L L e o. ‘1‘ I. , ‘ . . I
~ 1 [tail-s v ‘. 71.1

'10-»!
. .31:

'IDut.I
4. av?! I.
I I.

'v.o4\u . In:
In uh. t.

 

AG.

, . 51"- r
. I... V e . ,5. H. .
'5‘. ‘ . a v . I. ..I l
.39 tuiérvln. .7“ i . .ufi . :3... 1‘ r I 4 . .
y . . . ,

 

 

 

 

THESIS

SETAT USNIVER ITY LIBRAHIE

1111111111111111111111111 111111 111 111111

3 1293 00897 8698

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN AND THE PROMOTION OF READING
IN THE CHILDREN'S PUBLIC LIBRARY:
DESIGN ATTITUDES, INTEREST, KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES
OF LIBRARIANS WORKING IN CHILDREN'S SERVICES

presented by
Pamela Taylor Banduric

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. degree in IDFM

 

flaw/£1545

Major prof/301'

D3128 '4’] /?75

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

1 LIBRARY
Michigan State
Untversity

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

WW
fii—1
_J1___11_I '
j 1:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1—1

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
cmms-DJ

 

i—__ ran—f

 

_—

 

ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN AND THE PROMOTION OF READING
IN THE CHILDREN’S PUBLIC LIBRARY:
DESIGN ATI'ITUDES, INTEREST, KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES
OF LIBRARIAN’S WORKING IN CHILDREN’S SERVICES

By

Pamela Taylor Banduric

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Human Environment and Design

1993

ABSTRACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN AND THE PROMOTION OF READING
IN THE CHILDREN’S PUBLIC LIBRARY:
DESIGN A'I'I‘ITUDES, INTEREST, KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES
OF LIBRARIANS WORKING IN CHILDREN’S SERVICES
By

Pamela Taylor Banduric

This study was designed to explore public librarians’ awareness, interest, and
practices related to environmental design in children’s libraries. A self report
questionnaire was developed to determine librarians’ interest, establish an information
base, and identify areas for future research and methods for conveying environmental
design information to children’s librarians. The survey was mailed to a stratified,
random sample of 197 librarians working in children’s services in Michigan.
Librarians were asked about their education, design knowledge and interest, and the
design practices. Descriptive statistics, the chi square test of association, and point
biserial correlation coefficient were used to analyze the data of 124 returned
questionnaires. Findings indicate that librarians are interested in this topic and that
participation in design workshops may affect librarians’ awareness and knowledge.
Significant relationships were found between library science education and librarians’
information sources and interest in using environmental design research data.

Recommendations for future actions and research are made.

To my mother and father. Their love and efforts gave us a
warm, secure childhood. Their love and support continues.
May all children be so richly blessed.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is indebted to each individual who contributed time, interest, and
support without which this study could not have been completed. Special gratitude
and appreciation is expressed to the following people:

Professor Roberta Kilty-Padgett, major professor and thesis director, for her
visionary understanding of this research. Without her support, guidance, and editorial
excellence this study would not have been conducted. Professor Richard Graham,
minor professor and committee member, for his consistent encouragement and belief
in both the study and the author. Dr. Ann Slocum, committee member, for her
statistical and research methods guidance and her help with table formats.

To the dedicated children’s librarians who completed and returned the survey
and without whose cooperation this research project would not have been possible.

To Dr. Susan Mireley who helped provide focus and personal support.

To Marlene, Anita, Karen, Teresa, Jean, Diane, and Valerie for always being
there and for their interest in this research.

To Lynda and Bob for their faith and reassurance.

To my parents and sister for their support, their faith, their encouragement, and

their unconditional love.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables .............................................. viii
List of Figures ................................................ x
Chapter Page
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................... 1
Initiative for the Study ..................................... 1
Overview of the Current Study ................................ 4
The Illiteracy Problem .................................... 5
Public Library Involvement with
the Illiteracy Problem ................................... 5
Public Library Involvement with Children
and the Promotion of Reading ............................. 6
Statement of the Problem .................................... 7
Children’s Physical Facilities
and Environmental Design Research ........................ 7
Lack of Library Based Research
and Children’s Libraries ................................. 8
Purpose of the Study ....................................... 8
Study Objectives ........................................ 9
Research Questions ...................................... 9
Assumptions ............................................ 10
Definition of Terms ....................................... 10
Summary .............................................. 1 1
2. THEORETICAL BASE AND STUDY MODEL ..................... 13
Systems Theory .......................................... 13
A Behavior Setting Model ................................. 15
The Environmental System ................................. 17
The Focal Problem - The Physical Setting Model ................. 20
Summary ............................................. 24

3. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................... 26

Library Goals ............................................ 26
The Promotion of Reading ................................... 27
Attitudes and the Promotion of Reading ........................ 28
Use of Libraries and the Promotion of Reading .................. 29
Attitudes and Use of Libraries .............................. 30
Providing Inviting Children’s Environments ....................... 32
Need for Children’s Environments Research ..................... 32
Children’s Environments and Reading Research .................. 34
Children’s Environments and the Public Library .................. 36
Summary ............................................... 41
4. METHODS .............................................. 43
The Sample ............................................. 43
Instrumentation ........................................... 44
Data Collection .......................................... 47
Data Analysis ............................................ 49
Summary ............................................... SO
5. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ................. 51
The Sample ............................................. 51
Library Administrative Structure and Conditions .................. 51
Children’s Librarians ..................................... 58
Children’s Library Design Practices ........................... 62
Summary of the Sample ................................... 67
The Research Questions .................................... 68
Research Question One ................................... 68
Research Question Two ................................... 69
Research Question Three .................................. 74
Research Question Four ................................... 79
Summary ............................................... 89
6. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS .................. 91
Summary ............................................... 91
Limitations of Study ....................................... 93
Discussion of Findings ..................................... 94
Research Question One ................................... 94
Research Question Two ................................... 95
Research Question Three .................................. 98
Research Question Four .................................. 100

vi

 

Conclusions, Significance, and Recommendations .................. 102

Conclusions .......................................... 102
Significance .......................................... 103
Recommendations ...................................... 104
Summary ................................................ 108
Appendix
A. COVER LETTER ....................................... 109
B. QUESTIONNAIRE ...................................... 110
List of References ........................................... 129

vii

i

 

Table

10.

11.

12.

13.

LIST OF TABLES

Comparison of Population, Sample, and

Respondents by Library Class ......................... 53
Geographic Location of Libraries in Survey ................ 53
Library Building Types by Levels Used ................... 54
Weekly Hours Library Is Open to Public ................... 56
Full Time Staff and Use of Volunteers in

Children’s Libraries ................................ 56
Children’s Librarians’ Educational Levels .................. 59
Library and Children’s Specialization Education .............. 59

Librarians’ Current and Total Children’s
Service Experience ................................ 61

Provisions for Suggested Practices

in Children’s Libraries .............................. 63
Librarian Agreement with Influence of

the Physical Environment ............................ 70
Librarians’ Assessment of Personal .

Design Knowledge ................................ 71
Librarian Interest in Environmental Design ................. 72

Children’s Librarians’ Sources of
Environmental Design Information ..................... 73

viii

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

Correlations Between MLS and CED and
Environment Affects Outcomes ........................ 75

Relationships Between MLS and CED and
Interest in Environmental Design ...................... 76

Relationships Between MLS and CED and
Choice of Information Source ......................... 77

Correlations Between MLS and CED and
Assessment of Design Knowledge ...................... 78

Librarian Agreement
with Specific Design Recommendations .................. 81

Correlations Between Agreement with and
Existence of Practices .............................. 86

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Page
1. Bronfenbrenner’s Model of Ecology
and Human Development ............................ 14
2. Relationships of Personal/Environmental
Systems to Individual and Situational Outcomes ............ 16
3. Relationships of Environmental Components
to Total Environmental Setting ........................ 18

4. Focal Problem - Model Relating Design
Participants to Outcome of Children’s
Library Settings .................................. 21

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Interest in educating a literate population and concern about increasing
illiteracy in America have generated research activities related to literacy issues from
multi-disciplinary areas. Traditionally, the librarian is considered to be one of the
interested and contributing members involved in this multi-disciplinary research. The
individual trained in design disciplines related to the built environment is not
considered as such. This study’s assumption is that environments can contribute to the
reading process and, more specifically, that children’s public library environments can
contribute to this process. This implies that knowledge and use of environmental
design procedures should be included in both research and applied activities directed
toward producing a literate population and the promotion of reading. It also suggests
that individuals trained in environmental design should be part of this multi-

disciplinary effort.

Initiative for the Study

The impetus for the current study resulted from an in-depth, unobtrusive
observational study conducted by the author. That early study was designed to look at
children’s approach avoidance behavior in a public library environment to determine

what physical features influence those behaviors.

2
Using methods suggested by Zeisel (1981), data were collected over a four

week period. Fifteen separate visits were made to a children’s department in a public
library located in a mid-western suburban community. During each visit, three
methods of data collection were used. These included:

1. Observing physical traces and recording the information collected in written
form by using simple counts, annotated floor plans, and rough sketches.

2. Unobtrusive observations of 30 minutes for each collection period, noting
activity, location and interaction, at five minute intervals, of all users entering
the children’s area.

3. Unobtrusive observations of 30 minutes for each collection period using
behavioral mapping procedures and specifically focusing on the pre-reader’s
picture book area.

Analysis of the data was based on a sample size of 403 library users.

This study (Banduric 1988) indicated that a level of care and concern about
the quality of the physical environment existed. However, a number of questions
surfaced, and it was decided that more observations at other libraries should be made.

Over a six to eight month period, twelve other children’s libraries were visited.

These libraries represented different geographic locations, as well as differing

population sizes and socioeconomic levels in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The

libraries were selected through use of convenience sampling, and the researcher was
the only individual involved in the data collection. Data collection methods and
procedures used in the fust study were used in each of the twelve libraries but were

limited to two to four visits. A total of 743 additional users were observed in these

twelve libraries (Banduric, personal observations, 1988 — 1989).

3

As in the original study, there was evidence that efforts had been made to
decorate and personalize the children’s libraries. In addition, analysis of the data

supported the original findings. These findings included the following:

1. Of the 1146 total observations, library staff and adults accounted for 30.8% of
the users with the remaining 69.2% of users being children.

2. Of the 793 children who were observed, 12% were judged to be seventh to
ninth graders, 19% were judged to be fourth to sixth graders, 30.2% were
judged to be kindergarten to third graders, 32% were judged to be pre-
schoolers, and 6.8% were toddlers.

3. The percentage of observed approach behaviors by age group decreased as the
user’s age decreased. The percentage of each group’s approach behavior was:
seventh to ninth graders - 85.3%, fourth to sixth graders - 71.5%, kindergarten
to third graders - 52.3%, pre-schoolers - 28.3%, and toddlers - 7.4%.

4. All 13 libraries provided at least a minimum amount of child scaled furnishings
and shelving levels. Of the 19 observed displays, 16 were judged to be
targeted to varying age groups of children rather than to the adult user. All of
the libraries provided picture books, materials, and/or realia (toys, games,
puzzles, puppets, etc.) oriented to the early and pre-reader child. All 13
libraries also displayed posters (37 total observed) and other types of
decoration. These included such items as mobiles, story book cut outs,
figurines, stuffed animals, and live fish and small animals. In five of the
libraries, children’s personal art work was also displayed.

5. Library staff accounted for 75 of the total number of adult observations. In 31
of these observations, a library staff member was interacting with or had some
impact on the physical setting. In 19 of the cases, this involved the shelving or
rearranging of books. The other 12 observations involved furniture
straightening, housekeeping, changing displays and/or decorations, and
rearrangement of overall layout of the area. In addition, 17 anecdotal
comments indicated that a library staff member or volunteer was responsible
for a specific feature of the physical setting.

6. In seven of the libraries the children’s department was not immediately visible
and identifiable from the main entry. Four of the libraries did not have the
children’s department located on the ground floor. In six of the libraries the
children’s department was not in a separate room. None of the libraries
displayed signage that a pre-reader could understand, shelved picture books

4

with covers facing out, used book bins for picture books and easy readers, or
provided soft, flexible furnishings that a young child could move around.
Although all of the libraries had adjustable dividers on their book shelves, in
nine of the libraries these were used to keep books upright and not placed to
maintain small groups of books rather than long, continuous runs. Only two of
the libraries had a children’s charge out desk equal to or less than 30" high.
Opportunities for privacy and/or enclosure were only identified in two of the
libraries. Of the 27 displays, posters, and decorations identified as being
directed towards the young child, 21 were placed at or above adult eye levels.

The observations related to existing physical settings and the operation and

maintenance of the settings lead to the following conclusions:

1.

Children’s librarians are interested in providing child attracting library
environments.

After the library has been built and is in operation, librarians have the primary
responsibility for operating and maintaining the physical environment.

Many library practices conflict with or ignore environmental design research
and design recommendations which could be used to create child attracting
library environments.

The intent of the original study was to observe children’s approach avoidance

behavior in children’s libraries. However, findings suggested that the physical setting

and the role of the librarian should be investigated before further children’s library

environment and behavior research was conducted.

Overview of t_he Current Sum

"Despite massive infusions of monies . . . large numbers of students are still

not reading well enough to meet requirements of school and society" (Karlin 1980,

vii). "In a society that places such a premium on literacy, illiteracy has devastating

consequences" (Davidson 1988, 215).

5
The Illiteracy Problem

While estimates of illiteracy in this country vary, depending on the
operationalized definition used, the National Advisory Council on Adult Education
(Smith et a]. 1986) estimates that adult illiteracy affects 2.4 to 5 percent of the
country’s population. The Council also reports that concerned business experts
estimate that programs to improve literacy levels to help workers meet job
requirements have cost American businesses ten billion dollars.

The Orton Dyslexia Society (1986) has collected data which indicate there are
23 million functionally illiterate Americans and 35 million more who are only
semiliterate. This translates to reading levels of less than fourth and eighth grade
respectively. Even more significant in terms of social cost are the Society’s figures
which indicate that 33 percent of all mothers on ADC, 60 percent of all prison
inmates, 75 percent of the unemployed, and 85 percent of all juveniles who appear in
court are functionally illiterate. Illiteracy has become a critical issue in America.

Public Library Involvement with
the Illiteracy Problem

There appears to be a growing concern about the role of the public library in
helping to create a literate America. In his report on the public library in America,
Robert Leigh (1950) wrote . . librarians should change the intensity, the direction,
and even the nature of their services so that they will contribute to the solution of the
crucial problems of our times" (p. 49). The public library has provided community
outreach, sponsored reading activities, and developed tutorial programs in support of

the national effort to create a literate America. The primary focus of these efforts has

6

been on the adult illiterate and the promotion of youth oriented reading programs. In
addition, some attention has been directed to identifying factors which promote young
children’s reading or contribute to their learning to read.
Public Library Involvement with Children
and the Promotion of Reading

A major research project conducted by the Canadian Library Association
(Landy 1977) identified 27 factors that differentiated readers from non readers. As
Landy states "since most factors . . . are beyond our control to change . . . it becomes
necessary to examine the group of variables over which we have some control"
(p. 387). Children’s use of libraries is one of these variables.

According to the study reported by Landy, it is not simply that children’s use
of libraries creates readers, but that positive library experiences can be a
contributing factor in creating readers. "Librarians must acknowledge the vital
importance of children’s services in changing reading habits early" (Landy 1977, 387).

Historically, the focus of service to children in public libraries has been on
providing good books and knowledgeable librarians in pleasant surroundings in order
to promote good literature. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in
America, the children’s room in a public library was often the only place where
children had access to books, could go to read, or could call their own. Children’s
service has often been called one of the public library’s great success stories (Leigh
1950) and has expanded from providing access to good books to developing programs
and activities which promote reading and children’s library use. Edmonds (1987)

summarizes the American Library Association’s response to the national concern about

7

illiteracy and children’s public library service by stating "the promotion of reading and
a commitment to producing a literate population must be central to the provision of

library service to children in the coming decade" (p. 512).

Statement of the Problem
The services provided by children’s libraries have been identified as a
contributory factor in the promotion of reading in young children. The American
Library Association (ALA) indicates that the provision of accessible and comfortable
physical facilities for children is one of the major areas of service. However, it
appears that children’s librarians do not consider the physical environment as it relates
to research and the promotion of reading. It is the intent of this study to explore the
public librarian’s awareness, interest, and actual practices as they relate to
environmental design and children’s libraries.
Children’s Physical Facilities and
Environmental Design Research
According to Veatch (1979, 1987), environmental design concepts,
methodologies, and research data have application to the design and planning of
libraries and the physical facilities. Although there is not a great deal of research
concerning children’s environments and behavior (Altman and Wohwill 1978; Baird
and Lutkus 1982; Kaplan 1985; Ziegler and Andrews 1987), there is a small body of
empirical data which could be useful in guiding evaluation studies or establishing

design recommendations concerning the physical facilities of children’s libraries. This

8

includes studies from the fields of environment and behavior, day care and early
childhood education, and reading education.
Lack of Library Based Research
and Children’s Libraries

The review of the library literature indicates that research related to any area of
children’s services is limited. Research which has been conducted focuses primarily
on book collections, materials, activities, and programs. Information related to the
physical facilities is even more limited and largely descriptive in nature. A number of
individuals working in children’s library service have indicated that existing
information and recommendations about children’s physical facilities are based on
tradition, superstition, or assumptions rather than empirical research (Anderson 1978;
Chelton 1985, 1987; Edmonds 1987; Krueger 1978; Nykiel 1978). There is limited
library-based environment and behavior information and little evidence that
recommendations concerning the physical aspects of the library are based on empirical

research (Eaton 1991; Evans 1971) .

ELmOse of the Sum
The review of literature indicates a lack of library based research concerning
children’s public library environments and the promotion of reading. Several authors
(Bennett 1987; Lyles 1972; Veatch 1979, 1987) have stated that environment and
behavior research has application to the design of library facilities. As noted in the
review of literature, a number of authors also comment on the need for library

research related to children’s services and children’s library environments. The review

9

of literature also provides anecdotal information regarding children’s librarians’
interest in the library environment. However, it does not appear that children’s
librarians have conducted or applied environment and behavior research. The question

which arises is why?

Study Objectives
The three basic objectives of this study are:

1. To develop the beginnings of an information base regarding design practices
and librarians’ awareness of, interest in, and knowledge of environmental
design as it applies to the physical setting of the children’s public library.

2. To explore the feasibility of further research on children’s library environments
and the promotion of reading as it relates to librarian attitudes and interest.

3. To identify relationships which may suggest areas for future study and methods
which might be used in presenting environment and behavior information to
children’s librarians.

Research Questions
Specifically, the following research questions guided this study:

1. Do children’s librarians believe the library’s physical environment can
influence outcomes related to library objectives and goals?

2. Are children’s librarians (a) knowledgeable about and/or (b) interested in
learning about environmental design as it is applicable to the children’s library?

3. Do relationships exist between the librarian’s education or the librarian’s
participation in environmental design workshops and the librarian’s:

belief that the physical environment can affect outcomes?
interest in learning about environmental design?

source of information about children’s library environments?
assessment of their personal design knowledge?

999'.”

10
Do relationships exist between the librarian’s agreement with suggested design
practices related to the physical environment and reports of the practices being
in place in the children’s library?

Assumptions

The theoretical framework of this study and analysis of the observational data

collected were used to identify the study assumptions:

1.

Environments affect behavior. "The designed environment affects human
experience in direct and important ways. It does not determine experience, yet
in combination with social influences, designed environments can support
satisfaction, happiness, and effectiveness" (Friedmann, Zimring, and

lube 1978, 1).

"Despite their potential, designed environments often do not ’work’ with
respect to their impact on human experience. They are awkward, even
destructive, rather than being supportive of personal competence and growth"
(Friedmann et a1. 1978, 1).

Children’s librarians are interested in promoting reading and positive attitudes
towards reading.

Awareness of the influence of the physical environment on users is necessary
in order to provide environments which support desired behaviors and attitudes.

Librarian training does not include the overall combination of social design
procedures and investigations which constitute environmental design training
(Krasner 1977, 1980).

Definition of Te&

For this study the following definitions were used:

BEHAVIOR is a learned activity which is a response to an individual’s internal

system of beliefs, attitudes, emotions, and values and external environmental
stimuli.

REFLEX is an involuntary activity that occurs without prior learning in response to

stimuli.

11

ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN refers to activities associated with the planning and
interior design of man-made environments which consider sociological,
physiological, psychological, and behavioral needs of humans as the basic
criteria for making design decisions (Krasner 1977, 1980; Veatch 1979)

CHILDREN’S LIBRARY ENVIRONMENT refers to the activities and programs
offered to children by each individual library which includes services,
programs, materials, and personnel as well as the physical setting in which
these services take place.

CHILDREN refers to the population targeted by The Association for Library Service
to Children, birth through the eighth grade, or birth to 12 years of age
(Michigan Library Association 1988; Naylor 1987; Sullivan 1974).

PRE-READER is an individual who is not yet ready to read or is too young to be able
to read as opposed to NON READER or ILLITERATE.

NON READER is an individual who is able to read or may be ready to read but elects
not to read.

ILLITERATE is an individual who is old enough to be ready and able to read but
cannot read.

CHILDREN’S LIBRARIAN is an individual assigned to oversee or. provide service to
children within the children’s library environment.

LIBRARY EDUCATION refers to formal college education for which a Master’s of
Library Science (MLS) degree is earned.

ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN WORKSHOPS (CED) refers to seminars, programs, or

workshops related to the planning, design, arrangement, or operation of the
physical environment of the children’s library.

5.99m

Public librarians have recognized the importance of contributing to the fight
against illiteracy in America. They have provided a variety of programs and activities
and have recognized the need to seek ways in which their services may be used to
help promote reading and create a literate population. The provision of physical

facilities is seen as one of the traditional areas of library service, and the behavioral

12

sciences have begun to establish linkages between environment and behavior.
However, the area of environmental design does not appear to be an area that
librarians are using or consider applicable to the promotion of reading and literacy.
The purpose of this study is to explore the public librarian’s awareness, interest, and

actual practices as they relate to environmental design and children’s libraries.

CHAPTER 2

THEORETICAL BASE AND STUDY MODEL

This study is based on a conceptual framework and models derived from
ecological or systems theory. This theory consists of three major components: the
individual, the environment, and the interaction between the individual and the
environment. While behavior and human development have long been topics of
interest, it is only recently that the environment itself in relation to behavior has been

studied.

Systems Them

Kurt Lewin was one of the first to postulate that behavior is a function of both
the person and the environment. Building on Lewin’s early work, Barker and Wright
and Barker and Schoggen contributed to the field of environment and behavior studies
by conducting research in naturalistic, real life settings, These studies looked at how
specific environments, or behavior settings, influenced the behaviors and development
of children (Berk 1989; Conye and Clack 1981; Schiamberg 1988). Figure 1 presents
a model of systems or ecological theory which has been further expanded by Urie

Bronfenbrenner (1979) in The Ecology of Human Development.

13

l4

 

MACROSYSTEM
ATTITUDES AND IDEOLOGIES OF THE CULTURE

 

MICROSYSTEM
Puauc uatww

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure l.--Bronfenbrenner’s Model of Ecology and Human Development. Adapted

from Kopp and Krakow (Eds) (1982). The Child: Development in a Social Context.
Reading, MS: Addison-Wesley. p. 648. Reprinted with permission.

15

Bronfenbrenner believes in the systems theory of person-environment
interaction. He also postulates that environmental studies cannot be limited to
individual behavior settings but must consider broad, interrelated nested groups of
settings. In essence, while the individual and a specific setting interact with one
another, multiple settings also act upon the specific setting and the individual.
According to Bronfenbrenner, "the ecological environment is conceived as a set of
nested structures, each inside the next . . . . at the innermost level is the immediate
setting containing the develOping person" (p. 3). This expanded view of ecological or
systems theory provides a broad perspective of human development and focuses on the

interconnectedness between the settings an individual experiences.

A Behavior Setting Model

Rudolph Moos (1979) developed a model (Figure 2) that is useful in examining
specific environments, or individual settings, in relation to outcomes. As a social
ecologist, Moos provides a theoretical framework for examining the relationship
between individual and environmental variables and outcome variables for a given
situation or setting.

In systems theory, as shown in Figure 2, two separate systems exist, the
personal and the environmental systems. These systems interact with one another and
influence the responses (outcomes) to the setting or situation (stimuli). The personal
system is a combination of hereditary factors, which include socio-demographic

variables, personality factors, and intrinsic and learned skills and abilities.

l6

 

 

 

PERSONAL SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL

sociodemographic SYSTEM

variables, physical setting,

personality . organizational

factors. intrinsic factors, human

and learned aggregate and

skills and ability resulting holistic
social climate

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 ‘ 1 ,1

I COGNITIVE APPRAISAL I

1

'—-> [ACTIVATION/AROUSAL I <—1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘—> [EFFORTS TO ADAPT/COPE I <—

I

Fl EXTERNAL SYSTEM OUTCOMES l_

 

BEHAVIOR IACTIONS

 

 

INTERNAL SYSTEM OUTCOME
EMOTIONS ATTITUDES BELIEFS HEALTH
(PHYSIOLOGICAUPSYCHOLOGICAL)

 

Figure 2.--Relationship of Personal/Environmental Systems to Individual and

Situational Outcomes. Adapted from Moos (1979). Evaluating Educational
Environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. p. 5. Reprinted with permission.

 

 

17

The environmental system is composed of the physical setting, the human aggregate,
organizational factors, and the social environment.

The individual’s responses to any stimulus is influenced by these two systems
and the intermediating processes of cognitive appraisal and arousal (level of interest or
motivation). Simultaneously, the mediating process of arousal is influenced by the
personal and environmental systems as the individual responds to the stimuli.

After the individual has become aware of a stimulus and is motivated to
respond (arousal), the individual must then make efforts to adapt to or cope with the
situation at hand. These efforts influence the final responses and influence the
personal and environmental systems as the individual responds to the stimulus. The
individual’s efforts finally result in responses (outcomes), which may also be
influenced by the two systems, and ultimately feed back into the two systems.

These outcomes can be considered to be both external outcomes and internal
outcomes. External outcomes can be considered as behaviors or actions and can be
observed, while internal outcomes can be considered as emotions, attitudes, values,
and health. These internal outcomes cannot be directly observed but are measured by

observing behaviors and actions.

The Environmental System
The model shown in Figure 2 indicates that an environmental setting is
composed of four components: the physical setting, organizational factors, the human
aggregate, and the social setting. Figure 3 depicts the relationship of the components

to one another. While three of the four components are individually identifiable, the

18

    
 

PHYSICAL SEI'TING

(ALL PHYSICAL COMPONENTS OF
THE NATURAL AND BUILT
ENVIRONMENTS)

    
    
  
  

     
 

HUMAN
AGGREGATES

ORGANIZATIONAL
FACTORS

(ADMINISTRATIVE.
STRUCTURAL.

    
  
  
  
  
   

  
   
  
  
  

  
  
  
  
  

(INDIVIDUALS AND
THEIR UNIQUE

PROCEDURAL. AND DEMO GRAPHIC
GOVERNING AND PERSCNAIJTY
POLICIES AND FACTORS)

ACTIVITIES)

  

PIO - Physical - Organizational environment: interaction and influences of two
environmental components

PM - Human - Organizational environment; interaction and influences of two
environmental components

HIO - Human - Physical environment: interaction and influences of two
environmental components

8.0. - Social Climate, resulting fourth component from
interaction of other three components

Figure 3;--Relationships of Environmental Components to Total Environmental Setting.
Adapted from Conyne and Clack. (1981). Environmental Assessment and Desigg. New
York: Praeger. p. 23. Reprinted with permission.

19

physical setting, the human aggregate, and organizational factors, the fourth
component, the social climate, is not individually identifiable.

This component is created through the coming together and interaction of the
other three components. The social climate component is often considered to be the
most influential of the components. It is also referred to as the social environment,
the ecological climate, or the environment of reference (Conyne and Clack 1981). The
other three components are seen as specific dimensions of the social (total)
environment.

The three overlapping circles in Figure 3 represent both the relationship of the
physical, organizational, and human aggregate components in creating the social
climate, as well as the interactions between each two of the components. The physical
setting consists of all of the physical components that make up man’s environment -
both natural and man made. The human aggregate is composed of the individuals
within each physical setting and their unique socio-demographic characteristics and
personality factors. Organizational factors may be considered to be the formal and
informal rules (regulations, policies, laws, procedures) that a culture or society has set
down and requires or deems appropriate behavior in any setting or situation. The
interaction of these three creates the total environment or the social climate. Each of
the three individual components also interact with and influence each other, while the

social climate simultaneously interacts with and influences the other three.

2O

Moos’ major focus "is on the extent to which the social climate is determined
by and mediates the influence of the other domains" (p. 6). The focus of the current

study will be on the physical setting itself.

The Focal Problem - The Physical Setting Model

According to Kaplan (1985), "people find certain environments far more
attractive than others. Such differences are likely to lead to different degrees of
contact with different environments" (p. 19). If people are attracted to some
environments more than others, and are affected by the environments that they come
into contact with, it is important for designers to examine physical settings. For any
particular type of environment, it is also important to be able to identify those
individuals who may directly affect the physical design of that setting. In this way,

persons who make direct contributions to the design of the setting can be identified:

1. to insure that they have basic awareness and knowledge about environmental
design
2. to recognize communication gaps which may exist between all those involved

in the design of the setting and between those who have design knowledge and
those who may need that knowledge.

Therefore, a closer view of the physical setting itself is critical.

While Figure 3 depicts the total environmental system, the model in Figure 4
focuses on the physical setting. It was developed specifically for the current study (an
examination of the physical aspects of children’s public library environments and
children’s librarians’ knowledge, interest, and awareness of environmental design) and

is based on the structure process approach of environmental design evaluation.

 

21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OTHER
PARTICIPANTS
(public users. volunteers.

other lbrary personnel!

support statl.
administrative mama.
decide consultants!

coordinators)

 

 

INFORMATION SOURCES
(personal system factors. concrete
individual experiences. education, “‘
and training, empirical sources.
anecdotal sauces)
DESIGNERS
. LIBRARIANS - (Iormaliproiessional calmer
WM)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I

 

 

PHYSICAL SEITINGS

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.--Focal Problem - Model Relating Design Participants to Outcome of

Children’s Library Settings

22

According to Friedmann, Zimring, and lube ( 1978), "every evaluation [of a
physical setting] contains some relationships of special concern: these form the focal
problem" (p. 20). The focal problem can be defined as having two components.
These are the elements of interest and their interrelationships. As seen in Figure 4,
this study’s elements of interest are children’s library environments, the librarians
involved in the design of these settings, and their sources of information. The model
depicts the design of the physical setting, the individuals involved in the design of the

setting, the information sources, and their interrelationships.

Information Sogrces

The information sources in this model consist of each individual’s personal
system factors, the individual’s background, experiences, and training (past sources),
and the specific sources, both empirical and anecdotal, to which an individual might
turn. Participants derive basic information from their own combination of these
various sources. In addition, individuals may choose to use specific sources of
information which:
1. present differing and/or conflicting ideas
2. do not present relevant data which may be available.
Individuals draw from these information sources in order to gain ideas, information,

and knowledge which will influence the design of the physical setting.

Design Participants
It is likely that children’s library environments, as in many other children’s

environments, have input from adults who by training are not designers. These design

23

participants use their knowledge to design, create, rearrange, alter, and otherwise
maintain the physical setting.

It is important to recognize that the term design is used generically rather than
formally. It refers to the planned activities, programs, alterations, and upkeep that
ultimately have an impact on the physical setting. These activities may not be
recognized or considered as consisting of design when the more traditional definition
of design is used. To many people, design means beauty, and it deals with aesthetics,
color choices, furnishings, and other visual attributes. To the environmental designer,
any decision made about the physical setting which has an impact on the setting and
the users of that setting can be considered as design (Krasner 1977, 1980).

In this study, the primary design participants are the librarians directly
responsible for the children’s library. In addition, individuals with formal design
training (professional designers), as well as individuals without design training or
direct responsibility for the library environment (other participants) may contribute to

the design of the physical setting.

Interrelationships

Not only do participants draw from information sources, but in any given
setting, the participants interact with one another and may become sources of
information. If participants serve as information sources, it is necessary to make sure:
1. information gaps do not exist (Zeisel 1981)
2. all participants are identified (Kaplan 1978; Stea 1979)

3. clear lines of communication are established and kept open.

 

24

The setting, when experienced by users, becomes an information source about future
settings, and more importantly, acts as a stimulus in the person-environment systems

model seen in Figure l.

m

Ecological or systems theory postulates that human behavior and development
(outcomes) is a result of the interrelationships between an individual’s personal system
and the environmental system the individual experiences. According to L-
Bronfenbrenner (1979), the environmental system consists of multiple, nested
environments which interact with the individual and one another.

In any given situation, a single environmental setting may also be considered
and evaluated. One component of the environmental setting is the physical
environment itself. This environmental component can affect the total environmental
system and the outcomes of users experiencing the setting.

The environment is neither a neutral surround with little or no effect on
behavior, nor the only determinant of activity. In order to grow and evolve, a
person is continuously taught by his environment . . . it is the nature of that
interaction - so continuous and so pervasive in our activities that it is easily
unobserved - that we must try to understand (David 1974, 694 - 695).

There are two considerations that must guide the design of children’s
environments. According to Baird and Lutkus (1982), "young children depend on the
good will of adults to satisfy all but their most elementary needs. Without social links
to adult society they would not survive" (p. 197). That "children lack power" (Miller

1981) needs to be recognized and clearly understood by all those who have input into

the design and on-going quality of children’s environments.

25

It is vital that all those who are in charge of children’s environments have an
awareness and understanding of the affect of the physical environment and have the
information needed to provide the supportive, positive environments which children

need.

CHAPTER 3

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Several common threads run throughout the literature related to children’s
library service. One of these is the promotion of reading and the fight against
illiteracy. The other is a focus on the provision of an inviting and appealing library
environment. This chapter reviews the literature as it relates to public library goals,
the promotion of reading and literacy, and the role of children’s library environments
in public libraries.

The literature related to the promotion of reading includes children’s attitudes
toward reading, the use of libraries, and attitudes toward libraries. The literature
reviewed for children’s library environments includes an overview of the need for
children’s environment and behavior research and research related to children’s
reading environments, as research literature specifically related to children’s public
library environments is limited. The chapter is organized as follows: (1) Library
Goals, (2) The Promotion of Reading, and (3) Providing Inviting Children’s

Environments.

LibLagy Goals

According to the American Library Association (ALA) Children’s Services

Division "the major goal of Children’s Library Service is the improvement and

26

27
extension of service to all children (Weeks 1986, 846). Much of the library literature

links the promotion of reading and children’s library facilities by stating that the goals
of Children’s Library Service are to provide good books, inviting library environments
and sympathetic staff in order to instill the love of reading in children. These basic
goals have guided librarians and public library service to children since its beginnings
in the mid 1800’s.

Children’s library service is based on a history of saving children from
illiteracy (Anderson 1987). The goal of service to children through the promotion of
reading, the love of good books, and overall service to the well being of children was
summarized by Harriet Long (1953) in her classic work Rich The Treasirg. Of the six
aims that Long identified, four are specifically directed to the promotion of reading,
learning, and the provision of good books. In 1966, the Public Library
Association/American Library Association (FLA/ALA) adopted the aims identified by
Long as the stated objectives for public library service to children. Today, these are
still viewed by children’s librarians as the objectives of public library service to

children (Fasick 1979).

The Promotion of Regdi_ng
While the promotion of the love of reading and good books may be the stated
goals of children’s library service, today’s librarians are also concerned about the
growing problems of illiteracy and their role in the educational process. Outreach
programs, as well as story hours, work with pre-schoolers, and reading intervention

activities and promotions, have become standard activities in children’s library service.

28

Librarians recognize the crucial role that they can play in promoting reading
(Davidson 1988; Edmonds 1987; Landy 1977; Rovenger 1987;) and helping to break
the cycle of illiteracy (Hunt 1970; Locke and Kimmel 1987). Children’s librarians, as
well as the ALA, are beginning to realize that "beginnings are all important. . . . that
the child’s whole attitude toward learning" begins before entering school (Johnson

1976,v)

Attitudes and the Promotion of Reading

In order to promote reading, it is necessary to understand the importance of
attitudes toward reading. According to Alexander and Filler:

Attitudes will be considered to consist of a system of feelings related to

reading which cause the learner to approach or avoid a reading

situation. A leamer’s attitudes may vary with his personal

predisposition and may be affected in unique ways by variables within

the learner and his environment (1976, l).
Brumbaugh (1940) found that even though children could pass a reading readiness test
they were not able to read if they had negative attitudes toward reading. Bloom
(1964) believes that reading habits develop in the early years of life, and studies by
Estes (1971), Heilman (1972), and Huck (1973) found that attitudes toward reading
affect reading ability and interest in the later years.

According to Saracho (1984-85, 1987), little research concerning reading
attitudes and young children has been done but "individuals who are directly or

indirectly involved in the reading process need to develop and maintain young

children’s positive attitudes toward reading" (1987, 24).

29
Use of Libraries and the Promotion of Reading

Studies by Clark (1976), Durkin (1966), and Landy (1977) identified certain
commonalities and experiences which promoted young children’s interest in reading
and influenced their ability to read. One of these experiences was the use of libraries.

Clark (1976) and Durkin (1966) studied children, who had learned to read at an
early age, to determine what factors might influence young children’s interest in and
ability to read. In both studies, early readers and their parents reported both children’s
interest in using the library and regular visits to the library. One finding in Clark’s
(1976) study was the importance of the local library in catering to and stimulating the
interests of the young readers in the study. In the libraries used by these children,
accessibility of different reading materials, layout, and flexibility of regulations
contributed to the children’s reading interest. According to Clark, these findings have
implications for libraries who are concerned about promoting reading to all children
with potential, especially those who may not have the kind of parental support
available to the children in Clark’s study.

Landy (1977) found that children’s early reading and interest in reading was
often related to a "happy, warm association with a library . . . . and demonstrated that
certain elements in a child’s life can produce, guide, or contribute to attitudes towards
reading" (p. 387).

A study by Barass and Reitzel (1972) also supports the value of the public
library’s contribution to the promotion of reading. Results of this study correlated
significant increases in reading interest, desire to read, and development of verbal and

social skills with regular attendance by children in a public library program.

3O

Attitudes and Use of Libraries

Four library studies not directly related to the study of children’s library
environments have implications which can be tied to this investigation. These studies
looked at personal characteristics and attitudes of individuals and use of libraries.

Ekechukwu ( 1972) investigated characteristics of those students who used the
elementary school and public libraries and those who did not. The study found a
significant relationship between library use and attitudes toward libraries. Children
who had positive attitudes toward the library were more likely to use the library than
children who had negative attitudes. In addition, Ekechukwu found that children most
disliked the rules and regulations set by libraries. These dislikes contributed to the
formation of negative attitudes toward libraries, and these attitudes were developed
prior to junior high school.

Evans (1970) also investigated attitudes and library use. The study focused on
adult users and non users of the public library and sought to determine if attitudes
were linked to use of the library. Results indicated that a positive relationship did
exist. While the purpose of the study focused on changing attitudes of non users in
order to increase library use, the findings provide an important consideration relevant
to the current study. There was evidence "in the responses of the non users, that
unfavorable attitudes toward the library building . . . [were] more likely to keep people
from using the library than . . . [were] unfavorable attitudes toward its staff or
collection" (p. 93). According to Evans the implications of the study were "that
attitudes toward the library may have an important influence on public library use. . . .

increase library use . . . by improving public attitudes toward the library" (p. 116).

31
Campbell and Shlecter (1979) also investigated library use and levels of

satisfaction. Although their investigation involved a university rather than a public
library, the study is significant to this investigation for two reasons. It is one of the
few studies that has looked at the library setting and behavior and considered the total
environment and physical setting. Of equal importance are several of the findings. In
the survey portion of this study, users indicated that they had more dislikes than likes
(139 dislikes to 105 likes). The physical environment/library organization accounted
for 70 percent of the dislikes, while the areas of materials/staff had more likes than
dislikes (44 likes to 12 dislikes). This suggests that the physical components of a
library environment do affect or have some impact on users. One of the conclusions
of the study was that "sources of dissatisfaction with the library may result in
avoidance of the library by persons who actually could profit from use of the library
facilities" (p. 29).

In a similar study, D’Elia and Walsh (1983) looked at user satisfaction in order
to assess library performance. This involved adult users of a public library who were
asked to grade the overall performance of the library as well as to rate specific aspects
of the library. While the results found no "obvious relationship between the user’s use
and the [overall] evaluation of the public library" (p. 128) there was one important
correlate. "In the case of the library in which this study was conducted, it is apparent
that the user’s evaluation of the physical facilities was the most important correlate of

the user’s overall evaluation [grade] of the library" (p. 125).

32

Providing Inviting Child_ren’s Environments

"It is never too early to expose children to the pleasure of books and reading"
(Fleet 1973, 14). Many children’s librarians believe that "the library may be the only
place where a child can . . . read a book . . . surrounded by a learning environment
that makes no special demands on [the child’s] . . . attention" (Benne 1978, 505). In
the past, guidelines for providing these environments in the children’s public library
were based on descriptive phrases such as "warm and inviting, appealing to the young
child, colorful" and designed by "adults who drink they know what children like"
(Brown 1979, 2). Children’s environments research suggests that this should no

longer be the case.

Need for Children’s Environments Research

While a considerable amount of research literature and information is now
available regarding the subject of environment and behavior, there is considerably less
research data and information available regarding children (Altman and Wohlwill
1978; Baird and Lutkus 1982; Bunting and Semple 1979; Kaplan 1985; Ziegler and
Andrews 1987). Although "it can be safely stated . . . that children, like all living
organisms, respond to and are influenced by their environment" (Bunting and Semple
1979, 273) there are several reasons to have a specific body of research related to
children’s environments, rather than simply drawing from the general body of
environment and behavior research which is currently available.

The first reason is that children are different from adults. They differ in

"physical size, cognitive development, social competency, [and] personal mobility. . . .

33

children act differently from adults within and upon the built environment. . . .
children react differently from adults to the built environment" (Ziegler and Andrews
1987, 301). According to Kaplan (1985), there is evidence, although incomplete, "that
children and adults differ substantially in the sorts of environmental patterns that are
preferred" (p. 19) and there is "little empirical work [which] has examined
environmental preferences in children" (p. 20).

The second reason for establishing specific child-environment research is
related to ecological systems theory and Piaget’s theory of child development. "A
dull, uninteresting environment affects the way in which children experience life, how
they react to and learn from it" (Curtis and Smith 1974). Piaget developed a learning
and developmental theory which is the basis for many child development concepts as
well as learning and educational curriculums. Piaget’s theory ( 1983) is based not only
on a child’s physical developmental stages but also stresses the importance of each
child having personal, concrete experiences from which all intellectual, cognitive,
emotional, and social development derives. These experiences become the stimulus
for personal development and maturation. Thus, child based environmental research
can help provide environments which are positive stimuli (Altman and Wohlwill 1978;
Boschetti 1987; Wohlwill and Helft 1987). "One primary motivation . . .[for child
based environmental research] is the belief that stimulus impoverishment causes
perceptual and learning deficits in the developing child. Conversely . . . enriched
environments will accelerate the development of perceptual, motor, and cognitive
skills" (Baird and Lutkus 1978 p. 5). Altman and Wohlwill (1978) compared evidence

of environmental stressors on adults and children and found that "the most deleterious

34

effects may be reserved for the young . . . . conversely, the opportunity for achieving a
positive impact on their development through suitable design of the environment may
be correspondingly greater in the case of the young child" (p. 2).

The third reason for establishing research related to children’s environments is
directly related to the current study. This is the consideration that children occupy
spaces which are often designed by adults but have children as their primary or sole
users. It is important that adults involved in the planning, design, and/or management
of these environments not only recognize that children are different from adults but
that these adults have information specifically targeted to children’s environments.
Children lack power, have limited communication skills, and have limited resources
available, and this makes it difficult for them to alter their surroundings in positive
ways (Baird and Lutkus 1978; Miller 1981; Ziegler and Andrews 1987). "The
physical world surrounding children is usually detennined by adults . . . there is rarely

an opportunity for children to make their own decisions" (Madeja 1974, 23).

Children’s Environments and Reading Research
According to Karlin (1980), children "are not taught how to read . . . but are
stimulated by their surroundings and activities to want to learn to read" (p. 145). The
classroom environment and library corner have been identified as a variable associated
with attitudes toward reading (Alexander and Filler 1976). Teachers and librarians
pass along either positive or negative attitudes towards reading, and the physical

setting in which independent reading takes place may also affect these attitudes.

35

Reading research which links behavioral studies related to the physical setting
and attitudes toward reading in order to promote reading is limited. Studies are
primarily related to the school classroom (library reading corner). These studies
(Coody 1973; Huck 1973; Morrow 1982) investigated classroom atmosphere as it
related to reading and classroom library corners. The primary purpose was to identify
characteristics and features of the physical setting that might be related to children’s
interest in reading or levels of reading activity. While quantity of books, ease of
access, and a generally pleasant atmosphere were found to affect reading interest and
activity, Morrow (1982) was able to identify specific features directly related to
amount of use of library comers. In addition to ease of access (both visually and
physically), Morrow also found that provisions for comfortable seating, diversity
(choice) of seating, carpeting, and some degree of visual and acoustical privacy were
related to increased use of the books and library corners.

Morrow and Weinstein (1982) conducted research that used findings from these
identification studies to conduct intervention research. The study sought to determine
if changes in curriculum and physical design within the classroom could increase
children’s use of literature. The study was designed using control classrooms (no
change) and classrooms for each of the three experimental conditions: design change,
program change, and design and program change. While all changes showed a
significant effect, results indicated that the combined change was not as great as the
sum of the changes in the two separate changes. "An unexpected finding was that the
single-treatment conditions were as effective in increasing literature use as the

combination design/program condition" (p. 135).

36
Children’s Environments and the Public Library

Considering the concepts regarding environmental influences and the teaching
of reading, as well as the stated library goals of promoting reading, it would seem that
librarians would be concerned about the environments in which service to children
occurs. Children’s library literature places great emphasis on creating a welcoming
and comfortable atmosphere. The literature provides a great deal of advice and
anecdotal information on how to do so but little empirical research has been conducted

on the physical setting itself.

Anecdo_tal Informartion

Numerous children’s librarians, as well as library consultants and designers,
have written descriptive reports and articles about the design of the children’s library.
These either describe the author’s own successful children’s library or identify the
features and/or practices which the author recommends for the design of a children’s
room (Abramo 1978; Brooks and Draper 1979; Cohen 1989; Cohen and Cohen 1979;
Fleet 1973; Lushington 1976, 1979; McColvin 1957, 1961; Michaels 1987a, 1987b;
Myller 1966; Pierce 1980). These articles and guidelines seem to be based on the
belief that "a comfortable, attractive space is the foundation of a successful program
for children" (Young 1980, 31).

These guidelines often appear to be based on traditional practices, assumptions,
and/or personal opinions as empirically based research data is not presented with the
recommendations. In addition, different library information sources frequently present

conflicting recommendations.

37

Examples of conflicting, library-based design
recommendations for children’s libraries

1. Location:
a. ground floor/children should be the ones to climb the stairs if the library
has more than one floor
b. separate room/not a separate room
c. close to adult section/far from adult section
2. Wayfinding:
a. separate entrance/same entrance as adults but visible from entry
b. clearly printed signs/provide non print graphics/no signage mentioned

3. Shelving of Picture Books:
a. Spine out with dividers/cover out/book bins

4. Charge Out Area:
a. Same desk as adults/separate desk from adults
b. Desk Height: 36", 30", 29", reachable for a six year old, not too high, no
height or recommendation given when discussing charge out
It is not known why librarians adopt specific design practices or which sources
of information they choose to use. In addition, there appears to be no evidence of use

of specific research which links the practices related to the physical setting in

children’s library to the promotion of reading or which guides design decisions.

Libm Based Environmentgl Research

The research that is available regarding library service to children deals mostly
with children’s literature and programming. According to Summers (1977), "literature
about children’s service programs is largely descriptive and not evaluative" (p. 80) and
information regarding children’s library settings is largely "what Ralph Shaw once
called ’How I run my library good’ " (p. 80).

Over the past 20 years, numerous individuals involved in the library profession

have called for a children’s service research base and have cited the need for studies

38
focusing on children and the design of library settings (Bennett 1987; Chelton 1985,

1987; Fitzgibbons 1982; Holt 1987; Krueger 1978; Nykiel 1978; Weeks, 1986).

The review of literature located a few library-based research studies which
looked at children’s services and included the library’s physical environment.
Although none of the studies directly addressed design practices and recommendations
and the promotion of reading, several have implications for the current research.

Barker (1977) studied school and public library media programs. He concluded
that the physical facilities could contribute to a program’s success or failure but that
they were not of crucial importance. According to Barker, 3 good program can rise
above poor facilities.

A dissertation by Brown (1977) was directed towards media centers in
elementary schools. Using observational procedures, the study compared intended
versus actual use of school media spaces. One finding was that "children did make
use of the spaces in ways which differed from the original design intent" (p. 79).

A study by Smardo (1978) was directly related to children’s services in the
public library. The purpose of this study was to identify specific recommendations
related to children’s library service for preschool children. Initial recommendations
were drawn from the library literature and suggestions of graduate students in early
childhood education. While the study sought information related to all five areas of
library service, which includes the physical facilities, Smardo relied solely on the
judgments of experts in the field of early childhood education to assess these
recommendations. The study has valuable information related to library service for

young children. However, it does not have great depth related to the physical

39

facilities. This may be for two reasons. In the review of literature, Smardo found
"neither specific qualitative nor quantitative data based upon empirical research,
concerning physical facilities appropriate for young children in public libraries"

(p. 30). The second reason may be that the review of literature also included the
study by Barker (1977) which may have influenced the limited focus on the physical
environment.

Veatch (1979) dealt more directly with aspects of environment and behavior
and the design of public libraries. However, the study was directed toward the
assessment of the usefulness of design criteria, as evaluated by professional library
consultants, for designing public libraries in general. Of the 42 criteria submitted for
evaluation as to their usefulness, only two were related to young children, and only
one of these was specifically meant for the design of the children’s library
environment. This criteria concerned eliminating the use of round tables in children’s
libraries as young children "have a strong sense of territorialin and round tables are
more difficult to mentally section off than square or rectangular tables" (Veatch 1979,
172). This criteria accounted for the greatest diversity of responses and the second 3
highest number of not useful ratings from the library consultants. In addition, three
consultants added comments regarding the lack of merit or need for considering this as
a design criteria.

More recently, two other library-based studies have included the physical
environment’s influence on user outcomes in the research. McAfee (1981) looked at
observable conditions in an elementary school media center and the development of

students self-concept. While the total social environment was the primary focus in the

40

study, a positive media center atmosphere, which included aspects of the physical
setting, was one of the variables included. One finding of the study was that all of the
observable conditions could affect the self-concept of the user. Eaton (1991) looked at
wayfinding and route uncertainty in fifth graders and high school students. One
component of this was the physical layout of the library and how users made use of
environmental cues. While Eaton focused on spatial skills and developing effective
shelf searches, one of her conclusions was that environmental design might be used to
promote successful, independent searching strategies. In addition, in the review of
literature Eaton also found little available library-based environment and behavior
information (Gale Eaton, letter to the author, March 1991).

Current research by Holly Willett focuses on the development of an evaluation
scale for the physical environment of children’s libraries. However, a preliminary
report (Willett 1991) indicates that the evaluation criteria are based on design
recommendations derived from early childhood and day care research and are being
assessed by children’s librarians and library consultants rather than being empirically
tested.

No research was located which indicates that practices recommended in the
library literature or adopted by librarians are based on empirically tested research
which links specific design practices to the promotion of reading in young children.
Nor was any research located which indicates if children’s librarians are interested in
research related to this area of children’s service. According to Brown (1978), if
children and youth come first in libraries, rather than things, then design decisions

should be made "not merely from the standpoint of aesthetics or of function, but . . .

41
from . . . about how children use space" (p. 82). This requires more than a guess or
an opinion but knowledge obtained through observation and testing.

Edmonds (1987) believes that youth services in libraries are often based on
assumptions which may get in the way and make it difficult to respond to changing
information and knowledge. While library services and reading research is rarely
linked "the implications are clearly there" (p. 513). One of these implications is that
environments do affect attitudes, and attitudes contribute to the reading process, to
children’s learning to read, and to learning to love reading. It is then important to
consider the design of the physical environment when planning and designing library
service to children.

To serve their clientele, children’s librarians must be informed. They must
know exactly what constitutes the most favorable atmosphere for reading
and browsing . . . . Common assumptions . . . need not be automatically
accepted. Library consultants, children’s specialists, professional

organizations and others in a position to comment on library facilities must
address themselves to the specialized needs of youth (Nykiel 1978, 864).

Summm

The review of literature and the theoretical framework have presented
information which suggests that environments affect behavior and that behavior is
often a reflection of an individual’s attitudes. The review also identifies attitudes as
having a contributory affect on the reading process. Other information identifies the
public library as interested in contributing to the reading process and the promotion of
reading as well as being an environment associated with reading.

Considering these concepts, it would seem that the physical environment in

children’s public libraries would be of primary concern and generate research.

42

However, the review of literature indicates that little, if any, library-based research or
empirical data related to design recommendations for children’s library environments
exists; it also indicates that children’s librarians may still be making design decisions
based on assumptions. In addition, the review suggests that children’s librarians may
be using information sources that do not provide empirically based design

recommendations and presents evidence that such data is needed.

CHAPTER 4
METHODS
The preceding chapter indicates that research which studies children’s library

environments as they affect the promotion of reading and children’s attitudes toward
reading is needed. In addition, findings from the observational study, reported in
Chapter One, and the review of literature suggest that information concerning the role
of the children’s librarian and the children’s library environment is needed. This
chapter discusses the procedures used in the research and is organized as follows:

( 1) The Sample, (2) Instrumentation, (3) Data Collection, and (4) Data Analysis.

The Sample

Librarians working in children’s service in public libraries were identified as
the primary units of analysis. Due to budget constraints, the decision was made to
conduct the survey within the State of Michigan. Therefore, the study population was
identified as public librarians working in children’s services in Michigan.

This population was identified with the help of the Directory of Michigan
Libraries 1990, the Michigan Library Association, and the children’s librarian who
served as a reviewer for the questionnaire. A total of 644 libraries were found to
make up the study population. The constraints of the research budget was one criteria

on which to base the size of the sample. In addition, the information from other

43

 

44

library surveys was used as a guideline. Considering these two criteria, the decision
was made to draw a sample of approximately thirty percent of the population.

As libraries in the Michigan Public Library system are categorized into six
classes of libraries, it was decided that a more representative sample would be
obtained if stratified random sampling procedures were used rather than simple
random sampling. The population was then identified by library class, percentage
calculations were made to identify each class’s share of the total population, and then
representational samples equal to each of the percentage weights of the library classes
were then randomly drawn. Using these procedures, a total of 197 libraries were

selected to be used as the Public Library study sample.

InstrpmentJation

The methodological approach used in this study is the descriptive survey as
recommended by Lancaster (1977, 1988). No research study could be located which
dealt with the children’s librarians’ awareness and interest in environmental design as
it relates to children’s services. Matthews (1978) states "while surveys don’t solve
problems, they do provide previously lacking descriptions" (p. 255) and according to
Bechtel, Marans, and Michelson (1987) "surveys about people can answer questions of
who, what, and how" (p. 44) and explain the sentiments and actions of a population.
Thus, a survey can provide factual information and deal with people’s thoughts,
feelings, and their awareness of situations and places.

As no survey studies related to children’s librarians, the physical environment,

and environmental design were located, it was necessary to develop a survey

45

instrument. Using the earlier observational studies, the research objectives and
questions, and information drawn from the review of literature as guidelines, a self-
report, written questionnaire was developed. In addition, four references devoted to
social, behavioral, and survey research (Babbie 1986; Bechtel, Marans, and
Michaelson 1987; Dillman 1977, 1991) provided ideas for the development,
organization, and format of the questionnaire.

The questionnaire was designed to collect information about librarian
education, training, attitudes, knowledge, interests, and practices as they relate to the
physical environment of the children’s library. Questions consisted of multiple choice,
fill-ins, and Likert scaling in a closed ended format. Several opportunities were also
provided for open ended responses or general comments by the librarians. The
questions were organized into four distinct sections within the questionnaire. Part One
dealt with information related to the existing physical environment of the children’s
library and actual practices. Ten specific design practices were included in this
section. These were practices related to the physical and visual ease of access for
young children. In addition to meeting the condition of access, two other criteria were
used to select the specific design practices to be considered. These were:

1. recommendations, either explicit or implied, for these practices were located in
the library literature

2. whether the presence or absence of each design practice was observable, could
be objectively reported, and did not rely on the subjectivity or interpretation of
respondents.

Part Two focused on librarian attitudes, training, and interest in environmental design

and the promotion of reading; Part Three asked for information about librarian

46

agreement with existing design criteria that could be useful in a children’s library, and
Part Four sought basic demographic information related to librarian education and
experience. The questionnaire was specifically organized to move the respondent from
the general to the more specific questions. In addition, the presentation also provided
respondents the opportunity to answer interesting but non-threatening questions first
and to get the librarians thinking about the physical environment.

After the questionnaire was developed and organized it was subnritted for
review. Ten reviewers were asked to check for content, clarity, and time expended.
Reviewers were selected using two criteria in addition to convenience. Familiarity
with and basic awareness of public library use and terms and representation of varied
levels of education. Three of the reviewers had previously worked as librarians in
public libraries and two of these had a formal library education. The literature
indicated that educational backgrounds of individuals working as children’s librarians
differed from library to library. Of the ten reviewers, two were high school graduates,
two were undergraduate students, two were graduate students, and four were university
graduates who had earned a minimum of a Master’s degree.

The reviewers reported little difficulty in completing or understanding the
questionnaire. Minor problems of wording (clarity) or order of questions were
corrected and a final draft was made. This draft was then subnritted to a children’s
librarian. This reviewer was a current member of the Michigan Children’s Library
Committee and was recommended by the Michigan Public Library Association. Upon
the suggestion of this reviewer, an additional question was added. The final

questionnaire was then submitted to the Michigan State University Committee for

 

47

Research on Human Subjects for approval before it was printed in final questionnaire
format.

The questionnaire (Appendix B) was printed in booklet form. Included on the
cover was an abbreviated version of the accompanying letter, information and
instructions for answering the questions, directions for returning the questionnaire, and

information about contacting the researcher if the need arose.

W

A mailed questionnaire was selected as the most appropriate method to
collect the data. This decision was based on several factors:

1. Budget restrictions and time constraints made it difficult to use random
sampling if personal visits and interviews were the methods used.

2. The review of literature indicated that librarians often had negative feelings
about evaluations of any of their service areas. It was decided that a guarantee

of anonymity might decrease these negative feelings and encourage librarians
to respond. A mailed, self-report questionnaire could best provide this

anonymity.

Using the ideas and techniques for mailed survey research suggested by
Dillman (1977, 1991), a schedule of mailings and list of mailing contents were
established. The preliminary mailing, consisting of a cover letter (Appendix A), the
questionnaire in booklet form, and a stamped, return envelope, was addressed to The
Children’s Librarian. Cover letters stressed the importance of the respondent’s
participation and provided a brief overview of the purpose for the research. In
addition, the cover letter promised both confidentiality and anonymity to the

respondent and described how this would be handled. Plans called for a second

 

48

mailing to be sent out two weeks later. This was to include a revised cover letter, a
second questionnaire, and a return envelope. Two weeks after the second mailing
phone calls were to be made to the respondents who had not yet returned the survey to
encourage participation.

Based on the review of the library literature the expected rate of return was 40
to 50 percent (Calabrase 1977; Dequin and Faibisoff 1983; Hamson 1989). Three
days after the initial mailing the first survey was returned, and within less than
fourteen days 91 more surveys were returned. Follow-up procedures were deemed
unnecessary as a response rate of 63.5 percent was achieved in less than two and one-
half weeks.

Approximately one week later, one last survey was returned. This one was not
filled in. It was returned, opened but unanswered. During cleaning and coding, one
survey, which had been completely answered, had to be eliminated from analysis due
to technical reasons. The respondent indicated that a new children’s library was being
opened and answers were given on existing conditions and anticipated plans. As it
was impossible to determine which answers referred to existing plans and which
answers were based on anticipated facilities, the responses were not included in the
data analysis. A total of 126 questionnaires (63.9%) were returned and 124 (62.9%)
questionnaires were useable for data analysis.

As respondents were also offered the opportunity to request a summary of
survey results, and the researcher needed to be able to track respondents for follow up
mailings, the return envelopes were coded. On the back flap of each return envelope

was a number which identified each library selected for the sample. In addition to this

49

number, a space was included that could be checked if the respondent wanted to have
a summary of the survey results. The researcher was the only individual holding the
master list which indicated each library’s assigned number. In order to provide the
guarantee of anonymity, the returned surveys were not opened by the researcher.

Once all of the returns were collected they were given to a third party to open and
separate. When this was accomplished, all materials were then returned to the
researcher. The responding libraries could then be identified, and those requesting
survey results were recorded using the empty return envelopes. As the coded
envelopes had been separated from the questionnaires themselves, the researcher could

not identify answers with any particular library.

Data Analysis

Analysis of the data collected in the questionnaire focused on answering the
current study’s research questions. The complete survey instrument is presented in
Appendix B. Questions used in this study’s data analysis are indicated with asterisks.
Data collected for the study were treated as follows:

1. An analysis of the characteristics of the respondents and the respective libraries
were made in order to describe the study sample and to determine if it was
representative of the population.

2. The use of frequency distributions, percentages, and, when applicable, mean
scores were calculated in order to determine librarians responses to questions
concerning specific interests, beliefs, and practices related to the physical
environment of the children’s library.

3. The Chi-square test of association and the point-biserial correlation coefficient
were used to investigate relationships as posed in research questions three and
four of the study. The Chi-square test of association, used with nominal data,
can be used as a test of association or relationship between two factors in a
contingency table. The Point-biserial coefficient is a simplification of the

50

Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The point—biserial can be used when a
dichotomous variable is correlated with a continuous variable (Glass and
Hopkins 1984). Point-biserial correlations were used with Research Questions
involving a Yes-No dichotomous variable and a variable measured on a five
point Likert scale. According to the Office of Statistical and Mathematical
Computing, Interdisciplinary Consortium for Statistical Applications at Indiana
University, the statistical consultant services used in this research, Likert scales
may be considered as continuous measures and used with the point-biserial
coefficient.

Smart

This chapter presented the methods used in the study. The sampling methods,
development of the instrument, and other procedures were discussed. Children’s
librarians in Public Libraries in Michigan were surveyed using a self report, mailed

questionnaire. Methods used in data analysis were also presented.

CHAPTER 5

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

This chapter presents the data as they relate to a description of the sample and
to the research questions. The data are presented in two sections which are organized
as follows: (1) The Sample and (2) The Research Questions. Each section includes a
brief overview of the data that are presented and discusses the organization of the

subsections.

The Sample
This section presents information related to existing conditions reported by the
public librarians working in children’s services. The data presented were collected
from both closed and open ended responses. The data have been collected to provide
descriptive information about the sample and are organized as follows: (1) Library
Administrative Structure and Conditions, (2) Children’s Librarians, and (3) Children’s

Library Design Practices.

Library Administrative Structure and Conditions
The public library system in Michigan is divided into six Library Classes.
These classes are determined by the size and population of the library’s service area.
The larger the population service size the higher the Library Class. Library Class

information and data related to administrative practices and conditions are presented in

51

52

this subsection. These data are: (1) Representativeness of Sample, (2) Location of
Libraries, (3) Library Building Type, (4) Weekly Service Hours, (5) Children’s Library

Staffing, and (6) Children’s Service Age Range.

Representativeness of Sample

Table 1 presents a comparison of the population, the sample, and the survey
respondents by Library Class. All Library Classes are represented approximately by
the same percentage as they occur in the population. As seen in Table 1, Class VI
Libraries, defined as those serving populations of more than 50,000, account for the

largest number of libraries.

_I_._oc_ption of Libraries

In Table 2 the libraries have been categorized according to geographic location.
While 17 (13.7%) of the libraries are located in or around large metropolitan areas, the
majority of the libraries in the survey, 78 (62.9%), are located in towns and rural areas

with populations under 25,000 people.

Building Typp

Because the structure of a building can influence the arrangement of interior
spaces, librarians were asked to indicate the choice which best described the number
of floor levels used for public library service. The majority of libraries in the survey,
72 (58.0%), are housed in one story buildings that do not have basements for public
use. As shown in Table 3, 17 (13.7%) libraries are one story buildings that also use a

basement for library service to the public. Eight (6.5%) librarians indicated their

53
Table 1.--Comparison of Population, Sample, and Respondents by Library Class

 

 

 

Population Sample Respondents

N % N % N %
Class I 99 15.4 30 15.2 14 11.3
Class H 80 12.4 24 12.2 15 12.1
Class III 92 14.3 28 14.2 21 16.9
Class IV 79 12.3 24 12.2 19 15.3
Class V 77 11.9 23 11.7 20 16.1
Class VI 217 33.7 68 34.5 35 28.3
Totals 644 100.0 197 100.0 124 100.0

 

Table 2.--Geographic Location of Libraries in Survey

 

Survey Respondents

 

N %
Rural Area (Unincorporated) 16 12.9
Small Town (Under 10,000) 49 39.5
Large Town (10,000 - 25,000) 13 10.5
Small City (25,001 — 50,000) 16 12.9
Large City (50,001 - 100,000) 10 8.1
Metropolitan Area (Over 100,000) 17 13.7
No Response 3 2.4

 

Totals 124 100.0

 

54
building type as "other than these". Not all eight specified what the other type was.

However, two librarians wrote in that they were housed in "piece meal" situations, and
another librarian indicated that the children’s library was in a manufactured housing

unit ("a trailer").

Table 3.--Library. Building Types by Levels Used

 

 

 

Respondents
Levels N %

One Story, no basement 72 58.0
One Story plus basement 17 13.7
Two Story, no basement 13 10.5
Two Story plus basement 8 6.5
>Two Story, no basement 2 1.6
>Two Story, plus basement 4 3.2
Other 8 6.5

Totals 124 100.0

 

Weekly Service Hours

Library Class, as stipulated by the State Library Association and State of
Michigan Library, and location influences the number of hours the library is open to
the public per week. Librarians were asked to indicate the number of hours per week
that the library was open and if the children’s department hours were open for the

same number of hours. Table 4 presents these responses.

55
Fifteen (12.1%) libraries are open 30 or less hours per week, 25 (20.2%)

libraries are open 31 to 40 hours per week, and 23 (18.5%) are open 41 to 50 hours
per week. As shown in Table 4, the largest number, 60 (48.4%), of libraries
responding to this question are open more than 50 hours per week.

The great majority of libraries, 120 (96.8%), have the same hours for children’s
service as for the rest of the library, while 3 (2.4%) libraries have fewer children’s
hours than regular hours. As illustrated in Table 4, in each of these three cases, the

regular library hours are greater than 56 hours per week.

Children’s Library Sta—ffipg

Children’s services depend upon library personnel and staff in order to operate.
In relation to children’s library environments, personnel are needed for upkeep and
decision making. Staffing (shown in Table 5), whether by library professionals or

volunteers, may influence the programs and services which a children’s library offers.

Library Personnel

Someone must be responsible for what goes on in the environment,
maintenance of the environment, and changes within the environment. Most often this
is the children’s librarian, who is usually working alone or with a limited number of
other staff. One of the questions asked in this survey was related to the number of
full time equivalent staff who worked in the children’s department While 6 (4.8%)
librarians reported that they have five or more full time staff, Table 5 shows that the
majority of librarians, 105 (84.7%), reported two or less full time staff working in

children’s services.

56
Table 4.--Weekly Hours Library is Open to Public (Library and Children’s Department)

 

 

 

 

Library Hours Children’s Hours
N % Same Less
0 to 30 Hours 15 12.1 15 0
31 to 40 Hours 25 20.2 25 0
41 to 50 Hours 23 18.5 23 0
51 to 55 Hours 14 11.3 14 O
> 55 Hours 46 37.1 43 3
Totals 123 99.2 120 3
No Response 1 0.8
Total 124 100.0

 

Table 5.--Full Time Staff and Use of Volunteers in Children’s Libraries

 

Libraries Reporting

 

 

Number of Staff Use Volunteers
Full Time Staff N % YES‘ NO
0 - 2 Librarians 105 84.7 44 61
3 - 4 Librarians 13 10.5 6 7
5 - 6 Librarians 4 3.2 3 1
> 6 Librarians 2 1.6 1 l

 

Totals 124 100.0 54 70

 

57
Use of Volunteers
Table 5 also presents the data related to volunteer staffing. With limited
professional personnel, volunteers might offer a way to provide additional staffing and
help in children’s services. Although 54 (43.5%) librarians reported that they used
volunteers in children’s services, 70 (56.5%) reported that they did not. There was no

association or significant relationship between libraries’ use of volunteers and libraries

number of professional librarians on staff, x2 (3, N = 124) = 1.952, p < .05.

Children’s Service Age Range

The Children’s Services Division of the Michigan Library Association (1988)
defines children as birth through grade eight. The review of literature indicated that
not all libraries may be prepared to serve the youngest of these children and may
extend service to those beyond grade eight. Librarians were asked to indicate both the
minimum and maximum ages of children that their department was prepared to serve.

All 124 respondents answered the question regarding service to the young
child. The great majority, 119 (96.0%), of librarians indicated their children’s
department extended services to toddlers, while the remaining 5 (4.0%) librarians
indicated that preschoolers were the minimum age served. None of the librarians
indicated that children’s services were lirrrited to school age children only.

Responses regarding the maximum age or grade level to which service is
extended were more varied. Although 28 (22.6%) children’s libraries provide service
only through the fifth or sixth grade, the largest number of libraries, 65 (52.4%),

provide service through the seventh, eighth, or ninth grade in their children’s

58

department. Twenty-seven (21.8%) children’s libraries provide service to children

through high school or twelfth grade. Four librarians did not respond to this question.

Children’s Librarians
Librarians were asked to respond to questions regarding their educational
background and public library experience. Data presented in this section includes:
(1) Educational Levels, (2) Specific Library Education, (3) Environmental Design

Workshops, and (4) Children’s Library Experience.

Educational Level

While educational levels, shown in Table 6, range from high school graduates
to those who have done graduate work beyond a Master’s degree, the majority of
respondents, 96 (77.4%), have at least one college degree. Librarians with a Master’s
degree account for 60 (48.4%) of these librarians, and an additional 18 (14.5%)
librarians have completed graduate course work beyond the Master’s level. As shown
in Table 6, only 11 (8.9%) librarians have not had formal schooling beyond high

school.

Smpific Librm Education

In addition to their level of education, the librarians were also asked to indicate
if they held a Master’s of Library Science degree and, if so, had a specialization in

children’s services. This data is presented in Table 7.

59
Table 6.--Children’s Librarians’ Educational Levels

 

Librarians Responding

 

 

Educational Level N %
High School Graduate 11 8.9
Some College Course Work 16 12.9
Bachelor’s Degree 18 14.5
Master’s Degree 60 48.4
Graduate Work Beyond Master’s 18 14.5
No Response 1 0.8
Totals 124 100.0

 

Table 7.--Library and Children’s Specialization Education

 

Librarians Responding

 

Specific Library Education N %

Librarians Not Holding an MLS 54 43.5

Librarians Holding an MLS but 24 19.4
No Children’s Specialization

Librarians Holding an MLS and 45 36.3
Had Children’s Specialization

No Response 1 0.8

 

Totals 124 100.0

 

60
Of the 123 librarians responding to the query regarding the MLS degree, 69

(55.7%) responded that they do hold such a degree and of those, 68 received their
training from an ALA accredited School of Library and Information Science.

Sixty-five percent of the librarians who hold an MLS degree, also indicated that
their training had included a specialization in children’s services. However, as shown
in Table 7, the librarians with specific education in children’s services account for

only 36 percent of all of the respondents who work in children’s libraries.

Britonmentg Design Workshops

In addition to formal education and schooling, librarians were asked if they had
participated in workshops or seminars which focused on environmental design
issues related to the physical setting of the children’s library. While all 124 librarians
included in the survey responded to this question, only 22 (17.7%) librarians indicated

that they had participated in this type of seminar or workshop.

Libgy Experience

Library experience is also a source of education. Librarians were asked about
their total years of experience in children’s work in public libraries, as well as the
number of years they had served in their present capacity.

Librarians were asked to write in the number of years they had worked in
children’s services in the public library. As seen in Table 8, total years of experience
in children’s service ranged from one year (9 responses) to 36 years (one response).

Although seven librarians did not respond to this question, the average years of

61

experience for the remaining 117 librarians was almost ten years (9.94) and the

median number was eight years.

Table 8.--Librarians’ Current and Total Children’s Service Experience

 

 

 

Total Years in Total Years in
Current Position Children’s Services
N % N %
< 2 Years 25 20.2 9 7.3
2 to 5 Years 21 16.9 21 16.9
> 5 < 10 Years 32 25.8 30 24.2
> 10 Years 43 34.7 ' 57 46.0
No Response 3 2.4 7 5.6
Totals 124 100.0 124 100.0

 

Table 8 indicates that 25 (20.2%) librarians have served in their current position
for less than two years, and another 21 (16.9%) have held the current position for
more than two years but less than five years. Of the librarians who have been in their
current position for more than five years, 32 (25.8%) have held that position for less
than ten years while the other 43 (34.6%) have been in their current position for more
than ten years.

As shown is Table 8, more than 45 percent of the librarians have had more than
ten years of experience in children’s service. Of those 57 librarians, 43 (75.0%) have

held their current position for more than ten years.

62
Children’s Library Design Practices

The data in this section are related to conditions in children’s libraries which
concern the design of the physical setting. The review of literature identified ease of
access (both visually and physically) as being directly related to the amount of time
children used classroom library corners. Table 9 presents the frequencies and
percentages of responses as they relate to the provisions for the ten suggested practices
in children’s libraries. Analysis of the data is organized and presented by
recommendations which are related to specific types of access. These are (1) Physical
Accessibility of the Children’s Library, (2) Visual Accessibility of the Children’s
Library, (3) Accessibility of Books for Pre-Readers, and (4) Accessibility of Charge
Out.

Physicaleccessibilitv of
The Chilergn’s Libim

Design practices related to ease of physical access for young children are
concerned with the entrance, location, and type of area. As stated in the review of
literature, conflicting recommendations concerning these and other practices can be
found. Separate entrances from the outside for direct access, ground floor locations
which eliminate stairs, and separate rooms, which also provide territoriality, can all

contribute to easier physical access for young children.

Separate Entry
As seen in Table 9, few libraries provide a separate entry for the children’s

library. All 124 respondents answered this question and only five (4.0%) libraries

63
Table 9.--Provisions for Suggested Practices in Children’s Libraries

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUGGESTED PROVISIONS FOR TOTAL
PRACTICES PRACTICE

CHETDIREN Provided Not Provided No Response

n % n % n % N %

Separate Entry 5 4.0 119 96.0 0 0.0 124 100.0
Ground Floor 104 83.9 20 16.1 0 0.0 124 100.0
Separate Room 43 34.7 81 65.3 0 0.0 124 100.0
Fully Visible 69 55.7 55 44.3 0 0.0 124 100.0
From Entry
Use Non-print 13 10.5 111 89.5 0 0.0 124 100.0
Signage
Use Adjustable 76 61.8 48 38.2 0 0.0 124 100.0
Dividers
Shelve Cover 10 8.1 112 90.3 2 1.6 124 100.0
Out
Use Book Bins 2 1.6 122 98.4 0 0.0 124 100.0
Separate 18 14.5 106 85.5 0 0.0 124 100.0
Charge Out
Charge Out 28 22.6 74 59.7 22 17.7 124 100.0
30" High or
Less

 

 

 

 

 

64

have a separate entry for the children’s library. Of those libraries using a separate
entry, three reported children’s services located on the ground floor, in a separate
room, one library reported children’s services on the ground floor but not in a separate
room, and one library reported children’s services located in a separate room in the

basement.

Location

A large majority, 104 (83.9%), of librarians reported that their children’s
library was located on the first or ground floor. Seventy-two libraries have first floor
children’s services by nature of the building type, as shown in Table 3. Of the 52
remaining libraries, 32 have located children’s services on ground level even though
they are not constrained by building type. As seen in Table 9, this is the most

common practice related to physical accessibility reported by the respondents.

Type of Area

Children’s libraries are located in separate rooms in 43 (34.7%) of the libraries
in the study. Of the 81 (65.3%) children’s libraries (shown in Table 9) not in separate
rooms, 23 (18.6%) are located in a separate area with obvious spatial dividers and 52
(41.9%) are housed in separate areas but have no obvious dividers. The remaining 6
(4.8%) libraries reported "other" for type of area. Of these, three librarians wrote in
brief remarks which indicated that they really didn’t have a space, "just some

bookshelves" and children "went wherever they could find a space".

65

Visual Accessibilig of
the Children’s Libra_ry

Design practices which provide children with visual access are concerned with
the visibility of the children’s library and the use of signage. As identified in the
review of literature, visual access, or being able to see what is available, is an

important factor in promoting and increasing reading activities.

Visibility of Children’s Library

Librarian’s were asked if the children’s library was clearly visible from the
children’s primary entry into the library. All 124 survey participants responded to this
question and 69 (55.7%) indicated that their children’s library could be seen from the
child’s main entrance. Of the 55 (44.3%) libraries (shown in Table 9) not providing
clear visibility of the children’s area, 28 (22.6%) responded that the area was partially

visible from the entry.

Non-Print Signage

The literature indicates that clear, easily identified signage is often lacking in
any library. Although explicit recommendations for non-print signage for the early
reader is not prevalent in the literature, the implications are there. As seen in Table 9,
the majority (89.5%) of librarians reported that their library did not provide signage
that could be understood by a pre-reader. Of the 13 (10.5%) librarians reporting the
use of signage understandable by pie-readers, only three indicated the use of non-print
graphics or pictograms, while the other nine cited the visibility (from the children’s

area) of identifiable children’s artifacts, such as stuffed animals or toys.

Accessibilig of Books
for Pre-Repders

Several recommendations for shelving and organizing easy readers and picture
books are found in the literature. While all of these are directed towards ease of
access for the young child, specific recommendations offer conflicting suggestions.
Recommendations range from shelving books in the standard, spine out manner, using
adjustable dividers which help keep books upright and in small accessible groupings,
shelving books with their covers facing out, and using book bins or book boxes.

As seen in Table 9, the large majority (90.3%) of libraries use the traditional
spine out method, as opposed to the cover out, for shelving their picture books and
easy readers. Only 10 (8.0%) libraries shelve books cover out and only 2 (1.6%) use
book bins instead of standard shelving. Of the 76 (61.8%) libraries using adjustable
dividers on the shelves, three are libraries which reported shelving books with their
covers facing out. This indicates that 39 libraries shelve books spine out and do not

use dividers.

Accessibilig of Charge Out

Library terminology refers to the circulation and checking out of books and
materials as charge out. The area or desk where this takes place is referred to as the
charge out desk. Recommendations related to charge out procedures for children
range from the use of a separate charge desk in the children’s library to use of the
same charge out desk as the adults. In addition, the literature may recommend

lowered heights for charge out desks used by children.

67
Charge Out Area

As seen in Table 9, the majority (85.5%) of libraries do not provide a separate
charge out desk or area for children. Of the 18 (14.5%) libraries that do provide an
area for children, 11 (8.8%) provide a separate charge out desk and 7 (5.7%) make

provisions for a designated children’s area at the adult charge out desk.

Charge Out Height

Librarians were asked to write in the minimum height of the charge out area
used by children. As seen in Table 9, only 28 (22.6%) libraries have children’s charge
out areas 30 inches high or less. This height was selected for two reasons.

1. When mentioned in children’s library literature, counter heights of 29 or 30
inches are the most often mentioned recommended heights.

2. It lies within the range of recommended low to high counter heights (22.5" -
34") for children six to eight years of age (Diffrient, Tillet, and Bardagjy 1981;
Panero and Zelnik 1979).

Reported heights ranged from a low of 18 inches (one report) to a high of 50 inches

(two reports). The calculated mean, median, and mode heights coincided at 36 inches

within one-tenth of an inch. The 36 inch height was reported 19 times, and the

second most often reported height (16 reports) was 40 inches.
Summary of Sample
This section has presented data related to the administrative structure and
conditions of the libraries, the children’s librarians, and the design practices in
children’s libraries. The majority of libraries are located in areas which have

populations of less than 25,000 people. The children’s department is open more than

40 hours per week and is staffed by two or fewer, full time librarians, who hold a

68
Master’s of Library Science degree and have ten years of children’s library experience.

The children’s library is most likely located on the ground floor of a one story library
building but is not in a separate room. Non-print signage is not provided, books are
shelved spine out, and children use the same charge out desk as adults which is most

likely 36 inches high.

The Research mestions

This section presents information related to the research questions. The data
presented were collected from both closed and Opened ended responses. These data
have been collected to provide descriptive information in order to answer questions of
what and how, as well as providing information in order to examine questions about
relationships between children’s librarians’ training and attitudes and the physical

facilities in children’s libraries.

Research Question One

Do children’s libra_rigns believe t_he librgrv’s physical environment can
influence outcomes related to libm objectives and goals? As discussed in the review
of library literature, there is limited information about the physical environment of the
children’s library. Little information is available related to children’s librarians’
awareness of and interest in the influences of the physical environment and behavior.

Librarians were asked to respond to three statements related to the physical
environment and its affect on outcomes. A five point Likert scale was used for each
statement with 1 indicating Strongly Disagree and 5 indicating Strongly Agree. All

124 librarians responded to the first two statements. Table 10 presents each statement,

69

its responses, and descriptive statistics. One hundred and ten (88.7%) librarians agreed
with the statement "the environment can affect attitudes" and 115 (92.7%) agreed that
"the environment can contribute to the perception of friendly service". Of the 123
librarians responding to "the physical environment can help a library reach its goals",
111 (89.5%) agreed with the statement. As seen in Table 10, mean scores for each of
the three statements were almost 4.5. Less than one percent of librarians disagreed

with these statements and no librarians strongly disagreed.

Research Question Two

Are children’s libra_rgns (ngnowledgeable about anc_1[or (b) interested in
learning about environmentg design fit is applicable to the child_ren’s librm?

 

Another purpose of this study was to determine if librarians were knowledgeable about
design and/or interested in learning about environmental design. The review of
literature did not indicate if librarians believed they were knowledgeable about
children’s library environments or if they were interested in environmental design
information. The literature also indicated that librarians draw from personal
knowledge and the "how I done my library good" articles which appear in professional

library journals.

Librarian Assessment of
Desigp Knowledge

While the majority of librarians indicate that they are aware of the influences
of the physical environment and believe that it can affect outcomes, only a minority

agree that they are personally knowledgeable about environmental design. Librarians

 

70

Table 10.--Library Agreement with Influence of the Physical Environment

 

STATEMENT

RESPONSES

Agree

 

(96)

(96)

(95)

(*0

TOTAL

(‘5)

MEAN

SD

 

The physical
environment

13
(10.5)

36
(29.0)

74
(59.7)

(0.0)

124
(100.0)

4.4758

.7153

that a person
experiences can
affect the
attitudes of that

person.

 

The physical 0 0 9 41 74 0 124 4.5242 .6307
environment (0.0) (0.0) (7.3) (33.0) (59.7) (0.0) (100.0)
can help
contribute the
perception of
friendly service.

 

The physical O l 11 44 67 l 124
environment of (0.0) (0.8) (8.9) (35.5) (54.0) (0.8) (100.0)
a library can
contribute to
reaching library
objectives and
goals.

4.4390 .6912

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: ‘ indicates missing responses

used a five point Likert scale, with l for Disagree Strongly and 5 for Agree Strongly,
to respond to a statement concerning their personal design knowledge. As seen in
Table 11, 62 (50%) librarians do not feel they are knowledgeable about design. Only
18 (14.5%) librarians indicated that they feel very knowledgeable about design. A
computed mean of 2.49, median of 2.0, and standard deviation of 1.00 indicates that
the majority of librarians do not feel they have a great deal of knowledge about

environmental design.

71

Table 11.--Librarians’ Assessment of Personal Design Knowledge

 

 

 

RESPONSES
Disagree Agree
STATEMENT
l 2 3 4 5 " TOTAL MEAN SD
n n n n n n N
(‘70) (9’0) (‘70) (95) (95) (‘70) (95)
I am very 22 40 43 15 3 1 124 2.488 1.003

knowledgeable (17.7) (32.3) (34.7) (12.1) (2.4) (0.8) (100.0)
about
environmental
design

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: "' indicates missing responses

Interest in Research Data

Librarians interested in learning more about environmental design might also use
research data as a source of information. Librarians were asked if they would make use
of this type of data to help make decisions about the children’s library environment, if
such data were made available to them. A comparison of responses in Table 12 shows
nearly similar frequency of responses between interest in using research data and interest
in attending workshops. While there is a positive relationship between librarians
interested in using research data and those interested in attending workshops, x2 (4,
n = 122) = 18.12, p < .01, only 69 of the 124 librarians indicated that they would be

interested in both the use of research data and attending workshops.

Interest in Workshops

Respondents were asked if they would be interested in participating in workshops
that would help them learn more about environmental design for children’s libraries. As
seen in Table 12, 86 (69.4%) librarians indicated that they would be interested in

attending these types of workshops. Although almost 30 percent of the respondents did

72

not respond affirmatively to this question, only 3 (2.4%) answered that they would not

be interested in attending, while the others were uncertain about their participation.

Table 12.—-Librarian Interest in Environmental Design

 

Specific Environmental Design Interest

 

 

 

Interest in Data Interest in Workshop
N % N %
Yes 87 70.2 86 69.4
Uncertain 34 27.4 34 27.4
No l 0.8 3 2.4
No Response 2 1.6 1 0.8
Totals 123 100.0 124 100.0

 

Interest in and Use of
Information Sources

The early observational study indicated that children’s librarians make decisions
and participate in activities which affect the physical environment of children’s libraries.
The review of literature indicated a lack of research based information about children’s
library environments. Table 13 shows librarians’ responses to questions about their
sources of environmental design information. As librarians appeared to be making
decisions about the physical environment of the library, their source of information was
of interest to the current study. Librarians were asked two questions about the specific

types of information sources they used.

73

1. What is your main source of information about environmental (interior) design and
the physical space in your children’s department?

2. If you needed information about environmental (interior) design to help change or

improve the physical space in your children’s department, which one of the
following sources would you use?

Table 13.--Children’s Librarians’ Sources of Environmental Design Information

 

Librarians’ Responses About Sources of
Environmental Design Information for:

 

 

 

Sources Main Information Specific Information
N % N %

Professional Library Journals 73 58.9 37 29.8

Education/Experience/Workshops 36 29.0 24 19.4

Librarians/Library Consultants 4 3.2 50 40.3

Other Sources 11 8.9 12 9.7

No Response 0 0.0 1 0.8
Totals 124 100.0 124 100.0

 

* NOTE: 7 of these were either architects or designers

Types of sources

As seen in Table 13, the majority of librarians, 73 (58.9%), reported professional
library journals were their main source of information about environmental (interior)
design and the children’s library environment and 36 (29%) reported the use of past
personal and/or educational experiences. When asked what source they would turn to if
they needed specific information to help make decisions about changes in the children’s

library environment, 37 (29.8%) librarians reported they would use professional library

74

journals and 24 (19.4%) reported they would use prior educational and personal
experiences or continuing education courses and workshops. Although architects and
designers were suggested as a source for specific children’s environment information, only
7 (5.6%) librarians selected either of these as a source, while 50 (40.3%) librarians

reported that they would turn to other librarians and library consultants.

Research Question Three

Do relationships exist between the imagine edtflrtion or the libram
participation in environmental design workshops and the librag'an’s: a) belief Mg
m1 environment carLaffect outcomes? b) interest in learning about environmental
desigp? c) source of information about children’s library environmentLand (1)
assessment of their pprsonal design knowledge? One objective of this study was to
identify relationships which might suggest areas for future study or methods for
presenting environmental design information to children’s librarians. Specifically, the
two primary librarian variables of interest are library education (MLS) and
participation in children’s environmental design (CED) workshops. These are of
interest to this study as they are seen as librarian variables which provide greater
opportunity for affecting changes, where as levels of education and years of experience

are not as controllable.

Environment Affects Outcomes
The point-biserial correlation coefficient was used to test for relationships between
having an MLS or not having such a degree and librarian belief that the physical

environment can affect outcomes. It was also used to test for relationship between

75

librarian participation in CED workshops and librarian belief that the physical
environment affects outcomes. As shown in Table 14, no significant relationships
between library education (MLS degree) and statements related to the affect of the
environment on outcomes were found.

As seen in Table 14, a significant relationship 0“,, = .194, p < .05) was found
between librarian participation in an environmental design workshop and librarian
belief that the physical environment can affect attitudes. Librarians who have
participated in CED workshops had a mean score of 4.77 (on a five point scale) when
indicating agreement with the statement related to environments affect attitudes. The
mean score concerning this statement for librarian’s not participating in CED
workshops was 4.41. In addition, for all three statements greater positive correlations
were associated with participation in design workshops than were associated with

library education.

Table 14.--Correlations Between MLS and CED and Environment Affects Outcomes

 

 

 

 

CORRELATIONS
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT AFFECT MLS CED
rp, n rp, n

The physical environment can affect attitudes -.081 123 +.194de 124
The physical environment can contribute to the -.107 123 +.O49 124
perception of friendly service

The physical environment can contribute to +.046 122 +.103 123
reaching library objectives and goals

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at p < .05

76

Interest in Epvironmentg Design

The Chi-square test of association was used to test for relationship between
having an MLS or not having such a degree and librarian interest in learning about
environmental design. The Chi-square was also used to test for relationship between
librarian participation in CED workshops or non participation in such workshops and
librarian interest in learning about environmental design. As seen in Table 15, there
are no significant differences between participation in CED workshops and interest
using design research or attending design workshops at the p < .05 level. A
significant difference, )8 (2, n = 121) = 6.769, p < .05, between interest in using
design research and library education does exist. Librarians with an MLS are more
likely to be interested in using design research, if it is made available to them, than

are librarians who have not earned an MLS.

Table 15.--Relationships Between MLS and CED and Interest in Environmental Design

 

COMPUTED CHI-SQUARES

 

 

INTEREST IN ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN MLS CED

)8 df x1 df
If made available, would be interested in using 6769* 2 1.539 2
environmental design research data
Would be interested in attending workshops to 1.664 2 1.562 2
learn about environmental design and children’s
library environments

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at p < .05

77

Information 80%

The Chi-square test of association was used to test for relationship between having
an MLS or not having such a degree and librarians’ choice of information sources about
children’s library environments. This test was also used to test for relationship between
librarian participation in CED workshops or non participation in such workshops and
librarians’ choice of information sources about children’s library environments. As seen
in Table 16, there are no significant differences between librarian participation in design
workshops and librarian choices for sources of information. A significant difference does
exist, )8 (4, n = 123) = 25.954, p < .01), between librarian education and the librarians
primary choice of information about children’s library environments. Those librarians
holding an MLS degree are more likely to turn to professional library journals for general
children’s environment information, while librarians without an MLS are more likely to

rely on past educational background and personal experience.

Table 16.-Relationships Between MLS and CED and Choice of Information Source

 

 

 

COMPUTED CHI-SQUARES
SOURCES FOR NEEDED INFORMATION MLS CED

x2 (If x2 (If
Source of information selected for general 25.954* 4 4.326 4
environmental design knowledge about the
children’s library
Source of information selected is specific 8.796 6 7.826 6
changes or improvements were to be made in
children’s library

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at p < .001

78
Design Knowledge

The point-biserial correlation coefficient was also used to test for relationships
between having an MLS or not having such a degree and the librarians’ assessment of
their own design knowledge. It was also used to test for relationship between
participating in a CED or not participating and the librarian’s assessment of their own
design knowledge. As shown in Table 17, while no significant relationship was found
between librarian education and assessment of design knowledge, a significant
relationship (rpb = .176, p < .05) was found between librarian participation in design
workshops and assessment of design knowledge. The mean rating for personal design
knowledge of librarians participating in CED workshops was 2.86 compared to a mean

rating of 2.41 for those librarians not participating in such workshops.

Table 17.--Correlations Between MLS and CED and Assessment of Design Knowledge

 

CORRELATIONS
MLS CED
r,,, n r,,, n

I am very knowledgeable about the topic of +.108 122 +.176* 123
environmental design

STATEMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at p < .05

79

Research Question Four

Do relat_ionships exist between the librajan’s agreement with Staggested desigp
practices related to the physical environment and reports of the practices being in
place in the children’s librm? Data collected from the observational library visits,
which served as the initiative for the current study, indicated that librarians were
responsible for the physical environment of the children’s library. The review of
literature suggested that librarians might base practices related to children’s service on
personal beliefs or assumptions about what should be provided for children. The
review, as well as the observational studies, also indicated that librarians were
responsible for the physical setting. This section will present data regarding librarian
responsibility for the library environment, librarian agreement with specific practices,
and the relationships between the librarian’s agreement and the existence of the
practices. Specifically, the ten practices related to physical and visual accessibility

(reported in the Description of the Sample) will be presented.

Re§p_onsibility for Librm

The survey asked two questions related to the responsibility for the physical
environment of the children’s library. One question asked librarians to indicate who
was primarily responsible for the design of the space when it was created and the
second question asked librarians to indicate who was primarily responsible for the on

going quality (day to day) of the children’s library environment.

80
Forty-seven (37.9%) librarians responded that they were responsible for the

design of the space when it was created while 44 (35.5%) indicated that a professional
architect, designer, or consultant had primary responsibility, and 32 (25.8%) did not
know. One librarian did not respond to this question.

In 97 (78.2%) libraries, a librarian working in children’s services has primary
responsibility for the on going quality of the children’s department. The remaining 27
(21.8%) librarians indicated that either no one was charged with this responsibility or

the custodial staff was responsible.

Librarian Aggeement with
Sflific Practices

Analysis of the data is based on librarian agreement with the ten recommended
practices reported in the description of the sample. Librarians used a five point Likert
scale, with 1 for Disagree Strongly and 5 for Agree Strongly, to indicate agreement or
disagreement. Table 18 presents the frequency of responses, percentages, calculated
means, and standard deviations of librarians, levels of agreement with these practices.
Analysis of the data are presented as in the Description of the Sample: 1) Physical
Accessibility of the Children’s Library, 2) Visual Accessibility of the Children’s
Library, 3) Accessibility of Books for Pre-Readers, and 4) Accessibility of Charge

Out.

81
Table 18.--Librarian Agreement with Specific Design Recommendations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSES
Disagree Agree
SUGGESTED
PRACTICE 1 2 3 4 5 " TOT AL MEAN SD
n n n n n n N
(%) (%) (95) (95) (95) (95) (9")
Separate Entry 32 26 50 9 4 3 124 2.377 1.061
(25.8) (21.0) (40.3) (7.3) (3.2) (2.4) (100.0)
Ground Floor 3 l 31 40 47 2 124 4.041 0.948
(2.4) (0.8) (25.0) (32.3) (37.9) (1.6) (100.0)
Separate Room 8 12 30 25 47 2 124 3.746 1.250
(6.6) (9.7) (24.2) (20.2) (37.9) (1.6) (100.0)
Fully Visible 2 1 27 41 50 3 124 4.124 0.899
From Entry (1.6) (0.8) (21.8) (33.1) (40.3) (2.4) (100.0)
Use Non-print 2 l 1 31 37 41 2 124 3.853 1.042
Signage (1.6) (8.9) (25.0) (29.8) (33.1) (1.6) (100.0)
Use Adjustable 1 3 24 36 54 6 124 4.178 0.902
Dividers (0.8) (2.4) (19.4) (29.0) (43.6) (4.8) (100.0)
Shelve Cover 5 23 59 25 10 2 124 3.098 0.940
Out (4.0) (18.5) (47.6) (20.2) (8.1) (1.6) (100.0)
Use Book Bins 19 33 47 12 9 4 124 2.658 1.096
(15.3) (26.6) (37.9) (9.7) (7.3) (3.2) (100.0)
Same Charge 10 20 58 16 16 4 124 3.067 1.083
Out As Adults (8.1) (16.1) (46.8) (12.9) (12.9) (3.2) (100.0)
Charge Out 30" l 6 58 31 20 8 124 3.543 0.869
High or Less (0.8) (4.8) (46.8) (25.0) (16.1) (6.5) (100.0)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: "' indicates missing responses

82

Physical Accessibility of
the Children’s Library

Table 18 presents descriptive statistics related to librarian agreement with
recommended physical accessibility practices for children’s libraries. These are
provisions for a separate entry, location on the ground floor, and a separate room.

Separate engy. While 13 (10.5%) librarians agreed with this recommendation,
only 5 (4.0%) libraries provide a separate entry. Fifty-eight (46.8%) librarians did not
agree that a separate entry should be provided. As seen on Table 18, of the three
recommendations related to physical accessibility, provisions for a separate entrance
received the fewest number of "agrees", the most number of "disagrees", and the
lowest mean score (X = 2.377).

Location. Not only do the majority (87) of librarians agree with the
recommendation for locating children’s services on the ground floor, but of the three
recommendations related to physical accessibility the fewest (4) disagree. Of the three
design recommendations, this is also the design practice that the largest number (104)
of libraries provide (see Table 9).

Tm of area. Seventy-two (58.1%) librarians agree that the children’s library
should be located in a separate room. As seen on Table 18, the majority of librarians
agree that a separate room should be provided. As shown on Table 9, only 43

(34.7%) of the libraries actually provide this type of area for children.

83

Visual Accessibility of
the Children’s Library

Table 18 presents descriptive statistics related to librarian agreement with
recommended visual accessibility practices for children’s libraries. These are
provisions for the visibility of the children’s library and non-print signage.

Visibility of childrlgr’s librag. Visibility of the children’s library from the
children’s primary entrance into the library is a recommendation frequently found in
the library literature. The large majority (91) of librarians agreed with this
recommendation and only three librarians disagreed. This resulted in the second
highest mean score (X = 4.124) of the ten recommendations and the largest number
of librarians who agreed with any of the recommendations.

Non-print sigpage. As mentioned in the description of the sample, only three
libraries actually provide non-print signage. A comparison of Tables 10 and 18 shows
that six times as many librarians agree with the recommendation for providing non
print signage than report the actual practice. While 78 (62.9%) librarians agree that
signage should be provided which a pre-reader can understand, as shown on Table 18,
only 13 (10.5%) libraries provide this feature.

Accessibility of Books
for Pre-Readers

Table 18 presents descriptive statistics related to librarian agreement with
recommendations for shelving books for pro-readers. These are provisions for

adjustable dividers on shelves, shelving books cover out, and using book bins.

84

Dividers. As seen on Table 18, 90 (72.6%) librarians agree with the
recommendation for using adjustable dividers (which indicates the traditional practice
of shelving books with their spines out) with picture books. This recommendation
received the second largest number of "agrees" and the highest mean score (X =
4.178).

Cover out. Although less than 30 percent of the librarians agree with the
recommendation for shelving books with their covers out, an even lower percentage
(22.5%) disagreed. A comparison of Tables 11 and 18 indicates that there are more
librarians (35) who agree with the practice than there are libraries (10) who have
implemented this practice.

Book bins. Only 21 (17.0%) librarians agree with the recommendation of using
bins or boxes for picture books for pre-readers, while 52 (41.9%) disagreed. Of the
three practices related to shelving books, not only did the fewest number of librarians
agree with this recommendation, but this recommendation received the second lowest

(X = 2.658), mean score and the least number (2) of libraries use this practice.

Accessibility of Charge Out

Table 18 presents descriptive statistics related to librarian agreement with
recommendations related to accessibility of charge out for children. These are
provisions for the children’s charge out area and the height of the children’s charge
out counter.

Charge out area. Recommendations for children’s charge out areas range from

a separate desk in the children’s area to use of the same counter which adults use.

85

Librarians were asked if they agreed with the recommendation that children use the
same charge out area which adults used. The largest number of librarians (58) neither
agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. This suggested practice resulted in an
almost equal numbers of librarians who agreed (32) and librarians who disagreed (30).
No other recommendation resulted in as nearly equal number of librarian agreements
and disagreements.

Charge out height. Few, 7 (4.8%), librarians disagreed with the
recommendation that children’s charge out desks should be 30 or less inches high.
While 41.1% of librarians agree with this recommendation, only 22.6% (see Table 12)
of the libraries actually provide children’s charge out areas with counter heights 30
inches or less.

Correlations Between Librarian
Amment and Library Practice

Table 19 presents the correlations between librarian agreement with the ten
specific practices and the practices being in place in the children’s library. The
number and percentage of libraries providing the practice and the number and
percentage of librarians agreeing with the practice (total number of librarians who
marked a 4 or 5 on the Likert scale) are also given. A significant level of relationship
between agreement with the practice and the existence of the practice was found for
four of the recommendations. These were provisions for a separate room, use of
adjustable dividers on shelves, use of the same charge out desk for both children and

adults, and visibility of the children’s area from the children’s primary entrance.

Table 19.--Correlations Between Agreement With and Existence of Practices

86

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARIES LIBRARIANS CALCULATED
PROVIDING AGREEING CORRELATIONS
SUGGESTED PRACTICE WITH
PRACTICE FOR PRACTICE

CHILDREN’S <7 , %, r n

LIBRARIES " ° “ ,1
Separate Room 43 34.7 72 58.1 +.425* 122
Adjustable Dividers 76 61.8 90 72.6 +.416* 117
Same Charge-Out 106 85.5 32 25.8 +.298* 120
Desk As Adults
Children’s Library 69 55.7 91 73.4 +.198* 122
Visible From Entry
Children’s Library Has 5 4.0 13 10.5 +.l21 123
Separate Entry
Easy Reader Books 10 8.1 35 28.3 +.108 122
Shelved Cover Out
Children’s Library On 104 83.9 87 70.2 +.067 122
Ground Floor
Non-Print Signage 13 10.5 78 62.9 -.002 122
Used
Charge-Out Desk 30" 28 22.6 51 41.1 -.019 99
High or Less
Book Bins Used For 2 1.6 21 17.0 ---- ----
Easy Readers

 

 

 

 

' Percentage calculated on total sample, N = 124

* Significant at p < .05

87

Separate room. Of the ten recommendations, provisions for a separate room for
children’s service resulted in the strongest correlation (er = +.425, p < .05). Although
this resulted in the strongest correlation, this practice did not have the largest number
of librarians who agreed with it nor the greatest number of libraries which provided
this recommended practice. A comparison of librarian agreement with the practice (72
agree) to actual practice (43 existing) indicates that only 59.7 percent of librarians who
agree with the use of a separate room actually have a separate room for children’s
services. Library literature which recommends this practice suggests that a separate
room is preferable since the noise from children’s activities may otherwise place
constraints on children’s services. Those who do not recommend this practice argue
that the separate room promotes segregation and that children may not feel welcome in
the adult library and may not grow up to be library users as adults.

Mega. The use of adjustable dividers is associated with shelving books with
their spines out and dividers can be used to (a) keep books upright and (b) arrange
books in small, manageable groups. As discussed previously, library literature may
recommend the use of book bins or cover out shelving for books for pre-readers.
However, when shelving books spine out is discussed, the use of adjustable dividers is
almost always recommended. Although provisions for adjustable dividers on shelves
resulted in the second highest correlation of medium Strength (rpb = +.416, p < .05), a
comparison of librarians’ agreement with this recommendation (90 agrees) to actual
practice (76 existing) indicates the broad acceptance of this practice, as 84.4 percent of

librarians who agree with the practice provide adjustable dividers for shelving books.

88

Charge out area. Of the ten recommended practices used for data analysis, use
of the same charge out area for children and adults was the most frequently reported
(106 reports) existing practice. Library literature which suggests this practice is
primarily based on function and existing library conditions. Limited library staff and
irregular patterns of use frequently require a single librarian to meet the needs of both
the adult and child users. This necessitates a central area, which may be used for
charge out, information services, and librarian visibility. While this recommendation
resulted in a significant level of correlation (er = +.298, p < .05), a comparison of
librarians who agree with this recommendation (32 agrees) to actual practice (106
existing) indicates that fewer than one-third (30.2%) of the librarians using the same
charge out desk for children and adults actually agree with the practice. Although
almost no correlation exists between agreement and actual practice concerning the
height of the children’s charge out desk, note in Table 19 the differences in agreement
and actual practice between charge out height and charge out area. A lower charge
out height for children is a recommendation based on accommodating children rather
than providing for library function. Not only do more librarians agree with the
recommendation for lower charge out height than agree with use of the same charge
out desk, but almost twice as many librarians agree with the lower height
recommendation than report that this is provided.

Visibifity of children’s librg. This recommendation is frequently mentioned in
the library literature and addresses issues related to library function and concerns about
accommodating children. Clear visibility from the entry can provide children with

clear paths, safety, and support wayfinding while providing visual control for

89

librarians. Of the four practices which resulted in significant levels of relationship,
clear visibility of the children’s area from the entry resulted in the weakest correlation
(rpb = +.198, p < .05) but had the highest number (91) of librarians who indicated
agreement. In addition, questions concerning the existence of this practice also
produced the least clear objective answers. Twenty-eight librarians indicated that the
children’s area was partially visible. These responses were recorded as being a
negative response to the question (not an existing practice) as the response of partially
visible was open to individual interpretation.

In addition to the correlations presented in Table 19, several other points should
be mentioned. For eight of the ten practices, more librarians agreed with the
recommendation than reported that the actual practice was in place in their library. In
one of the two cases where more libraries provided the practice than librarians agreed
with the practice (use of same charge out desk), the recommendation is based on
library needs (function) rather than user needs (accommodation). No correlation is
shown for the practice related to the use of book bins for picture books and easy
readers. Only two librarians reported the actual use of book bins, and one of these
librarians did not indicate a response about agreement or disagreement with this

practice.

mum

This chapter has presented the analysis of the data as it concerns the current

study. A description of the sample, which included both the libraries and the

90

children’s librarians, and children’s library design practices was reported. Data related

to each of the four specific research questions were also presented.

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter presents a summary of the study and discusses the findings as
they relate to the research questions. Recommendations for future research directions
are also presented. The chapter is organized as follows: (1) Summary, (2) Limitations
of Study, (3) Discussion of Findings, and (4) Conclusions, Significance, and

Recommendations.

mam

The primary purpose of this study was to develop the beginnings of an
information base related to existing environmental practices in children’s public
libraries and librarians’ knowledge, awareness, interest, and attitudes about
environmental design and the promotion of reading. This study was also concerned
with exploring the feasibility of future research in this area and the directions which
such research could take.

The library has long been associated with encouraging the young child to read.
Children’s librarians have always indicated an interest in producing a literate
population, and their service to children is based on the goal of attracting children to
the library in order to encourage reading, develop a love of good books, and a lifelong
interest in reading. Historically, this has been accomplished through the provision of a

good collection, a concerned staff, and more recently community outreach programs

91

92

and activities. Over the past twenty to thirty years, research studies in the fields of
environmental design and reading theory have gathered evidence which indicates that
the environment in which reading takes place must be considered as well. It is a basic
assumption of this study that environments affect attitudes, which in turn affect
reading interest and ability. Although limited studies have been conducted in this
area, available research indicates that elements within a reading environment and the
arrangement of those elements, can contribute to a child’s interest in reading and
affect reading activities.

These ideas, coupled with the interest in promoting reading, would suggest that
librarians would be concerned about designing environments which provide a positive
influence and, in order to do so, would be interested in applying the knowledge and
research from the fields of environmental design and reading education. However, no
such studies or information were located. While the proposition of this study, that the
physical environment can contribute to the reading process, suggests that experimental
studies related to library environments and reading attitude development should be
conducted, the lack of an information base necessitated a more fundamental study.
This study was exploratory in nature in order to provide normative data and answers
to basic research questions on which future studies can be built.

In order to provide this information base, a self report questionnaire was
developed and sent to librarians working in children’s service in the public library.
The survey was designed to collect data related to existing conditions and practices in
children’s libraries, as well as data related to the children’s librarians’ interest in the

promotion of reading and the physical environment. Using random sampling

93

techniques, approximately 30 percent of all public libraries in Michigan were selected
for the survey. Of the 197 surveys mailed to librarians, 124 usable questionnaires were
returned. The data, presented and analyzed in Chapter Four, has been used to answer
the research questions and draw some basic study conclusions and develop

recommendations for future courses of action and research activities.

Limigations of Stpdy

Due to budget constraints this study dealt only with children’s library
environments in public libraries in Michigan. The public librarians who responded
represent a wide range of levels of education and the majority of respondents had
Master’s of Library Science degrees. As most of the librarians with a MLS had
graduated from Schools of Library Science in Michigan, a wide variety of library
science schools was not represented. While the data is considered to be
generalizable, a wider national survey would provide a stronger basis for the
generalizability of the results.

This study looked at the children’s library environment as a whole which
provides service to children of all ages and reading abilities - from the youngest pre-
reader to the academically advanced twelve year old. While the theoretical framework
of this study focuses on the reading environment as it affects the young child’s
attitudes toward reading, it is difficult to identify the pre and early reader’s specific
library environments within the larger environment. The public library philosophy

promotes freedom of access to services for all users. Therefore, survey research

94

related to the physical environment must have a holistic approach to provide for the

overlapping usages that may occur.

Discussion of Findings
In this section, discussion of the findings are presented as they relate to the
each of the four individual research questions. General conclusions and
recommendations which are based on these findings will be presented in the last

section of the chapter.

Research Question One

Do childrfl’s libra_ri_ans believe Jthe libra_py’s physical environment cap
influence outcomes related to ILmTLObiOCtiV/CS and goals? Results indicate that
librarians do believe that the physical environment can influence outcomes. As seen
in Table 10, for each of the three statements related to this question, approximately 90
percent of the librarians indicated their agreement and, in each case, more than 50
percent of the respondents strongly agreed that the physical environment can influence
outcomes.

While the large majority of librarians agreed with statements related to the
influence of the physical environment, comments made by several librarians suggest
that books and staff may still be perceived to be more important than the physical
setting. One librarian included as a general comment "the environment can be very
important and help or hurt your program but staffing is even more critical. Without

adequate staff . . . you can’t do much regardless of the magnificence of your

95

surroundings." Another librarian wrote "friendly service can make the physical
environment not as important". Comments such as these may indicate that while
librarians agree that the physical environment may affect outcomes, they are not aware
of the subtle, pervasive influence (David 1974) which the physical environment may
have on users’ behaviors, attitudes, and development. These comments also reflect
Barker’s (1977) study conclusions which emphasized the ability of a good program to
transcend poor physical facilities.

These findings suggest that although librarians believe that the physical
environment affects outcomes, when considering children’s services they do not
perceive it as important as programs, materials, and staffing. This may be one

explanation for the lack of library-based research related to the physical environment.

Research Question Two

Are children’s librarians (a) knowledgeable about environmental desigp as it is

applicable to the children’s librm? As seen in Table 11, very few librarians agreed

that they were very knowledgeable about the topic of environmental design and
exactly 50% (62) of respondents indicated that they did not feel very knowledgeable
about design for the children’s library. Several librarians wrote in comments
regarding their personal design knowledge. One librarian indicated strong personal
knowledge of environmental design, which was based on experience rather than formal
training, and wrote in a comment about the desire to move into children’s library
design consultation. Four librarians wrote in comments which expressed their lack of

design knowledge and the limited exposure to this topic during their library training

96

and course work (MLS). One of these four librarians, added and circled a "0" (zero)
to the Likert scale and penciled in "this topic was never mentioned in my college
library training". It appears that as a group, children’s librarians do not feel
particularly knowledgeable about library design and this may also be an explanation
for the lack of library-based research related to the physical environment.

Are child_ren’s librarians (b) interested in learning about environmental desigp
as it is applicable to yhe childgen’s librapy? It appears that children’s librarians are
interested in learning about environmental design and its application to the children’s
library setting. A majority (70.0%) of the respondents indicated that they were
interested in using design research if it were made available to them, and a majority
were interested in participating in environmental design workshops related to
children’s libraries. Less than three percent responded that they were not interested or
did not respond. In addition, over 55 percent of the librarians indicated that they were
interested in both research data and design workshops.

One objective of this study was to help determine if further research about
children’s library environments is feasible. Librarian interest in this research topic
would be one indication that such continued research is feasible. If librarian interest
exists, it is likely that librarians would be more receptive to learning about
environmental design. In addition, having data about specific types of interest and
sources of information related to these interests would also help guide future research.

Approximately 25 percent of the librarians responded that they were uncertain
if they would use data or participate in design workshops. Although not conclusive,

13 written comments added by the librarians marking "uncertain" suggest that other

97

considerations, rather than lack of interest, may account for "uncertain responses".
Two librarians who marked "uncertain" as their response to attending workshops
commented that "it depends on what the topic would be" and "I would be interested
about some subjects but not about others [such as] displays and posters". One
librarian wrote in that the response was marked as "uncertain" because it depended on
the distance to the workshop, "1 would probably attend if I didn’t have to travel too
far". Two comments related to the use of design research data indicated that the [
response was marked as "uncertain" because the respondents were not sure if there '1‘
was any cost involved.
Findings related to librarians’ interest in and use of information sources
indicate that although librarians are interested in information about the children’s
library environment, fewer than ten percent of the librarians use other than library-
based sources for environmental design information. The sources used by the great
majority (90%) of librarians are professional library literature, other librarians and
library consultants, or personal library education and experience. This may help to
explain the observational finding which concluded that many library practices conflict
with or ignore environmental design research and design recommendations. The
review of library literature indicated that there was limited environmental design
research and information available, yet the majority of librarians report that

professional library journals are their primary source for such information.

98

Research Question Three

Do reLationships exist between the libra_r_i_an’s education or the librarian’s
participation in environmental design workshops and the librarian’s (a) belief that the
physical environment cap_ affect outcomes? (b) interest in legning about environmental
dLsign? (c) scarce of information about children’s library environments? a_ngl_(_c_l)_
assessment of their pprsonal design knowledge? Findings indicate that several
significant relationships exist. Librarian education (MLS) was found to be related to
two variables and librarian participation in environmental design workshops (CED)

was found to be related to two variables.

Librarian Education

Librarian education was found to be related to librarian interest in using
environmental design research and librarian choice of information source. As seen on
Table 15, there is a significant difference, )6 (2, n = 121) = 6.769, p < .05, in interest
in using design research between librarians who have an MLS education and librarians
who do not have not had this education. As shown in Table 16, a significant
difference, x2 (4, n = 123) = 25.954, p < .01), was also found in choice of information
source between librarians who have an MLS education and librarians who do not have
not had this education. Librarians who had earned an MLS were more likely to
indicate an interest in using environmental design research data and to use professional

library journals as a source of information than librarians who had not earned an MLS.

99
Environmental Desigp Workshops

 

Participation in environmental design workshops was found to be related to
librarian belief that the physical environment affects outcomes and personal assessment
of design knowledge. As seen in Table 14, a significant relationship <er = .194,

p < .05) was found between librarian participation in an environmental design
workshop and librarian belief that the physical environment can affect attitudes. As
seen Table 17, a significant relationship (rP, = .176, p < .05) was also found to exist
between librarian participation in design workshops and assessment of design
knowledge. Those librarians who had participated in a CED were more likely to agree
or strongly agree that the physical environment affects attitudes and agree or strongly
agree that they were knowledgeable about environmental design than librarians who
had not participated in a CED.

One objective of this study was to identify areas for future study or methods
for presenting environmental design information to children’s librarians. The findings
related to the MLS indicate that environmental design information applicable to
children’s libraries should be submitted to professional library journals for publication.
Not only do librarians with an MLS use these journals as their primary source of
information, but they indicate that they are interested in using environmental design
research data. One area for future research is the development of environmental
design workshops (CED) for librarians. This might be an alternative method for
presenting design information to librarians who do not hold an MLS, as these
librarians were more likely to choose personal education and experience as their

primary source of information rather than professional library journals. Development

100

of environmental design workshops for children’s librarians could also be used to

guide future research. Specific areas to be investigated include:

1. If there is a relationship between participation in a CED and awareness that the
physical environment affects outcomes, does such participation affect the
librarian’s practices in the children’s library environment?

2. If there is a relationship between participation in a CED and librarian

assessment of their design knowledge, does increased design knowledge affect
the librarian’s practices in the children’s library environment?

Research Question Four

rm—“r

Do relationships exist between the librarian’s aggeement with suggested desigp
metices related to the physical environment and reports of the pmafices bow
wee in tIhe children’s library? As one objective of this study was to identify areas for
future study, relationships between librarian belief in a practice and that practice being
in place were of interest. If such relationships do exist, future studies could focus on
these relationships. One consideration of such relationships is the idea that a
librarian’s belief (or agreement) with a particular practice might determine if that
practice was implemented in the children’s library. If relationships do not exist, future
research could focus on determining what factors might contribute to the
implementation of specific practices in children’s libraries.

Although data analysis identified four significant relationships, as shown in
Table 19, between agreement with a practice and the existence of that practice,
findings indicate no identifiable pattern between design recommendations where
significant relationships exist and where they do not exist. Neither numbers of

librarians who agreed with the practice, numbers of libraries where the practice

lOl

existed, or existence of recommendations based on traditional library practices could
be identified as a predictor of the existence of a relationship. The strongest
correlation, a separate room for children, (rP, = .425, p < .05, Table 19) ranked only
fifth in numbers of libraries providing the recommendation and fifth in numbers of
librarians who agreed with it. Both location on the ground floor and visibility from
the entry are widely used, library-based recommendations. However, no significant
relationship was established in the case of the recommendation for a ground floor
location, while a significant relationship (er = .198, p < .05, Table 19) was found
between practice and agreement when visibility from the entry was correlated. The
recommendation (same charge out) with the third fewest numbers of librarians
agreeing resulted in a significant relationship (rpb = .298, p < .05, Table 19), while the
recommendations (on ground floor) with the third largest number of librarians agreeing
did not result in any significant relationship. As seen on Table 19, provisions for non-
print signage had the fourth highest number of librarians agreeing but resulted in
almost no relationship.

Findings do not seem to support the study consideration that librarian’s
agreement with (or belief in) a design recommendation may result in the
implementation of the specific practice. This can be used to guide future research to

help determine why practices with which librarians agree are not implemented.

102

Conclusions, Significance and Recommendations

This section presents study conclusions, significance of the study, and

recommendations for actions that might be taken as well as suggestions for future

research.

Conclusions

A number of conclusions have been reached based on the information gathered

and the review of literature.

1.

Librarians are primarily responsible for the on-going quality and maintenance
of their children’s library environment. They are also interested in providing,
supportive library environments for children and in learning about
environmental design. They are well educated, and are aware that the physical
environment can affect outcomes.

There appears to be a lack of communication between professionals in the
fields of library science and environmental design. This creates not only
misunderstandings but also a lack of research information from being
exchanged. Misunderstandings seem to exist between what is meant by design
and environmental design. There seems to be a misunderstanding that design
involves the aesthetic and how things look. As one librarian included in the
general comments section "too much concern is placed on how a library looks
rather than how it functions". The review of library literature indicated a lack
of research based environmental design information, and yet the survey
indicated that the librarian’s primary choice for obtaining such information was
library literature. '

Libraries, like all public institutions, have major budget constraints, which often
influence what is done and the librarians’ perception of what they can afford to
do. This may lead librarians to reject or avoid consideration of design related
activities and recommendations which might be useful. This stems from a
misunderstanding, related to what design is, which seems to have lead
librarians to assume that design is expensive. Thirteen general comments by
librarians were related to money and staff limitations which they felt made
improvements difficult. As one librarian wrote "we would like to provide a
good atmosphere for our children but don’t have the space . . . or people [staff]
we need . . . .Our budget is cut every year".

103

Opportunities for training related to environmental design, either in formal
school work or library sponsored workshops, are limited. Course work that
does exist focuses more on specific physical features and the facilities aspects
rather than on the environmental setting and users’ needs. Workshops related
to environmental design primarily focus on the creation and implementation of
displays and exhibits or furniture selection for the children’s library.

There appears to be a great deal of interest among librarians in learning about
environmental design and how to use this information in the planning and
management of their children’s libraries. This conclusion is based on both
survey responses related to librarians interest in taking environmental design
workshops and using available information, as well as a number of comments
that librarians included with their surveys.

"I wonder if the issues raised by this questionnaire don’t point toward the need
for a youth services consultant at the Library of Michigan."

"I’m glad to see a survey like this is being conducted. I hOpe more people
realize how important it is to have an environment that is conducive to
children’s development and learning."

"Up to now I have not given it a great deal of thought other than the obvious.
But after answering these questions, I will be on the alert for ways to improve
the environment for my children and to learn more about its importance for
when we move into a new building."

Significance of Study
This study can be considered significant for three specific reasons as follows:

It provides empirical data which indicates that children’s librarians are
interested in the physical environment of their children’s library, establishes
normative data about existing practices and librarian agreement with specific
practices, and suggests that future research in this area as it is of interest to
librarians is feasible.

It appears that it may have contributed to librarian awareness about the affect
of the library’s physical environment on the children who use this setting. This
is important as it may not only directly affect current practices and decisions
related to children’s library environments but it may also create librarians who
are more receptive to future research activities in this area.

104
3. The study also suggests future directions that this area of inquiry might take.

These activities as well as suggestions for research studies are presented in the
following recommendations.
Recommendations

Recommendations are based on the findings of this study as they relate to the
current study’s Focal Problem Model and the review of literature. These
recommendations include actions and programs which could be immediately initiated
as well as implications for future research directions.

The Focal Problem Model, shown in Figure 4, illustrates the interrelationships
between individuals involved in the design of the children’s library, their sources of
information, and the physical setting. The model indicates that participants
communicate, or interrelate with one another, and that they draw from information
sources which can provide opportunities for shared knowledge. Librarians reported
that they were interested in their children’s library setting and would be receptive to
environmental design information if it were made available to them. However,
findings indicate that communication gaps exist between designers and children’s
librarians and between the sources of information which these participants use.

The great majority of librarians reported that their primary sources of
information were professional library journals and other librarians. The review of
literature indicated that environmental design information related to children’s

environments and the promotion of reading is located outside of the library literature.

 

105

Although few librarians (22, 17.7%) reported participation in a children’s
environmental design workshop (CED), findings indicated that such participation did
have an affect on the librarian’s assessment of personal design knowledge and belief
that the physical environment affects attitudes. In addition to bridging information
gaps, such workshops might also serve to heighten librarians’ awareness of the affect
of the physical environment on user’s attitudes and behaviors.

Findings also indicate little correlation between formal library education (MLS) h
and librarian assessment of personal design knowledge. As more than 50 percent of
the librarians in this study have earned an MLS, library curriculum development
related to environmental design could also help to establish shared information sources
and encourage communication between design participants.

In order to bridge these information gaps and provide a common body of
knowledge recommendations for implementation of activities and programs are as
follows:

1. Professionals involved in the field of environmental design research should
begin to direct available information, applicable to the promotion of reading
attitudes and children’s library environments, to the information sources most
often used by children’s librarians, namely, professional library journals, other
librarians, and library consultants.

2. Lines of communication between environmental designers and researchers and
children’s librarians must be established and kept open. Inclusive in this must
be the recognition of each discipline’s unique knowledge, needs, and
contributions as they relate to the promotion of reading in children and the
development of a literate population.

3. Opportunities for workshops, and access to information, evaluative research,

and consultants related to children’s environmental design needs and issues
should be made available to all interested librarians.

106

4. Interdisciplinary research and curriculum development among environmental
designers and library educators should be initiated in order to:

a. Provide wider and more relevant environmental design course work
opportunities during formal librarian training.

b. Stimulate evaluation and related research activities.

c. Establish a base of specific design recommendations to guide the
planning and design of children’s library environments.

The review of literature indicated a need for research for all children’s
environments. Children’s environments are most often designed by adults with little
input from children (Baird and Lutkus 1978; Madeja 1974; Miller 1981; Ziegler and
Andrews 1987). Although there is limited research available related to children’s
environmental preferences there is evidence that children have different preferences
than adults (Kaplan 1985).

Ekechukwu (1972) found that children with negative attitudes toward the
library were less likely to use the library and other studies (Campbell and Shlecter
1979; D’Elia and Walsh 1983) found that the physical environment had an affect on
user’s attitudes toward the library. Reading research (Coody 1973; Huck 1976;
Morrow 1982) which focused on use of classroom library comers found that ease of
accessibility was related to children’s increased use. In empirical research conducted
by Morrow and Weinstein (1982), changes in the physical setting were found to
increase children’s use of literature. In addition, Morrow and Weinstein also found
that changes in the physical setting were as affective as were changes in the reading

program or curriculum. These findings will be used as a guide on which to base

107

research related to the physical setting in children's libraries, particularly as they relate
to recommended future research questions one and two below.

The findings of the current study indicate that children's librarians provide
reading environments for young children although they feel they have limited
knowledge about environmental design. The review of literature indicates that
librarians' primary sources for design information do not currently provide this type of
information. Additionally, the review of literature indicated that little available
environmental design research related to the promotion of reading and the children's
library environment exists. Although the review of literature provided a great deal of
anecdotal information and suggestions related to children's library environments, no
empirical data was located to support these suggestions. In addition, suggested
practices were often contradictory. Recommended normative practices need to be
identified to provide guidelines for the planning, design, and maintenance of children's
library environments. Such research must be conducted. Research is needed

immediately which answers the following questions:

1. To what extent does the physical environment of children's libraries affect
children's attitudes toward reading? Toward the library and the use of
libraries?

2. What specific elements, features, and design practices should be included in a

children's library environment? What ones should not? Do these practices
make a difference in children's attitudes towards reading or use of the library?

3. How can the physical environment in the children's library promote library
services, programs, and needs? How can it hinder these services, programs,
and needs?

4. Does awareness of children's environmental needs affect librarians' agreement
with specific library design practices? Does it affect their implementation of
these practices?

108

5. Are librarians more likely to agree with practices which are drawn from
traditional library-based literature rather than practices which are drawn from
environmental design literature?

6. Why are specific design practices with which librarians agree not implemented?
To what degree does the librarian’s budget, awareness, knowledge, or
empowerment affect the implementation?

Summary
It is essential for librarians who work with children to examine both the
practical and functional ways in which their library environments are designed as well
as the influences that these environments have on the attitudes and behaviors of the
children. For it is these attitudes which may guide, direct, and even determine the rest
of a child’s development and adult life. "If the children’s library is to be a stimulating
center of learning activities that leads to reading, it takes the brainstorming of many

people - children, teachers, parents, and citizens who have no children - as well as

their time, talents, materials, and know how" (Larrick, 1976, 28).

APPENDD( A

COVER LETTER
Dear Children’s Librarian:

At the present time, a survey related to the physical environment and children’s library service
is being conducted within Michigan Public Libraries. As a librarian working in Children's Service
your input is vitally needed. Will you please help in developing a more accurate picture regarding
children’s library environments by completing the enclosed survey? The survey will take
approximately 20 to 30 minutes to complete. While this may extend your already busy work
schedule, the information provided may help to contribute to the promotion of reading and other
children’s library programs directed towards combating the growing illiteracy and school drop out
rates.

As a professional librarian you are a member of an increasing number of professionals and lay
persons concerned about the growing illiteracy rates in the United States. In an effort to address
this problem, attention has been focused on both adult illiteracy programs and programs that
promote reading and reading readiness in young people.

One area that has not yet received much attention is the physical environment and the affect it
may have on a child’s attitudes towards reading. Current research indicates that attitudes toward
reading can affect reading ability, and there is also evidence to indicate that the physical
environment can affect a person’s attitudes and behavior. Researchers in the disciplines of
Environment and Behavior, Social Psychology, and Environmental Design are interested in how
their knowledge might best be used and also in determining how much other disciplines know
about this particular subject.

While there is a great deal of anecdotal information related to the physical environment in
children’s library departments there is little concrete information available. An intensive review
of literature also indicates that the bulk of research information about library design is not directed
towards children’s service. Your cooperation, while voluntary, will help develop a more accurate
picture of existing children’s library departments. Participation will also provide the opportunity
for your professional input regarding the planning, design, operation, and management of the
library’s physical environment.

The results of this research will assist environmental designers, library professionals, and others
to work together in a more interdisciplinary manner when dealing with children’s library
environments. This may help promote reading and children’s use of library services while
ensuring library users for the future. Thank you for your time and assistance.

Sincerely,

Pamela T. Banduric

Specialist, Human Environment and Design

109

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE

READING PLACES:
THE CHILDREN’S LIBRARY ENVIRONMENT
IN THE PUBLIC LIBRARY

 

This survey consists of four parts. Part I asks for information about the physical features
of your library and, in particular, those that concern children’s services. Parts II and III
are concerned with your opinions, ideas, and input about library environments and how
they affect your children’s services, programs, objectives, and goals. Part IV deals with
your library education and training.

Your input, while voluntary, can greatly enhance the outcome of this survey. The survey
is designed to protect the anonymity of each respondent. Codes on the return envelopes
will only be used to track returns so that respondents need not be mailed follow-up
questionnaires. No identijying linkages are used to connected respondents with their
questionnaires. Reports of research findings will not associate individual respondents
with specific responses or information.

The questionnaire should take approximately 20-30 minutes to complete. You indicate
your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire.
Please return the completed questionnaire in the enclosed stamped envelope. If you
would like a summary of results of the survey please check the space marked
"SUMMARY OF RESULTS REQUESTED" that is printed on the return envelope.

If there are any questions or further information is needed, please contact the research
investigator: Pamela Banduric, 204 Human Ecology, Department of Human Environment
and Design, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1030, (517) 353-
0794 or (517) 351-9341.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

llO

 

l 1 l
LIBRARY PROFILE: PART 1

The first section of this questionnaire asks for information about the size and physical make up of your
library and, in particular, the children’s department. Please answer each question as accurately as you can.
' If there is any other information regarding the physical environment of the children’s department that you
feel would be helpful to this study please use the space provided at the end of this section to write in
additional comments.

1. What is the population size of your library’s service area?

Under 12,000 (Classes 1, II, 111)
12.000 - 25,999 (Class IV)
26,000 - 49,999 (Class V)

50,000 - 99,999 (Class VI)
1000,000 AND OVER (Class VI)

* 2. Which of the following best describes the location of your library?

_ RURAL (Open country/No incorporated village)
_ SMALL TOWN (Population under 10,000)

_ LARGE TOWN (Population 10,000 - 25 .000)

_ SMALL CITY (Population 25,001 - 50,000)

_ LARGE CITY (Population 50,001 - 100,000)

_ METRO AREA (Population 100,001 - 500,000)

_ LARGE METRO (Population over 500,000)

_ OTHER (Please Identify )

 

* 3. How many hours per week is the library open?

0 to 30 HOURS
31 to 40 HOURS
41 to 50 HOURS
51 to 55 HOURS
56 HOURS OR MORE

* 4. Is the children’s department open the same number of hours per week?

YES
NO. LESS HOURS PER WEEK
NO. MORE HOURS PER WEEK

* 5. How many full-time equivalent staff work in the children’s department?

0 - 2 EQUIVALENT FULL TIME STAFF
3 - 4 EQUIVALENT FULL TIME STAFF
5 - 6 EQUIVALENT FULL TIME STAFF
MORE THAN 6 EQUIVALENT FULL TIME STAFF

*6.

*8.

*9.

10.

112

Which of the following physical descriptions best describes your library building?

ONE STORE, NO PUBLIC USE BASEMENT

ONE STORY, PLUS PUBLIC USE BASEMENT

TWO STORE, NO PUBLIC USE BASEMENT

TWO STORY, PLUS PUBLIC USE BASEMENT

MORE THAN TWO STORIES, NO PUBLIC USE BASEMENT
MORE THAN TWO STORIES, PLUS PUBLIC USE BASEMENT
OTHER (Please Identify )

Is the entire building contained within a building that houses other non-library tenants?

YES
NC

On what level is the children’s department located?

BASEMENT

FIRST FLOOR

SECOND FLOOR

THIRD FLOOR

OTIHER (Please Identify )

In relation to other departments and areas in the library, where is the children’s

department located?

SEPARATE ROOM (with full walls as dividers)
SEPARATE AREA (dividers but not full walls)
SEPARATE AREA (but no obvious spatial dividers)
SEPARATE BUILDING

OTHER (Please Identify )

What is the predominant geometric shape of your children’s department?

SQUARE

RECTANGULAR

CIRCULAR/OVAL

"L" SHAPED

"T" SHAPED

"U" SHAPED

TWO OR MORE SEPARATE ROOMS

OTHER (Please Identify )

11.

*12.

*13.

14.

*15.

*16.

113

What is the approximate square footage of the physical space that is occupied by the
children’s department?

UNDER 500 SQUARE FEET
501 TO 1000 SQUARE FEET
1001 TO 1500 SQUARE FEET
1501 TO 2000 SQUARE FEET
2001 TO 3000 SQUARE FEET
OVER 3000 SQUARE FEET

What is the maximum grade level served by the children’s department?

THROUGH 5TH GRADE
THROUGH 6TH GRADE
THROUGH TI’H GRADE
THROUGH 8TH GRADE
THROUGH 9TH GRADE
THROUGH 12TH GRADE

‘w‘fl

)

Does your children’s department also serve toddlers and preschoolers?

YES, BOTH TODDLERS AND PRESCHOOLERS
PRESCHOOLERS ONLY
NO, SCHOOL AGE ONLY

Does the physical space within your children’s area have distinct individual areas (space)
for the following? (Check all_ that apply)

PICTURE BOOK AREA (Preschoolers and beginning readers)
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AREA (3rd through 6th graders)
JUNIOR HIGH AREA (7th through 8th or 9th graders)

HIGH SCHOOL AREA

Is the children’s department visible to both children and adults from the main entrance?

YES
N O
PARTIALLY VISIBLE

Is there a separate entrance into the children’s department from the outside?

YES
NO

17.

*18.

19.

*20.

*21.

*22.

114

From the children’s main point of entry into the building can the children’s department
be reached without passing through any other library areas (except the charge
out/circulation desk area)?

YES
NO

 

Is Signage provided that a pre-reader can understand?
_ YES
_ NO

If YES to #18: "Signage is used that doesn’t rely upon the printed media", please identify
what is specifically used.

“1

I" ii
I

 

 

 

 

How is the circulation of books and other materials in the children’s department handled?

Separate charge out desk or station in children’s department
Separate charge out desk or station for children’s materials but
located in main charge out area

One central charge out desk or station but a designated counter
area for children’s material

One central charge out desk or station with no designated area or
space for children’s materials

_ OTHER (Please Identify )
Considering you charge out area used by children, what is the minimum height of the
desk or station? (FILL IN NUMBER)

INCHES HIGH

Are picture books and beginning reader books shelved with their covers facing out?

YES
NO
NOT SHELVED BUT LOCATED IN BOOK BOXES OR BINS

*23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

115

Are the picture book shelves equipped with adjustable dividers?

YES
NO
SHELVES NOT USED FOR PICTURE BOOKS

Does the children’s department have exterior windows?

YES. PROVIDE LIGHT ONLY. NO VIEW FOR CHILDREN
YES, PROVIDE LIGHT AND CHILDREN’S EYE LEVEL VIEW

NO

What is the floor covering within the children’s department? I]
CARPETED THROUGHOUT } '”
PARTIALLY CARPETED l-s

(Please specify where: )
NOT CARPETED

Are public restrooms provided in the library?

YES
NO
Are separate restrooms for children provided?

_ YES
_ NO

If YES to questions #26 and #27:
Are the child sized fixtures in either/both of the restrooms?

_ YES

__ NO
_ QUESTIONS #26 AND #27 ARE ANSWERED NO
Are there provisions such as counter or table area for diaper changing in any of the
restrooms?

_ YES
_ NO
Are public drinking fountains available?

YES
NO

116

31. If YES to question #30 above:
Are fountains mounted at heights reachable by young children?

_ YES

_ NO
_ QUESTION #30 IS ANSWERED NO
*32. Do you use volunteers in your library within the children’s department?

YES
NO - GO TO QUESTION #34

33. If YES to #32:

Do the volunteers contribute to the physical environment in any of the following ways?
(Please check all that apply)

 

DESIGN AND PLANNING OF THE SPACE

CREATE AND SET UP DISPLAYS AND/OR EXHIBITS
CONTRIBUTE AND/OR SELECT FURNISHINGS
CONTRIBUTE AND/OR SELECT ACCESSORIES
ARRANGE FURNITURE OR SPACES

MAINTENANCE OF SPACE

OTHER (Please Identify )

*34. Who is primarily responsible for maintaining the quality (day to day) of the interior
spaces and physical environment in your children’s department? (Please check only one)

SELF

OTHER LIBRARIANS ON STAFF

CUSTODIAL STAFF

LIBRARY AIDES

PROFESSIONAL DESIGNER

LIBRARY ASSOCIATION OR COOPERATIVE CONSULTANT
VOLUNTEERS

NO ONE CHARGED WITH RESPONSIBILITY

OTHER (Please Identify )

*35. Considering the children’s department as it is today, who was primarily responsible for
the design of the space, including finishes, fumishings, and arrangements when it was
created? (Please check only one that apply)

ARCHITECT

PROFESSIONAL LIBRARY CONSULTANT

SELF

OTHER LIBRARIANS ON STAFF

PROFESSIONAL INTERIOR DESIGNER/SPACE PLANNER
UNCERTAIN

OTHER (Please Identify )

36.

37.

38.

39.

117

Please check the description that best fits the color scheme found within your children’s
department

ONE OVERALL COLOR SCHEME THROUGHOUT THE
DEPARTMENT

SEVERAL COLOR SCHEMES WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT
NO COLOR SCHEME

UNCERTAIN

OTHER (Please Identify )

What is the best physical feature in your children’s department?

 

 

 

 

What is the worst physical feature in your children’s department?

 

 

 

 

If you have any other information or comments about the physical environment of your
children’s library that you would like to add, please use the space provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

118

LIBRARIANS ATI'ITUDES AND OPINIONS:

PART 11

Current library and education literature seems to indicate that the public library should play a role in
promoting reading readiness, learning to read, and literacy skills. Please read and consider the following
statements. For each statement decide if you "DISAGREE STRONGLY" (#1), "SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE" (#2), NEITHER AGREE NOT DISAGREE" (#3), "SOMEWHAT AGREE" (#4),

STRONGLY AGREE" (#5).

statement. (Circle only one number for each statement)

*7.

*8.

*9.

*10.

*11.

I am interested in attracting children to
the library.

The library should be a place which encourages
children to browse and spend time in the library.

The public library has a role in helping to promote
reading readiness in children.

The public library has a role in helping to promote
children’s positive attitudes towards reading.

The library should be a place for children to get
books and materials, check them out, and leave.

A child’s attitude toward reading is an important
factor in the child’s learning to read.

The physical environment that a person experiences
can affect the attitudes of that person.

The physical environment can help contribute to the
perception of friendly service.

The physical environment of a library can contribute
to reaching library objectives and goals.

Architects and designers are more concerned with
library aesthetics than the functions, objectives,
and goals of librarians.

I am very knowledgeable about the topic of
environmental design.

DISAGREE
STRONGLY
1 2

l 2

l 2

1 2

l 2

1 2

l 2

l 2

1 2

1 2

l 2

Please circle the number which indicates how you feel about each

AGREE
STRONGLY

5

12.

119

It is important to provide the following features
within the physical environment of a children’s

library department:

A. Elbow room for a child (personal space)

B. Ability for each child to establish his/her
own "turf" (territoriality)

C. An'angements that provide for individual
nooks and/or enclosure (privacy)

D. Space that invites a child to explore the

surroundings (exploration)

DISAGREE
STRONGLY
1 2

l 2

l 2

l 2

AGREE
STRONGLY

 

 

 

120

THE NEXT SEVERAL QUESTIONS ARE CONCERNED WITH LIBRARY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN INFORMATION. PLEASE CHECK THE ANSWER THAT YOU
FEEL MOST ACCURATELY ANSWERS EACH QUESTION.

*13. What is your main source of information about environmental (interior) design and the physical
space in your children’s department? (Please check are only)

PROFESSIONAL LIBRARY JOURNALS

COLLEGE CLASSES AND COURSE WORK
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

LIBRARY AND ASSOCIATION SPONSORED WORK SHOPS
AND PROGRAMS

CONTINUING EDUCATION COURSES
TEACHERS AND EDUCATION SPECIALISTS
CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT SPECIALISTS
OTHER LIBRARIANS

NONE

OTHER (Please Identify )

*14. If you needed information about environmental (interior) design to help change or improve the
physical space in your children’s department which one of the following would you use? (Please

check on_e only )

PROFESSIONAL LIBRARY JOURNALS

PRIOR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE

WORKSHOPS, PROGRAMS AND/OR CONTINUING
EDUCATION COURSES

TEACHERS AND/OR EDUCATION SPECIALISTS
CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT SPECIALISTS

OTHER LIBRARIANS

LIBRARY CONSULTANTS

READING AND LEARNING SPECIALISTS

ARCHITECTS

INTERIOR DESIGNERS

NONE OF THE ABOVE

OTHER (Please Identify )

15. Do you feel that you need more physical space in your children’s department? (Larger children’s
department in terms of square footage)

YES
NO

 

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

121

Have you or your library every conducted an evaluation of the library’s physical environment in
the children’s department?

YES - PLEASE GO TO QUESTION #17
NO - PLEASE GO TO QUESTION #21

What method(s) were used to collect data? (Check g1 that apply)

USER SURVEYS

PERSONAL INSPECTIONS BY LIBRARY STAFF
INFORMATION COLLECTION OF USER COMMENTS
(Anecdotal data)

OBSERVATION OF USERS

COLLECTION OF PHYSICAL TRACES (Evidence Of use)
OTHER (Please Identify )

Have you published or otherwise made available a summary of the information collected in this
evaluation?

_ YES - PLEASE GO TO QUESTION #19
_ NO - PLEASE GO TO QUESTION #21
If YES to question #18 please cite publication data or other data related to availability of this
information:

 

 

 

If you have conducted such an evaluation but have no published or made the results available
would you be willing to do so?

YES
NO
UNCERTAIN

If you answered NO to #16 (NEVER CONDUCTED AN EVALUATION) please check the
reasons why you have not: (Please check fl that apply)

TOO COSTLY/NO ALLOCATION IN BUDGET

NOT ENOUGH TIME

NOT ENOUGH STAFF

NEVER THOUGHT TO EVALUATE PHYSICAL SETTING
NOT SURE HOW TO CONDUCT ONE

NO STANDARD INSTRUMENT AVAILABLE

NOT IMPORTANT TO DO SUCH AN EVALUATION
OTHER (Please Identify )

 

22.

*23.

*24.

25.

26.

27.

122

If the reasons that you checked in #21 above could be resolved would you consider conducting
an evaluation of the physical environment in your children’s department?

YES

NO (Please specify why not )
_ UNCERTAIN
If research data were available to help you make decisions about the design. planning, and use of
the physical environment in your children’s department would you make use of it?

YES
NO
UNCERTAIN

If offered at a convenient time and location would you participate in programs or workshops to
help you learn more about environmental design and how to apply that knowledge in your
children’s department?

YES
NO
UNCERTAIN
Have you ever used the services of professional interior designers for your children’s department?

YES
NO

If NO to question #25:
Please check the answers that best reflect why not: (please check fl that apply)

TOO COSTLY
DON’T KNOW ANY DESIGNERS
DESIGNERS DON’T KNOW ABOUT CHILDREN’S LIBRARY

NEEDS

_ HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION/TRAINING MYSELF TO DO
JOB

_ OTHER (Please Identify )

 

If provided at no extra cost to your library would you use the services of a trained interior
designers to help you crate and maintain the physical space in your children’s department?

YES
NO
UNCERTAIN

 

 

 

(j!

.J
‘1

1
n

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

123

Would you be more likely to take the advice of a trained interior designer if recommendations
were supported with research data?

YES
NO
UNCERTAIN

To your knowledge is empirical (formal, scientific or proven) research data used as a basis for
making decisions related to the layout and management of the physical environment in the
children’s department?

YES
NO
UNCERTAIN

On a scale of 1 to 7, with one being "INFERIOR" and 7 being "SUPERIOR" how would you
rate the physical environment of your children’s department?

Other than your own library, are you aware of children’s departments within the Michigan Public
Library system that you consider to be excellent and provide supportive, positive library
environments for children?

YES (Please Identify )
NO

Does the physical environment in your children’s department have any special or unique features
which contribute to the overall quality of the department and environment?

YES (Please Describe O
NO

 

 

124

LIBRARIAN ASSESSMENT OF
SUGGESTED DESIGN DIRECTIVES:

PART III

AS a children’s librarian your ideas and assessments can provide information which could be helpful in
establish design guidelines for children’s libraries. The following lists contains suggestions and ideas that
might be used in the design of a children’s library department. Please read each statement carefully and
consider whether you "DISAGREE STRONGLY" (#1), "SOMEWHAT DISAGREE" (#2), NEITHER
AGREE NOT DISAGREE" (#3), "SOMEWHAT AGREE" (#4), STRONGLY AGREE" (#5). Please
circle the number which indicates how you feel about each statement (Circle only one number for each
statement)

*2.

*5.

10.

*11.

Small nooks (private spaces) should be
provided within the children’s department.

Signage, understandable by pre-readers,
should be in place in all areas of the library
used by pre-readers.

Multiple seating Options to accommodate
different seating preferences should be
provided.

Slope top reading tables with stools or
benches should be included in the children’s
department

Children should use the same charge out desk
that adults use.

Soft, flexible furnishings that children can move
around should be provided in the children’s area.

One major color scheme should be used throughout
the children’s department

Multi level areas within the children’s department
should be created for their use.

Round tables should not be placed in the children’s
department

Small, child size, tables and chairs should be
provided in all areas of the children’s department

Picture books and beginning reader books should
be shelved with their covers facing out

DISAGREE
STRONGLY
1 2

l 2

1 2

l 2

1 2

l 2

1 2

l 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

AGREE
STRONGLY

5

12.

*13.

*14.

15.

16.

*17.

*18.

*19.

*20.

21.

*22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

125

The flooring in the children’s department should be
hard surfaced rather than carpeted.

The children’s department should be located in a
separate room.

The children’s department should be located on the
ground floor.

Spaces within the children’s department should be
arranged to allow the librarian visual control of all
children using the area.

All viewers should be able to see some portion of
each display set up in the children’s department.

The children’s department should be visible from
the child’s primary entrance into the library.

There should be a separate entrance into the
children’s department from the outside.

The charge out desk used by children should be
30" high or less.

Picture books should be placed in book bins or boxes

rather than on shelves.

The library should have restrooms that are easily
accessible to children.

Shelves used for picture and beginner reader books
should have adjustable dividers.

If adjustable dividers are used on picture book shelves

they should be spaced approximately 6" apart.

In the children’s department, exterior windows should

be placed at children’s eye levels.

Coat racks, at varying child heights, should be
provided in children’s department.

Provisions within the physical environment of the

children’s department should be provided for children

with disabilities.

DISAGREE
STRONGLY
l 2

1 2

1 2

l 2

1 2

l 2

1 2

l 2

1 2

l 2

l 2

r—t
N

1 2
1 2
l 2

AGREE
STRONGLY

5

 

126

LIBRARIAN DEMOGRAPHICS: PART IV

To complete the questionnaire please answer the remaining questions which deal with your education and
professional experience as a librarian.

at:

*

*

*

1. What is the highest level of education that you have completed?

SOME HIGH SCHOOL

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE

SOME COLLEGE

B.A.lB.S.

MASTER’S

POST GRADUATE WORK

PH.D./ED.D

POST DOCT ORAL WORK

OTHER (Please Identify )

2. Do you hold a Master’s Degree in Library Science?

YES - PLEASE COMPLETE QUESTIONS #3, #4, #5, & #6.
NO - PLEASE GO TO QUESTION #7

3. If you answered YES to #2 please fill in the name of college/university which granted the

degree:

 

 

4. At the time you received this degree was the program ALA Accredited?

YES
NO
UNCERTAIN

5. Is the program still ALA accredited?

YES

NO

UNCERTAIN

PROGRAM NO LONGER IN PLACE

6. Did your formal library training include a specialization or concentration in
Children’s/Youth Services?

YES
NO

 

' ‘wl"

 

I
g.
"s

7.

*8.

*10.

*11.

Have you had specific course work in any of the following subjects? (Please check a_ll
that apply and if they were required for your degree).

TAKEN

127

 

REQUIRED

Educational Psychology

Child Development & Behavior

Learning Theory

Reading Theory & Development

Social Psychology

Non Verbal Communication

Environment & Behavior
(Environmental Psychology)

Human Factors (Ergonomics)

Environmental Design _
(Space Planning & Interior Design) '.=~ ,

During your professional career as a children’s librarians have you taken any short term
seminars, workshops, etc. directly related to the planning, design, arrangement, or
operation of the physical environment of the children’s department?

If YES to #8:

YES
NO - GO TO QUESTION #10

Please indicate the topics that were covered in these seminars and workshops (please

check Q that apply):

DISPLAYS/EXHIBITS

FURNITURE SELECTION

SPACE PLANNING

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS OF CHILDREN
OTHER (Please Identify )

 

How long have you served in your present capacity?

LESS THAN TWO YEARS

MORE THAN TWO BUT LESS THAN FIVE

FIVE OR MORE YEARS BUT LESS THAN TEN YEARS
TEN YEARS OR MORE

How many total years of children’s library experience within public libraries do you have?
(Write in number of years)

YEARS

128

12. As a librarian, in what role(s) do you serve within your library?
(Please check all that apply)

DIRECTOR
HEAD OF CHILDREN’S LIBRARY
CHILDREN’S LIBRARIAN
13. Do you plan to continue to practice within Children’s Service during your professional
career?

_ YES

_ NO

_ UNCERTAIN

*14. Please add any other concerns or comments you would like to share regarding children’s
library service and the planning, design, operations, and management of the physical
environment within public libraries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS SURVEY.
YOUR TIME AND EFFORT ARE GREATLY APPRECIATED AND YOUR
THOUGHTFUL INPUT MAY HELP TO IMPROVE CHILDREN’S LIBRARY
SERVICE & CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROMOTION OF READING AND LITERACY.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE A SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS, PLEASE BE SURE TO CHECK
THE BACK OF THE SELF ADDRESSED ST AMPED ENVELOPE
SURVEY RESULTS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE BY THE END OF 1992.

 

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Abramo, P. (1978). Communicating with environments. Illinois Libraries, 6Q, 875-876.

Alexander, J. E., & Filler, R. C. (1976). Attitudes and reading. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.

Altman, I. & Wohwill, J. F. (Eds). (1978). Children and the environment. New York: ‘
Plenum Press. “ ' :

American Library Association. (1964). Standards for children’s services in public
libraries. Chicago: ALA.

 

Anderson, D. J. (1987). From idealism to realism: Library directors and children’s
services. Libra_ry Trends, 35, 393-412.

Anderson, M. J. (1978). Service for the eighties: Trends in society today which will
affect public library service to children tomorrow. Illinois Libraries, 69, 850-
853.

Babbie, E. (1986). The practice of social research (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Baird, J. C. & Lutkus, A. D. (Eds). (1982). Mind-child architecture. Hanover, NH:
University Press of New England.

Banduric, P. (1988). Approach-avoidance behavior and environmental design in a
children’s public library. Unpublished manuscript.

Banduric, P. (1988-1989). [Children’s library environments and behaviors: behavioral
observations and physical traces]. Unpublished raw data.

Barass, Reitzel, and Associates. (1972). A study of exemplary 1);ch librapy reading
and reading-related proggams for children, youthI and adults. Cambridge, MA:

Barass, Reitzel and Associates, Inc.

Barker, D. P. (1977). School and public libm media progms for children and
young adults. Syracuse, NY: Gaylord Professional Publications.

129

130

Bechtel, R. B., Marans, R. W., & Michelson, W. (Eds). (1987). Methods in
environmental and behavioral research. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Benne, M. (1978). Educational and recreational services Of the public library for
children. LibraQLTrends, fl, 499-510.

Bennett, J. (1987). Trends in school library media facilities, furnishings, and
collections. Library Trends, &, 317-325.

Berk, L. E. (1989). Child development. Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Bloom, B. (1964). Stability arnd change in human characteristics. New York: John ‘I’
Wiley & Sons. "

Boschetti, M. A. (1987). Memories of childhood homes: Some contributions of
environmental autobiography to interior design education and research. Journal -
of Interior Design Education and Research, l_3(2), 27-36. '

 

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecologyof human development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Brown, B. S. (1977). Tabitha Twitchit and red plastic chairs: An inquiry into the
design of school media center spaces and their use by children. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Simmons College, Boston.

Brumbaugh, F. (1940). Reading expectancy. Elementary English Review, )1, 153-155.

Bunting, T. & Semple, T . (1979). The development of an environmental responses
inventory for children. In A. Seidel & S. Danforth (Eds), Proceedings EDRA

10: Environmental Design Research Theog and Application (pp. 273-283).
Washington DC: Environmental Design Research Association.

 

Calabrese, A. (1976). An image/Status Study. Illinois Libraries, 3, 792-794.

Campbell, D. E., & Shlechter, T. M. (1979). Library design influences on user
behavior and satisfaction. Libra_ry Quarterly, 42, 26-41.

Chelton, M. K. (1985). Issues in youth access to library services. School Libm
Media Quarterly, _1_4, 21-25.

Chelton, M. K. (1987). Evaluation of children’s services. Libm Trends, 3_5, 463-484.
Clark, M. M. (1976). Young fluent readers. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

Cohen, E. (1989). Talking to architects. America_n Libraries, 29, 299.

131

Cohen, A., & Cohen, E. (1979). Designing and space planning for libraries. New
York: Bowker.

Coody, B. (1973). Using literature with yoggchildren. Dubuque, IA: Brown.

Conyne, R. K., & Clack, R. J. (1981). Environmental assessment and desigr. New
York: Praeger.

Curtis, P., & Smith, R. (1974). A child’s exploration of space. School Review, Q,
671-679.

David, T. G. (1974). Environmental literacy. School Review, 8_2, 687-705.

Davidson, J. (1988). Adolescent illiteracy: What libraries can do to solve the problem -
a report on the research of the project on adolescent literacy. Youth Services in
Libraries, 1, 215-218.

D’Elia, G., & Walsh, S. (1983). User satisfaction with library service - a measure of
public library performance. The Library Org-tern, _5_3_, 109-133.

Dequin, H. C., & Faibisoff, S. G. (1983). The attitudes of public librarians in Illinois
toward disabled persons. Illinois Libraries 6_5, 231-237.

 

Diffrient, N., Tillet, A. R., & Bardagjy, J. C. (1981). Humanscale manual 1-9.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dillman, D. A. (1991). Mail and telephone surveys: A comprehensive bibligapiry.
Chicago: Council of Planning Librarians.

Directog of Michigan libraries. (1990). Lansing, MI: Library of Michigan.

Draper, J., & Brooks, J. (1979) Interior desigp for libraries. Chicago: American
Library Association.

Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early: two longitudinal studies. New York:
Teacher’s College Press.

Eaton, G. (1991). Lost in the library: Are spatial skills important in shelf searches.
Journal of Youth Services in Libraries, 5, 77-86.

132

Edmonds, M. L. (1987). From superstition to science: The role of research in
strengthening public library service to children. Library Trends, _32, 509-520.

Ekechukwu, M. R. G. (1972). Characteristics of users and non-users of elementary
school library services and public library services for children. (Doctoral
dissertation, University Of Washington, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 3;, 4443A.

Estes, T. H. (1971). A scale to measure attitudes toward reading. Journal Of Reading,
£54 135-138.

Evans, C. (1970). Middle classlattitudes and public library pg. Littleton, CO: Libraries
Unlirrrited.

Evans, G. E. (1971). Library environmental design: Physical facilitiegnd equipment.
(Report No. TISA-PR-l3). Los Angeles: California University. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 058 906)

Fasick, A. M. (1979). Research and rrreasurement in library services to children. I_Op
of the News 35, 354-362.

 

Fitzgibbons, S. (1982). Research on library services for children and young adults:
Implications for practice. Emergency Librarian, _9_(5), 6-17.

Fleet, A. 91973). Children’s libraries. London: Andre Deutsch.

Friedmann, A., Zimring, C., & Zube, E. (1978). Environmental design evaluation. New
York: Plenum Press.

Hamson, C. (1989). MLA/PLD state sr_rrvey. Lansing, MI: Michigan Library
Association.

Heilman, A. W. (1972). Principles and practices of teaching reading. Columbus, OH:
Charles E. Merrill.

Holt, R. M. (1987). Trends in public library buildings. Librgy Trends, _36, 267-285.

Huck, C. S. (1973). Strategies for improving interest and appreciation in literature. In
P. C. Burns & L. M. Schell (Eds), Elementam school langpage arts (pp. 203-
210). Chicago: Rand-McNally.

Hunt, L. C. (1970). The lively learning center and the alert librarian. Wilson Libra_ry
Bulletin, 45, 293-297.

arr—'1 ‘

133

Johnson, F. (Ed.). (1976). Start early for an early start. Chicago: American Library
Association.

Kaplan, R. (1978). Participation in environmental design: Some considerations and a
case study. In 8. Kaplan & R. Kaplan (Eds), Humanscape (pp. 427-438. North
Scituate, MA: Ruxbury Press.

Kaplan, S. (1985). Cognitive affect in environmental learning. Children’s
Environmental Quarterly, 2(3), 19-21.

Karlin, R. (1980). Teaching elemengmeMing. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Kopp. C., & Krakow, J. (Eds). (1982). The child: Development in a social context
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Krasner, L. (1977). The human behavior lab as an environmental design procedure.
Education 9_7, 336-342.

 

Krasner, L. (Ed.). (1980). Environmental design and humfi behavior: A psychology of
the individual in society. New York: Pergamon Press.

Krueger, K. (1978). Preface. Illinois Libraries 60, 849.

 

Lancaster, F. W. (1977). The measurement and evaluation of libra_ry services.
Washington, DC: Information Resources Press.

Lancaster, F. W. (1988). If you want to evaluate your libm. London: Library
Association.

Landy, S. (1977). Why Johnny can read . . . but doesn’t. Canadian Libfly Journal, 3_4,
379-387.

Leigh, R. (1950). The public library in the United States. New York: Columbia
University Press.

Locke, J. L., & Kimmel, M. M. (1987) Children of the information age: Changes and
challenges. Libra Trends, 3_5, 353-368.

Long, H. G. (1953). Rich the treasure. Chicago: American Library Association.
Lushington, N. (1976). The flow Of function in libraries. American Libraries. 1, 92-95.

Lushington, N. (1979). Libraries desigped for users. Syracuse, NY: Gaylord
Professional Publications.

F‘-

 

 

134
Lushington, N. (1983). Designed for users. Wilson Library Bulletin, 51, 204-205.

Lyles, M. A. (1972). Environmental design applications. Special Libraries, _6_3, 495-
501.

Madeja, S. (1974). Space place. In G. Coates (Ed.), Alternative learning environments
(pp. 23-28). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

Matthews. E. W. (1978). Describing the descriptive survey or communications by
questionnaire. Illinois Libraries, Q, 255-259.

McAfee, D. (1981). A study to determine the presence of observable conditions of
positive self-concept in elementary school media centers. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Wisconsin - Madison). Dissertation Abstracts Intermtionfl, 42.,
4632A.

McColvin, L. R. (1957). flrblic library service for children. Paris: UNESCO.

McColvin, L. R. (1961). LibLaries for children. London: Phoenix House.

Michaels, A. (1987). Design today. Wilson Libra_ry Bulletin, £6), 50-51.

Michaels, A. (1987). Design today. Wilson Librm Bulletin, fl(6), 34-35, 79.

Miller, B. S. (1981). Children’s library services. ALA Yearbook, 99-101.

Moos, R. (1979). Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Morrow, L. M. (1982). Relationships between literature programs, library corner
designs, and children’s use of literature. Journal of Educational Research, 3,

339 -344.

Morrow, L. M., & Weinstein, C. (1982). Increasing children’s use of literature through
program and physical design change. Elementary School Journal, 83, 131-137.

Myller, R. (1966). The desigr_r of the small nglic librm. New York: Bowker.

Naylor, A. P. (1987). Reaching all children: A public library dilemma. Libm Trends,
_Zfi, 369-392.

Nykiel, J. (1978). Getting the facts: A commentary on sources of information about
public library facilities for children. Illinois Libraries, 60, 863-867.

 

135

Orton Dyslexia Society. (1986). Some facts about illiteracy in America. Pechtives
on Dyslexia, Q, 1.

Panero, J., & Zelnik, M. (1979). Humarflimension & interior space. New York:
Whitney Library of Design.

Piaget, J. (1983). Piaget’s theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology (4th ed.). W. Kessen (Ed.). Volume I: History, theory, and
methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Pierce, W. S. (1980). flrmishing the librag interior. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Principles for planning children’s services in public libraries in Michigan. (1988).
Lansing, MI: Michigan Library Association.

Rovenger, J. (1987). Learning differences/library directions: Library service to children
with learning differences. Library Trend_s, fl, 427-435.

Saracho, O. N. (1984-85). Young children’s attitudes toward reading. Educational
Research Quarterly, 2(4), 19 -27.

Saracho, O. N. (1987). Evaluating reading attitudes. Day Care and Early Education,
(Spring 1987), 23-25.

Schiamberg, L. B. (1988). Child and adolescent development. New York: MacMillan.

Smardo, F. A. (1978). An analytical study of the recommendations of early childhood
education authorities with regard to the role of the public library in serving
children from infancy to six years of age. Dissertation Abstracts International
3_9, 3898A. (University Microfilms No. 7824674)

 

Smith, P. H., Balian, L. R., Brennan, D., Gorringe, J. L., Jackson, M., & Thone, R. R.

(1986). Illiteracy in America: Extent, causes, and suggested solutions.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Stea, D. (1985). From environmental cognition to environmental design. Children’s
Earvironments Quarterly. 2(3), 22-6.

Sullivan, P. (1961). Standards for public library service for children. Libgry Trends,
1_2, 24-28.

Summers, F. W. (1977). What you want the future to be. SLJ School Libaapy Journal,
23(2), 80-82.

136

Veatch, J. L. (1979). Library architecture and environmental design: The application of
selected environmental design factors to the planning of public library facilities.
Dissertation Abstracts International, fl, 4786A. (University Microfilms No,
8007521)

Veatch, J. L. (1987). Toward environmental design Of library buildings. Libfly
Trends, 3_6, 361-376.

Weeks, A. C. (1986). Children’s library service. ALA Yearbook, 106-112.

Willett, H. (1991). Designing an evaluation instrument: The environmental rating scale
"in process". Journal Of Youth Services in Libraries _5_, 165-174.

 

Wohlwill, J. F. & Heft, H. (1987). The physical environment and the development of
the child. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds), Handbook of environmental
psychology (pp. 281-328). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Young, D. (1980). Realistic guidelines. Public Libraries 3, 31-32.

 

Zeisel, J. (1981). Ingugy’ by design. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Ziegler, S. & Andrews, H. F. (1987). Children and built environments. In R. B.
Bechtel, R. W. Marans, & W. Michelson (Eds), Methods in environmental and
behavioral research (pp. 301-336). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

nrcurcnu STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
1|1111111111111111111lllllllllllllml
31293008978698