Sinclair, Kimberly
Corbett,
T. (2011). The changing role of the school librarian’s physical
space. School Library Monthly, 27, 5.
Retrieved from http://www.schoollibrarymonthly.com
In
this article, Corbett discusses the transformation of the physical library
space at Cushing Academy, a private high school in Massachusetts, whose staff unanimously
voted to focus on building a 21st Century Leadership curriculum—a
decision equated with moving towards becoming “bookless,” as accomplished
through three major phases:
o Moving away from the traditional
Integrated Library System toward a newer, better integrated software platform
o Developing an improved acquisitions
policy that capitalizes on the best aspects of digital content
o Transforming the library's physical space
into a collaborative work area for students and staff
This
radical decision was made after staff documented that, although the Cushing
library previously maintained a collection very balanced between digital and
physical resources, students significantly and consistently bypassed the print
materials in favor of accessing the library’s computers and digital materials. While
such a drastic shift initially strikes as sacrilegious to most librarians,
Corbett reports that, to date, the Cushing library is experiencing a large
degree of success since the transformation of its physical library space:
database usage by students has increased exponentially, participation and
circulation is thriving, and the library has developed an interactive website
for the learning commons that appears to be effective and popular amongst
users. He also adds that, with more than 175,000 copyrighted academic e-books
and 1,000 popular reading titles recently added to the collection, the school’s
circulation statistics prove that reading “long-form reading and digital
resources are not mutually exclusive” of one another (Corbett, 2011). While the
successes listed by Corbett are impressive, he does acknowledge that the
school’s library continues to have room for improvement. Specific issues
requiring further attention include: overcoming barriers to using copyrighted,
subscription-based resources rather than the (simpler) default of free
resources on the Internet; increasing student instruction regarding more vigorous
selection/evaluation of digital information sources; and managing finances to guarantee
there are a sufficient number of e-readers for all students available.
Although
I can readily acknowledge the benefits of e-readers and other digital resources
in terms of space and 24/7 accessibility, I cannot help but think that a complete
switch to these formats in place of physical materials, is rash, considering
sufficient time has not elapsed since the widespread emergence of e-readers for
researchers to gauge the long-term effects of primarily reading books on
e-readers as opposed to print. I feel extremely old-fashioned even stating this
doubt, but am simply being the devil’s advocate by pointing out the lack of
evidence supporting such a drastic switch. While I have not come yet come
across any hard evidence indicating that reading books primarily on e-readers
has a detrimental effect, I have heard a little about some early studies that
suggest e-readers may be a distraction, at least among younger students still
acquiring reading fluency. In these instances, children tended to focus on the
capabilities of the e-reader device itself, rather than on the content of the
text, resulting in less information recall afterwards. However, the study
(which, unfortunately, I have as yet been able to locate again!) admittedly only
identified a correlation—rather than a causal relationship—between the presence
of the e-readers and a decline in reading attention/factual recall; the
negative correlation could be the result of various other causes. For example,
the decline in attention could stem from the fact that the students with lower
recall were already struggling
readers who may have used the device as a distraction, resulting from an
already-existing lack of engagement. Alternately, those students who focused
more on the e-reader device than the text may have come from homes less
technology-rich than the children who remained focused, such that their
distraction resulted out of the e-reader being a much more novel and attractive
device.
In
spite of any personal apprehension about chucking out a library’s entire print
collection (although, to be fair: the Cushing Academy donated these materials
to local schools and libraries, happily), I readily admit that this scenario
represents a very intriguing experiment. And, as much as I mention there not
being sufficient data to warrant a “e-reader only” approach to academic
materials, I also understand that experiments such as this have to be taken in
order for researchers to have data to
analyze, so I am far from considering it a wholly negative model. However, I
cannot help but think that, while relying wholly on digital materials may be
economically feasible for a small, private high school setting such as Cushing
Academy, this set-up still smacks as unrealistic for the average elementary
school (where young readers are still learning how to wash their hands without
prodding and how to handle materials responsibly) and/or public school library
in a lower socio-economic neighborhood. In the latter scenario, a student may
be able to repay the seven dollars needed to replace a lost chapter book, but
can their family be expected to repay the hundred plus dollars to replace a
lost or damaged Kindle? Until e-readers become far more affordable and much
more durable than they currently are, it seems doubtful that moving to a
digital only collection is an efficient—or even realistic—goal for the majority
of public schools.
