Preparing Staff for Federated Searching: A Community of Practice Approach

This article was downloaded by: [Stony Brook University]On: 29 October 2014, At: 10:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Internet Reference ServicesQuarterlyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wirs20

Preparing Staff for FederatedSearching: A Community ofPractice ApproachSusan Goodwin a & Christina Hoffman Gola aa Sterling C. Evans Library, TAMU 5000 , Texas A&MUniversity , College Station, TX, 77843-5000Published online: 11 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Susan Goodwin & Christina Hoffman Gola (2008) Preparing Stafffor Federated Searching: A Community of Practice Approach, Internet ReferenceServices Quarterly, 13:2-3, 245-259, DOI: 10.1080/10875300802103908

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10875300802103908

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wirs20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10875300802103908

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10875300802103908

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:19

29

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Preparing Staff for Federated Searching:A Community of Practice Approach

Susan GoodwinChristina Hoffman Gola

ABSTRACT. This article outlines one library’s staff-training programfor a newly implemented federated search product and lessons learnedfrom the process. The discussion examines federated searching from thepatron’s point of view and introduces a community of practice approachto training staff. The approach aims to help staff learn how to embracefederated searching as an additional research tool to complement searchfeatures already in place.

KEYWORDS. Academic libraries, database searching, federated search-ing, staff training

INTRODUCTION

In January 2005, Texas A&M University (TAMU) Libraries launcheda new “Articles/Books” search portlet on the Libraries’ homepage, madepossible with the implementation of MetaLib, a federated search software

Susan Goodwin, MLIS, is Coordinator of Instructional Services and Asso-ciate Professor (E-mail: [email protected]); and Christina Hoffman Gola,MSLS, is Undergraduate Specialist Librarian and Assistant Professor (E-mail:[email protected]), both at Sterling C. Evans Library, TAMU 5000, TexasA&M University, College Station, TX, 77843-5000.

The authors would like to thank Anne Highsmith, Wyoma vanDuinkerken, andJeff Stark for providing technical support and valuable advice during the trainingsessions.

Internet Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 13(2–3) 2008Available online at http://irsq.haworthpress.com

C© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.doi: 10.1080/10875300802103908 245

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:19

29

Oct

ober

201

4

246 INTERNET REFERENCE SERVICES QUARTERLY

from ExLibris. While the new search portlet looks similar to the alreadyexisting “E-journals” and “Indexes/Databases” search portlets on thehomepage, its functionality is radically different. With MetaLib in place,patrons can now simultaneously search multiple databases for articles andbooks directly from the homepage. Together, the three search portletsform one complete service for all electronic resources called Search Now(Figure 1).

Several months prior to and after the launch of Search Now, theInstructional Services (IS) team spent a number of hours training staff(librarians and paraprofessionals) on how to use the new service. WithMetaLib in place, there are several avenues for searching from which tochoose. Training involved an introduction to federated searching alongwith pointers on how to transition from the old way of article searching(i.e., one database at a time) to a new way of searching (i.e., severaldatabases at the same time). As the training process progressed, the ISteam adjusted training sessions to cater to different learning styles and helplower resistance to change. The ultimate goal was to develop a communityof practice in which patrons, staff, and the IS team learn from one another.

FIGURE 1. The Search Now Portlet

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:19

29

Oct

ober

201

4

Susan Goodwin and Christina Hoffman Gola 247

BACKGROUND

MetaLib was purchased to help increase patrons’ ease of access tothe Libraries’ electronic resources. In September 2004, a committeewas formed to test and implement the software. By September 2005,a beta version was available on the Libraries’ homepage. Patrons andstaff were encouraged to use the new service during the fall semester toprepare for the official launch in January. Two usability studies were alsoconducted during the fall semester of 2005. The first study addressed thefeatures and functionality of the main search interface and participantsincluded students, faculty, and library staff. The second study focused onundergraduate and graduate student use of the software. Starting on theLibraries’ homepage, participants were presented with specific task-basedresearch questions to answer using the Search Now portlet. The qualitativedata gathered from the usability participants helped to further refine thesearch interface and functionality for the January launch.

Why Federated Search Software?

With over 550 databases in the Libraries’ collection and thousands ofelectronic journal subscriptions, the library community expressed the needfor intuitive search software to make the collection more self-discoverable.LibQUAL + TM 2004 and 2005 survey data provided significant evidencethat patrons wanted to search for articles and books from the homepageusing keywords. For example, one LibQUAL + TM survey respondentstated, “The search engine used to find research studies is difficult tonavigate because you have to know the database that you want to use. Itwould be much easier if we could search all databases based on subjectrather than having to enter the different databases.” Other respondentsmade similar statements: “It is difficult to do a global search of academicarticles. My new best friend is Google Scholar because I can type ina phrase and it will point to specific journals articles”; “Ideally thereshould be a Google like search system”; “I wish that . . . I could performa search using keywords to search for articles.” In fact, prior to thelaunch of Search Now, the Library website data logs indicated that manypatrons were conducting unsuccessful keyword article searches withinthe database search box on the homepage. Written feedback from libraryclasses provided some additional evidence that students were unaware ofmany key library databases for their majors, felt overwhelmed by the sheer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:19

29

Oct

ober

201

4


number of library databases available for research, and were often unawareof how to begin research from the library homepage.

With Search Now, patrons can keyword search across a number ofdatabases from the Articles/Books portlet on the homepage. Search Nowalso provides the opportunity for just-in-time database discovery within theArticles/Books interface. Patrons can easily move into a specific databaseafter a general article search. Links to individual databases are listed foreach citation in the results list. For example, if patrons find numerousrelevant citations available from the same database, they can easily movefrom their general search results into that specific database to rerun a morefocused search. The database portlet provides patrons with the opportunityto browse for databases by subject category and search by title, publisher,and resource type. Search Now also includes a MyBookbag feature; eachTAMU-affiliated user has space on the library server to save citations,e-journals, databases, personalized federated database sets, and more.

Literature Review

Many libraries are beginning to implement federated search software,and there continues to be more published literature discussing the prosand cons of federated searching. However, there are few referencesin the literature about training librarians and teaching patrons how touse the software. Two articles discuss some aspects of federated searchtraining: Helfer and Wakimoto (2005) and Zimmerman (2004). Helfer andWakimoto (2005) shared their experiences of implementing MetaLib atCalifornia State University, Northridge; they briefly state the importance oftraining staff how to teach federated searching to patrons. A complimentaryarticle by Zimmerman (2004) discussed the importance of embracingfederated searching by knowing when to teach and use the software andwhen to point patrons to other resources.

Most importantly, both articles point out that federated searching isnot intended to replace all other methods of searching databases and e-journals. Libraries should promote federated searching only when it suitsthe information needs of its user community. An understanding of themain benefits and drawbacks of federated searching can help librariansmake even better search recommendations to patrons as they help themwith their information needs. As noted by Baer, federated searching offersseveral advantages to the user: It can help save time by allowing the userto simultaneously search across multiple databases for information; it hasthe potential of being less intimidating because it eliminates the need

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:19

29

Oct

ober

201

4


for the user to learn several different search interfaces; and perhaps mostnoteworthy, it effectively reduces the number of decisions a user has tomake before he or she even begins the search process (2004, 518).

Despite these advantages, there are some issues that arise from usingfederated search tools. Baer (2004) discussed that in a federated searchthe quantity of articles searched will increase but the quality of the searchitself tends to suffer because many of the special search features associatedwith each database are not available in the federated search interface. Ineffect searches are “reduced to their lowest common denominator” (Baer2004, 519). Other drawbacks include search results that are difficult toevaluate because they are pulled from numerous databases containingvarious types of sources, all of which are hard to distinguish fromeach other. With so many search results and multiple databases beingsearched, Baer worries that students “get the impression that they aresearching everything,” and when they do discover that specific databasesare excluded from the federated search tool they assume they are lessimportant (2004, 519). Terrell’s findings coincide with Baer in that he notedsimilar advantages and disadvantages in federated searching products.While students enjoy the convenience of spending less time selectingresources and repeating searches, the available search options are limitedand result in less sophisticated searches (Terrell 2004, 3). McCaskie alsopointed out limitations of federated search features and results lists inaddition to the risk of information overload for the end-user (2004, 21).

Given all these concerns, the key for staff and patrons is to know whenit is best to use federated searching and when it is best to use individualdatabases. While the library literature highlights this very important fact,little detail currently exists on how to train staff to “know” when a federatedsearch is the best tool to use. Knowing when to point patrons to a federatedsearch and when to point them to other specific library databases wasa skill the authors wanted to help training participants develop over thecourse of the training sessions in addition to teaching them the mechanicsof federated searching using the new software. A review of the educationalliterature on learning theory suggested that a blended method of basicskills training involving a cognitive approach and a community of practiceapproach to learning would work best to teach both the mechanics offederated searching and the art of recognizing when such a tool would beuseful.

Cox (2005) provided a good overview of some of the seminal works inthe area of communities of practice. Communities of practice are basically“groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:19

29

Oct

ober

201

4


about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area byinteracting on an ongoing basis” (Cox 2005, 534). Informal learning bothinside and outside the classroom is a practice that trainers should foster.Pollack quoted Jay Cross that only “ten to 20 percent of the informationand skills we need to work are learned formally,” yet informal learning isoften overlooked in the workplace (Pollack 2005, 6). Overall, communityof practice approaches can help promote extracurricular learning and adeeper understanding and commitment to the skills being introduced in theformal classroom.

While a cognitive approach to learning focuses on the individual studentwho learns from the teacher, in a classroom setting, and from a plannedcurriculum, a community of practice approach (a type of constructivistapproach to learning) takes place in situ, where learning is informal andopen. Students learn from each other and the learning is task-driven ratherthan curriculum-driven (Cox 2005, 534). Cox emphasized that this typeof situational learning is concerned not only with “what to do” but it alsofocuses on “understanding how to behave” as a learner (2005, 529). Thecognitive approach, on the other hand, tends to focus on the impersonaland mechanistic transmission and absorption of knowledge rather than thepersonal transformation of learners, their community, and ultimately, theirsurrounding organization (2005, 529).

In a training situation both methods have obvious advantages anddisadvantages. A cognitive approach to learning is useful for teachingbasic skill sets, such as search techniques for a particular database. Acommunity of practice approach is far less structured and more effectivefor sharing experiences and techniques learned between the formal trainingperiods.

Focusing on the Patron in Training

During beta testing, the Library encountered what any organization mayinevitably experience–a resistance to change. Recognizing this potentialduring training, the IS team made careful considerations to remind staffto always think about the user first. From the outset of planning, theteam used evidence from the usability tests in the training sessions tokeep the focus on patron needs. As noted previously, the Search Nowportlet for searching articles and books was designed for the novice libraryuser. Usability tests indicated that patrons were, for the most part, ableto locate relevant information despite a sometimes-limited knowledge ofthe Library’s resources or a research topic. However, in some cases, even

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:19

29

Oct

ober

201

4


self-proclaimed “research experts” discovered new databases in their areasof expertise that they otherwise would never have found. The usabilitytests confirmed that federated searching was a boon for novice users anddemonstrated that some of the more experienced patrons found it to be agreat database discovery tool as well. This data ran contrary to the widelyheld belief of library staff that faculty and graduate students, who areconsidered expert researchers, would have little use for federated searchingdue its unsophisticated search options.

The knowledge gained from usability testing demonstrated that ourtraining sessions should begin by stressing that the patron’s informationneeds must be determined first. Otherwise, two unfavorable outcomesmight arise. First, staff will promote federated searching to answer allresearch questions, even when there are better search alternatives. Second,at the other end of the spectrum, staff might choose to avoid federatedsearching altogether because it jeopardizes their role as subject knowledgeexperts and/or does a disservice to patrons by “dumbing down” the researchprocess. Both potential outcomes suggest a need for a carefully balancedtraining plan, which the authors outline below.

The entire training process consisted of several introductory sessions,hands-on training, sharing sessions, and one-on-one sessions upon request.

The Training Approach at TAMU Libraries

In order to maximize staff buy-in the IS team took a holistic approach toteaching the software. Search Now was presented as a package of searchtools, only part of which contained a federated search option. This wasimportant to ensure that staff and ultimately, the patrons they assisted,could easily move from one search tool to another based on informationneed.

The initial training sessions familiarized staff with the main SearchNow interfaces. Participants were walked screen-by-screen through thethree basic search portlets available on the Libraries’ homepage, followedby an introduction to the main search interface, which provides access toMetaLib’s full search features. Each participant was also provided withsupportive documentation with detailed screen-shots and annotations ofeach search feature presented in class.

Prior to the initial training session, the IS team asked all the participantsto complete a list of search questions; these were the same search questionsused in the undergraduate usability tests. The IS team purposely chose theundergraduate questions to keep the searches quick and easy. Providing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:19

29

Oct

ober

201

4


the questions in advance also required the staff to familiarize themselveswith specific software features. By using a problem-based approach, theteam hoped to encourage more interaction and opportunities for staff toask more advanced questions during the session.

However, the session took an unexpected turn. Although the IS teamrealized that many of the participants did not do their homework prior toclass, this actually made the session more interactive. Had the searchesbeen completed, many of the “how to” questions would not have beenillustrated in class for all to see. Second, because only a handful ofparticipants completed the questions, the team was able to identify thosepersons and ask them to volunteer to demonstrate their search strategies.To everyone’s amazement, each volunteer used a different search strategy,which illustrated Search Now’s potential as a versatile search tool. Finally,many of the volunteers tended to make the searches much more intricatethan initially intended. For example, some tried to make federated searcheswork; however, moving to a specific database would have been moreefficient. This was an advantageous way to emphasize the benefit ofchoosing the right tool for the job.

These unexpected training outcomes, in addition to staff requests,helped to shape the remainder of the training process. Staff were learningbetter from each other and examples rather than from the trainers alone.Therefore, additional sharing sessions were conducted to compliment theone-on-one and hands-on classroom training sessions.

Training evolved from introductory trainer-led sessions to sharingsessions and ultimately, what we discovered to be a community of practiceapproach to training.

As mentioned, the new and simple search interface on the homepagewas designed to help patrons help themselves. But what about situationsin which patrons have access to “expert” assistance from library staff? Forexample, how should staff guide patrons during reference transactions andduring class sessions? Should staff instruct patrons to use the federatedsearch option or should they direct patrons to specific databases? Theanswer always comes back to the user’s information need and searchpreferences. These scenarios required the IS team to remind staff notto forget to determine the patron’s need first before selecting a searchtool.

Therefore, while staff learned the basic features of Search Now, theywere also asked to consider how different patrons might use the toolsaccording to their needs. At this point, sharing sessions in which staffcould share basic tips rather than “being trained” was much more useful.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:19

29

Oct

ober

201

4


In these final debriefing sessions, staff and trainers shared tips suchas:

Search Now: Articles/Books (Federated Search) Strengths

• Best for non-complex research questions• Best for patrons with little time or interest in learning multiple

databases• Best for database discovery (for both novice and advanced users)• Best gateway to more specialized databases for patrons unfamiliar

with the Library’s database and e-journal subscriptions• Helpful for cross-disciplinary searches

Search Now: Indexes/Databases (Individual Database Searching)Strengths

• Best for complex research questions (multiple concepts and limits)• Best for comprehensive literature searches• Best for narrowly focused, subject-specific searches

When at the reference desk

• Try not to be preoccupied with teaching all the intricacies of thesoftware

• The existence of this tool on a library’s website does not replace theneed for an effective reference interview

• Library staff must still practice the art of deciphering the patron’sinformation need and should always recommend the most appropriateinformation resource based on that need

As the authors discovered, training sessions will undoubtedly need tofocus on federated searching “how-tos,” but it should also be emphasized(repeatedly) that federated searching will not always be the right tool touse. This type of contextual approach to training focuses on the patronfirst and the how-to teaching of the federated search software second. Thegoal of training is not to make the librarian an expert meta-searcher, butrather a more nuanced researcher; one who can effectively choose fromall the available search tools to best address the needs of a diverse usercommunity. As staff began to realize how and when to utilize certain toolsaccording to user needs, this information was shared in multiple ways toaccommodate different learning styles and to help bring everyone on the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:19

29

Oct

ober

201

4


same page. Over time, a community of practice naturally developed as staffcontinued to share their knowledge and skills with each other.

LESSONS LEARNED

The following lessons learned highlight the most important experiencesthat the IS team encountered, which might be relevant to large academiclibraries that choose to implement and train for a new federated searchsoftware. At TAMU Libraries, a community of learners developed, moreor less unexpectedly, and the following lessons learned might work evenbetter using a community of practice approach from the start.

Be Cognizant of Different Learning Styles

Staff will more easily adapt to using a federated software product ifthey have the opportunity to learn in a way that best suits their learningstyle. Further, catering to multiple learning styles throughout the processprovides good models for staff to fine-tune and use in class, as well asduring reference interactions.

Some strategies TAMU Libraries found successful for addressingdifferent learning styles include:

For Kinesthetic Learners

• Hands-on training with computers and discussion-based feedback toquestions and experiences

• Problem-based learning For example, demonstrate or ask differentvolunteers to share their answers to practice questions in order tocompare search strategies

• 1-on-1 training for specific questions and concerns outside class• Pre-class assignments in which questions are answered in subsequent

training sessions

For Auditory/Visual Learners

• Provide supporting documentations with detailed screen shots andexplanations

• Provide an overview of the software and its application• Provide online video tutorials with screen shots that demon-

strate key software features with an audio component

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:19

29

Oct

ober

201

4


For example, saving citations to endnote or creating customized setsof databases

• Provide an overview of the new software at initial sessions; introducekey features, the benefits of the change, and the lessons learned fromusability testing

For Motivational Learners

• Provide opportunities for staff to use their new skills and knowledgeFor example, schedule faculty workshops and invite the library facultyand staff to teach the software features to their departments

For Peer-to-Peer Learning

• Facilitate tips and tricks sessions with trainers in which all participantscan contribute search tips and software features they have discovered

• Adopt an open communication system to share concerns, insights,and problems (e.g., blogs, helpdesk service, regular e-mails)

• Keep an open door policy, expect to be available for in-officeassistance, and recruit early adopters to be available to help theirpeers

It’s Not Always about the Technology

As TAMU Libraries discovered, adding a federated search componentcan cause some anxiety for staff members who, quite naturally, seethemselves as experienced and skilled database searchers. Some may feela loss of control as they move from being a master of specific databases toa novice federated searcher. The IS team learned that most of the anxietyand resistance actually centered around when to use federated searchingas a tool rather than how to use federated searching as a tool. As a trainer,consider the need to not only teach staff new search skills, but also howto help develop new search habits and approaches. Be sensitive to staffperceptions and concerns as they work their way through this process ofchange. Sometimes the psychological dimension that comes with learninga new skill can easily be overlooked if trainers focus too much on thetechnology.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:19

29

Oct

ober

201

4


Everyone Doesn’t Have to Know Everything . . . Develop aShared Approach to Learning Among Trainers, Librarians,Staff, and Patrons

Federated searching is not meant to be a one-size-fits-all expert searchsystem. Librarians, staff, and ultimately, patrons will utilize it differentlyaccording to their background knowledge, needs, and comfort levels.Therefore, training sessions should be fluid and allow everyone to feelcomfortable with the software without the expectation that every littledetail and trick will be taught and absorbed. Allow the questions andissues that arise during training sessions to direct the course of learningover time.

Involve staff (and patrons, if possible) in each step of the training process,from planning to training. Write this into the training program goals andobjectives and find concrete ways to involve everyone. This is absolutelynecessary to ensure that the trainers are not the only federated searchexperts in the room by the end of the training process. Hopefully, staff willfeel confident enough to share their learned knowledge with patrons andeach other as they continue to discover more of the subtleties of federatedsearching.

Some strategies that the IS team discovered while developing a sharedapproach to training include:

• Solicit feedback from staff prior to training sessions. Ask them forinput on what to cover, methods of delivery, and any general concerns.

• Solicit feedback after each session. Use the feedback to help modifyand prepare for future training sessions.

• Schedule time between training sessions, try not to rush staff throughthe process. Teach staff the basics and then allow them enough time toexperiment and teach themselves between sessions.

• Follow up “basic training sessions” with facilitated “tips and tricks”sessions so staff can return and teach each other newly discoveredtechniques. This way the trainers fade into the background and thegroup’s collective experience and wisdom lead the class.

Move Toward a Community of Practice

As Stuckly noted, a community of practice is “a group of people whoare developing a shared way of doing things” and asserted that learning is“fundamentally social” (1998, 171). By naturally moving toward a shared

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:19

29

Oct

ober

201

4


approach to teaching and learning, we set the foundation for our communityof practice.

Beyond the specifics of training, the IS team strove to create anenvironment in which the opportunity for sharing and open communicationwas possible. Success at TAMU Libraries transpired by fostering anenvironment in which:

• it is safe for people to not have to know everything;• it is okay to ask questions and seek help;• it is expected that everyone has an active role to play in their own

learning; and• it is expected that everyone has an active role in teaching others.

Trainers can help foster such an environment by being good role models.Model the very skills and behaviors staff need to develop. For example,tips and tricks sessions imply that the collective knowledge of the group isjust as important, if not more important, than the individual knowledge ofthe trainers.

In a community of practice, sharing is the key component, and diligenceis required to keep communication flowing to all members. Have anopen-door policy for easy communication and devise multiple meansof communicating with all participants (trainers, staff, and the technicalexperts). For example, TAMU Libraries may have benefited from creatinga blog to share updates, the latest software changes, tips and tricks, andother important information. Alternatively, facilitate regular e-mail updatesand reports to departments and committees to disseminate information.

In addition, keep communication lines open between the technicalsupport staff and the public service staff. If possible, schedule regulardebriefing sessions for all parties. Invite the technical support staff toattend the training sessions to help answer technical questions. This alsogives them the opportunity to see and hear how staff and patrons are usingthe new software. Finally, implement an easy-to-use help-desk system fortechnical problems and teach staff how to use it to report and track technicalproblems and suggestions for improvements.

Know Your Audience and Be Prepared to Change Things Up

A community of practice model involves some risk taking on the part oftrainers and trainees. Knowing the audience and being open to and preparedfor change in the classroom can help manage the risks. Keep an open mindbefore, during, and after the training process and work hard to understand

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:19

29

Oct

ober

201

4


staff and patron concerns. For example, during the beta testing, the IS teamhelped prepare for staff training by introducing students to Search Nowduring library classes. Simultaneously, the team actively monitored theconcerns and fears floating around the library environment. These earlyinteractions helped to shape the training sessions and in some cases quellstaff fears and misconceptions about how patrons might react to this newservice. At one of the first training sessions, many concerns surfaced aboutthe software overshadowing the importance of individual databases forexpert searching; however, the trainers were able to provide a contraryexample from usability testing in which a graduate student immediatelypraised the federated search engine as a great database discovery tool. Priorto her usability test session she was unaware of one of the key databasesin her field of study and had never encountered it on the libraries’ websiteeven after numerous visits and searches using the old search system.

In addition to listening and understanding the audience, always beprepared for a training session, but not overly prepared. Overpreparationdiminishes some aspects of the community of practice and runs the risk ofkeeping training sessions too scripted and therefore inflexible.

Last, when managing risk in a community of practice, accept the notionthat not everything will proceed as expected, and do not worry if thegroup does not immediately form a cohesive whole. A good trainer canonly encourage staff to actively participate in the learning process, butultimately, “knowing depends on engagement and practice. Being taught todo something is not the same as being engaged with the task and practicingit” (Stuckly 1998, 171). Lay the foundation, help build the community ofpractice, and then step back and have faith that staff will support each otheralong the way.

If You Think You’ve Done Enough Training, You ProbablyHaven’t

View the first round of training as a stepping-stone and be prepared toreinforce, review, and reformat the process with additional sessions afterthe software goes live. Upon completion of training, not all staff will feelimmediately ready to teach it to the general public. When the softwaregoes live, even if staff feel comfortable with the software, they cannotpredict faculty and student reactions, despite how much the new service isadvertised. At this point in the process additional support becomes crucial;make an effort to recruit the early adopters to team-teach in classes andat the reference desk. Again, foster a community of practice in which

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:19

29

Oct

ober

201

4


all persons feel comfortable enough to learn at their own pace. Planto hold additional tips and tricks sessions as needed and use them tocirculate feedback from patrons to the group. As a group, reevaluate yourinitial assumptions and assessments about user perspectives and searchpreferences, and identify any changes that need to be made to the currentteaching model.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of federated search software provides the opportu-nity for trainers to create a learning community in which all staff can cometogether to share experiences and to learn new skills from one another.While any change in service will definitely require “how-to” staff training,the IS team realized federated searching ultimately asked staff to changetheir search habits and expand their thinking to include new search tools tohelp answer the information needs of patrons. To ensure success, trainersmust engage participants in a facilitated process in which they are activeparticipants in their own learning to teach themselves and their peers newhabits and to enhance the group’s overall search expertise.

REFERENCES

Baer, W. 2004. Federated searching friend or foe? C&RL News 65(9):518–519.Cox, A. 2005. What are communities of practice? A Comparative review of four seminal

works. Journal of Information Science 31(6\0):527–540.Helfer, D. S. and J. Choi Wakimoto. 2005. Metasearching: The Good, the bad,

and the ugly of making it work in your library. Searcher 13(2): 40–41. Aca-demic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=16014814&site=ehost-live. (accessed December 16, 2007).

McCaskie, L. 2004. What are the implications for information literacy training inhigher education with the introduction of federated search tools? Master thesis, Uni-versity of Sheffield. http://dagda.shef.ac.uk/dissertations/2003–04/External/McCaskieLucy MALib.pdf (accessed December 16, 2007).

Pollack, M. September, 2005. Class dismissed. Library Journal 130: 2–6.Stuckly, S. 1998. Lessons in learning. Education + Training 40(4):170–172.Terrell, J. 2004. Cross-database searching: Information literacy for the ‘real world’?

Paper presented at the annual International Lifelong Learning Conference, June13–16, Yeppoon, Australia. http://lifelonglearning.cqu.edu.au/2004/papers/terrell-133-paper.pdf (accessed December 16, 2007).

Zimmerman, D. 2004. Metasearching’s teaching moments. Library Journal 129(14):54.Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=trade&db=a9h&AN14367979&site=ehost-live. (accessed December 16, 2007).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:19

29

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Preparing Staff for Federated Searching: A Community of Practice Approach