C&RL News April 2019 220

Katelyn Handler and Lauren Hays

Librarians as faculty developers
Leading educational development initiatives

Faculty development might not immedi-ately spring to mind as a role for librar-
ians. It’s not something that we’re taught 
how to do in graduate school, and it’s easy 
enough to be swallowed up by all of the 
traditional day-to-day demands of academic 
librarianship. However, we have had the op-
portunity to work with and alongside faculty 
development departments at our institutions. 
From this work, we realized how much we 
enjoy it and how well it fits with many of 
the things we already do as librarians. It is 
our hope that other librarians will start to see 
connections between the work of librarians 
and the work of faculty developers, and be 
more willing to pursue this as a part of their 
larger presence at their institutions.

As we started exploring the connection 
between librarians and faculty developers, 
we began reviewing the literature. From that 
review we learned that Shannon Fay Johnson 
and Ludwika Goodson found that at times 
librarians felt in competition with faculty 
development centers, but concurrently, there 
were many areas where collaboration can 
benefit institutions.1 

The primary area that both librarians and 
faculty developers saw for collaboration was 
in the area of “information literacy guidelines 
and workshops for faculty.”2 One specific 
example of this type of collaboration was 
when Christy Moran created a course on 
information literacy hosted by Broward Col-
lege’s Center for Teaching Excellence and 
Learning.3 This example extends the idea 
of collaboration for librarian involvement 
to librarian leadership in collaborative proj-

ects. This extension of collaboration outside 
the classroom into other models of faculty 
development, such as through librarian-led 
communities of practice (CoP), can lead to 
wider integration of information literacy and 
related outcomes into institutional curricula 
while also promoting librarians as peer educa-
tors among their faculty cohort.

CoP differ from one-off workshops in 
that they promote sustained discourse on a 
given topic. According to Marijke Hezemans 
and Magda Ritzen, a CoP is a meeting of in-
dividuals who share an interest in a topic or 
theme, with the members of group shaping 
the goals.4 In committing to the creation of a 
CoP, librarians involved will require a greater 
commitment of their time and energy than 
singular workshops, which can be challeng-
ing, particularly at smaller institutions where 
librarians are likely already tasked with a vari-
ety of responsibilities. However, librarian-led 
CoPs are wonderful opportunities to explore 
areas of teaching and learning that might not 
be as readily addressed by academics from 
other disciplines. It can also be personally 
rewarding to explore topics over an extended 
period time with colleagues from a variety of 
backgrounds with shared interests. Although 
information literacy is a natural fit for librar-

Katelyn Handler is former reference and instruction 
librarian at Park University, email: katelyn.wazny@
g m a i l . c o m ,  a n d  L a u r e n  H a y s  i s  i n s t r u c t i o n a l 
and research librarian at M idAmerica Nazarene 
University, email: ldhays@mnu.edu

 
© 2019 Katelyn Handler and Lauren Hays

mailto:katelyn.wazny%40gmail.com?subject=
mailto:katelyn.wazny%40gmail.com?subject=
mailto:ldhays%40mnu.edu?subject=


April 2019 221 C&RL News

ians to take the lead in faculty development 
initiatives, there are other options, depending 
on your interests and involvement. 

At both Park and MidAmerica Nazarene 
universities, our development initiatives 
took the form of CoPs, which represented 
a unique opportunity to influence the fac-
ulty conversation on our selected topics. In 
this article, we share our experiences with 
developing CoPs and working with fac-
ulty development, and then share what we 
learned from our experiences, with the goal 
of encouraging more librarians to try their 
hands at this method of faculty development.

Katelyn’s view: The challenges  
of starting and sustaining a CoP
My involvement with faculty development 
programming began as a natural outgrowth 
of work with Park University’s Faculty Cen-
ter for Innovation (FCI). In spring 2017, FCI 
sought to expand its programming, and one 
of these initiatives was the Faculty Fellows 
program. The program was predicated on 
the idea of the annual selection through a 
blind peer-review application process of a 
group of faculty members to each lead a 
CoP over the course of the academic year. 
My CoP sought to examine information lit-
eracy instruction through the lens of learn-
er-centered pedagogy, requiring an intro-
duction of both core concepts along with 
literature and findings that married the two. 

The CoPs were heavily discussion-
focused, and though the meeting itself was 
only an hour long, preparation for the meet-
ing along with follow-up contact in order to 
increase participant interaction and interest 
in the group meant that the Fellows’s role 
required a significant time commitment on 
top of normal librarian duties.

There were a number of challenges as-
sociated with leading a CoP.

• Planning and pedagogy. One of the 
challenges of being a part of the introductory 
class of Faculty Fellows was that participants 
were unsure how to approach planning the 
monthly CoP meetings. Ultimately, a joint de-
cision was made by the Fellows to plan each 

meeting as a discrete unit. Although there 
were overarching themes that connected the 
meetings throughout the course of the year, 
participants need not have attended previous 
meetings. A flipped classroom model was 
appealing for the purposes of having more 
time for activities and discussion within the 
meeting, but ultimately this pedagogical ap-
proach was set aside as to not create a barrier 
for faculty attendance. When considering the 
creation and structure of a CoP, you don’t 
want to provide an excuse not to attend 
the meeting for any faculty who might have 
gotten busy and had mixed feelings about 
their attendance. 

• Measuring success. Another challenge 
of this program was figuring out the best 
way to assess faculty learning through their 
participation in the CoPs. Surveys were cre-
ated in consultation with the FCI staff, whit-
tling down the initial survey over concerns 
of survey length. Despite this, faculty were 
reluctant to complete the surveys and par-
ticipation was very low. One idea for those 
pursuing faculty development in this manner 
might be to switch to a different manner 
of soliciting feedback, such as through the 
Classroom Assessment Technique model of 
minute papers or muddiest point to capture 
participant thoughts.

• “Don’t take it personal.” It can be hard 
not to take it personally when you prepare 
a well-developed program that ends up 
being sparsely attended. It is important to 
remember, though, that the number of par-
ticipants is not the only metric by which to 
measure success. In my case, a program was 
implemented to allow for digital badging of 
participants, which would not only recognize 
involvement with the CoP, but can also help 
give the leader of the CoP a better sense of 
how those involved valued their time. If fac-
ulty take the time to claim a badge, it shows a 
stronger interest in the topic, and the number 
of badges claimed can help with assessment 
following the programming.

With the challenges outlined above, it 
might cause librarians to question the value 
of involvement in such an endeavour, par-



C&RL News April 2019 222

ticularly when faced with numerous demands 
on their time. However, I found the rewards 
far outweighed the costs. I found value in:

• Librarians as peers. Yvonne Nalani 
Meulemans and Allison Carr emphasized 
that an “information literacy instruction as 
a service” model by librarians results in the 
perpetuation of an uneven relationship be-
tween those in and outside the library con-
fines.5 One of the advantages of librarian-led 
faculty development is that it allows librarians 
to direct the conversation and move from 
beyond the roles of service provider to that 
of a peer with other faculty. Not only do the 
faculty involved gain greater insight into the 
chosen topic, but it lays the groundwork for 
future librarian-faculty collaboration.

• Motivation for exploration. It can be 
challenging to justify spending much time on 
new areas of professional interest, particu-
larly when you are not sure how this explo-
ration might tie into previously established 
responsibilities. Leading a CoP provides an 
avenue for scholarly exploration into a topic 
with others who share a similar interest. This 
can result in exciting new possibilities for 
future professional activities, and can help 
keep both your scholarship and practice 
interesting and fresh.

Lauren’s view: Lessons learned  
from two different CoP experiences
I have been on the Faculty Development 
Committee at my university since 2014. Dur-
ing the 2016–17 academic year, I had the 
opportunity to lead a CoP on games and 
learning stemming from grant work I com-
pleted. Then, during the 2017–18 academic 
year, I led a series of six sessions on critical 
thinking. 

Based on my experiences leading the 
Games and Learning CoP, the next year I 
adjusted the following:

• Timing of meetings. The Games and 
Learning CoP was a group of faculty who 
signed up and made a commitment to be 
involved for the year. I tried to accommo-
date the faculty’s time preferences, so the 
meetings were organized using a Doodle 

poll. However, changing class schedules and 
responsibilities made it difficult to get the 
entire group together. Therefore, when I led 
the series on critical thinking, I decided to set 
the times of the sessions and opened them to 
anyone who could attend and was interested.
This change in strategy led to a consistently 
higher turnout at each of the sessions.

• Presentation of content. During the 
games and learning CoP, I tried to present 
content and lead a discussion. This strategy 
proved minimally effective. Therefore, in the 
critical thinking series, I changed strategies 
and presented minimal content and asked 
many questions of the faculty. Asking ques-
tions instead of sharing content created space 
for robust conversation that continued after 
the sessions ended. 

• Goal of meetings. The university’s 
Faculty Development Committee, tasked 
the Games and Learning CoP with creating 
a best practices list of how to use games in 
educational settings. A specific end product 
was not required from the sessions on criti-
cal thinking. Instead, attendees were able to 
share and discuss more freely. Freedom of 
conversation and project choice allowed for 
richer dialogue, and I would advocate for 
this freedom in future CoPs. 

From both the Games and Learning CoP 
and the critical thinking series I learned:

• Ask questions. When leading faculty 
development initiatives, it is often better to 
ask questions and facilitate rather than pres-
ent information. While this should not be 
surprising with what we know of teaching 
and learning strategies, I was surprised at 
the extent faculty wanted to talk about their 
teaching. 

• Listen. The critical thinking series was 
developed because faculty indicated on a 
survey that they wanted to help their students 
improve in that area. If possible, create CoPs 
based on an expressed need or interest.

• Librarians can be educational devel-
opers. As others have stated, librarians are 
uniquely situated on university campuses 

(continues on page 235)



April 2019 235 C&RL News

Enabling Programs and Services: 
Publications 

• Appointed Wendi Arant Kaspar to a 
second three-year term as editor of College 
& Research Libraries, with a term of July 1, 
2019, to June 30, 2022.

• Approved the “ACRL/RBMS Guidelines 
Regarding Security and Theft in Special Col-
lections.”

• Approved the “Characteristics of Pro-
grams of Information Literacy that Illustrate 
Best Practices.”

Enabling Programs and Services: 
Operations 

• Confirmed the virtual votes approving 
the minutes of the ACRL Board meetings at 
the 2018 ALA Annual Conference and the 
minutes of the virtual ACRL Board of Direc-
tors Fall Meeting held on November 16, 2018.

• Approved the following disbursements from 
the ACRL Friends Advancement Fund in FY20:

o $7,000 to fund an additional ALA Spec-
trum Scholarship sponsorship, and

o $13,000 to support additional free train-
ing opportunities for Project Outcome for 
Academic Libraries. 

because they work across departments and 
often see the big picture of teaching and 
learning at their institution. This can translate 
into librarians having expertise in teaching 
and learning topics of interest to faculty. 

• Librarians have expertise faculty appre-
ciate. Information literacy, open educational 
resources, media literacy, technology, copy-
right—these are some of the subjects where 
librarians have expertise. Librarians should 
own this expertise because other people 
see value in it. 

Librarian-led CoPs have the potential to 
redirect important discussions already occur-
ring on many college campuses, and both of 
us engaged in unique faculty development 
CoPs at our respective institutions. It allowed 
us to set the tone for faculty conversation 
on important topics related to teaching and 
learning, while providing an avenue for ex-
tended exploration of professional interests. 
Despite the differences in our topics and 
approach, we discovered much commonality 
in our experiences and believe these experi-
ences may translate well to other institutional 

contexts. For those interested in a proactive 
relationship with the faculty at their institu-
tion, faculty development by librarians rep-
resents an exciting next step.

Notes
1. Shannon Fay Johnson, and Ludwika 

Goodson, “Faculty Development Centers and 
Libraries: United We Stand , Divided We Fall,” 
ARL 2015 Proceedings, 258–63.

2. Ibid, 261.
3. Cristy Moran, “IL for Faculty: Part-

nership with College-wide Professional 
Development Departments,” Georgia Inter-
national Conference on Information Literacy 
30, https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.
edu/gaintlit/2018/2018/30.

4. Marijke Hezemans and Magda Rit-
zen, “Communities of practice in higher 
education,” Information and Communica-
tion Technologies and Real-Life Learning, 
(Springer: Boston 2005): 39–46. 

5.  Yvonne Nalani Meulemans and Allison 
Carr, “Not at your service: building genuine 
faculty-librarian partnerships,” Reference 
Services Review 41, no. 1 (2013): 80–90. 

(“Librarians as faculty developers,” continues from page 222)

https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/gaintlit/2018/2018/30/
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/gaintlit/2018/2018/30/