Standing Committee on Training Task Group on Educational Needs of the Cataloging Community

Interim Report

October 2000

The SCT Task Group on Educational Needs of the Cataloging Community has been working steadily since its inception on compiling and conducting a survey of the cataloging community. They received approximately 80 responses to the survey in August and September and have been working at compiling the results. The results presented below represent a summary written by the SCT Chair of compilations sent to her by individual members of the Task Group. Comments provided by the SCT Chair are bracketed and end with her initials -- CGH.

This survey is designed to collect information on the training and continuing education needs of the cataloging community in all areas except serials cataloging. Serials cataloging is being excluded because the Serials Cataloging Cooperative Training Program (SCCTP) program is addressing the continuing education needs of that group of catalogers. The survey is aimed at catalog librarians, cataloging managers, and others who also perform original and complex cataloging and authority work.

1a. In what areas of non-serial cataloging would it be beneficial for you or your library to have training? Please grade according to need: 1 (greatest need) to 5 (lowest need):

[Because this was a ranked question, I have provided the numbers of respondents who rated each of the categories from medium to high in importance -- CGH]

1b. How would you prefer the training be offered? (Please rank in order of preference)

[Because this was a ranked question, I have provided the numbers of people who rated each of the categories from medium to high in importance -- CGH]

1c. Please give a brief reason for your preferred choice (s)

On-site and Web-based preferred because of lack of funding to send people off-site. However, it was noted by several respondents that distance learning alone is not sufficient -- they see it as auxiliary to face-to-face instruction.

2a. Is your library a member of the PCC?

_42__Yes (please go to question 2c)

__33_No

2b. If no, have you considered or would you consider joining?

_20__Yes ____No

(Please go to question 5)

2c. If yes, what programs do you participate in?: (Please check all that apply):

3a. If you are a NACO, SACO, or BIBCO participant, would you benefit from periodic refresher training? (Please check all that apply)

3b. What topics specific to NACO/SACO/BIBCO would you like to see covered in refresher training?

[59 did not respond. Of those who responded, they listed the following:]

3c. How would you prefer the refresher training be offered? (Please rank the following in order of preference)

[for each category below, 50-56 survey respondents did not provide a ranking. The first number listed on each line represents those who ranked the category as a medium to high priority, the second number on each line represents the total number who ranked the category at all---CGH]

3d. In your opinion, generally, how often should refresher training be offered?

[for the question below, 36 survey respondents did not respond at all]

_1__ More than once a year

_14__ Once a year

_23__ Every two years

_5__ Other___(4 -- when needed; 1- every 3-4 years)________

3e. Also, generally, what would be your preferred duration of training sessions?

[for the question below, 36 survey respondents did not respond at all]

4a. If you are a NACO or BIBCO cataloger, or if you manage a department which participates in PCC, briefly, in your opinion, what factors influence you or your department's ability to produce NACO/BIBCO records?

Summary: The most common response indicated that pressure to catalog materials and reduce backlogs with limited staff leads to an inability to provide adequate in-house training and/or to insufficient time to complete authority work, especially when it is complex and would require extensive research. Several respondents also cited a lack of adequate research tools.

• "Time and pressure to produce vs. the complexity of the materials being cataloged"
• "pulls us away from our prime objective to create catalog records for our local institution"
• "lack of institutional commitment"

4b. If not already referred to in the survey, are there educational/training needs that PCC could provide which might specifically address your ability to produce NACO/BIBCO records?

Summary: The most frequently mentioned need was for documentation. Otherwise there were some good suggestions without any common theme.

• "Set up a file of sample NARs illustrating unusual 670s or heading problems on the NACO web site; keep expanding the FAQ section on the PCC website addressing NAR descriptive issues, and index it."

5. Any other thoughts on NACO/BIBCO programs and training as they relate to your situation?

Summary: Some smaller institutions are interested in the programs, but participation through a funnel project has not been feasible for them. Other institutions have a variety of comments.

• "I am interested in participating, but wonder if the cost of training would make it worthwhile for my small library, especially since I do a limited amount of original cataloging."

6a. What cataloging training or continuing education, in-house or external, have you participated in, taught, or sent staff to during the last three years? (This could include workshops, one on one, classroom, training provided by a utility, the Library of Congress or a private contractor, etc.). Please list up to three and indicate in each case whether you participated, taught, or sent staff.

Seventy-one of the 79 respondents (89.9 percent) indicated that they are participated in some form of cataloging or continuing education training activity. [The complete detailed listing of responses is available from CGH]

The only discernable pattern to the training reported is that there is not discernable pattern. Training participated in includes in-house, vendor, utility, professional association workshops, BIBCO, NACO, SACO, etc. sponsored events.

The great majority of the respondents and/or their staff are actively engaged in continuing their education. The great majority were participants rather than involved as instructors.

The frequency of events reported by respondents is as follows:

3 events44(55.7 percent)
2 events14(17.7 percent)
1 events13(16.5 percent)
0 events8(10.1 percent)

6b. In your opinion, has your in-house and/or external continuing education/training been effective. Why or why not?

Sixty-six of the 79 respondents (83.5 percent) responded in some way to this question. Of these 58 expressed their perception of the effectiveness of the training received. Fifty-two of the 58 (89.6 percent) indicated satisfaction to strong statements of satisfaction. Three (5.2 percent) expressed dissatisfaction while another 3 reported both satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

In general, many when problems were reported, whether in terms of time or quality of presentation, they often were attributable to local issues. Most had positive feeling toward nationally sponsored training. A number indicated their desire for more training opportunities.

[The complete detailed listing of responses is available from CGH]

7. Does your library use OCLC, RLIN, or another utility for cataloging?

[Seventy-six of the 79 respondents (96.2 percent) answered this question.]

8. What classification system does your library use? (Please check all that apply)

9. What subject heading scheme does your library use? (Please check all that apply)

10. Demographic information:

[The complete detailed demographic information is available from CGH]

Type of institution:

[Most people seemed to answer below with information about the institution but some people answered as individuals]

Formats/types of materials that you catalog:

Total FTE normally devoted to cataloging at your library (approximate if not known):

Total FTE normally devoted to PCC (not CONSER) cataloging at your library (approximate if not known):

[Based on notes and comments, many seemed to answer this question with the number of people who were involved with PCC cataloging, rather than in terms of FTE]

Approximate average number (if known) of all titles cataloged (added to collection) annually at your library: