"M LIBRARIANSHIP: v u &"" *•* <t "• li i iv P u JS R Sk /"Hi E T ft i E pfpRAPY €f UAA1 C LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 020 I29m no . 11 Llr tu Qcl&ncc. The person charging this material is re- sponsible for its return on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from the University. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN DECjfejt 06,1992 JUL 08 2 6i008.o« Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://www.archive.org/details/educationforlibr11gold EDUCATION FOR LIBRARIANSHIP: THE DESIGN OF THE CURRICULUM OF LIBRARY SCHOOLS Monograph No. 11 Papers Presented at a Conference on The Design of the Curriculum of Library Schools Conducted by the University of Illinois Graduate School of Library Science September 6-9, 1970 EDUCATION FOR LIBRARIANSHIP: THE DESIGN OF THE CURRICULUM OF LIBRARY SCHOOLS Edited by HERBERT GOLDHOR University of Illinois Graduate School of Library Science Urbana, Illinois COPYRIGHT © 1971 The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois LC Card Number: 78-633332 ISBN: 0-87845-033-5 This and previous monographs are available from the mini Union Bookstore, 715 S. Wright Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820. A list of those volumes available can be obtained from the Publications Office— Graduate School of Library Science, 215 Armory Building, Champaign, Illinois 61820. v^o. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION vii Herbert Goldhor DESIGNS ON THE CURRICULUM 1 Neal Harlow ,/THE CURRICULUM OF LIBRARY SCHOOLS TODAY: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW I 9 Sarah R. Reed CURRICULAR CHANGE IN THE PROFESSIONS 46 Lewis B. Mayhew ,/NEW TRENDS IN THE CURRICULUM OF LIBRARY SCHOOLS 59 Lester Asheim GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CURRICULUM CONSTRUCTION ... 80 James W. Ramey TRAINING FOR ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE 98 G. Edward Evans CURRICULUM FOR THE PREPARATION OF PUBLIC LIBRARIANS 120 Margaret E. Monroe PREPARATION OF THE SCHOOL LIBRARIAN 130 Margaret Hayes Grazier PREPARATION FOR SPECIAL LIBRARIANSHIP 146 Martha Jane K. Zachert THE DESIGN OF THE CURRICULUM FOR THE THIRD ERA OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARIANSHIP 163 Andrew D. Osborn INDEX. 193 INTRODUCTION In recent years the University of Illinois Graduate School of Library Science has held three conferences on various aspects of education for librarianship. The fourth such occasion was scheduled for September 1970, and the topic chosen for consideration was the curriculum of library schools. It appears that this was indeed a happy choice, to judge from the interest in the conference evidenced by the profession and from the many reports of schools all over the country which are engaged in curriculum revision and experimen- tation. One of the innovations of this conference was that one person was accepted without payment of any registration fee from each of up to fifty schools—graduate or undergraduate, accredited or unaccredited— who was under forty years of age and had been a full-time faculty member for at least one year. The genesis of this offer was in Neal Harlow's letter of reply when he was invited to give the opening address. What were we doing to involve younger faculty in our con- ference, he asked. Upon reflection, the best idea we had was the offer described above. In all, thirty-two persons came to the con- ference under this arrangement, or 40 percent of the total registrants. The professional schools definitely need the energy, new ideas and commitment of these younger people. The future always stretches farther ahead than the past does behind us. The need to prepare for the future was evidenced in most of the formal papers and informal discussions. It is one thing to agree that we must plan for the future, with the only certainty being that things will be different from what they are now; it is another matter to specify just how to do this in the curriculum of a school. Several of the papers in this volume give some help to those who face this prob- lem, and probably the most one can expect are insights, hints, sug- gestions, advice, and the record of the experiences of others. In this writer's limited acquaintance with the educational process, no prob- lem is more difficult— or more important— than how to formulate a curriculum, and especially one for a professional school. For the record it should be stated that Sarah R. Reed was unable to be present at the conference; her paper was read by Frederick A. Schlipf of the faculty of the University of Illinois Graduate School of Library Science. Similarly Margaret E. Monroe's prepared paper was read, in her absence, by Charles A. Bunge of the faculty of the University of Wisconsin Library School. It had been understood from INTRODUCTION the beginning that Andrew D. Osborn would be unable to attend the conference. His paper was preprinted and distributed to the regis- trants, and discussed by a panel of conference participants led by Laura C. Colvin of the faculty of the School of Library and Informa- tion Science of the University of Western Ontario. The final session of the conference consisted of a panel discussion on the procedures for implementing curriculum revision. The panel consisted of Rose Vainstein (University of Michigan), Charles A. Bunge (University of Wisconsin), Nancy Freeman (University of Minnesota), and Haynes Mc Mullen (Indiana University). As is usual in these conferences no record was made of the panel discussions or of the question and answer periods following each paper. In a sense this is one of the plus values which participants in the conference receive over and above the content of the formal papers themselves; however, some of the main points brought out in these discussions will be summarized here. It is noteworthy that both the first and the last papers here recom- mend radical revision of the curriculum of library schools, and both authors are each well over fifty years of age. Mayhew reported that the schools of other professions are also in ferment, but some people at the conference were against drastic change in library school curricula. It was reported that the ALA Committee on Accreditation is not opposed to drastic change but neither is it requiring nor pro- moting such action. In the experience of some library schools at least, their graduate college or parent university had not made diffi- culties for curricular reform, though a school may have to ask for freedom to make changes or even fight for it. None of the schools represented at the conference which have recently undergone curriculum revision were prepared to claim that they had the final or universal answer, or even an answer which could be copied by other schools. Even if two or more schools come out eventually with the same set of curricular goals, it is desirable that each works its way to that conclusion on its own. It did seem that the new curricula which were described are characterized by greater flexibility for, and by more choices to be made by the individual student. One of the older participants said that he had had but one choice to make in his B.L.S. program almost thirty-five years earlier, viz., between advanced cataloging for academic libraries and advanced cataloging for public libraries. Two or three speakers added a new twist to the old dilemma as to whether library schools should follow practice or lead the process of change; they pointed out that library schools have not always even kept up with the best practice in the field. It does appear certain that the jobs which society expects and needs librarians to perform will be ever more complex and responsible. In librarianship, as in other INTRODUC TION ix professions, there is a continual process of shifting specific duties from persons of higher skills to those of lesser. How to conduct the process of curriculum review is far from obvious. Most library schools engaged in this activity in recent years have involved their present students; some used outside consultants in library science, education, or other fields, but some did not. It seemed to be generally agreed 1) that the whole faculty should be involved in the process; 2) that curriculum review needs to be done periodically at fairly frequent intervals; 3) that it is necessary and desirable for the whole library school faculty to know what is being taught in the most important courses at least, and to alter their con- consideration of tent if it seems wise to do so; and 4) that inevitably content leads to desirable changes in teaching methods. As one speaker said, the ideal way to review the curriculum is to close the school for a year and have the faculty devote its full time to the revision. We must evaluate a library school curriculum ultimately in terms the of the changes it induces in the behavior of those who complete program. Just so, this conference will be judged eventually as to how much and how wisely it influenced library school educators in their efforts to forge new and better ways by which to prepare people for professional service in libraries. If it is ever concluded to have been a contributing factor to curriculum revision of library schools, the credit will belong to the ten people who prepared the following papers, and to the participants who helped sharpen our sensitivity to the im- plications of these papers. In addition I owe a debt of thanks to my many colleagues who helped conduct the conference, and particularly to Donna D.