Previous by Date | Next by Date | Date Index
Previous by Thread | Next by Thread
| Thread Index
| LM_NET
Archive
| |
Here are the results of the survey on flexible scheduling in elementary school library media programs that was conducted this past April for a graduate research project. A special thanks to those who volunteered to participate! The study was titled _Implementing and Maintaining Successful Flexible Scheduling in Elementary School Library Media Programs_. The purpose of the study was to determine what factors contribute to implementing and maintaining successful flexible scheduling in elementary school library media programs and what can be done to improve the chances of flexible scheduling becoming a reality for all elementary schools. Library media professionals throughout the United States and Canada responded to notices posted over Internet requesting volunteers to participate in the study. Surveys were completed by elementary library media specialists who have implemented and continue to maintain flexibly scheduled library media programs. Data collected from the surveys was tallied and presented as percentages of the total number of respondents included in the study. The total number of respondents was twenty-seven. Background information gathered about those responding to the survey included the number of years of experience each had as a LMS, the number of students and teachers, the grade levels, and the size of the LM staff in each building. The number of years of experience for library media specialists ranged from two to twenty-four years. The median was eight years of experience. Seventy- four percent of the LMS had thirteen or fewer years of experience. Student population per building ranged from 300 to 850 students. The average student population per building was 554 students; the median was 550. Forty- six percent of the elementary schools ranged from 500 to 650 students. Thirty-one percent had fewer than 500 students; twenty-three percent had more than 650 students. The number of teachers per building ranged from twelve to forty-two teachers. The average number of teachers per building was twenty-nine; the median was thirty-two. Over ninety percent of the elementary buildings included grades kindergarten through fifth grade. Slightly more than half included sixth grade. Less than twenty percent included pre-kindergarten and transitional first grade as other grade levels. (Table 1) Grade levels involved in flexible scheduling varied. One hundred percent of the upper elementary grades (fourth, fifth, and sixth) were involved in flexible scheduling. The lower elementary grades (kindergarten, first, second, and third) were less involved. As the grade levels increased, so did participation in flexible scheduling. (Table 1) Table 1 Grade Levels and Flexible Scheduling Grade levels per building Grades involved in flexible scheduling Responses Percent Responses Percent K 26 96% K 12 46% 1 27 100% 1 19 70% 2 27 100% 2 19 70% 3 27 100% 3 23 85% 4 26 96% 4 26 100% 5 25 93% 5 25 100% 6 14 52% 6 14 100% Other* 5 19% Other* 3 60% * pre-kindergarten, transitional first grade, seventh grade The most common combination of LM staff (about one-third of those participating) included one full time LMS and one full time clerical aide. The least common combination was a part time LMS and a full time clerical aide. Two respond- ents included others as part of the paid LM staff. One title was computer lab assistant; the other title was library technician. (Table 2) Table 2 Library Media Professional and Clerical Staff Staff Responses Percent Full time LMS & full time clerical 9 33% Full time LMS & part time clerical 6 22% Full time LMS & no clerical 7 26% Part time LMS & full time clerical 1 4% Part time LMS & part time clerical 4 15% Volunteers were a large part of the LM staff. Seventy-four percent of all respondents reported having volunteer workers. Ninety-five percent of the respondents who had volunteer workers used adult volunteers. Ninety-five percent of the adults were parents; five percent were senior citizens. Forty-five percent of the respondents who had volunteer workers used both adult and student volunteers. The percent of volunteer use increased as the combination of professional and clerical positions decreased. (Table 3) Table 3 Size of Library Media Staff and Use of Volunteers Staff size Use of volunteers Full time lme Full time LMS & full time clerical 67% Full time LMS & part time or no clerical 77% Part time LMS & full time or part time clerical 80% Respondents were asked to describe the structure of their lib Respondents were asked to describe the structure of their LM schedule. Twenty-six percent reported having a completely flexible schedule while seventy-four percent reported a combination of flexible and fixed scheduling. (Table 4) Table 4 Structure of Library Media Schedule Structure of Schedule Responses Percent All time completely flexible, no set schedule 7 26% A combination of flexible and fixed scheduling 20 74% Class sessions with primary grades was repot Class sessions with primary grads was reported by eighty-five percent of those with some fixed scheduling. Fifty percent indicated that book circulation was on a fixed schedule. Only fifteen percent indicated that they regularly scheduled planning time with teachers. (Table 5) Table 5 Activities on Fixed Scheduling Activities Responses Percent Class sessions with primary grades 17 85% Book circulation 10 50% Cooperative planning time with teachers 3 15% Administrative duties 3 15% Other* 2 10% * class sessions with grades 4-6, student supervision duties (The rest of the survey will presented simply as table information. Readers may draw their own conclusions.) Table 6 Preliminary Planning/Research Prior to Implementing Flexible Scheduling Activities Responses Percent Review of professional literature 23 85% Interviews with other LMS using flexible scheduling 22 82% Review of LMP's goals, objectives, mission, philosophy 22 82% Evaluation of current LM services 18 67% Re-educaton of teachers and administrators 18 67% Staff development sessions 12 45% Evaluation of students' current information skills 9 33% Public relations campaign 7 26% Survey of teacher attitudes 6 22% Information from graduate classes, college professors 6 22% Other* 4 15% *use of _Information Power_ video, principal's directive, sessions at professional conferences Table 7 Most Challenging Aspects of Implementing Flexible Scheduling Challenges Responses Percent Gaining teacher support 20 74% Scheduling activities at appropriate or desired times 9 33% Providing the kind of services desired because of the current LM staff size 8 30% Providing adequate staff development 6 22% The physical structure of the LM center 6 22% Finding a way to cover teacher prep time 5 19% Gaining administrative support 4 15% Providing the kind of services desired because of the current LM resources 3 11% Other* 3 11% * finding time to plan with teachers, had no challenges Table 8 Covering Teacher Prep Time Methods Responses Percent Class time extended with specialists (art, music, P.E.) 5 19% Length of student contact time changed 2 7% Instructional aides or parent volunteers monitor students during certain activities 2 7% Length of school day changed 0 0% Did not apply to my situation 13 48% Other* 5 19% * computer lab, science lab, additional teachers hired, floating class sessions with primary grades Table 9 Most Challenging Aspects of Maintaining Flexible Scheduling Challenges Responses Percent Planning and evaluating lessons cooperatively with teachers 22 82% Integrating information skills for all students at every grade level 11 41% Providing adequate LM staff and resources 11 41% Providing the kind of services desired by teachers and students 11 41% Maintaining teacher support 10 37% Scheduling activities at appropriate or desired times 8 30% Continuing staff development 7 26% Maintaining administrative support 3 11% Other* 2 7% * keeping a high profile, no challenges Table 10 Administrative Support for Flexible Scheduling Support Support considered Support actually essential given Responses Percent Responses Percent Supporting, encouraging, recognizing successful results of curriculum integration and cooperative planning 24 89% 21 78% Allowing time for cooperative planning 23 85% 12 45% Communicating effectively the purpose and benefits of flexible scheduling to the school community 23 85% 15 56% Stressing the use of LM resources and cooperative planning when hiring new teachers 15 56% 6 22% Allowing time for staff development 14 52% 14 52% Including the use of LM resources and cooperative planning in teacher evaluations 14 52% 3 11% Allowing time for curriculum development 13 48% 10 37% Participating in LM activities 11 41% 9 33% Increasing LM staff 8 30% 3 11% Increasing LM budget 4 15% 0 0% Other* 0 0% 3 11% * allowed LMS to try flexible scheduling, arranged meetings between LMS and unhappy teachers, none of the above applied Table 11 Highest Priorities for Maintaining Successful Flexible Scheduling (respondents could choose only four of the following) Highest priorities Responses Percent Planning and evaluating lessons cooperatively with teachers 24 89% Integrating information skills for all students at every grade level 15 56% Maintaining effective communication with administrators and teachers 15 56% Providing adequate LM staff and resources 13 48% Scheduling activities at appropriate or desired times 12 45% Providing the kind of services desired by teachers/students 12 45% Maintaining a strong public relations campaign supporting the need and benefits of flexible scheduling 10 37% Systematically evaluating the LM program, its staff,resources, and services 7 26% Continuing staff development 5 19% Other 0 0% Table 12 Promoting Flexible Scheduling and the Role of the Library Media Specialist (respondents could only choose four of the following) Most effective means Responses Percent Integrating more LM use with classroom curriculum in teacher training programs at colleges and universities 27 100% Including more discussion of the role of the LM program in administrative training programs at colleges/universities 23 85% Publishing more LM articles in professional journals read by administrators and teachers 18 67% Developing an informal network of LMS who share experiences about flexible scheduling and offer advice to others 14 52% Having professional organizations address the topic of flexible scheduling at regional, state, and national meetings 8 30% Developing an extensive public relations campaign 6 22% Lobbying the legislature for more funds to improve LM programs 6 22% Increasing professional research 4 15% Other* 1 4% * gathering testimonials of teachers who support flexible scheduling Table 13 Words of Advice to Other Library Media Specialists Wishing to Implement Flexible Scheduling Words of advice Responses Percent Meet teachers more than half way, encourage involvement, offer suggestions, offer extras, be indispensable 16 59% Educate administrators and teachers about the benefits and "how to's" of flexible scheduling 12 45% Gain administrative support 11 41% Realize it will take time, have a 3-5 year plan 11 41% Regular planning/communication with teachers essential, develop a trusting working rapport 7 26% Prepare yourself (read research, visit other schools) 5 19% Be committed to the philosophy of flexible scheduling, have a vision 5 19% Be proactive, "Go for it!" 4 15% Start with a few teachers and build from there, let the word spread 3 11% Evaluate program each year 2 7% Solicit for more help from volunteers, additional staff 1 4% Summary The LMS participating in this study have been in the field of library media education for a relatively short period of time. Half have been LMS for eight or fewer years. Seventy-four percent have been LMS for thirteen or fewer years. The average elementary building in which respondents worked had 554 students and twenty-nine teachers. Slightly more than half of the elementary buildings had a full time LMS and a full or part time clerical aide. Parents made up the majority of the volunteer workers. Seventy-four percent of all LM programs involved a combination of fixed and flexible scheduling. The majority of fixed scheduling was designed to accommodate class sessions with primary grades and book circulation. This explained why one hundred percent of the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades were involved in flexible scheduling and why kindergarten, first, second, and third grades were less involved. Common strategies for the preliminary planning stage of implementing flexible scheduling involved reading professional literature and making contacts with other LMS using flexible scheduling. Finding a way to cover teacher prep time did not apply to almost half of the respondents. Gaining teacher support was th e most challenging aspect of implementation, while cooperative planning with teachers was the most challenging aspect of maintaining flexible scheduling. Respondents were basically satisfied with administrative encouragement of their efforts but indicated that they could be more active in providing the time needed for cooperative planning and stressing LM use with teachers. Respondents reported that cooperative planning, integrating skills for all students, and maintaining communication with teachers and administrators were their highest priorities. Respondents indicated that more should be done to educate teachers and administrators about the role of the LM program in education in their training programs at colleges and universities. This same need to educate teachers and administrators and gain their support for the LM program was reflected in their words of advice to other LMS wishing to implement flexible scheduling. Recommendations The following recommendations for library media professionals are based on conclusions from this study and a review of the literature. 1. LM professionals should voice their concerns and opinions to their professional associations demanding that more be done to inform teacher and administrative training programs at colleges and universities about the role of the LM program in education. 2. LM professionals can begin to develop an organized, yet informal means of discussing flexible scheduling by becoming involved in Internet LISTSERVs such as LM_NET and MEMO-net which already exist to serve LM professionals and their concerns. 3. LM professionals should consider publishing articles in educational journals read by teachers and administrators and also consider the opportunities to speak at association meetings and conferences which serve teachers and administrators. 4. LMS wishing to implement flexible scheduling in their programs should (a) have a vision of what they want to accomplis, (b) read the research, (c) visit other schools with flexible scheduled programs, (d) educate and gain the support of their administration and teachers, (e) insist on quality time for cooperative planning with teachers, (f) keep communication efforts positive and effective, and (g) continually acknowledge their success and the benefits that result from a flexibly scheduled LM program. The following recommendations for colleges of education are also based on conclusions from this study and a review of the literature. 1. Teacher educators should regularly integrated information skills and LM resources when demonstrating teaching practices and developing curriculum- related experiences for students. 2. Teacher and administrative educators should discuss the importance of integrating LM resources and informations skills throughout the curriculum. Curriculum integration and cooperative planning are essential to developing optimal learning experiences for students. 3. Teacher and administrative educators should strongly advise the use of LM resources and technology, and the integration of information skills in the expectations of hiring new teachers and in the evaluations of practicing teachers. 4. The college departments of Curriculum and Instruction, Educational Administration, and Library Media Education should develop integrated classes and/or learning experiences for students which would demonstrate practices being discussed. Suggestions include LM professionals as guest speakers, field trips to local school LM centers, on-site demonstrations of curriculum integration using cooperative planning and teaching methods, and cooperative teams consisting of college instructors, classroom teachers, LM professionals, and building principals that supervise student teachers and administrative interns. Closing Remarks Flexible scheduling in elementary school library media programs has been slow in materializing. Developing a flexibly scheduled LM program takes dedication and true commitment from those involved in implementing and maintaining such a program. LMS who have taken on the challenge of flexible scheduling are now beginning to share their experiences with others through professional literature and informal discussions. Their experiences are laying the groundwork for othe rLMS who wish to follow. Continued efforts to share knowledge and experiences with other LM professionals will certainly increase the chances of flexible scheduling becoming a reality for everyone. The single best source on flexible scheduling I was able to find was a book written by Jan Buchanan titled _Flexible Acess Library Media Programs_ Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 1991. I highly recommend that anyone serious about flexible scheduling should own this book! A copy of this study will be available through the Mankato State University Library and ERIC. The same results of this study will also be published in _Minnesota Media_ this fall. Marilyn K. Oswald Mankato State University Mankato, MN 56002 oswald@vax1.mankato.msus.edu