USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Perceptions of Florida school library media specialists relative to the saliency of collaboration, leadership, and techn...

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Perceptions of Florida school library media specialists relative to the saliency of collaboration, leadership, and technology tasks outlined in Information Power changes since 1996
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Pace, Terrell M
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
School library media specialist
School library media programs
National standards
Scheduling model
Information power: building partnerships for learning
Perceptions
Job tasks
Administrative support
Dissertations, Academic -- Instructional Technology -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: In 1988 Information Power: Guidelines for School Library Media Programs (IP1) was published. Ten years later an updated version, Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning (IP2) was released. The purpose of this study was to determine if school library media specialists' perceptions had changed since 1996 and if respondents' familiarity with IP2 was a factor in the development of those perceptions. Further, 37 items that were clustered based on the three primary threads of collaboration, leadership and technology developed in IP2 were used to assess changes in perceptions. An electronic survey was developed and disseminated to the population of school library media specialists in Florida. A total of 454 completed surveys were received; representing a 17% return rate. The results of the current survey were then compared to a 1996 job task analysis study. Analysis of the results showed that 60% of the respondents had never attended an in-service on IP2.^ Statistically significant changes in perceptions about the importance of those 37 job tasks resurveyed were also identified. Changes were identified in 10 of the 14 collaboration items, 12 of the 13 leadership items and 9 of the 10 technology items. Changes in perception were also found for tasks that the respondents considered not a part of job. For the 37 job tasks, there were 11 statistically significant positive changes and two statistically significant negative changes. The environmental variable that correlated with the largest number of the 37 job tasks related to the principal making encouraging comments to classroom teachers about using the resources of the school library media center in the planning of their curriculum units. This variable correlated significantly with 24 of the 37 job tasks. The study revealed a need for additional research in the leadership roles and traits of the school library media specialist.^ Further, additional research related to the effect of administrative support could inform the profession in its efforts to solidify the school library media program as an integral part of the instructional program.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Terrell M. Pace.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 260 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001927504
oclc - 192017494
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0001930
usfldc handle - e14.1930
System ID:
SFS0026248:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Perceptions of Florida School Library Media Specialists Relative to the Saliency of Collabora tion, Leadership, and Technology Tasks Outlined in Information Power : Changes since 1996 by Terrell M. Pace A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Secondary Education College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: Ann E. Barron, Ed.D. Frank Breit, Ph.D. James Carey, Ph.D. Jeffrey Kromrey, Ph.D. Date of Approval: March 8, 2007 Keywords: school library medi a specialist, school library media programs, national standards, scheduling model, information power: building partnerships for learning, perceptions, job tasks, administrative support Copyright 2007, Terrell M. Pace

PAGE 2

DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to the tw o people who have inspired me most to earn this degree. First, my wife of 37 years, Joy who has encouraged and stood by me through seven years of work on this degr ee. Second, my father, George Pace who received his high school diploma at the age of 87 and was the first person to tell me that I could accomplish this goal if I wanted it bad enough.

PAGE 3

0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge a number of people who have continued to encourage me in the completion of this jour ney. Of course, the members of my doctoral committee Dr. Ann Barron, Dr. Frank Breit, Dr. Jeffrey Kromrey and Dr. James Carey who have taught me the things that I needed to know in or der to complete this degree. Special thanks go to Dr. Ann Barron, my committee Chair, wh o kept telling me You can do this and Dr. Jeffrey Kromrey for being so patient with me as a slow learner of statistics. Most especially I would like to thank Dr. Jim Carey, my mentor, colleague and friend for the past 10 years for his encour agement and support. His dedication to the profession of school librarianship helped me to become a better professional; furthermore, as a colleague he has encourag ed and supported me, along with assisting me in the development of my study. Also I would like to thank Dr. Vicki Gr egory, Director of the School of Library and Information Science and my boss. She has been an inspiration and mentor as well as a cheerleader for me as I traveled this road. Two others have been instrumental in assi sting me with the statistical analysis and development of the Results ch apter. Sherman Chow, who aske d me lots of questions and helped me formulate the t test analyses and Jesse Co raggio from the College of Educations CORE group, who reviewed much of my material and made suggestions as to how to best analyze and represent the data. To all of these people I owe an enduring debt of gratitude.

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tables v List of Figures ix Abstract x Chapter OneIntroduction 1 Background 2 Focus 4 Problem 5 Purpose 6 Baseline for the Study 7 Research Questions 8 Definition of Terms 10 Chapter One Summary 11 Chapter Two Related Literature 12 Characteristics of a Strong School Library Media Program 12 Role of the School Library Media Specialist 13 Collaboration 15 Evolution of the Standards and the Roles 15 Summary of Collaboration 22 Leadership 22 Leadership Types 22 Leadership Styles 23 Factors that Impact Leadership 24 Leadership and the School Library Media Specialist 24 Summary of Leadership 30 Technology 30 The Role of Technology in the School Library Media Program 31 Technology and Student Achievement 34 Technology Competencies as They Relate to Sc hool Library Media Specialists 38 The Status of Technology as Related to School Media Programs in Florida 39 Summary of Technology 43 Environmental Factors 44 Scheduling Model 44 Administrative Support 48 Summary of Environmental Factors 50

PAGE 5

ii Chapter Two Summary 50 Chapter Three Methods 52 Background 52 Limitations of the Study 53 Assumptions of the Study 54 Analysis of Items to be Resurveyed 54 Survey Part One-Demographic and Environmental Items 55 Survey Part Two-Resurvey Job Task Analysis Items 56 The Survey Tool 57 Population 58 Sample 61 Data Collection 62 Data Analysis-Part One 66 Demographic Information 67 Data Analysis-Part Two 69 Activity Ratings 70 Comparison to Previous Study 70 Psychometric Issues of the Study 72 Chapter Three Summary 74 Chapter Four Results 75 Data Collection and Manipulation 77 Sample 77 Demographics 77 Analysis of the 37 Resurveyed Job Task Analysis Items 86 Collaboration 88 Leadership 92 Technology 96 Not a Part of Job 100 Analysis of Demographic and Environmental Items 109 School Library Media Specialists Familiarity with IP2Correlations with 37 Resurveyed Job Task Analysis Items 109 Environmental Factors that may Co rrelate with Job Task Analysis Responses 116 Scheduling Model 117 Administrative Support 122 District Level School Li brary Media Supervisor 129 Level of Technology Integration 133 School Library Media Specialists Demographic Variables that may Correlate with Job Task Analysis Responses 147 Gender 147 Age 150 Ethnicity 155 Highest Degree Earned 156 Years as a Teacher 161

PAGE 6

iii Years as a School Library Media Specialist 162 Time in Current Position 163 Method of Earning Certification 164 School Demographic Variables that may Correlate with Job Task Analysis Items 165 Level of School 165 Number of Students in School 174 Geographic Location of School 175 Summary of Chapter Four 176 Chapter Five Conclusions 178 Research Questions 178 Major Findings 180 Demographics 180 Age 180 Years in Current Position 180 Analysis of the 37 Resurveyed Job Task Analysis Items 181 Collaboration 182 Leadership 184 Technology 186 Not a Part of Job 190 Analysis of Demographic and Environmental Items 195 School Library Media Specialists Familiarity with IP2Correlations with the 37 J ob Task Analysis Items 195 Environmental Factors that may Correlate with Job Task Analysis Items 196 Scheduling Model 197 Administrative Support 198 District Level School Library Media Supervisor 202 Level of Technology Integration 203 School Library Media Specialists Demographics that may Correlate to Job Task Analysis Responses 204 Gender 205 Age 205 Ethnicity 206 Highest Degree Earned 206 Years as a Teacher 206 Years as a School Library Media Specialist 207 Time in Current Position 207 Method of Earning Certification 208 School Demographic Variable s that may Correlate to Perceptions About the 37 Job Task Analysis Items 209 Level of School 209 Number of Students in School 211 Geographic Location of School 212 Summary of Analysis 213

PAGE 7

iv Significance of this Study 213 Future Research 215 Collaboration 215 Leadership 216 Instructional Leader 217 Technology 217 School-wide Networks and Information Access 217 Instruction in the Use of Technology 218 Adaptive Technology 219 The Role of the School Library Media Specialist in Technology Integration 219 Environmental Factors 220 Administrative Support 220 Schedule Model 221 School Library Media Program Supervisor at the District Level 221 Method of Earning Certification 222 Level of School 222 Classroom Teachers Perceptions of the School Library Media Specialists Role and the Role of the School Library Media Program in Their School 223 Teacher Union Contracts and their Affect on the Implementation of School Library Media Programs 223 Marketing and Implementation of National Standards 224 Other Research 225 Summary of Chapter Five 225 References 226 Appendices 235 Appendix I. Directions for Subject Matter Experts for Selection of Resurvey Items 236 Appendix II. Results from Subject Matter Experts Task Selection 238 Appendix III. Introduction to Survey 244 Appendix IV. Original PDRI Results on 37 Items Chosen for Part 2 Resurvey 245 Appendix V. 2006 Results on 37 Items Chosen for Part 2 Resurvey 249 Appendix VI. Comparison of Par ticipation by School District 253 Appendix VII. Skewness and Kurtosis; Analysis of 37 Resurveyed Job Tasks 2006 Sample 255 Appendix VIII. Levenes Equality of Variance for 37 Job Tasks 260 About the Author End Page

PAGE 8

v List of Tables Table 1. SUNLINK Usage 42 Table 2. Total School Library Media Specialis ts in Florida by Level and Status 58 Table 3. Florida School Libr ary Media Specialists by Gender and Age by Level 59 Table 4. Florida School Library Media Specialists by Ethnicity, Gender and Level 60 Table 5. Number of Respondents to PDRI 1996 Study by School District 64 Table 6. Comparison by Gender-1996 and 2006 Samples to Population 78 Table 7. Population to Sample Comparison by Age 79 Table 8. Number of Years as a Teacher 2006 Sample 80 Table 9. Number of Years in Current Position 2006 Sample 80 Table 10. Comparison by Ethnicity 81 Table 11. Comparison of Highest Degree Earned 82 Table 12. Number of Years as a Sc hool Library Media Specialist 2006 Sample 83 Table 13. Method of Certification 2006 sample 83 Table 14. Comparison by Geographi c Location Between 1996 and 2006 Samples 84 Table 15. Comparison by Number of Students in School 85 Table 16. Comparison by Level of School 85

PAGE 9

vi Table 17. Cronbachs Alpha Values by Part One Item Type and Resurveyed Items 88 Table 18. Means Comparisons and t Scores with Effect Size for Collaboration Items 90 Table 19. Means Comparison and t Scores with Effect Size for Leadership Items 94 Table 20. Means Comparisons and t Scores with Effect Size for Technology Items 98 Table 21. Chi-square Analysis for Not a Part of Job Items 102 Table 22. Familiarity with Information Power 2006 Sample 110 Table 23. Attended In-service on Information Power 2006 Sample 111 Table 24. Attempted to Implement IP1 and IP2 111 Table 25. Spearman Correlation Matrix-Familiarity with IP2 to the 37 Job Tasks 113 Table 26. Comparison of Familiarity with IP2 and Geographic Location of School 116 Table 27. Spearman Correlation Matrix-S cheduling Model to the 37 Job Task Analysis Items 118 Table 28. Mean Saliency of Correlated Job Tasks with Scheduling Model 121 Table 29. Spearman Correlation Matrix -Principal Encourages LMC Use to the 37Job Tasks 123 Table 30. Spearman Correlational Matrix -Principal Supportive to the 37 Job Tasks 126

PAGE 10

vii Table 31. School Library Media Supervisor in District 129 Table 32. Spearman Correlation Matr ix-District-level Supervisor to the 37 Job Tasks 130 Table 33. Partial Technology Item Comp arison with Selected Demographic and Environmental Factors 133 Table 34. Comparison for School-wide Computer Network 1996 to 2006 134 Table 35. Spearman Correlation Matrix-S chool-wide Computer Network to the 37 Job Tasks 134 Table 36. Spearman Correlation Matrix-M edia Center Integrated into School-wide Network with the 37 Job Tasks 138 Table 37. Frequency of Computer Trai ning Offered by the School Library Media Specialist 141 Table 38. Spearman Correlation Matrix -SLMS as Primary Tech Support Person to 37 Job Tasks 141 Table 39. Spearman Correlation Matrix-F ulltime Technology Person to the 37 Job Tasks 144 Table 40. Pearson Correlation Matrix -Gender to the 37 Job Tasks 148 Table 41. Pearson Correlation Matrix-Age to 37 Job Tasks 151 Table 42. Measure of Association between Ethnicity and the 37 Job Tasks 153 Table 43. Spearman Correlation Matrix-SLMS Demographics to the 37 Tasks 157 Table 44. Mean Saliency Comparison for Highest Degree Earned with Item 69 161 Table 45. Comparison for Number of Years as a Teacher to Mean Saliency of Item 70 162

PAGE 11

viii Table 46. Mean Saliency by Time in Current Position for Items 56 and 71 163 Table 47. Mean Saliency for Method of Certification of Items 44, 69 and 70 164 Table 48. Spearman Correlation Matrix-School Demographics to the 37 Job Tasks 168 Table 49. Mean Saliency of Items 42, 44, 45, 53, 55, 62 and 66 by Level of School 173 Table 50. Mean Saliency of Items 43 and 44 by Number of Students in School 174 Table 51. Mean Saliency of Items 58 and 68 with Geographic Location of School 175

PAGE 12

ix List of Figures Figure 1. Saliency Comparison for Collaboration Items 89 Figure 2. Saliency Comparison for Leadership Items 93 Figure 3. Saliency Comparison for Technology Items 97 Figure 4. Not a Part of Job Comparison 101

PAGE 13

x Perceptions of Florida School Library Media Specialists Relative to the Saliency of Collabora tion, Leadership, and Technology Tasks Outlined in Information Power : Changes since 1996 Terrell M. Pace Abstract In 1988 Information Power: Guidelines fo r School Library Media Programs ( IP1) was published. Ten years later an updated version, Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning (IP2) was released. The purpose of this study was to determine if school library media specialists pe rceptions had changed since 1996 and if respondents familiarity with IP2 was a factor in the deve lopment of those perceptions Further, 37 items that were clustered based on the three primary threads of collaboration, leadership and technology developed in IP2 were used to assess changes in perceptions. An electronic survey was developed and disseminated to the population of school library media specialists in Florida. A tota l of 454 completed surveys were received; representing a 17% return rate. The results of the current survey were then compared to a 1996 job task analysis study. Analysis of the results showed that 60 % of the respondents had never attended an in-service on IP2 Statistically significant changes in perceptions about the importance of those 37 job tasks resurveyed were also iden tified. Changes were identified in 10 of the 14 collaboration items, 12 of the 13 leadership items and 9 of the 10 technology items.

PAGE 14

xi Changes in perception were also found fo r tasks that the re spondents considered not a part of job For the 37 job tasks, there were 11 statistically significant positive changes and two statistically significant negative changes. The environmental variable that correlated with the largest number of the 37 job tasks related to the principal making encouraging comments to classroom teachers about using the resources of the school library media center in the planning of their curriculum units. This variable correlated signifi cantly with 24 of the 37 job tasks. The study revealed a need for additional res earch in the leadersh ip roles and traits of the school library media specialist. Further, additional research rela ted to the effect of administrative support could inform the profe ssion in its efforts to solidify the school library media program as an integral part of the instructional program.

PAGE 15

1 Chapter One Introduction How does the library media speciali st effectively promote new and existing information and instructi onal resources and technologies and ensure that they are used effectiv ely by teachers to prepare students to flourish in a dramatically changi ng world? (AASL & AECT 1988, p. 5). In 1988, the American Association of School Librarians (AASL), in its continuing collaboration with the Association for Educational Communica tions and Technology (AECT), produced, and the American Library Association (ALA) published, the first edition of Information Power: Guidelines for Sc hool Library Media Programs (IP1) The publication of this new document brought about further refinement and broadening of national standards for school library media programs in the United States. It also provided the vision and guidance necessary for the school library media program to significantly expand the access to and use of information and ideas by students, teachers, and parents (AASL & AECT, 1988, vii). This publication set forth three primary areas of focus for school media specialists. They were Information Specialist, Teacher, and Instructional Consultant. In 1998, these same groups published a sequel publication, Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning (IP2) The focus in this second publication was repurposed somewhat to include the three pr imary areas of collabo ration, leadership and

PAGE 16

2 technology as strands of emphasis within whic h the goals could be aligned. These three strands are the central foci of this study. Background IP1 set forth, and IP2 retained the same set of Mission and Goals tenets. IP2 did however refine some of the language to be more reflective of the times. New language reflecting the expansion of technology and in formation literacy skills was added. Those Mission and Goals tenets include: 1. To provide intellectual access to information in IP2 there was a shift away from the word systematic and more of an emphasis on the development of the information literacy needed to become lifelong learners. The selecting, retrieving, analyzing, evaluating, synthesizing, and crea ting of information for all age levels and in all curriculum content areas re mained the same in both documents. 2. To provide physical access to information In IP2 the emphasis became one of reaching beyond the physical walls of th e media center and into the broader learning community. 3. To provide learning experiences that en courage users to become discriminating consumers and skilled crea tors of information IP2 exchanged the word users for the phrase students and others. By so doing the writers were attempting to expand the vision of users to those members of the learning community beyond the physical school facility. 4. To provide leadership, instruction, and consulting assistance in the use of instructional and information technology and the use of sound instructional design principles (AASL & AECT 1988) In IP2 the interjection of the term

PAGE 17

3 collaboration in place of providing instruction and consulting assistance signaled the movement toward a more t horough integration of the media program as an integral component of th e schools instructional program. 5. To provide resources and activities t hat contribute to lifelong learning Although this tenet is the same in both editions, the lifelong learning concept had become a better understood and a more widely accepted concept by 1998 and, along with the conceptual changes imbedded in th e 1998 edition, would become more of a reality. 6. To provide a facility [a program] that f unctions as the inform ation center of the school IP2 extends this focus beyond the f acility by interchanging the word program for facility, thus encouragi ng the idea that the media program be extended beyond the walls of the media cente r and even those of the school itself. 7. To provide resources and learning activ ities that represent a diversity of experiences, opinions and social and cultural perspectives. Again, though continued in its original state, this tenet takes on new meaning with the ever increasing understanding of th e true meaning of diversity. Although the primary tenets remained the same between IP1 and IP2 it is clear by the several modifications that a change in focus was seen for school library media programs. The focus on leadership was conti nued and strengthened while the new focus on collaboration as a means of cl oser integration of the media program as an integral part of the schools instruct ional program added another dimens ion to the previous standards. The importance of technology was reinforced and extended as the discussion of a media program beyond the walls of the media center was developed.

PAGE 18

4 The importance of the enhanced role of the school library media specialist as an integral member of the instructional team is apparent by the repeated references, such as learning needs take precedence over cl ass schedules, school hours, student categorizations and other logistical concerns (AASL & AECT, 1998, p. 89). Focus Standards for school library media programs set forth in IP2 have been shown to correlate significantly with student achievem ent, as identified in numerous statewide studies. These areas of correlation have been identified in 10 studies over the past 10 years (Colorado, 1993; Colorado, 2000; Alaska, 2000; Pennsylvania, 2000; Massachusetts, 2000; Texas, 2001; Ore gon, 2001; Iowa, 2002; New Mexico, 2002 and Florida, 2003.). In the above mentioned studies, thr ee major sets of findings emerged as significant correlations with student achieveme nt. These three sets of findings are: 1. the level of development of the scho ol library number of volumes, subscriptions, etc.; 2. the extent to which school librarians engage in leadership and collaboration activities that foster information literacy; 3. the extent to which instructional technology is utilized to exte nd the reach of the library program beyond the walls of the school library media center (Lance, et al. 2002a). The most recent study published on this subject is Making the Grade: The Status of School Library Media Cent ers in the Sunshine State and How They Contribute to Student Achievement done by Dr. Donna Baumbach (Baumbach, 2003). This study,

PAGE 19

5 commonly referred to as The Florida Study is the most comprehensive of all of the studies done thus far. There were 1,719 res pondents to the survey used for this study. A total of 396 items were surveyed. One of the primary results of this study was the conclusion that a well developed collection in a well staffed media center, with at least one university trained media specialist, may improve student achievement by as much as 23%, as determined by comparing the test scores of A high schools that showed strength in all of the above mentioned areas to F high schools, which were not as well developed (Baumbach, 2003). Although each of the studies previously mentioned attributes significant gains in student achievement to the presence of a st rong school library medi a program, none have focused on determining whether or not me dia programs are being developed around the national standards, as defined by IP2 Therefore, this study was to determine if these national standards, as being implemented in Fl orida, have been an underlying force in the development of the states school media progr ams, and as such have had a significant impact on student achievement in the state. Problem Currently there is a lack of knowledge and credible eviden ce as to the status of the implementation of national standards for sc hool library media programs in Florida. Although the AASL spent considerable resource s to develop a strategic marketing plan, coupled with extensive staff development e fforts (Haycock and Cavill, 1999), most of those strategies were not util ized in Florida, at least at the state level (Ulm, 2004). Informal discussions with school media progr am supervisors from around the state have

PAGE 20

6 shown that local efforts, in some cases, were considerable. These efforts have not been consistently applied in all districts, however. Because certain standards for school library media programs, advocated in IP2, correlate positively with student achieveme nt, investigation needs to be done to determine school library medi a specialists level of awareness and implementation of those key standards. Further, there has been li ttle investigation into environmental factors that may foster or inhibit the development of school library media programs that mirror the national standards. Such investigation coul d lead to the establis hment or revision of professional development strate gies and programs to assist in the understanding of the correlation of environmental factors to the su ccess of the school library media program. Subsequently, programs to rectify environmenta l and other factors th at may be inhibiting the process could be developed. Additionally, if school library media specialists do not view the goals in Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning as important, then professional organizations need to convi nce school library media specialists as to why the goals espoused are important so that their perceptions may become aligned with those goals over time. Purpose The purpose of this study was to determ ine if school library media specialists perceptions, and subsequently practices, in Florida have changed since 1996. This study determined the level of awareness of national standards by sc hool library media specialists and the degree to which awarene ss may relate to the implementation of these standards. As described in the section titled Baseline for the Study, specifically identified items from a 1996 study, for which Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc. (PDRI)

PAGE 21

7 was contracted by the Florida Department of Education, were used. A secondary purpose of this study is to identify environmental f actors that have influe nced the implementation, or lack thereof, of national standards. This study addressed findings 2 (The extent to which school library media specialists engage in leadership and collabo rative activities that foster information literacy) and 3 (The extent to which instructional technology is u tilized to extend the reach of the school library media program be yond the walls of the school library media center) from the previously mentioned statewide studies, since they specifically relate to the three primary areas of collaboration, l eadership and technology discussed in the national standards (L ance, et al. 2002a). Additionally, four environmental factor s were assessed as to their potential relationship to the implementation of the IP2 standards, including (1) the scheduling model used, (2) level of administrative suppor t, (3) level of tec hnology implementation in the school and (4) whether or not the school district has an administrative position(s) specifically responsible for the supervision of the districts school library media program. Baseline for the Study The baseline for this study was a 1996 Florida Department of Education contracted job task analysis. This study was conducted by Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc. (PDRI) and involved a 250 job it em task analysis in which school library media specialists were asked to indicate the time spent and criticality of completion of each of the 250 tasks. From these two scores PDRI used a formula to arrive at what was termed a saliency score. The items to be re surveyed from this study were selected after the polling of a number of media supervisors and several National Bo ard Certified school

PAGE 22

8 library media specialists as to those items th at, in their professiona l opinion, reflected the implementation of the national standards. Fr om the list of 250 items, the subject matter experts were asked to select 50 that they thought most directly reflected the national standards. The data received from the SMEs as placed into an Excel spreadsheet and 37 common items were identified. Each item wa s categorized, based on input from the SMEs, as to whether it fell within the colla boration, leadership or technology strand of IP2 Research Questions 1. Have school library media specialists saliency ratings on items related to collaboration, leadership and technology changed since 1996? 2. Does the school library media specialists level of familiarity with Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning correlate with their practice as measured by a change in the saliency of selected items resurveyed from a 1996 job task analysis? 3. Do selected environmental factors in pub lic school settings correlate with school library media specialists ratings of job tasks in collaboration, leadership and technology? The specific factors of interest in this study were: a. Scheduling patterns flexible and fixed, b. Administrative support outward statements of encouragement for teachers to make use of the se rvices of the media program, c. Full time media program supervisor in the district district-level coordination of the school media programs throughout the district, including staff development, which c ould impact the familiarity with and

PAGE 23

9 perceptions of the importance of im plementing national standards in the school media programs and, d. Level of technology integration netw orked status of the school, which could reflect in the ability to acce ss resources offered in the media program; professional development in the use of technology, etc. 4. Do demographic variables, related to the school library media specialist, correlate with school library media specialists ra tings of job tasks in collaboration, leadership and technology? The specific factors of interest to this study were: a. Gender b. Age c. Ethnicity d. Highest degree earned e. Years in teaching f. Years as a school library media specialist g. Time in current position h. Method of earning certification 5. Do demographic variables, related to th e school, correlate with school library media specialists ratings of job tasks in collaborati on, leadership and technology? The specific factors of inte rest in this study are: a. Level of the school: elementary, middle, high, other b. Number of students c. Geographic location: rural, rural/ suburban, suburban, suburban/urban, urban

PAGE 24

10 d. School district in which the school library media specialist works Definition of Terms Collaboration working with a nother or others on a joint project; more specifically, working with a classroom teacher or team to develop a collaborative curriculum project, which usually would include information literacy instruction. Criticality: the rating of a task based on how important its co mpletion is to the effective accomplishment of the overall job. Fixed scheduling: classes are scheduled into the media center at the same time each week. This model of scheduling is most often used as an administrative way to give teachers a planning period. Teachers generally drop off their students at the media center and come back in some predetermined amount of time to pick them up. This model of scheduling most often does not include opportunities for small groups or individuals to use th e library media cen ter for practical application of skills or for cooperative pla nning of lessons that integrate skills into the curriculum (Buchanan 1991, p. 3). Flexible scheduling: teachers plan time with the media specialist at the time of need instead of at a specific time each wee k. Teachers accompany the students to the media center and, along with the media specialist, provide support for the development of information literacy sk ills integrated into a curriculum unit. Leadership: the level of involvement in sc hool based, district le vel and state level committees as well as participation in lo cal and state profe ssional organizations. Saliency: a composite variable deri ved from the combination of the time spent and criticality scores as an indicator of the overall importance of that task to the job

PAGE 25

11 School Library Media Specialist: the person responsible for the implementation and assessment of the school library medi a program at the building level. Technology: the use of various technologi es, but most predominantly the use of computers, as a delivery medium for inst ruction. As related to the school library media program, a delivery medium for elec tronic databases a nd other Internetbased resources from within the media center and throughout the school via Local Area Networks. Time Spent: the rating of a task based on the amount of time spent by the school library media specialist on that task when compar ed to all other tasks performed by that person. Chapter One Summary Identification of changes in perceptions within a prof ession as new standards and initiatives are developed is a valid and necessary step in th e development of a profession. This study endeavored to determine if changes had occurred in the perceptions of school library media specialists in Florida due to the directional changes made in the professional standards as cont ained in the publication of IP2 in 1998.

PAGE 26

12 Chapter Two Related Literature The purpose of this literature review was to identify (1) literature that establishes the characteristics of strong school library media programs, (2) identify those characteristics of school library media progr ams that research indicates may have a positive relationship to student achievement, and (3) establish the base of knowledge needed to be an effective school library me dia specialist. This review focuses on the three primary threads identified by IP2 of collaboration, leadership and technology (AASL & AECT 1998). Characteristics of a Strong School Library Media Program In its Vision section, IP2 states: Students must become skillful consumers and producers of information in a range of sources and formats to th rive personally and economically in the communications age. Library media programs must be dynamic, enthusiastic and student cen tered to help ensure that all students achieve this status (AASL & AECT, 1998, p. 1) As noted by Rodney, et al. (2002), a strong school library media program is one: That is adequately st affed, stocked and funded. Whose staff are actively i nvolved leaders in their sc hools teaching and learning enterprise.

PAGE 27

13 Whose staff has collegial, collaborative relationships with classroom teachers. That embraces networked information technology (Rodney 2002, p. ix). As mentioned previously, seve ral of these characteristics have been studied relative to their fulfillment within the state of Florida. Making the Grade: The Status of School Library Media Centers in the Sunshine St ate and How They Contribute to Student Achievement (Baumbach, 2003) was thorough in ga thering data about the staffed, stocked and funded criteria. Further, Ba umbach touched somewhat on the actively involved leaders in their schools teaching a nd learning enterprise, and somewhat on the level of technology available in the sc hool settings; however, the study did not aggressively address the areas of collaboration, leadership and technology as they specifically related to the role of the school media specialist, in the way that this study addressed these characteristics. In addition, environmental factors such as scheduling patterns, administrative support, fulltime school media program supervisor in the district and level of technology integration are discusse d in this chapter. There is additional discussion about the results of the Ba umbach study throughout this review. Role of the School Library Media Specialist Perhaps no other role in the educat ional process has undergone so much scrutiny and revision as has that of the role of the school library media specialist. As early as 1983 the concept of th e school library media specia lists role changing to one more of a leader and instru ctional team member had been envisioned. As noted by Cleaver and Taylor (1983), th is shift could/would not be one made quickly or without considerable consternation. Sin ce that time efforts have be en made at all educational levels to bring about such a change in the perceptions and practices of the school library

PAGE 28

14 media specialist. Yet there remains a feeling of incongruence between the stated national role expectations and those perceived by the school-based members of the profession (Seavers 2002). This can be seen most specific ally in the school libra ry media specialists perceptions of their roles as leaders both in the instructional program and the integration of technology. According to Craver (1986) there is at least a 10-year lag in the instructional role being espoused and what is being practiced. Most of the research following the 1988 publication of the first Information Power was focused on the instructional role of the school library media specialist. Both the 1993 Colorado Study and the 1998 follow up study in the same state, found that students in schools where the school library medi a specialist played an instructional role, either by identifying materials for teacher pla nned units, or collaboratively planning such units with the teachers, generally attained higher reading scores on standardized tests. The 1998 study also found that students earned higher reading scores in schools where the school library media specialist played a vital instructional ro le, including planning instruction with teachers, providing information literacy instructi on, providing in-service training for teachers, and evaluating student s work (Lance, et al., 1993 & 1998). Other recent statewide studies have offered addi tional validation on the importance of the school library media speciali sts instructional role. The underpinnings of IP2 are nine information literacy standards, which are grouped into thr ee major areas: Learning and teaching Information access Program administration

PAGE 29

15 The primary strands used to support these in formation literacy efforts are collaboration, leadership and technology (p. ix). Not only ar e these strands important in the in-school media program, they are even more important to the development of a media program that extends beyond the walls of the school out wards to the entire learning community. Development of true lifelong learners is the overriding consideration in IP2 The following sections review much of the available literature th at references the importance of each of the IP2 strands. Collaboration The concept of cooperative planning for curriculum by school library media specialists and teachers has been implic it in the history of our professional literature (Cleaver & Taylor, 1983). Many school library media speciali st seem to be having trouble understanding and implementing this strategy. In this section, an attempt is made to demonstrate, through the literature, support for the imperative that school library media specialists must engage in collaborative planning as well as collaborative teaching in order to estab lish themselves as vital members of the instructional team of their school and larger learning community. Evolution of the Standards and the Roles The 1969 Standards for School Media Programs suggested several ways for school library media specialists to implement the media program (ALA & NEA, 1969): 1. Serving as instructional resource consultants and materials specialists to teachers and students.

PAGE 30

16 2. Working with teachers in curriculum planning. 3. Working with teachers to design instructional experiences. 4. Serving on teaching teams. The 1988 standards ( IP1 ), (AASL & AECT, 1988) refined this concept into the instructional consultant role, and th en in 1998 through the publication of IP2 (AASL & AECT, 1998), it was further extended unde r the heading of collaboration, now encompassing all of the previous role compone nts and adding the se rving of members of the entire learning community with the exte nsion of the media center program beyond the walls of the school library media center and the school. The relationship between strong school library media programs and student achievement has been documented repeat edly (AASL & AECT, 1998, p. 88; Buchanan 1991; Lance & Loertscher 2002; Lance, et al 2000; Lance, Welborn & Hamilton-Pennel 1993; Lance, Rodney & Hamilton-Pennell 2001 ; Lance, Rodney & Hamilton-Pennell 2002; Lance, Rodney & Hamilton-Pennell 2000a, Baumbach 2003). Each of these studies looked at the school library media programs in an i ndividual state and related the characteristics of the school library media programs to st udent achievement. In every case positive student achievement appeared to be directly related to the development of the school library media program. Several of th ese studies posited that this relationship to student achievement was as a di rect result of the collaborati ve efforts between the school library media specialists and the other members of the instructional staff. Further, U.S.D.O.E.s publication What Works (cited in Buchanan, 1991) counsels that, students benefit academically when their teachers share ideas, cooperate in activities, and assist one anothe rs intellectual growth. Howeve r, in stark contrast to the

PAGE 31

17 proponents of collaboration, Crav er (1994) suggests that any future information literacy movement would probably still be executed by classroom teachers who would continue to attempt to develop information literate st udents by never using the school library (p. 121). Traditionally, school library media specialis ts have not been th eir facultys first choice for the fulfillment of information needs (Craver 1994, p. 125). If this is to change and if school library media specialists ar e to become integral members of the instructional team and key collaborators w ith their faculty, then they must become proactive in presenting their abilities and knowledge as information literacy specialists. The following is a synopsis of recent rese arch into the impact of collaboration between the school library media sp ecialist and classroom teachers: Alaska: During the 1997-98 school year, 211 school library media centers were surveyed. The study does not reveal how many individual school library media specialists responded to the survey, ju st the number of schools surveyed. The survey focused on areas such as staffing levels, hours of operation, staff activities, and usage of technology, policies, and c ooperation with public libraries. To this data was added information as to perf ormance on Version 5 of the California Achievement Tests of students in grades four, eight, and eleven. Each school reported the percentage of students scori ng below proficient, proficient and above proficient in reading, langua ge arts and mathematics. The findings showed that students test scores in these areas rose when library staff spent more time teaching information literacy skills to students and planning instructional units with teachers. This study was the first to investigate specific staff activities and

PAGE 32

18 online access to information [extension of media services beyond the walls of the media center] (Lance, Hamilton-Pennell & Rodney, 2000). A correlation of time spent Planning with Teac hers showed a strong relationship between the amount of time spent and the subsequent Number of Visits to the media center by the teachers (elementary r =.30, p <.001; secondary r =.36, p <.001). Pennsylvania: In a survey of 500 school lib raries, it was determined that factors such as level of library staffing were dire ctly related to students Reading scores on the PSSA (Pennsylvania System of School Assessment). Schools with higher staffing levels also reported higher readi ng test scores. The level of information technology availability and the integration of informa tion literacy instruction through the school library media program we re also found to be indicators of reading success. Higher test scores we re directly correla ted to schools where school library media specialists spent more time teaching cooperatively with classroom teachers and integrating informa tion literacy skills into the schools approach to standards and curriculum (Lance, Rodney & Hamilton-Pennel, 2000a). Colorado: In a study of 124 elementary and 76 middle school media programs, CSAP (Colorado Student Assessment Program ) reading scores (at the fourth and seventh grade level) tend to be higher wh en school library media specialists plan cooperatively with teachers, identify materi als for teachers, and teach information literacy skills to students (Lance, Rodney, & Hamilton-Pennell, 2000b).

PAGE 33

19 Test scores also are high er in both elementary a nd middle schools when the library media specialists and the teachers work together [collaborating]. And, school library media specialists serving as trainers for other teachers showed some correlation to higher CSAP reading scores. Oregon: This study included library me dia center staff from 218 (32%) schools serving fifth grade, 148 (36%) schools serving eighth grade, and 147 (63%) schools serving tenth grade. Each grad e level was maintained as a separate sample. Students scored higher in Read ing when their school library media specialist worked with classroom teache rs to identify mate rials to support and enrich instructional units, taught essential information literacy skills to students, provided in-service training opportunities to classroom teachers and classrooms were linked by a computer network (L ance, Rodney, & Hamilton-Pennell, 2001) Even with this amount of research to validate the efficacy of collaboration, many school library media specialists have not been able to develo p the bridge to their faculty members that would facilitate a more co mprehensive implementation of effective collaboration. The level of commitment requ ired to achieve the maximum result from collaborative efforts must exceed a basic level of compliance. Participants in the collaborative process must expect to work th rough different points of view, to capitalize on various strengths and to compensate for various weaknesses (AASL & AECT, 1998, p.143; Rodney, Lance & Hamilton-Pennell, 2002). The necessity to accommodate various poi nts of view was evidenced in the Library Power project in which collaboration was a central focus. There the collaborative effort even extended into the communit y, creating the most conducive of learning

PAGE 34

20 environments. In a summary of the Librar y Power outcomes, it was noted that the collaborative efforts had developed a new culture that had transformed these schools into energizing communities that offer mutual support to teachers, st udents, and parents (AASL & AECT, 1998, p. 142). Primary barriers to collaboration have b een found to be a lack of time, desire to maintain the status quo, lack of resources, program limitations such as fixed scheduling, and the attitudes of both the school library media specialist and th e teachers (Lai 1995; Beaird 1999; McCracken 2000). Once again, role confusion plays a part in the school library media specialists inability to incor porate the instructional component into their position (Seavers 2002; Beaird 1999). The development of strong collaborative partnerships may be important to the development of a leadership role and to pl acing the school library media specialist in a position to be an integral part of the e fforts to infuse technology throughout the curriculum. Through collaborative effort s, the school library media specialist demonstrates his or her ability as an instru ctional consultant, information specialist and teacher. The classroom teachers will then ha ve a heightened level of respect for the school library media specialist and be more likely to in corporate their thoughts and suggestions into curriculum decisions. Collaboration makes a difference. Getting teachers to take ownership of their library is a key to getting th em involved (Rodney, Lance & HamiltonPennell, 2002, p. 44). The Florida Department of Educations Library Media Specialists Responsibilities supports this conclusion by placing three indicators in

PAGE 35

21 its Instruction sect ion under the subheading Colla borative Planning. According to that document, the school library media specialist: Systematically collaboratively plans with grade levels/subject area teachers to support curriculum and assessments. Writes and implements policies, goa ls and objectives that ensure information literate students. Maintains portfolio/database of colla boratively developed, implemented and assessed instructional lessons and units (FLDOE Responsibilities, n.d.). Collaboration has been proven to positively correlate with improved student achievement. As such, it should be one of the primary goals of every schools school library media program. Ho wever, according to the results of the Making the Grade study (Baumbach, 2003) on items related to collaborative planning and teaching, it is apparent that school media specialist in Florida have not embraced this concept. When responding to items related to Planning with Teachers, elementary school library media specialists allocated approximately 2% of their time; middle school allocated sli ghtly over 3% and high school allocated just over 3% of their time for this activity. On items related to Teaching Cooperatively with Teachers elementary allocated less than 3%, middle school allocated slightly over 6% and high school allocated slightly ove r 7% of their time for this activity (p. 24).

PAGE 36

22 Summary of Collaboration Given the repeated validation of the importance of collaboration between the school library media specialist and classroom teachers and its subsequent relationship to higher student achievement, it would seem reasonable that likewise validation of the degree to which collaboration has been used by school library media specialists in Florida would be beneficial. Further, identifying environmental fact ors and their relationship to this level of implementation could be helpful in developing strategies for increasing the amount of collaboration used by school lib rary media specialist in this state. Leadership According to Johnson and Lamb (2005), Leaders do not come in one type or behave in a particular way. There is no set formula for leading or creating leaders. You do not have to stand before everyone and proc laim loudly in order to be a leader. Some leaders lead quietly and from the side. Howe ver, in order to become a leader, one must first be aware of their strengths and devel op those strengths into whichever leadership style best suits them. Leadership Types The most common types of leaders are: Appointed: These leaders are hired or a ppointed. Although they are in charge of the group, this does not necessarily lead to them being respected. Expert: These leaders are chosen for their expertise in a particular area. In many cases this expertise does cau se them to have the respect of the group, depending on the attitude with which they share their expertise.

PAGE 37

23 Interpersonal: These leaders use their strong in terpersonal skills. They assist others in developing their own potential, which often cau ses them to be trusted by their constituents. Social/Informal: These are the lead ers who get things done. Once the request/directive has been given by the bo ss, this type of leader becomes the cheerleader for getting it done. They may also be the consoling person who helps others with their personal problems (Johnson & Lamb, 2005). Leadership Styles There are two attitudinal styles of leadersh ip: the extremes of a task-oriented or a relationship-oriented leader (Blake & Mouton, 1985 as cite d in Johnson & Lamb, 2005). The task-oriented leader works well when ther e is a task that needs the input from a number of participants, none of whom have the time to complete the entire task. This person will make assignments and coordinate the pulling together of the various parts of the project, such as a grant. They are not always the best liked type of leader because they are often seen as pushy and hypercritical. The relationship-oriented leader may not be the most outwardly active person in the group. However, they are the fence mender, the ego smoothing person in the group that helps to keep the group together while gently nudging them towards completion of the project. This leader is the master of compromise.

PAGE 38

24 Factors that Impact Leadership Style Good leaders utilize a variety of leadership styles and techniques. Some of the factors that affect the lead ership style chosen are: Amount of time available Amount of respect and trust between leader and workers Who has the information (leader, fellow workers) Knowledge and training of workers How well people know the task Level of internal conflicts Amount of stress on participants Type of task (structured/unstructured, complicated/simple) Established procedures (Clark 1997/2000, as cited in Johnson & Lamb, 2005). Given the importance of the leadership role in the development and sustainment of the school library media program, it is incumbent on the school library media specialist to be familiar with the various leader ship types and styles in order to make the best use of these types and st yles in participating in the various projects and programs within the school environment, not just as they can relate to th e school library media program. Leadership and the School Library Media Specialist The leadership role of the school library media specialist is clearly defined in IP2 The library media specialist assumes a leadership role in gaining the administrative and financial suppor t the program requires. Through

PAGE 39

25 collaborating with teachers and others to integrate the information literacy standards for student learning into the curriculum, the library media specialist establishes the program's cen tral role in st udent learning and demonstrates the need for adequate support for the program's emphasis in teaching and learning in the acquisition and use of information technology. The library media speci alist establishes and fosters relationships that lead to an unders tanding of the program and support of its goals (AASL & AECT, 1998, p. 106). As noted by Haycock (1991) this role has been implicit in the school library media specialists role since the early 1960s ; however, due in large part to role confusion, this segment of the role has not become as well defined and developed as have others. Lumley (1994) cited the lead ership abilities of the elementary school library media specialists in her study as being a key factor in the successful implementation of a flexible scheduling m odel in their media centers. Vansickle (2000) suggests that preparation progra ms for school library media specialists should specifically target this leadership ch aracteristic in particul ar coursework as a means of ingraining the necessity of leader ship to the successful implementation of any school library media program as a part of the total curriculum of the school. In schools where the school library media specialist has a strong relationship with the administration and works closely with classroom teachers on committees, such as standards and curriculum, student achievemen t rises (Rodney, et al. 2002). Further when the school library media sp ecialist is involved, along w ith the administration and classroom teachers, in making management d ecisions that encourage higher levels of

PAGE 40

26 achievement, students tend to succeed. In ma ny cases, it is very difficult to get school library media specialists to consider themselves as leaders. Many in this profession are, by nature, very service oriented in terms of helping others, but do not consider serving on committees as a significant ro le (PDRI, 1996; Craver, 1994). As with collaboration, leadership should take the school libr ary media specialist beyond the walls of the media center and the school. Collaborative efforts within the community strengthen the bonds between the school and community and ultimately reinforce the necessity of a strong media program (AASL & AECT, 1998, p. 125). In a five year analysis of school librar y media specialists who saw themselves as leaders, Zsiray (2003) found that these school library media specialists had the following characterics in common: Broad understanding of curriculum; Grasp of the big picture and te ndency to think school mission; Ability to work with budgets; Ability to juggle multiple activities; Service to various clientele, including students, teachers, parents, classified staff; Planning skills; and Understanding of the importance of a learning community. (Zsiray, 2003). In addition, Zsiray identified the following ways in which school libra ry media specialists exercise school leadership: Set direction; Build a vision for the school library media program that supports school and district direction;

PAGE 41

27 Get involved with school governance (site-based committee, school community council); Become active in local, state, and national education associations; Become active in local, state, a nd national professional associations; Demonstrate personal character; Create an inviting and optimal lib rary media center environment; Work to extend the library media center environment throughout the school; Demonstrate personal commitment to prof essional developm ent through reading, positive work habits, and commitment towards participation and leadership in the development of in-service activities; Work collaboratively with students, colleagues, parents, and community; Mobilize individual commitment; Offer instructional consultation advice; Establish a community advisory board; Engender organizational capability; Engage teachers in the process of integr ating the library medi a core curriculum into their instructional practice; Provide evaluation opportunities for students, teachers, and parents; Actively seek to engage in opportunities that put you in the fo refront of change and organizational improvement; Identify opportunities for teachers to gain training that would enhance the quality of their teaching cred ential (Zsiray, 2003).

PAGE 42

28 The leadership role of the school library me dia specialist, when properly developed, may be the key factor in determining the level of support given to th e school media program by both the administration and the rest of the instructional staff. Morris (2004) includes the adjective assertive in front of leadership when discussing how the school library media specialist must behave in working with administration (p. 35). Further, Morris states that, in order to be seen as a leader, the school library media specialist must show a thorough grasp of the requirements of the curriculum. And, with students, the school library media specialist must be seen as an expert in the use of the media resources. Fi nally, Morris states that the school library media specialist must reach out to the entire learning community to promote the school library media program. The FDOEs document School Library Media Specialists Responsibilities places most of the indicators that would be associ ated with leadership under the heading of Advocacy. There are three subheadings to this section: In school, parents/community and professionalism. These three subheadings combined generate seven indicators. The indicators are: Communicates regularly with admini stration concerning statistics and programming events; Communicates regularly with faculty and staff through planned personal interaction, a library medi a center web site, in-hous e newsletters/brochures, and email message reminders/announcements; Maintains the library media center websit e, which is aligned with curricular, informational, and recreati onal needs and school mission;

PAGE 43

29 Library media parent involvement activ ities collaboratively planned with teachers, administrators, and School Improvement Program initiatives (i.e., parent workshops and reading motivation activities and Internet resources for parents); Local public libraries work collaborat ively with the school library media program to provide resources and services to students, teachers, and parents; Is involved with district, state and/or national level professional organizations; Enhances the profession through contri butions to listservs, committees, publications, conference presentations, etc. These indicators reinforce IP2 s goals for the total e ngagement of the school library media specialist in their program, schools curriculum and the profession at large. The leadership role of the school library me dia specialist, when properly developed, may be the key factor in determining the level of support given to the school library media program by both the administration and the rest of the instructional staff. However, many school library media specialists continue to see themselves in a role of support rather than leadership. In responding to the survey for the Making the Grade study (Baumbach, 2003), school library media specialists at all levels responded that they spent less than 2% of their time providing staff development to teach ers and other school staff. Likewise they responded that they spend less than 2% of their time participa ting on school, and/or district committees. These responses indicate further that school library media specialist in Florida do not view time spent in these activities as valuable. It will continue to be difficult to convince others of the importance of including school lib rary media specialist

PAGE 44

30 on such committees if they themselves do not actively pursue positions on such committees (p. 24). Summary of Leadership Despite the abundance of literature sugge sting the need for the school library media specialist to be a pr oactive leader in their sc hool many school library media specialists continue to see themselves in a role of s upport rather than leadership. The data, especially from Baumbach, would seem to indicate that a large percentage of Floridas school library media specialists do not take an active leadership role, at least not in areas that were targeted by Baumbach. This more recent data seems to support some of the attitudes shown on the PDRI study, in that many of the saliency ratings for those items related to those same tasks (partici pating on school, distri ct, state and national committees) were somewhat low. Technology IP2 in its continuing emphasis on the bu ilding of connections, states that technology will be the primary tool used by school library media specialists to develop these connections with the on-campus and external learning communities (p. 128). It is in this area that the roles of instructiona l consultant and instructional designer, as defined in IP1 and subsequently supported in IP2, flourish. The library media center of today is no longer a destination; it is a point of departure for accessing the informati on resources that ar e the essential raw materials of teaching and learning (Rodney, et al. 2002). Ely (1992) posits that the library has changed from a place to a function (p. xi). Technology is the

PAGE 45

31 primary tool used by the library media specialist to forge connections between the program and the learning comm unity (AASL & AECT, 1998, p. 128). These observations exemplify the in creased level of importance placed on technology as an integral component in th e delivery of the school media program. The media program, as previously defined by a place, is no longer adequate. The Role of Technology in th e School Library Media Program Technology, as defined in IP2, refers to the theory and practice of design, development, utilization, ma nagement, and evaluation of processes and resources for learning (p. 128). This definition squarely places the school library media specialist in the mainstream of the curricu lum model used in most schools in the U.S. As a full fledged instructional partner, the school lib rary media specialist, with their enhanced professional training in the use of the most current technol ogies should then be actively engaged in the full range of cu rriculum activities in their schools. As such, they will enhance their respective positions as leaders in the school while leading the integration of technologies into all aspects of the instructional program. Writing in 1994, Kathleen Craver predicted that In most school s, school library media specialists will become instructiona l technologists (p. 113). She derived her conclusion from four assumptions: 1. The role of the school library medi a specialist will expand to include distance learning, spreadsheets, word processing programs, interactive video, online databases and virtual reality. 2. The pedagogical role of the school library media specialist will change to include extending instructi on to faculty and parents as well as students.

PAGE 46

32 3. Electronic learning will require that school library me dia specialists change their parochial teaching met hods to include information literacy and retrieval that permit users to access information in any library regardless of its format. 4. Instruction will no longer be based solely upon textbooks and therefore, school library media specialists will become heavily involved in resourcebased learning. Craver (1994) predicted that future sc hool library media specialists would be characterized by, greater pati ence and understanding of various client fears, as they provide technology inst ruction (p. 123). As one extension of the school librar y media center program beyond the schools walls it may become practically and politically wise to offer instruction in the use of the various electronic resources to parents and other members of the learning community. This could be the best insurance available to the maintenance and continuing funding for the school library media program (Craver 1994, p. 124). The concept of the need for an open access media program has most recently been confirmed by Rodney, Lance & Hamilton-Penne ll (2002) in their finding that students succeed when the school library media program is an integral part of the overall education enterprise and reaches out to the students and teachers where they are. The most recent Colorado study found that where networked computers link the school library media center with the classrooms and other school instructional facilities, higher CASP Reading test scores are reporte d. There seems to be a direct correlation between these reading scores and the num ber of computers enabling teachers and

PAGE 47

33 students to utilize school library media cen ter resources, such as CDROMs, licensed databases and access to the Internet (L ance, Rodney, & Hamilton-Pennell, 2000b). Morris (2004, p. 415) discusses the c oncept of technology-rich learning environments. Some of the character istics of such environments are: Workstations available throughout the school Individual computers for teacher or learner use *Flexible access to computers in labs An array of information tools and resources in all formats which reflect curriculum needs *Internet access throughout the school Visual and audio hardware that en ables large group use of technology throughout the school *Professionals who staff the school libr ary media center and computer labs who work collaboratively with learners and teachers to integrate technology across the curriculum Technicians to maintain the hardware and software *Required individual profession technol ogy staff development for all staff *Technology mini-courses o ffered throughout the year *Selection policies reflective of all curricular needs *A technology planning process that is both on-going and inclusive (Pappas, 1999 as cited in Morris 2004, p. 418). The items with an asterisk are directly a ddressed in this study while others may be addressed in some indirect way. Those items that were directly assessed could serve to

PAGE 48

34 give additional information as to the state of such tec hnology-rich environments in Florida. Technology and Student Achievement The part of technology in the development of student achievement has been argued for the better part of the last 25 year s. There has even been a website named No Significant Difference that has been set up to retain all of the rese arch done that shows that the media is not what make the difference, instead it is the planning and implementation of the instruction that make s the difference. Recently that website has been expanded to include studies that purpor t to show the use of technology does indeed make a difference. Harvey (2003) reviewed several long term technology/computer based projects that seemed to i ndicate that technology, when pr operly implemented, may have some long term effects on student achievement. Harvey (2003) separates th e use of computers into two types. The first type is when students learn from computers and the second is when students learn with computers. Students learn from computers when they use software programs for the more basic drill and pract ice types of activiti es. Students learn with computers when they use the computers to gather, analyze and infer fr om the information gathered. They also use more sophisticated types of data analysis and present their findings with more creative types of activities using the computer technol ogy as a vehicle for the delivery of their presentations (Harvey, 2003). In the West Virginia project (Harvey, 2003) the state placed computers in the classrooms beginning with first grade. Each year another grade was added thus insuring the students had the opportunity to continue to develop th eir use of technology through

PAGE 49

35 their elementary school experience. The stude nts were followed from grade one through grade six and then on to junior high and high school. This study found the following: On statewide tests, students who learned from computers showed consistently higher gains. The study was able to determin e that 11% of the gain was due to the use of the technology. Students did better when the computers were in the classroom rather than a lab. The advantages of computer use extende d through high school, where students learning from computers had better grades, took more advanced placement courses, and were more likely to graduate than those who did not use computers. A study related to the Project CHILD progr am in Florida (Butzin, 2000) in which computers were placed in classrooms and teachers received extensive training and students used software ali gned with state standards investigators found the following results when students used computers as tutors to receive information: Computers contributed to higher scor es for students in both low and highachieving schools Students demonstrated better discipline The boost that technology gave st udents was sustained over time Both studies (Harvey, 2003; Butzin, 2000) showed improvements in students were sustained over time. When focusing on learning with computers, the results are even more impressive. In a study sponsored by Apple Computers, and performed by several university investigators (Fisher, Dwyer & Yocam, 1996; Sandholtz, Ringstaff & Dwyer, 1997) the study found:

PAGE 50

36 Students routinely used higher order thi nking skills far beyond what was expected for their grade level. Students demonstrated enhanced ability to collaborate with peers to develop projects and reports. Students demonstrated increased initiativ e. They maintained time on task for longer periods and often continued their work during recess, before school, and after school; The use of technology coupled with teach ers having time for reflection led, over a period of three to five years, to substantial changes in teacher beliefs about teaching and learning. A noticeable difference in the Apple studies was that classroom technology was pervasive and available anytime a student needed to write, analyze data, develop presentations, and do research. As in the prev iously mentioned studies teachers received intensive training and were given time to examine their beliefs about teaching and learning. The Apple studies findings are reinfor ced by another study conducted by Penuel, Golan, Means and Korbak in 2000. In that study teachers were tr ained to develop multimedia projects with students. Once agai n there was an extensive training program for the teachers. This was a six year long pr oject in which the fi nal evaluation involved asking both experimental and control schools to develop an authentic assessment task. Those students from the experimental schools co nsistently out perfor med those in control schools when judged against a rubric that scored students in the areas of understanding

PAGE 51

37 content, adapting their message to their inte nded audience, and appl ying principles of design in the format and la yout of their brochures. Regardless of the format, learning with or learning from computers, this research seems to indicate that the use of computers for enhancing student ach ievement has merit. However, as was noted in each of these studies, that extensive training and allowing teachers [or media specialists] time to reflect on the appropriate uses of these learning tools, is very important. In addressing the use of technology, in the more general sense of the term, ONeill (2003) concluded after a review of 30 years of research on technology and learning that technology works best when us ed to meet a specific learning need. Although these studies are direct ly related to the infusion of technology into classroom instruction, they establish th at there may be a relationshi p between the use of technology and student achievement. With regards to the school library media program, the development of information literacy skills would be such a specific need. Extending the resources of the school libra ry media program into classrooms is one way in which school library media specia lists can impact student achievement. The teaching of information literacy skills, usi ng all available technologies should be an integral component of any schools library media program and overall curriculum. Also, the development of strong ties to the enti re learning community can be enhanced by developing programs that include technology training for all members of the learning community.

PAGE 52

38 Technology Competencies as They Relate to School Library Media Specialists Truett (2002, as cited in Moore, 2004 p. 402) surveyed students in a media management course as to what technol ogy skills they felt a school library media specialist should develop. As a result, a list of 23 skills was compiled. Those items in the list below with an asterisk were directly ad dressed in this study. Others were somewhat more indirectly addressed. However, it is worth noting that all of the skills in the list have direct correlation to a variety of IP2 principles, goals and objectives. They are: Use online journal sources Use automated library systems Use in-house video conferencing equipment and other TV/video production equipment *Have knowledge of types of CD-ROMS available Construct and use WebQuest Know how to work with teachers who are technophobic *Collaborate with teachers to integrate the subject curriculum with technology skills in a manner that fosters the deve lopment of higher order thinking skills *Be proactive in keeping up with technology Decide what needs to be on library co mputers and how many workstations are needed Advocate for a full-time technol ogy teacher in their schools Speak knowledgeably about software and In ternet copyright, as well as software licensure, and help teach a bout copyright, plagiarism evaluation of web sites, citing electronic sources, etc.

PAGE 53

39 *Conduct ongoing technology staff developmen t training and in-service, and in particular, training that focuses on technology Participate in equipment and so ftware selection and standards Consider networking options Understand, model, and promote ethi cal issues and uses of technology Use basic productivity software such as Microsoft Office, Front Page, PowerPoint, Hyperstudio, etc. (including the use of word pr ocessing, spreadsheet and database software) *Help teach basics of equipment operation to teachers and students Assist with basic equipment maintenance Assist with the design of media center computer placement, when possible Make suggestions for the schools technol ogy plan, Internet access, acceptable use and Internet safety policies Locate sources for technology funding Provide helpful hints, such as quick reference sheets beside the computers, to answer frequently asked questions Keep abreast of future developments in technology The Status of Technology as Related to School Media Programs in Florida Baumbach (2003) reported that although 80% of Floridas public schools have a school website, only 42% of t hose websites linked to the sc hool library media centers webpage. Further Baumbach reported that only 36% of schools have a school library media center webpage that is designed a nd maintained by the school library media specialist. Less than 50% of Floridas sc hools have an online catalog that is web

PAGE 54

40 accessible. Baumbach also determined that Fl orida spends a small fraction of the national average on software, web-based resources and other non print materials. Some of Baumbachs findings may be seen to contradict th e indicators found on the FLDOEs matrix of Library Media Specialists Responsibilities On that evaluation matrix, there are two sections related to technology. The first, headed Technology has four indicators. They are: Writes and implements LMC technology plan integrated into schools plan, with a refresh cycle of 3 years; Maintains computers for information retrieval (high-speed Internet access), student production, and special needs, including the following peripherals: scanners, printers, digital cameras, audio and visual recording devices, digital editing hardware and software, DVD burners; Provides and maintains current audiovisual equipment as needed by instructional program; Models uses of innovative technologi es and provides staff development opportunities; Maintains television distribution system (e or more channels) and television studio. The second technology section is headed T echnology (management). The indicators in this section are: Maintains an automated circulation/catalog sy stem that is available on the Intranet and Internet;

PAGE 55

41 Uses electronic sources for accessing reviews and purchasing, as well as using SUNLINK for cataloging and interlibrary loan; Uses E-mail to collaboratively plan with teachers and communicate with colleagues; Uses adaptive technologies to provi de access to technological sources of information for students with special needs. In a separate section titled LMC In ternet site the indicator states: Maintain LMC website linked from school homepage and that provides access to information to meet student and faculty needs. In the Making the Grade study (Baumbach, 2003) identifie d the following concerning technology in Floridas schools: A mean of 80% had a wr itten technology plan; A mean of 63% of the schools with a written technology plan included the media center in the technology plan (p. 31); While the average number of computers in schools equaled 236, the average number of computers under th e control of the media specialist was 26 and the average number of media center computers connected to the Internet was 23; The average number of computers in the media with accommodations for persons with disabilities was 1 while the average for the total school was 14; 90% of media specialists responding said that they had access to email in the media center;

PAGE 56

42 90% of those responding said that their school had a Board adopted Internet usage policy and 86% said they used some type of filtering software; 80% of those responding said that th eir school had a website but only 42% had a media website linked from their schools homepage (p. 53); concerning electronic res ources, 37% of elementary, 62% of middle and 82% of high schools said th at they subscribed to some type of electronic resources; The percentages of these electronic re sources that were accessible by both students and teachers from their home were similar. For elementary 58%, middle 75% and for high school 85% (p. 59); Schools with Online Catalogs that were Internet accessible were considerably less than those with In ternet accessible electronic resources; elementary 46%, middle 36% and high school 36%; SUNLINK usage was found to be as s hown in the following table (p. 43): Table 1. SUNLINK Usage Use SUNLINK for Mean Teaching Information Skills 19% Finding Educational Websites 21% Assisting with Challenges to Items in Collection 12% Selection 28%

PAGE 57

43 Use SUNLINK for Mean Weeding 36% Online Access to Own Schools Collection 36% Locating Materials for Teachers Units 42% Creating bibliographies 31% Interlibrary Loan 63% Online Access to Collections in the District 62% Locating Materials to Support Sunshine State Standards 20% Locating Materials to Support Reading Initiatives 19% Although significant strides have been made in the integration of computer-based technologies in the school media centers in Florida, the statistics reported in the Baumbach study clearly shows that there is much left to be done. This study endeavors to identify some of the factors that have enc ouraged and some that may have inadvertently discouraged the development of stronger technology integration accomplishments in schools in Florida. Summary of Technology. Given that technology has been shown to have some positive effects on student achievement and given that strong media programs have been shown to have a significant relationship to student achievement, it would seem that identifying the perceptions of Floridas school library media specialists with regards to the use of technology,

PAGE 58

44 specifically those IP2 goals and objectives related to technology, w ould be of value. An integral part of this study involves determining if school library media specialists in Florida have changed their perceptions about th e value and importance of their role in the development, implementation and integration of technology in their schools and also their perception of their value as a technology leader in their schools since 1996. Environmental Factors Environmental factors, some of which ar e outside the direct control of the school library media specialist, may effect the de velopment and implementation of the school library media program. Specific factors have been chosen for analysis in this study. Scheduling Model One of the environmental factors cons idered in this study was that of the scheduling model used in the schools survey ed. The use of a flexible scheduling model has been shown to be consistent with the development of collaborative activities between the school library media specialist and cl assroom teachers (Bishop & Larimer, 1999; Callison, 1999; Haycock, 1998; Tallman & va n Deusen, 1994). In a study of 505 school library media specialists, McCracken (2001) found that the scheduling model used was the fourth item of most concern, behind Lack of Time, Lack of Funding and Lack of Support or Interest from Teachers, by the schoo l library media specialists as it related to their ability to implement the vari ous roles assigned to them in IP1 and IP2. The scheduling model used by those responding to this survey may be reflective of their ability to implement the collaboration, leadership and tec hnology strands as defined in IP2.

PAGE 59

45 Principle One in both editions of Information Power relates to intellectual access to information (AASL & AECT 1998, p. 84). The use of a flexible access scheduling model for the school library media program is the most directly beneficial way of accomplishing this goal. Flexible acce ss scheduling gives the school library media specialist the ability to work both in and out of the school library media center in order to accomplish their goals of collaboration, leadership and technology as described in IP2 Principle Four follows up to reinforce the previous comments by stating, The library media program requires flexible and equitable access to in formation, ideas, and resources for learning (p. 89). In a stude nt-centered school library media program, learning should take precedence over class sche dules, school hours, student categorizations, and othe r logistical concerns. One of the concerns that most often arise when discussing flexible access scheduling is the coverage for contractually required classroom teac her planning times. This concern is a primary rationale for the us e of fixed scheduling. However, this use of such a highly trained professi onal to give library time to st udents and thus have little time for implementing the information literacy standards and other national goals for school media programs, is incongruous with the overall academic goals of schools seeking to achieve local, st ate and national standards. In order to overcome the misconception that having library is an acceptable policy, principals must be given adequate st aff development to allow them to develop a more conceptually sound understanding of the need for flexible scheduling of the school library media center (Buchanan, 1991, p. 29).

PAGE 60

46 Although the concept of the school library media specialist as a teacher was introduced in the original edition of Information Power (AASL & AECT, 1988), this should not be seen as the only, or even th e primary role of the school library media specialist. However, the use of fixed schedulin g tends to reinforce this image. Therefore, students, teachers and other members of th e learning community are unable to access the full range of professional knowledge and skills available through the school library media specialist. Ultimately, this results in the sc hool library media specia list teaching skills to classes regardless of their relevance, or lack thereof, to the other components of the curriculum in which the student may currently be involved (Buchanan, 1991, p. 3). For school library media specialists in Fl orida, the importance of flexible access scheduling for school media programs wa s reinforced by the following statement approved by the Florida Association fo r Media in Education (FAME) in 1988: The goal of the school library media progr am is to satisfy a students natural curiosity for information, to provide opportunities for frequent learning and reading experiences, and to develop the habit of using libra ry resources for recreation and lifelong learning. Inherent in this goal is the capacity of the program to provide teachers with op portunities to use the media center and its resources as an extension of the classroom at the time of need. Therefore, the media center program s hould allow flexible access to students and staff at all times, rather than operate on a schedule which preempts facilities and staff for fixed periods of time. Flexible access does not preclude an organized plan for inform ation skills instruction, but rather

PAGE 61

47 allows a curriculum integrated media skills instructional program which provides relevant learning experiences for students. Flexible access library media progr ams are characterized by the following criteria: 1. A media center is accessible to i ndividuals, small groups, and classes so that students and staff may brow se, explore, use, and circulate print and nonprint materials at th e time of need or interest. 2. Cooperative planning by the instruct ional staff and the library media specialist for the use of the materi als and facilities in instruction. 3. Relevant information skills emanating from classroom activities, taught at the time of need or interest, and following a scope and sequence based on the curriculum needs of the school. 4. Flexible time for the library media specialist to deliver a comprehensive media program including, but not limited to, integrated information skills instru ction; reference and information assistance; reading; listening and viewing motivational activities; media production; collection de velopment and management. In order to provide a full range of library media services and functions, which an instructional program of excellence requires, the Florida Association for Media in Education (FAME) supports a flexible access library media program philosophy. (As cited in Buchanan, 1991, p. 5). An even more direct reflection of the importance of flexible access scheduling is shown by the inclusion, by the state of Georgia, of a specific section

PAGE 62

48 of the Georgia School Code that addresses the use of flexible scheduling in media centers of that state. The code states that a plan for flexibly scheduled media center access for students and teachers in groups or as individuals simultaneously throughout each instructional day. Accessibi lity shall refer to the facility, the staff, and the resources and shall be base d on instructional need. (Georgia School Code as adopted May 14, 1998) The greatest amount of collaboration oc curs when the school library media specialist has a flexible schedule and team planning is encouraged by the principal (Tallman & van Deusen 1994). Buchanan (1991) summarizes the conceptual underpinnings of this model of school library access by stating that if we are committed to teaching individual students rather than teaching subjects, we have no choice but to select a flexible access library media program (p. 16). Despite all of the research and disc ussion supporting the use of a flexible scheduling model in school me dia centers, the fact remains that the principal, if not properly trained as to the im pact on student learning of th e school library media program, may choose a fixed schedule as a matter of c onvenience. To do so may seriously hinder the school library media specialists abil ity to meet the overall objectives of IP2. The study identifies the extent of use of the tw o scheduling models as an indicator of administrative support and also the potentia l limitations placed on individual school library media specialists in their endeavors to accomplish the IP2 goals and objectives Administrative Support Principals should support school li braries because it is in both their students and their own best inte rests to do so (Hartzell, 2002).

PAGE 63

49 As is true with all aspects of the school program, the principal has the single most influence over the direction that the medi a program will take (Haycock 1999; Oberg, 1995; Oberg, Hay & Henri, 2000). Such is the case with the fl exible access media program concept. A principal who is co mmitted to this concept will show their commitment in meetings, conversations, inte rviews for new faculty and staff, and in communications with all members of the learning community (Buchanan 1991, p. 82; Carletti, et al. 1991). Conversely, the princi pal who is not totally committed to the concept may not detract from its implemen tation intentionally; however, a lack of outward commitment and support may do so inadvertently. The IP2 Principle 4 under Program Administration states that an effective library media program requires ongoing administrative support (AASL & AECT, 1998, p. 100). Bishop & Larimer (1999) found that administrators who ask how teachers ar e using the resources of the media center and the expertise of the school library media specialist created an atmosphere where collaboration was more likely to occur. Th ey also found that the administration can support collaboration not only by verbal support, but also by scheduling common planning time for the school lib rary media specialist and classroom teachers. Similarly, how often students use the library can be co rrelated to how well principals encourage collaboration between classroom teachers and the school library media specialist. In addition, as the primary curriculum leader in the school, the principal powerfully affects the extent to which information literacy instruction is embedded in the schools curriculum ((Hartzell, 2002). Administrative support cannot be assumed unless the administration confirms that support with adequate and con tinuous funding of the school library media program. In the

PAGE 64

50 Making the Grade study it was shown that 45% of all library media program funding came from book fairs and other such fund raisers (Baumbach, 2003). This form of funding is inappropriate when the effects of the school library me dia program on student achievement have been so fully supported by the research. Summary of Environmental Factors This review of the literature shows th at the three areas identified by the investigator, collaboration, leadership a nd technology have been shown to have a correlation with student achievement. Further, the environmental factors of scheduling model and administrative support have been prev iously shown to be significant factors in the development of a strong school library me dia program. A third environmental factor, for which no direct research literature was found, that of the libr ary media specialists familiarity with the IP2 standards and goals, is addresse d in this study. Since the primary function of this research is to determine if school library media specialists perceptions about certain job related job tasks ha ve changed following the publication of IP2 then it would be reasonable to survey th eir level of familiarity with IP2 as an indicator of the success with which the information therein has been disseminated. Chapter Two Summary In this chapter, the author brought togeth er much of the research and literature that relates to the areas of collaboration, leadership and tec hnology, as these areas relate to the development and implementation of thei r school library media program. From this review one could surmise that if a school library media specia list is a leader then it may follow that he/she will be engaged in successf ul collaborative efforts with faculty and, further, that these activities will be based in some form of technology. Or, if a school

PAGE 65

51 library media specialist is collaborating, then he/she will, by the nature of the activity become a leader and focus much of their co llaborative effort on the use of technology, for any of its various applications Much of the significance of this study was determined by its ability to capture a snapshot of how well sc hool library media specialists in Florida are doing at developing their program s around these three themes of IP2

PAGE 66

52 Chapter Three Methods In order to determine to what extent the implementation of IP2 (AASL & AECT, 1998) may have changed the perceptions, and pe rhaps, practices of school library media specialists in the state of Florida, this study replicated a portion of the job task analysis survey developed and deployed by Personnel De cisions Research Institute (PDRI) as a part of the Schoolyear 2000 study completed by that organization for the Florida Department of Education. That full survey in strument and the complete results of that study may be located in Technical Report # 277 published by PDRI in 1996. This section discusses the poi nts of the PDRI study used. It further delineates and justifies exceptions and additi ons that were made to this survey that differ from the original study. Further, it di scusses the statistical analysis used in the PDRI study and how those were used for this study. Likewise, this section discusses additional statistical analysis procedures that were added for various pur poses in this current study. Background The PDRI study was used to establish th e baseline data for this study because it was undertaken in 1996, prio r to the publication of IP2 in 1998. Many of the items in the job task analysis that relate directly to the 1998 edition of Information Power goals were shown not to be critical to their job pe rformance by many of th e media specialists responding to that original survey. It was anticipates that given the increased emphasis

PAGE 67

53 on technology in the media centers and the si tuation in many schools in which the media specialists have become the primary tec hnology support in the school many of the tasks rated as Not a Part of Job in 1996 have si gnificantly changed in their ratings. Further, given the eight years of in-ser vice training provided to school library media specialists in the newer goals of IP2 the current perceptions of the importance of collaboration, leadership and technology in th e school library media specialis ts daily tasks should have changed. Limitations of the Study Due diligence was taken in replicating items from the PDRI 1996 study that were resurveyed. In addition, the demographic section of the survey was developed using many of the same demographic questions as asked on the PDRI 1996 study and the remaining questions on that part of the survey have been validated by a committee of Subject Matter Experts made up of school di strict school library media supervisors and National Board Certified school library media specialists from around the state of Florida and in consultation with severa l university professors who speci alize in the area of school library media programs. The following are potential limitations of the study. 1. The inability to obtain the original data set from the PDRI 1996 study. Obtaining this data set could have made the study more robust since it could have assisted in more closely aligning this study with the demographics of the original study. Available data were used to determine the school districts that participated, the number of responses from each of those school districts, ethnicity, gender, school level, highest level of education and ge ographic locations of the schools. Several

PAGE 68

54 of the larger school districts either did not participate, or had minimal responses submitted. This could have a skewing effect on the original findings of the PDRI study. 2. This study is reflective of attitudes and perceptions of only a percentage of the total number of school library media speci alists in the state of Florida. The response rate of 17% is somewhat sma ll and therefore may reduce the external validity of the study. Assumptions of the Study The primary assumption of this study is that school library media specialists in the study are representative of the school library media specialist s in the state of Florida. Analysis of Items to be Resurveyed Several Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) were used to assist in the determination of the items to be resurveyed. Subsequently, 16 directors/supervisor s of school media services from across the state were asked to assi st with this project. In turn, several of the supervisors requested that some of their National Board Certified school library media specialists also participate in this analysis. Six persons responded. The directions for this task are shown in Appendix I and the item analysis of the responses is shown in Appendix II Upon the return of the item analysis from the SMEs (6), the results were compiled. Each item was listed in an Excel sp readsheet and each SMEs selections were recorded by area (collaborati on, leadership or technology) and relevancy. The area reflects the items correlation to an IP2 goal or objective and th e relevancy denotes the

PAGE 69

55 respondents opinion of how relevant that task is to the completion of the school library media specialists job functi ons in the current school media program environment. After recording the data, items that appeared on at least four of the six respondents lists were selected for resurvey. Where there was a conflic t as to the specific area of focus of the item, the the area selected by the majority of SMEs selecting that item was chosen. Ultimately, 37 items were select ed for inclusion in the resurvey section of the study. The areas were represente d by 14 items for collaboration, 10 items for technology, and 13 items for leadership. Survey Part One-Demographic and Environmental Items Part one of the survey was used to esta blish the demographics of the respondents and to gather data that may offer additiona l perspective on the saliency scores derived from the Job Task Analysis (see Appendix V). This component was used to determine if there are correlations between environmenta l variables, such as scheduling model, administrator support, and familiarity with IP2 and the saliency assigned to the 37 task analysis items in Part two of the survey. In addition, some of these responses were used to assess the goodness of fit between the sa mple and the current population of school library media specialists in Florida and the independence of the 1996 and 2006 samples. Part one of the survey was composed of multiple choice and short answer type questions. Where appropriate, the multiple choi ce questions were asked first and the short answer types were used to gather qualitative information to assist in the explanation of the multiple choice answer(s) to the previous question. The items for part one of the surv ey were primarily taken from those Background items used in the PDRI study. However, in order to gain broader insights it

PAGE 70

56 seemed important to expand on those items. Th erefore the environmen tal questions that relate to scheduling model, administrative support, exposure to and familiarity with IP2 and level of technology accessibility (some of which were queried in the PDRI study), were added to this survey. These additional questions were developed with input received from various media program supervisors from across Florida and in discussions with individual media specialists and faculty in the school media concentration area of the USF School of Library and Information Science. Survey Part Two-Resurveyed Job Task Analysis Items Respondents were asked to de termine and record both a time spent and a criticality score for each survey item. The time sp ent segment used a 5 point scale (1 = much less time to 5 = much more time). On the original survey, if th e task was not a part of their job, respondents were asked to assign a relative time spent rating of zero. This procedure was continued in the current study. Next, for each activity that is a part of their job, respondents were asked to rate how critical it is to co mplete that activity successfully, using a 1 to 5 scale (1 = unimpor tant to 5 = crucial). Originally, Within-jobrelative ratings were used because previous research suggest that job incumbents are more adept at making relative ratings than th ey are at making absolute ratings (Chirstal & Weissmuller, 1988 as cited in PDRI 1996). A ppendix IV shows the 1996 responses to the 37 items chosen for resurveying while Appendix V shows the 2006 results. An additional column identifies the categor y (collaboration, leadership or technology) to which each item has been assigned. Upon receipt of the survey data showing the time spent and criticality ratings the formula used in the original study was used to derive a saliency score. The saliency score is the score used for data analysis and comparisons. For

PAGE 71

57 analysis purposes, the 37 resurveyed job ta sk items were divide d into groups based on their respective areas of focu s; collaboration, leadership or technology. Tables 17, 18 and 19 report the 1996 and 2006 values for each item in the respective categories. The saliency score was computed following the formula used in the original study. This formula begins by multiplying the criticality rating by two, and then adding the Time Sent rating, and finally dividing the resulting number by three. This essentially gives the criticality rating twice as much weight as the time spent rating, and this index has been found useful in previous work as an overall summary of the information contained in these rating s cales (Bosshardt, Rosse & Pete rson, 1984 cited in PDRI 1996). When an activity was marked as not a part of job then the time spent rating was set to zero. In reviewing the data it was noticed th at when a respondent identified an item at Not Part of Job, they generally did not respond to the criticality portion of that question. Subsequently, if an item reflected a time spent value of zero that item was assigned a criticality value of zero; therefore resulting in the respondents saliency on that item being reported as zero. The result of this process had the effect of reducing the saliency Mean of that item. This method seems to be in agreement with that used in the 1996 study. The Survey Tool The survey was developed and dissemina ted using a web-based survey authoring tool available from www.surveymonkey.com. This particular tool wa s chosen because of its unique ability to allow the specific multi-response format needed for the 37 item part two resurvey. There was a need to reduce th e overall number of items on the survey to enhance response potential. This tool enable d the obtaining of tw o different responses

PAGE 72

58 for each question/statement and thus reduced the overall number of individual items on that section of the survey by 50%. This tool also offered the widest variety of response types for the demographic and environmental it ems. Also, results could be downloaded to an Excel spreadsheet for ease of manipulation an d later transport into a statistical analysis program, where necessary. Population The population for this study is school library media specialists in K public schools in the state of Florida. The demogra phics of this population are described in the following set of tables. Table 2. School Library Media Specialists by Level and Status Status Regular FullTime Temporary Full-Time Regular PartTime Temporary Part-Time Total Level Elementary 1,498 1 14 9 1,522 Middle/Jr. High 508 1 5 3 517 Secondary 609 1 2 5 617 Other* 57 3 1 61 Total 2,672 3 24 18 2,717

PAGE 73

59 Table 3. School Library Media Specialist by Age and Level Age Range Level 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or more Pop. Total Elementary Female 33 197 378 655 153 1,416 Male 4 17 23 30 9 83 Total Elem 37 214 401 685 162 1,499 Middle Female 6 42 98 255 61 462 Male 1 8 14 18 61 143 Total Middle 7 50 112 273 122 605 High Female 5 45 116 299 62 527 Male 0 9 19 45 10 83 Total High 5 54 135 344 72 610 Other Female 0 5 14 29 7 55 Male 0 1 1 0 0 2 Total Other 0 6 15 29 7 57 Total All Levels 49 324 663 1389 363 2,771 1.77% 11.69% 23.93% 50.13% 13.10% Total Female 2,460 87.05% Total Male 311 12.95% Total Pop. 2,771

PAGE 74

60 Table 4. School Library Media Specialists by Ethnicity, Gender and Level White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/ Alaskan Native Total Level Gender Elementary Female 1,209 107 91 5 4 1,416 Male 70 4 9 0 0 83 Total 1,279 111 100 5 4 1,499 Middle/Jr. High Female 396 47 16 1 2 462 Male 38 2 5 1 1 47 Total 434 36 21 2 3 509 Secondary Female 463 37 26 1 0 83 Male 77 2 4 0 0 527 Total 540 39 30 1 0 610 Other Female 36 4 0 0 0 55 Male 2 0 0 0 0 2 Total 53 4 0 0 0 57 Total 2,306 133 151 8 7 2,676 The data from Tables 2, 3 and 4 does not al ways balance table to table. There is no explanation for the discrepancie s since these data were direc tly transported from Florida Department of Education tables requested for the study.

PAGE 75

61 Sample Originally the investigator was told that the survey URL could be distributed to all public school library medi a specialists in Florida using the SUNLINK network. However, as time approached for the survey distribution the inves tigator contacted the SUNLINK director and was told that it wasnt actually within the purview of SUNLINK to distribute this informati on since it did not directly a ffect SUNLINK. However, the director did agree to post the announcemen t about the research and the URL on the SUNLINK Announcements page. Upon receiving this response several other means of distribution implemented. The URL for the survey was distributed to all school district media supervisors and/or school media contact persons. The y, in turn, were asked to disseminate the information and a request for support of the re search to all of the school library media specialists in their district. Th is is the method that was used in the original PDRI study, with the exception that the contact persons were not necessarily the school library media supervisors. In many cases in the 1996 study, it appears that it may have been the Testing and Evaluation Department of the school distri cts that acted as th e contact point. Close contact with the supervisors was maintained to ensure that the URL was distributed in order to avoid the situation that occurred with the original study in which some districts did not participate. Those larg er districts with no or low response in the 1996 study were targeted in order to gather the feedback of this significantly large number of nonresponding school library media specialists. In addition, the past president of the Florida Association for Media in Edu cation (FAME) disseminated the survey information via the FAME electronic list to all current members of the orga nization. Also, the state DOE

PAGE 76

62 coordinator for school media services encouraged district school media supervisors/contact persons to assist with gaining response from their local personnel for the survey. The combination of all of these st rategies resulted in a satisfactory response rate to the survey. The survey was opened and the URL di stributed on March 10, 2006 and closed on April 19, 2006. At the time of the closure of the survey there was a total of 644 respondents. Although not all respondents comple ted all items, there were a total of 454 fully completed surveys, repres enting 16.3% of the population. Data Collection The survey was developed in a web-based format. Those who chose to participate were asked to fill out the online survey and s ubmit it electronically. Ho wever, so as to not preclude anyone from responding, a paper copy of the survey was made available to anyone requesting such a format. In order to maintain anonymity, arrangements were made to have a non-interested third party administer the distribution of the paper form. No requests were received for a paper form of the survey. The data were initially expor ted to an Excel spreadsheet. In Excel the data were reviewed and, where appropriate, recoded. This rec oding was done because the sequencing of the responses, to meet surv ey development requirements/guidelines, did not conform in all situations to the coding that was necessary to analyze the data in Excel and statistical software. An example of this recoding would relate to all of the 37 resurveyed items. On those items the answer sequence on the survey was not a part of job, much less time, less time, about the same amount of time, more time, and much more time. This sequence gave th e largest value (5) to not a part of job and the lowest value to

PAGE 77

63 much more time These responses were recoded to give not a part of job the value of zero and much more time a value of 5. Similar recoding o ccurred for the age variable and those items related to years in teaching, year s as a school library media specialist, years in current position, scheduling m odel and administrative support. Although the original data we re not available to deve lop a demographic map of the original sample, an attempt was made to match the sample size, with the assumption that the demographic represen tations of elementary, middle, and high schools should be similar to those from 1996. As is shown in Chapter Four, a significant number of demographic variables were compared and in dicated that the samples were somewhat closely comparable. Chi-square analyses we re done on all demographic variables for which adequate data were available. The information relative to the school distri cts that participated in the PDRI study and the number of media specialists in each district who responded was available. In addition, the population demogra phics supplied by the Florida Department of Education were used to establish the validity and reliability of the sample. The 1996 sample included 513 respondent s. For the current study, since a confidence interval of 95% is consider ed optimum, the sample size of 384 was determined to be appropriate. The actual completed response number of 472 should enhance the reliability of the study. One limitation of the 1996 study was that seve ral of the larger school districts in the state did not participate, or had very limited participation. This limitation might have caused the original results to be skewed on so me of the items since some of these larger school districts, at the time, may have impl emented a wider variety of technologies and

PAGE 78

64 therefore their media specialists may have responded differently, especially to those technology-specific survey items. This lack of participation on the part of some districts may have affected the external validity of the orig inal study. The method of ga ining participation in the 1996 study involved contacting each school district and requesting their participation in the study. Each district then appoi nted a contact person to whom the printed surveys were sent. In some cases this person may have not been as committed to disseminating and following up on the survey responses. The other consideration could be that some of the larger districts simply decide d not to participate; hence, the lack or minimal responses from those districts. There was no narrative in the final PDRI report discussing internal or external validity. Table 5 reflects the number of responde nts by school district for the original PDRI survey (PDRI 1996, p. 19). Table 5. Number of Respondents to 1996 PD RI study by School District District # of Respondents Baker 5 Bay 13 Charlotte 14 Collier 10 Columbia 10 Dade 55 Dixie 8 Duval 52 Escambia 34 Gadsen 11 Gulf 3

PAGE 79

65District # of Respondents Hamilton 3 Hernando 20 Highlands 7 Indian River 15 Jackson 8 Lafayette 1 Lake 24 Leon 16 Levy 9 Liberty 2 Madison 2 Marion 6 Martin 8 Okeechobee 6 Orange 50 Pasco 27 Pinellas 19 Putnam 9 Santa Rosa 15 Seminole 15 Suwannee 2 Taylor 3 Volusia 8 Wakulla 6 Walton 7 Washington 4 Other 2 Total Respondents 509 Table 5. (Continued) Several of the large districts missing from Table 5 are Broward, Hillsborough, and Palm Beach, with Pinellas showing a relatively low number of respondents. The PDRI report further did not present demographic inform ation by Level, Gender, Age or Ethnicity,

PAGE 80

66 which this study reports. For a comparis on of 1996 respondents by district to 2006 respondents by district, see Appendix VII. Data Analysis Part One The data analysis for Part One replicates the analysis used in the original PDRI study and was extended to include severa l environmental fact ors not previously addressed in that study. In the 1996 study means and standard deviations were computed for those variables from Part One that are continuous (e.g., age) and frequencies were computed for those items containing qualitative data (e.g., highest level of education obtained) (PDRI, 1996, p. 18). Similar analyses were done in this study. If this study varies from the original study in the analysis of any particular item such a variation is noted in the Chapter Four discussion of that item. Ranked values were assigned to most de mographic and environmental variables, such as scheduling model (fixed=1, combina tion=2, flexible=3). The rationale for the ranking within each item is discussed in more detail in conjunction with that items analysis and discussion in both this chapter and Chapter Four. Demographic and Environmental Data Part One of the survey relates to a va riety of demographic and environmental data. While much of this section reflects the same demographic data as gathered in the original study, additional data were gathered to allow for environmental factors analysis as these environmental factors may have some correlation with the perceptions and implementation of the IP2 standards. In the PDRI st udy, the section referred to as Background Information included questions covering the following types:

PAGE 81

67 Job title (PDRI was surveying Guidan ce Counselors, Medi a Specialists, and Technology Specialist, thus the need for this item)* Time in current job title Name of school* Time in current school* Grade level of school Location of school: rural, rural/suburba n, suburban, suburban/urban, urban, other Number of students in your school When was your school built* Name of school district Time in current school district* Highest level of education you have obtained Age Sex (Actual word used for 1996 response. This was changed to Gender on the 2006 survey.) Race (Actual word used for 1996 response. This was changed to Ethnicity on the 2006 survey.) Number of fulltime media specialist in your school* Do you have a media center clerk?* Do you have a Technical Specialist in your school? (2006 uses the word Technology) Amount of time spent on school-based activities as opposed to School Board or district level activities*

PAGE 82

68 Does your school media center have a computer network? Does your school have a school-wide computer network? Is your school part of a district-wide computer network? Do you have access to the internet or other telecommunication networks? To what extent has automation/computer ization been incorporated into your cataloging/circulation system?* To what extent has automation/computeri zation been incorporat ed into your job as a whole?* Approximately how many personal computer s does your school currently have?* These items were not replicated on the 2006 survey. Several special interest items were incl uded in the survey. One such item is number 8 which asks, How did you earn your media certification? The purpose of this question is to determine the means by whic h respondents earned their certification, subsequent to the 2001 legislative change in the requirements for school media certification in Florida. In 2001 the Florid a Legislature change d the certification requirements for this position to allow already certified teachers to add on media certification by simply taking and passing th e FTCE subject area exam for pK-12 school media (Florida Education Code 1012.56(4)(c)). It would seem reasonable to assume therefore that persons achiev ing certification by taking the previously required 30 hours of coursework, or earning a masters degr ee in Library and Information Science or Educational Media, would be more familiar with the IP2 standards than those certified by simply taking the test. This information w ould be potentially mean ingful in evaluating the perceptions of respondents to many of the questions on the survey. It could be

PAGE 83

69 meaningful, if as some member s of the profession propose, ther e is a need for a return to more stringent certification requirements in orde r to maintain the quality of school library media programs that have a positive relationshi p to student achievement, as reported in the Making the Grade study (Baumbach, 2003). Data Analysis-Part Two Activity Ratings The means and standard deviations of the relative time spent ratings were computed for each activity. Actual ratings were converted to numeric values as previously described. The values used are as follows: time spent values ranged from zero for not a part of job to 5 for much more time and for criticality from 1 for unimportant to 5 for critical Since respondents who indicate that an activity was not a part of their job were assigned a time spent rating of zero, activities that many respondents rate as not a part of their job have a very low mean time spent rating. Means and standard deviations of the criticality ratings were also computed for each activity. While reviewing data for comple teness of responses it was noted that when a respondent used the not a part of job response for time spent, they generally did not give any response to the criticality portion of that item. Therefore, in computing the means for the criticality ratings, respondents who indicated th at an activity is not part of their job were excluded. The rationale for this ex clusion is that if an activity is not a part of a respondents job, it should not affect the overall saliency of the activity when it does occur. The third calculation used involved co mputing a composite variable that summarized the saliency or overall importance of each activity. This was done by first

PAGE 84

70 multiplying the criticality rating by 2, and then adding the time spent rating, and finally dividing the resulting numb er by 3. This gives the criticality rating twice as much weight as the time spent rating, and this index has been found useful in previous work as an overall summary of the information contained in these rating scales (Bosshardt, Rosse & Peterson, 1984 as cited in PDRI, 1996, p. 18) As mentioned previously, because the saliency composite includes the time spent rating, it was set to zero when an activity was rated as not part of the job. Therefore, as with time spent activities that respondents rate as not part of their job have relatively low saliency ratings. Incomplete responses were treated as missing items. Of the 644 respondents, 172 were classified as having a large enough number of missi ng responses to render them inappropriate to remain in the analysis. Thus 472 responses were used for this section of the analysis. Comparison to Previous Study An item analysis was done to compare the current mean salie ncy ratings on the 37 chosen items to the mean saliency ratings of the same items on the 1996 study. Since many of the items that were marked previously as not part of job were technology related, the investigat or predicted that, due to the increased emphasis on technology since 1996, there should be a decrease in the number of items that were determined to be categorized not part of job Independent samples t tests and effect sizes were used to determine the significance of any difference between the mean s of the saliency ratings for each of the 37 job task analysis items fr om 1996 and this study. Although z tests are generally used for samples of this size, Gall and Borg (1996) recognize that most investigators use the t

PAGE 85

71 test irrespective of th eir sample size. Cohens d effect size was also calculated for each task analysis item to inform decisions as to the magnitude of differences, when found, from those 1996 responses. Given that there are 37 items for which data was analyzed, the total number of t tests required was 37. The danger in doing this many t tests is the high probability of Type 1 errors occurring. In this section of the st udy, bivariate correlational analysis was used for assessing the direction and strength of the relati onship between two variables, such as supportive principal and flexible scheduling This was done by using Spearmans rank-order correlation to compare a demographic or enviro nmental variable with the saliency scores of the resurveyed it ems. Pearsons Product Moment Correlation r was used in the correlational analysis of age to the resurveyed items since age is a continuous variable. An ANOVA was used to determine the predictability of ethnicity when compared to the 37 job task analysis items. The investig ator theorized that variables such as supportive principal, hours of collaboration, and providing one-on-one instruction when compared with others flexible scheduling according to current res earch, should show a positive correlation. Other Spearman rho correlations were used to st udy variable interactions between familiarity with IP2, means of earning certification along with other demographic and environmental variables such as school level, number of students and geographic location Given the number of correlations pe rformed in the study, there is a high probability of Type I error. However, the use of an inequality formula would have substantially reduced the pot ential for identifying any significant correlations.

PAGE 86

72 Psychometric Issues of the Study Internal Validity: There are nine sources of threat to internal validity. They are: a. Selection b. History c. Maturation d. Repeated testing e. Instrumentation f. Regression to the mean g. Experimental mortality h. Selection-maturation interaction i. Experimenter bias The study addressed selection, in strumentation, and experimenter bias since these are the threats that have the most potential fo r affecting the resu lts of this study. Selection: Every effort was made to estab lish a selection process that would eliminate the potential for affecting the internal validity of the study. Originally the intent was to send the URL for th e survey out via the SUNLINK network. Unfortunately, as the time drew closer to send out the URL for the survey, the SUNLINK director determined that it was not within the mission of that organization to send out such informati on to its members. However, SUNLINK did post the URL to the organization s announcements page. Finally, the URL was sent to each school library media supervisor/contact person in each school district and they in turn sent it out to the respective school library media

PAGE 87

73 specialists. In addition, the URL was sent out via the Florida Association for Media in Education (FAM E) electronic list. The initial request for participati on was followed up by a message to the school media supervisors and/or school media contact persons in every school district. This message reque sted that the supervisors/ contact persons support the study by reinforcing to their colleagues the importance of responding to the survey. In addition, the past presiden t of FAME sorted and e-mailed media specialists in selected counties where th e level of response wa s not representative of that districts percentage of the school library media specialists in the state. In most cases, these were the larger metropolit an districts. Also, the state coordinator of media services made specific contact with those smaller districts where there was no fulltime school media supervisor in an effort to solicit additional responses. Instrumentation: The electronic format of the survey could affect the internal validity of the study should that format appear too difficult for some less technologically adept sch ool library media specia lists. To preclude this possibility, a paper copy was made available. However, no paper copies were requested. Also, the length of the survey could affect the internal validity should the length preclude the respondents from ha ving the patience and perseverance to complete the entire surve y. Although the number of items on the final survey was significantly reduced after noticing a dropoff in the number of responses in the latter items of the pilot survey, this re duction of items did not lessen the drop-off

PAGE 88

74 of completed items in the latter part of the survey. However, despite these phenomena, a total of 472 fully co mpleted surveys were obtained. Experimenter Bias: The threat of experimenter bias is minimized in this study as a result of the tool used for development and dissemination of the survey. Since all data were collected in an anonymous method and were analyzed by use of a statistical program the resu lts should be lacking in experimenter bias. Although some qualitative data were collected, there was no qualitative analysis used from which bias could be a factor. The only identifier information available the IP address recorded by the web survey tool and the school district from which the responses were received. External Validity: The significance of the sample size ca n affect the extern al validity of any study. However, the actual sample size of this study exceeds the previously determined number of 384 needed to give strong external vali dity to the study. In addition, chi square comparisons combined with Cohen w effect sizes were calculated between sample and population demographi c variables and suggested very small variances between th e population and the 1996 and 2006 samples. Chapter Three Summary In this chapter the methods that were used to develop, execute, and analyze the data from this study were discussed. As noted, the processes and procedures were reflective of the original 1996 study. The next chapter delineates the results of this study.

PAGE 89

75 Chapter Four Results This chapter provides a detailed analysis of the data collect ed. Included are the demographics of the sample, rate of response for each of the survey items, and correlations of the 2006 sample to the demogr aphics of the population, where data are available, and the 1996 sample. Additional co rrelational statistic s are described and results reported as guided by the research questions. The research questions that guided this analysis are: 1. Have school library media specialists saliency ratings on items related to collaboration, leadership and technology as defined in Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning changed since 1996? 2. Does the school library media specialists level of familiarity with Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning correlate with their ratings of job tasks in collaboration, lead ership and technology? 3. Do selected environmental factors in pub lic school settings correlate with school library media specialists ratings of job tasks in collaboration, leadership and technology? The specific factors of interest are: a. Scheduling model flexible, fixed or a combination b. Administrative support outward statements of encouragement for teachers to make use of the se rvices of the media program

PAGE 90

76 c. Full time media program supervisor in the district district-level coordination of the school media programs throughout the district, including staff development, which could impact the familiarity with, and perceptions of, the importance of im plementing national standards in the school media programs. d. Level of technology integration netw orked status of the school, which could reflect in the ability to acce ss resources offered in the media program; professional development in the use of technology, etc. 4. Do demographic variables, related to the school library media specialist, correlate with their ratings of job tasks in co llaboration, leadership and technology? The specific factors of interest to are: a. Gender b. Age c. Ethnicity d. Highest degree earned e. Years in teaching f. Years as a school library media specialist g. Time in current position h. Method of earning certification 5. Do demographic variables, related to th e school, correlate with school library media specialists ratings of job tasks in collaborati on, leadership and technology? The specific factors of interest are: a. Level of the school: elementary, middle, high, other

PAGE 91

77 b. Number of students c. Geographic location: rural, rural/ suburban, suburban, suburban/urban, urban The initial section of this chapter discusses the samp le demographics and, where data were available, compares the sample de mographics to the demographics of the 1996 PDRI study sample and the population. Following the demographic review, the analysis in this chapter addresses each research question in order. The second section of this chapter reports the analysis of the resurveyed items. The differences in means of the saliency scores from the 1996 PDRI study and the current data on those items chos en for resurvey are reported. The third section in this chapter discusse s the level of awareness and experience that the respondents had with both IP1 and IP2. Then data related to demographic and environmental variables are reported. Data Collection and Manipulation The data for this study were collected usi ng an electronic survey developed with a web-based survey tool. The data collected were then exported to an Excel spreadsheet. Data were evaluated to ensure proper coding. Sample Demographics The sample for this study was taken fr om public school library media specialists in the state of Florida. Of the 2676 school library media specialis ts who were notified about the survey 644 responded (454 of those completed all items on the survey; 509 answered at least 75% of the items). The 454 respondents who completed all items on

PAGE 92

78 the survey represent 17% of the population. The following sect ion presents the analysis of the current population to the 1996 and 2006 samples. Several observations can be made with respect to the demographics of the 1996 and 2006 sample and, where data were available, those of the total population. With regards to gender, all three data sets are very similar. The 2006 sample and the total population percentages are sepa rated by a few tenths of a percentage point. The statistical analysis reflected less than a small effect size, which indicates little variance between the sample and the population. Table 6 shows the comparis on by gender of the 1996 and 2006 samples to the population. Table 6. Comparison by Gender 1996 and 2006 Samples to Population Gender 2006 % Population % 1996 % Female 563 92.6 2460 87.05 472 91.8 Male 45 7.4 366 12.95 32 6.2 The Chi-square goodness of fit for the gender comparison for population to 2006 sample in Table 6 = 16.605 (3) with a critical Chi-square value =7.8147, and a Cohens w = 0.0695, reflecting a less than small variance between the population and 2006 sample on this variable. The Chi-square test of independence for the 2006 sample to 1996 sample resulted in a Chi-square = 0.0024 (3), critical Chi-square value = 7.8147 and effect size = 0.0008. For purposes of Chi-square analysis in this section, the effect size values used for Cohens w are: small=.10, medium=.30 and large=.50 (Cohen, 1992).

PAGE 93

79 Table 7 compares the population to the 2006 sample by age The percentages in this comparison closely align with each other and reflect the aging of the profession with the largest percentage in bot h being in the 50-59 age range. Table 7. Population to Sample Comparison by Age Age Population 2006 Sample n% n% 20-29 49 1.79 25 4.12 30-39 324 11.87 70 11.53 40-49 663 24.29 133 21.91 50-59 1389 50.88 317 52.22 60 or older 363 13.30 62 10.21 For Table 7 the Chi-square = 24.456 (4) with a critical Chi-square value = 9.4877 and a Cohens w =0.0849, which represents less than a small effect size and thus very little variance between the population and the 2006 sample. Table 8 shows the level of response by number of years as a teacher It is interesting to note the largest response level was in the m ore than 30 year category. This item was included since many assume that being a classroom teacher prior to becoming a school library media specialist is a valuable trait.

PAGE 94

80 Table 8. Number of Years as a Teacher 2006 Sample # Years Frequency % of Sample 0-5 74 12.3% 5-10 57 11.1% 11-15 75 12.6% 16-20 96 15.9% 21-25 82 13.6% 26-30 89 14.8% More than 30 119 19.7% Table 9 reflects the response to number of years in current position The high level of response in the 1-5 cat egory is somewhat surprising and may have had an effect on level of familiarity with IP2 Table 9. Number of Years in Current Position 2006 Sample # Years Frequency % of Sample 1-5 300 49.8% 6-10 150 24.9% 11-15 53 8.8% 16-20 40 6.6% 21-25 25 4.2% More than 25 34 5.6% The 2006 ethnicity response shows some variations from the 1996 and total population. The response rate for White/Caucasian is relatively higher, by percentage, for

PAGE 95

81 the 2006 sample than the 1996 sample and the total population (1996=87.9%, 2006=93.2%, Pop=86.2%). Table 10. Comparison by Ethnicity Ethnicity Population 2006 Sample 1996 Sample n % N % n % White 2306 86.2 562 93.2 452 87.9 Black 203 7.6 21 3.5 33 6.4 Hispanic 151 5.6 17 2 9 1.8 Native American 7 0.3 2 0.3 4 0.8 Other 8 0.3 6 1 6 1.2 Total 2676 608 504 The Chi-square analysis for the populat ion to 2006 sample resulted in a Chisquare = 40.906 (4), critical Chi-square va lue = 9.4877 and an effect size = 0.112; thus denoting small variances between the popul ation and 2006 sample. The Chi-square analysis for the 2006 to 1996 sample resulted in a Chi-square = 0.0200 (4), critical Chisquare value = 9.4877 and an effect size = 0.00424, indicating very small variance between these two samples. In the category for highest degree earned a higher percentage of 2006 respondents had earned a Masters degree in either Library and Information Science or Educational Media than was the cas e in 1996 (1996=60.9%, 2006=71.9%). The 2006 respondent percentage is within a 1.5 per centage points of the percentage of the population who have earned a Masters degree (Pop.=72.56%).

PAGE 96

82 Table 11. Comparison of Highest Degree Earned Degree 2006 % Population % 1996 % Bachelors 46 7.6 455 17.43 54 10.5 Some Grad. Work 81 13.4 --91 17.7 Masters 436 71.9 1678 72.56 313 60.9 Ed. Specialist 34 5.6 201 5.9 17 3.3 Doctorate 9 1.5 29 4.1 12 2.3 Note. There was no population data for Some Graduate Work since the Florida DOE does not collect data on this variable. For th e purposes of calculating the Chi-square for this variable, the Bachelors degree totals were combined with the Some Graduate Work totals. The population to 2006 sample Chi-square = 10.120 (3), critical Chi-square value = 7.8147 and a Cohens w = 0.0576, which is lower than the value needed to be considered a small effect size; therefore in dicating very small vari ances between the 2006 sample and the population on this variable. The Chi-square comparison between the 2006 and 1996 samples resulted in a Chi-square = 0.03868 (3), critical Chi-square value = 7.8147 and an effect size = 0.00594, indicating very small variances between these two samples. As reflected in Table 12, 30% of resp ondents have served as a school library media specialist for five years or less.

PAGE 97

83 Table 12. Number of Years as a School Library Media Specialist 2006 Sample # Years Frequency % of Sample 1-5 182 30.2 6-10 145 24.1 11-15 66 11 15-20 67 11.1 21-25 48 8 More than 25 94 15.6 The results for the question How di d you earn your media certification? are reported in Table 13. Table 13. Method of Certification 2006 sample Method Frequency % of Sample Not certified 16 2.7% 30 hours coursework and FTCE 64 10.8% Earned Masters in LIS or Ed. Media 276 46.5% Passing FTCE, no coursework 39 6.6% Prior to FTCE being required 142 23.9% That 46.5% of the respondents hold a Masters degree could be a positive indication as to the level of commitment within this segm ent of the LIS profession. In addition, the 23.9% that earned their certifi cation prior to the requirement of the FTCE is yet another indication of the aging of the profession.

PAGE 98

84 The response level for geographic location of the schools is represented in Table 14. There was no state data available for this comparison; therefore comparisons were made between the 1996 sample and the 2006 sample. Table 14. Comparison by Geographic Location between 1996 and 2006 Samples Location 1996 % 2006 % Population Rural 123 23.9 77 12.9 -Rural/Suburban 99 16.8 85 16.5 -Suburban 181 30.4 124 24.1 -Suburban/Urban 60 11.7 128 21.5 -Urban 84 16.3 111 18.6 -Since no population data were available fo r this variable, a Ch i-square test of independence analysis between the 1996 sample and the 2006 sample was performed. The Chi-square = 0.1544 (4), critical Chi-square value = 9.4877 and a Cohens w = 0.0120; thus indicating very small vari ances between these two samples. Despite a concerted effort through repeat ed e-mails to rural school districts and encouragement from the state school media coor dinator, the response of rural counties to this study was not as strong as that of the 1996 study (1996=123, 2006=77). However, suburban and suburban/urban respon se was higher (1996=144, 2006=239). Table 15 shows the respondents by number of students in their schools. The 1996 study did not break down schools by number of students and the state data does not match the clustering of the current study. Stat e data are categorized in much larger increments than those used in this study.

PAGE 99

85 Table 15. Comparison by Number of Students in School Number of students Population 2006 sample 1996 sample n % N % n % 1-300 22 3.7 301-800 244 40.9 801-1300 180 30.2 1301-1800 53 8.9 1801-2300 51 5.6 More than 2300 Mean = 1100 SD = 384 45 7.7 Mean = 933 SD = 579.87 The level of response, by percentage for elementary school library media specialist in 2006 was lower than the percentage of the popul ation. The response rate for middle and high schools were more closely re presentative of the population, as reported in Table 16. Table 16. Comparison by Level of School 1996 1996 % 2006 2006% Population Pop. % Elementary 275 53.5 295 49.6 1498 57.3 Middle 103 20 111 18.7 507 19.4 High 99 19.3 135 22.7 609 23.3 Combination 29 5.6 54 9 55 2.1 A Chi-square goodness of fit analysis of the population to 2006 sample by level of school resulted in a Chi-square = 141.2939 (3), a critical Chi-square value =7.8147 and a Cohens w = 0.208; thus indicating a medium amount of variance between the population and the 2006 sample on this variable. The Chi-square analysis on the 1996 and 2006

PAGE 100

86 samples resulted in a Chi-square = 0.03032 (3), critical Chi-square value = 7.8147 and an effect size = 0.00524, thus indicating a very small amount of variance between the two samples. Analysis of the 37 Resurveyed Job Task Analysis Items Research question 1: Have school library media specia lists saliency ratings on items related to collaboration, leadership and technology changed since 1996? Using the themes of collaboration, le adership and technology, this section presents the results for the comparison of the means from the 1996 saliency scores and those of the current study. Independent samples t tests were used for comparing the saliency means from the 1996 PDRI study with those of this study. Certain assumptions are involved when using t tests. Those assumptions include: Independence: The sample for this study was not randomly selected; therefore one could question the independence of the sample. However, since this study is comparing data from a previous study, in which the sample was also not randomly selected, this violation of the assumption of independence should not measurably affect the outcome of the study. It is also commonly understood that the t test is acceptable for use in this type of situation. Normality: Skewness and kurtosis analyses were performed on the 2006 responses to the 37 resurveyed job task analysis items. The results of those analyses are reported in Appendix VII. This type of analysis was not referenced in the original PDRI report and since the orig inal data could not be retrieved from that study this type of analysis coul d not be performed on the 1996 responses.

PAGE 101

87 The skewness analysis reported in Appendix VII shows that all values are within the -1 to +1 range; thus representing approximately normal variances. All items, with the exception of item 56 reported negative values. The largest negative value was for item 53 (-.821) and the only positive value was that of item 56 (.058). The kurtosis analysis reported in Appendix VII resulted in all values falling within the approximately normal ra nge, with the exception of items 52 and 53. The values for these two items were 52=1.146 and 53=2.005; both denoting significant variance from the nor mal distribution. However, the t test is known to be relatively robust to these types of minor violations. Homogeneity of Variance: Since the sample sizes were not equal, an independent samples test for equality of variances was performed to identify variances between the means of the 37 job task analys is items. The results of that test are reported in Appendix VIII. Two of the 37 items were reported to have statistically significant vari ations (p<.05); item 62, p=.031 and item 65 p=.005. In the following discussion, in addition to analyzing the 37 job task analysis items, references are made to those items (1 -39) in part one of the survey and their relationship to the area under discussion. A ccordingly Cronbachs Alpha was used to determine the internal consistency of thos e items (1-39). Table 18 shows those Alpha values. Since the PDRI study did not discuss measures taken to ensure the internal consistency of the 37 job task analysis ite ms, Cronbachs Alpha was used to identify internal consistency of those items. Th at value is also shown in Table 17.

PAGE 102

88 Table 17. Cronbachs Alpha Values by Item Type and of the 37 Resurveyed Items Item Type Alpha Collaboration .787 Leadership .598 Technology .749 PDRI Resurveyed Items .939 Collaboration There were 14 items categor ized as being related to IP2 goals and objectives within the context of collaboration by the s ubject matter experts who selected the job task analysis items for resurvey in this study. This section reports the resu lts from the saliency analysis of those items. A graphical representation of the differences of the saliency means for the items related to collaboration is shown in Figure 1.

PAGE 103

Independent samples t tests were used to compare the means of these resurveyed items. For the collaboration items, the individual data, including t scores, are reported in Table 17. Figure 1. Saliency Comparison for Collaboration Items 0 0.54 0-Prov F orm I nstr 41-ProvInf I nstr 44-IntroSpecIntMat 45-C ondu c tWk s hops 47-D es I nn ovInstr 48-Part T ea m T eac h 50-KeepT c hI n f orm 51-Acc es sLMCResourc 52-AssistGCollaboration Task 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5enR ef 53-AssisttLocMat 54-I n strLM C PolProc 63C oorLM C M a t T ec h 73-C oo pEdAgenc ie s 74-C oop PubLibMean Saliency Saliency 1996 M Sali89ency 2006 M

PAGE 104

Table 18 Means Comparisons and t Scores with Effect Size for Collaboration Items 2006 Item # Task N 1996 N 2006 1996 M 1996 SD 2006 M 2006 SD T Score df ES 40 Provide formal instruction in information skills to students in classroom or small group settings (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 513 498 3.43 1.06 3.27 1.23 2.22 1009 0.14* 41 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 513 496 3.7 0.85 3.76 0.94 1.06 1007 0.07 44 Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) 502 492 2.93 1.13 2.7 1.07 3.29 992 0.21** 45 Conduct workshops/in-service and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, and new production techniques. 509 493 2.04 1.54 2.93 0.93 11.03 1000 0.73**** 47 Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches 508 474 2.52 1.2 2.72 1.04 2.78 980 0.18* 48 Participate in team teaching activities 51 2 477 2.2 1.29 2.74 1.11 7.03 987 0.45*** 50 Keep teachers informed concerning students' information skills 512 476 2.37 1.05 2.87 1.01 7.62 986 0.49*** 51 Act as a resource to teachers in providing ideas, and/or resource materials to be included as part of classroom units 512 476 3.58 0.81 3.55 0.91 0.55 986 0.03 90

PAGE 105

912006 Item # Task N 1996 N 2006 1996 M 1996 SD 2006 M 2006 SD T Score df ES 52 Assist students and/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions) 509 469 3.59 0.85 3.34 0.9 4.47 976 0.29** 53 Assist students and/or teachers in locating and selecting materials 511 469 3.97 0.73 3.7 0.88 5.24 978 0.34** 54 Instruct teachers and students in media center policies and procedures 511 469 3.12 1.13 3.16 0.9 0.61 978 0.04 63 Work with faculty to coordinate media center materials, activities, and technology in conjunction with curriculum programs, units, and text books 511 462 3.28 0.97 3.34 1.03 0.94 971 0.06 73 Work cooperatively with district and/or regional education and media center service units 508 476 3 0.89 2.95 1.09 0.83 982 0.05 74 Work cooperatively with public libraries to promote and encourage student and family use of resources 507 476 2.33 1.04 2.69 1.03 5.45 981 0.35** Note: Effect sizes for t test analysis are: small=.2 0, medium=.50, large=.80 (Cohen, 1992) t score exceeds critical t of 1.96, ES < small ** t score exceeds critical t of 1.96, ES = small. *** t score exceeds critical t of 1.96, ES = medium **** t score exceeds critical t of 1.96, ES = large Table 18. (Continued) Table 18. (Continued)

PAGE 106

92 When comparing the means for saliency, it is interesting to note that 42.8% of the items have a saliency score lower in 2006 than in 1996. This may be cause for concern and is discussed in more detail in Chapter Five. Item 53 showed the largest (-.27) negativ e change in actual saliency. The item states, Assist students and/or teachers in lo cating and selecting materials. The effect size for this item (.34) falls between sma ll (.20) and medium (.50). This reflects a statistically significant negative shift in the perceptions of school library media services to students and teachers. The second largest of the negative cha nges in saliency was on item 52, which states, Assist students and/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions. The saliency went from 3.59 in 1996 to 3.34 in 2006; the item had a t score of 4.47 with an effect size of .29, which indicates a small effect. Item 45, which states, Conduct workshops/in-service and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology and new production techniques showed the highest positive change in terms of saliency and was found to be statistically significant with a medium effect (.73), wh ich places it on the upper end of the medium range bordering on large (.80). Leadership There were 13 items categoriz ed as being related to IP2 goals and objectives within the context of leadersh ip by the subject matter expert s who selected the job task analysis items for resurvey in this study. This section reports the resu lts from the saliency analysis of those items.

PAGE 107

Table 18 reports the results of the analysis between the saliency means from the 1996 study and this study on those items related to leadership. Figure 2. Saliency Comparison for Leadership Items Figure 2 is a graphical repr esentation of the comparison of leadership saliency scores from 1996 and 2006. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 449-NewS e rvices 5 5 -InformCopyright 60-Pa rt Tech T eams 62-ServeC urrC omm 64-EvalService s 65 -Coo rd SpecP ro g 66DevSt r atPla n 67-OrgAdvComm 68AppN a t St and 69-PresT oGr oups 70-Pa rt SIT 72-AttendMtg/Conf 76U pgrad ePr ofSkillJob TaskSaliency Saliency 1996 M93 Saliency 2006 M

PAGE 108

Table 19. Means Comparison and t Scores with Effect Size for Leadership Items 942006 Item # Task Description Total N 1996 Total N 2006 Mean 1996 1996 SD Mean 2006 2006 SD t score df ES 49 Inform faculty of new media center services, materials, and technology 513 477 3.36 0.76 3.55 0.87 3.62 988 0.23** 55 Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as necessary 509 469 3.17 0.88 3.37 0.95 3.42 976 0.22** 60 Organize and/or partic ipate in technology teams/technical committees 504 468 2.04 1.54 3.15 1.04 13.07 970 0.84**** 62 Serve on curriculum committ ees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides 507 461 2.38 1.4 2.14 0.79 3.24 966 0.21** 64 Evaluate the adequacy and suitability of facilities, equipment, materials, and services with regard to their impact on learning outcomes 510 460 2.83 1.11 3.17 1 4.99 968 0.32** 65 Coordinate special reading, writing, and student production programs (e.g., Sunshine State Reader's program, Jim Harbin video awards, etc.) 507 464 2.71 1.18 3.11 1.15 5.34 969 0.34** 66 Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives 512 465 3.13 0.99 3.41 1.01 4.37 975 0.28** 67 Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning 510 454 2.36 1.1 2.94 1.02 8.46 962 0.55*** 68 Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs 513 456 2.83 0.98 3.14 1.02 4.82 967 0.31**

PAGE 109

952006 Item # Task Description Total N 1996 Total N 2006 Mean 1996 1996 SD Mean 2006 2006 SD t score df ES 69 Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations 511 456 2.17 1.19 2.67 1.03 6.95 965 0.45** 70 Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams 512 455 2.95 1.09 2.98 1.15 0.42 965 0.03 72 Attend meetings/conferences and participate in professional organizations (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.) 509 476 2.94 0.88 2.21 0.74 14.04 983 0.9**** 76 Upgrade relevant professional skills(e.g., attend college courses an/or seminars 511 478 2.17 1.19 3.35 1.03 16.62 987 1.06**** Note: Effect sizes for t test analysis are: small=.2 0, medium=.50, large=.80 (Cohen, 1992) *** t score exceeds critical t of 1.96, ES = medium **** t score exceeds critical t of 1.96, ES = large ** t score exceeds critical t of 1.96, ES = small. t score exceeds critical t of 1.96, ES < small Table 19. (Continued)

PAGE 110

96 Table 19 shows that all of the items, with the exception of item 70, had a t score that exceeded the critical t of 1.96. In addition, each of these items reflected an effect size large enough to make them significant. All of the items, with the exception of items 62 (serve on curriculum committees) and 72 (parti cipate in professional organizations and attend conferences), had a posit ive change in their saliency scores. Item 72s saliency dropped .73 with an effect size of .9, making th is a strong statistically significant change. Item 76 showed the highest saliency cha nge (1.18) with an effect size of 1.06. This item, Upgrade relevant professional skills (e.g., attend colle ge courses and/or seminars may reflect a strong commitment on the part of these professionals to keep abreast with changes in the profession. Technology There were 10 items categoriz ed as being related to IP2 goals and objectives within the context of technol ogy by the subject matter experts who selected the job task analysis items for resurvey in this study. This section reports the resu lts from the saliency analysis of those items. Figure 3 is a graphical representation of the variation in saliency between the 1996 and 2006 samples.

PAGE 111

Table 20 reports the results of the t test analysis. Figure 3. Saliency Comparison fo r Technology Items 04 2-Prov F o rmIns t r 43-Prov I nform I ns t r 46-I n s t T c hT ec hI nt e g 56-Assi s t ProdT ech 57-Ins t ruc t PubAccCat 58-I ns t rT echObjec t s 59-ProTechnology Task 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4vAdapt T ec h 61U s e OnlineServ ic es 71-MaintLMCCompNet 75-Kee pI nf o rmNewTecSaliency Saliency 1996 M Sa97liency 2006 M

PAGE 112

Table 20. Means Comparisons and t Scores with Effect Size for Technology Items 2006 Item # Task N 1996 N 2006 1996 M 1996 SD 2006 M 2006 SD t Score df ES 42 Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or small-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 511 492 3.06 1.1 3.17 1.17 1.53 1001 0.10 43 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 510 492 3.26 0.99 3.13 1.07 2.00 1000 0.13* 46 Instruct teachers concerning ways to incorporate technology into the classroom curricula 510 477 2.71 1.25 2.9 1.1 2.53 985 0.16* 56 Assist teacher and students in the use of production techniques 510 465 2.57 1.15 2.39 0.98 2.62 973 0.17* 57 Instruct students an d/or teachers in the use of the public access catalog system 509 467 2.58 1.68 3.41 0.96 9.37 974 0.60*** 58 Instruct students an d/or teachers in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CD-ROM encyclopedia, graphic arts presentations, multimedia presentations, etc.) 513 468 3.36 1.13 3.02 1.11 4.75 979 0.30** 98

PAGE 113

992006 Item # Task N 1996 N 2006 1996 M 1996 SD 2006 M 2006 SD t Score df ES 59 Provide adaptive technologies for students with special needs 512 465 1.55 1.4 2.64 1.17 13.13 975 0.84**** 61 Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research) 505 464 1.99 1.56 3.05 1.25 11.50 967 0.75*** 71 Maintain and support a computer network for the media center 501 459 2.37 1.94 3.11 1.46 6.63 958 0.43** 75 Keep informed about new technologies 507 475 3.63 0.8 3.53 1.02 1.72 980 0.11 Note: Effect sizes for t test analysis are: small=.2 0, medium=.50, large=.80 (Cohen, 1992) *** t score exceeds critical t of 1.96, ES = medium **** t score exceeds critical t of 1.96, ES = large ** t score exceeds critical t of 1.96, ES = small. t score exceeds critical t of 1.96, ES < small Table 20. (Continued)

PAGE 114

100 The most noticeable positive saliency cha nges in technology occu rred with items 59 (provide adaptive technologies) and 61 (use online services to retrieve information). Item 59s effect size = .84 making its statistical significance large. Item 61s effect size = .75, which places it within the medium effect size, just slightly less than the .80 value for a large effect. Item 71 (maintain computer netw ork for media center) also showed a large change in salience (.74) w ith a medium effect size. Four items showed a negative change in saliency. They were items 43, Provide informal (e.g., on-on-one) instruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.); (1996 saliency = 3.26, 2006 saliency = 3.13) t=2.00, ES=0.13; 56, Assist teacher and st udents in the use of production techniques (1996 saliency = 2.57, 2006 saliency = 2.39) t=2.62, ES=.17; 58 Instruct students and teachers in the use of various technology obj ects (1996 saliency = 3.36, 2006 saliency = 3.02) t=4.75, ES=.30; and 75, Keep informed about new technologies (1996 saliency = 3.63, 2006 saliency = 3.53) t=1.72, ES = 0.11. Not a Part of Job For each of the 37 resurveyed job task analysis items, the respondents were asked to give a ranked response to the relative am ount of time spent on a task and to estimate how critical they thought it was that each task be completed. For the time spent response, the lowest ranked response was not a part of job (ranking = 0). A Chi-square goodness of fit analysis was performed between the 1996 and 2006 samples for Not a Part of Job. The Chi-square=205.19 (1), critical Chi-square value=3.84, w= .46 indicated a large effect size and significant variance between the two samples. Figure 4 is a graphical representation of the response rates for 1996 and 2006 for not part of job.

PAGE 115

0 50 100 150 200 25040-FormalInstruct 41-1to1Instruct 42-FormInstTechRes 43-InfInstTechRes 44-IntroSpecIntMat 45-ConductWkshops 46-InstrTchTechInteg 47-DesignInnovMat 48-PartTeamTeach 49-InformNewServ 50-InformInfoSkills 51-ResourceforTch 52-AssistGenRef 53-LocateMaterials 54-LMCPolProc 55-InformCopyright 56-UseProdTech 57-UsePubAccessCat 58-InstTechObj 59-ProvAdaptiveTech 60-OrgPartTechTeam 61-OnlineResour 62-ServeCurrComm 63-CoordMatActivities 64-EvalFacilityMat 65-SpecRdgProg 66-DevStratPlan 67-OrgLMCAdvComm 68-ApplyStandards 69-PresenttoParents 70-PartSchImpTeam 71-LMCCompNet 72-AttendMtgConf 73-CoopDistRegUnits 74-CoopPubLibrary 75-KeepInformTech 76-UpgradeProfSkillsTaskFrequency 1996 Frequency 2006 Frequency Figure 4. Not a Part of Job Comparison 1996 and 2006 Samples Figure 4 shows that there was a positive ch ange in the percentage of respondents considering the tasks not a part of job in 2006. A positive indicator in this case would be a decrease in the number of respondents consid ering the task not a part of their job. The following items had such a decrease: The Chi-square analysis matrix for not a part of job is shown in Table 21. 101

PAGE 116

102 Table 21. Chi-square Analysis for Not a Part of Job Task Items 2006 Item # Task 1996 % 2006 % Chisquare Critical Chi value ES 40 Provide formal instruction skills to students in classroom or small group settings (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 2.73 2.61 0.037 3.841 0.037 41 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 1.36 1.61 .067 3.841 .067 42 Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or smallgroup setting in media center and/or schoolwide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 4.11 6.10 1.588 3.841 0.176 43 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction to students in media center and/or schoolwide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 1.96 6.10 10 3.841 0.5* 44 Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) 4.58 3.25 1.256 3.841 0.179 45 Conduct workshops/inservice and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, and new production techniques. 30.84 6.09 86.251 3.841 0.679* 46 Instruct teachers concerning ways to incorporate technology into the classroom curricula 12.35 10.69 1.263 3.841 0.105

PAGE 117

Table 21. (Continued) 1032006 Item # Task 1996 % 2006 % Chisquare Critical Chi value ES 47 Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches 12.20 12.03 0.21 3.841 0.042 48 Participate in team teaching activities 18.24 13 .35 5.769 3. 841 0.192* 49 Inform faculty of new media center services, materials, and technology 0.58 0.63 0 3.841 0 50 Keep teachers informed concerning students' information skills 8.59 7.56 0.8 3.841 0.1 51 Act as a resource to teachers in providing ideas, and/or resource materials to be included as part of classroom units 0.78 0.84 0 3.841 0 52 Assist students and/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions) 0.79 0.85 0 3.841 0 53 Assist students and/or teachers in locating and selecting materials 0.39 0.64 0.2 3.841 0.2 54 Instruct teachers and students in media center policies and procedures 25.83 0.43 126.129 3.841 0.97* 55 Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as necessary 0.79 0.43 0.667 3.841 0.333 56 Assist teacher and students in the use of production techniques 8.82 19.57 15.559 3.841 0.338** 57 Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of the public access catalog system 24.36 2.14 96.985 3.841 0.85*

PAGE 118

Table 21. (Continued) 1042006 Item # Task 1996 % 2006 % Chisquare Critical Chi value ES 58 Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CD-ROM encyclopedia, graphic arts presentations, multimedia presentations, etc.) 5.85 7.05 0.143 3.841 0.048 59 Provide adaptive technologies for students with special needs 40.23 24.09 27.786 3.841 0.295* 60 Organize and/or participate in technology teams/technical committees 31.15 8.55 69.487 3.841 0.593* 61 Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research) 32.28 0.86 151.384 3.841 0.952* 62 Serve on curriculum committees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides 20.51 16.49 4.356 3.841 0.155* 63 Work with faculty to coordinate media center materials, activities, and technology in conjunction with curriculum programs, units, and text books 2.74 3.90 0.5 3.841 0.125 64 Evaluate the adequacy and suitability of facilities, equipment, materials, and services with regard to their impact on learning outcomes 7.06 7.17 0.13 3.841 0.043

PAGE 119

Table 21. (Continued) 1052006 Item # Task 1996 % 2006 % Chisquare Critical Chi value ES 65 Coordinate special reading, writing, and student production programs (e.g., Sunshine State Reader's program, Jim Harbin video awards, etc.) 9.47 7.11 2.778 3.841 0.185 66 Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives 3.52 1.08 7.348 3.841 0.565* 67 Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning 10.20 9.03 1.301 3.841 0.118 68 Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs 4.09 3.07 1.4 3.841 0.2 69 Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations 17.03 10.53 11.267 3.841 0.288* 70 Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams 5.86 11.21 5.444 3.841 0.259** 71 Maintain and support a computer network for the media center 36.93 33.12 3.231 3.841 0.098 72 Attend meetings/conferences and participate in professional organizations (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.) 1.77 1.05 1.143 3.841 0.286

PAGE 120

Table 21. (Continued) 1062006 Item # Task 1996 % 2006 % Chisquare Critical Chi value ES 73 Work cooperatively with district and/or regional education and media center service units 2.56 4.83 2.778 3.841 0.077 74 Work cooperatively with public libraries to promote and encourage student and family use of resources 9.07 7.56 1.22 3.841 0.122 75 Keep informed about new technologies 0.59 0.21 1 3.841 0.5 76 Upgrade relevant professional skills(e.g., attend college courses an/or seminars 17.03 0.42 81.18 3.841 0.955* Note: For purposes of Chi-square analysis th e effect size values used for Cohens w are: small=.10, medium=.30 and large=.50 (Cohen, 1992). *Statistically significant positive change **Statistically significan t negative change The following items showed a positive change in Not a Part of Job rating and were found to be statistically significant: Item 45, Conduct workshops/in-service and ot her training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technol ogy, and new production techniques (1996=30.84%, 2006=6.09%, Chi-square= 86.251, ES=.679). This reflects a significant change in percepti on in the need for school lib rary media specialists to be active participants in the training of teachers in the use of a wide variety of materials and technologies. Item 48, Participate in team teach ing activities (1996=18.24%, 2006=13.35%, Chi-square=5.769, ES=.192). Since team t eaching is a meaningful way in which

PAGE 121

107 to engage classroom teachers in collaborat ive activities, despite the small effect size, this positive shift in the perception of the importance of team teaching is encouraging. Item 54, Instruct students and teachers in media center policies and procedures (1996=25.83%, 2006=0.43%, Chi-square=126.1 29, ES=.97). This item reflects the second strongest statistically significant chan ge, with the largest effect size, for not a part of job. Since instructing students an d teachers in the policies and procedures of the school library media center is paramount to the effective operation of a school library media progr am, this change in perception is a positive step in the strengthening of the school library media programs in Florida. Item 57, Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of the public access catalog system (1996=24.36%, 2006=2.14%, Chisquare=96.985, ES=.85). This significant change in perceptions was e xpected due to the implementation of many of the online public access catal ogs in schools coming after 1996. Item 59, Provide adaptive technologies for studen ts with special needs (1996=40.23%, 2006=24.09%, Chi-square=27.7 86, ES=.295). The medium effect size of this perceptual change also has a practical impact. The infusion of a wide variety of students with special needs into the general pub lic school population has created the need for sc hool library media specialist s to not only be aware of various forms of adaptive technologies but to also be prepared to make them available for these students use with in the school library media program. Item 60, Organize and/or participate in technology teams/technical committees (1996=30.15%, 2006=8.55%, Chi-square=69.48 7, ES=.593). The large effect size

PAGE 122

108 of this item validates the significant ch ange in perception on this item. This perceptual change may indicate an understa nding on the part of the respondents as to the importance of the school library me dia programs interests being advocated through and to these types of committees. Item 61, Use online services to retrie ve information (e.g., in doing research (1996=32.28%, 2006=0.86%, Chi-square=151.3 84, ES=.952). This item has the highest Chi-square value and the second highest effect size in this group. This change in perception was anticipated sin ce the implementation of online resources in the public school envir onment occurred after 1996. Item 62, Serve on curriculum committees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides (1996=20.51%, 2006=16.49%, Chi-square=4.356, ES=.155). Alt hough this analysis reflects a small level of statistical significance, this is an important change of perception for practical application in the field. The selection of appropriate materials for resource units is an integr al function of the school lib rary media specialist and serving on curriculum committees places the school library media specialist squarely in position to use their specific expertise in this area. Item 69, Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations (1996=17.03%, 2006=10.53%, Chi-square=11.267, ES=.288). This change in perception reflects the respondents understanding of the importance of r eaching out to the entire learning community as presented in IP2.

PAGE 123

109 Item 76, Upgrade relevant professional sk ills (e.g., attend college courses and/or seminars (1996=17.03%, 2006=0.42%, Chi-sq uare=81.180, ES=.955). This large change may indicate an understanding of the impo rtance of upgrading ones professional skills by those res ponding to the 2006 survey. Figure 4 shows that there was a negative change in the percentage of respondents considering the following items as not a part of their job. Item 56, Assist teachers and students in the use of production techniques (1996=8.82%, 2006=19.57%, Chi-square=15.55 9, ES=.338). The negative change for this item was somewhat of a surprise and potential explan ations are explored in the next chapter. Item 70, Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams (1996=5.86%, 2006=11.21%, Chi-square=5.444, ES=.259). This significant negative change is cause for concern in that School Improve ment Teams have strong influence in funding decisions in many schools. Analysis of Demographic and Environmental Items School Library Media Specialists Familiarity with IP2-Correlations with the 37 Resurveyed Job Task Analysis Items Research Question 2: Does the school library media specia lists level of familiarity with Information Power: Buildi ng Partnerships for Learning correlate with their practice as measured by a change in the saliency of sel ected items resurveyed from a 1996 Job Task Analysis? Two items were used to determine the respondents level of familiarity with Information Power Each item used multiple responses to assist with the determination of

PAGE 124

110 the respondents level of fam iliarity with each edition of Information Power. The first item asked about familiarity with the 1988 version and the second asked about familiarity with the 1998 version. The rationale fo r including the question relating to IP1 was two fold. First, the current version of the Flor ida Teacher Competency Exam for the subject area of School Media pK-12 is based on the pr inciples and guidelines set forth in that edition. Second, that was the edition in use at the time of the 1996 PDRI survey, which is the basis of the original saliency ratings on the items being resurveyed in this study. Therefore, respondents who are familiar with IP1 but not IP2 may have different perceptions concerning collaboration, lead ership and technology issues. Conversely, those school library media specialists who ar e relatively new to the profession may not have been exposed to IP1 and therefore might have a different perception than someone familiar with both publications. Table 22 reports the results of the familiarity with IP1 and IP2 questions; while Table 23 re ports the results of the attended in-service question. Table 22. Familiarity with Information Power 2006 Sample Times read IP1 IP2 n % n % More than once 155 31 158 32 One time 118 24 147 30 Scanned 111 22 130 26 Heard of-never read 61 12 30 6 Never heard of 50 10 30 6

PAGE 125

111 Since this study focuses on IP2, it is interesting to note that 62% of the respondents had read it; while an additional 26% responded that they had scanned it. Table 23. Attended In-service on Information Power 2006 Sample In-services attended IP1 IP2 n % n % Several 81 16 77 16 One 93 19 120 24 None 321 65 298 60 Focusing on IP2, it is worthy of note that only 40 % of the respondents had attended an in-service on the national standards for their profession. Next, the respondents were asked about their attempts to implement the standards in the both editions. Table 24 shows the results for that question. Table 24. Attempts to Implement IP1 and IP2 Attempted to Implement IP1 IP2 n % n % Made serious attempts 145 29 164 33 Made some attempts 213 43 247 50 Made no attempts 137 28 84 17 Many of these respondents may not have had the opportunity to attempt to implement the IP1 (1988) standards given the f act that those who came into the school library media profession subsequent to 1998 might have only had the opportunity to become familiar with and attempt to implement those standards in IP2

PAGE 126

112 In an effort to determine if there is a correlation between a school district having at least one full time supervisor for th e area of school library media and those respondents who stated that they had attend ed at least one in-s ervice program about IP1 or IP2, a Spearman rank correlation was performed on those two items. The results showed a significant (r =-.100, p=.047) correlation between those respondents in districts with a full time school library media supervisor and those who had attended an in-service on IP1. Similarly, a significant correlation was observed ( r=-.130, p=.009) between respondents in school districts with a school library media supervisor and those who had attended an in-service on IP2. Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed with the IP2 goals to which 27.6% (n=148) strongly agree d, 47.6% (n=255) agreed, 14.4% (n=77) somewhat agreed, 0.6% (n=3) somewhat disagreed and zero res ponded as disagreeing; while 9.3% (n=50) were not sure. It was theorized that the level of familiarity with IP2 might have a correlation with the level of agreement with the goals of IP2. A Spearman rank correlation analysis did not prove this to be an accurate assumption ( r=-.061, p=.177). Further, it was theorized that familiarity with IP2 might be effected by attended inservice on IP2 ; however, no significant co rrelation could be found (r=.012. p=.805) Finally, it was theorized that familiarity with IP2 might correlate with attempted to implement; however, there was no signifi cant correlation found between these two variables (r=-.019, p=.676). A Spearman rank correlation was performed to establish if there were statistically significant correlations between familiarity with IP2 and the 37 job task analysis items. A correlation was found with item 42 Provide formal

PAGE 127

113 instruction to students in classroom or sm all-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production) ( r =0.090, p=.048). The correlational matrix for this analysis is shown in Table 25. Table 25. Spearman Correlation Matrix-Familiarity with IP2 to the 37 Job Task Analysis Items 2006 Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 40 Provide formal instruction skills to students in classroom or small group settings (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.052 0.246 41 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.004 0.929 42 Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or small-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.09* 0.048 43 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.039 0.392 44 Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) 0.053 0.24 45 Conduct workshops/in-service and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, and new production techniques. 0.066 0.145 46 Instruct teachers concerning ways to incorporate technology into the classroom curricula 0.042 0.364 47 Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches 0.014 0.761 48 Participate in team teach ing activities -0.004 0.926 49 Inform faculty of new media center services, materials, and technology 0.023 0.621 50 Keep teachers informed concerning students' information skills 0.048 0.299

PAGE 128

Table 25. (Continued) 1142006 Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 51 Act as a resource to teachers in providing ideas, and/or resource materials to be included as part of classroom units 0.032 0.482 52 Assist students and/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions) 0.054 0.245 53 Assist students and/or teachers in locating and selecting materials 0.034 0.459 54 Instruct teachers and students in media center policies and procedures 0.033 0.48 55 Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as necessary 0.041 0.378 56 Assist teacher and students in the use of production techniques 0.037 0.428 57 Instruct students and/or t eachers in the use of the public access catalog system -0.041 0.382 58 Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CD-ROM encyclopedia, graphic arts presentations, multimedia presentations, etc.) 0.039 0.39 59 Provide adaptive technologies for students with special needs 0.017 0.707 60 Organize and/or partic ipate in technology teams/technical committees 0.013 0.768 61 Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research) 0 0.993 62 Serve on curriculum committ ees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides 0.003 0.956 63 Work with faculty to coordinate media center materials, activities, and technology in conjunction with curriculum programs, units, and text books 0.02 0.659 64 Evaluate the adequacy and suitability of facilities, equipment, materials, and services with regard to their impact on learning outcomes 0.03 0.517 65 Coordinate special reading, writing, and student production programs (e.g., Sunshine State Reader's program, Jim Harbin video awards, etc.) 0.066 0.161

PAGE 129

Table 25. (Continued) 1152006 Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 66 Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives -0.04 0.395 67 Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning 0.017 0.725 68 Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs 0.001 0.985 69 Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations 0.037 0.433 70 Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams 0.056 0.243 71 Maintain and support a computer network for the media center 0.012 0.804 72 Attend meetings/conferences and participate in professional organizations (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.) 0.039 0.383 73 Work cooperatively with district and/or regional education and media center service units 0.009 0.835 74 Work cooperatively with public libraries to promote and encourage student and family use of resources 0.026 0.566 75 Keep informed about new technologies 0.059 0.191 76 Upgrade relevant professional skills(e.g., attend college courses an/or seminars 0.038 0.403 *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed) A Cramers V analysis showed a no significant relationship between familiarity with IP2 and the geographic lo cation of the school (V=0.093, p=0.431) Table 26 represents specific inform ation about the geographic location of the school and the level of familiarity with IP2.

PAGE 130

116 Table 26. Comparison of Familiarity with IP2 and Geographic Location of School Times Read Geographic Location Rural Rural/Suburban Suburban Suburban/Urban Urban Total n % n % n % n % n % n % More than one time 18 3.77 20 4.18 40 8.37 42 8.79 30 6.28 152 31.80 One time 20 4.18 22 4.60 41 8.58 31 6.49 27 5.65 141 29.50 Scanned 17 3.56 25 5.23 38 7.95 24 5.02 21 4.39 125 26.50 Heard of never read 3 0.63 4 0.84 10 2.09 9 1.88 3 0.63 29 6.07 Never heard of 6 1.26 6 1.26 5 1.05 1 0.21 2 0.42 20 4.18 Table 26 indicates a higher number of school library media specialists from suburban and suburban/urban schools have read, or at least scanned, IP2 compared to other geographic locations. Environmental Factors that may Correlate with Job Task Analysis Responses Research Question 3: Do selected environmental fact ors in public school settings correlate with school library media specialis ts ratings of job ta sks in collaboration, leadership and technology? The spec ific factors of interest are: a. Scheduling model flexible, fixed or a combination b. Administrative support outward statements of encouragement for teachers to make use of the se rvices of the media program c. Full time media program supervisor in the district district-level coordination of the school media programs throughout the district, including staff development, which could impact the familiarity with, and

PAGE 131

117 perceptions of, the importance of im plementing national standards in the school media programs. d. Level of technology integration netw orked status of the school, which could reflect in the ability to acce ss resources offered in the media program; professional development in the use of technology, etc. Scheduling Model IP2 states, The library media program requires flexible and equitable access to information, ideas and resources for learning (AASL & AECT, 1998, p. 83), An item was placed in the survey to determine the type of scheduling model used in each respondents school. To this item 18.1% (n=94) responded that they operated on a fixed schedule (a set schedule in which every class comes to the media center as a pa rt of the teacher planning period rotation) while 53.4% (n=279) operated on a flexible schedule (time is scheduled in collaboration between the classroom teacher and the sc hool library media sp ecialist as needed) and 28.5% (n=149) operated on some combination of the two. Combination schedule most often refers to the media center having approximately 50% of its schedule fixed and 50% of its schedule fl exible. This percentage for combination however is not always so evenly dist ributed. Depending on the specific school setting, combination could be interpreted in a variety of ways and may, in some cases, closely mirror a fixed schedule. For purposes of the correlational analysis, the responses to this item were placed in a rank order. This ranking was done on the theoretical and research constructs of the profession. Since flexible schedulin g is considered to be the preferred model, as stated in

PAGE 132

118 IP2, the FAME resolution and the state of Ge orgias Education Code, it was given the strongest ranked value. Thus the rankings were flexible=3, combination=2 and fixed=1. Spearman rank correlation was used to determ ine if there were correlations between the scheduling model and the 37 items on the task analysis portion of the survey. Table 27 reports the correlational matrix for the co mparison of scheduling model and the 37 job task analysis items. Table 27. Spearman Correlation Matrix-Scheduling Model to the 37 Job Task Analysis Items 2006 Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 40 Provide formal instruction skills to students in classroom or small group settings (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) -0.11* 0.015 41 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) .097* 0.033 42 Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or small-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) -0.002 0.971 43 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.152* 0.001 44 Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) -0.113* 0.013 45 Conduct workshops/in-service and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, and new production techniques. 0.051 0.267 46 Instruct teachers concerning ways to incorporate technology into the classroom curricula 0.023 0.619 47 Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches 0.122* 0.008 48 Participate in team teach ing activities 0.029 0.539

PAGE 133

Table 27. (Continued) 2006 Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 49 Inform faculty of new media center services, materials, and technology 0.059 0.196 50 Keep teachers informed concerning students' information skills -0.073 0.112 51 Act as a resource to teachers in providing ideas, and/or resource materials to be included as part of classroom units 0.025 0.581 52 Assist students and/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions) .092* 0.046 53 Assist students and/or teachers in locating and selecting materials -0.021 0.65 54 Instruct teachers and students in media center policies and procedures -0.029 0.534 55 Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as necessary .094* 0.043 56 Assist teacher and students in the use of production techniques 0.004 0.929 57 Instruct students and/or t eachers in the use of the public access catalog sy stem -0.073 0.107 58 Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CD-ROM encyclopedia, graphic arts presentations, multimedia presentations, etc.) -0.018 0.686 59 Provide adaptive technologies for students with special needs 0.014 0.75 60 Organize and/or partic ipate in technology teams/technical committees 0.001 0.978 61 Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research) 0.075 0.096 62 Serve on curriculum committ ees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides 0.03 0.523 63 Work with faculty to coordinate media center materials, activities, and technology in conjunction with curriculum programs, units, and text books 0.032 0.474 119

PAGE 134

Table 27. (Continued) 2006 Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 64 Evaluate the adequacy and suitability of facilities, equipment, materials, and services with regard to their impact on learning outcomes -0.042 0.368 65 Coordinate special reading, writing, and student production programs (e.g., Sunshine State Reader's program, Jim Harbin video awards, etc.) -0.101* 0.031 66 Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives 0.068 0.143 67 Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning -0.053 0.266 68 Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs -0.039 0.412 69 Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations -0.006 0.893 70 Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams 0.011 0.814 71 Maintain and support a computer network for the media center -0.031 0.527 72 Attend meetings/conferences and participate in professional organizations (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.) -0.04 0.38 73 Work cooperatively with district and/or regional education and media center service units 0.056 0.217 74 Work cooperatively with public libraries to promote and encourage student and family use of resources 0.001 0.976 75 Keep informed about new technologies -0.006 0.902 76 Upgrade relevant professional skills(e.g., attend college courses an/or seminars -0.031 0.498 *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed) 120

PAGE 135

121 Table 28 shows the mean saliency of th e correlated items by scheduling model. Table 28. Mean Saliency of Correlated Job Task A nalysis Items with Scheduling Model Item Scheduling model # Statement Fixed Combination Flexible Saliency SD n Saliency SD n Saliency SD n 40 Provide formal instruction skills to students in classroom or small group settings (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 3.43 1.11 87 3.27 1.09 139 3.35 1.09 253 41 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 3.51 0.88 86 3.75 0.83 136 3.61 0.83 252 43 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction to students in media center and/or schoolwide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 2.87 1.03 87 3.3 1 134 3.2 0.97 251 44 Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) 3.22 0.9 82 3.14 0.87 136 3.06 0.95 251 47 Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches 2.52 1.13 97 2.94 0.96 132 2.74 0.62 238 52 Assist students and/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions) 3.39 0.88 84 3.34 0.78 132 3.37 0.83 236 55 Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as necessary 3.38 0.92 84 3.36 0.85 132 3.43 0.89 236

PAGE 136

Table 28. (Continued) 122Item Scheduling model # Statement Fixed Combination Flexible Saliency SD n Saliency SD n Saliency SD n 65 Coordinate special reading, writing, and student production programs (e.g., Sunshine State Reader's program Jim Harbin video awards, etc.) 3.13 1.08 79 3.29 0.96 127 3.16 1.07 233 Table 28 indicates that those school librar y media specialists operating either a combination or flexible schedule rated items 41, 43, 47 and 65 higher in saliency than did those operating with a fixed schedule. Thes e tasks are related to more individualized types of instruction including the informal in struction of information literacy skills and instruction in technology-based learning. Additionally, when reviewing the informa tion contained in both tables 27 and 28 together, one can somewhat explain the negati ve correlations show n in table 27. Negative correlations occurred on items 40, 44 and 65. In each case more respondents were operating under a flexible schedule; thus indi cating that as the type of scheduling model became more flexible, the perceived saliency of each of these items was less. This holds true for items 40 and 44; however, the highest saliency for item 65 appears in the group operating under a combination scheduling model, which is more flexible than the fixed model. Administrative Support The first question in this section asked if the principal encouraged teachers to make use of the resources of the school library media center in the development of their curriculum units. To this question 36.6% (n=1 79) responded that the principal frequently

PAGE 137

123 did so while 35.4% (n=174) said that the principal did so oc casionally, 18.9% (n=91) said their principal rarely did so and 9.1% (n=45) reported that the principal never encouraged teachers to make use of the resources of the school library media center in their curriculum planning. The Spearman rank corr elation found 24 significant correlations between this variable and th e 37 job task analysis items; thus making this the most significant variable in this st udy. The correlation matrix for th is analysis is reported in Table 29. Table 29. Spearman Correlation Matrix-Principal En courages LMC Use to the 37Job Tasks 2006 Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 40 Provide formal instruction skills to students in classroom or small group settings (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.009 0.850 41 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.098* 0.031 42 Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or small-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.079 0.083 43 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.108* 0.017 44 Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) 0.112* 0.014 45 Conduct workshops/in-service and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, and new production techniques. 0.119* 0.009 46 Instruct teachers concerning ways to incorporate technology into the classroom curricula 0.178* 0.000 47 Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches 0.169* 0.000

PAGE 138

Table 29. (Continued) 1242006 Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 48 Participate in team teach ing activities 0.201* 0.000 49 Inform faculty of new media center services, materials, and technology 0.160* 0.001 50 Keep teachers informed concerning students' information skills 0.140* 0.002 51 Act as a resource to teachers in providing ideas, and/or resource materials to be included as part of classroom units 0.143* 0.002 52 Assist students and/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions) 0.133* 0.004 53 Assist students and/or teachers in locating and selecting materials 1.019 0.676 54 Instruct teachers and students in media center policies and procedures 0.052 0.266 55 Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as necessary 0.076 0.103 56 Assist teacher and students in the use of production techniques 0.078 0.084 57 Instruct students and/or t eachers in the use of the public access catalog system 0.035 0.447 58 Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CD-ROM encyclopedia, graphic arts presentations, multimedia presentations, etc.) 0.185* 0.000 59 Provide adaptive technologies for students with special needs 0.110* 0.015 60 Organize and/or partic ipate in technology teams/technical committees 0.211* 0.000 61 Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research) 0.100* 0.027 62 Serve on curriculum committ ees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides 0.206* 0.000 63 Work with faculty to coordinate media center materials, activities, and technology in conjunction with curriculum programs, units, and text books 0.173* 0.000

PAGE 139

Table 29. (Continued) 1252006 Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 64 Evaluate the adequacy and suitability of facilities, equipment, materials, and services with regard to their impact on learning outcomes 0.073 0.122 65 Coordinate special reading, writing, and student production programs (e.g., Sunshine State Reader's program, Jim Harbin video awards, etc.) 0.152* 0.001 66 Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives 0.093* 0.047 67 Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning 0.132* 0.005 68 Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs 0.070 0.141 69 Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations 0.185* 0.000 70 Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams 0.119* 0.013 71 Maintain and support a computer network for the media center 0.138* 0.005 72 Attend meetings/conferences and participate in professional organizations (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.) -0.013 0.759 73 Work cooperatively with district and/or regional education and media center service units 0.092* 0.041 74 Work cooperatively with public libraries to promote and encourage student and family use of resources 0.081 0.072 75 Keep informed about new technologies 0.080 0.075 76 Upgrade relevant professional skills(e.g., attend college courses an/or seminars 0.070 0.118 *Correlation significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)

PAGE 140

126 Table 29 shows 24 significant correlations to th e variable Principal encourages use of the school library media center resources. Th is is a considerably larger number of correlations than occur with any other variable in this study. To the question, In your opinion, is th e principal supportive of the media program, 46.9% (n=229) said that the prin cipal was very suppor tive, 25.1% (n=123) said somewhat supportive, 16.2% (n=79) said supportive, 7.2% (n= 35) said somewhat unsupportive and 4.5% (n=22) felt that the principal was unsupportive. The Spearman rank correlation found significant correlations between this variable and items 44, 62, and 70. The correlation matrix for the Spearman rank correlation can be found in Table 30. Table 30. Spearman Correlational Matrix-Princi pal Supportive to the 37 Job Tasks Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 40 Provide formal instruction skills to students in classroom or small group settings (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.063 0.163 41 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.043 0.338 42 Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or small-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.044 0.329 43 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.025 0.583 44 Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) 0.103* 0.023 45 Conduct workshops/in-service and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, and new production techniques. 0.071 0.115

PAGE 141

Table 30. (Continued) 127Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 46 Instruct teachers concerning ways to incorporate technology into the classroom curricula 0.061 0.188 47 Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches -0.032 0.494 48 Participate in team teach ing activities 0.004 0.936 49 Inform faculty of new media center services, materials, and technology 0.052 0.255 50 Keep teachers informed concerning students' information skills 0.017 0.716 51 Act as a resource to teachers in providing ideas, and/or resource materials to be included as part of classroom units 0.081 0.077 52 Assist students and/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions) 0.05 0.276 53 Assist students and/or teachers in locating and selecting materials 0.024 0.605 54 Instruct teachers and students in media center policies and procedures 0.048 0.295 55 Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as necessary -0.041 0.373 56 Assist teacher and students in the use of production techniques 0.068 0.151 57 Instruct students and/or t eachers in the use of the public access catalog system 0.056 0.231 58 Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CD-ROM encyclopedia, graphic arts presentations, multimedia presentations, etc.) 0.038 0.403 59 Provide adaptive technologies for students with special needs 0.047 0.299 60 Organize and/or partic ipate in technology teams/technical committees 0.018 0.693 61 Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research) 0.078 0.083 62 Serve on curriculum committ ees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides 0.097* 0.04

PAGE 142

Table 30. (Continued) 128Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 63 Work with faculty to coordinate media center materials, activities, and technology in conjunction with curriculum programs, units, and text books -0.035 0.442 64 Evaluate the adequacy and suitability of facilities, equipment, materials, and services with regard to their impact on learning outcomes 0.035 0.461 65 Coordinate special reading, writing, and student production programs (e.g., Sunshine State Reader's program, Jim Harbin video awards, etc.) 0.015 0.749 66 Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives 0.072 0.122 67 Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning 0.028 0.55 68 Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs 0.016 0.742 69 Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations 0.051 0.282 70 Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams 0.108* 0.023 71 Maintain and support a computer network for the media center 0.001 0.979 72 Attend meetings/conferences and participate in professional organizations (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.) 0.066 0.143 73 Work cooperatively with district and/or regional education and media center service units 0.009 0.839 74 Work cooperatively with public libraries to promote and encourage student and family use of resources 0.038 0.393 75 Keep informed about new technologies 0.044 0.332 76 Upgrade relevant professional skills(e.g., attend college courses an/or seminars 1.083 0.065 *Correlation significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)

PAGE 143

129 Note that items 44 and 70 in Table 30 were also correlated with th e previous variable related to the principal enc ouraging use of the school library media centers resources by teachers for their curriculum planning. District Level School Library Media Supervisor Theoretically, having a specified school library media supervisor responsible for overseeing the implementation and quality of the school library media program in a school district should improve th e level of familiarity with IP2 and perhaps other responses to both part one and part two ite ms in this study. Therefore, an item asked about the number of district level supervisory personnel a ssigned specifically to the school library media program. Table 31 re ports the responses to that question. Table 31. School Library Media S upervisor in District Item Frequency % More than one media supervisor 109 18.4 One media supervisor 287 48.4 One split supervisor 133 22.4 No supervisor responsible 18 3 A media contact person 29 4.9 Other 13 2.2 A Spearman rank correlation was used to determine significant statistical correlations between having a school library media supervisor and the 37 job task analysis items. A statistically significant ( r=-.10, p=.03) correlation was found to item 57, Instruct students and/or teachers in the us e of public access cata log system. This

PAGE 144

130 relationship may have occurred since those districts with fu lltime library media program supervisors may have automated more quick ly than those without such supervisory support. Additionally, Spearman rank correlation s were used to determine correlations between having a school library media program supervisor and the level of familiarity with IP1 and IP2 No significant correlation was found at the 0.05 level. The correlation matrix for the analysis of having a school lib rary media supervisor and the 37 job tasks can be found in Table 32. Table 32. Spearman Correlation Matrix-District-level Program Supervisor to the 37 Job Tasks Item # Task r p value 40 Provide formal instruction skills to students in classroom or small group settings (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) -0.056 0.215 41 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.003 0.954 42 Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or small-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) -0.016 0.726 43 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.039 0.392 44 Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) 0.038 0.397 45 Conduct workshops/in-service and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, and new production techniques. 0.085 0.062 46 Instruct teachers concerning ways to incorporate technology into the classroom curricula 0.001 0.982 47 Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches 0.056 0.224

PAGE 145

Table 32. (Continued) 131Item # Task r p value 48 Participate in team teach ing activities 0.027 0.556 49 Inform faculty of new media center services, materials, and technology -0.056 0.222 50 Keep teachers informed concerning students' information skills 0.015 0.75 51 Act as a resource to teachers in providing ideas, and/or resource materials to be included as part of classroom units 0.004 0.926 52 Assist students and/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions) -0.01 0.821 53 Assist students and/or teachers in locating and selecting materials 0.041 0.379 54 Instruct teachers and students in media center policies and procedures 0.063 0.174 55 Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as necessary -0.069 0.137 56 Assist teacher and students in the use of production techniques -0.034 0.472 57 Instruct students and/or t eachers in the use of the public access catalog system -0.100* 0.031 58 Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CD-ROM encyclopedia, graphic arts presentations, multimedia presentations, etc.) -0.002 0.963 59 Provide adaptive technologies for students with special needs 0.01 0.817 60 Organize and/or partic ipate in technology teams/technical committees 0.019 0.668 61 Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research) 0.072 0.109 62 Serve on curriculum committ ees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides 0.007 0.876 63 Work with faculty to coordinate media center materials, activities, and technology in conjunction with curriculum programs, units, and text books 0.061 0.176

PAGE 146

Table 32. (Continued) 132Item # Task r p value 64 Evaluate the adequacy and suitability of facilities, equipment, materials, and services with regard to their impact on learning outcomes 0.025 0.593 65 Coordinate special reading, writing, and student production programs (e.g., Sunshine State Reader's program, Jim Harbin video awards, etc.) -0.02 0.675 66 Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives 0.059 0.204 67 Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning 0.042 0.377 68 Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs 0.053 0.262 69 Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations 0.051 0.28 70 Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams 0.003 0.957 71 Maintain and support a computer network for the media center -0.024 0.629 72 Attend meetings/conferences and participate in professional organizations (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.) -0.005 0.909 73 Work cooperatively with district and/or regional education and media center service units 0.039 0.381 74 Work cooperatively with public libraries to promote and encourage student and family use of resources 0.044 0.327 75 Keep informed about new technologies 0.014 0.75 76 Upgrade relevant professional skills(e.g., attend college courses an/or seminars 0.035 0.442

PAGE 147

133 Level of Technology Integration The level to which a school has been able to develop t echnological capacity, especially as it relates to th e use of computers, may have an effect on the school library media specialists responses to the job task an alysis items. Therefore, several questions were placed in the survey to determine the level of technol ogy integration at the schools of the respondents. In additi on, an attempt to ascertain the respondents level of activity within the technological envir onment of their school was made. A summary of some of those responses can be seen in Table 33. Table 33. Partial Technology Item Comparison-Selected Demographic and Environmental Factors Item statement Yes No n % n % School-wide computer network 487 98.8 5 1 Media center integrated into school network 478 97.6 11 2.2 Primary Technology person 93 19 397 81 Have a fulltime Technology person 328 66.7 85 17.3 Have a part time Technology person 79 16.1 --Note that 81% of the respondents were not the primary technology person in their schools. This data, along with the data fr om the item related to having a fulltime technology support person in their schools, seems to indicate that many schools/school districts have made a commitment to the technology focus by desi gnating someone, other than the school library medi a specialist, as the person re sponsible for technology related issues.

PAGE 148

134 Table 34 reflects the change in the numb er of schools with school-wide networks from 1996 to 2006. Table 34. Comparison for School-wide Computer Network 1996 to 2006 1996 2006 Frequency % Frequency % Yes 164 31.9 487 98.8 No 339 66.0 5 1 The Spearman rank correlation for school-wide computer network and the job task analysis items found thr ee statistically signi ficant correlations. Th e first was item 60, Organize and particip ate in technology teams/technical committees ( r=.109, p=.015). The second correlation was with item 61, Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research) ( r=.118, p=.008). The third correlation was with item 72, Attend meetings, conferences and participat e in professional organizations (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.) (r=.095, p=.034). The correlational matrix for this comparison is reported in Table 35. Table 35. Spearman Correlation Matrix-School-wide Computer Network to the 37 Job Tasks Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 40 Provide formal instruction skills to students in classroom or small group settings (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.058 0.2 41 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.012 0.796

PAGE 149

Table 35. (Continued) 135Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 42 Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or small-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.065 0.155 43 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.048 0.292 44 Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) 0.011 0.814 45 Conduct workshops/in-service and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, and new production techniques. 0.037 0.42 46 Instruct teachers concerning ways to incorporate technology into the classroom curricula 0.072 0.12 47 Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches 0.042 0.364 48 Participate in team teach ing activities 0.004 0.932 49 Inform faculty of new media center services, materials, and technology 0.032 0.485 50 Keep teachers informed concerning students' information skills 0.015 0.744 51 Act as a resource to teachers in providing ideas, and/or resource materials to be included as part of classroom units 0.011 0.817 52 Assist students and/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions) 0.023 0.617 53 Assist students and/or teachers in locating and selecting materials 0.018 0.694 54 Instruct teachers and students in media center policies and procedures 0.052 0.259 55 Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as necessary -0.04 0.388 56 Assist teacher and students in the use of production techniques 0.012 0.797 57 Instruct students and/or t eachers in the use of the public access catalog system 0. 072 0.121

PAGE 150

Table 35. (Continued) 136Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 58 Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CD-ROM encyclopedia, graphic arts presentations, multimedia presentations, etc.) 0.064 0.157 59 Provide adaptive technologies for students with special needs 0.051 0.261 60 Organize and/or partic ipate in technology teams/technical committees 0.109* 0.015 61 Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research) 0.118* 0.008 62 Serve on curriculum committ ees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides 0.061 0.181 63 Work with faculty to coordinate media center materials, activities, and technology in conjunction with curriculum programs, units, and text books 0.08 0.076 64 Evaluate the adequacy and suitability of facilities, equipment, materials, and services with regard to their impact on learning outcomes 0.012 0.79 65 Coordinate special reading, writing, and student production programs (e.g., Sunshine State Reader's program, Jim Harbin video awards, etc.) 0.035 0.462 66 Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives -0.01 0.836 67 Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning 0.016 0.733 68 Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs -0.02 0.679 69 Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations 0.041 0.387 70 Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams 0.027 0.575 71 Maintain and support a computer network for the media center 0.034 0.482

PAGE 151

Table 35. (Continued) 137Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 72 Attend meetings/conferences and participate in professional organizations (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.) 0.095* 0.034 73 Work cooperatively with district and/or regional education and media center service units 0.055 0.219 74 Work cooperatively with public libraries to promote and encourage student and family use of resources 0.041 0.368 75 Keep informed about new technologies 0.077 0.086 76 Upgrade relevant professional skills(e.g., attend college courses an/or seminars 0.039 0.387 *Correlation significant at the .05 level (2-tailed) Another item asked, Can students and/or teach ers access electronic resources from their classrooms? To this question 85.3% responded that all can access these resources from their classroom, while 11.9% responded that some can access and 2.8% responded that none could access these resources from their classrooms. The Spearman correlation for media cente r integrated into school-wide network and the job task analysis items found two statistically significant co rrelations. The first was with item 48, Participate in team teaching activities ( r=.099, p=.033). The second correlation was with item 68, I nterpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs (r=.120, p=.010). Whether or not the school library medi a center was integrated into the school wide network was determined by the answer to the question, Can st udents and/or teacher access electronic resourced from their classr ooms. The correlational matrix for this comparison can be seen in Table 36.

PAGE 152

138 Table 36. Spearman Correlation Matrix-Media Center In tegrated into School-wide Network with the 37 Job Task Analysis Items Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 40 Provide formal instruction skills to students in classroom or small group settings (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.082 0.07 41 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.069 0.124 42 Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or small-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.039 0.392 43 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.034 0.453 44 Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) 0.046 0.308 45 Conduct workshops/in-service and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, and new production techniques. -0.02 0.66 46 Instruct teachers concerning ways to incorporate technology into the classroom curricula 0.05 0.283 47 Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches 0.076 0.098 48 Participate in team teach ing activities 0.099* 0.033 49 Inform faculty of new media center services, materials, and technology 0.016 0.724 50 Keep teachers informed concerning students' information skills 0.036 0.431 51 Act as a resource to teachers in providing ideas, and/or resource materials to be included as part of classroom units 0.008 0.868 52 Assist students and/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions) 0.027 0.554

PAGE 153

Table 36. (Continued) 139Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 53 Assist students and/or teachers in locating and selecting materials 0.057 0.22 54 Instruct teachers and students in media center policies and procedures 0.025 0.594 55 Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as n ecessary 0.045 0.328 56 Assist teacher and students in the use of production techniques 0.04 0.396 57 Instruct students and/or t eachers in the use of the public access catalog system 0. 031 0.502 58 Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CD-ROM encyclopedia, graphic arts presentations, multimedia presentations, etc.) 0.031 0.485 59 Provide adaptive technologies for students with special needs 0.003 0.953 60 Organize and/or partic ipate in technology teams/technical committees 0.049 0.274 61 Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research) 0.01 0.817 62 Serve on curriculum committ ees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides 0.033 0.477 63 Work with faculty to coordinate media center materials, activities, and technology in conjunction with curriculum programs, units, and text books 0.016 0.714 64 Evaluate the adequacy and suitability of facilities, equipment, materials, and services with regard to their impact on learning outcomes 0.072 0.125 65 Coordinate special reading, writing, and student production programs (e.g., Sunshine State Reader's program, Jim Harbin video awards, etc.) 0.012 0.802 66 Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives 0.061 0.192 67 Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning 0.007 0.883

PAGE 154

Table 36. (Continued) 140Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 68 Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs 0.120* 0.01 69 Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations 0.038 0.42 70 Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams 0.019 0.697 71 Maintain and support a computer network for the media center 0.026 0.595 72 Attend meetings/conferences and participate in professional organizations (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.) 0.019 0.675 73 Work cooperatively with district and/or regional education and media center service units 0.014 0.751 74 Work cooperatively with public libraries to promote and encourage student and family use of resources 0.013 0.775 75 Keep informed about new technologies 0.021 0.635 76 Upgrade relevant professional skills(e.g., attend college courses an/or seminars 0.059 0.188 *Correlation significant at the .05 level (2-tailed) Table 37 shows the responses to whether or not the school libr ary media specialist offered training in the use of computers to students and/or teachers.

PAGE 155

141 Table 37. Frequency of Computer Training Offered by the School Library Media Specialist Frequency of Training Teachers Students n % n % Frequently 116 23.6 264 53.4 Occasionally 250 50.8 164 33.2 Rarely 90 18.3 38 7.7 Never 36 7.3 28 5.7 In addition to the previous variable item 68, Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local st andards and guidelines to libra ry media programs, also correlated with the media specialist as the primary technology person ( r=.093, p=.048). The second item to correlate with the media specialist as the primary technology person was item 76, Upgrade relevant professional skills (e.g., attend college courses and/or seminars (r=.095, p=.035). This comparison is reported in Table 37. Table 38. Spearman Correlation Matrix-SLMS as Primary Tech Support Person to 37 Job Tasks Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 40 Provide formal instruction skills to students in classroom or small group settings (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.026 0.562 41 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.009 0.845 42 Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or small-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.078 0.087

PAGE 156

Table 38. (Continued) 142Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 43 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.055 0.226 44 Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) -0.036 0.429 45 Conduct workshops/in-service and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, and new production techniques. 0.015 0.749 46 Instruct teachers concerning ways to incorporate technology into the classroom curricula 0.025 0.595 47 Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches 0.020 0.669 48 Participate in team teach ing activities 0.020 0.665 49 Inform faculty of new media center services, materials, and technology 0.083 0.071 50 Keep teachers informed concerning students' information skills 0.026 0.567 51 Act as a resource to teachers in providing ideas, and/or resource materials to be included as part of classroom units 0.000 0.992 52 Assist students and/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions) -0.038 0.417 53 Assist students and/or teachers in locating and selecting materials 0.033 0.480 54 Instruct teachers and students in media center policies and procedures 0.004 0.939 55 Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as necessary 0.035 0.452 56 Assist teacher and students in the use of production techniques 0.009 0.843 57 Instruct students and/or t eachers in the use of the public access catalog system 0.011 0.818 58 Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CD-ROM encyclopedia, graphic arts presentations, multimedia presentations, etc.) 0.046 0.311

PAGE 157

Table 38. (Continued) 143Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 59 Provide adaptive technologies for students with special needs 0.014 0.747 60 Organize and/or partic ipate in technology teams/technical committees 0.012 0.794 61 Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research) 0.032 0.470 62 Serve on curriculum committ ees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides 0.023 0.626 63 Work with faculty to coordinate media center materials, activities, and technology in conjunction with curriculum programs, units, and text books 0.018 0.693 64 Evaluate the adequacy and suitability of facilities, equipment, materials, and services with regard to their impact on learning outcomes 0.011 0.817 65 Coordinate special reading, writing, and student production programs (e.g., Sunshine State Reader's program, Jim Harbin video awards, etc.) 0.058 0.217 66 Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives 0.024 0.611 67 Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning 0.034 0.468 68 Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs 0.093* 0.048 69 Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations 0.012 0.800 70 Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams 0.032 0.497 71 Maintain and support a computer network for the media center 0.029 0.546 72 Attend meetings/conferences and participate in professional organizations (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.) 0.078 0.081

PAGE 158

Table 38. (Continued) 144Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 73 Work cooperatively with district and/or regional education and media center service units 0.036 0.426 74 Work cooperatively with public libraries to promote and encourage student and family use of resources 0.015 0.731 75 Keep informed about new technologies 0.073 0.102 76 Upgrade relevant professional skills(e.g., attend college courses an/or seminars 0.095* 0.035 *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed) The Spearman correlation for fulltime technology person to the 37 job task analysis items found no statistically significant correlations The correlation matrix for that procedure can be found in Table 39. Table 39. Spearman Correlation Matrix-Fulltime Technology Person to the 37 Job Tasks Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 40 Provide formal instruction skills to students in classroom or small group settings (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.006 0.892 41 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.035 0.437 42 Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or small-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.003 0.945 43 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.022 0.625 44 Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) 0.075 0.098

PAGE 159

Table 39. (Continued) Correlation coefficient Item # p value Task 45 Conduct workshops/in-service and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, and new production techniques. 0.01 0.825 46 Instruct teachers concerning ways to incorporate technology into the classroom curricula 0.025 0.592 Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches 47 0.069 0.136 48 Participate in team teaching activities 0.05 0.282 49 Inform faculty of new media center services, materials, and technology 0.056 0.223 50 Keep teachers informed concerning students' information skills 0.058 0.208 51 Act as a resource to teachers in providing ideas, and/or resource materials to be included as part of classroom units 0.042 0.36 52 Assist students and/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions) 0.016 0.725 53 Assist students and/or teachers in locating and selecting materials 0.012 0.804 54 Instruct teachers and students in media center policies and procedures 0.014 0.758 55 Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as necessary -0.017 0.706 56 Assist teacher and students in the use of production techniques 0.054 0.249 57 Instruct students and/or t eachers in the use of the public access catalog system 0.017 0.719 58 Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CD-ROM encyclopedia, graphic arts presentations, multimedia presentations, etc.) 0.035 0.44 59 Provide adaptive technologies for students with special needs 0.049 0.275 60 Organize and/or partic ipate in technology teams/technical committees 0.038 0.403 61 Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research) 0.011 0.8 145

PAGE 160

Table 39. (Continued) Correlation coefficient Item # p value Task 62 Serve on curriculum committ ees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides -0.025 0.597 63 Work with faculty to coordinate media center materials, activities, and technology in conjunction with curriculum programs, units, and text books 0.044 0.323 64 Evaluate the adequacy and suitability of facilities, equipment, materials, and services with regard to their impact on learning outcomes 0.007 0.879 65 Coordinate special reading, writing, and student production programs (e.g., Sunshine State Reader's program, Jim Harbin video awards, etc.) 0.009 0.849 66 Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives 0.072 0.12 67 Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning 0.017 0.712 68 Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs 0.019 0.692 69 Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations -0.01 0.83 70 Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams -0.046 0.334 71 Maintain and support a computer network for the media center -0.005 0.913 72 Attend meetings/conferences and participate in professional organizations (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.) 0.017 0.704 73 Work cooperatively with district and/or regional education and media center service units 0.02 0.65 74 Work cooperatively with public libraries to promote and encourage student and family use of resources 0.024 0.592 75 Keep informed about new technologies 0.001 0.988 146

PAGE 161

Table 39. (Continued) Correlation coefficient Item # p value Task 76 Upgrade relevant professional skills(e.g., attend college courses an/or seminars 0.014 0.763 *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed) School Library Media Specialists Demographic Variables that May Correlate with Job Task Analysis Responses Research Question 4 : Do demographic variables, rela ted to the school library media specialist, correlate with th eir ratings of job tasks in collaboration, leadership and technology? The specific factors of interest to are: a. Gender b. Age c. Ethnicity d. Highest degree earned e. Years in teaching f. Years as a school library media specialist g. Time in current position h. Method of earning certification Gender Using the Pearson Product Moment Corre lation, the gender of the respondents was compared to the 37 job task analysis item s. One significant corr elation was found at the .05 level between this variab le and the saliency of the 37 j ob task analysis items. That correlation occurred with item 57, Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of the public access catalog system ( r=0.136, p=.004). Table 40 shows the correlation matrix for that comparison. 147

PAGE 162

148 Table 40. Pearson Correlation Matrix-Gender to the 37 Job Tasks Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 40 Provide formal instruction skills to students in classroom or small group settings (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.024 0.588 41 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.040 0.379 42 Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or small-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.002 0.961 43 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.009 0.839 44 Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) 0.029 0.524 45 Conduct workshops/in-service and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, and new production techniques. 0.015 0.748 46 Instruct teachers concerning ways to incorporate technology into the classroom curricula 0.002 0.961 47 Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches 0.054 0.241 48 Participate in team teach ing activities -0.037 0.420 49 Inform faculty of new media center services, materials, and technology 0.030 0.510 50 Keep teachers informed concerning students' information skills 0.034 0.457 51 Act as a resource to teachers in providing ideas, and/or resource materials to be included as part of classroom units 0.002 0.959 52 Assist students and/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions) 0.015 0.743

PAGE 163

Table 40. (Continued) 149Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 53 Assist students and/or teachers in locating and selecting materials 0.078 0.091 54 Instruct teachers and students in media center policies and procedures 0.021 0.649 55 Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as n ecessary 0.054 0.242 56 Assist teacher and students in the use of production techniques 0.025 0.596 57 Instruct students and/or t eachers in the use of the public access catalog sy stem 0.136* 0.004 58 Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CD-ROM encyclopedia, graphic arts presentations, multimedia presentations, etc.) 0.016 0.716 59 Provide adaptive technologies for students with special needs 0.039 0.380 60 Organize and/or partic ipate in technology teams/technical committees 0.044 0.326 61 Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research) 0.050 0.270 62 Serve on curriculum committ ees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides 0.008 0.870 63 Work with faculty to coordinate media center materials, activities, and technology in conjunction with curriculum programs, units, and text books -0.024 0.600 64 Evaluate the adequacy and suitability of facilities, equipment, materials, and services with regard to their impact on learning outcomes 0.035 0.456 65 Coordinate special reading, writing, and student production programs (e.g., Sunshine State Reader's program, Jim Harbin video awards, etc.) 0.045 0.335 66 Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives 0.007 0.875 67 Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning 0.006 0.893

PAGE 164

Table 40. (Continued) 150Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 68 Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs 0.009 0.850 69 Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations 0.046 0.327 70 Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams 0.009 0.844 71 Maintain and support a computer network for the media center -0.013 0.790 72 Attend meetings/conferences and participate in professional organizations (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.) -0.033 0.460 73 Work cooperatively with district and/or regional education and media center service units 0.016 0.725 74 Work cooperatively with public libraries to promote and encourage student and family use of resources 0.001 0.981 75 Keep informed about new technologies 0.037 0.407 76 Upgrade relevant professional skills(e.g., attend college courses an/or seminars 0.027 0.543 *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed) Age Analyses comparing this variable to the 37 job task analysis items, using the Pearson Product Moment Correlation, found no statistically significan t correlations. The correlation matrix for this an alysis is shown in Table 41.

PAGE 165

151 Table 41. Pearson Correlation Matrix-Age to 37 Job Tasks Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 40 Provide formal instruction skills to students in classroom or small group settings (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.014 0.753 41 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.005 0.909 42 Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or small-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.020 0.657 43 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.041 0.357 44 Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) 0.079 0.078 45 Conduct workshops/in-service and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, and new production techniques. 0.050 0.271 46 Instruct teachers concerning ways to incorporate technology into the classroom curricula 0.026 0.556 47 Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches -0.051 0.256 48 Participate in team teach ing activities -.0037 0.417 49 Inform faculty of new media center services, materials, and technology 0.065 0.150 50 Keep teachers informed concerning students' information skills 0.003 0.948 51 Act as a resource to teachers in providing ideas, and/or resource materials to be included as part of classroom units 0.027 0.548 52 Assist students and/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions) 0.022 0.619

PAGE 166

Table 41. (Continued) 152Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 53 Assist students and/or teachers in locating and selecting materials 0.025 0.583 54 Instruct teachers and students in media center policies and procedures -0.001 0.977 55 Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as necessary -0.005 0.910 56 Assist teacher and students in the use of production techniques 0.025 0.605 57 Instruct students and/or t eachers in the use of the public access catalog system 0. 040 0.404 58 Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CD-ROM encyclopedia, graphic arts presentations, multimedia presentations, etc.) 0.016 0.737 59 Provide adaptive technologies for students with special needs -0.018 0.706 60 Organize and/or partic ipate in technology teams/technical committees 0.055 0.247 61 Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research) 0.001 0.977 62 Serve on curriculum committ ees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides 0.053 0.272 63 Work with faculty to coordinate media center materials, activities, and technology in conjunction with curriculum programs, units, and text books -0.027 0.576 64 Evaluate the adequacy and suitability of facilities, equipment, materials, and services with regard to their impact on learning outcomes -0.052 0.279 65 Coordinate special reading, writing, and student production programs (e.g., Sunshine State Reader's program, Jim Harbin video awards, etc.) 0.040 0.408 66 Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives -0.048 0.321 67 Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning -0.041 0.389

PAGE 167

Table 41. (Continued) 153Item # Task Correlation coefficient p value 68 Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs -0.040 0.398 69 Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations -0.072 0.134 70 Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams -0.025 0.605 71 Maintain and support a computer network for the media center 0.020 0.674 72 Attend meetings/conferences and participate in professional organizations (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.) -0.012 0.810 73 Work cooperatively with district and/or regional education and media center service units -0.085 0.077 74 Work cooperatively with public libraries to promote and encourage student and family use of resources 0.015 0.759 75 Keep informed about new technologies -0.009 0.849 76 Upgrade relevant professional skills(e.g., attend college courses an/or seminars 0.034 0.484 Ethnicity An ANOVA was used to determine the measures of association for the variable ethnicity to the 37 job task analysis items. Ta ble 42 reports the results of that analysis. Table 42. Measure of Association between Ethnicity and the 37 Job Tasks Measures of Association Item # Item Statem ent Eta Eta Squared 40 Provide formal instruction skills to students in classroom or small group settings (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.0869 0.0076 41 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.1249 0.0156

PAGE 168

Table 42. (Continued) 154 Measures of Association Item # Item Statem ent Eta Eta Squared 42 Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or small-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.1103 0.0122 43 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.1493 0.0223 44 Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) 0.0426 0.0018 45 Conduct workshops/in-service and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, and new production techniques. 0.0745 0.0055 46 Instruct teachers concerning ways to incorporate technology into the classroom curricula 0.0259 0.0007 47 Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches 0.0423 0.0018 48 Participate in team teach ing activities 0. 0711 0.0051 49 Inform faculty of new media center services, materials, and technology 0.0915 0.0084 50 Keep teachers informed concerning students' information skills 0.1043 0.0109 51 Act as a resource to teachers in providing ideas, and/or resource materials to be incl uded as part of classroom units 0.0948 0.0090 52 Assist students and/or teach ers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions) 0.1185 0.0140 53 Assist students and/or teach ers in locating and selecting materials 0.0851 0.0072 54 Instruct teachers and students in media center policies and procedures 0.1704 0.0290 55 Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as necessary 0.0852 0.0073 56 Assist teacher and students in the use of production techniques 0.1347 0.0182 57 Instruct students and/or teach ers in the use of the public access catalog system 0.0776 0.0060

PAGE 169

Table 42. (Continued) 155 Measures of Association Item # Item Statem ent Eta Eta Squared 58 Instruct students and/or teach ers in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CD-ROM encyclopedia, graphic arts presentations, multimedia presentations, etc.) 0.0598 0.0036 59 Provide adaptive technologies for students with special needs 0.0889 0.0079 60 Organize and/or partic ipate in technology teams/technical committees 0.1446 0.0209 61 Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research) 0.0715 0.0051 62 Serve on curriculum committ ees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides 0.1232 0.0152 63 Work with faculty to coordinate media center materials, activities, and technology in conjunction with curriculum programs, units, and text books 0.0738 0.0054 64 Evaluate the adequacy and suitability of facilities, equipment, materials, and serv ices with regard to their impact on learning outcomes 0.1093 0.0119 65 Coordinate special reading, writing, and student production programs (e.g., Sunshine State Reader's program, Jim Harbin video awards, etc.) 0.1275 0.0163 66 Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives 0.0951 0.0090 67 Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning 0.0829 0.0069 68 Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs 0.1023 0.0105 69 Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations 0.0902 0.0081 70 Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams 0.0674 0.0045 71 Maintain and support a computer network for the media center 0.1440 0.0207 72 Attend meetings/conferences and participate in professional organizations (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.) 0.0897 0.0080

PAGE 170

156 Measures of Association Measures of Association Item # Item Statem ent Eta Eta Squared 73 Work cooperatively with district and/or regional education and media center service units 0.0569 0.0032 74 Work cooperatively with publ ic libraries to promote and encourage student and family use of resources 0.0493 0. 0024 75 Keep informed about new technologies 0.1301 0.0169 76 Upgrade relevant professional skills(e.g., attend college courses an/or seminars 0.1029 0. 0106 Table 42. (Continued) One statistically significant correlati on was found when comparing the saliency scores on the 37 job task anal ysis items with the highest degree earned. The correlation occurred with item 69, Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to pa rent and community organizations ( r=-.100, p=.034). Table 43 presents the correlational matrix for this variable and the next four demographic variables of school library media specialists to be di scussed in this section. Since an eta squared value of 1 indicates the amount of variance that can be attributed to the independent variable; the eta squared valu es shown in Table 41 indicate that very small portions of the variance can be explaine d by the independent variable ethnicity. Highest degree earned

PAGE 171

Table 43. Spearman Correlation Matrix-School Library Medi a Specialists Demographics to the 37 Tasks Item # Item statement Highest degree Years as teacher Y ears as SLMS Time current position Method of certification r p r p r p r p r p 40 Provide formal instruction skills to students in classroom or small group settings (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.012 0.787 0.014 0.76 -0.018 0.698 -0.007 0.883 -0.038 0.406 41 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 0.061 0 175 0.025 0.596 0.089 0.056 0.043 0.345 -0.036 0.427 42 Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or small-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0 0.991 0.072 0.126 0.031 0.514 0.048 0.302 -0.075 0.1 43 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) -0.019 0.677 -0.001 0.982 0.055 0.243 0.044 0.336 -0.058 0.201 44 Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) -0.025 0.581 -0.016 0.726 -0.006 0.897 0.006 0.895 -0.089* 0.05 45 Conduct workshops/in-service and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, and new production techniques. -0.048 0.295 0.042 0.364 0.081 0.084 0.074 0.107 -0.083 0.067 46 Instruct teachers concerning ways to incorporate technology into the classroom curricula 0.066 0.155 -0.001 0.989 0.055 0.254 0.042 0.377 -0.039 0.396 47 Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches 0.061 0.184 0.032 0.503 0.037 0.438 0.006 0.900 -0.003 0.951 48 Participate in team teaching activities 0.041 0.382 -0.009 0.845 0.066 0.171 -0.051 0.279 -0.011 0.81 49 Inform faculty of new media center services, materials, and technology 0.003 0.954 0.085 0.074 0.056 0.235 0.046 0.326 -0.022 0.626 157

PAGE 172

Table 43. (Continued) Item # Item statement Highest degree Years as teacher Y ears as SLMS Time current position Method of certification r p r p r p r p r p 50 Keep teachers informed concerning students' information skills 0.031 0.503 -0.049 0.301 0.013 0.777 -0.014 0.960 -0.075 0.104 51 Act as a resource to teachers in providing ideas, and/or resource materials to be included as part of classroom units 0.006 0.903 0.009 0.845 0.016 0.731 -0.035 0.460 -0.036 0.434 52 Assist students and/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions) -0.036 0.433 0.038 0.425 0.087 0.07 0.002 0.960 0.02 0.663 53 Assist students and/or teachers in locating and selecting materials 0 0.995 0.009 0.857 0.086 0.073 0.039 0.405 -0.021 0.649 54 Instruct teachers and students in media center policies and procedures -0.04 0.387 0.007 0.89 0.089 0.062 0.042 0.370 -0.036 0.44 55 Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as necessary -0.065 0.157 0.027 0.577 0.039 0.409 -0.004 0.926 -0.042 0.368 56 Assist teacher and students in the use of production techniques 0.042 0.375 0.047 0.335 0.023 0.644 0.114* 0.017 0.007 0.876 57 Instruct students and/ or teachers in the use of the public access catalog system -0.005 0.923 0.024 0.614 0.035 0.473 0.036 0.452 -0.061 0.193 58 Instruct students and/ or teachers in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CDROM encyclopedia, graphic arts presentations, multimedia presentations, etc.) -0.006 0.89 0.04 0.385 0.086 0.064 0.029 0.532 -0.072 0.109 59 Provide adaptive tec hnologies for students with special needs 0.032 0.482 -0.016 0.722 0.046 0.318 0.023 0.620 -0.075 0.096 60 Organize and/or participate in technology teams/technical committees -0.015 0.74 0.058 0.21 0.012 0.8 -0.011 0.816 -0.035 0.43 61 Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research) -0.055 0.223 0.033 0.481 0.011 0.813 0.046 0.310 -0.087 0.054 62 Serve on curriculum committees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides -0.054 0.255 0.044 0.365 0.048 0.32 0.086 0.070 -0.071 0.13 63 Work with faculty to coordinate media -0.039 0.383 0.013 0.772 0.041 0.375 0.087 0.057 -0.051 0.256 158

PAGE 173

Table 43. (Continued) Item # Item statement Highest degree Years as teacher Y ears as SLMS Time current position Method of certification r p r p r p r p r p center materials, activities, and technology in conjunction with curriculum programs, units, and text books 64 Evaluate the adequacy and suitability of facilities, equipment, materials, and services with regard to their impact on learning outcomes -0.057 0.222 0.015 0.756 0.025 0.6 0.082 0.085 -0.082 0.079 65 Coordinate special reading, writing, and student production programs (e.g., Sunshine State Reader's program, Jim Harbin video awards, etc.) -0.001 0.99 0.012 0.807 0.027 0.574 0.041 0.392 -0.067 0.153 66 Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives 0.033 0.472 0.004 0.93 0.042 0.379 -0.013 0.791 -0.008 0.866 67 Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning -0.077 0.103 0.01 0.834 -0.012 0.8 -0.013 0.784 -0.08 0.089 68 Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs -0.004 0.928 -0.001 0.981 0.055 0.254 0.080 0.093 -0.046 0.33 69 Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations 0.100 0.034 0.013 0.783 0.037 0.448 0.000 0.993 -0.136* 0.004 70 Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams -0.091 0.056 0.117* 0.018 0.087 0.077 0.077 0.111 -0.161* 0.001 71 Maintain and support a computer network for the media center -0.061 0.211 0.13* 0.01 0.067 0.184 0.100* 0.042 -0.035 0.469 72 Attend meetings/conferences and participate in professional organizations (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.) 0.024 0.588 0.002 0.958 0.029 0.533 -0.019 0.671 0.016 0.722 73 Work cooperatively w ith district and/or regional education and media center service 0.003 0.941 -0.037 0.43 0.059 0.204 -0.033 0.467 -0.048 0.285 159

PAGE 174

160Item # Item statement Highest degree Years as teacher Y ears as SLMS Time current position Method of certification r p r p r p r p r p units 74 Work cooperatively with public libraries to promote and encourage student and family use of resources -0.003 0.945 0.043 0.348 -0.008 0.865 0.014 0.760 -0.087 0.054 75 Keep informed about new technologies -0.014 0.761 0.046 0.316 0.022 0.634 -0.008 0.869 -0.044 0.331 76 Upgrade relevant professional skills(e.g., attend college courses an/or seminars 0.002 0.963 -0.014 0.767 0.066 0.157 0.019 0.684 0.013 0.767 *Correlation significant and the .05 level (2-tailed) Table 43. (Continued)

PAGE 175

161 Table 44 shows the mean saliency comp arison for highest degree earned with item 69. Table 44. Mean Saliency Comparison for Highest Degree Earned with Item 69 Degree Saliency SD n Bachelor 2.64 0.98 27 Some Graduate Work 2.57 1.17 62 Masters 2.73 0.94 323 Specialist 2.64 0.92 26 Ed.D. 3.50 0.24 2 Ph.D. 2.89 1.17 3 Based on the representation of the data in Table 44, it would appear that those respondents holding the Ed.D. Degree considered this item more salient than did the other respondents. However, this observati on is somewhat misleading since there were only two respondents in this category. The sa me may be said for those holding the Ph.D. since there were only three re spondents holding this degree Therefore, the comparison between the other four degree categories may be more appropriate than are the last two. Years as a Teacher Statistically significant correlations were found between this variable and item 70, Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams (r=.117, p=.018) and with item 71, Maintain and support a computer network for the media center ( r=0.13, p=0.01). A comparison of number of years as a teacher to the mean saliency for these items is reported in Table 45. The correlation matrix fo r this comparison can be seen in Table 42.

PAGE 176

162 Table 45. Comparison for Number of Years as a Teacher to Mean Saliency of Item 70 Number of Years as a Teacher Item 70 Item 71 Saliency SD n Saliency SD n 0-5 3.13 1.04 48 3.50 1.05 42 6-10 3.04 1.08 48 3.43 1.16 41 11-15 3.21 0.89 46 3.58 1.24 48 16-20 2.87 1.41 66 3.52 0.99 60 21-25 3.06 0.99 57 3.38 1.19 55 26-30 3.21 0.96 63 3.07 1.32 63 More than 30 2.99 0.89 86 3.33 1.20 83 Table 45 indicates that those respondents w ho had been a teacher for 26-30 years rated leading and/or participati ng in the School Improvement Team higher than did those respondents in other time as teacher categorie s. Table 45 further indicates that those respondents were teachers for 11-15 years rated maintaining the media center network higher than did respondents in the other categories. Years as School Library Media Specialist No significant correlations were found between the number of years a respondent had been a school library media specialist and their ratings on the 37 resurveyed job task analysis items. The correlation matrix for this comparison can be seen in Table 43.

PAGE 177

163 Time in Current Position A significant correlation was found with this variable and item 56, Assist teachers and students in the us e of production techniques ( r=0.114, p=.017). A correlation was also identified between this variable and item 71, Maintain and support computer network for the media center ( r=0.100, p=.048). The mean saliency for each of these items by time in current position is shown in Table 46. The correlation matrix for this comparison can be seen in Table 42. Table 46. Mean Saliency by Time in Curre nt Position for Items 56 and 71 Time in current position Item 56 Item 71 Saliency SD n Saliency SD n 1-5 2.32 0.99 219 3.44 1.17 207 6-10 2.49 0.95 107 3.47 1.16 104 11-15 2.57 0.98 37 3.28 1.07 33 16-20 2.39 0.99 31 3.33 1.03 30 21-25 2.26 0.95 17 3.28 1.33 17 More than 25 2.58 0.56 23 3.15 1.36 19 Note that in all groupings the mean saliency for item 71 was higher than for item 56. This may indicate that maintaining the computer network in the school library media center was perceived to be of more value than a ssisting students and teachers in the use of production techniques.

PAGE 178

164 Method of Earning Certification Three significant correla tions were found between the respondents method of earning certification as a school library media specialist and responses on the 37 job task analysis items. The first correlation was with item 44, Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) ( r=-0.089, p=.05). The second correlation was with item 69, Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations ( r=0.136, p=0.004). The third correlation was with item 70, Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams ( r=-0.161, p=0.001).The mean saliency by method of earning certification for each item is shown in Table 47. The correlation matrix for this variable can be seen in Table 43. Table 47. Mean Saliency for Method of Ce rtification of Items 44, 69 and 70 Method of Certification Item 44 Item 69 Item70 Saliency SD n Saliency SD n Saliency SD n Not currently certified 3.27 1.08 9 1.73 0.78 9 2.53 1.14 9 Passing the FTCE with no coursework 2.89 0.91 31 2.68 0.88 31 3.34 0.98 32 Passing FTCE with some coursework 3.20 0.89 47 2.75 0.83 45 2.89 0.81 44 Certified prior to the FTCE requirement 3.21 0.86 109 2.79 1.00 100 3.18 0.96 102 By taking 30 hours of DOE required coursework and FTCE 3.08 0.88 50 2.89 0.84 49 3.18 0.88 46

PAGE 179

Table 47. (Continued) Method of Certification Item 44 Item 69 Item70 Saliency SD n Saliency SD n Saliency SD n Earning a Masters degree and FTCE 3.08 0.97 222 2.71 0.94 197 3.01 1.02 191 Note that of the two la rgest responding groups, the re spondents who earned their certification prior to the FTCE requirement ra ted all three of these items higher than did the respondents who earned a Masters degree. School Demographic Variables t hat may Correlate to Percep tions about the 37 Job Task Analysis Items Research Question 5: Do demographic variables, relate d to the school, correlate with school library media specialist s ratings of job tasks in collaboration, leadership and technology? The specific factors of interest are: a. Level of the school: elementary, middle, high, other b. Number of students c. Geographic location: rural, rural/ suburban, suburban, suburban/urban, urban Level of School Comparing information about school le vel using a Spearman rank correlation, seven significant correlati ons were identified. Those correlated items were: Item 42, Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or small-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) (r=0.177, p=0). When focusing on the three major school levels (elementary, middle and high), re spondents at the high school level rated 165

PAGE 180

166 this item higher than did the other two levels. See Table 49 for the mean saliency comparison of these correlated items by level of school. Item 44, Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) (r=0.182, p=0.000). When focusing on the three major school levels (elementary, middle a nd high), respondents at the high school level rated this item higher than did the other two levels. Item 45, Conduct workshops/in-service and ot her training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technol ogy, and new production techniques (r=-0.137, p=0.003). When focusing on the three major school levels (elementary, middle and high), respondents at the high school le vel rated this item higher than did the other two levels. Item 53, Assist students and/ or teachers in locating and selecting materials (r=0.137, p=0.003). When focusing on the three ma jor school levels (elementary, middle and high), respondents at the high sc hool level rated this item higher than did the other two levels. Item 55, Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as necessary ( r=-.110, p=.017). When focusing on the three major school levels (elementary, middle and high) respondents at the high school level rated this item higher than did the other two levels. Item 62, Serve on curriculum committees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides (r=0.138, p=0.003). When focusing on the three major school levels (elementary, middle

PAGE 181

167 and high), respondents at the middle school level rated this item higher than did the other two levels. Item 66, Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives (r=-0.149, p=0.001). When focusing on the three major school levels (elementary, middle and high), re spondents at the middle school level rated this item higher than did the other two levels. The full correlational matrix is reported in Table 48. Table 48 also reports the correlational results for the other variab les to be discussed in this section.

PAGE 182

Table 48. Spearman Correlation Matrix-School Demographics to the 37 Job Tasks Item # Item statement School level # students Geog. location r p r p r p 40 Provide formal instruction skills to students in classroom or small group settings (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 1 -1 -1 -41 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) -0.051 0.265 0.005 0.905 0.083 0.066 42 Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or small-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.177* 0.000 0.088 0.052 0.013 0.779 43 Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 0.076 0.098 0.114* 0.012 0.000 0.994 44 Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) 0.182* 0.000 0.145* 0.001 0.064 0.16 45 Conduct workshops/in-service and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, and new production techniques. -0.137* 0.003 0.047 0.298 -0.01 0.824 46 Instruct teachers concerning ways to incorporate technology into the classroom curricula 0.061 0.185 0.034 0.452 0.044 0.338 47 Work with teachers to design innovative 0.038 0.418 0.057 0.224 0.021 0.658 168

PAGE 183

Table 48. (Continued) Item # Item statement School level # students Geog. location r p r p r p instructional approaches 48 Participate in team teaching activities 0.073 0.116 -0.012 0.795 0.069 0.136 49 Inform faculty of new media center services, materials, and technology -0.014 0.767 -0.009 0.839 -0.008 0.856 50 Keep teachers informed concerning students' information skills 0.022 0.629 0.034 0.467 -0.022 0.637 51 Act as a resource to teachers in providing ideas, and/or resource materials to be included as part of classroom units -0.068 0.142 0.026 0.578 0.022 0.640 52 Assist students and/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions) -0.035 0.449 0.043 0.355 0.004 0.932 53 Assist students and/or teachers in locating and selecting materials 0.137* 0.003 0.039 0.396 0.049 0.290 54 Instruct teachers and students in media center policies and procedures -0.027 0.566 0.026 0.576 0.022 0.638 55 Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as necessary -0.110* 0.017 -0.065 0.162 0.014 0.763 56 Assist teacher and students in the use of production techniques 0.034 0.465 0.005 0.921 0.024 0.608 57 Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of the public access catalog system -0.051 0.263 0.021 0.654 -0.036 0.441 169

PAGE 184

Table 48. (Continued) Item # Item statement School level # students Geog. location r p r p r p 58 Instruct students and/ or teachers in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CDROM encyclopedia, graphic arts presentations, multimedia presentations, etc.) 0.045 0.322 0.023 0.624 -0.104* 0.026 59 Provide adaptive tec hnologies for students with special needs 0.016 0.727 0.064 0.156 0.03 0.502 60 Organize and/or partic ipate in technology teams/technical committees 0.086 0.06 0.047 0.298 0.041 0.360 61 Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research) -0.025 0.583 0.098* 0.029 0.012 0.786 62 Serve on curriculum committees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides 0.138* 0.003 0.031 0.489 -0.013 0.775 63 Work with faculty to coordinate media center materials, activities, and technology in conjunction with curriculum programs, units, and text books 0.002 0.972 0.035 0.46 -0.034 0.470 64 Evaluate the adequacy and suitability of facilities, equipment, materials, and services with regard to their impact on learning outcomes -0.005 0.911 0.009 0.838 0.021 0.642 65 Coordinate special reading, writing, and student production programs (e.g., Sunshine State Reader's program, Jim Harbin video awards, etc.) 0.012 0.745 0.088 0.061 -0.041 0.384 170

PAGE 185

Table 48. (Continued) Item # Item statement School level # students Geog. location r p r p r p 66 Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives -0.149* 0.001 -0.187 0.063 -0.078 0.096 67 Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning 0.051 0.273 -0.030 0.520 -0.015 0.756 68 Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs -0.047 0.320 -0.074 0.120 -0.132* 0.005 69 Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations -0.054 0.255 0.034 0.476 0.024 0.612 70 Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams -0.047 0.322 0.021 0.660 -0.045 0.342 71 Maintain and support a computer network for the media center 0.030 0.532 0.026 0.593 0.017 0.723 72 Attend meetings/conferences and participate in professional organizations (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.) -0.003 0.947 -0.015 0.760 0.023 0.632 73 Work cooperatively with district and/or regional education and media center service units -0.009 0.840 0.081 0.070 -0.059 0.197 74 Work cooperatively with public libraries to promote and encourage student and family use of resources 0.089 0.052 0.057 0.209 -0.041 0.363 75 Keep informed about new technologies -0.01 0.831 0.044 0.329 -0.027 0.556 171

PAGE 186

Table 48. (Continued) Item # Item statement School level # students Geog. location r p r p r p 76 Upgrade relevant professional skills(e.g., attend college courses an/or seminars 0.027 0.557 0.079 0.081 0.007 0.885 *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed) 172

PAGE 187

173 Table 49 shows the mean saliency comparisons for items 42, 44, 45, 53, 55, 62 and 66 by level of school. Table 49 Mean Saliency of Items 42, 44, 45, 53, 55, 62 and 66 by Level of School Level of School Item 42 Item 44 Item 45 Item 53 Item 55 Item 62 Item 66 Sal SD n Sal SD n Sal SD n Sal SD n Sal SD n Sal SD n Sal SD n Elementary 3.17 1.02 238 3.09 0.92 238 2.99 0.82 237 3.65 0.80 231 3.37 0.83 231 2.19 0.77 212 3.41 0.92 224 Middle 3.04 1.20 85 3.01 0.92 85 2.89 0.96 85 3.79 0.85 79 3.31 0.95 79 2.25 0.77 80 3.54 0.89 83 High 3.48 1.07 110 3.21 0.90 110 3.02 0.77 110 3.89 0.74 101 3.51 0.89 107 2.11 0.65 100 3.48 0.92 101 Combination 3.40 1.00 34 3.31 0.99 33 3.25 0.72 33 3.75 0.70 32 3.49 0.99 32 2.28 0.70 31 3.58 0.88 30 Other 3.00 0.85 9 2.97 0.95 9 3.16 0.77 9 3.48 0.71 8 3.80 1.09 9 2.22 0.33 8 3.37 0.81 9

PAGE 188

174 Number of Students in School Two correlations were found between th e number of students in the school and the 37 job task analysis items. Those correlations occurred with items 43 and 44. Item 43 states, Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) inst ruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e .g., multimedia production, etc.) (r=0.114, p=0.012) Item 44 states, Introduce materials of sp ecial interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) p=0.145, p=0.001) See the correlational matrix in Table 48. Table 50 reflects the mean saliency for item 42 by number of students in the school. Table 50. Mean Saliency of Items 43 and 44 by Number of Students in School Number of Students Item 43 Item 44 Saliency SD n Saliency SD n 1-300 3.29 1.00 15 3.42 0.92 15 301-800 3.13 0.99 199 3.08 0.94 198 801-1300 3.13 0.94 145 3.02 0.94 146 1301-1800 3.25 0.98 36 3.41 0.98 37 1801-2300 3.54 0.97 40 3.12 1.07 39 Over 2300 3.28 0.94 40 3.33 0.85 40 Table 50 indicates that those respondents from the schools with 1801-2300 students rated providing one-to-one instruction in me dia center and/or school-wide technology resources higher than did those in other si ze schools. The respondents in schools with

PAGE 189

1301-1800 students rated introducing materials of special intere st to class groups higher than did the other groups. Geographic Location of School A Spearman rank correlation was used to determine if there were any statistically significant correlations between the geographic location of the school and the 37 job task analysis items. A correlation was found with item 58, Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CD-ROM encyclopedia, graphic arts presentation, multimedia presentations, etc.) ( r=-.104, p=.026) A correlation was also found with item 68, Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs (r.132, p=0.005) The correlational matrix may be seen in Table 48. Table 51 represents the mean saliency of items 58 and 68 with geographic location of school. Table 51. Mean Saliency of Items 58 and 68 with Geographic Location of School Geographic Location Item 58 Item 68 Saliency SD n Saliency SD n Rural 2.98 0.91 57 3.19 0.96 56 Rural/Suburban 2.94 0.96 77 3.35 0.95 79 Suburban 3.00 1.03 127 3.08 0.98 126 Suburban/Urban 2.99 1.01 96 3.18 0.94 94 Urban 3.21 0.89 81 3.20 0.93 87 Table 50 indicates that respondents from urban schools rated the instruction of students in the use of various techno logy objects higher than di d respondents from other geographical locations. Respondents from ru ral/suburban schools ra ted interpreting and 175

PAGE 190

176 applying national, regional a nd local standards and guideline s to their school library media programs higher than did those re spondents in other geographic locations. Chapter Four Summary The task analysis comparisons showed a number of statis tically significant changes in the perceptions of the respondents on the 37 resu rveyed job task analysis items. For the 14 job task analysis items dete rmined by the subject matter experts to be related to collaboration nine s howed statistically significant di fferences in the perceptions of the 2006 respondents when compared to th e perceptions of the 1996 respondents. For the 13 items related to leadership twelve showed statistically significant differences in the perceptions of the 2006 respondents when co mpared to the perceptions of the 1996 respondents. For the 10 items related to techno logy eight showed statistically significant differences in the perceptions of the 2006 res pondents when compared to the perceptions of the 1996 respondents. The evaluation of pe rceptual changes rela ting to an item not being a part of the respondents job showed 10 items that had statistically significant positive changes (the percentage of respondents considering that item to not be a part of their job was less than in 1996) while two items showed a statistically significant negative change (the percentage of respondents considering that item to not be a part of their job was greater than in 1996). In the section of the survey assessing the respondents level of familiarity with IP2 several interesting results were identified. First, 62% of the respondents had read this publication at least one time while 26% had scanned it and 12% had never read it. Of those respondents who had read IP2 the largest percentage came from schools in suburban/urban locations. Second, 60% of th e respondents had never attended an in-

PAGE 191

177 service on this publicatio n. In addition, 28% said that they had never made any attempts to try and implement the guideline s set forth in this publication. Of the environmental factors surveyed the one that had the largest number of statistically significant correlations to the 37 resurveyed job task analysis items was the variable Principal encourages use of the LMC resources in the planning of curriculum units. This variable had a statistically si gnificant correlation to twenty-four of the 37 resurveyed job task analysis items. The most notable demographic change, which related to technology, was in the increase in the number of schools with school-wide computer networks from 1996 to 2006. In 1996 31.9% of the respondents said th eir school had a school-wide computer network while in 2006 98.8% of the respondents indicated that their school has a schoolwide computer network. In addition 85% of the respondents indicated the teachers and students could access electronic resource from their classrooms.

PAGE 192

178 Chapter Five Conclusions As noted by Cleaver and Taylor (1983), changes in thinking, especially with regard to the role of the school library medi a specialist, are not made quickly or without considerable consternation. The major purpose of this study was to determine if some of the perceptual changes that should have occu rred as a result of the modifications in school library media national standards set forth in IP2 have occurred. Based on the data analysis, this chapter presents the conclusions made from this study. These conclusions are based in large part on the 37 resurveyed job task analysis items and the changes, or lack thereof, in the percepti ons of school library media sp ecialists in Florida of the saliency of these job tasks. Conclusions are also presented based on the analysis of the various demographic and envi ronmental variables studied. Research Questions 1. Have school library media specialists saliency ratings on items related to collaboration, leadership and technology changed since 1996? 2. Does the school library media specialists level of familiarity with Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning influence their practice as measured by a change in the saliency of selected items resurveyed from a 1996 Job Task Analysis?

PAGE 193

179 3. Do selected environmental factors in pub lic school settings correlate with school library media specialists ratings of job tasks in collaboration, leadership and technology? The specific factors of interest in this study are: a. Scheduling model flexible, fixed or a combination b. Administrative support outward statements of encouragement for teachers to make use of the se rvices of the media program c. Full time media program supervisor in the district district-level coordination of the school media programs throughout the district, including staff development, which could impact the familiarity with, and perceptions of, the importance of im plementing national standards in the school media programs. d. Level of technology integration netw orked status of the school, which could reflect in the ability to acce ss resources offered in the media program; professional development in the use of technology, etc. 4. Do demographic variables, related to the school library media specialist, correlate with school library media specialists ra tings of job tasks in collaboration, leadership and technology? The specific factors of interest in this study are: a. Gender b. Age c. Ethnicity d. Highest degree earned e. Years in teaching f. Years as a school library media specialist

PAGE 194

180 g. Time in current position h. Method of earning certification 5. Do demographic variables, related to th e school, correlate with school library media specialists ratings of job tasks in collaborati on, leadership and technology? The specific factors of inte rest in this study are: a. Level of the school: elementary, middle, high, other b. Number of students c. Geographic location: rural, rural/ suburban, suburban, suburban/urban, urban Major Findings Demographics Age The median age of the sample was 50-59 years (52.2% n=317). While this percentage correlates closely with info rmation reported by Baumbach (2003) it is interesting to note that the median number of years as a media specialist was 1-5 years (30.2% n=182). When combined with the sec ond highest response to this question, 6-10 years (24.1% n=145), those two numbers acco unt for 54.3% of the sample. This is interesting in that it shows that while ma ny of the school library media specialists responding are aging they have not served in this segment of the school environment for very long. Years in Current Position The median response for years in curren t position was 1-5 (49.8% n=300). When one adds the second most frequent respons e 6-10 years (24.9% n=150) the total of the

PAGE 195

181 two responses shows that 74.7% of the respondents have been in their current position for 10 years or less. These demographics of age and length of time as a school library media specialist, when taken togeth er, may indicate that many of the current school library media specialists have been trained in the time since the publication of IP2. Given that IP2 is used as a core textbook in the school library media programs at NCATE approved programs in Florida, it would seem reasonable to consider that many of these somewhat newly trained school library media specialists would have a current knowledge of IP2 and their training should have prepared them to implement those goals and objectives. This may account for some of the somewhat significant increases in saliency on the resurveyed job task analysis items in this study. However, while there may be some pr actical significance to this notion, the Spearman rank correlation analysis reported no statistical significance between the variables method of earning certification and familiarity with IP2. Neither was there any significant correlation between highest de gree earned and familiarity with IP2. This result was somewhat surprising and will require additional consideration and/or research. Analysis of the 37 Resurveyed Job Task Analysis Items Research question 1 : Have school library media specia lists saliency ratings on items related to collaboration, leadership and technology changed since 1996? The task analysis comparisons showed a number of statis tically significant changes in the perceptions of the respondents on the 37 resu rveyed job task analysis items. For the 14 job task analysis items dete rmined by the subject matter experts to be related to collaboration, 9 showed statistically significant differences in the perceptions of the 2006 respondents when compared to the pe rceptions of the 1996 respondents. For the

PAGE 196

182 13 items related to leadership, 12 showed st atistically significant differences in the perceptions of the 2006 respondents when co mpared to the perceptions of the 1996 respondents. For the 10 items related to tec hnology, 8 showed stat istically significant differences in the perceptions of the 2006 res pondents when compared to the perceptions of the 1996 respondents. The evaluation of pe rceptual changes rela ting to an item not being a part of the responde nts job showed 10 items that had statistically significant positive changes (the percentage of respondents considering that item to not be a part of their job was less than in 1996) while 2 items showed a statistically significant negative change (the percentage of re spondents considering that item to not be a part of their job was greater than in 1996). Additional detail s about the changes in perception on the 37 job task analysis items are disc ussed in the following sections. Collaboration While the majority of the items in this category had higher saliency scores than in 1996, 42.8% were lower. The statistically signi ficant change in item 45, which showed the highest positive sa liency change of .87 ( t= 11.03, ES=.73) reflects the constructs of IP2 goals related to information access and delivery (p. 83); the item states, Conduct workshops/in-service and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, and new production t echniques. As the means and methods of information access and delivery change, the type of traini ng referenced in this item will remain a valuable component of the sc hool library media program. It is important to document the professionals commitment to this type of task within school library media programs since, as noted by Lance, et al., 1998, this type of training may be reflective of one

PAGE 197

183 strategy that results in higher test scores fo r students in schools where the school library media specialist is engaged in such activities.. Item 53 showed the largest (-.27) negativ e change in actual saliency and was statistically significant ( t=5.24, ES=.34) The item states, Assist students and/or teachers in locating and selecting materials. This ma y reflect a statistically significant negative shift in the perceptions of sc hool library media services to students and teachers, which has traditionally been one of the bulwarks of the school library media program. This change is somewhat perplexing, since in th e 1996 study this was one of the items that was nominated as a task that would benefit from the implementation of additional information technologies (PDRI, p. 51). To s ee such a statistically significant negative change in the school library me dia specialists percep tion about this area of their program is pause for concern and should be researched in more depth. Item 52, which had the second largest st atistically significan t negative change .15 ( t =4.47, ES=.29), states, Assist students an d/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions. Even though the effect size on this item was small, it is intriguing that these two items, which reflect the primary function of every librarian, not to mention the school library media specialist, would have decreased in their perceived importance over the last 10 years. Further, this result is incongruous with the investigators personal observations while visiting school library media centers across the state. The predominate activity occurring during these visits is exactly what these items describe. In addition, as with the previ ous item, item 52 was the first item listed on the PDRI list of tasks that would most be nefit from the implementation of additional

PAGE 198

184 information technologies. This conflict between statistical an alysis and personal observation is sufficient reason to pursue additional research in this area. Leadership Table 17 shows that all of the items (12 out of 13) rela ted to leadership, with the exception of item 70, had a t score that exceeded the critical t value. In addition each of these items reflected an eff ect size large enough to make th em somewhat significant. All of the items, with the exception of items 62 (serve on curriculum committees) and 72 (participate in professional organizations and attend c onferences) showed a positive change in their saliency scores. Item 72 had a negative saliency change of .73 ( t=14.04, ES=.9) making this a strong statistically signifi cant change. This item states, Attend meetings/conferences and participate in professional organiza tion (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.). For this item to have such a significan t negative shift is impor tant, especially given the fact that FAME was one of the or ganizations that strongly supported the dissemination of the survey for this study. Given that 74.3% ( n=368) of the respondents to the survey said that they were currently a member of FAME, this negative perceptual change seems incongruous with reality. However, it is possible to be a member of an organization and yet not attend conferences or in other ways participate in the organizations. Zsiray (2003) identified membership in professional organizations as one of the ways in which school library media specialis ts who considered themselves leaders in their schools demonstrated that leadership. Th e operative word in Zsirays statement was active when describing the level of participation in professional organization.

PAGE 199

185 Attendance of professional conf erences would seem to indicate an active participation in the professional organization. This negative perception change, related to leadership, also relates to one of the items on the FLDOEs document School Library Media Speci alists Responsibilities Is involved with district, state and/or national level professi onal organizations. However, this study did not attempt to iden tify the particular level (local state or national) at which the respondents were involved in their professional organizations. Item 76 showed the highest saliency cha nge (1.18) with an effect size of 1.06. This item, Upgrade relevant professional skills (e.g., attend colle ge courses and/or seminars appears to reflect a strong commit ment on the part of th ese professionals to keep abreast with changes in the profe ssion. This positive change supports one of Zsirays characteristics of those school libra ry media specialists who consider themselves to be leaders in their schools. Further, th e overall positive shift in saliency means in this category may be a reflection of the respondent s understanding of th e importance of the leadership role of the school library media specialist. The results of this study in the area of leadership seem to indicate that school library media specialists in Florida have a somewhat stronger perception of the importance of their roles as leaders. Th e respondents responses on items such as organizing and participating in technol ogy teams, serving on curriculum committees, coordinating special reading programs, deve loping strategic plans, organizing and facilitating media advisory committees, and pl anning and participating in meetings to inform parents are indica tors of this change.

PAGE 200

186 Technology The most noticeable positive saliency ch anges in this category occurred with items 59 (provide adaptive t echnologies) and 61 (use onl ine services to retrieve information). It was interesting to note these changes in perception; although on item 59, 24% of the respondents did not consider prov iding adaptive technolog ies a part of their job; the fact that the salie ncy increased and was shown to be statistically significant ( t=9.37, ES=.84) on this item is encouraging. Theoretically, the use of online services to retrieve information should increase since these services were not available to most schools in 1996. Item 61s saliency increase, along with the medium effect size supports the assumption (t=11.50, ES=.75 ). In addition, this item was one of task listed on the original PDRI study (p. 51) as a task that would be enhanced by the implementation of additional information technologies. One might surmise that the enhancement of school-wide computer networks and the expansion of the availability of electronic resources may have contributed somewhat to this perceptual change. Three items showed a negative change in saliency. They were items 56 Assist teacher and students in the use of producti on techniques, 58 Instruct students and teachers in the use of various technology objects, and 75 Keep informed about new technologies. When looking at item 56, it is po ssible that this change related to level of school. As previously discussed, many high sc hools have another teacher committed to teaching technology related courses, includ ing video and television production. The responses to item 58 may have been affected by the fact that CDROMS were used in the original example and thus in the example for this study. However, CDROMS have, in

PAGE 201

187 many cases, been replaced by directly accessibl e electronic resources and therefore the 2006 respondents may not have responded as positively as they would have, had the example included the use of electroni c resources rather than CDROMS. As for item 73, it is difficult to explain why school library media specialists would not consider keeping informed about new technologies to be something that should rank high on their list of th ings to do. Discussions with several school library media program supervisors have revealed that having a technology specialist in the school sometimes gives the school libra ry media specialist the feeli ng that they do not have to worry about the technology re lated issues. This perception is supported by Seavers (2002) who found that the percep tion of most instructional st aff was that the technology specialist was responsible for hardware, softwa re and network issues as well as being the person responsible for training teachers and stud ents in the use of various technologies. These results from the technology secti on of the study were compared to the FLDOE List of Technology Competencies as They Relate to School Library Media Specialist. Four of the job task analysis items directly related to that list. Item 42, Provide formal instruction in media center or school-wide technology resources showed a marginal increase in saliency (1996=3.06, 2006=3.17, t =.53, ES=1.67). Although this item, based on the effect size, shows some statistical significance there is more practical significan ce to be noted. Based on IP2 the school library media specialist should be actively involved in this task. Since 81.3% of the respondent s stated that they were not their schools primary technology pe rson, their responses to this item would reflect that they do not spend as much time in this area.

PAGE 202

188 Another item on the FLDOE list of tec hnology competencies that did reflect a significant change in saliency (1996=.99, 2006=3.13, t= 2.00, ES=2.13) was item 43, Provide informal instructi on to students in media cente r and/or school-wide technology resources. It is interesti ng to note the significant diffe rence between the provision of formal and informal instruction. The fact that informal instruction has increased dramatically while formal in struction has basically remained the same would, to some degree, be in keeping with the goals of IP2. This change also somewhat confirms Cravers (1994) assumption that school library media speciali sts of the future would have to change their parochial teaching methods in order to meet the learning needs of their students. The third task analysis item that relates to the FLDOE list of technology competencies is item 58, Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of various technology objects. The saliency for this item had a negative change (1996=3.36, 2006=3.02, t= 2.15, ES=2.01). Statistically this is a signi ficant change as well as being of practical significance. Given the increase in online resources, perh aps the respondents no longer consider technology objects such as CDROM as something in which they need to offer instruction. The fourth item on the FLDOE list that ha d a direct correlati on to this study was item 75, Keep informed about new technologie s. The saliency for this item had a negative change (1996=3.63, 2006=3.53, t= 1.72, ES=1.02). Although this saliency score shows that school library media sp ecialist consider this a rele vant task, it is somewhat of a quandary as to why they would consider it less so in 2006 than in 1996, given the continuing influx of new technologies into the schools. This item also relates to FLDOEs

PAGE 203

189 matrix of Library Media Specialists Responsibilities item that states, Models uses of innovative technologies and provides staff development opportunities. It would be difficult for a school library media specia list to model the uses of new innovative technologies if they do not consider keeping informed about new technologies important. Baumbach (2003) noted that elementary school library media specialists spend a great deal of time managing media center technology; middle school library media specialists spend 50% more time and high school library media specialists spend 100% more time than do the elementary school library media specialists. This finding is specific to those technologies found in the school library media cen ter and does not reflect the amount of time spent assisting with tec hnologies in other pa rts of the school. While having the schools media center c onnected to the schools network is a significant occurrence, the network is not fulf illing its instructional goal if the students and teachers cannot have full access to all of the resources available through the school library media center in their respective classrooms. The fact that 85.5% of those responding said this is possi ble in their schools is enc ouraging and supports Morris (2004) concept of technology-rich learning environments throughout the school. However, the amount of actua l access from the classroom to media center and other resources via the network was not explored in this study and should be considered for future research. Further, Baumbach (2003) noted a negative correlation between the number of students in a school with disabilities and the number of co mputers in a school library media center with accommodations for stude nts with special needs. This negative correlation means that, in many cases, students w ith disabilities are not able to access the

PAGE 204

190 electronic resources of th e school library media center without considerable individualized attention. Baumbachs findings were somewhat suppor ted by this study in that, on the task analysis item related to pr oviding adaptive technologies fo r students with disabilities, 24% (n=112) responded that this was not a pa rt of their job. However, the strongest response 29% (n=134) was that the respondent spend about the same amount of time on providing these technologies as they sp ent on other media center duties. The not a part of job response level could be related to th e perception on the part of some school personnel, not just the school library media specialist, that other departments of the school district and/or state are responsible for delivering these types of services to students with disabilities. However, it is encouraging to note that many school library media specialists did spend at least an equal amount of time attempting to serve this segment of the student population. Not a Part of Job As shown by Figure 4 and Table 19 there we re substantial changes in the response levels on the not a part of job variable for items related to: Conduct workshops/in-service and other traini ng for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, a nd new production techniques This item response changed from 30.84% in 1996 to 6.09% in 2006. This is a significant positive change since a reduction in the number of respondents considering this not a part of their job is what woul d reflect the intent of IP2 goals. Further, with the continued infusion of new technologies, one would speculate that school library

PAGE 205

191 media specialists would be more actively engaged in this infusion than they may have been in 1996. Participate in team teaching activities The level of response changed on this item from 18.24% in 1996 to 13.35% in 2006. Although this is a credible decrease for this item, it remains one that needs to be continuously monitored. In order to further the IP2 goals for teaching and learning, more in-service needs to be developed to assist school library media specialists with feeling more comfortable with working collaboratively with other members of the instructional staff. Instruct teachers and students in media center policies and procedures The response rate change on this item wa s dramatic; going from 25.83% in 1996 to 43% in 2006. It is difficult to imagine why, even in 1996, any school library media specialist would not consid er this a part of their job. Instruct students and/or teachers in th e use of the public access catalog system. The rate of response on this item was cons idered significant since it changed from 1996 (24.36%) to 2006 (2.14%). This is a si gnificant, albeit understandable, drop. When the 1996 survey was taken, there were still a large number of schools that had not been converted to an electronic public access catalog. The old style card catalog was still in the school library media center at the investigators school when the investigator became the school library media specialist there in 1996, despite the fact that the electronic pu blic access computer system was fully operational. Provide adaptive technologies for students with special needs. There was a change in response on this item from 1996 (40.23%) to 2006 (24.09%). Although

PAGE 206

192 this reflects a substantial drop in the number of school library media specialists considering this task to not be a part of their job, the fact that 24% of the respondents do not consider this a part of their job is still cause for concern. In some cases this is understandable since many school library media specialists and classroom teachers see the provision of adap tive technologies as the responsibility of the Special Education Department of th eir school district. However, it becomes a part of the school library media specia lists job the first time a special needs student attempts to access information and cannot do so because of some hindrance due to lack of the appropri ate adaptive technolog ies being readily available in the school library media center. Organize and/or participate in technology teams/technical committees The response on this item dropped from 1 996 (31.15%) to 2006 (8.55%). This is a significant reduction. It may reflect the tr aining of the newer school library media specialists as reflected by the numbers of respondents who had been a school library media specialist for 10 years or less. Or, it could reflec t the general feeling that if you dont participate, you get left behind; therefore, being a matter of survival. Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research). The change in this items response rate was sign ificant in that it dropped from 1996 (32.28%) to 2006 (0.86%). As with the electronic public access catalog, these types of resources were not very prevalent at the time of the 1996 survey. Since that time school districts have spent millions of dollars in order to offer their students access to high quality electronic resources. The state of Florida recently made

PAGE 207

193 access to the Florida Electronic Library available to all school students for the first time. Serve on curriculum committees and assi st in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides Although not as dramatic as some items, this item also showed substantial change in response from 1996 (20.51%) to 2006 (16.49%). This continues to be a source of needed additional training for school library medi a specialist. It is incon ceivable that the person in the school with the most access to information would not be an active participant on committees discussing curriculum issues. Develop a strategic plan for the medi a center, including mission, goals and objectives The change in the response rate was somewhat smaller than some of the other tasks in this list; however, it wa s shown to be significant. The change was from 3.52% in 1996 to 1.08% in 2006. Although the rate in 1996 was not very high, the fact that the percentage of school librar y media specialists placing emphasis on having such a plan in place is encouraging. Plan and participate in meetings to presen t the functions and services of the media center to parent a nd community organizations This item showed some reduction in response rate from 1996 (17.03%) to 2006 (10.53%). Since the change in IP2 to the concept of the learning co mmunity, it has become even more crucial for the school library media speci alist to be actively engaged with the entire learning community, which includes participating in meetings and presentations of information to parents.

PAGE 208

194 Upgrade relevant professional skills (e.g., attend college courses and/or seminars. This item showed significant re duction in respons e level from 1996 (17.03%) to 2006 (0.42%). This dramatic re duction was somewhat of a surprise. Given that school library medi a specialists, like classroom teachers, get little or no support from school districts for the costs of additional coursework and seminars, even attending professional conferences, it was encouraging to see the level of commitment to professional developmen t as indicated by the response on this item. Figure 4 also shows some negative changes for not a part of job on the following items: Provide informal instruction to students in classroom or small-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) (1996 = 1.96%, 2006 = 6.10%). Although no further analysis was done to determine if there was a correlat ion between any particular school level and this response, it is possi ble that this relates to sc hool level. The high schools, and occasionally the middle school level, have fulltime technology and/or video production teachers who take on this re sponsibility. However, it would seem unwise for any school library media specia list to completely remove themselves from involvement in this type of activity. Assist teacher and students in the use of produc tion techniques (1996 = 8.82%, 2006 = 19.57%). As mentioned previously, this may be related to level of school.

PAGE 209

195 Analysis of Demographic and Environmental Items School Library Media Specialists Familiarity with IP2-Correlations with 37 Resurveyed Job task analysis items Research Question 2: Does the school library media specia lists level of familiarity with Information Power: Buildi ng Partnerships for Learning correlate to their practice as measured by a change in the saliency of sel ected items resurveyed from a 1996 Job Task Analysis? The results of the survey showed that 62% of the respondents had read IP2 at least one time, while an additional 26% had scanned it. Conversely, that means that 12% of the respondents have never read the public ation that sets forth the national standards for school library media programs. In addition, 60% of the respondents had never attended an in-service at which this public ation was discussed. These are points of considerable interest and concern. Howeve r, in a surprising revelation, 72% of the respondents stated that they had made at least some effort to implement the IP2 standards. One would ask how, if you havent read the text a nd/or havent attended an inservice would you know whether or not you ha d made an attempt to implement the standards? As shown in Table 27, when comparing familiarity with IP2 to the 37 job task analysis saliency scores, there is only one task that reflects a significant statistical correlation to familiarity with IP2. That item, number 42 ( r = 0.09, p = 0.0148), states, Provide formal instructi on to students in classroom or smallgroup setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.). There could be many factors contributing to this

PAGE 210

196 situation; however, none of the other variables researched in this study seemed to have any statistically signif icant correlation. Therefore, this should be an area of further research. While presenting some of the findings from this study at the 2006 FAME Conference, one participant in the se ssion commented, We often include many of the principles from Information Power in our professional development workshops, but presenters do not always reinforce that these principles are coming from Information Power . This is a valid point and somewhat of an explanation for the lack of direct correlation between familiarity with IP2 and the 37 resurveyed job tasks. However, as was reiterated to this participant, it is extremely important that those persons perf orming training in the field continue to reinforce the importance that the school library media program operates from a set of national standards as do most other curriculum areas within the school environment. Operating from a set of nati onal standards is one of the criteria for being known as a profession. Environmental Factors that may Correlate with Job Task Analysis Responses Research Question 3: Do selected environmental fact ors in public school settings correlate with school library media specialis ts ratings of job ta sks in collaboration, leadership and technology? The spec ific factors of interest are: a. Scheduling model flexible, fixed or a combination b. Administrative support outward statements of encouragement for teachers to make use of the se rvices of the media program

PAGE 211

197 c. Full time media program supervisor in the district district-level coordination of the school media programs throughout the district, including staff development, which could impact the familiarity with, and perceptions of, the importance of im plementing national standards in the school media programs. d. Level of technology integration netw orked status of the school, which could reflect in the ability to acce ss resources offered in the media program; professional development in the use of technology, etc. Scheduling Model Scheduling model, based on the nati onal standards and recent research, was considered to be a variable that s hould show some level of correlation to a number of the resurveyed job task analys is items. Table 29 reports the eight items with which statistically significant correlations were found. They are: Item 40, Provide formal instru ction in information skills. Item 41, Provide informal (one-on-one ) instruction in information skills. Item 43, Provide informal (e.g., oneon-one) instruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) Item 44, Introduce materials of spec ial interest to class groups. Item 47, Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches Item 52, Assist students a nd/or teachers with gene ral reference services (e.g., answer reference questions)

PAGE 212

198 Item 55, Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as necessary Item 63, Coordinate special read ing, writing, and student production programs. The follow up data found in Table 28 shows that the mean saliency ratings for each of the items that requires a more individualized a pproach is higher for those school library media specialists operating under either a flexible or combination scheduling model than for those operating under a fixed scheduling m odel. These findings tend to support other studies (Bishop and Larimer, 1999; Callis on, 1999; Haycock, 1998; McCracken, 2001 and Tallman & van Deusen, 1994) that indicat e the need to allow the school library media center to operate under either a flexible or combination scheduling model in order to give the school library media specialist the flexibility needed to perform these different types of instruction and to coordinate various types of special programs. Further, these findings support Principle Four of IP2 (p.89), which states, The library media program requires flexible and equitable access to in formation, ideas, and resources for learning. The flexible and/or combination scheduling model may become even more relevant as additional focus is placed on the school library media specialist as a primary promoter of reading and writing skills, in addition to information l iteracy skills instruction. Administrative Support Table 29 reports that the larg est number of statistically significant correlations in this study occurred with the variable The pr incipal encourages teachers to make use of the resources of the school library media cen ter in the development of their curriculum units. There were statistically significant corr elations between this variable and 24 of the

PAGE 213

199 37 resurveyed job task analysis items. This result supports other studies (Haycock 1999; Oberg, 1995; Oberg, Hay & Henri, 2000) that ha ve found that the principal is the single most influential person in the school when it comes to affecting curriculum and the actions of the instructional staff in their sc hool. The items found to correlate with this variable are: Item 41, Provide informal (e.g., one-onone) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.). Generally, informal instruction occurs most often when the school lib rary media center is operating under a flexible or combination sc heduling model. A supportive principal would see such a scheduling model as the most effi cient means of achieving collaboration between the classroom teachers and the school library media specialist, thus making informal instruction a more realistic goal. Item 43, Provide informal (e.g., one-onone) instruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.). A supportive principal, allowing the school library media center to operate on a flexible or combination would provide the school library media specialist with more time for one-on-one instruction. Item 44, Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities). Item 45, Conduct workshops/in-service and ot her training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, an d new production techniques. If the principal is making supportiv e statements about the use of resources available in the school library media center teachers are more likely to respond favorably to

PAGE 214

200 the offering of training in the use of a va riety of materials an d technologies in the school library media center. Item 46, Instruct teachers concerning wa ys to incorporate technology into the classroom curricula. Item 47, Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches. Supportive statements by the principal will support collaboration between the school library media specialist and the cl assroom teachers, which will lead to additional request for assistance with innovative teaching strategies using technologies. Item 48, Participate in team teaching activities. Item 49, Inform faculty of new medi a center services, materials, and technology. Supportive statements by the principal will re sult in classroom teachers expecting the school library medi a specialist to inform them as new services and materials become availabl e in the school library media center. Item 50, Keep teachers informed concerning students' information skills. Item 51, Act as a resource to teachers in providing ideas, and/or resource materials to be included as part of classroom units. Item 52, Assist students and/ or teachers with genera l reference services (e.g., answer reference questions). Item 58, Instruct students and/or teache rs in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CD-ROM encyclopedia, gra phic arts presentations, multimedia presentations, etc.). Item 59, Provide adaptive technologies for studen ts with special needs.

PAGE 215

201 Item 60, Organize and/or participate in technology teams/technical committees. Item 61, Use online services to retrie ve information (e.g., in doing research). Item 62, Serve on curriculum committees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides. Item 63, Work with faculty to coordinate media center material s, activities, and technology in conjunction with curricul um programs, units, and text books. Item 65, Coordinate special reading, writing, and student production programs (e.g., Sunshine State Reader's program Jim Harbin video awards, etc.). Item 66, Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives. Item 67, Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning. Item 69, Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations. Item 70, Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams. A principal who would make supportive statements about the use of the school library media resources may also expect the school library media specialist to participate in such important committees. Item 71, Maintain and support a comput er network for the media center. Item 73, Work cooperatively with distri ct and/or regional education and media center service units. Further, these findings su pport those of Bishop and La rimer (1999) who found that administrators who ask how the teachers are using the resources of the school library

PAGE 216

202 media center and the expertis e of the school library me dia specialist created an atmosphere where collaboration was more likely to occur. When asked if, in their opinion, if th eir principal was supportive, 88.3% of the respondents rated their principals, to some degree, supportive. Three statistically significant correlations were f ound between this vari able and the job task analysis items. Those items are: Item 44, Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities. This item also was correlated with the previous item related to the principal encouraging teachers to make use of the LMC resources in their curriculum planning. Item 62, Serve on curriculum committees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides Item 70, Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams. This item also was correlated with the previous item related to the principal encouraging teachers to make use of the LMC resources in their curriculum planning. These findings support the tenet of IP2s Administrative Princi ple Four, which states, An effective library media program require s ongoing administrative support (p.100). District Level School Library Media Supervisor Baumbach (2003) inferred a number of si gnificant effects for the school library media program as a result of having a fulltime or part time supervisor assigned to this area; however, the only signi ficant correlation found in this study was with Item 57, Instructing students and teachers in the use of the public access catalog. This correlation seems practical in that those districts with sc hool library media supervisors

PAGE 217

203 tend to be the medium and larger sized district s, which in turn have more resources with which to implement electronic public access catalogs earlier than those with fewer resources. It was expected that those di stricts with a fulltime or part time dedicated school library media program supervisor woul d have somewhat diffe rent perceptions on the job task analysis items; however, no such statistically significant correlations could be identified. Level of Technology Integration Table 33 shows that 81% of the res pondents were not the primary technology person in their schools. This, along with the data from the item related to having a fulltime technology support person in their schools, seems to indicate that many schools/school districts have made a commit ment to the technology focus by designating someone, other than the school library media specialist, as the person responsible for technology related issues. This may have ha d a somewhat detrimental affect on school library media specialists perceptions of th eir role in the tech nology focus at their schools. This opinion is somewhat va lidated by the response levels on the not a part of job items. On that section, the items related to instructing students in the use of various technology objects and instructing students/t eachers in the use of various production techniques both showed increases in those respondents who did not c onsider these tasks a part of their job. In the area of offering computer training to students and/or teachers, 74% of the respondents offered such training at least oc casionally to teachers. In addition, 86.6% of the respondents offered such training at least occasionally to students. The particulars of

PAGE 218

204 what type of training is specifically involved were not invest igated. However, this would be a topic worthy of additional investigation. The statistically significant correlation found between the variable related to the school library media center being integrated into the school-wide network and item 48, Participate in team teaching activities may support the concep t that extending the services/resources of the sc hool library media program be yond the walls of the school library media center encourages greater interaction between all members of the learning community as proposed in IP2 This correlation has encourag ed further investigation as to what degree these resources are actually accessed by teachers and/or students from their classrooms. Further, it would be inte resting to determine to what degree these resources are accessed from beyond the school facility. School Library Media Specialists Demographi c Variables that May Correlate to Job Task Analysis Responses Research Question 4 : Do demographic variables, rela ted to the school library media specialist, correlate with th eir ratings of job tasks in collaboration, leadership and technology? The specific factors of interest are: a. Gender b. Age c. Ethnicity d. Highest degree earned e. Years in teaching f. Years as a school library media specialist g. Time in current position

PAGE 219

205 h. Method of earning certification Gender One significant correlation was found at the .05 level between this variable and the saliency of the 37 job task analysis ite ms. That correlation occurred with item 57, Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of the public access catalog system. No attempt was made to discern any pr actical value of this correlation. Age Table 41 shows that the two job task analysis items to which this variable correlated related to working with teachers to design innovati ve instructional approaches and assisting students and/or teachers with the general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions). The age group that rated both of thes e job tasks highest was the 3039 group. There is no basis for determining if these correlations have any practical significance. Table 41 also shows that overall the respondents rated assisting students and teachers with reference services higher th an assisting teachers with the design of innovative teaching approaches. This is so mewhat understandable in that answering reference questions has traditionally been the bread and butter of the school library media specialist. However, it is somewhat perplexing that the overall saliency ratings for working with teachers on innovative teaching approaches were more than .50 lower than were the saliency ratings for answering reference questions. On these types of saliency ratings, .50 is a very large difference. Such a large difference in th ese items saliency means may indicate some lack of comfort on th e part of the respondents with the concept of working with teachers on innovative teachi ng approaches. There appears to be a need

PAGE 220

206 to further investigate the level of comfort of school library media specialists as related to working with teachers on innovative teaching approaches. Ethnicity Although a statistically significant corr elation was found related to the item Assist teachers and students in the use of production techniques, the investigator contends that this correlati on has no practical significance. Highest degree earned One correlation was found with item 69, P lan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of th e media center to parent and community organizations and the variable highest degree earned. There may be some validity to the notion that those with th e higher level degrees better understand the need for communicating the functions of the school li brary media program to both in-school and out-of-school audiences. Years as a Teacher Some practitioners and educators theori ze that having been a classroom teacher prior to becoming a school library media specialist would be of benefit to the new school library media specialist. Statistically signi ficant correlations were found between this variable and item 70, Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams and with item 71, Maintain and support a computer network for the media center. Participation in School Improvement Teams is a valuable pa rticipatory activity for any school-based instructional person; however, it is considered essential, as noted in IP2, that the school library media specialist be an active part icipant in these types of school-based

PAGE 221

207 committees. It was unfortunate that 11% of the respondents stated that this was not a part of their job, while 4% saw it as unimportant. One might surmise that having been a classroom teacher prior to becoming a school library media specialist may have gi ven that person additional insight into the importance of decisions made by the school improvement team. In many schools this team has tremendous influence in the alloca tion and spending of in structional funds. In order to insure that the school library media program is consid ered in the deliberations for funding and support, it would seem logical th at the school library media specialist would want to be a part of this team. Years as School Library Media Specialist No significant correlations were found between either the job task analysis items or the other demographic variables in this study. This was somewhat of a surprise since one might expect those who have been in the field longer to have reflected perhaps significantly different perceptions than those newer to the field. Some of this discrepancy might be explained by the fact that 54.3% of the respondent s had been a school library media specialist for less than 10 years. Time in Current Position As reflected in Table 46, for all groupings with the exception of the more than 25 group, the mean saliency for item 71 was higher than for item 56. This may indicate that maintaining the computer network in the schoo l library media center was perceived to be of more value than assisting students and teachers in the use of production techniques. This perception would be contradi ctory to the underlying theme of IP2 which posits that

PAGE 222

208 helping people is always of more value than working with and/or completing thing related activities. Method of Earning Certification Baumbach (2003) reported that having a university trained and certified school library media specialist was reflected in higher FCAT scores at all school levels with the highest difference being 22.2% at the high school level. Some professionals theorized that, du e to the 2001 change in methods of certification in Florida, the method of certificatio n may correlate to responses on the job task analysis items and other variables in the study; however, only one such significant correlation was found. That item, which dea lt with introducing materials of special interests to groups through book talks and st orytelling activities, showed that those respondents who took the FTCE with no prior c oursework rated this item with a higher saliency score than did any other segment of the sample. Since these respondents would have had to be previously certified teacher s in order to be allowed to add on school library media certification in this manner, their ranking of this item could add some credence to the perception that being a cl assroom teacher prior to becoming a school library media specialist adds some depth to the persons executi on in that position. School Demographic Variables t hat may Correlate to Percep tions about the 37 Job Task Analysis Items Research Question 5: Do demographic variables, related to the school, correlate with school library media specialist s ratings of job tasks in collaboration, leadership and technology? The specific factors of interest are: a. Level of the school: elementary, middle, high, other

PAGE 223

209 b. Number of students c. Geographic location: rural, rural/ suburban, suburban, suburban/urban, urban Level of School As shown in Table 48, seven significant correlations were found between this variable and the 37 job task analysis items. They are: Item 42, Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or small-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) When focusing on the three major school levels (elementary, middle and high), those respondents at the high school level rated this item higher than did the other two levels. This re sult is somewhat understandable given the increased focus on research and writing at this level. Also, during the 10 year period between the 1996 PDRI study and the current study, much of the focus on electronic resources for information gatheri ng was placed at the high school level. Item 44, Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) When focusing on the three major school levels (elementary, middle and high), those re spondents at the high school level rated this item higher than did the other two le vels. This result may reflect the more highly departmentalized approach at the high school level. Subject areas teachers at that level might request more specifi cally focused materials for the school library media specialist to introduce to their classes. Item 45, Conduct workshops/in-service and ot her training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technol ogy, and new production techniques When

PAGE 224

210 focusing on the three major school levels (elementary, middle and high), those respondents at the high school level rated th is item higher than did the other two levels. Due to scheduling arra ys at the high schoo l level, there seems to be more time for this type of activity to occur; whereby subject area teams can get together with the school library media speci alist for this type of training. Item 53, Assist students a nd/or teachers in locati ng and selecting materials When focusing on the three major school levels (elementary, middle and high), those respondents at the high school level rated this item higher than did the other two levels. Once again, this result may be related to the subject area diversification at this level. Item 55, Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as necessary. When focusing on the three major school levels (elementary, middle and high), those respondents at the high school level rated this item higher than did the other two levels. This may have occurred due to the focus on specific research areas at this level. There has b een a noticeable increase in the awareness of high school teachers and the copyright infringements occurring as a result of the Copy and Paste features when stud ents are doing their research from electronic resources. Therefore, there is an increased need for teaching both teachers and students the legal ramifica tions of copyright infringements. Item 62, Serve on curriculum committees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resour ce units and curriculum guides. When focusing on the three major school levels (element ary, middle and high), those respondents at the middle school level rated this item higher than did the other two levels. In

PAGE 225

211 many middle school models, the school lib rary media center is a part of the wheel and would thus be involved in th e planning of units with teachers from the various families. This organizational arrangement may somewhat explain the results of this item. Item 66, Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives When focusing on the three major school levels (elementary, middle and high), those respondents at th e middle school level rated this item higher than did the other two levels. Due to the organizational arrangement within the middle school model, school library media specialists at this level may feel as though they have a greater need to develop a strategic plan in order to meet the needs of their schools curriculum foci. Number of Student in School Two correlations were found between th e number of students in the school and the 37 job task analysis items. Those correlations occurred with items 43 and 44. Item 43 states, Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) inst ruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e .g., multimedia production, etc.). Item 44 states, Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities). Table 50 indicates that those responde nts from the schools with 1801-2300 students rated providing one-toone instruction in media center and/or school-wide technology resources higher th an did those in other size schools. This finding would correlate with previous findings that school library media specialists in high schools rated this item highest since this is a populati on size most often related to high schools in Florida.

PAGE 226

212 The respondents in schools with 13011800 students rated in troducing materials of special interest to class groups higher than did the ot her groups. This finding would correlate with the previous finding that sc hool library media speci alist in middle schools rated this item highest as well since this is the population size most associated with middle schools in Florida. Geographic Location of School A correlation was found with item 58, Ins truct students and/or teachers in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CD-ROM encyclopedia, graphic arts presentation, multimedia presentations, etc.). A correla tion was also found with item 68, Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs. Table 51 indicates that respondents fro m urban schools rated the instruction of students in the use of various technology objects higher than did respondents from other geographical locations. There may be several explanations for this result, one of which may be that many urban schools get a pr oportionately larger am ount of federal aid dollars from which they have been enhanc ing their technology capabilities. In the metropolitan Florida school district in which the investigator previously taught, Title 1 funded schools began being networked in 1991 while non Title 1 schools were left to their own devices to locate funding for such technology. Many of those schools not receiving federal funds were not fully ne tworked until the 2000-2001 school year; thus giving federally funded schools a 10 year head start in the use of networked technology resources.

PAGE 227

213 Table 51 also indicates that those re spondents in rural/suburban schools rated interpreting and applying national, regional, state, and local standa rds and guidelines to library media programs higher than did respond ents in the other geographic locations. Summary of Analysis In this section the results discerned from this stud y were reflected upon. Although significant differences were found for many of the perceptions of the respondents on the 37 resurveyed job task analysis items and the correlational an alysis of the environmental and demographic variables studied, many questions were also identified for additional research. Significance of This Study This study is significant in several wa ys. First, it established the lack of familiarity with the national standards fo r school library media programs. The study revealed a lack of in-service on these sta ndards. However, the study was unable to determine to what degree those with university training were familiar with IP2. Second, this study identified, to some de gree, changes in sc hool library media specialists perceptions on 37 job task analysis items that directly relate to the areas of collaboration, leadership a nd technology; all important components of the national standards delineated in IP2. In addition, changes in the number of respondents considering items not a part of their job we re noted on a number of the job tasks. Where these changes were positive, research should be done to further understand how these school library media specialist s have developed their percep tions. Likewise, where these changes were negative, research should be done to determine what factors contributed to this negative change.

PAGE 228

214 Third, with the upcoming revision of the national standards just a few years away, this study may have identified some variables th at need to be addressed with respect to the marketing and staff development needed to ensure the more thorough education of school library media specialists in those revi sed standards, once they are published. Some recommendations as a result of this studys findings would be: The Florida Department of Education s coordinator for school media programs must actively solicit the s upport of school library media supervisors and the states professional organization to develop a plan for the statewide implementation of new standards. School library media supervisors must develop in-service programs and make sure that participants are aware that the tenets of th e workshop are based on their national professional standards. Copies of new standards publications must be provided to all school library media specialists in the state and reviewed with them on a regular basis so that they become equally as aware of their own prof essional standards as they are of those of other curriculum areas. Fourth, while presenting some of the fi ndings from this study at the 2006 FAME conference, it was noted that many of the themes within IP2 are discussed and developed in a variety of in-service workshops and/or conference sessions, although they are not always credited to IP2. One response to this pos sibility is that supervisors and presenters need to be sure that all school library medi a specialists attending such sessions are aware of where the tenets being presented in th e session were derive d. Knowing that these tenets are a part of the national standard s for school library media programs is an

PAGE 229

215 important part of what the pr ofession is about. Hopefully, c ontinuing to shar e the results of this study will enhance the awareness of the importance of the IP2 goals and objectives. Future Research This study has revealed numerous areas in need of additional research. Some of these areas for future research have been mentioned in the previous discussion and may be expanded on here while others, not prev iously mentioned, are introduced in this section. Collaboration One of the first areas to show a need for additional research was within the category of collaboration. When comparing the saliency means, it is interesting to note that 42.8% of the items have a saliency sc ore lower in 2006 than was the case in 1996. This result should be cause for concern. Item 53 showed the largest negative change in actual saliency. The item states, Assist student s and/or teachers in locating and selecting materials. This item also ha s the largest effect size (2.84) of that group. This reflects a statistically negative shift in the perceptions of sc hool library media services to students and teachers. Further research needs to be done to determine if, in fact, the perception of school library media specialists in Florida co ncerning assisting teach ers and students with locating and selecting materials has indeed ch anged to the point that they now consider this less important than it was 10 years ago. In addition, the second largest of thes e reductions in saliency was on item 52, which states, Assist students and/or teach ers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions. These two tasks represent bulwarks of the school library

PAGE 230

216 media program. It is somewhat confounding as to why there would be such a statistically significant negative change in these tasks. Additional research needs to be done to determine what factors may be contributing to this change. More research needs to be done into th e factors that hinder collaboration between the school library media specialist and the classroom teachers. Since there was an increase in the number of respondents who considered giving oneon-one instruction as not a part of their job, perhaps research into the effects of the FC AT testing pressure would be valuable. Informal discussions with school library media specialists around the state have led some professionals to believe th at teachers feel so much pressure to be in the classroom cramming for the FCAT that th ey dont feel comfortable with any type of activity outside the classroom, at least not until FCAT testing is over for the year. In ancillary data not dire ctly used in this study, wh en discussing collaboration, and some of the hindrances to being able to collaborate, one respondent mentioned using email as a collaborative tool. Since this is one of the items on the FLDOEs list of technology characteristics for school library me dia specialists, it would be valuable to follow up on this thread and determine ways in which effective collaborators have used email for this purpose. It might also reveal ways in which others c ould be trained in the use of email for developing effec tive collaborative partnerships. Leadership Since 12 of the 13 tasks related to leadersh ip increased in thei r saliency, it would be beneficial to develop a survey around Zs irays characteristics of leadership and determine to what extent school library media specialists in Florida possess these characteristics. It would also be usef ul to survey the National Council for the

PAGE 231

217 Accreditation of Teacher E ducation (NCATE) accredited school library media programs in Florida to determine to what extent they discuss/develop these t ypes of characteristics in graduates of their programs Further, research into the leadership characteristics of those school library media specialists holding National Board Certification might inform the profession as to characteristics of those persons seen to be at the top of the profession. In addition, the research from a study of National Board Certified school library media specialists could be compared with similar study results of school library media specialists who received certification from taking a nd passing the FTCE for pK-12 school media without having taken any unive rsity coursework to determine what similarities and differences might occur between these two groups in the area of leadership. Instructional Leader Additional research needs to be done rela ted to school library media specialists perceptions of themselves as an instructional leader in their school. The role of instructional partne r was developed in IP1 but, as noted by Buchanan (1993), it has been one that school library media specialists seem reticent to incorporate into their various other roles. More research needs to be done to dete rmine school library media specialists perceptions of themselves as inst ructional leaders so that additional training may be developed to assist them in b ecoming more comfortable with this role. Technology School-wide Networks and Information Access Given that 85% of the respondents said th at students and teachers have access to school library media center resources from thei r classrooms, it would be important to be

PAGE 232

218 able to document to what degree these res ources are being accessed from the classrooms. School districts in Florida spend millions of dollars annually to make these electronic resources available to their teachers and st udents, yet no research could be found to validate the degree to which these resources are actually being used. There are two questions that should be addre ssed on this topic. First, ar e the electronic resources being accessed and second, from where in the school are they being accessed? The focus on the second question should be; are classroom teach ers and students being informed about these resources and are they being encourag ed to access them from their classrooms and not just from the schools library media center. In keeping with the above item, it would also be beneficial to know the policies and procedures that school library media pr ograms have in place for access to their electronic resources. It has been posited that school library media sp ecialists often put up so many barriers to the use of certain types of materials as to ma ke classroom teachers reluctant to attempt to use those resources. Instruction in the Uses of Technology Research needs to be done to determin e why media specialists do not feel more strongly about their role in th e instruction of t echnology. The investigat or had a first hand experience while attempting to do an in-ser vice workshop for the school library media specialists in a medium sized sc hool district in central Florid a. The investigator was told that all of the partic ipants would be knowledgeable in a specific set of productivity software programs. However, upon beginni ng the workshop, it became immediately apparent that this was not the case. The majo rity of those in attendance had little or no

PAGE 233

219 experience with the software. Thus, the plan for the workshop had to be immediately revised, on the spot. The particular school district mentioned above has done an apparently wonderful thing. They have provided each school with a fulltime technology person. However, the unexpected fallout from this action was to make many of the school library media specialist think that they no longer had to worry about keeping up with the latest technologies and/or software. This is an area of research that needs to be pursued, as to why and how school library media specialists have the opinions they have about their place in the technology program of their school. Adaptive Technologies More research needs to be done on the provision of adaptive technologies, not only through the school library media program but through the general school program as well. Although 27% of the responde nts in this study stated that they spend about the same amount of time providing adaptive technology to students with disabilities, 28% either considered it not a part of their job or sp ent much less time providing these technologies. In many cases FDLRS (Florida Developmental Learning Resource Servi ce) is active in providing adaptive technologies for students with disabilities. Research could be done to assess the level of familiarity of school lib rary media specialists with FDLRS and the level of interaction between the two. The Role of the School Library Media Specialist in Technology Integration Additional research should be done to quantify school library media specialists attitudes about their role in technology integration and the overall use of technology in the school library media center and school at large. Since the school library media

PAGE 234

220 specialist has the largest group of resources from which to draw, research needs to be done to determine if they understand the immens ity of the role they could/should play in the development of integrated t echnology uses in their schools. Although Seavers (2002) studied the level of collaboration betw een school library media specialists and technol ogy specialists, the sample si ze was too small to render significant external validity. A more thor ough study should be developed to determine how each of these groups perceives their respons ibilities in their school. This study could use many of the technology related job task s from the PDRI study to make some determinations as to which of these positio ns takes the lead in technology innovation and integration in their schools. Research could be done into the perception of school lib rary media specialists as to their position in the future of techno logy in their school. There was a noticeable increase in the number of respondents who thought that working with students in developing media productions was not a part of their job. It would be beneficial to better understand how school library medi a specialists perceive themselves and their role in, not only the production of media, but other form s of technology integra tion in their school. Environmental Factors Administrative Support There is a significant body of research supporting the concept that the principal has direct effect on the dire ction that their schools libra ry media program will take (Haycock 1999; Oberg, 1995; Oberg, Hay & Henri, 2000) and Bishop and Larimer (1999) found that supportive statements by the principal contributed to more collaboration between the school library media specialist and classroom teachers,

PAGE 235

221 additional research could be done to further quantify those characteristics of supportive principals from the perspective of the school library media specialist as well as from the perspective of administrators. Research could be done on the perceptions of principals about the school library media program. In keeping with research show ing that the principal has the single most influence over the schools programs and give n that 88.3% of the respondents to this survey considered their principal to be s upportive, it would be interesting to determine what common characteristics these principals have that make them supportive of the school library media program. Scheduling Model According to Tallman & Van Deusen (1994) the greatest amount of collaboration occurs when the school library media specialis t has a flexible schedule and team planning is encouraged by the principal. More rese arch needs to be done into the effects of scheduling model on the area of collaboration as it relates to the time available for the school library media specialist to devote to collaborative types of activities. The design of this study did not result in a ny significant correlation; however, as noted previously, other research contends that there is a correla tion. An attempt should be made to identify exactly which aspects of th e scheduling model correlate to improved collaboration, increased leadership opportuni ties and greater involvement in the technology planning by the school library media specialist. School Library Media Program Supervisor at the District Level Since none of the 16 statewide studies previously done to determine correlations between school library media programs and st udent achievement have assessed the value

PAGE 236

222 of a district level supervisor to the level of program developm ent in these states, research could be done on the differences between school district library media programs where there is a specific supervisor associated with the media program and those where there is either a split supervisor and/or no superv isor. Although Baumbach (2003) and this study addressed this issue in varying degrees, more research needs to be done to document the need for school districts to commit to a fulltime school library media supervisor. Method of Certification One of the items in this study attempted to determine the means by which the respondents became certified as a school library media specialist and to then determine if there were any correlations betw een perceptions about the 37 job task analysis items of those respondents. One reason for this questi on was to determine if the 2001 legislative change in means by which one could become a certified school library media specialist would have an affect on saliency responses. The level of response of those persons who had been certified by only passing the FTCE was too small to make any significant determinations. A similar survey focused on t hose current school library media specialists who have been test certified without any a dditional university c oursework could be beneficial. Level of School As shown in Table 48 there were seven statistically significant correlations identified between level of school and the 37 job task analysis items. In every case the highest saliency score was shown to be fr om either the middle or high school level. Additional research needs to be done to dete rmine more specifically why this occurred. There are several theoretical r easons why this may have occu rred. One possibility may be

PAGE 237

223 the scheduling model used by secondary school s. In most cases secondary schools use a flexible scheduling model. Classroom Teachers Perceptions of the School Library Media Specialists Role and the Role of the School Librar y Media Program in Their School More research needs to be done into th e classroom teachers perceptions of the school library media program and the school library media specialists role in the instructional program. Some of the qualitative comments, not addressed directly in the results of this study, related to collaborat ion with classroom teachers. There were a number of comments that indi cated that, in the school libr ary media specialists opinion, the classroom teachers did not understand the various roles of the school library media specialist. Additional research into the percep tions of classroom teachers about the school library media program/specialists roles in th e instructional program could result in the development of new strategies for inform ing classroom teachers about the value of interfacing with the school library media specialis t. Of course this is a two way street and thus school library media specialists perceptions about classroom teachers should also be an area of research. Both of these may offer interesting insights into variables that are affecting the level of collaboration in schools. Teacher Union Contracts and Their Affe ct on the Implementation of School Library Media Programs Research could be done about the number of school districts in which the school library media program is addressed in the Classroom Teacher Association (CTA) contract, as one qualitative response, not dir ectly addressed in this study, noted. Having been a CTA negotiator, it was appalling to hear of the school library media program

PAGE 238

224 being written into the teacher contract in such a way as to make it a pa rt of fine arts and thus be included in the sche duling rotation to provide teacher planning time. This defines it as a support program and thus diminishes much of the emphasis placed on the importance of the school library media program by IP2. Marketing and Implementation of National Standards Since AECT & AASL are in the process of establishing the committee for the revision of the national standards for school li brary media programs, more research needs to be done to determine effective means of implementation of those standards. This research could, based on the current study, dete rmine those districts from which the most IP2 friendly responses were given and then discuss the types of in-service and professional development that was done in thos e districts to establish the procedures for implementation of future IP standards, goals and objectives. Other Research Given that time spent was one of the two factors used in the determination of the saliency composite used for analysis of the means from the 1996 study and this study, some questions arose as to the efficacy of time spent as an indicator of change in and of itself. This seems to be a credible topic for future research. The rationale behind doing additional research on time spent is that some respondents rated an items time spent rating somewhat high but did not subsequently give an equally high criticality rating. This occurred often enough as to make it a plausible future research topic; as to why someone would spend a c onsiderable amount of time on a task while not considering it critical to complete that task.

PAGE 239

225 Chapter Five Summary There is much that still needs to be known about the various roles defined by IP2 and the ways in which school library media sp ecialists in Florida perceive and implement those various roles. The future research outlined above could do much in helping to understand how Floridas school lib rary media specialists per ceive themselves and their respective roles. Further, this study and the a dditional research discu ssed in this section could assist in making plans for better pr ofessional developmen t training at both the university and local levels. Several school districts ha ve already requested the investigator to work with them in analyzing their needs in the areas addressed by this study and assisting them in developing more standards specific prof essional development training for their respective sc hool library media specialists.

PAGE 240

226 References American Association of School Librarians and the National Education Association, Standards for School Media Programs (Chicago: American Library Association; and Washington, D.C.; National Ed ucation Association, 1969), pp 1017. American Association of School Libraria ns and the Associat ion for Educational Communications and Technology, Media Programs: District and School (Chicago: American Library Association; and Washington, D.C.: Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1975), pp. 6-9. American Association of School Librarians & Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Information power: Guidelines for school library media programs (1988). Chicago. American Library Association. American Association of School Librarians & Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Information power: Building partnerships for learning. (1998). Chicago. American Library Association. Andrews, S D. (1997). A comparison of the roles of th e school library media specialist and the computer/technology teacher within the same school environment in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg, School System Doctoral Dissertation (The Florida State University, 1997).

PAGE 241

227 Baughman, J.C. (2000). School libraries and MCAS scores Unpublished paper presented at a symposium sponsored by the Graduate School of Library and Information Science, Simmons College. Online at http://artemis.simmons.edu/~ba ughman/mcas-school -libraries/. Baumbach, D.J. (2003). Making the Grade: The Status of School Library Media Centers in the Sunshine State and How They Contribute to Student Achievement Orlando, FL. Florida Association for Media in Education. Beaird, M. M. The effect of increased collaboration among the library media specialist and school personnel on perceptions of the roles and responsib ilities of the library media specialist Unpublished doctoral dissert ation (University of North Texas. 1999). Berner, E. (1958). Integrating library instruction with classroom teachi ng at Plainview Junior High School Chicago. American Li brary Association. Bishop, K., and Larimer, N. (1999, Oct ober). Literacy th rough collaboration. Teacher Librarian, 27(1), 15-20. Bruskiewicz, K.T., Hanson, M.A., Kubsiak, U. C., Wright, C.W., & Levine, E. L. (1996 ). Florida Schoolyear 2000 job and task analysis: Guidance counselors, media specialists, and technical support personnel Technical report 277 Tampa, FL. Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc. Buchanan, J. (1991). Flexible access library media programs Englewood, CO. Libraries Unlimited, Inc. Butzin, S.M. (2000). Project CHILD: A decade of success for young children. Technology Horizons in Education Journal. 27 (11).

PAGE 242

228 Buzzeo, T. (2002). Collaborating to meet standards: Teacher/librarian partnerships for 7-12. Worthington, OH. Linworth Publishing, Inc. Callison, D. (1999, January). Keywords in instruction: Collaboration. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 15(5), 38-40 Carletti, S., Girard, S. & Willing, K. (1991). The library classroom connection Portsmouth, NH. Heinemann. Cleaver, B.P. & Taylor, W. D. (1989). The instructional consultant role of the school library media specialist Chicago, American Library Association. Cleaver, B.P. & Taylor, W. D. (1983 ) Involving the school li brary media specialist in curriculum development Chicago. American Library Association. Cohen, J. (1992). A Power Primer Psychological bulletin 112, (1), 155-159. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Craver, K.W. (1986, summer). The changing inst ructional role of th e high school library media specialist: 1950-1984. School Library Media Quarterly, 14(4), 183-191. Craver, K.W. (1994). School library media centers in the 21st century. (series Greenwood Professional Guides to School Librarianship). Westport, CT. Greenwood Press. Donham, J., Bishop, K., Kuhlthau, C. & Oberg, D. (2001). Inquiry-based learning: Lessons from Library Power Worthington, OH, Linwood Publishing. Florida Department of Education divisi on of Public Schools Bureau of Improving Academic Standards and School Performan ce section for Instructional Materials and Library Media. (2003). Information literacy: Floridas library media/curriculum connections Tallahassee, FL.

PAGE 243

229 Hartzell, G.N. (2002). Why should principals support school libraries? Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED470034 2002-11-00) Hartzell, G.N. (1994). Building influence for the school librarian Worthington, OH. Linworth Publishing, Inc. Haycock, C. A. 1991. The changing role: From theory to reality. In School library media annual, eds. J. B. Smith and J. G. Co leman, 61. Englewood, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited. Haycock, K. (1995, Winter). Research in teacher-librarianship. School Library Media Quarterly 13 (2), 102-109. Haycock, K. (1998, May). Collaborative cultur es, team planning and flexible scheduling. Emergency Librarian 28(2), 28, (EJ 570 639). Haycock, K & Cavill, P. (1999), Connecting ma rketing and implementation research and library program development: A case study of the implementation of National Guidelines and Standards. Presented at the Third International Forum on Research in School Librarianship, Annual Conference of the Internationa l Association of School Librarianship, Birmingha m, AL, November 10-14, 1999. Hopkins, D.M. (1989). Elementary school libr ary media programs and the promotion of positive self-concepts: A report of an exploratory study Library Quarterly, 59(2), 131-147. Hughes-Hassell, S. & Wheelock, A. (2001). The information-powered school Chicago, IL. American Library Association.

PAGE 244

230 Institute for Museum and Library Services. Proceedings of the White House Conference on School Libraries. June 4, 2002 Washington, D.C. Johnson, L. & Lamb, A. Course materials accessed at http://eduscapes.com/sms/management.html November 30, 2005. Jweid, R. & Rizzo, M. (1998). The library classroom partn ership: Teaching library media skills in middle an d junior high schools, 2nd ed Lanham, MD. The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Krashen, S. (1996). Every person a reader: An alternative to the California task force report on reading Culver City, CA; Language Education Associates. Kulik, J. (1994). Meta-analyti c studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In Baker, E. L. and O'Neil, H. F. Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training. (pp. 9-33) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lai, Y. (1999). The attitudes of public elementary school teachers and school library media specialists in three East Tennessee counties toward the instructional consultant role of the school library media specialist Unpublished doctoral dissertation (The Univer sity of Tennessee). Loertscher, D.V. & Achterman, D. (2002 ). Increasing academic achievement through the library media center: A guide for teachers Salt Lake City, UT. Hi Willow Research & Publishing. Loertscher, D.V. & Wools, B. (2002). Information literacy a revi ew of the literature: A guide for practitioners and investigators 2nd ed San Jose, CA. Hi Willow Research and Publishing.

PAGE 245

231 Lance, K.C. & Loertscher, D.V. (2002). Powering achievement: School library media programs make a difference the evidence, 2nd ed San Jose, CA. Hi Willow Research and Publishing. Lance, K.C., Hamilton-Pennell, C., Rodney, M.J., Petersen, L.A. & Sitter, C. (2000). Information empowered: The school librarian as an agent of academic achievement in Alaska schools, revised ed. Juneau. Alaska State Library. Lance, K.C., Welborn, L. & Hamilton-Pennel, C. (1993). The impact of school library media centers on achievement. Castle Rock, CO. Hi Willow Research and Publishing. Lance, K.C., Rodney, M.J. & Hamilton-Pennell, C. (2001 ). Good schools have school librarians: Oregon school librarians collaborate to improve academic achievement Oregon Education Media Association. Lance, K.C., Rodney, M.J. & Hamilton-Pennell, C. (2002). How school libraries improve outcomes for children: The New Mexico study Santa Fe, NM. New Mexico State Library. Lance, K.C., Rodney, M.J. & Hamilton-Pennell, C. (2000a). Measuring up to standards: The impact of school library programs and information literacy in Pennsylvania schools. Greensburg, PA. Pennsylvania Ci tizens for Better Libraries. Lance, K.C., Rodney, M.J. & Hamilton-Pennell, C. (2000b ). How school librarians help kids achieve standards: The second Colorado study Castle Rock, CO. Hi Willow Research and Publishing.

PAGE 246

232 Lumley, A. M. (1994). The change process and the change outcomes in the development of an innovative elementary school library media program (Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, 1999) accesse d from Dissertation Abstracts. McCoy, B. (2001). S. A survey of practicing school library media specialists to determine the job competencies that they value most (Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Georgia St ate University, 2001.) McCracken, A. (2000). Perceptions of school library me dia specialists regarding their roles and practices (Unpublished doctoral dissertation. George Mason University 2000). Morris, B. J. (2004). Administering the school library media center Westport, CT. Libraries Unlimited. Mosqueda, B.R. (1999). The perceptions of the role of the library media program and the library media specialist in selected national Blue Ribbon schools in Florida (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ ersity of Central Florida 1999.) Oberg, D. (1995). Principal support: What does it mean to teacher librarians? In Sustaining the vision: Selected papers from the annual conference of the Internatioal Association of School Librarianship. Worcester, England (p. 17-25). Kalamazoo, MI: Internati onal Association of School Librarianship. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N o. Ed 400 834). Available online: http://www.slis.ualberta .ca/oberg_support.htm

PAGE 247

233 Oberg, D., Hay, L., & Henri, J. (2000). The role of the principal in an information literate school community: Cross-country comparis ons from the international research project School Library Media Research, Vol. 3 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ618 497). Available online at: http://www.ala.org/aasl/SLMR/vol3/principal2/principal2.htm Penuel, W., Golan, S., Means, B., & Korbak, C. (2000). Silicon Valley Challenge 2000: Year 4 report. Menlo Park, CA. SR I International. Riser, R. (2003). Library media status report: 2001-2002 Kissimmee, FL. Osceola District Schools. Rodney, M.F., Lance, K.C., Hamilton-Pennell, C. (2002). Make the connection: Quality school library media programs impact academic achievement in Iowa Mississippi Bend Area Education Agency. Seavers, V. A. (2002 ). Extent of collaboration be tween the school library media specialist and the school-level technology specialist within the state of Florida (Unpublished doctoral dissertation Univ ersity of Central Florida 2002.) Smith, E.G. (2001). Texas school libraries: Standards, resources, services, and students performance Prepared for Texas State Librar y and Archives Commission. Austin, TX. Egs Research & consulting. Tallman, J.I., and van Deusen, J.D. (1994). Co llaborative unit planning: Schedule, time and participants. School Library Media Quarterly 28(1), 33-37. (EJ 493 343). Thomas, N.P. (1999). Information literacy and informati on skills instruction: Applying research to practice in th e school library media center Englewood, CO. Libraries Unlimited.

PAGE 248

234 Ulm, S. (2004) Personal Interview, recentl y retired Coordinator of K-12 School Media Programs for the Florida Department of Education, held May 14, 2004. Vansickle, S. 2000. Educating preservice medi a specialists: Devel oping school leaders. School Libraries Worldwide 6, no. 2: 1. Weisman, S. (2002). Windows into instructional collabor ation: Information power in the real world. San Jose, CA. Hi Willow Research & Publishing. Zsiray, S. W. Leadership and libra ry media: A grass roots approach. Knowledge Quest v. 32 no. 2 (November/December 2003) p. 14-16. Zwiezig, D. L., Hopkins, D. M., Web b, N. L., & Wehlage, G. (1999). Lessons from library power, enriching teaching and learning: Final report of the evaluation of the national library power initiative Englewood, CO. Libraries Unlimited.

PAGE 249

235 Appendices

PAGE 250

236 Appendix I. Directions for Subject Matter Expert s for Selection of Resurvey Items First of all, thank you so much for agreeing to help me with this vital part of my doctoral work. The following are the directions th at I need for you to follow to make this activity as valid as possible. I am attaching a copy of the original su rvey items from a 1996 FLDOE sponsored task analysis of school library media specia lists. On this survey school library media specialists were asked to ra te each item in terms of time spent and criticality Those two responses were then translated into a saliency score. Y ou can see these scores on the original form. They are not really important for you to consider for purposes of this activity. The original set of job tasks is divided into clusters. Some of these clusters have no direct relationship to the targ eted areas of collaborati on, leadership and technology. Therefore, you can skip over them. The clusters that you may skip over are: G, H, I, J, K, L, M and Q. 1. Based on the three areas of collaboration, leadership and technology please identify 50 items from the list of 250 that you feel are in alignment with Information Power: Buildi ng Partnerships for Learning goals for these three areas. All you need to do is make a list of the selected item numbers, not in any particular order. The altern ative is that you can just put a check mark next to the selected items and fax the document b ack to me. Be sure to include the information in item 2 below as well.

PAGE 251

Home: weekends mpace1@tampabay.rr.com Work: weekdays tpace@cas.usf.edu Or email Cell: (anytime 7 AM to 7 PM) 813-758-4073 Home: (between 6 PM and 11 PM) 813-759-4339 Office: (except Thanksgiving and follow ing Friday 9:30 AM to 5 PM) 813-974-7650 37 L b 21 T a 10 C a Item # Area Relevancy So, if you are making a list, your list should look something like this. Appendix I. (Continued) 3. For each of your choices please also indi cate which of the following applies (you may just place the appropriate letter next to the number of the item # on your list: 2. After you have made your item selections, pl ease go back and mark a capital C, L, or T next to each one to define which of the 3 areas you feel that item addresses. Some items will have some possible overlap; however, I need for you to determine which one of the 3 areas it best fits into and mark it accordingly. I hope this makes sense. If not please feel free to call me at any of these numbers: c. Somewhat relevant b. Relevant a. Very relevant 237

PAGE 252

Appendix II. Results from Subject Matter Experts Task Selection Rose Correll Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3 Clay 4 PDRI Item # Area Relevancy Area Relevancy Area Rele vancy Area Relevancy Area Relevancy Area Relevancy 1 C A T A C A C A C B 1 C 2 C A T A C A C A C A 2 C 3 C A T A C A T B 3 T 4 C A T A C A T A T A 4 T 5 T A C A 6 C B C A C B 7 C B 8 L A C A 10 C B C A C A C A C B 5 C 11 T A C C T A 12 T B L A C A L B L B L B 6 L 14 C A L A C A C B L B L B 7 T 15 L A C A L A 16 C B L B C B C B C B 8 C 17 C A C A C B C C C B 9 C 18 L C L A 238

PAGE 253

Rose Correll Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3 Clay 4 PDRI Item # Area Relevancy Area Relevancy Area Rele vancy Area Relevancy Area Relevancy Area Relevancy 19 L B L A C A L A 10 L 20 C A 21 L A C A C A C C 11 C 22 C B 23 C A L A C A L B C B L A 12 C 26 C B T A C A L A 13 C 27 C B T A C A C B 14 C 28 C A L A 29 L B L A C A L B L A 15 L 30 C A 31 L A C B 32 T A C A T B C A T B 16 T 34 T A 36 T A T B T B 36 T A T A T A C A L A 17 T 37 T A T A T B T B 18 T 38 T A T B T B Appendix I I (Continued) 239

PAGE 254

Rose Correll Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3 Clay 4 PDRI Item # Area Relevancy Area Relevancy Area Rele vancy Area Relevancy Area Relevancy Area Relevancy 39 T B 40 L B T A T A T A 19 T 41 T A T A 42 T C 43 L A 44 T A L A C A L A 19 L 45 L C 47 T A T A 48 T A T A T A T A 20 T 49 T A T C 50 C A C C C A 51 L A L A T A C A L B L A 21 L 52 L C 53 C B L A C B C A 22 C 54 C C L B 55 L B 56 C B T A C B Appendix II. (Continued) 240

PAGE 255

Rose Correll Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3 Clay 4 PDRI Item # Area Relevancy Area Relevancy Area Rele vancy Area Relevancy Area Relevancy Area Relevancy 57 L A 58 ? A 59 ? A 60 L B L A T A L B L B 23 L 61 L A T A L B L A L A 24 L 62 L A L A L A L B L A 25 L 63 L A L A L B 64 L A L B L C 65 L A 66 L A L A L A C B L C L B 26 L 72 L A L A L A 74 L A L A L A L A C A 27 L 76 L B L A L A L B L C L B 28 L 77 L C 81 L A T C 82 L B L A C A L A L A 29 L 83 L A C B Appendix I I (Continued) 241

PAGE 256

Rose Correll Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3 Clay 4 PDRI Item # Area Relevancy Area Relevancy Area Rele vancy Area Relevancy Area Relevancy Area Relevancy 161 L A 173 L A T B T A T B T A 30 T 179 T A 183 T A 184 T B T A 187 C B L A L B L A 31 L 188 C B L B C A L C 32 C 190 C C L B C A C C L B 33 C 191 L B L B 192 L B 193 C A L B 197 C A 199 C A 203 T B T A T B 206 L B L A 207 T A T A 208 L A Appendix II. (Continued) 242

PAGE 257

243Rose Correll Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3 Clay 4 PDRI Item # Area Relevancy Area Relevancy Area Rele vancy Area Relevancy Area Relevancy Area Relevancy 215 L A 225 L B L B 226 C A 227 L B T B 228 L B L B 229 L A L A L B 230 L B L B C B 234 L B L C 236 L B 236 L C 237 T A L A T A T B T A 34 T 238 T A L A L B 239 C B 240 L A L A L C L A 242 L B L B L A 243 L A C B L A 244 C A C B C A 250 C B Appendix II. (Continued)

PAGE 258

244 Appendix III. Introduction to Survey Introduction Hello, You are about to become a particip ant in a survey for my doctoral dissertation. I sincerely appreciate your time and effort to help me with this vital component of my dissertation. My name is Mel Pace. I am the Asso ciate Director of the School of Library and Information Science at th e University of South Florida. I am also a doctoral candidate in Inst ructional Technology at USF. I am a former elementary school media sp ecialist, a past member of the FAME Board Directors (2002-2005), and 2004 FAME Conference Chair (the guy in the Pirate outfit). This survey is the basis of my doctoral dissertation data collection. I am attempting to determine if, since the publication of Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning in 1998, the perceptions of media specialists with regards to specific tasks from a 1996 survey have changed. Having previously been an elemen tary school media specialist, I know how valuable your time is; however, your responses to this survey would be helpful to me and may assist in developing additional training that will benefit media specialists, administrators and others across the state of Florida. The survey should take you less than 30 minutes to complete. Since all data will be reported in aggregate form your confidentiality is assured.

PAGE 259

Appendix IV. Original PDRI Results on 37 Items Chosen for Part 2 Resurvey Item # IP 2 Type Task Total N N Not part of job Time Spent Criticality Salience M SD M SD M SD A1 Collab Provide formal instruction skills to students in classroom or small group settings (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 513 14 2.82 1.23 3.85 .98 3.43 1.06 A2 Collab Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 513 7 3.18 1.06 4.02 .8 3.70 .85 A3 Tech Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or small-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 511 21 2.41 1.21 3.52 1.00 3.06 1.10 A4 Tech Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 510 10 2.74 1.17 3.60 .95 3.26 .99 A10 Collab Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) 502 23 2.51 1.32 3.29 .97 2.93 1.13 B 12 Lead Conduct workshops/in-service and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, and new production techniques. 512 22 2.06 1.09 3.60 0.90 2.99 1.01 B 14 Tech Instruct teachers concerning ways to incorporate technology into the classroom curricula 510 63 1.95 1.15 3.53 0.91 2.71 1.25 B 16 Collab Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches 508 62 1.75 1.06 3.31 0.94 2.52 1.2 B 17 Collab Participate in team teaching activ ities 512 93 1.57 1.15 3.08 0.98 2.2 1.29 245

PAGE 260

Appendix IV (Continued) Item # IP 2 Type Task Total N N Not part of job Time Spent Criticality Salience M SD M SD M SD B19 Lead Inform faculty of new media center services, materials, and technology 513 3 2.77 .98 3.87 .82 3.36 .76 B 21 Collab Keep teachers informed concerning students' information skills 512 44 1.81 1.02 2.91 0.91 2.37 1.05 B23 Collab Act as a resource to teachers in providing ideas, and/or resource materials to be included as part of classroom units 512 4 3.04 1.02 3.87 .82 3.58 .81 C26 Collab Assist students and/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions) 509 4 3.17 1.03 3.84 .85 3.59 .85 C27 Collab Assist students and/or teachers in locating and selecting materials 511 2 3.68 .91 4.12 .77 3.97 .73 C29 Lead Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as necessary 509 4 2.21 .97 3.67 1.01 3.17 .88 C 32 Tech Assist teacher and students in the use of production techniques 510 45 2.06 1.22 3.09 0.9 2.57 1.15 D36 Tech Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of the public access catalog system 509 124 2.09 1.56 3.74 0.99 2.58 1.68 D37 Tech Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CDROM encyclopedia, graphic arts presentations, multimedia presentations, etc.) 513 30 2.75 1.26 3.87 .82 3.36 1.13 D 40 Tech Provide adaptive techno logies for students with special needs 512 206 0.99 1.07 3.07 0.89 1.55 1.4 D44 Lead Organize and/or partic ipate in technology teams/technical committees 504 157 1.63 1.41 3.25 .92 2.04 1.54 246

PAGE 261

Appendix IV (Continued) Item # IP 2 Type Task Total N N Not part of job Time Spent Criticality Salience M SD M SD M SD 247 D 48 Tech Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research) 505 163 1.41 1.36 3.36 0.99 1.99 1.56 E51 Lead Serve on curriculum committees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides 507 104 1.70 1.28 3.42 .89 2.38 1.40 E60 Lead Evaluate the adequacy and suitability of facilities, equipment, materials, and services with regard to their impact on learning outcomes 510 36 2.09 1.13 3.45 .94 2.83 1.11 E 61 Lead Coordinate special reading, writing, and student production programs (e.g., Sunshine State Reader's program, Jim Harbin video awards, etc.) 507 48 2.11 1.27 3.33 0.9 2.71 1.18 F62 Lead Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives 512 18 2.05 1.07 3.8 .96 3.13 .99 F 66 Lead Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning 510 52 1.64 1.01 3.28 0.89 2.36 1.1 F 74 lead Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs 513 21 2.08 1.03 3.34 0.91 2.83 0.98 F76 Lead Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations 511 87 1.36 1 3.09 0.87 2.17 1.19 F 82 Lead Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams 512 30 2.36 1.25 3.45 0.89 2.95 1.09 F173 Tech Maintain and support a computer network for the media center 501 185 1.89 1.77 4.15 0.91 2.37 1.94

PAGE 262

Item # IP 2 Type Task Total N N Not part of job Time Spent Criticality Salience Appendix IV (Continued) M SD M SD M SD O187 Lead Attend meetings/conferences and participate in professional organizations (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.) 509 9 1.94 .97 3.50 .94 2.94 .88 O188 Collab Work cooperatively with district and/or regional education and media center service units 508 13 2.11 .97 3.54 .87 3.00 .89 O190 Collab Work cooperatively with public libraries to promote and encourage student and family use of resources 507 46 1.45 .95 3.04 .93 2.33 1.04 S237 Tech Keep informed about new technologies 507 3 2082 1.02 4.06 .85 3.63 .80 248

PAGE 263

Appendix V. 2006 Results on 37 Items Chosen for Part 2 Resurvey Item # PDRI/2006 IP 2 Type Task Total N N Not part of job Time Spent Criticality Salience M SD M SD M SD A1/40 Collab Provide formal instruction skills to students in classroom or small group settings (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 498 13 3.5 1.95 4.5 0.71 3.27 1.23 A2/41 Collab Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) 496 8 2.54 1.74 3.04 1.01 3.75 0.94 A3/42 Tech Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or small-group setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 492 30 2.23 1.75 3.37 1.08 3.17 1.17 A4/43 Tech Provide informal (e.g., one-on-one) instruction to students in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) 492 30 2.23 1.71 3.27 1.04 3.13 1.07 A10/44 Collab Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) 492 16 2.08 1.61 3.24 1.04 2.7 1.07 B 12/45 Lead Conduct workshops/in-service and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, and new production techniques. 493 30 1.69 1.49 3.37 1.02 2.93 .093 B 14/46 Tech Instruct teachers concerning ways to incorporate technology into the classroom curricula 477 51 1.83 1.64 3.24 1.03 2.9 1.1 249

PAGE 264

Appendix V (Continued) Item # PDRI/2006 IP 2 Type Task Total N N Not part of job Time Spent Criticality Salience M SD M SD M SD B 16/47 Collab Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches 474 57 1.66 1.54 3.02 1.07 2.72 1.04 B 17/48 Collab Participate in team teaching activ ities 477 63 1.71 1.59 3.05 1.05 2.74 1.11 B19/49 Lead Inform faculty of new media center services, materials, and technology 477 3 2.44 1.69 3.73 0.87 3.55 0.89 B 21/50 Collab Keep teachers informed concerning students' information skills 476 36 1.87 1.54 3.08 1.03 2.87 1.01 B23/51 Collab Act as a resource to teachers in providing ideas, and/or resource materials to be included as part of classroom units 476 4 2.49 1.75 3.71 0.87 3.55 0.91 C26/52 Collab Assist students and/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions) 469 4 2.27 1.64 3.51 0.87 3.34 0.9 C27/53 Collab Assist students and/or teachers in locating and selecting materials 469 3 4.29 1.80 3.83 0.84 3.7 0.88 C28/54 Lead Instruct teachers and students in media center policies and procedures 469 2 2.16 1.57 3.31 0.91 3.16 0.9 C29/55 Tech Assist teacher and students in the use of production techniques 469 2 2.19 1.63 3.63 0.96 3.37 0.95 C 32/56 Tech Assist teacher and students in the use of production techniques 465 91 1.46 1.53 2.54 0.94 2.39 0.98 D36/57 Tech Instruct students and/ or teachers in the use of the public access catalog syst em 467 10 2.33 1.76 3.54 0.95 3.41 0.96 D37/58 Tech Provide adaptive technologies for students with special needs 468 33 2.01 1.68 3.16 1.72 3.02 1.11 250

PAGE 265

Appendix V (Continued) Item # PDRI/2006 IP 2 Type Task Total N N Not part of job Time Spent Criticality Salience M SD M SD M SD D 40/59 Lead Provide adaptive technologies for students with special needs 465 112 1.37 1.50 3.15 1.10 2.64 1.17 D44/60 Tech Organize and/or participate in technology teams/technical committees 468 40 2.02 1.75 3.37 0.99 3.15 1.04 D 48/61 Lead Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research) 464 4 2.81 1.99 3.62 1.14 3.05 1.28 E51/62 Lead Serve on curriculum committees and assist in the selec tion of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides 461 76 1.74 1.69 3.35 1.06 2.14 0.79 E53/63 Collab Work with faculty to coordinate media center materials, activities, and technology in conjunction with curriculum programs, units, and text books 462 18 2.11 1.70 2.60 1.83 3.34 1.03 E6064 Lead Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives 460 33 2.05 1.59 3.41 1.01 3.17 1 E 61/65 Lead Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning 464 33 2.19 1.83 3.22 1.02 3.11 1.15 F62/66 lead Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives 465 5 2.19 1.66 3.69 1.01 3.41 1.01 F 66/67 Lead Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning 454 41 2.16 1.75 3.00 1.02 2.94 1.02 251

PAGE 266

252Item # PDRI/2006 IP 2 Type Task Total N N Not part of job Time Spent Criticality Salience M SD M SD M SD F 74/68 Lead Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams 456 14 2.05 1.65 3.34 1.02 3.14 1.02 F76/69 Tech Maintain and support a computer network for the media center 456 48 1.61 1.50 2.95 0.98 2.67 1.03 F 82/70 Lead Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams 455 51 1.92 1.73 3.30 0.98 2.98 1.15 F173/71 Tech Maintain and support a computer network for the media center 459 152 1.68 1.95 3.83 1.16 3.11 1.46 O187/72 Lead Attend meetings/conferences and participate in professional organizations (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.) 476 5 2.04 1.56 2.55 1.71 2.21 0.74 O188/73 Tech Keep informed about new technologies 476 23 2.04 1.60 2.37 1.64 2.95 1.01 O190/74 Collab Work cooperatively with public libraries to promote and encourage student and family use of resources 476 36 1.80 1.53 2.17 1.52 2.69 1.03 S237/75 Tech Keep informed about new technologies 475 1 2.55 1.78 2.78 1.81 3.53 1.02 S240/76 Lead Upgrade relevant professional skills (e.g., attend college courses and/or seminars) 478 2 2.29 1.67 2.69 1.77 3.35 1.03 Appendix V (Continued)

PAGE 267

253 Appendix VI. Comparison of Par ticipation by School District District # of Respondents 1996 # of Respondents 2006 Alachua 0 3 Baker 5 1 Bay 13 15 Bradford 0 0 Brevard 0 29 Broward 0 60 Calhoun 0 0 Charlotte 14 9 Citrus 0 12 Clay 0 6 Collier 10 4 Columbia 10 0 Dade 55 11 Desoto 0 0 Dixie 8 0 Duval 52 42 Escambia 34 7 Flagler 0 3 Franklin 0 0 Gadsden 11 1 Gilchrist 0 0 Glades 0 2 Gulf 3 0 Hamilton 3 0 Hardee 0 7 Hendry 0 6 Hernando 20 3 Highlands 7 6 Hillsborough 0 64 Holmes 0 1 Indian River 0 3 Jackson 8 0 Jefferson 0 0 Lafayette 1 0 Lake 24 6 Lee 0 6 Leon 16 5 Levy 9 2 Liberty 2 1 Madison 2 0 Manatee 0 8 Marion 6 5 Martin 8 0 Monroe 0 4 Nassau 0 5 Okaloosa 0 3 Okeechobee 6 1

PAGE 268

Appendix V I ( Continued) 254 District # of Respondents 1996 # of Respondents 2006 Orange 50 23 Palm Beach 0 39 Pasco 27 24 Pinellas 19 46 Polk 0 27 Putnam 9 2 St. Johns 0 3 St. Lucie 0 3 Santa Rosa 15 0 Sarasota 0 1 Seminole 15 13 Sumter 0 2 Suwannee 2 1 Taylor 3 1 Union 0 0 Volusia 8 45 Wakulla 6 0 Walton 7 0 Washington 4 0 Other 2 0 Total Respondents 509 586 *Participants not responding to this item 58

PAGE 269

255 Appendix VII. Skewness and Kurtosis Analysis of 37 Resurveyed Job Tasks-2006 Sample 2006 Item # Task Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error 40 Provide formal instruction skills to students in classroom or small group settings (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) -0.429 0.11 -0.44 0.219 41 Provide informal (e.g., one-onone) instruction in information skills (e.g., use of materials, reference techniques, etc.) -0.561 0.11 0.623 0.22 42 Provide formal instruction to students in classroom or smallgroup setting in media center and/or school-wide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) -0.266 0.111 -0.352 0.221 43 Provide informal (e.g., one-onone) instruction to students in media center and/or schoolwide technology resources (e.g., multimedia production, etc.) -0.353 0.111 -0.138 0.221 44 Introduce materials of special interest to class groups (e.g., via book talks or story telling activities) -0.401 0.111 0.264 0.221 45 Conduct workshops/in-service and other training for teachers use of materials, equipment, technology, and new production techniques. -0.341 0.111 -0.029 0.222 46 Instruct teachers concerning ways to incorporate technology into the classroom curricula -0.286 0.113 0.177 0.225 47 Work with teachers to design innovative instructional approaches -0.241 0.113 0.058 0.225 48 Participate in team teaching activities -0.272 0.113 -0.186 0.225

PAGE 270

Appendix VII (Continued) 2562006 Item # Task Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Std. Error Std. Statistic Error 49 Inform faculty of new media center services, materials, and technology -0.522 0.112 0.976 0.224 50 Keep teachers informed concerning students' information skills -0.263 0.112 -0.045 0.224 51 Act as a resource to teachers in providing ideas, and/or resource materials to be included as part of classroom units -0.38 0.112 0.539 0.224 52 Assist students and/or teachers with general reference services (e.g., answer reference questions) -0.537 0.113 1.146 0.225 53 Assist students and/or teachers in locating and selecting materials -0.821 0.113 2.005 0.225 54 Instruct techers and students in media center policies and procedures -0.163 0.113 0.458 0.225 55 Inform faculty and/or students of copyright laws and interpret as necessary -0.404 0.113 0.349 0.225 56 Assist teacher and students in the use of production techniques 0.058 0.111 -0.208 0.221 57 Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of the public access catalog system -0.462 0.111 0.089 0.221 58 Instruct students and/or teachers in the use of various technology objects (e.g., CDROM encyclopedia, graphic arts presentations, multimedia presentations, etc.) -0.332 0.111 0.063 0.221

PAGE 271

Appendix V II (Continued) 2572006 Item # Task Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Std. Error Std. Statistic Error 59 Provide adaptive technologies for students with special needs -0.18 0.113 -0.257 0.225 60 Organize and/or participate in technology teams/technical committees -0.331 0.111 -0.04 0.222 61 Use online services to retrieve information (e.g., in doing research) -0.276 0.111 -0.689 0.221 62 Serve on curriculum committees and assist in the selection of appropriate materials for resource units and curriculum guides -0.476 0.111 -0.103 0.222 63 Work with faculty to coordinate media center materials, activities, and technology in conjunction with curriculum programs, units, and text books -0.558 0.108 0.678 0.215 64 Evaluate the adequacy and suitability of facilities, equipment, materials, and services with regard to their impact on learning outcomes -0.164 0.108 0.094 0.215 65 Coordinate special reading, writing, and student production programs (e.g., Sunshine State Reader's program, Jim Harbin video awards, etc.) -0.403 0.108 -0.13 0.215 66 Develop a strategic plan for the media center, including mission, goals and objectives -0.291 0.107 -0.281 0.214 67 Organize and/or facilitate a school media advisory committee for short and long range planning -0.423 0.108 0.353 0.216

PAGE 272

2582006 Item # Task Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Std. Error Std. Statistic Error 68 Interpret and apply national, regional, state, and local standards and guidelines to library media programs -0.248 0.108 0.085 0.216 69 Plan and participate in meetings to present the functions and services of the media center to parent and community organizations -0.028 0.109 -0.351 0.217 70 Lead or participate in School Improvement Teams -0.435 0.11 0.161 0.219 71 Maintain and support a computer network for the media center -0.814 0.111 0.175 0.221 72 Attend meetings/conferences and participate in professional organizations (e.g., FAME, AASL, etc.) -0.285 0.109 0.087 0.217 73 Work cooperatively with district and/or regional education and media center service units -0.344 0.109 0.094 0.218 74 Work cooperatively with public libraries to promote and encourage student and family use of resources -0.124 0.109 -0.041 0.218 75 Keep informed about new technologies -0.381 0.109 0.28 0.217 76 Upgrade relevant professional skills(e.g., attend college courses an/or seminars -0.257 0.109 0.17 0.217 Appendix VII (Continued)

PAGE 273

259 Appendix VIII Levenes Equality of Variance for 37 Job Tasks Item # Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 40salien .197 4 485 .940 41salien .611 4 484 .655 42salien 1.688 4 480 .152 43salien 1.148 4 480 .333 44salien 2.172 4 479 .071 45salien .633 4 480 .639 46salien 1.476 4 460 .208 47salien .962 4 463 .428 48salien 1.189 4 460 .315 49salien .754 4 468 .556 50salien .151 4 466 .962 51salien .318 4 466 .866 52salien 1.125 4 460 .344 53salien .987 4 460 .414 54salien 1.228 4 461 .298 55salien .417 4 461 .796 56salien 1.825 4 443 .123 57salien .219 4 453 .928 58salien .554 4 490 .696 59salien .243 4 490 .914 60salien .964 4 490 .427 61salien 2.295 4 490 .058 62salien 2.682 4 446 .031 63salien .560 4 490 .692 64salien .949 4 452 .436 65salien 3.779 4 451 .005 66salien .774 4 456 .542 67salien .429 4 444 .788 68salien .169 4 446 .954

PAGE 274

Appendix VIII (Continued) Levene 260 Item # Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 69salien 1.585 4 441 .177 70salien 1.469 4 434 .211 71salien 1.468 4 417 .211 72salien .301 4 490 .877 73salien 1.131 4 490 .341 74salien .313 4 490 .869 75salien 1.058 4 490 .377 76salien .920 4 490 .452

PAGE 275

About the Author Terrell M. Pace currently serves as the Associate Director of the School of Library and Information Science at the Univer sity of South Florida. He has held this position since 2001. Previously he held positio ns as a classroom teacher and school library media specialist in the Hillsb orough County, Brevard County and Broward County school districts in Flor ida. In addition he has 15 y ears experience in business. Terrell received a Bachelor of Arts degr ee in Elementary Education from Florida Atlantic University in 1970. He received a Master of Arts degree in Library and Information Science from USF in 1996 and is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Instructional Technology at USF, where in addition to his duti es as Associate Director of SLIS he also teaches courses in the Foundations of Libr ary and Information Science, Preparing Instructional Materials, and Library Services to Patrons with Disabilities. He expects to continue in his current at U SF upon completion of this degree. End Page


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001927504
003 fts
005 20080214090531.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 080214s2007 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001930
035
(OCoLC)192017494
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
LB1028.3 (ONLINE)
1 100
Pace, Terrell M.
0 245
Perceptions of Florida school library media specialists relative to the saliency of collaboration, leadership, and technology tasks outlined in Information Power :
b changes since 1996
h [electronic resource] /
by Terrell M. Pace.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
2007.
3 520
ABSTRACT: In 1988 Information Power: Guidelines for School Library Media Programs (IP1) was published. Ten years later an updated version, Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning (IP2) was released. The purpose of this study was to determine if school library media specialists' perceptions had changed since 1996 and if respondents' familiarity with IP2 was a factor in the development of those perceptions. Further, 37 items that were clustered based on the three primary threads of collaboration, leadership and technology developed in IP2 were used to assess changes in perceptions. An electronic survey was developed and disseminated to the population of school library media specialists in Florida. A total of 454 completed surveys were received; representing a 17% return rate. The results of the current survey were then compared to a 1996 job task analysis study. Analysis of the results showed that 60% of the respondents had never attended an in-service on IP2.^ Statistically significant changes in perceptions about the importance of those 37 job tasks resurveyed were also identified. Changes were identified in 10 of the 14 collaboration items, 12 of the 13 leadership items and 9 of the 10 technology items. Changes in perception were also found for tasks that the respondents considered not a part of job. For the 37 job tasks, there were 11 statistically significant positive changes and two statistically significant negative changes. The environmental variable that correlated with the largest number of the 37 job tasks related to the principal making encouraging comments to classroom teachers about using the resources of the school library media center in the planning of their curriculum units. This variable correlated significantly with 24 of the 37 job tasks. The study revealed a need for additional research in the leadership roles and traits of the school library media specialist.^ Further, additional research related to the effect of administrative support could inform the profession in its efforts to solidify the school library media program as an integral part of the instructional program.
502
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 260 pages.
Includes vita.
590
Adviser: Ann E. Barron, Ed.D.
653
School library media specialist.
School library media programs.
National standards.
Scheduling model.
Information power: building partnerships for learning.
Perceptions.
Job tasks.
Administrative support.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Instructional Technology
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.1930