Weeding up close

After my last blog post, I began thinking more critically about some of the processes of collection analysis/evaluation and the TL’s direct role in them.

I came across a blog post on the process of ‘Weeding’, as Debowski (2001) suggests an essential ongoing part of collection management. In my previous readings on weeding, I had started to ponder over the ‘personal opinion’ effect on the process. If it was only up to the TL to conduct this process, how could they make it more holistic and include the opinions/needs of all stakeholders in this important process?

In her blog post, Weeding Library Books: A Brilliant Strategy, Jessica (2021) was about to undertake this very process in her own library, in order to make room for her growing collection and came to the thought “why can’t the students help decide which books are weeded out?.

However, when she came to the part of her planning where and finding a Weeding Rubric to help the students to determine whether a book should stay or go, Jessica could not find anything appropriate. She decided to make her own simple rubric students could use as they “judged” a book’s age, condition, interest/readability, and visual appeal. At the end of the rubric, they give their own personal thoughts as to whether the book should stay in the library or be weeded.

Here is the Weeding Rubric Jessica developed

Jessica then got the classroom teachers involved by asking them what the students were currently learning about in science/social studies. She then gathered the entire section on those topics (including the books she knew should stay), and wheeled them to the classroom with the rubrics in hand. Jessica then taught a lesson on what weeding is and why it is important, explaining the weeding project and then the students got to work.

The Weed

Library time became an interactive project incorporating multiple subjects. Jessica reported that students felt pride that someone would place trust in their opinions, creating a focused and meaningful experience for them.

Jessica’s reported outcomes for her students included

• Students felt pride that someone would place trust in their opinions, creating a focused and meaningful experience for them.
• Students asked thoughtful questions about what they were reading and truly let their critical thinking skills get to work.
• Students shared the outdated pictures with other students; commented on books they thought should be replaced and, best of all, and requested to do it again.

Jessica stated that from this interactive Weeding project she is now more aware of what the needs are for the library and can request funds (or donations) to purchase books to fit those needs.

 

The rubric Jessica formulated also became a powerful tool in proving to the school administration that such a large number to books needed to go and be replaced.

 

For me, this blog really highlights the collaborative nature of the collection evaluation process, not only does such a large feat require some more hands but by including students, teachers, admin and even parents in many of the process, like Weeding, there is a building of ownership and meaningful engagement that may not have been as strong as before.

 

Reference

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. 299-326). Centre for Information Studies, Charles Sturt University.

Weeding Library Books: A Brilliant Strategy. (2021, April 14). [Blog post]. Library Learners.             https://librarylearners.com/weeding-library-books/