ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries January 1990 / 11 Evaluating student assistants as library employees By F. Jay Fuller Assistant Building Manager California State University, Chico How one library appraises student workers. E valuating library staff can be a time-con- suming and frustrating process. D ep en d ­ ing on the type o f position, the job description’s inherent latitude, and the em ployee’s expertise and motivation, it can be difficult for the evaluating party to determ ine, with any real precision, the degree to which individuals are adequately fulfill­ ing job requirem ents. In the case of library student assistant employees, the problem s associated with evaluation are com pounded; although student as­ sistant job descriptions are usually clear and con­ cise (even restrictive), the circumstances and p res­ sures u nder which these individuals work are quite different from those of other library employees. The foundation of any evaluative process is the attitude o f the individual doing the appraising. W hen evaluating regular staff, many aspects may be taken for granted; however, with student em ­ ployees, there are a few pivotal points which need to be closely considered. First, the evaluator should rem em ber that the docum ent used for formal, written student evaluations is simply a reference tool, and not an end product in itself. Evaluation for this class o f employee is an ongoing, daily process, and not something which is only done at the con­ clusion of library employment. Second, one should always take into considera­ tion that the student assistant is just that, a student, in the academic setting to learn, grow and develop, and that students have substantial com m itm ents in addition to their library work. And third, student assistants are temporary, but not inferior, employees. If the evaluating staff p e r­ ceives student workers as an expendable com m od­ ity, whose worth can be m easured solely in term s of how m uch labor can be acquired for nominal costs in both tim e and money, then student employees simply function as cogs in the great library ma­ chine, and one’s formal evaluation may consist of an elem entary mathematical formula designed to rank perform ance on an absolute and im mutable scale. Although this enormously simplifies the evalu­ ation process, it leaves much to be desired in term s o f providing for a positive work environm ent or for giving student employees valuable feedback on their work. In the Meriam Library at California State Uni­ versity, Chico, we formally evaluate each o f our student assistants at least twice a year, usually at the end o f each semester. These evaluations are com ­ pletely confidential, and workers are perm itted to examine and review with their unit supervisors any and all aspects of th eir perform ance as indicated on the form. O ur forms divide the criteria for our student assistant evaluations into four broad cate­ gories: operational, personal, interpersonal and leadership. Each o f these categories has several specific items which we assess independently. Soon 12 / C&RL News after our students are hired, they are given one of our evaluation forms to examine, and are encour­ aged to ask questions if they need clarification on any point or are uncertain about any item ’s param e­ ters. In this way, all student workers know from the first day of employment what is expected of them, and what will be the criteria for their formal, written evaluation. Operational aspects deal with how well student assistants grasp the policies and procedures of their unit, and put them into daily practice. O f our four categories, this is probably the easiest to evaluate, because there is empirical evidence that can be assessed using standard or comparative data. Here the key points we emphasize are: grasp of the departm ent’s routines, the ability to carry out ver­ bal and/or written instructions, and the accuracy, thoroughness, and neatness of work produced. Because many of our student employees must carry out their jobs away from the close scrutiny of a staff supervisor, we also include in this category the ability to work without immediate supervision. Often we have found that this single category of evaluation tends to monopolize the process if the evaluator is not circumspect, and we guard against this by restricting its importance on the evaluation form itself. First, it occupies a little less than a third of the space on the document, thereby insuring (or at least giving the visual impression) that each of the other categories carry a weight equal to that of the operational. And second, it appears as the third listing of major categories, giving the evaluator an indication that it is not of primary importance. While it is probably easier for the evaluator to focus on day-to-day operational performance, a system with this emphasis does not take into consideration the continued development of an employee once that employee has learned the routines of the unit so well that they are automatic. One of the prin­ ciples of our evaluation process is that we, as super­ visors in the academic setting, can do more to prepare students for the real world of employment than simply teach them a limited set of library skills. In the personal category, we have found it help­ ful to rem em ber that most students employed by the academic library come to their jobs as unskilled labor, and generally have little or no knowledge of library operations or procedures, except for that which they may have managed to incidentally ac­ quire as patrons using the facility. In fact for many, their jobs with the library may be their very first employment experience. This means that not only are the supervisors of new student assistants going to need to train and evaluate student employees in the daily routine of the unit’s operation, but it will be necessary for supervisors to encourage in these young adults personal habits appropriate to the work environment. The obvious personal commodity which a new or continuing student employee must have or ac­ quire is a sense of appearance appropriate to the workplace. With today’s fashion trends, debate about w hether this or that specific article of cloth­ ing is acceptable wear will rapidly become a point of ongoing contention, especially when modem fashions are more fleeting than the morning dew. We find that it proves quite effective to simply remind each student worker at the beginning of employment that the library is a public place where common decency prevails. Clothes must not be ragged, dirty or holed. If shorts are worn, they must be hem m ed and provide adequate coverage. And personal hygiene is to be maintained, especially in public service units where an individual’s presenta­ tion reflects on the professional image of the li­ brary. A far more important part of learning good personal work habits, which we especially em pha­ size, is the development of personal time manage­ ment. Student assistants are students first and fore­ most. Course loads can be substantial, demanding an enormous amount of effort and requiring m e­ ticulous scheduling of each day’s activities. If stu­ dents are made aware that employment in the library necessitates the same sense of responsibility which they bring to their college coursework, and that a balance between class, study, and work is expected, many problems concerning time man­ agement, particularly attendance, may be avoided. Understanding this, it becomes necessary for the supervisor of student assistants to walk a fine line between insisting upon a strict work schedule and permitting enough flexibility to accommodate the students’ needs in relation to their academic goals. And there must be a clear and uniform provision for occasional changes in schedule, consistently and equitably applied. Study groups often meet with short notice and at inconvenient times. Field trips may have to be rescheduled because of in­ clement weather, seasonal variations, illness, etc. These anomalies in one’s schedule must not be held against the student worker, who, after all, is in college in the first place to receive an academic degree, not to work in the university library. The interpersonal aspects of evaluation involve assessing the student assistant’s ability to interact with fellow employees, and with the public, in a reasonable, mature fashion. Tact, manners, and the capacity to listen are all param ount when dealing with the public. This is especially important when student workers are confronted with patrons who adamantly believe they have been wronged in some way by the library or the system, and express their displeasure in no uncertain terms. Responding to such situations is never easy, even for those of us who must do so every day, but it is important for staff to allow student assistants to handle problem patrons on their own as much as possible, while January 1990 / 13 being ready to quickly intercede if the situation gets out of hand. Later, after the situation has been rectified, it has proven quite beneficial to review the entire incident with the students involved, making suggestions and allowing the students to express concerns about their performance. W hen interacting with others on the staff, im ­ portant qualities are cooperativeness and the abil­ ity to accept constructive criticism. For some stu­ dent workers, these are qualities which do not come easily. Occasionally, these young adults mis­ construe a supervisor’s efforts to improve their perform ance as being a veiled or oblique attack on their individual worth. Patience on the supervisor’s part is necessary in these situations. After correc­ tive direction, we have found it helpful for the supervisor to end the conversation on a positive note, striving to recognize the individual’s contri­ bution to the effort o f the entire unit. This not only serves to correct the problem, but cultivates in student workers a sense that all criticism is not necessarily an indication that they have utterly failed at a task, but that an aspect o f their work could stand improvement, while their overall ef­ forts are appreciated. In the Meriam Library, we have a Student Su­ pervisor program which promotes individuals who have shown a marked ability to lead and assume responsibility. For these student assistants, a spe­ cial set of criteria are utilized which evaluate their abilities in special areas. As supervisors themselves, it is essential that these workers are self-motivating and capable of working without themselves being closely super­ vised. This means that their com m itm ent to the job must approximate that of regular library staff. Ini­ tiative, follow- through, interpersonal skills which are more refined than those of other student assis­ tants, maturity, and the ability to function calmly and with reason in pressure situations, are all nec- essary components. T heir verbal and communica­ tion skills must be strong, especially since in our library, these are the people who often train our other student assistants in the operational func­ tions of the various departm ents. They must also have a sense o f fairness, and put it into daily prac­ tice, insuring that the personnel in their charge are treated equally when it comes to training, job as­ signments, schedule changes, and so on. Finally, the evaluator must take into considera­ tion that student workers can only be as good as their training. Training techniques and manuals should be reviewed or rewritten at least annually, especially in academic libraries w here changing priorities and the influx of new technologies have becom e the norm rather than the exception. It is our responsibility to make sure that every effort is made by us to allow our student employees their best chance at doing their best for us. It is their perform ance on the job, good or bad, which serves as our evaluation as their supervisors and mentors. ■ ■ New College Research Libraries editor Gloriana St. Clair has been nam ed editor of College & Research Libraries for a three-year term beginning at the close of the 1990 ALA Annual C o n feren ce . St. C lair, a s s is ta n t d ir e c to r fo r te c h n ic a l, au to m atio n , and administrative serv­ ices at Oregon State Uni­ versity’s William Jasper Kerr Library since 1987, will serve as an editorial apprentice from January through June 1990 under Charles Martell, current C&RL editor and library d ir e c to r at C a lifo rn ia State University, Sacra­ Gloriana St. Clairmento. St. Clair was selected from a strong pool o f applicants in a search process that attem pted to identify as many qualified candi­ dates as possible from among the academic library community. In addition to position announce­ ments in C& RL News, applications and nomina­ tions were solicited by m em bers o f the ACRL Publications Com m ittee and the ACRL leadership during the eleven-month search. St. Clair brings to the C&RL editorship a strong background in librarianship, English composition, and technical writing. She com pleted undergradu­ ate study in English at the University o f Oklahoma and holds an MLS from the University o f California at Berkeley, a Ph.D. in literature from the Univer­ sity of Oklahoma, and an MBA from the University of Texas at San Antonio. D uring h er academic career, St. Clair has held various professional li­ brarian and faculty positions at Texas A&M Univer­ sity, the University o f Oklahoma, the University of California at Berkeley, the College of Charleston, W estern Carolina University, Walsh College, the University of Texas at San Antonio, and the San Antonio Public Library. 1 4 / C&RL News A m em ber of both the A C R L Publications in Librarianship Editorial Board and the LAMA LA& M Editorial Board, St. Clair’s professional activities include committee service in ALA’s LITA and ALCTS divisions and the Library Research Round Table. H er major editorial responsibilities have included the Texas Library Journal, the Geor­ gia- South Carolina College English Association Newsletter, and the Working Papers of the College of Business Administration at the University of Texas at San Antonio. A prolific writer, her work has appeared in College & Research Libraries, Technicalities, Wilson Library Rulletin, and Jour­ nal o f Library Administration. She has recently completed, along with Rose Mary Magrill, a study of undergraduate use of library collections funded by a grant from the Council on Library Resources (see pp. 25-28, this issue). ■ ■ Bibliographic instruction and accreditation in higher education By Marilyn Lutzker Deputy C hief Librarian John Jay College o f Criminal Justice I A new combination— accrediting libraries on the basis o f how well people are taught to use them. S ignificant changes are being made in the m anner in which libraries are viewed d u r­ ing the all-important higher education accredita­ tion process. The Middle States Commission on H igher Education now expects that each accred­ ited institution have a bibliographic instruction program, and that a library’s effectiveness within the teaching/leaming environm ent of the institu­ tion be clearly dem onstrated. Characteristics o f Excellence in Higher Educa­ tion: Standards f o r Accreditation states: “The centrality o f a library/leaming resources center in the educational mission of an institution deserves more than rhetoric and must be sup­ ported by more than lip service. An active and continuous program of bibliographic instruction is essential to realize this goal” (p. 35). Howard Simmons, executive director of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, could not be more forthright in his support of bibliographic instruction. He has written, “As part of the accreditation process it is essential that all… institutions develop a strong program of biblio­ graphic instruction as one means of improving aca­ demic quality” [emphasis added] (Bibliographic Instruction, p .11). In support of this new emphasis, in Septem ber 1989, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education held a workshop to discuss methods of evaluating BI programs within the accreditation process. This article is based on the presentation made by the author at that workshop and on the discussions of the workshop participants. I have three objectives for sharing these ideas