Tuesday, 28 January 2014

#chartership chat tonight at 8pm

A few of us are going to try out the chat functionality on CILIP's new VLE.  Hope you can join us tonight at 8pm!

The discussion and chat sections are unfortunately well hidden.  To find them:

  1. Log in to the CILIP website
  2. Click 'VLE'
  3. Click 'Professional Registration'
  4. Click 'Professional Registration Support'
  5. Click 'Professional Registration Chat'

For those who've been following my progress - I've finished the annotated job description and am now working on my first draft of the evaluative statement.

Sunday, 19 January 2014

#chapowrimo Day 19 - Annotated job description

Back on track - more reflective version of CV is now uploaded.  Goal for today: to annotate and upload my current job description.

Saturday, 18 January 2014

#chapowrimo hiatus

My plan of doing a bit on my Chartership portfolio every day in January got off to a great start, but then unplannable things both at work and home meant that I had to take a little break.  I don't feel too bad about it though - I reckon I earned a break with the five blog posts in one day on the changes to Chartership regulations!  It's time to get back on track though, so today I'm going to finish adding reflective elements to my extended CV.

Saturday, 4 January 2014

Chartership, the changes. Part 5: The PKSB

This is one of a series of posts in which I get to grips with the new requirements for CILIP Chartership.  Previous posts looked at  the new assessment criteria, changes to portfolio contents, the new submission process and the relationship between the different levels of professional registration.

I had the pleasure of presenting with Jo Alcock last year on the new Professional Knowledge and Skills Base (PKSB) and how the 23 Things for Professional Development linked in with it, but at that point it wasn't yet clear how it would work with professional registration.



We now know that candidates will need to use the PKSB as the basis of a skills gap analysis, using this (instead of a personal professional development plan) to identify areas for development and steps to take towards addressing these gaps.  A second gap analysis will need to be conducted near the end of the process to indicate how candidates will continue to develop post-Chartership, and the intention is that the PKSB can be used on an ongoing basis whether or not they're working towards a qualification.

I've started working through the PKSB to see how it all works.  Chartership candidates can download a spreadsheet to help with this process, breaking each section (e.g. Organising Knowledge and Information) into more specific areas (e.g. Classification schemes and taxonomies).  The candidate can then give an indication of their current level of knowledge of this area (None / Basic / Good / Comprehensive / Advanced) and their target for that area.


This is a great way to do it, because different roles within the library and information sector will require different levels of ability.  In my current role, for example, I need to know a certain amount about a lot of things including acquisitions, cataloguing, user education and management of library space, whereas other librarians I know would be experts in their areas (e.g. cataloguing) but would never have to actually order a book.

It's quite tricky to decide what number to put in the box - I might think my knowledge of a particular area is good, but then if I compare myself with others I know I have so much more to learn.  I'm not too worried about this though, I think it's meant as a tool for personal reflection and the main thing is to identify areas for improvement and ways to achieve this.

The other issue with the PKSB is the fact that it's so broad and it's likely that I'll have far more areas that I'd like to develop than I can possibly do in the course of Chartership, some of which I'll need to learn fast while others I'd like to build up over time.  For that reason, I've decided to add an extra column to my spreadsheet so I can assign a priority to each of the elements I need to work on.

This is my last post (at least for now) on the differences between the old and new regulations for CILIP Chartership.  I've had great feedback on the usefulness of these posts - thanks everyone!  I must emphasise that I'm just a candidate myself - if you're reading this because you're not sure of something check with the CILIP team, use the forum on the VLE or pull me up on the things I've got wrong.

Chartership, the changes. Part 4: How this all relates to ACLIP and FCLIP

This is one of a series of posts in which I get to grips with the new requirements for CILIP Chartership.  Previous posts looked at  the new assessment criteria, changes to portfolio contents and the new submission process.

I realise that this is a strange way to order the posts, but I thought it would be useful to finish with my observations of the overall changes to Professional Registration with CILIP.

I have been aware of ACLIP and FCLIP for as long as I've known about the MCLIP, but was never very clear about what was involved with each of them.  My perception was that ACLIP was useful accreditation if you didn't need/want the Masters but wanted something to show your professionalism and development, while FCLIP was for the awesome super-librarians who have conquered all - a lofty and unachievable goal that few people even seem to aim for.

The new Professional Registration materials present these qualifications (I know we're not supposed to call them that but it's how I think of them!) as a natural progression, with Revalidation as an ongoing process in between.  All three handbooks are available to members via the VLE, and artificial rules on when you can apply for each one have been removed.

The evaluation criteria for the three levels are very closely related, but show a definite (but achievable, one day!)  progression through your career.  For example,
  • Certification (ACLIP):  Considered the organisational context of their service and examined their role within the organisation
  • Chartership (MCLIP):  Examined the organisational context of their service, evaluated service performance, shown the ability to implement or recommend improvement, and reflected on actual or desired outcomes
  • Fellowship (FCLIP):  Examined the organisational context of their work and evidenced substantial achievement in professional practice
The evaluative statement is the same length (1000 words) for all stages, although obviously addressing the assessment criteria for the level you're aiming for.  The list of items to include is exactly the same for Certification and Chartership, with the additional requirement of two supporting letters for Fellowship.  All levels include the emphasis on reflection.  Revalidation happens after every level, but is much less of a big deal than it seems to have been before.  There is no registration fee and all that is required is logging of 20 hours' CPD each year. This is easily achieved, so I think it will just be a case of getting into the habit of logging these hours.



There are several advantages to doing it this way.  People are assessed on their professional experience, achievements and development, regardless of whether they're working full- or part-time and whether they hold the MLIS or some other relevant qualification.  Professional Registration should become a real indication of the individual's approach to their work.  Anyone can apply for any level, as long as they feel they have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they are working at that level, and the assessors may decide to award a different level to the one you applied for if, for example, you registered for Chartership but really should have applied for Certification or vice versa.  (I doubt that'll happen often, but useful to know...)

I'm really looking forward to working with the new requirements for Professional Registrations!

Chartership, the changes. Part 3: Presentation and submission

This is one of a series of posts in which I get to grips with the new requirements for CILIP Chartership.  Previous posts looked at  the new assessment criteria and changes to the contents of the portfolio.

Under the old regulations, portfolios had to be "submitted in triplicate in separate binders, each bearing your name, membership number and current post".  The electronic submission option still required two printed copies in addition to an electronic copy.

How times have changed!  Now, not only can we avoid cutting down whole trees and paying massive postage fees in the name of Chartership, we have a brand new online portfolio (using Mahara) on our brand new Virtual Learning Environment (Moodle) through which to submit.


First, the VLE.  This is still in development and I agree entirely that we need text versions of the 'How to' videos and that the navigation issues are highly irritating, although I understand that more text is coming, features have yet to be added and CILIP are still ironing out other teething problems. Once you do manage to get in it's much better than the old CILIP Communities platform, and I like the way the Chartership section guides you through the process with a web-appropriate version of the handbook.


The VLE also includes a chat room and a discussion forum to support candidates and mentors.  I knew there must be one - otherwise why bother using a VLE - but it took a fair bit of hunting to find them (my instinct was to go to the Chartership section and look for them there).

To find them from the home page, go into 'Professional Registration' (under Course Categories), then 'Professional Registration Support', et voilà!

I think it would be really helpful to have a standard box in the right-hand column giving a small number of most needed links, including this support page and the link for the portfolio.


What about the portfolio?

The Chartership portfolio now needs to be submitted online.  Jo Alcock has put together a video to demonstrate how this might be done.


I've had a little play, and so far it's all pretty straight-forward.  I'm not sure why the evaluative statement still requires numbered references rather than just hyperlinking to the relevant evidence - maybe to reduce the likelihood of assessors clicking through to the same content multiple times without realising it?

The portfolio includes sections for recording CPD and for journal entries (blog posts?), but again, I'm not sure how much detail these should include or how you would link these into a portfolio submission.  I think I'll wait for Revalidation to worry about that because I've already got a lot of evidence in file form and can easily upload those as demonstrated in Jo's video.

Chartership, the changes. Part 2: The ingredients

In my last post I considered the change in assessment criteria for Chartership.   Now I'm taking a closer look at what specific items are required for submissions.

Requirements Old regulations New regulations
Table of contents Yes Yes
Curriculum Vitae Yes This should be annotated, up to four pages and include some reflection on your career development so far.
Personal Professional Development Plan To include analysis of the impact and effectiveness of training Replaced by gap analyses based on the new Professional Knowledge and Skills Base - one at the start of Chartership process and one at the end
Personal evaluative statement Explain why you chose the material included in your portfolio, include outcomes of developmental activities in which you have participated and an evaluation of how they have contributed to your professional development, cross reference to other items in your portfolio Same length, but much clearer that the emphasis should be on reflection rather than details of activities.  Shows how
you have met assessment
criteria, links to the
evidence you have selected
to demonstrate this.
Information about the organisation / service Materials selected to show that you understand the objectives of the organisation and information service/products and are able to analyse how effectively these objectives are met No longer on the checklist, but covered by one of the revised assessment criteria
Organisational structure charts Yes No longer on the checklist, but I imagine it will often be included in the job description
 Job description Yes This should be annotated to include some reflection on your role. If you have changed jobs during your Chartership period then you can include both job descriptions if you want to.
Evidence of participation in a mentor scheme Including mentoring completion form Yes
Evidence of professional development. This may include attendance at training courses, meetings, research and involvement in professional networks. Broader range of evidence types given as examples, emphasises that evidence should demonstrate value and meet the assessment criteria.


Observations

Overall, these changes result in a slightly shorter list of requirements for inclusion, but very little difference in how you collect the evidence on an ongoing basis, which is the vast majority of the work involved.

The only thing that makes me slightly nervous about switching to the new regulations when I'm so far along with the old ones is the requirement to do a PKSB skills analysis for where you were at the start of the process.  I'm sure I could do it if necessary, but I've sent CILIP a query about it and will update here when I've heard back.

The other thing that has changed slightly is that the CV now needs to include reflection on career development so far.  I understand how this fits with Chartership, but one of the things I liked about the old way of doing the CV was that it encouraged inclusion of jobs and external experience that has contributed to getting you to where you are now, essentially creating a master CV from which to extract content for other CVs.  As it was I had to whittle mine down to four pages, and if I do submit under the new regulations I'll need to make further reductions to allow space for the career development reflection.  I guess I'll still be maintaining my properly extended CV as a separate entity a bit longer!

Coming soon

  • Changes to presentation and submission of portfolio