My first ALA
Conference was a whirlwind of excitement and information as I traveled
from one session to the next, finding time to engage with a few of my favorite
authors along the way. Among those sessions was one that really stuck with me:
I attended Defining and Embracing the
Instructional Role for Youth Services Librarians. The thesis of this session was that
teaching and learning are already core elements of public service. We, as public librarians, are already
“educators.” But, to quote the session,
“by explicitly framing our work as instruction, we can ensure that this
teaching and learning is empowering, equitable and enjoyable.”
But what does that mean?
Formal learning environments, like schools,
follow state or national standards. Common
Core is an example of this. Using these
standards as a background, the educator can set a clear measurable outcome for
instruction. “Students will be able to…” If at the end of the lesson they are “unable to…”, the lesson was
unsuccessful. So, how do we translate
this to public librarianship and how can we implement this at Pratt?
As we go through this transitional period and
begin to re-evaluate how we do many things here at Pratt, one topic that I hear
repeatedly brought up is “programming.”
What makes an effective program?
How do we evaluate if a program is successful? How can we tie programming into our
organization's goals? For all of these
questions, I believe it comes down to our role as educators. It starts with a change in the language. Other library systems are already doing
this. One our neighbors calls their
librarians and library associates “instructors.” Programs are called “classes.” It is this synchronicity in terminology with
the schools that helps cement their association.
For most, coming to a library program is “fun”
not “educational”... or is it? By changing our terminology, we change the
expectation. This session showed, it’s
as simple as adopting standards and re-framing the way we present
ourselves. We as public librarians at
Pratt provide so much instruction that it seems a shame we cannot quantify
it.
Session leaders made sure to specify that any
formalized organization standard could be used as the framework for outcomes,
including a library system’s strategic plan.
Because the session was geared toward those involved in young adult and
children’s services, they used the framework of the YALSA Teen First: Basic Learning Outcomes. The six categories: community, creativity,
digital citizenship, leadership, learning and literacies all list outcomes that
can be adopted for library programming.
In using these guidelines as the outcomes for programming, it becomes
easier to evaluate the programs’ effectiveness.
The best part? It doesn’t require
anyone to do anything major.
The first step during program planning is to
ask the questions: “What is my
outcome?” “What competencies can I use
to evaluate my outcome?” I’ll give you
an example. One of our branches is
having a Dungeons and Dragons program.
Their original description states: “Journey through
fantastic realms and battle ferocious beasts through the magic of D&D. No
prior table-top experience required.” Using this new
approach, we would post an outcome at the program like “Teen participants will
collaborate with others using materials provided to create an original
adventure through the realms of Dungeons and Dragons.” In this instance, we’ve utilized three of the
learning outcomes and still done the same program. Plus, now that we have an established outcome
it is much easier to evaluate if the program was effective or not.
I am not saying that this is something we must do, but as
the conversation is moving forward about programming, this might be something
to consider in the future.
Read more:
Jamequa Summerall
Collection Management
