Summary of the survey

conducted by

TSIG RDA Training Needs Assessment Working Group

Survey designed: 2009/2010

Survey administered: April-June 2010

Survey summary: prepared by Chris Oliver; opinions and inferences in this summary do not represent conclusions reached by the Working Group.

Purpose of the survey:

(1) to assess the level of awareness about RDA and to provide an opportunity for Canadian library and information services staff to suggest content and priorities for RDA training

(2) to gather information from staff in Canadian libraries and information organizations about their experiences and preferences with different training methods, especially the level of familiarity with different types of web training; to discover whether there are training methods to which people react negatively.

Background

RDA: Resource Description and Access (RDA) is the new cataloguing standard that will replace the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR)1. AACR has been the cataloguing standard in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, the United States and many other countries around the world for the past thirty years. Library and Archives Canada, the British Library, Library of Congress and the National Library of Australia are working towards a coordinated implementation of RDA. Implementation is expected to take place in 2011.

The transition from AACR to RDA will require a fundamental re-orientation in the way library staff, especially cataloguing staff, approach the function of describing resources and creating access to them. The release of RDA is not the release of a revised standard. The changes go beyond a set of

1 RDA website: http://www.rda-jsc.org/rda.html

August 25, 2010 1

new guidelines. RDA represents a paradigm shift in the understanding of the cataloguing process. The key to understanding RDA is the fact that it is built upon a conceptual framework expressed in the models known as FRBR and FRAD, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records2, and Functional Requirements for Authority Data3. This framework enables a more consistent and effective treatment of bibliographic data, whether traditional resources such as books and journals, or new digital resources such as databases and web pages. Thus, implementation will not just be a question of imparting information about new instructions. Implementation must also communicate this deepened understanding of the structure of bibliographic data, and communicate a new approach to a traditional activity.

Training must cover both the new theoretical framework as well as the content of the new guidelines. The information collected through this survey is intended to help shape the Canadian implementation plan. The Technical Services Interest Group of the Canadian Library Association is intending to play a role during RDA implementation in terms of proposing training plans, providing and/or disseminating training documentation, and organizing training opportunities.

The chief purpose of the survey was to gather data to inform decisions related to RDA training in Canada. As training plans and documents are being developed, it will be useful to have a picture of Canadian training experiences and the methods of training preferred by Canadian cataloguers. The information collected from the Canadian cataloguing community is intended to influence decisions about the delivery of training, the number of training options available, and the order in which training modules are presented.

From the introduction to the survey:

Your feedback about training experiences and RDA training needs will provide important background information. There will be moments when decisions about alternatives must be made. While it may not be possible to honour everyone's preferences, the information we collect from the Canadian cataloguing community may influence decisions about the delivery and content of RDA training.

The survey also provided an opportunity to assess the level of awareness about RDA, and an opportunity for Canadian library staff to communicate their highest priorities in terms of RDA training.

Investigators

2 Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report / IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. München: K.G. Saur, 1998. Available on the IFLA web site at: http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf3 Functional Requirements for Authority Data: A Conceptual Mode / IFLA Working Group on Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR). Final text is in the process of being prepared for publication.

August 25, 2010 2

The survey was carried out by TSIG RDA Training Needs Assessment Working Group. The members of the group were:

Investigators:Alison Hitchens, University of Waterloo ahitchen@uwaterloo.caBrian Rountree, Red River College brountree@rrc.mb.caChris Oliver, McGill University chris.oliver@mcgill.caMarianne Reid, Brandon University reidm@brandonu.caTrina Grover, Ryerson University tgrover@gwemail.ryerson.ca

Liaison with the Executive of the Technical Services Interest Group:Marcia Salmon, York University msalmon@yorku.ca

All investigators in the group received approval from the ethics review board at their respective institutions.

Methodology

The research was conducted using an online survey. Participants received an email invitation to participate in the survey. The email message gave a quick overview of the purpose of the survey and identified who was conducting the survey. It included a link to the cover letter and to the survey on the Survey Monkey website. The cover letter gave more details about the purpose and context of the research, as well as underlining the measures taken to protect the anonymity of participants’ responses.

The survey questions were developed through a group decision process. Since Chris Oliver was on sabbatical from Sept. 1st, 2009, she had the time to develop the draft design and draft questions. The members of the group provided feedback, honed the questions, reviewed design and structure, revised wording, etc. The members of the group also tested the survey, acting as the preliminary pretest group. Then three additional librarians, who were familiar both with RDA and with the aims of the group, were asked to pretest the survey and give comments. Again, more changes were made in response to the feedback.

Two members of the group, M. Reid and C. Oliver, consulted with Prof. Glenn Cockerline from Brandon University about the design of survey questionnaires. His advice and his recommended readings influenced the final design of the survey.

When the group reached consensus on the design of the survey and the content of the questions, a small official group of pre-testers was identified and asked to take the survey. The survey was

August 25, 2010 3

attached to a new pre-test data collector. The pre-testers were also invited to submit email comments about the survey questions, especially noting problems with the clarity of the questions, the appropriateness of categories, etc. Nine pre-testers were asked to participate. One declined due to heavy work commitments. The other eight responded by completing the survey; three also submitted comments. The pre-testers included librarians and technicians, staff from academic, public and school libraries, and different areas of Canada.

While the survey was being developed, there were changes in the timeline for the release of RDA. When work began on the survey, the date of release was expected to be November 2009, but this date was changed to May/June 2010. To ensure a good response rate, participants needed to feel that RDA training was something important and urgent. RDA had to be on the horizon. The survey was put on hold for several months. Invitations to participate were sent in April 2010.

Privacy and Informed consent

The data was collected using Survey Monkey, the professional version. The online survey did not collect any identifying data so we have no link between the individual participant and their response. Access to the survey results is password protected. Only the principal investigator and the co-investigators have access to the raw data. The raw data is protected so that it cannot be inadvertently accessed by someone outside the investigating group.

Participation in the survey was voluntary. Respondents received an e-mail inviting them to complete the questionnaire, with links to the survey and to a cover letter. In the cover letter, the purpose and context of the research were explained, as well as underlining the commitment to maintain the anonymity of their answers.

From the cover letter:

The online survey tool does not collect any information that personally identifies you. Your answers will be completely anonymous. In addition, we will carefully review the findings before reporting them, to ensure that the findings do not identify any individual respondents.

Your participation is entirely voluntary. Submitting the completed survey will constitute your consent to participate. The questionnaire is only submitted when you click on the final “Done” button. If you decide to begin the questionnaire and then change your mind, you may simply close the tab or window. Your results will not be recorded. Your results are recorded only when you click the “Done” button on the last screen.

Selection of participants

August 25, 2010 4

Target population: Canadian library staff, and staff from other types of Canadian information organizations, who catalogue or create other types of metadata (such as metadata for institutional repositories). They may catalogue as a full time responsibility or as a part time responsibility.

The survey was aimed at assessing the experiences and perceived needs within the Canadian context. Thus, there was limited recruitment using e-mail lists. The email lists that were used were specific lists with a targeted Canadian audience, such as provincial and regional library associations, consortiums, the Technical Services Interest Group list, the listserv of the Canadian Committee on Cataloguing (members of CCC represent the major cataloguing constituencies in Canada).

Response rates from email distribution of surveys are reported in the literature as usually being low. Thus, the group did not intend to use email distribution as the principal way to deliver the survey. The principal way was delivery of the survey to identified individuals. There were two strategies used: 1) compile a list of the names and emails of staff involved with metadata creation in Canada, monitoring for a balanced representation from different types of institutions, different sizes, urban and rural, as well as representing all the provinces and territories (we used a variety of sources of information to compile the list); 2) include in the email invitation a special request addressed to team leaders, managers or supervisors, asking them to forward the survey to members of their staff who would be interested in providing feedback.

To ensure a wide range of representation, the first page of the survey asked questions that identified the type of library, the broad geographical area, the respondent’s responsibilities, etc. During the survey, results were monitored to ensure that responses were received from a sufficiently wide range of types and places. If responses seemed to over-represent one group, such as academic libraries, the intention was to generate additional invitations in order to balance out the representation. However, there was no need to supplement with additional invitations. For example, respondents from university libraries were 23% of the sample, from public libraries 25%, from school libraries 12%, etc. In addition, the volume of participation was greater than expected, with 487 responses and 358 completed responses. The invitations said that the survey would end on May 7th, but participants continued to respond after that date. The survey was left open until the end of June, after responses had ceased.

The survey was completed at the participant’s convenience. There was no financial compensation. Since the results will contribute to shaping the Canadian RDA training plan, by participating in the survey, the participant contributed to the improvement of training for all affected library staff, thus accruing a benefit for the Canadian cataloguing community, and for themselves, as a member of that community.

August 25, 2010 5

Results of the survey

The Respondents

Responses have been filtered to include only the results from the completed surveys.

Total started 487

Total completed 358

About the respondents:

For 55.9% of the respondents, cataloguing or metadata creation is at least 75% of position responsibilities (including the supervision of cataloguing). For the remaining respondents, the other areas of responsibility were predominantly public services, acquisitions and collection development.

Librarians/Technicians

The survey should perhaps have used the term “technician/paraprofessional”, rather than just “paraprofessional”. The question included the possibility of an open-ended answer. Most of the responses in the open-ended answer section can be considered as part of the “paraprofessional” category.

Responses Adjusted to remove technicians from “other”

Librarians 47.6% 47.6%

Paraprofessionals 32.7% 45.6%

Other 19.7% 6.8% directors archivists managers, etc

The survey also inquired about the use of manuals and documentation and whether respondents have access to print and online, online only or print only. For cataloguing standards, such as AACR2

August 25, 2010 6

and MARC 21, 56% use a combination of print and online sources. For cataloguing procedures, training documents and ILS documentation, respondents also mostly use a combination of print and online sources, but the percentage is lower: percentage is in the high 30s (39%, 36%, 35%). It is only when using documentation from their bibliographic utility that the majority use online documentation only (40%). The surprising finding was the degree to which documentation sources are not consulted. The exception was cataloguing standards, with only 2.8% reporting that they do not use documentation.

The “not used” category may also include responses when the documentation is not available or not required. If one controls for type of institution, it becomes clear that specialized cataloguing manuals are mostly used in university libraries, but are rarely used in most school and public libraries. Likewise, online tools, such as Cataloger’s Desktop, are used predominantly by staff in university libraries.

When there is access to both print and online documentation, many do prefer online, or use a combination of online and print.

August 25, 2010 7

RDA

In terms of current knowledge of RDA, participants were asked how they acquired this knowledge. They were allowed to check off as many sources as applicable. The percentages are percentage of people who picked this source out of the total pool of respondents. The percentages in this list simply indicate a ranking of the most popular sources of information.

Conference session 32.4%

JSC website 32.1%

Listservs 31.0%

Web presentation 27.1%

Professional journal 27.1%

August 25, 2010 8

Colleague at work 22.9%

Presentation organized by a library association 21.2%

Only 10.9% of respondents answered that they had never heard of RDA. In the comments section, some responded that they had heard of RDA but knew little about it.

It is interesting to note some information gleaned through cross-tabulation. For example, if one looks at the respondents for whom cataloguing is the main responsibility, the percentage who indicated that the JSC website was a source of information rose from 32.1% to 41%. Also, a preconference was a more important source for this group, with 23.5% indicating it as a source of information, as opposed to 17.1% for the whole group of respondents. Preconferences do reach a certain portion of the population, but the full-time cataloguer seems to have more opportunities to attend preconferences. During RDA training, it will be important to offer options for those who catalogue as one of multiple responsibilities. For those who have multiple responsibilities, the sources of information were in a different order of importance: the professional journal was the highest scoring

August 25, 2010 9

source of information, at 31%, followed by conference sessions, 28.5% and listservs, 27.8%, then a colleague at work, 22.8%, JSC website, 20.9%, and web presentations at 19%.

Responses from those for whom cataloguing is their main responsibility (75% or more, including the supervision of cataloguing)

August 25, 2010 10

Responses from those for whom cataloguing is not their main responsibility

Cross-tabulating for type of library, it was interesting to note that the highest number of responses for “Never heard of RDA” came from the school library sector. Of the 10.9% who responded “never heard of RDA”, close to half the responses came from respondents in school libraries, school board libraries, etc. Current information about RDA has not reached this sector as well as the other library sectors, and RDA training plans must include strategies to overcome this lacuna.

The next question was intended to assess the level of knowledge or familiarity with various aspects of RDA. The topics in the question are:

FRBR, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic DataFRAD, Functional Requirements for Authority DataICP, International Cataloguing PrinciplesFRBR Group 1 entities: work, expression, manifestation, itemTalking about resource description in terms of entities, attributes and relationships

August 25, 2010 11

User tasksThe development of RDAOverview of RDACore elementsDifferences between RDA and AACR2Replacing the general material designation (GMD) with the 3 RDA elements: content type, media type, carrier typeNew elements with no equivalent in AACR2

As expected, the topics that have been most frequently presented are the ones with which people are most familiar: overview of RDA, development of RDA, FRBR, talking about resource description in terms of entities, attributes and relationships.

Since FRAD was just published in 2009, it is not surprising that the overall level of familiarity is not high. At the time of the survey, RDA had only been seen in draft form, so it is expected that

August 25, 2010 12

participants would not be very familiar with new RDA elements for which there was no equivalent in AACR2. However, it is surprising to note the low level of familiarity with user tasks, especially when familiarity with FRBR is fairly high.

The simple bar chart (above) gives one a quick view of the most familiar topics, but it does not show the level of familiarity with each topic, or where participants responded “never heard of it.”

In this more detailed version of the chart, one also sees the level of familiarity. For those preparing training, this chart presents some interesting information. For example, if one compares the results for FRBR and user tasks, one would expect that there would be a correlation between the two topics since they are inextricably bound together. The chart shows an overall fairly high level of familiarity with FRBR, if one looks at the combined total responses for the three categories: very familiar, somewhat familiar, have heard of it. This result is quite different from the results for “user tasks”. However, if one compares the scores looking only at the category “very familiar”, then the

August 25, 2010 13

differences between knowledge of FRBR and knowledge of user tasks disappear. Those who have become very familiar with FRBR are also very familiar with the user tasks. But those who are somewhat familiar with FRBR do not have a matching level of familiarity with the user tasks. If one compares familiarity with FRBR and familiarity with “talking about resource description in terms of entities, attributes and relationships”, the differences are less pronounced than between FRBR and user tasks.

In terms of topics with which participants were totally unfamiliar (“never heard of it”), the highest scoring topic was “user tasks”, followed by “new RDA elements with no equivalent in AACR2”, followed by FRAD. If one omits “user tasks”, the low scoring topics in the category “very familiar” match with the high scoring topics for “never heard of it”:

Lowest score “very familiar” Highest score “never heard of it”

new RDA elements new RDA elementsFRAD FRAD

Knowledge of user tasks seems to be the anomaly. Knowledge of user tasks does not correlate with knowledge of FRBR. For a topic that is not particularly new, knowledge of user tasks has a surprisingly low score. It would be expected that “new RDA elements with no equivalent in AACR2” would have a low score because it has recently become a topic with the publication of RDA in 2010. User tasks have been discussed since the publication of FRBR in 1998. The survey findings seem to indicate that more attention needs to be paid to the user tasks when explaining RDA.

If one cross-tabulates to compare the degree of familiarity with these topics depending whether a respondent’s main responsibility is cataloguing or not, not surprisingly, those for whom cataloguing is a main responsibility responded more frequently that they were familiar or had heard these topics mentioned.

It is interesting to see the differences in knowledge between respondents for who cataloguing is a full-time responsibility and those from whom cataloguing was not a main responsibility.4 These differences are important to keep in mind when designing the content of training resources. For the part-time cataloguers, the topics with which they were the least familiar are those with the highest scoring answer for “never heard of it”: FRBR, FRAD, group 1 entities, user tasks and new elements with no equivalent in AACR2. For this same group of respondents, the highest scoring answer for “have heard it mentioned” was for these topics: ICP, development of RDA, overview of RDA, core elements, differences between RDA and AACR2, replacing the GMD. The one surprising result for this group was the topic “talking about resource description in terms of entities, attributes and 4 For simplicity, these groups will be called “full-time cataloguers” and “part-time cataloguers” for the rest of this discussion.

August 25, 2010 14

relationships.” For this topic, the highest scoring answer was for the category “somewhat familiar”. The score for “somewhat familiar” was 36.5%, and for “have heard of it”, 34.6%.

For most of the topics in this section, full-time and part-time cataloguers had different scores for the different categories. But for ICP, both full-time and part-time cataloguers put “have heard it mentioned” as the predominant answer. And as just mentioned, for the topic “talking about resource description in terms of entities, attributes and relationships,” both groups answered “somewhat familiar” as the predominant response.

The next question asked respondents to rate the RDA topics that they considered most important. The topics are a bit different from the topics in the previous question, because the topics in this question are topics that may be covered during training (as opposed to the topics in the previous question which were topics that have been discussed and presented during the RDA development phase). However, there is a lot of overlap between the two lists (see appendix).

Background of RDA’s developmentFRBR and FRAD modelsRelationship to ISBD and ICPShort and long term impact on resource discoveryNew RDA vocabulary and conceptsRDA structureSimilarities between RDA and AACR2Differences between RDA and AACR2New and changed instructionsMapping between RDA elements and MARC 21Using RDA with Dublin CoreNavigating the RDA online product (i.e. Toolkit)Customizing the RDA online productNational libraries application profile

August 25, 2010 15

Again, the simple bar chart gives a quick view of the most important topics, but due to the nature of the four categories available for each answer, it fails to convey nuanced information. For example, “background of RDA development” is the topic with the lowest score in the chart above. However, in the chart below, it scores low as an important topic, but very high as a useful topic. This nuance is important, as will be seen in the section below, Using the survey data.

August 25, 2010 16

The next question used the same topics but asked respondents to rate the topics in terms of importance for library staff who do not catalogue:

August 25, 2010 17

In terms of shaping training plans and modules, looking at a combination of the categories “useful” and “very important” gives a picture of where to place priorities.

Open-ended comments about RDA training and implementation

The section on RDA concluded with the question: When you look ahead to RDA training and implementation, do you have concerns or questions? 213 people responded yes (62.1%) and 209 did submit comments about areas of concern. A few concerns were voiced earlier, with participants using the option of “Other, please specify” as a means to convey their concerns. However, this was the question that was intended to elicit comments and concerns, and it did draw a broad range of answers.

There were two predominant areas of concern: training and implementation.

There were 124 comments that explicitly mentioned training as an issue, and within those comments there was a widespread concern about the availability of sufficient training before implementation. There were also questions, such as under whose auspices will training take place, who will train and

August 25, 2010 18

when, how much time will training take, will there be training geared for beginners and for advanced cataloguers and the cost of training. Nine comments made the suggestion that online training materials be developed.

Some comments also proposed topics and training approaches:

Need to know how RDA will affect my public library and the cataloguing work I do. Will the entire catalogue need an overhaul?

I want some concrete, hands-on training on how to catalogue actual library materials using RDA so I can sit down and see how I'll have to change how I catalogue and retrieve items when RDA is implemented.

There were 28 responses where the concern was phrased as a concern about the learning process, about the steep learning curve, about how much has to be learned. These comments may not include the word “training” but can be seen as an expression of concern about a specific aspect of the learning/training process. If one puts together comments about training and learning curve, 152 of the 209 comments (73%) are in the area of training.

There were also several comments (18 comments) that expressed a concern about the change from AACR2 to RDA, in terms of explaining to their colleagues, enlisting administrative support, understanding the nature of the impact on the catalogue and on their work. Though not voiced as a concern with training, these are obviously topics that need to be addressed in a training plan. There will need to be detailed training for cataloguers, but there should also be training material geared for the non-cataloguers, for administrators, system librarians, and public services staff. If one adds these comments, then the number of comments about training rises to 162, i.e., 77% (adding 10 of the comments because 8 of the 18 also talked about training and so are already counted).

The other area of concern was the area of implementation. There were 53 comments5 that mentioned implementation concern: whether ILS vendors will make the necessary changes to support RDA implementation, what will be the impact on the existing catalogue, what MARC 21 changes need to be made, the compatibility of AACR2 records and RDA records. Another topic that was mentioned frequently was the consistent application of RDA (11 comments). This concern demonstrates that some respondents are quite familiar with RDA, know about the number of options and alternatives offered in the standard and are already planning how to implement. Likewise, a couple of comments mentioned rule interpretations and policy statements from the national libraries, again indicating a high level of awareness in terms of preparing for implementation.

5 Most comments mentioned several topics, so the number of comments must be understood as overlapping with the training comments.

August 25, 2010 19

One topic that also recurred was the fear that there would be parallel AACR2 and RDA records. These respondents did not seem to be aware of the compatibility between AACR2 and RDA records, and that RDA records can co-exist in the same database as AACR2 records. There is an urgent need to address this topic during training.

The timeline for implementation was another important topic. Many comments indicated uncertainty about the timing of implementation. Some were not aware of the plan to have a long gap between the release of RDA and its implementation in 2011.

It is difficult to know how many of the comments about cost are related to the cost of training, the cost of the Toolkit, or the total cost of implementation. 23 comments mentioned a concern with costs, and only a few were explicit about the type of cost. The comments that were explicit mentioned the cost of the online product, the cost of making the change in their institution, the cost of training staff, and the cost of developing new documentation. The other comments just put the word “cost”.

Five comments mentioned an uncertainty about whether their institution would be adopting RDA. Nine people commented that they did not know enough about RDA to make any comments or to ask questions.

Comments can always be interpreted in different ways, especially since some comments were cryptically short. The impression I had from the comments was of a cataloguing community that was willing to move ahead with RDA implementation but where the level of knowledge varied greatly. The comments gave many insights about topics that need to be addressed in the training process, and also highlight the need for timely information in certain areas before training begins: implementation timelines, changes that databases and catalogues may require, availability of training.

In a couple of comments, respondents thanked the survey group for carrying out the survey and thinking ahead to the training and implementation stages.

Training Experiences

In terms of making decisions about how to deliver training, it was important to know about training experiences. The most common training experiences are solo (staff member trains themselves) and small group (5 or less), with solo training being the most prevalent. Most of the respondents rarely have the opportunity to attend face-to-face training sessions at other institutions or conferences. The one exception was the occasional opportunity to attend a conference within the province.

August 25, 2010 20

In terms of sources for training, there continues to be a heavy reliance on self-directed reading of manuals and documentation. 46.8% use this type of training 4 or more times a year, with 32.2% using it between 1 and 3 times a year, for a total of 79%.

Extract from the survey data: most common types of training:

4 times/yr 1-3 times/yr

Reading documents, manuals, etc. 46.8% 32.2% 79%

Viewing PowerPoints or other visual training resources 27.3% 38.9% 66.2%

Informal oral instructions from supervisor 26.3% 31.9% 58.2%

In person training: in a group 11.5% 38.4% 49.9%

Online webinar (audience can ask questions and comment) 14% 38.4% 52.4%

The survey asked about two types of online webinars: ones with audience participation and ones without. Thus, in looking at online webinars, it is interesting to look at the survey results for both

August 25, 2010 21

types of webinars and to note that the use of online webinars is increasing and becoming a common source for training:

Online webinar (audience can ask questions and comment) 14% 38.4% 52.4%

Online webinar (no audience participation) 8.2% 33.9% 42.1%

The survey results showed that the least used method of training is the online course (45.5% reported “never”), followed by one on one training (38% reported “never”).

Survey respondents were then asked how well they learned with each type of training, separating the learning of new content, such as the content of a cataloguing standard, from the learning of new software. Not surprisingly, one-on-one, in-person training scored the highest as the best learning experience in both categories, with small group in-person training a close second. However, it is interesting to note the combined score of “learned well” and “learned adequately”. One also has to keep in mind “never experienced”.

August 25, 2010 22

These are the results for learning new content:

Learned well Learned total Neveradequately experienced

Reading documents, manuals, etc. 41.1% 54.4% 95.5% 2.3%

Viewing PowerPoints or other visual training resources 27.7% 53.1% 80.8% 13.3%

Prerecorded audiovisual presentations, e.g. PowerPoint with voice-over 18.5% 41.3% 59.8% 33.2%

Informal oral instructions from supervisor 38.8% 36.7% 75.5% 22.2%

In person training: one on one 59.1% 13.5% 72.6% 27.2%

In person training: in a group 55.6% 34.4% 90% 8.6%

Online webinar (audience can ask questions and comment) 26.7% 44.8% 71.5% 23.9%

Online webinar (no audience participation) 10% 47.2% 57.2% 32.6%

Online course 30.3% 25.3% 55.6% 41.5%

In terms of assessing which methods are most likely to yield successful learning outcomes, it is important to keep in mind whether respondents may never have experienced a particular method. Thus, online webinars score significantly lower than reading manuals and documents on one’s own, but only 2.8% have never experienced reading documentation, whereas one quarter to one third of the respondents have never experienced a webinar. Likewise, “informal oral instructions from a supervisor” has a solid score as a learning method, yet 22% have never experienced this method of training. The results outline the respondents’ perceptions of the training methods they favour and also indicate the types of training opportunities that are available. Thus, it is interesting to note that “in person training: one on one” is a highly favoured training method, and yet more respondents had experienced a webinar than had experienced one-on-one training. These results were also supported by a follow-up question that asked about learning experiences in different sizes of training groups. Again, a significant portion of the respondents had never experienced one-on-one training. Not surprisingly, the most favoured training group size was the one-on-one experience, followed by small group training. Individual attention and immediate feedback are seen as useful for the learning process.

The last part of the survey was a series of questions directed at supervisors and those who organize or deliver training. The questions were similar to those already asked. The was to discover whether there would be a difference between the perception of training needs and training experiences depending on whether the individual responded about himself or whether a supervisor/trainer

August 25, 2010 23

responded. These results need more detailed study, but at a quick glance, there are no glaring inconsistencies or changes between the responses.

Looking at the RDA topics, the question was broken down according to the different categories of cataloguing responsibilities: original cataloguing, copy cataloguing, bibliographic searching/acquisitions. The degree to which topics were considered most important varied, but the ranking of topics did not. Thus, in all three categories, the following two RDA topics were considered the most important:

New and changed instructionsNew RDA vocabulary and concepts

The top five topics, with some small variations in their ranking from one group to another:

New and changed instructionsNew RDA vocabulary and conceptsRDA structureDifferences between AACR2 and RDASimilarities between AACR2 and RDA

These topics were also considered very important by the individual respondents at the beginning of the survey. The first four are the same. The one area of difference was that individual respondents put a higher importance on the mapping between RDA elements and MARC 21 encoding than supervisors and trainers did.

The chart for copy cataloguing staff:

August 25, 2010 24

Similarly, supervisors and trainers were asked to rank training experiences of their staff. One of the questions was: Which training methods best suit the learning style of your staff? This question asked the supervisors/trainers to rank according to the degree of suitability for staff: suits most staff (more than 60%), suits some staff (between 20% and 60%), does not suit staff (less than 20%), and never experienced. The results are interesting especially for the category “does not suit staff”. Online webinars may not be a great favourite with staff, i.e., they do not have a high score as suiting most staff; yet they do have a lower rank of “does not suit staff” than other training methods. They are seen as less unsuitable than viewing PowerPoints or asking staff to read documentation on their own.

August 25, 2010 25

Throughout the whole survey, many questions allowed the respondent to add comments. In the comments related to RDA training, many respondents stressed the need for exercises as part of the training material. In the comments related to the success of different training experiences, two recurring themes were interactivity and “hands-on.” The existence of a feedback loop appears to be important, whether the simple ability to ask questions or the more intense small group training exercises.

Using Survey Data

The information from the survey is being used to inform training plans and training content. Tools such as Survey Monkey are very convenient, and offer interesting functionality when analyzing results. It is important to judge how to analyze the data so that important information is not lost.

August 25, 2010 26

For example, if one looks at the question about which topics are most important in preparing oneself for RDA, a simple reading of the results can be misleading. In the first chart, the four categories (very important, helpful, least important, don’t know) are put together into one simple bar:

From this presentation of the data, one would conclude that “background of RDA development” is the least important topic, and therefore the topic can be dropped from training plans and workshops.

If one looks at the more detailed bar chart that tracks the answers for each category, the information gleaned from the survey data is more nuanced. The topic that scores highest as “least important” is the background of RDA development. This topic also scores low as “very important”. However, it does have the highest score as a “useful” topic. Thus, it is not a topic that can be ignored. It does seem to play an important role, and its claim to a place within training plans needs to be considered seriously.

August 25, 2010 27

The following anecdote is not firm data, but supports the need to analyze the data carefully and in the context of the actual answers. When preparing the agenda for a one day workshop on RDA, T. Grover and C. Oliver were attempting to fit a lot of content into seven hours and so decided to experiment with dropping the introductory background presentation. This was fine for the attendees who had previous knowledge of RDA, but there were several people who did not know the background, and their many questions demonstrated that they needed the information about the development of RDA. Grover and Oliver put the introductory background presentation back into the agenda for the subsequent workshop. This workshop also included attendees who had little previous knowledge of RDA, and they seemed to have an easier time absorbing the rest of the content. The other attendees did not express dissatisfaction with a quick twenty minute review of the background.

In this case, it is important to note not just the “very important” and “least important” categories. It is also important to pay attention to the “useful” category. The high score in the “useful” category indicates that RDA background information needs to be a component in a training plan. Some are already well acquainted with RDA’s background and may not need to review this information, but, for those who are not acquainted, starting with the overview and background is an important introduction to RDA and sets the stage for learning RDA content.

August 25, 2010 28

When designing a training plan, one option is to create modules, so that people can pick and choose what they need to learn. For someone who has attended numerous presentations about RDA while it was in the process of being developed, they may not need to review this information and may be able to go directly to the next module.

The Survey’s Impact on Training Plans

The survey has yielded information that can be used to plan RDA training. The survey targeted two areas: knowledge of RDA and training experiences.

The question about the level of current knowledge of RDA underlined the importance of ensuring broad communication about RDA. There were a number of respondents who had not heard of RDA, or who had heard it mentioned but knew little about it. There is information freely available on the web, but simply putting information on the web is insufficient. A Canadian training plan needs to promote knowledge of RDA and ensure that information about RDA reaches all parts of the library community.

There is a wide range of knowledge about RDA, from those who have followed RDA’s development carefully and are ready to move into implementation to those who have heard about it but need to know more. A modular approach means that those with more knowledge do not need to go through the basic steps but can plunge into training at a more advanced stage. Another point that emerges is the need for training resources that target the cataloguer, and training resources that acquaint the non-cataloguers with RDA and its impact.

Information about which RDA topics are seen as most important will inform the design of a training plan. It will also assist in prioritizing the development of training modules. Anomalies in knowledge are useful because they highlight areas that need attention or reveal topics that may not have been presented with sufficient clarity.

In terms of training methods, it is no surprise that the most favoured type is in-person training, either one-on-one or in small groups. However, given the reality of a nation-wide implementation of RDA, one has to look at achievable training goals. These training methods cannot reach a sufficiently large number of people within a concentrated period of time. One recurring concern in the survey results was the availability of training, both in terms of its accessibility and its cost. Some training will be available through traditional conferences or special workshops, but there must be viable alternatives that deliver good quality training for those who cannot afford to come to major city centres. Online training is the way to reach a broad population. There are many ways to support training using web resources, such as making documentation available at public websites and sharing PowerPoint presentations. The web site of the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA has led the way

August 25, 2010 29

in terms of making relevant documents quickly available to the community, and acting as a platform for sharing RDA presentations. Other sites are also stepping in to provide online resources that are geared to training, such as the series of webinars from the Library of Congress, and another from ALCTS.

Using online training material, both documentation and training modules, will be a key component of a Canadian training plan. The survey asked questions that included online training options, and the reason for asking was to judge the level of familiarity with online learning tools, and the degree to which online tools might need to be adapted or designed to be suitable for the community. The survey revealed that there was a degree of experience in using online learning tools, and that respondents felt they did learn either adequately or well. Webinars are still a fairly new method for training, and a quarter of the respondents had not experienced an interactive webinar (i.e. live and with audience participation) whereas most had experienced reading documentation on their own. When supervisors were asked about the suitability of webinars for their staff, again there did not seem to be any problem using webinars, and webinars were seen as more suitable than having a staff member read documentation on their own. The survey supports the use of webinars as a principal method for the delivery of training.

Respondents also highlighted the need to have some form of interaction. For example, when looking at the types of training methods, the live, interactive webinar was preferred to prerecorded options, whether webinars or PowerPoints with voice-over, etc. Similarly, respondents stressed the need for exercises during training. Many requested that training should be “hands-on”. Thus, in designing training, it is important to design and structure modules so that there is scope for some form of interaction. To reinforce learning through interaction is well supported by pedagogical literature. The survey does not change this well-known fact. But the survey underlines the need not to take shortcuts during training. The fact that the need for interaction is mentioned in multiple comments by multiple respondents suggests that some of our library training may skip this aspect. We need to work at building solid knowledge following established pedagogical practices.

Appendix

Comparison of topics in survey questions 2 and 3 about RDA (part 2 of survey):

The development of RDA Background of RDA’s developmentFRBR, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic DataFRAD, Functional Requirements for Authority DataFRBR Group 1 entities: work, expression,

FRBR and FRAD models

August 25, 2010 30

manifestation, itemTalking about resource description in terms of entities, attributes and relationshipsUser tasksICP, International Cataloguing Principles Relationship to ISBD and ICP

Short and long term impact on resource discoveryTalking about resource description in terms of entities, attributes and relationshipsCore elementsReplacing the general material designation (GMD) with the 3 RDA elements: content type, media type, carrier type

New RDA vocabulary and concepts

Overview of RDA RDA structureSimilarities between RDA and AACR2

Differences between RDA and AACR2New elements with no equivalent in AACR2

Differences between RDA and AACR2

New elements with no equivalent in AACR2

New and changed instructions

Mapping between RDA elements and MARC 21Using RDA with Dublin CoreNavigating the RDA online product (i.e. Toolkit)Customizing the RDA online productNational libraries application profile

August 25, 2010 31