Standing Committee on Training

Task Group on Educational Needs of the Cataloging Community

Final Report/Recommendations

This report deals with the remaining points of our charge:

[a]: Recommend specific training sessions on authority control and non-serial cataloging.
[b]: Evaluate the viability of the SCCTP model for authority control and non-serial cataloging.
[c]: Recommend a time frame for implementation of training sessions.
[d]: Describe the support required for implementation from other appropriate organizations.
[e]: Identify PCC participants to be tapped for developing the curricula.

Recommendations

Even though some of our survey questions were directed specifically to potential respondents who are already PCC participants, we make our recommendations for the cataloging community at large and not specifically for non-PCC or PCC participants.

[a]: Recommend specific training sessions on authority control and non-serial cataloging According to our survey, most would utilize training sessions on the following non-serial cataloging (these are not necessarily in order of preference):

1. Series authorities
2. Name authorities
3. Subject cataloging
4. Electronic resources/computer files/Internet
5. Classification
6. Descriptive cataloging (probably books format)

The most desired methods of delivery for this training are: roughly a third of respondents preferred distance learning (self-paced or collaborative), and approximately two-thirds of respondents preferred some kind of face-to-face instruction in the form of a session such as a workshops or class either onsite, regional, or at conferences (possibly as pre-conferences). Respondents also preferred either day long (the largest group) or 1-3 day long sessions, with a third smaller group preferring a half-day session. Preference for repeat or "refresher" training (this question directed more to respondents who are already involved in PCC) is once a year or every two years.

We recommend separate training sessions, eventually including sessions on each item 1-6, and that they normally be day long sessions. Another possibility is to offer half-day sessions which could be combined for institutions who would like to cover more than one topic, or which could simply be offered to institutions preferring a less involved treatment. Also, half-day length may be more appropriate for "refresher" training. There should be sessions from basic to advanced level (another survey would be useful in the near future, asking respondents to describe the desired expertise level of training sessions, so that training resources could be more effectively aimed at providing appropriate levels of training; this might also help to raise the general expertise level among catalogers). We also recommend that separate, self-contained Web-based distance learning sessions be developed covering, as far as possible, the same content as the face-to-face sessions (Many of the group who preferred distance learning cited lack of travel funds as the reason for their preference).

[b]: Evaluate the viability of the SCCTP model for authority control and non-serial cataloging

We recommend that the SCCTP model be followed for non-serial and authority control training for the following reasons:

1. It provides trained trainers who are practitioners using standard content that its designed to raise the level of cataloging expertise nationally.
2. It utilizes regional, local, and national organizations to help arrange the sessions locally and provide necessary infrastructure (especially the library service networks) and funding.
3. It currently offers face-to-face training, which is preferred by two thirds of the survey respondents.
4. It is open to all in the cataloging community, not just BIBCO/NACO members, and non-PCC trainers are utilized. We feel that this inclusiveness contributes to the success of the SCCTP, since more are apt to get involved and thereby possibly become PCC members. This coincides with a goal of the PCC Tactical Plan, which is to increase PCC membership and contributions.
5. The SCCTP model has been in place for a significant amount of time and therefore could be a resource itself. The experience of the of the SCCTP participants and organizers can be utilized in the setting up and management of an organization with similar goals and procedures. It was setup by an advisory committee with individuals from CONSER, NASIG and ALCTS. A similar advisory committee could be used with members from BIBCO, NACO, ALCTS, etc.

However, those on this Task Force with experience with SCCTP credit its success also to the fact that it has an individual who is the driving force behind it and who has shepherded the program. This is Jean Hirons, CONSER Program Coordinator. A similar individual such as the BIBCO Coordinator would probably be needed to head a program for non-serial training modeled on the SCCTP.

[c]: Recommend a time frame for implementation of training sessions

A possible schedule scenario for developing the first two or three of items 1-6 from [a] above (being a volunteer organization, this might be a reasonable expectation; judging from the development of SCCTP curriculum and training, several years would be needed to develop all six training sessions):

• by end of summer 2001 (after ALA) identify course designer/developers
• by December 2001 contract with course designer/developers
• by Spring 2002:
• -identify reviewers and field testers
• -course is ready for review and field test
• -course is ready for train the trainer program
• by/at Summer 2002/ALA hold train the trainer session (sessions could be at LC if PCC oversight committee runs program out of LC as is SCCTP)
• by December 2002 institutions and organizations start scheduling

[d]: Describe the support required for implementation from other appropriate organizations

Several types of support will be needed to develop training packages and deliver training over time. The Task Group identified as key elements:

1. a PCC oversight committee to manage the program (oversee curricula/documentation development, track groups of trainers, etc.);
2. funding support for initial development (from appropriate group(s) such as ALCTS, which is also developing a continuing education strategy)
3. funding support for on-going revision of packages;
4. host organization to archive training packages and distribute all related evaluation instruments, documentation, training components, etc.;
5. sponsoring organizations to host train-the-trainer sessions;
6. sponsoring organizations to host training sessions.

Possible Types of Groups for Continuing support:

• OCLC networks (Solinet, Amigos, etc.)
• Other library service networks
• Host library schools (ALA accredited MLS institutions)
• System vendors (Endeavor, etc.)
• Library associations (city, state, regional, national) and/or appropriate divisions
• Host libraries (sometimes cost borne in entirety if limited to participants from that library)

[e]: Identify PCC participants to be tapped for developing the curricula.

1. A member of the PCC Standing Committee on Training who has the appropriate training.
2. BIBCO, NACO, or CONSER trainers with the appropriate expertise.

Respectfully submitted, March 6, 2001

SCT, Task Group on Educational Needs of the Cataloging Community

Peter Fletcher (Chair), Valerie Bross, Laura Kimberly, Mia Rode, Andrea Olson, Jerry Saye, Sylvia Turchyn, Rebecca Uhl