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