Three staff members at Wilson Library and one staff member at another special
collections library in North Carolina generously shared their opinions, experiences, and
ideas about instruction and assessment in the special collections environment. Interviews
lasted from thirty to forty-five minutes and were recorded and transcribed. I use the
pseudonyms Nick Curtis, Mark Hill, and Joshua Coleman for UNC staff and the
pseudonym Todd Evans for the staff member outside of the UNC community. Though
staff members’ opinions varied and reflected their diverse experiences with instruction,
several key characteristics emerged in our conversations. Of course, it must be
remembered that many of these staff members work together, and therefore share
opinions and methods with one another. Findings certainly reflect that staff members are
communicating with one another about what they are doing in terms of instruction at
Wilson. Interestingly, the staff member from another institution had very similar
While differing on their analysis of how much time should be spent on an activity
component for students during the session, all staff members emphasized the value of
having an activity component. All staff also reflected upon the value of significant
communication and coordination with faculty, some taking it as far as to say that their
ideal would be co-planning assignments with faculty teaching certain classes. Staff saw
significant differences between different types of sessions and felt that no one model
could encompass all courses that visit special collections. Most staff mentioned the
limitations or possibilities provided by available technologies and instruction space, even
though no interview question dealt with these factors. When asked about assessment,
staff members expressed the widest spectrum of opinions, ranging from hesitation to
enthusiasm, though all felt that it would be ideal to have some kind of assessment occur
in the special collections classroom.
Preparation for sessions
Staff explained that their current practices usually involve email conversations
with professors, ideally followed by an in-person meeting to discuss the upcoming
session. However, meetings do not always happen due to scheduling or because the
faculty member has visited with the same type of class many times in the past. Mark Hill
explained that he does have significant email correspondence with a majority of faculty
and likes to meet over coffee to discuss their goals for the session. He has experience
with many professors who want their students to interact with materials and participate in
discussion during the session. However, some faculty “want nothing more than their
Staff members have found that many faculty are not entirely sure what they want
their students to gain from the session. Todd Evans observes that “it’s always interesting
just to find out what the professor’s goals are – some have none.” Joshua Coleman notes
that professors sometimes lack specificity about their expectations for the session in their
initial contact, and he has to “follow up to get more specifics about what they want,”
offering them some possibilities for the content of the session. Nick Curtis explains that
many faculty do not have distinct goals: “by and large I find that they don’t really know
what their expectations are.” On the other hand, some faculty also come with very
concrete expectations: “sometimes they have firm ideas of what they want” (Evans). Staff
experience a variety of levels of involvement and expectation from faculty.
Staff expressed a strong desire to please the faculty members bringing their
students, though their perspectives of working with faculty to design the session fell
anywhere on a broad scale from a strong willingness to meet faculty expectations to a
commitment to intervene with faculty, pushing them toward more interactive sessions.
Curtis explains that nebulous faculty goals allow for “room for negotiation” and even
partnering with faculty and encouraging them to “rethink the kind of assignment that they
do.” The ideal assignment might be a few smaller projects that utilize special collections
instead of one large assignment at the end of the semester that draws mainly upon
secondary sources (Curtis). On the other hand, Hill notes that though special collections
staff can certainly negotiate with faculty, instruction is faculty-driven because “they’re
the main reasons that the students are here and they’re the ones teaching courses.”
Coleman notes that whether or not faculty give the collections very much notice about
Evans explains that PhD students teaching classes and new faculty are very “open
to suggestions” about structuring sessions. When discussing the use of a document
analysis worksheet in sessions, he explained that the use of the worksheet is “all in
negotiation with the faculty member.” Curtis, in favor of pushing faculty in the direction
of having a more participatory session for students, explains his view that staff should
negotiate but also that in the end, faculty decide what kind of session is provided: “I…
feel like what we need to have is this sort of arsenal or continuum of approaches… and
what we’re always aiming for is to push toward the sort of higher engagement end of
things but if a faculty member’s just unwilling to do that then give them what they want.”
Overall, Curtis notes that a vast majority of faculty are willing to try new methods for
engaging their students.
Show and tell vs. active learning
All staff agree that faculty are central to providing a quality learning experience to
students. Evans eloquently states “ideally any class situation in a special collections
library should have three kinds of participant: the faculty member should be participating,
the librarian should be participating, and the students should be participating.” For this
reason, all constituents should be speaking during the session, not just the librarian.
Curtis also explains the centrality of faculty, especially their role in modeling research
strategies to students. Staff members have to present themselves as “partners with
faculty” and “the faculty member has to be the subject expert and the person who helps
them make that leap they need to make between what they’re reading for the class and
this stuff” (Curtis). Coleman explained that classes in which a conversation occurs
difficult to explain: “when that happens organically it’s kind of the best and it’s hard to
quantify” (Coleman).
In discussing the structure of sessions, the problems posed by taking a “show and
tell” approach often arose, and staff favored a more interactive session. Past case studies
also illustrate the benefits of more participatory sessions. Many case studies include
active participation from students, and Krause and Mazella and Grob explicitly note that
“show and tell” sessions are problematic. Hill was very specific about the problems
arising when staff simply present interesting items to students. These sessions “don’t
work as well if the student comes back to use material cause then… it’s not connected
with their research project” (Hill). If students come early in the term simply to view some
“cool material” from the collection, “they’re not coming at that point of need” (Hill).
Later, when they return to do their research, they will approach the reference desk
without knowledge of necessary resources. Hill also expresses student learning in terms
of eliciting questions, a theme which commonly arose in staff interviews. Before students
have started their projects, the materials just don’t elicit the same questions (Hill).
Coleman also hopes to go “beyond” the show and tell model in classes and
include interaction with the materials. Very much in favor of students actively using
materials, Curtis believes the ideal session would include the staff member talking for
“10 minutes or less.” In a session where the staff member simply lectures to students,
Curtis explains, “the longer you talk the more you lose them… I mean you can... see
them leaving you, you can see it in their eyes.” Evans, with his belief that there should be
the sole speaker in a session. Staff members valued student interaction with materials,
and this is reflected in the kinds of sessions they have created in the past.
Two examples of sessions done in the past reveal the variety involved in special
collections instruction and high levels of student participation. In a session described by
Evans in order to show the diverse structures of instruction sessions, he recounts his work
with a class focused upon the transition from manuscript culture to print culture. Evans
did not begin the session with an introduction to the collections, but instead informed
students about handling procedures and asked all the students sit down near an item. The
materials were arranged in chronological order, proceeding from manuscripts to printed
books. Students were asked to take notes on what they “found notable about the artifact.”
After ten minutes, Evans introduced himself and gave an overview of the library. Then, it
was time for the students to speak and highlight something about the material in front of
them. Since he proceeded around the room in chronological order, the highlights became
a history of the transition to the printed book: “in doing so they brought up every single
thing I would have talked about… vellum, and the bindings, and what is a manuscript,
and what is a printed book” (Evans). One can imagine that this kind of activity truly
engaged the students. Evans explained that when leading a session focused upon modern
manuscripts, he would more likely have started it out with searching, a discussion of
collection arrangement, and access policies.
Curtis describes an innovative set of two sessions with modern manuscripts,
completed in a previous position before his move to UNC. In the first session, Curtis
introduced the collections and spoke for about ten minutes. The professor then presented
twenty minutes, connecting the materials to their course readings. Afterward, students
had time to look at materials in pairs. Between the two sessions, students could come in
and look at materials. In the second session, each pair did a brief presentation with the
materials in front of the class. This was a graded assignment for the class, which helped
to build students’ motivation.
Curtis explained that the activity elicited questions and contributed to student
learning: “it was… really good because they got questions from other students and there
was a dynamic that just would not have happened otherwise.” Two interesting things
shaped this collaboration between Curtis and the instructor. He spent a great deal of time
looking for relevant materials, and then made photocopies of what he wanted to use and
shared the photocopies with the professor. On her own time, the faculty member read
through materials and made lists of questions, which she then shared with Curtis. Curtis
also took a very selective role in preparing materials for students; he in fact assembled
folders of relevant documents for students. Supporting this action, he explained that this
was a freshman class and the course was “the beginning of a four-year engagement with
primary source materials and special collections” for students. He also states that part of
the process is to give students confidence to engage with the collections. In fact, it is not
necessary to debrief students on all aspects of research: “sometimes I think we feel like
we have to cram all of what we know about special collections into a session and I think
it… shouldn’t be like that” (Curtis). Tailoring the session to the needs of students, the
partnership of the instructor, and the inclusion of a presentation assignment made this set
Benefits of instruction
Staff members put a great deal of effort into instruction and believe in its value
for students. Coleman focuses upon the “tactile thingness of the books and how that adds
to the texts they are reading that are often disembodied in these kinds of scholarly
editions.” Coleman describes featuring items from varied time periods for students in
sessions, describing how seeing the use of an object or book over a span of time can
enrich students’ historical perspective. For example, he may use a papyrus scroll,
cuneiform tablets, or association copies of books in sessions. He explains, “it gives them
perspective – this is that many thousands of years old and what we’re looking at is this
many hundreds of years old… I think looking at the things and seeing the texture and
how they’re put together and who used them across a period of time can really be helpful
for getting students to think about history” (Coleman). Considering recent shifts in
undergraduate education, Curtis explains that there is a “long slow change” toward
students doing more primary research, and assignments with special collections can be a
part of this transition. Both Curtis and Coleman also point out the value of primary source
research for students who will go on to be graduate students in the humanities. Hill points
out another benefit of instruction sessions: their value in simply getting students
acquainted with the library and aware of the staff’s willingness to help them in their
research. Hill mentions this in relation to ‘show and tell’ sessions; even though they may
not be ideal for students, they do at least illustrate that the collections and staff members
Combined sessions
Some staff had worked with combined instruction sessions with staff from other
libraries on campus. Hill had a positive past experience with combined instruction,
explaining that about half the time was an orientation with library staff from the
undergraduate and main libraries, while half of the time was spent on special collections
instruction and materials. He explained that he did not feel rushed, but students had a
limited (approximately five minutes) of time to look at materials and talk with each other.
Hill pointed out two valuable things he gained in these combined sessions: he was able to
learn from instruction librarians in other libraries, and he was able to see what kind of
information students were exposed to in their general library orientations. This
observation is quite valid, as answers from student surveys in this project were sometimes
worded as if they were connecting the session to a general information literacy session
given at the main library.
Curtis believes partnership is an essential step forward, seeing it as part of a need
for more connection between the main library and the special collections library. He
explains, “as we digitize stuff, as increasingly archival materials are born digital, the
walls of special collections just start to evaporate.” It will be necessary for teaching staff
in special collections and other libraries to work together. Evans, outside the UNC
context, explains that introductory writing courses covering topics within the humanities
often include a cooperative component between special collections and main library staff.
Assessment
Many challenges surround the use of assessment in special collections. Staff were
to which assessment would need to apply, the need for constructive and specific feedback
after students have done research in the library, the scarcity of past research on
instruction in special collections, and the limited time and resources in special collections
libraries. Hill explains that though some assessment has come back for combined
sessions with the Undergraduate Library, that assessment has been very positive but does
not include specific details about how to improve sessions. He feels that more assessment
needs to happen and that sessions could be improved, even if students are already
pleased: “I’m 100% sure that things could be done better.” This highlights one of the
shortcomings of assessment targeting perception; students may not have clear
expectations for the session, and so not really know what to point out as lacking. Hill also
states that he would like to hear back from students after they have done their research. A
disadvantage of a survey passed out right after an instruction session is that it does not
reflect how much the session prepared students (or not) for their research in the
collections (Hill).
Curtis points out the approach taken by Magia Krause in “Undergraduates in the
archives: using an assessment rubric to measure learning” as a possible model for future
research. Creating a rubric to analyze results would take a great deal of work and
analysis, so a researcher or PhD student might be a valuable addition to a project of that
nature. He also explains that sitting down with faculty after students have completed an
assignment related to the collection for about 30-45 minutes provides very helpful
feedback. In a past position, he notes that these interviews included not only the staff
member who did the instruction session, but also instructional staff from the
Coleman also mentions conversations among those doing instruction, both at the
special collections library and from other libraries on campus, as being a very valuable
step forward. He explains that though it may not be formal assessment, “it’s a way of
doing critical thinking about what we’re doing and opening it up more to conversation.”
In considering possible assessment, Coleman thinks that a brief exercise, perhaps
including three questions students answer on a notecard, would be helpful. He mentions
two questions that may be useful: “do you see yourself coming back to Wilson Library?”
and “what’s one thing that you are going to take away and remember from this session
today?” He is skeptical of lengthier assessment exercises that might become a burden
during sessions: “I don’t want instructors to feel like ‘oh, you go to Wilson Library, and
then they… make you fill out a survey.” His observation certainly reflects the
reservations of one of the faculty members interviewed, who felt that routine surveys