"A Scale to Measure the Attitudes of Classroom Instructors Toward the Role of the Academic Library in Undergraduate Education"* developed by Larry Hardesty was administered to the Berea College faculty in April of 1990. The survey was sent to 154 faculty, with 68 usable responses returned for a 44.16% response rate. (See Appendix C.1 for a copy of the survey.)
The data was initially entered into Statview. Because of the availability of a student worker who was well-trained in SPSS, during the summer of 1993 the information was transferred into SPSS, allowing close replication of the initial research done by Hardesty. In addition to the data from the actual responses, the comments made by faculty were also collated, both the general comments and ones made about specific questions. (see Appendix C.2 for further detail. This Appendix is not available as a WWW document - please contact the authors for copies.)
As much as possible, the process used in the initial Hardesty study was replicated. Fifteen of the thirty survey questions were positive and fifteen were negative. In accordance with the original procedure, the fifteen negative statements were recoded for the statistical analysis process (Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 13, 15, 17, 19, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, and 30). This is a critical detail when interpreting the survey results.
Several types of correlation coefficient tests and methods were used. Factor analysis with PAF and VARIMAX orthogonal rotations was used to try to identify the interrelationships of variables (questions) in the scale. Two correlation coefficients were calculated, Pearson (r) used for interval scales (total number of years teaching at present institution and age) and Spearman (rho) used for nominal scales (highest degree, tenure status and gender. Sampling did not allow for effective application of Spearman for the category of academic department since the sample size was quiet small for some departments. It was further decided that collapsing this category (humanities, social sciences, etc.) would probably not be helpful or meaningful for survey analysis.
The first data examined were the general comments that were made and comments for specific questions. Thirty-five percent felt compelled to add general comments to the survey document, articulating a range of ideas, including general encouraging comments, specific examples of library use, clarification of philosophy of library use and various criticisms of the survey document. This provided a general idea of how the faculty responded to the survey, and if they were willing to take time to add comments for specific statements, it helped to add context to a particular response. Five statements elicited comments from more than ten percent of the respondents, while seven statements drew, at most, a comment from only one respondent. The next document used in analyzing the survey responses was the chart produced as Appendix C.4. The three positive and three negative categories of response were collapsed for this set of summary statistics (AAA, AA, and A combined for "positive" and DDD, DD, and D combined for "negative.") It is important to note that the negative questions were recoded, so that AAA=DDD, etc. This allows an overall statement to be made that those whose answers fell into the "positive" category were generally positive in their attitude toward the library.
The only question that had an unanimous response (100% positive or negative) was question #9 - "I should be familiar with the range of library resources useful in teaching my students." One question had such a high percentage of responses in the undecided category (30.90) as to be of questionable contribution to the survey and its analysis. (Question # 15 - "Librarians should have advanced degrees in other disciplines in addition to a degree in library science if they are to help students use the library.") Overall, the Berea responses varied only in degree from the figures for the original survey. The trend of positive to negative response was similar. For example, the Berea figures for statement 5 are 86.8% positive, 8.8% negative, 4.4% undecided and 0% non-responses, while the Hardesty figures for the same statement are 82.5% positive, 12.9% negative, 4.7% undecided and 0% non-responses.
There were four statements (1, 6, 13, and 24) which reversed ratios of negative to positive responses occurred. In statement 6, the difference was slight initially anyway and is not particularly significant. However for the remaining three statements, the ratio was nearly reversed, i.e., the negative/positive ration was close to being an exact mirror image between the two surveys (33.8/52.9 versus 53.0/38.0 for statement 13). Hardesty questioned the validity of statement 24 in the original study because of an undecided rate of over 20%; the Berea study also had a high undecided/non-response rate (combined rate of 20.5%). This leaves statements 1 and 13 as items for further examination.
Statement one deals with library use and content in lower-level courses. One explanation for the difference between the figures for the Berea survey and those for the original is the difference between the typical Berea student's level of library use as an incoming student and that of the typical student at the schools included in the Hardesty survey (Earlham, Evansville, Purdue and Wabash). An interesting comparison is to look at the figures for a similar statement, number seventeen, which dealt with the same concept, except for upper level courses. Here there was agreement as to trend of positive to negative ratio (30.9/54.4/10.3/4.4 versus 38.4/53.8/6.0/1.7) although there is a difference in percentage. This indicates that Berea faculty tend to agree with the participants of the original survey in their expectations for upper level students although in disagreement about lower level students. This would support the theory stated above regarding the differences between Berea's students and those of the schools included in the Hardesty study.
Statement thirteen covers size of collection in a discipline as a measure of how well students' needs are served. The original study figures are 53, 38, 8.1, .9 in comparison to the Berea figures of 33.8, 52.9, 11.8, 1.5. Since this is a negative statement, the negative figure indicates that percentage of respondents who agree with the statement, those who feel that size of the discipline collection should serve as a measure of the library's ability to serve student needs in the discipline. More Berea faculty tended to agree with this statement than in the original survey (52.9 versus 38). This may reflect satisfaction with collection size in the faculty member's area of discipline, or perhaps the desire to increase the collection so that the collection can serve student need better. In the four comments made as a response to this statement, two mention that quality is a more important factor and one states that staffing is crucial. One comment indicated that, while the respondent indicated agreement with the statement on the survey, it was because the collection in the faculty member's discipline was limited; however, in general, the respondent disagrees with this method of measurement of usefulness.
Statements generating a higher negative percentage of responses were #7, 13, 19, 24, and 25. Thirteen and twenty-four have already been discussed. The responses for statement seven (a positive statement) indicate that the overwhelming majority (81.2%) of respondents disagree with the statement that it should take students considerable time to master library skills for the faculty member's courses. Nineteen was a negative statement meaning that 80.9% agree with the statement that the library should be quiet to encourage use. Statement twenty-five (student frustration in using the library should be considered a normal part of learning to use the library) was also a negative statement, indicating that 55.9% of the respondents agree with the statement. The responses for #7 and #25 would seem to contradict one another, most faculty indicating that it should not take students considerable time to master skills (#7), but also believing that a feeling of frustration in learning to use the library should be considered normal (#25). Perhaps these two issues are not linked in the minds of the respondents.
This section is the most difficult to analyze. The Hardesty survey results seem to be more evenly distributed that do those of the Berea survey. A portion of this might be explained by the fact that the survey questions were drawn from a pool of statements originally drafted in response to interviews with faculty members from the four campuses later used in the Hardesty survey. They were then field tested using the same campuses. This may have caused a choice of phrasing or wording of statements that more closely linked to actual faculty attitudes. The number of respondents in the two surveys may also have influenced the results of the factor analysis (234 for Hardesty versus 68 for Berea). The difference also might be explained simply by the fact that a different sample was used in the two studies.
Appendix C.3 is a listing of the statements as they loaded onto each of five factors. (Appendix C.3 is not available as a WWW document - please contact the authors for copies.) Five statements were discounted in the factor analysis due to nonresponse rates above 4% (#17, 20, 25, 28, 29 and 30), leaving twenty-five statements distributed over the five factors. The initial factor analysis revealed 24 factors accounting for 100% of the variance in the data. Only seven factors had initial eigenvalues of 1.0 or above. Because the last two factors included a total of only one (initial analysis) or two (after rotation) statements loaded, the decision was made to force the analysis into five factors. This is the process that produced the material included in Appendix C.3.
The group of faculty members identified with factor one agrees that the library is an important and critical tool for their students to use (#22 & #16), with professors taking primary responsibility for ensuring good use (#14). They see library use as something that will take students some time to master (#7) and that additional content in lower-level courses is no more important than spending time teaching students to use the library (#1). There is also a belief that librarians should have advanced degrees in addition to a degree in library science in order to help students use the library (#15). This group also felt very strongly that administrators should ensure small classes in order to encourage faculty to require library use. "Library passive" might be a good description for this group.
Factor two included statements indicating a more active role for the professor in encouraging library use. Respondents identified with this factor believe that they should help students to develop the ability to use the library (#4) and that the faculty member should develop a problem, etc., to introduce students to the library (#12). They also believe that they should be familiar with library resources in order to help their students (#9), that students should have instructions on how to use the library each time library use is required (#6) and that they should be concerned if the library collection in their discipline is little used. These faculty members disagree with the statement that only the brightest students should be expected to make good use of the library collections (#2). These respondents are "library active."
"Library interactive" is a good phrase to use for respondents identified with factor three. These instructors feel that librarians should help instruct students in library use (#26). They disagree with the idea that library related assignments take too much of their time (#5) and that the library should be primarily used to study (#10). A puzzling response for this group is the positive response for #3, "[k]nowledge of how to use the card catalog should be sufficient familiarity with the library for students to use it for my courses." Perhaps other skills were not seen as necessarily confined to library use (i.e., critical thinking, evaluation of material examined, etc.). The fourth factor can be labeled "Library traditional." Statements loading on this factor include #19 (The library should be quiet.) and #13 (The size of the collection in their discipline should serve as a measure of ability of library to meet student needs.). Their disagreement with the statement that students should be able to learn library skills quickly and independently may reflect the belief that students will need some assistance, but this is not taken as an indication that the help should come from the instructor but, by inference, should come from the librarians.
The final factor, factor five includes four statements that reflect some of the larger factors involved in library use. Respondents agreed that the administration should promote the idea that librarians are full partners in the educational process (#8), and should also take a leadership role in encouraging student use of the library (#11). They also agreed that they (faculty) should be better prepared to teach students how to make good use of the library (#11) and that a small college library should satisfy the needs of undergraduates just as adequately as the large university library (#21). This group has been labeled "Library supportive."
These factor labels should be viewed as tentative and only as one of many ways to interpret the data produced through this process. The researchers will continue to pursue ways to analyze the information generated by this survey.
This report only begins to assess the data presented. The level of statistical analysis possible for this survey has been dependent upon available time and expertise. There remains much to be examined in the future, including the Spearman and Pearson correlation statistics. In order to make the greatest use of this survey, closer examination and comparison with the original Hardesty survey will be necessary. However, even after this initial analysis, there appears to be substantial similarity between the results of the two surveys; it seems that many of Hardesty's conclusions also hold for the Berea study. One of the basic findings of the original study is that faculty attitudes are not predictable by and do not have a high correlation with any of the demographic factors of the study. Instead, the individual attitudes of faculty members are highly influenced by local conditions. It then follows that librarians in the academic setting have the opportunity to be of greater influence in shaping faculty attitudes than they would if attitudes were shaped by prior experiences.
*Copyright 1982 by Larry Hardesty. Reprinted and used with permission of Larry Hardesty.
Hardesty, Larry. Faculty and the Library: The Undergraduate Experience. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1991.
Hardesty, Larry. The Influence of Selected Variables on Attitudes of Classroom Instructors Toward the Undergraduate Educational Role of the Academic Library. Diss. Indiana University, 1982.
Susan_Henthorn@berea.edu
mroyse@utk.edu