Group Title: Guidelines for the evaluation of learning resource centers in the community college /
Title: Guidelines for the evaluation of learning resource centers in the community college
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098085/00001
 Material Information
Title: Guidelines for the evaluation of learning resource centers in the community college
Physical Description: xii, 120 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Linzmayer, Mary Ann Kane, 1936-
Publication Date: 1978
Copyright Date: 1978
 Subjects
Subject: Instructional materials centers -- United States   ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 116-119.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
Statement of Responsibility: by Mary Ann Kane Linzmayer.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098085
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000086156
oclc - 05368516
notis - AAK1512

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 5 MBs ) ( PDF )


Full Text











GUIDELINES FOR THE EVALUATION OF LEARNING RESOURCE CENTERS
IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE








By

MARY ANN KANE LINZMAYER























A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1978














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The writer wishes to express her gratitude and apprecia-

tion to all those who have helped to make this study possible.

In particular, the writer wishes to acknowledge the encour-

agement and guidance given so generously by the chairman of

her doctoral committee and director of the thesis, Dr. Ralph

B. Kimbrough. The writer also wishes to express her appre-

ciation to Dr. William C. Childers and Dr. James L. Watten-

barger for their advice and counsel.

The writer is especially grateful to the educators who

participated in the study, and without whose cooperation the

investigation would not have been possible.

A special thanks to Dr. George R. Conger for his expert

advice and Dr. Audrey R. Johnson for her encouragement and

Ms. Norma W. Dew and Ms. Kathleen W. Ritch for their valuable

editorial help.

To my husband, George, and my children, Juliet and

John, I extend my loving appreciation for their patience and

support.

Finally, the writer would like to thank her parents,

Mr. and Mrs. V. H. Kane, for their many years of guidance

and love.

M.A.K.L.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . ii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . vi

ABSTRACT . ... . . . . . . . . . . . ix

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION .. .. .. ... ... .... .1
Statement of the Problem . . . . . 2
Delimitations . . . . . . . 3
Limitations . . . . . .... .. 4
Justification . . . . . .. . .. 4
Assumptions . ... .. . . . . .. 6
Definition of Terms . . . . . . 7
Comprehensive Community College . . 7
Learning Resource Center . . . . 7
Services . ... .. . . . . .. 8
Organization of the Research Report . . 8

II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . 9
Development of Learning Resource Centers . 9
Definitions of Learning Resources Centers 10
Evaluation Attempts . . . . . . 14
State and Regional Accreditation Attempts . 17
Chapter Summary . . . . . ... 19

III INSTRUMENT AND PROCEDURES USED IN THE STUDY . . 21
Development of the Instrument . . . .. 23
Collection of the Data . . . . .. 25
Analysis of the Data . . . . . .. 26

IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . .. 28
Presentation of the Data for All
Colleges Responding . . . . ... 29
Facilities Contained in the Learning
Resource Centers . . . . ... 29
The Administration, Staffing and Con-
dition of Facilities of Centers . 31
Practices Concerning Budgeting and
Financing for Functions in the
Centers . . . .. . . . 36
Library Policies and Services . . . 39











TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)


Page

Materials Production Facilities . . 45
Audio-Visual Services . ..... . 46
Student Media Lab . ... ..... .. 47
Comparison of East and West Groups . . . 49
Advisory Committee . . . . ... 49
Housing. . . . . . . . .. 50
Salary Allocation . . . . .. 51
Periodical Subscriptions . . ... 52
Reading Instruction . . . . ... 53
Speaking Instruction . . . .. 54
Tutoring Services . . . ... .. 55
Learning Lab Rating . . . . .. 56
Graphics Production . . . . ... 57
Slides Production Rating ....... 58
Number of Distributions . . . ... 59
Audio-Visual Services Rating . . .. 60

Chapter Summary . . . . . . . 61

V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES . . . . . ... 62
Summary . . . . . . . ... 62
Findings . . . . . . . ... 64
Component Facilities . . . ... 64
Advisory Committees . . . . .. 64
Administrative Configurations . . .. 64
Ratings .. . . . . . . . 65
Staffing . . . . . . ... 65
Policies . . . ... .... . 66
Financing . . . . . . . . 66
Libraries .... . . . . ... . 67
Learning Laboratories . . . ... 68
Materials Production . . . ... 69
Audio-Visual Services . . . ... 69
Student Media Lab . . . . . . 70
Findings Concerning Geographical
Differences . . . . . . 70
Conclusions . . . . . . . 72
Recommended Guidelines . . . ... 73
Philosophy . . . . . ... 74
Administration .. . . . 74
Financing . ... . . .... 75
Libraries . . . . .... .. 75
Learning Laboratories .... . . 76











TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)


Page

Instructional Design and Development 76
Instructional Support ...... 76
Evaluation . . . . . .. 77

APPENDICES . . . . . . . .... . 78
APPENDIX A . . .. . . . . ... 80
COMMUNITY COLLEGE LEARNING RESOURCE
CENTER QUESTIONNAIRE 1977 (With
Tabulated Responses Where Appropriate)
APPENDIX B . . . . . . . ... 108
LETTERS OF REQUEST
APPENDIX C . . . . . . . ... 113
PARTICIPATING COLLEGES

REFERENCES . . . . . . . .... . 116

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . ... 120
















LIST OF TABLES


Page

1. Frequencies and Percentages of Facilities
Existing in Learning Resource Centers . . . ... 30

2. Responses in Percents to Items Regarding
the Philosophy, Condition of Facilities,
and Administration of the Learning Re-
source Center . ... . . . . . . . . . 33

3. Responses in Percents to Items Regarding
the Financing of the Learning Resource
Center . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4. Frequency of Percentage Category for Total
of Learning Resource Center Budget for Print
Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5. Frequency of Percentage Category for Total
of Learning Resource Center Budget for Non-
Print Media . . . . . . . . ... ... . . 39

6. Responses in Percents to Items Regarding
College Library Included in Learning Re-
source Center . . . . . . . . ... . . 40

7. Frequency and Percentages of Days of the
Week and Hours of the Day That the Library
Is Open . . . . . . . . ... .. . .. 42

8. Responses in Percents to Items Regarding
the Learning Laboratory Included in the
Learning Resource Center . . . . . . ... 43

9. Responses in Percents to Items Regarding
Materials Production Included in the Learn-
ing Resource Center . . . . . . . ... 45

10. Responses in Percents to Items Regarding
the Audio-Visual Services Included in the
Learning Resource Center . . . . . . ... 47

11. Responses in Percents to Items Regarding
the Student-Media Lab Included in the Learn-
ing Resource Center . . . . . . .... .. .. 48
vi











LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)


Page

12. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value for
the Association of Geographical Area
with LRC Advisory Committees Having
Student Members . . . . . . . . ... .. . 50

13. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value for
the Association of Geographical Area
with LRC Housing Type . . . . . . . . . 51

14. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value for
the Association of Geographical Area
with Salary Allocation . . . . . . .... 52

15. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value for
the Association of Geographical Area
with Number of Periodicals to Which
Library Subscribes . . . . . . . ... 53

16. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value for
the Association of Geographical Area
with Learning Laboratories Offering
Instruction in Reading . . . . . . . ... 54

17. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value for
the Association of Geographical Area
with Learning Laboratory Offering
Instruction in Speaking. .. . . . . . . . 55

18. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value for
the Association of Geographical Area
with Learning Laboratory Offering
Tutoring Services . . . . . . . .... . 56

19. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value for
the Association of Geographical Area
with Learning Laboratory Staff
Descriptors . . . . . . . . ... ... . 57

20. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value for
the Association of Geographical Area
with Number of People Involved in
Graphics Materials Production . . . . . .... 58











LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)


Page

21. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value for
the Association of Geographical Area
with Slides Production Staff
Descriptors . . . . . . .... . . . . 59

22. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value for
the Association of Geographical Area
with Number of Distributions Per Term
from the Audio-Visual Section . . . . . ... 60

23. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value for
the Association of Geographical Area
with Audio-Visual Services Descriptors . . . ... 61





































viii










Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


GUIDELINES FOR THE EVALUATION OF LEARNING RESOURCE CENTERS
IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

By

Mary Ann Kane Linzmayer

June, 1978

Chairman: Ralph B. Kimbrough
Major Department: Educational Administration

The purpose of this study was to determine functional

guidelines for the realistic evaluation of learning resource

centers in community colleges. The sub-problems in the

study were as follows:

1. What were the services provided and administrative

arrangements of exemplary learning resource centers

in selected comprehensive community colleges of

selected states?

2. What guidelines for services and administration of

learning resource centers were suggested from a

review of the literature and research?

3. What importance was placed upon proposed services

by a jury of experts?

4. What impact did regional differences have on

existing learning resources programs?

5. What practical guidelines should be used for the

realistic evaluation of services of learning












resource centers in the comprehensive community

college?

To be able to determine guidelines which could be used

in future evaluations, it was necessary to determine the

nature of exemplary community college learning resource

centers as they currently exist. A careful study of the

literature revealed that there was no instrument exactly

appropriate. A comprehensive questionnaire of original

design was developed to assess the diverse and multiple

aspects of today's community college learning resource

program.

With the use of expert opinion, 10 states were selected

from among those with well-established community college

systems: California, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, New

York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and

Washington. The state director for community college pro-

grams for each of these 10 states was asked to nominate

those institutions in their states which they believed had

exemplary learning resources programs.

Media production as well as an audio and video tape

library was the facility found most often to be a part of

existing learning resource centers. The library was found

to be included 94.1 per cent of the time. A program of

individualized instruction was a part of the Learning Re-

sources in 84.3 per cent of the programs. A clear majority












(81 per cent) of the learning resource centers function as

independent departments under the auspices of academic

affairs. Over half (53 per cent) reported a total budget,

excluding salaries, of over $75,000.

Almost three-fourths (74 per cent) of the libraries

used the Library of Congress cataloging system. Approximate-

ly 50 per cent of the respondents stated that the library

was not open at any time during the weekend. More than 90

per cent of the learning laboratories (individualized

instruction) were open both during the week days and evenings.

Only four per cent indicated the LRC staff responsible

for the actual operation of audio-visual equipment in the

classroom. Ninety eight per cent reported having audio-

visual services available for instructional purposes during

the evening as well as during the day.

The following paragraphs describe the statistically

significant differences found between the colleges located

east of the Mississippi Fiver and those colleges located

west of the Mississippi River.

Western colleges had the learning resource center

housed in its own building more often than did the eastern

colleges. Western colleges also had significantly higher

salary allocations than did eastern colleges. On the other

hand, eastern colleges more often offered instruction in

reading, speaking and tutoring services.











Based upon the results of the study, the writer recom-

mended 26 guidelines for the evaluation of learning resource

centers in the community college.














CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION


Public comprehensive community colleges have become a

common phenomenon in American education. The community

junior college movement began over seventy years ago and its

rapid growth has been exceptional. The services of community

colleges have expanded to meet the diverse needs of increased

student enrollment. (Culkin, 1974)

One such service, the library, provided the instruc-

tional support necessary during the early years of the

movement, but with the increase in the numbers of students,

the information explosion and post-World War II technical

advancements, the library of the community college is now

expected to provide the services appropriate to the demands

made by a more sophisticated instructional process.

During the early stages of community college development,

the library sought to keep pace with expertise which did not

go beyond books, periodicals and film strips. When this

proved insufficient, an attempt was made in many colleges to

make non-print materials available in separate storage areas

outside of the walls of the library, and, in some cases, a

"media specialist" was even employed. This development

spawned a necessary evolutionary phase best characterized by










a spirit of separation. Fortunately, the maturation process

has progressed to the point where library and media special-

ists have now joined together through professional organiza-

tions, university education programs, and college administra-

tions to form a united and uniform approach for making print

and non-print materials easily accessible for students and

teachers. (Raines, 1973)

During the past decade, phrases such as "multi-media

library," "school research centers," "instructional materials

center," and "learning resource centers" have become familiar

parts of the educational jargon. They reflect the rapidly

changing patterns of methods employed to accommodate the

increasing emphasis on new media. Consequently, traditional

libraries have grown into resource centers with a broader

yet unified program of services using various resources and

incorporating both audio-visual and printed materials.

(Shifrin, 1974)


Statement of the Problem

The problem under consideration was to determine func-

tional guidelines for the realistic evaluation of learning

resource centers in community colleges. The sub-problems in

the study were as follows:

1. What were the services provided and administrative

arrangements of exemplary learning resource centers

in selected comprehensive community colleges of

selected states?












2. What guidelines for services and administration of

learning resource centers were suggested from a

review of the literature and research?

3. What importance was placed upon proposed services

by a jury of experts?

4. What impact did regional differences have on

existing learning resources programs?

5. What practical guidelines should be used for the

realistic evaluation of services of learning

resource centers in the comprehensive community

college?


Delimitations

The following restrictions were observed in conducting

this study:

1. The study was confined to a selected group of

public comprehensive community colleges.

2. By requesting nominations of exemplary community

college learning resource centers from ten state

community college directors, the author received

nominations of jurors who are expert in the field

of learning resources.

3. The data were limited to a study of the learning

resource services of selected community colleges

of 10 states located east and west of the Missis-

sippi River on the assumption that differences may










appear between the older, more traditional colleges

of the East and the newer, possibly more innovative

colleges of the West.

4. The study was restricted to the validity of the

selection of the jury of experts.


Limitations

The study was limited to the expertise of selected

jurors, the data collected from the study of selected commu-

nity college services, and the review of the literature.


Justification J

Learning resource centers have attempted to meet the

rapidly growing need for instructional support services in

comprehensive community colleges. However, what services

should be offered and how they should be evaluated are two

factors which, heretofore, have not been determined.

A variety of services of learning resource centers have

evolved from attempts by librarians, media specialists and

others to meet the need for providing easy accessibility to

print and non-print instructional materials and related

supportive services. (Clinton, 1972)

The expanding developments in electronic technology for

the rapid retrieval and transfer of stored audio, visual and

printed information have brought a variety of instructional

patterns of utilizing this technology. (Davies, 1974)










Learning resource centers are evolving into an integrat-

ed media system composed of library, television, and audio-

visual services. The modern community college learning

resource center seeks to enrich, vitalize and humanize the

educational program by providing a supportive service.

Effective guidelines need to be developed to evaluate the

services of the integrated media system for students and

faculty of the comprehensive community college. (Davies,

1974)

It has become apparent that there is a need for guide-

lines to be developed which incorporate an examination of

services of learning resource centers. These guidelines

could then be used to evaluate existing learning resource

center services, in order that the latest learning media

techniques may be used in the most effective manner.

A multi-dimensional approach to education is essential

in the comprehensive community college if the widely diver-

gent learning needs of its heterogeneous student body are to

be met. Librarians and media specialists have agreed that

an integrated approach toward media would make the most

recent developments in telecommunications readily accessible.

This accessibility is important if the comprehensive commu-

nity college is to be responsive to individual student

differences. (Conolly and Sepe, 1973)










The information explosion, expansion of knowledge, the

advances in the science of telecommunications, the increase

in the heterogeneous nature of the student body, comprehen-

sive programs in community colleges and recent trends toward

accountability dictate that learning resource centers have

progressive yet practical methods of evaluation. The devel-

opment of any undergraduate learning resource center repre-

sents a complex and multi-faceted undertaking which may

better be realized with an effective evaluating system.

(Shifrin, 1974)

This study has determined evaluation guidelines which

should help learning resource centers in: 1) developing

flexible administrative patterns; 2) improving accessibility

of material; 3) providing media appropriate for student

differences; 4) utilizing technological advances;

5) increasing instructors' knowledge and use of media.

The purpose of this investigation was to determine

guidelines for the evaluation of existing learning resource

centers which may also serve as guidelines for the planning

of future learning resource centers in comprehensive commu-

nity colleges.


Assumptions

For the purpose of this study the following three

assumptions were made:










1. That the data collected were sufficiently inclusive;

2. That the jury selected to respond was sufficiently

informed concerning services of learning resource

centers;

3. That the guidelines for use in evaluating the

learning resource services which emerged from this

investigation were based in part on a review of

past efforts and existing standards, but their

legitimization primarily reflects the diverse and

extensive experience of the experts who partici-

pated as jury members.


Definition of Terms

Comprehensive Community College

A public two-year college which offers programs and/or

courses limited to the first two years of post-high school

education including the university-parallel program and at

least one program or series of offerings of each of the

following: occupational education or continuing education.

For the purposes of this study, community college is synony-

mous with "junior college," and "comprehensive community

college."


Learning Resource Center

An administrative configuration within a community

college responsible for the supervision and management for

learning resources units regardless of the location of these










components within various physical environments of the

institution. This includes library, audio-visual, telecom-

munication instructional development facilities and instruc-

tional system components.


Services

The provision of information, material, equipment and

performances related to instructional support.


Organization of the Research Report

This study is reported in five chapters. Chapter I

includes an introductory statement, a statement of the

problem, procedures, the definition of terms and the organi-

zation of the study by chapters.

A review and overview of the related literature and a

summary is included in Chapter II.

Chapter III includes a discussion of the procedures,

development of the instrument, collection of the data, and

returns of the instruments.

Chapter IV is a summary of the findings.

Chapter V presents the recommended guidelines for the

evaluation of learning resource centers in the community

college.














CHAPTER II '
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


Since the learning resources center in the community

college is a recent development, it is not surprising that a

review of the literature revealed only a limited number of

research reports and articles related to the problem treated

in this study. The establishment of the learning resources

center has been an evolutionary phenomenon of fairly recent

date in community college education. In order to study the

development of the learning resources center, it is necessary

to study the history of its development, to investigate the

changing definitions of learning resources and to note some

of the attempts at evaluating learning resources.


Development of Learning Resources Centers

Public comprehensive community colleges have become a

common phenomenon in American education. The community

junior college movement began over seventy years ago, and

its rapid growth has been reflected in the constantly chang-

ing patterns and services of its libraries. During the

early years of the community college movement, the library

provided the instructional support necessary in traditional

ways. The library served as a repository of information and

provided services which did not generally go beyond books,










periodicals and filmstrips. Several factors combined to

make these traditional library services inadequate: a

dramatic increase in the number of students attending

community colleges, the information explosion, and rapid

technological advances. The library was called upon to

provide service appropriate to a much more sophisticated

educational environment. Soon an attempt was made in many

colleges to incorporate some of the new media by providing a

separate storage area, usually located outside the walls of

the library. In some cases a "media specialist" was employed.

Frequently the librarian and the "media specialist" saw

their roles as distinctly separate, and very little, if any,

communication or cooperation developed between them.

Gradually, however, the need for shared expertise became

apparent, and librarians and media specialists joined to-

gether through professional organizations, university educa-

tion programs and college administrations to form a united

and uniform approach for making print and non-print materials

more readily accessible to students and faculty. More

recently terms such as "school research center," "learning

center," and "learning resources center" have become familiar

to those actively involved in community college education.


Definitions of Learning Resources Centers

Although it is generally agreed that the concept of the

community college library as simply a repository for books










is no longer viable, just what the evolving library will

include, how it will be administered and what it will be

called is still a matter for some debate. A variety of

conceptualizations as well as names are in current use. In

his article, "Conceptualizing the Learning Center," Peterson

(1975) advocates the name "Learning Center" in an effort to

heal the split between print and non-print media in an

environment which emphasizes learning. Peterson sees the

major components of the "Learning Center" as 1) library

functions; 2) audio-visual services; 3) instructional devel-

opment; and 4) promotion of innovative learning environments.

(p. 3) In "The Learning Resource Center: Concepts and

Designs," Ducote (1970) refers to the disagreement concerning

the name. Ducote contends, however, that the real challenge

lies in the development of a new program which will allow

the new materials and techniques to be more effectively

utilized by students and faculty. In a paper presented to

the Annual Conference of the Western College Reading Associ-

ation, See (1974) also refers to the general confusion of

names and lack of agreement of function and services provided.

Regardless of the debate concerning a name, the litera-

ture reveals that there is a growing trend toward incorpo-

rating more than library and audio-visuals in the new concept.

In her paper, "College Learning Skills: Frontierland Origins

of the Learning Assistance Center," Enright (1975) writes of










the "Learning Center movement" (p. 2) which includes a

Learning Assistance Center, which would offer such diverse

services as tutorials, study aids and referrals to other

agencies. It would also serve as a testing ground for

innovative machines, materials and programs, and, interest-

ingly, also act as a campus ombudsman. (p. 3)

Piazza (1975), in "Learning Resource Programs for Two

Year Colleges: A Study of the Art," says that the former

library has now evolved to learning resources which are

recognized as being involved in all aspects of the instruc-

tional process. He relates that systems theorists have been

examining feasible organizational patterns of hardware and

software in an effort to determine how a more efficient

system with comprehensive, flexible staffing patterns and

with instructional systems packages will permit greater

personal contact among resource guides, teachers, and stu-

dents. Piazza also states that there is no set pattern for

the organization of learning resources.

In an attempt to gather empirical information about the

concept of the Learning Center, Peterson (1974, p. 4) sent a

three page questionnaire to public and community colleges in

the United States. The questions were designed to include

four basic concepts:

a) the provision of information through a library of
media containing print, audio, video, microfilms,
computer display;











b) the provision of AV services, including media pro-
uction and instructional support functions through
hardware and software systems;
c) the provision of a number of non-traditional
learning environments and activities within the
learning center;
d) the provision of instructional development activity
which includes a systematic analysis of learner
traits and task conditions with a pursuant synthe-
sis of a variety of individualized media and other
learning activity into a highly definable and
evaluatable learning environment. (p. 3,4)

As a result of his survey, Peterson found that almost half

(46.7 per cent) of those colleges responding contained all

four parts of his conceptual model. Peterson's study also

revealed that of those colleges responding, only 16.7 percent

included instructional development as a learning resources

function. In another article, "The Comprehensive Learning

Center," Peterson (1975) defines what he sees as the emerging

services of learning resource programs: 1) instructional

development; 2) learning assistance programs; 3) an individu-

alized skills program; 4) media-related activities in an

independent studies program; 5) external degree programs;

6) inservice training. (p. 44)

Noting the trend toward the inclusion of instructional

development in the learning resources program, Voegel (1975),

in his article, "Some Value Considerations," warns that "too

much attention is being paid to instructional development as

an institutional end rather than a means." Voegel goes on

to assert that "teaching and some learning will occur wheth-

er I.D. is around or not." (p. 88) Voegel views










instructional design as a process which could improve the

production of learning materials and instructional develop-

ment as a process to improve and define instruction.

The literature, then, indicates a lack of consensus by

experts in the field concerning the exact nature of learning

resources, its services, its definition, and even its name.

The traditional community college library has been expanded

to include widely varied components of the instructional

process. The services of a community college learning

resources center may include learning laboratories which

provide individualized skills instruction, materials produc-

tion, computer operations, television studios, cinematography,

student media facilities, photography and graphics labs,

media production, film, record and tape collections and many

other aspects of instructional technology. The library and

audio-visuals services are but a small part of today's

learning resources program.


Evaluation Attempts

To study the development of the learning resources

center in the community college, it is necessary to look at

the role of the junior college library and the American

Library Association's efforts to establish standards for its

evaluation. Efforts to establish standards for junior

college libraries began in 1930. (Lewis, 1975) Thirty years

passed, however, before the first formal statement appeared:










"Standards for Junior College Libraries." These standards,

issued by the American Library Association in 1960, provided

the first definitive document on the subject of libraries in

two year colleges. This document was prepared by the Com-

mittee on Standards of the Association of College and Re-

search Libraries and approved by the American Library Asso-

ciation in January, 1960. Because of this unilateral action,

the American Library Association was subjected to much

criticism from organizations such as the American Association

of Junior Colleges and the Association for Educational

Communications and Technology. (Lewis, 1975) The purpose

of the "Standards" was to provide a guide for the evaluation

of two year college libraries. The set of standards ad-

dressed itself to such areas as budgets, facilities, staff,

organization, objectives, functions, collection, and services.

The 1960 "Standards" uses quantitative measures for

evaluation.

In 1968, the Department of A-V Instruction of the

National Education Association (DAVI) prepared standards for

educational media programs in colleges and universities.

The draft proposal of this group served as a guide for the

"Educational Media Programs in Junior Colleges" by the

Audio-Visual Standards Committee of the Community-Junior

College Library Administrators. This group developed a list

of factors relating to criteria for media programs in commu-

nity colleges.










Another major document in the field of learning re-

sources evaluation is the "Guidelines for Two-Year College

Learning Resources Programs." (1972) This report was

published in 1972 and was approved by the American Library

Association, the Association of Educational Communications

and Technology, and the American Association of Junior

Colleges. These Guidelines are "diagnostic and descriptive"

(p. 306) and stress the need for direction in the development

of comprehensive learning resources programs in two year

colleges. The document does not attempt to establish minimal

standards but "to provide criteria for information, self-

study and planning." (p. 306) The document states that

"the role of the Learning Resources program is four-fold:

1) to provide leadership and assistance in the development

of instructional systems which employ effective and efficient

means of accomplishing those objectives; 2) to provide an

organized and readily accessible collection of materials and

supportive equipment needed to meet institutional, instruc-

tional and individual needs of students and faculty; 3) to

provide a staff qualified, concerned and involved in serving

the needs of students, faculty and community; 4) to encourage

innovation, learning and community service by providing

facilities and resources which will make these possible."

(p. 307) This document also defines terms frequently used

in learning resources programs. It provides general










statements of such areas as objectives, organization, budget,

instructional systems components, staff, facilities and

material.

In an article entitled "A Comparison of the 1960 Stan-

dards and the 1972 Guidelines for Community College

Libraries," Lewis (1975) compares the two documents and

concludes that the more recent document is a "watered down

version of the efforts of three influence-seeking

organizations."

In their article, "Using the Guidelines: A Study of

the State Supported Two-Year College Libraries in Ohio,"

Clark and Hirschman (1975) report the development of a

questionnaire using the "Guidelines for Two Year College

Learning Resources Programs" as a basis. The "Guidelines,"

although commended by the authors, were found to be too

broad. They felt a need for the "Guidelines" to be trans-

lated into measureable criteria and quantitative averages

for groups of institutions. (p. 365)


State and Regional Accreditation Attempts

Efforts have been made at both the state and regional

levels to establish guidelines for the accreditation of

learning resources centers. In his paper, "The Impact of

Regional Accrediting Agencies upon Libraries in Post-

Secondary Education," Yates (1976) points out that the

literature on library accreditation is sparse. He deplores










the lack of uniform and meaningful library accrediting

standards. Yates asserts that regional association evalua-

tors attempt to evaluate quantitatively although prescribed

quantitative standards do not exist. In their efforts to

evaluate fairly, evaluators frequently use quantitative

standards which are external to the regional associations

such as HEW, Clapp-Jordan, Washington State or the California

formulae. These evaluations, he claims, would be more

meaningful if they were based on some index of quality.

In a working paper entitled "Identification of Library

Elements in Statements of Accrediting Standards--A Review of

the Literature," Totten (1974) tabulates the specific ele-

ments considered by those agencies which are involved in the

accreditation of college libraries. As late as 1972, the

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, was the only

one of six regional accrediting associations which did not

include non-print media as one of the elements of library

accreditation.

The need for realistic evaluation of community college

learning resources has forced some states to develop evalua-

tive measures of their own. In a paper presented in January,

1976, Michael explained the "Planning and Evaluating Library

System Service in Illinois Using the CIPP Model." CIPP is

an acronym for context, input, process and product. The

model was designed for assessing library services and for










formulating goals, objectives and criteria to measure program

attainment. An adaptation of many previous planning and

design models, the CIPP was developed by Ohio State Univer-

sity Evaluation Center.

In 1973, the State of California issued "Guidelines for

a Non-Print Materials Core in a Learning Resource Program."

California has had space utilization standards for the

traditional community college library since 1966, but these

standards made no provision for non-print media. The newer

guidelines refer to the Learning Resources Center and include

the traditional library as well as audio-visuals, study

skills and tutorial services. These guidelines provide

specific quantitative measures, such as square footage

allotments which follow formulae based on "day graded

enrollments."


Chapter Summary

The literature directly related to this study is limited

both in primary and secondary sources. The rapidly changing

role of library and audio-visual services of the community

colleges makes information that is only two decades old

hopelessly out of date. A look at the historical changes

indicates the library has changed from a depository for

books to become a resources center, unnamed and undefined,

which may be involved in all phases of the educational

process. Two of the most important works in the field,






20



"Standards for Junior College Libraries" and "Guidelines for

Two-Year College Learning Resource Programs," are found to

be too narrow on the one hand and too broad on the other.

State and regional accreditation and evaluation measures are

found to provide criteria which are either too specific and

quantitative or too broad and qualitative, thus making the

results of their application difficult to interpret. Old

problems and new challenges in the constantly changing and

rapidly expanding learning resources program indicate a need

for evaluative guidelines which can be both flexible and

effective.














CHAPTER III
INSTRUMENT AND PROCEDURES USED IN THE STUDY


The present investigation was conducted to determine

functional guidelines for the realistic evaluation of learn-

ing resource centers in community colleges. To be able to

determine guidelines which could be used in future evalua-

tions, it was necessary to determine the exact nature of

exemplary community college learning resource centers as

they currently exist. This was the most crucial part of the

problem. A careful study of the literature revealed that

there was no instrument exactly appropriate. Although

surveys, questionnaires, standards and guidelines had been

published, none was completely fitted to the problem in

this study. Therefore, a major task facing the writer was

the development of a questionnaire which would be comprehen-

sive enough to include the diverse and multiple aspects of

today's community college learning resources programs.

A second major task in undertaking the study was the

problem of making the selection of the exemplary learning

resource centers. The writer, under the guidance of her

supervisory committee, decided to choose 10 states from

among those with well-established community college systems.

With the use of expert opinion the 10 states selected were:










California, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Ntew York, North

Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington.

A third task undertaken was the problem of determining

which learning resource centers would best represent current

exemplary learning resource programs. In consultation with

her supervisory committee, the writer decided the state

director for community college programs would be knowledge-

able concerning the college programs in his/her state.

Therefore, each of the 10 state community college directors

was asked to nominate those institutions in his/her state

which he/she believed had exemplary learning resources

programs.

A fourth problem in conducting the study was to ascer-

tain the impact, if any, of regional differences on the

community college learning resources program. It seemed

reasonable to assume that the East, with its long history of

formal education, might exert a traditional influence on an

area which was still being referred to as "library services"

by traditionalists. On the other hand, the learning re-

sources program in the West might be marked by the spirit of

innovation and originality which frequently characterizes

that region. Thus, the decision was made further to divide

the sample and compare the two regions. Six states were

grouped together to form the West and four states were

grouped to form the East. The time-honored dividing line,










the Mississippi River, was used as the natural division, and

significant differences between the two sections were

investigated.


Development of the Instrument

After a review of the literature and consultation with

informed persons in the field, the writer determined that

appropriate guidelines for learning resources could be

developed only if an instrument were developed to assess

current exemplary programs. To be valid, such an instrument

would have to include the following categories: philosophy;

services; administration; financing; facilities; professional

staff; support personnel; equipment; and policies. Since

both the writer's own experience and a review of the litera-

ture indicated learning resources programs could include

many aspects of the total instructional program, the instru-

ment was designed to be as comprehensive as possible. The

following learning resources subdivisions were incorporated

in the instrument: library; learning laboratories (individ-

ualized instruction); materials production; media production;

hardware repair; television studios; automatic retrieval

(dial access); photography; graphics; cinematography; film

libraries; film strip libraries; record libraries; multi-

media production; audio tape and video tape production;

slide processing facilities; student media facilities;

student media laboratories; audio-visual services and others

(such as computer operations, bookstore).










After due consideration, it also became apparent that

the instrument could not be limited to questions with yes-no

responses. Differences in college philosophies, programs

and size, for instance, as well as other factors, would

cause considerable differences in answers to questions

regarding staffing and financing. Every effort was made,

however, to design easy-to-answer questions.

The design of an instrument which would be comprehensive

enough to include all of the above considerations was a

major problem. Obviously the sheer length of such a compre-

hensive questionnaire would tend to discourage response

unless it was organized carefully. After the list of factors

to be included in the questionnaire was identified, an

initial draft of the instrument was prepared. This draft

was submitted to an expert in research design whose sugges-

tions resulted in a revision of the instrument. This draft

instrument was submitted to the writer's supervisory commit-

tee chairman, whose suggestions resulted in the change of

several questions and the deletion of several others. In

addition, the revised instrument was submitted to persons

working in the learning resources field for their suggestions.

Once the questions to be included in the instrument were

finally decided upon, the design format was carefully con-

sidered. In order to make the questionnaire less formidable,

the final instrument was professionally printed on 6 x 8 1/2










green paper in black ink. It was hoped that the attractively

designed and commercially printed questionnaire would encour-

age participation in the study. (See Appendix A)


Collection of the Data

In order to determine exemplary learning resources in

the 10 states selected for the study, letters were sent to

the community college directors in those states asking them

to nominate the community colleges in their states which

they believed had exemplary learning resource centers.

These 10 state directors nominated a combined total of 94

community college learning resource centers.

A preliminary letter was sent to the head learning

resources officer in each of the 94 institutions which had

been nominated by the state directors. The letter explained

the study and asked these officers to participate in the

study. (See Appendix B) After approximately a two-week

period, the questionnaire was mailed to each of the 94

community college learning resource centers which had been

nominated by the state directors. The cover letter enclosed

with the questionnaire again explained the purpose of the

study and asked for cooperation in its completion. (See

Appendix B) Participants were further invited to make

suggestions or offer comments in the space provided for that

purpose or in letter form. Each participant was mailed a

stamped, addressed envelope. Prompt return of the










questionnaires was requested. Participants were assured

that information about specific programs would not be used

separately but that such information would form a part of

the total statistical report which would result from the

study. In addition, each respondent was invited to request

a summary of the findings. After a three week period, 51 of

the questionnaires had been returned. A second letter was

mailed to the non-respondents urging them to complete and

return the questionnaires. (See Appendix B) No additional

responses were received.


Analysis of the Data

In analyzing the data, the following questions were

considered: What is the exact nature of exemplary learning

resources centers? What is the opinion of the expert respon-

dents concerning current learning resources programs? Are

there any significant differences between exemplary learning

resource programs located in the East as compared to those

of community colleges in the West? What evaluation guide-

lines should be proposed?

In an attempt to answer the above questions, the items

on each questionnaire were processed by computer. The raw

data were taken from the research instruments, coded on

standard 80 space coding sheets, punched on IBM cards and

subsequently processed. In addition to the descriptive

statistics, the chi-square statistic was employed to










determine statistical independence of the discrete variables.

For every bivariate examined, geographical area was one of

the two variables included in the analysis. Of course, this

variable was dichotomous.

Thus the development of the study included determining

how to select the learning resource centers that should be

studied, developing an instrument comprehensive enough to be

useful and not so formidable as to preclude participation by

selected learning resource centers, encouragement of response

by these colleges, and selection of appropriate statistical

techniques to analyze the data received. At each stage

expert guidance was sought to maximize the usefulness of the

results.














CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA


The major purposes of the present investigation were to

determine the exact nature of exemplary learning resource

centers and to determine whether regional differences have

any significant impact on the nature of these centers.

It may be helpful to state the problem and sub-problems

once again. The problem under consideration was to determine

functional guidelines for the realistic evaluation of learn-

ing resource centers in community colleges. The sub-problems

were as follows:

1. What were the services provided and administrative

arrangements of exemplary learning resource centers in

comprehensive community colleges of selected states?

2. What guidelines for services and administration of

learning resource centers were suggested from a review of

the literature and research?

3. What importance was placed upon proposed services

by a jury of experts?

4. What impact did regional differences have on exist-

ing learning resources programs?

5. What practical guidelines should be used for the

realistic evaluation of services of learning resource centers

in the comprehensive community college?

28










This chapter is organized into two main divisions.

First, the data for all colleges responding in the study are

presented and discussed. Second, the data for the colleges

are presented and analyzed by region. The colleges were

divided into two regions--those east of the Mississippi

River and those west of the Mississippi River.


Presentation of the Data for All Colleges Responding

As was discussed previously, an extensive questionnaire

was prepared to collect the data. (See Appendix A) Even

though the questionnaire was very long and required a large

amount of information, over 51 percent of the colleges

responded. In view of the extensive information requested,

this was believed to be a very good return and may have been

the result of using the printed questionnaire.

In this section, the data for all of the colleges

responding will be presented. Eleven tables were used to

organize the data for discussion. The reader is now invited

to consider these data.


Facilities Contained in the Learning Resource Centers

The facilities existing in learning resource centers of

the colleges responding are presented in Table 1. Media

production and an audio and video tape library were the two

facilities found most often (96.1 percent of the time) in

the centers. Seven other facilities existed in the centers

over 90 percent of the time. These are: a library,











photography, a film-strip library, a record library, multi-

media production, audio and video tape production, and audio-

visual services. Only three facilities existed less than 50

percent of the time. These are: a student-media laboratory

(19.6 percent), automatic retrieval (21 percent), and student-

media facilities (37.3 percent). Cinematography facilities

were included in less than 40 percent of the learning re-

source centers. Only 56.9 percent of the learning resource

centers included facilities for slide processing.





)Table 1. Frequencies and Percentages of Facilities Existing in Learning
Resource Centers.



Percent
Not Not
Facility Included Included Included Included


Library 48 3 94.1 5.9

Learning Laboratories 43 8 84.3 15.7

Materials Production 41 10 80.4 19.6

Media Production 49 2 96.1 3.9

Hardware Repair 43 8 84.3 15.7

Television Studio 40 11 78.4 21.6

Automatic Retrieval 11 40 21.6 78.4

Photography 47 4 92.2 7.8

Graphics 41 10 80.4 19.6











Table 1. Continued.


Percent
Not Not
Facility Included Included Included Included


Cinematography:

8 mm only 19 32 37.3 62.7

16 mm only 20 31 39.2 60.8

both 8 and 16 mm 5 46 9.8 90.2

TOTAL 44 7 86.3 13.7

Film Library 45 6 88.2 11.8

Film-strip Library 46 5 90.2 9.8

Record Library 47 4 92.2 7.8

Multi-Media Production 46 5 90.2 9.8

Audio and Video Tape Library 49 2 96.1 3.9

Audio and Video Tape Production 48 3 94.1 5.9

Slide Processing Facilities 29 22 56.9 43.1

Student-Media Facilities 19 32 37.3 62.7

Student-Media Laboratory 10 41 19.6 80.4

Audio-Vidual Services 47 4 92.2 7.8

Other 25 26 49.0 51.0




The Administration, Staffing and Condition of Facilities
of Centers

Table 2 shows that 65 percent of the learning resource

centers had advisory committees, and of those, 91 percent











had faculty members serving on those committees. Administra-

tively, 81 percent of the learning resource centers function

as an independent department, and 11 percent serve as a

subdivision of the library. Eighty percent reported being a

part of academic affairs; none reported being a part of

business affairs, and five percent reported being a part of

student affairs. Sixty-five percent stated that the chief

LRC officer reported to the vice-president or dean for

academic affairs. Thirteen percent reported directly to the

president; four percent reported to the head of student

affairs, and two percent reported to the chairman of the

English department. Ninety-six percent reported having a

written job description with clearly defined responsibilities

for the chief LRC officer.

Seventy percent considered the LRC facility adequate,

and 28 percent described the LRC facility as too crowded or

inadequate. Fifty-one percent reported the LRC materials

and equipment as either limited and appropriate or adequate

and appropriate while 49 percent reported materials and

equipment to be plentiful and well-matched to college's

needs.

Over 50 percent indicated a staff of professionals,

paraprofessionals, clerical and part-time employees number-

ing between one and five. Twenty-five percent reported a

professional and paraprofessional staff of between 11 and

25.











Almost half (48 percent) of the LRC's have a written

policy for community service. Over half (51 percent) of the

LRC's describe their role in providing community service as

good or superior. Regular staff meetings are held by 80

percent of the LRC's. Sixty-one percent of the LRC's have

staff manuals but only seven percent of these contain policy

statements. Seventy-eight reported the staff participates

in policy sessions, 94 percent in procedural decisions and

57 percent in personnel decisions. Adequate statistics, an

LRC handbook and inventory records were reported by over 90

percent of the learning resource centers.



Table 2. Responses in Percents to Items Regarding the Philosophy, Con-i
edition of Facilities, and Administration of the Learning Re-
source Center.



Item Percent


Advisory Committee for LRC:
Yes 65
No 35

Advisory Committee Compoased of Faculty:
(of Centers with Advisory Committees)
Yes 91
No 9

Administrative Configuration of LRC:
Independent Department 81
Part of English Department 0
Part of Communications Department 0
Sub-Division of College Library 8
Other 11

Part of Student Affairs 5
Part of Business Affairs 0
Part of Academic Affairs 80
Other 15











Table 2. Continued.



Item Percent


Chief LRC officer reports to:
President 13
Vice-President or Dean for Student Affairs 4
Vice-President or Dean for Business Affairs 0
Vice-President or Dean for Academic Affairs 65
English Department Chairman 2
Other 16

Chief LRC officer has written job description with
clearly defined responsibilities:
Yes 96
No 4

Facility in which LRC is housed:
Adequate and comfortable 38
Adequate except for one or two small inconveniences 32
Too crowded, uncomfortable 10
Inadequate 18
Other 2

LRC materials and equipment are:
Outdated and inadequate 0
Limited, but appropriate 23
Adequate and appropriate 28
Plentiful and well matched to college's needs 49

LRC Staff composition: 1-5 6-10 11-25 Over 25
Professionals: 52 36 12 0
Paraprofessionals: 60 25 13 2
Clerical: 58 26 16 0
Part-Time: 68 10 17 5
Other: 40 20 33 7

LRC has written policy for community service:
Yes 48
No 52

Best descriptor of LRC's role in providing community service:
Superior 12
Good 39
Adequate 35
Less than adequate 12
Poor 2











Table 2. Continued.



Item Percent


LRC staff has regular meetings:
Yes 80
No 20

LRC staff has a staff manual:
Yes 61
No 39

Included in staff manual:
Policy statements 7
Procedural statements 36
Duty assignments 7
General Information 50

LRC staff participates in:
Policy Sessions:
Yes 78
No 22
Procedural decisions:
Yes 94
No 6
Personnel decisions:
Yes 57
No 43

LRC staff accumulates adequate statistics:
Yes 92
No 8

LRC offers written handbook to faculty and students:
Yes 94
No 6

Inventory records maintained on materials and equipment:
Yes 94
No 6











Practices Concerning Budgeting and Financing For Functions
in the Centers

In this section of the report, data are presented to

reflect the way funds are budgeted in the centers for print

media and non-print media. Writers usually feel that funds

should be budgeted to assure quality in all operational

areas of the center.

Table 3 summarizes responses regarding the financing of

the learning resource centers. Over half (53 percent)

reported a total budget, excluding salaries, of over $75,000.

Fifty-one percent reported that the dean or director of the

LRC recommended budget allocations. Of those responding, 65

percent state that internal budget decisions are made by the

LRC dean or director.



Table 3. Responses in Percents to Items Regarding the Financing of the
Learning Resource Center.



Item Percent


Total Budget Allocation (excluding salaries)
for 1976-77 in dollars:
0-4999 0
5000-9999 2
10000-24999 18
25000-49999 6
50000-75000 21
Over 75000 53

Persons recommending budget allocations:
President 8
Vice-President or Dean 4
Dean or Director of LRC 51
Faculty Committee 0
Student Committee 2
Other 35











Table 3. Continued.


Item Percent


LRC Internal Budget decisions made by:
LRC Dean or Director 65
LRC Staff 27
Faculty Committee 0
Student Committee 0
Other 8




The division of the learning resource budget for print

media is presented in Table 4. Most responses indicated

that less than 10 percent of the budget was spent on the

various subdivisions of print media. New requisitions was

the only category which differed. Approximately 80 percent

of the colleges responding stated that more than 10 percent

of the budget was spent on new requisitions. The nearest

competitors were "planning" with 36 percent above the 10

percent criterion and "supplies" with 26 percent.



Table 4. Frequency of Percentage Category for Total of Learning Resource
Center Budget for Print Media.



No
Print Media 5% 5-10% 11-25% 26-50% 51-100% Response


New Requisitions 1

Replacement 11


9 6


3 0










Table 4. Continued.


No
Print Media 5% 5-10% 11-25% 26-50% 51-100% Response


Maintenance 9 4 2 2 0 32

Supplies 13 7 3 2 2 24

Production 9 6 1 1 0 34

Rental 13 2 1 0 0 35

Planning 6 1 4 0 0 40

Repairs 13 6 0 0 0 32

In-Serving
Training 8 4 0 0 3 36

Travel 18 2 4 1 0 26

Contractual
Services 13 3 0 0 0 35

Evaluation 6 0 0 0 0 45

Other 6 0 0 0 0 45




The division of the learning resource budget for non-

print media is presented in Table 5. Most responses indi-

cated that less than 10 percent of the budget was spent on

the various subdivisions of non-print media. As in the

budget for print media, new requisitions was the category

that had the most responses over the 10 percent criterion.

For non-print media though, the allocation (41 percent) was

approximately half that for print media. Supplies (39











percent) and maintenance (33 percent) were the next two

highest allocations of greater than 10 percent.


Table 5. Frequency of Percentage Category for
Center Budget for Non-Print Media.


Total of Learning Resource


No
Non-Print Media 5% 5-10% 11-25% 26-50% 50% Response


New Requisitions 8 5 7 1 1 29

Replacement 11 7 1 0 0 32

Maintenance 9 5 7 0 0 30

Supplies 7 7 6 3 0 28

Production 7 9 2 0 0 33

Rental 12 2 4 0 0 33

Planning 11 3 0 0 0 37

Repairs 9 6 2 0 0 34

In-Service Training 9 0 0 0 0 42

Travel 14 0 0 0 0 37

Contractual Services 11 0 0 0 0 40

Evaluation 6 1 0 0 0 44

Other 2 1 0 0 0 48




Library Policies and Services

Table 6 summarizes the data regarding the library.

Almost three fourths (74 percent) of the libraries use the

Library of Congress cataloging system while only 26 percent











use the Dewey Decimal system. All of the libraries reported

having a photocopy machine available for use by students.

Sixty-five percent have an electronic security system. Half

(50 percent) have between 1,000 and 10,000 titles in each

satellite collection. Fifty percent have over 20,000 titles

in each satellite collection. Half (50 percent) can accommo-

date up to 100 students in each satellite library. Almost

half (49 percent) reported having between 25,000 and 50,000

titles in the main collection. Twenty-five percent reported

having between 50,000 and 100,000 titles in the main collec-

tion. Sixty percent served up to 10,000 students per term

in the library. Five percent reported serving over 80,000

students per term. Seventy-five percent had a clearly

defined written statement of purpose for the library staff.



Table 6. Responses in Percents to Items Regarding College Library In-
cluded in Learning Resource Center.



Item Percent


Type of cataloging system:
Library of Congress 74
Dewey Decimal 26
Other 0

Photocopy machine:
Yes 100
No 0

Photocopy machine available to students:
Yes 100
No 0











Table 6. Continued.




Item Percent


Electronic security system:
Yes 65
No 35

Number of Titles housed in each satellite collection:
1000-4999 17
5000-9999 33
10000-14999 0
15000-20000 0
Over 20000 50

Number of students each satellite will accommodate:
1-50 20
51-100 30
101-200 0
201-300 20
301-500 20
Over 500 10

Number of Titles housed in main collection:
0-999 2
1000-9999 4
10000-24999 12
25000-49999 49
50000-100000 25
Over 100000 8

Number of students library serves per term:
1-2499 19
2500-4999 19
5000-9999 22
10000-19999 16
20000-39999 8
40000-80000 11
Over 80000 5

Library staff has clearly defined written statement of purpose:
Yes 75
No 25










The times during which a library, which is contained in

a learning resource center, is opened is presented in Table

7. Approximately 50 percent of the respondents stated that

the library was not open any time during the weekend. The

weekend day on which the library was most frequently open

was Saturday (45.3 percent). Only 13 percent of libraries

were open on a weekend day after five o'clock in the

afternoon.


Table 7. Frequency and Percentages of Days of
Day That the Library Is Open.


the Week and Hours of the


Open During Open After
Daytime Hours 5:00 PM

n % n %


Weekdays Only 20 47.6 25 80.6

Weekdays and Saturday 13 31.0 1 3.2

Weekdays and Sunday 3 7.1 2 6.5

All Seven Days 6 14.3 1 3.2

None of the Seven Days 0 0.0 2 6.5




Table 8 summarizes the data regarding the learning

laboratory. Over 80 percent of the learning laboratories

had between one and five people involved in all job catego-

ries. More than 90 percent of the learning laboratories











were open both during the day and evening. Sixty-seven

percent had a clearly defined written statement of purpose.

Eighty percent of the learning laboratories were housed in

a specially designed area. Sixty-three percent of the

learning laboratories reported being housed in one area, 10

percent in two areas, 17 percent in three areas; three

percent in four areas and seven percent in six areas. Fifty

percent of the learning laboratories were reported as being

housed in facilities which were adequate and comfortable, 22

percent saw their facilities as adequate except for small

inconveniences, 19 percent thought the facilities too crowded

and uncomfortable and nine percent regarded the learning

laboratory facilities as inadequate. Eighty-three percent

indicated their materials and equipment as being adequate or

plentiful. Only 27 percent regarded materials and equipment

as limited.



Table 8. Responses in Percents to Items Regarding the Learning Laboratory
Included in the Learning Resource Center.



Item Percent


Number of LRC persons involved in: 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-25 Over 25
Planning 91 9 0 0 0
Administration 90 10 0 0 0
Professional 81 19 0 0 0
Paraprofessional 88 12 0 0 0
Clerical 87 7 0 6 0
Part-Time 90 5 0 0 5
Evaluation 80 13 0 0 7











Table 8. Continued.



Item Percent


Learning Laboratory open during the day:
Yes 97
No 3

Learning Laboratory open during the evening:
Yes 93
No 7

Learning Laboratory has clearly defined written statement
of purpose:
Yes 67
No 33

Learning Laboratory housed in specially designed area:
Yes 80
No 20

Number of areas in which Learning Laboratory is housed:
One area 63
Two areas 10
Three areas 17
Four areas 3
Five areas 0
Six areas 7

Descriptor of facility in which Learning Laboratory
program is housed:
Adequate and comfortable 50
Adequate except for small inconveniences 22
Too crowded, uncomfortable 19
Inadequate 9

Learning Laboratory materials and equipment are:
Outdated and inadequate 0
Limited but appropriate 27
Adequate and appropriate 40
Plentiful and well related to college's needs 33











Materials Production Facilities

Table 9 summarizes the data concerning materials produc-

tion. Photography, graphics and instructional design were

included more than 90 percent of the time. Almost all

reported between one and five people in all job categories,

except for 18 percent reporting between six and 10 people

involved in production. Over half (53 percent) described

their materials production facilities as either too crowded

and uncomfortable or inadequate. Sixty percent regarded

materials and equipment as adequate or plentiful. Fifty-

eight percent had a clearly defined written statement of

purpose.



Table 9. Responses in Percents to Items Regarding Materials Production
Included in the Learning Resource Center.



Item Percent


Affirmation of Equipment inclusion in Materials Production:
Large Offset 37
Small Offset 36
Mimeograph 29
Ditto 39
Instructional Design 94
Photo-Copy 80
Collation 56
Binding 48
Plate Making 48
Photography 97
Graphics 97
MSTS 10











Table 9. Continued.



Item Percent


Number of people
devoting time to: 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-25 Over 25
Planning 94 3 3 0 0
Administration 97 0 3 0 0
Management 94 0 6 0 0
Production 76 18 6 0 0
Clerical 94 3 0 0 3
Evaluation 96 0 4 0 0

Best descriptor of facilities in which Materials Production
program is housed:
Adequate and comfortable 31
Adequate except for small inconveniences 15
Too crowded, uncomfortable 39
Inadequate 14

Materials Production materials and equipment are:
Outdated and inadequate 0
Limited, but appropriate 40
Adequate and appropriate 40
Plentiful and well matched to college's needs 20

Materials Production staff has clearly defined written
statement of purpose:
Yes 58
No 42




Audio-Visual Services

Table 10 summarizes the data in regard to audio-visual

services. Only four percent indicated the LRC staff respon-

sible for running equipment while 33 percent reported faculty

responsible for running equipment. Fifty-one percent own a

film cleaning and checking machine. Seventy-four percent

have a clearly defined written statement of purpose. All











reported having audio-visual

day and 98 percent available


services available during the

at night.


Table 10. Responses in Percents to Items Regarding the Audio-Visual
Services Included in the Learning Resource Center.


Item


Percent


Person running equipment:
Faculty 33
Students 2
LRC Staff 4
Faculty and Students 17
Faculty and LRC Staff 24
Faculty, Students and LRC Staff 20

Own film-cleaning and checking machine:
Yes 51
No 49


Audio-visual services has a clearly
statement of purpose:
Yes
No

Audio-Visual services are available
Yes
No

Audio-Visual services are available
Yes
No


defined written


during the day:


during the evening:


Student Media Lab

Table 11 summarizes the data regarding the student

media lab. No lab reported more than three persons staffing

the media lab. Fifty percent reported one staff member, 25











percent reported two staff members and 25 percent reported

having three staff members. Forty-three percent offer

credit for the media lab, and an equal number offer it for

non-credit. All reported keeping the media lab open during

the day while 86 percent have labs available in the evening.

All labs reported having equipment available for student use

for slides, video-tape, film production, graphics, photogra-

phy and television production. Also, all labs reported

having a clearly defined written statement of purpose.



Table 11. Responses in Percents to Items Regarding the Student-Media Lab
Included in the Learning Resource Center.



Item Percent


Number of people staffing the Media Lab:
One 50
Two 25
Three 25
More than three 0

Media Lab for:
Credit 43
Non-Credit 43
Credit and Non-Credit 14

Media Lab available during the day:
Yes 100
No 0

Media Lab available during the evening:
Yes 86
No 14

Areas available for direct student hands-on use:
Slides 100
Video-Tape 100










Table 11. Continued.


Item Percent


Film Production 100
Art (graphics) 100
Photography 100
Television Production 100

Student Media Lab has clearly defined written
statement of purpose:
Yes 100
No 0




Comparison of East and West Groups

As discussed previously, the colleges were divided into

two groups for analysis. One group of six states were in

the group west of the Mississippi River. The other group of

four states was east of the Mississippi River. In the

beginning of the study, some persons speculated that there

might be clear-cut differences between the two regions due

to a traditional influence in the east and a possible pioneer

spirit of innovation in the west.

Tables 12-23 summarize the data in which there was

found to be a significant difference between those community

college learning resource centers located in the East and

those located in the West.


Advisory Committee

The response by geographical area as to whether a

learning resource center's advisory committee has student










members is presented in Table 12. Because a significant X2

(p < 0.05) resulted, it can be said that student representation

on learning resource advisory committees is associated with

the geographical location of a particular college in the

study sample. The data in the table demonstrate that the

eastern colleges had students on advisory committees signif-

icantly more often than did the western colleges.



Table 12. Frequencies and Chi-square Value, for the Association of Geo-
graphical Area with LRC Advisory Committees Having Student
Members.



Students Geographical Area Sample
on Committee East West Size Percent


Yes 18 4 22 71.0

No 3 6 9 29.0

Sample Size 21 10

Percent 67.7 32.3


Chi-square 4.831 df = 1 Significance = 0.028



Housing

The type of housing for the learning resource center by

geographical area is presented in Table 13. Because a

significant X2 (p < 0.05) resulted, it can be said that type

of housing is associated with the geographical location.

The data in the table demonstrate that the western colleges










had the learning resource center housed in its own building

significantly more often than did the eastern colleges.



Table 13. Frequencies and Chi-square Value, for the Association of Geo-
graphical Area with LRC Housing Type.



Geographical Area Sample
Housing Type East West Size Percent


Own Building 13 18 31 73.8

Housed in
Various Buildings 9 2 11 26.2

Sample Size 22 20

Percent 52.4 47.6


Chi-square = 5.172 df = 1 Significance = 0.025



Salary Allocation

The amount of total salary budget allocation of a

learning resource center for 1976-77 by geographical area is

presented in Table 14. Because a significant X2 (p < 0.05)

resulted, it can be said that the amount of the total salary

budget allocation of a learning resource center was associ-

ated with the geographical location.

The data in the table demonstrate that the western

colleges had a significantly larger allocation for salaries

than did the eastern colleges.











Table 14. Frequencies and Chi-square Value, for the Association of Geo-
graphical Area with Salary Allocation.



Geographical Area Sample
Budget East West Size Percent


0-$24,999 0 2 2 4.2

$25,000-$49,999 1 1 1 4.2

$50,000-$99,999 9 2 11 22.9

$100,000-$149,000 4 1 5 10.4

$150,000-$200,000 5 1 6 12.5

Over $200,000 7 15 22 45.8

Sample Size 26 22

Percent 54.2 45.8


Chi-square = 13.591


df 5 Significance = 0.018


Periodical Subscriptions

The number of periodical subscriptions of libraries

contained within the learning resource center by geographical

area is presented in Table 15. Because a significant X2

(p < 0.05) resulted, it can be said that the number of peri-

odical subscriptions of the library was associated with the

geographical location. The data in the table demonstrate

that the western colleges subscribed significantly more

often to more than 200 periodicals than did the eastern

colleges.











Table 15. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value, for the Association of Geo-
graphical Area with Number of Periodicals to Which Library
Subscribes.



Number of
Periodical Geographical Area Sample
Subscriptions East West Size Percent


0-24 0 1 1 2.4

25-49 0 1 1 2.4

100-200 8 0 8 19.0

Over 200 18 14 32 76.2

Sample Size 26 16

Percent 61.9 38.1


Chi-square = 8.607


df = 3 Significance = 0.035


Reading Instruction

The response by geographical area as to whether instruc-

tion in reading is offered by the learning laboratory is

presented in Table 16. Because a significant X2 (p < 0.05)

resulted, it can be said that offerings of instruction in

reading by a learning laboratory is associated with the

geographical location. The data in the table demonstrate

that the eastern colleges responded significantly more often

that they offered instruction in reading than did the western

colleges.











Table 16. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value, for the Association of Geo-
graphical Area with Learning Laboratories Offering Instruc-
tion in Reading.



Reading Geographical Area Sample
Instruction East West Size Percent


Yes 21 4 25 89.3

No 0 3 3 10.7

Sample Size 21 7

Percent 75.0 25.0


Significance of Chi-square using Fisher's Exact Test = 0.011

df = 1



Speaking Instruction

The response by geographical area as to whether instruc-

tion in speaking is offered by the learning laboratory is

presented in Table 17. Because a significant X2 (p < 0.05)

resulted, it can be said that offerings of instruction in

speaking by a learning laboratory is associated with the

geographical location. The data in the table demonstrate

that the eastern colleges responded significantly more often

that they offered instruction in speaking than did the

western colleges.











Table 17. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value, for the Association of Geo-
graphical Area with Learning Laboratories Offering Instruc-
tion in Speaking.



Speaking Geographical Area Sample
Instruction East West Size Percent


Yes 19 3 22 91.7

No 0 2 2 8.3

Sample Size 19 5

Percent 79.2 20.8


Significance of Chi-square using Fisher's Exact Test = 0.036

df = 1



Tutoring Services

The response by geographical area as to whether tutoring

services are offered by the learning laboratory is presented

in Table 18. Because a significant X2 (p < 0.05) resulted,

it can be said that offerings of tutoring services by a

learning laboratory is associated with the geographical

location. The data in the table demonstrate that the eastern

colleges responded significantly more often that they had

tutoring services than did the western colleges.











Table 18. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value, for the Association of Geo-
graphical Area with Learning Laboratories Offering Tutoring
Services.



Tutoring Geographical Area Sample
Services East West Size Percent


Yes 16 1 17 85.0

No 1 2 3 15.0

Sample Size 17 3

Percent 85.0 15.0


Significance of Chi-square using Fisher's Exact Test = 0.045

df = 1



Learning Lab Rating

The rating of learning laboratory staff by geographical

area is presented in Table 19. Because a significant X2

(p < 0.05) resulted, it can be said that the rating given to

learning laboratory staff is associated with the geographical

location.

The data in the table demonstrate that the eastern

colleges rated their learning laboratory staff as less

adequate significantly more often than did the western

colleges.











Table 19. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value, for the Association of Geo-
graphical Area with Learning Laboratory Staff Descriptor.



Staff Geographical Area Sample
Descriptor East West Size Percent


Good 6 2 8 26.7

Adequate 5 7 12 40.0

Less Than Adequate 9 1 10 33.3

Sample Size 20 10

Percent 66.7 33.3


Chi-square = 6.075


df = 2 Significance = 0.048


Graphics Production

The number of people involved in graphics materials

production by geographical area is presented in Table 20.

Because a significant X2 (p < 0.05) resulted, it can be said

that the number of people involved in graphics material

production is associated with the geographical location.

The data in the table demonstrate that the eastern colleges

had a significantly greater number of people involved in

graphics material production than did the western colleges.










Table 20. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value, for the Association of Geo-
graphical Area with Number of People Involved in Graphics Ma-
terial Production.



Geographical Area Sample
Graphics East West Size Percent


1-5 6 12 18 66.7

6-10 7 0 7 25.9

11-15 1 0 1 3.7

Over 25 1 0 1 3.7

Sample Size 15 12

Percent 55.6 44.4


Chi-square = 10.800


df = 3 Significance = 0.012


Slides Production Rating

The rating of the slides production staff by geographi-

cal area is presented in Table 21. Because a significant X2

(p < 0.05) resulted, it can be said that the rating given a

slides production staff is associated with the geographical

location. The data in the table demonstrate that the western

colleges rated their slides production staff as superior

significantly more often than did the eastern colleges.











Table 21. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value, for the Association of Geo-
graphical Area with Slides Production Staff Descriptor.



Staff Geographical Area Sample
Descriptor East West Size Percent


Superior 4 10 14 31.8

Good 16 9 25 56.8

Adequate 3 0 3 6.8

Less Than Adequate 2 0 2 4.5

Sample Size 25 19

Percent 56.8 43.2


Chi-square 8.878


df = 3 Significance


0.031


Number of Distributions

The number of distributions (set-ups) per term by

geographical area is presented in Table 22. Because a

significant X2 (p < 0.05) resulted, it can be said that the

number of distributions per term by audio-visual services is

associated with the geographical location. The data in the

table demonstrate that the western colleges had a signifi-

cantly greater number of distributions per term than did the

eastern colleges.











Table 22. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value, for the Association of Geo-
graphical Area with Number of Distributions Per Term from the
Audio-Visual Section.



Number of Geographical Area Sample
Distributions East West Size Percent


1-100 3 0 3 7.9

101-250 4 0 4 10.5

251-500 6 1 7 18.4

501-1000 4 1 5 13.2

1001-5000 5 9 14 36.8

Over 5000 1 4 5 13.2

Sample Size 23 15

Percent 60.5 39.5


Chi-square = 14.262


df = 5 Significance = 0.014


Audio-Visual Services Rating

The rating of audio-visual services by geographical

area is presented in Table 23. Because a significant X2

(p < 0.05) resulted, it can be said that the rating given to

audio-visual services is associated with the geographical

location. The data in the table demonstrate that the western

colleges rated their audio-visual services as superior

significantly more often than did the eastern colleges.











Table 23. Frequencies and Chi-Square Value, for the Association of Geo-
graphical Area with Audio-Visual Services Descriptors.



Services Geographical Area Sample
Descriptors East West Size Percent


Superior 5 11 16 39.0

Good 15 4 19 46.3

Adequate 4 2 6 14.6

Sample Size 2L 17

Percent 58.5 41.5


Chi-square = 8.332


df = 2 Significance = 0.016


Chapter Summary

This chapter has presented an analysis of the data with

tables which display the findings. Tables 1 through 11

summarize the findings for the entire group of learning

resource centers under study, while Tables 12 through 23

contrast the results of those east and west of the Missis-

sippi River. The findings as well as conclusions and recom-

mended guidelines will be presented in Chapter V.














CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND
RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES


Summary

The study summarized herein was undertaken to determine

functional guidelines for the realistic evaluation of learn-

ing resource centers in community colleges. The sub-problems

in the study were as follows:

1. What were the services provided and administrative

arrangements of exemplary learning resource centers

in selected comprehensive community colleges of

selected states?

2. What guidelines for services and administration of

learning resource centers were suggested from a

review of the literature and research?

3. What importance was placed upon proposed services

by a jury of experts?

4. What impact did regional differences have on

existing learning resources programs?

5. What practical guidelines should be used for the

realistic evaluation of services of learning

resource centers in the comprehensive community

college?










An instrument was developed to collect the data. The

writer examined the literature/research and, based upon this

investigation, designed a questionnaire which would be

comprehensive enough to include the diverse and multiple

aspects of today's community college learning resources

programs.

After careful consideration and with the use of expert

opinion, 10 states were chosen from among those with well

developed learning resource programs. The 10 states selected

were: California, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, New

York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and

Washington. Each of the 10 state community college directors

were asked to nominate those institutions in his/her state

which he/she believed had exemplary learning resources

programs.

After preliminary letters explaining the study had been

mailed, the questionnaires were sent to the 94 community

college learning resource center directors who had been

nominated. A follow-up letter was sent to the non-

respondents after a three week waiting period.

The items on each questionnaire were coded and key

punched. In addition to the descriptive statistics, the

chi-square statistic was employed to determine if regional

differences were significant.











Findings v


Component Facilities

Media production as well as an audio and video tape

library was the facility found most often to be a part of

existing learning resource centers (96.1 percent). Surpris-

ingly, the library was found to be present only 94.1 percent

of the time. Other facilities which were found to be a part

of the learning resources program over 90 percent of the

time were: photography, film strip library, record library,

multi-media production, audio and video tape production and

audio-visual services. The learning laboratory

(individualized instruction) was present in 84.3 percent of

the programs.


Advisory Committees

Over half (65 percent) of the learning resource centers

had advisory committees and most (91 percent) of those had

faculty serving on those committees.


Administrative Configurations

A clear majority of the learning resource centers (81

percent) function as an independent department while 11

percent function as a subdivision of the library. Most of

the centers reported being a part of the division of academic

affairs; none reported being under business affairs and five

percent were a part of student affairs. Sixty-five percent










indicated that the chief LRC officer reported to the vice

president or dean for academic affairs; 13 percent reported

directly to the president; four percent reported to the head

of student affairs and two percent reported to the chairman

of the English department.

Almost all of the learning resource centers (96 percent)

reported having a written job description with clearly

defined responsibilities for the chief LRC officer.


Ratings

Seventy percent described their learning resources

facility as adequate while 28 percent described their facil-

ity as too crowded or inadequate. The centers were about

equally divided between those who considered the LRC materi-

als and equipment as either limited and appropriate or

adequate and appropriate (51 percent) and those who consid-

ered their materials and equipment plentiful and well-

matched to the college's needs.


Staffing

Over 50 percent indicated a staff of professionals,

paraprofessionals, clerical and part-time employees, number-

ing between one and five. Twenty-five percent reported a

professional and paraprofessional staff of between 11 and

25.












Policies

Almost half (48 percent) of the LRC's have a written

policy for community service. Over half (51 percent) of the

LRC's described their role in providing community service as

good or superior. Regular staff meetings were held by 80

percent of the LRC's. Sixty-one percent of the LRC's had

staff manuals but only seven percent of these contained

policy statements. Seventy-eight percent reported the staff

participates in policy sessions, 94 percent in procedural

decisions and 57 percent in personnel decisions. Adequate

statistics, an LRC handbook and inventory records were

reported by over ninety percent of the learning resource

centers.


Financing

Over half of the learning resource centers (53 percent)

reported a total budget, excluding salaries, of over $75,000.

Fifty-one percent reported that the dean or director of the

LRC recommended budget allocations. Of those responding, 65

percent state that internal budget decisions are made by the

LRC dean or director.

Host of the responses indicated that less than 10

percent of the budget was spent on the various subdivisions

of print media. New requistions was the only category which

differed. Approximately 80 percent of the colleges respond-

ing stated that more than 10 percent of the budget was spent

on new requisitions. The nearest other items were "planning"










with 36 percent above the 10 percent criterion and "supplies"

with 26 percent.

Most learning resource centers responses reported that

less than 10 percent of the budget was spent on the various

subdivisions of non-print media. New requisitions was the

category that had the most responses over the 10 percent

criterion. For non-print media though, the allocation (41

percent) was approximately half that for print media.

Supplies (39 percent) and maintenance (33 percent) were the

next two highest allocations.


Libraries

Almost three-fourths (74 percent) of the libraries used

the Library of Congress cataloging system, while only 26

percent used the Dewey Decimal system. All of the libraries

reported having a photocopy machine available for use by

students. Sixty-five percent have an electronic security

system. Half (fifty percent) had between one thousand to ten

thousand titles in each satellite collection. Half had over

20,000 titles in each satellite collection. Half (50 percent)

could accommodate up to 100 students in each satellite

library. Almost half (49 percent) reported having between

25,000 and 50,000 titles in the main collection. Twenty-

five percent reported having between 50,000 and 100,000

titles in the main collection. Sixty percent served up to

10,000 students per term in the library. Five percent










reported serving over 80,000 students per term. Seventy-

five percent had a clearly defined written statement of

purpose for the library staff.

Approximately 50 percent of the respondents stated that

the library was not open any time during the weekend. The

weekend day on which the library was most frequently open

was Saturday (45.3 percent). Only 13 percent of libraries

were open on a weekend day after five o'clock in the

afternoon.


Learning Laboratories

Over 80 percent of the learning laboratories had between

one and five people involved in all job categories. More

than 90 percent of the learning laboratories were open both

during the day and evening. Sixty-seven percent had a

clearly defined written statement of purpose. Eighty percent

of the learning laboratories were housed in a specially

designed area. Sixty-three percent of the learning labora-

tories reported being housed in one area, 10 percent in two

areas, 17 percent in three areas, three percent in four

areas and seven percent in six areas. Fifty percent of the

learning laboratories were reported as being housed in

facilities which were adequate and comfortable, 22 percent

saw their facilities as adequate except for small inconve-

niences, 19 percent thought the facilities too crowded and

uncomfortable and nine percent regarded the learning










laboratory facilities as inadequate. Eighty-three percent

indicated their materials and equipment as being adequate or

plentiful. Only 27 percent regarded materials and equipment

as limited.


Materials Production

Photography, graphics and instructional design were

included more than 90 percent of the time. Almost all

reported between one and five people in all job categories,

except for 18 percent reporting between six and 10 people

involved in production. Over half (53 percent) described

their materials production facilities as either too crowded

and uncomfortable or inadequate. Sixty percent regarded

materials and equipment as adequate or plentiful. Fifty-

eight percent had a clearly defined written statement of

purpose.


Audio-Visual Services

Only four percent indicated the LRC staff responsible

for running equipment while 33 percent reported faculty

responsible for running equipment. Fifty-one percent own a

film cleaning and checking machine. Seventy-four percent

have a clearly defined written statement of purpose. All

reported having audio-visual services available during the

day and 98 percent available at night.










Student Media Lab

No student media lab reported more than three persons

staffing the media lab. Fifty percent reported one staff

member, 25 percent reported two staff members and 25 percent

reported having three staff members. Forty-three percent

offer credit for the media lab, and an equal number offer it

for non-credit. All reported keeping the media lab open

during the day while 86 percent have labs available in the

evening. All labs reported having equipment available for

student use for slides, video-tape, film production, graphics,

photography and television production. Also, all labs

reported having a clearly defined written statement of

purpose.


Findings Concerning Geographical Differences

The response by geographical area as to whether a

learning resource center's advisory committee has student

members demonstrates that the eastern colleges had students

on advisory committees significantly more often than did the

western colleges.

Responses to the instrument indicated that the western

colleges had the learning resource center housed in its own

building significantly more often than did the eastern

colleges.

The study also demonstrated that the western colleges

had a significantly larger allocation for salaries than did

the eastern colleges.










It was also found that the western colleges subscribed

significantly more often to more than 200 periodicals than

did the eastern colleges.

On the other hand, however, the responses demonstrate

that the eastern colleges responded significantly more often

that they offered instruction in reading than did the west-

ern colleges. The responses also determined that the east-

ern colleges responded significantly more often that they

offered instruction in speaking than did the western col-

leges. The study also demonstrated that the eastern col-

leges responded significantly more often that they had

tutoring services than did the western colleges. However,

the responses indicated that the eastern colleges rated

their learning laboratory staff as less adequate signifi-

cantly more often than did the western colleges.

In a different category, the study found that the east-

ern colleges had a significantly greater number of people

involved in graphics material production than did the west-

ern colleges.

On the other hand, the responses demonstrate that the

western colleges rated their slides production staff as su-

perior significantly more often than did the eastern

colleges.

In addition, the western colleges had a significantly

greater number of distributions per term than did the










eastern colleges. Finally, the responses demonstrated that

the western colleges also rated their audio-visual services

as superior significantly more often than did the eastern

colleges.


Conclusions

As previously discussed, the major purposes of the

present investigation were to determine the exact nature of

exemplary learning resource centers and to determine whether

regional differences have any significant impact on the

nature of these centers.

The problem under consideration was to determine func-

tional guidelines for the realistic evaluation of learning

resource centers in community colleges. The sub-problems

were as follows:

1. What were the services provided and administrative

arrangements of exemplary learning resource centers in

comprehensive community colleges of selected states?

2. What guidelines for services and administration of

learning resource centers were suggested from a review of

the literature and research?

3. What importance was placed upon proposed services

by a jury of experts?

4. What impact did regional differences have on exist-

ing learning resources programs?










5. What practical guidelines should be used for the

realistic evaluation of services of learning resource centers

in the comprehensive community college?

Sub-problems one through four have been considered in

the preceding chapters. The following recommended guidelines

are based upon a synthesis of the literature and research

and the responses of the jury of experts. In cases where

common practice and research recommendations seemed to

conflict, the writer made a value judgement using both her

own experience in the field and the recommended practices of

the experts. For a more specific and detailed review of the

exemplary learning resource centers' policies and practices,

the reader is invited to re-examine Chapter IV.


Recommended Guidelines

The writer has every reason to believe that the learning

resource centers investigated in this study are indeed

exemplary. It follows then that the practices they employ

and with which they are satisfied would provide a basis for

guidelines for other colleges to emulate within the confines

of their own particular situations. The writer has attempted

to codify the results of her study into a set of guidelines

which are readily accessible to those who are concerned with

either initiating or improving learning resources programs

in the community colleges.










Philosophy

1. Every community college learning resource center

should have a written philosophy and stated objec-

tives which reflect institutional goals.

2. Each learning resource center should have inte-

grated services which meet the needs of its own

institution.

3. Each learning resources program should evaluate

all services and facilities on the basis of their

contribution to the instructional program.

4. Every learning resource center should have a fully

functioning advisory committee composed of both

faculty and students.

Administration

5. The chief learning resources administrator as well

as all members of his/her staff should have a

written job description with clearly defined

responsibilities.

6. Each learning resource center should work toward

achieving facilities which are adequate and which

best serve its institutional needs.

7. All materials and equipment should be maintained,

updated, repaired and added to on a regular peri-

odic basis.










8. All learning resource centers should have a written

policy for community service which reflects insti-

tutional philosophy.

9. Learning resource centers should have frequent and

regularly scheduled staff meetings.

10. Each LRC should have a written manual which in-

cludes statements of policy, procedure and general

information.

11. Accurate inventory records and usage statistics

should be kept by all learning resource centers.


Financing

12. All LRC budget allocations should reflect a fair

and proportionate share of the total college

budget.

13. Learning resource personnel salaries should be

competitive concerning skill required and regional

salaries.

14. Budget recommendations for the learning resource

center should be made by the chief LRC officer

after consultation with the advisory committee and

staff.


Libraries

15. New libraries should adopt the Library of Congress

cataloging system. Existing libraries should

study the ramifications of converting to the










Library of Congress system if they are not already

using it.

16. All libraries should have a photocopy machine

available for use by students.

17. Faculty and students should be polled to find out

if staff, services and titles are adequate.

18. Libraries should be open evenings and weekends to

serve the needs of working and/or part-time

students.


Learning Laboratories

19. Learning laboratories which offer individualized

instruction in reading, speaking, composition, as

well as tutoring services, should be a goal,if not

a reality, of each learning resources program.


Instructional Design and Development

20. Instructional design and instructional development

should be a joint faculty-LRC staff process.


Instructional Support

21. Adequate materials, production facilities, equip-

ment and personnel should be maintained for in-

structional support.

22. Each learning resource center should provide

audio-visual services consistent with instruc-

tional needs.







77


Evaluation

23. All areas of each learning resources program

should have yearly goals and yearly evaluation.

24. All areas of each learning resources program

should have a systematic way of assessing faculty,

student and community needs.

25. All areas of each learning resources program

should undergo a self-study at least once every

three years.

26. All areas of each learning resources program

should develop a plan for improving deficiencies.

































APPENDICES





























APPENDIX A

COMMUNITY COLLEGE LEARNING RESOURCE CENTER QUESTIONNAIRE
1977

(With Tabulated Responses Where Appropriate)















COMMUNITY COLLEGE
LEARNING RESOURCE CENTER
QUESTIONNAIRE 1977


Please complete all questions, if possible. Information about your
specific program will not be used separately but will form a part of the
total statistical report which will result from this study.

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Name of Community College

Address

Name and title of person/persons completing survey



II. LEARNING RESOURCES PHILOSOPHY

1. Does your LRC program have a written statement of defined
purpose and objectives? If so, please state:






2. Our LRC includes:

library (print-media)

learning laboratories
(individualized instruction)

materials production

media production

hardware repair

television studio

automatic retrieval (dial access)

photography












graphics

cinematography: 32 mm, 16 mm, 8 mm
(please specify)

film library

film-strip library

record library

multi-media production

audio-tape and video-tape library

audio and video-tape production

slide processing facilities

student-media facilities

student-media laboratory

audio-visual services

other
(such as computer operation, bookstore, etc.)

3. The above resources are available for direct use by
students.

Yes
No
Some
Which? (please specify)

4. Is there an advisory committee for LRC?
65% Yes
35% No

Is it composed of faculty?
91% Yes
9% No

Is it composed of students?
71% Yes
29% No

5. Which statement best describes the administrative config-
uration at your Community College?

a. 81% Our LRC is an independent department.
Our LRC is a part of the English Department.











Our LRC is a part of the Communications
Department.
8% Our LRC is a sub-division of the college
library.
11% Other (please specify)

b. 5% Our LRC is a part of student affairs.
0 Our LRC is a part of business affairs.
80% Our LRC is a part of academic affairs.
15% Other (please specify)

c. Our chief LRC officer (Vice-President, Dean, or Director)
reports to:

13% President
4% Vice-President or Dean for Student Affairs
0 Vice-President or Dean for Business Affairs
65% Vice-President or Dean for Academic Affairs
2% English Department Chairman
16% Other (please specify)

6. The chief LRC administrator has a written job description
with clearly defined responsibilities.
96% Yes
4% No

7. The year in which our LRC was founded is:


8. Our LRC
62% has its own building.
22% is housed in various buildings on campus.

9. Check the one statement that best describes the facilities
in which your LRC program is housed:
38% adequate and comfortable
32% adequate except for one or two small
inconveniences
10% a bit too crowded, uncomfortable
18% inadequate
2% Other (please specify)

10. The LRC materials and equipment are (check one):
0 outdated and inadequate
23.0% limited, but appropriate
27.5% adequate and appropriate
49.0% plentiful and well matched to the college's
needs
Other (please specify)











11. Please specify the number of people who compose your
staff in each category:


a. professionals:
52% 1-5
36% 6-10
12% 11-25
0 Other
(please specify)

b. para-professionals:
59.6% 1-5
23.5% 6-10
12.8% 11-25
2.1% Other
(please specify)


d. part-time:
67.5% 1-5
10.0% 6-10
17.5% 11-25
5% Other
(please specify)

e. Other:
40% 1-5
20% 6-10
33.3% 11-25
6.7% Other
) (please specify)


c. clerical:
58% 1-5
26% 6-10
16% 11-25
Other
(please specify)

12. Does your LRC have a written policy for community service?
24 48% Yes
26 52% No

If so, please state:



13. Which word best describes your LRC's role in providing
services for your community?

12.2% Superior
38.8% Good
34.7% Adequate
12.2% Less than Adequate
2% Poor

14. Does your LRC staff have regular meetings?
40 80% Yes
10 20% No

15. Does your LRC staff have a staff manual?
31 60.8% Yes
20 39.2% No










If so, which of the following does it include?
7.1% policy statements
35.1% procedural statements
7.1% duty assignments
50.0% general information
Other (please specify)

16. LRC staff participates in:
78% policy decisions
94% procedural decisions
57.1% personnel decisions

17. LRC staff accumulates adequate statistics?
47 92.2% Yes
4 7.8% No

18. Our LRC offers a written handbook to faculty and students
describing services, facilities, materials, equipment,
and other pertinent information.
48 94.1% Yes
3 5.9% No

19. Inventory records are maintained on all materials and
equipment.
47 94% Yes
3 6% No


III. FINANCING

1. Our total budget allocation (not including salaries) for
the year 1976-77 is:
0-$ 4,999
2% $ 5,000-$ 9,999
18.4% $10,000-$24,999
6.1% $25,000-$49,999
20.4% $50,000-$75,000
53.1% Other (please specify)

2. Our LRC total salary budget allocation for the year 1976-
77 is:
4.2% 0-$ 24,999
4.2% $ 25,000-$ 49,999
22.9% $ 50,000-$ 99,999
10.4% $100,000-$149,999
12.5% $150,000-$200,000
45.8% Other (please specify)

3. Who recommends budget allocations?
8.2% President
41% Vice-President or Dean











2. Our LRC total salary budget
4.2% 0-$ 24,999
4.2% $ 25,000-$ 49,999
22.9% $ 50,000-$ 99,000
10.4% $100,000-$149,999
12.5% $150,000-$200,000
45.8% Other (please spec


allocation for the year 1976-77 is:


3. Who recommends budget allocations?
8.2% President
1l% Vice-President or Dean
51% Dean or Director of LRC
0% Faculty committee
2% Student committee
34.7% Other (please specify)

4. How are LRC internal budget decisions made?
64.9% LRC Dean or Director decides
27% LRC staff decides
0 Faculty committee decides
0 Student committee decides
8.1% Other (please specify)

5. Out of a total of 100%, the following areas receive what per
cent of the total LRC budget?


Print Media


New requisitions
Replacement
Maintenance
Supplies
Production
Rental
Planning
Repairs
In-service training
Travel
Contractual services
Evaluation
Other


Non-Print Media

New requisitions
Replacement
Maintenance
Supplies
Production
Rental
Planning
Repairs
In-service training
Travel
Contractual services
Evaluation
Other


IV. LIBRARY (Written materials)

If your LRC includes the college library (print-media), please re-
spond to the following questions. If not, please disregard this
section and proceed to section V.






86



1. Approximately what per cent of time is spent in the various
areas and approximately what number of people staff the various
areas? Choose one of the following for each category:

Time People

A 1% 10% A 1 5
B 11% 25% B 6 10
C 26% 50% C 11 15
D 50% 100% D 16 25
E Other (please specify)

Time People

Planning
Administrative
Research Assistants
Instructional Design
Acquisitions
Periodical Librarians
Microform
Inter-library Loans
Instruction
Cataloging
Inventory
Clerical
Evaluation
Other (please specify)




2. Of the staff listed on page 3, item 11, how many are:
Professional?
Supportive?

3. Which cataloging system do you use?
73.8% Library of Congress
26.2% Dewey Decimal
Other (please specify)

'I. Does your library have a photocopy machine?
100% Yes
No

5. Are they available to students?
100% Yes
No











6. Does your library have an electronic security system?
65% Yes
35% No

7. In how many separate locations is your library housed?


8. How many titles are housed in each satellite collection?
16.7% 1,000- 4,999
33.3% 5,000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-20,000
50% Other (please specify)

9. How many students will each satellite accommodate at one time?
20% 1- 50
304% 51-100
101-200
20% 201-300
20% 301-500
10% Other (please specify)

10. How many titles are housed in your main collection?
2.4% 0- 999
4.2% 1,000- 9,999
12.2% 10,000- 24,999
48.8% 25,000- 49,999
24.4% 50,000-100,000
7.3% Other (please specify)

11. To how many periodicals does your library subscribe?
2.4% 0- 24
2.4% 25- 49
50- 74
75- 99
19.0% 100-200
76.2% Other (please specify)

12. What are the days of the week and hours of the day that the
library is open?
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday

13. Please specify the number of square feet in your main library:
sq. ft.

and in each satellite library:
sq. ft.







88



14. Please estimate the number of students the library serves per
term.
18.9% 1- 2,499
18.9% 2,500- 4,999
21.6% 5,000- 9,999
16.2% 10,000-19,999
8.1% 20,000-39,999
10.8% 40,000-80,000
5.4% Other (please specify)

15. Does the library staff have a clearly defined written statement
of purpose?
75% Yes
25% No

16. Which best describes how you feel about the library?


Staff

55% Superior
35% Good
7.5 Adequate
.% Less than
adequate
Poor


Services

39.5% Superior
55.3, Good
2.6T Adequate
2.6b Less than
adequate
Poor


17. Please state what you think would do the most
library services at your college.


Materials

28.2% Superior
56.4% Good
10.3% Adequate
2.6% Less than
adequate
2.6% Poor

to improve the


V. LEARNING LABORATORY (Individualized Instruction)

If your LRC includes the Learning Laboratory, please respond to the
following questions. If not, please disregard this section and pro-
ceed to section VI.

1. Of the staff listed on page 3, item 11, how many people staff
the Learning Laboratory in the following areas?


Planning:

91.3% 1-5
8.7% 6-10
11-15
16-25
Other


Professional:

80.8% 1- 5
19.2% 6-10
11-15
16-25
Other




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs