Assignment+4+-+Weeding

Items that I would weed:

1. "Chagall" - by Monica Bohm-Ducher. rationale - Within our library collection there are more than a dozen books that deal very specifically with Marc Chagall or his importance within the Modernist movement of the 20th century. I would weed this book as it is rarely circulated, not in great condition (particularly the cover flaps), but mainly that the information within this book is found within other more recent publications (this one was published in 1998) that have better colour templates of Chagall's work.

2. "History of Modern Art" - H. H. Arnason rationale - aside from the publication date of 1972, this book is in terrible condition, with pages actually missing from the text. It hasn't been circulated within the past10 years and few of the art plates are in colour, so I wouldn't even want to hold onto this book for its value as media that could be useful to an art class, let alone an art history class.

3. "19th Century Art" - Rob Rosenblum rationale - first, when I saw this book in the stacks I was really surprised as it was a book that I purchased for my Masters in Art History. A bit out of the range of a high school library, but that wouldn't be the rationale for weeding it, as it is an excellent text. However, it hadn't been circulated at all within the past 10 years and its publication date of 1984 (Rosenblum has a newer edition with more colour prints) puts it more out of date than other more useful texts in this collection.

4. "The Sikh World" - Daljit Singh rationale - the publication date of 1985 puts this book a bit out of date compared to the more current texts our library holds on world religions, particularly Sikhism. The book is tattered throughout, with a very faded cover.

5. "The New Religious World" - Ann Bancroft rationale - also dated 1985, this book could be weeded just based upon its lack of current information regarding world religions. We also have more current books dating from 2005 in the library. Inside the text I found instances of gender-biased language as well. I wouldn't consider weeding a book based on gender biased language alone, but it is a factor, particularly in non-fiction books.

6. "The Koran" - J.M. Rodwell translation rationale - there are 2 copies of this book that takes up a fair bit of space in the library. If it circulated as well as "The Hunger Games", I could see the rationale for keeping it, but it actually hasn't ever left the library. Actually, now I'm considering reading it!

7. "The Muslim World" - Richard Tames rationale - published in 1982, this book is very out of date and our past librarian had replaced this content with more up-to-date books. It isn't in bad condition at all, but rarely circulates.

8. "The Jewish World" - Douglas Charing rationale - published in 1983, I would weed this book. However, having said that, our library needs far more resources on Judaism that are up-to-date so I likely would make sure that gap is filled before removing this book.

9. "Calvinism" - George L. Mosse rationale - this book is literally falling to pieces despite the various tape-jobs that have been done over the years to keep this 1961 book in one piece. I don't think I'd weed it due to its publication date, however, as it would be of use in a historical context for a look at the development of this branch of Protestantism. Falling apart though and rarely circulated.

10. "The Arts" - Hendrik Willem van Loon rationale - dated 1974, this book could be taken from the shelves and not missed by staff nor students. Full of gender biased language and in poor condition, the book is rarely circulated and makes up a tiny part of a vast and up-to-date collection on art and art movements.

REFLECTION

The weeding process, for me, wasn't something I found myself as emotionally attached to as other students in this course. I'm quite sure that the reason for this is I work as a teacher in the school, not as a teacher-librarian, so don't have the same connection to the media that a T-L would. I remember some of the comments on our discussion board about how weeding felt like ripping up books, it was so difficult to do, painful, etc. Honestly, I didn't feel that way at all and went about it in a fairly pragmatic sense. Also, it is important to note, that I didn't actually "weed" those books out of the collection. It isn't my place to do so, at this point, so mine was a virtual weed, with a list of recommendations for removal that I would pass onto our teacher-librarian if he so desired.

However, besides the fact that I don't work in the library at all, I also know myself as someone who doesn't pack things away for another day. If a book is not circulating, is out of date, is not being read in house, is not being used by staff or students in any way, I would have no problem weeding it and sending it onto a better "home". Don't get me wrong, I LOVE books, have an extensive library of my own, but a library has limited space and when it is publicly funded to serve the needs of its patrons, the items that are within the library should be of important use.

The easiest part of the weeding project was definitely running the reports. They gave me an instant snapshot of what was in the library, how long it had been in the library, how often it was leaving the library, etc. A very useful process, but not enough to give me a clear picture of how useful the parts of the collection I was analyzing were to the patrons. The most difficult part was determining whether books that, although rarely circulated, were still useful as in-house (almost reference-like) material for staff and students. Lots of our teachers (myself included) use the library as a second classroom for project work and often I won't allow books to be circulated if they are relevant to a topic of study that I am doing with more than 1 block of Social Studies. So, even though those books on religion were rarely leaving the library, did that mean that they were never being perused? The best way to tackle this, I found, was to do a quick student survey on that small collection of books, and ask students that if they were given a research project on religion, which books in this collection would they find useful and which would they never use?

If I have the chance to weed again, the one thing I would do differently is make better use of those student surveys. Feeling somewhat rushed (it was nearing exam week at that point, full of tutorials and review blocks), I didn't take the time to adequately ask for student input. I would make a concise survey that would be useful cross-curriculum so that I could apply it to any section of the library (fiction and non-fiction), ask student opinion and include that in my final evaluation of what should be weeded and what should stay.

When I read through Bishop's section no "Techniques for Measuring Collections", I tended to agree with her relative "advantages/disadvantages" comparisons for each method of evaluation. I did find the lists, catalogues, bibliographies initially useful, updated and manipulated to serve the needs of the collection I was examining, but I found as a disadvantage the inability of that list to determine whether non-circulated items were truly not being used at all by patrons, or just used in-house. This was important, particularly when I examined the media surrounding art movements, as many of those books are massive folios that would be difficult for students to check-out and carry around, but excellent reference type materials that were being used by several classes.

When Bishop discusses "Examining the Collection Directly", I would tend to agree with her comment that this is very time-consuming. I found that to be the case when I made the small student survey for the small media examination I was doing for this assignment. However, that, I hope, could be partially solved by making a cross-curricular survey that would allow a T-L to survey a group of students regarding any part of the library's collection.

As for Age Analysis, I definitely used this extensively when weeding. However, having used that, I did it for a relatively small portion of the project centered around world religions. Because those non-fiction titles dated back (some of them to the 60s) so far, and because our library had far more current titles, it made sense to weed based on the age of those books. They also tended to be in horrible condition!

Again, my weeding experience was a virtual one, to say the least. I don't know if I would approach weeding differently if it was "my" library where the onus on determining what stays and what goes in the collection lay solely on my shoulders. I'm not a pack-rat, so I believe I wouldn't find it too difficult to remove items that were of little use to patrons, but I suppose that remains to be seen.

Reference: "The Collection Program in Schools" - Kay Bishop