AN INVESTIGATION OF PERCEPTIONS REGARDING THE INSTRUCTIONAL FUNCTION OF; THE LIBRARY ' AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS AND'LIBRARIA‘NS AT PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN MICHIGAN Thesis for the Degreeof Ed; D; MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY , DONALDYEMEYER- ~ '_ : f I ’ "1958‘ 4' ‘ LIBRARY Michigan State University p. THFSIS This is to certify that the 7 thesis entitled AN INVESTIGATION OF PERCEPTIONS REGARDING THE INSTRUCTIONAL FUNCTION OF THE LIBRARY AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS AND LIBRARIANS AT PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN MICHIGAN presented by r . Donald P .g, Meyer {‘ has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed . D degree in Educat ion WM/%j Major professor Date 7"?8 é ‘ éf 0-169 .1 P.--~ ,7 1.- __ 47‘2““;3 Copyright by DONALD P. MEYER 1969 @ DONALD PAUL MEYER 1969 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED «M ‘ " ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION OF PERCEPTIONS REGARDING THE INSTRUCTIONAL FUNCTION OF THE LIBRARY AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS AND LIBRARIANS AT PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN MICHIGAN by Donald P. Meyer Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine the degree to which community college librarians and community college instructors in transfer programs and occupational education programs differed in terms of perceptions regarding the instructional function of the library. Because the instruc-I tional~function of a community college library iS~a broad. term encompassing many aspects, the instructional function is-defined as eight areas that are Operationally measurable. The eight areas are: (l) the organizational structure of the library, (2) the library facilities, (3) library materials, (A) library services, (5) the responsibilities of the librarian, (6) the student utilization of the library, (7) the faculty utilization of the library, and (8) the utilization made of library facilitieso Design of the Stud. The design of the study was a causal-comparative design, with the major emphasis on comparisons.- The sample consisted of faculty members teaching in.two cur- ricular programs (those teaching college transfer programs Donald P. Meyer and those teaching occupational-education programs) and the community college librarians. These three groups (from twenty Michigan community colleges) were compared to each other statistically, using non-parametrics having a chi-square distribution, by the perceptions they had regarding the instructional function of the community college library. Their perceptions were recorded on a prepared questionnaire sent them regarding the eight areas that defined the instructional function, of the community college library. Findings The findings indicate that the three groups differ in their perception of the instructional function of the community college library in four areas. 1. The organizational structure of the library (both personnel and facilities). a. Occupational education teachers and to a lesser degree transfer program teachers prefer a semi—decentralized library, whereas librarians prefer a centralized library. b. Occupational education teachers prefer the head librarian be classified as a faculty member instead of an administrator. The librarians, and to a much lesser degree, transfer program teachers, prefer the head Donald P. Meyer librarian be classified as an administrator. All three groups prefer, but to different degrees, that other-professional librarians be classified as faculty members. 2. The three groups differ in their perceptions regarding the kinds of facilities that should be available in a library, some of which are display areas for art objects, faculty carrels, individual listening and viewing booths, graphics area (pro- duction), small meeting areas, student reading carrels, smoking room, and the like. 3., The three groups differ in their perceptions of how much use faculty make of the library for class preparation and the extent to which they make assignments that require the students to use the library. A. The three groups differ in their perceptions regarding the extent to which they use the, library for recreational or avocational purposes. Occupational education teachers utilize the library one-half as much as transfer program teachers for recreational and avocational‘ purposes. The findings also indicate that the three groups generally agree in their perceptions regarding: Donald P. Meyer~ Types of materials that should be available in the library such as maps, tapes, records, projectors, film, models, and the like. Responsibilities of teachers and librarians regarding the teaching of students how to use the library. Available services such as bibliography service, c0py service, audio-visual and equipment. Students' use of the library such as the number. of term projects for which they-are expected to use the library and the use of many different reference materials in the library. AN INVESTIGATION OF PERCEPTIONS REGARDING THE INSTRUCTIONAL FUNCTION OF THE LIBRARY AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS AND LIBRARIANS AT PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN MICHIGAN By Donald PTPMeyer A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Higher Education 1968 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his appreciation to all those who assisted, advised and encouraged him in the course of this study. In particular he wishes to acknowledge his-major advisor, Dr. Max S. Smith, for his interest, advice and continued support throughout the project. In addition, grateful acknolwedgment is due for his advisory committee members Dr. Buford Stefflre, Dr. Max Raines and Dr. Harvey Choldin. I Thanks are also due to the personnel in the various Michigan community colleges, and particularly the head librarians, for their interest and OOOperation in-fur- nishing information for the study. A special acknowledgment to the writer's family, whose patience, understanding and encouragement were so vitally important to the completion of this study. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . Need for the Study . . The Problem . . . Definition of Terms Used Assumptions Upon Which the Study is Based . . . Hypotheses to be Tested Organization . . . . II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . Historical Background of Libraries The Functions of the Community College Libraries . . Standards for Community College Libraries . . . Summary of Literature . III. RESEARCH PROCEDURES . . Description of the Population Description of the Sample Characteristics of the Institutions in the Study . The Design of the Study IV. DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE O 0 O A Review of the Literature on Preparing Self-Reporting Questionnaire Selecting and Arranging Items for the Questionnaire . . . iii Page ii viii 10 10 12 114 1A 18 28 37 39 39 45 Lia “9 55 55 6O Chapter V. RESEARCH FINDINGS VI. BIBLIOGRAP APPENDIXES Pre-testing the Questionnaire . Design of the Format and Questionnaire Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable Findings Summary U‘I-t’UUNI-J O 0 O O 0 Purpose of the Study Design of the Study Findings of the Study Conclusions Suggestions for Further HY . . iv Printing Res 0 O O O O O O earch SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Page 100 101 103 107 109 113 Table 3.1 3.2 5.3 5.A 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 LIST OF TABLES Questionnaires received from community colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . Educational background of community college faCUIty by degree 9 o o o ' o o, o o 0 Frequency of responses regarding the organizational structure of the library faCility O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 Frequency of responses regarding the organiza- tional structure for the head librarian . Frequency of responses regarding the organizational structure for assistant librarians . . . . . . . . . . . Ranks of collapsed medians on a ten point scale 0 0 O O 0 0 O O O O O O 0 Frequency of responses regarding the use of books, periodicals, and reference books . Frequency of responses regarding where 16 and 35 millimeter film should be located . Frequency of responses regarding where tapes and records should be located . . . . . Frequency of responses regarding whether maps, models, specimen kits, charts, etc. should be purchased by the library . . . . Frequency of responses regarding whether micro-film should replace duplicate or worn materials 0 o o o ' o o ' o 0 Frequency of responses regarding whether libraries should sell paperback books whenever possible . . . . . . . . . Page “3 A6 68 69 7O 72- 73 7A 75‘ 76 76 77 Table 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.lA 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 Page Frequency of responses regarding the availability of copy service for students at a minimal cost . . . . . .. 79 Frequency of responses regarding biblio- graphies prepared by the library . . . . 80 Frequency of responses regarding the use of equipment (tape recorders and projectors) Off-campus o o o o o o o o o o o 80 Frequency of responses regarding the library providing a courier service of materials for faculty . . . . . . . 81 Frequency of responses regarding the use of film, tapes, records and equipment elsewhere on campus . . . . . . . . 82 Frequency of responses regarding a COpy service to be available to faculty at minimal costs . . . . .1 . . . . . 83 Frequency of responses regarding the involvement of librarians in curricular development . . . . . .. . . . . . 84 Frequency of responses regarding the selection and securing materials for the library 0 o o o o ‘ o o o o o o o 85 Frequency of responses regarding the responsibility of teaching students to use the library 0 o o o I o o o o o 86 Frequency of responses regarding the student utilization of the library through assignments . . . . . . . . 88 Frequency of responses regarding the type of library assignments . . . . . . . 89 Frequency of responses regarding the use of the community college library by faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Frequency of responses regarding the use of the Michigan State Public Library . . 91 vi Table Page 5.24 Frequency of responses regarding the use of 4—year college and university libraries . . 92 5.25 Frequency of responses regarding the utiliza- tion of libraries . . . . . . . . . 94 5.26 Sum of squares regarding faculty utilization of library facilities . . . . . . . . 95~ vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Distribution of employment status held by faculty members prior to community college teaChing 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O nu . viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION During the past several years there has been an expressed desire by librarians, community college adminis- trators and accrediting associations to investigate the perceptions faculty members have regarding the community college library. Librarians and.administrators have been involved in planning for the present and.future needs of community college libraries on limited budgets. Faculty perceptions regarding the instructional function of the library do influence the need for library funds, and where these limited funds can effectively be allocated. The Michigan State Library (public) is interested in the perceptions of community college faculty so they can effectively provide services commensurate with the needs of the community college libraries. Professional organizations and accrediting associa- tions are interested in faculty perceptions as an aid for establishing meaningful standards for community college libraries. These are the reasons for-studying the faculty per—. ception of community college libraries in terms of the 1 instructional function, because the instructional function is the major function of the community college library. Need for the Study The function of the early junior college libraries was to provide materials and services comparable to those provided for the first two years of a four-year college or university. In 1925, the newly formed American Association of Junior colleges reiterated this philosophy, but indicated this philOSOphy might be expanded when it defined-the junior college. The junior college is an institution offering two years of instruction of strictly collegiate grade. This curriculum may include those courses usually offered in the first two years of the four-year college, in which case these courses must be identical, in SCOpe and thoroughness, with corresponding courses of the standard four-year college. The junior college may, and is likely to, develop a different type of curriculum suited to the larger and ever-changing civic, social, religious, and vocational needs of the entire community in which the college is located. It is understood that in this case also the work offered shall be on a level appropriate for high school graduates.l. The junior college curriculum continued to be basi- cally a college transfer program until after World War II. The advent of the technological era in the late forties and early fifties, created a need for-the philosophy of the junior college to be changed. \ lWalter Crosby Eells, American Junior College (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1940), p. 3. In 19A8, A.Report of the President's Commission on Higher-Education, Higher Education in American Democracy, expanded the philOSOphy of the junior college greatly and suggested the use of the term community college instead of junior college.2 Gleazer, in an attempt to state the philOSOphy in operational terms said: A good community college will be honestly, gladly, and clearly a community institution. It is in and of the community. The community is used as an extension of classroom and laboratory. Drawing upon the history, traditions, personnel, problems, assets and liabilities of the community, it declares its role and finds this accepted and understood by faculty, administration, students and citizenry.3 The expansion of the community college philosophy to include occupational and continuing education, enlarged the SCOpe of the instructional function of the library to pro- vide facilities, materials and services for these added programs. At the time when the instructional function of the community college library provided for the single college transfer-program, and investigation of materials and services provided for the first two years in four-year colleges and universities was adequate for duplication in the community college library. The library needs for 2A Report of the President's Commission on Higher Education, Higher Education in American Democracy (New York: Harper-and Row, 19A8), p. 67. 3Edmund J. Gleazer, Jr., A New Social Invention: The Community Colle e (Washington, D.C.: ’American Association of unior Colleges, n.d.),-p. l.' occupational education programs may be significantly dif- ferent from the need for a college transfer program. Occupational education may stress the use of machines, tools, techniques, certain kinds of printed matter and visuals that are not appropriate for a traditional college transfer program. Combs indicates ". . . that all behavior is a func- tion of the individuals perception."u' The kinds of facili- ties, materials and services needed by faculty teaching other curricular programs like occupational education is determined by how he perceives his students'needs in the world of work. Professional librarians and community college admin- istrators have traditionally been trained at colleges and universities. Their involvement in work is not comparable to the requirements of the individual working outside the field of education. Consequently, their perception of the library needs for occupational education programs may not meet the needs of these programs. If the librarian-perceives the library need differ- ently than do the faculty members, it may affect his ability to teach because he may be deprived of the tools he needs to teach effectively. If faculty members teach- ing in different curricular programs perceive library ”Arthur w. Combs and Donald Snygg, Individual Behavior: A Perceptual Approach to Behavior (revised ed.; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959), p. 18. needs differently, the library may be adequate for one curricular program and inadequate for another program, because the differences may not have been recognized by the librarian or the administrators. Consequently, library funds may not be allocated prOperly for program- needs. This study is being undertaken to determine whether faculty members teaching in different curricular programs and librarians perceive the instructional function of the community library differently. The Problem Statement of the Problem The purpose of the study is to determine the degree to which community college librarians and community college instructors in transfer programs and occupational education programs differ in terms of perceptions regarding the instructional function of the library. Scope of the Problem The study is specifically concerned with a comparison of the perceptions of librarians, instructors in transfer programs, and instructors in occupational education pro— grams with reference.to the following aSpects of the instructional functions of the community college library. Organizational structure of the library. . Library facilities. . Library materials. . Library services. . Student utilization of the library. 1 2 3 A 5. Responsibilities of the librarian. 6 7._ Faculty utilization of the library. 8 . Use of other than community college libraries. Limitations of the Study The limitations of the study fall into two categories. The first concerns the type of institution from which the population was taken. The study has been limited to twenty public community colleges operating in Michigan prior to January 1, 1965. At the present time there are twenty- eight community college districts in Michigan. This. limitation-has been established for the following reasons: 1. The range of programs offered at community colleges tends to be restricted during the initial years of Operation. 2. The faculties of newly established community colleges tend to be recruited from a wide, range of sources. The initial perceptions.of such faculties reflect experiences gained from previous employment in secondary schools, colleges, universities, or private enterprise. A second limitation is-cited with reference to the choice of population. The study is confined to full—time members of the instructional faculty and librarians. Part- time instructors and administrators are not included in the pOpulation. Counselors are not primarily concerned with library utilization in terms of making student assign- ments or preparing for classroom activities. Therefore, they were not included in the pOpulation. Definition of Terms Used Community College A community college refers to any public institution organized or included under P.A. 331 of 1966 in the State of Michigan. Faculty Member A faculty member is one considered to be a full-time employee with the community college under contract to teach for one school year. College Transfer Program A college transfer program is one designed to permit the student to transfer to a four-year college or univer- sity after two years of work at the community college. vWOccupational-Education Program- An occupational education program is designed to permit the student to directly enter a job upon completing a prescribed program of courses and/or activities. , Curricular Programs Curricular programs is a general term which refers to college transfer or occupational education programs. Librarian A librarian is a full—time, professionally trained, faculty member assigned to the library, this also includes the head librarian. Instructional Function of Che Library The instructional function of the community college library is to support the instructional programs of the community college. This function includes the supply of materials, equipment, and services to students and. faculty for thelpurpose of facilitating the educational program of the community college.5 For the purpose of this study, the instructional function of the community college library is Operationally defined to include eight factors: organizational structure, 5C. W. Stone, "Functions of a School Library,"‘ American School Board Journal, 151:AA-A5, November, 1965. facilities, materials, services, librarian responsibili- ties, student utilization, faculty utilization and facility utilization. The organizational structure of the library refers to (1) whether or not the library is centralized, semi- decentralized or decentralized, (2) the position the head librarian and the librarians occupy in the hierarchy of personnel at the community college. The facilities refer to the allocation of space in the library to carry out specialized activities. Library materials refers to books, periodicals, film, tapes, maps,_models, charts or any other items that are provided by the library for~student or faculty use. Library services refer to those things library per- sonnel do for students and faculty or the permission for students and faculty to use materials and facilities in a special way., The librarian's responsibilities refers to the extent the librarian cOOperates with other libraries, his responsibility to the development of curriculum and the degree to which he is permitted to select materials_for the library. The student utilization of the library refers to the extent and method faculty expect students to use the library. 10 The faculty utilization of the library refers to the extent and_purpose faculty use the community college library. Facility utilization refers to the use faculty mem- bers make of other libraries such as public, four-year college or university, or private libraries. Assumptions Upon Which the Study is Based The following assumptions were made as the limiting factors for the purposes of this study: 1. The group studied is representative of faculty members and librarians at public community colleges in Michigan. 2. That a sufficiently large and representative sample of responses can be obtained to permit a statistical analysis of the data. Hypotheses to be Tested Hypothesis I There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding the organizational structure of the library among librarians, instructors of transfer programs, and instructors of occupational education programs. Hypothesis II There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding library facilities among librarians, instructors ll of transfer programs, and instructors of occupational education programs. Hypothesis III There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding library materials of the library among librar- ians, instructors of transfer programs, and instructors. of occupational education programs. Hypothesis IV There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding library services among librarians, instructors of transfer programs, and instructors of occupational education programs. Hypothesis V There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding the librarian's responsibilities among librar- ians, instructors of transfer programs and instructors of occupational education programs. Hypothesis VI There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding the student utilization of the library among librarians, instructors of transfer programs and instructors of occupational education programs. 12 Hypothesis VII There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding the faculty utilization of the library among librarians, instructors of transfer programs and instruc- tors of occupational education programs. Hypothesis VIII There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding the facility utilization of libraries among librarians, instructors of transfer programs and instruc- tors of occupational education programs. Organization The general plan of the study has been organized into six chapters. Chapter I, the introduction, presents the problem, its scOpe, the definition of terms, the assumptions upon- which the study is based, and-the hypotheses to be tested. Chapter II, the survey of literature, includes a review of the historical background of libraries, the functions of the community college libraries, standards for community college libraries and related studies published to date. Chapter III, the research procedures, includes a description of the population, description of the sample, characteristics of the institutions in the study and the design of the study. 13 Chapter IV, the develOpment of the questionnaire, includes a review of literature for the preparation.of a self-reporting device, the selection and arrangements of items, the pre-test of the questionnaire, format of the design, and the printing of the questionnaire and a summary. Chapter V includes the findings of the study through the use of contingency tables, and the results of four additional-independent variables. Chapter VI includes a summary of the study, the findings, conclusions drawn from the findings, and recom- mendations for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The literature regarding community college libraries relevant to this study is in the area of historical back- ground, functions, and standards. The review will also include a summary of the literature regarding community college libraries. Historical Background of Libraries A brief review of the historical development of the library establishes a background for understanding the functions and standards of today's community college libraries. University libraries in the Western World developed: from the church and monastic libraries in existence prior to the middle ages. During the middle ages, the only places where conditions were favorable to intellectual pursuits were ecclesiastical institutions.1 In 1250, Robert de Sorbonne founded the Sorbonne College, at the University of Paris, and bequested~to it his own library. Soon after this many scholarly lAlfred Hessel, A History of Libraries, trans. by R. Pgiss-(New~Brunswick, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press, 1955), p. 2 . 1A 15 benefactors bequested their books or manuscripts to this famous university and to other universities throughout. EurOpe.2 The development of the printing press, in the six- teenth century, provided easier access to books for both university students and libraries. In Europe, university. libraries were small and did not provide an adequate work- ing collection of books for the students. Consequently, university student groups provided their own libraries and created considerable competition between them in building up their collections.3 Harvard, the first college in America, started its library in 1638 when John Harvard gave the college some 380 books and a cash endowment. This gift was so impor- tant at the time that the governing board named the college after the donor.“ The typical library from the founding of Harvard until the Civil War_was small in size, usually under 25,000 volumes, and was made up almost entirely of gifts, with little financial support from the college governing board.5 2IbId. 3Elmer D. Johnson, A History of Libraries in the Western World (New York: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1965), p. 189. LlIbid., p. 275. 5Ibid., p. 298. 16 Since the colonial colleges were basically designed to train men for the ministry, this greatly influenced the kind of book collection in the library. One hundred years after Harvard was in Operation, two-thirds of its collection consisted of religious books, about one-sixth of the col- lection was history and geography books, with the-remainder of the titles in-the classics, sciences and languages.6 Until the Civil War, literary societies at American colleges provided the working book collection for the students. In 1835, the literary society at the University of North Carolina had a library that contained 6,000 volumes, the best collection in the state. By 18A0, the literary society at Bowdoin boasted between 5,000 and 6,000 volumes and at Williams, 10,000. In every case, these 7 Works of libraries were superior to college libraries. fiction, history, and politics were available to students because literary societies purchased them. By 1870, literary societies were almost extinct. Colleges built broader collections of books, opened the library more than once a week, and recognized history and science as fields of study.8 6Ibid., p. 275. 7Frederick Rudolph, The American College and Univer- sity (New Yfirk: Vintage Books, Division of Random House, )s P-'1 3. 8 Ibid., p. 1A6. 17 At the beginning of the nineteenth century, a-tre- mendous change in the universities occurred. They adopted the concept that higher learning should be, above all, "the workshOp of free scientific research," which led to 9 the concepts of Lehr and Lernfreiheit. The establishing of the conceptleehr and Lernfreiheit emphasized a stronger need for library materials and services. Americans attending German universities between 1800 and 1850 assured themselves that this was the kind of edu- cation needed in America. Henry Tapan, in 1852, President of the University of Michigan, suggested the advisability of transferring to the high school that part of the work of the university which he felt was distinctly secondary in character.10 A blow to change the traditional higher education structure in America was struck when William Rainey Harper, President of the University of Chicago, divided this new institution into two sections. The first two years were originally called academic-college and the last two years were called university college. Several ’ 9John S. Brubacher and Willis Rudy, Higher Education in Transition (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958), p. 171. loEells, p. 10. 18~ years leter the title, academic college, was changed to ’junior college.ll" The first.junior college libraries paralleled the four-year college library, because the junior college was designated as providing the first two years of the four- year college. By 1950, it was well established that junior colleges had expanded their programs to include occupational education, adult education and community services in addition to a program constituting the first two years of college. The Functions of the Community COllege Libraries From the-develOpment of the community college the functions of the library have kept pace with the philosophy and social changes in our society. In the beginning, the function of the library was to provide books and periodi- cals, facilities, and services that would fulfill the requirements for the first two years of a four-year college program. As the philosophy of the community college changed so did the functions of the community college library. Ermine Stone, librarian at Sarah Lawrence College,v observed in 1932 that the functions of the community college library could be stated as: llTyrus Hillway, The American Two Year College (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958), p. 37. 19 l. Preparatory: To prepare students for further* academic study either in the upper divisions. of college or university or in a professional school. 2. Terminal: To give to those students who do not expect to go on to further study an educational experience comparable to the first two years of college, this experience to be either cultural or frankly vocational.12 These two functions had not basically changed from the original purposes of the junior college. E. Coulter observed a year earlier that another function could be added: "It may also become the function of the library. to provide for the needs of the adult pOpulation of the community." This statement is qualified by "The extent to which this is legitimate depends upon the accessibility of a public library." Coulter then conceived the com- munity college concept when she continued to say "In certain districts, the junior college will become the peOple's college, . . . and as such may well plan for a continued educational program for its alumni."13 By 19A0, Harvey Branscomb observed, "College libraries have the responsibility of collecting materials of the local community and the agency which supports it in addition to its own history."14 l2Ermine Stone, The Junior College Library (Chicago: American Library Association, 1932), pp. 16-17. 13E. M. Coulter, "The Functions of the Junior College Library," The Junior Collegngournal, 1:A81-86, May, 1931. ‘ lLlHarvey Branscomb, Teaching With Books (Chicago: American Library Association, 19A0), p. 168. 20 The new technology that developed during World War II can best be described by the word change. Venn stated: "Although this concept is not new; what i3 new is the change in the rate of change."15' Change has gone from a linear progression to a geometric one. These technologi- cal advances have also affected the functions of the library by providing materials, and equipment to provide services that a few years earlier were not available. R. B. Downs emphasizes this when he said: "Libraries are, now paying more attention than ever before.to non-book‘ materials, maps, slides, motion pictures, film, music, speech recordings, prints, and similar categories."-1 L. Shores calls a modern library today a learning resource library "complete with books, tapes, records, audio-visual, television, film, and other new technological develOp- ments."l7 By 19A8, a report by the President's Commission on Higher Education listed five basic purposes and functions of the community college. 1.. Make frequent surveys of the community so it can adOpt its program to community needs both general and vocational. flSGrant Venn, Man Education and Work (Washington, D.C.:~ American Council on Education, 196A), p. 3. 16R. B. Downs, "The Library's Place in Today's. Unizersity," American Library Bulletin, A8:503, October, 195 . l7Louis Shores, "Library Junior College," The Junior College Journal,-36:6, March, 1966. 21 2. To provide older students alternate periods of work and college attendance. 3. General and vocational educational programs to be well oriented into a single program. A. To meet the needs of the transfer student. 5. Provide adult education programs.18 These functions greatly expanded the functions of the community college library. In 1960, the North Central Association's Commission on Colleges and Universities adOpted as its standards the American Library Association Standards for Junior College Libraries. These Standards indicate the functions of the community college library as follows: 1. The library "must provide the resources needed to meet the curricular demands of the institu- tion." 2. The library "must have a rich and up-to-date. collection of books, periodicals, recordings, and other educational materials necessary for inspiring teachers." 3. The junior college library should bring strong intellectual stimulation to both faculty and' students." A. The library "should help the faculty keep abreast of the progress of scholarship." 18Higher Education for American Democracy, p. 37. 22 5. The library "should introduce students to the heritage of Western civilization, and provide them with a view of the non-Western world." 6. The junior college library may "function-as-a center for community affairs in connection with adult education programs or similar efforts for the cultural benefit of many citizens."19 Shortly after the standards were adopted, White observed . . .-that the community college library had as its basic function the responsibility to its own enrolled students. This consisted of providing for university- parallel education, enabling a student to enter the junior year of a four-year institution, occupational education for high school graduates, and adult educa— tion of whatever type is needed. The second function of the library was to implant the libraryihabit in all students. The third area of responsibility was to help the local resident.20 In planning for library services at Northwestern Michigan College, Rink endorsed the functions as outlined by the North Central Association and indicated that due to the community character of the college their library would offer the following services to the Grand Traverse area: 19"American Library Association Standards for Junior College Libraries," The Association of College and Research Libraries, 21:200, May, 1960. 20Ruth W. White, "The Role of the Community College Library," The Junior College Journal, 33:109-111, October, 1962. 23 (1) the resources pertinent to the economic activities of this area, (2) the materials pre- serving the historical record of northwestern Michigan, (3) the resources needed by community adultszieeking self—education at the college level. This expansion of the functions of the community college library concurs with Branscomb's observations some twenty- three years earlier. Studies that have been done in the past regarding the functions of the community college library have been limited. In 1967, Phelps of the Junior College Library Section of Association of College and Research Libraries, made an audio-visual survey through regional chairmen and state representatives. Of the 830 two year colleges in the United States, 185 librarians responded to the survey questionnaire.22 A function of community college libraries, as stated by the North Central Association and other library- authorities, is to provide non-book materials. Phelps' survey indicated that only 58 per cent of the community college libraries provided other than non-book materials by having the audio-visual department under the administra— tion of the librarian. Since this survey represented only 23 per cent of the total number of two year colleges in 21Bernard C. Rink, "Community College Library-- Cultural Solar Plexus," The Association of College and Research Libraries, 23:390, July, 1962. 22Wilma A. Phelps, "Audio-Visual Survey," The Association of Colleges and Research Libraries. (Mimeographed.) 2A the United States, it does not convey a true picture of the degree to which community college libraries are meet— ing the responsibilities of providing materials other than written materials.23 A recent study involving the perceptions of Higher Education faculty members on the utilization of library facilities, materials and services, was done for the Michigan State Library (public) in 1966, by Nelson Associates, Inc.2u The purpose of the study was to deter- mine "users of reference and research library resources to assess their needs and determine their pattern of use for these resources."25 The users that were sent questionnaires were: (1) all faculty members of four-year public and private insti- tutions of higher learning in Michigan, (2) all teachers of off-campus university courses, (3) a sample of public elementary and secondary school teachers, and (A) a sample of manufacturing executives. A second part of the data collection program con- sisted of interviews with selected librarians, faculty members, off-campus program directors, and administrators bide 2LlNelson Associates, Inc., Reference and Research Library Needs in Michigan (Report prepared by Nelson Associates for the Michigan State Library, 1966), pp. 1-31. 251b1d., p. 11. 25 of ten public and five private universities in Michigan. The study also included, eighteen selected federal, state and local government officials, to assess their needs for the use of reference and research library materials.26 The questionnaire was sent to 1A,969 persons at AA colleges and universities (presumably all faculty members); they received A877 usable replies. The questionnaire sent to faculty members, was divided into three parts: Part I was designed to determine faculty needs, Part II was aimed at determining undergraduate students' library needs. Part III was aimed at graduate students' library needs.27 Some of the major findings by Nelson Associates were: (1) The campus library is most frequently used, and most important to faculty and students. (2) After campus libraries faculty members felt the Detroit Public Library and the University of Michigan library were the two most important libraries, and that the University of Michigan had the best collection of books. (3) Except for three large university libraries, more than 50 per cent of the faculty members from the rest of the colleges and univer- sities-rated their libraries fair to poor. (A) Faculties feel that there is an inadequate number of multiple copies of books, and that a greater demand will be made 26Ibid., p. 11. 27Ibid., p. 1. 26 for periodicals, serials, journals, and similar items in the future. (5) Almost two-thirds of the faculties use interlibrary loan, but indicate service was too slow. (6) That library use, by faculty members, increased with length of service at the institution and faculty rank.28 The total questionnaire return was too small to make any accurate generalization about college faculty needs, regarding reference and research libraries, in Michigan. The range of returns from small college faculties varied from 2.6 per cent to 73.8 per cent, making it difficult to generalize any findings regarding the small college.29 The study could have been more predictive had a sample been drawn from each institution and more effort put into getting the questionnaires returned. I The second method of securing information, as indi- cated, was through interviews with faculty members and librarians. The study did not indicate how this sample was selected nor does it indicate what information was gathered through interviews, nor does it indicate any format of questions used in the interview. The second group of college and university faculty members surveyed were those teaching off-campus courses. The sample covered nine colleges and universities offering off-campus courses. A questionnaire was sent to 1220 2822122, pp. 21-23. For a complete list see Appendix A. 29Ibid., p. 2A° 27 faculty members of which A06 usable returns were received. These off—campus courses were taught in 166 communities of which 119 had off-campus courses from only one univer- sity or college, the rest had two or more institutions serving the community.30 Some of the major findings regarding off-campus instruction: (1) Three—fifths of the faculty members teach the same course on campus and off-campus, but indi- cate that they give different assignments to the two groups. Four out of five off-campus instructors attribute this difference entirely or partly to library resources. (2) More than half Off-campus faculty members tailor their reading assignments to library materials available locally. (3) More than 71 per cent of the off-campus faculty are of the Opinion that library limitations Off—campus affect the achievement of their off-campus students. (A) More than 90 per cent of the faculty responding to the question- naire indicated that their plans call for the same or more utilization of library facilities in the future.31 The total questionnaires returned was too small to make any accurate generalization about off-campus faculty needs, regarding reference and research libraries. The range of returns went from 10 per cent to 80 per cent 3OIbid., p. 2A. 311bid., pp. 30—31. 28 again making it difficult to generalize any findings regarding off-campus courses in Michigan.32 This study did not include Michigan community col— leges, yet the directors of this study included other~ phases of education in the state. With Michigan community colleges enrolling 2A per cent of the student body in higher education during 1966 and expecting, by 1980, to enroll almost 36 per cent of the students in higher educa- tion, a significant number of library users were not' included in the study.33 Standards for Community College Libraries It was apparent to many college and university leaders at the turn of the nineteenth century that a great need existed for establishing and enforcing some common denominator in education. Some agency needed to establish minimum standards to certify that a college had at least certain minimum resources, and was observing certain agreed upon rules for their use, so that other institutions, especially graduate schools, could assume its students were acceptable for admission.34 32Ibid., Appendix B. 33"The Public Community College in Michigan," Michigan Council of Community College Administrators, 34F. Taylor Jones, "The Regional Accrediting Association and Standards for College Library," College and Research Library, 22:271, July, 1961. 29 The North Central Association was established in the_midwestern states by secondary schools, colleges and universities, for accreditation purposes. The standards established by this association were originally quantita- tive in nature. Quantitative standards made it possible to count the size of a room, and to count books. Standards were then put into quantitative terms because they could be measured and enforced. In 1926, when North Central Association revised its accreditation standards, the junior college standards for libraries were: The junior college shall have a live, well dis- tributed and efficiently administered library of at least 3,000 volumes, exclusive of public documents selected with special reference to college work and with a definite annual apprOpriation for the purchase of current books and periodicals. It is urged that such an appropriation be at least $800. 1 It is evident from the established standards that they were only concerned with a minimum number of books in the library, and at least a specific amount Of money be spent on the library. No further consideration was made except to say the administration and collection should be live, which is not a measurable objective. Accreditation standards continued to be scrutinized and improved upon until 1960, when the North Central Association accepted the standards established by the 35"Standards of Accredited Institutions of Higher Education," The North Central Association Quarterly, 1:23, June, 1926. 3O 36 Lombardi indicates that American Library Association. there are in reality three sets of library standards for any school: (1) Standards set by school personnel, which he calls de facto standards. (2) Standards established by accrediting associations. (3) Standards set by professional organizations, in this case the American Library Associa- tion. He indicates that de facto standards are established when the president, or dean, of the institution notices empty chairs in the library and concludes the library is physically large enough to serve the student body, or that a small percentage of the books are being checked out, consequently, the book budget does not need to be increased.‘ In reality, the collection may be so poor that students are not using it. Accrediting associations establish standards by taking into account the total program of the institution in terms of its objectives. Whereas, the professional organization looks upon the 37 standards in a more specific way. He goes on to say that standards are a bulwark against attacks and that . . . accreditation is an important aid in strength- ening the library. Even after accepting limita— tions of accreditation, such as the possibility that quantitative standards might lead to stratifi- cation, that the standards give ideas as to what a 36F. Henne, "Challenge of Change; New Standards for New Times," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 50:75, January, 1966. 37J. Lombardi, "Standards at Grass Roots," Anerican Library Association Bulletin, 60:377, April, 1966. 31 library should be get necessarily with what it ought to do, . . . Lombardi, further points out that accreditation SUpports education when (1) it provides for self-study every five years, (2) it provides a parallel study by an outside group, (3) it provides an opportunity for formal and informal exchange Of ideas, (A) it requires responses to suggestions and recommendations of the accrediting group, (5) it preserves libraries from undue restrictive practices when money is short, (6) it forces librarians and administrators to accept or establish standards, (7) it re-enforces the principle that libraries be run by professional trained persons, (8) it helps librarians to withstand unwarranted censorship by community pressure.39 Library standards are continually changing. At the present time several organizations are working cOOperatively to update the community college library standards adOpted jointly by the North Central Association and the American Library Association, in 1960. A letter from the Associate Executive Director of the American Association of Junior Colleges recently indicates: . .>. we are very much interested in the redrafting of the ALA Standards being undertaken by members of the Junior College Library Section of ACRL in ALA. . . . It is our hope that through these joint efforts, 381bid., p. 380. 391bid. 32 both qualitative and quantitative measures can be identified which will help librarians, administrators and others in junior colleges in in the formulation of sound library services practice.LIO This concept of continued change in Standards is also held by Coles when he said, "Standards are for the present and not for the future and that they are always stated as minimal.”1 In 1963, a study was undertaken by Wheeler "to identify and describe the ways in which the community college can and should best serve its unique institution's program."Ll2 Ten criteria for the general organization and Operation of the community college library were established for the study. They included the areas of library collection and organization, program, personnel, management, instruction and use, and evaluation.143 In order to Obtain a picture of the library prac- tices in community colleges, a questionnaire employing uoLetter from William G. Shannon, Associated Execu- tive Secretary, American Association of Junior Colleges, Washington, D.C., January 23, 1968. LllJames S. Coles, "A College President and the Standards for College Libraries," College and Research Libraries, 222267, July, 1961. “2Helen Rippier Wheeler, The Community College Library: A Plan for Action (Hamden, Connecticut: The Shoe String Press, 1965), p. vii. Ll3Ibid., p. viii. 33 objective and subjective questions, were sent to all public community college library directors in the United States, founded before 1960, having an enrollment over 500 students. This involved a mailing list of 198 com- munity colleges in 27 states.uu The second source of information used for the study were six case studies of community college libraries. The selection of the schools "was based on such things as statistics, preliminary application of the criteria, specialized function of the college, and the directors willingness to participate."L45 Wheeler's observations for the six case studies were based on . . . the community college environment, size, curriculum emphasis, physical facilities, location of facilities, audio visual provisions, library climate, and overt problems; problems, limitations, unique contributions, and arrangements of library program; and the library director's personality and expressed opinion." 5 Interpretation of the questionnaires and the case studies provided the materials as to whether or not com- munity college libraries were meeting the ten criteria. The recommendations based upon the findings in the study are : (1) There should be support for and uulbido, po 1X5 L‘5Ibid., p. 57. u6Ibid. 3A implementation of ALA Standards, especially in the area of staffing, collection, and seating. (2) A library instruction course should be required of all new full- time students. (3) The reserve system as presently con- ceived should be de-emphasized. (A) Faculty library orientation and handbooks should be provided.”7 Wheeler's study involves two kinds of information. One is factual information such as the number of books, personnel qualifications, space and resources and how they relate to ALA Standards. The second is the way in which the library director perceives the role of the faculty, students, administration, community and himself as they relate to the library standards. The study alludes to the fact that the faculties are generally disinterested in their relationship to the library. The study also indi- cates that the administration is generally unsympathetic with libraries. Herein lies the problem for poor libraries. Historically, the library was created to fulfill certain needs. These needs were provided by faculty and students. To feel that one can accurately judge library needs solely thorugh the eyes Of professional librarians is unrealistic. To accurately judge the need, one would have to involve faculty and students. u7Ibid., pp. 80-89. 35 This study did not involve community colleges in all areas Of the United States, only 27 states were involved. The validity of a subjective type of study such as this one, depends greatly upon the capability of the observer to interpret findings prOperly, and to determine whether or not the findings are significant to the study. In 1965, the Michigan State Library engaged Nelson Associates, Inc., to conduct a study of community college libraries in Michigan. The objectives of the study were: 1. to assess the adequacy of existing collections against accepted standards; 2. to obtain up-to-date information on plans for library development in existing and projected community colleges; 3. to prOpose apprOpriate programs and measures for improvement and develOpment of library services and collections for these colleges; A. to suggest guidelines for State Library services to these institutions consistent with such programs and measures. A questionnaire was sent to eighteen community colleges and seventeen replied. In addition to the ques- tionnaire, thirteen community college libraries were visited and interviews were held with the librarian, and in several cases presidents, deans or registrars were 8Nelson Associates, Inc., A Program for the Rapid Improvement of Community College Libraries in Michigan (Report prepared by Nelson Associates for the Michigan State Library, 1965), 1. 36 also interviewed. The study did not indicate the format of the interview. The questionnaire asked for responses in five areas of concern: collection, services, facilities, budget and personnel. The interviews with librarians involved all five areas in addition to projected future plans for the community college. The information gathered was compiled and compared to the ALA Standards of 1960. In general, the findings indicate that Michigan community colleges lack books, staff, and facilities. The study indicates that these shortages are evident primarily because of the lack of funds. Two recommendations were made in the study: (1) A state-wide program be instituted to provide special grants for increasing library collections. (2) A state- wide program be instituted to provide special grants for increasing both professional and non-professional library staffs.“9 This study, along with the one by Wheeler involves the quantitative aspects of library standards. Both emphasize that community college libraries, in general, do not meet these standards, and that more financial help is needed to improve libraries nationally and in Michigan. ”91b1d., pp. A5_A7. 37 Summary of Literature A review of the literature in the area of community college libraries is in the form of periodical articles, and scattered studies that fall in the category of standards, accreditation, materials and selection, person- nel qualifications, and the libraries relationship to the instructional program. Much of the literature is devoted to someone's Opinion of how institutions are meeting standards estab- lished by an accrediting association, professional associa- tion, Or a state governing agency and whether too much emphasis is placed on quantitative criteria, and not enough emphasis is placed on qualitative criteria. These dis- courses usually indicate there should be less quantitative measures in judging libraries and more qualitative measures. However the article is usually concluded by saying it is very difficult to establish qualitative criteria, and that someone should take the initiative and responsibility to do this. Other writers discuss the functions of the community college library as it relates to the philOSOphy of the community college district. One function generally accepted by most writers is the instructional function of the community college library. The other functions of the library, listed by writers, usually involve the interests of the person writing the article. 38- Studies carried out by doctoral students, or govern— mental agencies usually involve whether or not libraries are meeting a set of standards. The studies are usually concerned with the number of books, whether or not the library houses other than book materials, qualifications and number of personnel, space utilization, and size of budget. These studies generally survey the head librar-. ians of the community college or administrative personnel. Some literature on community college libraries alludes to the idea that faculty and students are dis- interested in the quality and direction of the library. Yet, attempts to find out whether faculty or students are interested in the quality and direction of the library are almost non-existent. A review of literature revealed no studies directly related to the problequndertaken. Some research had been done regarding faculty perceptions of library usage on the four-year college and university level in Michigan. CHAPTER III RESEARCH PROCEDURES The procedures for doing this study will be outlined in this chapter. The areas of concern are: (l) a description of the population from which the sample was drawn, (2) a description of the sample, (3) the characteristics of the institutions from which the sample was drawn, (A) the design of the study, and (5) the hypotheses to be tested. Description of the Population The study is confined to the twenty public community colleges operating in Michigan prior to January 1, 1965. The population was stratified by taking 15 per cent of each of the twenty community college teaching faculty and the librarians as a sample. 'This insured representa- tion of each community college in the sample. On October 19, 1967, a letter was sent to each community college president requesting an up-to—date list of faculty members. The letter explained the reason for the request and the need for the list of faculty names.l Faculty lists were received shortly after the request was sent, except from seven communitycolleges. lAppendix B. 39 A0 NO follow—up letter was sent, instead a personal visit to each of the seven campuses was made. A current list Of faculty members was received from five of the institutions visited. One institution's policy was that the request be made to the faculty senate. The other asked that permission for release of the list be received from the department chairman. Both requests were honored. The lists of faculty nameS-received from each com—. munity college were typed on a specially designed numbered form.2 The use Of this procedure automatically assigned a number to each faculty member.’ The names were placed on the form in the same order they were received from the institution. Some were single alphabetized lists, one was listed by campus, and others were listed by depart— ments. The lists were arranged according to the number of faculty members employed at each community college. The community college having the least number Of faculty members was assigned number I. The community college with the largest faculty was assigned number XX. One hundred ninety nine sample cards were made, measuring 1" x 1%", and numbered. The selection of the sample began with community college number I, which had 20 faculty members. The first 20 cards were placed in a covered container, mixed thoroughly, and 15 per cent of the cards (15% of 20 = 3) drawn. The numbered name a.‘ v ‘E— 2Appendix C. A1 of the person corresponding to the number drawn was placed in the sample. TO draw the sample from community college number II all drawn numbers were returned to the container. Addi— tional numbers were added to correspond to the number of faculty members at college number II. The numbers were again mixed, 15 per cent of the numbers were drawn, and these faculty members assigned to the sample. This pro—. cedure continued until the entire sample was drawn. The sample size drawn consisted of 3A2 faculty members, 61 of which were librarians, and 281 were teaching faculty. Questionnaires were sent to the entire sample of 3A2 faculty members on March 1, 1968. One hundred ninety—seven questionnaires were returned before the deadline on 3 March 10, 1968. Follow-up letters and questionnaires were sent to the 1A5 people who had not responded to the first mailing on March 15, 1968. Questionnaires were received from 73 respondents after the second mailing. Of the 270 questionnaires received, 13 were not used in the analysis for the following reasons: seven were promoted to counselors, one to administration, one became a part—time faculty member, three were non-professional librarians and as such did not have faculty status, and one questionnaire was not filled out. Ten of the 72 questionnaires were not~returned for the following reasons: three were part-time employees, five left the employment A2 of the community college, one deceased and two were on leave—Of—absence. Questionnaires were received from 81 per cent of the sample for the study. A break—down of questionnaires received from the community colleges are presented in Table 3.1. Of the 257 faculty members participating in the study 67 per cent were males. The average (mean) age of the faculty sample was 38.8 with AA per cent of the indi- viduals being A0 years of age or older. The faculty making up the sample had an average, (mean) of 5.2 years Of full—time community college teaching experience. The average (mean) tenure in their present institution was A.6 years of teaching experience. When their total teaching experience was considered, the average (mean) faculty member had taught 10.6 years. Faculty teaching during the day accounted for A8 per cent of the sample. Less that two per cent taught full-time evening classes, whereas, almost 51 per cent taught during the day and evening. One Dean indicated that, due to negotiations, virtually no full-time faculty members taught evening classes in that community college. Faculty members were asked to indicate the status they held immediately before entering the-community college as a teacher. The results of this question are found in Figure 3.1. TABLE 3.l.--Questionnaires received A3 from community colleges. Vi a O o c m p O c c 0 m C: E > > p H 0 H H O a O O O m o u H o o :1 d) a O O m '3 E m m u s O 0 M o > H U) U) (0 g C U) 0H a O m O O O E h t. c: t. H p h o a o vifl Hrd : ‘H O m (CH and n a m : c~4 : m c H o c m c:z U c m u m H oz: 0 O Ovi : O s: 4.: v4 v4 13 > «H m d) w H H u u u f: H u >. o O w ‘4 0) U) 9) O Q) (Dr-4 I"! H a O n O o O O m are L p s~4 : O O a c O 0 Community Colleges 0 < OK 003 a: O< “0 Bay de Noc Community College A l 3 A 100 North Central Michigan College A l 1 1 2 75 Oogebic Community College A 2 2 A 100 Alpena Community College 8 6 2 8 100 Lake Michigan College 9 7 2 9 100 Northwestern Michigan College 9 A A 8 88 Monroe County Community College 9 9 — 9 100 St. Clair County Community College 11 5. 3 8 72 Kellogg Community College 1A 8 5 13 93 Lansing Community College 17 2 8 3 l 11 80 Muskegon County Community College 18 10 3 2 13 83 Highland Park College 17 1 6 3 9 56 Schoolcraft College 20 9 A 13 65 Jackson CommUnity College 19 12 2 1 1A 79 Delta Community College 22 l 17 A 21 100 Grand Rapids Junior College 27 2 l3 8 l 21 88 Oakland Community College 29 16 5 2 21 80 Henry Ford Community College 27 15 7 22 82 Macomb Community College 3A A 20 5 A 25 96 Flint Community Junior Colelge A0 1 l9 3 1 22 59 TOTALS 3A2 10 188 69 13 257 81 PER CENT 3 58 20 3 81 AA .w:d£omoe OwOHHoo muHGOBEOO Op AOHAQ mnOneOz gaseoem no odes museum seesaoaosm co coarsessoesouaa.m enemas mHoozom oaansm mSOOcmHHOomfiz mOHocOw¢ HmucoecnO>ow zpfimno>HCD no OwOHaoo shoal: mapmscdH no mmOchsm meeooeom “5 The educational background of the faculty members are presented in Table 3.2., Of the 257 faculty members who returned the questionnaire, only 39 have indicated a degree beyond the first Master's degree. Description of the Sample This study was confined to teaching faculty in Michigan community colleges. The sample consisted of 15 per cent of each community college teaching faculty, which is a large enough sample to insure an adequate distribu- tion Of personnel over the curricular programs, so that the distribution approximates the same percentage now represented in the Michigan community college faculty, as a whole. The study does not consider continuing education, because only four questionnaires were received from full- time faculty members teaching continuing education. The number was too small for statistical analysis. A fourth area of curricular programs, general education was not- considered. General education cuts across all other curricular programs, making it difficult to delineate it into a separate program. Therefore, it has been included in the other curricular programs. All librarians were asked to participate in the study as a group to determine if they perceived the instructional function of the library differently than A6 anOpHcOm mm HOOHmnsHHapOz pm H HmOHcmsOOz wm HOOHHBOOHM mm m H HH>Ho am H HOOHEOno mm H Hoseav moHeeeoo: oOHHoo< mm H HeeeoHeoHsme Hm H m wchuwno om mcHuOOchcm m u:oEOwwcmz coHumunOdmcmna one mcHquncz mm m m OOHeOcoom, 5w H NH OH GOHomoscm mmOchsm mm m m COHumspchHEo< mmOchsm mm COHOOppchHEo< OOHumo new OocwasmcH .3OH mmOchsm mm H H BCOEmecmz HOGOHO lauHumcH new ucmnsmpmom .HOpom Hm H m ao< HOHocOch new u.oo< om unochnm H m seooaoHHna mH H m m OHmsz mH. m 2H stooaHm OH H H mm am OaspdepHH :H H m HH mOmcschH MH m m . un< mH m H msOppOH one «99¢ HH thquH can mnMfl .Q.mm ommm .«.z .<.z .m.m EBHSOHnuso ocoo .OOawOO an monomu OMOHHOO muHcsesoo co canonmxomn HacOHuaosumII.m.m mqm<9 A7 Nb. Hm m MOWN 5H Hm 0H r-l oommzrr-tmm H anm Hm NMHH noooom mm COHBOOHcsEEoo no oHssm pee eonH>OHoe ma EmHHmcp30h mm meHmHoto>e< Ha mpn< coHOOOHcsEEoo xaoz HmHoom mm thHoHoom mm awOHonommm mm OocOHom HOOHOHHOE 2m azamquOo mm thH0doaspc< mm OocOHom HwHoom Hm b OocOHom HmHoom cOHumozom HOHHpmsocH mm OocOHom mamppHH we awOHonommm HmcoHumosvm one mOOH>HOm HOccomHOE .wcHHOmcsoo on .mosnm nchHm new COHuwppchHeo< :5 COHBOOHOOm one eoHoeosom Hsonsea .eeHeom me ESHSOHHASO pad cOHpmosum.mpmvcooOm mp COHpmosom HOHoOdm use AHOBCOEOHm He COHumosom 3mg no mnpmHueOo . mm OcHOHoOz ccesm Hm OCHOHOOS muOcHquO> om HOGOHmmomonm mchpsz mm OOprEOnumz em OocOHom HOOHmmnm mm OocOHom HOOHwOHOHm mm OocOHom HOHOCOO am mOHmmnm mm stomHsono mm OocOHom Houspmz Hm OocOHom Hanspmz A8 did faculty members teaching college transfer, or occupa- tional education. Characteristics of the Institutions In the Study The community college districts considered in this study were located throughout the state.3 Two were located in the upper peninsula.- Fourteen of the community college districts were now Operated by their own elected boards of control. The remaining six were being operated by the K-12 district Boards of Education. The 20 community college districts can be classified by size, into one of four groups according to the full- time teaching faculty they employ, seven community college districts employed less than 50, five employed between 50 and 100, three employed between 100 and 150, and five employed between 150 and 200 teaching faculty members. The campuses of 1A community colleges were using buildings less than 15 years of age. The other six cam- puses were utilizing buildings that were built as high schools or elementary facilities. Four of the six campuses located in high school facilities were either- building new campuses or were in the process of planning new campuses. Five community colleges had library buildings less than two years old, and five had architectural drawing3~ 3Appendix D. A9 for new facilities to be completed in the near future. Almost the entire group of libraries had received federal grants within the past two years for the purchase of library material or equipment. Some used the funds to purchase microfilm and equipment, others used the funds to purchase books for their collections. The Design of the Study This study was a causal—comparative design, with the major emphasis on the comparison of three groups as the independent variables. The research utilized a questionnaire prepared for this particular research project. The questionnaire was designed to investigate the perceptions of community college teaching faculty regarding the instructional function of the library. During January and February a sample was randomly selected from each of the teaching faculties of the 20 Michigan community colleges, Operating prior to January 1, 1965. During these two months a copy of the study pro- posal was sent to each head librarian at the 20 community colleges, asking them to review the study prOposal. They were also asked for appointments to discuss the study, and any questions they had regarding the study would be answered at that time. Consequently, all 20 libraries were visited and a conference was held with all but one of the 20 head librarians. 50 The head librarians were informed that a question- naire would be sent on March 1, 1968, to all faculty members selected for the sample, and that a letter of transmittal would accompany the questionnaire. The letter of transmittal would indicate the purpose of the study and a deadline for returning the questionnaire.Ll The librarians were then asked if they would encour- age faculty members, who did not return the first question- naire, to return the second one sent them on March 21. The librarians indicated they would encourage faculty members to return the questionnaires as requested. Each head librarian was sent a list of faculty mem- bers from his institution who had not returned the first questionnaires, so that they would know whom to encourage to return questionnaires. A second questionnaire and a follow-up letter was sent each faculty member who had not returned the first questionnaire as requested on March 21, I968.5 Questionnaires were received by mail and tabulated in order to determine who had returned questionnaires. Information from the questionnaires was transferred to IBM 555 Optical scan sheets in order to provide a punched card data deck. “Appendix E. 5Appendix F. 51 The computer at Michigan State University was made available through the Educational Research Department, of the College Of Education. Through the use of sorting machines and the computer the data were analyzed several ways, using both descriptive statistics and several methods of inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the pOpulation sample and their general reactions to the questions on the questionnaire. Secondly, non-parametric statistics were used to draw inferences about perceptions of certain groups in the sample. Non-parametric statistics were used in this study because it was not necessary to assume or show a normal distribution. The type of data collected in this study cannot be assumed to be more than ordinal data. Para- metric statistics assume both a normal distribution and better than ordinal data. The non-parametric statistics used in this study to determine whether differences between the groups could be accounted for by chance used the Chi-square distribution. A significant difference is interpreted to mean significant at or beyond the .05 confidence level. This study used the non-parametric Chi—square for testing hypotheses regarding group perceptions, except for two hypotheses. The Freidman two-way analysis of variance was used to analyze Hypothesis II. The 52 Kruskal-Wallis one—way analysis of variance was used to analyze Hypothesis VIII. The hypotheses to be tested and the questions from the questionnaire are as follows: Hypothesis I There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding the organizational structure of the library among librarians, instructors of transfer programs, and instructors Of occupational education programs. Question 35 involves the organizational structure of the facilities (centralized, semi—decentralized, or decentralized) and questions 63 and 6A involve the hierarchy of personnel in the community college. Hypothesis II There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding library facilities among librarians,.instructors Of transfer programs, and instructors of occupational education programs. Questions 36 through A5 involve the perceptions faculty members have regarding the kind of facilities they want. This series of statements required the faculty member to rate them in terms of their importance; number one was the most important and number ten the least important. 53 Hyppthesis 111 There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding library materials in the library among librarians, instructors of transfer programs, and instruc- tors of occupational education programs. Questions A6 through 51 reflect the perceptions of faculty members in regard to the kinds of materials that should be available in the library. Hypothesis IV There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding library services among librarians, instructors of transfer programs, and instructors of occupational education programs. Questions 52 through 59 reflect the perceptions of faculty members in regard to the kinds Of services that should be available in the library. - Hypothesis V There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding the librarians responsibilities among librar- ians, instructors of transfer programs and instructors of occupational education programs. Questions 60 through 62 reflect the perceptions of faculty members in regard to the responsibilities of the librarian. 5A Hypothesis VI There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding the student utilization of the library among librarians, instructors of transfer programs and instruc- tors of occupational education programs. Questions 75 and 76 reflect the perceptions of faculty members in regard to the student use of the library. Hypothesis VII There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding the faculty utilization Of the library among librarians, instructors Of transfer programs and instruc- tors Of occupational education programs. Questions 65 and 7A reflect the perceptions of faculty members in regard to faculty use of the library. Hypothesis VIII There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding the facility utilization of libraries among librarians, instructors Of transfer programs and instruc- tors of occupational education programs. Questions 67 through 73 reflect the perceptions of faculty members in regard to faculty use of library facilities including public, four-year college and univer- sity, and private libraries. CHAPTER IV DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE The develOpment of an attitudinal instrument for this study was done in four phases: a review of the literature on how to prepare a self-reporting question- naire, selecting and arranging items for the questionnaire, pre-testing the questionnaire, and designing the format and printing the questionnaire. A Review_gf the Literature on Preparing a Self-Reporting Questionnaire Attitudes are formed when an individual has a feeling toward some person, thing or situation. The attitude a person has is a product Of perceiving or is a part of his past experiences and knowledge.1 Until "Thurstone published two articles in which he develOped his Law of Comparative Judgement,"2 attitude 3 measurements had been confined to simple questionnaires. 1Robert C. Craig, The Psychologyof Learning in the Classroom (New York: The Macmillan O., 1966), p. 5A. 2Allen L. Edwards, Techniques of Attituge Scale Construction (New York: Appleton-Century-Croft, Inc., 1957), p. 20- 3Lee J. Cronbach, Essentials of Psychological Test- ing (New York: Harper and Brothers, l9A9), p. 369. 55 56 One weakness of the simple questionnaire was the lack of evidence that separate questions measured the same attitude.“ Since Thurstone developed a method of scaling atti- tudes, other methods have been employed. The scale most frequently used is the scale develOped by Likert in 1932. This scale permits the respondent to indicate his reaction to a statement on a five point scale: l-very strong agree- ment, 2-moderate agreement, 3-neutral, u-moderate disagree—_ ment, 5-very strong disagreement.5 The scores on the Likert scale have no absolute meaning (no zero point), whereas Thurstone's scale is on a continuum from zero to the upper end of the continuum. Shaw said, ". . . Likert type scales are often reliable and valid, but they prob- ably should be treated as ordinal scales."6 Siegel con- cludes, ". . . that parametric statistical tests, . . . ought not to be used with data in an ordinal scale."7 Since Likert devised his original scale there have been many modifications of it. One such example uses short statements to correspond to the five point scale “Ibid. 51bid., p. 372. . 6Marvin E. Shaw and Jack M. Wright, Scales for the Measurement of Attitudes (New York: McGraw-Hiil, 1967), p.I?H. 7Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavorial Science (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956), p. 26. 57 from agreement to disagreement. Other scales may use a seven or nine point scale instead of the original five established by Likert. An odd number is usually used so that there is a whole number in the center of the scale. The method of beginning an attitude questionnaire requires that a large number of items be collected regard- ing the objectives to be measured. Items can be written by the author of the questionnaire, collected from. printed matter, gathered through conversation, and by making observations.8 A number of authors suggest informal criteria for editing the statements after a sufficient number of items have been collected. Edwards compiled a list of fourteen criteria from these authors: 1. Avoid statements that refer to the past rather than the present. 2. Avoid statements that are factual or capable of being interpreted as factual. 3. Avoid statements that may be.interpreted in more than one way. A. Avoid statements that are irrelevant to the psychological object under consideration. 5. Avoid statements that are likely to be endorsed by almost everyone or by almost no one. 6. Select statements that are believed to cover the entire range of the affective scale of interest. 7. Keep the language of the statements simple, clear, and direct. 8Edwards, p. 10. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 58 Statements should be short, rarely exceeding twenty words. Each statement should contain only one com— plete thought. Statements containing universals such as all, always, none, and never often introduce ambiguity and should be avoided. Words such as only, Just, merely, and others of a similar nature should be used with care and moderation in writing statements. Whenever possible, statements should be in the form of simple sentences rather than in the form of compound or complex sentences. 'Avoid the use of words that may not be under- stood by those who are to be given the completed scale. Avoid the use of double negatives.9 After the items have met the above criteria, they can be formulated into a questionnaire with the following considerations. 1. Each item on the questionnaire must be develOped to measure a specific aSpeot of one of your. objectives or hypotheses. You should be able to explain in detail why you are asking the question and how you will analyze the responses. When constructing questionnaire items you must keep in mind that in most cases the individual responses must be reduced to some form that permits them to be counted or fitted into quantitative categories. The questionnaire should be designed in such a way that analysis of the results may be carried out efficiently. Avoid questions on the questionnaire that in some way would be psychologically threatening to the person answering... 9Ibid., pp. 13-1u. 59 5. Avoid questions on the questionnaire that convey to the respondent the type of answer you want. 6. A poorly reproduced questionnaire indicates to the respondent that the study is of little importance. 7. The neatness and composition of your questionnaire and accompanying material is also an important factor in determining the number of replies. 8. The questionnaire should be well designed, and made so that it can easily be returned through the mail.10 Questionnaires have the usual limitations of self- report devices. Some of which are: (1) questions may ask the subject to look back into his past and answer from memory, (2) many questions rely on a person's insight into himself, (3) subjects are able to falsify question- naires, (A) questionnaires suffer from communication, when the author and respondent may interpret the statement with different meaning.11 If the questionnaire is to be returned by mail, there are many unforseeable circumstances that may greatly affect whether or not the questionnaire is returned.12 10Walter R. Borg, Educational Research An Introduc- tion (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1963), pp. 206-221. llCronback, pp. 306-309. l2Julian C. Stanley, Measurement in Today's Schools (Nth ed.; Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 289. 6O Selecting and Arranging Items for the Questionnaire The questionnaire for the study was develOped after the purpoSe for the study was defined. The study was to determine if the curricular program taught by community college faculties is a factor in how the faculty perceive the instructional function of the community college library. Over a period of three months, short items regard- ing libraries were collected. Some items came from the review of literature, community college librarians, teachers, public librarians, Michigan State Library officials, and from past administrative experience of a public school and public library. The compiled list totaled about 130 items. These items were then analyzed in terms of the eight areas that define the instructional function of the community college library. Those items that did not relate to any of the areas were discarded. Items remaining were listed with the area to which they were related. After a review of literature regarding the prepara- tion.of attitude scales, the Likert type scale was utilized for the questionnaire. The literature also indicated that a variety of question types encouraged respondents to return the questionnaires. The Likert scale was modified into four different types of question scales and formats. One group of 61 statements asked the respondent to rank a group of state- ments from one to ten. Another group of questions, using the standard Likert scale, eXpressed attitudes from strongly agree to strongly disagree on a five point scale. A third group of questions asked the respondents to select a foil (from two to five foils per statement) that would eXpress his attitude and complete the sentence. This type of scale used the last foil to permit the- respondent to finish the sentence with his own statement if the other foils did not express his attitude. The fourth type of scale utilized seven statements regarding library usage, that were weighted from one to seven. The respondent was given a total score by summing the weighted scores. These modifications of the Likert scale were con- sidered in terms of the power of the non-parametric test, and in terms of utilizing the computer and the non- parametric computer programs available at Michigan State University for statistical analysis. The questionnaire was also designed for easy recoding to IBM punch cards. The items numbered on the questionnaire corresponded to the column and row numbers on the IBM punch card. 'The questionnaire was designed with two parts. Section I was designed to record such personal information as the respondents assigned number (only to be used to determine who returned the questionnaire), school, 62 classification of school by size of its faculty, years of community college teaching, total years of teaching experience, years of teaching in the present institution,, the degrees held and their major emphasis, the curricular area in which they taught, the time of day in which they taught, the status held prior to entering community college teaching, and the curricular program they taught in. Section II was designed to record faculty perceptions regarding the eight areas that define the instructional function of the community college. Formation of items on the questionnaire were formulated in accordance with the criteria stated earlier by Edwards.13 Pre-testing the Questionnaire The questionnaire was mimeographed and sent to several community college head librarians, administrators of the Michigan State Library (public) and a university librarian, along with the prOposed study. The librarians were asked to review the questionnaire in terms of the eight areas stated in the proposal. An appointment was made with each of these librarians to discuss the question- naire in terms of the areas, clarity_of statements, ambiguity, format and unnecessary items. Several changes were suggested in addition to adding items to the ques- tionnaire. l3Edwards, pp. l3-lA. 63 The questionnaire was modified as suggested by librarians, mimeographed and sent to ten community college teaching faculty members. They were asked to fill out the questionnaire and note any ambiguities, or unclear statements in the questionnaire. An appointment was arranged with the faculty member to discuss the question— naire in terms of ambiguities, or unclear statements. The changes were made in the questionnaire, and prepared for the printer. Design of the Format and Printing the Questionnaire The questionnaire was designed to utilize the least number of pages possible. The cover carried a simple artistic design and the title of the questionnaire. The book design in the lower right corner was placed there to give a visual that the questionnaire involved libraries, and to place the respondents number unobtrusively on the book fronts for identification.lu The back cover of the questionnaire was designed for the return of the questionnaire. By designing it to be folded in thirds, one-third could be used to give instructions on how to return the questionnaire, the center third was designed to look like the back side of an enve10pe, the remaining third was designed like the front luAppendix G. 614 of an envelope with the address of the person to whom the questionnaire was to be returned. The questionnaire was folded with the letter of transmittal in such a way that the respondent was to refold the questionnaire the same way it was received, staple, and mail. This made it very easy for the respondent to return the questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed so that when the cover was opened, Section I would be on the right hand page. If the numbering system for the items looked con— fusing to the respondent an explanation of it was printed on the back side of the cover. Those sample members who received the second mailing of the questionnaire had the second questionnaire identified by the same number that appeared on the first questionnaire. The mailing of the follow-up letter and second question- naire followed the same procedure as the first mailing. CHAPTER V RESEARCH FINDINGS During the analysis of data other independent vari- ables were introduced and evaluated to determine whether ' there are other factors that affect the perceptions of faculty members regarding the instructional function of the community college library.l Variable l The independent variable involved in this study was: the kind of teaching responsibility (curricular programs) faculty members had. The groups are: transfer program teachers, occupational education teachers and librarians. Variable 2 The size of the community college was_classified by the number of faculty members employed. The four-groups making up variable 2 are: between one and 50, between 50 and 100, between 100 and 150, between 150 and 200 faculty members. Variable 3 The ages of the faculty members was divided into two groups, those above 40 and those below A0. 1Appendix H 65 66 Variable A The working hours of faculty members consisted of two groups of faculty members: those who teach only during the day and those who teach during the day and evening. Variable 5 The employment status of the faculty members imme- diately prior to community college teaching. The three groups are : faculty who had taught in the public schools, faculty who had taught at four-year colleges or univer- sities and students, all other previous employment experi- ence. An indication as to whether these variables have any affect on_the perceptions of faculty members regarding the instructional function are briefly discussed after the results of each hypothesis regarding variable number one. These additional variables were measured with the same statistical measures that measured-variable one. The probability of whether differences, on the other variables was by chance, was measured at the .05 confi- dence limit or less. The description of the computer programs used to compute these research findings are contained in the Computer Institute for Social Science Research (CISSR), Technical Reports numbered 40 through 44.2 2James Morris, "Technical Reports No. AO-AA." (Michigan State University, East Lansing: Computer Institute for Social Science Research, January, 1968). (Mimeographed.) Hypothesis I 67 Findings H : there is no significant difference in percep- O tions regarding the organizational structure of the library among librarians, instructors of transfer programs, and instructors of occupational education programs. Question #35. The library facility can be housed- several ways. Indicate your preference by checking one of the following statements regarding the organizational structure of the facility. 35-10 35-20 *35"20 *35—4. The library facility should be completely housed in a single building (or a designated space in a building) on the community college campus. The library facility should be semi- decentralized so that there would be a main library and several_departmental satelite libraries for special materials and services as they relate to students and faculty. The library facility should be completely decentralized with no main library building, but a group of departmental libraries located conveniently for departmental use. Other organizational structure. (Please describe.) ... There are significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding the organizational structure of the facility. The faculty endorsed a semi-decentralized library and librarians endorse a centralized library. Occupational education faculty highly favor a semi- decentralized library. 68 TABLE 5.l.--Frequency of responses regarding the organiza- tional structure of the library facility.* Organization of Facility Faculty 1 2 Totals Transfer Programs 63 75 118 Occupational Programs 21 A0 61 Librarians 33 14 ,A7 TOTALS 117 129 246 2 X 14.091 2 .001 * . Foils 3 and A were not used because of limited responses. Question #63. In the personnel organizational structure of the library the head librarian should (Check one) 63-1. be considered as one of the teaching faculty. 63-2. be-considered as a part of the administra- ~ tive group. 63-3. be considered neither faculty nor adminis- tration. *63-9. Other. EXplain. 69- TABLE 5.2.--Frequency of responses regarding the organiza- tional structure for the head librarian.* Organization of Personnel . Faculty‘ » - 1 .2 A 3 ‘3 Totals- Transfer Programs A8 61 29 138 Occupational Programs 27 22 15 6A Librarians 16 28 0 AA TOTALS 91 111 A“ 246 2 X 15.388 df = A .01 * Foil A was not used because of limited responses. There are significant differences in perceptions among faculty members in regard to the hierarchy of per— sonnel. Occupational education teachers favor the head librarian be classified as a faculty member, whereas librarians and transfer program teachers prefer the head librarian be classified as an administrator. Question #6A. In the personnel organizational structure of the library the assistant librarian should be considered (Check one). 6A-l. as one of the teaching faculty. 6A—2. as a part of the administrative group. 6A-3. neither faculty nor administration. *6A-A. Other. Explain ... . 70 TABLE 5.3.--Frequency of responses regarding the organiza- tional structure for assistant librarians.* Organization of Personnel Faculty 1 2 3 Totals Transfer Programs 75 25 38 138 Occupational Programs 37 8 18 63 Librarians 3O 12 1 A3 TOTALS 1A2 A5 57 2AA- x2 1A.A7A df = A .01 * Foil A was not used because of limited reaponses. There are significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding the hierarchy for assistant librarians in the personnel structure. All three faculty groups prefer the assistant librarians be classified as faculty members, although not to the same degree. Summary.--The groups differ significantly in their perceptions of the facility and personnel organizational structure of the 1birary. Instructors of transfer pro- grams and librarians prefer the head librarian be classi-: fied as administration, whereas the instructors of occupational education programs prefer head librarians be classified as faculty members. Teaching faculty prefer a semi-decentralized library and the librarians prefer a centralized library. 71 When the other four group variables were considered, using the same statistical tests, the results indicate no differences among group variables. Hypothesis II H : 0 there is no significant difference in percep- tions regarding library facilities among librarians, instructors of transfer programs and instructors of occupational education programs. Below are listed a number of special areas you could have built into the library. Check them in terms of priority with number (1) having the highest priority and number (10) having the lowest priority. 36. An area designed for student reading carrels 37. Rooms designed for small group meetings 38. An area designed for producing graphic arts (posters, film strip, pictures, transparencies) 39. Display and storage area for an art collection or other displays A0. Faculty carrel area A1. A reserve materials area A2. Smoking area for students and faculty A3. Storage and check-out areas for audio- visual equipment and their materials AA. Individual listening and viewing booths A5. Study areas designed to simulate working con- ditions such as shOp noise, office noice and equipment arrangements. The Friedman two-way analysis of variance was used for this test of ranks. The tabulation for each question was collapsed, by converting the median to a ten point 72 scale, these collapsed scores were ranked for the statisti- cal test. The formula used in this test was for large samples. TABLE 5.A.--Ranks of collapsed medians on a ten point scale. Library Facilities Faculty 36 37 38 39 A0 A1 A2 A3 AA A5 Transfer Programs 1 5 6 8 7 2 9 A 3 10 Occupational Programs 1 A 6 8 7 2 9 5 3 10 Librarians l 5 7 8 6 2 9 A 3 10 RANK TOTALS 3 1A 19 2A 20 6 27 13 9 30 x2 26.71 df = 9 .01 There are significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding the facilities provided in the library. When the four groups variables were considered the results indicated that there were significant differences among variable groups (size of school, time of teaching and previous occupation). Age was the only variable that showed no significant difference. This indicates that in addition to teaching responsibilities other factors do influence the kind of library facilities the faculty want. 73 Hypothesis III _ HO: there is no significant difference in percep- tions regarding library materials in the library among librarians, instructors of transfer pro- grams, and instructors of occupational educa- tion programs. The responses to this set of statements are the same as the original Likert scale: I-aVery Strong Agree— ment . . . 5-eVery Strong Disagreement. The statistical test used for this hypothesis was Chi-square. A6. Community college libraries should provide only books, periodicals, and reference books for its students and faculty. TABLE 5.5.--Frequency of responses regarding the use of ' books, periodicals, and reference books. Library Materials Faculty 1 2 3 A 5 Totals Transfer Programs 6 16 10 50 59 1A1 Occupational Programs 2 16 9 18 19' 6A Librarians 2 6 3 10 26 A7 TOTALS 10 38 22 78 10A 252 x2 15.A67 df = 8 N8 There are no significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding_whether the library shouls only provide books, periodicals, and reference books for 7A students and faculty. There is agreement among the groups that the library should provide more than book materials. A7. Sixteen millimeter film and 35 millimeter' film strips should be part of a separate, audio-visual department in the community college. TABLE 5.6.--Frequency of responses regarding where 16 and 35 millimeter film should be located. Library Materials Faculty ' 1 2 3 A 5 Totals Transfer Programs 30 35 32 27 17 1A1 Occupational Programs 13 15 1A 15 6 63 Librarians 13 7 9 7 12 A8 TOTALS 56 57 55 A9 35 252 x2 9.291 df = 8 NS There are no significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding where film should be 1coated. There is no agreement as to where the film shou1d_be kept. Teaching faculty slightly favor the separate audio-visual department and librarians are neither in agreement nor disagreement on the issue. A8. Tapes and records should be available through the library for student and faculty use. 75 TABLE 5.7.--Frequency of responses regarding where tapes and records should be located.* Library Materials Faculty 1 2 Totals Transfer Programs 83 50 133 Occupational Programs 3A 25 59 Librarians 3O 12 A2 TOTALS 1A7 87 2A3 x2 2.02A df = 2 NS *Foils 3, A and 5 were dropped from the analysis because there were too few responses. There are no significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding where tapes and records should be located. Ninety-three per cent of the faculty agree that records and tapes should be kept in the library. A9. Maps, models, specimen kits, charts, etc. should be purchased by the library and checked out to students and faculty as their needs arise. There are no significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding the purchasing of maps, models, specimen kits, charts, etc. for the library. Fifty-seven per cent of the faculty members prefer these materials be provided by the library. 76 TAB.E 5.8.--Frequency of responses regarding whether maps, models, specimen kits, charts, etc. should be purchased by the library. Library Materials Faculty 1 2 3 A 5 Totals Transfer Program A2 A0 27 23 10 1A2 Occupational Programs 17 2A 8 10 5 6A Librarians 13 11 ll 6 7 A8 TOTALS . 72 75 A6 39 22 25A x2 I 6.890 df = 8 NS 50. Micro-film of books and magazines should be purchased and used instead of duplicating materials or replacing worn out materials. TABLE 5.9.--Frequency of reSponses regarding whether micro-film should replace duplicate or worn materials. Library Materials Faculty 1 2 3 A 5 Totals Transfer Programs 31 A7 AA .16 3 1A1 Occupational Programs 1A 17 26 6 1 6A Librarians 5 25 8 7 3 A8 TOTALS 50 89 78 29 7 253 x2 16.A28 df = 8 .05- 77 There are significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding the use of micro-film to replace duplicate or worn materials. A higher percentage of instructors strongly agree that duplicate and worn materials should be replaced by micro-film, whereas librarians moderately agree that worn materials and duplicate copies should be replaced by micro-film. 51. The library should sell paperback books and related materials whenever possible TABLE 5.lO.--Frequency of responses regarding whether libraries should sell paperback books whenever possible. Library Materials Faculty 1 2 3 A 5 Totals Transfer Programs 13 ll 22 A0 56 1A2 Occupational Programs 7 1 8 23 25 6A Librarians O 7 6 10 25 A8 TOTALS 20 19 36 73 106 25A x2 15.216 df = 8 NS There are no significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding the selling of paperback books in the library. The instructors and the librarians agree that paperback books should not be sold in the library. 78 Summary.--There were no significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups in_five out of the six statistical tests. A difference in perception was only found in item 50, which was concerned with purchasing micro-film as a replacement for worn or duplicate materials. Faculty groups basically agreed on the kinds of materials that should be available in the library. When the other four independent variables were tested only item A6, libraries should only provide books, periodi— cals and reference books, was significant among groups regarding job status. The variable was significant at the .01 confidence level. Hypothesis IV HO: there is no significant difference in per- ceptions regarding library services among librarians, instructors of transfer programs and instructors of occupational education programs. The responses to this set of statements are the same as the original Likert scale: l--Very Strong Agreement . . . 5--Very Strong Disagreement. 52. Copy service should be available to students at‘a minimal fee. There are significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding the availability of c0py service to students at a minimal cost. The faculty generally agree that copy service should be provided to students at a minimal cost. Librarians are in greater 79 TABLE 5.ll.--Frequency of responses regarding the avail- ability of copy service for students at a minimal cost.* Library Services Faculty 1 2 Totals Transfer Programs 103 31 13A Occupational Programs A1 19 6O Librarians A3 A A7 TOTALS 187 5A 2A1 2 X 8.22 df = 2 .02 * Foils 3, A, and 5 were not used in the analysis because of insufficient responses. agreement than teaching faculty that copy service be provided to students at a minimal cost. Occupational education teachers do not agree as strongly as do transfer teachers or librarians on offering copy service to students at minimal costs. 53. Compiling bibliographies for faculty members is a responsibility of the library. There are no significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding the availability of bibliographies for faculty members. The data indicates that all three groups slightly favor bibliographies be prepared for faculty members. 80 TABLE 5.12.--Frequency of responses regarding bibliographies prepared by the library. Library Services Faculty 1 2 3 A 5 Totals. Transfer Programs 22 Al 38 25 1A 1A0 Occupational Programs l2 l2 17 1A 9 6A Librarians 18 10 6 8 6 A8 TOTALS 52 63 61 A7 29 252 x2 15.280 df = 8 NS 5A. Students and faculty should be permitted to use equipment such as tape recorders and projectors off-campus. TABLE 5.13.--Frequency of responses regarding the use of equipment (tape recorders and projectors) off-campus. Library Services Faculty 1 2. 3 A 5 Totals, Transfer Programs 15 33 28 A5 21 ' 1A2 Occupational Programs 8 ll 9 22 1A 6A Librarians 6 9 5 10 18 A8 TOTALS 29 53 A2 77 53 25A 1A.070 df = 8. NS 81 There are no significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding the use of equipment (tape recorders and projectors)off-campus. The three groups generally agree that this practice of using equipment off-campus should not be allowed. 55. The library should provide courier service for the faculty by taking material to them from the library and picking it up when the faculty member is through. TABLE 5.1A.--Frequency of responses regarding the library providing a courier service of materials for faculty. Library Services Faculty 1 2 3 A 5 Totals Transfer Programs 20 37 37 31 17 1A2 Occupational Programs l3 l7 13 1A 7 6A Librarians 8 10 3 10 17 A8 TOTALS A1 6A 53 55 A1 25A x2 21.9A9 df = 8 .01 There are significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding whether the library should provide courier service, of materials, for faculty. Librarians tend to disagree to provide the service whereas the faculty tend to want the courier service. The occupa- tional education teachers prefer the service slightly more than the teachers teaching transfer programs. 82 56. Students and faculty should be permitted to check out film, tapes, and records along with equipment to use elsewhere on campus. TABLE 5.15.--Frequency of responses regarding the use of film, tapes, records and equipment elsewhere on campus. Library Services Faculty 1 2 3 Totals Transfer Programs 63 56 23 1A2 Occupational Programs 32 2A 8 6A Librarians 15 ll 22 A8 TOTALS 110 91 53 25A x2 23.079 df = A .001 A Foils A and 5 were dropped from the analysis because of insufficient responses. There are significant.differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding the use of films, tapes, records and equipment elsewhere on campus. Teaching faculty tend to agree more than librarians that these materials and equipment be used elsewhere on campus. 57. All COpy service should be available to faculty at a minimal cost. 83 TABLE 5.16.--Frequency of reSponses regarding a copy service to be available to faculty at minimal costs.*- Library Services Faculty 1 2 3 Totals Transfer Programs 9A 26 21 1A1 Occupational Programs 37 1A 12 63 Librarians 33 11 A A8 TOTALS 16A 51 37 252 2 X 3.202 df = A NS * Foils A and 5 were dropped from the analysis bacause of insufficient responses. There are no significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding copy service to faculty at minimal cost. All three groups generally agree the COpy service should be available at minimal costs. Summary.--One-ha1f the items concerning Hypothesis IV show a significant difference among faculty groups. The differences between the transfer program teachers and the occupational education teachers are not as great as the differences between the transfer program teachers and the librarians, the occupational education teachers and the librarians. When the other four independent variables were tested, with the same statistical test, only item 52 8A ragarding copy service for students showed a significant difference among the groups (full-time day teachers and full-time day and evening teachers). The difference was significant at the .05 confidence level. Hypothesis V HO: there is no significant difference in percep-. tions regarding the librarians' reSponsibilities among librarians, instructors of transfer pro- grams and instructors of occupational education programs. ' Question #60. As the community college grows and meets its obligation new curriculum must be developed and old ones changed to meet the current needs. Check one of the following that expresses your vieWpoint. 60-1. The librarian should be involved in setting up curriculum objectives with faculty members. 60-2. The librarian has no responsibility for helping to establish the objectives of any curriculum or program. 60’30 Others. Explain. o o o o TABLE 5.17.--Frequency of responses regarding the involve— ment of librarians in curricular development. Librarians' Responsibilities Faculty 1 2 3 Totals Transfer Programs 60 60 18 138 Occupational Programs 13 36 12 61 Librarians 38 8 2 A8 TOTALS 111 10A 32 2A7 x2 36.726 df fl :1:- .001 85 There are significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding the involvement of librar- ians in curricular development. Transfer program teachers are split in their perceptions of involving the librarians in curricular development. Occupational education teachers indicate that librarians shouls not be involved in curricu— lum develOpment. The librarians strongly recommend that they be involved in curriculum development. Question #61. Each library has the responsibility of selecting and securing materials for the library. Check one of the following items which expresses' your vieWpoint. 61-1. The librarian should have the sole respon- sibility for determining what materials and books are to be selected for the library. 61-2. The librarian and the faculty should cooperatively select books and materials for library purchase. 61—3. The faculty should have the sole respon- sibility for the selection of materials and books for library purchases. 61-A. Others. Explain ... . TABLE 5.18.--Frequency of responses regarding the selection and securing materials for the library.* Librarians' Responsibilities Faculty 1 2 3 A Totals Transfer Program 1 129 7 A 1A1 Occupational Programs 0 63 2 O 65 Librarians 1 A6 1 0 A8 TOTALS 2 238 10 A 25A *No statistical test is meaningful for this item because of the overwhelming response to foil #2. 86 All three groups concur that the selection and securing of materials for the library should be a c00pera- tive effort. Question #62. Ii is usually necessary to teach students how to use a library. Check one of the following items that express your point of view. 62-1. 62-2. 62-3. 62-A. 62-5. The librarian should have the sole responsibility for teaching students to use the library and encourage its use. The librarian and the faculty should share the responsibility of teaching students to use the library and encourage its use. The faculty should have the sole responsi- bility of teaching students how to use the library and encourage its use. The community college has no responsibility for teaching the use and encouraging stu- dents to use the library. Other. Explain ... TABLE 5.19.--Frequency of responses regarding the responsi- bility of teaching students to use the library.* Librarians' Responsibilities Faculty 1 2 Totals Transfer Programs 16 123 139 Occupational Programs 12 A8 60 Librarians 3 AA A7 TOTALS 31 215 2A6 2 X A.782 df = 2 NS * Foils 3, A and 5 were drOpped from the analysis because of insufficient responses. ’ 87 There were no significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding the responsibility of teach- ing students to use the library. Faculty and librarians agree that both faculty and librarians have the responsi- bility of teaching students to use the library. A higher percentage of occupational education teachers indicate the librarian be responsible for teaching students to use the library facility. Summary.--When the other four variables were tested, using the same statistical tests, item 61 indicated a difference among groups regarding employment status prior to entering community college teaching.' The difference was significant at the .05 confidence level. Item 62 indicated a difference among groups regarding age. The difference was significant at the .02 confidence level. It appeared that factors other than the instructional function influenced faculty perceptions regarding the librarians' responsibilities. Hypothesis VI HO: there is no significant difference in per- ceptions regarding the student utilization of the library among librarians, instructors of transfer programs and instructors of occupational education programs. Question # 75. Student usage of the library facilities is generally determined by the require- ments, through assignments, of the faculty. Please check the item which most closely applies to you. 88 75-1. I never give library assignments, directly or indirectly. 75—2. I give either one or two assignments per semester or term that would require the use of the library. 75-3. I give more than two assignments per term or semester which would require the use of the library. TABLE 5.20.--Frequency of responses regarding the student utilization of the library through assignments. 4—; Student Utilization Faculty 1 2 3 Totals Transfer Program 15 67 57 139 Occupational Program 10 27 27 6A Librarians A 5 15 2A TOTALS 29 99 99 227 x2 6.885 df = A NS There were no significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding the student utilization of the library through assignments. Over 80 per cent of the faculty gave one or more assignment per term or semester in which the student must use the library. About one-half of the librarians did not respond to this question because they did not teach classes. 89 Question #76. Assignments which would require the use of the library (Check one) 76-1. should be from assigned reading only. 76-2. should be from several sources with varying points of view (not from assigned reading). TABLE 5.2l.--Frequency of responses regarding the type of library assignments. Student Utilization Faculty 1 2 Totals Transfer Programs 11 123 13A Occupational Programs 9 51 6O Librarians l 31 32 TOTALS 21 205 226 2 X 3.95 df = 2 NS There were no significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding the type of library assign- ments made. Faculty agree that library assignments should be from several sources and not from assigned readings. There was a higher percentage of occupational teachers who felt library assignments should be from assigned reading, although this different point of view was slight. Summary.--When the other four independent variables were tested, using the same statistical tests, there were no significant differences among the groups of the 9O respective independent variables. The perceptions of faculty members regarding the students' utilization of the library was not affected by the programs they teach. Hypothesis VII HO: there is no $1 of the library of transfer pr occupational e Question #65. To d community college 1 presented. Check t applies to you. *65-1. I never us 65-2. I use the more than 65-3. I use the more than 65-A. I use the great deal TABLE 5.22.--Frequency of the community co gnificant difference in per- ceptions regarding the faculty utilization among librarians, instructors ograms and instructors of‘ ducation programs. etermine the library usage of ibraries several statements are he item which most closely e our community college library. community college library n0- once a week. community college library no twice a week. community college library a (at least three times a week). responses regarding the use of llege library by faculty.* Faculty Utilization Faculty 2 3 A Totals Transfer Programs 66 37 38 1A1 Occupational Programs A5 1A 6 65 Librarians 7 2 32 Al TOTALS 118 53 76 2A7 X2 61.391 df = A .001, * Foil l was combine d with foil 2. 91 There were significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding faculty use of the community college library. Thirty-one per cent of the occupational education teachers used the library more than once a week, whereas 53 per cent of the transfer program teachers used the library more than once a week. Question #66. During the past year (Check 932) 66-1. I used the Michigan State Public Library. 66-2. I have not used the Michigan State Public Library. TABLE 5.23.--Frequency of responses regarding the use of the Michigan State Public Library. Faculty Utilization Faculty 1 2 Totals Transfer Programs 25 116 lAl Occupational Programs 11 53 6A Librarians 3O 16 A6 TOTALS 66 185 251 2 X AA.033 df = 2 .001 There were significant differences in perceptions among groups regarding faculty use of the Michigan State Public Library. Seventeen per cent of the teachers in both the transfer and occupational education programs 92 used the Michigan State Library (public) during the past year, whereas 65 per cent of the librarians used the Michigan State Library (public). Question #7A. Some community college teachers use A-year college and university libraries for class preparation. Please check the item which most closely applies to you. 7A-1. I never use A-year college and university library facilities for my class prepara- tion (courses you teach). 7A-2. I have used A-year college or university library facilities once during the past year for class preparation. 7A-3. I have used A-year college or university library facilities more than once for class preparation during the past year. TABLE 5.2A.--Frequency of responses regarding the use of A-year college and university libraries. Faculty Utilization Faculty 1 2 - 3 Totals Transfer Programs 53 35 A3 131 Occupational Programs A0 6 16 62 Librarians 6 3 16 25 TOTALS 99 AA 75 218 2 ll .1: X 22.998 df .001 93 There were significant differences in perceptions among faculty groups regarding faculty use of four-year college and university libraries. Sixty per cent of the transfer program teachers had used four-year college and university libraries at least once during the past year for class preparation, whereas 35 per cent of the occupa- tional education teachers had used a four-year college or university library for class preparation during the past year. Summary.--It was evident that the kind of programs faculty members teach were factors in how they perceived their use of the libraries. When the other four indepen— dent variables were tested, using the same statistical test, there were no significant differences among the groups of the respective independent variables. Hypothesis VIII HO: there is no significant difference in per- ceptions regarding the facility utilization of libraries among librarians, instructors of transfer programs and instructors of occupational education programs. This hypothesis was tested using the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance. Faculty members were asked to check those items which applied to the purpose for which they use the library facilities. If they checked item 67 it was weighted one, if they checked item 68 it it was weighted two, this procedure continued through item 73. The weighted scores were totaled for each individual 9A and the statistical test was computed. The formula that was used made special adjustments for ties. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. TABLE 5.25. I use the community college library for class preparation. I use the community college library for recreational reasons such as reading fiction, or use materials connected with avocational interests. I use local public and/or private library facilities for class preparation. I use local public and/or private libraries for recreational purposes (fiction, avocational interests, etc.). I use A-year college and university libraries for class preparation. I use the Michigan State Public Library for class preparation and/or recreational reasons. I use libraries for research purposes in addition to class preparation and recreational reasons. --Frequency of responses regarding the utiliza- tion of libraries. Faculty Facility Utilization 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Totals 10A 85 56 67 A2 12 101 1A1 Transfer Program 7A% 60% 39% u7% 29% 8% 71% Occupational 5A 20 25 2A 7 2 A3 65 Programs Librarians 83% 30% 38% 35% 10% 3% 66% 1A 25 10 17 12 16 26 AA 31% 56% 22% 38% 27% 36% 59% 95 TABLE 5.26.--Sum of squares regarding faculty utilization of library facilities. Faculty‘ Sum of Squares Transfer Programs 17,6A3 Occupational Programs 6,178 Librarians A,98A x2 17.9178 df = 3 .0005 Summary.--There were significant differences in per- ceptions among faculty groups regarding the utilization of libraries. Except for utilizing the community college library for class preparation and research, occupational education teachers utilized libraries less than the transfer program teachers or librarians. When the other four variables were tested there were significant differences among groups of the variable consisting of full-time day teachers and full-time day and evening teachers. This variable was significant at the .02 confidence level. Summary This chapter has been devoted to determining if there were differences in perceptions of faculty groups, classified by the kinds of curricular programs faculty teach, regarding the instructional function of the community college library. 96 The instructional function is defined as eight areas that can be Operationally measured. These operational areas were stated in null hypothesis form. The null hypotheses, regarding these areas, were assigned state- ments from a prepared questionnaire. The items on the questionnaire were analyzed with non-parametric statistical tests using the Chi-square distribution of probability. If all items assigned to a hypothesis were rejected with a probability at or below the .05 confidence level the null hypothesis, of no difference, was rejected in favor of a difference in perceptions among faculty groups. If only part of the items were rejected the null hypothesis, of no difference, was not rejected. Of the eight stated null hypothesis four were rejected: (1) There is no significant difference in per- ceptions regarding the organizational structure of the library among librarians, instructors of transfer programs, and instructors of occupational education programs. (II) There is no significant difference in perceptions regard- ing library facilities among librarians, instructors of transfer programs, and instructors of occupational educa- tion programs. (VII) There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding the faculty utilization of the library among librarians, instructors of transfer pro- grams and instructors of occupational education programs. (VIII) There is no significant difference in perceptions 97 regarding the facility utilization of libraries among librarians, instructors of transfer programs and instruc- tors of occupational education programs. The rejection of the four null hypotheses indicated that there were differences among faculty groups, accord- ing to the variable teaching responsibilities, regarding some phases of the instructional function of the library. When the other four independent variables are considered it appears that school size, teaching time and employment status are factors which affect the kind of library facilities wanted by faculty. School size is a factor in faculty utilization of the library for class preparation and for recreational purposes. Four null hypotheses were not rejected (III, IV, V, VI). They were accepted as having no differences in per- ception among faculty groups regarding the instructional function of the library. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine the degree to which community college librarians and community college instructors in transfer programs and occupational education programs differed in.terms of perceptions regarding the instructional function of the library. Because the instruc- tional function of a community college library is a broad term encompassing many aspects, the instructional function is defined as eight areas that are Operationally measurable. The eight areas are: (1) the organizational structure of the library, (2) the library facilities, (3) library materials, (A) library services, (5) the responsibilities of the librarian, (6) the student utilization of the library, (7) the faculty utilization of the library, and (8) the use made of library facilities. Eight major hypotheses were formulated: (1) There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding the organizational structure of the library among librarians, instructors of transfer programs, and instructors of occu- pational education programs. (2) There is no significant 98 99 difference in percpetions regarding library facilities among librarians, instructors of transfer programs, and instructors of occupational education programs. (3) There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding library materials of the library among librar- ians, instructors of transfer programs, and instructors of occupational education programs. (A) There is no sig- nificant difference in perceptions regarding library. services among librarians, instructors of transfer programs, and instructors of occupational education programs. (5) There is no significant difference in perceptions regard- ing the librarians' responsibilities among librarians, instructors of transfer programs and instructors of occu- pational education programs. (6) There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding the student utilization of the library among librarians, instructors of transfer programs and instructors of occupational education programs. (7) There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding the faculty utilization of the library among librarians, instructors of transfer programs, and instruc- tors of occupational education programs. (8) There is no significant difference in perceptions regarding the facility utilization of libraries among librarians, instructors of transfer programs and instructors of occupational educa- tion programs. 100 These hypotheses were measured by applying non- parametric statistics to data collected from community college teaching faculty and librarians, through the use of a questionnaire. It was theorized that faculty members teaching in different curricular programs and librarians would per- ceive the instructional function of the library differently. A review of literature revealed no studies directly related to the problem undertaken. Some research had been done regarding faculty perceptions of library usage on the A-year college and university level in Michigan. Other studies had been done regarding the degree to which community college libraries were meeting some sets of standards. Design of the Study The sample under consideration was taken from twenty public community colleges and/or junior colleges in Michigan who had been in Operation prior to January 1, 1965. The sample consisted of fifteen per cent of each of the twenty community colleges full-time teaching faculty and all librarians. In order to test the hypotheses it was_necessary to develop an instrument to measure the perceptions of faculty members regarding the community college library. Data was collected from 257 community college faculty members and analyzed using non-parametric 101 statistics. The type of tests used depended upon the type and the way data was collected. The three non— parametric statistic tests used in this study, used the Chi-square distribution of probability. Findings of the Study 1. There were significant differences in perceptions among the faculty groups regarding the organizational structure of the library for both the facility and the hierarchy of personnel in the community college. 2. ~There were significant differences in perceptions among the faculty groups regarding the facilities that should be designed into a-library. 3. There was no Significant difference in percep- tions among faculty members regarding the kinds of materials (books, periodicals; 16 and 35 mm film; tapes and records; maps, models, specimen kits, charts, etc.; and selling paperback books) a library should have for its students and faculty. There were significant differences in per- ceptions among the faculty groups regarding whether micro- film should replace duplicate or worn materials. A. There were significant differences in the per- ceptions among faculty groups in regard to the services (copy service for students; cOurier service of materials; and the use of film, tapes, records and equipment else- where on campus) the library Should offer its faculty and students. There were no significant differences in the 102 perceptions among faculty groups in regard to the services (preparing bibliography for faculty, permitting the use of_ tape recorders and projectors off-campus; and cOpy service available to faculty at minimal costs) the library should offer its faculty and students. 5. There were significant differences in the per- ceptions among faculty groups in regard to the responsi— bilities of librarians (the librarians involvement in curricular develOpment). There were no significant.differ-. ences in perceptions among faculty members in regard to the responsibilities (selection and securing materials for the library, the responsibility of teaching students to use the library) of the librarians. 6. There were no significant differences in per- ceptions among faculty members regarding the student use of the library. 7. There were significant differences in percep- tions among faculty members regarding the-faculty use of the library. 8. There were significant differences in percep- tions among faculty groups regarding-the facility utiliza— tion of the library. . 9. Four additional independent variables were introduced and tested, using the same statistical tests, and virtually no significant differences in perceptions were found among variable groups. 103 Conclusions Occupational education teachers, and to a lesser degree, transfer program teachers preferred the community college library be organized as a semi-decentralized library, whereas the librarians preferred a centralized library. If faculty are the prime library users, directly or indirectly through student asSignments, libraries should be organized on a semi-decentralized basis. It was interesting to note that the new community college libraries built during the past several years, in Michigan, were centralized libraries. 7 Occupational education teachers preferred that head librarians be considered as faculty. Librarians and trans- fer program teachers felt that the head librarian should be part of the administrative staff, but the transfer program teachers concurred with this to a lesser degree. Librarians, occupational education teachers and transfer program teachers regarded librarians as faculty members, but not to the same degree. According to the findings, Hypothesis I, the professional librarians should be con- sidered as faculty in the personnel hierarchy of the community college,and the head librarian should be con- sidered as an administrator. Teaching faculty members in different curricular programs and librarians perceived the facilities designed into the community college library differently. If one 10A considers that teaching faculty preferred a semi- decentralized library, and that the teaching faculty did perceive the facilities designed in the library differently, then more consideration should be given to consulting faculty regarding the kind of library facilities which should be provided on community college campuses. There appears to be a relationship between recrea- tional and avocational use of the library and the use of the library for class preparation and student assignments. Over two-thirds of the occupational education teachers and less than one-half of the transfer program faculty use the libraries on a very limited basis. This study shows that occupational education teachers used libraries one-half as much for recreational reading and avocational purposes as did transfer teachers or librarians. If teachers do not feel that libraries are important they will not encourage their students to use the library. With the great expansion in technology today it is of great importance that students be trained to use the library so that they can keep pace with these technological advances, so that as their skills become obsolete, or as they get more SOphisticated, they will be able to maintain jobs. More effort should be made by libraries to encourage occu— pational education teachers to use the library for personal reasons at the community college and at local public and private libraries. 105 More effort should also be eXpended, through inser- vice training, to increase occupational education teachers' use of the library and a greater effort should be made to provide the library facilities, materials, and services they prefer. Teaching faculty members perceived library services to extend beyond the immediate vicinity of the library, whereas librarians perceived services to be offered in the immediate vicinity of the library only. Librarians should encourage services beyond the library building as an incentive to involve teachers in the library. Involvement in the library, through services, would increase total library usage. Teaching faculty and librarians perceived that they collectively have a responsibility to teach students how to use the library. Teaching faculty and librarians agree that tapes, records, maps, models, specimen kits, charts, micro-film, projectors, and tape recorders should be available in the library, and that these materials should be able to be checked out for use on campus.- These materials and services are usually provided by audio-visual centers. This study indicated that faculty and librarians agree that the library should provide both written and audio-visual materials for student and faculty use. Con— sequently, the library should be the instructional materials center for the community college. 106 This study also showed that teaching faculty used other than community college libraries for class prepara- tion. Close to A0 per cent of the teaching faculty utilized local public and private libraries for class preparation. Consequently, COOperation and coordination among libraries is desirable. Community college librarians should provide this leadership to cooperate and coordinate the community college libraries with other library facilities. From this study, it appears that the kinds of curricu- lar programs taught at community colleges is.a major influ- ence in the teachers' perceptions of the instructional function of the library. When other variables (age, size of the college, teaching experience, and previous occupa- tion) were analyzed using the data collected, there was virtually no indication that these variables influenced the perceptions of community college faculty in their use of the library. Consequently, training institutions have a great responsibility to prOperly influence their gradu- ates in library usage, because they train faculty members in these curricular programs, and community college districts have a responsibility to provide an adequate inservice training program to upgrade faculty use of the library. 107 Sgggestions for Further Research This study only involved full-time faculty members. Many community colleges employ a large number of part- time faculty for continuing education and evening classes. With this segment of education increasing in the community college, it would be valuable to investigate part-time faculty perceptions regarding the instructional function of the community college library. Students are the largest group of users of the community college library. Investigating their percep- tions regarding the instructional function of the community college may reveal ways of designing the library, and the kinds of materials and services that would increase their use of the library. This study only involved the instructional function of the community college library. Investigating other functions of the library would provide a more comprehensive view of the library as it relates to the broad philosOphy of the community college. Other community college library functions which should be investigated are: (a) the pro- viding of resources and services pertinent to the economic activities of the service area and (b) the providing of services and resources needed by adults seeking self- education at either a college, occupational or avocational level. 108 a. The increase in occupational education programs at community colleges are related to the economic activi- ties of the community college service area. The economic activities provide the jobs fOr the trained students, and encourage the employee to seek further training to upgrade himself for employment and for society. Community colleges should analyze the business community within their ser- vice areas to determine the library needs of the business community. This may be done on an individual community college basis, or on a.regiona1 basis where several cOm- munity colleges may serve essentially the same business community. b. Many residents in community college service areas are not interested in educational programs designed for credit. Their library needs may be different than the needs of students working on credit programs. A study to determine if the library needs of area residents are the same as those of the students taking credit courses, would provide a basis for the librarian to fulfill this library function effectively. BIBLIOGRAPHY 109 BIBLIOGRAPHY A Report of the President's Commission on Higher Education. Higher Education in American Democragy. New York: Harper and Row, 19A8. "American Library Association Standards for Junior College Libraries." The Association of College and Research Libraries, 21:200-206, May, 1960. Borg, Walter R. Educational Research An Introduction. New York: David MERay Company, Inc., 1963. Branscomb, Harvey. Teaching With Books. Chicago: American Library Association, 1940. Brubacher, John S., and Rudy, Willis. Higher Education in Transition. New York: Harper an Brothers, 1958. Coles, James S. "A College President and the Standards for College Libraries." College and Research Libraries, 22:267-270, July, 1961. Combs, Arthur W., and Snygg, Donald. Individual Behavior: A Perceptual Approach to Behavior. Revised ed. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. Coulter, E. M.1 "The Functions of the Junior College Library." The Junior College Journal, l:A8l-A86, May, 1931. Craig, Robert C. The Psychology of Learning in the Class- room. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1966. Cronbach, Lee J. Essentials of Psychological Testing. New York: Harper and Brothers, l9A9. Downs, R. B. "The Library's Place in Today's University." American Library Bulletin, A8:502-506, October, 195A. Edwards, Allen L. Techniques of Attitude Scale Construc- tion. New York: AppletonéCentury-Croft, Inc., 1957. Eells, Walter Crosby, 19A0. American Junior College. Wafihington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 19 0. 110 111 Gleazer, Edmund J., Jr. A New Social Invention: The Community College._ washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, n.d. Henne, F. "Challenge of Change: New Standards for New Times," National Association of Secondary School Principal's Bulletin, 50:75581, January, 1966. Hessel, Alfred. A Historyyof Libraries. Translated by R. Peiss. New Brunswick, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press, 1955. Hillway, Tyrus. The American Two Year College., New Yorkzl Harper and Brothers, 1958. Johnson, Elmer D. A History of Libraries in the Western World. New York: The Scarecrow Press, 1965. Jones, F. Taylor. "The Regional Accrediting Association and Standards for College Library." College and Research Library, 22:271-27A, July, 1961. Lombardi, J. "Standards at Grass Roots." American Library Association Bulletin, 60:377-380, April, 1966. Morris, James. "Technical Reports No. AO-AA." East Lansing, Michigan: Computer Institute for Social Science Research, Michigan State University, January, 1968. (Mimeographed.) Nelson Associates, Inc. A Program for the Rapid.Improve- ment of Community College Libraries in Michigan. Report prepared by Nelson Associates for the Michigan State Library, Lansing, Michigan, 1965. . Reference and Research Library Needs in Michigan. Report prepared by Nelson Associates for the Michigan State Library, Lansing, Michigan, 1966. Phelps, Wilma A. "Audio-Visual Survey." The Association of Colleges and Research Libraries. n.d. (Mimeographed.) Rink, Bernard C. "Community College Library--Cultural Solar Plexus." The Association of College and Research Libraries, 23:389-392, July, 1962. Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University. New York: Vintage Books, Division of Random House, 1965. 112 Shaw, Marvin E., and Wright, Jack M. Scales for the-flu Measurement of Attitudes. _Neinork: McGraw-Hill, Shores, Louis. M"Library.Junior_College." _The Junior College Journal, 36:6-9, March, 1966. Siegal, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw—Hill, 1956. "Standards of Accredited Institutions of Higher Education." The North Central Association Quarterly, 1:19-23, June, 1926. Stanley, Julian C. Measurement in Today's Schools. Ath ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 196A. Stone, C. W. "Functions of a School Library." American School Board Journal, l5l:AA—A5, November, 1965. Stone, Ermine. The Junior College Library. Chicago: American Library Association,71932. "The Public Community College in Michigan." Michigan Council of Community College Administrators, Lansing, Michigan. n.d. Venn, Grant. Man Education and Work. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 196A. Wheeler, Helen R. The Community College Library: A Plan for Action. Hamden, Connecticut: The Shoe String Press, 1965. White, Ruth W. "The Role of the Community College Library." The Junior College Journal, 33:109-111, October, 1962. APPENDICES 113 APPENDIX A Major Findings of the Nelson Report Regarding the Reference~and Research Library Needs in Michigan The major findings of the survey with respect to patterns of use and library needs at Michigan colleges and universities are given below. 1. The campus library is judged by faculty members to be the most frequently used library by both faculty and students regardless of the type of institution, the adequacy of its library or its proximity to other libraries. 2. The campus library is judged by faculty members to be the most important library to faculty and students. a. For course work, seminars, and special assign- ments, both undergraduates and graduates are expected mainly to use the campus libraries" and are not expected to use other libraries. b. Only in the preparation of theses and disserta- tions does a majority of faculty expect its graduate students to use libraries other than the campus library. 0. Except for reading lists prepared for theses and diSsertations, more than half the faculty tailors its reading lists to materials available in the 11A 115 campus library, and of those who do tailor their reading lists, four out of five feel this restricts their compilation of reading lists to some degree. 3. After the campus library, the Detroit Public Library, in the Opinion of faculty members, is the most frequently used library for faculty and undergraduates and the second most frequently used by graduate students. The University of Michigan Library is the most frequently used library by graduate students, after the campus library, and the second most frequently used by faculty and undergraduates. A. After the campus library, the University of; Michigan Library is considered by college faculty through- out the state to be the most important library for meeting their professional needs and the Detroit Public Library is considered the next most important. 5. Slightly more than half of the faculty respondents believe the University of Michigan has the best library collection in their field of specialization in the state, far outranking all other libraries, whether in the humani- ties, social sciences, biological sciences or physical sciences. 6. Although an important source of materials for thesis and dissertation writers, out-of—state libraries do not play a large role in the total supply of Michigan 116 reference and research needs, and personal visits to use such.libraries are very limited. 7. A majority of faculty judge the adequacy of their campus library as good or very good. However in the eight state colleges and universities other than the University of Michigan, Wayne State and Michigan State, 50% or more of the faculty members responding from each institution consider their campus libraries only fair or poor with respect to adequacy in their fields of specialization. Judgment of adequacy also varies by academic rank and length of service. Generally, the higher the academic rank of a faculty member and the longer his service at the institution, the higher is the rating he gives the campus library. 8. The main reasons for using libraries other than the campus library relate to the collections themselves. Three of the four main.reasons (depth of special colelction, breadth of general collection, and broader selection of periodicals) are concerned with the collections. The fourth main reason is the convenience of location. 9. The greatest inadequacy of the campus library at both undergraduate and graduate student levels, accord- ing to the faculty, is the limited availability of multiple OOpies of much used books and other materials. 117 10. The type of library material most in demand currently is periodicals, serials, journals, and similar items. In the future, the faculty eXpects to place stitl greater reliance on this category of material for both its undergraduate and graduate students. 11. Almost two-thirds of the faculty use inter- library loans at least occasionally, but less than half consider the service good or very good. The major criticism is slowness of the service. 12. More than three-fourths of the faculty use photo-duplication services at least occasionally, but only 59% consider it good or very good. ,The major criticisms concern the equipment itself, access to the equipment, and the costs of these services. 13. Less than half of the faculty use microfilm/ printer equipment even occasionally and only a little more than one-third consider the service good or very good. The major criticism concerns the inadequacies of the equip- ment, of the film collections, and of the facilities- other than the equipment. 1A. A large portion of the faculty relies mainly— on itself most of the time to locate information in the library. Only 17.3% claim they often call for professional library assistance to locate information. APPENDIX B October 19, 1967 I am in a dilemma and would like to enlist your help. At the present time I am Director of the North Central Michigan Polaris-Apollo Study, a ten county Title 111 Project, and at the dissertation point of my doctoral program at Michigan State University, under Dr. Max Smith. Library usage, by teachers and students, was a problem for me when I was a high school principal and superintendent of schools. My contact with community college librarians indicate deans and presidents are also plagued with this problem. I have had the feeling for some time that teachers view the functions of the library differently according to the curricular program they teach. These views will directly affect the kind of facilities for themselves and their students. Specifically, I would like to find out how faculty in transfer, occupational and continuing programs perceive the community college libraries. My problem is that I need the names (and courses taught) of community college faculties, so that I can draw a representative sample for this research project. I would greatly appreciate it if you could send me such a list. It will only be used for research purposes. May I take this opportunity to thank you for your help in this matter and that you have a wonderful year through additional state aid and reduced negotiation problems. Sincerely yours, Donald P. Meyer, Director North Central Michigan Polaris-Apollo Study 118 APPENDIX C NAME OF COLLEGE ‘ ~ School code I Street School size 1 2 3 A 1 City , Michigan. Zip 119 120 Gogebic Community 0011989 ay de Noc Community College 0-..- 0-.- 9".- u..— ‘ North Central Michigan College .:: orthwestern Michigan College “mm Alpena Community College .... "’ Delta Community College Grand Rapids Junior College r“ “““W mm ¢- lint Community Junior College Muskegon Community\/ .... .... .....- ...; C°llege ._ St. Clair County .m “a .3 .1 Community ' College Lansing Community a. ”w ~« -1 a- College \ .... .... _ Jackson Community . 7 in“ "f Oakland Community College College “_ .” 7TTTNO '2‘— '" ”' ”"” “" Macomb County Com. College Kellogg 5» . Community . M, Schoolcraft College College .1“ ."__ Highland Park College Lake Michigan “M College .1 Henry Ford Community College Monroe County Community College The Twenty Public Community Colleges in Michigan Involved in this Study MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY mgr LANSING . MICHIGAN 48823 COW COLLEGE COOPERATION - OFFICE 01' THE DIRECTOR - KELLOGG CENTER March 1, 1968 May I enlist your professional help, as a community college faculty member, to participate in a study involving the attitudes of community college teachers as they relate to the instructional function of the community college library. The kind of library facilities and services, offered faculty in the past have generally not been based on faculty need. They have been determined by administrators, librarians and regional accred- iting agencies. This study is attempting to find out if faculty teaching in different curricular areas as: college transfer, occupa- tional or continuing education perceive the "instructional function" of the library differently. If they do, then the possibility. exists that libraries be designed and services performed more in keeping with needs. This study is being done as a doctoral dissertation by Donald P. Meyer at Michigan State University, under the direction of Dr. Max Smith, Director of Community College Cooperation. The proposed study was discussed with the Michigan State Public Library, Department of Education officials, who expressed their interest in the results. A copy of the dissertation proposal was sent to all community college head librarians and they all expressed an interest in this study. If you have any question regarding this study your librarian will be happy to discuss it with you. Please fill out the enclosed questionnaire (today if possible) and return it to me by March 10, 1968. Your prompt reply will be greatly appreciated. Information on the questionnaire will be kept confidential. May I take this opportunity to thank you for your professional help in this matter. Sincerely yours, Donald P. Meyer MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST umsmo- mane»: 43323 COMMUNITY COLLEGE COOPERATION . OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR - KELLOGG CENTER March 21, 1968 On March 1, 1968 a questionnaire was sent to 3A2 col-unity college faculty senbers regarding a library study. This 3A2 represented lfii>of eaeh col-unity college teaching faculty plus all librarians. Iou were selected as one of this ilportant group. As of this date I have not received your questionnaire. Hith.a busy schedule and papers piling up on the desk, the questionnaire was probably misplaced or perhaps the sail service got it to your desk too late fer you to answer befbre the stated deadline in the cover letter. It is very inportant that your opinion be a part of this study. Consequently, I as sending you a second questionnaire. Please fill it out and return it as soon as possible. May I thank you fer considering this request. Sincerely, Donald P. Meyer QUESTIONNAIRE FOR A STUDY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE LIBRARIES IN MICHIGAN NOTE The item numbers used on this questionnaire are designed for the easy transfer of your answers to KEY-PUNCHED computer cards. SECTION I Information about the respondent Personal Information 07. 1A. Sex: 07-1. 07-2. Female Male A89 a years of full-time teaching experience in community colleges (both in and out-of-state). . years of full-time teaching experience (include all teaching experience, both in and out-of-state). ‘ years of full-time teaching in the community college you are presently in. Please check all of the appropriate levels of education and their major emphasis. 16. 18. 20. 22. 2A. 26. 28. 30. Kind )2. 33- 3A. I have formal education beyond high school, but no degree. Major emphasis _____ Bachelor's degree Major emphasis _____ Master's degree Major emphasis __ Master's degree Major emphasis ______ Specialist degree Major emphasis Doctor's degree Major emphasis The major area in which I teach is . It has been years since I have taken a course for credit or non-credit. (If you are taking a course this year indicate by putting in a zero.) of employee in the community college Check 32-1. 32-2. 32-}. one: I teach during the day only. I teach during the evening hours only. I teach during the day and evening. The status I held immediately before entering community college teaching was 33-1- 33—2- 33—3. BB-A- 33-5. 33-6. 33-7. teaching in the public schools. teaching in a A—year college or university. a student. in business or industry. in the armed forces. employed by the (local, state or national) government. other occupational group . The students I teach are generally attending the community college 3A-l. 3A—2. BA-B. 3M. to transfer to a college or university after two years of community college. to receive occupational education. for adults who are attending school to better their job position, personal gratification, recreation, etc. I am a librarian. sauna"): Faculty Opinions Let us assume that a new community college district has just been formed and you were hired as the new librarian. Your first job is to establish the Educational fipecificatians for a new library. You are told to plan the facil- ity the way you want—it to be, because the Master Plan for the community college has not been completed, and the college board does not know how much of its financial resources will be available for building the library, some of your plans may have to be put on a priority basis. Even though some of the facilities can not be built now the architect will need to plan for them when he designs the library so that they can be added effectively when the resources are available. Please answer the questions in this section the way you think the commun- ity college should provide for its students and faculty in carrying out the instructional function of the community college library. 35. The library facility can be housed several ways. Indicate your preference by checking one of the following statements regarding the organizational structure of the facility. 35-1. The library facility should be completely housed in a single building (or a designated space in a building) on the community college campus. 35-2. The library facility should be semi-decentralized so that there would be a main library and several departmental satelite libraries for special materials and services as they relate to students and faculty. 35-}. The library facility should be completely decentralized with no main library building, but a group of departmental libraries located conven— iently for departmental use. 35-h. Other organizational structure. (Please describe) The library facility you are designing would be designed to provide for special areas depending on the services you wish to be offered by the library. Below are listed a number of special areas you could have built into the library. Check them in terms of priority with number (1) having the highest priority and number (10) having the lowest priority. 36. An area designed for student reading carrels 37. Rooms designed for small group meetings 38. ____ An area designed for producing graphic arts (posters, film strip, pictures, transparencies, etc.) 39. ____ Display and storage area for an art collection or other displays 1+0. __ Faculty carrel area #1. .____ A reserve materials area #2. ____ Smoking area for students and faculty #3. ____ Storage and check—out areas for audio-visual equipment and their materials 44. ____ Individual listening and viewing booths #5. ____ Study areas designed to simulate working conditions such as shop noise, office noise and equipment arrangements. The following statements represent varying points of view about which there is some controversy. Please indicate your first reaction to the question and respond rapidly according to your degree of agreement with the statement listed below. Mark your answers in the blank space before each sentence according to the following code: 1. Very strong agreement 4. Moderate disagreement 2. Moderate agreement 5. Very strong disagreement 3. Neutral -- neither agree nor disagree #6. Community college libraries should provide only books, periodicals, and ref- erence books for its students and faculty. #7. Sixteen millimeter film and 35 millimeter film strips should be part of a separate audio-visual department in the community college. 48. Tapes and records should be available through the library for student and faculty use. #9. Maps, models, specimen kits, charts, etc. should be purchased by the library and checked out to students and faculty as their needs arise. 50. Micro-film of books and magazines should be purchased and used instead of duplicating materials or replacing worn out materials. 51. The library should sell paperback books and related materials whenever possible. 52. Copy service should be available to students at a minimal fee. 53. Compiling bibliographies for faculty members is a responsibility of the library. Sh. Students and faculty should be permitted to use equipment such as tape recorders and projectors off-campus. 55. The library should provide courier service for the faculty by taking material to them from the library and picking it up when the faculty member is through. 56. Students and faculty should be permitted to check out film, tapes, and records along with equipment to use elsewhere on compus. 57. All copy service should be available to faculty at a minimal cost. 58. The community college library should provide all the services and materials of a traditional library and all the materials and services normally found in an audio-visual department. 59. The library should cooperate with other libraries such as public, 4-year college, university, private, and the Michigan State Public Library, in securing materials for faculty and students. The following section is made up of questions regarding the responsibility of librarians and the use of the library. 60. As the community college grows and meets its obligations new curriculum must be developed and old ones changed to meet the current needs. Check one of the following that eXpresses your viewpoint. 60-1. The librarian should be involved in setting up curriculum objectives with faculty members. 60-2. The librarian has no responsibility for helping to establish the object- ives of any curriculum or program. 60-}. Others. Explain 61. Each library has the responsibility of selecting and securing materials for the library. Check one of the following items which expresses your viewpoint. 6l-l. The librarian should have the sole responsibility for determining what materials and books are to be selected for the library. 61-2. The librarian and the faculty should cooperatively select books and materials for library purchase. 61—3. The faculty should have the sole responsibility for the selection of materials and books for library purchases. 61-“. Others. Explain 62. It is usually necessary to teach students how to use a library. Check one of the following items that expresses your point of view. 62-1. The librarian should have the sole responsibility for teaching students to use the library and encourage its use. 62-2. The librarian and faculty should share the reaponsibility of teaching students to use the library and encourage its use. 62-3. The faculty should have the sole reaponsibility of teaching students how to use the library and encourage its use. 62-h. The community college has no responsibility for teaching the use and encouraging students to use the library. 62-5. Other. Explain 6}. In the personnel organizational structure of the library the head librarian should . (Check one) 63-1. .____ be considered as one of the teaching faculty. 63-2. _____ ‘be considered as a part of the administrative group. 63-}. _____ ‘be considered neither faculty nor administration. 63-4. _____ Other. Explain 64. In the personnel organizational structure of the library the assistant librarian should be considered (Check one) 6fi-l. _____ as one of the teaching faculty. 6h-2. as a part of the administrative group. 64-3. 64-“. neither faculty nor administration. Other. Explain 65. To determine library usage of community college libraries several statements are presented. Check the item which most closely applies to you. 65-1. _____ I never use our community college library. 65-2. _____ I use the community college library no more than once a week. 65-3. _____ I use the community college library no more than twice a week. 65-h. _____ I use the community college library a great deal (at least three times a week). 66. During the past year (Check 233) 66-1. .____ I used the Michigan State Public Library. 66-2. _____ I have not used the Michigan State Public library. To determine the purpose for which you use library services. Check those items which apply to you. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 7“. I use the community college library for class preparation. I use the community college library for recreational reasons such as reading fiction, or use materials connected with avocational interests. I use local public and/or private library facilities for class preparation. I use local public and/or private libraries for recreational purposes (fiction, avocational interests, etc.). I use h-year college and university libraries for class preparation. I use the Michigan State Public Library for class preparation and/or recreational reasons. I use libraries for research purposes in addition to class preparation and recreational reasons. Some community college teachers use h-year college and university libraries for class preparation. Please check the item which most closely applies to you. 75- 7h-l. I never use h—year college or university library facilities for my class preparation. (courses you teach) 7h-2. I have used h-year college or university library facilities once during the past year for class preparation. 7h-3. I have used h—year college or university library facilities more than once for class preparation during the past year. Student usage of the library facilities is generally determined by the requirement, through assignments, of the faculty. Please check the item which most closely applies to you. 76. 78. 79- 75-1. I never give library assignments, directly or indirectly. 75-2. I give either one or two assignments per semester or term that would require the use of the library. 75-}. I give more than two assignments per term or semester which would require the use of the library. Assignments which would require the use of the library (Check one) 76-1. should be from assigned reading only. 76-2. should be from several sources with varying points of view. (not from assigned reading) The librarian should (Check one) 77-1. work for cooperative efforts among other library facilities in the area and state. 77-2. ._____ only be concerned with his own library use and development. The community college library where I now teach (Check 233) 78-1. .____ Is adequately stocked with books and other educational materials. 78-2. '____ Is not adequately stocked with books and other educational materials. If you desire a copy of this questionnaire when it has been tabulated check the space allocated at the beginning of this sentence. THANK YOU..... gzggn NVOIHDIN 'BXV1 NOlHOflOH hQS X08 'O'd HBABN 'd Givnoq '3“ 62987 ueflrqarw ‘axvi nouqfinoa t9s x0e ‘O'd xexau ' d pteuoq 'NdniBH $11 80:! X08 TIVN V NI CEDV'ld CINV H3 Iavlg CIEICI'lOd-Etl 38 OJ. GENBISEG N338 SVH BHIVNNOILSBHO SIHi BONBINSANOD 800A 80;! APPENDIX H- 1231 Independent Variables Var. 2 Size Var. 3 Age Var. 9 *TT Var. 5 Job Question x2 df p x2 df p x2 df p 2 df p 35 7.97 3 NS .69 1 NS .39 1 us .92 2 NS 36-95 39.93 9 .001 16.52 9 us 17.89 9 .05 25.98 9 .01 96 18.98 12 NS 1.70 9 NS 3.35 9 NS 29.17 8 .01 97 11.01 12 NS 9.33 9 NS 3.89 9 NS 9.32 8 NS u8 3.66 3 NS 1.29 1 NS 1.16 1 us .98 2 NS 99 10.18 12 NS 3.10 9 NS 3.91 9 NS 3.23 8 NS 50 9.76 12 NS 8.17 u as 7.06 9 NS 3.37 8 NS 51 13.57 12 NS 3.96 5 ns 3.52 5 NS 5.12 8 NS 52 1.80 3 NS 3.95 1 us 9.17 1 .05 .21 2 NS 53 10.62 12 NS 9.38 9 ns 9.98 9 NS 9.77 8 NS 5n 16.58 12 NS 6.62 9 NS 7.69 9 NS 5.99 8 NS 55 17.08 12 as 9.26 u as 9.35 9 as 8.55 8 NS 56 2.13 6 as 1.21 2 ns 2.28 2 NS 2.83 9 NS 57 10.97 6 NS .u9 2 ns 3.79 2 ns 7.03 9 NS 60 7.98 6 NS 5.15 2 us 9.29 2 us 6.95 9 NS 61 6.82 9 NS 5.02 3 NS 3.09 3 as 13.09 6 .05 62 1.37 3 NS 6.02 1 .02 .16 1 NS 1.61 2 NS 63 7.52 6 NS 5.55 2 ns 2.61 2 as 1.69 9 NS 69 10.59 6 NS 5.60 2 ns 1.09 2 NS 7.15 9 NS 65 29.03 9 .01 7.59 3 NS 3.73 3 NS 9.59 6 NS 66 11.99 3 .01 01 1 us .77 1 ns 12.07 2 .01 67-73 17.92 3 .001 37 3 NS 7.86 2 as 1.35 2 NS 79 7.89 6 .NS 2.59 2 us -~ .82 2 as 2.22 9 NS 75 7.90 6 NS 1.01 2 NS 2.&1 2 NS 9.75 u NS 76 13.29 6 ns 1.96 2 us .26 2 NS 9.19 9 NS ee TT Time of the day Teaching (day or day and evening) NS Not Significant below the .05 confidence level. or Degrees of Freedom a! ll A'H' RI ml”. L” tlHlHlHlH