collection development – Seoul Learning

Assessment #2_Part B: Reflection

“The foundation of a school library programme is its collection” (Easley, 2017, p. 21)

Enokson. (2010). Adding a little shoe spice to the stacks. [Photograph]. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/47823583@N03/4993069751

I have learnt so much in ETL503 Resourcing the Curriculum. For starters, I didn’t even know that the resources in the library were called “a collection!” Before starting this Masters program, I realised that I viewed the collection as static (Seewald, 2021, Jan 10). In my mind, resources miraculously appeared and then just….stayed. Instead, a school library collection should be dynamic and relevant. I had no idea the intricate processes behind developing, maintaining and evaluating a school library collection (Seewald, 2021, Jan 10_Forum 5.1). I am gaining a whole new respect for what goes on behind the scenes.

Recorded in an early blog post, I sought out our high school teacher librarian (TL) for some help to get my head around some of the new terminology and how they translate into practice (Seewald, 2020, Dec 5). The TL also gave me a copy of our collection development policy (CDP). I’m pleased we have one, but there are obvious gaps that I have now been able to identify due to undertaking ETL503.

I’d like to highlight four points (although there are many more) that have stood out to me over the course of working through the subject.

Firstly, I’m appreciating the importance of a CDP. It provides for the purpose of a collection, guidance in selecting and deselection for that collection, a foundation for ensuring equal access to that collection, a process to follow when the collection is challenged and the direction for the future of the collection (Braxton, 2018; Johnson, 2018; Kimmel, 2014). What I appreciate most about the CDP is that it does not have to be a standardized document, but can (and definitely should) reflect the local context of the school (Hughes-Hassell & Mancall, 2005, p. 35).

I was surprised to read a number of posts from fellow students who work in libraries, stating that they do not have CDPs (Forum 6.1). I’m a naïve newbie, and have not yet worked in the library trenches, but a library without a CDP seems in my mind to be akin to a ship without a rudder, where the voices who are the loudest may be the only ones heard and decisions may be made without the big picture of the whole collection in mind. Hughes-Hassell & Mancall (2005) highlight the importance of policy as a form of accountability as well as safeguarding the collection users from “individual collector biases” (p. 19). Having said that, the opposite perspective is that CDPs are obsolete and a waste of words (Hazen, 1995; Snow, 1996). Unfortunately the word count limits me from further exploring this debate!

Secondly, in regards to the nature of the collection, it must reflect the learning needs of the school community (Hughes-Hassel & Mancall, 2005, p. 33). As the learning needs of students are ever evolving, the library must be able to match the pace, or be out in front of it. This is easy to write, but I sense it is a mammoth task to undertake, and demands a pro-active role of the TL. Ultimately, the collection should provide a diverse range of resources that will encourage a student “to discover books that speak to their unit interests and needs, and allow them to chart their own personalized course through the process of acquiring knowledge” (Fleishhacker, 2017, p. 26). As a practical example of this, I really liked the thoughtful pairing of fiction and non-fiction books that Fleishhacker (2017) presented when trying to motivate readers through science. It was a snapshot of a very small part of the collection, but one that was deliberately thought out. I acknowledge the challenges that my school in particular would give to a TL in resourcing (and budgeting) the curriculum with the school having multiple different curriculum standards, and some subjects with no standards and thus new units created every year (Seewald, 2021, Jan 6_Forum 3.1).

Thirdly; of particular note is the changing nature of the collection in regards to digital information and the quickly evolving nature of the information landscape. This presents new challenges for the TL in collection development and management (Newsum, 2016, p. 100). There are no hard and fast rules about the balance between physical and digital resources (O’Connell et al., 2015, p. 203) although the collection needs to reflect local context. We have amazingly fast internet in South Korea and a healthy budget for school library use. We are indeed fortunate to have a wide range of e-books, web-based resources and databases but I know others do not have access to such resources. Anecdotally, the majority of our middle school students want a ‘book in hand’ rather than an e-book, while our high school students are heavily dependent on databases and other web based resources for research.

While we need to prepare our students and thus our collections for 21st century learning, this must be done in a thoughtful manner. Newsum (2016) states that “collection development has become a technology integration activity in and of itself” (p. 101) and this serves to highlight our digital, interconnected world. However, I did smile when I read McEwen’s comments defending physical non-fiction books; “everyone knows how to operate a book” (McEwen, 2018, p. 52). He makes a good point. Databases, e-books and web-based resources can contribute enormously to the collection, but not if you cannot access them. Thus easy access to digital and networked resources must be ensured. These are areas that should be reflected in the selection criteria within the CDP.

Fourthly, there is some debate as to whether digital and networked resources should have their own specific selection criteria. I believe that they should (Seewald, 2021, Jan 18_Forum 6.1). The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions argues this too (Johnson et al., 2012, p. 7). The complexities encountered using digital resources (for example licencing, copyright, confidentiality, access, ownership, technical services) warrant careful planning and consideration and thus, specific selection criteria. Kennedy (2005) takes this one step further and argues for a completely separate CDP.

So many things to consider! I have a long way to go in my TL learning journey, but ETL503 has given me a strong foundation upon which to build.

References

Braxton, B. (2018). Sample collection policy. 500 Hats. https://500hats.edublogs.org/policies/sample-collection-policy/#deselection

Easley, M. (2017). Personalized learning environments and effective school library programs. Knowledge Quest, 45(4), 16-23.

Fleishhacker, J. (2017). Collection development. Knowledge Quest, 45(4), 25-31.

Hazen, D. C. (1995). Collection Development Policies in the Information Age. College & Research Libraries, 56(1), 29-31. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_56_01_29

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

Johnson, P. (2018). Fundamentals of collection development and management (4th ed.). ALA Editions.

Johnson, S., Evensen, O. G., Gelfand, J., Lammers, G., Sipe, L., & Zilper, N. (2012). Key issues for e-resource collection development: A guide for libraries. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions.

Kennedy, J. (2005). A collection development policy for digital information resources? The Australian Library Journal, 54(3), 238-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2005.10721761

Kimmel, S. C. (2014). Developing collections to empower learners. American Association of School Librarians.

McEwen, I. (2018). Trending now: Nonfiction. Teacher Librarian, 45(3), 50-52.

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), 194-208. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2015.1048043

Snow, R. (1996). Wasted words: The written collection development policy and the academic library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 22(3), 191-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-1333(96)90057-9

I’ve just turned a recent discussion forum post into a blog post (see below). I want to make sure these thoughts are captured and stay on my blog, because it may be interesting to see in the coming year how my thinking develops. At least, (I hope), I’ll be more knowledgeable and confident in the library management side of the TL combination! Collection development, management, budgeting appear pretty daunting to me – I’m just so outside of my comfort zone. I really appreciated the simplicity of the templates provided in ALIA’s A manual for developing policies and procedures in Australian school library resource centres, they de-mystified things somewhat. I’m also going to ask our high school TL what model of budgeting (as explained in ALIA, 2007, pp. 12-13) she does and what challenges and opportunities she faces in this area. For sure, I totally see myself in Debowski’s (2001) comment: “many users only see the small aspect that directly supports their needs, and often fail to see the overall scope of the library collection” (p. 126) – and indeed what goes into the management of a library.

I’m really aware though that I may become somewhat annoying with pestering our TLs with my newbie questions. We are a tight expat community who lives and works closely together and I just need to tread with care.

In regards to budgeting…we were asked in Module 3 the question “Is it preferable that the funding for the school library collection be distributed to teachers and departments so they have the power to determine what will be added to the library collection?”

Let’s be honest, as classroom teachers, any amount of small control we can have over our everyday school life is usually welcomed 🙂 So when I first read this question, I thought, for sure teachers and departments should have the power to determine what resources they need to stock the collection. Then I reflected on my experience of being Head of Department for Individuals and Societies (Grades 9-12) and it was hard enough getting a consensus around the table about small things, let alone agreeing on resources 🙂 And then I remember the times when I tripped merrily down to the library to ask for a resource to be ordered and I was, on occasion, shown very SIMILAR resources that were already in stock that could also fit the bill quite nicely. Based on these examples, I’m going to err on the side of……give the TL access to curriculum and let them know of pertinent resource needs…..but let the TL (in conference with the principal) decide! It will be interesting to see if my thoughts change on this or not.

Response to Discussion Forum 3.1: Using output measures as tools for purchasing

It made me really think about my usage (as a classroom teacher) of the library collection. From my (limited) understanding, we have a pretty healthy budget for the high school library. But I do wonder about wastage. Whenever we get an email in regards to new possible subscriptions, I’m always in – especially as so much stuff/content can fit somewhere under the banner of MYP Individuals & Societies. But I can think of some subscriptions that in the past I have indicated to the TL that I will use for sure use….and then really haven’t. I too wonder how this usage is tracked. Jason spoke of reports generated by Clickview, I’m presuming this would be available on other platforms too – but I think they may only sometimes be available under the more expensive ‘premium’ or upgrade of a licence. The threads in this discussion prompt have made me more aware of my own usage (and lack of).

I also wonder about resourcing our current MYP units in our international school. Some subjects do follow standards, so are less prone to changing units (for example, MYP Science uses Next Generation Science Standards – US based, Math uses Common Core, the British section of the school uses the English National Curriculum (gosh we really are a hodge-podge) but I&S doesn’t follow set standards. It’s fantastic in some ways – it gives flexibility, teacher and student directed units etc. But if a teacher leaves and another comes in with a very different set of ideas (which still meet the MYP criteria and makes sense regarding vertical alignment) but requires alternate resources, then there are funding issues here. I wonder how our TL handles these requests.

References

Australian School Library Association & Victorian Catholic Teacher Librarians. (2007). A manual for developing policies and procedures in Australian school library resource centres. http://www.asla.org.au/policy/policy-development-manual.aspx

Debowski, S. (2001). Collection program funding management. In K. Dillon, J. Henri & J.McGregor (Eds.). Providing more with less: collection management for school libraries (2nd ed., pp. 126-136).

Tag: collection development

Assessment #2_Part B: Reflection

Accession & Acquisition: a few thoughts

Response to Discussion Forum 3.1: Using output measures as tools for purchasing