Designing training for library circulation staff

DESIGNING TRAINING
FOR THE CUNNINGHAM
MEMORIAL LIBRARY’S
CIRCULATION
DEPARTMENT
Presented to the College of Education
Department of Curriculum,
Instruction, and Media Technology
Indiana State University
Terre Haute, Indiana
in Partial Fulfillment of the Course
Requirements for CIMT 620

Andrea Boehme
Indiana State University
4/30/2012

Designing Instruction for the Cunningham Memorial Library i

Contents
Contents _____________________________________________________________________ i
List of Figures ________________________________________________________________ iv
List of Tables ________________________________________________________________ v
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ____________________________________________________ 1
Purpose ___________________________________________________________________ 1
Chapter 2 LEARNING CONTEXT _______________________________________________ 3
Instructional Environment ____________________________________________________ 3
Characteristics of the Organization ____________________________________________ 12
Characteristics of the Trainers ________________________________________________ 12
Curriculum Materials _______________________________________________________ 14
Comparison of Options _____________________________________________________ 14
Summation _______________________________________________________________ 15
Chapter 3 LEARNER ANALYSIS _______________________________________________ 16
Target Audience ___________________________________________________________ 16
Discussion _______________________________________________________________ 17
Implications for Design _____________________________________________________ 19
Chapter 4 FOCUS GROUP ____________________________________________________ 20
Introduction ______________________________________________________________ 20
Agenda for Transportation ___________________________________________________ 20
Questions Asked During the Interview _________________________________________ 20
Clothing for Interview ______________________________________________________ 21
Interviewees ______________________________________________________________ 21
Chapter 5 NEED ANALYSIS __________________________________________________ 22
Process __________________________________________________________________ 22
Phase I: Planning __________________________________________________________ 22
Phase II: Collecting Data ____________________________________________________ 24
Phase III: Analyzing the Data ________________________________________________ 24
Phase IV: Final Report ______________________________________________________ 28
Summation _______________________________________________________________ 29
Chapter 6 TASK ANALYSIS ___________________________________________________ 30
Introduction ______________________________________________________________ 30
Method __________________________________________________________________ 30

Designing Instruction for the Cunningham Memorial Library ii

Task Analysis _____________________________________________________________ 31
Discussion _______________________________________________________________ 31
Chapter 7 LEARNING OBJECTIVES ____________________________________________ 33
Learning Objectives ________________________________________________________ 33
Analysis of Learning Objectives ______________________________________________ 33
Objective Types ___________________________________________________________ 34
Learning Outcomes ________________________________________________________ 34
Chapter 8 INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY: DECLARATIVE ________________________ 36
What is Declarative Knowledge? ______________________________________________ 36
Cognitive Process __________________________________________________________ 37
Linking with Existing Knowledge _____________________________________________ 37
Organization/Elaboration ____________________________________________________ 37
Conditions Supporting Learning ______________________________________________ 37
Practice __________________________________________________________________ 38
Evaluation ________________________________________________________________ 38
Chapter 9 INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY: PROCEDURAL _________________________ 39
Introduction ______________________________________________________________ 39
Simplified Procedure _______________________________________________________ 39
Instructional Strategy/Procedural Considerations _________________________________ 40
Formative Analysis_________________________________________________________ 41
Chapter 10 INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY: COGNITIVE __________________________ 43
Introduction ______________________________________________________________ 43
Strategy Selection __________________________________________________________ 43
Application _______________________________________________________________ 43
Formative Evaluation _______________________________________________________ 44
Application _______________________________________________________________ 44
Summative Evaluation ______________________________________________________ 45
Chapter 11 EVALUATION ____________________________________________________ 46
Introduction ______________________________________________________________ 46
Student Assessment ________________________________________________________ 46
Student Feedback __________________________________________________________ 48
Data Analysis _____________________________________________________________ 48
Recommended Changes _____________________________________________________ 51
Appendix 1 Pretest ___________________________________________________________ 52

Designing Instruction for the Cunningham Memorial Library iii

Assessment Tool for Applicants_______________________________________________ 54
Appendix 2 Learner Survey ____________________________________________________ 58
Appendix 3 Pretest Rubric _____________________________________________________ 59
Appendix 4 Surveys __________________________________________________________ 59
Subject Matter Expert _______________________________________________________ 59
Staff ____________________________________________________________________ 59
Appendix 5 Task Analysis Flow Chart ____________________________________________ 61
Appendix 6 Declarative Game __________________________________________________ 63
Shelve that material! For the timekeeper _______________________________________ 63
Creating the “shelves” ______________________________________________________ 63
Creating the shelving items __________________________________________________ 64
Creating the play area _______________________________________________________ 64
Shelve that Material! For the players ___________________________________________ 66
Score Card _______________________________________________________________ 68
Appendix 7 Creating a New Resident Card ________________________________________ 69
Appendix 8 Evaluation Pretest __________________________________________________ 71
Overview ________________________________________________________________ 71
Objectives ________________________________________________________________ 71
Instructions _______________________________________________________________ 71
Appendix 9 Evaluation PowerPoint ______________________________________________ 78
Appendix 10 Survey Backend with Results ________________________________________ 79
References __________________________________________________________________ 80

Designing Instruction for the Cunningham Memorial Library iv

List of Figures
Figure 2:1 Front of Room 028 _______________________________________________________________ 5

Figure 2:2 Back of Room 028 ________________________________________________________________ 5

Figure 2:3 Side View 028 ___________________________________________________________________ 5

Figure 2:4 Computer Setup 028 ______________________________________________________________ 5

Figure 2:5 Projector 028 ____________________________________________________________________ 6

Figure 2:6 028 Layout ______________________________________________________________________ 7

Figure 2:7 Instruction Lab __________________________________________________________________ 9

Figure 2:8 Instruction Lab Layout ___________________________________________________________ 9

Figure 2:9 Student Cube Layout ____________________________________________________________ 12

Figure 5:1 Phases of Analysis ______________________________________________________________ 22

Figure 5:2 Departmental Structure _________________________________________________________ 23

Figure 5:3 Task Performance Graph ________________________________________________________ 25

Figure 5:4 Perceived Ability Graph__________________________________________________________ 26

Figure 5:5 Desired Training Graph _________________________________________________________ 26

Figure 5:6 Method Graph __________________________________________________________________ 28

Figure 5:7 Training Needed Graph _________________________________________________________ 28

Figure 11:1 Motivation ____________________________________________________________________ 50

Figure 11:2 Appropriateness _______________________________________________________________ 50

Figure 11:3 Remember _____________________________________________________________________ 50

Designing Instruction for the Cunningham Memorial Library v

List of Tables
Table 2:1 Room 028 Features ________________________________________________________________ 3

Table 2:2 Instructional Lab Features _________________________________________________________ 8

Table 2:3 Individual Training Features _____________________________________________________ 10

Table 3:1 Learner Analysis _________________________________________________________________ 17

Table 9:1 Procedural Instruction ___________________________________________________________ 40

Table 10:1 Cognitive Instruction ____________________________________________________________ 44

Designing Instruction for the Cunningham Memorial Library 1

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
Interacting with almost all departments and patrons on a regular basis, the circulation

department at Cunningham Memorial Library (CML) is one of the most visible on campus.

From the time library opens until it closes, circulation is active in the library. It is vital,

therefore, that staff is well trained. CML’s circulation department employs twenty-nine persons.

Nineteen of these are students.

Students are consistently hired and trained to make up for the older students who

graduate, or leave the department. This year six new students were hired who all needed to learn

their job quickly. An orientation/training meeting informs students of their duties and outline

what is expected of them. This needs analysis is an evaluation specifically of the orientation, and

generally the whole training program in the circulation department of CML.

Purpose

The training was created to meet a felt need (Morrison, Ross, & Kemp 2001, p 29) of the

circulation staff (in this case and all following “staff” refers to those employees who work full

time in the circulation department. “Students” refer to those employees who are students of

Indiana State University and work part time in the department). The staff was unhappy with the

performance of the older students and knew the new students would need a firm foundation to

offset the inconsistent training they were currently receiving.

Concern with student performance is not new to CML. In 2003, the head of circulation

Alberta Comer (now the dean of the library) published a study on improving student job

performance. The study noted that a lack of student motivation and poor communication was the

cause of low performance. The study recommended the creation of a handbook, a recognition


system for outstanding students, formalizing peer training, utilizing email for communication,

and expanding training methods as methods to combat the problems. The majority of these have

been implemented to varying degrees of successfulness.


Chapter 2 LEARNING CONTEXT

Instructional Environment

Paula, the student supervisor, and the instructional designer (ID) gave the instruction the

second week of the semester. The students were least busy academically at this time, and the

new students were hired. The instruction took place in a room on the Lower Level of the library,

room 028 (see figures 2:1-2:6). This room is commonly used for staff meetings, and

presentations. The room is large with seating for around 100 people. Chairs were lined up

across the width of the room, in five rows of fifteen chairs, with two tables, seating seven people,

behind that. The majority of students choose to sit in the rows of chairs towards the back of the

room.

Projection of the presentation was done from a ceiling mounted projector in the middle of

the room onto a standard screen. A computer terminal, located to the right of the screen, served

as the center of control and also as a podium. A laptop was used to run the presentation as the

available computer did not have access to Millennium (the integrated library system which is

used to check out books) which was needed for instruction.

The following chart describes the environmental factors in the instructional context, and

is taken from Morrison, Ross and Kemp (2011).

Table 2:1 Room 028 Features

Room 028 - original instruction environment.
Lighting Lighting controls are accessed by two separate switches. One in the

back controls the back lights. Another in the front controls the front. The

lights in the room were turned off, to better view the presentation.


However light filtered in from the outside through opaque glass and

from the presentation.

Noise The Lower Level is a “loud” floor, meaning patrons are allowed to speak

normally. The doors of the meeting room were closed to muffle outside

sound. However, there were no major distractions from noise during the

presentation.

Temperature Temperature is controlled offsite and there are two settings: on and off.

That day was warm outside and it was hot in the room. The students did

not complain, but it was uncomfortable.

Seating There were enough seats that students could choose a vantage point that

worked well for them. However, as there were only two tables most

students would have had to take notes in their lap. We could have had

tables brought in but decided to forgo them as we didn’t foresee much

writing going on.

Accommodations The student supervisor, Paula, brought food and drink. The supervisor

was late, so students had to wait until the end of the presentation to eat.

Equipment Projector and screen, laptop, visual aids (resident card, ILL reserve place

card, ect.)

Transportation Students regularly provide transportation to and from work, so it was not

an issue. Unfortunately, some students had class. They were given a

copy of the presentation, handouts, and instructor notes with

encouragement to ask questions. Paula, however, was late as there was

thick fog and she had to pick up the refreshments.


Figure 2:1 Front of Room 028

Figure 2:2 Back of Room 028

Figure 2:3 Side View 028

Figure 2:4 Computer Setup 028


Figure 2:5 Projector 028


Figure 2:6 028 Layout

Alternative option one

Another option for instruction is the Instruction Lab (see Figures 2:7 and 2:8). Located

on the second floor, this room is used by the Reference department to do their instruction. This

room has more technological options. It has the standard computer cart, to display instructional

material on two screens and a SMARTboard, from three ceiling mounted projectors. Fifty

computers are available for use and take up the majority of table space. This is a wide room with

seating arranged across the length of the room.

In the event that we added more technical aspects to the training we may need to use this

room. It does have the Millennium software on the computers already which is nice. We did not

choose this room because we were worried that students would get distracted by the computers.


It felt a waste to have the instruction in a room with computers when we weren’t going to use

them. Food and drink are not allowed in this room, so it was less than ideal for instruction.

Table 2:2 Instructional Lab Features

Instructional Lab
Lighting Lighting is controllable using a bank of light switches. As the room is

sectioned off from the stacks by glass partitions, light comes in through

the glass. This room is still light when the lights are turned off for this

reason. If the computers and projectors are turned on that also adds to

the brightness.

Noise The second floor is also a “loud” floor that receives the same amount of

activity as the Lower Level. The doors can be closed and the students

have their backs to the glass aiding in concentration.

Temperature The Instruction Lab is subject to the same heating and cooling as the rest

of the library, and is not adjustable. The addition of computers would

increase the temperature in the room. However, there are fans available

to keep the discomfort minimal.

Seating Each computer terminal is a seating area for students which makes for a

roomier seating arrangement, but does not leave much space for

traditional note taking. To aid in viewing of material, it can be projected

onto three different screens so one does not have to crane their neck

across the room.

Accommodations There is no eating or drinking in the lab.

Equipment instructor computer, individual students computers, SMARTboard, 3

projectors, 2 projection screens, fans, Millennium, polling clickers


Transportation This site has the same transportation concerns as the original room on

the Lower Level.

Figure 2:7 Instruction Lab

Figure 2:8 Instruction Lab Layout


Alternative option two

Another option is giving instruction on a singular basis in the environment where workers

will do the job. This is the current method used in the library through peer training. An

experienced student is paired with a new one for approximately a week (this varies on the

student’s abilities and how urgently a replacement is needed). The more experienced student is

given their regular schedule, and the new one follows behind learning as they go. Along with

this the new student could use part of their time to review instructional materials alone in the

student cubicle located in circulation (see figure 2:9).

Table 2:3 Individual Training Features

Individual Training
Lighting Lighting throughout the library and in the student cubicle is controlled

by switches in the circulation area. The lights are always on when the

library is open.

Noise  The basement and 3rd floor of the library are “quiet” floors.

Patrons and staff are required to speak at a whisper, or locate to

another floor. Peer training in these areas will have to be at a

whisper.

 The student cubicle is located in the middle of the circulation

area. During the day, there is quite a bit of noise from staff,

machinery, and patrons. At night it is quieter as there are less

staff and machines creating noise.

Temperature Temperature concerns are the same as listed in above sections.

Seating  During peer training students sit two places: at the circulation


desk, or in the student cube during tasks. At the circulation desk

there are two chairs one for staff and another for students. If the

staff decides to stay at the desk one of the students will have to

stand for 1-2 hours. The student cube is cramped with room for

3-4 people maximum and two work stations.

 For independent training the student would have to share the

student cube with other students on the job. This area is cramped

and during the day they may have to find a corner of the library

so work can get done. At night they should be able to have the

cube to themselves.

Accommodations In either situation, students are allowed to eat and drink but breaks are to

be taken away from the circulation department.

Equipment In both situations, students can be exposed to all the equipment they

would use on the job. Computer, laptop, scanners, sensitizers, carts, disk

cleaners, receipt printers, VCR, Millennium, walkie talkies,

Transportation The same transportation issues are present as in the other areas.


Figure 2:9 Student Cube Layout

Characteristics of the Organization

As this curriculum was created using the suggestions of staff, the characteristics of the

organization are important. The general consensus was that students needed to cut down on

errors and learn to work independently so that staff could focus on doing their job.

Also the circulation department is a laidback, friendly group. Students feel free to

express their opinion on most subjects, and have no trouble joking around with staff. Serious

discussion is not hard to have, as long as you give time for jocularity.

Characteristics of the Trainers

Instruction was given by the ID and by Paula; the head of circulation, Susan was there as

well.


Content experience

Susan - has worked in circulation for almost two years, before that she was in the

Reference department. She doesn’t know every minutia of what the students do but she can

answer questions about overall policy, and was able to clarify why we are/are not allowed to do

things certain ways. As a fellow Department of Education student, Susan has a positive view on

instruction, and values training. Focusing on running the administration side of the department,

Susan oversees the big picture.

Paula – has been working in circulation as the student supervisor for three years.

Students report directly to her in all of their activities. She knows everything that there is to

know about how students are supposed to do their job, what they know and don’t know, and who

to go to if she doesn’t have the answer. Paula has been responsible for the training of students.

Due to a busy schedule, the ID took over for this session. Her focus is on procedure. Are the

books shelved right, are students here when they are supposed to be, and so on. She works

mostly on the behind-the-scenes aspects of circulation

Andrea (ID)– has been working in circulation for nine months. As the night supervisor,

she can tell them how to do their tasks and can hold them responsible for not following policy

(privacy, professionalism). Andrea defers to Paula in all other situations.

Technology experience

The ID, is knowledgeable about all technology used in the creation of the instructional

materials. Paula is not very technically oriented. She is unfamiliar with PowerPoint and knows

the basics of how to use the computer. This lack of experience limits the technology available

for use in creating and administering instruction.


Instructor training

If Paula is to take over training completely, she will have to know how to use PowerPoint

and how to operate the computer set up so she can display the presentation. Any new

technologies that are added will have to be learned by all instructors.

Curriculum Materials

There was no official curricula to fit the newly designed into. The instructional materials

addressed concerns felt in the circulation department. The previous approach, peer instruction,

was not altered. That is still the main way students learn the majority of tasks. Additional

instructions should be able to function within that system to define standards and to provide a

way for students to seek out answers themselves after training is done.

Comparison of Options

The room that is the most obvious for training is the Instruction Lab. It is the most high

tech, and is set up specifically to give instruction. It has the Millennium program for use in

demonstration, and has the best set up to view information as a group. They also have

technology that can be used to enhance learning. Polling clickers and the SMARTboard could be

used to advance the training and to make for a more dynamic session. The concern is the

computers. They take up a lot of desk space, and may lead to distraction if the students have

them on. Also as there is no food allowed, refreshments would have to be served in another

location in the library.

The second most obvious choice is what we actually used. It is less formal and can hold

the most people. It has good technology options that were suitable for the instructional needs at

the time. Extra technology had to be brought in to show how to use Millennium, but it was


easily obtainable. There was no room for writing but students didn’t seem to mind. Overall, this

room meets the needs of instruction. This also fits the informal culture of circulation.

The more unconventional option that would be used in a peer training situation is tricky

but offers the best access to the tools used on the job. Instruction would have to take place on an

individual basis which would form bonds between workers. However, seating would be a

problem especially during the day.

Summation

The environment used for training was perfect for our needs during the presentation: food

could be served; everyone could sit comfortably (in regards to space, not to temperature) and

participate. If changes were made in the curriculum the space needs may need to be

reconsidered. Changes in technology may also be a problem down the line as well as the student

supervisor is not familiar with most technology.


Chapter 3 LEARNER ANALYSIS

Target Audience

The primary audience for instruction is the nineteen student workers in the circulation

department. Instruction was created to further their understanding of what is expected of them

when they work in circulation, as well as a clarification of tasks. The secondary audience is

future circulation students and part-time staff who might undergo the training.

In order to identify the learning characteristics of the primary audience, students were

given a pretest (Appendix 1) and a survey (Appendix 2). These methods were originally

intended to evaluate the student curriculum; however they have proven useful in identifying prior

learning. All other information was obtained through personal knowledge of the students

obtained by interacting with them on a daily basis.

Using Smith and Ragan’s (2005) four categories of learner characteristics students can be

described as follows (see Table 3.1). The focus in on the primary audience; traits of the

secondary group are mentioned only if they differ from the primary.


Table 3:1 Learner Analysis

Similarities Differences
Primary Primary
 Sensory Capacities: Students  Aptitudes: Unknown
possess no hindrances to sight or  Cognitive Styles: Unknown
sound comprehension  Psychosocial Traits:
 Information Processing: At least two Anxiety – no outliers
students have ADHD related Locus of control – external and
problems and as such have trouble internal are balanced in the group
Stable

concentrating for extended periods academic self conduct - generally
of time positive
 Types and Conditions of learning:  Demographics: Primarily Caucasian,
peer training, independent learning 50/50 split on gender, 18-24 years
Secondary old, generally middle class
 Information Processing: no outliers Secondary
 Demographics: (part time staff)
Caucasian, Female, 26-50 years old
concentrated to over 35.
Primary Primary
 Developmental process: no outliers  Developmental State: Students are a
 Intellectual development: no outliers mix of Erikson’s (1968) Identity vs.
 Language Development: no outliers Identity Confusion, and Intimacy vs.
 Psychosocial/Personality: students Isolation
are highly social  Prior Learning: Generally
Secondary (knowledge of the world) students
Changing

 Psychosocial: staff are from are at the same level of learning.
different departments and have Specifically (knowledge of the job)
various preferences to social only 5 of the 20 students are
interaction “experts” at the job.
Secondary
 Developmental State: Staff are in
Erikson’s Generatively vs.
Stagnation
 Prior: Staff are considered
intermediate at job skills

Discussion

The pretest was given to eleven of the nineteen students. Originally, it was supposed to

be taken by all of the students, but due to a communications error it was given late. The results

were separated by experience level. Six participants had over two years of experience, two had a

year or less experience, and three had only a few days of experience. The tests were graded and


each given a rating of expert, intermediate, or novice level. Expert level students made a few

errors generally related to not examining the questions carefully enough; they were explicit in

their explanations and descriptions. Intermediate students made a few errors related to

ignorance, they gave short answers that did not fully detail their process. Novice students made

considerable errors due to ignorance, and did not give enough detail in their explanations. Please

see the rubric (Appendix 3) for more detail. The students with over two years of experience

generally preformed at an expert level, with only one falling to intermediate. The second group

preformed at an intermediate level, with one bordering on novice. The third group, expectedly,

preformed at a novice level.

Originally, the majority of data on the students was to come from a focus group. After

two separate calls for participants, the suggested group size of five people could not be achieved.

At first, it was suspected this was because of scheduling problems. So a request was made for

willing participants to send times they were available and then a common opening would be used

to schedule the group. This method was also unsuccessful. Currently, data is being gathered

through an alternative method, a survey. The survey is still in the collection process, but is

proving interesting. It was distributed through SurveyMonkey a week ahead of time. It consists

of eight questions pertaining to training and takes about two minutes to complete. Six responses

have been collected so far, however, one was answered all “no reply” and as such has been

removed from the data. These responses are all from students with over 2 years of experience.

This pattern of non-responsiveness by the students is troubling. Only a select group of

students are willing to participate in evaluation activities. This group is mostly female, and from

the expert group of students. Data, obviously, will be skewed towards this group. It is unclear

why students do not want to participate. They weren’t getting paid for the focus group, but pizza


and drinks were to be provided. Possibly the timing was not convenient, as students were asked

to supply a time between 8am and 4pm. However, the response from a two minute online survey

only accounts for a fourth of the students, and they were from that same two years or more of

experience group.

Informal information of importance about the students was gathered through conversation

between Andrea, the night supervisor, and the students, staff, and student supervisor. Students

are a highly social. The majority of new hires are recommended by students already employed

by circulation and are often close friends or relatives. Students and staff also get along well.

The more experienced students have babysat staff children and are friends with staff on

Facebook. Newer students are introduced to staff through the students they know. There are a

few staff members who students gravitate towards, but all students have at least a professional

camaraderie with staff.

Implications for Design

A pattern is evident in the students: they are highly social, students with the most

experience are more willing to participate in evaluation than those who have been working here

less, and students are performing at a level appropriate for their experience.

In order to improve training an attitude learning approach (Smith and Ragan 2005, p 260-

268) could be useful. The focus on changing an attitude could rectify the student’s lethargy in

regards to willingness to participate in evaluation activities. If we can show them that their input

is valuable this could help. Also as a majority of tasks in circulation involve customer service,

attitude learning will be helpful in creating good customer service skills. The instructional

conditions for attitude objectives put a focus on role-playing. This works well with the student’s

social tendencies as it requires students to express themselves.


Chapter 4 FOCUS GROUP

Introduction

In order to evaluate the circulation student training curriculum, the students, staff, and

subject matter expert (SME) of circulation were questioned. Originally, a focus group with

students was the main method of data collection. Due to low response, the focus group had to be

cancelled. Instead an online survey was distributed through email. This survey was based off

the format from the staff survey. The SME was given a list of interview questions through

email. This was arranged to fit both the interviewer and interviewee’s opposite schedules.

Agenda for Transportation

As the survey and interview were conducted over the Internet transportation was not a

factor. The agenda for the interview was informal as well. The email, sent on February 6th,

asked her to respond by Februrary10th.

Questions Asked During the Interview

Both types of questions, the survey and the interview, were structured. As neither

medium excels in allowing the participant to fully express their views, a structured format was

necessary. The interview was intended to be a dialog between the SME and the researcher;

however after the initial results no further questions were needed.

These methods were used to discover the felt needs of the circulation department. Felt

needs are “a desire or want that an individual has to improve either his or her performance or that

of the target audience” (Morrison, Ross, & Kemp 2001, p 29). Another goal was to quantify the


subjects felt needs, that before had only been expressed in complaints at staff meetings.

Surveying the student’s also served to get the other side of the story.

Clothing for Interview

In an experiment conducted in 1976 with eighty undergraduate students, it was shown

that dress had minimal effect on “perceived expertness” (Kerr & Dell). It was the conduct of the

interviewers that seemed to relay expertise. Hubble and Gelso (1978) also found that clients had

the best reaction to counselors with a dress style that was a bit more formal than what the client

usually wears. So a person who usually dresses casually (casual shirt and jeans) responds best to

a counselor who is business casual (nice slacks and a button down). These experiments show that

clothing does affect how interviewees perceive the interviewer. An important note is that

interviewer behavior, and the preferences of the interviewee have the most impact on perception.

More current discourse on attire is focused on a job interview. These articles recommend

“professional” attire. However, in these situations the person is being questioned, not doing the

questioning. They are the one being asked to prove their worth, whereas in an interview, aimed

at getting information, one wants to make the subject(s) feel at ease. The two types of interview

are not the same and should not be treated as such. Obviously, wearing pajamas to a focus group

is not appropriate, but the deciding factor on what to wear should come down to the audience.

Since the interviews were given without face-to-face interaction dress was not an issue.

However, any further interviews may be different. The majority of staff, students, and the SME

dress casually, therefore a business casual dress would be appropriate.

Interviewees

The only interview given was with the SME, Paula Huey.


Chapter 5 NEED ANALYSIS

Process
To conduct the needs analysis the following method from Morrison, Ross, and Kemp

(2001) was utilized.

Figure 5:1 Phases of Analysis

Phase Phase II: Phase III: Phase IV:
I:Planning Collecting data Data Analysis Final Report

Target
Sample Size Analysis Purpose
audience

Strategy Scheduling Prioritization Process

Analysis Results

Particpants Action

Phase I: Planning

The target audience for the assessment is the students and the SME in the department.

They will deal directly with the outcome of the assessment. The SME will have to implement

and enforce any changes, and the students will have to adapt and perform under any new

methods. The secondary audience is the staff at large. Susan, the head of the circulation

department, will have final say on what will and will not happen, and can direct the department

as a whole to take action in regards to training students. Other circulation staff will also have to


enforce changes and can report back the effectiveness. The following diagram shows the

structure of the department. One thing to note is Andrea has been separated and deemphasized

to show that, while a member of the regular staff, she conducted the study and was not a part of

the data. Paula has been emphasized to show her importance in the outcome.

Figure 5:2 Departmental Structure

Susan

Staff Paula Andrea

Students
In order to assess the training program at CML, the strategy was to conduct an

assessment using the discrepancy model (Smith & Ragan 2005). In this model there is a

curriculum in use and the model is used to find and address gaps in it. Gaps were found using a

pre/posttest over the meeting, and discussions with the staff and students. A survey of staff,

interview with the SME, and focus group of students was the original plan. Due to a lack of

participants the focus group was changed to a survey.

Analysis of the results happened as follows. The pre and posttest were compared using

the rubric in Appendix 3. The tests were divided by the experience level of the students to show

if any improvement occurred and at what levels. The surveys were compiled to compare

students and staff, and then that data was compared to the interview with the SME.


Phase II: Collecting Data

The evaluation of the orientation/meeting was a pre/posttest (see Appendix 1) . This test

was given to eleven students before the meeting and fifteen after the test. The test consisted of

three short answer questions aimed at assessing customer service skills, fifty questions,

consisting of multiple choice, matching, and a map labeling exercise, to assess their knowledge

of the department, and lastly forty questions on Library of Congress classification that is also

used as an assessment during the hiring process.

The other data collection method consisted of an interview with the subject-matter expert

(SME) student supervisor, and a survey of staff and students. The interview with the SME was

conducted through email to accommodate both the interviewer’s, and interviewee’s opposite

schedules. The two surveys were also collected electronically using SurveyMonkey an online

survey creation and distribution website. The staff was sent an email inviting them to take the

survey; of the eight staff members, six responded. The students were sent a link to the website in

a mass email. Of the twenty potential respondents, six responded. One of these surveys was

answered all “No Response” and was excluded from the data, making five total. The five student

responses were all from those who had worked in the department for two or more years. This

skewed the results to the most experienced students in the department.

Phase III: Analyzing the Data

Pre/Post

Examination of the pre/post data showed the students with over two years of experience

generally preformed at an expert level, with only one falling to intermediate. The second group

performed at an intermediate level, with one bordering on novice. The third group, expectedly,

performed at a novice level. After the orientation the score generally improved. The


experienced students stayed the same, those students working between a year and half and five

months improved with two people advancing to expert. The novice students improved greatly as

well. They had all improved to intermediate, with one achieving expert status.

The rise in scores was a resulted from improved performance on the map labeling and

multiple choice questions. Students performed consistently on the short answer customer service

questions before and after the meeting.

Surveys

A comparison of staff and student surveys shows that there is little agreement on what the

students can do well and how to handle further training.

Figure 5:3 Task Performance Graph

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0
0 10-20 30-40 50 60-70 80-90 100

Staff Students


Figure 5:4 Perceived Ability Graph

6

5

4

3

2 Staff
Students
1

0

Figure 5:5 Desired Training Graph

7

6

5

4

3
Staff
2
Students
1

0

The most telling of the data is the Correct/Confident task performance chart and the data

on customer service. When asked to rate the students on “what percentage of tasks do student

perform correctly” staff say task correctness tops out at 90% and goes down to as little as 50%.


Whereas students have a more positive view of themselves: performing between 80 and 100%

confidence. Granted this data is from students who have worked in the library the longest and

does not reflect all student performances. Customer service is also a point of contention. The

students feel they have excellent customer service skills, and the SME agrees with them. When

asked what students do well, customer service was the first thing the SME wrote (P. Huey,

personal communication, February 10, 2012).

Current training method

When examining the effectiveness of current methods and what could be added staff was

split between the same amount and more training was needed, however, students were generally

fine with the current offerings. This was also reflected in the available training methods with

students tending towards what was currently in use (email, peer training, orientations). Students

and staff did see the value in diversifying the training curriculum by adding a handbook and

manual. Staff wanted to also add periodic testing, but the students showed no interest.


Figure 5:6 Method Graph

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0
handbook manual orientation peer emails testing lessons other

Staff Student

Figure 5:7 Training Needed Graph

Staff Students

4.5
4
3.5
Respondents

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
More Same Less

Phase IV: Final Report

The gaps in training can be seen in customer service. The survey shows that students and

staff disagree on what is proper customer service. A lack of change in the short answer on the

pre/posttest also speaks to the problem. Future training will need to focus on that aspect. An


examination of comments on both the student and staff survey also show that peer training is

inconsistent. Students are trained my multiple peers, and often do not get to experience tasks

that form the basis of tasks in the department. Another gap that was not actively studied but

became a factor was motivation. As seen in the survey, students are fine with their current

performance. There is also a lack of motivation in improving the department. Only a small

portion of students are willing to take time outside of work to discuss the problems. The need to

cancel the focus group and the small number of respondents to the survey shows this.

In order to fill these gaps the training process needs to be formalized in a series of low

tech solutions that happen as a part of the job. It was shown during an examination of the

learning environment that the SME, who will be ultimately responsible for implementing and

administering training, is not technologically adept and would need training on new methods.

Also the on-the-job aspect of training is critical. Students show more willingness to contribute

when they are in the environment. Giving them materials (such as a handbook, or video) they

can utilize when they are dealing with a problem may be more effective than a reminder outside

of the work environment.

This problem of motivation is an important, but was not the focus of this study. A deeper

look at this problem and possible solutions is needed to fully understand how it could be

improved. Another possible topic would be student/staff relations as a way to encourage

communication.

Summation

Comer’s study of the students in 2003 still rings true today. The same problems are

present. Hopefully, revisiting and revamping the solutions the study recommends will improve

student performance.


Chapter 6 TASK ANALYSIS

Introduction

After conducting a Needs Assessment plan for the Cunningham Memorial Library’s

(CML) circulation department, it was found that students needed training methods that they were

able to during their work hours. In order to facilitate those needs an analysis of tasks is needed.

By examining what is involved an appropriate media, or method can be chosen. Students have a

myriad of tasks that need to be done and examining their job as a whole is impractical. To that

end, this task analysis will be on a job that forms the backbone of student tasks: sorting and

shelving materials.

Method

As Smith and Ragan (2005) report, the first part of analyzing a task is to create or

determine a learning goal. This is a “statement of purpose... [of] what learners should be able to

do at the conclusion of instruction” (Smith & Ragan 2005, p 77). It was discovered in the needs

assessment that shelving was an area in which students can improve, creating the goal: Learners

need to know the correct method for shelving the materials in the library.

The second step is to determine the type of learning that task entails. For sorting/shelving

material a declarative (Smith & Ragan 2005 pp 79-80) learning outcome is most appropriate.

The student needs to memorize the indicators of location that are available and where to find

that information on the item. Some application of knowledge they receive is present. For

example, a book that has “Ref” marked out, or incorrectly formatted call numbers can cause

confusion. However, there is nothing truly “intellectual” about recognizing that something is

wrong and asking for clarification, which is the course of action taught by the student supervisor.


The last part of creating a task analysis is the analysis itself. Sorting/Shelving is a task

that begs for a procedural analysis. As explained by Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (2001, p 70) a

procedural analysis “is used to analyze tasks by identifying the steps required to complete [the

process]. The [analysis] breaks tasks into the size of steps needed for learning.” To do this the

task of sorting and shelving will be described by a Subject Matter Expert, in this case the

designer.

Task Analysis

Please see Appendix 5 for the flow chart for the task.

Discussion

In creating this chart a number of issues presented themselves. The first, that additional

subject material needs to be incorporated into the design. An understanding of Dewey and

Library of Congress classification models is required to shelve. Education on the systems need

not be very deep; however, a few key points need to be emphasized. For example, in both

systems the dot in a number is not a period, but a decimal point. This means that the number .423

comes before .43.

The second issue is that this process does not happen as one continuous task. Sorting

happens at the circulation desk and again in preshelving, while shelving is yet another task.

Workers have to know the whole process to understand why some parts of their job are

necessary. When they work at the desk, students are asked to put away materials in the same

order they are on the shelf to speed up work flow further down the line. Hopefully, seeing the

full process can show them why this task is required of them. Also because this does not happen

all at the same time it may make creating a lesson difficult. To that end, educators could share

this model with the students when addressing work flow or use it to give the student an overview


of the task; then the students should participate in the sorting and the shelving task for the main

mode of education.


Chapter 7 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Learning Objectives

 Using Library of Congress classification, students will shelve stacks books correctly 90%

of the time with no errors from misreading the call number before the Cutter.

 Using Dewey classification, students will shelve stacks books correctly 90% of the time

with no errors in identifying subgroups (easy reader, biography, ect)

 Using alphabetical classification, students will make zero errors when shelving material.

Analysis of Learning Objectives

As stated in Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (2001), learning objectives fulfill three roles in

the learning process. They:

 offer a means for instructors to focus their instruction

 provide a method of evaluating student performance

 guide the learner so they know what to expect from instruction

Having well stated learning objectives is essential in shaping both the student and teacher’s

expectations of their level of performance and the goal of the coursework.

The objectives listed above fulfill all of these roles. The objectives each have a specific

focus: teaching/learning about a specific classification system. Evaluation will occur in the

stacks with specific criteria to assess how the learner performed. They also guide the learner by

telling them which classification systems they will be learning about.


Objective Types

Objectives are created with one of a few domains in mind. Each of these domains helps

the designer create objectives by identifying what type of learning will occur. Morrison, Ross,

and Kemp (2001) list three domains: cognitive, psychomotor, and affective. The cognitive

domain as defined by Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (2001) deals with “information or knowledge,

naming, solving, predicting and other intellectual aspects of learning” (p 86). An objective in

the cognitive domain addresses learning that challenges the learner to remember, comprehend,

apply, analyze, synthesize, or evaluate material. These tasks were created by Bloom in 1956 in

his taxonomy of cognitive objectives (Morrison, Ross, & Kemp 2001). Cognitive domain is the

focus of the objectives above. Students are asked to comprehend, apply, and analyze, each of the

shelving methods. For Smith and Ragan, the objectives are procedural ones.

Psychomotor is the next domain. This domain is focused on physically completing a

task. Tasks relating to using proper technique or manipulation of the body fall under this domain.

While no objectives were created for this domain for this exercise, an example for this course

could be how to properly lift heavy objects to reduce the risk of injury.

The last domain is the affective domain. Tasks with the goal of changing or creating

attitudes are included in this domain (Morrison, Ross, and Kemp 2001, p 89). An example of

this domain for a library student worker curriculum would be coursework on creating good

customer service skills. Instilling a willingness to be helpful and polite would require curriculum

that fosters that willingness.

Learning Outcomes

Smith and Ragan (2005) break down these domains into eight different types of

outcomes: declarative, concepts, principles, procedure, domain-specific problem solving,


cognitive strategies, attitudes, and psychomotor skills. Attitudes and psychomotor skills are

similar to their objective counterpoints. Declarative knowledge challenges the student to “know

that” something (Smith & Ragan 2005, p 79). In this lesson students have to recall where a book

goes in the library. Concept learning has students assess if an object is part of a particular

concept. In the library example student would be handed a material type and would have to

place it into one of the groups. Then in procedures the student would have to recall a procedure

and then go through the steps. This would be the act of shelving in the library. Principles

“describe the relationship between two or more concepts” (Smith & Ragan 2005, p 205). There

are few principles in the student workers jobs. An example outside the library would be

diminishing returns in economics. Domain-specific problem solving is exactly how it sounds.

Learners have to solve a problem using the tools of that domain. For instance, where do I place a

receiver dish on this tower to get the best signal? Lastly is cognitive strategies which teach

learners how to learn. A good example of this would be in teaching students to create

mnemonics to remember a series of steps or suggestions.

Knowledge of these domains and objectives types is important to creating objectives that

help both learner and educator proceed with instruction. Knowing the domain helps designer

create material that enhances learning. For instance, objectives focused on the psychomotor

domain of customer service will teach how to present one’s self. Does the staff member sit up

straight and make eye contact would be a way to evaluate. However, an affective objective

would evaluate how often the student displays a positive attitude. Objectives should focus both

parties on what to expect from instruction and how they will be evaluated on what is learned.


Chapter 8 INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY: DECLARATIVE
“A well-designed instructional strategy prompts or motivates the learner to
actively make [connections] between what the learners already knows and the
new information.”
Morrison, Ross, & Kemp 2001, p 124

The Cunningham Memorial Library at Indiana State University employs twenty students

in its circulation department. One of the keystone tasks is shelving. Students must be aware of

where books are in the library and how they are shelved for eight of eleven common tasks they

perform. The library has seven material types, two of which have multiple subtypes, and uses

three systems for shelving items. With such diversity in material and shelving systems, shelving

can get complicated. To aid in creating connections, a game was created. This game is based on

declarative learning strategies.

What is Declarative Knowledge?

Smith and Ragan (2005) define declarative knowledge as “[involving] ‘knowing that’

something is the case. In is often what we mean when we say we want the learners to

‘understand’ a content” (p 152). Within this knowledge type are three distinct subsections:

labels and names, facts and lists, and organized discourse. In the subtype labels and names

students create connections between information. Facts and lists have learners memorize data as

long sets of related information, or as knowledge sets. Lastly, students are challenged to

comprehend large sections of text in organized discourse.

The main goal of this game is to learn facts and lists. In this case the facts and lists are:

what kind of materials does the library have, where are those materials shelved, and how do we

shelve them.


Cognitive Process

Declarative knowledge is learned through the cognitive process of “propositional

networks” (Smith & Ragan 2005, p 153). Prepositions are ideas and networks are the linked

ideas. Therefore, declarative knowledge is created by imparting ideas on students so that they

may link those ideas to create a greater understanding of them.

Linking with Existing Knowledge

The game utilizes a few methods to link old and new knowledge. The first of which is

metaphoric devices (Smith and Ragan 2005, p 159). The game has students run books to their

appropriate shelves and floor. The floors are represented by book carts placed in areas marked

out by floor (see game rules for a fuller description and map). The books the students are

shelving are dummies that use the same labeling that the library currently employs to further

connect the dummy to the real item. This method creates an associational technique where in a

green label means this area of browsing.

Organization/Elaboration

To help the students organize the information in their minds, they will be given a pretest

that asks them as groups to name all the different types of materials the library has. This will be

continued at the end of the day when students will organize the material types into floors as a

class. These tasks of organization and elaboration are important to linking information in

student’s minds

Conditions Supporting Learning

The organization of instruction follows the suggestions of Smith and Ragan (2005). At

the beginning of instruction session in order to gain attention and focus the students they will be


broken down into groups and asked to create a list of all the materials we have in the library.

This is also a way to preview instruction and communicate instructional purpose. By showing

student’s the many varieties of materials it will instill in them the complexity of their job. Then

the main instruction will take place.

Practice

The last part of the puzzle is practicing the information to evaluate the student’s learning

students. This will be done through participation in a game at the end of the session. This

game’s focuses on using declarative techniques and instructional organization to help circulation

students learn how to shelve properly. Metaphor, association, and practice are all employed to

help give the students mental tie-ins to the lesson.

Evaluation

Smith and Ragan (2005) recommend an evaluation based on recall to assess the

student’s learning. The game’s scorecard will provide the medium to test the recall by

asking students to put the book in the correct area. Points are subtracted when the player

places a book on the wrong “shelf”.


Chapter 9 INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY: PROCEDURAL

Introduction

Another area where students need assistance is in the creation of resident cards for

patrons. Smith and Ragan (2005) would classify this process as a simple procedure. The task is

a step-by-step process where there is little ambiguity on how to perform each step. Additionally,

this is a simple procedure, as there are no decision points where the procedure would branch into

separate trees. Each time you complete this task it will happen the same way.

In order to teach students how to create a resident card a tutorial will be created. Student

workers will have access to this material during their training, but it will also be available for

them at the desk. The tutorial will be created in Microsoft Word with screencaps and detailed

instructions following the suggestions of Smith and Ragan described in the following sections

(See Appendix 7 for tutorial)

Simplified Procedure

1. Patron needs a card
2. Prepare materials
a. Turn on laminator
b. Get card
c. Get Barcode
d. Get new patron form
3. Have patron fill out all parts of form
a. Confirm information against his/her driver’s license
4. Click “new patron” button
a. Fill out all applicable fields
b. Double check for correctness
5. Create card
a. Patron signs card
b. Date card with today’s date
c. Attach barcode
d. Laminate


6. Complete
a. Check out materials as normal

Instructional Strategy/Procedural Considerations

In their chapter on procedural strategies Smith and Ragan (2005) have many suggestions

for how to create this type of lesson. They start by describing how to write the procedure.

(Smith and Ragan describe strategies for both complex and simple procedures; this paper will

only focus on simple).

 use clear sentences

 each operation should represent and single...action

 operation steps should be stated as imperative sentences (beginning with a verb)

With that written the next step is to present the material. For the sake of efficiency, Smith

and Ragan (2005) recommend that the procedure should be told to the students rather than

relying on a discovery method. Therefore, the instructor should first explain a step then let

students practice it before proceeding to the next. With these recommendations in mind, the

following lesson was created.

Table 9:1 Procedural Instruction

Introduction
Deploy attention
Establish Today you will learn how to create a resident card. Doing this correctly
Instructional purpose will save the patron, the billing clerk, and you the headache of having to
ask again for information.
Arouse interest and Most likely you will have to complete this task many times while you
Motivation work here.
Preview Lesson There are three major steps in this procedure: entering in the patron’s
information, creating the card, and putting the completed form away.

Body
Recall Relevant Students will have to access Millennium, and get the appropriate form
Prior Knowledge from the cart.
Process Information learning to determine if the procedure is required: Resident cards can be
and Examples created for any resident of the state of Indiana and the Illinois
Counties that surround Terre Haute. They must have a valid


Indiana/Illinois driver’s license and be willing to give us their
Social Security number. Members of Rose Hulman and Saint
Mary of the Woods can use their cards at ISU and should not be
issued a card. To avoid duplicate accounts ALWAYS perform a
patron search before issuing a card.
learning to complete the steps in the procedure: With computer screen
projected onto viewing screen, go through handout (appendix 7) showing
each step. For creating the card show students all the materials they need
to properly laminate a card
learning to check the appropriateness of a completed procedure: show
students the confirmation screen and have them compare the form
and the confirmation
learning to list the steps in the procedure: As a group, start a second
dummy account and have them walk instructor through steps.
Focus Attention During the lesson students will be focused with use of the mouse on the
screen to highlight areas that they need to focus on.
Employ Learning Students will be told where the handout can be found if they forget a step
Strategies
Practice Each student will be asked to create a resident account according to a
completed sample form. They must turn in the form to the instructor
when they are complete.
Evaluate Feedback Depending on the size of the class, and time left in the session, 2-5
accounts will be picked at random and the class will review other
submissions for completeness.

Conclusion
Summarize and Based on feedback go over the problem areas and ask if there are any
Review additional questions.
Remotivate and Thank you all for participating. I know that we will all save a lot of time
Close now that you all understand so well

Assessment of Procedural Learning
Assess Learning To assess the students long term, the billing clerk will keep track of
information that is commonly entered incorrectly when connecting the
patron accounts to billing accounts. The clerk will relay this information
to the instructor so that specific areas can be remediated.

Formative Analysis

Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (2001) suggest performing analysis of materials early in the

creation process to avoid costly redesign later. To test the material, the procedure was given to

new members of circulation. They were asked to read the procedure (see Appendix 7) and create


a record from start to finish. The students were able to follow along with the sheet very well.

However, it was discovered that the student version of Millennium was not asking the students to

fill out certain required information. While not an issue for training, the problem needed to be

addressed in Millennium.


Chapter 10 INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY: COGNITIVE

Introduction

An important part of sorting books is being able to identify the markers of a particular

material type. A common problem is students giving patrons things they have no use for. They

will give patrons dummy cases, place markers, and informational markers. Students are literally

trying to check out pieces of wood. In order to correct this, students need to learn how to

examine the material for shelving clues.

To do this, cognitive strategies need to be employed. Smith and Ragan (2005 p 244)

define cognitive strategies as “techniques that learners use to control and monitor their own

cognitive processes”. They allow students to “organize, elaborate, manipulate, and retrieve

knowledge” or “discover, invent, or create” (Smith & Ragan 2005 p 244). In this task we focus

on retrieving knowledge.

Strategy Selection

The strategy used to teach this task is the cognitive domain strategy of organizing.

Students will be asked to graphically organize material. This strategy was selected because it

allows students to collate identifiers.

Application

Through guided instruction, students will be asked to create word webs to describe

material. They will be given an example material type, such as a DVD case, and will be asked to

describe what they know about it, and how they found out that information. The webs will

provide enough spaces for each identifier so that each space must be filled correctly to earn full

credit.


Formative Evaluation

Formative evaluation begins during the construction of a instructional unit (Morrison,

Ross, & Kemp 2001). During the formative evaluation, Gooler suggests asking eight questions

to help instructional designers (ID) assess instruction (Morrison, Ross, & Kemp 2001 p 267).

Using a test subject who knew nothing about sorting, evaluation of the webs was done.

During the lesson the subject commented that the webs were repetitive as many material

types used similar identifiers, with only a few materials having any noticeable differences.

Resulting webs ended up clustered on one section with little “web-y-ness” in that there were only

one or two spokes. The subject suggested switching the focus from the material type to the

identifiers.

To accommodate the suggestions the ID created a list of common elements. The elements were

arranged in order from most obvious to least obvious.

 Physical Item
 Call number
 Color
 Stickers
These elements were used to form a mnemonic: Pretty Cool Circulation Students. This will help

students could use to remember the identifiers.

Application
Table 10:1 Cognitive Instruction

Introduction
Deploy Attention To begin, students will be asked to discuss how they
know where to shelve material.
Arouse Interest and Tell learners how miss-shelving effects work flow
motivation and cause additional frustrations.
Establish instructional In order to correct this we will be looking at how to
purpose look for clues on the material itself.
Preview lesson Explain the PCCS mnemonic, and have students
recite it.
Body


Recall prior knowledge Classification systems
Process Information Using PowerPoint and examples have students
describe how to
Focus Attention Each of the examples will only have the element
being discussed. Students won’t be distracted by
other elements.
Employ learning Before switching slides I would ask the students for
strategies the next part of the mnemonic and what element it
relates to.
Practice After going through the PowerPoint, students will
break into small groups and receive example and
asked to describe what they know about the material
using the PCCS model
Evaluate Feedback Have each group describe the material and how they
found that out in front of the large group.
Conclusion
Summarize and review
Have students recite the mnemonic.
Transfer knowledge
Remotivate and close Thanks so much for your hard work. This will help
you all identify materials with greater accuracy.
Assessment
Assess performance Observation of the group’s examples for nonuse of
the mnemonic or incorrect application of an
identifier
Feedback and Correct lesson for common errors found in the
remediation student’s explanations

Summative Evaluation

To evaluate this strategy further, student worker errors will be analyzed. Each day

students record any errors they find while shelf reading. This information will be analyzed for

the average number of errors found in each section. Data from the semester before, and the

semester after the instruction will be compared. The average will be used to account for patrons

putting material back in the incorrect place. Another method will be of patron/staff reports of

students giving out incorrect materials. Lastly, during instruction, the instructor will look for

where students are struggling.


Chapter 11 EVALUATION

Introduction

Shelving materials forms the backbone of student worker’s tasks. Knowing the basics of

shelving is a skill all student workers must master. To teach this skill, a lesson on the cognitive

task of identifying materials was created. In it, students were required to create word webs that

described individual material types. The following is an assessment of the lesson, and

suggestions for how to improve it.

Student Assessment

Instructional materials

The lesson consisted of a PowerPoint presentation (Appendix 9), and group work to teach

students a mnemonic that would teach them to look closely at material for shelving clues. With

the PowerPoint as the guide, students learned the mnemonic and how to apply it. After each

section students looked at real examples of the principle and were encouraged to discuss other

examples of that identifier. At the end of the presentation, students were divided into groups,

given a number of examples from a certain material type, and asked to assign them to the

appropriate area of the library. They were given ten minutes to work through the example and

then present their findings.

Formative assessment

Originally the concept was taught using word webs. The student was given an item type

and asked to describe it. In order to assess this instruction, it was administered to a test student.

The subject had no shelving experience in either the Cunningham Memorial Library or any


other libraries. It was found that this method did not fully utilize the word web’s potential.

Webs created did not have many branches and not all identifiers were equally represented on

each item. Additionally, there are so many item types that going through them individually took

too long. Instead, the focus was shifted off the item and onto the identifiers, and the above

lesson was created.

Summative assessments

In order to assess the students and the coursework a number of assessments were put into

place. The first was a pre and post test. Students were given a packet of examples (Appendix 8)

and asked to circle or otherwise marked identifiers. After instruction they were given the same

examples and asked to mark the identifiers again. This method had a twofold purpose.

Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (2001) note the following advantages. The first is “to assess the

learner’s preparation to study the course of topic” and “to determine which competencies for the

course or topic the learner may have already mastered” (Morrison, Ross, and Kemp 2001 p 220).

Secondly, pretests “measure the degree of improvement after instruction is completed”

(Morrison, Ross, and Kemp 2001 p 220). While these tests will not be “graded” the pretest (or

lack thereof) will be used to address where attention should be focused in the lesson. The post

will show where attention needs to be focused in subsequent classes.

In order to assess the students during the lesson a problem solving approach was used.

Smith and Ragan (2005) suggest that assessment of concept learning should involve explaining,

categorizing, or producing (non)examples of a group (p 180). This was combined with Morrison,

Ross, and Kemp’s (2001) suggestion that problem-solving questions are useful for “application,

analysis, and synthesis” of higher level cognitive skills (p 239). Together a group problem

solving activity was created. Each group was given a material type (Books, CDs, DVDs, and


Reserves) and asked to assign them to a floor and explain their method. They would present

their rationale to the rest of the class for feedback.

Student Feedback

Lastly, in order to get the students’ opinion of the lesson, a survey was created using

Google Forms. The survey was created using the suggestions in Morrison, Ross, and Kemp

(2001 p 258). Mainly that:

 Rating scales should have no more than 5 points
 Describe what the number means (1 = poor, 5 = excellent)
 Use points that do not overlap
 Use clear and concrete language
 Express only one idea

The front end of the form can be found at the following website

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFh5Q05hSGdrWDh4aDR0blJmY

lVQc0E6MQ#gid=0. Screenshots of the back end are included in appendix 10.

The survey gave the students an anonymous outlet to express their opinions of the lesson.

A pairing of open and closed questions allowed the students a chance to express their opinion

more completely, or on a topic that was not covered in the closed questions. Google Forms was

chosen over other online forms because of its unlimited responses, customizability, and plug-ins

(third party coding aimed at adding additional functions to the platform).

Data Analysis

Testing was conducted with five subjects. The subjects were between twenty and forty

years of age, with three females and two males. Two of the subjects were very experienced with

the materials and shelving; two were experienced with most of the materials and shelving; the

last had never worked with the materials before. All subjects were Caucasian, spoke English as a

first language, and had no impairments that would hinder their sight, hearing, comprehension, or


motor skills.

Each subject was given the pretest, then a paper copy of the PowerPoint presentation.

The instructor went through the presentation with each subject and answered any questions.

After the subject felt they understood the material they were given the post. Finally, the subjects

were given five books to analyze. Books were chosen for the test run, as they had the most

variation in identifiers. The analysis took place as a discussion between the instructor and the

subject. Subjects were then directed to the survey to express their opinion of the instruction.

Data from the pretests did show an improvement in the identification of clues on

material. In the pretest all subjects circled the call number as a whole, whereas in the post

subjects circled individual parts of the call number. As expected the two advanced students

identified the majority of the clues in the pretest, while the most inexperienced circled mainly the

call number. The inexperienced student did recognize that color was probably important during

the pretest, but didn’t know why. The test was printed on a black and white computer and the

color was added later with colored pencils. Most likely, the subject knew color was important as

it was deliberately added. Problems occurred with all students on the stickers portion of the

mnemonic as it was difficult to determine what was a sticker and what was a part of the material.

Data from the surveys found the following issues:

 Reserve had regular call number instead of the teacher/class

 Students thought the instruction was useful but wanted more examples

 Students were not motivated to follow instruction. (figure 11.1)

 Students felt the mnemonic was “silly” which most likely brought down the score on

“appropriateness” of instruction (figure 11.2)


Figure 11:1 Motivation

Figure 11:2 Appropriateness

Figure 11:3 Remember


Recommended Changes

Through the analysis of the data it was found that the following issues should be

addressed. The first is the addition of other material types should be included in the pretest.

Representations for thesis, microform/Government Documents, and periodicals are the most

important material to be added. Additionally the pretest needs to be reformatted from paper to

the physical object. The ability to draw on the material will be lost, but the switch will gain

realness which will hopefully add to comprehension.

The next focus should be on improving motivation and “silly”ness. Four of the subjects

work at the library and were not excited to get another lesson on shelving. The comment on

silliness was most likely directed towards this. The mnemonic is a bit childish, and results from

the survey (figure 3) suggest it may not stick. However, this test was conducted towards the end

of the semester, after the students had been required to undergo many requests to improve

training. Frustration, with the job may have lead to a disproportionate amount of resistance. If

further use of the strategy proves similar the focus will be shifted in another direction.


Appendix 1 Pretest
I have been working here for __________

Choose 2 of the following scenarios and write your response and/or the steps you
would use to complete the task. Feel free to write on the back of the page:
1. “Can I give you my 991 to check these books out?”
2. “I have a charge on my account for a book. What do I do?”
3. “Could I get a private room?”
4. *The gate beeps when they leave the building*

Match the staff member with their responsibilities. Lines can go to multiple
places.
Ali Supervises all staff
Student Schedule Changes
Andrea
Stacks Maintenance
Carey Searches
Reserves
Holli
Remote Storage
Josh Patron Accounts
ILL
Katherine
Holds
Kelly Hold for Class
Graduate Carrels
Paula
Government Documents
Susan Browsing Media Issues
Billing
Sheila
Please mark your answer to the follow multiple choice questions.
1. I need to verify if an item’s status 4. Questions about class reserves go to
(checked in, piece count) when A. Ali
A. They are checked in B. Carey
B. I am preshelving C. Paula
C. I check out the item D. Susan
D. All of the above 5. Altering my task list is ok when
2. It is ok to ignore a system message when A. I switch tasks with another worker
A. They are over 2 years old B. I have an injury that would impede
B. I am preshelving my work
C. Never C. Paula/Staff on duty approves it
D. I am really busy D. Never
3. The Kurzweil room is 6. To make a resident card the patron
A. Designated for those who ask for it should fill out the ___ form.
directly A. Change of Address
B. A group room reserved on the website B. Processing
C. Located on the 3rd floor C. Social Security
D. All of the above D. Donation

Choose 1 scenario and describe how you would provide excellent customer
service. Feel free to present the information in the way that makes sense to you


(bulleted list, flow chart, paragraph, ect.). Responses should not exceed the space
provided.
 You are reshelving books when you notice a patron roaming the stacks. They are
comparing the range markers against a piece of paper and look confused.
 While checking out dvds to a patron, they mention they couldn’t find the second season
of their favorite series.
 A faculty member wants to renew a book. Renewing it would cause them to exceed their
maximum of 3 renewals. You have served this professor before and know s/he is often
very demanding.
 You are helping a patron, when another approaches you with a question.


Assessment Tool for Applicants

Indiana State University Library uses the Library of Congress classification System for
re-shelving library material. Read the instructions for each section of the test carefully and study
the examples before beginning the problem. To put “books” in order, start at the top of each call
number and arrange them alphabetically and numerically. When you encounter a letter versus a
number, always put the letter first. Work as accurately and as rapidly as you can.

Section I: Same or Different
Examine each pair of call numbers. If both call numbers in the pair are the same, write “S” on
the line next to the pair. If they are different, write “D”.
Example: HM HM S HF HF D
132 132 54.5 54.5
.G37 .G37 .F63 .F36

1. KFN KFN 6. RC RC
971.5 977.5 280 208
.M4 .M4 .B8E8 .B8E8

2. HQ HQ 7. TR TR
71 71 898 898
.J35 .K35 .B8 .B8

3. L L 8. M ML
13 13 1 1
.E37 .E37 .M7D4 .M7B4

4. E F 9. QA BLIND
442 442 3612 QA
.B21 .B21 .H8 3612
.H8

5. QA QA 10. PN PN
76.6 76.6 1995 1995
.M352 .M352 .K2X426 .K2S426


Section II: Which Comes First?
Decide which call number of each pair would come first if you were re-shelving these books, the call
number in column A or the call number in column B. Put the correct letter (A or B) on the line provided.
Example: (A) CB (B) CB
461 608 A
.F47 .B29
(A) F (B) E
82 94 B
.T379 .A65

A B
1. T T
61 61
.M28 .M28
V. 41 V. 39

2. CC AC
45 76
.C525 .B37

3. VA U
102 65
.I6 .N3A5

4. SB SB
482 472
.E223 .A485

5. GV G
53 53
.S7 .S46

6. TR TR
140 140
.B4A271 .B4A34

7. QA QA
76.5 76.5
.M192 .M1873

8. PS PS
3525 3525
.Z8S5 .Z8S5
1921 1961

9. AC AC
20 20
.B6 .B6
1981 V. 14

10. PS PS
3552 3525
.C7475W6 .C7475D6

Designing training for library circulation staff

Designing training for library circulation staff

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Designing training for library circulation staff

Similar to Designing training for library circulation staff (20)

More from Andrea Boehme

More from Andrea Boehme (13)

Designing training for library circulation staff