Untitled-6 ������������������������������������51 The Trainin of A ademi Librar Staff on Information Te hnolo within the Libraries of the Minnesota State Colle es and Uni ersities S stem Teresa E. Kirkpatrick There is much discussion in the literature of library and information sci­ ence on the need for training, and it is generally recognized that libraries do not devote as much time and energy to training their staff as they should. However, the surveys of training practice that are common in the private sector seldom are done in the library world. The purpose of this study was to survey academic libraries within the Minnesota State Col­ leges and Universities (MnSCU) system to find out what the current training practices are within these libraries. Seventeen out of twenty- three libraries responded to a survey that attempted to determine (1) the types of technologies on which staff receive training, (2) the meth­ ods being used to train staff on technology, and (3) whether any differ­ ences exist in the training that professional and paraprofessional staff receive. oy Tennant has addressed staff library staff might not be occurring as training as a "foundation" of much as it should. the much-heralded virtual li- Sheila D. Creth suggested that a per­ brary, where technology is used formance evaluation of staff development extensively to provide access beyond the be conducted so that the extent to which walls of the library.1 But whether the sub­ a gap exists between what libraries are ject is the library of the future or the library doing and what they should be doing will of the present, Tennant is not alone in his be known.2 Creth stated that even with assertion that staff training is important. It all the programs, workshops, and in­ is widely recognized in the literature of li­ creased publications on staff develop­ brary and information science that there ment-which would suggest that as a is a need for library staff who are well profession we are improving in our gen­ trained in information technology. More­ eral understanding, commitment, and over, it is recognized that the training of action in addressing the needs of all li­ Teresa E. Kirkpatrick is the Staff Development/Public Relations Librarian at Indiana State University; e-mail: libkirk@cml.indstate.edu. 51 52 College & Research Libraries brary staff to learn and develop-she was unfortunately "not certain that as a pro­ fession we are doing much better in ad­ dressing staff development either on a daily basis in specific skills training or regarding major institutional change."3 The first step in moving librariestoward where they need to be interms of their provision of stafftraining on information technologyis to learn what the current trainingpractices are. The first step in planning any success­ ful staff development or training program is to conduct a needs assessment to de­ termine the knowledge and skill level of the staff. Only after this assessment has been completed can the training needed to move staff from their current level of knowledge and skills to the desired level be determined. Similarly, the first step in moving libraries toward where they need to be in terms of their provision of staff training on information technology is to learn what the current training practices are. The purpose of this study was to sur­ vey academic libraries in the state of Min­ nesota within the newly formed MnSCU system to find out what these libraries are doing to train their staff on information technology. The survey attempted to an­ swer the following questions: 1. On which types of technology have staff received training? 2. Who has received training, and have training opportunities and practices been the same for all staff-both librar­ ians and paraprofessionals? 3. What methods have been used to provide training? Review of the Literature Row much staff training on information technology is actually taking place in the academic library environment? Although companies in the private sector are often surveyed to determine their training pro­ January 1998 vision for employees, the literature seems to indicate that this type of survey is rarely done in libraries. In 1991, libraries converting to NOTIS were surveyed re­ garding how they had been affected by the replacement of their automated li­ brary systems. The survey concluded that training has grown in significance since the libraries' implementation of the origi­ nal system; however, this was a measure of the number of staff that had received training rather than a measure of train­ ing activities as a whole.4 A 1984 survey of Association of Re­ search Libraries (ARL) members on au­ tomation training programs for staff members, although more than a decade old, was more to the point. At the time of the survey, only fourteen of the thirty li­ braries were planning, or already had implemented plans, to provide basic training on the automated system. Of those fourteen libraries, few had per­ formed a formal needs assessment before starting automation training and only one had required training for all library staff members.5 It appeared that there have been no similar surveys published re­ cently measuring the amount of training taking place in academic libraries. Even more inconclusive than the amount of training taking place is infor­ mation on who is receiving training on information technology, such as whether a difference exists in the training oppor­ tunities that professional and paraprofes­ sional staff receive. Training Methods Used The methods used to train library staff on information technology can be deter­ mined from both published research and case studies from individual libraries. Suzanne D. Gyeszly and John B. Harer reported in the aforementioned survey of libraries converting to NOTIS that dur­ ing implementation of the replacement automated system versus implementa­ tion of the original system, group instruc­ tion and self­taught methods increased by 400 percent whereas teaching staff mem­ bers individually grew by only 280 per­ cent. The greatest percentage increase in the use of training tools were, in rank or­ der: (1) in­house training manuals, (2) structured classes, and (3) software pro­ grams. However, the most frequently used training tools were, also in rank or­ der: (1) self­instruction, (2) vendor manu­ als, and (3) in­house training manuals.6 Shelley L. Rogers reported on a survey of authority control and database main­ tenance librarians in 151 major academic and research libraries in the United States and Canada regarding the methods used to train staff in changed technology. The methods used most frequently by these librarians were documentation provided for self­help and workshops, seminars, and classes. The methods the respondents reported that their supervisors used most frequently to receive training were work­ shops, seminars, and classes. The respon­ dents reported that the method used most often by the staff they supervised were small­group training sessions. Alicia B. Quinn surveyed depository li- braries in the state of Texas to determine the methods employed in training library staff members to use federal government CD-ROMs. The fifty-nine depositories sur- veyed included forty-one academic librar- ies. The most common methods of train- ing, in rank order, were self-instruction, one-on-one hands-on instruction, and one- on-one instruction using the menu-driven software available on the discs. Less com- mon were "formal training" methods such as workshops and classes.8 Types of Technology The types of technology that staff are be­ ing trained on can be gleaned from the many published case studies of training practice. During the 1980s and early 1990s, these case studies dealt mainly with implementation of automated sys­ tems and, later, implementation of re­ placement systems. Training for online searching also was addressed. Training of Academic Library Staff 53 The 1990s have heralded an emphasis on new types of technology, and the re­ cent case studies of training practice con­ centrate on CD­ROM and the Internet. However, the Internet, a "network of net­ works," is not a discrete piece of technol­ ogy like a CD­ROM which can be learned and mastered but, rather, presents quite possibly even more challenges than the most complex automated system. During the development of training programs for The types of technology that staffare being trained on can be gleanedfrom the many published casestudies of training practice. the Internet, some libraries discovered that having an understanding of the Internet, and networks in general, often requires an understanding of more basic computer skills and concepts. Although many libraries neglected to train their staff on these basic skills because it was thought unnecessary for learning auto­ mated systems, the lack of understand­ ing in this area is being recognized as a serious gap in knowledge. The Engineer­ ing and Science Libraries at MIT discov­ ered this when they began planning Internet training for their staff. Their re­ sponse was to organize a Continuing Computer Competence program for the library staff. This program consisted of a curriculum of twenty ninety­minute ses­ sions that would provide a foundation of concepts and skills needed for a proper understanding of the Internet. Only after the staff were trained on these basic skills would training on the Internet be ad­ dressed.9 Conclusion Although there are numerous descrip­ tions of successful training programs de­ veloped at individual libraries, there is very little published research on how much training of this type is occurring in academic libraries and, specifically, (1) 54 College & Research Libraries January 1998 TABLE ! Availability of Training by Technology All Automated Technologies System E-mail n % n % n % n % n % Internet pes Available to both 55 80.9 16 94.1 14 82.3 professionals and paraprofessionals Available to profes- 1 1.5 0 0 0 0 sionals only Available to paraprofes- 0 0 0 0 0 0 sionals only Not available 8 11.8 1 5.9 1 5.9 Technology not 4 5.9 0 0 2 11.8 available 13 76.5 1 5.9 0 0 2 11.8 1 5.9 12 70.6 0 0 0 0 4 23.5 1 5.9 whether any differences exist in the train­ ing that professional and paraprofes­ sional staff receive, (2) the methods be­ ing used to train staff, and (3) the types of technologies on which staff receive training. Methodology M syroey was selected as the best means to find oyt how academic library staff in the state of Minnesota within the MnSCU system were being trained on informa­ tion technology. Development of the Survey Instrument Because no survey was found in the litera­ ture that sufficiently reflected the scope of this study. an original survey instrument was developed. Ideas for several of the questions came from a survey discussed by Stuart Glogoff and James P. Flynn.lO The first set of questions on the sur­ vey asked whether training on specific types of technology (i.e., personal com­ puters [PCs], automated systems, e­mail, the Internet) had been made available to library staff and, if so, whether this train­ ing was available to professional staff, paraprofessional staff, or both. The sec­ ond set of questions asked about the methods used to train staff on each type of technology (e.g., in­house workshops, computer­assisted instruction). The third set of questions asked the survey­ taker to indicate the frequency with which these methods had been used to train professional and paraprofessional staff on all types of technology. The fi­ nal set of questions asked for informa­ tion on the existence of an in­house technology trainer and the position he or she holds. The survey was pretested at Mankato State University's Memorial Library by the systems librarian. It was revised based on the results of the pretest. Population Surveyed During the summer of 1996, the survey was mailed to systems librarians at twenty­three MnSCU libraries, which in­ clude state universities, community col­ leges, and technical colleges in Minne­ sota. The libraries surveyed were taken from a list on the MnSCU/PALS auto­ mated library network of established MnSCU/PALS sites. The list included the name of the PALS systems librarian at each site. The rationale for surveying this select group of MnSCU libraries was that, being established MnSCU/PALS sites, the libraries included those that would be au­ tomated and those that already used tech­ nology to some extent. The surveys were Training of Academic Library Staff 55 TABLE 2 Training Methods by Technology All Technologies Automated System E-mail Internet PCs n % (rank) n % (rank) n % (rank) n % (rank) n % (rank) Individual training 44 64.7 (1) by coworker Individual training 33 48.5 (2) by other individual Individual training 32 47.1 (3) by supervisor Outside workshops 32 47.1 (3) In-house workshops 30 44.1 (4) Vendor workshops 13 19.1 (5) Formal coursework 13 19.1 (5) E-mail workshops 9 13.2 (6) CAI 6 8.9 (7) No training available 4 5.9 Technology not 1 1.5 available 13 76.5 (1) 10 58.8 (1) 7 41.2 (5) 9 52.9 (2) 12 70.6 (2) 6 35.3 (3) 10 58.8 (3) 5 29.4 (4) 5 29.4 (6) 9 52.9 (2) 9 52.9 (4) 1 5.9 (7) 1 5.9 (8) 3 17.6 (5) 1 5.9 (8) 2 11.8 (6) 2 11.8 (7) 1 5.9 (7) 0 0 1 5.9 0 0 1 5.9 9 52.9 (1) 8 47.1 (2) 4 23.5 (4) 7 41.2 (3) 7 41.2 (3) 1 5.9 (7) 4 23.5 (4) 3 17.6 (5) 1 5.9 (7) 2 11.8 0 0 12 70.6 (1) 9 52.9 (3) 10 58.8 (2) 10 58.8 (2) 9 52.9 (3) 2 11.8 (6) 5 29.4 (4) 3 17.6 (5) 2 11.8 (6) 1 5.9 0 0 addressed to the PALS systems librarian at each library because systems librarians often assume responsibility for either pro­ viding training on technology for other library staff or ensuring that such train­ ing is made available. The first mailing of the surveys took place in July 1996, with a follow­up mail­ ing in August. The response rate was 73.9 percent. Presentation and Analysis of Data Pye seTenteen libraries tyat returned surr Teys ranged in size frod tto FPds to tyirtyrsig FPds and included libraries frod state uniTersities, coddunity colr leges, and tecynical colleges. AvailabilityfoffTrainingfforfDifferent TypesfoffTechnology As mentioned earlier, the first set of ques­ tions was designed to find out whether training was available to the library staff members on major types of technology (i.e., pes, automated systems, e­mail, and the Internet) and whether there was any difference in the availability of training for professionals and paraprofessionals. In 80.9 percent of the libraries surveyed, training was available to both profession­ als and paraprofessionals on all types of technology. In a small percentage of li­ braries, pes, e­mail, and the Internet were unavailable (see table 1). In 80.9 percent of the librariessurveyed, training was available toboth professionals and paraprofes­sionals on all types of technology. The availability of training was high­ est on automation, with 94.1 percent of the libraries receiving automation train­ ing. Training on e­mail and the Internet was available to all staff members in 82.3 and 76.5 percent of the libraries, respec­ tively; training on pes was available to only 70.6 percent of the libraries. The dis­ covery that many of the library staff mem­ bers have not received training on using pes agrees with the findings in the lit­ erature that library staff lack basic com­ puter competence.�� 56 College & Research Libraries In general, both professionals and paraprofessionals had equal access to training. Where training was available, it was usually available to both groups. The only difference was that 5.9 per­ cent of the libraries offered Internet training to professionals only. The 5.9 percent represents one library, and a note on the survey indicated that Inter­ net access was available to professional librarians only. TrainingfMethodsfforfDifferentfTypesfof Technology The next set of questions gave a list of training methods (e.g., individual train­ ing by supervisor, vendor workshops) for each type of technology and asked re­ spondents to mark all the methods that had been used to train at least one staff member at some time. Table 2 lists these results in terms of percentage of libraries using the particular method at least once. (A response of 100 percent would indi­ cate that all the libraries had used the training method at least once.) It should be noted that the number of libraries re­ porting that the technology was unavail­ able or that no training was available does not match the figures reported in the first set of questions. One theory as to why these differences exist is that when the re­ spondents saw the list of training meth­ ods in the second set of questions, they were prompted to remember that there had been some type of training available. The percentage of libraries thatmade PC training available wassubstantially lower than that oflibraries that offered training on theother technologies. For all types of technology, individu­ alized instruction by a coworker was the most common training method used (64.7%). This method was very common for training on an automated system, used in 76.5 percent of the libraries sur­ January 1998 veyed. Individualized training by an in­ dividual other than a supervisor or co­ worker (48.5%) was the next most com­ mon training method used. For training on e­mail, the Internet, and PCs, this "other individual" was, in most cases, a member of the computing center staff. For training on an automated system, this individual was usually a vendor from that system (i.e., PALS system staff ). However, for auto­ mated system training, this method was used in only 41.2 percent of libraries, com­ pared to several other methods that were used more often, including individualized training by a supervisor (70.6%), outside workshops (58.8%), and vendor work­ shops (52.9%). The third most common type of training for all technologies was individualized training by a supervisor, which was used in 47.1 percent of all li­ braries, especially for training on auto­ mated systems, as mentioned above. Workshops also were a method that li­ braries commonly used for training. These included workshops conducted out­ side the library (47.1%), in­house work­ shops (44.1%), and workshops conducted by a vendor (19.1%). Vendor­conducted workshops were a common method used to provide training on an automated sys­ tem (52.9%); however, this method was not as commonly used for any other technol­ ogy. On the other hand, libraries com­ monly used in­house workshops for e­mail training (52.9%), PCs (52.9%), and the Internet (41.2%), but not for training on an automated system (29.4%). Training methods such as e­mail work­ shops conducted over the Internet and computer­assisted instruction (CAI) were less commonly used (13.2% and 8.9%, respectively). E­mail workshops were used most often for PC or Internet train­ ing (17.6% for each), and CAI was used most often for training on PCs and auto­ mated systems (11.8% for each). Training Methods Used Most Frequently The next set of questions asked respon­ dents to indicate the three methods of Training of Academic Library Staff 57 TABLE 3 Training Methods Used Most Frequently by Professionals and Para[rofessionals All Staff Members Professionals Paraprofessionals n % (rank) n % (rank) n % (rank) Individualized training by 56 54.9 (1) 30 58.8 (1) 26 51.0 (1) coworker In-house workshops 36 35.3 (2) 18 35.3 (2) 18 35.3 (3) Individualized training by 32 31.4 (3) 7 13.7 (5) 25 49.0 (2) supervisor Individualized training by 29 28.5 (4) 16 31.4 (3) 13 25.5 (4) other Outside workshops 26 25.5 (5) 14 27.5 (4) 12 23.5 (5) Vendor workshops 12 11.8 (6) 7 13.7 (5) 5 9.8 (6) E-mail workshops 10 9.8 (7) 6 11.8 (6) 4 7.8 (7) Formal coursework 3 3.0 (8) 3 5.9 (7) 0 0 (9) CAI 2 2.0 (9) 1 2.0 (8) 1 2.0 (8) training used most frequently by profes­ sionals and paraprofessionals. The most frequent method was ranked as 1, the sec­ ond most­frequent method as 2, and the third as 3. In coding these results, a 1 was assigned a value of 3, a 2 a value of 2, and a 3 a value of 1. A particular method that was rated by all libraries as 1 (i.e., used most frequently as a training method) re­ ceived a score of 100 percent. The results can be found in table 3. The most frequently used training meth­ ods for both professionals and paraprofes­ sionals were, in rank order, individualized training by a coworker (54.9%), in­house workshops (35.3%), and individualized train­ ing by a supervisor (31.4%). The methods used most frequently by paraprofessionals coincided with these results, except that in­ dividualized training by a supervisor was used more often as a training method (49%) than in­house workshops (35.3%). The train­ ing methods used by professionals differed slightly. Although the methods used most frequently, in order, also were individu­ alized training by a coworker (58.8%) and in­house workshops (35.3%), the method used third most frequently was individu­ alized training by an individual other than a supervisor or coworker (31.4%). Where training by supervisors is a method used frequently to train parapro­ fessionals, it is used much less frequently to train professionals (13.7%). The other results were roughly the same for both professionals and paraprofessionals. In-House Trainers When asked if there was an in­house trainer who regularly provided training to library staff members other than those he or she supervises, 94.1 percent of the libraries indicated that there was none. Only one of the libraries (5.9%) had an in­ house trainer. The question also asked respon­ dents to indicate the position of this person. This single in­house trainer was a graduate assistant working at the library and not a permanent library staff member. Conclusions In the majority of the libraries surveyed train­ ing was available on PCs, automated systems, e­mail, and the Internet. However, the per­ centage of libraries that made PC training available was substantially lower than that of libraries that offered training on the other technologies. ahis agrees with findings in the 58 College & Research Libraries literature that gaps exist in the area of basic computer competence. Although a variety of training methods was used, the most frequently used meth­ ods for both professional and paraprofes­ sional staff were individualized training and workshops. Methods such as CAl and e­mail workshops were used substantially less often. ln addition, an in­house trainer was found in only one library. Finally, the survey results indicated that there were no substantial differences in the types of training that professional and paraprofessional staff received, in either the availability of training or the type of training method used. Implications One of the most important findings of the survey was that, within these libraries, many staff have not received training in basic computer competence-that is, staff members lack basic training on how to operate their PCs. What this often means is that some of the necessary building blocks on which further training tries to build are missing, and the training is therefore not as successful as it could be. The MnSCU libraries surveyed seem to be in the same position as other libraries discussed in the literature. With regard to the other findings, the numbers seem to indicate that library staff members within the MnSCU libraries are, for the most part, receiving training on the various technologies. However, what is not clear are the qualitative aspects of January 1998 this training. For example, these findings do not show whether there was enough training provided or whether the train­ ing provided was successful. The limita­ tions of this study prevent these questions from being answered. Recommendations To receive the whole picture of where the library staff within the MnSCU system are with regard to their training needs, it is recommended that a personal skills as­ sessment be given as a follow­up to this core study. The assessment could be given to a sample of staff in each library to evaluate their skill levels on each of the individual technologies. Another method of gaining this information is to interview the systems librarian at each library to learn his or her view of the collective skill levels of the staff members on each of the technologies. Suggestionsf orfFurtherfResearch This research study on training provision in libraries within the MnSCU system, including the follow­up study suggested above, could be conducted in a different population of libraries. It also could be done among a sample of academic librar­ ies within the United States. With more information on what libraries are doing to train their staff on information technology, an action plan could be developed by the library profession as a whole as well as by individual libraries who may be fall­ ing short on this essential practice. Notes 1. Roy Tennant, "The Virtual Library Foundation: Staff Training and Support," Information Technology and Libraries 14 (Mar. 1995): 46-49.2. Sheila D. Creth, "Staff Development: Where Do We Go from Here?" Library Administra­ tion & Management 4 (summer 1990): 131.3. Ibid. 4. Suzanne D. Gyeszly and John B. Harer, "Replacement of Automated Systems: Organiza­tional and Staff Training Considerations," Journal of Library Administration 14, no. 1 (1991): 87-105. 5. Tom Wilding, Staff Training for Automation in ARL Libraries, SPEC Kit no. 109 (Washing­ton, D.C.: ARL, 1984). 6. Gyeszly and Harer, "Replacement of Automated Systems," 87-105.7. Shelley L. Rogers, "Automation Change: A Survey of Authority Control/Database Main­ tenance Librarians," Library & Information Science Research 14 (July-Sept. 1992): 281-98. Training of Academic Library Staff 59 8. Alicia B. Quinn "Methods for Training Library Staff Members in the Use of CD-ROMs in Federal Depository Libraries in Texas: A Survey " Journal of Government Information 23 (Mar.! Apr. 1996): 151-59. 9. Margret Lippert, "Continuing Computer Competence: A Training Program for the '90s,"Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science 20 (Feb.!Mar. 1994): 18-19. 10. Stuart Glogoff and James P. Flynn, "Developing a Systematic In-house Training Programfor Integrated Library Systems," College & Research Libraries 48 (Nov. 1987): 528-36. 11. Lippert, "Continuing Computer Competence," 18-19.