Tag: school library collections

ETL505 Assessment 2 Subject cataloguing and classification Part C: Genres

Leave a comment

9 October 2020

Arranging a high school library collection by genres has both advantages and disadvantages for its community of users. This essay will briefly analyse and evaluate these, relating to fiction and non-fiction collections. Whether a high school library should retain the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system, or ‘ditch Dewey’ in favour of genrefication, will be discussed with reference to recent research and practitioner experience.

The organisation of collections by genre-based categories has been mainly applied to fiction collections in school libraries (Martin, 2019; Sannwald, 2015; Wall, 2019). Recent research and observations regarding the genrefication of these collections, however, doesn’t always distinguish between primary and high school contexts. Reasons for and benefits of genrefying fiction, include an increase in circulation, due to simplified browsing, which is particularly helpful for reluctant readers and students who require learning support (Martin 2019; Wall, 2019). This is relevant in both primary and high school contexts. Martin (2019) elaborates that reader independence and student engagement with the school library is a result of genre classification schemes which offer cues, which help students to independently find books they like. Since genrefying the fiction collection of her school’s secondary library, Davenport (2017) has received positive feedback from her students and teachers, as all users can more easily locate books and new authors within a preferred genre. A disadvantage to this classification scheme is that users and content can become ‘pigeonholed’ (Sannwald, 2014). Students may not be exposed to new genres and authors as they aren’t browsing beyond their preferred genre, and teacher librarians are forced to label texts which don’t neatly fit into one category. As well as the challenges of defining genres, time and resourcing issues are another disadvantage of genrefication, as the process is time consuming and labour intensive (Martin, 2019; Sannwald, 2015; Wall, 2019).

These observations highlight some valuable benefits of user-driven collection management. Although, the benefits discussed relate to the recreational reading of students, rather than the finding of specific resources for research. Outhouse (2017) discusses how genrefication supports ‘browsability’, which is in contrast to the DDC system, which prioritises findability (p.38). Browsability is the “leisurely investigation leading to self-motivated, independent learning and reading” (p.38). It does not, however, allow for relational or hierarchical organisation, vital for specific information retrieval (Kaplan, 2013, p.47).

The genrefication of nonfiction collections has not been as widely adopted in high school library contexts (Martin, 2019; Outhouse, 2017; Sannwald, 2015; Wall, 2019). Wall (2019) specifies that the main purpose for genrification in NSW secondary school libraries has been based on “quick access to specific content, such as HSC study materials” (p. 12). Advantages of genrefying nonfiction collections in high school libraries includes the ability to categorise resources “based on curriculum rather than the Dewey system” (Wall, 2019, p.13). Kaplan (2013) argues that the DDC system actually operates in synchronisation with school curricula, given that the main classes are all standard elements of the school curriculum (p. 47). Advocates for the continuation of the DDC system emphasize the importance of communicating the categories which the Dewey numbers represent. Panzer (2013) argues that the DDC system provides verbal resource description through captions and Relative Index terms (p.24). These captions and category signs simply need to be revealed to the library users, for an enhanced experience (Kaplan, 2013; Panzer, 2013). Other benefits of genrefication for nonfiction are similar to those for fiction, and include an increase in circulation, due to the ease of browsability (Whitehead, 2012; Wall, 2019).  Despite some benefits for high school students, Martin (2019) states that in his research, all high school librarians chose not to genrefy their nonfiction collection. Teacher librarians often choose to keep the DDC system to help prepare students for tertiary education and academic libraries (Gordon, 2013; Martin, 2019; Sannwald, 2015). Other noteworthy disadvantages of genrefying the nonfiction collection include the disabling of quick resource retrieval, as mentioned earlier, a lack of consistency across libraries and the loss of standardisation across the profession (Outhouse, 2017; Wall, 2019; Sannwald, 2015).

Genrefication clearly has some positive, user-friendly outcomes for high school libraries, particularly for fiction collections. However, for nonfiction collections, the DDC system, when encompassing digital tools which support online browsing and research, may still be the better option. While the Dewey system has flaws, such as social and cultural bias, and a tendency to scatter similar resources across different classes (Panzer, 2013; Wall, 2019), the advantages of consistency, global reach and standardisation, together with an ability to support effective information retrieval, potentially outweigh these pitfalls. As Kaplan (2013) states, classification numbers and “hierarchically linked resources” are more important than ever before (p. 47). If the DDC system continues to be adapted for 21st century users and technologies, such as in Dewey.info, the platform for Dewey linked data (Panzer, 2013), then it certainly is relevant and powerful. If harnessed for its full potential, the DDC system could continue to support the description and organisation of resources in current and future school library systems.

 

References

Davenport, S. (2017). Genrefying the fiction collection. Connections, 102, 6-7. https://www.scisdata.com/connections/issue-102/tinkering-making-and-building-in-the-school-library/

Gordon, C. (2013). Dewey do Dewey don’t: A sign of the times. Knowledge Quest, 42(2), E1-E8.

Kaplan, A. (2013). Is it truly a matter of “Dewey or don’t we?” Knowledge Quest, 42(2), 46-47.

Martin, C. (2019). What school librarians have to say about genrefication. https://ideas.demco.com/blog/what-school-librarians-say-about-genrefication

Outhouse, R. (2017). Genrefication: Introducing and explaining the exponential trend in public and school libraries. https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/concern/masters_papers/kk91fq479

Panzer, M. (2013). Dewey: How to make it work for you. Knowledge Quest, 42(2), 22-29.

Sannwald, S. (2015). In defense of library genrefication. http://genrefication.weebly.com/

Wall, J. (2019). Genrefication in NSW public school libraries: A discussion paper. Scan, 38(10), 10-17.

Whitehead, T. (2012). Ditching Dewey. http://www.mightylittlelibrarian.com/?p=668

 

ETL503: Reflective practice (Assessment 2: Part B)

Leave a comment

The role and nature of school library collections

Resourcing the curriculum has certainly extended my knowledge and understanding of the role and nature of school library collections. The complexities involved in developing balanced collections have overwhelmed me at times, as I’ve navigated key issues such as selection criteria, censorship, budgeting, evaluation and copyright, all situated in the context of an ever-changing and challenging information landscape. During module 1, when initially considering the definitions and differences of collection management and collection development, I was rather confused, as practitioner and academic discussion often use the terms synonymously (Corrall, 2018; Johnson, 2009). In Discussion Forum 1, I skirted the issue, quoted the QLD Department of Education, which didn’t differentiate between the two, and decided to travel down the collection development path. Here I found great emphasis on collaborative models which involve all stakeholders from the school community, to develop collections in the contemporary context (Kimmel, 2014; Keeling, 2019). While I managed to dodge the issue of differentiating between collection management and collection development temporarily, little did I realise that I’d have to return to this quagmire when planning for the second assessment.

During modules 2 and 3, discussions around patron-driven acquisitions (PDA), digital collections and budgeting addled my brain. In Discussion Forum 2.1, the article I shared helped me make sense of PDA, digital selection tools which support this, and the importance of giving school library users a voice (Strong & Galbraith, 2018).  In exploring the specifics of budgeting, access and acquisition, I again felt disorientated by details of output versus input measures as tools for purchasing resources. In Discussion Forums 3.1 and 5.1, I discussed that for a comprehensive approach to acquiring data to inform budgeting decisions, qualitative as well as quantitative data, from use and user based and collection based methods, is necessary for curating a balanced collection (Johnson, 2014, p.302). This all finally synthesized during modules 5 and 6.  I came to realise that a TL must be proactive in seeking increased funding for collections, which also means being armed with a pragmatic CDP.

In my Module 2.1 blog post (April 15, 2020) I considered responsibility for resource selection. From this research I gathered that yes, as “professional curators working within a school library context” (Kimball, 2020) it is indeed the role of the TL to select, analyse and protect quality resources and information for their school community. However, it is also the role of the TL to facilitate the challenge of cooperative resource selection, with all school library stakeholders (Keeling, 2019). Throughout the later modules it became clear that a TL must be equipped with up to date information on copyright laws, censorship and individuals’ rights to information and ideas, to have the knowledge base to facilitate this selection. Another key focus from this subject, drawn from the modules and both assessments, is that the role and nature of the school library collection must be focused on the needs of the users (Bishop, 2013, pp.21-25; Hughes-Hassell and Mancall, 2005, p. 35; Kimmel, 2014, pp. 27-29). These users should also, ideally, be included in the selection of the collection, through the continuous cycle of collection development.

As the second assessment loomed, I researched further and posted on my blog: What is the difference between a collection development policy and a collection management policy? (May 11, 2020), to help break down the semantics of collection development, management, policies and procedures. Corrall’s (2018) view that there are good reasons to differentiate between “developmental and managerial aspects of work with collections” (p.7) resonated with me, so I revisited her work. I came across Prytherch (2005, cited in Corrall, 2018) who presents collection development as a “strategic activity that is operationalized through collection management” (p.6). I reasoned, therefore, that management involves the procedures and operations, or the how, of collection acquisition. This fed into our final task, understanding the importance of a CDP as a strategic document.

The importance of a collection development policy (CDP) as a strategic document

Throughout this subject, I’ve regularly encountered references to a CDP for best school library practice (Agee, 2019, p.6; ALIA & VCTL, 2017, p.8; Johnson, 2009, p. 109).  After completing the second assessment, it was also clear that an effective CDP is an important, strategic document as it formally and pragmatically “maintains a commitment to systematic collection building and development” (Shaw, 2018, p. 165). A CDP guides  school library staff to identify and address current collection strengths and weaknesses, aids decision making processes and minimizes personal bias, which assists with strategic planning (Johnson, 2018, p.83; Shaw, 2018, p.166). CD policies are tactical, as their purposes are “to inform and protect”; they can improve a library’s ability to “compete for resources within a complex and competitive institutional… environment” (Johnson, 2018, p. 86).  This is clearly an important function of the CDP, given the current situation of many school libraries being under resourced. In Discussion Forum 6.1, it became clear that many school libraries, mine included, didn’t have a CDP. Consequently, many Australian school communities may not be properly informed of their library’s short and long term goals, nor would school principals be aware of resource needs and legitimate funding requirements to support these needs. Shaw (2018) supports this notion, arguing that the CDP is used as an “advocate for the library… for administrative purposes… and for justification for funding” (p. 165). Indeed, without a CDP, school libraries are not protected against external pressures (Johnson, 2018, p.87).

How does a CDP assist in future proofing the collection?

Discussion Forum 6.1 also highlighted the inescapable context of COVID-19 and the need for digital curation.  Many students in this forum spoke of their contexts which support Newsum’s (2016) argument that “collecting and promoting digital resources and technologies is not widespread practice” in school libraries (p.101). As O’Connell et al. (2015) predicted, Australian school libraries did not reach the projected balance of 50:50 physical to digital equilibrium by 2020 (p.194). As many schools quickly attempted to provide students with access to digital collections during remote learning, it became even more evident that school libraries have a vital role to play in providing this access to networked collections (ALIA & VCTL, 2017, pp56-57). As a result, I included Development of digital collections as an added section for the Parks High School CDP, to prioritise its importance, and to future proof the collection, as the information landscape and digital technologies continue to evolve. TLs can assist schools to succeed in 21st century learning by facilitating the selection, analysis and collection of educational databases, ebooks, collaborative online communication tools and open educational resources (Agee, 2019, p.7). The future is actually now, and it is clear that written policies and procedures are “critical to the efficient management of a school library program and collection” (Bishop, 2013, p. 37).  Future proofing the collection is about having the flexibility and capacity to respond to challenges, and to the needs of the user community.

References

Agee, S. (2019). Curate a collection for all learners. Knowledge Quest, 48(2), 6-7.

Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) Schools and Victorian Catholic Teacher Librarians (VCTL). (2017). A manual for developing policies and procedures in Australian school library resource centres (Revised edition). file:///E:/CSU/ETL503%20Resourcing%20the%20Curriculum/ALIA%20Schools%20policies%20and%20procedures%20manual_FINAL.pdf

Corrall, S. (2018). The concept of collection development in the digital world. In M. Fieldhouse & A. Marshall (Eds.), Collection development in the digital age (pp. 3-43). Cambridge University Press.

Hughes-Hassell, S. & Mancall. J. (2005). Collection management for youth: Responding to the needs of learners. American Library Association Edition.

Johnson, P. (2009). Fundamentals of collection development and management. American Library Association Edition.

Johnson, P. (2018). Fundamentals of collection development and management (4th ed.). American Library Association Edition.

Keeling, M. (2019). What’s new in collection development?, Knowledge Quest, 48(2), 4-5. https://search.proquest.com/openview/df98b0e57f30ede4e963121d5424d82f/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=6154

Kimball, A. (2020). ETL503 Module 2.1 Time to catch-up on blog posts… https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/alyssa/2020/04/15/etl503-module-2-1-time-to-catch-up-on-blog-posts/

Kimball, A. (2020). ETL503 What is the difference between a collection development policy and a collection management policy? https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/alyssa/2020/05/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-collection-development-policy-and-a-collection-management-policy/

Kimmel, S.C. (2014). Developing collections to empower learners. American Library Association.

Newsum, J.M. (2016). School collection development and resource management in digitally rich environments: An initial literature review. School Libraries Worldwide, 22(1), 97-109.

O’Connell, J., Bales, J. & Mitchell, P. (2015). [R]Evolution in reading cultures: 2020 vision for school libraries. The Australian Library Journal, 64(3), 194-207.

Shaw, W. (2018) Collection development policies for the digital age. In M. Fieldhouse & A. Marshall (Eds.), Collection development in the digital age (pp. 165 -180). Cambridge University Press.

Strong, J. & Galbraith, Q. (2018). Letting the readers have a say: Crowd theory in collection development. College & Research Libraries News, 79(9), 502-504.