The Future of School Librarianship Review of Research

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 (3 rd): 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 50 k 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 Mc. Gregor, 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. ]

Flexible Scheduling: Implementing an Innovation • 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.

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, 4 th Grade . 373** . 375** NAEP Reading, 8 th 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 5 -State Avg % Proficient Score Lowest. Highest Instructional Expenditures per Student 5 -State Avg % Proficient Lowest. Highest Lowest Highest % Diff + Lowest Highest % Diff NAEP 4 th * 25 34 36% 29 37 28% NAEP 8 th * 23 35 52% 28 35 25% 1069 1130 6% 1131 1023 -10% SAT ** * % of students proficient & above ** actual scores, + calculated as follows: 34 / 25 = 1. 36, or a 36% increase

Is the Sky Falling? School Librarians % Change Year N (FTE) 2000 53, 661 2002 54, 349 688 1. 3% 2004 54, 351 2 0. 0% Change Public Elementary/Secondary Enrollment N (Millions) Change % Change 47. 6 1. 3% 48. 3 0. 7 1. 5% 47. 0

Is the Sky Falling? Increases Interval N of States N of Librarians in FTEs 2000 -01 31 2001 -02 Decreases N of States N of Librarians in FTEs Net Change 873 17 -253 620 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 Avg % 3 rd Graders Scoring Proficient+ Library Percent variable Median+ < Median Difference LMS hrs 29 68. 98 63. 23 9. 1% Staff hrs 49 68. 51 63. 54 7. 8% Volumes 12 k 68. 39 63. 94 7. 0% Visits/wk 620 69. 32 63. 12 9. 8% Spending $5 k 69. 36 62. 85 10. 4% Bivariate correlations of staffing, collection, and spending measures with 3 rd grade scores not only persist, but are strengthened by controlling for poor students (eligible for free & reduced lunch)

How School Librarians Teach Critical Thinking: 3 rd 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 • Locate, select, use relevant of formats info – Summarize, – Use org features of print synthesize, evaluate – Recognize org features of info e-info – Draw inferences – Take notes, outline, i. d. – Locate, recall info 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 2/5 4/5 Give credit to others Use of org features of print sources Use of org features of e-sources 1/3 3/4 1/4 2/3 1/5 2/3 Sort information Summarize, evaluate information Take notes, outline, id main ideas Draw inferences Locate, recall information 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