This portfolio/blog was originally created as part of the practicum for completing my Library Technical Assistant Associate’s Degree, which I earned from Ivy Tech in 2012. I have continued to update it with work samples from my courses as I earn my Masters in Library Science at IUPUI, from my previous job as a Student Clerk at Greenwood Public Library, and from my current position as a Public Services Associate II at the Indianapolis Public Library. You can find those samples, my résumé, transcript, and competencies through the links at the right. My thoughts, opinions, and projects regarding my profession can be found in the articles below. I’m happy to hear from others in the library field, and welcome your comments and suggestions.
Having received the final evaluation of my Master’s Portfolio, my graduation is official! I finished three degrees (and two certificates) in eight years, after returning to community college as a student over 40. During that time, I moved three times, got divorced, raised my now-teenaged son, and, I guess, managed it all pretty OK! Of course, I got lots of help from others, mentors, co-workers, my kid, my parents, U et al. (despite everything), and most especially, IUPUI CAPS.
The artifact I chose to demonstrate this standard is probably the one I enjoyed creating the most, and that I am most proud of. It’s also the one I’m most likely to continue to keep adding to. The Breadth and Depth of Digital Libraries assignment required me to evaluate many different libraries based on criteria such as purpose, information and services provided, and any other distinctive features. This assignment demonstrates my ability to determine relevant and accurate knowledge and to respond to diversity in user needs. It also required me to assess the impact of current and emerging situations on the design and implementation of services and resource development.
When locating digital libraries to evaluate, I did my best to find the most diverse resources possible. This allowed me to become more familiar with resources that might fall outside the realm of my typical interests, allowing me to provide more relevant information to patrons, and to respond to diversity in user needs.
Emerging technologies impact the implementation of digital libraries, most often by filling information needs in more useful ways. For example, Arnetminer uses cutting-edge technology to provide the most relevant information to users. It is always updating. Open-source or crowd-sourcing is having tremendous impact on digital libraries, providing access to, if not more accurate information, more niche information that is much more relevant to users as well. For example, The Chinese Text Project is open-source and “the largest database of pre-modern Chinese texts in existence.” The Free Quilt Block Library allows color and pattern swapping, and was created by a software engineer running on a platform that she created. Modern technology allows for this diversity of systems and services in a variety of settings.
The artifact I chose to represent my mastery of this standard was an assignment requiring me to evaluate the reference services of different libraries using different techniques and methods to retrieve, evaluate and synthesize information, as well as to interact successfully with the patrons. This interaction occurred across three different technology platforms, phone, email, and chat, and for each platform I contacted multiple libraries.
On the whole, I found the email reference service to be lacking, and very often more a vehicle for promoting the institution than providing a successful reference interaction, if a response was received at all. Phonecall interaction was somewhat better, but offered lists of resources that I, then, had no immediate access to. Using the phone, I would still have had to go to a library or get on the computer to find a second time what the librarian had just found the first time. Chat reference services I found to be the best of all, in one case offering excellent resources that were, for the most part, immediately accessible from the chat window. In the second case, the pace of the chat conversation allowed for an excellent reference interview.
Evaluating these interactions, techniques, methods, and platforms from the perspective of the patron gave me insight into the best ones to use to help them locate information resources and tools. As a result, I believe this artifact shows my understanding and mastery of this standard.
The reader’s advisory and reference observation assignments demonstrate my ability to analyze and identify the information needs of diverse communities of users. These diverse information needs are represented in the assignments by the fact that they each focus on a different type of information, reference vs. reader’s advisory service. In evaluating the techniques of other professionals performing these services, I was able to better understand what worked and what didn’t. As a result, I better understood the concepts, principles, and techniques of reference and user services.
Both assignments also provided examples of the methods used to interact successfully with individuals to provide consultation, mediation, and guidance in their use of information, in some instances, while providing examples of what not to do in others. For example, during the reader’s advisory interviews, one professional was fairly helpful in finding what I was looking for, albeit after a rocky start, while the other paraprofessional didn’t understand what I was asking for, and did not seem to be familiar with a basic reference interview. The reference observation assignment provided more examples of less than helpful service.
The reader’s advisory observation also provided examples of the techniques used to retrieve, evaluate, and synthesize information. However, the techniques the librarian relied upon seemed to be simply her own knowledge. This technique was more successful than I would have expected, although the paraprofessional who basically did the same was much less successful. My own exploration with online, self-service tools seemed to yield better results.
All three parts of the Collection Development plan, given as separate assignments but taken together, demonstrate my ability to design and apply policies and procedures that support the selection and acquisition of information resources for particular communities of users. In this instance, the community of users the resources are selected and acquired for are those interested in reading poetry.
The plan addresses concepts and issues related to the lifecycle of the collection, from evaluating its current strength and describing the strengths that would be desired, to setting out selection and deselection criteria. The lifecycle is further addressed in the section relating to usage stats in both Collection HQ and evergreen, as well as the discussion of in-house use. The methods of related to acquisition and deselecting of resources recommends basing an item’s lifecycle on its usage stats.
Discussion of the features and failings of Collection HQ and Evergreen demonstrate my ability to analyze technologies. And because vendor evaluation is based on making spoken-word poetry available in the collection, this portion of the plan demonstrates my ability to recognize and implement relevant technological improvements.
Although I do feel the plan meets the standards of the ALA Core Competencies for this criteria, I can’t really say that I feel the assignment resulted in a comprehensive, formal plan. I think that, were I to have to create a plan “for real,” it would look a lot different, although many of the same components would be included. I would likely expand the documents here to include something about the organization, cataloging, and classification of the collection.