1
Child-Centric Information Organization in Public Libraries
Court S. Duvall
UNC Greensboro
Through exploring assigned readings in LIS 640: Information Organization and Access, I
have learned that it is important to consider the various interpretations of information by patrons
and librarians when developing schemes for structuring knowledge in ways that make sense for
user interactions. In this paper, I summarize and analyze two research articles that address the
specific information needs of young children utilizing public library print and digital resources
and offer potential solutions for organizing information and knowledge in a manner that best
suits children’s cognitive abilities.
Allison Druin (2005) posits that digital library technology aimed at young users does not
often align with those users’ needs. A research team at the University of Maryland enlisted seven
children between the ages of 7 to 11 to help in the design of a digital library to better understand
the needs of this age group. By including children in the design process of digital media, helpful
information was uncovered that shed light on ways to better reach these children. During the
creation process of this digital library, many design elements were based on the feedback and
experiences with these children. Researchers learned that the customization and visualization of
these digital media were of the highest concern, so efforts to improve the organizational display
of the collections were better suited to meet the children’s needs. Some of the methods employed
by the researchers included brainstorming sessions, discussion groups and white-board visual
maps that grouped similar ideas.
According to Shenton and Dixon (2004), despite the abundance of electronic resources
available to children and young adults, non-fiction print materials still play a vital role in
2
satisfying these age groups’ information needs. In an attempt to better understand the methods
employed by schoolchildren to gather non-fiction sources, the authors conducted qualitative
fieldwork in the Whitley Bay area of England. Drawing informants from six schools, the
researchers interviewed twelve focus groups with children ranging from 3-18 years old. The
informants were ethnically diverse and a balanced mix of both sexes. These students were asked
about the means they used to gather the materials they wanted. Shenton and Dixon’s conclusions
were that the youngest of the population would benefit from better subject level signage and that
friendly, approachable staff are essential as young patrons often will ask for help in the retrieval
of items. Also, the researchers recommended that education at school concerning research
methods and understanding the organization schemes and logic that libraries employ would help
children better access the information they need.
Taken together, the two above studies illustrate that when assessing the needs of a
specific group, it is valuable to understand how the group perceives and structures information. It
is well established through developmental psychology that children don’t see the world in the
same way that adults do, though it is primarily adults who are creating the organizational schema
for children to interact with in library settings. As Druin (2005) points out “Therefore, the way
that information is categorized for children might not be the same as for adults” (p. 22). While
well-meaning in the organization of digital and print resources, adult librarians often do not
present materials and information to the young user in a way that is best suited for their cognitive
abilities. However, either by interviewing them as Shenton and Dixon (2004) did or including
them in the design process as Druin’s (2005) team was able to, children can be empowered to
influence information organization and librarians may thus also learn to organize information in
a more accessible manner for children.
3
Current practices for organizing children’s print media in libraries usually involve a high
degree of segmentation of a collection, with the age of the intended reader a primary separator.
For example, the public library that I worked in for several years in Indiana has print collections
separated by picture books, easy readers, juvenile non-fiction, juvenile fiction, audiobooks, youth
fiction, juvenile graphic novels, and youth graphic novel sections, in addition to its many adult
collections. While this may help to keep similar reading comprehension levels combined, it
doesn’t make it easy for the young user to find all the information about a subject that the library
has to offer. Additionally, such systems may also prove to be barriers in that users may feel
compelled to seek information from resources that they may not be ready for, or refrain from
using certain materials simply because their age signals that they should be using a certain set of
resources. Young people can be especially conscious of age and ability levels as barriers to what
they “can” or “should” be reading. Based on the findings of Shenton and Dixon (2004), it may be
helpful to consider using a subject based approach to shelving for juvenile non-fiction, similar to
that of a bookstore, as it was found that most children eight years old and younger primarily
thought of research terms as general subjects. One method the public library I worked for
employed to diminish the age barrier around non-fiction was to shelve juvenile non-fiction
alongside adult non-fiction. This provided a way for patrons of all ages to select information
based on what they felt was appropriate without feeling societal pressures or risking being found
looking “in the wrong section.”
Because of the way that young users of digital media are first and foremost visual
learners (Druin, 2005), it makes sense that digital databases and other digital media aimed at
children should incorporate more visual cues. In my experience from working with children at
the reference desk at a public library, children were often intimidated by the library’s computer
catalog because it was very sparse with imagery and only provided a search box from which to
4
type in queries. Even if a child felt brave enough to type in a search, it was awkward for them to
navigate the results and locate their materials. However, when children as young as six years old
were able to access Brain Pop Jr., a database designed specifically for use by children, I observed
that they could easily navigate by clicking through pictures and links that broadly defined
categories and subjects. Druin’s (2005) findings that digital resources should be created
collaboratively with children offers the promise of developing databases or catalogues that
children could easily access and navigate. More importantly, visual cues and signage targeted to
children in specific cognitive development stages could aid them in understanding how to take
the search results from a digital catalogue, navigate the physical space of the library, and locate
their intended print source.
As libraries adapt to the information needs of young people, the future may include
organization that is specific to the educational needs of these users and is suited to their cognitive
developmental stages. Since the young perceive information differently than that of adults, the
organizational schemes that are used by the young should reflect these differences. It may be that
a subject based approach would be better for presenting non-fiction to young readers and that
computer programs to be used by young users can be tailored and modified by those users in a
similar fashion to that of applications that adults tailor to suit their own needs. While still reliant
on adults to create content and schema for the young to interact with, it should be from the
youth’s point of view that organization schemes are developed.
Works Cited
Druin, A. (2005). What children can teach us: Developing digital libraries for children with
children. Library Quarterly, 75(1), 20-41.
Shenton, A.K. & Dixon, P. (2004). How do youngsters use public libraries to find non-fiction
books? The results of a recent research project. Public Library Quarterly, 23(3/4), 77-98.