





































242  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

Connection at the 
Crossroads between 
Libraries and Writing Skills
Creative Ways to Meet Students’ Needs
By David Schmersal, Bridwell Library, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist 
University; Jane Elder, Bridwell Library, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist 
University; Melody Diehl Detar, Duquesne University

ABSTR ACT Concerns (complaints) about the quality of writing exhib-
ited among seminary students are not new. Nor is the fact that many 
students come to seminary as a second career, or with backgrounds in 
disciplines that do not emphasize extensive scholarly writing. However, 
in an era of reduced enrollment, when recruitment and retention are 
of existential significance for seminaries, the traditional “sink or swim” 
approach that presumes students will “learn as they go” (or not) seems 
increasingly inadequate. Given the centrality of writing to academic 
success in seminary, helping students develop as writers is an essen-
tial component of providing academic support, thereby ensuring that 
students are prepared to pursue their vocations. As seminaries face 
budgetary challenges that may preclude offering writing support, and 
as the role of librarians is changing, we have an opportunity to expand 
our traditional role of supporting students. Join presenters David 
Schmersal, Jane Elder and Melody Diehl Detar as they share some of 
their experiences in extending writing support to seminary students at 
Perkins School of Theology and Regent University.

INTRODUCTION: WHY THIS IS A CHALLENGE

Concerns (complaints) about the quality of writing exhibited among 
seminary students are not new. Yet, it is important to acknowledge 
that seminary students face many challenges pertaining to writing, 



Listen and Learn Sessions  243

especially those who come to seminary as a second (or third) career 
and/or come from disciplines that do not require as much writing.

Theology requires a lot of writing.
Moreover, unlike graduate programs in other disciplines, seminary 

requires students to master several different types of writing: histori-
cal papers, exegetical papers, reflection papers, sermons, liturgical 
writings (prayers, litanies, responsive readings, etc.), journal entries. 
These factors all contribute to the challenge seminary and theology 
school students face when it comes to writing.

I. WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT

In an era of reduced enrollment, when recruitment and retention are 
of existential significance for seminaries, the “sink or swim” approach 
that presumes students will “learn to write as they go” (or not) seems 
increasingly inadequate. 

Given the centrality of writing to academic success in seminary, 
helping students develop as writers is an essential component of 
providing academic support, thereby ensuring that students are 
prepared to pursue their vocations.

II. BUT WHY BOTHER? IT’S NOT REALLY OUR JOB

First, offering writing assistance is simply a part of exceptional public 
services. Moreover, one never knows what effect offering such service 
may have—it’s an angels unaware thing.

Second, writing support is a natural continuation of excel-
lent reference service, drawing upon our Skills, Availability, 
Trust(worthiness), and the Logical connection between writing 
support and services we offer already.

Baseline Skill Set of Theological Librarians

 • Masters of Library Science

 • Minimum of a Masters in Theology or related subject

 •  Proficiency in English, and usually in one or more non-English 
languages

 • Are usually writers of some sort ourselves



244  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

 • Familiarity with:
 • Faculty
 • Curriculum
 • Theological vocabulary
 • Assignments
 • Academic and church publishing
 • Scholarly citation styles and writing guides (i.e. Turabian, etc.)

Availability

 • Of librarians:
 • Somebody is always at the desk
 • Email
 • Phone
 • Text 
 • Facebook or other social media
 • Drop-ins always welcome

 • Of writing tutors (esp. part-time):
 • By appointment only
 • Sometimes unfamiliar with theology and/or faculty
 •  Demands of their own schedules, since they are often students 

themselves

Who doesn’t TRUST a librarian? Students trust us because 
we are:

 • Familiar

 • Part of the institution

 • Safe (i.e., not their professor)

 • Known to be helpful

 • Known to be knowledgeable

 • Non-judgmental

Logic (we’re already blurring the lines)

 •  Footnotes 
Once students learn to read footnotes to track down resources, 
which we teach already, then they know what elements they 
need to include when they write one.



Listen and Learn Sessions  245

 •  Research	Question	→	Thesis 
Coming up with a research question, or a working thesis, 
involves preliminary thought about what students want to 
include and exclude in their projects. Evaluation of this sort sets 
the parameters for their writing and starts to suggest structure, 
which can lead to outlining.

 •  Sources 
The process of thinking critically about the sources one uses in a 
project invites the kind of questions it is necessary to address in 
a paper. As we teach students how and why to evaluate sources, 
we are teaching them the ways in which they will need to engage 
with their topics in writing.

 • Taking Notes and Paraphrasing
 • Big block quotations are one hallmark of poor student papers. 
 •  Effective note-taking involves selecting the perfect pithy 

quotation and paraphrasing the rest. Good summaries can be 
considered first drafts and incorporated into the papers them-
selves. 

Institutional support for student writing—from a tutor or a writing 
center, or by librarians—demonstrates at a minimum commitment 
to student success. More than that, however, it demonstrates that the 
institution’s theological message is one worth taking care with, one 
worth communicating clearly and well, and one worth conveying as 
far afield as possible. Theological librarians are in a unique position 
to support this, and I argue that they should.

III. HOW LIBRARIANS CAN HELP

 •  Before students begin to write, we can offer instruction, in the 
form of guides and handouts—for example, a guide on the 
9000-word Credo assignment in Systematic Theology (https://
bridwellguides.smu.edu/credo). We can also offer instruction 
sessions on topics such as formulating a thesis, finding and 
using different kinds of sources—primary, secondary, tertiary—
and source citations.

 •  While students are in the midst of research and writing, we can 
help them build bridges from research to writing, emphasizing 

https://bridwellguides.smu.edu/credo
https://bridwellguides.smu.edu/credo
https://bridwellguides.smu.edu/credo


246  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

the iterative nature of the research process in that one does 
not fully know what he/she needs to research apart from writ-
ing, which reveals what one needs to know. Our primary task 
here is not only helping students find sources, but also helping 
them see what they might do with them, how they might take the 
information they have gleaned from primary, secondary, and 
tertiary sources and use it in their writing. An essential compo-
nent of this is helping students find a central question, based on 
their research, that they can then turn into a thesis statement. 
This process can entail meeting with the student one-on-one 
and brainstorming, identifying themes, and of course direct-
ing students to good sources. This can also include encourag-
ing students to make lists of observations gleaned from sources 
and then grouping items to help form structure. Structure is 
much more directly related to writing, but at the same time it 
has a clear connection with research in that the structure is 
built around themes and evidence that a student has discovered 
through research.

 •  What about after students have written? Assisting students with 
“macro-structure” leads fairly naturally into helping students 
clarify other aspects of their structure, which in turn leads to a 
more detailed analysis of overall argument, sentence structure, 
wording, grammar, syntax—in other words: proofreading.

 • Guidelines
 •  We only look at take-home exams with explicit permission 

from the professor, and usually this is a means of “reason-
able accommodation” for students who are English language 
learners.

 •  We look at structure, grammar, syntax, wording, and argu-
ment, but avoid correcting content (if a student is a Gnos-
tic heretic, it is not our place to correct them, though I will 
include a comment pointing out the implications of their 
argument, just to be sure they are committing heresy know-
ingly).

 •  We see this as a means of teaching, not as doing their work 
for them. Over the course of working with students consis-
tently over a few years, we see drastic improvement.



Listen and Learn Sessions  247

 • Tools 
 •  One option is using the Markup tools in Microsoft Word—the 

“Track Changes” function allows you to insert, delete, and 
move text (when the correction is fairly obvious) and to offer 
suggestions in comments when there is ambiguity.

 •  Pencil and paper can be just as, if not more, effective, and 
ensures students do not accept suggested changes uncriti-
cally.

 •  Some students prefer to come hash things out in person, 
either in lieu of or in addition to other options.

 • Examples
   Many of the suggestions/corrections we offer have to do with 

inculcating students into the “culture” of scholarly writing in 
the humanities:

  Using active voice
  Avoiding first-person pronouns
   Crafting a clear thesis statement and following an outline 

to support one’s overall argument
  Other corrections have more to do with mechanics
  Using formal, correct grammar
  Using punctuation correctly
   When working with students who speak and write in English 

as a second (or fifth) language, we make many suggestions 
pertaining to verb use, subject-verb agreement, punctua-
tion, and prepositions. 

   Perhaps more than anything else, students ask us to help 
them with citations.

As the points outlined above suggest, most of the corrections we 
suggest are based on more-or-less objective factors such as proper 
grammar and citations. While some of the suggestions may be more 
subjective, such as suggesting ways to clarify a point or improve over-
all structure, our goal is less to improve student writing than to help 
students become better writers. 

IV. COLLABORATING WITH A WRITING CENTER

Theological librarians are in a unique position to provide writing 
support to students who do not have access to a writing center. For 



248  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

librarians at institutions that do have writing support available, oppor-
tunities exist for librarians to develop strategic collaborations with 
writing coaches. These collaborations make sense because librar-
ians and writing coaches naturally have much in common with each 
other, and because many benefits exist with a meaningful collabora-
tion between these entities. By breaking down the separation between 
research and writing, students will better understand “research and 
writing . . . as a single, holistic practice.”1

Librarians and writing coaches have many similarities. The way 
in which their services are offered has shifted with new technolo-
gies, such as moving library catalogs online, developing new search 
methods for resources, and engaging new tools for editing work and 
managing citations. They can appreciate the benefits and challenges 
associated with the new technologies. 

Both librarians and writing coaches also navigate a space between 
students and faculty. Research and writing assistance often involves 
understanding professors’ prompts and understanding learning 
objectives associated with assignments. They must also work with 
students who have strict deadlines, and who may not plan a work 
strategy in advance. Ultimately, librarians and writing coaches are 
a part of the effort to help students to help themselves. Learning to 
conduct effective research and express ideas well is a key part of their 
educational experience.

A meaningful collaboration between librarians and writing 
coaches can bring many benefits. It reinforces the idea that research 
and writing go hand-in-hand, and that both are engaged throughout 
the entire process of developing and expressing ideas. A collaboration 
of the two entities enables each to promote and leverage the benefits 
of the other, and is an opportunity for one to learn from the other. 
When working together, librarians and writing coaches can develop 
a clear idea of what each other does, and communicate with patrons 
more effectively.

Case Study: Conquer the Blank Page
The librarians at the Regent University Library recognized a need to 
actively reach out to students at their point of need in the research 
process, with support for research and writing. Although the event 
was inspired by the Long Night Against Procrastination, an all-night 



Listen and Learn Sessions  249

event to encourage diving into research assignments early in the 
semester, it was adapted to fit within normal library hours and focused 
on the challenge of starting a research paper. The event at Regent 
University was aptly called Conquering the Blank Page, and included 
instructional sessions and full research support at a point in the 
semester that most students would be able to get a head start on large 
research projects. The event included instruction, one-on-one consul-
tations, de-stressing resources, and a writing environment. 

From the beginning, it was clear that the librarians would need a 
full collaboration with the writing coaches in order to make the event 
a success. Representatives from the writing center were involved at 
each step of the process, from the initial planning meetings through 
the debriefing. Together, they worked to develop a marketing strategy 
that capitalized on the strengths of how each entity marketed events 
individually. Together, they presented a full marketing strategy to 
promote a robust event.

The result was an event that presented research and writing 
support as a holistic concept. Six ten-minute instructions sessions, 
three by librarians and three by writing coaches, were delivered 
several times apiece over the course of the day. The librarians intro-
duced key resources for starting research, and the writing center 
presented on how to form a thesis and avoid plagiarism. Librarians 
and writing coaches were available for one-on-one consultations, and 
students were encouraged to work on their assignments with study 
foods and beverages, as well as de-stressing materials, such as color-
ing pencils and massage chairs. 

Feedback from the event was very positive, and the event impacted 
more than just the students. Through the collaboration, the librarians 
and the writing coaches formed a solid relationship. By working side-
by-side, they were able to learn about each other personally, about the 
work they do, and the services they offer. This collaboration opened 
the door for librarians and writing coaches to work more effectively, 
with a fuller understanding of how the two pieces of support provide 
a complete support system for students.

V. CONCLUSION

Theological librarians have opportunities to creatively serve students 
beyond traditional library services. In particular, librarians can step 



250  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

up when writing support services are limited or unavailable, or 
actively seek to build connections that will create a holistic research 
and writing experience for students.

NOTES

1 James K. Elmborg and Sheril Hook, Centers for learning: Writ-
ing centers and libraries in collaboration (Chicago: Association of 
College and Research Libraries, 2005).




