College and Research Libraries Teaching Students T o Use The Library: Whose Responsibility? By V I R G I N I A C L A R K IT HAS A L W A Y S SEEMED CUrioUS t O m e that the librarian, alone among pub- lic servants, eagerly insists on teaching the inmost secrets of his craft to his patrons. T h i s permissive a t t i t u d e toward the procedural mysteries of the card cata- log (so unlike that of the keepers of the couch, the confessional, the prescription pad, or the seal) if of course a concom- m i t a n t of the public library and the open stack. It has not been always thus; and it might be interesting to speculate on what would h a p p e n were we to swathe ourselves in our mysteries instead of working so h a r d to explain them. But since explanation seems to be called for, this discussion will begin with some defi- nitions. T h e three terms of the topic are lim- ited to the areas within which the ques- tion of responsibility should be raised. T h e first is the word "teaching," which may be defined as excluding those casual contacts d u r i n g which learning may oc- cur and emphasizing the p l a n n e d en- counter d u r i n g which a conscious teach- ing effort is made. Second, "to use the library" is defined as "how to use the library," ignoring the general promo- tional campaigns like National Library Week or Book Week and concentrating on instruction in techniques. T h i r d , by "students" is meant the student body as a whole, not the few who will acquire library skills by their own effort. T h e r e is absolutely no question of "whose responsibility" in these situations ruled out of consideration by definition. Any librarian is responsible for giving the best service possible to the patron with whom he finds himself confronted. T h e school or college librarian tradi- Miss Clark is Reference Librarian, Wright Junior College, Chicago, III. tionally assumes the f u r t h e r f u n c t i o n of making each such consultation a model for the "next time." It has become a uni- versal expectation that the librarian in an advertising culture will promote his goods and services. T h e question of re- sponsibility for formal, unsolicited in- struction in the use of those goods and services is, however, debatable. T h e offering of such instruction has been assumed to be one of the objectives of the librarian since the earliest days of American librarianship, indeed even be- fore the librarians were undergoing for- mal instruction.1 I n accepting this duty the school or college librarian has tried many methods and used a variety of ma- terials. W h a t do we now know about this instruction? T h e r e has been—as reflected in library periodicals—voluminous individual re- porting of projects at their conception. T h e r e have been some surveys covering more than one program. T h e 1951-52 Biennial Survey of Education i n c l u d e d one of these, reporting that separate li- brary courses are offered in 7.5 per cent of universities and 6 per cent of liberal arts colleges. T h e r e are also courses taught as units in other courses: in sub- ject courses in 28 per cent of universities and 19 per cent of colleges and as part of a general orientation or skills course in 22 per cent of universities and 20 per cent of colleges. Offerings of a combina- tion of a subject course and an orienta- 1 U. S. Bureau of Education. Public Libraries in the United States (Washington: G.P.O., 1876). S E P T E M B E R 1 9 6 0 369 tion program are m a d e in 21.5 per cent of universities and 37 per cent of col- leges. O t h e r combination programs also occur, but less frequently. 2 O t h e r surveys of the problem are primarily graduate theses in librarianship or education. A particularly comprehensive a n d recent study is Whitten's survey of 72 liberal arts colleges.3 T h e r e has been almost no objective, quantitative follow-up evalua- tion of the effectiveness of any of these programs. It is possible, however, to make the following generalizations: 1. Attempts so far have yielded many more curriculum-integrated libraries than library-integrated curricula. 2. T h e r e is dissatisfaction with the present level of student library skills among librarians, faculty, and the stu- dents themselves.4 3. T h i s present skill level is likely to become even more unsatisfactory because of two pressures: a. T h e pressure on librarians and 3 "Statistics of Libraries in Institutions of Higher Education, 1951-52," Chapter 6 of Biennial Survey of Education in the United States (Washington: Govern- ment Printing Office, 1952). 552 Liberal Arts Institutions Reporting 107 Universities Colleges (no.) ( % ) (no.) ( % ) 1. Separate course 8 7.5 33 6.0 2. Part of subject course 30 28.0 104 19.0 3. Part of freshman orientation 24 22.5 112 20.0 4. Combination of 1 and 2 5 4.7 17 3.1 5. Combination of 1 and 3 6 5.6 29 5.3 6. Combination of 2 and 3 23 21.5 203 37.0 7. Combination of 1, 2, and 3 11 10.0 54 9.8 3 L. W. Griffin and J. A. Clarke. "Orientation and Instruction of a Graduate Student by University Li- braries," CRL, X I X (1958), 451-54; "Library Orien- tation for College Freshmen: Symposium," Library Journal, L X X X I (1956), 1224-31; M. C. Marquis. " A Study of the Teaching of Library Facilities to College Students." (M.A. thesis, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1952);. Joseph N. Whitten. "Relationship of College Instruction to Libraries in 72 Liberal Arts Col- leges." (Ed.D. dissertation, New York University, 1958). •<• E. M. Clark. " H o w to Motivate Student Use of the Library?" American Association of University Profes- sors Bulletin," X X X I X (1953), 413-20; E.E. Emme. "Library Needs of College Students and Ways of Dis- covering Them," ALA Bulletin, X X X ( 1 9 3 0 ) , 134; Peyton Hurt. "The Need of College and University In- struction in the Use of the Library," Library Quar- terly, IV (1934), 436-48; R. O. McKenna. "Introduc- tion in the Use of Libraries; a University Library Problem," Journal of Documentation, X I (1955), 67-72; A. S. Powell. "Survey Pinpoints Library Attitudes." Library Journal, L X X I X (1954), 1463; L. R. Reed. " D o Colleges Need Reference Service?" Library Quar- terly, X I I I (1943), 232-40; J. S. Sharma. "Need for Library Education," Indian Librarian, X I (1957), 154-56; J. A. Wedemeyer. "Student Attitudes Toward Library Methods Courses in a University," CRL, X V (1954), 285-89. faculty of greater numbers of students. b. T h e pressure on librarians, fac- ulty a n d students of the increasing size and complexity of libraries. These pressures mean that the student will have to work both more independ- ently a n d at a higher level of skill than he does now, to m a i n t a i n even his pres- ent fractional acquaintance with the world of informational sources. I n the search for means to improve student library skills in the face of these pressures evidence should be considered that points to something that has long been suspected; namely, that the faculty play a more decisive role in determin- ing student library-use habits than many librarians would like to admit. T h e few studies of student library use available are concerned primarily with a m o u n t of use rather t h a n a m o u n t of skill. T h e programs at Stephens College and at the Chicago U n d e r g r a d u a t e Division of the University of Illinois, among the pro- grams most analyzed, report in terms of increased circulation and numbers of reference questions.5 T h i s discussion is more concerned with ability than with quantity. Nevertheless an examination of some of these studies may be relevant. Harvie Branscomb, in his review of research on student use of several college and university libraries for his Teaching with Books, cited Stephens College and four others as having made particularly spectacular increases in the a m o u n t of student library use, as measured by in- creased per student circulation.6 At Stephens the library h a d simply taken over the instructional program when the librarian was m a d e dean of instruction. At Antioch, Lawrence, Olivet, and Southwestern modified tutorial plans had been inaugurated. T h e same basic 5 B. Lamar Johnson, The Librarian and the Teacher in General Education (Chicago: A L A , 1948); Johnson, Vitalizing a College Library (Chicago: A L A , 1939): David K. Maxfield, "Counselor Librarianship at UIC," CRL, X V (1954), 161-66. (Or see any of the annual reports of the librarian, Chicago Undergraduate Divi- sion of the University of Illinois, 1951 through 1954). a Teaching with Books (Chicago: A L A , 1940). 370 C O L L E G E A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S type of change had occurred in all five institutions: there had been a change in teaching methods. I n one case the change had come about through the initiative of the library, b u t the campaign h a d been aimed at the instructional program, through the faculty, r a t h e r than at the students directly. T h e implication of the effect of these five programs on library circulation is echoed in the suggestions of other recent writers on the teaching function of the library that perhaps it is the faculty who are the i m p o r t a n t ele- ment, rather than any program the li- brary can devise directly for the stu- dents.7 T h a t the faculty should bear the re- sponsibility is easily said. But since even the most library-minded faculty member (and they are few enough) is never li- brary-minded enough for the librarian, should not the librarian do the job? Fur- ther evidence that the faculty will re- main primary stimulants in student li- brary habits despite teaching efforts by the library suggests the contrary. I n h i s Teaching with Books, B r a n s - comb reported on his own survey of stu- dent library use at a school referred to as "University A." I n the section on re- serve use he presented an intriguing dis- tribution of student reserve borrowing in four sections of the same history course.8 H e r e were students who had been exposed to whatever basic orienta- tion program that university library of- fered. T h e y were being taught the same course, with the same reading list, and were being offered the same library fa- cilities with which to do their work. I n earlier distributions Branscomb had failed to find any correlation between 7 Griffin, op. cit.; S. E. Gwynn, "The Liberal Arts Function of the University Library," In Chicago. Uni- versity. Graduate Library School. Function of the Li- brary in the Modern College (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1954) ; Patricia B. Knapp. "The Role of the Library of a Given College in Implementing the Course and Non-Course Objectives of that College" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1957.) Knapp, "Suggested Program of College Instruction in the Use of the Library," Library Quarterly, X X V I (1956), 224-31. 8 Branscomb, op. cit., p. 52. scholastic standing and library use, the most obvious hypothesis; b u t in his dis- tribution of the borrowers by section the pattern became clear. How m u c h read- ing the student did depended simply on which of the four professors he had. All of the findings reported so far deal with quantity of use. T h e i r relevance rests on the assumption that quantity and ability are phenomena each of which suggests the presence of the other. My own experience, which I should like to report to you, deals directly with ability. T h e problem was much the same that faced Branscomb—variant performance among sections of the same course. T h e course was a one-hour-one-semester coun- seling course which included units on a d j u s t m e n t to college in general, study habits, vocational choice and library skills. All entering freshmen carrying full time programs took the course. ( T h u s the group of students represented approximates the entering class of a tra- ditional college more closely than would most samples drawn from a community college because of the elimination of the part-time adult students who are the "different" elements in the community college population.) Student assignment to sections was random. T h e library u n i t of the program consisted of a one-hour lecture, the issuing of a printed library handbook, and the completion of a writ- ten follow-up test done in the library d u r i n g the week following the lecture and handed in at the next class period. T h e written test was so constructed as to be a completely individual project; no copying was possible. All papers were graded and detailed records kept for five semesters, 1956-1958. Some of the results are significant. During this period there were eighty- five sections of counseling with a total enrollment of about 2,550 students. Sev- enty-eight per cent (1,995 students) com- pleted and turned in the test paper. (This figure tallies nicely with Peyton H u r t ' s finding that 78 per cent of Stan- S E P T E M B E R 1 9 6 0 371 ford graduate students thought library instruction would have been h e l p f u l in u n d e r g r a d u a t e work.9 I t also matches ex- actly the 78 per cent of a sample of stu- dents drawn f r o m the W r i g h t counseling course one semester d u r i n g the study who rated the library u n i t "helpful.") T h e percentage of papers completed in- creased slightly each semester. T h e 78 per cent " h e l p f u l " r a t i n g referred to above was the second highest favorable r a t i n g in the student evaluation of six- teen elements of the counseling course. T h e library u n i t of the program seemed an established thing, b u t questions re- mained. T h e percentage of returns and the mean and median scores varied widely from section to section. At the end of five semesters a retrospective study was u n d e r t a k e n to determine why this variation occurred. None of the factors that might have been supposed to correlate significantly with response and performance did so. T h e r e was n o correlation between per- formance and which of two librarians gave the lecture. T h e r e was no correla- tion between performance and whether an audio-visual aid was used. T h e r e were a few sections which received direction only from the instructor. A few of these sections did surprisingly well; some did very poorly. An interesting p a t t e r n did emerge, however, when the sections were distributed, as Branscomb had done, by instructor. Each section was labelled plus or minus according to the relationship of its m e d i a n score to the median for the g r o u p as a whole for that semester. A total of eighteen instructors from various departments taught the eighty-five sec- tions. T w o with only one section each were discounted, leaving sixteen. These sixteen instructors taught from two to sixteen sections each. Of these sixteen, seven rated 100.per cent plus (or minus); that is, every section of each of these in- structors performed on one side of the 0 Hurt, op. cit., p. 440. median for the semester. T h e sections of four other instructors performed at a 2:1 consistency ratio. Only three instructors had an inconclusive performance record, e.g. two sections above and one below. Only two had an even division of plus and m i n u s sections. T h a t is to say, the students of eleven of the sixteen instruc- tors performed so consistently better (or worse) than the norm, over a period of five semesters, despite variations in lec- ture personnel, methods, and e q u i p m e n t that it is impossible not to conclude that a decisive factor in the a t t i t u d e and hence the performance of a student on a library assignment in his classroom in- structor. T h i s suggests strongly that the librar- ian face squarely the fact that in teach- ing students he has been teaching the wrong people. T h e responsibility for stu- dent library habits belongs to the teach- ing faculty not only for the type of rea- son sometimes advanced: that it should for one reason or another; b u t for the simple a n d compelling reason that it does. T h e faculty are responsible prob- ably not only for the a m o u n t of student library use b u t for the level of skill; and we and they might as well realize this and build our library programs from that premise. T h i s f u r t h e r suggests to me that to be most effective the librarian should con- centrate his responsibility on providing the best service he can to the patron who presents himself voluntarily. T h i s service should probably include both personal a n d printed guidance, and per- haps even the offer of a course in library skills—entirely elective. T h e librarian should f u r t h e r hold himself responsible for some sort of organized effort directed to make each faculty member of his in- stitution aware of what cooperation with the library has to offer his particular course. T h i s effort should be aimed at the faculty not only because it is easier (there are fewer of them to begin with, (Continued on page 402) 372 C O L L E G E A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S Foreign Libraries M . T . FREYRE DE A . DE VELAZQUEZ h a s been a p p o i n t e d director of the Biblioteca Nacional Jose Marti in H a v a n a . WILHELM GULICH, director of the library, Kiel Institute of W o r l d Economics, died April 15 at the age of 65. T . D. SPROD, formerly liaison officer, Com- monwealth N a t i o n a l Library, a n d librarian of the Australian Reference Library at the Australian Consulate-General, New York, has r e t u r n e d to Australia a f t e r three years service in America. Teaching Students to Use the Library (Continued, from page 372) a n d the turnover is slower), b u t because the evidence suggests that this is the only way to reach the student body as a whole. If his time a n d his library are not already full, the librarian may still want to storm the fraternity lounges and cam- pus bars for marginal users. But the evi- dence seems to indicate that unless he approaches these students through their professors his efforts will be largely in- effective. Faculty members have their responsi- bilities, of course, to do their teaching jobs to the best of their abilities. T h i s may not always produce the a m o u n t and the kind of library use the librarian would like to see; b u t it may just be possible that the p a t t e r n of successful scholarship at certain levels a n d within certain areas does not d e m a n d o u r kind of library use. W e may try, through our work with these faculty members, to con- vince them otherwise, b u t in the end they must be allowed to judge. Besides, their feelings will be reflected in their students despite efforts of the library to reach the students directly. T h e student also must assume certain responsibilities. T h e fact is that in most institutions there already are—and in the rest there soon will be—enough "volunteer" library users to keep both faculty and library staff too busy to worry about the others. My conclusion is not so m u c h a rec- ommendation as a realization of the way things are. T h e librarian is most effec- tive at making a success of the casual, voluntary student contact. H e should, f u r t h e r , feel responsible for "teaching" the faculty. But "teaching students to use the library"—"formal instruction in library technique for the student body in general" as I have defined it—this is the job of the teaching faculty. T h e pro- fessor should be and clearly is responsi- ble not only for his students' grasp of the subject content of a course, b u t also for their concept a n d acquisition of the skills, including library skills, necessary to master that content. 402 C O L L E G E A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S