Joyce Valenza’s Neverending Search

My study looked at both features and characteristics of a small sample of exemplary school library sites. That is, it looked at both the “whats” and the “hows” of effective practice online.

Regarding the “hows,” one of my research questions was: What common organizational structures and design characteristics are employed in exemplary school library sites?

With the guidance of a Delphi panel, I divided site characteristics into five categories: curricular connectedness, organization and navigation, aesthetics, collaboration and interactivity, freshness.

(Note: School and district differences may impact the differences among schools libraries relating to the characteristics they employ in online communication. Some schools require all departments to share a template. School and district policies may also determine whether or not a site might incorporate images or such 2.0 applications as blogs and wikis.)

Most sites in the sample displayed connection to curriculum in their collections of databases, pathfinders for particular assignments, and promotion of reading as a life-long activity. Most displayed evidence of collaboration with the learning community and support of reading.

The sample sites appear to seriously consider users in elements relating to navigation. Some sites consciously replaced library-specific terms like “OPAC” with phrases like, “Find a book,” in the spirit of Kupersmith’s research relating to library terminology. Nearly all of the sample sites presented no download wait issues.

Interestingly, not one site in the study passed the University of Toronto’s ATRC (accessibility check). The ATRC checker examines sites for their compliance to current Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 standards established by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).  

Nevertheless, most of the sites offer clear labels, embedded explanations–often mouseovers–to describe content for their secondary school audiences. Nearly all annotate their links. In terms of navigation and organization nearly all of these exemplary sites offered legible text, consistent design, logical strategies for organizing content into understandable categories. Most offer either a site map or a site search to facilitate navigation. Only two of the ten sites offer neither.
Sites vary dramatically in terms of aesthetics. Though several sites are recognizing the value of including images of learners, materials, and events, original art and media are surprisingly sparse. This is particularly strange in the 2006/2007 school year–a year in which media sharing sites are widely popular.

The biggest trend in terms of strategies or characteristics is in the area of opportunities for collaboration, feedback, and involvement. While use of streamed media and wikis is limited, sites display other interactive strategies. Half of the sites include student work and use interactive forms. Use of blogs by nearly all–eight of the 10 sample sites– demonstrates the growing importance of Web 2.0 tools for communicating with online audiences.

The fifth category considered freshness, or strategies relating to updates, revisions, and currency. In spite of their useful content, some Delphi panelists felt that sample sites with a 1990s look would have limited appeal for Web-savvy young users. While some sites appeared quite fresh (without a 1990s “visual accent”), others, despite their valuable content, spoke with a bit of an accent.

Next time: Evolution of school library sites since Clyde’s (2004)  longitudinal study.

I finally submitted my dissertation to the university after addressing my committee’s suggestions. The paper and the stuff that had to go with it were so bulky that Liza (above) had to help me stuff it all in the official envelope.

Looking at my past posts, as well as the past couple of sentences, I realize I’ve been writing far more about the process of writing a dissertation than the study itself.

My goals were to identify and examine models of exemplary practice in school library websites and to develop two taxonomies to describe them–one of features, one of characteristics. A wonderful Delphi panel helped me to identify ten exemplary sites and helped me build the taxonomies. I followed with a content analysis of the ten sites. The taxonomies and their accompanying codebooks should serve practitioners as they plan and build effective sites, whether in traditional html or blog or wiki or other emerging formats. I will be working on an article to summarize results, but since folks are asking, I thought I’d share just a bit here:

Research Questions
The thousands of school library website efforts represent conspicuous diversity in approach. With sites ranging from single-page brochures to dynamic, multi-page learning environments, examining the broad scope of these professional efforts would be much like comparing apples and oranges. The disparity of these efforts, compounded by students’ heavy reliance on the Web, and a body of professional literature that documents the need for online professional intervention with learners, suggests the need for research and points to the following critical research questions:

1. What models of exemplary practice exist in school library websites?
2. What common features are presented in sites representing exemplary practice?
3. What common organizational structures and design characteristics are employed in exemplary school library sites?
4. From the models observed in sites identified as exemplary practice, can a functional descriptive taxonomy of features be developed?
5. How are school library sites evolving? How do the features and services offered by exemplary sites in 2006 differ from the state-of-the-art of the randomly selected sites last studied by Clyde in 2002?
6. To what extent do exemplary school library websites present features devoted to: information access and delivery, learning and teaching, and program administration, as expressed in the context of the current national standards document Information Power (AASL & AECT, 1998)?

I hope to eventually cover all these questions a bit here in the blog, but for now let’s look at Question 2.  (BTW, Question 3, on characteristics takes a look at 2.0 strategies! We’ll look at that one next time.)

Among the conclusions (on common features):

What are the universal features in the ten sites I studied?

The features, present in all 10 sites in the sample are– OPACs, databases, search tools, reference, documentation, and contact information.

Nine of the sample sites include links to other OPACs, links to news sources, online book discussions, library hours and staff information.

Eight of the sites offer instructions for remote access; links to dictionaries, biographical and geographical reference tools; links to local and international news; pathfinders; and mission statements.
Here are four tables that describe features present on six or more of the ten sites in the sample:

I discovered major discrepancies between the features the Delphi panel expected to be present in exemplary sites and what actually existed in practice.

These discrepancies are especially evident in the absence of content in the category of Learning and Teaching.  The limited content observed in this area of the features taxonomy is inconsistent with the instructional focus represented by Information Power (AASL & AECT, 1998).

According to Information Power,

Schools have evolved to focus on learning, and effective school library programs have also changed their focus from collections to learning that engages students in pursuing knowledge within and beyond a formal curriculum (AASL & AECT, 1998, p. 59).

The limited instructional content is also inconsistent with the predictions of major school library researchers.  Kuhlthau (1997, 1999) saw library websites as constructivist environments, as new zones of intervention for guiding learners and customizing instruction.  Clyde (1997) believed that the primary purpose of the library homepage would be instructional.  While a few of the sites in the sample appear to have strong instructional focus, most did not.  If teacher-librarians are truly to function as teacher-librarians in the 21st century, we  need to investigate effective strategies for translating our instruction for digital landscapes. Teacher-librarians would  benefit by examining effective practice in Web-based instruction outside the library world.

Program Administration was another area of service not fully addressed by these exemplary sites. The availability of online survey tools and interactive forms, led me and several panelists to predict that exemplary sites would be using such strategies to enhance the librarian’s ability to communicate, solicit feedback, schedule, promote, and manage.  Few libraries share their reports and public relations materials. Few use available interactive calendar tools to share their library schedules. Few use available technology to survey users or to mine data.

It is quite possible that busy school librarians who choose to maintain websites for their learners will focus most of their efforts in creating Web spaces that address those learners directly.  When prioritizing content for a library website, program administration features might not warrant the same attention as information access, learning and teaching or books and reading.  Yet, features identified in this area by the Delphi panel and the principles identified in Chapter 6 “Program Administration” of Information Power (AASL & AECT, 1998, p. 100) serve to communicate the purpose and impact of the library program. These features may be strong tools for advocacy. Potential in the area of Program Administration is addressed by some of the sites in the sample but less than fully realized.

Next time, characteristics!

(I know that the universe won’t shift with this news. So, those of you who read this blog because a professor is forcing you to, please wait for the next post which I promise will come soon now that I am released and relaxed.)

Those of you who are friends and colleagues, please celebrate with me. I defended successfully this morning. In the pic below you see the balloons and banners my dear (and confident) assistants had ready to mark the event.

The defense was surprisingly painless and I now have to do some minor editing before I complete the process. Thank you, committee–Carol, Sam, Marjorie, and Brian–for all your support. Thank you cohort–I’ve been looking at our first group picture below and remembering the long (often sweet) road we’ve traveled together. Thank you family, for tolerating my doctoral mishegas. Friends, forgive me for not phoning for three years.

The students were so excited for me today. They peeked in the window as I defended and provided many supportive hugs after.  These kids know a bit about research!  I smiled all afternoon.
And then, after school, I got my toenails done. I’ll spare you that photo.

Serious library and technology stuff to come in the next post. Promise.