Posted on by

 

Primary Sources Teaching Fellowship

By Sarah Carrier, Nadia Clifton, and Emily Kader

Introduction

Primary Sources Teaching Fellowship at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Librarians at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s University Libraries founded and hosted the Primary Sources Teaching Fellowship (PST Fellowship), a learning program for master’s in library and information science students funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services’ (IMLS) Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program. With three annual cohorts, each with eight fellows enrolled in one of North Carolina’s five library and information science programs,[1] this fellowship provided training in primary source pedagogy for new librarians who aspired to work in special collections, academic, K-12, public, and other library settings. The program consisted of three components: a five-week online training program where fellows met to discuss shared readings and engage with visiting speakers; a three-day in person workshop where fellows worked hands-on with primary sources to craft their own lesson plans; and a 180-hour internship at a library or cultural heritage institution.[2] The third and final cohort of fellows was chosen in spring 2024, and the program formally closed in 2025 after the final internship placements were completed and the grant ended. The PST Fellowship curriculum that we developed and revised over three years is available here and can be modified for the classroom, departmental, or individual use. It includes guidance on how to implement and modify the schedule of readings and discussions, visiting speaker series, hands-on workshop, and internship program.

Readings and discussions

In developing the course of study and selecting appropriate readings to support learning goals for the cohort, we identified five important themes, one per week. These themes proved to be the best choices for our workshop goals and the workshop participants: current LIS students with an interest in primary source pedagogy, but not necessarily experience with the approach. Different themes can of course be chosen as appropriate. We also welcomed a guest speaker per week and made sure that the week’s theme corresponded with the subject of the guest’s talk. We ensured that the themes walked through a progression towards advanced and effective primary source engagement, particularly for ILS students, many of whom were learning how to teach with primary sources for the first time.

We decided to select 2-3 readings with some additional options per week. The group met twice a week, with Tuesday centered on discussion based on the readings, and Thursday featuring a guest working in the field with particular expertise in the week’s theme. We considered it essential for the participants to meet and interact with practitioners in the field and therefore embedded this opportunity into the fellowship. While we adjusted some of the readings and emphasis throughout the course of the grant, fundamentally the themes stayed the same. This decision was based on positive feedback from the participants regarding the workshop structure, which we solicited after each cohort.

The first week functioned as an introduction and focused on primary source literacy, neutrality, and critical race theory. The second week focused on the foundations of teaching and the concept of critical pedagogy: learner-centered, inclusive teaching based on the contemporary critical approaches. Week three was about “the nitty gritty:” lesson planning, assessment, and digital vs in-person pedagogy. The fourth week we called “the human element” about ethics, labor, and self-care. We considered it essential to include a week reflecting on the real-world working experience to ensure critical framing informed all aspects of the teaching and learning experience of the PST Fellowship: the critical approaches we employ in the classroom also extend to other dimensions of our work. Week five focused on the job market and work environments where we can apply primary source pedagogy methods, including museums. This proved to be especially practical and appropriate for the participants, all LIS students or recent graduates, and was received positively. But for other audiences and contexts, it could be replaced with another theme.

Visiting speakers and networking

While the first meeting of each week in the online training program was dedicated to discussion of the readings, the second meeting featured a visiting speaker, offering fellows an opportunity to engage with professionals in the field of primary source instruction. We chose speakers based on their alignment with each week’s topic and invited speakers to choose one or more of the related subjects as the focus of their talk. They were also asked to share their particular experience of teaching with primary sources. These sessions facilitated meaningful discussions and allowed fellows to gain insights into different approaches to primary source pedagogy. Additionally, they created networking opportunities by enabling direct interaction between fellows and established professionals in a variety of library and cultural heritage positions.

Groups or individuals looking to replicate this model can do so through both formal and informal methods. Institutions running a structured program may offer honoraria to speakers through grant funding or institutional budgets as we did. Alternatively, groups without funding for speakers can invite volunteers, appealing to interest in professional service and knowledge-sharing. Individuals expanding their knowledge of primary source instruction outside of an organized program can reach out for informational interviews. Virtual meetings are a convenient and accessible way to connect across distances. For local groups and individuals, in-person meetings may be possible and can offer opportunities for site visits with the advantage of experiencing different teaching and learning spaces, interactions with primary source objects, and even observing instruction in action.

When selecting speakers, consider assembling a panel that represents professionals who are working in a variety of spaces, who are teaching different groups of learners, who are currently in different stages of their career, and who have cultivated different areas of expertise. Formal programs that run multiple years can invite past fellows to return as speakers. In addition to sharing their experience in the field, they are also in a unique position to share how the program influenced and prepared them for their career journey. 

By engaging with people who have varied perspectives, program participants can discover ideas, values, and techniques they may not have otherwise encountered. Whether through structured programs or individual outreach, fostering dialogue with experienced professionals strengthens knowledge-sharing, builds relationships, and cultivates a community of practice around primary source instruction.

Workshop

The entire Teaching with Primary Sources program consisted of five weeks of remote engagement, with the group meeting twice a week for a total of ten sessions, and culminated in a three-day onsite, in-person workshop. With participants and guest speakers in various locations, the remote/virtual sessions were the most convenient arrangement; however, to most effectively teach primary source engagement and instruction methods, the in-person workshop onsite at Wilson Special Collections Library incorporating physical collection material was an essential component. The in-person workshop included hands-on demonstrations with librarians and subject experts over the first two days. Interspersed, the cohort had dedicated opportunities to plan and build a lesson based on a real-life teaching scenario using a pre-curated set of materials. The third day was scheduled for lesson plan presentations, which were open to the entire library staff at UNC-Chapel Hill.

During the first summer of TPS, we invited colleagues who are experts in primary source teaching to give talks with Q & As during the onsite workshop, but the following summers, we opted for guest experts to lead hands-on sessions with collection materials and demonstrations of effective pedagogical approaches. We ensured a diverse range of subject matter and material type/format for these demonstrations. Each summer, TPS instructors led sessions to prepare the cohort for receiving their “teaching kit” and expectations for the presentation.

Also, during the first summer of TPS, we allowed the cohort to choose their own topics to design a lesson plan around, but even with careful planning and support navigating the Wilson Special Collections, it proved to be more time-consuming than ideal. Therefore, in the next two summers, we pre-selected a wide representative set of real-life teaching examples from the records of Wilson’s Research and Instructional Services department, whose staff teach not only undergraduate and graduate level classes at the university level, but also K-12 workshops and tours. This proved to be the more effective approach. For each class the department keeps a record of materials used, and from this, we created the “class” and associated materials for the cohort to choose from. The TPS students had freedom to choose what audience/grade level and what style or approach they thought most effective.

After some experimentation the first summer, we also determined that 2.5-3 days were the ideal for pacing while allowing enough time to plan the lesson and develop a presentation. The “assignment” for the workshop, to develop a lesson plan around a pre-curated set of materials and assigned teaching scenario, proved to be very effective in facilitating participants to experience real-world library instruction incorporating primary sources. The public presentation allowed the opportunity for feedback from working librarians. Much of the workshop schedule beyond this basic requirement is essentially modular, for example, whether subjects experts and practitioners are invited to lead sessions or give lectures.

Internship

The goal of the internship program was to enable fellows an opportunity to apply what they have learned in a professional setting and to expand their network. We placed fellows at institutions geographically close to them or remotely in online internships at UNC’s Wilson Library. The work the fellows performed in these positions varied depending on the needs of the institution and the interests of the fellow. We required host institutions to provide experience with teaching, education, programming, or outreach with primary sources. Fellows did work such as K-12 activity design with sets of digitized materials, developing library guides for primary source material, and providing support for special collections instruction programs.

There are many ways that groups and individuals might replicate the internship portion of the PST Fellowship and modify it for their own needs. MLIS faculty teaching this curriculum can support internship placements or employment for their students by forging connections with regional libraries, archives, special collections, museums, and other cultural heritage institutions. While it may be a difficult task for faculty to do the work of placing their students in internships, they can assign students to research regional institutions where they are interested in working and encourage them to seek employment while they earn their degrees. Individuals following this curriculum can also do this exploratory work independently and reach out to these institutions to inquire about internships and employment. For library departments who are following this curriculum, look for opportunities for your trainees to fill gaps around instruction and outreach within your own institution. For example, staff who are following this training program at a special collections library could provide support for instruction librarians, doing work such as setting up and breaking down displays of materials and providing security and secondary support for student questions during instruction sessions. This way, the trainee learns the nuts and bolts of special collections instruction while also learning pedagogy by observation. Departments following this curriculum in public libraries could have their trainees explore and develop activities or programming around primary sources, including in-house collections, digitized materials, or items in private hands. Trainees could put the programs into action, thereby creating new outreach to the community, or libraries could develop a bank of programming ideas to explore and develop at a future date. In all these scenarios, the goal should be to practice some of the skills outlined in the PST Fellowship curriculum and to make connections with other folks interested in teaching with primary sources, thereby expanding knowledge, experience, and networks.

Reading List

Week 1: The Materials

Primary source literacy, historical empathy; archival/bibliographic silences; teaching about histories of violence, hate and oppression

  1. Carini, Peter Carini. “Information Literacy for Archives and Special Collections: Defining Outcomes.” Libraries and the Academy, vol. 16, no. 1, January 2016, pp. 191-206
  2. Guidelines for Primary Source Literacy Developed by the SAA-ACRL/RBMS Joint Task Force on the Development of Guidelines for Primary Source Literacy
  3. Rachel E. Winston. “Praxis for the People: Critical Race Theory and Archival Practice.” Knowledge Justice: Disrupting Library and Information Studies through Critical Race Theory. Eds. Sofia Y. Leung, Jorge R. López-McKnight. MIT Press: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11969.003.0020
  4. Winn, Sam. “The Hubris of Neutrality in Archives.” April 24, 2017. https://medium.com/on-archivy/the-hubris-of-neutrality-in-archives-8df6b523fe9f

Week 2: The Foundations

Readings: Critical/feminist/engaged librarianship/pedagogy; learner-centered, inclusive teaching/the roots of contemporary critical approaches

  1. bell hooks: Teaching to Transgress, “Engaged Pedagogy,” pages 13-22
  2. Viji Sathy and Kelly A. Hogan, “How to Make Your Teaching More Inclusive.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-to-make-your-teaching-more-inclusive/
  3. Jessica Marie Johnson; Markup Bodies: Black [Life] Studies and Slavery [Death] Studies at the Digital Crossroads. Social Text 1 December 2018; 36 (4 (137)): 57–79. (will provide)

Week 3: The Nitty Gritty

Readings: Lesson planning; Assessment; Digital vs in-person pedagogy

  1. Garcia, Patricia. 2017. “Accessing Archives: Teaching with Primary Sources in K–12 Classrooms.” The American Archivist 80 (1): 189–212. https://doi.org/10.17723/0360-9081.80.1.189.
  2. Teaching with Primary Sources Collective website; explore:
    1. Lesson Planning Step-by-Step by Melissa Barton and the RBMS Instruction and Outreach Committee, 2019
    2. Assessment Tools
    3. Tech Tools
  3. Carolina K-12 database of lesson plans https://k12database.unc.edu/ *prompt: look at individual lessons and see how primary sources are integrated
  4. Learning for Justice teaching resources https://www.learningforjustice.org/classroom-resources

Week 4: The Human Element

Readings: Ethics, labor, and self-care; faculty engagement/librarian empowerment

  1. Fobazi Ettarh “Vocational Awe and Librarianship: The Lies We Tell Ourselves.”
  2. Ashleigh Coren, “Quality or Quantity: Examining the Labor Behind Critical Primary Source Literacy.” ACRL RBMS IOC: Collaboration and Communication: Primary Source Literacy and Faculty Engagement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP1PtAzOMNs
  3. Farkas, Meredith G. “What is Slow Librarianship”
  4. White, Anna. “Let ‘No’ be ‘No’: When Librarians say ‘No’ to Instruction Opportunities.” In the Library with the Lead Pipe: An Open Access, Open Peer Reviewed Journal. October 11, 2023.
  5. Kaetrena Kendrick’s website: https://kaetrenadaviskendrick.wordpress.com/
  6. The Maintainers https://themaintainers.org/
  7. Williams, S. “Implications of Archival Labor: If we want respect for our labor, we need to value it more.” April 11, 2016. https://medium.com/on-archivy/implications-of-archival-labor-b606d8d02014

Week 5: The Institutions

Readings: The job market

  1. No readings, but locate and look at job ads in your area of librarianship that relate to teaching, instruction, or outreach; pay special attention to the duties and required qualifications, making of note of where you have experience or training and where you would want to build experience and training if you wanted to apply

Readings: Museums, historic sites, and other cultural heritage institutions

  1. Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. 1995. “Chapter 1: The Power in the Story” in Silencing the past: Power and the Production of History. Boston: Beacon Press. (will provide)
  2. Simpson, M. (2009), Museums and restorative justice: heritage, repatriation and cultural education. Museum International, 61: 121-129. https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/courses/worldofmuseums09/files/9704876.pdf
  3. US museums hold the remains of thousands of Black people https://theconversation.com/us-museums-hold-the-remains-of-thousands-of-black-people-156558 

Week 6: The Fellowship

Day 1

  • Kit intro
  • Demonstration with material (led by colleagues and subject experts)
  • Document analysis with pre-selected objects – demonstration (led by TPS instructors Sarah Carrier and Emily Kader)
  • Demonstration with material (led by colleagues and subject experts)

Day 2

  • Kit prep
  • Talk/teaching demo on selection for instruction (with guest colleague)
  • Think-pair-share + discussion with kits (led by TPS instructors Sarah Carrier and Emily Kader)
  • Kit prep
Day 3
  • Final kit prep
  • Presentations + Q&A

 

[1] The five MLIS programs are housed at Appalachian State University, East Carolina University, North Carolina Central University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

[2] The fellows received stipends for their learning, funded by IMLS, including $5000 for their participation in the training program and workshop and $3500 for their internship.