Re: sac-class: length of the LC classification course

[Bruce Trumble <trumble@fas.harvard.edu>]

Lori,

I think that it would be difficult to squeeze everything we have to go
over into one day, even without dealing with specific schedules. There's
quite a bit to cover with both shelflisting and classification
principles. We'd also  have to decide to what extent we would
include exercises. Exercises would be important for teaching this type of
material, but they are time-consuming.

As far as creating modules for specific schedules is concerned, I think
we need to know if some of these are already covered by professional
groups in those subject areas, and if so, is there a demand for specific
modules that are not covered in this way.

Bruce




At 12:48 PM 3/11/2005, you wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've been remiss in getting back to the discussions we began at
> Midwinter, since I've been caught up in managing my library's migration
> to OCLC Connexion.   We do need to get to work!
>
> I'd like to start by hearing your thoughts on the length of the
> course.   Here's an excerpt from the Midwinter
> minutes:
>
> ****
> - Length of the course: we did not reach any conclusions on this. 
> There are a number of one-day LCC workshops available from different
> providers.  Some members expressed reservations about being able to
> cover the desired content of a basic course in a single day.  One
> reason for keeping it to a single day is that it is much more manageable
> for attendees and organizers and may reach more people.  One
> suggestion is to design the course in a very modular format, with a core
> component focusing on concepts that are widely applicable throughout the
> schedules, and numerous distinct sessions focusing on specific
> schedules.  Workshop organizers could decide to host a single day
> workshop or a day and a half.
>
> ****
>
> I'm intrigued by the idea of a very modular course and would like to run
> it by people we report to in ALCTS and the PCC to get their thoughts on
> feasibility.   I think it has some real advantages, but see
> some potential nightmares for organizers too, at least in the way I'm
> imagining it would go.  
>
> Say we had a half-day option that included sessions on some more
> specialized schedules like K, M, maybe G.   For a specialized
> audience -- say, a group of law catalogers or a group of music catalogers
> -- it should be fairly easy for organizers to determine what to
> offer.  
>
> For a general audience -- like those sponsored by ALCTS or through PCC
> channels like state library associations or regional networks -- how
> would the organizers approach it?  Offer all specialized sessions, I
> would guess, and give people the option of registering for a single day
> or day and a half.  But how many catalogers who work with law
> materials would also want the specialized focus on music (and vice
> versa)?   I've been on the organizing end of many such events
> and I can't help imagining complaints about having to sit through
> irrelevant sessions or hang around and wait for the relevant
> session....   There certainly are generalists who would welcome
> the opportunity to learn it all, but most catalogers I know, even at very
> small libraries, don't have quite the range of responsibilities that
> would encompass music and law.  And maybe it's a mistake to focus on
> just those two schedules, but they have come up as logical components of
> a day and a half course.
>
> What are your thoughts about this, and preferences for the length of the
> course?  
>
> -- Lori