Notes on Operations: Classifying African Literary Authors

This paper reviews the literature on the inadequacies of the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) schedules for African literary authors and describes a modified practice that collocates African literature and facilitates patron browsing. Current LCC practice scatters African literature across the multiple European language classifications of former colonial powers. Future strategies could place individual authors more accurately in the context of their country, region, culture, and languages of authorship. The authors renew the call for a formal international effort to revisit the literature schedules and create new classification practices for African literature

End of Program Assessments and their Association with Early Career Success in LIS

Analyses of North American LIS program alumni survey data indicate that the completion of any end of program assessment (EPA) or capstone is associated with certain early-career success measures. Using data collected in the Workforce Issues in Library and Information Science 2 project (WILIS 2), we examined the type of EPAs (internships, portfolios, theses, etc.) completed by students and assessed whether there are relationships between their completion and the following outcomes: length of time to secure employment after graduation, acquisition of managerial or leadership roles, job/ career satisfaction, and participation in professional and leadership activities. We also assessed the graduates’ attitudes about whether these experiences were a beneficial part of their career preparation. These results should be of interest to faculty curriculum developers and program administrators in LIS programs worldwide, since they provide insight into the relative merits of EPAs and are based on aggregate data from 39 programs and over 3,000 graduates

What is the purpose of librarianship and how can we teach this?

Over the past 20 years, Library and Information Science (LIS) programs have greatly diversified what they teach beyond librarianship to include many related, relevant topics, like information needs, human computer interaction, information policy, or knowledge management. As they have done so, many LIS programs have expanded to encompass these interconnected topics, re-positioning themselves within universities as I-Schools with explicit teaching and research agendas addressing information broadly—and even dropping the “L” word from their names. This has contributed to ongoing conversation and debate as to the nature of the LIS discipline and its place within information education and research, e.g. the 2019 ALISE plenary Session led by Dr. Jaya Raju and the successful SIG Curriculum Session: “What About Librarianship in LIS Curricula?”, delivered at the 2020 ALISE Annual Conference. This session will be a follow up to this 2020 SIG Curriculum Session. It will examine two important questions: 1) What is the purpose of librarianship/libraries? and 2) How can LIS programs teach this purpose well? One answer to the first question, that of librarianship’s purpose, is that librarianship provides access to recorded content, but this question has been answered in many ways. Librarianship’s activities select recorded content items from the bibliographic universe, describe it, organize it, make it available at specific times and places, and assist content users in making sense of and using these content items. of librarian. But why does this occur? In other words, what contribution to individual human beings or to society does this make? The answer to the second question, that how to teach librarianship’s purpose, can vary depending upon the program. Most LIS programs offer courses in the essential activities mentioned above, e.g. classes in content management, information organization, or research and public services. They also offer courses in information ethics, in types of libraries (e.g. academic or public libraries) or even in a generic course, e.g. a class covering the library’s role in society. How else might librarianship’s purpose be conveyed within a curriculum? How might these means for doing so be improved? Drawing upon a literature addressing the essence and philosophy of librarianship, and especially upon Charles Osburn’s The Social Transcript, Uncovering Library Philosophy, this SIG Session will address these questions and their proposed answers. Including a mix of LIS educators and information professionals, this session, sponsored by the ALISE SIG Curriculum, will spur conversation and consideration of these important issues. Each panelist will present briefly (approximately 10 minutes)—providing context for 45 minutes of discussion among panelists and attendees. Panel composition: LIS educators: Dr. Rene Burress, Assistant Professor, University of Central Missouri Dr. YooJin Ha, Associate Professor, Clarion University of Pennsylvania Dr. Susan R. Rathbun-Grubb, Associate Professor, University of South Carolina. Information professional: Dr. Bill Edgar, Independent Information Professional Supporting References: Atkinson, R.W. (1996). Library functions, scholarly communication and the foundation of the digital library: Laying claim to the control zone. Library Quarterly, 66 (3), 239-265. Budd, J. M. (2001). Knowledge and knowing in library and information science: A philosophical framework. The Scarecrow Press. Butler, P. (1952). The cultural function of the library. Library Quarterly, 22, 79-91. Edgar, W.B. (2003). Toward a theory of collection development: An activities and attributes approach. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 27(4), 393-423. Egan, M. & Shera, J, H. (1952). Foundations of a theory of bibliography. Library Quarterly, 22, 125-137. Nitecki, J. (1964). Public interest and the theory of librarianship. College and Research Libraries, 25, 269-278, 325. Osburn, C. (2009). The social transcript: Uncovering library philosophy. Libraries Unlimite

What About Librarianship in LIS Curricula?

Over the past 20 years, Library and Information Science (LIS) programs have greatly diversified what they teach beyond librarianship to include many related, relevant topics, like information needs, human computer interaction, information policy, or knowledge management. As they have done so, many LIS programs have re-positioned themselves within universities as I-Schools with explicit teaching and research agendas addressing information broadly—and even dropping the “L” word from their names. However, this intellectual expansion raises important questions: How important is librarianship to the curricula of a School or Department of LIS or to an I School? How important is librarianship to graduates of these I-Schools or LIS Schools and Departments? To what degree is librarianship specific to the curricula of these Departments and Schools, providing them an educational niche distinct from those occupied by other information educators, such as Departments of Computer Science or Communication? Possible answers to these questions are: First, librarianship provides something essential to people by addressing perennial limits people have as to intellectual content, e.g. by addressing people’s inability to consume all existing content by putting it into smaller, understandable content collections. Second, at least historically, most graduates in LIS or I-Schools have worked in libraries because they provide librarianship, a service essential to people, making librarianship very important to the graduates’ careers. Third, librarianship either is or can be a niche very specific or even unique to LIS Departments or I-Schools, providing them a great curricular opportunity. This SIG Session will address these questions and their proposed answers, spurring conversation and consideration of these important issues

Active learning in technical services education

Technical services educators have needed to demonstrate creativity and foresight in providing venues for their students, especially in online classes, to engage meaningfully with material. In the past year, that has also meant facilitating learning in the midst of a global pandemic. In acknowledgement of the necessity of engaging students, especially online, this panel on active learning in technical services education will bring together panelists in discussion with the audience to share their expertise and offer insights into pedagogical best practices. A number of technical services courses were already being taught online when the COVID-19 pandemic required many schools to move all their in-person courses to a virtual environment. Although the modality of many technical services classes might not have changed, the disposition of the student body fundamentally did. Students were stressed and worried, starting in spring 2020 and continuing to present. The challenge then has become educating students more distracted than usual, while being compassionate and understanding. Technical services education has fundamentally shown itself to be resilient in this capacity, with efforts being made to engage students through active learning strategies. Active learning can be defined as “activities that students do to construct knowledge and understanding” [1]. In other words, instead of passively observing lectures and taking notes, students are expected to take a more central role in their learning by, for example, collaborating with fellow students, solving problems posed by the instructor, and discussing case studies. Active learning strategies are effective due to their focus on encouraging students to construct new knowledge and to engage in higher-order thinking. Active learning techniques are often explained with physical classrooms in mind. However, what about active learning in online classrooms? Can an online instructor facilitate active learning in the same way as an instructor in a physical classroom? In-person classroom engagement will always be different than it is online, but that does not mean active learning strategies cannot be applied in online courses. The panel will begin with a discussion of what active learning means in library and information science (LIS) education, and in technical services education in particular, with consideration given to challenges related to using active learning techniques during the COVID-19 pandemic. Next, it will look to both best practices and illustrations of active learning in technical services, providing concrete examples for the audience to consider. Finally, the panel will discuss strategies for engaging students in online classes, using the time to solicit input from audience members in a discussion of the topic. Audience members will be encouraged to ask questions and provide their own ideas for active learning in technical services education courses, both in-person and online. References [1] Brame, C. J. (n.d.). Active learning. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/59/Active-Learning.pd

Competencies Through Community Engagement: Developing the Core Competencies for Cataloging and Metadata Professional Librarians

In 2015 the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services Cataloging and Metadata Management Section (ALCTS CaMMS) Competencies for a Career in Cataloging Interest Group (CECCIG) charged a task force to create a core competencies document for catalogers. The process leading to the final document, the Core Competencies for Cataloging and Metadata Professional Librarians, involved researching the use of competencies documents, envisioning an accessible final product, and engaging in collaborative writing. Additionally, the task force took certain measures to solicit and incorporate feedback from the cataloging community throughout the entire process. The Competencies document was approved by the ALCTS Board of Directors in January 2017. Task force members who were involved in the final stages of the document’s creation detail their processes and purposes in this paper and provide recommendations for groups approaching similar tasks

Information literacy in a global context: Incorporating the ACRL framework into preservice education for information professionals

This panel presentation will provide a brief overview of the Framework, followed by four presentations that explore theoretical and practical concerns that will be of interest to LIS educators. These presentations will serve as a foundation for a large group discussion of the implications of the Framework for LIS programs and the pedagogical challenges it represents. Heidi Julien will convene the session and lead the large group discussion. The panel presentations include the following: • An Introduction to the Framework. Melissa Gross and Don Latham • Teaching Librarians to Teach with the Framework, Yvonne Mery, Nicole Pagowsky, and Carla Stoffle • Reference Course Redesign Using the Integrated Threshold Concept Knowledge Framework, Susan Rathbun-Grubb • Framing Information Literacy Instruction: Preparing Pre-service Librarians PK-20, Elizabeth Burns • Integrating the Framework into a Diversity Course For the Benefit of Praxis, Bharat Mehra and Keren Dali

Workforce Planning and the School Library Media Specialist

This article utilizes data collected through the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)???supported Workforce Issues in Library and Information Science 1 (WILIS 1)1 survey of graduates (1964???2007) of the five library and information science master's programs in North Carolina to consider career patterns and what these career patterns tell us about recruitment, retention, and retirement of school library media specialists (SLMSs). A life course approach is used to interpret the survey data and to suggest areas needing attention in recruiting and retaining SLMSs and planning for their retirement. Perhaps the most noteworthy finding is that a major influence on turnover of SLMSs is the lack of opportunities for career growth and development. Suggestions are offered for enhancing career development opportunities for SLMS.published or submitted for publicatio