Special collections instruction provides a meaningful opportunity for students to
interact with primary source materials. Both the recent literature covering special
collections instruction and staff comments show that sessions are moving toward an
its share of difficult questions, such as how to demonstrate techniques for searching the
catalog while also allowing students significant time to utilize materials. In addition,
Wilson Special Collections Library, like many others, suffers from a lack of appropriate
spaces fitted with technologies for students to participate in finding online resources and
using the catalog.
One of the interesting questions brought up by the study is how utilitarian
sessions should (or should not) be. Students overall wanted the session to prepare them to
complete their research projects, and the need to understand materials and do research for
an assignment likely increased student engagement during sessions. However, some
students looking at books and pamphlets in Prof. Jacobs’ session recorded on surveys that
they would like to learn more about the materiality of the books and what this could
reveal about their creation and use. One student specified that she/he would like to learn
more about this, even though it might not be related to the course. In the sessions of
English 100 with mostly freshman students, I observed students enjoying and clustering
around an old UNC yearbook, even though this material was not directly related to their
projects. For most sessions in which students are preparing for a research project, the
majority of activities and materials need to be focused on readying them for the project.
However, this does not mean that some materials and information shared can go beyond
their immediate concerns as well.
The research completed in this study was gathered in a situation with many
limitations. Because of the brief amount of time available for research, partnerships with
faculty that could include cooperation in creating student assignments or participation in
to be brief and simple for students. Another issue arose as some students likely completed
surveys without a great deal of thought. Overall, my observations were that a majority of
students did put a certain amount of time and thought into surveys, but as one of the
instructors noted, students often complete exercises of this nature and may not put a great
deal of work into a brief survey at the end of a session. Nick Curtis, a staff member, also
explained that a notecard assessment strategy that was not pre-written but would include
verbal questions from staff would be more interactive and participatory for students.
However, it would also be “quick and dirty” and might not provide the same amount of
information as a lengthier survey (Curtis). In addition to survey limitations, the study
interviewed a small number of staff and faculty and cannot give an adequate
representation of the feelings of all staff, faculty, and students who come to the library for
instruction. However, because it is rare that interviews and surveys can be completed
with the diverse participants in instruction sessions, the study does provide significant
information that can be used for planning assessment strategies or thinking critically
about instructional methods.
Like the diverse kinds of materials available in special collections, instruction
sessions also take on various shapes. Staff repeatedly noted that no one model can serve
to represent all instruction sessions. It was clear that faculty also expected their specific
needs to be considered in the process of preparing for sessions as well. This situation
makes a generalizable assessment strategy very challenging to implement.
The problem of assessing students’ skills or satisfaction immediately after the
session also provides a challenge. Students don’t necessarily know if the session prepared
and Grob explain, learning occurs in a cyclical rather than a linear pattern (470). For this
reason, a skills test after a one-shot session is not a truly adequate measure of student
learning. However, what kind of a return rate would be involved if students were sent a
survey after their projects were finished? It would likely be dismal.
When asked about a possible two-session strategy, one class instructor was very
much in favor, another instructor was in favor if there was leeway in his class schedule,
and the third would be interested if the materials in the session directly related to her
class topic. It seems clear from the literature and conversations with staff that a two-
session strategy would be ideal in many cases, so the process of moving away from a “hit
and run” one-session visit would likely require a process of convincing faculty.
As discussed earlier, some staff members felt very willing to push faculty in the
direction of more interactive sessions, while other staff were willing to negotiate but saw
faculty as the key drivers of the instruction sessions. In faculty interviews, I was surprised
to find that faculty may be more willing than staff members assume to negotiate sessions.
For example, it became clear in the interview that Tim Harris, an advanced graduate
student teaching the freshman course, would have been willing to extend the visit to two
sessions and even to share student papers with staff if he had some early pre-planning
with library staff. As one of the graduate students and staff who worked with his course, I
did not assume that this much negotiation was possible in our email exchanges.
Because of the complexity of student learning, the variety of types of sessions
needed for different classes, and the restrictions upon staff and faculty time, targeted and
occasional assessment is a promising strategy in special collections. With faculty who are
materials and faculty could share student papers with staff. With faculty and staff as
partners, brief assignments or blog postings could be required from students that include
reflections upon the research process. These written materials would be invaluable to
library staff, who could then plan instruction sessions to build upon student interest and
need.
Another option is a perception-based survey completed at the end of most
sessions, like the notecard method. The answers given by students would be somewhat
idiosyncratic and related mostly to the session in question, so these results would not
necessarily allow librarians to trace the success of an instruction program over time, but it
would allow for constructive feedback to be consistently available to staff members. A
conversation between staff and faculty also needs to occur as they may negotiate new
content for sessions and integrate instruction more fully into a given course. Rather than a
one-stop shop, the instruction session should be seen as part of student learning in a
semester-long course.
As the focus of undergraduate education shifts toward primary source analysis
and more special collections materials become available online, it also appears that
information literacy instruction in campus libraries and special collections instruction will
become more closely intertwined. The combination of instructional technologies in
campus libraries and the hands-on experience of materials in special collections libraries
could provide students with an integrated introduction to research. Special collections
libraries are moving toward a stronger focus on active and inquiry-based learning, and
The future success of special collections instruction lies in a continuing conversation
between library staff, university faculty, and students.
Works Cited
Association of College and Research Libraries. Information literacy competency standards for higher education. 2000. Web. 1 February 2012.
Bond, Trevor James and Todd Butler. “A dialog on teaching an undergraduate
seminar in special collections.” Library Review 58.4 (2009): 310-316. Web. 26 March 2012.
Bonwell, Charles C. and James A. Eison. Active learning: Creating excitement in
the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports (1991). Washington, DC: George Washington University. ERIC. Web. 26 March 2012.
Coleman, Joshua. Personal Interview. 12 March 2012.
Curtis, Nick. Personal Interview. 15 March 2012.
Duff, Wendy M. and Joan M. Cherry. “Archival orientation for undergraduate
students: An exploratory study of impact.” The American Archivist, 71 (2008): 499-529. Web. 26 March 2012.
Evans, Todd. Personal Interview. 20 March 2012.
Heller, Paul. Personal Interview. 14 March 2012.
Harris, Tim. Personal Interview. 20 March 2012.
Hill, Mark. Personal Interview. 16 March 2012.
Krause, Magia G. “’It makes history alive for them:’ The role of archivists and special
collections librarians in instructing undergraduates.” Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36.5 (2010): 401-411. Web. 30 March 2012.
---. “Undergraduates in the archives: using an assessment rubric to measure learning.”
The American Archivist, 73 (2010): 507-534. Web. 30 March 2012.
Mazak, Jeanine and Frank Manista. “Collaborative learning: University archives and
freshman composition.” The Reference Librarian, 32.67-8 (2000): 225-242. Web. 31 March 2012.
Mazella, David and Julie Grob. “Collaborations between Faculty and Special Collections
Librarians in Inquiry-Driven Classes.” Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 11.1 (2011): 467-487. Web. 31 March 2012.
Rockenbach, Barbara. “Archives, undergraduates, and inquiry-based learning: case
studies from Yale University Library.” The American Archivist, 74 (2011): 297-311. Web. 30 March 2012.
Schmiesing, Ann and Deborah Hollis. “The role of special collections departments in
humanities undergraduate and graduate teaching: A case study.” Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2.3 (2002): 465-480. Web. 31 March 2012.
Sobel, Karen and KennethWolf. “Updating your tool belt: redesigning assessments of
learning in the library.” Reference & User Services Quarterly, 50.3 (2011): 245- 258. Web. 31 March 2012.
Sutton, Shan and Lorrie Knight. “Beyond the reading room: Integrating primary and
secondary sources in the library classroom.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32.3 (2006): 320-325. Web. 31 March 2012.
Traister, Daniel. “Public services and outreach in rare book, manuscript, and special
Appendix A