| Me, the ILT and - ‘that bloody
form’! NIGEL MORGAN
On March 22nd 2001, I became an ILTM
(Member of the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education).
This is an account of my experience of the application process.
The ILT (1) was launched in June 1999 and is a
professional body for those who teach and/or support learning in the
higher education sector. It was established as a result of recommendations
made in the Dearing Report (1997) (2). Its aims are
manifold. The ILT states on its website that it exists ‘to enhance the
status of teaching, improve the experience of learning and support
innovation’. It also accredits programmes of training in HE teaching and
promotes itself as a source of professional recognition for staff involved
in teaching and learning support.
There are currently two categories of membership: full membership and the
recently introduced associateship. The latter is designed for those who
have a more restricted teaching/learning support role. Staff with 3 years
or more experience are currently able to take advantage of the fast track
‘Initial Entry Route’. Applicants seeking full membership via this route
are required to provide ‘comprehensive evidence’ of practice across five
areas of professional activity. Applicants for associateship must submit
evidence relating to reflective practice/personal development and two
other specified areas.
But is membership of this new organization appropriate for librarians and
information professionals? The answer is definitely yes. It is intended to
be an all-embracing organization for professionals in HE who are actively
supporting learning, not simply a newfangled club for lecturers. Most HE
librarians, particularly those with subject responsibility, are ideally
placed to apply.
I first became aware of the ILT early in 2000. Having checked out the
formidable website, I decided that membership was beyond my reach. Seeing
the online application forms and reading the criteria for the first time
can be very off-putting. I found it difficult to envisage how my
experience within a library environment could be presented in a way which
met the criteria.
However, in summer 2000, a major promotional drive by the ILT brought
Professor Sally Brown, Director of Membership Services, to my workplace.
To an extent, I felt like a ‘fish out of water’ as I sat amongst an
audience of lecturers. One particular lecturer was obviously not expecting
to see a non-lecturing member of staff in attendance. He registered his
surprise by asking whether I still worked in the Library! In contrast,
Professor Brown spoke encouragingly of the inclusive nature of the ILT and
highlighted librarians as a category of staff for whom membership would be
particularly appropriate. Much more needs to be done to encourage
non-lecturing professionals to apply.
By this stage I had decided that I should go for it! I felt that this
would be a natural progression. Although I had recently gained my ALA, I
hoped that ILT membership would give recognition of my achievements in a
more focused and increasingly important aspect of my work - teaching and
instruction.
As Subject Librarian for the schools of Health Science and Leisure and
Tourism, teaching and user education is taking up a greater proportion of
my time. I have seen my role shift from that of traditional information
custodian to that of active teacher, instructor and learning facilitator.
Feeling extremely undervalued on a salary of £13.5k, I needed to get some
proper recognition of my contribution in this field. ILT membership seemed
to offer exactly that. Also, in a sector where librarians are all too
often regarded as second-class professionals, I hoped that it would
enhance my credibility with my lecturing colleagues. My motives were
somewhat egotistical I admit, but I make no apologies for this!
My next step was to attend an internal workshop which offered advice and
support to staff wishing to make an application. However, this was in
essence, a session run by lecturers for lecturers. The workshop leader
conceded that the evidence I would need to provide differed considerably
from that of the lecturers in attendance. Indeed, since it encourages such
a diverse membership, the ILT recognizes that there will be a great
variation in the evidence submitted by applicants. Nevertheless, the
session was valuable as it helped me to focus my ideas.
I now had to get down to the real nitty-gritty of preparing my
application! Many have complained that the forms are cumbersome and
difficult to complete. ‘In my experience’, said a fellow lis-linker, ‘it
was murder filling in that bloody form’. Completing the main form requires
a great deal of thought, careful analysis and honest self-appraisal. It is
divided into five main sections, each with an upper limit of 500 words.
Teaching and the support of learning.
Here applicants are required to indicate the range of teaching and
learning support activities in which they are involved. However, as when
writing a PDR, the applicant needs to critically evaluate his/her
experience as opposed to being purely descriptive. Rather than simply
enumerating my activities, it was necessary to explain why I choose
particular instructional methods and techniques, how they relate to the
needs of learners and how I develop these approaches in the light of
experience. I interpreted the term ‘teaching’ in its broadest sense to
include library induction work, group training sessions and also informal
one-to-one student instruction. It was quite surprising to discover how
much teaching I actually did. As another of my ‘lis-link’ contacts
explained, ‘you tend to just do it without putting it into a box marked
‘teaching’. I also touched upon a range of other activities which fall
under the heading of ‘learning support’. These included the provision of
literature search and enquiry services, the compilation of bibliographies
and guides, and library committee work.
Contribution to the design and planning of learning activities and/or
programmes of study
Here the accreditors are seeking evidence that applicants have a genuine
understanding of the needs of learners and that they are responsive to
those needs by planning and adapting their teaching/training activities
accordingly. I explained that when devising and planning sessions, I take
into account feedback from previous trainees and my observations of their
strengths and weaknesses. I explained the importance of the timing of
training, and the different approaches adopted for group sessions as
opposed to one-to-one tuition. I discussed the use of exercises and
examples in sessions and, to put my role into a broader context, my
contribution to course validation work. I tried to emphasize that my user
education activities are learner-oriented, are planned in a logical
fashion, and that I have identified the aims and objectives of the
training.
Assessment and giving feedback to learners
This was the most problematic section. At first I did not feel that I had
much evidence to report. Like most academic librarians, I am not involved
in formal assessment. But, after giving the matter some thought, I
realized that I provide informal assessment and feedback in all my
training sessions. This may take the form of discussing solutions to
exercises, suggesting more appropriate search strategies or recommending
alternative resources. Indeed, for most of us, although we do not realize
it, giving feedback is an ongoing priority in our day-to-day contact with
our clientele. Again, I interpreted the terms ‘assessment’ and ‘feedback’
in their broadest sense in relation to my experience and working
practices. I explained that the purpose of giving feedback in a library
context is to empower learners, to encourage them to build upon skills
they have acquired to date, to ensure that they make optimum use of the
most appropriate resources and to promote self-reliance.
Developing effective learning environments and support systems
I used this section to highlight additional services and supportive
measures which improve and enrich the learning experience. I briefly
discussed the range of promotional materials and guides which I have
produced in both printed and web-based formats. I touched upon the ways in
which I provide distance support for part-time students and how I ensure
effective two-way communication with learners. I also mentioned ways in
which I liaise and cooperate with other institutions and agencies on
behalf of students and lecturers. It was a case of playing to my strengths
and highlighting my personal contributions to learner support. I’m sure
that all academic librarians could come up with countless examples of
their own.
Reflective practice and personal development
This section required evidence of ways in which I evaluate my teaching and
learning support activities. Once again, I emphasized the importance of
feedback from students, lecturers and other colleagues. I also remarked
upon the value of user surveys. I explained how I use these measures in a
positive way to improve my teaching/training practices. Having gained my
ALA last year, it was easy to demonstrate a commitment to personal
development. I also highlighted my attendance at courses and conferences
and my links with colleagues at other institutions.
These five headings were broad enough to enable me to produce a
comprehensive, yet very focused submission. It was quite difficult to know
which information to put into which section since there was a certain
amount of overlap. However, the accreditors are required to take a
balanced view of the application as a whole and are keen that there is
evidence of ‘a coherence of interrelationships’ across activities.
My completed application then had to be read and corroborated by two
referees. I chose the head of my service and a lecturer from the School of
Health Science. Both these referees had a thorough knowledge of my work
and were able to provide me with very supportive accompanying reports.
After submitting my application, I waited approximately eight weeks before
hearing that I had been accepted for membership. This gave me a terrific
buzz, a great sense of achievement, and of course, entitlement to post
nominal letters. However, an invoice for the first year’s subscription
soon followed this. Although my employer had paid the initial processing
fee, the annual subscription (£75) had to come from my own resources. I
already pay nearly £100 a year to be a union member and a similar amount
to maintain my Library Association membership. Bearing in mind my current
salary level, this additional expense is far from welcome. Unlike the LA’s
subscription fee which is dependent upon salary band, the ILT has levied a
flat rate for all its members. I have to pay the same rate as, for
instance, a principal lecturer earning nearly £40k.
Having now gained membership, I hope that it will enhance my CV and assist
my career progression. It will certainly do me no harm! I recently posted
an item on ‘lis-link’ enquiring whether colleagues at other institutions
had been successful. I was encouraged by the response. Around a dozen
‘lis-linkers’ contacted me saying that they had either been accepted for
membership or were in the process of applying.
The ILT also intends to establish new routes to membership based on the
recognition of appropriate professional qualifications awarded by other
bodies. Although the Library Association is involved in an ongoing
dialogue with the ILT to extend and develop recognition of LIS
professionals, there is at present no form of exemption for chartered
members. However, the two bodies have jointly produced a helpful set of
guidelines for support services staff seeking ILT membership. At the time
of writing, these were due to be made officially available shortly.
The ILT is still in its infancy and there is no predicting how it will
develop or how influential it will become. If it is to achieve its goals,
it will need to attract a large and diverse professional membership. I
believe that it is essential that library and information professionals
are a part of it, if only to let lecturers and senior managers in HE know
that yes, we have an academic role, yes, we are teachers and facilitators
of learning, and no, we are not a second-class profession. I would
encourage academic librarians to apply. You have nothing to lose!
References
1. Institute of Learning and Teaching web site
http://www.ilt.ac.uk
2. 'Dearing' report
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/ncihe/index.htm
|
Back to Impact Home Page