February 2, 2003
Beth Woodard, John Weible, Jim Remington, Michael Norman, Sue Searing, Susie Duncan, and Diana Walter
Cindy Kelly, Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, and Helen Sullivan
1. Introductions of committee members
2. Review Charge
The committee members reviewed the charge to the committee. Anyone who has suggestions for changing the charge should send a group email to the committee members to start the discussion.
3. Strategic Plan
Although the Library Administration has appointed a coordinator and an advisory committee, training will still continue to be partially a responsibility of the individual units. The committee proceeded to discuss the difficulties of creating a system that would implement shared training responsibilities. The committee suggested that training responsibilities be written into job responsibilities.
In addition, the committee was concerned that there may be tension among units as to where training responsibilities lie.
Diana felt there were two problems when training students: 1) training students who begin their term during mid-semester, and 2) finding training locations.
The committee also discussed the practice of formal versus informal training. Sue prompted the group to think about when and how individuals learn from the point of need and how and when informal training occurs.
4. Training activities reported in Unit annual reports
The committee briefly reviewed a list of the training activities that had been reported by individual units in their 2001-2002 annual reports. The committee will discuss this listing at a future time.
The committee decided that the first step for creating a successful training program will be initiating a needs assessment. In addition to the needs assessment, the group felt that immediate training should also take place. In other words, this group can’t concentrate exclusively on assessing needs without actually conducting any this semester. Training in training techniques is also critical. The committee felt that it should be open to change in that it is going through an experimental stage and that assessment of its actions will be ongoing.
The committee discussed the scope of its duties. John suggested that the committee focus more on full time staff and less on student workers. Sue stated that undergraduate workers are the front line service staff of the library. Beth recommended that the committee create a few broad training opportunities for the student workers, such as circulation and service policies, in order to give them some basic training.
The committee also discussed if other units would be willing to adhere to the training advice the committee would ultimately be giving. The committee felt that it was an entity that would provide the mechanisms to those who wish to become trainers. It was suggested that a subcommittee should be developed to take on this task.
The group decided upon several immediate goals: the development of an interactive training calendar, registration software, and a staff training website that would include links to both in library and on campus training opportunities. In addition, informal discussion opportunities will be created. These opportunities would allow others to share best practices and tips that would be of benefit to others. The committee also discussed the possibility of creating an individual mentor program.
6. Responsibilities statement
Beth will draft a library-wide responsibilities statement on training and submit it to the committee for review via email.
7. Needs assessment
The committee reviewed the needs assessment tool Beth has provided. Further discussion of the needs assessment will occur at the next meeting.
8. Identifying internal trainers
The committee will first identify obvious trainer candidates, and then review the needs assessment to further identify individuals who are interested in training. The committee will also identify skill areas in which there is a lack of trainers, and then invite interested individuals to participate as trainers.