INFORMATION TO USERS

This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s}''. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

University Microfilms

300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

A Xerox Education Company )\ 73-1986 ELLISON, John William, 1941- THE IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF PRINCIPLES WHICH VALIDATE OR REFUTE THE CONCEPT OF COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY LEARNING RESOURCES CENTERS. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1972 Library Science

University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan

© Copyright by John William Ellison 1972

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. THE IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF PRINCIPLES WHICH VALIDATE OR REFUTE THE CONCEPT OF COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY LEARNING RESOURCES CENTERS

DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By John William Ellison, B.A., M.ED., S.ED

ift $ j f : ift if;

The Ohio State University 1972

Approved by

College of Education PLEASE NOTE:

Some pages may have

indistinct print.

Filmed as received.

University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company THE IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF PRINCIPLES WHICH VALIDATE OR REFUTE THE CONCEPT OF COLLEGE

OR UNIVERSITY LEARNING RESOURCES CENTERS by

John William Ellison, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1972

Professor I. Keith Tyler, Adviser

The purpose of this study was to identify and examine principles which validate or refute the concept of an inte­ grated learning resources center on a college or university campus. The investigation of thirty five principles identi­ fied from the literature and the investigator's experience ■ was carried out by submitting them to three hundred and ninety participants. Chosen were persons representing theoreticians of higher education, academic administrators, directors of academic libraries, audiovisual directors, faculty, students and directors of learning resources cen­ ters. In each group, With'the exception of directors of learning resources centers, participants were selected with the use of random tables. All directors of learning / resources centers on college and university campuses re­ ceived opinionnaires. An opinionnaire was sent to each participant. Di­ rectors of learning resources centers received an opin­ ionnaire plus a questionnaire which solicited demographic information and information regarding their learning re­ sources center. One hundred per cent of the combined group mean scores of all the respondents supports the principles stated in the opinionnaire. A majority (54 per cent) of the combined group mean scores was in the ".agree" category, A minority (46 per cent) of the combined group mean scores was in the "strongly agree" category. None of the combined group mean scores was in the "undecided," "disagree" or "strongly disagree" catagories. Thirteen of the principles which support the concept of a learning resources center were statistically signifi­ cant at the .05 level on the Kruskal-Wallis Test. There­ fore, it can be stated with confidence that these principles can be extended to the general population which the respon­ dents represent. The Mann-Whitney Test was used to identify statistically significant differences between two independent groups. One hundred and six statistically significant independent groups were identified at the .05 level. Each time two groups were statistically significant, the ratings can be extended with confidence to the general population which the respondents re­ present. Audiovisual directors show the most statistically significant differences (forty-nine) with other individual groups. Directors of libraries followed with twenty-two statistically significant differences. Both groups com­ bined show the greatest number of differences with students (twenty) and faculty (sixteen). The majority of the existing thirty learning resour­ ces centers on college and university campuses include the library, audiovisual center, graphics department, and cur­ riculum center. Forty-three per cent of the centers include dial access services. The organization pattern in respond­ ing centers show a majority place public services, technical services and audiovisual services on the same administrative

level. The directors of learning resources centers fit no single profile. Each varied extensively in age, education, experience and fields of study. The only similarities identified were ninety-one per cent of the directors report to academic vice-presidents and all are male. Three institutions with existing learning resources centers were examined to determine if they embody the prin­ ciples identified in this study. Both the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point and St, Cp.oud State College practice a majority of the principles identified in this study. Syracuse University generally supports the princi­ ples, but their philosophy and physical arrangement does not permit the implementation of these principles. TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viii . VITA ...... ix LIST OF T A B L E S ...... * LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS...... xvii

Chapter I. INTRODUCTION...... 1 Function of the Learning Resources Center Historical Development of Print and Nonprint Collections Learning-Teaching Process and its Problems Possible Solutions to Learning Problems Summary .II. PURPOSE, PROBLEM AND METHODOLOGY OF THIS STUDY ...... 14 The Need for the Study Statement of the Problem Statement of Limitations Definition of Terms Used in This Study Sources of Principles Sources of Data: Selection of Participants Policies Pertaining to Use of Participants Methods of Securing Data-: The Opinionnaire The Questionnaire ' Case Studies Method of Analysis of Data Possible Application of Findings Summary III. PRESENTATIpN AND ANALYSIS OF DATA ...... 40 In.troduction Analysis of Data: Processing Principles Facility Principles vi • Operation Principles Staff Principles Organization Principles Distribution and Retrieval Principles Administration Principles Summary Analysis of the Data Summary IV. PRINCIPLES IN PRACTICE...... 187 St. Cloud State College Syracuse University University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point Some Observations Regarding the Institutions Studied V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBSEQUENT RESEARCH...... 20 9 Summary Conclusions Recommendations for Subsequent Research

APPENDIX A ...... 224 APPENDIX B ...... J ...... £33

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 243

• i VIX ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The acknowledgements which follow are too brief and incomplete to express my gratitude for the many sources of support and assistance. My principal debt is to Dr. I. Keith Tyler, chairman of the dissertation committee, for shaping the research topic, providing insights into the theoretical and empirical problems, and spending innumerable hours guiding the develop­ ment of the research. I am also highly indebted to Dr. Donald R. Cottrell and Dr. William D. Dowling, members of the dissertation committee, for investing hours in reading, commenting, and supporting my efforts throughout. I owe special thanks to the following people for their assistance: Miss Nancy Fabrizio, Dr. Robert Graham, Mrs. Patricia Laudisio, Dr. Edward O'Neill, Mrs. Betsey Park, Mrs. Margaret Roach, Miss Bonnie Ryan and Mr. Francis Yu.

I also wish to thank the following friends for their constant moral support: Dean George Bobinski, Miss Sue Brown, Mr. James T. Dodson, Dr. Roger Iddings, Dr. Norman Tant and Dean F. Norwood Marquis. To my parents, sons, and wife who have sacrificed most, I am forever indebted. 4

t 4 « • V l l l VITA

December 6, 1941 Born - Darke County/ Ohio 1963 ....-..... B.A./ Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky 1963-1966 ..... Librarian, Middletown Public Schools, Middletown, Ohio 1964 ...... M.Ed., Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio

1966-1968 ..... Director of Curriculum Materials Center, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio 1968-1969 ..... S.Ed., Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 1969-1970 ..... Instructor, College of Education, Wright State University, Dayton, ' Ohio 1970-1971 ..... Assistant Director of the Library Resources Center, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio 1971-1972 ..... Assistant Professor, School of Infor­ mation and Library Studies, State University of New York at Buffalo, New York

PUBLICATIONS "Institute Combines AV and Library Training," Audiovisual Instructor, Vol. XIV (September, 1969) , p. 72-73. An Annotated Bibliography of Materials Designed and Organized for Adult Use m Discussion Groups, Educational Research Information Center, ED 044 603, 1970, pp. 111.

FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Education Educational Communications - Professor I. Keith Tyler Higher Education - Professor Donald P. Cottrell Adult Education - Professor William D. Dowling LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1. Number of Participants, Respondents and Per­ centage of Responses...... 43 2. Procurement of all Print, Nonprint Materials and Equipment Should be Centralized. . . . 47 3. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the. Seven Groups for the Principle: Procure­ ment of all Print, Nonprint Materials and Equipment Should be Centralized...... 48 4. Processing of Print and Nonprint Materials Should be Centralized...... ’51 5. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle Processing of Print and Nonprint Materials Should be Centralized...... 53 6. Selection of all Print, Nonprint Materials Should be Based on Curricular Needs. . . . 55 7. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: Selection of all Print, Nonprint Materials Should be Based on Curricular Needs...... 56 8. Viewing and Listening Equipment Should Be Listed in One Inventory^,...... 58 9. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: Viewing and listening Equipment Should be Listed in One Inventory ...... 59 10. All Print and Nonprint Materials Should be Listed in One Catalog...... 61

x List of Tables - Continued

Table Page 11. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: All Print and Nonprint Materials Should be Listed in One Catalog...... 62 12. Print and Nonprint Materials Should be Organized Under the Direction of Specially Trained Professional Personnel ...... 64 13. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: Print and Nonprint Materials Should be Organized Under the Direction of Specially Trained Profes­ sional Personnel ...... 65 14. Print and Nonprint Materials Should be Cataloged According to OneClassification Scheme .... 68 15. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: Print and Nonprint Materials Should be Cataloged According to One Classification Scheme .... 70 16. Nonprint Cards Should be Differentiated From Print Cards...... 71 17. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: Nonprint Cards Should be Differentiated From Print Cards...... 73 18. One Facility Should House all Print, Nonprint Materials and Equipment...... 75 19. Differences Between the Mean^ Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: One Facility Should House all Print, Nonprint Materials and Equipment...... 76 20. Faculty and Students are Better Served by One Facility Housing Print, Nonprint Materials and Equipment...... ; ...... 79 21. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: Faculty and Students are- Better Served by One Facility Housing Print, Nonprint Materials and Equipment...... 80 xi List of Tables - Continued

Table Page

22. Print and Nonprint Materials Should be Inter­ shelved when Possible ...... 82 23. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: Print and Nonprint Materials Should be Intershelved when Possible ...... 84 24. Equipment Necessary to Use Nonprint Materials Should be Available in the Immediate Area . . 87 25. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: Equipment Necessary to Use Nonprint Materials Should be Available in the Immediate Area...... 89 26. Production Facilities Should be in the Same Building as Print and Nonprint Materials and Equipment...... 90 27. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: Production Facilities Should be in the Same Building as Print and Nonprint Materials and Equipment. 92 28. All Departments Within the Learning Resources Center Which Directly Service Faculty and Students Should be Equally Accessible .... 94 29. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: All Depart­ ments Within the Learning Resources Center Which Directly Service Faculty and Students Should be Equally Accessible...... 96 30. Reference and Guidance Services Should be Provided for Print,. Nonprint Materials and Equipment ...... 98 31. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: Reference and Guidance Services Should be Provided for Print, Nonprint Materials and Equipment . . . 99 32. Print, Nonprint Materials and Equipment Should be Available to Students and Faculty...... 100 List of Tables - Continued

Table • Page 33. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: Print, Nonprint Materials and Equipment Should be Available to Students and Faculty ...... 102 34. Print, Nonprint Materials and Equipment Should be Available to Students and Faculty for the Same Number of Hours...... 103 35. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: Print, Nonprint Materials and Equipment Should be Available to Students and Faculty for the Same Number of Hours. 105 36. Professional Staff Should Have Some Education in Both Print and Nonprint Materials...... 107 37. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: Professional Staff Should have some Education in Both Print and Nonprint Materials...... 109 38. Professional Staff Should have some Assigned Responsibilities in Both Print and Nonprint . H O 39. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: Professional Staff Should have some Assigned Responsibilities in Both Print and Nonprint...... H 2 40. Print, Nonprint Materials and Equipment which Support the Teaching and'Learning Process Should be Organized Under One Administrator . H 4 41. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: Print, Nonprint Materials and Equipment Which Support the Teaching and Learning Process Should be Organized Under One Administrator . 116 42. Departments Within the Learning Resources Center Should be Organized According to Functional Responsibilities. • ...... 118 43. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: Departments Within the Learning Resources Center Should be Organized According to Functional Respon­ sibilities...... 119 xiii List of Tables - Continued

Table ' Page 44. Maintenance of Viewing and Listening Equip­ ment Should be Centralized ...... 122 45. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: Maintenance of Viewing and Listening Equipment Should be Centralized...... 123 46. One Budget Should be Allocated for all Print and Nonprint Materials and Equipment ...... 124 47. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: One Budget Should be Allocated for all Print and Nonprint Materials and Equipment . • . . . . . 126 48. The Learning Resources Center's Budget Should be Determined by Curricular Needs...... 128 49. Differences Between the Mean- Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: The Learning Resources Center's Budget Should be Determined by Curricular Needs...... 129 50. The Director of the Learning Resources Center Should Have the Ultimate Responsibility for Determining the Departmental Budgets with­ in the Center...... 121 51. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: The Director of the Learning Resources Center Should have the Ultimate Responsibility for Determining the Departmental Budgets within the Center. . . . 133 52. Learning Resources Center Departmental Budgets Should be Formulated by Departments According to Their Curricular Needs...... 134 53. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: Learning Resources Center Departmental Budgets Should be Formulated by Departments According to Their Curricular Needs ...... 136 54. There Should be a Single Charging System for all Print and Nonprint Materials ...... 137 xiv List of Tables - Continued

Table Page 55. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the 139 Seven Groups for the Principle: There Should be a Single Charging System for all Print and Nonprint Materials ...... 56. There Should be a Single Booking System for all Print and Nonprint Materials ...... 140 57. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: There Should be a Single Booking System for all Print and Nonprint Materials...... 142 58. There Should be a Single Reserve Collection for all Print and Nonprint Materials...... 143 59. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: There Should be a Single Reserve Collection for all Print and Nonprint Materials ...... 145 60. There Should be a Single Booking System for all Equipment...... 147 61. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: There Should be a Single Booking System for all Equipment...... 148 62. All Distribution and Retrieval of Print, Nonprint Materials and Equipment Should be Centralized...... 149 63. . Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: All Distri­ bution and Retrieval of Print, Nonprint Materials and Equipment Should be Cen­ tralized ...... 151

64. Both Print and Nonprint Materials and Equipment Should be Under One Administrator...... 153 65. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: Both Print and Nonprint Materials and Equipment Should be Under One Administrator...... 155

xv List of Tables - Continued

Table ■ Page 66. The Directors of the Learning Resources Center Should have an Educational Background in Both Print and Nonprint Materials ...... 156 67. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: The Direc­ tor of the Learning Resources Center Should have an Educational Background in Both Print and Nonprint Materials...... 158 68. The Director of the Learning Resources Center Should have some Experience in Both Print and Nonprint Materials...... 159 69. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: The Direc­ tor of the Learning Resources Center Should have some Experience in Both Print and Nonprint Materials...... 161 70. The Director of the Learning Resources Center Should Report Directly to the Highest Academic Officer (Example: Academic Vice President)...... 162 71. Differences Between the Mean Responses of the Seven Groups for the Principle: The Direc­ tor of the Learning Resources Center Should Report Directly to the Highest Academic O f f i c e r...... 164 72. Ranking of Each Principle by Respondents...... 167 73. Responses, Percentage, and Group Mean Scores by Geographical Region ofythe Country ...... 181 74. Responses, Percentage, and Group Mean Scores by Size of Institution...... 182

xvi LIST OP ILLUSTRATIONS

1. A Composite of Eighteen Learning Resources Center's Organizational Charts ...... 174 2. Organizational Chart for the Learning Resources Services at St. Cloud State College ...... 189 3. Organizational Chart for the Library at Syracuse University...... 195 4. Organizational Chart for Learning Resources at the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point. . 20.2

xvii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

The idea of "learning resources centers"'1' as a unit in higher education is a relatively new concept. However, "at least three hundred colleges and universities are currently 2 carrying out experiments ..." involving some of the learning resources center concepts. Ten percent of the 1,193 libraries surveyed by Foreman in 1968 indicated that they were involved in implementing some aspect of the learning resources center concept and thirty-seven percent reported they were planning 3 to introduce part of the concept at a future date. Even though many of the experiments are presently confined to community colleges, indications point to recent acceptances of the learning resources concept on some four year college and university campuses. •

■^For the purpose of this study, a learning resources center is an administrative unit which includes both the audio­ visual ' center and library on a college or university campus and possibly one or more of the following,* CH closed- circuit television, (2) computer center, C3J curriculum center, (4} dial access, (5) graphics department, (6) language laboratory, {7) radio station, 2 Louis Shores and Janiece F. Fusaro, "In-Nova; General,” Library College Journal, III (Summer, 197QJ., 59. 3 Sidney Foreman, "Innovative Practices in College Libraries," College and Research Libraries, XXIX CNovember, 1968), 486.

1 Function of the Learning Resources Center The primary function of the learning resources center is facilitation of learning by students. This is a funda­ mental change from the concept of facilitating teaching by the faculty which traditional library and audiovisual centers were set up to do. Learning resources centers have the respons sibility to supply students and faculty with resource materi­ als regardless of format. Resources for learning are not limited to the printed word. The basic criterion for learn­ ing resource material is the extent to which the materials contribute to the curriculum and the learning experience of the students. Therefore, the major characteristic of the learning resources center is its identification with the college or university's total educational program. Learning resources centers should provide such services as instructional research, evaluation of learning, course development, training services, production of instructional materials, instructional experimentation and demonstration, along with regular library and audiovisual services of con­ sultation, selection, dissemination-distribution and utili­ zation of all instructional materials, information sources, and facilities in order to promote effective l e a r n i n g . ^ All of these services would be designed directly or indi­ rectly to facilitate student learning.

^Eleventh Lake Okoboji Educational Media Leadership . Conference, Division of Audiovisual Instruction and National Education Association (1965), 40. Historical Development of Print and Nonprint Collections History does not indicate the specific date when non­ print materials began developing into separate collections. However, the inception could have been when someone added the concept of sound and informational material began taking on many forms. The importance of content was diminished and variations in form initiated separate centralized col- 5 lections of print and nonprint materials. Audiovisual programs have not always been a part of the American college and university scene. It was not until higher education displayed a great deal of dissatisfaction with the past role of the librarian and services offered by the library that an entire area of specialization - audiovisual - emerged. The emergence of audiovisual programs was the result of years of persistant librarian neglect of organization and dissemination of nonprint materials.^ Grove reasoned, "librarians usually register a negative reaction to non-book resources because the library profession has traditionally drawn its membership from the humanities and 7 social sciences." Even today, "It^is no secret that quite a few librarians of institutions 'of higher education wish

5 Nina J. Mahaffey, "Instructional Materials Centers," Arizona Teacher, LV (May, 1967) , 15. 6Ibid., p. 41. ^Pearce S. Grove and Herman L. Totten, "Bibliographic Control of Media: The Librarian's Excedrin Headache," Wilson Library Bulletin. XLIV (November, 1969) , 300. the new-found non-book gadgets were somewhere near the bot- 3 toms of a more unfathomable ocean depths." Reciprocal feelings were expressed by Timpano: The librarians and their respective educational associations— in their quest for SURVIVAL, STATUS and POWER, have been driven beyond ethical consi­ derations and practices to achieve their ultimate ends; the domination and control of modern educa­ tional technology and its funds.^ Also, similar feelings are expressed by other audiovisual spe­ cialists who retain a pervasive and damaging anti-book bias.'1'® The current segregated instructional services on many campuses are caused by the continuing absence within the pro­ fessions of any personal pride of identity: this is caused in part by the lack of recognition accorded to and/or felt by librarians and audiovisual specialists responsible for management as well as by a lack of any real appreciation within the professions of the effective roles that all materials can play in helping to meet the learner's needs. Another stumbling block which stands in the way of developing campus learning resources centers is uncertainty. There is a lack of any clear and acceptable definition of what learning resources centers should contribute toward the

8Louis Shores, "Audio-Visual Dimensions for an Aca­ demic Library," College and Research Libraries, XV (October, 1954), 393. q Doris M. Timpano, Crisis In Educational' Technology, (New York: Gilbert Press, 1970), p. 13. ■^Evelyn Geller, "The Media Librarian and A/V," Library Journal, XCII CApril 15, 1967), 21. total learning process and any identification of the specific principles which validate or refute the concept. Some of the accepted traditional definitions are at the root of much of the uncertainty expressed within many professions. Tragically, "the newer media are customarily defined so as to incorporate all communication materials and the equipment for their use, apart from books or other media which utilize the written or printed page. This situation is unfortunate and has been caused in part by excessive pride and ignorance among both librarians and nonlibrary audio-visual specialists and too much separate oncampus promotion of newer media as the result of imagined competition with the old."1'1' The definitions have created habits and practices in university libraries and audiovisual centers which sometimes have no justification. 12 "Several methodological developments have led to and supported the learning resources concept. One of the most important is the systems approach to education." 13 Through the use of such systems methodology, learning process by providing the staff and support necessary. The result often involves the combined use of print and nonprint technology

11C. Walter Stone, "The Place of Newer Media in the Undergraduate Program," Library Quarterly, XXIV (October, 1954), 358. 12Henry S. Commager, "Problems of the University Library," Library-College Journal, III (Fall, 1970), 46. 13 William G. Mitchell, "Learning Resources at Northern," Audiovisual Instruction, XIV (October, .19691, 871 in education. Dale wrote, "The more numerous and varied the media we employ, the richer and more secure will be the concepts we develop."14 in any case, the focus should always be on the facilitation of the process of learning— not on hardware or software as such.15

Learning-Teaching Process and Its Problems One of the greatest problems facing institutions of higher education today is that of preparing students for a world that will exist in an entirely different form when they are responsible adults. Students are aware and con­ cerned about their future and the antiquated process used supposedly to prepare them for it. Specifically, they are increasingly critical of traditional methods based on credit hours, rigid lecture-discussion classroom procedures, unima­ ginative reading assignments, and antiquated grading tech­ niques. Tyler, wrote, "At present, most college teaching 1 g has little*impact on student learning." Numerous polls of student discontent reported in the mass media reveal resent­ ment of the growing impersonality caused by numbers, and lockstep classroom instruction.

■^Edgar Dale, Audiovisual Methods In Teaching (New York: The Dryden Press, 1967), p. 133. 15Ibid., p. 88. 16Ralph W. Tyler, "Changing Responsibilities of * Higher Education," in Academic Change And The Academic Library Function, ed. by C. Walter Stone (Pittsburg: Pennsylvania Library Association, 1970), p. 14. It is recognized that "the learning of our younger people has been of longer and deeper concern to the faculties of American colleges and universities than to anyone." 17 These concerned faculty are very much aware that today's students have a wider range of individual differences than higher education has ever experienced before and that, "Much teaching in college and university classrooms results in only a modest amount of meaningful, functional and lasting learning." 18 They are also searching for new ideas and support services which will help meet these individual differences.

Possible Solutions to Learning Problems Simple solutions to the complex problems of preparing students and meeting their individual differences are not available. However, faculty must learn how to guide or manage learning; and students must learn how to learn. 19 "Learning and the management of learning are not equivalent terms any more than are learning and teaching. The so- called teaching-learning problem is subsumed under the manage- ment-of-learning problem." 20 Combined print and nonprint

17 Louis Shores, "Along the Library - College Way," Pea- body Journal of Education, XLVI (November, 1968), 166. TO Carl J. McGrath, "The Learning Center In The Seventies," in What Are We Learning About Learning Centers?, ed. by Marshall Gunselman (Oklahoma City: Eagle Media, Inc., 1971), p. 3. 19 Robert M. Brown, "The Learning Center," AV Communi­ cation Review, XVI (Fall, 1968) , 298. 20Charles F. Hoban, "From Theory to Policy Decisions," AV Communications Review, XIII (Summer, 1965), p. 124. 8 can transfigure the traditional image of the faculty as dispensers of knowledge. Now the faculty, hopefully, can better manage student learning by motivating and encouraging. The responsibility would be directed to the student, not the lecture and the textbook. The instructional program of any university must utilize every method (individual instruction, individually prescribed instruction, discovery, inquiry, etc.) which will make learning more effective and meaningful. Print and nonprint offer greater efficiency, clarify communication, and speed up comprehension. Research and observation indi­ cate that students learn best through experiences which include a wide variety of instructional materials. "Materials should be used in varied combinations for mutual reinforce- 21 ment at any sequential condition of creative inquiry." Simply providing these materials on campus does not guaran­ tee that good education will result. However, an able learn­ ing resources center staff will assure that faculty and students use available resources with greater skill and interest. The learning resources center contains all forms of "media" including the book. The fundamental issue concerning the center's staff is the organization of materials and

21Kenneth I. Taylor ,"Instructional Materials Center: A Theory Underlying Its Development," Wilson Library Bul- letin, XLIII (October, 1968), 168. equipment, which are carriers, so the transformation of their products (symbols, signs and signals) can be converted into knowledge.

Organization of Instructional Services for Learning Colleges and universities have set up an organiza­ tional pattern or administrative structure for print, non­ print materials and equipment which would comprise the entire communications and technological complex, excluding the teaching faculty, devoted to the learning process. Because of sloppy theoretical formulation and no identification of justifying principles, some library and audiovisual ser­ vices now find themselves subordinate to a highly complex and artificial nonacademic structure (Business Manager, Campus Relations, etc.) which almost totally ignores learn­ ing. This is unfortunate because the learning resources center promotes the conceptual formulation and behavioral patterns which are the direct opposite of what has come to be known as "education." Ignoring the fact that the learning resources center does have unique educational goals, clouds the learning resources image. 22 The learning resources center demands an entirely different theoretical framework and cannot be understood or evaluated properly if viewed in

22John M. Christ, "Problems in Understanding the Library-College Philosophy," Library-College Journal, II (Pall, 1969),'33. 10 the traditional library and audiovisual setting on a typical college or university organization chart.

Organization of the Learning Resources Center The arrangement and organization of a learning resources center depends upon the following: (1) the size of the materials collection; (2) the amount of faculty and student research being conducted; (3) the funds available; (4) the location of instructional facilities in relation to the learning resources center; (5) the structure and autonomy of individual departments and the extent of interdepartmental cooperation; (6) the degree and sophistication of reading and viewing habits of the student body; (7) the philosophy of the college or university; and (8) the application of learning theory in the management of the student learning. 23 Developing and implementing the learning resources center concept at the college and university level requires strong administrative and faculty support for the concept. It also demands a thorough understanding and commitment to service on the part of all the center's staff. The key to the start of a learning resources center is service and 2 i i management more than storage and materials.

23 Robert T. Jordan, "Impact of the Academic Library on the Educational Program," ERIC Document, ED 013 351, (April, 1967), 21. 24 Brown, "The Learning Center," p..300. Once the decision has been made to pursue the learning resources center concept, an early target date for implemen­ tation should be set. One of Parkinson's laws states that work tends to increase in order to consume the time made available for its completion. If various print and nonprint specialists involved were to give themselves three years to accomplish integration of all instructional services, it would take them three years; should they allow six months, it would take six months. However, if print and nonprint specialists choose not to work toward an integrated unit, someone outside their profession must make the choice for

them.^ Concern immediately arises as to who should be the learning resources center director. According to Brown, he should not be a librarian or an audiovisual director. He should be a generalist who specializes in the movement of information from a source to a patron. He is essentially a change agent who helps provide services and specialists so faculty can manage or guide the learning of students. 26 The learning resources center, unlike the traditional library and audiovisual center, should be conceived and developed as an integral part of the educational program

25 Willard Philipson, William J. Price, and Janiece F. Fusaro, "An Exploration of the Learning Resources Philosophy and Service Being Developed in the Junior Colleges of Min­ nesota," Audiovisual Instruction, III (November, 1968), 31. , 26 Robert M. Brown, "The Learning Center," AV Communi­ cation Review, XVI (Fall, *1968), 296. rather than as an institutional adjunct or field. In the past, emphasis has been placed on organization by function; the trend is to reorganize materials around the subject mat- 27 ter. Gulick noted, "Einstein, when he died, was working on a unified field of theory because he suspected that it might be possible to tie together in a single logical system the 28 theory of the atom and the universe." This will evolve in learning resources centers if it is agreed that it is partially a science and apply theoretical principles of systems design to the organization of all information of format or access. "The great task of scholarship and leadership in the coming decades is to generalize, integrate, and synthesize this store of knowledge." 29

Summary This introductory chapter delineates the background necessary to understand the concept of learning resources centers.

27 Robert T. Jordan, "Impact of the Academic Library," p. 22. . 28 Luther Gulick, "Management is a Science," Academy of Management Journal {March, 1965), 12. 29 Robert W. Sarnoff, "Higher Education in a Changing Society?" An address at the University of Miami (Florida) (January 24, 1969). 13

The following three chapters reports the results of the study, and the final chapter provides the summary, con­ clusions and recommendations: - Chapter II Describes the purpose, problem and methodology used in this study. - Chapter III Presents an analysis of the data collected in this study. - Chapter IV Applies the principles iden­ tified in this study to three college and university learn­ ing resources centers. - Chapter Summarizes the study and draws conclusions from which recom­ mendations for subsequent research are made. CHAPTER II PURPOSE, PROBLEM AND METHODOLOGY OF THIS STUDY

The Need for the Study With the increased number of four-year college and university learning resources centers at a time when accoun­ tability and economic pressures require a close examination of current procedures and practices, it seemed reasonable to expect an interest in the identification and examina­ tion of principles which validate or refute the concept of learning resources centers. Many changes have taken place in American society and education during the past ten years. Some social trends include expansion of population, with higher percentages in college; changing vocational and occupational needs leading to new expectations from colleges; growing urban areas demanding more services; rapid mobility of people in­ cluding international travel; mass organization and restruc­ turing of knowledge presenting new problems; and greater concern for quality, as well as a demand for higher levels of education. This changing modern society is altering edu-

■^Carolyn I. Whitenack, "The Instructional Materials Center: A Changing Concept," American Annal of the Deaf, CXII (November, 1969), 651. 1 5

cational goals, particularly as they relate to the learning resources center concept. Across America instruction is becoming more and more a student-oriented learning experience. Educational technology is providing an opportunity to "mix and match software, hardware and 'humanware' so that each individual learner will achieve maximum realization of his ability.1,2 Presidents of colleges and universities are frequently confronted with proposals to integrate part or all instruc­ tional services into one administrative unit. In some instances the rational that centralization will bring improved planning, improved administration, economics of scale and equity of financing is not supported because validated principles supporting the total learning resources center concept are not indicated. There is a need for the study of such principles at the college and university level since many learning resour­ ces centers have only intuitive feelings to support the integration of various instructional service units. "The intent of these centers is to make possible for students and teachers improved access to a wide variety of resources and specialized personnel." However, no definitive list of principles was available to validate this intent. Par

2Janxece F. Fusaro, "The Library-College: Where the Educational Technology Action Is!," Educational Technology, IX (July, 1969), 50. 3 Murray G. Phillips, "Learning Materials and Their Implementation," Review of Educational Research, (June, 1966.), 377. more has been written on "how" to create a learning resour ces center than on "why" it is an essential part of the modern college and university. 4

Statement of the Problem It was the purpose of this study to identify and exa mine principles which validate or refute the concept of an integrated learning resources center on a college or uni­ versity campus. Specific aspects of the problem which were investigated are: (1) Identify a list of principles which vali­ date or refute the concept of a learning resources center on a college or univer­ sity campus. (2) Determine what per cent of new principles will be identified by respondents. (3) Determine whether or not there is a gen­ eral agreement among directors of learn­ ing resources centers, theoreticians of higher education, academic administrators , directors of libraries, audiovisual direc­ tors, faculty and students as to the ranking of these principles. ta). Identify the instructional ser­ vice units found in integrated college or university learning resources centers. (b) Identify the various administra­ tive structures used in college and university learning resour­ ces centers.

4 Kenneth I. Taylor, "Instructional Materials Center: A Theory Underlying Its Development," Wilson Library Bul- letin, (October, 1968), XLIII 165. 17

(c) Identify the personal charac­ teristics (demographic) of directors of learning resources centers. (d) Identify the learning resources centers organization in relation to the college or university organizational structure. (e) Determine whether or not the principles identified in this study are used in three college .or university learning resour­ ces centers. A case study ap­ proach will be used. (f) Determine if there is a signi­ ficant difference among respon­ ses when comparing the size of institution and geographical region. (g) Determine if there are differ­ ences of opinion among the respondents according to the region of the country they represent. (h) Determine if there are differ­ ences of opinion among respon­ dents according to the size of institution they represent.

Statement of Limitations This investigation has been confined to identification and examination of principles which validate or refute the concept of learning resources centers which integrate admini­ stratively both the library and audiovisual center and pos­ sibly other instructional service units in four-year insti­ tutions of higher education in the contiguous forty-eight states of the United States. Other limitations of' this study are: 18

(1) It was not a part of this study to rate individuals or the participating colleges separately on the stated principles. (2) Conclusions should be interpreted only in terms of colleges and universities with similar organizational patterns. (3) No claim is made that these principles include every consideration; however, the procedure used in the study has insured, it is believed, a comprehen­ sive cross-section.

Definition of Terms Used in This Study Audiovisual - "refers semantically to sound and visual stimuli as used in educational processes, but in general it includes all materials generally used in classroom instruc tion except those that use verbal symbols (printed) only." 5 Learning Resources Center - learning resources center is used in this study to designate an administrative unit which includes both the audiovisual center and library on a college or university campus and possibly one or more of the following: (1). closed-circuit television (2) computer center (3) curriculum center (4) dial access (5) graphics department (6) language laboratory (7) radio station. Media - "all forms of display or communication through which the learner actively or passively interacts with the g learning environment."

5 Carlton W. H. Erickson, Administering Instructional Media Programs, (New York: Macmillan Co., 1968), p. 30. 6 Pennsylvania Learning Resources Association, Guidelines For Instructional Media' Services Programs, (West Chester, Pennsylvania, 1970), p. 111. 19

No Significant Differences— is used in this study to describe a situation where the investigator was unable to measure a difference. It does not mean that a difference does not exist. The responses can not be extended with confidence to the populations represented by the respondents. Principle— "a general or fundamental truth: a com­ prehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption on which others are based or from which others are derived: 7 elementary proposition." System— "the sum total of separate parts working independently and in interaction to achieve previously Q specified objectives." Unified— is used in this study to describe an arrange­ ment where separate instructional service units are brought together administratively under a single administration.

Sources of Principles Thirty-five principles were formulated from statements in the literature and from this investigator's experience as an administrator in a university learning resources center.

7 Philip Babcock Grove, Webster's Third New Inter­ national Dictionary of the English Language (New York: G & C Merriam Co., 1967). Q Roger A. Kaufman, "A Systems Approach to Education: Derivation and Definition," AV Communication Review, XVI .(Winter, 3968) , 419. 20

Each principle was directly related to one of the following eight categories: (1) processing, (2) facility, (3) opera­ tion, (4) staff, (5) organization, (6) finance, (7) distri­ bution and retrieval, and (8) administration. Ten directors of community college learning resources centers were arbitrarily selected by this investigator to verify, delete or add new principles to the list of thirty- five identified in this study. Five directors responded with suggestions regarding the wording of principles. No new principles were added and no suggestions for deletion were given. Finally, each of the following principles was scrutinized for grammatical correctness to determine the internal consistency of the statement:

Processing Principles: a. Procurement of all print, nonprint materials and equipment should be centralized. b. Processing of print and nonprint materials should be centralized. c. Selection of all print, nonprint materials should be based on curricular needs. d. Viewing and listening equipment should be listed in one inventory. e. All print and nonprint materials should be listed in one catalog. f. Print and nonprint materials should be organized under the direction of specially trained professional personnel. 21

g. Print and nonprint materials should be cataloged according to one clas­ sification scheme. h. Nonprint cards should be differ­ entiated from print cards.

Facility Principles a. One facility should house all print, nonprint materials and equipment. b. Faculty and students are better served by one facility housing print, nonprint materials'and equipment. c. ~ Print and nonprint materials should be intershelved when possible. d. Equipment necessary to use nonprint materials should be available in the immediate area. e. Production facilities should be in the same building as print and non­ print materials and equipment. f. All departments within the learning resources center which directly service faculty and students should be equally accessible.

Operation Principles a. Reference and guidance services should be provided for print, non­ print materials and equipment. b. Print, nonprint materials and equip­ ment should be available to students and faculty. c. Print, nonprint materials and equip­ ment should be available to students and faculty for the same number of hours. Staff Principles

a. Professional staff should have some education in both print and nonprint materials. b. Professional staff should have some assigned responsibilities in both print and nonprint.

Organization Principles a. Print, nonprint materials and equip­ ment which support the teaching and learning process should be organized under one administrator. b. Departments within the learning resources center should be organized according to functional responsi­ bilities . c. Maintenance of viewing and listening equipment should be centralized.

Finance Principles a. One budget should be allocated for all print and nonprint materials and equipment. b. The learning resources center's budget should be determined by curricular needs. c. The director, of the learning resour­ ces center should have the ultimate responsibility for determining the departmental budgets within the center. d. Learning resources center depart­ mental budgets should be formulated by departments according to their curricular needs. 23

Distribution and Retrieval Principles a. There should be a single charging system for all print and nonprint materials. b. There should be a single booking system for all print and nonprint materials. c. There should be a single reserve collection for all print and nonprint materials. d. There should be a single booking system for all equipment. e. All distribution and retrieval of print, nonprint materials and equipment should be centralized.

Administration Principles a. Both print and nonprint materials and equipment should be under one administrator. b. The director of the learning resources center should have an educational background in both print and nonprint materials. c. The director of the learning resources center should have some experience in both print and nonprint materials. d. The director of the learning resources center should report directly to the highest academic officer (EXAMPLE: Academic Vice President). The principles identified were mailed to (1) directors of learning resources centers, (2) theoreticians of higher education, (3) academic administrators, (4) directors of cpllege and university libraries, (5) directors of college 24 and university audiovisual centers, (6) college and uni­ versity faculty, and (7) college and university students. Four types of responses were requested from all participants: (1) Rate each principle on a Likert-type scale. (2) Read the list of principles and add those which you feel justify a learn­ ing resources center but were left off this list. (3) Indicate the size of the student body at the institution at which you are employed or attend(ed). (4) Indicate the geographical location of your college or university. In addition, directors of learning resources centers were asked to complete the following: (1) Indicate the various instructional service units which comprise your campus learning resources center. (2) Submit the administrative organi­ zational chart used by your cam­ pus learning resources center. (3) Indicate your personal character­ istics in the following categories: al Name b) Date of Birth c) Undergraduate Institution d) Graduate Institution e) Highest Degree

f) Approximate Number of Academic Hours

g) Previous College Experience by Position and Number of Years 25

h) Number of Years in Present Position (4) Indicate the title of the person to whom you report.

Sources of Data A collection of representative opinions from persons of various academic backgrounds with college and university experience was the objective of the selection and use of participants.

Selection of Participants The process of selecting participants was divided logi­ cally into two parts: the determination of which categories

o f participants were needed; and, a random sample of partici­ pants in each category. It was decided to use (1) directors of learning resour­ ces centers because they are currently administering learning resources centers with integrated instructional services, (2) theoreticians of higher education because of their keen awareness of how the reorganization of instructional ser­ vices would affect the instructional and learning process, (3) academic administrators because they are usually respon­ sible for the various instructional service units plus all academic programs, (4) directors of college and university libraries because they would be directly affected by the implementation of the learning resources center concept (5)' directors of college and. university audiovisual centers 26 because they would be directly affected by the implementation of the learning resources center concept, (6} faculty because they would be the second largest group of users affected,and C7] students because they would be the largest group of users affected. The selection of participants from each category was an attempt to measure reactions of persons from various back­ grounds toward a set of principles. This multi-disciplinary approach was attempted to achieve a successful and coherent study. All thirty directors of four-year college and university learning resources centers which integrated the audiovisual center and library administratively were used as partici­ pants. Often the directors administratively represented closed-circuit television, computer center, curriculum center, dial access, graphics department, language labora­ tory and radio station, which are sometimes included in the learning resources centers. The following methods were used to identify learning resources centers currently functioning at the college and university level: / (1) Part of the list was compiled from learning resources centers cited in the literature study. (2) Letters were mailed to each state audiovisual association soliciting names of colleges and universities with learning resources centers. 27

(3) Letters were mailed to audiovisual departments in major colleges and universities soliciting names of additional learning resources centers. (4) Letters were mailed to participants of institutes related to the learning resources center concept held at Southern Illinois University and Stephens College soliciting names of colleges and universities with learn­ ing resources centers. The following institutions were identified as having learning resources centers:

Amherst College Oklahoma Christian College Amherst, Massachusetts Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Appalachian State University Oral Roberts University Boone, North Carolina Tulsa, Oklahoma Central Michigan University Pacific Lutheran University Mount Pleasent, Michigan Tacoma, Washington Central Washington State College Portland State University Ellensburg, Washington Portland, Oregon Eastern Michigan University Purdue University Ypsilanti, Michigan Lafayette, Indiana Eastern Oregon College Roosevelt University LaGrande, Oregon Chicago, Illinois The Evergreen State College St. Cloud State College Olympia, Washington St. Cloud, Minnesota Federal City College Southeastern State College Washington, D.C. Cape Girardeau, Missouri Governors State University Southern Illinois University Park Forrest South, Illinois Carbondale, Illinois Indiana Northern University State College at Worcester Gas City, Indiana Worcester, Massachusetts Jamestown College Stout State University Jamestown, North Dakota Menomonie, Wisconsin Northern Michigan University Syracuse University Marquette, Michigan Syracuse, New York 28

University of Oregon Washington State University Eugene, Oregon Pullman, Washington University of Pittsburgh Wisconsin State University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania At Stevens Point Stevens Point, Wisconsin Villanova University Villanova, Pennsylvania Wright State University Dayton, Ohio Since the populations of the various groups involved in the study were large, with the exception of directors of learning resources centers, sampling techniques had to be employed. Directors of learning resources centers were a universal group since all those identified in four-year colleges and universities were given an opportunity to par­ ticipate. Sixty participants from the six large groups were selected by using stratified sampling techniques. Rosters of sixty for each group of participants were selected by using random tables from the following national directories: THEORETICIANS OF HIGHER EDUCATION— American Association for Higher Education: List of Faculty Members Teaching Courses in Higher Education (Washington, D.C.) ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS— Education Directory: Higher Education (Washington: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare) DIRECTORS OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES— Education Directory: Higher Education (Washington: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare) DIRECTORS OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY AUDIOVISUAL CENTERS— Yearbook of Higher Education (Los Angeles: Academic Media) 29

FACULTY— The National Faculty Directory (Detroit: Dale Research) STUDENTS— The National Student Register (Baton Rouge: Magna Publishing)

Policies Pertaining to Use of Participants' The policies and procedures which were employed in this study are as follows:

(1) All participants were assured that their responses would be kept anon­ ymous and that no specific response or the like would be publicly attri­ buted to any participant.

(2) Every effort was made to make each participant feel that he had com­ plete freedom to express his views without fear of criticism.

(3) Every effort was made to simplify the opinionnaire without compro­ mising substantive content.

(4) As a final item, the participants were given an opportunity to receive a document revealing the final com­ pilation of ratings; this, in it­ self, was of value to some parti­ cipants .

Methods of Securing Data Two methods of gathering data were employed. These were: (1) survey by means of an opinionnaire, and (2) a questionnaire.

The Opinionnaire Data were gathered by means of an opinionnaire mailed to participants, a technique which systematically solicited reactions and opinions of those persons identified as parti­ cipants. Given the large samples, there was needed an in­ strument that \tfould be useful and efficient with large num­ bers and could attract an interested response from busy sub­ jects. The opinionnaire produced a systematic cataloging and screening of principles prior to a more detailed analy­ sis. It was important to have an overall research design that could be explained in clear and concise terms in order to interpret the results more easily. The method consisted of using participant's opinions in rating thirty-five selected principles: principles writ­ ten in response to statements gathered from the literature search and from this investigator's experience; principles screened by a select panel of directors of community col­ lege learning resources centers. Participants rated each principle and were given an opportunity to add those they felt were missing from the list. Each principle was placed in one of the following catagories: (1) Processing, (2) Facility, (3) Operations, (4) Staff, (5) Organization, (6) Finance, (71 Distribution and Retrieval, and (.8) Administration *

The Questionnaire A questionnaire was included in the mailing to direc­ tors of college and university learning resources centers. Two types of information were solicited: (1) personal data about each director (age, education, experience, etc.}, and .. 31

(2) detailed information about each learning resources center. This information was essential for an adequate analysis of the data gathered from the opinionnaire.

Case Studies Three case studies were conducted as part of the total study. The principles identified in this study were com­ pared to operating learning resources centers on four-year college and university campuses. St. Cloud State College, University of Syracuse, and University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point were arbitrarily selected by the investigator. The following activities were part of the process of preparing each case study: (1) a personal interview with the director of each learning resources center, {2) a guided tour of each learning resources center, (3) copies of all literature published about and by each learning resources center, (4) interviews with professional staff members in each major area of the learning resources center, and C5) a follow-up interview with each director after the tour and interviews with the professional staff members. This pro­ cedure permitted follow-up discussion with the director regarding certain unique aspects in each learning resources center. No attempt was made to make generalizations about the other twenty-seven institutions not used as case studies. Both open-ended and closed questions were used to solicit detailed answers regarding each learning resources center. An attempt was made to gather the reactions toward the thirty-five principles identified in this study and operational procedures used in each center. The general purposes of the case studies were: (1) Collect supplementary information about the three learning resources centers under examination. (2) Secure spontaneous reactions to the principles and the learning resources center concept. (3) Verify the use of principles identified in this study. (4) Determine which person or persons answer questions regarding this study. This is not always possible with questionnaires. (5) Examine procedures and facilities first-hand.

Method of Analysis of Data Three worksheets were prepared to record ratings in the following ways: (1) by respondents, (2) by respondents according to geographical regions of the country, and (3) by respondents according to the size of institution they represent. Final analyses were tabulated on a visual reference worksheet to provide consolidation of data in a workable form. More importantly, this method provided a convenient way accurately: (1) to categorize compilations, (2) to compare compilations between the various groups, (3) to permit rapid tabulation, (4) to compute compilations, and (5) to

cross-reference compilation data. 33

Emphasis in the technique used mainly was upon numeri­ cal expressions; numerical factors which were based on quan­ titative aspects were regarded as only a technique to for­ malize judgments based on synthesis of responses from each group of respondents for each of the thirty-five principles. Because of conflicting views between respondents, consensus was not always achieved on some aspects of the ratings. Where no convergence of opinion occurred, opin­ ions were polarized around distinct values, indicating various schools of thought regarding a particular principle. It was also possible that opinions were based on different interpretations of the same principle. Therefore, both points of view were presented in the analysis of data where no convergence of opinion occurred. The methodology permitted oral communication between the investigator and the respondent. In the case of any doubt in summarizing the respondent's data, the researcher telephoned the respondent. No minority responses were dropped from the summarization and all minority responses as well as a complete distribution of estimates were in­ cluded in the final study. It was difficult to assure that converging opinions were indicative of all persons in the respondent's category. However, the quantification of the data is of value to any administrator evaluating the merits of an integrated college or university learning resources center, specific- identifi­ able principles validated or refuted will result in more explicit and self-reasoned judgments than will purely implicit and unarticulated judgments.

Use of Data The opinionnaire mailed to 390 participants used a Likert-type rating scale, with limits of 1 to 5 for each item. {See Appendix A) The following were computed on the data: By Combined Groups (1) Frequency of scores for each of the seven groups of respondents in response to each principle. (2) Percentages for each of the seven groups of respondents in response to each principle. (3) Mean score for each of the seven groups of respondents in response to each principle. (4) Combined mean score for all groups of respondents in response to each principle. {5) Significance level of the seven groups of respondents (The Kruskal- Wallis Test). (6) Test for differences between two mean scores for each of the seven groups of respondents in response to each principle (The Mann-Whitney Test). By Geographical Region (7) Frequency of scores for each of the seven groups of respondents in response to each principle by geographical regions of the country. (8) Mean score for each of the seven groups of respondents in response to each principle by geographical regions of the country. 35

(9) Significance level of the seven groups of respondents by geographical region of the country (The Kruskal- Wallis Test). (10) Test for differences between two mean scores for each of the seven groups of respondents in response to each principle by geographical region of the country (The Mann-Whitney Test). By Size of Institution (11) Frequency of scores for each of the seven groups of respondents in response to each principle by size of insti­ tution. (12) Mean score for each of the seven groups of respondents in response to each principle by size of insti­ tution . (13) Significance level of the seven groups of respondents by size of institution (The Kruskal-Wallis Test). (14) Test for differences between two mean scores for each of the seven groups of respondents in response to each principle by size of institution (The Mann-Whitney Test). Through the statistical analysis, a determination was made, by using the Kruskal-Wallis Test, as to whether or not there was a significance at the .05 level among the seven groups of respondents. For statistical purposes, a one-way analysis of variance was used stating whether statistical significance existed between the seven groups of respondents responding to each principle. The seven groups responding to each principle was significant at the .05 level. To determine statistical significance between the various groups on specific principles in the opinionnaire, 36 the Mann-Whitney Test was used to test for the significance between two means. The two mean scores was tested for signi­ ficance at the .05 level and .01 level. Other useful data were collected from the seven groups. The data used in the final analysis consisted of the follow­ ing: (1) the personal characteristics (demographic) of directors of learning resources centers, (2) principles added by respondents, (3) various instructional service units which comprise each campus learning resources center, (5) the ranking of principles by individual groups, (6) the posi­ tion of the learning resources center in relation to the overall college or university organization structure, (7) the relationship of responses to the size of the institutions represented, and (8) the relationship of responses to the geographical regions of the country represented. The follow­ ing are the geographical regions by the states and sizes of institutions used in this study: Geographic Regions: New England E. No. Central W. No. Central (cont) Maine Ohio South Dakota New Hampshire Indiana Nebraska Vermont Illinois Kansas Massachusetts Michigan Rhode Island Wisconsin So. Atlantic Connecticut W. No. Central Delaware MID Atlantic Maryland Minnesota Dist. of Col. New York Iowa Virginia New Jersey Missouri West Virginia Pennsylvania North Dakota North Carolina 37

So. Atlantic Ccont) W. So. Central Mountain (cont)

South Carolina Arkansas Colorado Georgia Louisiana New Mexico Florida Oklahoma Arizona Texas Utah E. So. Central Nevada Mountain Kentucky Pacific Tennesse Montana Alabama Idaho Washington Mississippi Wyoming Oregon California Alaska Hawaii

Sizes of Institutions: under - 1,000 1.001 - 5,000 5.001 -10,000 10.001 -15,000 15.001 -20,000 20.001 -25,000 25.001 -30,000 30.001 -35,000 35.001 -40,000 40.001 - + In designing the opinionnaire, an effort was made to follow the two commonly used criteria for selecting items for inclusion in a list: that is (1) the items elicit res­ ponses that are psychologically related to attitudes being measured, and (2) the list differentiates among people who are at different points, ranging from definitely favorable to definitely unfavorable, along the dimension being measured.9

Possible Application of Findings This study gives a macroscopic view of principles which validate or refute the integration of all instructional

^Claire Selltiz, et al., Research Methods in Social Relations (New York: Holt, Ririehart ana Winston, 1963), pp. 3b7=J58. 38

services into one college or university integrated learning resources center. Conclusions were drawn from various atti­ tudes of persons directly or indirectly related to the con­ cept by comparisons of statistically significant group mean scores and the seven groups of respondents at the .05 significance level. The implications of this study may be far-reaching.

According to the literature search, it is the first time anyone has attempted to identify and analyze the principles which validate or refute the concept of a learning resources center on college and university campuses. Certainly college and university administrators considering the implementation of such a concept should find the conclusions helpful in decision-making regarding the integration of instructional services. Administrators of functioning learning resources centers should find the conclusions of this study helpful in justifying the arrangement of their present organization. The identified principles will provide academic admin- strators, in a position to implement the learning resources center concept, with: (1) detailed information regarding the attitudes toward principles which validate or refute the learning resources center, concept on college and univer­ sity campuses, and (2) objective data regarding the subject.

Summary This stage of the study consisted of the following major steps: (1) the need for the study, (2) a statement 39 of the problem, (3) a statement of limitations, (4) a defini­ tion of terms used in the study, (5) the sources of principles, (6) the sources of data, (7) the selection of participants, (8) the methods of securing data, (9) the methods of analysis of data, and (10) the possible application of findings. CHAPTER III PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

Introduction The purpose of this chapter, through presentation and analysis of appropriate data, is to present the data gained that are most significant and relevant to the purposes of the study. The data have been condensed for each of the thirty-five principles on the opinionnaire. The data presented are based on the perceptions of one hundred and ninety-eight directors -of learning resources centers,theoreticians of higher education, academicadmin­ istrators, directors of academic libraries, directors of academic audiovisual centers, college and university students, and college and university faculty (see Table 1). The opinions expressed are in relationship to principles which support the concept of a learning resources center in a four-year college or university institution of higher edu­ cation. Analysis of data determined answers to the follow­ ing problems: (1) Identify and examine a list of prin­ ciples which validate or refute the concept of a learning resources center on a college or university campus. (2) Determine what per cent of new prin- . ciples will be identified by respon­ dents * Determine whether or not there is a general agreement among directors of learning resources centers, theo­ reticians of higher education, aca­ demic administrators, directors of libraries, audiovisual directors, faculty and students as to the ranking of these principles. (a) Identify the instructional service units found in in­ tegrated college or uni­ versity learning resources centers. (b) Identify the various admin­ istrative structures used in college and university learning resources centers. (c). Identify the personal characteristics (demogra­ phic) of directors of learning resources centers. (d) Identify the learning resources centers organ­ ization in relation to the college or university or­ ganizational structure. (e) Determine whether or not the principles identified in this study are used in three college or university learning resources centers. A case study approach will be used. (f) Determine if there is a significant difference among responses when com­ paring the size of insti­ tution and geographical region. (g) Determine if there are dif­ ferences of opinion among the respondents according to the region of the country they represent. 42

(h) Determine if there are dif­ ferences of opinion among respondents according to the size of institution they represent. The one hundred and ninety-two (49 percent) partici­ pants not responding to the opinionnaire possibly did not find the topic intellectually stimulating or feel they had enough knowledge or information on the subject to respond intelli­ gently. It is.also possible nonrespondents were too busy or had a policy against returning opinionnaires. Six opinion- naires were returned with notes or form letters stating time or policy prevented cooperation. It should be noted that directors of learning resources centers (77 per cent), directors of libraries (67 per cent) and directors of audiovisual centers (57 percent) who are presently administering services which are or may be directly affected by the implementation of this concept show the highest percentage of responses to the opinionnaire. Users; theoreticians of higher education (42 per cent), students (43 per cent) and faculty (43 percent) were next with only one percentage point separating the three groups. Academic administrators show the lowest per cent of responses (40 per cent), but only two percentage points below theoreticians of higher education. (See Table 1) Tables are arranged according to the eight categories of principles used in the opinionnaire. Each principle has two tables. The first table shows the various individual group responses. They include: (1) number of responses, TABLE 1

Number of Participants, Respondents and Percentage of Responses

NR NP % Directors of Learning Resources Centers 23 30 77 Theoreticians of Higher Education 25 60 42

Academic Administrators 24 60 40 College and University Students 26 60 43

College and University Faculty 26 60 i 43 Directors of College and University Libraries 40 60 67 Directors of College and University Audiovisual Centers 34 60 57

NR = number of respondents NP = number of participants % = percentage Totals 198 390 51 44

(2) percentages, C3) mean scores for each of the seven groups, (5} and, significance level as indicated by the Kruskal-Wallis Test. Each table lists values of 1 to 5. These numbers refer to the Likert-type scale on the opinionnaire. The key is as follows: (1) strongly agree; (2) agree; (3) undecided; (4) disagree; (5) strongly disagree. Mean scores with lower numbers show greater agreement for each principle than mean scores with larger numbers. The Kruskal-Wallis Test involved 5 x 7 contingency tables with 6 degrees of freedom. The level of significance was proved at the .05 level for all groups responding to each principle, calling for a value of 12.592. A score above the 12.592 for any principle indicates that similar attitudes can be extended with confidence to the general population which the respondents represented. Mean scores of each group and substantial percentages of responses in a single cell were analyzed as well as any outstanding charac­ teristics. The Kruskal-Wallis Test for a one-way analysis of variance revealed statistically significant differences among the responses of thirteen principles. A second table shows the differences between mean scores for each group of respondents. Those differences with one asterisk indicate statistically significant differ­ ences at the .05 level and call for a critical value of 1.95. Differences with two asterisks indicate a statistically sig­ nificant difference at the .01 level and call for a critical 45 value of 2.58. The Mann-Whitney Test was used to test whether two independent groups have been drawn from the same population. Test analysis revealed statistically signifi­ cant differences among 106 mean scores; 61 different groups at the .05 level and 45 at the .01 level. Responses arranged according to the size of institu­ tion and geographical region of the country show no sig­ nificant differences. Even after regrouping to increase the size of institution and geographical region of the country responses, no significant differences were found. The group data are interpreted and an analysis is presented.

Analysis of Data

Processing Principles Analysis of Table 2 shows that 85 per cent of the students in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" cate­ gories support the principle, "Procurement of all print, nonprint and equipment should be centralized." Directors of learning resources centers show 78 per cent support in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories support centralized procurement, while directors of libraries and audiovisual directors show 68 and 70 per cent respectively in the same categories. However, the same three groups show 9 per cent, 27 per cent, and 21 per cent negative responses in the "disagree" and "strongly disagree" categories. It 46 appears that those persons currently procuring print, non­ print materials and equipment centrally find it a satis­ factory procedure. The seven groups responding to this principle were not statistically significant at the .05 level on the Kruskal-Wallis test. Therefore, the Kruskal- Wallis test shows that these responses can not be extended with confidence to the general population which respondents represent. Table 3 shows the mean differences of scores among the seven groups. These differences were not great enough to be considered statistically significant. Therefore, these responses can not be extended with confidence to the general population which respondents represent. The one primary advantage to centralized procurement would be the near elimination of unnecessary duplicate materials. It would also provide a closer check of items requested and purchased. This coordinated acquisitions pro­ vides economic benefits to the university.^ A secondary advantage is that, centralization gives order and direction to the procurement of materials and equipment and makes 2 possible a single catalog of all instructional materials. The President of Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio,

■^Louis Shores, "Audio-Visual Dimensions for an Academic Library," College and Research Libraries, XV (October, 1954), 395. 2 Ruth M. Christensen, "The Junior College Library as an Audio-Visual Center," College and Research Libraries, XXVI (March, 1965), 122. TABLE 2

PROCUREMENT OF ALL PRINT, NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE CENTRALIZED (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N % N%

Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 13 56 5 22 3 13 2 9 0 0 1.73 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 12 48 4 16 4 16 4 16 1 4 2.12

Academic Administrators... 10 42 8 33 1 4 3 13 2 8 2.12

Students...... 13 50 9 35 3 11 1 4 0 0 1.69

Faculty...... 13 50 6 24 4 15 1 4 2 7 1.96 Directors of University Libraries...... 18 45 9 23 2 5 8 20 3 7 2.22

Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 11 32 13 38 3 9 4 12 3 9 2.26

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 90 45 54 27 20 10 23 12 11 6 2.04 47

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 4.622 TABLE 3

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: PROCUREMENT OF ALL PRINT, NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE CENTRALIZED Directors of Resources Directors of University Learning Centers Students Libraries Theoreticians of Higher Education Academic Faculty Administrators

Theoreticians of Higher Education......

Academic Administrators .005

Students...... • .428 .433 Faculty...... 158 .164 .269 Directors of University Libraries...... 105 .100 .533 .263

Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 145 .140 -.572 .303 .040

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level 49 issued a memorandum on October 1, 1969 which included this statement on requisitions of print, nonprint materials and equipment through the Library Resources Center: In order to facilitate the development of compre­ hensive media Services, book and periodical acqui­ sitions , broadcasting and instructional sound systems, and inter-library acquisitions, the following policies are effective immediately: 1. Media Services (Department of the Library Resources Center) is responsible for pro­ viding audio-visual and media equipment and related materials and services for all departments of the University. Equipment would include electrical, electronic and mechanical media devices, utilizing related materials such as films, transparencies, slides, tapes, records, etc. A. Requests for the acquisition of equipment and materials should be forwarded to Media Services . All equipment will normally be purchased with Media Services funds. In certain instances where equipment is highly specialized and may be useful only to one department or division, it will be pur­ chased from divisional and departmental funds and assigned to that unit. However, such equipment will become the responsibility of Media Services, and will be inventories, ser­ viced, and controlled by them for best university-wide utilization. Materials may be purchased on a cooperative basis, but will be controlled by Media Ser­ vices. Media Services, working with the requesting department and the Purchasing Department, will try to provide the best applicable equipment and materials within budgetary . limitations. 50

B. The control, storage, main­ tenance, and service of all equipment and materials in­ ventoried by Media Services will be the responsibility of that department. Media Services may assign equip­ ment to departments upon request for such periods as are determined by Media Services. 2. Book and periodical requests for pur­ chases from funds other than library book' allocations, shall be submitted on Form 1200 to the Purchasing Office. Book and Periodical requests for pur­ chases from Library Book Allocation funds shall be acquired through the facilities of the Library Resources Center, being submitted to the Library Acquisitions Department on Library form FA101-2. All requests for book and periodical purchases shall be signed by the chairman of the requesting department prior to being processed. This statement closely reveals Wright State's awareness of the advantages and need for procurement of print, nonprint materials and equipment through one acquisitions department. Analysis of the data in Table 4 shows that 83 per cent of the directors of learning resources centers supported the principle, "Processing print and nonprint materials should be centralized," in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories. However, librarians indicated 66 per cent in the same categories. All groups combined show 76 per cent responses in favor of this principle. The seven groups responding to this principle were not statistically significant at the .05 level on the Kruskal- Wallis test. TABLE 4

PROCESSING OF PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS SHOULD BE CENTRALIZED (Group Responses)

Percentage Group I 2 3 4 5 Mean N % N% N % N% N % Directors of Learning Resources Centers ...... , 14 61 5 22 3 13 1 4 0 0 1.60 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 12 48 7 28 4 16 2 8 0 0 1.84 Academic Administrators 12 50 7 29 3 13 2 8 0 0 1.79 Students...... 10 39 11 42 4 15 1 4 0 0 1.84 Faculty...... 13 50 . 8 31 4 15 0 0 1 4 1.76 Directors of University Libraries...... 19 48 7 18 5 12 5 12 4 10 2.20 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 12 35 14 41 4 11 2 6 2 6 2.05

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 92 46 59 30 27 14 13 6 7 4 1.90

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 4.079 52

Table 5 shows the mean differences of all scores among the seven groups. These differences were not great enough to be considered statistically significant. The reluctance and concern on the part of librarians toward centralized processing may be due to an unwillingness to consider change or the added time and cost required to process nonprint materials not treated by Library of Congress or commercial card processing companies. According to Kremple, "All audiovisual materials can be processed by 3 the Technical Services Department of the library." Persons studying the notion of a centralized processing center for all print and nonprint materials have suggested that a major proportion of the processing budget be alio- 4 cated to the organization of nonprint materials. However, central processing should be considered as an economy and efficiency measure in view of the.total cost of processing 5 all materials. Central cataloging insures that uniformed procedures are followed and promotes more efficient and extensive usage by students and faculty.®

3 Fredrick A. Kremple, "Handling Audiovisuals in an Academic Library," Wisconsin Library Bulletin, LXVI (March - April, 1970), 91. ' ^Pearce S. Grove and Herman L. Totten, "Bibliographic Control of Media: The Librarian's Excedrin Headache," Wilson Library Bulletin, XLIV (November, 1969), -310. 5 Pennsylvania Learning Resources Association, Guide­ lines for Instructional Media Services Programs (Havertown, Pennsylvania: Printmaster Press, 1970), p. 37. 6Ibid. TABLE 5 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: PROCESSING OF PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS SHOULD BE CENTRALIZED Resources Directors of Centers Learning Theoreticians Education of of Higher Academic Students Faculty Directors of University Libraries Administrators

Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 231 Academic Administrators.... .183 .048 Students...... 237 .006 .054

Faculty...... 160 .071 .022 .077 Directors of University Libraries...... 591 .360 .408 .354 .431 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 450 .219 .267 .213 .290 .141

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level 54

Analysis of the data in Table 6 shows a high percentage of negative responses in the combined "disagree” and "strongly disagree" categories toward the principle, "Selection of all print and nonprint materials should be based on curri­ cular needs." These responses were from directors of learning resources centers (30 per cent), and directors of libraries (3 0 per cent). However, all groups supported this principle with 70 per cent responses in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories. The seven groups responding to this principle were not statistically signi­ ficant t according to the Kruskal-Wallis test. Table 7 shows the mean differences of all scores among the seven groups. These differences were not great enough to be statistically significant. The word "curricular" may have been interpreted as meaning only classroom related activities, thus skewing the responses. One student respondent wrote, "Selection of materials should include more than merely curricular needs; a resource center should provide material beyond curricular needs. It should be more flexible than the curriculum." Academic departments with material allocations from the learning resources center should be free to request print or nonprint materials from these funds. Campuses which depend on the learning resources center to select all materials should have a professional bibliographer TABLE 6

SELECTION OF ALL PRINT, NONPRINT MATERIALS SHOULD BE BASED ON CURRICULAR NEEDS (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N % N% Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 8 35 7 31 1 4 4 17 3 13 2.43 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 13 52 5 20 4 16 3 12 0 0 1.88 Academic Administrators... 10 42 9 37 3 13 2 8 0 0 1.87 Students...... 12 46 8 31 1 4 3 11 2 8 2.03 Faculty...... 13 50 5 19 4 15 1 4 3 12 2.07 Directors of University Libraries...... 13 32 12 30 3 8 9 22 3 8 2.42 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 11 32 14 41 4 12 5 12 0 0 2.08

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 80 40 60 30 20 10 27 14 11 5 2.13

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 4.953 TABLE 7 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: SELECTION OF ALL PRINT, NONPRINT MATERIALS SHOULD BE BASED ON CURRICULAR NEEDS Directors of Learning Resources Centers Directors of Theoreticians of Higher Education Students Faculty University Libraries Academic Administrators i Theoreticians of Higher Education......

Academic Administrators .005 Students...... 158 .163

Faculty...... 197 .202 .038 Directors of University Libraries...... 545 .550 .386 .348 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 208 .213 .050 .011 .337

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level 57 specializing in nonprint as well as print materials. It seems reasonable to expect a sharing of materials selection between the students, faculty and learning resources center bibliographers. This notion was supported by one theoreti­ cian of higher education respondent who wrote, You devoted only one or two responses to who should select materials. I, personally, feel that faculty as well as professional staff should have a voice in this. Analysis of the data in Table 8 reveals in the com­ bined categories, "strongly agree" and "agree," all groups (84 per cent) support the principle, "Viewing and listening equipment should be listed in one inventory." However, the combined categories of "disagree" and "strongly disagree" of all groups (7 per cent) show some disagreement toward the concept. The seven groups responding to this principle Were not statistically significant at the .05 level on the Kruskal-Wallis test.

One difference at the .05 significance level for mean scores appears between students and faculty as indicated in Table 9. At the .01 level for mean scores, no significant differences were indicated. One equipment inventory would be justified on the basis of unnecessary duplications of expensive pieces of equipment which are not utilized to full capacity. One inventory may increase utilization since more students and faculty might know what equipment is available. Untold energy would be saved by just knowing what an'd where equip­ ment is located-on campus. TABLE 8 VIEWING AND LISTENING EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE LISTED IN ONE INVENTORY (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2i 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N % N% Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 11 48 8 36 2 9 2 9 0 0 1.78 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 10 40 12 48 3 12 0 0 0 0 1.72 Academic Administrators... 11 46 10 42 2 8 1 4 0 0 1.70 Students...... 10 38 831 3 12 415 1 4 2.15 Faculty...... 16 61 9 35 1 4 0 0 0 0 1.42 Directors of University Libraries...... 17 43 16 40 3 8 3 7 1 2 1.87 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 19 56 10 29 3 9 1 3 1 3 1.67

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 94 47 73 37 14 9 11 6 3 1 1.76

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 6.806 TABLE 9

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: VIEWING AND LISTENING EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE LISTED IN ONE INVENTORY

U1 U o +>Id u O +j •rl 0) 6 *H . cu a •a -h M Higher U 'O Faculty Libraries Centers Theoreticians of Education Students Directors of University Directors of Learning Resources

Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 063

Academic Administrators .074 .012

Students ...... 371 .434 .445

Faculty...... 359 .297 .285 .731*

Directors of University Libraries...... 092 .155 .167 .279 .452 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers ...... 106 .043 .032 .477 .253 .198

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level Analysis of data in Table 10 shows group responses supporting the principle, "All print and nonprint materials should be listed in one catalog." An observable difference did exist among groups in the "disagree" and "strongly disagree" categories. Students (24 per cent), directors of libraries (20 per cent), and audiovisual directors (15 per cent) indicate the least support for this principle. Directors of learning resources centers show 9 per cent in the "undecided" and 13 per cent in "disagree" categories. However, the majority (61 per cent) of directors of learning resources centers "strongly agree" with this principle. The seven groups responding to this principle were not statistically significant at the .05 level on the Kruskal- Wallis test. Table 11 shows the mean differences of all scores among the seven groups. These differences were not great enough to be considered statistically significant. Two advantages can be found for listing print and nonprint materials in one catalog: (1) "A unified catalog that includes all instructional materials regardless of format promotes maximum use."7 Ely further noted, "When a user is seeking information, he usually does not care about the format in which it may be stored."8

7 Christensen, "The Junior College," p. 126.

O Donald P. Ely, "The Contemporary College Library: Change by Evolution or Revolution," Libraries and Educa­ tional Technology Newsletter, (July 6~, 1"97'1)~ 3~. TABLE 10 ALL PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS SHOULD BE LISTED IN ONE CATALOG (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2i 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N % N% Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 14 61 4 17 2 9 3 13 0 0 1.73 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 14 56 6 24 3 12 2 8 0 0 1.72

Academic Administrators... 7 29 12 50 4 17 0 0 1 4 2.00

Students...... 10 39 8 30 2 7 6 24 0 0 2.15 Faculty...... 14 54 8 31 2 8 0 0 2 7 1.76 Directors of University Libraries...... 21 52 10 25 1 3 4 10 4 10 2.00

Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 14 41 13 38 2 6 5 15 0 0 1.94

COMBINED GROUPS TOTALS 94 47 61 31 16 8 20 10 7 4 1.91

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 4.990 TABLE 11 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: . ALL PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS SHOULD BE LISTED IN ONE CATALOG Directors of Resources Centers Learning Theoreticians of Higher Education Academic Administrators Students Faculty Directors of University Libraries

Theoreticians of Higher Education......

Academic Administrators.... .280 Students...... 415 .434 .154 Faculty...... 049 .231 .385 Directors of University Libraries...... 280 .000 .154 .231 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 221 .059 .213 .172 .059

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level 63

(2) Central cataloging allows media personnel to devote more time assisting faculty and students.9 Analysis of table 12 shows strong support in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories (94 per cent) by all groups for the principle, "Print and nonprint materials should be organized under the direction of speci­ ally trained personnel." The seven groups responding to this principle were not statistically significant at the .05 level on the Kruskal-Wallis test. Differences at the .05 significance level for mean scores appear between academic administrators and directors of learning resources centers, and students and librarians. At the .01 level for mean scores, no significant differences were indicated in Table 13. This group of specially trained personnel would in­ clude the necessary number for each functional area repre­ sented to adequately support that service. This notion probably causes more confusion and frustration within the various professional associations than any other. Combining various instructional services on a college or university campus under the direction of a specially trained professionals does not mean the elimination of personnel. It would simply provide the coordination of ser­ vices with professionally trained personnel in each service area to support the instructional programs of the university,

9 Pennsylvania Learning Resources Association, Guidelines, p. 35. TABLE 12 PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS SHOULD BE ORGANIZED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF SPECIALLY TRAINED PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N % N% N % N% N% Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 18 78 5 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.21 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 13 52 11 44 1 4 0 0 0 0 1.52 Academic Administrators... 11 46 11 46 2 8 0 0 0 0 1.62 Students...... 12 46 9 35 4 15 0 0 1 4 1.80

Faculty...... 16 61 9 35 1 4 0 0 0 0 1.42 Directors of University Libraries...... 28 70 10 25 2 5 0 0 0 0 1.35 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 22 65 10 29 2 6 0 0 0 0 1.41

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 120 61 65 33 12 6 0 0 1 0 1.46

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 11.222 TABLE 13 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS SHOULD BE ORGANIZED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF SPECIALLY TRAINED PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL Resources Directors of Learning Centers Theoreticians of Higher Education Directors of Academic Students Faculty University Administrators Libraries

Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 303 Academic Administrators .408* .105 Students...... 288 .183

Faculty...... 097 .202 .385 Directors of University Libraries...... 170 .275 .456* .073 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 194 .108 ..213 .396. ..011: .062

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level 66 supplying materials and equipment and all appropriate related services to students and faculty at all levels and wherever they may be needed.^ It is not reasonable to expect one instructional service area to absorb another and provide the trained professional staff from within its ranks to continue providing adequate service to the university. In some cases, new colleges have combined instruc­ tional services from their inception without professional personnel administering various units. These institutions soon found it necessary to add professional staff. Experi­ enced professional personnel were needed to give leadership and direction to the individual service units within the learning resources center. Grove and Totten, leading authorities on bibliographic control of nonprint materials, encourage the use of pro­ fessional book catalogers to process nonprint materials since no standards now exist for the bibliographic control of media. Professional catalogers can provide organization of nonprint materials as well as print materials. This would improve much of the current practice of using clerical assistance for the organization of honprint material. 11 Several institutions have developed programs specifi­ cally designed to educate the necessary professional personnel

^C. Walter Stone, "Functions of a School Library," School Board Journal, CLI (November, 1965) , 44. Grove, "Bibliographic Control," p. 308. 67

to function effectively in learning resources centers. Southern Illinois University, St. Cloud State College, Colorado State University, and the State University of New York at Buffalo are, to name a few institutions, now actively providing such programs. These institutions pro­ vide an educational program which includes courses in library science, audiovisual education, television, computer science, automated audio and video systems, and radio. Analysis of data in Table 14 shows all respondents (64 per cent) in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories support the principle, "print and nonprint materials should be cataloged according to one classifica­ tion scheme." Directors of libraries show 40 per cent sup­ port in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" cate­ gories and 43 per cent negative responses in the combined "disagree" and "strongly disagree" categories. Directors of learning resources centers show 65 per cent support in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories and 17 per cent in the combined "disagree" and "strongly disagree" cate­ gories. The computed Kruskal-Wallis Test value, 15.318, is greater than, 12.592, the critical value at the .05 level; therefore, it can be concluded that the differences among the seven groups responding to this principle are significant at the .05 level. This principle can be extended with con­ fidence to the general population which the respondents represent. Differences at the .05 significance level for TABLE 14 PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS SHOULD BE CATALOGED ACCORDING TO ONE CLASSIFICATION SCHEME (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2i 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N% N % Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 9 39 6 26 4 18 3 13 1 4 2.17 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 12 48 7 28 4 16 2 8 0 0 1.84 Academic Administrators... 7 29 10 42 5 21 2 8 0 0 2.08

Students...... 12 46 11 42 0 0 3 12 0 0 1.76 Faculty...... 11 42 7 27 6 23 1 4 1 4 2.00 Directors of University Libraries...... 11 28 .5 12 7 17 14 36 3 7 2.82 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 10 29 10 29 7 21 4 12 3 9 2.41

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 72 36 56 28 33 17 29 15 8 4 2.21

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 15.318 69 mean, scores appear between librarians and academic admin­ istrators, librarians and faculty, and audiovisual directors and students. At the .01 level for mean scores, librarians and theoreticians of higher education, and librarians and students show a significant difference as indicated in Table 15. It seems reasonable to classify nonprint materials according to an established print classification scheme being widely used. It also seems reasonable to expect students and faculty to find this classification scheme, usually Library of Congress or Dewey, acceptable since they use it on a regular basis to find print materials. Two classification schemes would cause confusion for students and faculty and separate treatment of each medium, separate cataloging, separate listing, and separate shelving, all serve to obstruct the user’s access to the materials that are available to him. 12 Analysis of data in Table 16 shows a sizeable number of all respondents (15 per cent) were "undecided" regarding the principle, "Nonprint cards should be differentiated from print cards." However, 77 per cent of the all respon­ dents support this principle in the "strongly agree"*, category. The seven groups responding to this principle were not statistically significant at the .05 level on the Kruskal-Wallis test. Differences at the .05 significance level for mean scores appear between faculty and directors of learning

12 Doris Dunnmgton, "Integrating Media Services," RQ, IX (Winter, 1969), 116. TABLE 15 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS SHOULD BE CATALOGED ACCORDING TO ONE CLASSIFICATION SCHEME Resources Centers Directors of Learning Theoreticians of Higher Education Students Faculty Directors of Administrators University Libraries Academic

Theoreticians of Higher Education......

Academic Administrators.... • .243 Students...... 071 .314

Faculty...... 160 .083 .231 Directors of University Libraries...... 985** .742* 1.056** .825* Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 572 .328 .642* .412 .413

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level TABLE .16 NONPRINT CARDS SHOULD BE DIFFERENTIATED FROM PRINT CARDS (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 21 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N% N % Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 7 31 9 39 4 17 1 4 2 9 2.21 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 5 20 13 52 4 16 2 8 1 4 2.24

Academic Administrators... 7 29 8 33 8 33 1 5 0 0 2.12 Students...... 11 42 11 42 2 8 2 8 0 0 1.80 Facility...... 14 54 9 35 3 11 0 0 0 0 1.57 Directors of University Libraries...... 12 30 16 40 5 13 4 10 3 7 2.25 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 16 47 12 35 3 9 2 6 1 3 1.82

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 72 37 78 40 29 15 12 6 4 2 2.01

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 11.749 72 resources centers, faculty and theoreticians of higher education, faculty and academic administrators, and faculty and librarians. At the .01 level for mean scores, no significant differences were indicated in Table 17. Differentiating nonprint from print cards could take various forms. Color coding was acceptable until recently when the American Library Association and the Association for Educational Communications and Technology suggested using abbreviations for the type of material above the classification number. This information immediately tells the user what kind of material it is. By providing a lo­ cation guide in or near the catalog, the material can be easily located. All other information on the catalog card should follow the recommendations of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules. This nonprint materials card is represen­ tative of what would be found in a learning resources center card catalog.

Filmloop TT Printing the stencil (Motion picture) 273 Bailey-Film Associates . n.d. P7 si. color. 8 mm., (Silk screening series) Issued in super 8 mm.

1. Screen process printing. (Series)

One respondent (director of libraries) wrote, "we use color coding - 2 colors only - red for visual material - green for audio - too many colors can be confusing." TABLE 17

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: NONPRINT CARDS SHOULD BE DIFFERENTIATED FROM PRINT CARDS Directors of Resources Centers of of Higher Education Learning Students Theoreticians Faculty Academic Administrators Directors of University Libraries I i Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 023 Academic Administrators.... .092 .115

Students...... 410 .432 .317 Faculty...... 640* .663* .548* .231 Directors of University Libraries...... 033 .010 .125 .442 .673* Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 394 .416 .301 .01.6 .247 .426

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level 74

Facility Principles Analysis of data in Table 18 shows faculty (77 per cent), students (88 per cent), and directors of learning resources center (83 per cent) strongly support the prin­ ciple, "One facility should house all print, nonprint ma­ terials and equipment," in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories. Audiovisual directors and directors of libraries each show a 27 per cent response in the com­ bined "disagree" and "strongly disagree" categories. Overall, 69 per cent of all the respondents supported this principle in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories. The computed Kruskal-Wallis test value, 15.274, is greater than, 12.592, the critical value at the .05 level; therefore, it can be concluded that the differences, among the seven groups responding to this principle are significant at the .05 level. Differences at the .05 significance level for mean scores appear between students and academic administrators, students and directors of learning resources centers, and faculty and librarians. At the ,01 level for mean scores, audiovisual directors and faculty, and audiovisual directors and students show a significant difference as indicated in Table 19. On many campuses, according to Grove and Totten, "learning resources are currently located in desks, closets, offices, departments, and other special interest areas, thereby removing them from use by a wide segment of the TABLE 18 ONE FACILITY SHOULD HOUSE ALL PRINT, NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N % N% N % N % N % Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 10 44 9 39 1 4 2 9 1 4 1.91 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 8 32 9 36 4 16 1 4 3 12 2.28

Academic Administrators... 6 25 10 42 4 17 3 12 1 4 2.29 Students...... 13 50 10 38 2 8 1 4 0 0 1.65 Faculty...... 13 50 7 27 6 23 0 0 0 0 1.73 Directors of University Libraries...... 13 33 12 30 4 10 7 17 4 10 2.42 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 7 20 12 35 6 18 4 12 5 15 2.64

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 70 35 69 34 27 13 18 11 14 7 2.17

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 15.274 TABLE 19

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: ONE FACILITY SHOULD HOUSE ALL PRINT, NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

to 01 p G 0 O »0 -p 0 >1 01 (0 O P G P u) -P to M tn 0) *h a) o U 4J m P -H G) 0 c o W -P .G -H ■h in -P >i o in *h ■P *H p P qj di-P 6 -H G -P -P p u P -H <3 a» a r—t v o id P H (O W a 0) 3 Itf e 3 U P -H ,Q •H

Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 367

Academic Administrators.... .379 .012 Students...... 259 .626 .638*

Faculty...... 182 .549 .561 .077 Directors of University Libraries...... 512 .145 .133 .771* .694 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers ...... 734* .367 .355 .993** .916** .222

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level 13 community." Students and faculty aware of these scat­ tered resources would have to extend untold energy and time collecting them from numerous sources. "The time of users, even if we assume no interia and no psychological resistance, m will become increasingly short and valuable." Print, nonprint materials and equipment can be most effective when the materials are immediately available from a central resource center, when they are housed in an orderly manner, and when they can be quickly retrieved by students and facuity.^ A director of libraries responded to this principle by saying: Departments should have the opportunity to maintain their own A-V equipment. The centralized store should serve as a back-up. There is greater materials use when equip­ ment doesn't have to be moved each time. This comment has merit if the faculty is required to pick­ up and return equipment it uses. One audiovisual director was concerned enough about this possibility to write the following on his opinionnaire: After hearing a college librarian fresh from a workshop demand that instructors carry overhead projectors from the library

13 Grove, "Bibliographic Control," p. 301. ^Maurice B. Line, "The University Library: Functions and Opportunities," Library Review, XXI (Autumn, 1968), 348. 15 Hayden R. Smith and Karen A. Robinson, "Of Love, Librarians, Courtship, Media Specialists, and Shot-Gun Marriages: The Librarian - Media Specialist Conflict," (Unpublished paper, University of Michigan, 1969), p. 14. 78

to the classroom and back for every 50- minute use, X take little for granted! Analysis of data in Table 20 shows the total response from all groups in the "strongly agree" and "agree" categories is 71 per cent for the principle, "Faculty and students are better served by one facility housing print, nonprint materi­ als and equipment." The computed Kruskal-Wallis test value, 19.163, is greater than, 12.592, the critical value at the .05 level? therefore, it can be concluded that the differences among the seven groups responding to this principle are significant at the .05 level. Differences at the .05 significance level for mean scores appear between students and theoreticians of higher education, students and academic administrators, faculty and theoreticians of higher education, and faculty and academic administrators. At the .01 level for mean scores, audiovisual directors and directors of learning resources centers, audiovisual directors and students, and audiovisual directors and faculty show a significant difference as indi­ cated in Table 21. It seems reasonable to assume that the increased number of academic departments providing interdisciplinary programs would benefit most from having all materials and equipment housed in one facility. A faculty member preparing a les­ son for an interdisciplinary program knows that, intensive cross-media subject preparation is required to weigh levels and the potential contribution to learning of specific materials TABLE 20 FACULTY AND STUDENTS ARE BETTER SERVED BY ONE FACILITY HOUSING PRINT, NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N% N % N % N% N% Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 10 44 9 39 1 4 3 13 0 0 1.86 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 6 24 9 36 5 20 1 4 4 16 2.52

Academic Administrators... 5 21 12 50 3 13 3 12 1 4 2.29 Students...... 12 46 11 42 1 4 2 8 0 0 1.73

Faculty...... 13 50 9 35 3 11 1 4 0 0 1.69 Directors of University Libraries...... 16 40 10 25 3 8 7 17 4 10 2.32 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 5 15 13 38 7 20 4 12 5 15 2.73

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 67 34 73 37 23 12 21 10 14 7 2.20

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 19.163 TABLE 21 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: FACULTY AND STUDENTS ARE BETTER SERVED BY ONE FACILITY HOUSING PRINT, NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT Resources Directors of Centers Learning Theoreticians of Higher Education Faculty Students Directors of University Administrators Libraries t Academic ^ Theoreticians of Higher Education......

Academic Administrators.... .228 Students...... 789* .561* Faculty...... 828* .599* .038 Directors of University Libraries...... 195 .033 .594 .633 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 215 .444 1.004** 1.043** .410

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level 81

and to achieve a blend of recommendations which may achieve a given educational objective. Therefore, students and faculty would be best served by a single resource center and by a unified, integrated 17 instructional materials program. Analysis of data in Table 22 shows all respondents with 42 per cent support in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories, 28 per cent "undecided," and 30 per cent against ("disagree" and "strongly disagree") the principle, "Print and nonprint materials should be intershelved when possible." Directors of libraries (50 per cent), audio­ visual directors (41 per cent), and directors of learning resources centers (39 per cent) show.the most negative responses in the "disagree" and "strongly disagree" cate­ gories. However, 30 per cent of the directors of learning resources centers indicated "undecided." Students (58 per cent) and faculty (65 per cent) show the highest sup­ port in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories. The computed Kruskal-Wallis test value, 21.803, is greater than, 12.592, the critical value at the .05 level; therefore, it can be concluded that the differences among the seven groups responding to this principle are significant at the .05 level.

"^C. Walter Stone, "The Place of Newer Media in the Undergraduate Program," Library Quarterly, XXIV (October, 1954), 369. 17 Louis Shores, "Library and AV Center - Combined or Separate?" NEA Journal, XLVII (May, 1958), 342. TABLE 22 PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS SHOULD BE INTERSHELVED WHEN POSSIBLE (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N % N% Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 6 26 1 5 7 30 7 30 2 9 2.91 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 6 24 7 28 7 28 4 16 1 4 2.48 Academic Administrators... 5 21 6 25 9 38 3 12 1 4 2.54 Students...... 9 35 6 23 6 23 4 15 1 4 2.30

Faculty...... 9 34 8 31 7 27 1 4 1 4 2.11 Directors of University Libraries...... 7 17 4 10 9 23 14 35 615 3.20

Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 4 12 5 15 11 32 6 18 8 23 3.26

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 46 23 37 19 56 28 39 20 20 10 2.74

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 21.803 Differences at the .05 significance level for mean scores appear between faculty and directors of learning resources centers, librarians and theoreticians of higher education, librarians and academic administrators, audio­ visual directors and theoreticians of higher education, and audiovisual directors and academic administrators. At the .01 level for mean scores, librarians and students, librarians and faculty,audiovisual directors and students, and audiovisual directors and faculty show a significant difference as indicated in Table 23. Once the idea of separate housing for print and non­ print materials is rejected Dunnington says, "The logical sequence to the consistent cataloging and classification of all media and the interfiling of the catalog must cer­ tainly be the intershelving of the media itself. "'■L8 This notion is not far-fetched according to Philipson, Price and Fusaro, "The idea of integrating materials and media has proved to be an effective organizational arrangement 19 ..." Stone adds, "With open shelves and the general trend toward new and more informal furniture arrangements, it is no longer difficult to house physically, in the same area and by subject, materials having several different formats.1,20

18 Dunnington, "Integrating Media Services," p. 117. 19Willard Philipson, William J. Price, and Janiece F. Fusaro, "An Exploration of the Learning Resources Philosophy and Service Being Developed in the Junior Colleges of Minne­ sota," Audiovisual Instruction, TII (November, 1968), 31. 20 Stone, "The Place of Newer Media," p. 370. TABLE 23 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS SHOULD BE INTERSHELVED WHEN POSSIBLE Resources Centers Directors of of Higher Learning Education Faculty Theoreticians Academic Administrators Students Directors of University Libraries

Theoreticians of Higher Education.... - ......

Academic Administrators .371 .062 Students...... 172 .234

Faculty...... 365 .426 .192 Directors of University Libraries...... 720* .658* .892** 1.085** Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 785* .723* .957** 1.149** .065

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level 85

The media library's job is to organize this material effectively ... by the phy­ sical integration - the housing in close physical proximity - of as many learning materials as possible. Open display and immediate access not only promote the use of media, but make the student's task of finding materials easier and more pro­ ductive, broaden his learning experiences, and provide media that supplement and rein­ force each other.2j Several community colleges have intershelved print and nonprint materials with some degree of success. The College of Du Page, Glen Ellyn, Illinois, intershelves many different types of materials (albums, filmstrips, simu­ lation material, etc.) in their community college learning resources center. Only one university, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio was found to have attempted intershelving print and nonprint materials. However, print and nonprint materials will be placed in separate collections in the new learning resources center which will be completed during the Fall of 1973. The following statement from, "A Preliminary Plan for Arrangement of the New Building" reveals their rationale for returning to separate collections: Intershelving of media materials must be abandoned for four reasons. a. It wastes valuable shelf space. b. It is not practicable to have listening/viewing equipment available on three floors.

21 Robert Muller, "Multimedia Shelving," Library Journal, XCV (February 15, 1970), 750. 86

c. Most importantly, the 'browsing' theory does not seem to work. Students browse through the stacks, for books and disregard film­ strips, filmloops, and tapes. When they use these media they are more interested in format than content. The few who are interested in content of media will find them fully cataloged. d. It is easier to maintain the collections. One director of libraries noted on his opinionnaire, "Materials should be easily available to users but with ade­ quate supervision— (nonprint materials are even more vul­ nerable than print to easy pilfering.)" An all hours door check with electronic detection systems seems to be the most common practice being used today to prevent pilfering. Analysis of data in Table 24 shows responses of stu­ dents (73 per cent) in the "strongly agree" category was 13 per cent higher than any other group and 32 per cent higher than audiovisual directors who show the least support for the principle, "Equipment necessary to use nonprint materi­ als should be available in the immediate area." These per­ centages seem to indicate that students are more concerned where equipment is in relation to nonprint materials than are the audiovisual directors who are responsible for the equipment and in some cases responsible for the materials used with the equipment. The seven groups responding to this were not statistically significant at the .05 level on the Kruskal-Wallis test. TABLE 24

EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO USE NONPRINT MATERIALS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N % N % Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 13 57 9 39 1 4 0 0 0 0 1.47 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 15 60 8 32 2 8 0 0 0 0 1.48 Academic Administrators... 10 42 14 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.58

Students...... 19 73 5 19 1 4 0 0 1 4 1.42 Faculty...... 14* 54 12 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.46 Directors of University Libraries...... 24 60 16 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.40 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 14 41 16 47 3 9 1 3 0 0 1.73

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 109 55 80 41 7 4 1 0 1 0 1.51

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 8.002 88

Differences at the .05 significance level for mean scores appear between audiovisual directors and students, and audiovisual directors and directors of libraries. At the .01 level for mean scores, no significant differences were indicated in Table 25. The axiom that instructional materials and equipment should be placed as close to the learner as is physically and economically practicable represents an ideal in the learning resources center. 22 The learning resources center should organize all materials and equipment effectively by physical integration or close physical proximity. This permits immediate access to all materials and makes the student's and faculty's task of finding and using materials easier and more productive. It also broadens learning experiences and provides a variety of print, nonprint materials and equipment that supplement and reinforce each other. Analysis of data in Table 26 shows 81 per cent of the faculty and 73 per cent of the students in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories support the prin­ ciple, "Production facilities should be in the same building as print and nonprint materials and equipment." Only 55 per cent of the directors of libraries responded in the same categories. Not one student or faculty member show

22Pennsylvania Learning Resources Association, Guide- . lines, p. 53. TABLE 25

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO USE NONPRINT MATERIALS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA Resources Centers Directors of Learning Theoreticians of Higher Education Academic Students Faculty Directors of University Administrators Libraries

Theoreticians of Higher Education......

Academic Administrators.... .103 Students...... 057 .160

Faculty...... 018 .122 .038 Directors of University Libraries...... 080 .183 .023 .061

Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 255 .152 .312* .274 .335’

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level TABLE 26 PRODUCTION FACILITIES SHOULD BE IN THE SAME BUILDING AS PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N % N% Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 8 35 6 26 4 17 4 17 1 5 2.30 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 7 28 8 32 7 28 3 12 0 0 2.24

Academic Administrators... 5 21 13 54 5 21 1 4 0 0 2.08 Students...... 10 38 9 35 7 27 0 0 0 0 1.88

Faculty...... 12 46 9 35 5 19 0 0 0 0 1.73 Directors of University Libraries...... 13 32 9 23 10 25 6 15 2 5 2.37 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 4 12 19 56 6 17 2 6 3 8 2.44

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 59 30 73 37 44 22 16 8 6 3 2.17

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value =* 12.592 .05 = 9.064 91 negative responses for this principle. The seven groups responding to this principle were not statistically signi­ ficant at the .05 level on the Kruskal-Wallis test. Differences at the .05 significance level for mean scores appear between librarians and faculty. At the .01 level for mean scores, audiovisual directors and faculty show a significant difference as indicated in Table 27. Where there are learning resources centers, the use 23 of materials other than books increases significantly. Both students and faculty discover a wide variety of materials on the same subject from which to select. The recent influx of younger professors who do not easily remember days before electronic communication feel a multi-media approach to learning demands a comprehensive program of materials to meet the varying needs, abilities, and interests of all 24 the students. Also, the development of an original idea by the student, gives special emphasis to a relatively new 25 service of production of instructional materials. It seems reasonable to provide the production of instructional materials in the same building housing print and nonprint materials and equipment. It would not only

23John P. Giesy, "A Working Relationship,” Audiovisual Instruction, X (November, 1965) , 707. 24 Carolyn I. Whitenack, "The Instructional Materials Concept: A Changing Concept," American Annals of the Deaf, CXII (November, 1969), 652. 25 Kenneth I. Taylor, "The Instructional Materials Center: The Theory Underlying Its Development," Wilson Library Bulletin, X L I H (October-, 1968), 168. TABLE 27 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: PRODUCTION FACILITIES SHOULD BE IN THE SAME BUILDING AS PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

• Directors of Resources Learning Centers Theoreticians of Higher Education Students Faculty Directors of Academic Administrators University Libraries

Theoreticians of Higher Education...... Academic Administrators .221 .157

Students...... 355 .199

Faculty...... 509 ,353 .154 Directors of University Libraries...... 135 .292 .490 .644* Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 201 .358 .557 .710** .Q66

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level 93 provide a more convenient service to students and faculty, but also save time if the material required cataloging after production. The Pennsylvania Learning Resources Association has gone so far as to state officially, "Published and locally produced items, print and nonprint, should be pro- 2 6 cessed and cataloged according to uniform procedures . . ." Thus, production facilities should be close to the processing area so time can be saved between production and processing materials. One director of libraries had a different view toward production activities in the learning resources center. He wrote on his opinionnaire, It seems to me that joint library, A/V/dial access/language labs/CCTV/etc. make good sense. However, I am not at all convinced that the production activities merge with servicing. The skills needed to acquire, review, select, classify, catalog, loan, shelve, repair (etc., etc.) print and non­ print materials are far different from the skills needed to produce movies, TV pro­ grams and the like. Further there is an economy of scale to consider. At some point it is better to spin-off certain activities, e.g. a computer center. Analysis of data in Table 28 reveals that all groups (86 per cent} in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories support the principle, "All departments within the learning resources center which directly service faculty and students should be equally accessible." The audiovisual directors (23 per cent) and directors of learning resources

26Pennsylvania Learning Resources Association, Guide­ lines , p. 34. TABLE 28

ALL DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER WHICH DIRECTLY SERVICE FACULTY AND STUDENTS SHOULD BE EQUALLY ACCESSIBLE (Group Responses)

Percentage Group ■ 1 2> 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N% N % Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 8 35 12 52 0 0 3 13 0 0 1.91 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 11 44 10 40 3 12 1 4 0 0 1.76 Academic Administrators... 11 46 11 46 2 8 0 0 0 0 1.62 Students...... 13 50 10 38 2 8 1 4 0 0 1.65

Faculty...... 14 54 8 31 3 11 1 4 0 0 1.65 Directors of University Libraries...... 24 60 10 25 2 5 4 10 0 0 1.65 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 8 23 19 56 2 6 4 12 1 3 2.14

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 89 45 80 41 14 7 14 7 1 0 1.77

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 9.909 95 centers (35 per cent) show the fewest responses in the "strongly agree" category. Directors of libraries show the highest percentage of support in the same category with 60 per cent. The seven groups responding to this principle were not statistically significant at the .05 level on the Kruskal-Wallis test. Differences at. the .05 significance level for mean scores appear between audiovisual directors and students, audiovisual directors and faculty, and audiovisual directors and academic administrators. At the .01 level for mean scores, audiovisual directors and directors of libraries show a significant difference as indicated in Table 29. The observable differences in responses seem important since audiovisual centers have seldom been considered deserving of central locations on campuses or given specially designed buildings in which to locate their services. It seems audiovisual directors would strongly support any principle which encouraged equal accessibility with other instructional service units. One faculty respondent took exception to the equal treatment of print and nonprint materials. He wrote, As I read further in this 'opinionnaire,1 I become more and more convinced that its results would be used to put books and pictures and records on an equal footing in your 'learning resources center.' The library should be the central concern. TABLE 29

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: ALL DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER WHICH DIRECTLY SERVICE FACULTY AND STUDENTS SHOULD BE EQUALLY ACCESSIBLE Resources Centers Directors of Learning Theoreticians Education of of Higher Faculty Directors of Academic Administrators Students University Libraries

Theoreticians of Higher Education...... • Academic Administrators.... .135

Students...... 106 .029 Faculty...... 106 .029 0.000 Directors of University Libraries...... 110 .025 .004 .004 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 387 .522* .493* .493* .497'

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at. the .01 level 97

Operation Principles Analysis of the data in Table 30 shows that all groups combined (97 per cent) in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories support the principle, "Reference and guidance services should be provided for print, nonprint materials and equipment." Audiovisual directors (100 per cent) and directors of learning resources centers (100 per cent) show the-most support in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories. The seven groups responding to this principle were not statistically significant at the .05 level on the Kruskal-Wallis test. Table 31 shows the mean differences of all scores among the seven groups. These differences were not great enough to be considered statistically significant. These responses are meaningful in view of the current separate collections and services on most campuses. Most institutions provide some reference and guidance service for print materials. A small number of campuses provide the same service for nonprint materials and equipment. When personnel are not available in adequate numbers, some campuses have developed catalogs and descriptive brochures to help students and faculty find materials and operate equipment. However, the indication of support for the principle in Table 30 shows reference and guidance service is needed for all materials and equipment. Analysis of the data in Table 32 reveals that all groups (55 per cent) "strong agree" with the principle, TABLE 30 REFERENCE AND GUIDANCE SERVICES SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR PRINT, NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N% N % N % N % N% Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 11 48 12 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.52 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 14 56 10 40 1 4 0 0 0 0 1.48 Academic Administrators... 13 54 10 42 1 4 0 0 0 0 1.50 Students...... 16 61 9 .35 0 0 0 0 1 4 1.50

Faculty...... 16 61 9 35 1 4 0 0 0 0 1.42 Directors of University Libraries...... 26 65 12 30 0 0 1 3 1 3 1.47 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 19 56 15 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.44

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 115 58 77 39 3 2 1 0 2 1 1.47

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 1.659 TABLE 31. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: REFERENCE AND GUIDANCE SERVICES SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR PRINT, NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT Resources Learning Directors of Centers Theoreticians Education of of Higher Students Academic Administrators Faculty Libraries Directors of University

Theoreticians of Higher Education......

Academic Administrators .020

Students...... 020 0.000 Faculty...... 057 .077 .077 Directors of University Libraries...... , .005 .025 .025 .052 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 039 .059 .059 .018 .034

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level TABLE 32 PRINT, NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO STUDENTS AND FACULTY (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N% N % Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 11 48 10 44 1 4 1 4 0 0 1.65 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 12 48 22 48 1 4 0 0 0 0 1.56 Academic Administrators... 11 46 13 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.54

Students...... 17 65 8 31 0 0 1 4 0 0 1.42 Faculty...... 15 58 8 31 2 7 0 0 1 4 1.61 Directors of University Libraries ...... 27 68 12 30 0 0 1 2 0 0 1.37 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 17 50 14 41 1 3 2 6 0 0 1.64

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 110 55 77 39 5 3 5 3 ' 1 0 1.53 100

• Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12 .592 .05 = 5 .534 "Print, nonprint materials and equipment should be made available to students and faculty." A total of 11 per cent of the respondents indicate "undecided," "disagree" or "strongly disagree." Academic administrators (100 per cent) show the most support in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories. Faculty (89 per cent) show the fewest responses in the same categories. The seven groups responding to this principle were not statistically significant at the .05 level on the Kruskal-Wallis test. Table 33 shows the mean differences of all scores among the seven groups. These differences were not great enough to be considered statistically significant. Even though a large majority of respondents (94 per cent) support this principle, many colleges and universities still reserve the use of equipment and some nonprint materials for faculty unless it is being used by students in class under the direction of a faculty member. Fusaro stated, "all materials should be easily accessible to both students and faculty." 27 Christensen supported this statement and went on to say, "Convenience of service to instructors and students should underlie the system for requesting and Circulating materials and equipment." 28 Analysis of data in Table 34 shows students (92 per cent) in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories

27 Janiece F. Fusaro, "The Library-College: Where the Educational Technology Action Is," Educational Technology, IX (July, 1969], 51. ------28christensen, "The Junior College," p. 127. TABLE 33 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: PRINT, NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO STUDENTS AND FACULTY Resources Directors of Learning Education Students Centers Theoreticians of Higher Faculty Directors of University Academic Administrators Libraries i Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 092

Academic Administrators.... .110 .018

Students...... 137 .119 Faculty...... 055 .074 .192

Directors of University Libraries...... 185 .167 .048 .240 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 005 .087 .105 .224 .032 .272

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level TABLE 34 PRINT, NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO STUDENTS AND FACULTY FOR THE SAME NUMBER OF HOURS (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N ‘ % N % N % N % N % Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 9 39 6 26 5 22 3 13 0 0 2.08 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 7 28 7 28 7 28 4 16 0 0 2.32 Academic Administrators... 3 12 7 29 5 21 9 38 0 0 2.83 Students...... 14 54 10 '38 0 0 2 8 0 0 1.61 Faculty...... 13 50 6 24 4 15 0 0 3 11 2.00 Directors of University Libraries...... 17 43 14 35 2 5 7 17 0 0 1.97 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 9 26 10 29 8 24 6 18 1 3 2.41

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 72 36 60 30 31 16 31 16 4 2 2.16 103

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 19.810 support the principle, "Print, nonprint materials and equip­ ment should be available to students and faculty for the same number of hours." Academic administrators (41 per cent) and audiovisual directors (55 per cent) show the fewest responses in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories. All groups combined indicate 66 per cent support in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" cate-, gories. The computed Kruskal-Wallis test value, 19.810, is greater than, 12.592, the critical value at the .05 level? therefore, it can be concluded that the difference among the seven groups responding to this principle are significant at the .05 level. Differences at the .05 significance level for mean scores appear between academic administrators and directors of learning resources centers, and students and theoreticians of higher education. At the .01 level for mean scores, academic administrators and students, academic administrators and faculty, academic administrators and directors of libra­ ries, and students and audiovisual directors show a signi­ ficant difference as indicated in Table 35. Most universities provide students and faculty with library service for the same number of hours. Pew audio­ visual departments remain open the same number of hours as libraries and seldom provide students and faculty with equal service. However, a learning resources center lo­ cated in one building should make all materials available if they were cataloged and in supervised collections or TABLE 35

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: PRINT, NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO STUDENTS AND FACULTY FOR THE SAME NUMBER OF HOURS Resources Directors of Learning Centers Theoreticians Education of of Higher Students Directors of Administrators Faculty University Libraries Academic

Theoreticians of Higher Education...... -

Academic Administrators.... .513

Students...... 705* 1.218** Faculty...... 320 .833** .385 Directors of University Libraries...... 345 .858** .360 .025 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... -.092 .422 .796** .412 .437

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level 106 intershelved. If nonprint materials were available, it would seem reasonable to expect equipment necessary for material use to be available. The chances of this being a reality in a learning resources center seems much better than if the equipment and materials were located in separate facilities and under separate administrators. It is important to note that information comes in diverse forms, and students should learn to refer to all of them. 29 When artificial and physical barriers separate this information from users, little intellectual stimula­ tion is created. This is self evident when examining the ever widening change of individual differences created by universal higher education. Nonprint materials must be accessible to students, as well as teachers, for contempo­ rary viewing and listening experiences.^

Staff Principles Analysis of data in Table 36 show little observable difference among all group responses toward the principle, "Professional staff should have some education in both print and nonprint materials." All groups in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories show 88 per cent support for this principle. Faculty (54 per cent) show the

29 Emma Ruth Christine, "Connecting With Curriculum: The Library in the Secondary School," California Education, III (May, 1966.), 16. 30Taylor, "The Instructional Materials Center," p. 168. TABLE 36 PROFESSIONAL STAFF SHOULD HAVE SOME EDUCATION IN BOTH PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N% N% N % N% N% Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 10 43 8 35 2 9 2 9 1 4 1.95 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 9 36 10 40 6 24 0 0 0 0 1.88 Academic Administrators... 8 33 13 54 3 13 0 0 0 0 1.79 Students...... 13 50 12 46 0 0 0 0 1 4 1.61 V Faculty...... 14 54 11 42 0 0 0 0 1 4 1.57 Directors of University Libraries...... 15 39 22 54 0 0 2 5 1 2 1.80 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 12 35 17 50 3 9 2 6 0 0 1.85

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 81 41 93 47 14 7 6 3 4 2 1.78

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 5.708 108

most support in the "strongly agree" category; the least support in this category was from academic administrators (33 per cent). The seven groups responding to this principle were not statistically significant at the .05 level on the Kruskal-Wallis test. Table 37 shows the mean differences of all scores among the seven groups. These differences were not great enough to be considered statistically significant. Professional staff representing various instructional service units should function more harmoniously toward the learning resources center goal if they had some education in both print and nonprint materials. The major problem in starting and operating a learning resources center is the state of mind of the staff. An understanding of the com­ mon goal and superficial differences between print and non­ print would justify the need for an interrelated curriculum. It would soon become evident that the format of the material is irrelevant— the question is which material is appropriate 32 to solve the particular learning or informational problem. Analysis of data in Table 3 8 shows students (77 per cent) and faculty (84 per cent) with the most support in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories for the principle, "Professional staff should have some assigned

31 Judith Powell, "From Library to Media Center; There is a Difference," Mational Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, LV (March, 1971), 84. 32 William Joyce, "User-Oriented Resources Center Makes Format of Media Irrelevant," College and University Business XLVIII (May, 1970), 80. TABLE 37

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: PROFESSIONAL STAFF SHOULD HAVE SOME EDUCATION IN BOTH PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS

. i

! ' Directors of Learning Resources Centers Theoreticians of Higher Education Faculty Academic Administrators Students Directors of University Libraries

Theoreticians of Higher • Education......

Academic Administrators .088

Students...... 265 .176

Faculty...... 303 .215 .038 Directors of University Libraries...... 080 .008 .185 .223

Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 027 .061 .238 .276 .053 109 * significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level TABLE 38 PROFESSIONAL STAFF SHOULD HAVE SOME ASSIGNED RESPONSIBILITIES IN BOTH PRINT AND NONPRINT (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N % N% Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 7 31 4 17 6 26 5 22 1 4 2.52 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 6 24 6 24 9 36 4 16 0 0 2.44 Academic Administrators... 5 21 9 37 5 21 5 21 0 0 2.41 Students...... 9 35 11 42 2 8 4 15 0 0 2.03 Faculty...... 15 57 7 27 2 8 0 0 2 8 1.73 Directors of University Libraries...... 10 25 10 25 9 23 10 25 1 2 2.55 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 6 18 6 18 11 32 6 18 5 14 2.94

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 58 29 53 27 44 22 34 17 9 5 2.40 110

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 19.033 Ill responsibilities in both print and nonprint.11 birectors of libraries (50 per cent) and audiovisual directors (36 per cent) show the smallest responses in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories. Many respondents (22 per cent) indicate "undecided" for this principle. The computed Kruskal-Wallis test value, 19.033, is greater than, 12.592, the critical value at the .05 level; there­ fore, it can be concluded that the differences among the seven groups responding to this principle are significant at the .05 level. One difference at the .05 significance level for mean scores appears between faculty and directors of learning resources centers. At the .01 level for mean scores, faculty and theoreticians of higher education, faculty and academic administrators, faculty and directors of libraries, faculty and audiovisual directors, and students and directors of learning resources centers show a significant difference as indicated in Table 39. Few libraries or audiovisual centers today deal exclusively with print or nonprint materials. Each is required to use both because of packaging and the develop­ ment of microform and phono discs collections in what was once a print or nonprint departments. Limiting service to one medium alone can limit the exposure of students and faculty to vast amounts of valuable information. Line states, "the best way of organizing information cannot be TABLE 39 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: PROFESSIONAL STAFF SHOULD HAVE SOME ASSIGNED RESPONSIBILITIES IN BOTH PRINT AND NONPRINT Directors of Libraries University Resources Directors of Learning Students Faculty Centers Theoreticians of Higher Education Academic Administrators

Theoreticians of Higher Education......

Academic Administrators .023 Students...... 401 .378

Faculty...... 709** .686** .308 Directors of University Libraries...... , .110 .133 .511 .819** Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... , .501 .524 .903** 1.210** .391

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level 113 worked out in isolation, without knowing what information 33 is needed in what ways and forms, at what speed, and so on.” One director of a learning resources center must have faced problems related to this principle. He took the time to type the following on his opinionnaire:

"Thought-for the-Day ... re Media-- If we could each and alllllllllllllllllll have 1. Mutual Respect for the other fellow's Training 2. Mutual Respect for the other fellow's Experience 3. Mutual Respect for ALL formats of Materials THEN, we could get on with supporting curricular needs and reduce ... maybe eliminate some of the hang-ups that exist."

Organization Principles Analysis of data in Table 40 shows all groups in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories indicates 77 per cent support for the principle, "Print and nonprint materials and equipment which support the teaching and learning process should be organized under one administrator." A total of 77 per cent of the responses from directors of libraries and 67 per cent of the audiovisual directors sup­ port this principle in the combined "strongly agree" and and "agree" categories. The responses which could have a long-range positive effect was the academic administrators (84 per cent) combined responses in the "strongly agree"

^Line, "The University Library," p. 346. TABLE 40 PRINT, NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT WHICH SUPPORT THE TEACHING AND LEARNING PROCESS SHOULD BE ORGANIZED UNDER ONE ADMINISTRATOR (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N % N % Directors of Learning Resources Centers.... . 13 57 7 30 1 4 2 9 0 0 1.65 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 8 32 13 52 4 16 0 0 0 0 1.84

Academic Administrators... 9 38 11 46 2 8 2 8 0 0 1.87

Students...... 11 42 7 27 6 24 2 7 0 0 1.96 Faculty...... 14 54 6 23 5 19 1 4 0 0 1.73 Directors of University Libraries...... 19 47 12 30 2 5 4 10 3 8 2.00 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 12 35 11 32 5 15 1 3 5 15 2.29

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 86 43 67 34 25 13 12 6 8 4 1.93

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 4.915 115

and "agree" categories. The seven groups responding to this principle were not statistically significant at the .05 level on the Kruskal-Wallis test. Table 41 shows the mean differences of all scores among the seven groups. These differences were not great enough to be considered statistically significant. A learning resources center organized under one admin­ istrator should provide definition of duties and functions which in turn leads to clarity of purpose and unity of direc­ tion. Once the purpose and direction is defined, efficiency of operation and freedom from misunderstanding would lead to optimum productivity of all resources. According to Goldstein,

The net result, we believe, will be improved learning opportunities for thousands of students and more effective instruction by hundreds of faculty members.34 One learning resources center director wrote the following on his opinionnaire: Circumstances alter cases and in some instances special arrangements may be necessary (for example insufficient space in one place for all materials and services) but even then management should be centralized. A director of libraries with a different view typed the following on his opinionnaire: The library and the audio-visual material should be separate departments

34Bruce M. Goldstein, "Total Media Dreams Become A Reality at St. Cloud State College," Audiovisual Instruc- ■ tion, XV COctober, 1970), 62. TABLE 41

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: PRINT, NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT WHICH SUPPORT THE TEACHING AND LEARNING PROCESS j SHOULD BE ORGANIZED UNDER ONE ADMINISTRATOR Resources Directors of Learning Centers Theoreticians Students Directors of of of Higher Education University Academic Libraries Administrators Faculty

Theoreticians of Higher Education...... • . Academic Administrators.... .035

Students...... 121 .086

Faculty...... 109 .144 .231 Directors of University Libraries...... 160 .125 .038 .269 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 454 .419 .333 .563 .294 116 * significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level 117

with separate administrators with separate budgets. There is some overlapping, but this structure will work best, it seems to me, rather than attempting to lump every­ thing together. If the college administra­ tor wishes to combine on paper in order to have 'a learning center1 that is fine. I do think much dissention comes from attempt­ ing to combine the two departments under one administrator. His views were supported by an audiovisual director who wrote, "The library and audiovisual facilities should be housed in one learning resources building yet remain sepa­ rate departments." Analysis of data in Table 42 shows all groups (82 per cent) supported the principle, "Departments within the learning resources center should be organized according to functional responsibilities," in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories. Faculty (61 per cent) show the most support in the "strongly agree" category while academic administrators (29 per cent) show the fewest responses in the same category. All groups combined show 17 per cent in the "undecided" category. The seven groups responding to this principle were not statistically significant at the .05 level on the Kruskal-Wallis test. Table 43 shows the mean differences of all scores among the seven groups. These differences were not great enough to be considered statistically significant. Swank thinks, Audio-visual materials are not a single, separate type of medium, but a wide variety of media serving all kinds of purposes. TABLE 42 DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER SHOULD BE ORGANIZED ACCORDING TO FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES (Group Responses)

Percentage Group I 21 3 4 5 Mean N% N % N % N % N % Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 9 39 7 31 6 26 1 4 0 0 1.95 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 9 36 11 44 5 20 0 0 0 0 1.84

Academic Administrators... 7 29 13 54 4 17 0 0 0 0 1.87 Students...... 11 42 13 .50 2 8 0 0 0 0 1.65

Faculty...... 16 61 3 12 7 27 0 0 0 0 1.65 Directors of University Libraries...... 14 35 20 50 5 13 1 2 0 0 1.82 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 11 32 18 53 5 15 0 0 0 0 1.82

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 77 39 85 43 34 17 2 1 0 0 1.80

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 3.537 TABLE 43 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER SHOULD BE ORGANIZED ACCORDING TO FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES Resources Directors of Learning Centers Theoreticians of Higher Education Students Administrators Directors of Academic Faculty University Libraries

Theoreticians of Higher Education......

Academic Administrators .035 Students...... 186 .221 Faculty...... 185 .221 0.000 Directors of University Libraries...... 015 .050 .171 .171 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 016 .051 .170 .170 .001 119 * significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level 120

These media ... are more closely related functionally to books that serve the same purposes than to each other.^ Therefore, the acquisitions, cataloging, storage, distri­ bution and retrieval of print and nonprint materials should be organized according to functional responsibilites rather than by type of material. Shores noted., * "it is almost impossible to determine where library materials leave off 3 6 and audio-visual materials begin.” A single acquisitions department can assume the respon­ sibility for procurement of all print and audiovisual col­ lections while one professional cataloging department can classify and catalog all materials according to one system. 37 Likewise, other units with specific -functional responsibilities can produce, store and distribute and retrieve print and nonprint materials. This arrangement is workable since both print and nonprint materials lend themselves to one process of ac- quisition, preparation, interpretation, and dissemination. 3 8 Even though some institutions of higher education have no centralized maintenance of viewing and listening equipment, 93 per cent of the respondents in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories supported the principle, "Main-

35 Raynard C. Swank, "Sight and Sound in the World of Books," Library Journal, LXXVXIX (September 15, 1953), 1464. ^®Shores, "Library and AV Center," p. 342. 37 Frederick A. Kremple, "Handling Audiovisuals in an Academic Library," Wisconsin Library Bulletin, LXVI (March - April, 1970), 91. 38Shores, "Audio-Visual Dimensions, p. 395. 121 tenance of viewing and listening equipment should be centra­ lized," as the analysis of data shows in Table 44. Audio­ visual directors who are responsible for equipment show 94 per cent support in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories. The seven groups responding to this principle were not statistically significant at the .05 level on the Kruskal-Wallis test. Table 45.shows the mean differences of all scores among the seven groups. These differences were not great enough to be considered statistically significant. Certainly centralized maintenance of viewing and lis­ tening equipment would help eliminate unnecessary duplica­ tion of supplies and equipment. Stone noted, "maximum centralization of audio-visual equipment and repair facilities . . . insure maximum utilization of expensive equipment, consistent observance of suitable purchasing policy, reasonable maintenance and repairs." 39 Combining equipment repair units could be one of the first steps in the establishment of a centralized learning resources center.

Finance Principles i Analysis of data in Table 46 shows audiovisual direc­ tors with 41 per cent support in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories and 44 per cent in the combined "disagree" and "strongly disagree" categories for the

‘^Stone, "The Place of Newer Media," p. 370. TABLE 44 MAINTENANCE OF VIEWING AND LISTENING EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE CENTRALIZED (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 21 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N% N % Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 13 57 10 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.43 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 10 40 11 44 4 16 0 0 0 0 1.76

Academic Administrators... 10 42 13 54 0 0 1 4 0 0 1.66 Students...... 11 42 14 54 0 0 1 4 0 0 1.65 Faculty...... 13 50 11 42 1 4 0 0 1 4 1.65 Directors of University Libraries...... 17 43 19 47 2 5 2 5 0 0 1.72 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 17 50 15 44 0 0 2 6 0 0 1.61

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 91 46 93 47 7 4 6 3 1 0 1.65 122

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 3.254 TABLE 45 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: MAINTENANCE OF VIEWING AND LISTENING EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE CENTRALIZED »

• Resources Directors of Center Learning University Theoreticians Education Academic Faculty Directors of Libraries of of Higher Students 1 Administrators 1 Theoreticians of Higher Education......

Academic Administrators.... .232 .093 Students...... 106 .013

Faculty...... 106 .013 0.000 Directors of University Libraries...... 035 .058 .071 .071 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 142 .049 .036 .036 .107

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level TABLE 46 ONE BUDGET SHOULD BE ALLOCATED FOR ALL PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2i 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N % N% Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 6 26 7 31 5 22 4 17 1 4 2.43 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 624 936 8 32 28 00 2.24

Academic Administrators... 5 21 11 46 2 8 4 17 2 8 2.45

Students...... 12 46 3 11 6 24 4 15 1 4 2.19 Faculty...... 12 46 8 31 3 11 1 4 2 8 1.96 Directors of University Libraries...... 15 38 7 17 5 13 10 25 3 7 2.47 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 3 9 11 32 5 15 .9 12 11 32 3.26

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 59 30 56 28 34 17 29 15 20 10 2.46

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 16.593 principle, "One budget should be allocated for all print and nonprint materials and equipment." Academic admini­ strators show 67 per cent in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories, 8 per cent "undecided," and 25 per cent in the combined "disagree" and "_strongly disagree" categories. All groups combined show 58 per cent in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories. The com­ puted Kruskal-Wallis test value, 16.593, is greater than, 12.592, the critical value at the .05 level; therefore, it can be concluded that the differences among the seven groups responding to this principle are significant at the .05 level. Differences at the .05 significance level for mean scores appear between audiovisual directors and directors of learning resources centers, audiovisual directors and academic administrators, and audiovisual directors and librari­ ans. At the .01 level for mean scores, audiovisual directors and theoreticians of higher education, audiovisual directors and students, and audiovisual directors and faculty show a significant difference as indicated in Table 47. Some professionals involved in. the area of print and nonprint materials have realized that support of such separate organizations is wasteful of staff, equipment, materials 40 and of user time. How could it not be? Separation leads- to needless duplication because direct lines of communication do not exist and multiple inventories compound the chance

^Joyce, "User-Oriented Resources Center," p. 80. TABLE 47 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: ONE BUDGET SHOULD BE ALLOCATED FOR ALL PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT Resources Directors of Learning Centers University Students Faculty Directors of Libraries Theoreticians of Higher Education Academic Administrators

Theoreticians of Higher Education......

Academic Administrators.... .218 Students...... v048 .266

Faculty...... 278 .497 .231 Directors of University Libraries...... 235 .017 .281 .513 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 1.025** .806* 1.072** 1.303** .790* 126 * significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level 127 of having continued duplication of materials and equipment. A learning resources center with specific goals would give the direction necessary to expand services which need special materials and equipment in a systematic rather than haphazard fashion. Analysis of the data in Table 4 8 reveals that 79 per cent of all respondents in the combined “strongly agree" and "agree" categories support the principle, "The learning resources center's budget should be based on curricular needs." Only 13 per cent of the respondents in the combined "disagree" and "strongly disagree" categories did not sup­ port this principle. The seven groups responding to this principle were not statistically significant at the .05 level on the Kruskal-Wallis test. One difference at the .05 significance level for mean scores appeared between students and theoreticians of higher education. At the .01 level for mean scores, no significant, differences were indicated in Table 49. This principle caused some confusion on the part of respondents. Several respondents felt the word "curricular" was limited to classroom needs rather them all student and faculty needs. The following are comments from six respondents. Cl) "+ funds for centers, responsibility for neglected areas, extra-curricular interests, etc." (2) "Should have a major consideration, but again object.to limiting collection oh to supporting.curricular." TABLE 48 THE LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER'S BUDGET SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY CURRICULAR NEEDS (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 3 5i 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N% N % Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 7 31 10 43 2 9 4 17 0 0 2.13 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 5 20 14 56 4 16 2 8 0 0 2.12 Academic Administrators... 8 33 14 59 0 0 1 4 1 4 1.87

Students...... 15 58 7 29 0 0 3 11 1 4 1.76

Faculty...... 12 46 8 31 3 11 1 4 2 8 1.96 Directors of University Libraries...... 14 35 15 38 3 8 7 17 1 2 2.15 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 10 29 18 53 3 9 3 9 0 0 1.97

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 71 36 86 43 15 8 21 11 5 2 2.00 128

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 6.315 TABLE 49

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: THE LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER'S BUDGET SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY CURRICULAR NEEDS

(0 top H-l a o ip 0 ■p O •H nj >1 to to O P G P to + i to p tn 0) •H <1) O O -P to P -H Q) 0 c o 10 •P JG -H •H to •p • >t O W -H 4-> -H P p O tn-P G -p 4J P P O C! P P M m to c 0) P to e p o P -H ■H

Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 010 Academic Administrators, 255 .245

Students...... 361 .351* .106 Faculty...... ,169 .158 . .086 .192 Directors of University Libraries...... ;.... 020 .030 .275 .381 .188 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers.... ,160 .149 .096 .201 .009 .179

* significant at the ,05 level ** significant at the ,01 level 130

(3) "Also research needs" (4) "not solely" (5) "too some extent" (6) "The library should be the central concern. The other devices, audio-visual facilities, should be seen as auxiliary. A library that has no responsiveness to the faculty's research needs but only to "curricular needs" would not be an adequate library for a university." Analysis of data in Table 50 shows all groups in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories with 71 per cent support for the principle, "The director of the learning resources center should have ultimate responsibility for determining departmental budgets within the center." Aca­ demic administrators show an observable split in view with 59 per cent in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories and 37 per cent in the combined "disagree" and "strongly disagree" categories. Directors of learning re­ sources centers show 92 per cent support in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories. The computed Kru­ skal-Wallis test value, 23.929, is greater than, 12.592, the critical value at the .05 level; therefore, it can be con­ cluded that the differences among the seven groups responding to this principle are significant at the .05 level. Differences at the .05 significance level for mean scores appear between theoreticians of higher education and students, theoreticians of higher education and faculty, and students and audiovisual directors. TABLE 50 THE DIRECTOR OF THE LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER SHOULD HAVE THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DETERMINING THE DEPARTMENTAL BUDGETS WITHIN THE CENTER (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N % N% Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 12 52 9 40 1 4 1 4 0 0 1.60 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 5 20 7 28 7 28 5 20 1 4 2.60 Academic Administrators... 6 25 8 34 1 4 7 29 2 8 2.62

Students...... 13 50 7 27 2 8 3 11 1 4 1.92 Faculty...... 13 50 6 23 3 11 2 8 2 8 2.00 Directors of University Libraries...... 22 54 13 33 2 5 2 5 1 3 1.67 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers ...... 7 21 13 38 9 26 4 12 1 3 2.38

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 78 39 63 32 25 13 24 12 8 4 2.09 131

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 23.929 132

At the .01 level for mean scores, directors of learn­ ing resources centers and theoreticians of higher education, directors of learning resources centers and academic admini­ strators, audiovisual directors and directors of learning resources centers, audiovisual directors and directors of libraries, theoreticians of higher education and directors of libraries, and academic administrators and directors of libraries show a significant difference as indicated in

Table 51. The negative responses (16 per cent) could have been due to respondents overlooking the word ultimate when read­ ing this principle. Responses might have been different had the word been underlined or placed in italics. It would seem reasonable to expect any administrator responsible for a number of departments to permit each department to develop its own budget. However, the ultimate responsibility for departmental budgets should rest with the director of the learning resources center. Analysis of data in table 52 shows 69 per cent of the total respondents in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories supporting the principle, "Learning resources center departmental budgets should be formulated by depart­ ments according to their curricular needs." The seven groups responding to this principle were not statistically signifi­ cant at the .05 level on the Kruskal-Wallis test. Differences at the .05 significance level for mean scores appear between faculty and directors of libraries, TABLE 51 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: THE DIRECTOR OF THE LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER SHOULD HAVE THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DETERMINING THE DEPARTMENTAL BUDGETS WITHIN THE CENTER

in in p ip c 0 MH 0 n) -p O *iH 1 to in o n e p in -p in M 0) •H d) 0 O -P ui P -H d) o G 0 in 4-* Jh ‘H •H 01 -P >i o tn-H •P -H U P 0 tn+> E e -P ■p p p U G 3 d) M *rl flj d) g 0) i—1 o di nj ID P 0 +> O K O TJ *rl TJ 3 0) > p p « w c Q) 3 id S 3 O p *h & *H d) fl) d) jz m 'O O TJ -P id ■rl C -H Q h IWO Eh O W < c W b Q D ^

Theoreticians of Higher . Education...... 991**, Academic Administrators 1.016** .025 Students...... 314 .677* .702

Faculty...... 391 .600* .625 .077 Directors of University Libraries...... 066 .925** .950** .248 .325 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers.... .774** -.218 .243 .459* .382 .707** 133 * significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level TABLE 52 LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER DEPARTMENTAL BUDGETS SHOULD BE FORMULATED BY DEPARTMENTS ACCORDING TO THEIR CURRICULAR NEEDS (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N% N % Directors of Learning Resources Centers.... J... 9 39 7 31 3 13 3 13 1 4 2.13 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 8 32 9 36 5 20 3 12 0 0 2.12 Academic Administrators... 2 8 15 63 4 17 2 8 1 4 2.37 Students...... 12 46 8 30 3 12 3 12 0 0 1.88 Faculty...... 15 58 5 19 5 19 0 0 1 4 1.73 Directors of University Libraries...... 11 28 14 35 8 20 6 15 1 2 2.30 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 7 20 16 47 5 15 4 12 2 6 2.35 134 COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 64 32 74 37 33 17 21 11 6 3 2.14

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 11.071 135

faculty and audiovisual directors, and students and academic administrators. At the .01 level for mean scores, faculty and academic administrators show a significant difference as indicated in Table 53. Allocation of funds to departments within the learn­ ing resources center is difficult to determine. This dif­ ficulty can be somewhat eased if funds were distributed according to exhibited curricular needs rather than the number of people in the department or the previous year's allocation. It is also easier to defend the learning re­ sources center's total budget when the department alloca­ tions are supported by curricular needs.

Distribution and Retrieval Principles Analysis of data in Table 54 shows all groups combined (65 per cent) in the "strongly agree" and "agree" categories support the principle, "There should be a single charging system for all print and nonprint materials." Directors of libraries and audiovisual directors show 25 per cent and 30 per cent negative responses in the combined "disagree" and "strongly disagree" categories. The computed Kruskal- Wallis test value, 12.660, is greater than, 12.592, the critical value at the .05 level; therefore, it can be con­ cluded that the differences among the seven groups responding to this principle are significant at the .05 level. One difference at the .05 significance level for mean score appears between faculty and academic administrators. At TABLE 53 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER DEPARTMENTAL BUDGETS SHOULD BE FORMULATED BY DEPARTMENTS ACCORDING TO THEIR CURRICULAR NEEDS Learning Resources Centers Directors of Theoreticians of Higher Education Students Faculty Libraries Academic Administrators Directors of University

Theoreticians of Higher Education......

Academic Administrators.... .255 Students...... 235 .490* Faculty...... 389 .644** .154 Directors of University Libraries...... 180 .075 .415 .569* Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 233 .022 .468 .622* .053 136

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level TABLE 54 THERE SHOULD BE A SINGLE CHARGING SYSTEM FOR ALL PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N % N%

Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 9 39 5 22 4 17 5 22 0 0 2.21 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 5 20 11 44 7 28 1 4 1 4 2.28 Academic Administrators... 4 17 11 46 7 29 2 8 0 0 2.29 Students...... 12 46 9 35 1 4 3 11 1 4 1.92 Faculty...... 14 54 6 24 3 11 1 4 2 7 1.88 Directors of University Libraries...... 13 33 12 30 5 12 . 7 17 3 8 2.37 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 6 18 11 22 7 20 5 15 5 15 2.76

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 63 32 65 33 34 17 24 12 12 6 2.27 137

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 12.660 the .01 level for mean scores, faculty and audiovisual direc­ tors, and students and audiovisual directors show signi­ ficant differences as indicated in Table 55. If the same cataloging and classification scheme is used for both print and nonprint materials, there would be no reason to have more than one charging system unless physical location required such. Combining materials in one learning resources center should make dissemination and retrieval from one source possible and acceptable. Analysis of data in Table 56 shows all respondents with 60 per cent support in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories for the principle, "There should be a single booking system for all print and nonprint materials. Responses from audiovisual directors show an even split with 44 per cent in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories, and "disagree" and "strongly disagree" categories Directors of libraries show 55 per cent support while stu­ dents (80 per cent) and faculty (69 per cent) in the com­ bined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories for this prin­ ciple. The computed Kruskal-Wallis test value, 14.670, is greater than 12.592, the critical value at the .05 level? therefore, it can be concluded that the differences among the seven groups responding to this principle are signifi­ cant at the .05 level. Differences at the .05 significance level for mean score's appear between audiovisual directors and theoreticians TABLE 55 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: THERE SHOULD BE A SINGLE CHARGING SYSTEM FOR ALL PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS Directors of Resources Centers Learning Theoreticians of Higher Education Academic Administrators Directors of University Libraries Faculty i Students i i Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 063

Academic Administrators.... .074 .012 Students...... 294 .357 .369 Faculty...... ' .333 .395 .407* .038 Directors of University Libraries...... 158 .095 .083 .452 .490 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 547 .485 .473 .842** .880** .390

* significant at the .05 level 139 ** significant at the .01 level TABLE 56 THERE SHOULD BE A SINGLE BOOKING SYSTEM FOR ALL PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N% N% N % N % N% Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 7 30 3 13 5 22 5 22 3 13 2.73 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 6 24 11 44 6 24 1 4 1 4 2.20 Academic Administrators... 4 17 12 50 6 25 2 8 0 0 2.25

Students...... 11 42 10 38 2 8 2 8 1 4 1.92

Faculty...... 14 54 4 15 5 19 0 0 3 12 2.00 Directors of University Libraries...... 14 35 8 20 5 13 10 25 3 7 2.50 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 6 18 9 26 4 12 10 29 5 15 2.97

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 62 31 57 29 33 17 30 15 16 8 2.39

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 14.670 141 of higher education, and audiovisual directors and academic administrators. At the .01 level for mean scores, audiovisual directors and students, and audiovisual directors and faculty show significant differences as indicated in Table 57. Learning resources centers using one central charging system for all print and nonprint materials should find it to their advantage to have one booking system. Students and faculty could check one place for materials missing from the shelves and overdue. This procedure should also hold true for the learning resources center staff in search of materials. Analysis of data in Table 58 shows students (80 per cent) and faculty (81 per cent) with the most support in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories for the principle, "There should be a single reserve collection for all print and nonprint materials." Audiovisual directors (44 per cent) and directors of learning resources centers (48 per cent) show the fewest responses in the "strongly agree" and "agree" categories. All groups combined show 19 per cent "undecided." The computed Kruskal-Wallis test value, 21.534, is greater than, 12.592, the critical value at the .05 level; therefore, it can be concluded that the differences among the seven groups responding to this prin­ ciple are significant at the .05 level. Differences at the .05 significance level for mean scores appear between faculty and directors of learning TABLE 57

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: THERE SHOULD BE A SINGLE BOOKING SYSTEM FOR ALL PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS

CO CO P G o o id -P O •H id CO 10 o p G p to +1 CO p tn a) •rl cu o O -P (0 p -m a) 0 g o CO -P JG •H •H CO -P >1 O W *rl +) •H p Vi o e * H G -p +J P P o g G a> u •ri id 0) G (U rl o cu id P P id CO G cu G id 6 a O P -P XJ •H a)

Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 539 Academic Administrators.... .489 .050

Students...... 816 .277 .327 Faculty...... 739 .200 .250 .077 Directors of University Libraries...... 239 .300 .250 .577 .500 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 231 .771* .721* 1.047

* significant at the .05 level 142 ** significant at the .01 level TABLE 58 THERE SHOULD BE A SINGLE RESERVE COLLECTION FOR ALL PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2i 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N% N % Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 8 35 3 13 3 13 8 35 1 4 2.60 Theoreticians of* Higher Education...... 4 16 9 36 9 36 2 8 1 4 2.48 Academic Administrators... 3 13 12 50 7 29 2 8 0 0 2.33 Students...... 11 42 10 38 2 8 2 8 1 4 1.92

Faculty...... 14 54 7 27 4 15 1 4 0 0 1.69 Directors of University Libraries...... 12 30 12 30 4 10 8 20 4 10 2.50 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 3 9 12 35 9 26 4 12 6 18 2.94

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 55 28 65 33 38 19 27 14 13 6 2.38 143

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 21.534 resources centers, faculty and directors of libraries, theoreticians of higher education and students, and academic administrators and students. At the .01 level for mean scores, faculty and theoreticians of higher education, faculty and academic administrators, faculty and audiovisual direc­ tors, and students and audiovisual directors show signifi­ cant differences as indicated in Table 59. If the learning resources center housed all print and nonprint materials, it should be economically and psycholo­ gically advantageous to keep all materials in a single reserve collection. Most nonprint materials fit on regular book shelves so special storage should not be necessary. A normal amount of concern is expected since equipment is needed to view or listen to a large percentage of non­ print materials. Technology has provided equipment which can be used in reading rooms without causing much disturbance. It is also possible to plan for acoustical floors, walls, ceilings, and furniture which minimizes noise created by equipment. Some concern may be expressed regarding the operation of equipment needed to use nonprint materials. This concern can be diminished by realizing that most students on campus are somewhat sophisticated with the operation of equipment. Many of the newer projectors and audio systems require little or no mechanical skill for operation. Usually a simple illustrated direction sheet displayed with the equipment TABLE 59

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: THERE SHOULD BE A SINGLE RESERVE COLLECTION FOR ALL PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS Directors of Learning Resources Centers Theoreticians of Higher Education Students University Administrators Directors of Libraries Faculty Academic 1 Theoreticians of Higher Education......

Academic Administrators.... .275 .147 Students...... 557* .410* Faculty...... 788** .641** .231 Directors of University Libraries...... 020 .167 .577 .808* Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 461 .608 1.018** 1.249 .441

* significant at the .05 level 145 ** significant at the .01 level 146 * ♦ . provides all the assistance needed. A back-up system would be a short in-service program for staff members on the opera­ tion of equipment. Analysis of data in Table 60 shows academic admini­ stration (92 per cent), and students (92 per cent) with the most support for the principle, "There should be a single booking system for all equipment," in the "strongly agree" and "agree" categories. All groups combined show 82 per cent support for this principle in the "strongly agree" and "agree" categories. The seven groups responding to this principle were not statistically significant at the .05 level on the Kruskal-Wallis test. Differences at the .05 significance level for mean scores appear between theoreticians of higher education and director of learning resources centers, and theoreticians of higher education and faculty. At the .01 level for mean scores, theoreticians of higher education and students show a significant difference as indicated in Table 61. The strong support for this principle, as indicated by faculty and students, shows a realistic concern for accessibility of equipment in terms of the number of places one looks. A single booking system could also provide a current inventory of all equipment on campus plus a record of preventative and major maintenance services. Analysis of data in Table 62 shows students (81 per cent) and faculty (84 per cent) in the combined "strongly TABLE 60 THERE SHOULD BE A SINGLE BOOKING SYSTEM FOR ALL EQUIPMENT (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N% N % N % N% •N % Directors of Learning Resources Centers ...... 12 52 7 30 2 9 2 9 0 0 1.73 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 5 20 11 44 7 28 1 4 1 4 2.28 Academic Administrators... 7 29 15 .63 2 8 0 0 0 0 1.79 Students...... 12 46 12 46 2 8 0 0 0 0 1.61

Faculty...... 14 54 8 31 2 7 1 4 1 4 1.73 Directors of University Libraries...... 14 35 17 43 4 10 4 10 1 2 2.02 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 12 35 17 50 1 3 1 3 3 9 2.00

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 76 38 87 44 20 10 9 5 6 3 1.89

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 10.465 TABLE 61

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: THERE SHOULD BE A SINGLE BOOKING SYSTEM FOR ALL EQUIPMENT , University Libraries Resources Students Faculty Education Directors of Directors of Centers Administrators Learning Theoreticians of Higher Academic

Theoreticians of Higher Education......

Academic Administrators.... .488

Students...... 665** .176 Faculty...... 549* .061 .115 Directors of University Libraries...... 255 .233 .410 .294 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 280 .208 .385 .269 .025

* significant at the .05 level 148 ** significant at the .01 level TABLE 62

ALL DISTRIBUTION AND RETRIEVAL OF PRINT, NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE CENTRALIZED (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N % N % Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 9 39 5 22 2 9 6 26 1 4 2.34 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 5 20 11 44 5 20 3 12 1 4 2.36 Academic Administrators... 5 21 11 46 5 21 3 12 0 0 2.25

Students...... 14 54 7 .27 3 11 2 8 0 0 1.73 Faculty...... 13 50 9 34 1 4 1 4 2 8 1.84 Directors of University Libraries...... 13 32 12 30 5 13 4 10 6 15 2.45 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 7 20 12 35 3 9 6 18 6 18 2.76

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 66 33 67 34 24 12 25 13 16 8 2.28 149

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 14.404 150 agree" and "agree" categories for the principle, "All dis­ tribution and retrieval of print, nonprint and equipment shall be centralized." Directors of learning resources centers, directors of libraries, and audiovisual directors show 61 per cent, 62 per cent and 55 per cent responses respectively in the same categories. All groups show 67 per cent support in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories. The computed Kruskal-Wallis test value, 14.404, is greater than, 12.592, the critical value at the .05 level; therefore, it can be concluded that the differ­ ences among the seven groups responding to this principle are significant at the .05 level. Differences at the .05 significance level for mean scores appear between students and theoreticians of higher education, students and academic administrators, students and directors of libraries, faculty and theoreticians of higher education, and faculty and academic administrators. At the .01 level for mean scores, student and audiovisual directors, and faculty and audiovisual directors show significant dif­ ferences as indicated in Table 63. The learning resources center should be physically arranged so that all print, nohprint materials and equipment could be collected, organized, and disseminated from one central source. 41 The introduction of computer charging and booking systems make it possible to have one central

41 Janiece F. Fusaro,' "Toward Library - College Media Centers," Junior College Journal', XL {April, 1970), 41. TABLE 63

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: ALL DISTRIBUTION AND RETRIEVAL OF PRINT, NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE CENTRALIZED

(0 to u £ 0 o (ti +> O •H 1 10 10 o n e u . to +> to n &> to n * H 1 O to -H a) & 14J e - H e -p -0 n n O £ 3 O n - H td n n rt w £ 0) 0 o 0 u ■P id •H £ -H q w « a HOW CO W a d w

Theoreticians of Higher Education ...... ,012

Academic Administrators. ,098 .110 Students...... ,617 .629* .519* Faculty...... ,502 .514* 404* .115 Directors of University Libraries...... ,102 .090 .200 .719* .604 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers.... 417 ‘.405 .515 1.034** .919** .315

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level 152 * control for all distribution and retrieval of materials and equipment. However, many current buildings can not pro­ vide such service because of the physical arrangement which limits the storage space for audiovisual equipment needed to use some nonprint materials.

Administration Principles Table 64 shows responses to basically the same ques­ tion as Table 40. The major observable differences in responses were from audiovisual directors. They show 67 per cent, support in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories in Table 40 and 76 per cent support in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories in Table 64 for the principle, "Both print, nonprint materials and equipment should be under one administrator." The other six groups of respondents show few differences between the two tables.

Table 40 was'not statistically significant when computed at the .05 significance level on the Kruskal-Wallis test. Table 64 with the computed Kruskal-Wallis test value, 16.909, is greater than, 12.592, the critical value at the .05 level; therefore, it can be concluded that the differ­ ences among the seven groups responding to this principle are significant at the .05 level.

Differences at the .05 significance level for mean scores appear between audiovisual directors and theoreticians of higher education, and audiovisual directors and directors TABLE 64 BOTH PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE UNDER ONE ADMINISTRATOR (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N % N% N % N % N % Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 12 52 9 39 0 0 2 9 0 0 1.65 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 8 32 12 48 4 16 1 4 0 0 1.92 Academic Administrators... 6 25 14 58 2 9 1 4 1 4 2.04 Students...... 13 50 9 35 3 11 1 4 0 0 1.69

Faculty...... 14 54 8 31 2 7 1 4 1 4 1.73 Directors of University Libraries...... 19 47 8 20 5 13 5 13 3 7 2.12 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 7 21 12 35 2 6 9 26 4 12 2.73

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 79 40 72 36 18 9 20 10 9 5 2.03 153

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 16.909 154

of libraries. At the .01 level for mean scores, audiovisual directors and directors of learning resources centers, audio­ visual directors and students, and audiovisual directors and faculty show significant differences as indicated in Table 65. Marshall Gunselman, Dean of Learning Resources, at Oklahoma Christian College recent wrote, An effective organizational pattern for a learning center appears to be one in which all of the various functions needed are contained in one operational unit. This combines library, audiovisual, printing, radio and TV, computer­ ized and other forms of individualized instruction into one comprehensive service which is available to students and faculty with a minimum of red tape.42 Stone pointed out advantages and disadvantages to this principle when he wrote, . . . existence of two administrative units will draw more college funds for materials than one, a point not without some justice, despite its uneconomic aspects.42 Analysis of the data in Table 66 shows 83 per cent of all the respondents in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories support the principle, "The director of the learning resources center should have an educational back­ ground in both print and nonprint materials." Academic admin­ istrators (88 per cent), audiovisual directors (88 per cent), and faculty (92 per cent) show the most support in the com­ bined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories for this prin­ ciple. The seven groups responding to this principle were not statistically significant at the .05 significance level on the Kruskal-Wallis test.

42Marshall Gunselman, "What are We Learning About Learning Centers?— Some Conclusions," in What are We Learning About Learn- ing Centers?, ed. by Marshall GunseJLman, (Oklahoma city: Eagle Media Inc., 1971), p. 208. 43c. Walter Stone, "The Place of Newer Media," p. 371. TABLE 65 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: BOTH PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE UNDER ONE ADMINISTRATOR

* Directors of Resources Centers Learning Theoreticians of Higher Education Students Faculty Academic Administrators Directors of University Libraries

Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 268

Academic Administrators.... .389 .122 Students...... 040 .228 .349 Faculty...... 079 .189 .311 .038 Directors of University Libraries...... 473 .205 .083 .433 .394 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 1.083** .815* .694 1.043** 1.004** .610’ 155 * significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level TABLE 66 THE DIRECTORS OF THE LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER SHOULD HAVE AN EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND IN BOTH PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS (Group Responses)

Percentage Group 1 2l 3 4 5 Mean N% N % N % N% N% Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 9 39 10 43 2 9 1 4 1 4 1.91 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 10 40 9 36 5 20 1 4 0 0 1.88

Academic Administrators... 9 38 12 50 2 8 0 0 1 4 1.83

Students..... "...... is 69 5 19 2 8 0 0 1 4 1.50 Faculty...... 15 58 9 34 1 4 0 0 1 4 1.57 Directors of University Libraries...... 16 40 14 35 6 15 4 10 0 0 1.95 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 11 32 19 56 1 3 3 9 0 0 1.88

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 88 44 78 39 19 10 9 5 4 2 1.80 156

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 *= 9.757 Differences at the .05 significance level for mean scores appear between students and theoreticians of higher education, students and directors of libraries, and students and audio­ visual directors. At the .01 level for mean scores, no signi­ ficant differences were indicated in Table 67. If a unified materials and equipment collection is de­ veloped, it seems reasonable that the person in charge of such an organization would need a broad background in many of the instructional service areas represented. This is not to say that other factors should not be taken into consideration, but the prevailing criteria should be to find a person with various educational and experience backgrounds in many aspects of in­ structional service, communication and information processing. One director of a learning resources center prescribed to this notion when he wrote the following at the end of his opinionnaire The above presupposes, I fear, a bias toward a Library Science orientation for the Director of Learning Resources and for the staff organization and for the "professionals” people involved. This should not be the case. The Director should much better be a trained communi­ cations specialists with a knowledge of the principle of information, storage and retrieval. The library administrator type will be biased against the program. Analysis of the data in Table 68 reveals that all groups (90 per cent) in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories support the principle, "The director of the learning resources center should have some experience in both print and nonprint materials." Faculty (94 per cent) TABLE 67

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: THE DIRECTOR OF THE LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER SHOULD HAVE AN EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND IN BOTH PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS

• Resources Directors of Learning Centers Theoreticians of of Higher Education Academic Administrators Students Faculty Directors of University Libraries

Theoreticians of Higher Education......

Academic Administrators.... .047 Students...... 380* .333

Faculty...... 303 .256 .077 Directors of University Libraries...... 070 .117 .450* .373 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 002 .049 .382* .305 .068 158 * significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level TABLE 68

THE DIRECTOR OF THE LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER SHOULD HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE IN BOTH PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS (Group Responses)

Percentage Group • 1 > 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N % N% Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 11 48 10 44 1 4 1 4 0 0 1.65 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 10 40 11 44 3 12 1 4 0 0 1.80

Academic Administrators... 9 38 13 54 0 0 2 8 0 0 1.79 Students...... 1661 831 1 4 14 0 0 1.50 Faculty...... 15 58 10 38 0 0 0 0 1 4 1.53 Directors of University Libraries...... 16 40 16 40 6 15 2 5 0 0 1.85 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 14 41 18 53 1 3 1 3 0 0 1.67

COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 91 46 86 44 12 6 8 4 1 0 1.69 159

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 6.574 160 show the most support in the "strongly agree" category for this principle. The seven groups responding to this principle were not statistically significant at the .05 level on the Kruskal-Wallis test. Table 69 shows the differences of all scores among the seven groups. These differences were not great enough to be considered statistically significant. It is difficult to conceive of any person being con­ sidered for the position of director of a learning resources center without having some working experience in both print and nonprint materials. Ideally, this person should have some work experience in all the areas for which he would be responsible. Analysis of the data in Table 70 shows that the two groups, directors of learning resources centers and academic administrators, support the principle, "The director of the learning resources center should report directly to the highest academic officer," in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories 100 per cent and 96 per cent respectively. All other groups, with exception of theoreticians of higher education and faculty, show above 89 per cent support in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories. Theo­ reticians of higher education show (24 per cent) "undecided" and faculty show 19 per cent "undecided" which may reflect their concern for "nonacademic" service units reporting to the.head academic officer of a college or university. TABLE 69 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: THE DIRECTOR OF THE LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER SHOULD HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE IN BOTH PRINT AND NONPRINT MATERIALS Resources Directors of Learning Centers Education Theoreticians Students of of Higher Directors of Academic Administrators Faculty University Libraries 1 i Theoreticians of Higher Education......

Academic Administrators .139 .008 Students...... 300 .292 Faculty...... , .261 .253 .038

Directors of University Libraries...... 050 .058 .350 .311

Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 123 .115 .176 .138 .173

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level TABLE 70 THE DIRECTOR OF THE LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER SHOULD REPORT DIRECTLY TO THE HIGHEST ACADEMIC OFFICER (EXAMPLE: ACADEMIC VICE PRESIDENT) (Group Responses)

Percentage Group I 2i 3 4 5 Mean N % N % N % N % N% Directors of Learning Resources Centers...... 15 65 8 35 0 0 00 00 1.34 Theoreticians of Higher Education...... 9 36 9 36 6 24 1 4 0 0 1.96 Academic Administrators... 12 50 11 46 1 4 0 0 0 0 1.54 Students...... 16 61 7 27 2 8 14 00 1.53

Faculty...... 14 54 6 23 5 19 0 0 1 4 1.76 Directors of University Libraries...... 23 58 13 32 0 0 2 5 2 5 1.67 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 18 53 13 38 1 3 0 0 2 6 1.67 162 COMBINED GROUP TOTALS 107 54 67 34 15 8 4 2 5 2 1.65

Kruskal-Wallis Test Value = 12.592 .05 = 7.481 163

The seven groups responding to this principle were not statistically significant at the .05 level on the Kruskal- Wallis test. One differences at the .05 significance level for mean scores appeared between directors of learning resources centers and theoreticians of higher education. At the .01 level for mean scores, no significant differences were indicated in Table 71. Some librarians feel, "Libraries will have to be in­ tegrated into the instructional process in such a way as to maximize their usefulness." 44 This being the case, the director of the learning resources center will better under­ stand and provide the needed service if there is direct communication with the highest academic administrator. Christensen noted that centralized instructional services "tends to increase instructor-librarian collaboration through 45 the many opportunities offered for working together." Therefore, The major administrator of the program should be on the dean level and report directly to the academic head of the institution. The platform from which the learning center endeavor is launched is of extreme importance in guaranteeing its acceptance and s u c c e s s . 46

44Robert T. Jordan, "Impact of the Academic Library on the Educational Program," ERIC Document, ED 013 351, (April, 1967), p. 5. 45 Ruth M. Christensen, "The Junior College," p. 122. 46 Gunselman, What Are We Learning About Learning Centers? ,11 p. 208. TABLE 71 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN RESPONSES OF THE SEVEN GROUPS FOR THE PRINCIPLE: THE DIRECTOR OF THE LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER SHOULD REPORT DIRECTLY TO THE HIGHEST ACADEMIC OFFICER (EXAMPLE: ACADEMIC VICE PRESIDENT) Resources Directors of Learning Centers Education Theoreticians Directors of of of Higher Students Faculty University Academic Administrators Libraries

Theoreticians of Higher Education...... * Academic Administrators.... .194 .418 Students...... 421 .003

Faculty...... 191 .228 .231 Directors of University Libraries...... 285 .133 .136 .094 Directors of University Audiovisual Centers...... 283 .135 .138 .093 .001

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level 165

Problem One The first problem, "Identify and examine a list of principles which validate or refute the concept of a learning resources center on a college or university campus," was determined by a careful and detailed literature search and a cataloging and screening of thirty-five principles prior to a more detailed analysis. To validate those principles which support the concept of a learning resources center, reactions were systematically solicited from 360 randomly selected persons representing six facets of the academic community on college and university campuses. Another uni­ versal group of thirty directors of learning resources centers were also given an opportunity to react to the same list of principles. Results of the opinionnaires were pre­ sented in tabular form with an analysis of data on the pre­ vious pages. Learning resources centers responding, represented universities which had an average student enrollment of 9,192. The smallest institution responding had 685 students and the largest had 24,553 students.

Problem Two The second problem of the study, "Determine what per cent of new principles will be identified by respondents," was found by soliciting additional principles at the end of the opinionnaire. Participants were asked, "List those 166 principles you feel were left off this list.” None of the 198 respondents submitted additional principles. The space allotted for additional principles was left blank or used to react to specific principles which respondents sup­ ported or rejected. Therefore, the percentage of new prin­ ciples submitted by respondents was 0.

Problem Three The third problem, "Determine whether or not there is a general agreement by directors of learning resources centers'; theoreticians of higher education, academic admini­ strators, directors of libraries, audiovisual directors, faculty and students as to the ranking of these principles," is presented in Table 72. This table permits easy comparison of principles ranked by each group. There appears to be a general consistency when ranking certain principles. Principle one, "Print and nonprint materials should be organized under the direction of specially trained professional personnel," is ranked first by four groups. This principle is ranked first more times than any other principle. Principle thirty-five, "Print and nonprint materials should be intershelved when possible," is ranked last by five of the seven groups. Some principles are in fluxion among the ranking of the seven groups of respondents. Principle twenty-one, "The director of the learning resources centers should have the 167

TABLE 72 RANKING OF EACH PRINCIPLE BY RESPONDENTS

tn c *H c o p u ^ c a o a o fa t; xJ •H u 3 »j c tn 4J u o a C? fl o M U fl o JJ o U 0 0 ♦H D rt o *o u n u T3 O. M aw w U Jj wi a O (J o u •P •H fl O'H c w 4J w a) 14 C -P U *H U 3 H Cl a^ 'da o u a ja c 3 0 O £ -H 3 a * K fl n tt O C* 3 U n J} O •H V I] *H UP 'O6 •U fl •H -H Principle UE a « H 3 < < t/) fa a *4 Audiovisual XT ^rmt and nonprint ma­ terials should be organized under the direction of specially trained professional personnel 1.46 1 3 5.5 20 1.3 1 1

2 * Reference and guidance services should be provided for print, non- print materials and equipment 1.47 5 1.5 1 3.2 1.3 4 2

3. Equipment necessary to use nonprint materials should be available in the immediate area 1.51 4 1.5 4 1.5 4 3 8

Print, nonprint ma­ terials and equipment should be available to students and faculty 1.53 8.2 4 2.5 1.5 9 2 4

S. The director of the learning resources cen­ ter should report directly to the highest academiccfficer (example academic vice president) *1.65 2 18 ' 2.5 7 22.3 6.5 6.5

6. Maintenance of viewing and listening equipment should be centralized 1.65 3 7.5 7 3.2 10.3 8 3

The director of the learning resources cen­ ter should have some / experience in both print and nonprint materials 1.69 8.2 9 9.2 3.2 5 11 . 5

Viewing and Listening equipment should be listed in one inventory 1.76 15 5.5 8 32.5 1.3 12 6.5 168

Table 72— Continued

9. All departments within the learning resources center which directly service faculty end students should be equally accessible 1.77 8.2 7.5 5.5 11.3 10.3 5 18

10. PrcCcssional staff should have some educa­ tion in both print and nonprint materials 1.78 20 14.3 9.2 8.3 6.3 9 11

11. '■he directors of the learning resources center should have an educational background in both print and non­ print mnturials 1.80 17.3 14.3 13 3.2 6.3 13 12

12. Departments within the learning resource? center should. ne_ organized according to functional responsibi­ lities 1.80 23.'5 10.2 14.2 11.3 10.3 10 9.5

13. There should be a single booking system for all equipment 1.89 12.3 26.3 9.2 8.3 15.1 17 15

14. I'/ucoKiiin-j of print and nonprint materials should be centralized 1.90 6.5 10.2 9.2 22 22.3 20 16

15. All print and r.onprint materials should fcc listed in one catalog 1.91 12.3 5.5 18 32.5 22.3 15.5 13

16. Print, nonprint ma­ terials; and equipment which support the teach­ ing and learning process should be organized I under one administrator 1.93 8.2 10.2 14.2 29 15.1 15.5 20

' 17. The learning resources center*s, budget should I be determined by curri­ cular needs 2.00 23.5 19.3 14.2 18.5 27.3 19 14 / IB, Honprint cards should bo differentiated from print cards 2.01 26.5 23.3 22.5 20 6.3 22 9.5

19. Both print and non- print materials and equipment should be under one admini— v strator 2,03* 8.2 17 19 14.5 15.1 18 27.5 169

Table 72— Continued

20. Procurement of ell print, nonprint materials and equipment should be Centralised 2.04 12.3 19.3 22.5 14.5 27.3 21 19 21. The director of the learning resources center should have the ultimate respon­ sibility for determin­ ing the departmental budgets within the center 2.09* 6.5 35 34 25.2 30.2 6.5 2*2

22. Selection of all print, nonprint materials should be based on curricular needs 2.13 35 14.3 14.2 30.5 34 27.5 17

23. Learning resources center departmental budgets should be formu­ lated by departments according to their curricular needs 2.14 17.3 19.3 30 .23.5 15.1 23 21

2 -1 . Print, nonprint ma­ terials and equip­ ment should be available to students and faculty for the same number of hours 2.1C* 22 29 31 8.3 30.2 14 23.5

25. Production facilitios should be in the some building as print, and nonprint materials and equipment 2.17 28 23.3 20.5 23.5 15.1 25.5 25

26. One facility should house all print, non- p r i n t m aterials and equipment 2.17* 17.3 26.3 26.3 11.3 15.1 27.5 26

27. Faculty and students are better served by one facility housing print, nonprint materials and equipment 2.20* 16 34 ,• 26.3 16.5 13.5 24 27.5

28. Print and nonprint materials should be cataloged according to one classification scheme 2.21* 25 10.2 20.5 1 8 . S 30.2 34 23.5

29. There should be a single charging system for all print and nonprint ma­ terials 2.27* 26.5 26.3 26.3 25.2 26 25.5 29.5 170

Table 72— Continued

All distribution and retrieval c£ print, non- print ntaturinls and equipment should be centralized 2.28* 29 30 24.5 16.5 25 29 29.5

There should be a single: reserve collec­ tion for nil print and nonpri.nt materials 2.38* 33 32.5 29 25.2 13.5 31.5 31.5

There should be a single booking s'/stem for all print and nonprint materials 2.39* 34 22 24.5 25.2 30.2 31.5 33

Professional staff should have some assigned respon­ sibilities in both print and nonprint 2.JO* 32 31 35 30.5 15.1 33 3.15

One budget should be allocated for all print and nonprint materials and equipment 2.46* 30.5 23.3 32 34 27.3 30 34.5

Print and nonprint mater fair- should be intershelved when possible 2.76* 35 32.5 33 35 35 35 34.5 171

ultimate responsibility for determining the departmental budgets within the center/' is ranked last by theoreticians of higher education and next to last by academic administra­ tors. However, both directors of learning resources centers and directors of libraries ranked the same principle highest of all groups at six. This indicates a consistent philo­ sophical difference of opinion regarding this principle. Similar distinct philosophical agreements and differences can be found among principles one, five, eight, eleve, eighteen and twenty-four. All principles which were significant at the .05 level on the Kruskal-Wallis test are in the "agree" category of the Likert-type scale. Ten of the significant principles

are .ranked in the last ten positions of this thirty-five -item ranking scale. A majority (80 per cent) of the distribution and retrieval principles were significant at the .05 level. Half the staff principles, facility principles and admini­ stration principles were significant at .05 level. The remaining form categories show 30 per cent or less at the .05 significance level.

Problem (a) Problem (a) of the study, "Identify the instruc­ tional service units generally found in integrated college and university learning resources centers," provided infor­ mation necessary to determine what instructional service units 172 are integrated. Each, director of a learning resources center was asked to check the various instructional service units for which he is responsible. All twenty-three institutions responding confirmed that their learning resources centers included both the library and audiovisual services. Other services or depart­ ments generally included in various learning resources centers are: (1) Eighteen included the graphics department (2) Fifteen included the curriculum center (3) Ten included dial access services (4) Eight included television services (5) Eight included the language laboratory C6) Four included the radio station C7) Three included the computer center C8) Two included film production centers (9) Two included self-instruction laboratories CIO) One Textbook Rental (11) One Automated Classroom (12) One Demonstration School Library (13) One Art Gallery It can be concluded that 65 per cent of the learning resources centers surveyed include the library, audiovisual service, graphics department and curriculum center. Another 34 per cent include dial access, television and the campus language laboratory. Rarely, less than 17 per cent, are 173 radio stations,*computer centers, film production centers and self-instruction laboratories included. Only once were textbook rentals, automated classrooms, demon­ stration school libraries, and art galleries included as part of the learning resources centers.

Problem (b) Data relating to problem (b) of the study, "Identify the administrative structure used in the college and univer­ sity learning resources center," was collected by requesting each director of a learning resources center to, "Please attach a current organizational chart of your 'Learning Resources Center.' If one is not available, please sketch one below or on the back." Eighteen centers returned organizational charts or sketches of their organizational arrangement. The organi­ zational patterns of learning resources centers, as would be expected, varied according to the size of institution and philosophy of the center. Illustration 1 shows a composite of the eighteen organization charts.submitted by directors of learning resources. Appendix B contains the organi­ zational chart submitted by each director. Three centers reported an arrangement whereby the library and audiovisual services had assistant or associate directors who reported to the director. However, in most cases technical services and public services were on the ILLUSTRATION I

A Composite of the Eighteen Learning Resources Center's Organizational Charts

DIRECTOR

Assistant to the Faculty Advisory Director Committee

Secretary Assistant Director

I 1 PUBLIC SERVICES TECHNICAL SERVICES •AUDIOVISUAL SERVICES

■Reference Acquisitions -Closed-circuit Television •Circulation r-Cataloging -Graphics ■Curriculum Center -Dial Access ■Language Laboratory -Radio Station 1 7 5

same administrative level as audiovisual services. This arrangement has some merits since both public services and audiovisual services depend heavily on the acquisitions and cataloging provided by technical services. Of the reporting institutions, only Wisconsin State University at Stevens Point, St. Cloud State College and Stout State University use an organizational arrangement based on operational functions. St. Cloud State College has distribution of print, nonprint materials and equipment reporting directly to the Supervisor of Public Services. Stout State University has Instructional Systems (engineers) reporting directly to the Director of Instructional Tech­ nology. This permits Television Instruction, Production of Motion Pictures, Self-Instruction, Dial Access, etc. main­ tenance and repair services without going through another instruction service. It also allows for the possible expanded use of expensive equipment and talent. The Wisconsin State University at Stevens Point catalogs all materials in one Technical Services Department.

Problem (c) Problem (c), "Identify the personal characteristics (educational, experience, etc.) of directors of learning resources centers," was accomplished by providing direc­ tors with a questionnaire to be returned with each opinion- naire. No attempt was made to analyze this information 176 since it was intended only to provide a profile of directors of learning resources centers. Forty-nine is the average age of the twenty- three directors of learning resources centers responding to the questionnaire. The youngest director is twenty-eight and the oldest sixty- eight. All directors of learning resources centers are male. Eleven of the directors have doctor's degrees. Of these, four are in library science, four in instructional communications, two in administration, and one in curriculum. Three of.the degrees are Doctor of Education with the remaining seven Doctor of Philosophy. Eleven directors have Master of Library Science degrees. .One director has a Master's of Arts in History. Six directors hold a second master's degree in other disciplines. Eight directors listed large institutions, over 12,000 student enrollment, as the undergraduate institution from which they graduated. Fourteen directors graduated from state or private institutions with lesss than .12,000 students. The one remaining director received his undergraduate degree in the United Kingdom. 177

The University of Washington and the University of Michigan lead the graduate schools with three directors holding degrees from each. Syracuse University, University of Chicago, University of Illinois, and Indiana University each had two directors graduate from their institutions. Fourteen directors have taken course work in library science while eleven have course work in audiovisual educa­ tion. Seven directors have course work in computer science, four in television, and three in radio. No data was gathered in other academic disciplines. The previous college experience of directors of learn­ ing resources centers was: (1) Nine were reference librarians (2) Three were catalogers (3) Three were acquisitions librarians (4) Five were audiovisual directors (5) Four were audiovisual specialists (6) Five were professors (7) Four were library directors Other experiences varied from elementary teacher, high school librarian, state library administrative assistant, radio specialist, television specialist, communications specialist in the Navy, and a foundations officer. Directors have remained in their previous positions on an average of seven and one-half years. They have held their present positions, on an average of eight years. Nearly every director of a learning resources center had a different title. Seven titles reflected the combina­ tion of services for which they were responsible while the remaining sixteen used "library" or its derivative in the title. Five respondents had the word "Dean" and two "Vice President" in their titles. The following are the titles which indicated a variety of services: (1) Director of the Learning Resources Center (2) Dean, Learning Resources Center (3) Director of Media Services (4) ♦Dean of Learning Resources (5) Vice President of Learning Resources (6) Associates Vice President of Learning Resources

Ten respondents use the word "library" as the official title of their center. The remaining centers use the title "Learning Resources Center" with the exception of three who use "Learning Center," "Learning Resources Services," and "Media Services" as their official title. Two directors of libraries responding to the opinion- naire noted their displeasure with idea of changing, or creat­ ing a title which replaces "library." One wrote, Why can't we still have libraries which include A-V material and equip­ ment? Why do we always have to make up new complicated names? I believe in libraries - not * learning resources centers1 I (with AV, of course).

♦This title was used twice. 179

The other director of libraries wrote, Can't resist including this one last opinion: I disagree with the efforts to limit the meaning of the term library to print materials only. This is in­ correct, for it has always meant all kinds of materials. We must avoid prejudging the quality and scope of any institutions resources by its choice of name.

Problem (d) Problem (d) of the study, "Identify the learning resources centers organization in relation to the college or university organizational structure," was solicited from directors of learning resources centers. Two of the directors of learning resources centers report directly to the presi­ dent of their campus. The remaining twenty-one report to academic vice-presidents or persons holding similar titles. Several benefits may be derived from this organiza­ tional arrangement. They are as follows: (1) Directors are more likely to be aware of present and future curriculum changes on campuses. (2) Directors are more likely to have a greater influence in economic matters affecting the learning resources centers. (3) Directors are more likely to publicize the purposes and goals of the learning resources center to persons in positions of influence. (4) Directors are more likely to communicate the learning resources center's role in learning, research and teaching. Problem Ce) Problem (e), "Determine whether or not principles identified in this study are used in the college or univer­ sity learning resources centers," is answered in Chapter IV.

Problems (f), Cg), and (h) In order to answer problem (f), "Determine if there is a significant difference among responses when comparing to the size of institution or geographical region," problem Cg), "Determine if there are differences of opinion among * i the respondents according to the region of the country they represent," and problem (h), "Determine if there are differ­ ences of opinion among respondents according to the size of institution they represent," data were solicited from each respondent. A question was designed to determine what size institution the respondent represented. A second question asked respondents to check the geographical region of the country in which their institution was located. The responses in the "Size of Institution" and "Geo­ graphical Region" categories were not significant at the .05 level. Therefore, no attempt was made to interpret or analyze these responses statistically beyond the percentages and mean scores. The percentage of responses and group mean scores by geographical region of the country is presented in Table 73. The percentages of responses and group mean m - TABLE 73

Responses, Percentage, and Group Mean Scores by Geographical Region of the Country

to to Pi C o 4-t 0 td ■p o H •r| id td 10 to 0 pi c M to to 2 to H c n o •H (3) 0 O -P to Pi tu to Pi O d o to •P .C -H >H 10 •P > i o -w •H O + » -H Pi M 0) tn + » E *H G -P -P p > -P O G 9 <1) Pt *H td QJ G 0) H o td O O a 0 M O +> O EE! O »d ->h t J G 0 M •H 0 2 2 p to to e <1) 0 cd E O O Pi n 'O n O 2 •HOICIO S i «P u *9 •P

Responses, Percentage, and Group Mean Scores by Size of Institution

to in u 4-1 a 0 4-4 0 rtf +> o r-1 •H rtf rtf (J) to VUG t-i 01 01 pi 01 U t n o •H (U O O +J W P O oi p o a o n ■p x i -h •H W -p >1 O -H •P O ■PtI 4 4 n tji+» E G +> +> U > +J O £3 3 0) M -H rtf d) G 0) r-l O (tf O O Qi (!) H O-P O K U 43 *H 43 P» a) u •H Q) PI G l-l rtf to C x: 44 ■d O >3 +» rtf PJ *H l-l d) Q P5 u & O W < < CO &4 Q PI < Q C5 S

N * N % N % N % N % N 55 N 55

Under 1,000 2 9 1 4 6 25 1 4 0 0 6 15 8 24 2.05 1,001 - 5,000 4 17 0 0 8 24 5 19 3 12 18 45 12 35 1.88 5,001 - 10,000 10 43 3 12 6 25 4 15 5 19 6 15 9 26 2.00 10,001 - 15,000 3 13 2 8 2 8 6 25 1 ‘4 0 0 0 0 1.73 15,001 - 20,000 1 4 5 20 1 4 3 11 5 19 4 10 1 3 2.06 20,001 - 25,000 2 9 5 20 1 4 ■1 4 4 15 2 5 1 3 2.04 25,001 - 30,000 1 4 3 12 0 0 1 4 3 12 1 2 1 3 2.05 30,001 - 35,000 0 0 3 12 0 0 2 7 1 4 0 0 0 0 1.63 35/001 - 40,000 0 0 1 4 0 0 3 11 4 15 1 2 0 0 1.59 Over 40,000 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 6 2.57 TOTAL 23 25 24 26 26 40 34 oo 183 scores by size of institution is presented in Table 74. Some observations can be made from the group mean scores in Tables 73 and 74. The East South Central geogra­ phical region shows the most support for the principles presented (1.60 group mean score). No learning resources centers are located in this geographical region of the coun­ try. Nine of the twenty-three learning resources centers are in the East North Central geographical region. This region shows the least support (2.17 group mean score) for these principles. Table 74 shows respondents from institutions with 35,001 - 40,000 and 40,000 + student enrollments giving the most (1.59 group mean score) and least (2.57 group mean score) support to the principles in the opinionnaire. How­ ever, the number of respondents from this size institution is much smaller than all other institutions. Institutions with student enrollments over 1,001 and under 15,000 had the most responses to this opinionnaire and were within a few hundredths of a percentage point of one another.

Summary Analysis of the Data Analysis of data indicate that a substantial number of all respondents (100 per cent) support the principles stated in the opinionnaire. A majority (54 per cent) of the com­ bined group mean scores for each principle is in the "agree" category. The minority (46 per cent) of the combined group 184 mean scores for each principle is in the "strongly agree" category. No percentages are registered in combined group mean scores for the "undecided," "disagree," and "strongly disagree" categories. The combined mean score (1.47}, showing the most sup­ port, is recorded for the principle, "Reference and guid­ ance services should be provided for print, nonprint materials and equipment." The combined mean score (2.74), showing the least support, is recorded for the principle, "Print and nonprint materials should be intershelved when possible." Analysis of the eight groups of principles show the following: (1) 80 per cent of the distribution and retrieval principles were significant at the .05 level. (2) 50 per cent of the staff principles were significant at the .05 level. (3) 50 per cent of the facility principles were significant at the .05 level. (4) 50 per cent of the administration principles were significant at the .05 level. (5) 30 per cent of the operation principles were significant at the .05 level. (6) 25 per cent of the finance principles were significant at the .05 level. (7) 13 per cent of the processing principles were

* significant at the .05 level. (8) None of the organization principles were significant at the .05 level. Each of the eight categories, "Processing," "Facility, "Operation," "Staff," "Organization," "Finance," 'Distribu­ tion and Retrieval," and "Administration," within the opinionnaire presumes certain assumptions which may o r may not be valid. To determine the validity, each major area would require evaluation under experimental research condi­ tions. However, it appears that certain benefits would be gained from implementation of the principles within each category. The following benefits are derived from this investigator’s analysis of the principles identified in this study:

(1) economic 02) efficiency C3) higher discounts 04) unnecessary duplication 05) accessibility 06) maximum use 07) better coordination 08) saves user's time

09) makes task of user's easier (10) psychologically better

OH) asset to instruction 012) appeals to students 013) increases use of nonprint materials

i—( optimum productivity (15) clarity of purpose (16) unity of direction (17) improves communication (18) freedom from misunderstanding (19) better definition of duties and functions.

Summary In this chapter, the data collected from the opinion­ naire has been presented and analyzed by means of the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests to determine whether statistical significance would permit extension of the finding. Data were presented according to the total number of responses to: (1) each principle, (2) each geographical region of the country, (3) and each size of institution. The data collected from the questionnaire have been presented without detailed statistical analyses. CHAPTER IV PRINCIPLES IN PRACTICE

It is the purpose of this chapter to verify the use of principles identified in this study. Three institutions of higher education which meet the criteria for learning resources centers were selected to verify the use of prin­ ciples identified. Visitations and personal interviews were used to gather information necessary to write the following case studies.

St. Cloud State College The Learning Resources Services concept was developed in 1958 at St. Cloud State College and became a reality in 1971. It was felt that all print, nonprint material and listening and viewing equipment should be made available through one central source so the time and energy of students and faculty could be saved. This campus of 9,683 students has some of the more advanced instructional hardware in higher education as part of their Learning Resources Services.

Organization of the Learning Resources Services The Dean of the Learning Resources Services has the following division supervisors reporting directly to him:

187 188 4 (1) Advising and Instructional Services Division, (2) Production Services Division, (3) Public Services Division, (4) and, Technical Services Division. Departments within each division are assigned according to functional respon­ sibilities rather than traditional print and nonprint divi­ sional arrangements. This permits, for example, the distribution of all print, nonprint materials and listening and viewing equipment to be under the direction of one per­ son in charge of the Distribution Department. It also permits students and faculty to call one place for campus delivery of educational materials and equipment. (See Illustration 2)

Processing of Materials The procurement, processing and inventory of all print, nonprint materials and equipment are supervised by specially trained personnel of the Technical Services Division within the Learning Resources Services. All print and nonprint materials are processed by one cataloging staff who assigns Library of Congress classification numbers to each item. Print and nonprint materials are differentiated on catalog cards by typing the materials designation (tape, disc, film, etc.) above the call number. All viewing and listening equipment owned by the college are listed in one inventory which is retained in the Distribution Department. Selection of print and nonprint materials for the Learning Resources Services at St. Cloud State Cdllege is a ILLUSTRATION 2

Organizational Chart For The Learning Resources Services at St. Cloud State College

i'lec rriil-'ciit AC.WJIC Arr'.rrs r; ~ : 1 I--- Rn ~r: I (Pvpt.

f • V'

AS SI *13.-11 Dean ttcvt

Uriiiac ( Iistr. rroiuctlcn Ser. FuMIc fcrvirrs Tci.r.*iiial ' Jr. Services D ir. Division nlvlslrn Wvni'-n (Snjcnrlior) (Siipjrvlicr) fr-iiirvlsurl ff^iNjrrUor) -griTr'f. vsviaw'rl ‘r/tisltitr.; \ 1 (Lrtrain* lU'O r|l.no*r.--hv r.iivJc-s RccorJlh£ jllrcHla r.iul inf-rroc,- lijut^rJ^hjr ( « l : r o f o n ) (*tution] -PTn-T*'. t:j^TTr"r7n ts tu n ./'HiirT! «*t ii.ii ■j.'nww.sm.! Jrrcss cnit\1AS) -tutr>Ti\-- 1 rav-ai 1EHE LpTtnrrTwTT fyfrr*-i;c ~~ I (S r-rl...HcilQ ^*cT7l Arts'iYu;cr^ . t r e h h c j i^chooi^f i.Juc*tiun r 'W .n tr - C fP.lC ill storle.il [ anJ Canpui Manuscripts ‘lijis 190 cooperative venture with student's, faculty and members of the Public Services Division and Acquisitions and Biblio­ graphy Department participating. Every effort is made to provide adequate collections for the various academic programs and research conducted on campus.

Facilities for Print, Nonprint Materials and Equipment The Learning Resources Services houses all print, non­ print materials and listening and viewing equipment owned by the college. This makes requests for equipment from students and faculty less confusing and also permits equip­ ment not in use to remain in the immediate area where non­ print materials are stored. Print and nonprint materials are not intershelved in the Learning Resources Services. However, print and non­ print materials are equally accessible to users through the card catalog and by the centralized physical arrangement of nonprint materials within the building. Production facilities in Learning Resources Services are available to produce audio and visual materials requested by faculty or students. Materials produced may be used in the classroom, over the television, radio, random access stations or random access cassette duplicators. Every- 4 thing from individual audio or video tapes, slides, films, charts, and graphs to complete instructional packages are produced by the Production Services Division. 191

Services to Faculty and Students Students and faculty receive reference and guidance service for all print, nonprint materials and listening •and viewing equipment. This service is equally available to both groups unless materials or equipment are needed for classroom use. In this case, classroom need receives preference over individual student or faculty requests.

Professional Staff Education and Assigned Responsibilities The Learning Resources Services requires all their professional staff to have degrees or the equivalent number of hours in both library science and audiovisual education. This makes it possible for students and faculty to request assistance from any professional staff member when using print, nonprint materials or equipment. The faculty for the Department of Library and Audio­ visual Education is made up totally of the Learning Resources Service's staff. This arrangement makes each instructor a practitioner for a few hours each week. Since all materials are housed together, it is nearly impossible for professional staff to be assigned responsibilities exclusively in print or nonprint materials.

Financing Materials and Equipment Each division within the Learning Resources Services submits budget requests to the Dean of the Learning Resources 192

Service annually. These budget requests are based on cur­ ricular needs established by daily operational and projected costs. The Dean has the ultimate responsibility for deter­ mining budgets for each division. Budgets are divided into materials and equipment categories, but no indication is made as to what percentage can be expended on print or nonprint materials.

Distribution and Retrieval of Materials and Equipment The physical facilities and organization of materials in the Learning Resources Services permits users to charge out and book all circulating materials at one circulation desk. In a room next to the circulation desk is equipment distribution. Users need only take a few steps to charge out equipment necessary to use nonprint materials. One charging and booking system for equipment is used for all listening and viewing equipment on the St. Cloud State College campus.

Administrator for Learning Resources Services Print, nonprint materials and equipment used for instruction are administratively under the Dean of Learning Resources Services. He in turn reports directly to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Dean of Learning Resources Services has no formal education in library science, audiovisual education, computer 193 science, television, radio or other areas of media. His undergraduate degree is a double major in social science and biology. Administration, guidance and counseling, curriculum and social science were his areas of study at the master's and doctor's level. Prior to becoming the director of libraries fifteen years ago, the Dean was a professor in education for twenty- five years. He taught courses in curriculum, teacher edu­ cation and administration. This teaching experience came after seven years in elementary and secondary public schools and four years in U.S. Navy communications.

Summary The Learning Resources Services at St. Cloud State College uses every principle identified in this study with the exception of two: (1) "Print and nonprint materials should be intershelved when possible," (2) and, "The director of the learning resources center should have an educational background in both print and nonprint materials." This seems to indicate a very strong acceptance of the total learning resources center concept as described in this study.

Syracuse University Because the format of materials should no longer dic­ tate the separation of print and nonprint materials, the Syracuse University Library and Audiovisual Services were 194 joined administratively during the summer of 19 71. Infor­ mation in all forms was brought together to provide better service to the University community of 11,500 full time equivalent students and more than 1,200 faculty members.

Organization of Learnincr Resources Services The Assistant Director for Services, the Assistant Director for Collections, and the Assistant Director for Processing and Computer Systems each reports to the Direc­ tor of Libraries. Departments under each director are assigned according to functional responsibilities. All user services, for example, report to the Assistant Direc­ tor for Services. This arrangement permits some of the functions to be transferred to other departments so dn ..lo­ cation of effort is minimized. (See Illustration 3)

Processing of Materials The procurement of all print, nonprint materials and listening and viewing equipment is supervised by the Assistant Director for Processing and Computer Based Systems of the University Library. This department handles all ordering, cataloging and processing of materials in prepa­ ration for shelving. Both print and nonprint materials are classified according to Library of Congress. The library is in the process of changing over to machine - readable cataloging (MARC) provided by Library of Congress ILLUSTRATION 3

Organiational Chart For The Library at Syracuse University

LIBRARY OCILVUSATiON CHVIT 2/2/12

Director of Libraries

Assistant Director for Assistant Director for. A s s is ta n t D ire c to r Cor Services Collections Processing and and Cooputcr Based Systens D ire c to r o f George Arcnts Research L ib ra ry

Science ( Technology Dept. I. Area Studies I. Library Processing C enter 1. Natural Science 2. Engineering 1. Order II. Fine Arts 3. Qicnistry 2.- Serials 4. Physics 3. Cataloguing 5 . Hath 4 Bindery Preparation III. Humanities . 3 5. Typing Units III. Central Services Dept. IV. Social Sciences M 1. Catalogue Maintenance e 2. Circulation 1. Periodicals II. 'AlT'tbBpiiter-Eascd V. Special Collections I 4. Reserves Operations a 5. Transportation S Kail 1. Rare Bools w» LI BTC ST 2. Manuscripts 1. 3 2 Circulation Systea 3. Archives . p i l l . Interpretive Services 4. Audio Archives 1. Reference 5 . C l f t l 2. Documents

VI. Bibliographic Services IV. Media Dept. 1. I n t c r llb r a r y Loan 1. A udiovisual Services 2. Recordings, Files, etc 2. G ifts 3. Copy Services 4 R a-rccording Lab . V II. Lav

V. Administrative Services 1. Personnel 2. Supplies ( Equipment 3. Building Service 196

and Ohio College Library Center. To date, the shelf list has been converted and can be accessed at one hundred com­ puter terminals scattered over the Syracuse University campus. The only nonprint item not ordered, processed or stored in the library is 16mm film. Films are ordered and processed by the Film Rental Center of Syracuse Uni­ versity which is a separate administrative unit of the University Library. Consideration is being given to intershelving some nonprint materials with print in the new library. However, no decision will be made regarding intershelving until uni­ versities and community college intershelving-materials can be studied carefully.

Facilities for Print, Nonprint Materials and Equipment The new Ernest Stevenson Bird Library will be com­ pleted and ready for occupation by August, 19 72. It will house part of more than 1,300,000 books, periodicals and pamphlets plus such nonprint materials as manuscripts, microforms, audiovisuals, records and related items which total over thirteen million. The new library building will be a general library for the social science and humanities and contain the central administration and processing activities for the University Library. Other collections are dispersed in fifteen smaller 197

departmental libraries around the campus, thus compelling readers to go from one to another to satisfy their infor­ mation needs. All audiovisual equipment is distributed from World War II barrack type buildings some distance from both the old and new libraries. No effort was made to include this service in the new library building, because it was felt that a new audio and visual distribution system would be installed throughout the campus within five years which would eliminate the current method of physically transporting equipment over the campus. Plans for the new library in­ clude a touch-tone audio listening system and viewing facilities. Two video playback units will also be installed in the library for internal and campus wide distribution. Materials production facilities are part of the Center for Instructional Development. This Center is under the direction of the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The Center consists of three operational units: (1) Support Services (production of instructional materials); (2) R-search and Evaluation; and (3) Development (imple­ menting instructional development projects). Its primary purpose is to improve the quality of instruction on the Syracuse University campus.

Services to Faculty and Students Reference and guidance services are provided for print and nonprint materials to students and faculty on an equal 198 basis. However, equipment is limited to faculty use un­ less students are using equipment in a classroom under the supervision of a faculty member. Plans are being formulated to make more equipment available to students as funds for new equipment become available.

Professional Staff Education and Assigned Responsibilities The primary objective of staff recruitment is to find specialists who are adaptable to the changes taking place in the Syracuse University Libraries. To be hired it is not necessary to have either an educational background or experi­ ence in both print and nonprint materials. However, each new employee is expected to be flexible and willing to make changes as information needs change. A few persons working in specialized areas of the library find themselves exclusively servicing print or nonprint collections. Most professional staff are in daily contact with a wide variety of materials meeting users' information needs.

Financing Materials and Equipment ' ‘ The Syracuse University Library has one budget for all materials. Allocations are made to departmental li­ braries according to equipment, materials and operational costs. Requests for materials are based on information needs rather than type of materials needed. 199

The university administration determines the li­ brary budget and the Director of Libraries and the Assistant Directors determine departmental budgets. The Director has the ultimate responsibility for the proper expenditure of library monies.

Distribution and Retrieval of Materials and Equipment All print and nonprint materials cataloged and available for circulation can be charged out and booked through the automated circulation system. Listening and viewing equipment for classroom use is charged out and booked by Audiovisual Services. However, equipment neces­ sary to use nonprint materials is permanently available in the University Library. The decentralization of materials and equipment is considered a temporary arrangement until the electronic audio and visual systems are installed in the new library building. This will eliminate a great deal of equipment movement on campus. Should these plans become a reality, few nonprint materials would circulate from the library. Therefore, very few pieces of instructional equipment would be transported across campus to classrooms and other study areas.

Administrator for the University Library Print, nonprint materials and equipment used for instruction are administratively under the Director of 200

Library. He in turn reports directly to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The director of the Library at Syracuse holds a Master's of Library Science degree and a second Master's of Arts degree in History and Political Science. He also has six hours in audiovisual education and six hours in computer science. His undergraduate degree consists of a major in history and a minor in chemistry. Prior to becoming the director of libraries seven years ago, he was head librarian for twelve years and circulation and chemistry librarian for five years. This is significant when considering he is only forty-three years old.

Summary Sixty-five per cent of the principles identified in this study are being implemented or soon will be implemented in the library at Syracuse University. The recentness of the library and audiovisual reorganization, and the new building have delayed the implementation of some principles identified in this study. /

University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point The Learning Resources Center concept was the idea of James H. Albertson, Stevens Point's president from 1962 to 1967. During the month of April, 1970, the new Learning Resources Center opened. The major purpose of the center is to create a learning environment which will best promote the educational objectives of the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point. One of the primary objectives of the Center is to make all forms of print and nonprint materials accessible to both the student and faculty. Free access to materials by the 9,000 students at Stevens Point prevails in almost all collections under an open stack policy.

Organization of the Learning Resources Center The Dean of Learning Resources has the following directors reporting directly to him: (1) Director of Technical Services, (2) Director of Instructional Media Services (Production and Distribution), (3) and, Director of Public Services. In general, services under each direc­ tor are assigned according to functional responsibilities. This arrangement permits all departments within the Learning Resources Center to have access to the Repair and Main­ tenance Equipment Pools under the Director of Instructional Media Services. On many other campuses the more traditional organizational arrangements place these functions in audio­ visual or television departments. Since these departments were not responsible for services outside their department, duplication of repair and maintenance service was eliminated at Stevens Point. (See Illustration 4) ILLUSTRATION 4

Organizational Chart For Learning Resources at the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point

n iu m n rr v u c n u i'tm o i rot*r jjju i, ccnn tot ttwtM cscmil ITMaTTlnnls^lMtti (fJI si.' ■ ' '

u< lbt|iifrt(l*i MiilllMHtvf InlltMt t 4C) rr*w.n tici * M M. Ir.'J IlH* t (Cj »«*1a r :m trVj filiitur it *1 Mile hMcii tW* Ct*OlWtl**) (O ____tltn littw hiiti iwtit 3

| MU IC(«ltlllPI I uii CjtaU>4«r 1 llltUM (Tl Uikuiiu tr) [^•4 | rtm/iril I Ml I .W.C.* 1l«llft l»* { Mttltl* llki«r*«* tfl I I IhiirUi (P) I IShitUi U) [UtliilM (F) CiiiWti UhitrtM ftrr m u . rc) bit. IlflMM t bn. IJI.C.* it'ir O uliiniuuitMit) ilhl.tlM tO * t twj! ♦ I*ttK liliitUniy Un It'.iirln IP) itttiH ifi>. ter !*•*!?< __ Llfciai^JU*t. ILl" LUmiin <» LimirUrr^ir i/I—ry {M * itH ^r«v«t C a *« lrirv IIIi i iIir if ) IJU, (lir<|*ttM * n r itl* t ■-■ 11 {VI tr»li\ Lint* I'fT""r* r* u i ttiii UWit| ;m. to Loll ■’j twl Pit LUriil*> *n rn_M,'. i ftl .»«■ ft* f ■'•IF'irt 2 (Cl linln /r*dt C iuufii U krirlJiltJ *••1. 1 lit! 1 c»pri* jr.* IHHiT l»»H. (i) liiml*f (r) i t t n r l u W . _c»t r»u tr+f _____ ifKirf M i, (rj U tiitir lattiaclii ic f F»-yi1t ln *U I in u itu JPajM. j«/£»__ Wta< 0^ li|». ritj ftbn >*« »* |n«»»

| lifiti 4 KilMtai □pSn I y m ""..i**?*-.! . Uiati225-£iit#_ trr4«F«r*:ic>ctai UtuiJM.M. t td 1...... II-MT to min) JU_ lint Cir*«n (Ct iiit. riMiMi'iiiiiMt Ja-'/t irlis IQ M U t n t fP uril.kt 1U int. tf*J*.ii*3ir«ct*r l**n *idilt (Cl _ Mil. * lillitaM t.W.Sk * t u t P > t l l n 4 M U brrlif* 4* m U m l H b«MC(*« t« t«*F » * ** 1* ***** * 9 n ^ W J l t ; IJI.C* • Iu Ip k U m I tmrtiil C>»Jic |»t u n i ) t*U. • TaO*UtM 203

Processing of Materials All print, nonprint materials and listening and viewing equipment are procured and processed by specially trained personnel of the Technical Services Department of the Learning Resources Center. One cataloging staff processes all print and nonprint materials. A Library of Congress classification number is assigned to both print and nonprint materials. Nonprint catalog cards are dif­ ferentiated from print cards by placing a green color ban at the top of all cards representing nonprint materials. The material designation for nonprint materials is located after the title on each catalog card. The Production and Distribution Department maintains inventories for all viewing and listening equipment owned by the university. This, it is felt, prevents duplication and provides better control of instructional equipment. The selection of most material for the Learning Resources Center is done by the Bibliography Department in cooperation with the students and faculty at Stevens Point. Each academic program is allocated specific funds for col­ lection development. No distinction is made between print and nonprint material in distribution and expenditure of these funds.

Facilities for Print, Nonprint Materials and Equipment All print, nonprint materials and listening and viewing equipment owned by the university are housed in 204

the Learning Resources Center. Faculty and students requesting equipment may telephone or go to a single location for service. This permits equipment to remain where the highest volume of use occurs. Nonprint materials are shelved together in the Instructional Materials Center. This permits equipment necessary to use nonprint material to be supervised and in the immediate area where the materials are stored. Each type of nonprint material is stored in a separate collec­ tion within the Instructional Materials Center. The Instructional Media Services Department provides production service in television, graphics, cinematography, and still photography for students and faculty. Professional staff assist users in preparing audio and visual material for instructional and research purposes.

Services to Faculty and Students Reference and guidance service is provided to students and faculty for all print, nonprint materials and instruc­ tional equipment. Classroom need for materials and equip­ ment has precedence over individual faculty or student request. This procedure permits large groups of users access to ma­ terials and equipment. Because of the physical arrangement of nonprint ma­ terials , only two professional staff members and a student assistant are necessary for the distribution of the nonprint 205 materials. Other staff members may provide reference and guidance service to nonprint materials, but because of the physical and supervisory arrangement, their familiarity with the collection is somewhat limited. It should be noted that the Dean of Learning Resources at Stevens Point has thirteen areas of responsibility other than the Learn­ ing Resources Center. Some of these include the Admissions, Registrar's Office, Student Services, etc.

Financing Materials and Equipment Each of the three directors of departments within the Learning Resources Center submits budget requests to the Dean annually. These requests are based more on expanded services and projected costs than specific curricular needs established by academic departments. The Dean has the ul­ timate responsibility for determining budget allocations for each Director. A distinction is made within each budget for materials and equipment. However, no distinction is made between print and nonprint materials.

Distribution and Retrieval of Materials and Equipment Distribution of materials and equipment at Stevens Point is under separate directors within the Learning Resources Center. All print and nonprint materials are charged out and booked through the Circulation Department tinder the Director of Public Services. Listening and 206 viewing equipment is charged out and booked by the distri­ bution staff under the Director of Instructional Media Services. Manual charging and booking systems are used for both materials and equipment.

Administrator for the Learning Resources Center The Dean of the Learning Resources Center is admin­ istratively responsible for print, nonprint materials and equipment at Stevens Point. He reports directly to the University President. The Dean of the Learning Resources Center holds no degrees in library science, audiovisual education, computer science, television, radio or other areas of media. ■ tfis undergraduate and graduate degrees, including the doctor of education degree, are in elementary education. Curri­ culum and administration were his minor areas of study at the graduate level. Prior to becoming the Dean of Learning Resources ten months ago, he was the full-time Dean of Education Services and Innovative Programs. Over the past fifteen years he has held a variety of administrative and teaching positions on the Stevens Point campus.

Summary The Learning Resources Center at the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point uses 29 of the 35 principles 207 identified in this study. The exceptions are: Cl) “Print and nonprint should be intershelved when possible,“ (2) "Professional staff should have some education in both print and nonprint materials," C3) "The learning resources center's budget should be based on curricular needs," (4} "All distribution and retrieval of print, nonprint materials and equipment should be centralized," (5) "The director of the learning resources center should have an educational background in both print and nonprint materials," and, C6) "The director of the learning resources center should have some experience in both print and nonprint materials."

Some Observations Regarding the Institutions Studied The institutions studied: Cl) Have overcome the obstacles which have kept other institutions from adopting the learning resources concept. These obstacles are: (a) ideological— resistance of faculty to what may be con­ sidered an attempt to supplant them. / (b) egotistical— internal resis­ tance based on personal pres­ tige. Cc) physical— availability of suitable facilities. (d) operational— availability of suitable trained professional staff. (e) educational - a sound under­ standing of the learning process and the many vari­ ations it takes. (f) philosophical - an under­ standing and agreement on direction. (2) Have a serious commitment to higher education. This commitment to provide the best possible education is shared by administrators, facul­ ties, staff and boards of trustees. (3) Have permitted ideas to leave the minds of people. (4) Have subscribed to the cant that the learning resources center is the center of the college or uni­ versity. (5) Have not made concessions to the past by making large investments in bricks and mortar without an equal investment in materials for users. (6) Have developed materials collections based on the learning needs of the students and faculty rather than type of material. (7) Have little regard for institutions with separate instructional service facilities. (8) Have academic credibility on their campuses. (9) Have selected administrators of their learning .resources centers who have a sound understanding of communication, information processing and people. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBSEQUENT RESEARCH

The major purpose of this study was to identify and examine a list of principles which validate or refute the concept of learning resources center on a college or uni­ versity campus. Specific aspects of the problem which were investigated are: (1) Identify and examine a list of prin­ ciples which validate or refute the concept of a learning resources cen­ ter on a college or university campus. (2) Determine what percent of new prin­ ciples will be identified by respon­ dents . (3) Determine whether or not there is a general agreement among directors of learning resources centers, theore­ ticians of higher education, academic administrators, directors of libraries, audiovisual directors, faculty and students as to the ranking of the principles. (a) Identify the instructional service units generally found in an integrated college or university learning resources center. (b) Identify the administrative structure used in college and university learning resource centers.

209 210

(cl Identify the personal charac­ teristics (demographic) of directors of learning resource centers. (d} Identify the learning resource centers organization in relation to the college or university organizational structure. (e) Determine whether or not the principles identified in this study are used in three col­ lege or university learning resource centers. A case study approach will be used. (f) Determine if there is a signi­ ficant difference among respon­ ses when comparing the size of institution and geographical region. (g) Determine if there are dif­ ferences of opinion among the respondents according to the region of the country they represent. (h) Determine if there are dif­ ferences of opinion among respondents according to the size of institution they represent. The method of gathering data consisted of using three- hundred and ninety participant's opinions in rating thirty- five selected principles. Participants represented directors of of learning resources centers, theoreticians of higher education, academic administrators, students, faculty, directors of libraries and directors of audiovisual centers. Also a questionnaire was included in the mailing to directors of learning resources centers soliciting personal data (demographic] and detailed data about each learning resources 211

center. Data were gathered, presented and analyzed in relation to the specific problems investigated, in the four preced­ ing chapters. This information will be summarized in the following section. From the data in Chapter III, certain conclusions are drawn and listed in the next section. Finally, suggestions for subsequent research in the area of college and university learning resource centers are presented as recommendations.

Summary Sources of data included opinionnaire responses from 198 persons associated with higher education as directors of learning resource centers, theoreticians of higher education, academic administrators, directors of libraries, audiovisual directors, faculty and students; questionnaires from twenty-three directors of learning resource centers; and personal interviews with three directors of learning resource centers. Findings are reported in detail in Chap­ ter III. Major findings are summarized here in the same sequence that problems for investigation were presented in Chapter I. Identify and examine a list of principles which validate or refute the concept of a learning resource center on a college or university campus. The following thirteen principles reached the .05 212 significance level on the Kruskal-Wallis test. Therefore, each of the thirteen principles can be extended with confi­ dence to the general population which the respondents repre­ sent. Print and nonprint materials should be cataloged according to one classi­ fication scheme. One facility should have all print and nonprint materials. Faculty and students are better served by one facility housing print, nonprint materials and equipment. Print and nonprint materials should be intershelved when possible. Print, nonprint materials and equipment should be available to students and faculty for the same number of hours. Professional staff should be assigned some responsibilities in both print and nonprint. One budget should be allocated for all print and nonprint materials and equip­ ment . The director of the learning resource center should have the ultimate respon­ sibility for determining the departmen­ tal budget within the center. There should be a single charging system for all print and nonprint materials. There should be a single booking system for all print and nonprint materials. There should be a single reserve col­ lection for all print and nonprint materials. All distribution and retrieval of print, nonprint materials and equipment should be centralized. 213

Both, print and nonprint materials and equipment should be under one admini­ strator. The following twenty-two principles did not reach the .05 significance level on the Kruskal-Wallis test. There­ fore, none of the twenty-two principles cannot be extended with confidence to the general population which the respon­ dents represent. Procurement of all print, nonprint ma­ terials and equipment should be cen­ tralized. Processing of print and nonprint ma­ terials should be centralized. Selection of all print, nonprint ma­ terials should be based on curricular needs. Viewing and listening equipment should be listed in one inventory. All print and nonprint materials should be listed in one catalog. Print and nonprint materials should be organized under the direction of specially trained professional per­ sonnel. Nonprint cards should be differentiated from print cards. Equipment necessary to use nonprint materials should be available in the immediate area. Production facilities should be in the same building as print and non­ print materials and equipment. All departments within the learning resources center which directly ser­ vice faculty and students should be equally accessible. 214

Reference and guidance services should be provided for print, nonprint ma­ terials and equipment. Professional staff should have some education in both print and nonprint materials. Professional staff should have some assigned responsibilities in both print and nonprint. Print, nonprint materials and equipment which support the teaching and learning process should be organized under one administrator. Departments within the learning re­ sources center should be organized according to functional responsibilities. Maintenance of viewing and listening equipment should be centralized. The learning resources center's bud­ get should be determined by curri­ cular needs. Learning resources center departmental budgets should be formulated by depart­ ments according to their curricular needs. There should be a single booking system for all equipment. The director of the learning resources center should have an educational background in both print and nonprint materials. The director of the learning resources center should have some experience in both print and nonprint materials. The director of the learning resources center should report directly to the highest academic officer (EXAMPLE: Academic Vice President). 2. Determine what percent of new principles will be identified by respondents.

None of the 198 respondents submitted additional principles. Determine whether or not there is a general agree­ ment among directors of learning resource centers, theoreticians of higher education, academic admini­ strators, directors of libraries and audiovisual directors, students and faculty as to the ranking of the principles. The combined mean scores of all groups for each principle was 100 per cent in the combined "strongly agree" and "agree" categories. According to the ranking of principles which showed a significant difference by each group of respondents, faculty showed a consistency for ranking prin­ ciples highest; followed by students, directors of learning resource centers, theoreticians of higher education, academic administrators, directors of libraries and audiovisual directors. a. Identify the instructional service units generally found in an integrated college or university learning resource center. According to the questionnaires returned by directors of learn­ ing resource centers, 100 per cent of the learning resource centers include libraries audio­ visual services, 78 per cent include the graphics depart­ ment, 65 per cent include the curriculum center, 43 per cent include dial access services, and 34 per cent include tele­ vision services and language laboratories. Other instruc­ tional service units were not in significant numbers to con­ sider them a general part of a learning resources center. 216 b. Identify the administrative structure used in college or university learning resource centers. Audiovisual services, technical services and public services are on the same administrative level and report directly to the direc­ tor of the learning resources center in 83 per cent of the centers. The curriculum center, dial ac­ cess services, television ser­ vices, language laboratory, etc. generally reports directly to public services or audiovisual services. c. Identify the personal characteristics (demographic) of directors of learning resource centers. Directors of learning resource centers are all males with the average age of forty-nine. The youngest director is twenty-eight and the oldest director is sixty-eight. Forty per cent of the directors have doctor1s degrees and an equal number have a Master's of Library Science degree. A majority (68 per cent) of the directors are graduates from small (less than 12,000) private or state institutions as under­ graduates. The University of Washington and the University of Michigan lead the graduate schools with three directors holding degrees from each. Sixty per cent of the directors had taken course work in library 217

. science and 47 pe cent had course work in audiovisual education. . Directors of learning resource centers remained in their previous positions on an average of seven and one-half years. . Directors of learning resource centers have held their present positions on an average of eight years. . Thirty per cent of the directors of learning resource centers have titles which indicated a variety of services. ; Sixty-nine per cent of the directors of learning resource centers use the word "library" or its derivative in their title. d. Identify the learning resource center organi­ zation in relation to the college or university organizational structure. . Ninety-one per cent of the directors of learning resource centers report directly to the academic vice- president. . Nine per cent report to the president of their campus. e. Determine whether or not the principles iden­ tified in this study are used in three college or university learning resource centers. 218

St. Cloud State College uses every principle which, showed a signi­ ficant difference with the excep­ tion of intershelving. The University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point uses every prin­ ciple which showed a significant difference with the exception of intershelving, single charging system, single booking system, and centralized distribution. Syracuse University generally supports all the principles which showed a significant difference. However, their philosophy and physically arrangements does not permit the implementation of these principles. f,g,h. Determine if there is a significant difference among responses compared to the size of insti­ tution or geographical region, Determine if there are differences of opinion among the respondents according to the region of the country they represent, and Determine if there are differences of opinion among respondents according to the size of institution they represent. The size of institution and geographical region of the country were not statistically significant at the .05 level on the Kruskal-Wallis test or Mann-Whitney test.

Conclusions The findings of this study statistically support thirteen learning resources center principles at the .05 significance level. Based on these findings in light of stated problems identified by the investigator, the following 219 . conclusions seem justifiable: (1) All groups in this study support the thirty-five principles identified. A majority C54 per cent) of the combined group mean scores for each prin­ ciple is in the "agree" category. The minority (46 per cent) of the combined group mean scores for each principle is in the "strongly agree" category. Variations are only in the degree of support for each individual principle. (2) The largest differences between groups in the study were between directors of learning resources centers and audiovisual directors. (3) The greatest support among the groups in the study was from directors of learning resources centers. (4) The use of the Kruskal-Wallis test indicates that the ratings given each of the thirteen principles which were statistically significant can be extended with confidence to the general population which the respondents represent. (5) The application of the Kruskal-Wallis test indicates that in the case of twenty-two prin­ ciples, it was not possible to assert with confidence that these principles would be sup­ ported to the same degree by the general popu­ lation which the respondents represented. It is perfectly clear, however, that while the degree of support is uncertain, it can be stated on the basis of the sample., that it is highly unlikely 220

that the twenty-two principles would he rejected by the population groups represented by the respondents since all mean ratings for the thirty-five principles were in the "agree" or "strongly agree" categories. (6) The Mann-Whitney test indicates that the ratings given by two independent responding groups are statistically significant at the .05 level one hundred and six times. Each time two groups were statistically significant, the ratings can be extended with confidence to the gener.al popu­ lation which the respondents represent. (7) The 37 per cent of the principles which were significant at the .05 level are similar to the 63 per cent rejected at the .05 level. All of the eight categories of principles with the exception of organization principles had one or more prin­ ciples significant at the .05 level. Therefore, it can be concluded with confidence that the implementation of 37 per cent of the principles in this study would be supported by the popula­ tions represented by the respondents. It is the opinion of this investigator, based on personal experience and observation, that a majority of the principles identified in this study can be implemented on most campuses. The full support of all respondent groups 221 with, the exception of audiovisual directors would also be available. It is further felt that such implementation would lead to improved learning, teaching and research on college and university campuses. Even though it can be said with confidence that thirteen principles identified and examined in this study would be accepted by the populations represented by each group of respondents, this investigator feels two essential elements must exist before the learning resources center concept can be successfully implemented. First, the style and general effectiveness of the director of the learning resources center is critical. He must exhibit a style which gains the confidence of his staff and the university administration. This style will be manifested in the director's ability to equally recognize, the value of each function within the learning resources center and how it relates to the academic program. Second, the nature of the available personnel needed for such a center is equally critical. The staff must understand and accept the learn­ ing resources center concept if it is going to work and work well. They must be willing to communicate horizontally as well as vertically with equal respect for various phil­ osophies. Without an adequate concern and understanding for administrative style and the nature cf the personnel needed, no amount of principles will make the learning resources center concept work. 222

Recommendations for Subsequent Research This study represents the initial investigation of learning resources centers on college and university cam­ puses. It is submitted that the problems and issues raised by this study can generate many hypotheses and research questions. All aspects of the study will require replica­ tive research in the future in order to determine direction and development. It is recommended that similar studies be undertaken to provide data not included in this study. They are: a study of specific benefits derived from learning resources centers on college and university campuses. a study of physical facilities used and needed by college and university learning resources centers. a study of the current personnel needs in learning resources centers and future qualifications of per­ sonnel. a study of user attitudes toward established college and university learning resources centers. a study of the educational impact learning resources centers have on college and university campuses. a study of the philosophies used to establish and operate learning resources centers. a study of staff attitudes in learning resources centers com­ pared to the attitudes of persons in similar positions in tradi­ tionally organized instructional service facilities. a study of the operational procedures used in learning resources centers compared to operational procedures in traditionally organized instructional,, service facilities. a study of isolated experimentations in instructional service facilities which might improve existing learning resources centers. 1

APPENDIX A

224 State University of New York at Buffalo

SCHOOL OF INFORMATION AND LIBRARY STUDIES FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCES

Dear Colleague:

As a professional working In higher education, your opinions on the principles which support the concept of a learning resources' center are important. (For the purpose of this study a learning resources center consists of an administrative unit which includes both the audiovisual center and library and possibly one or more of the following; (1) closed-circuit television (2) computer center (3) curriculum center (A) dial access department (5) graphics depart­ ment (6) language laboratory (7) radio station.) The attached brief opinionnaire solicits your reactions. Those principles, I believe, are readable and the scale makes it easy to respond. As a colleague, I know how busy you arc, but if you would take a few minutes to complete and mail this opinionnaire, you would render a valuable assistance to higher education.

On the basis of the survey results, the study will seek to identify and rank principles which support the concept of a unified learning re­ sources center on a college or university campus. The study does not seek to measure individual or college responses, therefore, your total anonymity will be preserved. Replies will be analyzed by the type of response. Some of the principles might prove stimulating to your thoughts on learning resources centers.

Sincerely yours,

John V. Ellison Assistant Professor

bmr encl. t P.S. Zf you are interested in receiving the results of this research, please mall me a post card under separate cover.

MATES C IUFTALO.NEW Y0RXU1M TE1.IUI1MI-1I1I 226

State University of New York at Buffalo

SCHOOL tl>‘ INfOAMATION AND LIBRARY STUDIES FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND AN'LlhD SCIENCES

Dear Student:

As a student, your opinions on the principles vhlch support the concept of a learning resources center are Important. (For the purpose of this study a learning resources center consists of an administrative unit which Includes both the audiovisual center and library and posslblv one or more of the following: 11) closad- circuit television. (2) computer center. (3) curriculum center. W dial access department. (5) graphics department. (6) language laboratory. (7) radio station.) The actached brief opinionnaire solicits your reactions. These principles, I believe, are readable and the scale makes It easy to respond. As a student, I know how busy you are, but if you would take a few minutes to complete and mail the opinionnaire, you would render a valuable assistance to advancement of the LRC concept.

On the basis of the survey results, the study will seek to identify and rank principles which support the concept of a unified learning resources center on a college or university campus. The study does not seek to measure individual or college responses, therefore, total anonymity will be preserved. Replies shall be analyzed by the type of response. Some of the principles might prove stimulating Co your thoughts on learning resources centers.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

John W. Ellison Assistant Professor

P.S. If you are interested in receiving the results of this research, please mail me a post card under separate cover.

HAYXS C SUTTALO.HXW Y 0 IUCM 1I 4 TEL.IU tllll.llll State University of New Yarkat Buffalo

' m

SCHOOL o r INFORMATION ANU UIIHAHV STUDIES FA C U LTY o r ENGINEr.RINO AMD ArPlJED SCIENCES

As you may or may not know, I am In the process of writing ray dissertation. It is the purpose of this dissertation to identify and rank principles which support the concept of an integrated learning resources cencer on a college or university campus.

To date, I have identified an extensive list of'principles" (PROPOSITIONS OR OTHER FORMATION STATING A FACT, OR A GENERALIZATION ACCEPTED AS TREE OR BASIC) from the literature. This list, once refined, will be submitted to a Jury of "experts" who will rank all principles in order of importance. Actually, the jury will rank and- revise rankings four times. The technique I am using is called Che Delphi method (with some modifications).

I would like for you to read the attached list of statements and Identify those you feel are principles which support the learning resources concept. Place a S beside those statements which you feel support the concept.

If for some reason you can not assist me, please feel free to return the enclosed material at once.

Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Cordially,

E lli sonjohn EllisonEllisonjohn Assistant Professor bmr

P.S, Your reaction to the attached statements will not be disclosed in the final dissertation.

HAYES C BUFFALO.NEW YORK U 5U T E L .U U W J 1-MJI 228

LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER OPINIONNAIRE

Please give your opinion on each of the principles below by circling the appropiate number in accordance with the following key:

1-Strongly Agree 2-Agree 3-Undecided 4-Disagree 5-Strongly Disagree

PROCESSING PRINCIPLES:

a. Procurement of all print, nonprint materials and equipment should be centralized. 1 2 3 4 5

b. Processing of print and nonprint materials should be centralized. ______1 2 3 4 5

c. Selection of all print, nonprint materials should be based on curricular needs^______1 2 3 4 5

d. Viewing and listening equipment should be listed in one inventory. ______1 2 3 4 5

e. All print and nonprint materials should be listed in one catalog. ______1 2 3 4 5

f. Print and nonprint materials should be organized under the direc­ tion of specially trained professional personnel 1 2 3 4 5

g. Print and nonprint materials should be cataloged according to one classification scheme 1 2 3 4 5

h. Nonprint cards should be differentiated from print cards. ______1 2 3 4 5

FACILITY PRINCIPLES:

a., One facility should house all print, nonprint materials and equip­ ment. 1 2 3 4 5

b. Faculty and students are better served by one facility housing print, nonprint materials and equipment. 1 2 3 4 5

c. Print and nonprint materials should be intershelved when possible. 1 2 3 4 5

d. Equipment necessary to use nonprint material's should be available in the immediate area. 1 2 3 4 5 229

e. Production facilities should be in the same building as print and nonprint materials and equipment. 1 2 3 4 5

f. All departments within the learning resources center which diractly service faculty and students should be' equally accessible. 1 2 3 a 5

OPERATION PRINCIPLES;

a. Reference and guidance services should be provided for print, non­ print materials and equipment.______1 2 3 4 5

b. Print, nonprint materials and equipment should be available to students and faculty.______1 2 3 4 5

c. Print, nonprint materials and equipment should be available to students and faculty for the same number of hours._1 2 3 4 5

STAFF PRINCIPLES;

a. Professional staff should have some education in both print and nonprint materials.______1 2 3 4 5

b. Professional staff should have some assigned responsibilites in in both print and nonprint. 1 2 3 4 5

ORGANIZATION PRINCIPLES;

a. Print, nonprint materials and equipment which support the teaching and learning process should be organized under one administrator. 1 2 3 4 5

b. Departments within the learning resources center should be organ­ ized according to functional responsibilities.______1 2 3 4 5

c. Maintenance of viewing and listening equipment should be central­ ized.______1 2 3 4 5

FINANCE PRINCIPLES;

a. One budget should be allocated for all print and nonprint materials and equipment. • 1 2 3 4 5

b. The learning resources center's budget should be determined by curricular needs. 1 2 3 4 5

c. The director of the learning resources center should have the ultimate responsibility for determining the departmental budgets within the center. 1 2 3 4 5 230

3

d. Learning resources center departmental budgets should be form­ ulated by departments according to their curricular needs. 1 2 3 4 5

DISTRIBUTION AND RETRIEVAL PRINCIPLES!

a. There should be a single charging system for all print and nonprint materials,______1 2 3 4 5

b. There should be a single booking system for all print and nonprint materials.______.______1 2* 3 4 5

c. There should be a single reserve collection for all print and non­ print materials. 1 2 3 4 5

d. There should be a single booking system for all equipment. 1 2 3 4 5

e. All distribution and retrieval of print, nonprint materials and equipment should be centralized.______1 2 3 4 5

ADMINISTRATION PRINCIPLES;

a. Both print and nonprint materials and equipment should be under one administrator.______1 2 3 4 5

b. The director of the learning resources center should nave.an educ- tional background in both print and nonprint materials. ■______. 1 2 3 4 5

c. The director of the learning resources center should have some experience in both print and nonprint materials. 1 2 3 4 5

d. The director of the learning resources center should report directly to the highest academic officer (EXAMPLE: Academic Vice President). 1 2 "3 4' 5‘

List those principles you feel were left off this list. Use the back of page one if more space is needed.

Return this form in the stamped, addressed envelop.

PLEASE RETURN THIS OPINIONNAIRE BY JANUARY 26. 231

LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER DATA SHEET

A. Indicate ( ) the instructional service units In your “Learning Resources Center."

1. Library 2. Audiovisual 3. Television 4. Computer Center 5. Curriculum Center 6. Dial Access 7.■ Graphics Department 8. Language Laboratory 9. Radio Station 10. Other ______

B. Indicate the title of the person to whom you report

C. Please attach a current organirational chart of your “Learning Resources Center;" If one is not available, please sketch one below or on the back.

y

* 232

PERSONAL DATA SHEET

A. N ine ______

B. Date of Birth _____ /_____ /_____

C. Undergraduate Institution ______

Major area of study .

Minor area of study ______

D. Graduate Institution(s)

Major area(s) of study

E. Highest Degree ______

P. Approximate Number of Academic Hours In: » „ ■ 86D • /

• 1. Library Science ______2. Audiovisual Education ______3. Computer Science - 4. Television 5. Radio ______6. Other area of media . ______

G. Previous College Experience (check the position by indicating the number of years in that position):

1. Reference Librarian Number of years. 2. Cataloger Number of years. 3. Acquisitions Librarian Number of years. 4. Audiovisual Director Number of years. 5. Audiovisual Specialist Number of years. .6. Professor (Area ) Number of years. 7. Other (Including non-college experience) Number of years. Number of years. Number of years.

H. Number of Years in Present Position APPENDIX b ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY

&OAKO OF MUSTEK

C N A C G G ttt a c a m w u ASSlQUNCaiOfi CHANCEUOR ADVISOR 0 * KN MO GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION PRESIDENT RELATIONS

. i NKH1HAN invou t ttAor ■; tt!A0TU(lMOI WCt CHAHC1U0I Wt CMANCmOl wet OUNtmOl WCECH4MCIU0* UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC ADMjfASTRATtVT STUDENT (f L A IlO N S AFFAIRS OPERATIONS AFFAIRS • IIUMCM) R f I MeOOMI AlSYOtWHO EU _____ MAH iMimnouACfhTlt 101 WHLltia CHAttl CCVtLOnUNl

tURMJW m vftKI 0 D M T t WlHCAll lONHAirH h n u t MtUHKO C WUU w IP VP _ yt___ VI VI VI v t VI VI VI ANNUAL nwic btvndnuHT CONtMUtMG IISUICHA i t t A s m m ttlO H K tl u v n i u AMASIONI JUrilMAtlVt JVUMNT"" fcnro«» IduCATION 0140001 •N U iM N f h H Jtfo.y«a IHUCUCMO ACCOM tVVMKTUI JlUStHl AtUlkSt AIIJUIl rantouo IfAOunlS UCG4DS n o c u k AIIAiU nOCiAM ruCUHMT i K x n i I«'|X}H «KU AHAllHtWl i C t f >» n t CM w i v r A ssist t1«J4 01 HtAltM j UMUU DCUVOOflNGl v tv to n circi Of WU M tA J irtfui m u m s VCKSOM f A C t l H l wrvris tfQGtlM MOCUMS n o o u R m um

C IU K U CIHOMftOH A CON &■ M t*l * i d (■MJtXttttAU ItuDUff 0 * 1 4 AluHNI MLCAIOKS cattottiONjT lUKMl MUUttJ fOUM^ICH . sm tM i iiOGums GNAflCHJ* AtOtf AIISI igiiiuir D* EM _____ jKTHnrWt C M 40(11 T HUOfHT OAU jpfCua M l(N t) (M liMMQM tnriMS IVIM1S ftOGlAMl mUNtVKU Alp*____ svokomah 01 CAUorr uwvtibt* w u woosvon flJCflltNt P u k J C c ru « iK * nutoe HGI OttmiMt A ll OlHli

COtlEGES. SCHOQIS AND HOGUM S X CNNlLCMvUI 7*5^552 n w l T I wr

Director

Associate Director Technical Services ssistani Director Assistant Director Assistant Director Media Services Information Services Library & Communication Sci an■i Instrse^oaal Television Information Services Circulation

Bra nch Ca mp usesMedia Services Branch CampusesMedia Cataloging

Processing

Selection

Systems

ini 235 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

Board of Regents

President

-Vice President for Instruction

Personnel Director of Faculty Senate Assistant the Library Library Committee

Audio-Visual Public Services Dept. Library Tech. Services Department Department Coordinator Department

Education Humanities Science\' Circulation Social Cataloging Book & Card & Psych. & Tech. Sciences Preparation Division Division Division Division Division Division Division - Division

Instructional Hap Documents Archives

Materials 236 Center Subdivision Subdivisioi Subdivision ,.tlA SERVICES DIVISION ORGANIZATION CHART Federal City College

1 DIRECTOR' S OFFICE j

Planning and development Budget control Standards of Performance New programs Coordination & Scheduling

etaff epeotallst staff specialist j r z Facility Planning^! Administrative Collection Eval. | Services staff apodal 1st staff specialist Staff Develop; Procurement/ Interpretation Accounting

mediastore manager

Mediastore

Departments Departments "T“ HfOIA PRODUCTION MEDIA CENTERS TECHNICAL SERVICES INSTRUCTIONAL PROflKAkS HedU production Non-look modi a uate Processing Undergrad, utilization b. Divisional Cataloging program Graphics devel- c. Research -Inventory Graduate OpPiant d. Special Systems pro­ program AV mulp. control collection cedure Children's Ailti.rrdia skills -automation Media Ctr. training Bibliographic -procedure CC TV d istri­ services •pianua? bution Collection dev­ -circulation learning systems elopment & Mail & pack­ d^i^n and evaluation age dist. development Circulation Current aware­ Reprography services ness Faculty 11asion -Basic coll. services -bibliography Referral infor­ mation serv. Media counseling Inventory 238

in

IKIK IMta

H prt * 9m k*w

(Wh H**1* I *i h m w»trt«i

I >*al1 LIBRARY AFFAIRS M Vttlll |M|

ClMtlH 0*H>W»WbifMifiiwiii Director of □ Univcrsi ty LibrariesL.irles | Communication Center Asst. Director £or Instruc­ tional & Research Services

Regional Instrue Engineering & Instructional Audiovisual Graphic Ser- tlonal Materials Maintenance Television Center Services Services

* County Film * Equipment Opera' .* Graphic Design * Equipment * TV Production Library tion & Distri­ Maintenance bution * Photographic and Repair * Motion Pricture * Instructional \ Laboratory Production Resources * Film Library * Electric & Center Optical System * Audio Production * Non-print search Specification service * System Equip­ ment Operation

Instructional Development

* Faculty Liaison

* Special Projects

dr. David m. crossMa r 239 * Course Development Aul. Diicclcr of Libraries Univ. cf Pimb-jfsh, Pa. 15211 * independent Study Systems PRESIDENT

VICE PRESIDENT I or ItPT’U M I I 1. 1»T1 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS Lisrarv vivtfORT CC.W.MTEE

I IBRAtlY COUNCIL DIRECTOR OF LIBRARIES

• RICHARD V/AODLE STUDENT LIBRARY DATA CONN.ITCEL PROCESSING COORD OFFICE STAFF •M. ALEXANDER M. WAGERS. AecC ( I n U r i m ) M . P R A T T . S o c . C . P O W E R S N. W A R D . Clerk 1/3

--- AS'.ISTANT DIRECTOR' A S S I S T A N T d i r e c t o r . ASSISTANT OlRECTOR- ‘ U E I . I C C E R V I C E S T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S A V SERVICES '.MALCOLM ALEXANDER • RO BE RT JCNES SECRETARY •CHARLES WRIGHT T • H. DcSHAZER

PRODUCTION CCTV t C U L A T I O N REFERENCE ACQUISITIONS ■ CATALOGING LABORATORY — •SHUTZ, Hd • V. M A R X . Hd. • T . JOKNSnUD.Hd. • R. JONES. Hd. • E. A n O O I N , Acting Hd. • C.VLCEX. Hd. NELL • J . J A O U E S •J. CHENG • G. FAOENRECHT* V / . S C R M I O T . H d . (I • W. CRAIG. Ar-L Hd. LGENHAUER • S . P E R R Y • T . Y E H D . D A V I S .RSON •C. GOV/ETT 0 . C O L B E R T B . B R O W N D . A N D E R S O N S. OcMERCHANT 'LLANO P . T A Y L O R 1 / 2 D. EIS'NMAN L . G C S S E L I H ■ T A V E R N L . C R O S I E R I . H E N D R Y G . G R O E W G C. HARR'SON ZY A. GONZALEZ G . H U B 3 A R D 1.1. M O R E Y M . H e G E R M . I R I S H L . W A T S O N ____ D. HENDERSON K . J O H N S O N A . M I T C H E L L 1 / 2 1 A V L I B R A R Y DC LI3RAR*' CURRICULUM LAD.. AV MAINTENANCE •J. M I L L E R lid. . X E R . H d . •L. LAMPMAN. Hd. C. BAnTLEY. Hd. S . B O S T O N i W L ' . A N A. LUNSTRUM R . M c L E A N J . J O H N S O N D . T A R B E R T A. KOLV.OO N S . W I L L I A M S O N . M. SCHNEBl Y r DOCUMENTS r I • R . H A R T M A N . H d . FILM EXTENSION 240 ! •VLLARSGAARO M. PITCHER | E. FISHER LdOCKOl -FACULTY N . W A R D 1 / 2 ■10- Dean or Learning Resources Secretary Ail1 brtfcTZfiL-L A ssistant Librarian 1 Circulation Reference Periodicals Acquisitions Cataloger Librarian Librarian Librarian Librarian I----- Assistant Assistant Assistant Assistant Assistant Assistant Assistant Circulation Reference Reference Periodicals Acquisitions Cataloger Cataloger Librarian Librarian Librarian Librarian Librarian

s..

Reference Circulation Circulation Processing Acquisitions Cataloging Assistant Clerk Assistant Assistant Assistant . Clerks 0)

Processing Acquisitions Clerk Clerks SPECIAL COLLECTIONS (2)

I i Library Music Appalachian Curriculum Government Reserve Juvenile Science Library R oom Library Docum ents Room Library Library Librarian Librarian Librarian Librarian Librarian Librarian Librarian

to -P PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES £ AUDIO-VISUAL CENTER ORGANIZATION

PROVOST HAROLD F. ROBINSON

DIRECTOR OF LIBRARIES & AUDIO-VISUAL CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE OFflCE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY COMMITTEE JOSEPH M. DAGNESE (JAN. 72)

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF LIBRARIES £ AUDIO-VISUAL CENTER BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR OLIVER C. DUNN CHARLES E. LONO

PERSONNEL OFFICER FISCAL OFFICE KATHERINE K. MARKEE

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OP READER SERVICES PROCESSING SERVICES AUDIO-VISUAL CENTER KEITH DOWDEN MICHAEL K. BUCKLAND (APR. 72) DAVID F. MOSES

continued on Page 2 continued on page continued on page 4

i Zbz SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 244

Articles and Periodicals

Brown, Robert M. "The Learning Center." AV Communication Review, XVI (Fall, 1968), 294-300. Christ, John M. "Problems in Understanding the Library- College Philosophy." Library-College Journal, II (Fall, 1969), 29-34. Christensen, Ruth M. "The Junior College Library as an Audio-Visual Center." College and Research Libraries, XXVI (March, 1965), 122-123. Christine, Emma R. "Connecting With Curriculum: Library in the Secondary School." California Education, III (May, 1966), 15-16. Commager, Henry S. "Problems of the University Library." Library-College Journal, III (Fall, 1970), 44-51. _____ , and Edmonds, Anne C. "The Crisis of the Academic Library." Wilson Library Bulletin, XLIII (February, 1969), 518-525. Dunnington, Doris. "Integrating Media Services." RQ, IX (Winter, 1969), 116-118. Ely, Donald P. "The Contemporary College Library: Change by Evaluation or Revolution." Libraries and Educa­ tional Technology Newsletter, (July 6~r 1971), 1-4. Foreman, Sidney. "Innovative Practices in College Libraries." College and Research Libraries, XXIX (November, 1968), 486-492. Fusaro, Janiece F. "The Library-College: Where the Educa­ tional Technology Action Is." Educational Technology, IX (July, 1969), 50-51. ______• "Toward Library-College Media Centers." Junior College Journal, (April, 1970), 40-44. Geller, Evelyn. "The Media Librarian and A/V." Library Journal, XCII (April 15, 1967), 21. Giesy, John P. "A Working Relationship." Audiovisual Instruction, X (November, 1965), 706-707. Goldstein, Bruce M. "Total Media Dreams Become a Reality at St. Cloud State College." Audiovisual Instruction, XV (October, 197.0), 61-62. 245

Grove, Pearce S., and Totten, Herman L. "Bibliographic Control of Media: The Librarian's Excedrin Headache." Wilson Library Bulletin, XLIV (November, 1969), 299-311. Gulick, Luther. "Management is a Science." Academy of Management Journal, VIII (March, 1965), 7-13. Hoban, Charles F. "From Theory to Policy Decisions." AV Communications Review, XIII (Summer, 1965), 121-139. Joyce, William. "User-Oriented Resources Center Makes For- Mat of Media Irrelevant." College and University Business, XLVIII (May, 1970), 80+. * Jordan, Robert T. "Impact of the Academic Library on the Educational Program." ERIC Document, ED 013 351, (April, 1967), 1-65. Kaufman, Roger A. "A Systems Approach to Education: Deri­ vation and Definition." AV Communication Review, XVI (Winter, 1968), 415-425. Kremple, Fredrick A. "Handling Audiovisuals in an Academic Library." Wisconsin Library Bulletin, LXVI (March - April, 1970), 91-92. "Library-A/V Ties Disputed in New York." Library Journal, XCV (January 15, 1970), 195-198. Line, Maurice B. "The University Library: Functions and Opportunities." Library Review, XXI (Autumn, 1968), 345-348. Mahaffey, Nina J. "Instructional Materials Centers." Arizona Teacher, LV (May, 1967), 14-15. Mitchell, William G. "Learning Resources at Northern." Audiovisual Instruction, XIV (October, 1969), 86-89. Muller, Robert. "Multimedia Shelving." Library Journal, XCV (February 15, 1970), 750. Norberg, Kenneth D. "Library and 'Audiovisual' - One, Two or More?" School Libraries, XVI (Summer, 1967), 7-8. Oglesby, William B. "Basic Elements of an Instructional Resources Center," American School and University, XL (May, 1965), 59-60. 246

Philipson, Willard; Price, William J.; and Fusaro, Janiece F. "An Exploration of the Learning Resources Philosophy and Service Being Developed in the Junior Colleges of Minnesota." Audiovisual Instruction, III {November, 1968), 31-34.------Phillips, Murray G. "Learning Materials and Their Implemen­ tation." Review of Educational Research, (June, 1966), 373-379. ------Powell, Judith. "From Library to Media Center: There is a Difference." National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, LV (March, 1971), 79-85. Sheehan, Helen. "The Library-College Idea: Trend of the Future?" Library Trends, XVIII (July, 1969), 93-102. Shores, Louis. "Along the Library-College Way." Peabody Journal of Education, XLVI (November, 1968)165-176. ______. "Audio-Visual Dimensions for an Academic Library." College and Research Libraries, XV (October, 1954), '393-39 7.

______. "Library and AV Center - Combined or Separate?" NBA Journal, XLVII (May, 1958), 342-343. ______, and Fusaro, Janiece. "In-Nova: General." Library , College Journal, III (Summer, 1970), 59. Sleeman, Phillip J., and Goff, Robert. "The Instructional Materials Center: Dialogue or Discord?" AV Communi­ cation Review, XV (Summer, 1967), 160-168. Stone, C. Walter. "Functions of a School Library." School Board Journal, CLI (November, 1965), 44-45. ______• "The Place of Newer Media in the Undergraduate - Program." Library Quarterly, XXIV (October, 1954), 358-373. Swank, Raynard C. "Sight and Sound in the World of Books." Library Journal, LXXVIII (September 15, 1953), 1459-1464. Taylor, Kenneth I. "Instructional Materials Center; A Theory Underlying Its Development." Wilson Library Bulletin, XLIII (October, 1968), 165-168. Whitenack, Carolyn I. "The Instructional Materials Concept: A Changing Concept." American Annals of the Deaf, CXII (November, 1969), 650-653. Monographs Bretz, Rudy. A Taxonomy of Communication Media. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, 1971. Dale, Edgar, Audiovisual Methods In Teaching. New York: The Dryden Press, 19 67. Eleventh Lake Okoboji Educational Leadership Conference. Washington, D.C.: Division of Audiovisual Instruc- tion and National Education Association, 1965. Erickson, Carlton W. H. Administering Instructional Media Programs. New Yorkl Macmillan, 1968. Gove, Philip B. Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language. New York: Merriam, 1967.. Gunselman, Marshall, gen. ed. What Are We Learning About Learning Centers? - Some Conclusions" Oklahoma City: iSa'gle Media, 1 9 7'1'i. Lyle, Guy R. Administration of the College Library. New York: The H. W. Wilson Co., 1961. Pennsylvania Learning Resources Association, Guidelines for Instructional Media Services Programs. Havertown, Pa.: Printmaster Press, 1970. Selltiz, Claire, et. al. Research Methods in Social Relations. New York*: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, T WZT. ----- Timpano, Doris M. Crisis In Educational Technology. New York: Gilbert Press, 1970. Toffler, Alvin. Bricks and Mortarboards. New York: Educa­ tional Facilities Laboratories, 1964. Tyler, Ralph W. "Changing Responsibilities of Higher Education." Academic Change and the Academic Library Function. Edited by C. Walter Stone. Pittsburg: Pennsylvania Library Association, 1970. Unpublished Materials Sarnoff, Robert W. "Higher Education in a Changing Society?" An address at the University of Miami (Florida). January 24, 1969. Smith, Hayden R., and Robinson, Karen A. "Of Love, Librarians, Courtship, Media Specialists, and Shot-Gun Marriages: The Librarian - Media Specialist Conflict." Unpublished paper, University of Michigan, 1969.