Abstract
Cataloging and metadata description is one of the major competencies that a trainee cataloger must conquer. According to recent research results, library and information studies students experience difficulties understanding the theory, the terminology, and the tools necessary for cataloging. The experimental application of teaching models which derive from predominant learning theories, such as behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism, may help in detecting the difficulties of a cataloging course and in suggesting efficient solutions. This paper presents in detail three teaching models applied for a cataloging course and investigates their effectiveness, based on a survey of 126 first-year students. The survey employed the Kirkpatrick model aiming to record undergraduate students’ perceptions and feelings about cataloging. The results revealed that, although a positive change in students’ behavior towards cataloging has been achieved, they still do not feel very confident about the skills they have acquired. Moreover, students felt that practicing cataloging more frequently will eliminate their difficulties. Finally, they emphasized the need for face to face courses, as the survey took place in the coronavirus pandemic, during which the courses were held via distance learning.
Questionnaire
What is your gender?
Male
Female
What characterizes you best?
First year student
Second year student
Third year student
Fourth year student
How was the initial cataloging course conducted in the first semester?
Exclusively face to face
Exclusively online (in a virtual classroom, using a virtual learning environment such as Teams, E-class, Zoom, etc.)
Hybrid/mixed (partly face to face and partly using an E-class environment)
Other
How would you describe the content of the initial cataloging course in the first semester?
Focused mainly on theory (less practice, more presentation and discussion of theories, examples, etc.)
Focused mainly on practice (more practice, cataloging records creation)
A mixture of both theory and practice
Other
What was your attitude towards cataloging before the courses?
I didn’t like it at all
I liked it a little
Neutral/no opinion
I liked it a lot
I liked it very much
What was your experience of cataloging before the course?
No experience
Little experience (I only knew the basics of cataloging)
Satisfactory experience (I could catalog a book if I consulted the relevant manuals/tools)
Enough experience (I could catalog several types of items based on the relevant manuals/tools)
Choose to what extent you consider yourself familiar with the following statements (1 = not at all, 5 = very much):
7.1.The material of the course motivates and interests me to learn more about the organization of knowledge
7.2.The course material is arranged so that it starts from the beginner level towards the advanced level and suits my learning needs
7.3.The instructions and examples are useful for my study
7.4.The effort required to study the material is at the right degree
7.5.Teachers consider learning interaction important and encourage students to ask or express their views
7.6.Getting learning material from e-class and other online resources helps me increase my knowledge and skills and gather more relevant and useful information
7.7.The courses and the material of the digital form of learning facilitate my learning
7.8.The exercises help to understand the course concepts
Choose to what extent you consider yourself familiar with the following statements (1 = not at all, 5 = very much):
8.1.The course is practical and enriches my skills in relation to information analysis and cataloging
8.2.I have incorporated the knowledge and skills I acquired from the course and I can proceed more effectively in my studies
8.3.I have understood all the tools and instructions necessary for cataloging
Choose to what extent you consider yourself familiar with the following statements (1 = not at all, 5 = very much):
9.1.The ability to organize information gained from the course improves the effectiveness of my learning and my work
9.2.I think I can work in a cataloging organization
9.3.Successful completion of the cataloging course will contribute to the successful completion of my studies
9.4.Successful completion of the cataloging course will contribute to my subsequent professional development
Choose to what extent you consider yourself familiar with the following statements (1 = not at all, 5 = very much):
10.1.I understand the concept of information organization
10.2.I understand the principles and tools of cataloging
10.3.I understand the function of the library’s OPAC directory
10.4.I understand the types of items and the methods of their description
10.5.I know how to choose access points
10.6.I understand and can apply cataloging rules to create bibliographic records
10.7.I understand and can apply MARC21 to create bibliographic records
10.8.I understand the subject description of the items (e.g., subject headings, classification numbers, etc.)
10.9.I understand the need for standardization of persons and corporate bodies
What other way than the one you were taught do you think could help you learn cataloging more easily?
[open-ended question]
References
Abdulghani, H. M., S. A. Shaik, N. Khamis, A. A. Al-Drees, M. Irshad, M. S. Khalil, A. I. Alhaqwib, and A. Isnani. 2014. “Research Methodology Workshops Evaluation Using the Kirkpatrick’s Model: Translating Theory into Practice.” Medical Teacher 36 (Suppl. 1): S24–9, https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.886012.Search in Google Scholar
ALA’s Core Competences of Librarianship. 2009. http://www.ala.org/educationcareers/careers/corecomp/corecompetences (accessed January 15, 2021).Search in Google Scholar
Al Hijji, K. Z., and O. S. Fadlallah. 2013. “Theory versus Practice in Cataloging Education in Oman: Students’ Perspectives.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 51 (8): 929–44, https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2013.832456.Search in Google Scholar
Bates, R. 2004. “A Critical Analysis of Evaluation Practice: The Kirkpatrick Model and the Principle of Beneficence.” Evaluation and Program Planning 27 (3): 341–7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2004.04.011.Search in Google Scholar
Carlfjord, S., K. Roback, and P. Nilsen. 2017. “Five Years’ Experience of an Annual Course on Implementation Science: An Evaluation Among Course Participants.” Implementation Science 12: 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0618-4.Search in Google Scholar
Chang, N., and L. Chen. 2014. “Evaluating the Learning Effectiveness of an Online Information Literacy Class Based on the Kirkpatrick Framework.” Libri – International Journal of Libraries and Information Services 64 (3): 211–23, https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2014-0016.Search in Google Scholar
Chen, S., and M. Joyce. 2019. “Teaching a Cataloging/Metadata Course in a Changing World: Experience and Reflection.” International Journal of Librarianship 4 (2): 111–22, https://doi.org/10.23974/ijol.2019.vol4.2.132.Search in Google Scholar
Cooperstein, S. E., and E. Kocevar-Weidinger. 2004. “Beyond Active Learning: A Constructivist Approach to Learning.” Reference Services Review 32 (2): 141–8, https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320410537658.Search in Google Scholar
Donovan, M. S., J. D. Bransford, and J. W. Pellegrino, eds. 1999. How People Learn. Washington: National Academy Press.Search in Google Scholar
Grassian, E. S., and J. R. Kaplowitz. 2001. Information Literacy Instruction: Theory and Practice. New York: Neal-Schuman.Search in Google Scholar
Hsieh, H. F., and S. E. Shannon. 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research 15 (9): 1277–88, https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.Search in Google Scholar
Holton, E. F. 1996. “The Flawed Four-Level Evaluation Model.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 7 (1): 5–21, https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.3920070103.Search in Google Scholar
Joudrey, D. N., and R. McGinis. 2014. “Graduate Education for Information Organization, Cataloging, and Metadata.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 52 (5): 506–50, https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2014.911236.Search in Google Scholar
Kay, D., and J. Kibble. 2016. “Learning Theories 101: Application to Everyday Teaching and Scholarship.” Advances in Physiology Education 40 (1): 17–25, https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00132.2015.Search in Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, D. L., and J. D. Kirkpatrick. 2006. Evaluating Training Programs. The Four Levels, 3rd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Nagowah, L., and S. Nagowah. 2009. “A Reflection on the Dominant Learning Theories: Behaviourism, Cognitivism and Constructivism.” International Journal of Learning 16 (2): 279–86, https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/cgp/v16i02/46136.Search in Google Scholar
Paull, M., C. Whitsed, and A. Girardi. 2016. “Applying the Kirkpatrick Model: Evaluating an Interaction for Learning Framework Curriculum Intervention.” Issues in Educational Research 26 (3): 490–507. http://www.iier.org.au/iier26/paull.html (accessed January 15, 2021).Search in Google Scholar
Praslova, L. 2010. “Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s Four Level Model of Training Criteria to Assessment of Learning Outcomes and Program Evaluation in Higher Education.” Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 22: 215–25, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-010-9098-7.Search in Google Scholar
Saks, A. M., and R. R. Haccoun. 2010. Managing Performance through Training and Development. Toronto: Nelson.Search in Google Scholar
Schunk, D. H. 2012. Learning Theories an Educational Perspective, 6th ed. New York: Pearson.Search in Google Scholar
Snow, K., and G. L. Hoffman. 2015. “What Makes an Effective Cataloging Course? A Study of the Factors that Promote Learning.” LRTS 59 (4): 187–99, https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.59n4.187.Search in Google Scholar
Tamkin, P., J. Yarnall, and M. Kerrin. 2002. Kirkpatrick and Beyond: A Review of Training Evaluation. Brighton: The Institute for Employment Studies.Search in Google Scholar
Turvey, M. R., and K. M. Letarte. 2002. “Cataloging or Knowledge Management: Perspectives of Library Educators on Cataloging Education for Entry-Level Academic Librarians.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 34 (1–2): 163–85, https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v34n01_10.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, M. L. 2018. “Student Learning Outcomes Assessment for an Information Organization Curriculum Based on the Kirkpartick Framework.” Libri – International Journal of Libraries and Information Services 68 (1): 43–57, https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2017-0046.Search in Google Scholar
Yardley, S., and T. Dornan. 2012. “Kirkpatrick’s Levels and Education ‘evidence’.” Medical Education 46 (1): 97–106, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04076.x.Search in Google Scholar
Yusuf, T. I. 2015. “Student’s Attitude to Cataloguing and Classification in an Academic Institution (The Case of Federal Polytechnic Offa).” Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal): 1340. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1340 (accessed January 15, 2021).Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
