Planning and Leading a Retreat
for Teaching Librarians
Anna Litten
SUMMARY. Library instruction programs are undergoing a major shift
as teaching models are revised and programs revamped in the move to-
wards information literacy. These shifts are often difficult on teaching li-
brarians who must now work in new ways with faculty, convey different
concepts in sessions, and change the focus of library instruction. This ar-
ticle describes the process one library went through in approaching
changes in the library instruction program. The Coordinator of Instruc-
tion led a retreat with the teaching team to solicit criticism, define goals,
and devise strategies for improving the experiences of members of the
teaching team. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document
Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: com> Website: < rights reserved.] KEYWORDS. Library instruction, information literacy, teaching librar- ians, teaching retreat, retreat Anna Litten has been the Coordinator of Library Instruction at the Emerson College Library since 1997. Ms. Litten's primary area of interest is in guiding learners through the critical thinking process. [Haworth co-indexing entry note]: "We're All in This Together: Planning and Leading a Retreat for Teaching Librarians." Litten, Anna. Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Library Administration (The Haworth Information Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 36, No. 1/2, 2002, pp. 57-69; and: In- formation Literacy Programs: Successes and Challenges (ed: Patricia Durisin) The Haworth Information Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc., 2002, pp. 57-69. Single or multiple copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address: getinfo@haworthpressinc.com]. 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 57 The shift from bibliographic instruction to information literacy has not been easy on instruction librarians. Librarians, administrators, professors and stu- dents have all struggled as we redevelop existing library instruction programs and bring the library's teaching mission into line with the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education adopted by the Association of College and Research Libraries in 2000. Appropriate planning to ease the tran- sition and change in our library instruction programs will have a far-reaching impact on our ability to be effective teachers, leaders and information literacy advocates. In this article, I will discuss the bumps in the road as one library moves towards a student-centered information literacy program, and how we as a staff devised strategies for facing change. SHIFTING MODELS FROM BI TO INFORMATION LITERACY At Emerson College, students study filmmaking, journalism, writing, and other professions of the communication arts and sciences. The nature of these fields demand that practitioners be critical thinkers and questioners, and the Em- erson community embraces these qualities. Joining the staff of the Emerson Col- lege Library as the Coordinator of Library Instruction in 1997, I was lucky enough to enter a community that values critical thinking and questioning. By the time I joined the library, all students in the required first-year writing pro- gram were required to participate in the program and many upper-level and graduate students participated in the program at the request of faculty members. For a number of years, the library instruction program followed an existing model. The Coordinator of Library Instruction would assign sessions to the four members of the teaching team. The librarians who participated in the li- brary instruction program were all members of the Reference Department, but their primary responsibility was not teaching. Using a prepared script and out- line, teaching librarians would introduce students to library databases and ref- erence sources. Participating faculty appreciated the sessions, but after teaching with this model, I began to feel that we could do more. As I looked around at the reference desk, I wondered if students were taking lessons out of the library classroom. Clearly, students were using databases that they had seen in library instruction sessions, but were they then able to adapt their thinking process to identifying research tools for new questions? Was our program of introducing students to sources indeed the best way to help college students approach information? What models could I find in the information literacy field that could help students become active participants in the information-seeking process? Information literacy was already a heady topic in 1997,1 and like many in- struction librarians during the late 1990s, I turned towards theories and models of information literacy for ways to make our program meaningful, applicable, 58 INFORMATION LITERACY PROGRAMS: SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES and far-sighted enough to help students who would leave ready to become jour- nalists and documentarians. By 1999, I was ready to introduce the team of teach- ing librarians to new methods for working with students and professors to make our experiences in the library classroom as rich as possible for all participants. THE GROWING PAINS OF AN INFORMATION LITERACY PROGRAM Before the beginning of the 2000/2001 academic year, teaching librarians met to discuss new designs for library instruction sessions. Under our new model, library research sessions would be student-centered. I asked teaching li- brarians to focus less on the tools that we thought students needed to use, and more on the concepts of information literacy. Instead of following a prepared script, we would now tailor sessions to respond to student needs in the research process. We would work with professors to design assignments and sessions that would help students to understand information resources, determine information needs, find and evaluate information, and finally, effectively use information.2 Regardless of the planning during the summer of 2000, the 2000/2001 ac- ademic year was difficult for the members of the teaching team at the Emer- son College Library. Preparing for classes under our new model was time-consuming. No longer relying on scripts and outlines, librarians needed to spend more time working with faculty members and researching to pre- pare for a class. Even more difficult, building a program around student ques- tions meant that teaching librarians found that they were giving up some of the control in the classroom. Often, we would ask a class a question, without knowing where we would end up. Faculty members were impressed by our new model, as was evidenced by our year-end statistics. The number of ses- sions taught through the instruction program was up dramatically, from 127 during the 1999/2000 academic year, to 214 during the 2000/2001 academic year, an increase of almost 60%. Members of the teaching team had legitimate complaints. We were teach- ing more sessions than ever before while, at the same time, preparing for ses- sions was becoming more time consuming. Still, we had not changed structures in the program to make our job as information literacy leaders eas- ier. We had not created new tools or resources to match changes in the instruc- tion program. I feared I was about to face insurrection from the teaching team. My goal for the summer of 2001 was to better prepare the teaching librarians for the academic year ahead. Supporting teaching librarians through the academic year would clearly in- volve a new communication system. Instead of relying on short or informal meetings and email, we needed structure and formal tools. Starting with a re- Anna Litten 59 treat for teaching librarians, we would begin a drive to create better tools and support systems for teaching librarians and the information literacy mission of the library instruction program. BEGINNING THE PROCESS Choosing the retreat as a means for coping with change was simple. A re- treat seemed to offer a number of advantages as the teaching team recovered from the year behind and looked to the year ahead. Separate and outside of the realm of our usual workday, a retreat might allow us to reflect honestly about our joys and frustrations in our work. I wanted to hear from teaching librarians about what had worked for them under the new model as well as what had not worked. From their feedback, we would work together to build tools to help us all be better teaching librarians. Retreats are common tools in business, but there are few examples in library literature of retreats as a tool for approaching difficult situations and preparing for change. Those librarians who had written about conducting retreats were enthusiastic about the process, and their models would be my starting place. PLANNING FOR THE PARTY Once I settled on a retreat to begin our process, I began culling the literature for advice. I chose to stay within the confines of the library literature, since the unique nature of academic libraries and non-profit institutions seemed alien to many of the references I was finding in business and management literature. I began by focusing on two issues that came up in almost every article I read: choosing a location and defining goals for the retreat. "Retreat" brings to mind visions of spa-like conference centers. None of the members of the teaching team would have objected to such a setting, and the literature suggested it, but an exotic location alone does not make a retreat. I decided to hold our retreat in one of the college's meeting rooms. With only four librarians in the teaching team, we did not need a conference center. The literature does suggest that the retreat take place outside of the library itself, which did seem important. So, choosing a meeting room away from our imme- diate work area but within the college offered our small group the best option. Away from our desks, the phones, email, and students, we would be free to dis- cuss and assess our program. In the business world, a moderator often leads retreats. That model was less common in library literature. When planning our retreat, I did consider finding a moderator to lead us, but decided that I would lead the retreat myself. My qualifications as a retreat leader are nil, but I hoped that my experience in li- brary instruction and knowledge of our community would be enough. 60 INFORMATION LITERACY PROGRAMS: SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES The size of our group raised another issue. Did we need an entire day to re- treat with four librarians? Teaching librarians certainly can be a talkative group, but regardless, I felt that a half-day retreat would be sufficient for an ini- tial retreat. With the location and length of the event set, the more difficult is- sues of content lay ahead. WHAT ARE OUR GOALS? Defining goals was more difficult than choosing a location. There were many possible solutions to the problems of the previous year. Outreach to fac- ulty, creative research assignments, or professional development plans for the library are all issues that factored into our successes and failures during the past year. Focusing on any one of these issues could have been the basis for a retreat. All of these topics seemed too heady, not practical enough for our shell-shocked team. Following Linda Dobbs's advice that "a retreat must have a purpose, which must be understood by all of the participants,"3 I settled on a concrete topic. We would use the retreat to identify tools and brainstorm sys- tems that would enable us to be effective in the library classroom. Reading after reading emphasized that the retreat was not a self-contained event. Participation should begin even before entering the retreat. Again, I turned to the literature. Through her experiences of leading four annual retreats, Dobb found that pre-retreat activities were vital to the success of the event. For one retreat, Dobb solicited discussion topics from library managers; for another, Dobb provided readings for participants.4 Langley and Martinez asked partici- pants to reflect on their own activities by filling out "cost-impact" forms.5 Using the examples of those more experienced than myself, I began design- ing activities and the agenda for the event. I suspected that one of the problems during the previous academic year was that I, as the Coordinator of Instruction, was decreeing changes in the library instruction program rather than working together with members of the teaching team. I did not want the retreat to be an- other example of edicts or explanations. I wanted to hear from the teaching li- brarians. While I did want to focus the day's activities and bring us to our goal of defining tools for better teaching, I did not want to assign readings. More like Langley and Martinez, I would ask participants to think and write before the retreat. Using the pre-retreat activity as our focus, we could begin the retreat with an open discussion. Discussion seemed appropriate to the tone I wanted to set for the day. After an opening discussion we would move to an- other area that seemed crucial to me, collaboration with faculty. To be infor- mation literacy librarians, we would need to be sure that we were all comfortable and competent in discussing library instruction with key players outside of the library. Finally, we all needed to brainstorm together to create Anna Litten 61 teaching tools and support systems. The final outline for the retreat seemed vague, but settling on an agenda that would be both flexible enough to accom- modate issues that the teaching team needed to discuss, and issues that I knew we could not avoid, led to a loose agenda. As the only member of the teaching team whose primary job responsibility was teaching, I wanted to use the retreat as an opportunity to raise issues that were common in the field of information literacy, but not as common in other areas of librarianship. I felt that the stated goal of the retreat, to identify tools necessary to make us better teaching librarians, allowed me to bring up issues such as defining information literacy for our community. If we were to become true information literacy librarians we would also have to build our own infor- mation literacy definition, so as to better deal with change. A week before the event, I gave librarians three questions for the pre-retreat activity. Table 1 includes the questions that the teaching librarians answered be- fore the retreat. The first question was based on an assignment that I did before attending the Information Literacy Immersion program in the summer of 2000. I hoped that the first question would allow us to open with a discussion of what in- formation literacy meant, and how information users see the search process. The last two questions were designed to help us move to the goal of identifying tools that we could use to become better teachers. To further separate the retreat from our normal workweek, I left participants colored note cards for writing answers. INFORMATION TALES We opened the retreat by sharing stories. The information literacy tales we had collected, answering the first question of the pre-retreat activity, gave us a peek into how non-librarians see the information world. We brought stories back of spouses in graduate school searching for articles for a paper, schoolteacher friends looking for information for elementary school students, and more. After hearing the stories, we noted the themes that were emerging in Table 2. The tales were humorous, occasionally disheartening, and made us proud of the research skills of our friends and spouses. Beginning with this discussion helped us to see what we do, what we don't need to do, and served as a place for us to begin thinking about what we as librarians offer to information seekers. Our interviews reinforced faculty feedback; student researchers can find in- formation, but evaluating information is another topic altogether. Our respon- dents told us in stark terms that users do not always need more information; instead, they need help in being critical and evaluating information. For all of the meetings we have had on this subject, we suddenly had a clear picture and example of some of the difficulties that students face in the research process. 62 INFORMATION LITERACY PROGRAMS: SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES WORKING WITH FACULTY To my eye, one of the most challenging issues in working with faculty is that faculty members think that they are coming to a similar library to the one that they grew to love during their years in school. Librarians know that our very collections are different in today's libraries, as students get information easily and quickly. Under our former model, our knowledge of library re- sources was enough to let us reach our goals in the library classroom. In an in- formation literacy program, we needed more. Success in the library classroom begins with our success in working with faculty members. Thinking back, we all took a few moments to jot down some notes about successful times that we had in the library classroom. UP ON STAGE: SUCCESSES AND FAILURES IN THE LIBRARY CLASSROOM Many of us listed similar experiences as being crucial in successful classes we had led. We all enjoyed classes in which the course instructor was involved. Instructors needed to either co-lead the session, or to share designing learning goals for the session. In a smaller school, we often get to know faculty members well, and that continuity helped us be better teachers. All of us enjoyed sessions when we had been very comfortable with the content of the material. In a smaller library like ours, we do not rely on subject specialists. We are all generalists, but Anna Litten 63 TABLE 1 ? Ask someone you know (not a librarian!) to tell you about the last time he or she needed some information. What type of information was he or she looking for? How did she find it? ? Write down three things you love about teaching. ? Write down three things you do not like about teaching. TABLE 2 ? None of the people we talked to sought out a professional such as a librarian or a travel agent in their search. ? Like reference librarians, all of our respondents enjoyed looking for information, and they enjoyed looking for information by themselves, without help. ? Many of our respondents returned to information sources that had been successful for them in the past, without seeking new information tools. ? Our unscientific respondent pool of friends and family felt as if they were finding what they needed online, without our help. ? Information seekers were not always critical, or were uncertain as to how to be critical of information. generalists with an in-depth knowledge of the subject matter of a course fare far better. One of the criteria that led to the most successful library instruction ses- sion was good timing. Or, as one of the participants said, "When we luckily manage to meet the class when the students hit panic stage." Sharing stories of our success in the classroom led us to the second and third questions that librarians answered for the pre-retreat activity. Facing our joys and fears in teaching, we listed things we loved, and things we do not love about teaching. On the whiteboard we listed both, good for all members of the teaching team to see. Table 3 includes our responses. Looking at both columns together, our goal is to make the "Things I Don't Like" column disappear, and to make the "Things That I Love" column grow. What tools, systems, and fun- damental changes could we make to the library instruction program and the way that information literacy is seen? WHAT CHANGES CAN WE MAKE? We listened to all of the members of the teaching team and brainstormed to- gether to devise plans for our future. No suggestion or observation was out of bounds. We did not limit the conversation to rational suggestions, but allowed complaints. Regardless of whether or not we could do anything about the is- sues that arose, we wanted to hear comments on the library instruction experi- ences. The suggestions, observations, and comments were diverse and are listed in Table 4. I wanted suggestions on what made our successes possible. How could we eliminate problems? Immediately, we started coming up with ways that we, as a team, could address these issues. Already, we knew that we could create better communication tools for members of the teaching team as they worked with faculty. We could create a library of activities for librarians to use in 64 INFORMATION LITERACY PROGRAMS: SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES TABLE 3 Things I Love About Teaching Things I Don't Like About Teaching ? Energy! ? Challenges ? Thinking with faculty ? When it works! ? Lacking confidence as a teacher ? Needing to be on ? Haven't had time and mental space to prepare ? Repetition ? Anxiety classes. We could observe each other in the library classroom. We could schedule planning sessions along with class sessions. None of the tools were fully envisioned, but we were moving towards picturing what our library in- struction program could look like. WHAT CHANGES SHOULD WE MAKE? For our next activity, I asked the librarians, "What are the three things that we wish we could teach students?" As both teaching librarians and reference librarians, we want to put a human face to information literacy. What would an information literate undergraduate look like? What were some of the traits we would see in students who could define information needs, find, evaluate, and use information effectively? This topic raised issues about the content of our sessions. Moving towards a model of partnering with faculty does not mean that we will abdicate our responsibilities in designing content for library ses- sions. Instead, we need to build a model in which both the faculty members and the librarians define learning outcomes for sessions together. Our active role is vital, but we needed to pinpoint some of the suggestions we would bring to fac- ulty members. See Table 5 for our wish list. As the major goal of the retreat was to create a library of teaching tools for librarians, this list of issues could serve as a beginning place to start collecting teaching tips and activities that we had used in sessions to teach these concepts and skills. WHAT HAPPENS IN THE LIBRARY CLASSROOM? The preponderance of end-user tools and the challenges of information lit- eracy should allow us to think of new and different models for how we could use our time with students in the library classroom. We might not need to allo- cate as much time to using databases, using the time to address evaluation or other issues instead. Opening a discussion on changes that we would like to see Anna Litten 65 TABLE 4 ? Librarians need to have enough information about every class. ? What do instructors think that students should learn? ? We need to know what stage students are at in the research process. ? The instructor needs to understand what kinds of information the students should access, and that students get information from sources they did not use when they were in school. ? Instructors need to know what their responsibilities are in the library classroom. ? Students have low attention spans! ? Teaching librarians need evaluations of their session. in the library instruction program helped us to think critically about the overall program, and using our time in the classroom. Again, all suggestions and com- plaints were welcome. See Table 6 for the discussion points. WRAPPING UP THE RETREAT Retreats have a purpose, and as the participants in our retreat knew, our pur- pose was to build better tools and systems for the teaching team, as we continu- ally develop the information literacy program. Already, I knew of a few changes we could make to the program. We did not brainstorm on this session, but instead, I mentioned some of the ways that we might begin to address is- sues and concerns that came up during the retreat, such as creating an online form for instructors who are requesting library instruction as a tool for collect- ing information about courses, and setting up a schedule so that we can all ob- serve each other in the classroom. As Coordinator of Library Instruction, I did not want to leave development of the tools to the team. Instead, I would assume the responsibility for developing tools and systems. We finished the retreat with a catered lunch. Many retreat leaders stress that the social aspect of retreats is as important as the practical business aspects. Without a trip to a retreat center, merely sharing a lovely lunch was a good way for us to chat and reflect on the morning's activities. 66 INFORMATION LITERACY PROGRAMS: SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES TABLE 5 ? How we search depends on what and how much we are looking for. ? Searchers need to think about the amount and kind of information they want. ? Using library resources instead of just searching online can be faster. ? The process of finding journal articles in an online world. ? How to pick a research topic. ? Students should have time to look at library resources. ? Librarians have a lot of answers. ? Bias isn't always so easy to see, it's often subtle. TABLE 6 ? Do we always need an entire class? Could we schedule library instruction as part of a class, either in our library classroom or the regular space? ? Can we rearrange the schedule during busy times of the semester? ? Can we link library instruction to other work, such as linking LI to the print and online publications we create? ? Can we do more outreach and schedule sessions for classes to avoid repetition at the reference desk? ? Can we make better use of technology in library instruction, perhaps creating more Web tours? LESSONS WE HAVE APPLIED As of this writing, we are four months away from the retreat. Already, we have started to implement ideas generated at the retreat. Table 7 lists a number of the steps we have taken to improve library instruction and the lot of teaching librarians. The library instruction program is continually growing and chang- ing, and we still have many lessons to learn from the retreat. Although we are sharing teaching tips, techniques and activities, we do not have shared com- puter files, Web sites, or vertical files. Sharing our resources needs to become formalized in our library, not haphazard or informal. Participants felt that the retreat was a success that gave us all a chance to discuss our concerns and experiences as teaching librarians. More importantly, the structure of the retreat required that we all continue to follow up on lessons learned during the retreat. We have developed some better tools since then, and continue to create many more. The retreat process has led us to fruitful change, but we are certainly not done changing. We will continue to build on our successes in the experience of the first information literacy retreat by hold- ing more retreats in the future. By giving us structures to deal with the changes and difficulties of leading information literacy, the retreat has allowed us to be more comfortable in our role as teaching librarians. REFLECTIONS FROM THE RETREAT LEADER Our small retreat had a big impact. Members of the teaching team, often ex- cluded from discussion of changes in the program, were involved in charting our future. We see real progress from the retreat in the new tools and systems being developed for the teaching team. Continuing the retreats also means that Anna Litten 67 TABLE 7 ? Library instruction sessions are now scheduled in a shared Microsoft Outlook Calen- dar, accessible to all of the members of the teaching team. Librarians are encouraged to add sessions to the schedule if need be. ? Faculty members now fill out an online form when they are requesting a library session. The form comes to the electronic mailbox of the Coordinator of Library Instruction who then schedules the session, and forwards the form to the librarian who will be leading the session. The form is available at: ? For large, multi section classes, we have worked with instructors to institute a new model of instruction. Instead of one, long library instruction session covering all of the tools that students will need, we are offering shorter sessions, geared to specific re- search questions and assignments. ? Librarians are sharing successful activities. An evaluation activity that one librarian used with a class is being adopted for another class, taught by another librarian. we have decided to invest in our growth as teaching librarians in a dynamic in- formation literacy program. Looking back, I was happy not only with the outcomes, but also with the process itself. I had worried that our location and leader were inappropriate. Were we too close to the library itself? The meeting room that we used was one that we use for monthly staff meetings. Ideally, a retreat should probably be a little further away from the workplace than we were. For our next retreat, I would like to use a meeting space that we do not use in our normal work life. For our first retreat, I believe it was appropriate for a member of the team to lead the retreat. An outside retreat leader, although unbiased, would not have the inside knowledge of our department and our program necessary to speak our common language. For future retreats, I would certainly consider asking a mod- erator to lead our discussion. Regardless, our retreat was indeed successful. PLANNING AND LEADING FOR CHANGE Leading faculty and undergraduates in developing information literacy skills has not been easy for teaching librarians. We have moved away from the comfortable to the uncomfortable. My goal was to help the teaching team be comfortable in the library instruction program. I wanted to change our infor- mation literacy program, but I did not want to own the program. The program belongs to all who participate: teaching librarians, faculty members, adminis- trators and students. Over the next year, I hope to decide what type of retreat we will hold in the fu- ture. The possibilities are almost limitless, from an event similar in scope and size to our retreat of the past summer, to opening up an information literacy re- treat to the entire library staff and key members of the Emerson College commu- nity. This retreat was a way to solicit practical feedback on the classes we teach, the concepts we emphasize, and ways to work with faculty. Now that we have conducted our first retreat, we are all looking forward to the retreats in the future. this article, but to see information on the changes that took place in this program, see
3. Janice Kirkland and Linda S. Dobb, "The Retreat as a Response to Change," Li- brary Trends 37 (Spring 1989): 495-509. 68 INFORMATION LITERACY PROGRAMS: SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES 4. Linda S. Dobb, "Four Retreats and a Forum: A Meditation on Retreats as a Re- sponse to Change," Library Trends 47 (Spring 1999). 5. Anne Langley and Linda Martinez, "Learning Our Limits: The Science Libraries at Duke University Retreat to Respond to Our Changing Environment," Issues in Sci- ence and Technology Librarianship (Fall 1999). BIBLIOGRAPHY Dobb, Linda. "Four Retreats and a Forum: A Meditation on Retreats as a Response to Change." Library Trends 47 (1999): 699-710. Foster, Constance L., Etkin, Cynthia Moore, Elaine E. Staebell, etc. "The Net Result: Enthusiasm for exploring the Internet." Information Technology and Libraries 12 (1993): 433-436. Kirkland, Janice and Linda S. Dobb. "The Retreat as a Response to Change." Library Trends 37 (1989): 495-509. Langley, Anne and Linda Martinez. "Learning Our Limits: The Science Libraries at Duke University Retreat to Respond to Our Changing Environment." Issues in Sci- ence and Technology Librarianship 24 (1999). [cited August 2, 2001]; available on the World Wide Web at: Nofsinger, Mary M. and Mary Gilles. "A Faculty Retreat: Coping With Challenges." College and Research Library News 50 (1989): 484-485. Anna Litten 69