The Importance of Soft Skills to LIS Education
Publication: Journal of Education for Library and Information Science
Volume 63, Number 2
Abstract
Soft skills, or intra- and interpersonal skills such as writing, customer service, and flexibility, are highly sought by library and information science employers. A perceived gap in soft skills has led to suggestions that LIS programs are not adequately addressing these skills in their curricula, and to calls for them to do more. However, no study has examined the extent to which LIS faculty currently are providing direct instruction of soft skills in their courses. The researchers employed a nationwide survey to explore whether and how LIS faculty are teaching soft skills. The findings suggest that faculty are incorporating a range of soft skills into their courses but are relying heavily on passive over active learning. The results could have implications for course and curriculum design.
Key points:
•
Employers in library and information science highly value inter- and intrapersonal skills such as communication, flexibility, and cultural competence.
•
The majority of LIS faculty recognize the importance of these skills and report addressing them in their courses, yet employers continue to report a gap in soft skills in job applicants.
•
Faculty report relying largely on more passive learning strategies such as lectures and readings to teach most skills, raising questions of whether more active learning would lead to better retention and transfer to the field.
Library and information science (LIS) education supports a wide range of possible career paths, from more traditional information settings in public, academic, and school libraries and archives and traditional functions like cataloging and reference, to non-traditional positions supporting research in biotechnology firms, managing and analyzing data at research institutions, and curating collections ranging from books and media to artifacts, objects, and even wine. By extension, LIS programs and the faculty who teach in them must address and assess a wide range of knowledge, skills, and abilities to adequately prepare their students for diverse career paths. In addition to the domain knowledge and skills specific to the field of LIS, “soft skills”—or intra- and interpersonal qualities such as communication, flexibility, and cultural competence—are crucial to professional positions across information settings and job roles.
While research has established the importance of soft skills to the field (see, e.g., Gerolimos, Malliari, & Iakovidis, 2015; Partridge, Lee, and Munro, 2010; Partridge, Menzies, Lee, and Munro, 2010; Pradhan, 2015; Saunders, 2015, 2019), no study has examined whether and how LIS faculty attempt to incorporate these skills in their courses. Do LIS faculty recognize the importance of soft skills to the field and feel a responsibility to address them? Do they provide direct instruction in these skills in any of their courses? What methods do they use to teach these skills, and do they assess students on them? This study used a nationwide survey of LIS faculty members to explore these questions and better understand the prevalence of instruction and assessment of soft skills within LIS curricula. The results will be of interest to LIS faculty and program administrators and could influence curricular decisions.
Literature review
Soft skills have been identified as crucial across fields and industries, including in highly technical fields (Burning Glass Technologies, 2015; Hart Research Associates, 2018; Linked-in Learning, 2018; National Association of Colleges and Employers, 2018), and library and information science is no exception. Professional associations and their affiliated divisions provide some guidance on the knowledge, skills, and abilities required of LIS professionals in general, as well as those working in specific information settings and professional roles. For instance, the American Library Association’s Core Competences of Librarianship (2009) outlines skill and content areas considered essential across the field, while divisions such as the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL, 2017) and the Reference and User Services Association (RUSA, 2013) further elaborate on the skills and knowledge areas necessary to academic and user services librarians. Likewise, the Special Library Association (SLA, 2016), Medical Library Association (MLA, 2017), Society of American Archivists (SAA, 2020) and other associations have created competencies documents specific to relevant information settings and positions.
While domain knowledge and skills such as legal frameworks of LIS, knowledge of relevant technologies (ALA, 2009), and ability to create and use assessment tools (ACRL, 2017) comprise the bulk of the competency statements, these documents also include a wide variety of personal and interpersonal skills and qualities considered important to the professional positions they support. For instance, under the domain of reference and user services, ALA (2009) maintains that all library professionals should be able to “interact successfully with individuals of all ages and groups.” The Reference and User Services division of ALA elaborates on this skill area with a list of behavioral competencies that include a suite of communication and interpersonal skills such as active listening and nonjudgmental interest (RUSA, 2013). Similarly, the Medical Library Association (2017) identifies communication and collaboration skills as part of its leadership competency, while the Special Libraries Association (2016) includes a list of enabling competencies, including oral and written communication, flexibility, and initiative, as part of its core competencies.
Many authors, researchers, and faculty members have expounded on the role of soft skills in the profession. The Salzburg Curriculum, developed in 2011 through a symposium of library and museum professionals in Salzburg, Austria, recommends attention to skills such as self-reflection, empathy, respect, creativity, social engagement, and cultural competency in library, archive, and museum programs (Lankes, Stephens, & Arjona, 2015). Stephens (2013) describes soft skills such as communication, personal responsibility, empathy, initiative, and political understanding as “essential” to the field of LIS, adding that LIS degree programs must do more to integrate attention to the skills into their curricula.
Research also supports the criticality of soft skills. A recent survey of over two thousand LIS practitioners from across various information settings identified 11 knowledge areas, skills, and abilities as core to the field (Saunders, 2019). Seven of the 11 skills, or nearly two-thirds, were soft skills as opposed to domain knowledge. The soft skills identified as core included interpersonal communication, writing, customer service, teamwork, cultural competence, interacting with diverse communities, and reflective practice grounded in diversity and inclusion. This survey confirmed findings of several other studies of LIS employers and practitioners which found behavioral attributes and personal qualities to be highly valued by employers across settings and positions (see, e.g., Deng, Thomas, & Trembach, 2014; Pradhan, 2015; Raju, 2014). For example, Gerolimos et al. (2015) found that interpersonal skills were among the most frequently mentioned in job postings for librarians. Reviewing job postings in the United States and Australia across information settings at 10-year intervals from 1974 to 2004, Kennan, Cole, Willard, Wilson, and Marion (2006) found that the postings increased in complexity over time, and that by 2004 interpersonal and behavioral skills were the most frequently listed.
Chow, Shaw, Gwynn, Martensen, and Howard (2011) used a mixed-methods study of LIS faculty, students, and employers to determine which skills should be addressed in LIS curricula. Their findings emphasized communication, creativity, critical and analytical thinking, and people skills, although the researchers acknowledged that the majority of respondents from the field clustered in public libraries. Similarly, through focus groups with library practitioners and employers across settings, researchers found that soft skills including communication, customer service, flexibility, and interpersonal skills were often emphasized even over technical skills (Partridge, Lee, and Munro, 2010; Partridge, Menzies, et al., 2010; Saunders, 2015), leading one study to conclude that “personality traits, not just qualifications, were critical to be a successful librarian or contemporary information worker” (Partridge, Menzies, et al., 2010, p. 271).
Perhaps it is not surprising that personal and interpersonal skills would be associated with public-facing user services positions like reference, instruction, and children’s and young adult services, where professionals spend a substantial portion of their time interacting with patrons. However, research suggests that soft skills are equally important in technical positions, and those that might be considered “behind the scenes.” For instance, skills such as communication, outreach, collaboration, and the interpersonal and presentation skills associated with instruction have all been identified as important for scholarly communications and e-resources librarians (Hartnett, 2014; Pontika, 2019; Raju, 2019; Sutton & Collinge, 2018). Personal skills ranging from communication and teamwork to problem solving and innovation are important for IT-based library jobs (Dubey & Tiwari, 2020; Shahbazi and Hedayati, 2016). Communication and people skills are likewise important for cataloging and metadata positions (Lussky, 2008) as well as data librarianship (Federer, 2018). Library professionals working in makerspaces need a host of soft skills, including communication and skills related to instruction, as well as the ability to work with diverse communities and collaborate (Kloppenberg & Lodge, 2010; Koh & Abbas, 2015). A similar range of soft skills with an emphasis on cultural competence were found to be important for librarians in medical and health-care settings (Ma, Stahl, & Price, 2020). Indeed, cultural competence and a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion have been highlighted across the field of LIS, with repeated calls for more systematic integration of these topics into curricula (Adkins, Verdin, & Yier, 2015; Jaeger, Bertot, & Subramaniam, 2013; Jaeger et al., 2015).
Some studies suggest a gap between the need for soft skills in the field and the abilities exhibited in these areas by emerging professionals (Chow et al., 2011; Dubey & Tiwari, 2020; Ma et al., 2020; Varalakshmi, 2006). Many of the articles and studies cited here consider the implications of the need for soft skills development for LIS curricula, and some offer suggestions for how LIS faculty might integrate these skills into their courses. However, few studies have examined the extent to which soft skills are actually addressed in LIS curricula. Hirsh (2019) argues the idea that soft skills are not taught in LIS programs is a myth, stating that students have the opportunity to learn skills such as collaboration through group work in class as well as through extracurricular opportunities. Ahmad, Ameen, and Ullah (2017) found that soft skills are taught in LIS classrooms through lectures and projects, as well as through co-curricular experiences. Ameen (2013) describes a mandatory Personality Development and Communication Skills course at the University of Punjab. A survey of students who had taken the course indicated that students’ skills in these areas improved with the course but that they would have preferred more active learning experiences to practice the skills over passive learning strategies like readings.
Procedures
The purpose of this study was to explore whether and how LIS faculty members who teach in schools with accredited Master’s degree programs in the United States and Canada are integrating soft skills into their courses. Specifically, the study addressed the following research questions:
•
Do LIS faculty believe soft skills to be important for their students to develop? Do LIS faculty believe they are responsible for teaching soft skills?
•
To what extent do LIS faculty provide direct instruction on various soft skills in their courses?
•
When they provide instruction, do LIS faculty also provide students with feedback on those soft skills?
•
Are there any differences among LIS faculty of different ranks or experience in teaching soft skills?
The researchers chose to use a survey to collect data. Because the aim was to take a broad look at LIS curricula and examine the extent to which soft skills are addressed across different courses, schools, and programs, a large sample was necessary. A larger sample allowed for greater representation across different MSLIS programs, different levels and status of faculty, and different areas of curricular focus, making the results more apt to be generalizable to the larger population.
After obtaining IRB approval for the study, the researchers sent the survey by direct email to 2,577 LIS faculty in the winter of 2020 using Qualtrics software (see the Appendix for a copy of the survey). An initial invitation email was sent describing the study, followed three days later by another message that included a link to the survey. Three reminder emails were sent to non-respondents over the following month. LIS faculty member names were gathered from publicly accessible directories of program websites using a Google Chrome extension. The survey opened with several demographic questions, including the faculty member’s status, rank, and years in the field; primary mode of instruction; and whether they ever took a credit-bearing course on teaching and learning, or regularly attend professional development training focused on teaching and learning. A screening question filtered out any faculty who had not taught a course in the last two years. The bulk of the survey focused on three sets of questions related to 10 specific soft skills: interpersonal skills; writing; communication skills; teamwork; cultural competence (defined as the ability to effectively communicate and interact across cultures); reflective practice; customer service; commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion; adaptability/flexibility; and presentation skills. These 10 skills were selected because they were consistently highlighted in the LIS literature as important across information settings and positions and were surfaced through previous research (Saunders, 2015, 2019) as valued and highly sought by library employers.
The first set of content questions asked faculty how important they believed each of the skills to be for all graduates of their program, regardless of their ultimate career path. The next question asked the extent to which they felt responsible for teaching each of the soft skills. In the final sequence of questions, the participants were asked whether they provide direct instruction in each of the 10 skills. If they answered yes, they were also asked to indicate what methods they used to deliver instruction in that skill and whether they provided students with feedback on the development of that skill. A final, open-ended question asked participants to list any additional soft skills they believed to be important to the field and briefly describe how they integrated instruction in those skills into their courses.
Findings
The survey garnered 176 responses, for a response rate of 6.8%. It is important to note that responses were not required for all questions, and embedded skip logic meant that respondents did not receive questions that were not relevant to them. These findings report the percentages based on the number of respondents for the individual question. The opening questions of the survey focused on demographic and background questions. Respondents were evenly distributed across faculty status. The largest group of respondents identified as tenured professors at the associate rank (36%), followed by tenure-stream untenured (28%), tenured at the full rank (18%), full-time contract faculty (13%), and adjuncts (6%). Respondents were almost equally divided by years in the field, with 27% having 6–10 years in the field, 26% having 0–5 years, 25% having more than 15 years, and 22% having 11–15 years. The vast majority (86%) taught primarily at the Master’s level. The survey also asked about teaching modalities. The largest group of participants indicated that they taught primarily online (49%), followed by primarily face-to-face (33%), and about equally online and face-to-face (18%). The respondents were split as to whether they had ever taken a credit-bearing course on teaching and learning, with 48% indicating that they had. In addition, 57% reported being members of the Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE). Over 80% reported that they regularly or occasionally attend professional development training related to teaching and learning.
The next set of questions probed respondents’ opinions and perceptions about the 10 soft skills that formed the focus of the study. Most respondents rated each of the soft skills as extremely or very important for all their students to develop, regardless of their ultimate career path. Virtually no one ranked any of the skills as not important, or only slightly important. Communication skills were the most highly ranked, with 78% of respondents ranking it as extremely important, followed by interpersonal skills (66%), a commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I) (62%) and adaptability/flexibility (61%). Presentation skills were ranked lowest, with only 28% indicating that these skills are extremely important. Figure 1 shows the breakdown in rankings for each skill.
The next question block asked participants the extent to which they agreed they had a responsibility to teach each of the soft skills to their students. The vast majority strongly agreed or agreed that they had a responsibility to teach all 10 skills. Virtually no one strongly disagreed or disagreed that they were responsible for teaching any of the skills. Faculty respondents had the strongest feelings about teaching cultural competence, with 73% strongly agreeing that they had a responsibility to teach this skill, followed by communication skills and commitment to DE&I (both at 68%) and teamwork (59%). Customer service skills were rated lowest, with only 14% strongly agreeing that they had a responsibility to teach this skill, and one respondent (5%) strongly disagreeing. Figure 2 shows the breakdown of responses to this question.
The remaining closed-ended questions asked respondents if they provide direct instruction in each of the 10 soft skills. If they answered yes, they were asked to indicate which methods they used to deliver instruction and whether they provided students with feedback on those skills. At least half of respondents indicated that they provided direct instruction in eight out of the 10 skills. Customer service and flexibility/adaptability had the lowest levels of direct instruction. Just over one-third (36%) of respondents indicated that they teach flexibility/adaptability, while only 31% reported providing direction instruction in customer service. Communication skills were the most often addressed, with 75% of participants providing direct instruction in this skill, closely followed by commitment to DE&I at 74%, and presentation skills at 72%. In nearly every case, at least half of the respondents who reported providing direction instruction in a skill also indicated that they provide feedback to students on that skill. The one exception was flexibility/adaptability, with only 44% of respondents saying they provide feedback to students on this skill. Teaching methods varied across the different skills, with discussions and readings being among the most common, and quizzes/tests and role-playing among the least common. Table 1 shows the percentage of respondents who indicated that they taught each skill, the percentage that provided feedback on that skill, and the top methods for instruction of that skill.
Skill | % direct instruction | % providing feedback | Top teaching methods |
|---|---|---|---|
Communication skills | 76 | 92 | Discussions (15%) Student presentations (13%) Group projects (12%) Instructor lecture/demonstration (12%) Readings (10%) |
Commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion | 74 | 64 | Discussions (18%) Readings (17%) Instructor lecture/demonstration (16%) Writing assignment (12%) |
Presentation skills | 72 | 96 | Student presentations (22%) Instructor lecture/demonstration (17%) Group project (13%) Discussions (11%) |
Writing | 67 | 100 | Writing assignments (25%) Instructor lecture/demonstration (14%) Readings (14%) Discussions (12%) |
Teamwork | 64 | 88 | Group projects (22%) Discussions (15%) Instructor lecture/demonstration (11%) Readings (10%) Hands-on activity (10%) |
Cultural competence | 62 | 66 | Discussions (19%) Readings (19%) Instructor lecture/demonstration (13%) Writing assignment (11%) |
Reflective practice | 62 | 89 | Writing assignment (20%) Discussions (17%) Instructor lecture/demonstration (13%) Readings (13%) |
Interpersonal skills | 61 | 80 | Discussions (15%) Group projects (12%) Readings (12%) Instructor lecture/demonstration (12%) Student presentations (10%) |
Flexibility/adaptability | 36 | 44 | Discussions (22%) Instructor lecture/demonstration (19%) Readings (14%) Writing assignment (11%) |
Customer service | 31 | 72 | Discussions (18%) Instructor lecture/demonstration (18%) Readings (16%) Writing assignment (10%) |
Statistical significance
Beyond descriptive analysis of faculty integration of soft skills across courses, this study also examined whether significant differences existed across faculty demographics regarding this instruction. The crosstab function in Qualtrics was used to test for significant differences with regard to faculty status, primary teaching modality, and experience with teaching and learning training courses, using a p value of 0.05 as the cutoff for statistical significance. Very few statistically significant differences were found. Interestingly, customer service skills were most likely to result in significant differences across crosstabs.
Regarding faculty status, faculty of different tenure status and appointments exhibited statistically significant differences for instruction of customer service (p = 0.03) and reflective practice (p = 0.05). Overall, adjuncts (56%), contract faculty (38%), and associate professors (40%) were somewhat more likely to say they provide direct instruction in customer service than full or tenure-track instructors, while tenure-track instructors were most likely to say they do not provide instruction in customer service. On the other hand, tenure-stream (73%) and associate professors (67%) were most likely to say they provide instruction in reflective practice, while full professors (52%) and contract professors (59%) were more likely to say they do not provide such instruction.
Statistically significant differences were found in relation to years of teaching experience with regard to instruction in writing (p = 0.05). Instructors with 0–5 years (76%) and 11–15 years (76%) were most likely to teach writing skills, while those with 6–10 (49%) years of experience were least likely. There were also statistically significant differences in instruction of customer service (p = 0.01) and communication skills (p = 0.04) with regard to primary teaching modality. Instructors who reported teaching primarily face-to-face were much more likely to indicate they do not teach customer service skills (82%), while those who teach primarily online were more likely to say they do provide customer service instruction (41%). Nevertheless, it is important to note that even though online instructors were more likely than their counterparts to say they teach customer service, more than half of online instructors (59%) do not teach this skill. Instructors who reported teaching primarily face-to-face were most likely to say they provide instruction in communication skills (84%).
The survey also tried to probe participants’ experience with training in pedagogy. One question asked whether participants have ever taken a credit-bearing course on teaching and learning, while another asked if they regularly, occasionally, rarely, or never attend professional development programs on teaching and learning. Some differences surfaced in relation to these questions. Specifically, participants who reported having taken a credit-bearing course on teaching and learning were more likely to say they provide direct instruction on cultural competence (67%, p = 0.03). On the other hand, those who indicated that they never attend professional development programs were more likely to say they do not provide instruction in interpersonal skills (100%, p = 0.005), communication skills (83%, p = 0.0006), reflective practice (83%, p = 0.001), a commitment to DE&I (67%, p = 0.01), and presentation skills (100%, p = 0.0009).
Open-text responses
For each soft skill, respondents were given an opportunity to describe the teaching methods they use that were not included in the list of options. Respondents shared a variety of activities and strategies to integrate soft skills into their courses. For instance, several instructors indicated that in addition to assigning group projects, they ask student groups to create and sign team contracts and engage in peer review of group members to teach teamwork. A number of instructors have students interview practitioners as a way to build interpersonal skills. Virtually everyone who responded to the question about writing indicated that they provide detailed feedback on writing assignments as part of their writing instruction. Journaling and reflective writing exercises were popular methods for teaching students to engage in reflective practice. Some instructors indicated that they use real-world or problem-based approaches to teach some skills. For instance, one instructor has students prepare and deliver a program at a local library, while another engages real-world clients. Student groups meet with the clients and develop strategies and reports to meet their needs.
The final question asked participants to list any soft skills they believe to be important that were not addressed in the body of the survey, and to discuss how they teach those skills. Thirty-two participants responded to this question. Many of the responses were listed only once or twice and thus did not constitute a pattern. However, several of the skills listed could be clustered around three main areas of professional skills, conflict resolution, and emotional intelligence. Professional skills were mentioned most often, with eight respondents listing related skills, including time management, professional networking, and professional communication skills such as writing appropriate emails and memos as well as cover letters and résumés and engaging in a professional job interview. One respondent commented that there should be more emphasis on professional skills but went on to note, “I don't think these can all happen in the classroom but should be provided for everyone in the School.” Four respondents listed conflict management or conflict resolution as an essential soft skill. Three respondents commented on the importance of skills related to empathy and emotional intelligence. One instructor commented that “empathy and active listening are both critical soft skills for today's graduates. I address these skills through class lectures, assignments, and class discussions.” Although it was not directly related to these three themes, one respondent mentioned the importance of civility and another mentioned the need to set professional boundaries, both of which could overlap with empathy and conflict resolution.
Limitations
This study has several limitations which should be acknowledged. Most importantly, the survey had a very low response rate, of just under 7%. Surveys are always subject to the risk of responder bias, or the possibility that those who choose to respond to the survey differ in some substantive way from those who choose not to respond, thus skewing the results. For instance, it is possible that faculty members who already teach soft skills were more motivated to respond than those who do not. A low response rate exacerbates the possibility of responder bias, so care must be taken in generalizing the results. Nevertheless, the results still offer some insight into how one group of LIS faculty are currently addressing soft skills and could stimulate further conversation and curricular review.
In addition, surveys rely on self-reporting and, as such, might not fully reflect the content and activities in the classroom. Some faculty might be integrating soft skills without characterizing them that way. Furthermore, the survey did not try to quantify the level or amount of content devoted to soft skills. Participants indicated that they either taught a certain skill or they did not. Some instructors might be devoting full assignments or sections of a course to a skill, while others might touch on the skill only lightly. Further research might examine syllabi and other course materials and conduct interviews to gather more context about the extent to which these skills are taught, as well as the methods used for instruction and assessment.
Finally, while the survey asked several demographic questions, it did not ask faculty to identify the specific branch, sub-discipline, or area of LIS in which they teach. Thus, the findings reflect only whether faculty in general teach or do not teach certain skills. However, even though soft skills generally transcend information setting and job type, it makes sense that these skills might be ultimately more important in public-facing or user services positions like reference, instruction, and children and youth services and, as a result, might receive more emphasis in courses focused on those areas. Future studies might segment faculty by courses taught to see if there are differences in attention to soft skills across broad categories like user services, technical or access services, youth services, archives, and other kinds of courses.
Discussion
The findings of this study suggest not only that faculty recognize the importance of soft skills and feel some responsibility for teaching them, but also that many of them are actively integrating those skills into their courses. Furthermore, when LIS faculty teach soft skills, they generally offer students feedback on those skills. While some significant differences existed, these cases were limited, implying that instruction in soft skills is relatively even across faculty of different ranks, years in the field, primary teaching modality, and experience with pedagogy training. Indeed, given the number of LIS programs that are exclusively or primarily online, and the more extensive shift to online classes in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020, it is reassuring to know that online and on-the-ground students appear to be receiving equivalent instruction in soft skills.
The survey also examined the strategies instructors use to teach soft skills. Discussions, lecture, and readings are among the most popular teaching methods overall. Both discussions and instructor lectures or demonstrations were among the top methods for all 10 skills. Discussions were ranked in the top two strategies for teaching eight of the 10, excepting only writing and presentation skills. Readings were also ranked as a top method for all skills except presentation skills. Other popular methods include writing assignments, group projects, and student presentations. In some cases, the teaching methods seem to align with the skill in question. For instance, faculty report using writing assignments most often to teach writing and reflective practice, while student presentations are the top strategy for teaching presentation skills, and group projects are top ranked for teaching teamwork.
The fact that the faculty in this study teach a range of soft skills at such high rates seems to stand in contradiction to the perceived skills gap and the persistent notion of a disconnect between LIS programs and the needs in the field. For instance, one study found that employers emphasized the need for soft skills and indicated that new graduates did not always meet expectations for these skills. Chow et al. (2011, p. 12) quote one study participant as saying, “I find that a majority of the MLS classes are focused on traditional library functions rather than real world expectations in regards to communication and management,” while another comments, “I do not think enough people management skills or communication skills are being taught in MLIS programs.” Dubey and Tiwari (2020) found that students’ and employers’ perceptions varied substantially for all but three of the 44 skills they examined and indicated a greater gap for soft skills than technical or hard skills. Discussing the importance of soft skills for health information professionals, Ma et al. (2017, p. 69) found that “93.1% of health sciences librarian respondents reported viewing cultural competency as important to their roles, but 49.7% reported having no past training or coursework in it.” They also suggest that some soft skills, such as interpersonal skills, “cannot be taught in academic programs” (p. 76). Cobb, Meixelsperger, and Seitz (2015) similarly claim that soft skills are generally not taught in LIS classrooms, although they attribute the oversight to a lack of time rather than an inherent inability to teach these skills.
If faculty are indeed teaching soft skills at the rate indicated by this study, why do these discrepancies persist? While the results of this study cannot directly answer this question, they do suggest some explanations. One possibility is that, while faculty may be addressing soft skills in the classroom, they might not be teaching them in ways that facilitate retention or transfer of the skills to new contexts. For instance, faculty report using group projects to teach teamwork and discussions for interpersonal skills. What is not clear, however, is whether the faculty are explicit about the soft skills they expect students to develop through these activities, or whether they provide any scaffolding to support that development. A handful of respondents report that they have student groups develop and sign contracts and engage in peer review, which provides direct practice with some aspects of teamwork. In other cases, however, it is unclear if instructors are explicit about how group projects facilitate teamwork skills, or whether they expect those skills to be a byproduct of the project.
With regard to discussions, for example, do faculty explain that students should be learning interpersonal skills as part of their discussions, and do they alert them to the kinds of behaviors, interactions, and competencies that would characterize effective interpersonal skills in a discussion? Are the discussions themselves focused on and organized around interpersonal skills, or are interpersonal skills assumed to be byproduct of any discussion? Herman and Nilson (2018) point out that discussions can have many different purposes, and the type of discussion can affect the outcome. If faculty do not plan for interpersonal skills as an outcome of discussion, and explicitly address how those skills are developed through the activity, students might focus on the content of the discussion without realizing they are practicing interpersonal skills. If they are not recognizing the skills they are practicing, it might be harder for students to transfer and apply them to new situations, including the workplace.
Along the same lines, while survey participants report using a variety of instructional strategies to teach soft skills, passive strategies such as lectures and readings were among the most used strategies across skill categories. Discussions are also a popular method, and, while they are more active than lectures or readings, they are not necessarily best suited for teaching all skills. As noted above, depending on how they are organized and implemented, discussions can have different outcomes, and students might focus more on the content of the conversation than the skills of dialogue. Other, more explicitly active learning strategies like case studies, hands-on practice, and role-playing were far less common. In fact, in a study of a course devoted to soft skills at the University of Punjab, Ameen (2013) found that students believed the course emphasized theory over practice and they expressed a desire for more hands-on practice like group work over readings.
Yet active instructional strategies can lead to improved learning (Freeman et al., 2014), including for soft skills (Prince, 2004). Further, active learning strategies provide instructors with more opportunity to provide feedback to students, as those strategies generally require students to demonstrate or reflect on their learning. Activities that encourage students to reflect on their learning and engage in self-assessment can also help reinforce and deepen learning. While instructors in this survey indicate that they generally provide feedback on these skills, the survey did not probe how that feedback is provided, and it is difficult to imagine what kind of feedback instructors might give for passive learning like lectures and readings. Perhaps more use of active learning techniques would allow for more practice and feedback and ultimately lead to better inter- and intrapersonal skills and help to close the perceived skills gap.
The skills gap might also be a function not of whether soft skills are being taught, but which skills are taught. A recent study (Saunders, 2019) identified 11 skills considered core to the field of LIS, seven of which were soft skills: interpersonal communication, writing, customer service, teamwork, cultural competence, interacting with diverse communities, and reflective practice grounded in diversity and inclusion. Overall, the findings of the current study suggest that what is being taught in LIS programs aligns fairly well with the core soft skills. One discrepancy is with customer service skills. In the 2019 study, nearly three-quarters of respondents identified customer service skills as core, making it one of the highest-ranked soft skills, along with interpersonal skills, writing, and teamwork, and placing it just above cultural competence.
Nevertheless, customer service was the least likely soft skill to be addressed in LIS courses according to the current study, with only 31% of respondents saying they provide direct instruction in customer service. What is more, in the open-ended responses, one LIS faculty member asserted, “I would say that we explicitly challenge the notion of “customer service” in our field (LIS).” The respondent did not provide any further explanation, so it is impossible to determine what they meant by challenging the notion of customer service but that response, coupled with the low numbers addressing customer service overall, suggest this is one area where LIS programs might deviate somewhat from the needs and expectations of the field. Also, in both the current study and the 2019 study, professional skills such as time management and specific kinds of professional writing (such as memos, emails, and résumés) were identified as important in the open-ended responses. The current study did not ask about those skills, and they could be another potential area of disconnect between the classroom and the field.
It is also important to note that this survey examined teaching soft skills at the course level. The fact that the faculty who responded to this survey are addressing soft skills in their individual courses does not necessarily mean that those skills are being addressed systematically across the curriculum. As noted above, surveys are subject to responder bias, and it is possible that the faculty who chose to respond to this survey are more likely to teach soft skills than their colleagues who did not respond. As a result, students might be experiencing uneven attention to these skills across their programs, with some faculty emphasizing them while others do not. If students are exposed to soft skills only in an ad hoc way depending on the motivation of the individual instructor, they might not have much opportunity to develop and improve their skills over time to move toward mastery, which might also make transfer of those skills to the workplace more challenging.
A final point of interest in the findings is related to faculty participation in professional development related to teaching and learning. While there were few statistically significant differences in this study overall, several differences emerged between those participants who report taking part in professional development focused on teaching and learning and those who indicate they never do so. Instructors who report never attending training are less likely than their counterparts to teach several important soft skills, including presentation skills, interpersonal skills, communication skills, reflective practice, and a commitment to DE&I. In some cases, 100% of the instructors who do not attend training also indicated they do not teach these skills. Only seven participants reported never attending training, and with such small numbers care must be taken in making generalizations. However, the finding is suggestive and might indicate that professional development can encourage attention to soft skills in LIS courses.
Conclusion
Soft skills are consistently identified as essential to the field of LIS across information settings and job functions. The findings of this study indicate that, despite a persistent perceived skill gap, LIS faculty are providing instruction in soft skills, and that instruction generally aligns with the soft skills identified as core to the field. However, the fact that many students and recent graduates indicate that they did not learn necessary soft skills in their degree programs, coupled with a perceived soft-skills gap by employers, suggests that LIS programs could do a better job of integrating these skills effectively across the curriculum. To begin with, individual faculty might review how they are addressing these skills and consider implementing more active learning strategies beyond discussions. Faculty could also scaffold learning by being explicit about what skills students are developing, offering them opportunities for hands-on practice and reflection, and providing constructive feedback. On a more systematic level, faculty could review the curriculum at the program level to see which soft skills are being addressed and whether the skills are addressed in an ad hoc manner, or whether they are sequenced throughout the curriculum in a way that allows students to hone those skills over time.
Since there is some correlation between faculty attendance at professional development training related to teaching and learning and their attention to soft skills, LIS program deans and directors might consider ensuring ample opportunities for such training, and perhaps even incentivizing attendance. LIS programs that offer doctoral degrees might help enculturate emerging faculty by integrating courses on pedagogy into their curriculum and/or by providing their doctoral students with co-curricular opportunities to learn about pedagogy. Such opportunities would provide early exposure to best practices in teaching and learning for these doctoral students and might encourage them to pursue ongoing professional development in this area.
This study explored the extent to which faculty are addressing 10 specific soft skills in their courses, and what teaching methods they use, setting a baseline for current practice. Future studies might probe deeper to better understand how faculty implement these strategies in the classroom, including whether they use more passive or active techniques, and how they offer students feedback on skill development. In addition, it is important for LIS programs to continue a dialogue with practitioners and the future employers of their students to ensure their emphases in the classroom match needs in the field. Given the essential nature of soft skills to the field of LIS, it is crucial for faculty to integrate these skills into their teaching to ensure graduate employability and professional success.
References
Adkins, D., Virden, C., & Yier, C. (2015). Learning about diversity: The roles of LIS Education, LIS associations, and lived experience. Library Quarterly, 85(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1086/680153
Ahmad, S., Ameen, K. & Ullah, M. (2017). Modes of soft skills learning: A case of university information professionals in Pakistan. Library Review, 66(8/9), 711–725. https://doi.org/10.1108/LR-04-2017-0037
Ameen, K. (2013). The need and impact of learning “Personality Development & Communication Skills” in LIS education: A case study. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 18(1), 15–25.
American Library Association (ALA). (2009). Core competences of librarianship. Retrieved from https://www.ala.org/educationcareers/sites/ala.org.educationcareers/files/content/careers/corecomp/corecompetences/finalcorecompstat09.pdf
Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL). (2017). ACRL proficiencies for assessment librarians and coordinators. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/assessment_proficiencies
Burning Glass Technologies. (2015). The human factor: The hard time employers have finding soft skills. Retrieved from http://www.burning-glass.com/wp-content/uploads/Human_Factor_Baseline_Skills_FINAL.pdf
Chow, A. S., Shaw, T. L., Gwynn, D., Martensen, D., & Howard, M. (2011). Changing times and requirements: Implications for LIS education. LIBRES: Library & Information Science Research Electronic Journal, 21(1), B1–B23.
Cobb, E. J., Meixelsperger, J., & Seitz, K. K. (2015). Beyond the classroom: Fostering soft skills in pre-professional LIS organizations. Journal of Library Administration, 55(2), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2014.995550
Deng, L., Thomas, A., & Trembach, S. (2014). Shaping the 21st-century information professional: A convergence of technical and “soft” skills for workplace success. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 51(1), 205–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.2014.14505101128
Dubey, R. S., & Tiwari, V. (2020). Operationalisation of soft skill attributes and determining the existing gap in novice ICT professionals. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.09.006
Federer, L. (2018). Defining data librarianship: A survey of competencies, skills, and training. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106(3), 294–303. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.306
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Gerolimos, M., Malliari, A., & Iakovidis, P. (2015). Skills in the market: An analysis of skills and qualifications for American librarians. Library Review, 64(1/2), 21−35. https://doi.org/10.1108/LR-06-2014-0063
Hartnett, E. (2014). NASIG’s Core Competencies for Electronic Resources Librarians revisited: An analysis of job advertisement trends, 2000−2012. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(3/4), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.03.013
Hart Research Associates. (2018). Fulfilling the American dream: Liberal education and the future of work. American Association of Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2018EmployerResearchReport.pdf
Herman, J. H., & Nilson, L. B. (2018). Creating engaging discussions: Strategies for ‘avoiding crickets’ in any size classroom and online. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Hirsh, S. (2019). From perceptions to facts: How well is LIS education preparing tomorrow’s leaders? Online Searcher, 43(2), 47−48.
Jaeger, P. T., Bertot, J. C., & Subramaniam, M. (2013). Preparing future librarians to effectively serve their communities. Library Quarterly, 83(3), 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1086/670699
Jaeger, P. T., Cooke, N. A., Feltis, C., Hamiel, M., Jardine, F., & Shilton, K. (2015). The virtuous circle revisited: Injecting diversity, inclusion, rights, justice, and equity into LIS from education to advocacy. Library Quarterly, 85(2), 150–171. https://doi.org/10.1086/680154
Kennan, M. A., Cole F., Willard P., Wilson C., & Marion L. (2006). Changing workplace demands: What job ads tell us. Aslib Proceedings, 58(3), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530610677228
Kloppenborg, P., & Lodge, D. (2010). Forgotten anything: Library staff competencies for the learning commons. Library Management, 31(3), 169-185. https://doi.org/10.1108/01435121011027345
Koh, K., & Abbas, J. (2015). Competencies for information professionals in learning labs and makerspaces. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 56(2), 114–129.
Lankes, R. D., Stephens, M., & Arjona, M. (2015). Participatory and transformative engagement in libraries and museums: Exploring and expanding the Salzburg curriculum. Journal of Education for Library & Information Science, 56, S61–S68. https://doi.org/10.12783/issn.2328-2967/56/S1/7
Linked-in Learning. (2018). Workplace learning report. https://learning.linkedin.com/resources/workplace-learning-report-2018
Lussky, J. P. (2008). Employer demands for cataloger and cataloger-like librarians and implications for LIS. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 49(2), 116−127.
Ma, J., Stahl, L., & Price, C. (2020). Developing specialized graduate curricula for health information professionals: Integrated findings of a scoping review and an employer survey. Journal of Education for Library & Information Science, 61(1), 64–86. https://doi.org/10.3138/jelis.61.1.2018-0066
Medical Library Association (MLA). (2017). Professional competencies. Retrieved from https://www.mlanet.org/p/cm/ld/fid=1217
National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE). (2018). Employers want to see these attributes on students’ resumes. Retrieved from https://www.naceweb.org/talent-acquisition/candidate-selection/employers-want-to-see-these-attributes-on-students-resumes/
Partridge, H., Lee, J., & Munro, C. (2010). Becoming “librarian 2.0”: The skills, knowledge, and attributes required by library and information science professionals in a web 2.0 world (and beyond). Library Trends, 59(1/2), 315–335. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2010.0029
Partridge, H., Menzies, V., Lee, J., & Munro, C. (2010). The contemporary librarian: Skills, knowledge and attributes required in a world of emerging technologies. Library and Information Science Research, 32(4), 265–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2010.07.001
Pontika, N. (2019). Roles and jobs in the open research scholarly communications environment: Analysing job descriptions to predict future trends. Liber Quarterly: The Journal of European Research Libraries, 29(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10282
Pradhan, S. (2015). Study of employability and needed skills for LIS graduates. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 35(2), 106–112. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.35.2.8312
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Raju, J. (2014). Knowledge and skills for the digital era academic library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(2), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.02.007
Raju, J. (2019). Embracing new trends in scholarly communication: From competency requirements in the workplace to LIS curriculum presence. Journal of Librarianship & Scholarly Communication, 7(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2291
Reference and User Services Association (RUSA). (2013). Guidelines for behavioral performance of reference and information service providers. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/rusa/resources/guidelines/guidelinesbehavioral
Saunders, L. (2015). Professional perspectives on library and information science education. Library Quarterly, 85(4), 427−453. https://doi.org/10.1086/682735
Saunders, L. (2019). Core and more: Examining foundational and specialized content in library and information science. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 60(1), 3−34. https://doi.org/10.3138/jelis.60.1.2018-0034
Shahbazi, R., & Hedayati, A. (2016). Identifying digital librarian competencies according to the analysis of newly emerging IT-based LIS jobs in 2013. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(5), 542–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.06.014
Society of American Archivists (SAA). (2020). SAA Core Values Statements and Code of Ethics. Retrieved from https://www2.archivists.org/statements/saa-core-values-statement-and-code-of-ethics
Special Library Association (SLA). (2016). Competencies for information professionals. Retrieved from https://www.sla.org/about-sla/competencies/
Stephens, M. (2013, February 21). Essential soft skills. Library Journal. Retrieved from https://www.libraryjournal.com/?detailStory=essential-soft-skills
Sutton, S. W., & Collinge, R. (2018). Competencies for e-resource librarians redux: What do they look like in 2017? Serials Librarian, 74(1–4), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2018.1428029
Varalakshmi, R. S. R. (2006). Educating 21st century LIS professionals—Needs and expectations: A survey of Indian LIS professionals and alumni. Journal of Education for Library & Information Science, 47(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2018.1428029
Appendix A Professional Skills and Personal Qualities
Q1 Research has consistently shown that professional skills and personal qualities, sometimes referred to as "soft skills," are among the most highly sought by employers across fields and disciplines. Such studies suggest that emerging professionals will need these skills both to obtain employment and to be successful in the field, and that it is incumbent on faculty to prepare students in these areas. However, it is unclear the extent to which various degree programs address soft skills within their curricula.
This survey seeks to answer the following questions:
•
How important do faculty believe soft skills to be for their students’ employability and career success?
•
To what extent do faculty believe themselves to be responsible for teaching soft skills?
•
Do faculty teach soft skills in their courses? If so, what instructional methods do they use?
•
Do faculty assess students’ soft skills?
Your feedback will add to a growing body of knowledge on the topic and could help inform curricular decisions at course and program levels. Please note that this survey asks whether you provide "explicit instruction" on a set of pre-selected skills. By explicit instruction we mean instruction in any form (discussion, writing assignments, readings, etc.) that directly or explicitly addresses the skill and/or has learning outcomes related to that skill.
Q2 Which best describes your position:
⚪ Tenure stream, not yet tenured (1)
⚪ Tenured, Associate Professor (2)
⚪ Tenured, Full Professor (3)
⚪ Full time Contract Professor, Professor of Practice, etc. (4)
⚪ Adjunct (5)
Q3 How long have you worked as a faculty member?
⚪ 0-5 years (1)
⚪ 6-10 years (2)
⚪ 11-15 years (3)
⚪ 15+ years (4)
Q4 Have you taught a course within the last two years?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Skip To: Q5 If Have you taught a course within the last two years? = Yes
Skip To: End of Survey If Have you taught a course within the last two years? = No
Q5 In what modality do you primarily teach?
⚪ Primarily online (1)
⚪ Primarily face-to face (2)
⚪ About equally online and face-to-face (3)
Q6 Which of the following best describes your field or discipline:
⚪ Library and Information Science (1)
⚪ Social Work (2)
⚪ Nursing (3)
⚪ Education (4)
⚪ Other (5) ________________________________________________
Skip To: Q7 If Which of the following best describes your field or discipline: = Library and Information Science
Skip To: Q8 If Which of the following best describes your field or discipline: = Social Work
Skip To: Q8 If Which of the following best describes your field or discipline: = Nursing
Skip To: Q8 If Which of the following best describes your field or discipline: = Education
Q7 Are you a member of the Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE)?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Q8 Have you ever taken a credit-bearing course on teaching and learning (i.e., as part of a degree program)?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Q9 Do you ever attend professional development activities (workshops, institutes, conferences, continuing education, etc.) explicitly focused on teaching and learning topics?
⚪ Regularly (1)
⚪ Occasionally (2)
⚪ Rarely (3)
⚪ Never (4)
Q10 In your opinion, how important are the following skills for ALL graduates of your program to acquire to be successful in the profession?
| Extremely important (1) | Very important (2) | Moderately important (3) | Slightly important (4) | Not at all important (5) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interpersonal skills (1) | • | • | • | • | • |
| Writing skills (2) | • | • | • | • | • |
| Communication skills (3) | • | • | • | • | • |
| Teamwork (4) | • | • | • | • | • |
| Cultural Competence (the ability to effectively communicate and interact across cultures) (5) | • | • | • | • | • |
| Reflective Practice (6) | • | • | • | • | • |
| Customer Service skills (7) | • | • | • | • | • |
| Commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (8) | • | • | • | • | • |
| Adaptability/Flexibility (9) | • | • | • | • | • |
| Presentation skills (10) | • | • | • | • | • |
Q11 At which level(s) do you primarily teach?
⚪ Master's (1)
⚪ Bachelor (2)
⚪ Both Master's and Bachelor (3)
Skip To: Q14 If At which level(s) do you primarily teach? = Master's
Q12 To what extent do you agree that faculty in your program have a responsibility to teach the following skills at the Bachelor's level?
| Strongly Agree (1) | Agree (2) | Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) | Disagree (4) | Strongly Disagree (5) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interpersonal skills (1) | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ |
| Writing skills (2) | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ |
| Communication Skills (3) | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ |
| Teamwork (4) | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ |
| Cultural Competence (the ability to effectively communicate and interact across cultures) (5) | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ |
| Reflective Practice (6) | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ |
| Customer Service skills (7) | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ |
| Commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (8) | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ |
| Adaptability/Flexibility (9) | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ |
| Presentation skills (10) | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ |
Q13 To what extent do you agree that faculty in your program have a responsibility to teach the following skills at the Master's level?
| Strongly Agree (1) | Agree (2) | Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) | Disagree (4) | Strongly Disagree (5) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interpersonal skills (1) | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ |
| Writing skills (2) | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ |
| Communication Skills (3) | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ |
| Teamwork (4) | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ |
| Cultural Competence (the ability to effectively communicate and interact across cultures) (5) | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ |
| Reflective Practice (6) | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ |
| Customer Service skills (7) | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ |
| Commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (8) | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ |
| Adaptability/Flexibility (9) | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ |
| Presentation skills (10) | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ |
Q14 Do you provide explicit instruction in interpersonal skills in any of your courses?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Skip To: Q19 If Do you provide explicit instruction in interpersonal skills in any of your courses? = No
Q15 Do you teach interpersonal skills in:
⬜ Bachelor's core courses (1)
⬜ Bachelor's electives (2)
⬜ Master's core courses (3)
⬜ Master's electives (4)
Q16 Please indicate all of the methods you use to teach interpersonal skills:
⬜ Discussions (1)
⬜ Quizzes/Tests (2)
⬜ Instructor lecture/demonstration (3)
⬜ Guest lecture/demonstration (4)
⬜ Readings (5)
⬜ Student presentation (6)
⬜ Group project (7)
⬜ Technology usage (8)
⬜ Hands-on activity (9)
⬜ Role-play (10)
⬜ Writing assignment (11)
⬜ Case studies (12)
Q17 Please describe any other methods you use to teach interpersonal skills not mentioned above.
________________________________________________________________
Q18 Do you give students specific feedback on their performance related to interpersonal skills?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Q19 Do you provide explicit instruction in writing skills in any of your courses?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Skip To: Q24 If Do you provide explicit instruction in writing skills in any of your courses? = No
Q20 Do you teach writing skills in:
⬜ Bachelor Core courses (1)
⬜ Bachelor Electives (2)
⬜ Master's Core courses (3)
⬜ Master's Electives (4)
Q21 Please indicate all of the methods you use to teach writing skills:
⬜ Discussions (1)
⬜ Quizzes/Tests (2)
⬜ Instructor lecture/demonstration (3)
⬜ Guest lecture/demonstration (4)
⬜ Readings (5)
⬜ Student presentation (6)
⬜ Group project (7)
⬜ Technology usage (8)
⬜ Hands-on activity (9)
⬜ Role-play (10)
⬜ Writing assignment (11)
⬜ Case studies (12)
Q22 Please describe any other methods you use to teach writing skills not mentioned above.
________________________________________________________________
Q23 Do you give students specific feedback on their performance related to writing skills?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Q24 Do you provide explicit instruction in communication skills in any of your courses?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Skip To: Q29 If Do you provide explicit instruction in communication skills in any of your courses? = No
Q25 Do you teach communication skills in:
⬜ Bachelor Core courses (1)
⬜ Bachelor Electives (2)
⬜ Master's Core courses (3)
⬜ Master's Electives (4)
Q26 Please indicate all of the methods you use to teach communication skills:
⬜ Discussions (1)
⬜ Quizzes/Tests (2)
⬜ Instructor lecture/demonstration (3)
⬜ Guest lecture/demonstration (4)
⬜ Readings (5)
⬜ Student presentation (6)
⬜ Group project (7)
⬜ Technology usage (8)
⬜ Hands-on activity (9)
⬜ Role-play (10)
⬜ Writing assignment (11)
⬜ Case studies (12)
Q27 Please describe any other methods you use to teach communication skills not mentioned above.
________________________________________________________________
Q28 Do you give students specific feedback on their performance related to communication skills?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Q29 Do you provide explicit instruction in teamwork in any of your courses?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Skip To: Q34 If Do you provide explicit instruction in teamwork in any of your courses? = No
Q30 Do you teach teamwork in:
⬜ Bachelor Core courses (1)
⬜ Bachelor Electives (2)
⬜ Master's Core courses (3)
⬜ Master's Electives (4)
Q31 Please indicate all of the methods you use to teach teamwork:
⬜ Discussions (1)
⬜ Quizzes/Tests (2)
⬜ Instructor lecture/demonstration (3)
⬜ Guest lecture/demonstration (4)
⬜ Readings (5)
⬜ Student presentation (6)
⬜ Group project (7)
⬜ Technology usage (8)
⬜ Hands-on activity (9)
⬜ Role-play (10)
⬜ Writing assignment (11)
⬜ Case studies (12)
Q32 Please describe any other methods you use to teach teamwork not mentioned above.
________________________________________________________________
Q33 Do you give students specific feedback on their performance related to teamwork?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Q34 Do you provide explicit instruction in Cultural Competence (the ability to effectively communicate and interact across cultures) in any of your courses?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Skip To: Q39 If Do you provide explicit instruction in Cultural Competence (the ability to effectively communicat... = No
Q35 Do you teach Cultural Competence (the ability to effectively communicate and interact across cultures) in:
⬜ Bachelor Core courses (1)
⬜ Bachelor Electives (2)
⬜ Master's Core courses (3)
⬜ Master's Electives (4)
Q36 Please indicate all of the methods you use to teach Cultural Competence (the ability to effectively communicate and interact across cultures):
⬜ Discussions (1)
⬜ Quizzes/Tests (2)
⬜ Instructor lecture/demonstration (3)
⬜ Guest lecture/demonstration (4)
⬜ Readings (5)
⬜ Student presentation (6)
⬜ Group project (7)
⬜ Technology usage (8)
⬜ Hands-on activity (9)
⬜ Role-play (10)
⬜ Writing assignment (11)
⬜ Case studies (12)
Q37 Please describe any other methods you use to teach Cultural Competence (the ability to effectively communicate and interact across cultures) not mentioned above.
________________________________________________________________
Q38 Do you give students specific feedback on their performance related to Cultural Competence (the ability to effectively communicate and interact across cultures)?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Q39 Do you provide explicit instruction in Reflective Practice (critically reflecting on our work to identify areas for improvement) in any of your courses?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Skip To: Q44 If Do you provide explicit instruction in Reflective Practice (critically reflecting on our work to... = No
Q40 Do you teach Reflective Practice in:
⬜ Bachelor Core courses (1)
⬜ Bachelor Electives (2)
⬜ Master's Core courses (3)
⬜ Master's Electives (4)
Q41 Please indicate all of the methods you use to teach Reflective Practice:
⬜ Discussions (1)
⬜ Quizzes/Tests (2)
⬜ Instructor lecture/demonstration (3)
⬜ Guest lecture/demonstration (4)
⬜ Readings (5)
⬜ Student presentation (6)
⬜ Group project (7)
⬜ Technology usage (8)
⬜ Hands-on activity (9)
⬜ Role-play (10)
⬜ Writing assignment (11)
⬜ Case studies (12)
Q42 Please describe any other methods you use to teach Reflective Practice not mentioned above.
________________________________________________________________
Q43 Do you give students specific feedback on their performance related to Reflective Practice?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Q44 Do you provide explicit instruction in Customer Service Skills in any of your courses?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Skip To: Q49 If Do you provide explicit instruction in Customer Service Skills in any of your courses? = No
Q45 Do you teach Customer Service Skills in:
⬜ Bachelor Core courses (1)
⬜ Bachelor Electives (2)
⬜ Master's Core courses (3)
⬜ Master's Electives (4)
Q46 Please indicate all of the methods you use to teach Customer Service Skills:
⬜ Discussions (1)
⬜ Quizzes/Tests (2)
⬜ Instructor lecture/demonstration (3)
⬜ Guest lecture/demonstration (4)
⬜ Readings (5)
⬜ Student presentation (6)
⬜ Group project (7)
⬜ Technology usage (8)
⬜ Hands-on activity (9)
⬜ Role-play (10)
⬜ Writing assignment (11)
⬜ Case studies (12)
Q47 Please describe any other methods you use to teach Customer Service Skills not mentioned above.
________________________________________________________________
Q48 Do you give students specific feedback on their performance related to Customer Service Skills?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Q49 Do you provide explicit instruction in Commitment to Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion in any of your courses?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Skip To: Q54 If Do you provide explicit instruction in Commitment to Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion in any of you... = No
Q50 Do you teach Commitment to Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion in:
⬜ Bachelor Core courses (1)
⬜ Bachelor Electives (2)
⬜ Master's Core courses (3)
⬜ Master's Electives (4)
Q51 Please indicate all of the methods you use to teach Commitment to Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion:
⬜ Discussions (1)
⬜ Quizzes/Tests (2)
⬜ Instructor lecture/demonstration (3)
⬜ Guest lecture/demonstration (4)
⬜ Readings (5)
⬜ Student presentation (6)
⬜ Group project (7)
⬜ Technology usage (8)
⬜ Hands-on activity (9)
⬜ Role-play (10)
⬜ Writing assignment (11)
⬜ Case studies (12)
Q52 Please describe any other methods you use to teach Commitment to Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion not mentioned above.
________________________________________________________________
Q53 Do you give students specific feedback on their performance related to Commitment to Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Q54 Do you provide explicit instruction in Presentation Skills in any of your courses?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Skip To: Q60 If Do you provide explicit instruction in Presentation Skills in any of your courses? = No
Q55 Do you teach Presentation Skills in:
⬜ Bachelor Core courses (1)
⬜ Bachelor Electives (2)
⬜ Master's Core courses (3)
⬜ Master's Electives (4)
Q56 Please indicate all of the methods you use to teach Presentation Skills:
⬜ Discussions (1)
⬜ Quizzes/Tests (2)
⬜ Instructor lecture/demonstration (3)
⬜ Guest lecture/demonstration (4)
⬜ Readings (5)
⬜ Student presentation (6)
⬜ Group project (7)
⬜ Technology usage (8)
⬜ Hands-on activity (9)
⬜ Role-play (10)
⬜ Writing assignment (11)
⬜ Case studies (12)
Q57 Please describe any other methods you use to teach Presentation Skills not mentioned above.
________________________________________________________________
Q58 Do you give students specific feedback on their performance related to Presentation Skills?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Q59 Do you provide explicit instruction in Flexibility/Adaptability in any of your courses?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Skip To: Q64 If Do you provide explicit instruction in Flexibility/Adaptability in any of your courses? = No
Q60 Do you teach Flexibility/Adaptability in:
⬜ Bachelor Core courses (1)
⬜ Bachelor Electives (2)
⬜ Master's Core courses (3)
⬜ Master's Electives (4)
Q61 Please indicate all of the methods you use to teach Flexibility/Adaptability:
⬜ Discussions (1)
⬜ Quizzes/Tests (2)
⬜ Instructor lecture/demonstration (3)
⬜ Guest lecture/demonstration (4)
⬜ Readings (5)
⬜ Student presentation (6)
⬜ Group project (7)
⬜ Technology usage (8)
⬜ Hands-on activity (9)
⬜ Role-play (10)
⬜ Writing assignment (11)
Q62 Please describe any other methods you use to teach Flexibility/Adaptability not mentioned above.
________________________________________________________________
Q63 Do you give students specific feedback on their performance related to Flexibility/Adaptability?
⚪ Yes (1)
⚪ No (2)
Q64 Please use this space to discuss any professional or personal skills not listed above that you believe are important for your students to acquire and how you address those skills in your courses.
________________________________________________________________
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Education for Library and Information Science
Volume 63 • Number 2 • April 2022
Pages: 187 - 215
Copyright
Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 2022.
History
Published online: 5 October 2021
Published in print: April 2022
Keywords:
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Related Content
Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Download article citation data for:
Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 2022 63:2, 187-215
Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 2022 63:2, 187-215