1. How Helpful Is Your Library? Peter G. Mohn, LMS Snohomish Freshman Campus 2006 WLMA Conference October 13, 2006 Peter G. Mohn, LMS Snohomish Freshman Campus 2006 WLMA Conference October 13, 2006

2. State-wide Library Studies  Alaska, 1999  Colorado, 1993; 2000  Pennsylvania, 2000  Texas, 2001  Oregon, 2001  Florida, 2002  Iowa, 2002  Massachusetts, 2002  New Mexico, 2002  Michigan, 2003  Minnesota, 2003  Missouri, 2003  North Carolina, 2003  Indiana, 2004  Ohio, 2004  Illinois, 2005

3. Current Studies in Progress  New Jersey  Delaware

4. Numbers  Well over 3,000 schools  Well over 3,000,000 students

5. Variables Controlled  Ethnic background  Social Economic Status  Rural, suburban, and urban areas  Technology  Parents education

6. Collective Results  10 - 15% percentage point rise in reading, and literacy scores on state-wide tests  Positive rises in student academic achievement over-all  Results tied to collection size, budget, staffing, collaborative planning, technology, and student use of libraries

7. How Do Libraries Help? We have the data of libraries impacting student academic achievement on state-wide tests, and student learning, but what “helps” do libraries and librarians provide to significantly improve student learning?

8. Ohio Study, 2004  Student Learning Through Ohio School Libraries by Todd, Kuhlthau, and OELMA  13,123 students and 879 faculty at 39 schools  Surveyed 48 “helps”  Libraries helped 99.44% of students  Libraries helped 25.54% of students on all 48 statements  Libraries helped 60.3% of students on 43 of the statements

9. What is an Effective Library Program?  Adequate & appropriate credentialed staff and support staff  Librarians involvement in collaborative planning  Developing print & digital collections  Motivating students to read  Administering a curriculum-centered library program  Facilitating access to the library & its technology

10. Non-Effective School Libraries What happens to the levels of help in a non-effective school library, and does this help explain why students with non-effective library programs score lower on standardized tests?

11. SFC Study, (in progress)  Doesn’t meet effective library levels  Two phase study  Were there any significant differences  What recommendations should be given to improve the “helps” in the SFC LMC

12. 2004 SFC Study, part 1  Student and faculty survey based on Ohio faculty survey  Compare SFC students & faculty responses  Compare SFC responses to the Ohio study  Recommend changes to the LMC program

13. 2004 SFC Study Findings  99.1% of the students indicated the LMC and its services help students  50% of the students say LMC helps students on all 48 help statements  63.4% of the students say LMC helps students on 43 of the 48 statements  Faculty & students agreed on rank priority  Faculty means significantly lower than the Ohio faculty

14. 2004 SFC Study Conclusions  Same conclusions as Ohio Study  LMC is a dynamic agent of active learning  Understanding how to research effectively  Students understand how to identify key ideas  Students analyze, synthesize, evaluate, & apply information  Students develop personal conclusions

15. 2004 SFC Study Recommendations  Formalize collaborative process with classroom teachers  Improve computer technology  Create LMC web page to enhance student access to information outside of school  Promote more reading opportunities  Survey the Class of 2008

16. 2005 SFC Study (in progress)  Compare SFC & Ohio student percentages  Compare SFC & Ohio student means  Compare SFC & Ohio student Most Helpful percentages  Compare 04 & 05 SFC student block means  Compare SFC & Ohio student block means  Compare SFC & Ohio faculty block means

17. 2005 SFC Study Findings  SFC student percentages lower  SFC student means lower  SFC student Most Helpful percentages are lower  05 SFC student block means significantly lower  SFC & Ohio block means mixed  SFC & Ohio faculty block means significantly lower in every block

18. 2005 SFC Study Conclusions  Fewer students perceive the LMC as helping them in their academic & personal pursuits  SFC students perceive the LMC as helpful as Ohio students do, except in reading  A large minority of SFC students do not perceive the LMC as helping them with their reading  A larger percentage of SFC students don’t perceive the LMC as helping them  SFC faculty has a lower perception of how the LMC help their students in all areas

19. 2005 SFC Study Recommendations  Integrate information literacy K-12  Develop K-12 curriculum  Work closely with principals  Shared collaborative planning times  Improve reading opportunities  Bring budget inline with standards  Collaborate with reading teacher  Improve library collection  Provide more reading activities  Continue technology improvements  Pass a technology bond

20. Recommendations cont.  Conduct state-wide library study  Effective & non-effective schools  Include schools with certified & non-certified librarians  Conduct district elementary, middle school, & upper campus study  Change scale from 0-4 to 1-5  Use 57 help survey  Change N/A to No Help  Compare results to Delaware Study  Take results to legislature for support

21. Conducting Your Own Study http://sfc.sno.wednet.edu/LMC/Docs/Workshops.htm

22. Ohio Study http://www.oelma.org/StudentLearning/default.asp

23. Pre-Survey Planning  Who can help you with your study?  Find a good statistic book you can use  Use the KISS principal  Decide online, Excel or paper?  Random sampling  At least 30 students per grade  Time of the year to conduct survey  Use summer to write study

24. Likert Survey  Percentages & Means  Total  Grade  Gender  Most Helpful  Standard Deviation  Two-Way t Test for Two Means  Only if comparing Ohio or Delaware studies

25. Giving Survey - Paper  Get teacher buy-in  Randomly select students (blind)  Either have teacher give survey, or follow a script when you do (neutral voice)  Give faculty the survey yourself

26. Organizing Results  Sort survey by grade and gender  Mark one page at a time, less chance  Have people help with scoring  Throw out bad surveys  Create tables before writing  Type up written appendices  Use Todd’s survey as guideline  Don’t be afraid of your own conclusions  State statistical facts

27. Writing Paper  Parts of your study  Title  Table of Contents  2 - Executive Summaries  Introduction  Literature Review  Methodology  Results  Conclusions  Recommendations  References  Appendices

28. Writing Hints  You don’t need a large literature section  Concentrate on major themes  Keep paper to around 30 pages  Not counting references & appendices  Combine results & conclusions  You don’t need a large reference section  Don’t write more than 2-3 hours a day  Try to complete a section each day

29. Questions? Peter.mohn@sno.wednet.edu