we will continue to investigate the similarities and differences between BI programs as we continue to revise and perfect our own.

The introduction of the new Data Research Associates (DRA) online catalog platform into Illinois libraries, scheduled to be up and running in Spring 1997, will present librarians with may new instructional challenges. Because DRA, by virtue of its Windows-based software and World Wide Web access interface, is much more complicated and complex than MILO or command mode searching, librarians will have to rethink their current BI sessions and most likely create entirely new ones. We will need to determine what aspects and components of DRA to teach and whether to include DRA instruction within our already existing library instruction sessions or perhaps establish DRA-only workshops or, most probably, both. Furthermore, not only will students need to be taught the new platform, but faculty and staff will need training as well. The workload for librarians, both in creating training sessions and teaching them, will increase, and new approaches to BI will have to be envisioned to accommodate this additional amount of work.

Footnotes

1. Keefer, Jane, "The Hungry Rats Syndrome: Library Anxiety, Information Literacy, and the Academic Reference Process," RQ32 (Spring 1993): 333-339.

2. MacAdam, Barbara, "Information Literacy: Models for the Curriculum," C&RL News, November 1990: 948-951.

3. Taylor, David C., "Undergraduates' Use of Periodicals— Implications for Library Reference Work," The Reference Librarian 27-28 (1989): 51-65.

4. Rowe, Caroline, "Modern Library Instruction: Levels, Media, Trends and Problems," Research Strategies, 12(1), p. 4-17.

*Shellie Jeffries, Visiting Assistant Professor of Library Administration and Academic Resident Librarian, Undergraduate Library, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

246