Download Comparing Student Satisfaction: Kent State's Library & Info Science School and more Study notes Library science in PDF only on Docsity!
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 401 928 IR^056
AUTHOR Daugherty, Patrick TITLE Survey of Students Enrolled in Kent State University's SLIS Program, Spring 1996. PUB DATE May 96 NOTE 43p.; Master's Research Paper, Kent State University. PUB TYPE Dissertations/Theses Undetermined (040) Tests /Evaluation Instruments (160)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS College Students; Comparative Analysis; *Educational Assessment; Higher Education; Information Science Education; Library Education; *Library Schools; Program Effectiveness; *School Effectiveness; *Student Attitudes; *Student Surveys; User Needs (Information); User Satisfaction (Information) IDENTIFIERS *Kent State University OH; *Student Satisfaction
ABSTRACT This study analyzed the results of a questionnaire distributed to all students enrolled at the Kent State University School of Library and Information Science (Ohio) at its main campus in Kent and its extension in Columbus during the spring semester of
- The purpose of the survey was to identify the school's strengths and weaknesses by measuring students' extent of agreement with a series of statements. The study achieved a 54.1% response rate, with 226 out of 417 surveys returned. The responding students have pride as future librarians and appreciation for the work of the faculty; they value the practicum experience, the timely reception of admission materials, and feel strongly that the degree requirements are stated clearly. Respondents showed the least agreement on items concerning the following areas: the number of electives currently being offered, preparation for job interviews, opportunity for student input, and the number of classes offered on Saturdays. The present survey matches a previous survey's highest and lowest mean scores. In comparing the two studies, the mean scores of 34 of the 42 previously asked questions have increased, indicating that students have somewhat more positive feelings towards the program than they did previously. Appendices include the cover letter, questionnaire, and mean scores of both the 1996 and 1989 surveys. (Contains 11 references.) (Author/SWC)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
- (^) from the original document.
OfficeofEducationalResearchandImprovementU.S.DEPARTMENTOFEDUCATION EDUCATIONALRESOURCESINFORMATION (^00) ThisdocumenthasbeenreproducedasCENTER(ERIC) receivedfromthepersonororganization r--I originatingit. Minorchangeshavebeenmadeto improvereproductionquality. Pointsofvieworopinionsstatedinthis documentdonotnecessarilyrepresent officialOERIpositionorpolicy.
SURVEYOFSTUDENTSENROLLEDINKENTSTATE
UNIVERSITY'SSLISPROGRAM,SPRING
AMaster'sResearchPapersubmittedtothe
KentStateUniversitySchoolofLibraryScience
inpartialfulfillmentoftherequirements
forthedegreeMasterofLibraryScience
by
PatrickDaugherty
May,
2
"PERMISSIONTOREPRODUCETHIS MATERIALHASBEENGRANTEDBY
R.DuMont
TOTHEEDUCATIONALRESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER(ERIC)."
Advisor
Master'sResearchPaperby
Patrick D.Daugherty
B.A.,WalshUniversity,
M.L.S.,KentStateUniversity,
Approvedby
II
TABLEOFCONTENTS
- I INTRODUCTION
- A.PurposeofStudy
- B. DefinitionofTerms
- C.LimitationsoftheStudy
- II. LITERATUREREVIEW
- III. METHODOLOGY
- IV. ANALYSISOFDATA
- A.DemographicInformation
- B.ResponsestotheScale Administration
- C.ProgramStandards
- D.Advising/ResearchPaper
- ECurriculum
- F.Faculty
- GResources/Support
- V. SUMMARYANDCONLUSIONS - APPENDICES - A.CoverLetter - B.Questionnaire - C.1989/1996SurveyMeanScores - NOTES - BIBLIOGRAPHY
I.INTRODUCTION
Ongoingstudentevaluation of a library and (^) information science
programisessentialto itseffectivenessandultimatesuccess. (^) Institutionsof
highereducationrealizethenecessityofstudentfeedbackregardingcourses
andindividual instructorsasindicatedbyregularend-of-termevaluations.
Periodically,however, itis appropriateanddesirablethataprogram,being
morethanthesumofitsseparatecoursesandindividualfacultymembers,be
evaluatedin its entirety. Externalagenciesthatevaluateprogramsofstudy
suchastheAmericanLibraryAssociation'sCommitteeonAccreditation(COA),
in their Standardsfor Accreditation of Master'sPrograms in (^) Libraryand
InformationStudies(1992),1mandatethatstudentinputisessentialto its
evaluationprocess.
TheAmericanLibraryAssociationbegantoaddresstheissue of
accreditationfor libraryschoolsin1924withthecreationoftheBoardof
Education for Librarianship. In 1956, this officewasreplacedbythe
CommitteeonAccreditation,whichundertookresponsibilityfordevelopingand
formulatingaccreditationstandardsfor libraryschools.3 ThefirstStandards
for Accreditation(onwhichtheCOAbasesall of its accreditingactivity),
writtenin1951,wasrevisedin1972. Itslatestrevisionoccurredin1992and
wasofficiallyadoptedJanuary1,1993.
TheCOAisrecognizedbytheCouncilonPostsecondaryAccreditation
andbytheUnitedStatesSecretaryofEducationastheaccrediting agencyfor
libraryandinformationstudiesprograms.4 (^) It iscomposedofatwelve-member
committeeappointedbyALA'sexecutiveboard,eachmemberservingstaggered
termsoftwo-yearperiodsnomorethantwiceconsecutively5 (^) Accreditation
bytheCOAconsistsofsitevisitsbyteamsoftrainedindividualswho are
eitherappointedbythecommitteeorCOAmembersthemselves.
Regardingstudentinput,theCOA'sStandardsonAccreditationstipulate
thatstudentparticipationisrequiredineachofthesixareasevaluated. (^) Evans,
detailingtheaccreditationprocess,statesthatstudentinputmustbeincluded
in anintensiveself-evaluationpreparedbytheschool. Shegoesonto
emphasizethatthecommittee"examinesrecordsanddocumentation (e.g.
minutes of meetings, syllabi, studentpapers[author'semphasis], faculty
publications)thatdemonstratetheschoolismeetingthestandards."
Library and information (^) science literature also attests to the
importanceofongoingevaluation. (^) Moran,addressestheissue offaculty
evaluationinschoolsoflibraryandinformationscience,statingthatstudent
evaluationsare"themostheavilyusedevidenceemployedinjudgingteaching
effectiveness."
PurposeoftheStudy
Thepurposeofthisstudywastodeterminelibraryandinformation
science(LIS)students'perceptionsoftheprogramatKentStateUniversity,
therefore findings are not necessarily generalizable to all library and
informationsciencestudents.
II.LITERATUREREVIEW
Periodically, accreditedschools of libraryandinformationscience
conductsurveystoevaluatetheirprogramsandtomaintainaccreditation. (^) The
surveyisanappropriatemethodforcollectingsuchinformation. (^) Surveyshave
beenusedbymanylibraryandinformationscienceschoolsandassociationsto
gatherstudentinputonawiderangeofissues.
KentStateUniversityLISStudentSurveys
In aself-studyofstudentsatKentState University's Libraryand
InformationScienceprogram,ButtlarandRubinconductedasurveyin1989,the
resultsofwhichwereusedinareportfortheCommitteeonAccreditationof
thatsameyear. Thepurposeofthesurveywasto identifytheschool's
strengthsandweaknesses,at itscampusesinbothKentandColumbus.
Reflectingtheschool'sstrong points,thestudyshowedthatstudentsfelt:
facultyprovidedcurrentinformationandwerewell-preparedfortheirclasses,
the programfostered professional pride,the practicumwasa valuable
experience,andtheschoolprovidedsatisfactoryinformationoncurrentjobs.
Pointsofstudentconcernwere,"proceduralmattersrelatedto orientation,
coursescheduling,andresearchpapers."
students. Aswell, it examinedparticularissuesrelating togenderand
ethnicity. (^) Giventhatthemedianageofstudentssurveyedwas35,thestudy
alsofocusedonadultvocationalbehavior.
Analysis of thedatacollectedshowedthat the "typical" student
enrolled at that timewas"part-time, geographicallyplace-bound, white,
female,andinhermid-thirtieswithanundergraduatedegreein Englishor
education."11 Theauthorssuggestthatschoolswithprogramsoflibraryand
informationscienceshouldtrytoaccommodateworkingadultslivingnearby.
Theyemphasizethatthenumberofminoritiesrecruitedandenrolledinschools
mustincreasetomeettherisingincreaseofminoritypopulations inmany
partsoftheUnitedStates.
InternationalLISStudentSurvey
Levelsof satisfaction of international studentswithfaculty ofthe
UnitedStates libraryschoolstheyattendedwasthesubject of asurvey
completedbyTallmaninthespringof1990. (^) SixteenALA-accreditedprograms
wereaskedtoparticipate,fromwhich114responsesbyinternationaldoctoral
andmaster'sstudentsprovidedinformationthatwasanalyzedinthestudy.
Dissatisfactionbythestudentswasin"perceivedlackofinterestbyU. S.
faculty in international information environments, in international
professional topics, and in international-student (^) problems."12 One
recommendationnotedbyTallmanemphasized"thatteachingprinciplesand
problem-solvingskills,ratherthanpractices,wouldenablestudentstousethe
theoryand skills theyneedto runprogramsappropriatelyfor theirown
country."
SLAStudentSurvey
Brimsekreportedtheresultsofa1989questionnairecompletedby
studentmembersoftheSpecialLibraryAssociation(a31 percentresponse
rate). ThepurposeofthestudywastoprofiletheSLAstudentmembership.
Thesurveyprovideddemographicinformation, chartedlevels of student
awarenessofSLAservices,andnotedstudentperceptionsandopinionsabout
special libraries. "Keyamong[its roles] arethenetworkingopportunities
affordedbySLAalongwiththeemploymentandrelatedservices, i.e. salary
survey,etc."14 Thestudyreportedthat68percentofthestudentswerealready
workinginspeciallibrarieswhilepursuingtheirdegrees.
LISGraduateSurvey
Finally,asurveypublishedin1990byWhiteandMortregarded
graduatesfrom thirteen accredited libraryschoolsnineyears after their
graduation in 1980. Thestudywasdevelopedtoexaminetheinfluencing
factorsonlibrarysciencestudentsinselectingatypeofintendedworksetting
uponenrollmentinalibraryprogram;theextenttowhichsuchperceptions
mightchangeduringtheprogram;therelationshipofthesepreferencestothe
first job after graduation;andthe ability to successfullymoveto better
Ill.METHODOLOGY
Theresearchdesign of this study is thesurveymethod. (^) The
questionnaire, administered previously by Buttlar and (^) Rubin(1989),was
designedtocollectstudentperceptionsoftheKentStateUniversityLibrary
andInformationScienceprogram.
Sixdemographicquestionsidentifyingprogramlocation,semesterand
yearofentry,gender,primarylibrary/worksetting,andpriorlibraryexperience
wereaddedtothebeginningoftheinstrument. (^) Sevenoftheoriginalquestions
wereomitted. Thesedealtwith:ratingoverallstudentcompetence,increasing
programcredits,addingathesistotheprogram,knowingcomplaintprocedures,
andratingtheorganizationofcourses(anotherquestiononorganizationwas
kept). (^) Onequestionwascombinedwithanotherongrading(examinationsand,
papers). Someoftheremainingforty-twoentrieswererewordedtoinclude
"informationscience"withlibraryconcerns. Threenewquestionswereadded
regardingadequacyofcomputerskillsandinstruction,anddatabaseresources.
Theseforty-five questionswerethenreorganized into groupsunderthe
following headings: administration, program standards, (^) research paper/
advising,curriculum,faculty,andresources/support.
Thequestionnairewasdistributedtoallofthestudentsenrolledatthe
KentandColumbuscampusesoftheSchoolofLibraryandInformationScience
forthespringsemesterof1996(seeAppendixAandAppendixB). The
questionnairesweredistributed to students in twoways:the investigator
placedtheminthestudents'mailboxesatKent;andsomeinstructorsatboth
campusespassedthemoutintheirclasses. Columbusstudentswererequested
toreturntheirquestionnairestotheirinstructorsortothesurveyboxinthe
school'soffice.
Thesurveypopulationwas417students. (^) Ofthese,twohundred
twenty-sixstudentsresponded,yieldinga54.1%returnrate.
ThedatawasenteredintotheEDDprogramandanalyzedwiththeSAS
program.
11
Table1.
DistributionofallStudentsbyYearofEnrollmentinProgramandCampus.
YearofEnrollment Kent(N=148) (^) Columbus(N=78) Total (N=226) 0/
(^1992 12) 8.2% 10 13.0% (^22) 9.8%
(^1994 44) 29.9% 25 32.5% 69 30.2% 1995 72 49.0% 27 35.1% 99 44.2% (^1996 3) ._1-4% 1 1.3% 3 1.3% 147 100% 77 100% 224 100%
Table2.
TypesofLibrariesinwhichRespondentswerePrimarilyInterestedbyCampus.
TypeofLibrary Kent(N=148) Columbus(N=78) Total (N=226)
Academic 25 16.9% 13 16.7% 38 16.8%
Public 34 23.0% 21 27.0% 55 24.3%
School 8 5.4% 1 1.3% 9 3.9%
Special 24 16.2% 23 29.5% 47 20.7%
Academic/Public 9 6.0% 5 6.4% 14 6.1%
Academic/Special 14 9.5% 2 2.5% 16 7.0%
Public/School 8 5.4% 0 8 3.5%
Public/Special 2 1.3% 3 3.8% 5 2.2%
Other 2 1.3% 1 1.3% 3 1.3% Undecided 17 11.5%^6 7.7% 23 10.1% Missing 5 413 3 181 8 3.5% 148 100% 78 100% 226 100%
Table3.
MajorTypesofLibrariesinwhichRespondentswereInterested(OverlappingFrequencies).
TypeofLibrary (^) Kent(N=148) %
Columbus(N=78) f cyo
Total (N=226)
Academic (^48) 32.4% 20 25.6% 68 30.0% Public (^53) 35.8% 29 37.2% (^82) 36.2%
School 10 6.7% 1 1.3% 11 7.5%
Special (^40) 27.0% 28 35.9% (^) 68 30.0%
indicated"other"forprimaryinterest;butofthese,onlythreewereessentially
outsidetherealmof"speciallibrary"(automationvendorandtwonon-library
professionsinthelawfield).
Becausesomestudentswereconsideringmorethanonetypeoflibrary,
frequenciesrepresentingeachofthefourmajorlibrarytypesareoverlapping,
causingtheoverallpercentagetototalmorethan100%(seeTable3). Forthis
reason,theoverlappingfrequenciesreflectaslightlydifferent, butperhaps
moreaccurate,viewofstudentinterestinthedifferentfields. Eighty-twoor
36.2%oftherespondentsindicatedaninterest in publiclibraries;andboth
academicandspeciallibraries,eachwith68or30.0%,sharedanequalnumber
of interestedstudentsresponding. Accordingtothestatistics inTable3,
studentinterest in public libraries attheKentandColumbusprograms is
relativelythesame,with35.8%and37.2%ateachrespectivecampus. Butat
theKentcampusthenexthighestconcentrationof interest is inacademic
libraries,indicatedby48ofthe148respondents(32.4%);whereasthoseinthe
