Mine d bforcalibstds

236 views

Published on

Mining datasets to develop library standards

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
236
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mine d bforcalibstds

  1. 1. Researching Data Sets to Develop State Library Standards Dr. Lesley Farmer California State University Long Beach [email_address]
  2. 2. Background <ul><li>2009 AASL Empowering Learners: Guidelines for School Library Media Programs focuses on developing a flexible learning environment </li></ul><ul><li>Studies describe the resources and the services that the library can provide to facilitate student learning. </li></ul><ul><li>California steering committee to develop student learning outcome standards and school library media program (SLMP) standards </li></ul>
  3. 3. Research Questions <ul><li>Which SLMP baseline variables significantly support student academic achievement? </li></ul><ul><li>Do SLMPs that meet baseline variable standards differ significantly from SLMPs that do not meet those standards? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the service and quantitative resource standards that are significantly correlated with those SLMPs that meet the baseline variable standards? </li></ul><ul><li>Are California SLMPs significantly different from SLMPs nationally? </li></ul>
  4. 4. Methodology <ul><li>Literature review of variables that contributed significantly to student academic success </li></ul><ul><li>California Department of Education and School Library Journal teacher librarian databases were mined to establish baseline standards, based on a. </li></ul><ul><li>SLMPs that met all standards were compared with SLMPs who did not meet the standards. Follow-up ANOVA revealed significant variable differences. </li></ul><ul><li>Data from SLMPs that met all standards were mined to quantify resource and service variables that significantly contributed to student academic success. </li></ul>
  5. 5. Baseline Standards <ul><li>One full-time TL </li></ul><ul><li>One full-time paraprofessional </li></ul><ul><li>ILMS and OPAC </li></ul><ul><li>Internet access for students </li></ul><ul><li>Library open 36 hours or more per week </li></ul><ul><li>At least some flexible scheduling </li></ul><ul><li>Library web page/portal </li></ul><ul><li>Facilities: room and seating for one class and additional individuals, and the collection </li></ul><ul><li>at least 10 computers at the elementary level; 15 computers at MS; 25 computers at HS </li></ul><ul><li>At least 2 online subscription databases </li></ul><ul><li>Regular planning with at least two grades/dept. (20% or more) </li></ul><ul><li>Required services: readers’ advisory/guidance, information literacy instruction, Internet and database instruction </li></ul><ul><li>Current policies and procedures, yearly strategic plan with assessment </li></ul>
  6. 6. Quantitative Resource Standards <ul><li>At least 2/3 of the print collection considered current ( since 1995) </li></ul><ul><li>Collection size base ( based on number of volumes): 13,000 for elementary; </li></ul><ul><li>15,000 for MS; 20,000 for HS </li></ul><ul><li>Book collection ratio to number of students: 20 books/elementary student, </li></ul><ul><li>18 books/MS student, 12 books/HS student </li></ul><ul><li>Collection development—adding books to the collection per year: </li></ul><ul><li>1 book/elementary and MS student, .5 book/HS student </li></ul><ul><li>At least $5000 spent on books </li></ul><ul><li>At least $2000 spent on non-books for elementary; $4000 for MS and HS </li></ul><ul><li>At least $500 spent on print periodicals </li></ul><ul><li>Total materials budget: $7000 for elementary, $9000 for MS and HS alternatively $8000 for all levels </li></ul><ul><li>Total material budget per student: $12/elementary student, $8/MS student, $4/HS student </li></ul>
  7. 7. Findings <ul><li>The main variable differentiating those SLMPs meeting the baseline standards and those not meeting the standard was the presence of a full-time teacher librarian. </li></ul><ul><li>A follow-up ANOVA analysis revealed more nuances differences. </li></ul><ul><li>For the SLJ data set, the only single factors that were significantly different from those libraries that did not meet the baseline standards were: </li></ul><ul><li>book collection size, </li></ul><ul><li>information literacy instruction, </li></ul><ul><li>instruction on Internet use. </li></ul>
  8. 8. California Findings <ul><li>Not only were national factors significantly different, but the following additional factors were also significant: </li></ul><ul><li>flexible scheduling (or mix of flexible and fixed), </li></ul><ul><li>book and non-book budget, </li></ul><ul><li>copyright date (i.e., currency of collection), </li></ul><ul><li>having a library web site/portal, </li></ul><ul><li>having at least two subscription databases, and </li></ul><ul><li>planning with teachers. </li></ul><ul><li>In sum, “baseline” standard school libraries were significantly different from those libraries that do not meet the baseline standards. </li></ul>

×