Quality school library – how do we find out?

1. Quality school library – how do we find out? Polona VilarDepartment of LIS&BS, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, SLOIvankaStričevićDepartment of Information Sciences, University of Zadar, CRO

2. Introduction • Dynamic and good SL‘s  development of learning competences • What constitutes a goodSL? • Complex issues, accompanied by questions about future sustainability and roles of SL‘s • The ongoing development & testing of quality assessment models and frameworks are very important, in fact critical, for the SL profession  • Question of methodologyof SL research

3. In this paper • SL‘s in Slovenia and Croatia • Until1991 ( YU) developed according to the same EDU and LIBR laws and standards • Since then partly different development • But, their development should follow (at least it can be expected) the same theoretical foundation and fundamental professional guidelines

4. Why methodological paper? • Methodological issues, which should guide quality, comprehensive empirical research, too rarely come into discussion. • Often methodology is developed through small-scale research • Its results (perhaps too limited) then serve as a baseline for the development of theories and concepts, and consequently also indicators of quality.

5. CISSL model of quality school library (Todd&Kuhlthau et al., 2005)– the methodology! • Keyquality factors,identified through in-depth research of intentionally chosen good SL‘s • Excellent& effective schools - ratingexcellent and employinga certified LMS • Aset of criteria based on the Ohio SL Guidelines (Library Guidelines, 2003) • An International Advisory Panel  the final set of criteria • Invitation to Ohio schools meetingthe criteriato apply for participation, providedocumentation. • Finally:11-member Ohio Experts Panel set up – finalselection of participating 39 schools; principle of judgement sampling. Phase 1: Selection of good libraries

6. Criteria (Tepe & Geitgey, 2005, p. 59) From the Ohio Effective School Library Guidelines Minimum requirements + Areas • Criterion 1:SchoolGoals and Leadership • Criterion 2: Curriculum • Criterion 3: Information Literacy • Criterion 4: Reading • Criterion 5: Technology Resources

7. Further CISSL methodology • ‘Evidence-based practice’ • The characteristics of theseSL analyzed to see how students benefit from them • Lookingat the “conceptions of help” • Two key instruments (questionnaires) • For students perceptions of helpfulnessof thelibrary to students • For staff Phase 2: Research

8. Result: CISSL Model (Todd & Kuhlthau, 2005a, p. 6)

9. Our aim & research questions • What methodology is needed (and how it can be developed) for investigation of the quality of existing SL‘s in Slovenia and Croatia, having in mind the parameters which will enable comparative analysis in respective countries? • Questions: • Which criteria can be applied in choosing effective libraries on which the quality of SL will be explored; which will further serve as a comparison with the CISSL model? • Which parts of the research methodology from the CISSL research can be adopted and what should be changed according to the context? • Which methods will/could be applied in investigation of the SL‘s in Slovenia and Croatia?

10. Discussion • Development of the methodology of researching the quality of SLO/CRO SL‘s • Identification of good libraries (= sample) – the most demanding part of the research • Why? • (Re)framing of criteria? • The second part of research could be applied unchanged.

11. Phase 1 (SLO/CRO)Issuesofcriteria & methodology (1) • Identification of good SL‘s • SL‘s – partof EDU system – influencedby the social, economic and political system; these elements need to be considered in the methodology. • Lack of relevant statistic • Lack of scientific analyses of school practice, and worrying lack of interest from the school authorities. • PISA results – a strong evidence of students‘ achievements and an indicator of the „quality“ of EDU system • But, no exact evidence on role of SL‘s – its influence on students‘ learning achievements • Novljan (1994): The actual educational system influences the development of SL‘s more than professional guidelines.

12. Issues of criteria & methodology (2) • No unique data which could give the exact indicators related to the criteria used in the CISSL study. • If the criteria are based only on the general level (documents, regulations), this would not give the real picture. • School management and librarians know these documents – inreality the practice and the overall situation often differ from what has been prescribed.

13. Issuesofcriteria & methodology(3) • Contentanalysis • Surveys • Basisforthe criteria setup: • Documentsandregulations – only as a startingpoint • Theoretical foundations („quality SL“) • Measurableandcomparablecontext-basedindicators • Unique criteria should be developedwhich are not general but very precise and take into consideration the context. • If the criteria are not operationalized in detail, measurable and comparable, school management and school librarians might show the picture of what is desired/required, not of the real condition.

14. Phase 2 (SLO/CRO)Furthersteps in research • Questionnaire CISSL – in-depth research of what makes a quality SL (perceptions of help) • When data is collected, it will be useful for anaysis: • Of the situation in each country • Of similarities/differences between the countries • Comparative analysis

15. Conclusions • Such approach will enable the verification of the validity of the CISSL model of a quality SL, when applied in SLO/CRO • And/or the need for changes • We also need to try to position our discussion in a wider, possibly more international context. • Similar approaches could be used to further verify the CISSL model.

16. Thank you! polona.vilar@ff.uni-lj.si istricev@unizd.hr