15plus1.weebly.com15plus1.weebly.com/.../2/0/1/4/20147083/coleman_final… · web viewstaff roles...

Running head: Staff Roles and Technology Choices for a SLMC 1

Staff Roles and Technology Choices for an Elementary School Library Media Center

Robert Alan Coleman

Kennesaw State University

Staff Roles and Technology Choices for a SLMC 2

Staff Roles and Technology Choices for an Elementary School Library Media Center

Introduction

The motivation behind this study is to inform the re-design and implementation of a

traditional elementary school library that is scheduled to undergo a major renovation, including

technology infrastructure upgrades, in the near future. The existing program, at Wesley Lakes

Elementary School in McDonough, GA, reflects a very traditional approach to school

library/media center (LMC) services with a focus on reading skill development and a limited

amount of technology utilized on an occasional basis. The Media and Technology Focus Team

at the school desires to see a modernization of the program, but has not reached a consensus on

how that modernization can be described. Initial guiding questions were centered on specific

technologies to be included, but those questions gave way to larger questions regarding the

purpose and nature of the program. Out of that broader view, a different set of questions

evolved:

Upon what should a modern library/media center program be focused?

How should print resources and digital resources be balanced?

Should the traditional quiet-in-the-library approach be retained?

What roles should be defined for the librarian/media specialist?

How can the library/media center better integrate a culturally responsive pedagogy?

How can the library/media center expand its instructional impact beyond its own walls?

How do instructional standards and technology standards fit into the equation?

Are library and media center sufficient monikers?

Ultimately, as the list of questions continued growing, sometimes getting broadening in scope,

sometimes narrowing, it became apparent that the discussion was becoming too broad and


subjective. With that realization, two questions emerged that refocused the aim of the study. The

purpose of this practical action research study will be to address those questions.

Research Questions to be addressed:

How should the role and services of the media specialist change in the new LMC?

What new instructional technologies should be included in the new LMC design?

Importance of the Study

The importance of the study is anchored in meeting students’ learning needs. Numerous

studies have shown that student test scores at schools that have robust library/media center

programs exceed the scores of students from schools that have less effective library/media

centers (Lance & Hofschire, 2011). The design and practice that define a robust library/media

center are changing due to numerous influences, and student learning practices within those

library/media centers are also undergoing change. The library/media center should strive to

reflect those changes to better meet students’ needs, and the renovation at WLES is the logical

catalyst for the re-purposing of the library/media center. This study is not only important for

informing that re-purposing, it is also timely, as the renovations are scheduled to take place

during the 2014-2015 school year.

Key Terms

The terms school library and media center are often used interchangeably. The traditional

definition of school library, “a library within a school where teachers and students have access to

books and other resources (Collins, 2013),” is generally expanded, when referring to a media

center, to include more specific information regarding purpose: “an organized collection of

printed and/or audiovisual and/or computer resources which (a) is administered as a unit, (b) is

located in a designated place or places, (c) makes resources and services accessible and available


to students, teachers, and administrators (Lynch, 1995)." For the purpose of this study, the

initials LMC will be used to refer to both libraries and media centers.

The terms librarian and media specialist refer to the individuals who administer the

library or media center, respectively, but again, are often interchanged. For the purpose of this

study, the initials LMS will be used to refer to both librarians and media specialists, with no

distinction being drawn between the two.

The term LMC program will refer to the entire package of teaching and learning

resources and services made available to the LMC stakeholders through the LMC and its staff.

Although the word technology has a myriad of meanings, in this study it will be used to

refer to instructional or educational technology unless otherwise described in context.

Educational technology can be defined as “the full range of digital hardware and software used

to support teaching and learning across the curriculum (Roblyer & Doering, 2013).”

Web 2.0 reflects the emerging nature of Internet use characterized by a high degree of

interactivity and collaborative content creation. In contrast, Web 1.0 would refer to the original

form and function of the Internet, characterized by static webpages from which users could

access, but not contribute, content. Web 2.0 is sometimes characterized as the Read/Write Web

(Richardson, 2010).

Review of Current Literature

The overarching focus of the school library media center (SLMC) should probably not

change. Numerous studies have shown that students who attend schools with robust SLMCs,

administered by effective media specialists with adequate support staff, achieve higher scores on

standardized tests than their counterparts in schools that are lacking in those indicators. School

librarian media specialists (SLMS) are integral to the learning outcomes of students. That


advantage can be attributed to the SLMS agency in connecting technology and information with

students and teachers (Abarbanel, Davis, Hand, & Wittmer, 2013). To that end, SLMS are

expected to take on a number of different roles: literacy skills instructor for digital and print

mediums, library/media center program administrator, instructional collaborator, information

expert, professional development deliverer, collection manager, and instructional technology

integration leader (Johnston, 2012a; Johnston, 2012b; Koechlin, Zwaan & Loertscher, 2008;

Perez, 2010; Purcell, 2010). A number of enablers and hindrances, as well as simple

complications, have been identified that impact the realization of this variety of roles (Johnston,

2012b; Perez, 2010), not the least of which includes the transition and development of Web 2.0

pedagogies (Baumbach, 2009; Eden, 2007; Naslund & Giustini, 2008).

Astute SLMS are not only impacting the way students learn, but also the way teachers

teach (Purcell, 2010). SLMS should collaborate with colleagues to maximize utilization of

SLMC resources for student learning. This collaboration calls for a changing role of school

librarians as technology leaders. Research provides evidence that SLMS should be proactive

leaders in technology integration, which typically is not the case, often due to identified barriers

to SLMS assuming that role (Johnston, 2012b). Those barriers include poor funding, lack of

time, and administrative indifference (Kenney, 2011), but Kenney (2011) also suggests that

"dynamo media specialists" (p. 28) will emerge as technology leaders and overcome those

obstacles. Other studies also suggest that SLMS should evolve as technology leaders (Gavigan,

2012; Johnston, 2012a) with Johnston (2012a) noting the importance of building relationships

with colleagues to facilitate that leadership development.

The SLMC is no longer simply a warehouse for books, characterized by a stodgy

librarian whose primary goal is to ensure that no conversation occurs in her realm. The


challenge for the Focus Team then is to define the characteristics and environment for the new

media center space. Many SLMC are becoming a combination of print, digital, and

technological resources for interactive, collaborative learning, often referred to as 21st Century

Learning, which is characterized by a significant social interaction component (Vardeman,

Davis, & Manning, 2012). Asselin & Doiron (2008) provides a research-based framework for

the instructional design and purpose of school libraries, based on emerging literacies, the nature

of today's learners, and changing concepts of knowledge, and suggesting that we switch from

“the challenges of covering the curriculum to the challenges of developing a transformative

approach where students uncover the curriculum” (p. 13). That approach is further expanded by

defining the elements of one new approach – called learning commons – as: learning literacies,

knowledge building and learning collaboratively with technology (Koechlin, Zwaan &

Loertscher, 2008). Another difference between traditional libraries and modern learning

environments specifies the need for multiple access points to resources, such as reading areas,

work rooms, conference rooms, and collaborative spaces, where students can utilize technology

to extend learning beyond the physical walls in which they are located (Martin, Westmoreland,

& Branyon, 2011). By doing so, students are able to participate in a more authentic learning

experience by expanding the audience of their learning products. Collectively, these ideas are

coming to be incorporated in the moniker Library 2.0, a place where the emerging resource is

coming to be known as Web 2.0.

The impetus behind adopting Web 2.0 resources is the ubiquitous social connectedness of

today’s students, who tend to be online more often than not, and who desire Web 2.0

technologies be incorporated into their education (Vance, 2012). When integrated effectively,

Web 2.0 technologies are leading to participatory learning involving production of knowledge by


students. In order for these technologies to be fully incorporated, library planning and design

needs to incorporate plans for digital service in collaborative spaces in their physical facility

(Corbett, 2011; Sullivan, 2011). Although these design considerations are best practices, a

number of barriers to their implementation often exist, including Web 2.0 tools being blocked at

schools; the lack of informal professional development time at school, leading to a lack of

specific knowledge about the most appropriate tools (Baumbach, 2009).

School Library Media Specialists roles need to change to reflect the changes in the way

students learn today. These roles should include: technology integration facilitator/leader,

instructional collaborator, literacy skills educator, and agent of progress. School library media

centers should be designed to accommodate a participatory, collaborative, socially-connected

pedagogy that is technology driven. Library designs and features should also be adaptable to

technology and learning innovations (Abarbanel, Davis, Hand, & Wittmer, 2013). SLMCs need

to constantly adapt and change because instructional technology is constantly changing. The

nature of library design is changing the available resources and the collaborative demands placed

on professionals who teach in and through them (Beard & Dale, 2008).

Methodology

The setting for the data gathering is Wesley Lakes Elementary School in McDonough,

GA, which serves approximately 525 students in grades K-5. The racial/ethnic make-up of the

students includes 5% that are 2 or more races, 2% Asian, 75% black/African American, 12%

Latino, and 6% white/Caucasian. The school is a Title One school, based on free and reduced

lunch recipients, and is a Georgia Focus School. The faculty is comprised of 1 principal, 1

assistant principal, 1 Mathematics Instructional Lead Teacher (ILT), 1Literacy ILT, 1 counselor,

1 speech pathologist, 1 half-time speech pathology assistant, 1 ELL teacher, 1 gifted students


program teacher, 7 special education teachers, 23 regular education teachers, 1 physical

education teacher, 1 half-time art teacher, 1 half-time music teacher. The media center is staffed

by 1 media specialist and 1 half-time media paraprofessional. There is no technology specialist

or applications specialist at the school.

The study utilized a questionnaire designed by the researcher, containing both open-

ended and closed-ended questions, totaling 26 items. The questionnaire was completed by the

instructional staff from Wesley Lakes Elementary School and was designed to reveal their

perceived needs from the LMC. The questions were aimed primarily at current usage and attitude

regarding the pre-renovation LMC program, and the participants’ vision of the ideal LMC

program. In effect, the purpose of the data analysis was to determine where the school was, in

terms of LMS roles and technology integration, and where the staff perceived they would like to

be in the future.

The instrument was administered via the WLES website. The researcher is the webmaster

at WLES and, in that capacity, has access to the survey/questionnaire authoring provisions of the

web development software used by the school system. The survey/questionnaire authoring

element of the software provides a robust set of data collection and analysis capabilities. The

instrument was active online for a two-week period, during which participants were able to

access the instrument from any computer with Internet access. Participants spent an average of

11 minutes completing the survey. Upon deactivation of the instrument, data analysis occurred

over a three-week period. The findings will be made available to the participants.

One recognized weakness in the process was the time limitations of the study. The

instrument was intentionally designed to be completed in a relatively short amount of time,

hopefully encouraging the participants to complete it in a timely manner. The weakness may


have been in the limitations of the scope of the items on the instrument due to its short length.

Those limitations could render the results of the study less complete and informing than they

might be with a more comprehensive, thereby longer, scope of questions on the instrument.

Another weakness is that the process does not encourage collaboration among the participants.

Sometimes such collaboration leads to ideas or realizations that might not occur to the

participants individually. Another weakness might be defined by the participants lack of

familiarity with some of the emergent concepts referred to in the study. Finally, the instrument

called for suggestions from the participants, which might not be very robust if the media center

matters are not a hot-spot for the participants.

Reliability and Credibility

As the primary researcher in this study, one issue of which I had to be constantly aware is

my own pre-conceived notions regarding the re-purposing of the media center at WLES. Beyond

the subjectivity immediately implied, there is also the fact that all of my instructional experience

was at the middle and high school levels and even my first 3 years as a media specialist was at a

high school. Therefore, I was intentional in deferring to the professional expertise of the WLES

staff. To that end, I recruited the mathematics ILT as a, for lack of a better term, research

overseer. Her help as a reviewer at every step of the process, insured a greater degree of

authenticity during the process.

Analysis

The collection instrument (Appendix 1) was comprised of 26 items, including 6 Likert-

Scale-style items, 12 single response items, 4 numeric matrix rating scale items, and 4 open

response items.


Items numbered 1 through 6 are Likert-Scale-style items, each with the same five

response categories: Strongly agree, Somewhat agree, Neutral, Somewhat disagree, and Strongly

disagree. The response categories are weighted numerically with Strongly agree carrying a

weight of 5, then decreasing linearly to Strongly disagree, which carries a weight of 1. The

response weights of the participants were entered in a table (Appendix 2) which will allow the

averaging of the responses for each item. The average will then be compared to the response

categories’ weighting to determine the current strength of the media center’s service relative to

each item.

The 12 single response items deal with Web 2.0 tools and the likelihood that they would

be utilized if made available through the media center. In each item a tool is identified, for

example, cloud storage for student artifacts, and participants indicate their likelihood of use of

that tool by selecting either Yes or No. The responses for these items were given the numeric

values of 1 for each Yes response and 0 for each No response, and were analyzed (Appendix 3)

using a Rank and Percentile analysis.

Items numbered 20, 21, 23, and 24 are numeric matrix rating scale items which allow the

participants to indicate their priorities of desire regarding LMS instructional roles and technology

roles, as well as LMC emerging technologies and learning spaces. Each item lists 5 possibilities

that the participants rank by their personal priority from 1 to 5, with 1 being the highest priority.

For each of the items, participant responses will be entered in a table (Appendix 4) that will

allow ranking the possibilities by average priority for the group of participants. From the table,

overall priorities for the possibilities can be determined for the participants as a whole, using a

Rank and Percentile analysis.


Items numbered 7, 22, 25, and 26 are open-ended response items. The items address

lesson offerings in the LMC, suggested roles for the LMS, emerging technologies and learning

spaces, and general improvement suggestions. For analysis purposes, the responses were treated

as 4 separate interviews. For each item, the responses were transcribed and coded. The codes

were analyzed to reveal initial topical themes. Those initial themes were further analyzed to

identify overarching themes. Further examination will include descriptively reporting the

aggregate responses in order to categorize the responses into themes (Creswell, 2012), which can

be prioritized by inferred importance.

Results

The purpose of this research study is to inform the redesign of the LMC services at

Wesley Lakes Elementary School by addressing these two research questions: 1. How should the

role and services of the media specialist change in the new LMC? 2. What new instructional

technologies should be included in the new LMC design? In order to answer the first question, a

baseline of existing services had to be identified. The first 7 items on the survey instrument

addressed that point, dealing respectively with the issues of accessibility, scheduling, learning

climate, social climate, sufficient resources, collaboration, and lesson offerings. The first 6 items

were Likert Scale items, with response categories being defined as Strongly agree, Somewhat

agree, Neutral, Somewhat disagree, and Strongly disagree. The response categories were

weighted numerically with Strongly agree carrying a weight of 5, then decreasing linearly to

Strongly disagree, which carried a weight of 1.

The accessibility item focused on individual or small groups of students having access to

the media center, and the scheduling item was concerned with whole-class visits to the LMC.

Responses to these items indicate that students have adequate (4.3 point average) access to the


LMC, and teachers find whole-class visit scheduling easy (4.1 point average). The LMC climate

items returned similar results, with the learning climate, characterized by orderliness and

purposefulness, dipping to a 4.0 point average, possibly due to the challenge of having only one

full-time staff member to keep the facility at top levels of readiness. Responses to the social

climate item (4.4 point average) indicate staff members feel welcome and comfortable in the

LMC, although that average should be higher. Staff members indicate the provision of sufficient

resources to support the curriculum and standards (4.2 point average) is acceptable, but

comments in a subsequent open discussion item indicate more resources that go directly to

supporting the new CCGPS are needed, “Having more books that are in the CCGPS frameworks

and leveled readers for science and social studies for lower grades.” Responses to the item

dealing with collaboration (3.2 point average) indicate the LMC staff needs to emphasize this

service with teachers more effectively.

The seventh item on the survey, asking about desired lesson offerings, moved the focus

from existing realities in the LMC services to changes the participants would like to see in those

services. It was an open discussion question asking participants to list topics, subjects, and-or

standards for which they would like to see lessons being offered in the LMC. The responses were

transcribed and coded, then analyzed to reveal initial topical themes. Those initial themes were

further analyzed to identify overarching themes. Analysis revealed these themes, listed by

priority, with supporting quotes from participants:

1. Research: “More time on how to do research and how to use the resources in the media

center.”

2. Science: “Cells, inheritance, and microorganisms/ 5th grade.”

3. Social Studies: “4th grade historical figures/Native American/Colonial period.”


4. Language Arts: “1st grade- Lessons on text features, author, illustrator, main character,

setting. Fiction and Non-fiction, choosing just right books.”

There was also a foundational theme, that all lessons should be standards-based, that

applied to all four of these topics. As stated by one participant, “For grades 3-5, I would like to

see lessons that align and support work being done with the CCGPS that will reinforce what is

happening in the classroom.”

There were three items on the survey that explored the staff’s perception and preferences

regarding the LMS roles in instruction and instructional technology. For instructional roles, the

staff prioritized literacy skills instructor for digital mediums, and information specialist as the

top two roles. Those priorities aligned with the instructional technology roles priorities of

instructional technology integration leader (introducing new tools), and technology support

specialist (intervening with existing tools). Of these three items, one was open response, and

yielded the statement, “I would like to see the LMS come to the classroom and share

tools/technology with my students,” expanding the scope of these roles beyond the walls of the

LMC.

Items 20 and 21 focused on the changing roles of the LMS and provided participants the

opportunity to prioritize those roles in two areas, instructional roles, and instructional technology

roles. The items were numeric matrix rating scale items, and a sample of their analysis can be

found in Appendix 4. That analysis indicated participants value the instructional roles of the

LMS in this prioritized order: literacy skills instructor for digital mediums, information

specialist, literacy skills instructor for print mediums, instructional collaborator with classroom

teachers, and professional development deliverer. A similar analysis of the item addressing

instructional technology roles indicated participants value the instructional technology roles of


the LMS in this prioritized order: instructional technology integration leader (introducing new

tools), technology support specialist (intervening with existing tools), resource circulation

manager, school webmaster, and collection development manager. All four of the highest

priority roles carried a higher priority than the traditional LMS roles of literacy skills instructor

for print mediums and resource circulation manager and developer. The lowest ranking role by

priority was school webmaster, an interesting finding since that is one of the most time-

consuming current responsibilities of the LMS. The next item solicited open response

suggestions for other roles for the LMS and netted this request, “I would like to see the LMS

come to the classroom and share tools/technology with my students.” That sentiment was echoed

in the final survey item which solicited general LMC improvement suggestions, referring to the

LMS, “spending time in the classrooms giving instruction on using resources.”

With items numbered 8 through 19, the survey changed focus to the second research

question: “What new instructional technologies should be included in the new LMC design?”

Twelve emerging Web 2.0 tools were listed alphabetically and respondents were asked to

indicate whether they would use each tool, if it were made available through the LMC, by

choosing Yes or No. The responses for these items were given the numeric values of 1 for each

Yes response and 0 for each No response, and were analyzed (Appendix 3) using a Rank and

Percentile analysis. The results of that analysis suggest that the ranking of these tools by

likelihood of use is: Google docs, Wikis, Cloud storage for student work, Podcasts, Flipped

classroom, Blogs, Skype, Student email accounts, Flickr, Screencasting, Twitter, and InstaGram.

The participants also prioritized a list of other emerging technologies in this order: tablets/iPads,

eBooks, student response systems, video editing software/equipment, and digital video cameras.

When asked about learning spaces that they would like to include in the LMC, participants


prioritized them in this order: whole-class presentation area, collaborative work areas, informal

reading areas, conference areas, and maker spaces. In the open response item regarding

instructional spaces, one participant wrote, “School News area for morning announcements,

student recognition, etc. Places for guest readers to come and share stories with classes without

interrupting whatever else is going on in the library.”

Conclusion

Today’s library/media centers’ resemblance to traditional school libraries is limited

primarily to their print collections. There are even some cutting-edge LMCs that are going totally

wireless, with little, if any, print collections. LMCs are shifting away from being a warehouse of

limited reading resources to being a gateway to unlimited learning resources in a variety of

formats. It is not only the resources in LMCs that are changing, but the instructional and learning

climate is transforming as well. As the media center at Wesley Lakes Elementary School

anticipates a ground-up renovation, now is the time to inform plans to bring the LMC into this

transformative process. While endorsing the current LMC services, the staff expressed a desire to

see those services diversified, including new learning technologies, new roles for the LMC staff,

and customization of the learning spaces in the LMC.

Characteristics and descriptors of the new media center should include: increased

collaboration between the LMC staff and classroom teachers, increased offerings of standards-

based lessons carried out in the LMC and in individual classrooms; inclusion of emerging Web

2.0 tools like Google docs, wikis, cloud storage for student work, podcasts, and flipped

classroom; modified roles for the LMS that emphasize implementation of digital instructional

resources in the LMC as well as coaching teachers in similar implementations in their


classrooms; and a flexible arrangement of learning spaces in the LMC to accommodate a variety

of instructional activities for individual students, small groups, and whole-class learning.


References

Abarbanel, E., Davis, S., Hand, D., & Wittmer, M. (2013). The new school library. Independent

School, 72(4), 68-74. Retrieved from

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=87618788&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Asselin, M., & Doiron, R. (2008). Towards a transformative pedagogy for school libraries

2.0. School Libraries Worldwide, 14(2), 1-18. Retrieved from


direct=true&db=lxh&AN=34035457&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Baumbach, D. J. (2009). Web 2.0 and you. Knowledge Quest, 37(4), 12-19. Retrieved from


direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ869024&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Beard, J., & Dale, P. (2008). Redesigning services for the Net-Gen and beyond: A holistic

review of pedagogy, resource, and learning space. New Review Of Academic

Librarianship, 14(1/2), 99-114. doi:10.1080/13614530802518941. Retrieved from



Collins (2013). English Dictionary. Retrieved from

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/school-library.

Corbett, T. (2011). The changing role of the school library's physical space. School Library

Monthly, 27(7), 5-7. Retrieved from




Creswell, J. W. (2012) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Eden, B. (2007). Library 2.0. Library Technology Reports, 43(6), 40-46. Retrieved from


direct=true&db=tfh&AN=27425403&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Gavigan, K. (2012). Socially connected school library. Knowledge Quest, 41(1), 68-69.

Retrieved from



Johnston, M. P. (2012). Connecting teacher librarians for technology integration

leadership. School Libraries Worldwide, 18(1), 18-33. Retrieved from



Johnston, M. P. (2012). School librarians as technology integration leaders: Enablers and barriers

to leadership enactment. School Library Research, 15, 1-33. Retrieved from



Kenney, B. (2011). SLJ's 2011 technology survey: Things are changing. fast. School Library

Journal, 57(5), 28-33. Retrieved from



Koechlin, C., Zwaan, S., & Loertscher, D. V. (2008). The time is now: Transform your school

library into a learning commons. Teacher Librarian, 36(1), 8-14. Retrieved from




Lance, K. C., & Hofschire, L. (2011). Something to shout about: New research shows that more

librarians means higher reading scores. School Library Journal. Retrieved from

http://www.slj.com/2011/09/industry-news/something-to-shout-about-new-research-

shows-that-more-librarians-means-higher-reading-scores/#_.

Lynch, M. J., (1995). School library media centers: Current and future statistics. School Library

Media Quarterly, 23(4). Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/

slmrb/editorschoiceb/infopower/slctlynchhtml.

Martin, A. M., Westmoreland, D. D., & Branyon, A. (2011). New design considerations that

transform the library into an indispensible learning environment. Teacher Librarian,

38(5), 15-20. Retrieved from



Naslund, J., & Giustini, D. (2008). Towards school library 2.0: An introduction to social

software tools for teacher librarians. School Libraries Worldwide, 14(2), 55-67. Retrieved

from http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?


Perez, L. (2010). The role of school librarians in promoting the use of educational

technologies. Teacher Librarian, 38(1), 72-73. Retrieved from



Purcell, M. (2010). All librarians do is check out books, right? A look at the roles of a


school library media specialist. Library Media Connection, 29(3), 30-33. Retrieved from



Richardson, W. (2010). Blogs, wikis, podcasts and other powerful web tools for classrooms.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H., (2013). Integrating educational technology into teaching.

Boston, MA: Pearson.

Sullivan, M. (2011). Divine design: How to create the 21st-century school library of your

dreams. School Library Journal, 57(4), 26-32. Retrieved from



Vance, L. (2012). Do students want web 2.0? An investigation into student instructional

preferences. Journal Of Educational Computing Research, 47(4), 481-493. Retrieved

from http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=cph&AN=85006383&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Vardeman, L., Davis, C., & Manning, N. (2012). Libraries without borders: Shaping learning

through interactive media centers. Educational Facility Planner, 46(2-3), 50-52.

Retrieved from




Appendices

Appendix 1

Data collection instrument. Administered online.

For the purposes of this questionnaire, the following abbreviations are occasionally used:

LMS - Library Media Specialist, LMC - Library Media Center.

Items 1 – 6 are Likert Scale style questions, each with these same five response categories:

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

1. Media Center Accessibility

My students have frequent and adequate opportunities to come to the library media center

to browse and check out books for recreation, assigned reading and/or research.

2. Media Center Scheduling

It is easy to schedule use of the library media center for whole class activities.

3. Learning Climate

The learning climate in the library media center is orderly and purposeful.

4. Social Climate

The library media center staff creates a welcoming and comfortable climate in the library

media center.

5. Sufficient Resources


The library media center provides sufficient resources to support my curriculum and

academic standards.

6. Instructional Collaboration

I have used the library media center and library media specialist this year to co-plan or

co-teach a project and/or a lesson.

7. Lesson Topics/Standards

I would like to see lessons on the following topics/subjects/standards being offered in the

media center. (Please mention grade level.)

Web 2.0 Tools #8 - #19

For the following so-called Web 2.0 tools, indicate by checking Yes or No whether you

would use the tool if it were made available through the media center.

8. Blogs

9. Cloud storage for student artifacts

10. Flickr

11. Flipped classroom

12. Google docs

13. Individual student email accounts

14. InstaGram

15. Podcasts

16. Screencasting

17. Skype

18. Twitter

19. Wikis


20. Instructional Roles

As in many other areas of education, the role of the school library media specialist is

changing rapidly. In your opinion, how would you prioritize the following instructional

roles for your LMS, with 1 being the highest priority? (1-5)

Literacy skills instructor for print mediums

Literacy skills instructor for digital mediums

Instructional collaborator with classroom teachers

Information specialist

Professional development deliverer

21. Technology Roles

Along with instructional roles, the technology related roles are changing for media

specialists. How would you prioritize the listed instructional technology roles for your

LMS, with 1 being the highest priority? (1-5)

Instructional technology integration leader (introducing new tools)

Collection development manager


Technology support specialist (intervening with existing tools)

School webmaster

Resource circulation manager

22. Suggested Roles

What other roles - beyond those listed in the previous two questions - would you like to

see being assumed by your LMS?

23. Emerging Technologies

The following is a list of "emerging" technologies that are beginning to be offered in

some school media centers. If we were going to add several, but not all of these services,

prioritize the order of importance that you would place on the listed services, with 1

being the highest priority. (1-5)

eBooks

30 tablets/iPads

Video editing software/equipment


Digital video cameras

Student response systems

24. Learning Spaces

The following list includes "emerging" learning spaces that are beginning to be offered in

some school media centers. If we were going to have several of the listed spaces, but not

all of them, prioritize the order of importance that you would place on the areas, with 1

being the highest priority.

Maker Spaces

Conference Areas

Collaborative Work Areas

Informal Reading Areas

Whole-class Presentation Area

25. Emerging Technologies and Learning Spaces

What other services, technologies, or learning spaces - beyond those mentioned in the

previous 2 questions - would you like to see introduced in the media center?

26. Improvement

Overall, the library media center could be improved by:


Appendix 2

Sample analysis of Likert-Scale Items

1. My students have frequent and adequate opportunities to come to the library media center to browse and check out books for recreation, assigned reading and/or research.

Points per

response

Number of

responses

Quality Points

Strongly agree 5 18 90Somewhat agree 4 13 52Neutral 3 5 15Somewhat disagree 2 1 2Strongly disagree 1 0 0

37 159 4.3 average

2. It is easy to schedule use of the library media center for whole class activities.

Points per

response

Number of

responses

Quality Points

Strongly agree 5 17 85Somewhat agree 4 10 40Neutral 3 8 24Somewhat disagree 2 0 0Strongly disagree 1 2 2

37 151 4.1 average


Appendix 3

These survey items refer to the study’s research question, “What new instructional technologies

should be included in the new LMC design?” and attempts to establish priorities for inclusion of

new technologies in the media center. They appear in the survey as: For the following so-called

Web 2.0 tools, indicate by checking Yes or No, whether you would use the tool if it were made

available through the media center. Blogs, InstaGram, Cloud storage for student work, Podcasts,

Flickr, Screencasting, Flipped classroom, Skype, Google docs, Twitter, Student email, Wikis.

For these items, a Rank and Percentile analysis was used.

Yes No 1. Blogs 21 16 2. Cloud storage for student work 26 11 3. Flickr 14 23 4. Flipped classroom 23 14 5. Google docs 28 9 6. Student email accounts 16 21 7. InstaGram 8 29 8. Podcasts 26 11 9. Screencasting 11 2610. Skype 18 1911. Twitter 10 2712. Wikis 27 10

Rank and Percentile

Point Column1 Rank Percent Point Column1 Rank Percent

5 28 1100.00

% 10 18 7 45.40%12 27 2 90.90% 6 16 8 36.30%2 26 3 72.70% 3 14 9 27.20%8 26 3 72.70% 9 11 10 18.10%4 23 5 63.60% 11 10 11 9.00%1 21 6 54.50% 7 8 12 0.00%


Appendix 4

Sample analysis of numeric matrix rating scale items.

20. As in many other areas of education, the role of the school library media specialist is changing rapidly. In your opinion, how would you prioritize the following instructional roles for your LMS, with 1 being the highest priority?

Priority 1

5 pts

Priority 2

4 pts

Priority 3

3 pts

Priority 4

2 pts

Priority 5

1 pt

Responses per Role1. Literacy skills instructor for print mediums 12 8 8 5 3 362. Literacy skills instructor for digital mediums 14 7 10 3 2 363. Instructional collaborator with classroom teachers 11 9 6 8 2 364. Information specialist 13 9 7 3 4 365. Professional development deliverer 8 2 6 8 12 36

Quality Points1. Literacy skills instructor for print mediums 60 32 24 10 3 129 3.6

2. Literacy skills instructor for digital mediums 70 28 30 6 2 136 3.8

3. Instructional collaborator with classroom teachers 55 36 18 16 2 127 3.5

4. Information specialist 65 36 21 6 4 132 3.75. Professional development deliverer 40 8 18 16 12 94 2.6

Rank and PercentilePoint Column1 Rank Percent

2. Literacy skills instructor for digital mediums 2 3.8 1 100.00%4. Information specialist 4 3.7 2 75.00%1. Literacy skills instructor for print mediums 1 3.6 3 50.00%3. Instructional collaborator with classroom teachers 3 3.5 4 25.00%5. Professional development deliverer 5 2.6 5 0.00%

15plus1.weebly.com15plus1.weebly.com/.../2/0/1/4/20147083/coleman_final… · web viewstaff roles...

Documents