literature map

Craver’s (1986) overview of the evolving instructional SLMS roledemonstrates the gradual change in attitudes and practices taking place between the socially complacent 1950s and the disillusioned 1980s when societal problems affecting students seemed overwhelming and unsolvable. With the launching of Sputnik in the early 1950s, anti-intellectualism in America quickly gave way to concentrated efforts directed toward high educational achievement. During this decade, as educators noticed that children appeared to have individual learning styles, they came to realize that multiple information sources could nourish each of their unique intellects. This made the library a natural focal point in the school and contributed to two gradually evolving librarian roles: assistance with curriculum development (albeit limited) and initiation of course-integrated library instruction. With increasing use of course-integrated audiovisual materials during this decade and the decline of the library as study hall, the more passive librarian role of housing and providing materials slowly transformed into an active instructional role. This gradual transformation was recognized by the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) in their 1956 official statement acknowledging that librarians were becoming “coordinators, consultants and supervisors of instructional materials on each level of school administration” (Gates 1968, 235, as cited in Craver 1986).

In the turbulent 1960s, as school curriculum expanded to include such diverse new subject areas as communication, fine arts, and the humanities, students spent more time in school than previous generations had, and instructional methods became increasingly varied and creative. At the same time, federal funding became available for the development of schools, libraries, and the purchase of diverse library materials. As these education reform initiatives evolved, so did the instructional role of the school librarian, who was described as a “team teacher, learning expediter and media programming educator” (Davies 1963, 158, as cited in Craver 1986). In the latter part of the decade, research into the role of the school librarian was carried out through the School Library Manpower Project. Its publication, Occupational Definitions for School Library Media Personnel showed that overall the scope and nature of the job was evolving into “an active teaching role in the instructional program of the school through instruction in the effective use of media and equipment” (School Library Manpower Project 1971, 10, as cited in Craver 1986).

The early seventies saw further educational change as the system moved from students passively receiving teacher-delivered material toward projects and activities that engaged students in their own learning more than did lectures and tests. But by the latter part of the decade, as national test scores plummeted, the public began opposing the new educational methods and called for a return to the basics.

SLMSs at this time faced several challenges and criticisms. Among various issues, they were accused of being too deeply devoted to print resources, insufficiently knowledgeable about nonprint resources, and inadequately informed about the total school curriculum. To help change the landscape, new AASL and AECT (1975) standards, Media Programs: District and School incorporated the instructional role calling for SLMSs to participate in curriculum development and carry out specific instructional purposes. However, research into the SLMS role continued to show the disparity between the real and the ideal. The instructional role was prescribed in the literature, but it was not practiced by SLMSs, who were often not perceived as instructional partners, but providers of information services.

The late 1970s and early 1980s saw a sharp decline in the American public’s confidence in its schools. A Nation at Risk: An Imperative for Educational Reform by the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) defined the problems it perceived in American education: a diluted curriculum with too many choices for students leading to fewer students taking and completing academically rigorous courses. The report warned that America’s preeminence in many domains was being overtaken by other nations. As efforts were made to return education to basics and teacher-centered learning, SLMSs continued to forge ahead with their instructional role as evidenced by such publications as The Library Specialist in Curriculum Development (Thomason 1981) and The School Librarian as Educator (Wehmeyer 1984). This was the decade that introduced the computer into the educational process with SLMSs being urged to find ways to integrate this tool into teaching units. Research studies looked at the role of instructional design, finding again that the ideal and the reality did not coincide. Staples (1981, as cited in Craver 1986) determined that SLMSs were more interested in management than instruction. Royal (1983, as cited in Craver 1986) found that Midwestern SLMSs did not carry out many instructional duties.

In spite of the seemingly glacial pace, it is clear that from 1950 to 1984 the SLMS instructional role did evolve and expand. The literature, research, and standards all reflected this development, with the SLMS instructional role usually being fervently promoted well before substantive changes in the field.

While Craver’s historical review ends with the year 1984, education reform continued into the 1990s unabated. In order to encourage and support local reform as called for by A Nation at Risk, President Clinton signed into law the Goals 2000: Educate America Act in 1994. This law, built on the theme of strong academic content and the assumption that all children can reach challenging academic standards, encouraged states to develop these standards as it provided funding to assist them in achieving whatever goals they set for themselves (U.S. Department of Education 2000).

Several research studies in the 1990s provide insight into how the profession continued to develop its instructional role alongside the prevailing education reform movement. Schon, Helmstadter, and Robinson (1991) investigated principals’ and SLMSs’ perceptions about the SLMS role in six categories of activities. They ranked the role tasks within each category according to their importance. For a category with few tasks, such as Human Behavior, which had only three identified tasks, respondents identified only the one task most important to them. For a category with many tasks, such as Library Materials, which had twelve tasks, respondents ranked the top-five most important tasks. Principals and SLMSs correlated strongly in their rankings across all the categories. Of most interest here is the Learning category, which relates to the instructional role of SLMSs. The top-two ranked tasks by both principals and librarians were related to instruction: (1) provide leadership for the determination of educational objectives for the school library media program as an integral part of the educational program of the school; and (2) plan learning activities and opportunities to enable students to assume an increasing amount of responsibility for planning, undertaking, and assessing their own learning.

Everhart (1992) conducted a work sampling study in which she matched nine pairs of high school SLMSs, one group with automated circulation systems, the other group with manual systems, in order to see how the two systems affected time spent on school library media center tasks. One hypothesis she posed was that SLMSs in automated high school library media centers would devote more time to instructional tasks than would their counterparts in nonautomated media centers. Using a random alarm mechanism (RAM) at each site, she had SLMSs mark down what they were doing on a tally form when the small alarm worn on a cord around their neck beeped. Using a Chi square analysis, Everhart found a significant difference (.05) between the time spent by the two groups on Instructional Development, defined as developing unit objectives, analyzing learner characteristics, and evaluating present learning activities for possible change, among numerous other activities. However, she found no significant difference between the two groups in the Instruction category, which was defined as teaching information skills, providing staff development, and assisting parents in sharing reading, listening, and viewing experiences with their children. In both automated and nonautomated libraries, the task category that received the most attention was administration of the school library media program.

A study of Kentucky’s education reform movement and its K–12 media center environment showed a pronounced transition to the SLMS instructional role (Shannon 1996). The Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) of 1990 was a comprehensive restructuring of both school governance and programs that was massive and varied in its scope. To describe the impact of KERA on school library media programs as perceived by the state’s SLMSs and to determine how they were supporting the law, forty-eight SLMSs (out of sixty-one) responded to a series of checklist items and open-ended questions about how their role had changed during this era.

The five specific checklist items and the percentage of respondents answering “yes” to the question “Have any of the following changed significantly since 1990?” were: (1) How teachers use the LMC (88 percent); (2) How students use the LMC (77 percent); SLMS’s role in curriculum design and implementation (57 percent); Library/information skills curriculum (74 percent); and the SLMS’s role as teacher (66 percent). Additionally, responses to the open–ended questions indicated that technology played a major part in shaping the SLMS role. Teachers were using media center materials more and assigning students more research projects. The heavy use of technology brought challenges as well: funding levels were perceived as being too low; time to keep up with constant changes in equipment and software or to assist teachers and students in the computer lab was inadequate; and the school library media center received no additional personnel to assist with these added responsibilities.

Respondents were asked what they did to promote the school library media center role in implementing KERA’s initiatives. Their responses were largely general in nature relating to being supportive and positive about implementing KERA. The overall theme of the more specific responses focused on aspects of leadership and visibility, with SLMS indicating that they served on as many committees as possible and did everything they could to make the school library media center part of almost every student project. An aggressive public relations campaign to promote the school library media center, SLMSs asserted, was vital to the contribution of the SLMS role in fulfilling KERA’s mandates.

Shannon (1996) also asked three open-ended opinion questions concerning the general role of school library media programs in Kentucky. The first question asked for suggestions for what SLMSs could do to demonstrate that the school library media program played a critical role in teaching and learning and had a positive impact on student achievement. Respondents suggested a wide variety of leadership and public relations activities. Second, respondents were asked about barriers to mounting exemplary programs that supported KERA. Responses focused on lack of time, insufficient funding, and too many added responsibilities. Lack of a state-sanctioned school library media program was also perceived as a barrier. Third, respondents were asked about what type of continuing education would be most beneficial to Kentucky’s SLMSs. Technology was mentioned more frequently (68 percent) than any other topic or skill. Instruction, collaboration, or curriculum integration topics were mentioned by only 28 percent of the respondents.

Overall, Shannon (1996) found that KERA’s mandates coinciding with the infusion of technology into the schools was a powerful force for change in the roles and programs of the school library media center. The instructional role of SLMSs and an information skills curriculum made gains during this era.

A recent contribution to the literature of the SLMS instructional role is Riedling’s (2001) analysis of thirty-one SLMS job descriptions from the United States and Canada. Her purpose was to determine to what degree SLMSs were meeting Information Power’s goal of creating a community of lifelong learners. From the job descriptions, Riedling compiled a list of approximately nine hundred duties that she combined and synthesized into sixty-seven duties in five divisions: administrative, collection development and maintenance, curriculum development, instructional consultant, and professional. The administrative role had the most duties (19). The duties relating more closely to lifelong learning (instructional consultant and curriculum development) had seventeen and eleven duties respectively. Taken together these twenty-eight duties, or 42 percent of the total, comprised the instructional role. Riedling concluded that SLMSs were appropriately responding to the goals of Information Power and meeting students’ needs.

The literature of the past five decades shows the gradual evolution of the instructional role of SLMSs, even as instructional reform was being implemented in schools across the country.