1. Brett Riggs
Research Proposal
Intro
Over the last 25 years the mission and goals of the community college have had to undergo a
philosophical change in order to maintain its level of viability to the community it is charged
with supporting. At the forefront of these changes is the curriculum. No longer is the
community college curriculum program expected to be at best a poor reflection of the university
systems and at worse a poor reflection of the high school program. Further complicating the
issue it the community colleges responsibility to work force development. The community
college was initially created with the idea of providing skill and job training to give opportunity
to people not planning to attend a university. These competing forces have pushed the
community college to constantly reinvent itself to make it an important and serious alternative
for the community at large. This is accomplished through a process of constant curriculum
evaluation.
To support this evaluation and improvement is the library. It is the purpose of this paper to
suggest a research proposal that will identify a tool for measuring relative strengths and
weaknesses in the Brunswick Community College library’s academic support. This is intended to
be a fairly specialized and focused study designed to only be used at a community college.
However with little modification this kind of approach to identifying strengths and weaknesses
could be used anywhere.

2. In support of Brunswick Community Colleges current curriculum, are library collection
resources: 1) available; 2) relevant; and 3) current?
Literature Review
During the time, I have been actually looking up the different interpretations of what a library
should be to curriculum I have discovered that there is not really a lot of consensus. Many of the
things you see written on the internet are little more than emotional, fluffy, feel-good, edu-speak
designed to elicited an “everything-is-great” feeling in librarians. On the other end of the
spectrum is the outright attack on libraries by some who believe that a library is a waste of good
space that could be better served as a campus Starbucks… In one particular blog about the
value of libraries, a student actually stated that resources for libraries would be better served by
devoting them to more on-campus events... Like Prom...
Even more disheartening is a simple Google search I performed with the key words “Academic
Library Curriculum Support.” All I got was some hits from other schools with their typical
library mission statements about supporting curriculum with a few handy dandy examples and
one antique article entitled “Electronic Mail in Academic Libraries: Is It Worth the Investment?”
dated from 1994 (I laughed until I started coughing blood) (Dickey & O'Donoghue, 1984).
There was another strange journal article from the 1970’s about how librarians want to be faculty
and feel inferior because they are not (faculty?) (Biggs, 1981)... It seemed like some kind of
strange Oedipus complex except my parents were not involved... Clearly this was the work of a
fellow grad student looking for a cheap thesis to defend. This was disappointing but it also
illustrates my point through there is no real argument or even discourse about the college

3. libraries role in supporting the curriculum, there is just a lack of commonality on how to do it.
Regardless, I did have some success with NCLIVE, LISA and WORLDCAT finding a few
articles from various journals about libraries and curriculum that could be useful. These
included a 2007 article by D.A. Creating an academic library for the twenty-first century that
appeared in New Directions for Higher Education (Barclay, 2007). I also found a useful article
in the Journal of Academic Librarianship by B. J. D'Angelo, entitled Moving Beyond
Definitions: Implementing Information Literacy Across the Curriculum (D'Angelo & Maid,
2004). I found several more articles but was largely disapointed by the lack of haul. Of course I
might not have been asking the right question. Regardless for brevity I have included a list of
some of the other articels I found;
• A great 2008 article entitled Successful Inter-institutional Resource
Sharing in a Niche Educational Market: Formal Collaboration without a
Contract from the Innovative Higher Education.
• An interesting 2009 article that pointed me in a few interesting directions
entitled Teaching Information Literacy Skills to Prepare Teachers Who Can
Bridge the Research-to-Practice Gap from the Reference & User Services
Quarterly.
• A great study out of the University of South Carolina (2007) entitled The
role of the library in the first college year. Despite the long title, this article
provided a wealth of information.

4. So I decided I was doing something wrong... Or, at the least I was asking the wrong questions.
So went back to the beginning (per se) and started checking out related material that supports
the idea of support. So I went and checked out the venerable American Community College 5th
edition by Arthur M. Cohen (Cohen & Brawer, 2008). This particular text has been a staple of
my graduate school experience for the last few years so naturally, I returned to familiar ground
and with a little influence from The Role of the Library in the First College Year I re-evaluated
my question (Hardesty, 2007).
In support of Brunswick Community Colleges current curriculum, are library
collection resources: 1) available; 2) relevant; and 3) current?
So I decided to dissect the question and focus on the specific parts. So if we do a search for
specific components as they relate to Curriculum support; like resources, availability, relevance,
and currency as individual topics. Right away I found a few actual books which included
Integrating Library use skills into the General Education Curriculum which. This book is a
compilation of articles concerning various stages of library in curriculum development and
student development (jackpot!). It covers the some of the problems facing library fusion with
curriculum. While this book was printed in 1989 it makes some relevant points that still apply to
the current academic environment and even has specific parts devoted strictly to community
colleges (Pastine & Katz, 1989). To summarize, the community college curriculum program can
no longer be expected to be at best a poor reflection of the university systems and at worse a
poor reflection of the high school program. Thus a community college has a duality of
responsibility that might not exist at the University level. These competing forces have pushed

5. the community college to constantly reinvent itself to make them an important and serious
alternative for the community at large. This is accomplished through a process of constant
curriculum evaluation. Thus it is fortuitous that I found Integrating Library use skills into the
General Education Curriculum since it covers these exact issues with studies to support its
statements.
• Pastine, M., & Katz, B. (1989). Integrating Library use skills into the General
Education Curriculum . New York: Hawthorn Press.
When the library has recognized the mission of the college and developed their goals to support
that mission, it is time for the library to act. From the libraries point of view the first thing that
has to be done to support any kind of academic and curriculum program is training. Regardless,
a level of training is necessary for students and faculty to successfully access the full resources of
the library and the notion that this is simply a self-serving ploy is just idiotic. Training is
essential for curriculum development and is well illustrated in an article by Barbara and Barry
Maid entitled Moving Beyond Definitions: Implementing Information Literacy Across the
Curriculum that appeared in the Journal of Academic Librarianship (D'Angelo & Maid, 2004).
The actual hands-on training required for library training is no different than any other classroom
instruction. Being library training tends to be a demonstration type education the specific toll for
specific training for both faculty and staff tends to come in three varieties; Direct, Indirect, and
Semi-Direct. In direct training, education is facilitated through lecture, and demonstration. In
Indirect, training education is facilitated through discussion and simulation. The best method of

6. training faculty and staff in library resources lies somewhere in between in what is commonly
referred to as the Semi-Direct approach. This typically means that the librarian takes the best of
both types of instruction to educate. In this form of directed learning is guided but not
controlling and free enough to allow students to make connections on their own without the
sense that they have been turned loose to the wolves. I found several sources on this kind of
information including Teaching Information Literacy Skills to Prepare Teachers Who Can
Bridge the Research-to-Practice Gap from the Reference & User Services Quarterly (which I
referred to earlier) (Emmons, Keefe, Moore, Sánchez, Mals, & Neely, 2009). To many this is
the where the criticism of library support is most prevalent. There are detractors that see the
academic librarian’s attempts at instructions as a self-serving attempt to inflate the value of
library staff (back to that crazy Library Oedipus complex stuff I spoke of earlier).
Academic and curriculum support for libraries cannot not begin and end in simple instruction.
There is also the critical issue of collection development. In short, collection development
represents a libraries attempt to add to its collection. As with the rest of the whole
Academic/curriculum support process there has to be a method for acquiring knowledge of need.
All too frequently, libraries tend to grow their collection based on the librarian’s interests and not
on the need of the school. That is how a collection might have thirty-five books on photography
and only one book on World War I. Establishing need requires communication with faculty, and
careful attention to circulation of the current collection. I found an excellent book on this exact
subject entitled Library Acquisition policies and Procedures by Elizabeth Futas (Futas, 1977).

7. Communication and cooperation between faculty and the library is essential. If the library can
keep aware of the current course offerings as well as a syllabi given in advance can be a great
asset to curriculum support. All too often instructions have no idea what is in the collection they
are teaching from and have no idea that they might want to tell the library what they are
teaching. Thus the library often must appeal to departmental heads and directors for the requisite
information to establish a procedure. Even still, in order to make this successful it is important
to set a realistic time frame in which this information can be received and acquired. After all it
does no good to order materials for a specific semester in the middle of the semester they are
needed if they will likely never make it to the shelves before the following semester?
Good circulation observation goes a long way to aiding in curriculum development. Since we
are a small school it is easy for us to keep up with the needs of our students. In addition we are
very aware of RETENTION of first years students more so than a University might be do we
tend to tailor our support heavily toward that demographic of our campus population. That is
one of the reasons why that article out of aware of what most the research assignments being
assigned are we have a good idea of what our students are looking for. For example, The HIS-
111 class is Western Civilization One thus those students will be looking for books on Greece,
Rome and other early civilizations. So if one of those students asks us about Roman Britain and
we do not have it… we order it. We usually keep a list of requests and order a group at the end
of every month. Since price is often an issue we have also established a policy to cover that. We
usually order hardbacks for fiction and non-fiction of a general nature. Any specific nonfiction
related to a specific class (i.e. Doctors of the Civil War for the Civil War class) is ordered in
trade paperback. With growth comes a level of pruning that is necessary to keep the collection

8. as current as possible. With that being said, Brunswick Community College does NOT have a
weeding policy however, Elizabeth Futas in her book Library Acquisition policies and
Procedures offers a collection of excellent policies taken from Academic Libraries around the
country in her work Collection Development Policies and Procedures.
So to wrap this up if we look back at the original question;
In support of Brunswick Community Colleges current curriculum, are library collection
resources: 1) available; 2) relevant; and 3) current?
We can see that as an itemized list of inquiry has been more successful than a general search
about library curriculum support. I chalk this up to the disorganization I mentioned earlier…
Since there is no clear consensus as to what “curriculum support” is but no one is arguing
against its need then we have an interesting conundrum of interpretation to overcome.
The Research Proposal
The public and the school systems in general tend to have little or no understanding of the
purpose or operational needs of the library. It is for this reason that it is up to the library and its
staff to constantly remind them of why they need a library and why it is important to fund and
support it. In the college and university setting the library is held in greater regard, however in
these difficult economic times it is very easy for these institutions to attempt to fund other
projects at the expense of the library. This will have a detrimental effect not only on the library
but also on the institution as funding cuts will reflect badly during accreditation. The end result
will be an institution attempting to perform 10 years worth of improvements in about one year

9. with the end result being a disaster. The best answer is the constantly remind the parent
institution how important the library is and how much it takes to run a successful library
operation. My use of statistical study for the purposes of this proposal is for no other purpose the
financial and resource management. I have no altruistic feelings to promote as I am only
interested in my library and its proper funding. To be sure if other library personnel adopted a
more pragmatic attitude they might find themselves in better negotiation positions. The answer
here is to use statistical data to get the library where it needs to be regardless of what that data is.
In that aspect I am a full-on scientist in that I truly don’t care what the outcome is. The trick is
that no matter the outcome the library can use those numbers to support some kind of increase in
some type of support (some support is better than no support).
As far as qualitative verses quantitative I really have ambivalence. I already know the answers
to my questions on a qualitative level. Our availability is identical to the college operation hours
(if interpreted that way). Thus no matter what my findings are they have to coincide with
existing operations budget. Any attack on this will cause administration to have to reevaluate its
entire operations plan and thus cost them more money and if they do that we need funding for a
new position. Relevance has more to do with curriculum than it actually does with the library.
By constantly demanding information relevant to curriculum programs the library appears to be
on top of the collection’s relevance to curriculum… the good thing that comes out of this is that
our constant nagging of faculty reminds them constantly of our presence and their responsibility
to their students after all we are a “student centered” learning environment (their words not
mine). Currency has to do with money… that not to say the currency is not money but rather the
level of current titles is directly affected by the amount of financial support provided by the
institution… I’m not really worried about our level to get current titles… I can burn money like

10. a drunken sailor on shore leave… What I want is an excuse to get more money or a pat on the
back for being current and for that we need numbers. When demanding resources we need
Quantitative data. As cruel and unpleasant as it sounds schools, colleges, universities, whore-
houses and states are businesses and you cannot go demanding things based on some dedication
to academic excellence… That stuff sounds great in recruitment pamphlets but will never get
you a dime from a state legislature a board of trustees, or a hooker.
So you need numbers and you need to win so the important part is asking the right question the
right way you come out with a win/win scenario. We are either doing a great job and in need of
some serious praise or we are deficient and in need of some serious money to fix it. I could not
care less which it is because either way the library wins.
I. Selection of research subjects
Without trying to beat a dead subject too much and still manage to get a minimum of seven
pages out of this section of my assignment I will begin by reviewing some basic functions of
sampling and their importance in modern academic research. I will then apply it to my own
research proposal. I will repeat this model is the following two sections (instrumentation, and
measurement) to try to give a general description of how my research proposal would ideally
flesh out.
As a quick qualifier, Sampling is the process of selecting units from a population so that by
studying the sample we may fairly generalize our results back to the population from which they
were chosen. This sounds simple enough however there is an entire methodology that has been

11. developed specifically for finding a group of people that can provide generalized data to be
applied to a larger population. Samples are taken from a target population. A target population
is the group you wish to generalize. It’s important for researchers to clearly define the target
population as the population is identified by the objectives of the study. It would be useless for
me to go to local farmers to ask about my academic library when no farmers use my academic
library. This is just good common sense with no real hard fast code. So, a researcher must rely
on logic and good judgment. Sampling is a tricky thing. It is not always necessary to identify a
complicated and elaborate group of people. As in my case, we're just evaluating a small
academic library in rural southeastern North Carolina so it doesn’t matter so much to me what
other people in other places and at other times think of my library. In that case, sampling and
generalizing might not be too useful. In other cases, we would really like to be able to generalize
almost universally. However in this research proposal that is NOT the case.
At any college I can identify three separate and distinct groups in the population, of which only
two are relative to my research proposal. These are Faulty, Staff, and Students. Of these staff
have little or nothing to do with Academic Support from the library so essentially I don’t really
care what they think. So, now that I have identified my ideal population, the group I would pull
from that population would be my sampling frame. So my sampling frame of the population will
include faculty and staff as they are the only group that could actually identify the strengths and
weaknesses in academic support as stated in my initial proposal;
In support of Brunswick Community Colleges current curriculum, are library
collection resources: 1) available; 2) relevant; and 3) current?

12. So my sampling frame would be the college population (N) with two sample groups; the students
and the faculty (n). As we have already stated, most of the time the population is too large for us
to attempt to survey all of its members. A small, but carefully chosen sample can be used to
represent the population. This is great and all but it’s not what we are going to do. With a faculty
population us just under 90 and an on-campus population of about 2000 students, going through
an elaborate sample finding mechanism would be a gigantic waste of time and resources. The
entire population is small enough to perform what is called a census study and use data gathered
on every member of the population.
If I was forced by some need had to develop a more complicated selection method I’d use
Systemic Random Sampling so I could pick and choose the sample I would start with. I chose
this for several reasons; first, it’s almost as simple as Simple Random Sampling, but it has a level
of control… Thus there is less likelihood of a few disgruntled instructors or lazy students
destroying your work. Of course that is also the down side is that that exact level of control can
blow the whole thing up. If I do not take care to keep this on the up and up (actually choose
random elements… William M.K. Trochim has a nice handy formula for that) you will have
worthless data (accusation of biased outcome will wipe out your work even if you’re not biased)
(Trochim, 2006). After all you want to hear from the disgruntled Faculty and the lazy students…
you just don’t want to hear only from them.
Regardless of all that, Sampling from population can create all manner of confusion and open
yourself up to problems with the validity of your generalization. Validity refers to the
approximate truth of propositions, inferences, or conclusions. Specific to this level of a research
proposal would be problems with External validity. External validity is the degree to which the
conclusions in your study would hold for other persons in other places or at other times. Sense

13. this is proposal exclusive to my community college and the population is so small, I could care
less how my findings hold up to other community college Libraries. In addition my campus
population is so small it’s no problem bite the bullet and perform a census study using everyone
relevant on campus (except support staff). This has a great advantage of avoiding messy scrutiny
from outside critics as it makes plain that every one that mattered was counted and since this
study only pertains to a community college and its library experience everything and everyone
else just does not matter (go do your own research).
II. Instrumentation and how I selected it
Choosing an instrument for this proposal was difficult at first. There are just too many to choose
from. Thus a decision had to be made based on parameters already established in the choice of
sampling. Since we already decided that a census study would be possible to eliminate a lot of
extra work we pretty much have to base our tool on the same keep-it-simple mentality.
Just to be clear, an Instrument in relation to research is essentially a questionnaire with some
Interview guidelines. Like sampling, there is an entire science developed around coughing up
questions for folks to answer. Regardless of the science and methodology the end result is the
same; We get data. That data is usually attitudes about a specific topic in relation to a generated
theory. Thus generating a quality questionnaire is essential.
Just to be fair there are other forms of instrumentation… Like interviews and the dreaded phone
poling. Personal interviews might be more personal and feel nice, however it presents a

14. logistical nightmare. First of all there is absolutely zero chance I plan to interview every
community college student and Faculty member about how they feel about library support for
academics. This is just an unrealistic and silly notion. Were we to try something as wasteful and
nonsensical as this we would have to reevaluate our entire sampling mechanism. Phone poling is
an equally bad idea for all the afore mentioned arguments. In addition everyone hates
telemarketers. Were I to go calling up folks at dinner time to ask about how they felt about stuff
I foresee an increased level of hostility toward my library. This would not only skew my
findings about also put me in potential physical danger of someone firebombing my house.
There is a more logical argument against either of these mechanisms in that they do not really
produce quantifiable evidence. This is fine if we are deciding on content for a tool but is largely
worthless for attempting to justify demands based on data.
So we can safely say the questionnaire is the most expedient mechanism for collecting the data
we want. It’s quick, simple and can produce results without the potential for someone
firebombing my house. The next obstacle to overcome is the vehicle to deliver our
questionnaire. Some of our techie folks will demand this be an online questionnaire complete
with buttons and other cool stuff. This will not work; First of all, most of our faculty barely
knows how to check their e-mail so sending them a link to an online questionnaire is just a slow
speed car wreck. This will further crash in flames when the Information Technology Department
then declares your survey to be spam and blocks it at the request of the 80 year old chair of the
English Department. Secondly, your student will just ignore your pleas to their campus civic
duty in much the same way most of us in grad school ignore questionnaires from our
Universities. So that is largely a waste of time. The next option would be to issue the

15. questionnaire in the class evaluation packet at the end of a semester. The flaw here would be
that we would have duplicate measurements from students filling out the same questionnaire
over and over. The best option would be to provide the questionnaire in the registration packet,
but what’s the point of providing a questionnaire to an incoming freshman what has never used
the library in the first place. However, a returning sophomore is a perfect target. So we use the
college registration system to run a report generating a list of all returning second year students.
We then just make sure the questionnaire is included in their registration packet with instructions
that this has to be filled out and returned to the registrar with the rest of their registration
material. We have a winner!
Insuring faculty cooperation is usually on par with getting a lot of cats to coordinate a birthday
party. The simplest way to attack this problem is through forced coercion. College faculty are
usually Strongly Encouraged (forced at gunpoint) to attend a Beginning-of-the-semester
Faculty Development meeting. This is usually a way for adjuncts to meet their bosses (who they
will never see again) and for department chairs to push whatever objectives have been placed on
them by the ruling oligarchy. They have to attend since it is a stipulation of their contract to
show up at a certain number of these nightmares every semester. We just make sure the
questionnaire is provided at this meeting with the understanding that it “must” be filled out as a
component of the meeting to receive credit. It is an evil solution but it works.
The final issue that must be addressed is the instrument itself. Without going into unnecessary
detail I intend to use a Likert measurement scale. Likert scaling is one

16. of your more common scaling mechanisms and thus represents an easily modifiable tool. Likert
is unidimensional in that it deals with degrees of something rather than absolutes. While
absolute positive or negative answers are possible they are unlikely in a real-world setting thus
degrees provide a degree of wiggle room possible. A Likert scale usually follows the following
formula:
• strongly unfavorable to the concept
• somewhat unfavorable to the concept
• undecided
• somewhat favorable to the concept
• strongly favorable to the concept
Clever folks will notice right away that in the Likert scale we are not asking folks what they
believe or feel in a conventional sense (after all, who cares) – we are only asking how favorable
or unfavorable each item or concept is. This avoids a lot of extra goofy stuff we would be
entitled to try to interpret, discriminate and resolve toward our questions. Since this interferes
with our “Keep-It-Simple” philosophy we will avoid this at all costs.
We will be making one modification to the Likert mechanism by removing the “neutral”
position. Generally speaking, the “neutral” is a complete copout and an excuse for our students
and faculty to just check “undecided” endlessly. This does seem to reduce that “wiggle-room” I
was talking about earlier, but not to a significant degree.
Initially I had planned to generate about 100 questions in relation to the library’s hard
resources and staff knowledge and other questions related to library support for
academics. After careful review and a heavy dose of Nyquil, it was decided that this is an
absurd number of questions to force on a group of people that have the attention spans of gnats.
So, we pick the most appropriate 12 questions and sprinkle in the usual demographic related

17. questions to see if there are age, race, and gender perception differences. In addition, there
would be a few yes/no question to make sure the student has used the library, interacted with
professional staff etc. The survey would then wrap up with a suggestion question. Granted this
does add a level of subjective interpretation to our tool I would have liked to avoid but it did
seem appropriate.
III. Measurements
Measurements are the least complicated section of the whole proposal. After calculating mean
and medium scores, we would be looking to be at the upper level of the scale. We could place
the results on a scatter-plot. A scatter-plot illustrates relationships or association between two
variables. We could also look for outliers or data that seems completely out of sync with normal
trends. Another issue to be addressed is standard deviation. Standard deviation is essentially a
statistic that tells you how tightly all the various examples are clustered around the mean in a set
of data. In other words once a mean is established the standard deviation would be the amount
of variation that might be expected in a positive and negative.
Regardless how we disassemble and interpret the data the end result is to either establish a
successful policy or a deficient policy. It is important to remember that for us in the library itself
there is no “right” answer. We are simply looking for data. As a matter of fact I personally
would be worried if a library we showing no deficiency. That would be a huge indicator to me
that we screwed up the survey or we asked the wrong questions. As stated in the introduction,
the data can, and should be interpreted with a target outcome intended. A deficiency does not
have to be a black eye for the library, nor does a positive outcome necessarily mean a great
victory. If a library is seeking a justification for expanded funding or new positions a positive

18. outcome would be the last thing you would want. Thus we return to the most important feature
of all of interpreting and reporting measurements … How it is used. At no point should a library
interested in its institutional survival ever cook the books, it is not only unethical but also a threat
to the institution’s credibility that is unrecoverable where public trust and potential taxpayer
funding is concerned. That being said, there has to be a clear outcome to a survey with an
obtainable goal in mind. No sane person survey’s for the sake of surveys. That goal must have
dual positive targets that are linked to both negative and positive data outcomes. This assures a
win-win result for the library and the institution as a whole.

19. NOTES
Per the recommendation of the instructor I have added a section of the tool for example. As you can tell this is a
modified Likert scale with a removed null field. Again, to be this is intended to be an example and not a final
product. Additional Human resource questions as well as more instructor geared questions should be added to give
further depth the tool.
COLLEGE Library and the Curriculum
SECTION 1.
This section asks how does the COLLEGE library use technology to meet the needs of
students and Instructors for instructional purposes.
How frequently does your library staff use online resources to support instructors to do the
following? (Circle the appropriate answer)
Always
Most of
the Time
Sometimes Never
1. Does the library create instructional
materials/handouts for research?
Always
Most of
the Time
Sometimes Never
2. Provide instruction on specific computer
applications (spreadsheets, etc)?
Always
Most of
the Time
Sometimes Never
3. Does the COLLEGE Library provide
access to technology?
Always
Most of
the Time
Sometimes Never
4. Is that technology up to date?
Always
Most of
the Time
Sometimes Never
5. Do you feel that it is easy to get
assistance in the COLLEGE Library?
Always
Most of
the Time
Sometimes Never

20. 6. Do you feel that getting assistance in the
COLLEGE Library Strengthened
students’ research skills?
Always
Most of
the Time
Sometimes Never
7. How difficult is it for instructors to
Coordinate Class Time with Library
Access?
Very
Difficult
Difficult
Not
Difficult
Easy
8. What quality of instruction do you
receive in the Library?
Great Ok Not so
Great
Lousy
9. Does the library provide adequate
research support?
Always
Most of
the Time
Sometimes Never
10. Do you feel that the Library staff are
adequately trained
Yes On most
subjects
Sometimes My cat is
better
trained
11. Does the library collection adequately
reflect your curriculum
Yes On most
subjects
Sometimes Not at all
12. Do you feel that the library possesses a
modern collection
Yes On most
subjects
Sometimes Not at all
13. Is there enough access to the library?
Always
Most of
the Time
Sometimes Never
14. Did you ever have to wait for help in the
library?
Always
Most of
the Time
Sometimes Never
15. How long have you ever had to wait for
assistance?
1 min. or
less
3 min. or
less
10 min. or
less
I got tired
and left
16. Do you feel that the check out period is
long enough?
Yes Long
Enough
A little
short
Not long
enough
17. Have you ever been satisfied with the
Interlibrary loan process
Yes Long
Enough
A little
short
Not long
enough
18. Do you feel like the library staff is
attractive?
Yes they
have
While
not
They look
ok in the
That
library chic

21. god-like
beauty
godlike
they are
hot.
right light. looks like
Danny
Bonaduce
in a wig.
19. Is there enough seating area in the
library?
Plenty Enough Sometime
they are
full
I step over
homeless
people in
the floor
20. Does the library inspire you to gain a
great education and go on to heal lepers?
Yes, I’m
gonna
cure
Cancer!
Yes, I’m
going to
UNCW
I’m going
to work
I’m here
till the
financial
Aid runs
out then
I’m living
at home.

22. Works Cited
Barclay, D. A. (2007). Creating an academic library for the twenty-first century. New Directions
for Higher Education , 103-115.
Biggs, M. (1981). Sources of Tension and Conflict between Librarians and Faculty. The Journal
of Higher Education , 182-201.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2008). THe American Community College Fifth Edition. San
Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.
D'Angelo, B. J., & Maid, B. M. (2004). Moving Beyond Definitions: Implementing Information
Literacy Across the Curriculum. Journal of Academic Librarianship , 212-216.
Dickey, W., & O'Donoghue, M. (1984). Electronic Mail in Academic Libraries: Is It Worth the
Investment? New Library World , 4-8.
Dow, E. (2008). Successful Inter-institutional Resource Sharing in a Niche Educational Market:
Formal Collaboration Without a Contract. Innovative Higher Education , 169-179.
Emmons, M., Keefe, E., Moore, V., Sánchez, R., Mals, M., & Neely, T. (2009). Teaching
Information Literacy Skills to Prepare Teachers Who Can Bridge the Research-to-
Practice Gap. Reference & User Services Quarterly , 140-150.
Futas, E. (1977). Library acquisition policies and procedures. Ann Arbor, MI : University of
Michigan Press.
Hardesty, L. L. (2007). The role of the library in the first college year . Columbia, SC : National
Resource Center for The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, University of
South Carolina.
Harris, S. S., Barden, B., Walker, H. K., & Reznek, M. A. (2009). Assessment of student
learning behaviors to guide the integration of technology in curriculum reform.
Information Services & Use , 45-52.
Intner, S. S. (1987). Circulation policy in Academic, Public and School Libraries. Westport,
Conn.: Greenwood Press.
LeClerq, A. (1986). The Academic Library/High School Library Connection: Needs Assessment
and Proposed Model. Journal of Academic Librarianship , 7-12.
Lowe, K. (2003). Providing Curriculum Support in the School Library Media Center. Knowledge
Quest , 46.
Lynch, B. P. (1985). Managment Stratagies for Libraries. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.

23. Pastine, M., & Katz, B. (1989). Integrating Library use skills into the General Education
Curriculum . New York: Hawthorn Press.
Rubinstein, D. L., McCabe, M., & Nevo, A. (January 7-9 2005). Academic Journal Pricing and
The Demand of Libraries. Teh American Economic Review , 447-252.
Scott, K. J., & Plourde, L. A. (2007). School Libraries And Increased Student Achievement:
What's The Big Idea? Education , 419-429.
Trochim, W. M. (2006). Research Methods Knowledge Base. Florence, KY : Cengage Learning.