How Students, Teachers, and Principals Benefit from Strong School Libraries The Indiana Study

Transcription

1 AIME SUMMARY AND RESPONSE TO SURVEY RESULTS: How Students, Teachers & Principals Benefit from Strong School Libraries: The Indiana study How Students, Principals, and Teachers Benefit from Strong School Libraries was two studies in one. The first study involved a simplified replication of a research design employed in Colorado and more than a dozen other states to measure the impact of specific characteristics of school library programs. The second study and the chief focus in this project explored more qualitative issues impacting test scores, most concerning the perceptions of library media specialists (LMSs), principals, and teachers. The findings of this study, while consistent with other previous research and conventional wisdom, make a start at expanding understanding of the nuances of the relationships between the three abovementioned educator types and how those relationships benefit not only the participants, but also students. Key Findings The key findings of this study are clear: schools tended to perform better on the ISTEP+ tests where there were better-staffed, better-stocked, and better-funded school library programs. This finding takes into account the influence of poverty and race/ethnicity, which otherwise obscure the impact of school library programs. Across grade levels, better-performing schools also tended to be those whose principals valued: collaboration between LMSs and classroom teachers in the design and delivery of instruction, flexible scheduling of library access, regular meetings between themselves and their LMSs, and having their LMSs serve on key school committees. At the elementary level, schools averaged better test results where there were: LMSs who believed that their principals and teachers understand their roles as school leaders, curriculum designers, administrators (in the case of principals), and teachers (in the case of teachers); teachers who reported initiating instructional collaboration with LMSs and who believed that they teach to information literacy standards better when they engage in such collaboration; and both LMSs and teachers are more familiar with the document that correlates information literacy and academic standards. Next Steps After extensive evaluation and analysis of the survey results and the potential capacity for the library media center to play a more integral role in raising student achievement, members and officials in the AIME organization will take the following actions: In the next three months AIME will assemble state and national educators and civic leaders to a summit to draft a measurable vision of how media programs prepare students to be successful on mission-critical measures: fluency in literacy and numeracy, communication, information gathering, analysis, synthesis and production, collaboration. Within six months, AIME will share the vision created by the stakeholders for input and feedback to ensure that the drafted vision represents a shared view that will inspire the development and work of media specialists across the state. Within one year, AIME will work with building, district, and state leaders to advocate for the structures and resources necessary to achieve the vision so that students are able to accomplish established goals articulated in the mission statements at the state and local levels. Based on the vision, AIME will provide scaffolds to raise the performance levels of media programs across the state to positively impact student achievement in the State of Indiana and grow the capacity of both media specialists and the effectiveness of the media center.

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary... i Part I - Literature Review... 1 Principal and Teacher Understanding of the Role of the Library Media Specialist and the School Library... 1 Teacher Attitudes Toward the Library Media Specialist and Library... 2 Teacher and Library Media Specialist Collaboration... 4 Principal and Administrative Support for the Library Media Specialist and Library Program... 5 Summary... 7 Part II - What Helps Students Meet Standards... 9 Introduction... 9 ISTEP+ Scores... 9 School Library Survey... 9 Available Data... 9 Statistical Analysis...10 Elementary Schools...11 Bivariate Correlation Analysis...12 Partial Correlation Analysis...12 Comparison-of-Means Analysis...13 Highest & Lowest Scoring Schools Comparison...16 Junior High/Middle Schools...18 Bivariate Correlation Analysis...18 Comparison-of-Means Analysis...19 Highest & Lowest Scoring Schools Comparison...22 High Schools...24 Bivariate Correlation Analysis...24 Partial Correlation Analysis...25 Comparison-of-Means Analysis...25 Highest & Lowest Scoring Schools Comparison...25 Summary...27 Part III - How Teachers and Principals Benefit from Strong School Libraries...29 Introduction...29 ISTEP+ Scores...29 Surveys of LMSs, Principals, and Teachers...29 Statistical Analysis...30

3 Library Media Specialists...33 LMS Involvement with Teachers...33 General Findings...33 Other Statistically Significant Findings...34 LMS Roles Attributed to Principals and Teachers by LMSs...42 General Findings...42 Other Statistically Significant Findings...43 LMS Assessment of Teaching to Information Literacy Standards...49 General Findings...49 Other Statistically Significant Findings...50 LMS s Familiarity with and Perceived Influence of Correlation Document...52 General Findings...53 Other Statistically Significant Findings...53 Impact of LMS on ISTEP+ Test Results...55 Impact of LMS Reports of Involvement with Teachers...55 Impact of LMS Roles Attributed to Teachers by LMS...55 Impact of LMS Roles Attributed to Principals by LMS...57 Impact of LMS s Assessment of Teaching to Information Literacy Standards...58 Impact of LMS s Familiarity with Correlation Document...59 Comments from Library Media Specialists...60 Principals...64 Principal s Sources of Learning About School Libraries/LMSs...64 General Findings...64 Other Statistically Significant Findings: Impact of Year Principal First Employed as Educational Administrator...65 Value of LMS Activities to Principal...66 General Findings...66 Other Statistically Significant Findings...67 Desired LMS Roles by Principal...72 General Findings...72 Other Statistically Significant Findings...73 Principal s Assessment of Teaching to Information Literacy Standards...77 General Findings...77 Other Statistically Significant Findings...78 Principal s Familiarity with and Perceived Influence of Correlation Document...79 General Findings...79 Other Statistically Significant Findings...80 Impact of Principal on ISTEP+ Test Results...82 Comments from Principals...85 Teachers...89 Teachers Sources of Learning about Libraries and LMSs...89 General Findings...89 Other Statistically Significant Findings...90 Teacher Involvement with Library/LMS...92 General Findings...92 Other Statistically Significant Findings...93 Perceived LMS Roles by Teachers General Findings Other Statistically Significant Findings Teachers Assessments of Teaching to Information Literacy Standards...109

4 General Findings Other Statistically Significant Findings Teacher Familiarity with and Perceived Influence of Correlation Document General Findings Other Statistically Significant Findings Impact of Teachers on ISTEP+ Results Impact of Teacher Reports of Involvement with Library/LMS Impact of Perceived LMS Roles by Teachers Impact of Teacher Assessment of Incorporation of Information Literacy Standard When Teaching with LMS Impact of Teacher s Familiarity with and Perceived Influence of Correlation Document Comments from Teachers PART IV--Conclusion Library Variables Associated with ISTEP+ Results for Elementary Schools Library Variables Associated with ISTEP+ Results for Middle Schools Library Variables Associated with ISTEP+ Results for High Schools Library Variables Associated with ISTEP+ Results at Multiple Grade Levels Principal s and Teachers Sources of Learning about Libraries and LMSs Perceptions of Library Programs of Principals, Teachers & LMSs Value of LMS Activities to Principal Involvement with Libraries/LMSs Reported by Teachers Involvement with Teachers Reported by LMSs Perceived Roles of LMS Teacher and Principal Perceptions of LMS Roles LMS Roles Perceived by Principals and Attributed by LMSs LMS Roles Perceived by Teachers and Attributed by LMSs Assessments of Teaching to Information Literacy Standards Information Literacy Independent Learning Social Responsibility Familiarity with & Influence of Correlation Document Familiarity with Correlation Document Perceived Influence of Correlation Document Impact of LMS, Principal, & Teacher Perceptions on ISTEP+ Results Value of LMS Activity to Principal LMS Provision of Instructional Resources Teacher Reports of LMS Activity LMS Role Attributed to Teachers by LMS LMS Role Attributed to Principal by LMS LMS Role Perceived by Teacher Teacher Assessments of Teaching to Information Literacy Standards Familiarity with Correlation Document Key Findings...159

5 List of Tables Table 1. Universe, Sample, Responses, and Response Rate for Indiana Elementary Schools, School Year Table 2. Bivariate Correlation Analysis of 3 rd Grade ISTEP+ Test Results and Selected Library Variables, School Year Table 3. Partial Correlation Analysis of 3 rd Grade Reading/Language Arts & Mathematics Results with Library Variables, Controlling for Poverty and Race/Ethnicity, School Year Table 4. Comparison of Means Analysis of 3rd Grade ISTEP+ Combined Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics Results and Library Variables, School Year Table 5. Comparison of Means Analysis of 3 rd Grade ISTEP+ Reading/Language Arts Results and Library Variables, School Year Table 6. Comparison of Means Analysis of 3 rd Grade ISTEP+ Mathematics Results and Library Variables, School Year Table 7. Comparison of Library Variables for 25 Highest & Lowest Scoring Elementary Schools Based on 3 rd Grade Combined Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics Results, School Year Table 8. Universe, Sample, Responses, and Response Rate for Indiana Middle Schools, School Year Table 9. Bivariate Correlation Analysis of 7 th Grade ISTEP+ Test Results and Selected Library Variables, School Year Table 10. Partial Correlation Analysis of 7 th Grade Reading/Language Arts & Mathematics Results with Library Variables, Controlling for Poverty and Race/Ethnicity, School Year Table 11. Comparison of Means Analysis of 7 th Grade ISTEP+ Combined Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics Results and Library Variables, School Year Table 12. Comparison of Means Analysis of 7 th Grade ISTEP+ Reading/Language Arts Results and Library Variables, School Year Table 13. Comparison of Means Analysis of 7 th Grade ISTEP+ Mathematics Results and Library Variables, School Year Table 14. Comparison of Means Analysis of 7 th Grade ISTEP+ Combined Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics Results and Library Variables, School Year Table 15. Comparison of Means Analysis of 7 th Grade ISTEP+ Reading/Language Arts Results and Library Variables, School Year Table 16. Comparison of Means Analysis of 7 th Grade ISTEP+ Mathematics Results and Library Variables, School Year Table 17. Comparison of Library Variables for 25 Highest & Lowest Scoring Middle Schools Based on 7 th Grade Combined Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics Results, School Year Table 18. Universe, Sample, Responses, and Response Rate for Indiana High Schools, School Year Table 19. Bivariate Correlation Analysis of 10 th Grade ISTEP+ Test Results and Selected Library Variables, School Year Table 20. Partial Correlation Analysis of 10 th Grade Reading/Language Arts & Mathematics Results with Library Variables, Controlling for Poverty and Race/Ethnicity, School Year

6 Table 21. Comparison of Library Variables for 25 Highest & Lowest Scoring High Schools Based on 10 th Grade Combined Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics Results, School Year Table 22. Bivariate Correlation Analysis of Reading/Language Arts & Mathematics Results with Enrollment, by School Level, School Year Table 23. Summary of Library Variables Correlated Positively with Combined ISTEP+ Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics Scores, Controlling for Poverty and Race/Ethnicity, Table 24. Frequency of Involvement with Teachers Reported by LMSs...34 Table 25. LMS Reports Scheduling of Classes to Visit Library, by Grade Level...36 Table 26. LMS Reports Role in Instructional Design, by Grade Level...37 Table 27. LMS Reports on Collaboration With Teachers on Design/Delivery of Instruction, by School Grade...38 Table 28. LMS Reports Teachers Asking LMS for Help in Learning New Information Skills, by School Grade...39 Table 29. LMS Reports of Teachers Inviting LMS to Classroom, by Year of LMS s Highest Degree...40 Table 30. LMS Reports of Teachers Inviting LMS to Classroom, by Year First Employed as LMS...40 Table 31. LMS Reports Interaction with Teachers in Instructional Design, by Year First Employed as LMS...41 Table 32. LMS Roles Attributed to Principals and Teachers by LMS...42 Table 33. Perception of LMS as Computer Manager/Troubleshooter Attributed to Principal by LMS, by Grade Level...43 Table 34. LMS Role Perceptions Attributed to Principal by LMS, by Year LMS First Employed as K-12 Educator...44 Table 35. LMS Role Perceptions Attributed to Principal by LMS, by Year of LMS s Highest Degree...45 Table 36. LMS Role Perceptions Attributed to Principal by LMS, by Year First Employed as LMS...46 Table 37. Perception of LMS as School Leader Attributed to Teachers by LMS, by Grade Level...47 Table 38. LMS Role Perceptions Attributed to Teachers by LMS, by Year of LMS s Highest Degree...47 Table 39. LMS Role Perceptions Attributed to Teachers by LMS, by Year LMS First Employed as K-12 Educator...48 Table 40. Perception of LMS as Web Site Manager Attributed to Teachers by LMS, by Year First Employed as LMS...49 Table 41. Assessment of Teaching to Information Literacy Standards by Library Media Specialists...50 Table 42. LMS Assessment of Incorporation of Information Literacy Standard in Teaching, by Grade Level...51 Table 43. LMS s Asssessment of Incorporation of Independent Learning Standard When Teaching With Teachers, by School Grade...52 Table 44. LMS s Assessment of Incorporation of Social Responsibility Standard When Teaching With Teachers, by Grade Level...52 Table 45. Familiarity with Correlation Document of Library Media Specialists...53 Table 46. Influence of Correlation Document Perceived by Library Media Specialists...53 Table 47. LMS Familiarity With Correlation Document, by Year of Highest LMS Degree...54 Table 48. LMS Familiarity With Correlation Document, by Year First Employed as LMS...54

7 Table 49. ISTEP+ Combined Test Results, by Grade Level, by Frequency with Which LMS Reports Proactively Providing Instructional Design Resources to Teachers...55 Table 50. ISTEP+ Combined Test Results, by Grade Level, by Role Attributed to Teachers by LMS...56 Table 51. ISTEP+ Combined Test Results, by Grade Level, by Role Attributed to Principal by LMS...58 Table 52. ISTEP+ Combined Test Results, by Grade Level, by LMS s Assessment of Incorporation of Information Literacy Standards When Teaching Alone...59 Table 53. ISTEP+ Combined Test Results, by Grade Level, by LMS s Familiarity with Correlation Document...59 Table 54. Sources of Learning About School Libraries/LMSs Reported by Principal..65 Table 55. Principal Learning About Libraries/LMSs From Teacher Experience, by Year Principal First Employed as Educational Administrator...65 Table 56. Value of LMS Activities to Principal...67 Table 57. Value to Principal of Library Access Being Scheduled on Basis of Instructional Needs, by Grade Level...68 Table 58. Value to Principal of LMS Activities, by Year Principal First Employed as Educational Administrator...69 Table 59. Value to Principal of LMS Activities, by Principal Learning about Libraries/LMSs from Personal Experience...71 Table 60. Value to Principal of LMSs and Teachers Designing and Teaching Instructional Units Together, by Principal Learning about Libraries/LMSs from In- Service Professional Opportunities...72 Table 61. Desired LMS Roles by Principal...73 Table 62. Computer Manager/Troubleshooter as Desired LMS Role by Principal, by Grade Level...73 Table 63. Desired LMS Roles to Principal, by Year Principal First Employed as K-12 Educator...74 Table 64. Desired LMS Role by Principal, by Principal Learning About Libraries/LMSs from Teacher Experience...75 Table 65. Teacher as Desired LMS Role by Principal, by Principal Learning about Libraries/LMSs from Personal Experience...75 Table 66. Desired LMS Roles by Principal, by Principal Learning about LMS from In- Service Professional Development...76 Table 67. Tutor of At-Risk Students a Desired LMS Role by Principal, by Principal Learning about LMS from Informal Communication With LMSs...76 Table 68. Web Site Manager a Desired LMS Role by Principal, by Principal Learning about LMS from Conference Sessions...77 Table 69. Assessment of Teaching to Information Literacy Standards by Principals 78 Table 70. Principal s Assessment of Teaching to Independent Learning Standard, by Principal Learning about Libraries/LMSs from On-the-Job Administrative Experience...78 Table 71. Principal s Assessment of Teaching to Information Literacy Standard, by Principal Learning About Libraries/LMSs from Professional Reading...79 Table 72. Familiarity with Correlation Document of Principals...80 Table 73. Influence of Correlation Document Perceived by Principals...80 Table 74. Principal s Familiarity with and Perceived Influence of Correlation Document, by Principal Learning about LMS from Teacher Experience...81 Table 75. Principal s Familiarity with Correlation Document, by Principal Learning about LMS from Professional Reading...82 Table 76. ISTEP+ Combined Test Results (Three-Grade Average), by Value to Principal of LMS Providing In-Service Professional Development Opportunities to Faculty...83

8 Table 77. ISTEP+ Combined Test Results (Three-Grade Average), by Value to Principal of Appointing LMS to School Committees...84 Table 78. Sources of Learning About School Libraries and LMSs Reported by Teachers...90 Table 79. Undergraduate/Graduate Courses as Source of Teacher Learning about Libraries/LMSs, by Grade Level...90 Table 80. Sources of Teacher Learning about Libraries/LMSs, by Year of Teacher s Highest Degree...91 Table 81. Student Teacher Experience as Source of Teacher Learning about Libraries/LMSs, by Year First Employed as K-12 Educator...91 Table 82. Frequency of Involvement with Library/LMS Reported by Teachers...93 Table 83. Teacher Reports of Classroom-Library Interaction, by Grade Level...94 Table 84. Teacher Reports of Interaction with LMS in Design and Delivery of Instruction, by Grade Level...95 Table 85. Teacher Reports on Fixed and Flexible Scheduling, by Grade Level...96 Table 86. Teacher Involvement with LMS, by Year Teacher First Employed as K-12 Educator...97 Table 87. Teacher Reports of Involvement with LMS, by Teacher Learning about Libraries/LMSs from In-Service Professional Development Opportunities...98 Table 88. Teacher Involvement with LMS, by Teacher Learning about Libraries/LMSs from Informal Communication with LMSs Table 89. Teacher Asking LMS for Resources to Design Instructional Unit, by Teacher Learning about Libraries/LMSs from Undergraduate/Graduate Courses Table 90. Teacher Reports on Fixed and Flexible Scheduling of Library Access, by Teacher Learning about Libraries/LMSs from Conference Sessions Table 91. Teacher Inviting LMS to Classroom, by Teacher Learning about Libraries/LMSs from Conference Sessions Table 92. Teacher Involvement with LMS to Learn New Information-Seeking Skills, by Teacher Learning about Libraries/LMSs from Conference Sessions Table 93. Teacher Involvement with LMS, by Teacher Learning about Libraries/LMSs from Professional Reading Table 94. Perceived LMS Roles by Teachers Table 95. Perceived LMS Roles by Teacher, by Grade Level Table 96. Instructional Support Role a Perceived LMS Role by Teacher, by Year Teacher First Employed as K-12 Educator Table 97. Administrator a Perceived LMS Role by Teacher, by Year of Teacher s Highest Degree Table 98. School Leader a Perceived LMS Role by Teacher, by Teacher Learning about Libraries/LMSs from In-Service Professional Development Opportunities Table 99. School Leader a Perceived LMS Role by Teacher, by Teacher Learning about Libraries/LMSs from Student Teaching Experience Table 100. Teacher Assessments of Teaching to Information Literacy Standards by Teachers Table 101. Teacher s Assessment of Incorporation of Information Literacy Standard When Teaching with LMS, by Teacher Learning about Libraries/LMSs from On-the-Job Teaching Experience Table 102. Teacher s Assessment of Incorporation of Social Responsibility Standard When Teaching Alone, by Teacher Learning about Libraries/LMSs from Undergraduate and Graduate Courses Table 103. Teacher s Assessment of Incorporation of Information Literacy Standard When Teaching with LMS, by Teacher Learning about Libraries/LMSs from In-Service Professional Development Opportunities...112

9 Table 104. Teacher s Assessment of Incorporation of Social Responsibility Standard When Teaching with LMS, by Teacher Learning about Libraries/LMSs from Conference Sessions Table 105. Teacher s Assessment of How Well Information Literacy Standards Are Incorporated When Teaching Alone, by Teacher Learning about Libraries/LMSs from Professional Reading Table 106. Familiarity with Correlation Document of Teachers Table 107. Influence of Correlation Document Perceived by Teachers Table 108. Teacher s Familiarity With Correlation Document, by Teacher Learning about Libraries/LMSs from In-Service Professional Development Opportunities Table 109. Teacher Familiarity With Correlation Document, by Teacher Learning about Libraries/LMSs from Conference Sessions Table 110. Teacher Familiarity With and Perceived Influence of Correlation Document, by Teacher Learning about Libraries/LMSs from Professional Reading.118 Table 111. ISTEP+ Combined Test Results, by Grade Level, by Teacher Reports of LMS Initiating Collaboration with Teacher Table 112. ISTEP+ Combined Test Results, by Grade Level, by Teacher Reports Regarding Access to Instructional Design Resources Table 113. ISTEP+ Combined Test Results, by Grade Level, by Teacher Reports of Classes Visiting Library on Flexible Schedule Table 114. ISTEP+ Combined Test Results, by Grade Level, by Teacher Reports of Teacher Inviting LMS to Classroom Table 115. ISTEP+ Combined Test Results, by Grade Level, by Whether Teacher Perceives LMS in Selected Roles Table 116. ISTEP+ Combined Test Results, by Grade Level, by Teacher s Assessment of Incorporation of Information Literacy Standard When Teaching with LMS Table 117. ISTEP+ Combined Test Results, by Grade Level, by Teacher s Familiarity with Correlation Document Table 118. ISTEP+ Combined Test Results, by Grade Level, by Teacher s Perception of Correlation Document s Influence on Design/Delivery of Instruction Table 119. Comparison of Library Variables for 25 Highest & Lowest Scoring Elementary Schools Table 120. Comparison of Library Variables for 25 Highest & Lowest Scoring Middle Schools Table 121. Comparison of Library Variables for 25 Highest & Lowest Scoring High Schools Table 122. Sources of Learning about School Libraries & LMSs...134

10

11 List of Charts Chart 1. Combined 3rd Grade ISTEP+ Results for Elementary Schools Above & Below Median on Library Variables Chart 2. Library Variables and Combined 7 th Grade ISTEP+ Results for Selected Middle Schools Chart 3. Library Variables and ISTEP+ Results, Controlling for Poverty and Race/Ethnicity, by Grade Level Chart 4. Principals Valuing LMS Activities as Essential or Desirable Chart 5. Teachers Reporting LMS Involvement At Least Weekly/Monthly Chart 6. LMSs Reporting Teacher Involvement At Least Weekly/Monthly Chart 7. LMS Roles Perceived by Teachers & Principals Chart 8. LMS Roles Perceived by Principals & Attributed to Principals by LMSs Chart 9. LMS Roles Perceived by Teachers & Attributed to Teachers by LMSs Chart 10. Principal, Teacher & LMS Assessments of Teaching Information Literacy Standard Chart 11. Principal, Teacher & LMS Assessments of Teaching Independent Learning Standard Chart 12. Principal, Teacher & LMS Assessments of Teaching Social Responsibility Standard Chart 13. Principal, Teacher & LMS Familiarity with Correlation Document Chart 14. Principal, Teacher & LMS Assessments of Influence of Correlation Document Chart 15. ISTEP+ Results (3-Grade Average) by Value of LMS Activity to Principal Chart 16. Third and Seventh Grade ISTEP+ Results by LMS Report of Proactively Providing Instructional Resources to Teachers Chart 17. Third-Grade ISTEP+ Results by Elementary Teacher Reports of LMS Activity Chart 18. Third-Grade ISTEP+ Results by LMS Role Attributed to Elementary Teachers by LMS Chart 19. Third-Grade ISTEP+ Results by LMS Role Attributed to Principal by LMS Chart 20. Third-Grade ISTEP+ Results by LMS Role Perceived by Elementary Teachers Chart 21. Third-Grade ISTEP+ Results by Elementary Teacher Assessments of Teaching to Information Literacy Standards when Teaching with LMS Chart 22. Third-Grade ISTEP+ Results by Familiarity with Correlation Document of Elementary LMS and Teachers...158

12

13 Executive Summary The Indiana study How Students, Principals, and Teachers Benefit from Strong School Libraries was two studies in one. The first study involved a simplified replication of a research design employed in Colorado and more than a dozen other states to measure the impact of specific characteristics of school library programs. That initial phase of this project yielded predictable results that are consistent with the findings of earlier studies. The second study and the chief focus in this project explored more qualitative issues impacting test scores, most concerning the perceptions of library media specialists (LMSs), principals, and teachers. The findings of this study, while consistent with other previous research and conventional wisdom, make a start at expanding understanding of the nuances of the relationships between the three above-mentioned educator types and how those relationships benefit not only the participants, but also students. What Helps Students Meet your library In Spring 2005, 440 schools responded to a survey of a stratified random sample of 924 school libraries. The survey included questions about library hours, staffing levels, collection size, networked technology, usage, and funding. These data were analyzed with ISTEP+ test scores on Reading/Language Arts, Mathematics, and combined results. Numbers and percentages of students eligible for the National School Lunch Program (i.e., poverty) and belonging to selected racial and ethnic groups were also included in the analysis to control for the impact of those factors. The clearest results were for elementary schools. When elementary schools with stronger school libraries (more weekly staff hours, larger collections, more visits, larger budgets) were compared to those with weaker libraries, library variables were associated with proportional increases in third-grade test results of seven to eleven percent (6.8% to 11.0%). (See Chart ES-1.) i

14 Chart. ES-1. Combined 3rd Grade ISTEP+ Results for Elementary Schools Above & Below Median on Library Variables Note: Superimposed percentages represent the proportional difference between the first group and the second. For example: / = 1.091, indicating the first group s results are 9.1% better than the second group s results. Across grade levels, schools tended to perform better on the ISTEP+ tests where there were better-staffed, better-stocked, and better-funded school library programs. Positive statistically significant correlation coefficients (a perfect correlation is 1.000) reached as high as.403 for high school library visits,.394 for elementary school library volumes, and.322 for middle school library budgets. Using partial correlation analysis, these findings took into account the influence of poverty as well as race and ethnicity, which otherwise obscure the impact of school library programs. (See Chart ES-2.) ii

15 Chart ES-2. Library Variables and ISTEP+ Results, Controlling for Poverty and Race/Ethnicity, by Grade Level 0.60 Elementary Middle High Partial correlation coefficient Hours open Libarian hours library staff hours Print volumes Networked computers Library visits Library budget Library variable How Teachers and Principals Benefit from Strong School Libraries In Fall 2006, an LMS-nominated and self-selected sample of 293 library media specialists (LMSs), 99 principals, and 422 teachers responded to surveys. Survey topics included: sources on which principals and teachers relied most to learn about libraries and LMSs; LMS roles desired by principals, perceived by teachers, and attributed to both groups by LMSs; how much selected LMS-related activities are valued by principals and how frequently they occur, according to LMSs and teachers; assessments of how well teaching incorporates the state s information literacy standards, both when LMSs and teachers teach alone and when collaborating with each other; and familiarity with, and perception of the influence on teaching of, Correlation of Information Literacy Standards with Indiana s Academic Standards. iii

16 Sources of Learning about Libraries/LMSs for Principals and Teachers Principals and teachers learned about libraries and LMSs from a variety of sources. Predictably, on-the-job experience in their positions was the most frequently reported source (91.3% and 93.9%, respectively). Principals were also likely to rely on informal communication with their LMS (76.8%), their own experience as teachers (69.7%), and personal experience (51.5%--e.g., their own or their children s experience as students). Teachers also tended to rely on informal communication (79.2%) and personal experience (73.1%) far more often than other sources. Value of Libraries/LMSs to Principals Almost all responding principals reported considering it essential or desirable that the LMS and teachers design and deliver instruction collaboratively (99%), the LMS be appointed to key school committees (96%), and the LMS provides in-service opportunities to faculty (97%). Nine out of ten principals also reported considering both flexible scheduling of library access (94%) and regular meetings between the principal and the LMS (87%) as either essential or desirable. Almost two-thirds of principals (63%) considered it essential or desirable to address the instructional role of the LMS when interviewing prospective teachers at their schools. Involvement with Libraries/LMSs Reported by Teachers Three out of four responding teachers (73%) reported that their LMSs offer them instructional design resources at least weekly or monthly. Approximately half reported four activities happening at least weekly or monthly: classes visiting the library on a fixed or flexible schedule (52% each), teachers themselves taking the initiative to ask LMSs for resources, and teachers accompanying their classes to the library (52% each). Involvement with Teachers Reported by LMSs Four out of five responding LMSs reported the occurrence of four activities on at least a weekly or monthly basis: classes visit the library on a flexible schedule (83%), the LMS offers instructional resources to teachers (81%), teachers accompany their classes to the library (78%), and teachers ask the LMS for instructional design resources (78%). Three out of five reported such frequent occurrence of two activities: classes visiting the library on a fixed schedule (61%) and teachers asking for help in learning new information-seeking skills (57%). About half of LMSs reported that, on a weekly or monthly basis, they initiate collaboration on instruction with teachers (52%) and they provide in-service learning opportunities to teachers (48%). Teacher and Principal Perceptions of LMS Roles Among both teachers and principals, the most popular roles of LMSs were reading motivator, instructional support staff, teacher, and instructional resources manager. More than two-thirds of respondents in both groups identified their LMS with these roles. Other roles associated with their LMS by most teachers and principals included: in-service provider and school leader. iv

17 Assessments of Teaching to Information Literacy Standards Nine out of 10 principals assessed their schools teaching of information literacy in particular as excellent or good. When collaborating with each other, LMSs and teachers agreed with them in similar proportions. Still, more than four out of five LMSs and teachers self-assess their solo-teaching of information literacy as excellent or good. Similar, though somewhat more modest, results were found for independent learning and social responsibility standards. Familiarity with & Influence of Correlation Document In making school library programs relevant in Indiana s standards-based testing environment, a key document is Correlation of Information Literacy Standards with Indiana s Academic Standards. The gaps in familiarity with that document between LMSs, teachers, and principals are very dramatic. Predictably high percentages of responding LMSs indicated being either very familiar (33%), familiar (45%), or at least somewhat familiar (19%) with the document leaving only three percent to claim being unfamiliar with it. In stark contrast, the unfamiliar/not applicable percentage was 66 percent for teachers and 37 percent for principals. Impact of LMS, Principal, and Teacher Perceptions on ISTEP+ Results Across grade levels, better-performing schools tended to be those whose principals placed a higher value on: LMSs providing in-service opportunities to classroom teachers (proportional increase of 29.5%), regular meetings between themselves and their LMSs (16.9%), having their LMSs serve on key school committees (10.2%), and collaboration between LMSs and teachers in the design and delivery of instruction (7.8%). (See Chart ES-3.) At the elementary level, schools averaged better test results where there were: LMSs who believed that their principals and teachers see them as school leaders, curriculum designers, fellow administrators (in the case of principals), and fellow teachers (in the case of teachers); teachers who reported collaborating with LMSs more frequently at their own initiative, and who believed that they teach to information literacy standards better when they engage in such collaboration; and both LMSs and teachers were more familiar with the document that correlates information literacy and academic standards. Both elementary and middle schools tended to perform better on tests where LMSs took the initiative, on at least a weekly or monthly basis, to provide their teachers with resources needed to design instruction. Like elementary schools, high schools tended to have better test results where teachers reported that they initiate collaboration with LMSs on the design and delivery of instruction at least weekly or monthly. v

18 Chart ES-3. ISTEP+ Results (3-Grade Average) by Value of LMS Activity to Principal vi

19 Part I - Literature Review Research has produced ample evidence of the link between strong school library programs and higher student academic achievement. However, little research has been done to quantify or analyze the role of principals and teachers in school library impact. There is a body of research, predominately surveys and observational studies, that suggests principals and teachers are very important in enabling the school library and school library media specialist (LMS) to contribute fully to the educational effort of the school. That research has helped set the framework for the present study. This literature review is divided into four general sections that describe research about different aspects of the role of principals and teachers in school library impact: principal and teacher understanding of the role of the LMS and the school library; teacher attitudes toward the LMS and library; teacher and LMS collaboration; and principal and administrative support for the LMS and library program. Terminology has changed during the time period covered by research cited here. In this literature review the terms school library and Library Media Specialist or LMS will be used for clarity and consistency. Principal and Teacher Understanding of the Role of the Library Media Specialist and the School Library Review of research conducted in the past 25 years in a variety of locations at different education levels reveals a widespread lack of common understanding within the education profession about the ideal roles of the library media specialist (LMS) and the school library. But recent research at individual sites suggests that consensus among the professionals within a school principal, teachers, and LMSs enables the library program to contribute to the overall academic excellence of the school. Hambleton (1980) surveyed teachers in 84 elementary schools in Ontario and found that not only was there no consensus among teachers, principals, and LMSs about the role of the LMS, even within the groups there was no consensus. Gast (1984) surveyed principals, teachers, and LMSs in Oregon high schools and reached similar conclusions. The study found significant differences between teacher and principal views on the role of the LMS. It also found significant differences between the perceptions of LMSs about the views of teachers and principals and the actual views of teachers and principals. Hauck and Schieman (1985) studied LMSs and principals in Alberta and also found the two groups had significant differences in their views of the importance of various functions and roles for LMSs. Edwards (1989) surveyed principals and LMSs in Arizona schools about the skills they considered important for LMSs and the amount of time they believed LMSs should spend on various activities. That study found principals perceptions of how LMSs spent their work time differed from what the LMSs reported about how they spent their time. Principals believed LMSs spent about half as much time in the day on instruction and twice as much time on circulation and processing than LMSs reported spending. The Millbrook Report (1990) looked at elementary schools throughout the country and found differences among principals, administrators, and library media specialists 1

20 (LMSs) in beliefs about how involved the LMSs were in curriculum planning, and the way teachers and LMSs should collaborate. It also found that principals and LMSs did not agree on how much time the LMSs actually spent on various activities. Dorrell and Lawson (1995) found Missouri high school principals did not view the LMS as a teacher, but rather as a purchaser and guardian of books. Kolencik (2001) also studied and compared LMSs and principals assessments of the role of the school library and the Library Media Specialist. The study s major finding was that the principals thought the major role for the LMSs was reference and research services, but the LMSs thought their major role was information literacy instruction. In contrast to all of these findings, Scott (1987) surveyed librarian educators, LMSs, principals, and classroom teachers and did find concurrence among the survey group on a majority of role perception indicators for LMSs. However the study found teachers as a group differed from the others surveyed in their perception of instructional role factors for LMSs. The study also discovered differences among the groups on perceptions about the responsibilities of the LMSs for selecting materials, handling technology, and other specific duties. Burcham (1990) compared Georgia public school principals, teachers, and LMSs perceptions and beliefs about the LMSs role and found all three groups had similar perceptions about roles the LMSs currently played and should perform in the future. Case studies of exemplary high school media programs have found that one factor in their success was agreement among library professionals, teachers, and administrators about the role of the LMS. Charter (1982) profiled six high school media programs considered exemplary by education experts. The study found that acceptance of an instructional development role for the LMSs was one influential factor all six programs shared. Mosqueda (1999) used the recommendations about library and Library Media Specialists roles given in the Information Power (American Association of School Librarians, 1998) guidelines as an analytical framework to look at library programs in Florida schools designated National Blue Ribbon Schools. The principals and LMSs in these schools agreed on the roles and functions of LMSs as set forth in the Information Power guidelines. The author pointed out, however, that it was not possible to confirm from the study specifically how the school library programs contributed to a school s designation as a National Blue Ribbon School. Teacher Attitudes Toward the Library Media Specialist and Library Research shows that teachers attitudes toward the school library and LMS influence their use of the library. Research also shows that their attitudes about collaboration with the Library Media Specialist reflect the general professional atmosphere in the school. Schools with cooperative environments have teachers with positive attitudes about collaboration with school colleagues, including the LMS. In one early study, el-hagrasy (1963) established a positive relationship between teachers reading and library background and the level of their students library and reading skills. Another early study by Corr (1979) found that teachers preferred LMSs with classroom teaching experience. Hartley (1980) used a survey and circulation statistics to investigate why some high school teachers used their high school libraries more than others. Teachers attitudes toward the school library and library media specialist (LMS) influenced their use of the library. Circulation statistics 2

21 showed that teachers who consulted with the LMS in planning work for students used the library materials more. However, the predisposition of individual teachers to use the library was not found to be associated with specific characteristics like level of education or teaching discipline. More research from a variety of locations over the past twenty years shows that principals and teachers in different locations and schools have different attitudes toward the school library and LMS, depending on their own experiences. Hortin (1986) surveyed teachers and principals in small and rural schools in Kansas and found that principals generally had a more positive attitude about the school library than teachers did. In contrast, Lai (1995) surveyed K-5 teachers and LMSs in the public schools of three counties in Tennessee and found no significant differences between teachers and LMSs attitudes about the LMSs role in instruction and curriculum development. DeGroff (1997) conducted a nationwide survey in elementary schools and found the role of the LMS as information specialist, teacher, and instructional consultant was highly valued by teachers and administrators, but that teachers and LMSs worked together in casual rather than specific ways. Getz (1991) conducted a study comparing practicing teachers with students in education programs to learn if training and experience influenced teacher attitudes toward working cooperatively with LMSs. Results showed no difference in attitudes between the two groups. The study also found that in smaller schools with enrollments under 500 students, teachers who worked cooperatively with other teachers also worked cooperatively with the LMS. Roberson, Applin, and Schweinle (2005) built on these findings with their Mississippi study looking into factors that affect faculty support and utilization of school libraries. They, too, found that teachers who held favorable views of the library and LMS tended to work cooperatively with the LMS and use the library more. In addition, their study found that teachers and principals who had a general disposition to work cooperatively with other professionals in the school setting were more likely to use and support the school library than those who lacked this disposition to work cooperatively. However their study, which included elementary through high schools of all accreditation levels, found that teachers had a less positive attitude toward instructional collaboration with LMSs than principals did. Other research has also shown that a school s professional atmosphere affects the way the library and LMS fit into the academic program. In the high-achieving elementary schools examined by Bell and Totten (1991), teachers often cooperated professionally and were as willing to cooperate on instruction problems with the LMSs as they were with other teachers. In these schools, however, the researchers found that the teachers did not make a distinction between certified LMSs and paraprofessionals. Slygh (2000) looked at data from a sample of schools involved in the national DeWitt Wallace Reader s Digest Library Power program. Library Power aimed to improve schools by strengthening and revitalizing their library programs. Slygh s study found a predictive relationship between the amount of professional community reported by principals, teachers, and LMSs in these schools and the amount of instructional collaboration reported by these groups. Useem and Coe (1998) reported the degree of collegial culture was one factor explaining variations of implementation of the Library Power program in the schools they observed. 3

22 Teacher and Library Media Specialist Collaboration Research has shown the link between greater teacher-lms collaboration and higher student academic achievement. Most of this research has focused on the role of the LMS. Little research has addressed specifically what teachers add to the collaborative relationship that contributes to the positive impact of school libraries. An early study by Gaver (1963) established that cooperation between a teacher and LMS led to higher reading scores for one class of students. The study also showed that the effectiveness of the elementary school library program was enhanced when the teacher visited the library with the class. In a 1993 Colorado study of school library impact Lance, Welborn, and Hamilton- Pennell found that Colorado students whose LMSs collaborated with teachers by identifying materials for them or planning instruction with them tended to have higher reading scores. Since that first Colorado study a series of school library impact studies in other states have shown that greater teacher-lms collaboration is one element of a strong library program that leads to higher student academic achievement. Lance, Hamilton-Pennell, and Rodney (2000a) found that Alaska students test scores went up when LMSs spent more time planning with teachers. In Pennsylvania Lance, Rodney, and Hamilton-Pennell (2000c) showed that test scores increased when LMSs spent more time teaching cooperatively with teachers. The second Colorado study (Lance, Rodney, and Hamilton-Pennell, 2000b) showed that 7 th grade reading test scores were better when the LMS was more involved in planning with teachers and identifying materials for them. In Oregon Lance, Rodney, and Hamilton-Pennell (2001) found students tended to score higher in reading when their LMSs identified materials and provided training for classroom teachers. Rodney, Lance, and Hamilton-Pennell (2002) found that Iowa 4 th grade students in elementary schools where LMSs spent more time planning and teaching with classroom teachers had higher reading scores. In New Mexico Lance, Rodney, and Hamilton-Pennell (2003) found 8 th and 10 th grade test scores reflected the amount of time teachers and LMSs spent cooperating. More cooperation was linked to higher scores. In Michigan Rodney, Lance, and Hamilton-Pennell (2003) showed that 4 th and 7 th grade reading test scores tended to be higher when library staff spent more time planning with teachers. Statewide impact studies by other teams of researchers in other states have found similar patterns of school library characteristics, including teacher-lms collaboration, to be linked with higher student achievement. These include studies in Texas (Smith, 2001), Florida (Baumbach, 2003), and in Mississippi (Roberson, Applin, and Schweinle, 2003). Research on schools participating in the Library Power program has produced some specific information about the type of teacher-lms collaboration that leads to improved student results. Pharr (2002) and Oberg (1999) both describe the experience of one elementary school in Chattanooga, Tennessee that implemented the Library Power program starting in The school was able to demonstrate the link between greater teacher-lms collaboration and higher student achievement. As part of the Library Power program, teacher-lms collaboration was required in the school and flexible scheduling of students library time was implemented. Teachers could decide how to make the best use of library facilities for their students. After 4