The Future of School Librarianship Review of Research & Implications for Practice.

The Future of School Librarianship

Review of Research & Implications for Practice

Outline

• Recently Released Studies– Revitalizing High School Libraries (NY Life, 1/06)– Student Learning Through WI SLMCs (1/06)– Education Reform in MN (SLMR, 3/06)– School Libraries & Student Achievement in ON (4/06)– Flexible Scheduling (SLMR, 4/06)

• Studies under Review– Problem with 65% Solution (instructional classification)– Is the Sky Falling? (job market)

• Studies in Progress– IN: How Principals & Teachers Benefit …– CO (3rd): How School Librarians Teach CT Skills

• Post Script

Revitalizing High School Libraries

• NY Life Foundation’s Adolescents Read!, issue 2, In Their Own Words, 1/06

• 2003-05 pilot project to update/refurbish 4 HS libraries in Minneapolis, San Francisco, & Tampa

• Late 2005 survey of 600 students

• Results:– Read more for fun– Read more on own

time– Conduct deeper

inquiry into subject areas

– Improve reading & language skills

In Their Own Words

• Read more for fun: My LMC “rocks” … new laptop computers, interesting books … [it’s now possible] to relax and learn simultaneously.

• Read more on own time: If you come to the library for an assignment, you are bound to check out a book to read on your own.

• Conduct deeper inquiry into subject areas: I can learn [what] teachers [didn’t] mention during classes… Just being in there makes you want to study more ...

• Improve reading & language skills: I went through 3 books [averaging] about 700 pages each. Since [then], I have learned to use and master several words that were not in my regular vocabulary.

Student Learning Through Wisconsin School Library Media Centers

• January 2006 report for WI Dept of Public Instruction by Ester G. Smith, author of TX study

• 1,043 LM programs• Percent of variation in test scores explained:

– Elementary: 3.4% reading, 3.2% language arts– Middle: 9.2% reading, 7.9% language arts– High: 7.9% reading, 19.0% language arts– Notably, at high school level, library variables

outperformed socio-economic variables

Student Learning Through Wisconsin School Library Media Centers

• Library variables– All grade levels: staffing (LMS & total), hours

before/after school, volumes & subscriptions, computers in labs, expenditures

– Elementary: meetings w/ principal, teachers, other librarians

– Middle & High: collaborative planning/teaching, instructing/assisting students

– High: library visits, e-subscriptions• Control variables

– Teachers’ degrees, experience– Student enrollment, race/ethnicity, English proficiency– Socio-economic status

Student Learning Through Wisconsin School Library Media Centers

Library helpfulness at: Teachers Students

Getting info 1.99 (1-2) 2.61 (2)

Using info 2.23 (4) 2.63 (3)

General school work 2.44 (5) 2.81 (5)

Using computers 1.99 (1-2) 2.41 (1)

Reading 2.13 (3) 2.84 (6)

Learning independently 2.78 (7) 2.99 (7)

Academic Achievement 2.64 (6) 2.76 (4)

1= very helpful, 2 = helpful, 3 = a little help, 4 = not at all helpful, 5 = does not apply

Education Reform in MN: Profile of Learning & Instructional Role of SLMS

• Marie E. Kelsey, College of St Scholastica, Duluth

• 1998-2003: Profile of Education reform movement generated greater use of HS LMCs & greater instructional role for LMS

• Major Findings:– Inquiry, research motivate teachers to send,

accompany students to LMC– LMS spent more time on collaboration & instruction– Instruction, its development top list of tasks by time

spent

School Libraries & Student Achievement in Ontario

• 1/06 report from Queen’s U Faculty of Education on 2004-05 study involving 800 public elementary schools with 50k students

• Major Findings:– Grade 3 & 6 students in schools w/ trained library staff

more likely to report enjoy reading– Schools with trained library staff more likely to have

higher % of grade 6 students meet reading standards– Schools w/out trained library staff tend to have lower

scores on grade 3 & 6 reading tests– More than 5% of score variation associated

w/presence of trained library staff

Flexible Scheduling: Implementing an Innovation

• Joy McGregor, Charles Sturt U, Australia• Interviews of principals, teachers, and librarians

at 6 U.S. schools that had adopted flexible scheduling

• Diffusion of change issues: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, observability

Flexible Scheduling: Implementing an Innovation

• Perceived benefits:– Principal voices: Children … know… [LMC] is working

environment … throughout the day, not … just [a place] to check out books.

– Teacher voices: I said, “Go on! … and they did. Librarian said, “They were so excited!” Don't think I [could have] capitalize[d] on their excitement if said, “hold onto that idea a few days, and we'll talk about it.”

– Librarian voices: [Facilitates] planning sessions, integrated units and research projects, spontaneous info searching, increased reading, and small group & individual activity. [Principal support critical.]

• Suggestions to Implement Flex Scheduling– Start with someone … willing to try an experiment. Don't

try the whole school. – Tell yourself—and not just for flexible scheduling— …

you can't please all the people all of the time. – Go slowly to make sure the principal fully understands

… concept … Everybody has to be … cajoled into buying into it and having … ownership of it.

– Go and watch it somewhere … – If you're convinced about it, it's going to come out in

everything you … do. …If you [are] confident, then it's alright.

Flexible Scheduling: Implementing an Innovation

The Problem with the 65% Solution

• First Class Education movement– Reliance on NCES financial definitions– Ambivalence about including librarians in instruction

• NCES Financial Survey– Instruction v. Support--& Instructional Support– “Student Body Activities”—”Class of”, chess clubs,

proms• NCES Schools and Staffing Surveys

– Defines librarians as teachers– Requires state certification as librarian

• No Child Left Behind Act– Instructional staff includes librarians

The Problem with the 65% Solution

Expenditures per Student

Test Score Library Instructional

NAEP Reading, 4th Grade

.373** .375**

NAEP Reading, 8th Grade

.446** .356**

SAT (high school) .332* -.446**

** Significant at .01 level, * at .05 level

The Problem with the 65% Solution

Library Expenditures per Student

Instructional Expenditures per Student

5-State Avg % Proficient

Lowest-Highest

5-State Avg % Proficient

Lowest-Highest

Score Lowest Highest % Diff + Lowest Highest % Diff

NAEP 4th * 25 34 36% 29 37 28%

NAEP 8th * 23 35 52% 28 35 25%

SAT ** 1069 1130 6% 1131 1023 -10%

* % of students proficient & above

** actual scores,

+ calculated as follows: 34 / 25 = 1.36, or a 36% increase

Is the Sky Falling?

School LibrariansPublic Elementary/Secondary

Enrollment

Year N (FTE) Change%

ChangeN

(Millions)Change

% Change

2000 53,661 47.0

2002 54,349 688 1.3% 47.6 7.6 1.3%

2004 54,351 2 0.0% 48.3 0.7 1.5%

Is the Sky Falling?

Increases Decreases

Interval

N of States

N of Librarians in

FTEsN of

States

N of Librarians in

FTEs

Net Change

2000-01 31 873 17 -253 620

2001-02 27 537 21 -469 68

2002-03 26 686 23 -828 -142

2003-04 20 1,034 30 -890 144

Is the Sky Falling?

• States w/ Consistent Annual Decreases– 2000-04 (4 states): IA (120), MN (102), SD (29), ID

(24)– 2002-04 (11 states): CA (178), OR (121), WI (136),

AR (78), IN (61), KS (52), OK (47), UT (32), NE (8), CO (7), WV (7)

• States w/Consistent Annual Increases– 2000-04 (7 states): NY (227), GA (135), AL (94), NC

(89), TN (83), CT (60), DE (10)– 2002-04 (5 states): IL (266), NM (15), SC (12), NH

(10), ME (10)

How Principals & Teachers Benefit from … School Librarians (IN Study)

• Spring 2006: mini-survey of school libraries– Report due in Fall ’06, sneak peak next

• Fall 2006: surveys of principals, teachers, and librarians– Assessing principals’ & teachers’ knowledge about,

support of, & perceived benefits from library programs – Also, consensus between the 3 educator types– Expect results to lead to professional development for

principals & teachers as well as librarians

How Principals & Teachers Benefit from … School Librarians (IN Study)

Preliminary Results for IN Elementary Schools

Library

Avg % 3rd Graders

Scoring Proficient+ Percent

variable Median Median+ < Median Difference

LMS hrs 29 68.98 63.23 9.1%

Staff hrs 49 68.51 63.54 7.8%

Volumes 12k 68.39 63.94 7.0%

Visits/wk 620 69.32 63.12 9.8%

Spending $5k 69.36 62.85 10.4%

Bivariate correlations of staffing, collection, and spending measures with 3rd grade scores not only persist, but are strengthened by controlling for poor students (eligible for free & reduced lunch)

How School Librarians Teach Critical Thinking: 3rd Colorado Study

• 2005 Colorado survey questions about teaching of 9 info literacy objectives (from CSAP reading & writing standards)– Usually, sometimes, rarely scale for collaboration

• Controlled randomized trial model• 2007 training efforts• 2008 analysis & report

CO Information Literacy Objectives

• Read/understand variety of formats– Summarize,

synthesize, evaluate info

– Draw inferences– Locate, recall info

• Locate, select, use relevant info– Use org features of print– Recognize org features of

e-info– Take notes, outline, i.d.

main ideas– Sort info– Give credit to others– Use dictionaries, etc

CO, 2005: Usually/Sometimes Teach Collaboratively

U U/S Information Literacy Objective

1/2 4/5 Give credit to others

2/5 4/5 Use of org features of print sources

Use of org features of e-sources

1/3 3/4 Sort information

Summarize, evaluate information

Take notes, outline, id main ideas

1/4 2/3 Draw inferences

Locate, recall information

1/5 2/3 Use dictionaries, glossaries, etc.

For More Information

• Visit the Library Research Service website’s page on School Library Impact Studies: http://www.LRS.org/impact.php

Post Script

• Courtesy of Ross Todd, Rutgers– DE: School Library Survey, replication of OH

Study– NJ: School Library Impact Measure (SLIM):

Tracking and Assessing Student Learning Outcomes (Guided Inquiry)

– OH: Enhancing Collaboration Between SLMSs & Teachers (Kent State)

DE School Library Survey, Replication of OH Study

• Phase 1: survey of 154 public school libraries: staff, budget, resources, Info Lit initiatives

• Phase 2: revised version of OH study– 13 exemplary schools, 5700 students, 469 teachers– Building on what works well– Understanding what isn’t working & setting up

approaches to continuous improvement

NJ: School Library Impact Measure (SLIM)

• SLIM Toolkit– Measures changes in knowledge of topic– Identifies info competencies acquired in process

• 15+ librarian-teacher teams from all over USA testing SLIM toolkit’s utility in practice

• Major anticipated outcomes– Enable librarians & teachers to provide evidence to

parents, school boards, administrators, other librarians & teachers

– Provide input for design of instructional interventions for effective info seeking & use

OH: Enhancing Collaboration Between SLMSs & Teachers (Kent State)

• KSU profs Carolyn Brodie & Greg Byerly & Institute for Library & Info Lit Education (ILILE)– Currently collecting data– To understand/model dynamics, processes, outputs of

collaborative librarian/teacher partnerships– Sample drawn from 170 partnerships established thru

ILILE program, ’02-05– Survey in progress, series of focus group interviews

to follow