Christina M. Desai and Stephanie J. Graves
Print version (Adobe Reader required)
This article considers the teaching role of reference librarians by studying the teachable moment in reference transactions, and users’ response to that instruction. An empirical study of instruction was conducted in both virtual and traditional reference milieus, examining the following three services: Instant messaging (IM), chat, and face-to-face reference. The authors used the same criteria in separate studies of all three services to determine if librarians provided analogous levels of instruction and what factors influenced the likelihood of instruction. Methodologies employed included transcript analysis, observation, and patron surveys. Findings indicated that patrons wanted instruction in their reference transactions, regardless of medium, and that librarians provided it. But instructional techniques used by librarians in virtual reference differ somewhat from those used at the reference desk. The authors conclude that reference transactions, in any medium, represent the patron’s point-of-need, thereby presenting the ideal teachable moment.
The teachable moment, sometimes referred to as the “Aha!” moment, is defined as a “moment of educational opportunity: a time in which a person, especially a child, is likely to be particularly disposed to learn something or particularly responsive to being taught or made aware of something.”1
Reference queries present prime examples of the teachable moment. They catch researchers at their point of need and provide opportunities for one-onone personalized instruction and hands-on learning. Reference work in academic libraries has been deeply affected by technology. One of its most noticeable effects has been on the instructional role of librarians. As more patrons access library resources remotely and fewer visit the reference desk, opportunities for face-to-face instruction decrease. As they become more computer-savvy, patrons may feel that the need for instruction also decreases. Such changes raise the following questions: To what extent are librarians instructing patrons during reference transactions? Is there a difference in the amount and type of instruction offered in virtual reference such as instant messaging (IM) or chat?
Do librarians at the reference desk provide more instruction than their virtual counterparts? Do they provide it more often? Are they taking advantage of potential teachable moments?
In today’s ideal reference model, librarians show patrons how to find information rather than simply provide answers. RUSA’s “Guidelines for Behavioral Performance of Reference and Information Service Providers” emphasizes the importance of instruction in all reference environments, including virtual reference.2 We might assume that it is simpler to provide instruction faceto-face and therefore more common at the reference desk, but is this true? The authors examined this question as it relates to IM and chat reference in two recent studies. “Chat” was defined as commercial software developed for libraries, and “IM” as free or home-grown messaging software without co-browse capability. The current study builds on the two previous studies by comparing IM and chat instruction to instruction at the traditional reference desk, using the same criteria.
The purpose of the first study, conducted in 2005, was to gauge the amount of instruction being offered through IM reference.3 Using transcript analysis and a user survey, the authors determined how often librarians provided instruction and under what conditions they were most likely to provide it. They also inquired about patrons’ desire for and willingness to receive instruction as well as their perception of actual learning. The authors also developed a classification of teaching techniques employed by librarians and measured the frequency of their use.
The following summer the homegrown software for the service was replaced with commercial chat software with co-browsing capability. To test whether the co-browsing feature made a difference in the amount and type of instruction offered through chat, the authors conducted a second study, comparing the results using the new software to the original home-grown product.4 The same criteria and methodology were used to evaluate the likelihood and frequency of instruction, but this time the effect of co-browsing both on instruction and on patrons’ perception of learning was also studied.
The purpose of the present study is twofold. First, it compares the frequency and types of instruction that occur during reference in two mediums—traditional (in person) and virtual (IM and chat) reference. Secondly, as with the previous studies, it also gauges whether users want or are willing to accept instruction and whether they feel they learned anything from the reference transaction. The current study of the physical reference desk follows as closely as possible the methodology used in the first two studies of the virtual reference milieu.
Literature Review
Studies assessing information literacy programs and traditional bibliographic instruction (BI) classes abound. But few studies have actually measured the instructional activity at the reference desk. Jacoby and O’Brien’s study touches on instruction as one aspect of assessing reference service. It surveyed undergraduates and found that nearly 64 percent of participants “learned about new resources during the reference encounter” and many also acquired strategies for finding information.5 Jacoby and O’Brien’s approach suggests that a change in reference philosophy has occurred. In the past, rather than being focused on effective instructional techniques, debate centered on whether librarians should be teaching at the reference desk at all.
Schiller provided one of the early arguments against instruction during reference work. In a 1965 article she argued that the primary job of librarians is to exercise professional skill by finding and providing information and by selecting new resources based on patron needs; according to this view, expecting patrons to spend t heir own time searching is a betrayal of professional responsibility.6 She pointed out that instructing patrons in self-service has sometimes been necessitated by a lack of resources for staffing, but also stems from a deeply rooted belief that libraries exist for patron self improvement; Schiller countered by saying that requiring patrons to submit to instruction (often cursory and dismissive) is a presumptuous imposition stemming from this moralistic attitude. As recently as 2001, Bill Katz, renowned guru of reference librarianship, agreed with Schiller’s original position that “In the ideal situation, the reference librarian finds the answers for the user, rather than showing the user how to locate information,” viewing this approach as the only way to avoid patron information overload and to achieve professional status for librarianship.7 Katz also asserted that at least 95 percent of library users do not want to find information for themselves and therefore should not be forced to learn.8 But, despite the eloquence of the above arguments, as early as 1982 Schiller had modified her thinking: “the growing complexity of libraries … new reference tools” and “heightened demands for information, have imposed new requirements for access, and bibliographic instruction has become one important mechanism for achieving them.”9 Technological advances in the electronic organization of information have blurred the distinction between searching and finding. Electronic database searching is an iterative process of discovery. Skill is needed to exploit database features to their fullest, and to refine the search more precisely after viewing an overwhelming number of preliminary results. Such skills can be learned and may be necessary to combat information overload; therefore instruction is beneficial and becomes an integral part of reference service.