ERIC EJ1073539: Who, What and How? Commentary on Cheney, F. N. (1963) the Teaching of Reference in American Library Schools. (Journal of Education for Librarianship, 3(3), 188-198)

2015·0.27 MB·English

by  ERIC

Who, what and how? Commentary on Cheney,
F. N. (1963) The teaching of reference in American
Library Schools.
Journal of Education for Librarianship, 3(3), 188–198.
Linda C. Smith
Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Email: [email protected]
Cheney’s paper was the first major that “I am not scared of automation, I am
article on this subject (Gleaves & Tuck- grateful for it. For one thing, what would
er, 1983, p. x). Its author, Frances Neel we do without the telephone?” Of course,
Cheney, had been teaching at the Peabody in 1963 libraries were only beginning to
School of Library Science in Nashville explore the potential of computers (for ex-
since 1945. As a past president of the As- ample, the first Clinic on Library Applica-
sociation of American Library Schools tions of Data Processing was held at the
(1956–1957) and the Reference Services University of Illinois in spring 1963). But
Division of the American Library Asso- even though Cheney continued to teach
ciation (1960–1961), she was well posi- until 1975, Gleaves (1983) reports that
tioned to address three questions: “Most of her work came before the com-
puter revolution and she was never enam-
1. Who is teaching reference? ored of technology. She neither taught,
2. What is being taught? spoke, nor wrote about the more technical
3. How is it being taught? (Cheney, 1963, aspects of librarianship, and certainly she
p. 188) did not stray into the emerging high tech-
nology of library automation or computer-
The paper was based on a presentation based information systems” (p. 13).
made June 21, 1962, as part of a session So how has the teaching of reference
on the training of reference librarians at changed in the more than 50 years since
the American Library Association Annual Cheney offered her assessment of the state
Conference in Miami Beach (Armstrong, of the field in 1963? She focused on the
1963). As such, the paper reads more like 32 library schools with ALA-accredited
a conference talk than a formal journal ar- programs; that number has grown to 58,
ticle. several of which also identify as Informa-
As Richardson (1992), himself a stu- tion Schools (“iSchools”).
dent of Cheney, documented in a thorough
analysis of the first hundred years of ref- Who is teaching reference?
erence instruction from 1890–1990, refer-
ence has long been a core course in library Cheney noted that those teaching refer-
school curricula. The questions used to ence included both full-time and part-time
frame Cheney’s discussion remain rele- faculty and more men than women. She
vant today. What has changed is the perva- also noted the increase of doctoral degree
sive impact of technology that has affected holders among those holding full-time fac-
who is teaching, what is taught, and how it ulty positions. While aggregated data pro-
is taught. Cheney (1963, p. 188) observed filing who is currently teaching reference
J. of Education for Library and Information Science, Vol. 56, No. 1—(Winter) January 2015
ISSN: 0748-5786 © 2014 Association for Library and Information Science Education
Commentary on: Who, what and how?
are not available, the teaching of courses of the curriculum” and “reference instruc-
in the traditional core has certainly been tors are overwhelmed with trying to cover
impacted by overall trends in the composi- more aspects of theory and practice than
tion of faculty. Tenure-track positions are ever” (O’Connor, 2011, p. 334).
reserved for those holding the Ph.D. in a
growing variety of disciplines; other full- How is it being taught?
time faculty may have titles such as lectur-
er, clinical faculty, or professors of prac- In the physical classroom the mode of
tice with a focus on teaching. As student instruction was lecture and discussion with
enrollments have outpaced increases in practice questions used to gain experience
full-time faculty, more part-time/adjunct in the use of reference materials. Cheney
faculty have been hired. With the growth voiced concern about the use of “the na-
in online education, those part-time faculty ked question” without the context of the
can be located anywhere, so efforts must be person asking the question and the library
made to coordinate instruction by a distrib- where it was asked (1963, p. 196). Intro-
uted group of faculty teaching reference. duction of the case study method by Gal-
vin (1965) was designed to provide more
What is being taught? realistic practice. The current approach to
instruction has been shaped by multiple
Cheney focused on both the basic factors: the “transition from a time when
course, an introduction to reference ma- information was scarce and precious to
terials and services, and the proliferating today when information is vast, read-
range of more specialized courses dealing ily available, and mostly free” (Radford,
with particular subject fields (e.g., science 2012, p. 11); the rapid increase in online
and technology, humanities, social sci- courses reaching students in distributed
ences, law, medicine) or publication types locations with variable access to physical
(e.g., government publications). The ba- libraries (Robbins, 2012); and ongoing ef-
sic reference course included coverage of forts to find ways to build in experiential
reference materials—their content, evalu- learning (Currim, 2011). One response
ation, organization, and use. There was to all of these trends is teaching with ipl2
a consensus on types (e.g., dictionaries, (http://www.ipl.org/div/about/teachWipl.
encyclopedias, handbooks) but not spe- html), enabling students to gain skills in
cific titles to be taught. The course also virtual reference by using freely available
considered the kinds of reference service web-based resources to answer questions
and reference questions. Cheney spoke to submitted to the Internet Public Library by
the need for “a general text, with a limited users from around the world.
number of titles fully treated, which could In conclusion, it is apparent that “the
be used in introductory courses” (1963, teaching of reference in American library
pp. 194–195). This need was soon met by schools” has changed and will continue to
Katz (1969), a text giving equal attention change due to factors both external and
to reference sources and services. While internal to the schools. Just two years af-
specialized courses continue to be taught, ter Cheney published her article, Licklider
they compete for space in the curriculum published Libraries of the Future in which
with other topics important to contempo- he envisioned “procognitive systems” that
rary practice. The basic reference course would “facilitate man’s interaction with
continues to adapt. Reference source types transformable information” and “reject
and evaluation, the reference interview, the schema of the physical library—the
and search strategy continue to be empha- arrangement of shelves, card indexes,
sized, but “technology and users and user check-out desks, reading rooms, and so
contexts are now very visible components forth” (1965, p. 6). Yet the ability to reach
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
“a human librarian” for guidance if needed services and library education: Essays in honor
was still part of his vision (p. 127). The of Frances Neal Cheney (pp. ix–xi). Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
contexts for reference services and the
Katz, W. A. (1969). Introduction to reference work.
roles of reference librarians will continue
Vol. I Basic information sources. Vol. II Refer-
to evolve (VanScoy, 2012), and the teach-
ence services. New York: McGraw-Hill.
ing of reference must keep pace.
Licklider, J. C. R. (1965). Libraries of the future.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
References O’Connor, L. G. (2011). The education of reference
librarians: A detailed survey and analysis. In D.
Armstrong, J. R. (1963). Teaching and practice of Zabel (Ed.), Reference reborn: Breathing new
reference service. Journal of Education for Li- life into public services librarianship (pp. 317–
brarianship, 3(3), 173–174. 337). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Cheney, F. N. (1963). The teaching of reference in Radford, M. (2012). Envisioning and creating refer-
American library schools. Journal of Education ence futures. In M. Radford (Ed.), Leading the
for Librarianship, 3(3), 188–198. reference Renaissance: Today’s ideas for tomor-
row’s cutting-edge services (pp. 11–16). New
Currim, S. (2011). Experiential learning: Reduc-
York: Neal-Schuman.
ing the real-world divide between libraries and
library schools. The Reference Librarian 52(4), Richardson, J. V., Jr. (1992). Teaching general ref-
300–307. erence work: The complete paradigm and com-
Galvin, T. J. (1965). Problems in reference service: peting schools of thought, 1890–1990. The Li-
Case studies in method and policy. New York: brary Quarterly, 62(1): 55–89.
Bowker. Robbins, S. (2012). Moving a general reference
Gleaves, E. S. (1983). Pleased to teach and yet not course online: Issues and considerations. The
proud to know: A profile of the life and career of Reference Librarian, 53(1), 12–23.
Frances Neel Cheney. In E. S. Gleaves & J. M. VanScoy, A. (2012). Inventing the future by exam-
Tucker (Eds.), Reference services and library ed- ining traditional and emerging roles for reference
ucation: Essays in honor of Frances Neal Cheney librarians. In M. Radford (Ed.), Leading the ref-
(pp. 5–18). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. erence Renaissance: Today’s ideas for tomor-
Gleaves, E. S., & Tucker, J. M. (1983). Preface. In row’s cutting-edge services (pp. 79–93). New
E. S. Gleaves & J. M. Tucker (Eds.), Reference York: Neal-Schuman.