Abstract
IASL and IFLA have provided funding for an international study of the principal’s role in developing and supporting information literacy. In this paper, the researcher describes and reports on the progress of the study in one of the participating countries, Finland. Some preliminary findings are presented related to the situation in Finland, where school libraries are highly controversial.
1. Background to the Research
1.1.School
library background in Finland
School library issues are controversial
in Finland. In the words of the Chief Executive of the Finnish Library
Association, Tuula Haavisto: "There are no school libraries in Finland.
This will not be changed in the new (library) act. It is considered that
the network of public libraries is sufficient for the needs of school children.
Our experience supports the view that common libraries for children and
adults make better use of library resources than do separate institutions.
People continue to use the same library after leaving school because they
do not have to cross new thresholds." The fact is, however, that we
still have school libraries, even if the latest statistics date back to
the 1980s. The economic recession of the early 1990s cut many school libraries,
but it seems clear that most schools have them. They are run 1-5 hours
per week mostly by teachers without a library qualification. There are
also qualified school librarians working in school libraries, but their
number is unknown.
There is, especially in vocational schools and new polytechnics, a growing number of very modern libraries called learning support centers or information centers. These schools have undergone a major educational change. In order to gain their goals the schools have had to renew their whole pedagogical environment and school libraries.
In the library legislation of 1990, responsibility for activities within school libraries was given to public libraries. The problem, of course, is money: how to fund public and school libraries fairly. In the new library legislation, which is due this autumn, school libraries are not mentioned.
Unfortunately, there is no clear school library policy in Finland. In the Ministry of Education no one is responsible for the strategic planning of school libraries, although public libraries and schools are central actors in the national Information Society Strategies (Information Superhighway). Schools are given funding for the Information Society projects, too. Due to the unclear position of school libraries, the money inside schools has been allocated to computer classrooms instead of school libraries.
The National Board of Education forms the tactical level of educational policy in Finland. It sets the goals of schooling, establishes curriculum guidelines and requirements and evaluates student learning. One of the many tasks of the chief inspector for the teaching of the Finnish language is to develop school libraries.
The whole education system has undergone a profound change: a new educational legislation will take effect in 1999. From a rigid and highly centralized system of top-down administration, Finland has moved towards a more flexible system of decentralized decision-making. This means much greater autonomy for educational institutions themselves and for their owners.
In the new education law school libraries are mentioned for the first time ever: "In a school there can be a school library for achieving the pedagogical goals of the school. The school library will be financed by the budget of the school." It is still to be seen how this challenge can best be used for the benefit of school libraries. The supporting role of local deciding bodies and principals will be emphasized.
The academic programs in librarianship at Finnish universities (Tampere, Oulu, Åbo Akademi) do not offer possibilities to specialize in school librarianship. There is no education for teacher-librarianship, either. The basic ideas of libraries supporting learning have become familiar in the in-service workshops or continuing education courses offered mainly by the Continuing Education Centre for Vocational Schools (AK-KK) in Tampere. Some recent research and strategies (Niinikangas 1995, Niinikangas 1996) have also been done, and the idea has been advocated also in Finnish library journals.
The School Library Association of Finland has proclaimed its goals for the development of Finnish school libraries. There is also a growing number of politicians, teachers, principals and parents who think that a real innovation of the school is impossible without a school library resource center.
1.2. Finnish
educational system
The Finnish education system comprises
of comprehensive schools (grades 1-9), post compulsory general and vocational
education (grades10-12), higher education and adult education (supplement
1). The language of teaching is Finnish or Swedish: official bilingualism
guarantees the Swedish-speaking minority (about 6 per cent of the population)
equal opportunities at all levels. Ministry of Education is a central coordinating
body for Finnish education. Comprehensive, postcompulsory general and vocational
education, belong to the municipal authorities.
Compulsory comprehensive school education starts at the age of seven and continues for 9 years. Comprehensive education is free of charge for all pupils. 581.000 pupils were attending approximately 4400 schools in 1995. Just over one per cent of the schools are private; they are also supervised by the Ministry of Education.
1.3. Target
of the international school library research in Finland: Upper secondary
schools
Since the early 1980s, educational
planning in Finland has been based on the principle of offering either
vocational or higher education to the entire age group. On entering the
21st century, the
policy will be to provide upper secondary education, either general or
vocational, to the entire age group, and further higher education to 60-65
per cent of the age group.
After leaving comprehensive school, a young person may apply for a place at a general upper secondary school or at a vocational school. There is also an experiment under way in upper secondary education which aims at providing a wider range of opportunities than before to obtain vocational diplomas and to complete the upper secondary school syllabus. This is being carried out through collaboration among vocational institutions and upper secondary schools: their students can choose courses from both institutions.
Upper secondary schools normally provide general education to prepare the pupils for further studies. At the end of schooling, the pupil takes the national matriculation examination, which is a general eligibility criterion for university or polytechnic admission. Schools follow a fairly homogeneous curriculum. They can also specialize in languages, science, sports, music or the arts. The curriculum reform of 1994 increased the range of choices in the curriculum. All instruction is given in the form of courses. Pupils are allowed to take their courses at their own pace, so the upper secondary level can last from two to four years.
In 1995, 54 per cent of comprehensive school pupils went straight on to study at an upper secondary school and 31 per cent at a vocational school. Education is free of charge in both schools. There were about 440 upper secondary schools with over 109.000 pupils in 1995.
2. How
the School Library Research in Finland was carried out
2.1. Research
sample
The study was conducted in upper
secondary schools of the southern Finland. The Helsinki region, the only
metropolitan area in Finland, with the population of more than one million
(incl.towns Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, Kauniainen) was the target area of
the research. Helsinki is the capital of Finland and the biggest town in
Finland.
Two towns to the north of Helsinki, Tampere (pop. 180 000) and Lahti (pop. 70 000, a well known school library town with experimental mixed upper secondary and vocational schools) were also included.
The sample of the Finnish research was all upper secondary schools and those vocational schools taking part in the ‘mixed’ educational experiment in chosen areas. Swedish schools were not included. The number of the participating schools was 86. Educational directories, statistical yearbooks and telephone catalogues of each town were used to identify them.
Why this
area and why these schools...
For library and school library
policy reasons: In the Helsinki region there are the largest schools.
There the variety of upper secondary schools is the highest, there are
both private and municipal schools. There has been a tendency to establish
school libraries in upper secondary schools. This is the area where the
population is a challenge in the Finnish scale, because Finland is a sparsely
inhabited country.
We wanted to receive new data about the true school library situation in Finland. What kind of school libraries do really exist in Finland? Most of the qualified Finnish school librarians work in the Helsinki area. What is their current situation?
2.2. The
practicality of the Finnish research
BA Eeva-Maria Suojarvi, a librarian
familiar with school library terminology translated the three research
instruments for the principal and school librarian into Finnish. The Finnish
version of the questionnaire was pilot tested in the printed form by the
library assistant students of Tampere College of Business. The comments
given by them and their teacher MA Leena Aaltonen made us clarify the typographical
format, Finnish terminology and the following letter of intent. The piloting
phase showed clearly that it was essential to explain the underlying school
library philosophy and the purpose of the questionnaire, because they seemed
unfamiliar and difficult.
No new Finnish terms needed to be invented, because all the basic theory is known. However, the following questions were added/ changed in Finland to get national information:
Are you a member of the Finnish School Library Association?
Do you follow any library listservs? (There is not a special listserv for school librarians in Finland)
Questions about the Internet were translated using the relevant Finnish terms but the questions were mostly misunderstood. In Finland we have a national plan to connect all schools to the Internet by the year 2000, and the program is at different levels in various schools. The answers reflect the situation at the end of 1997, and after that the situation has quickly changed. Reasons for the misunderstandings could be:
Most school librarians are mother tongue teachers who have little knowledge about computers or the Internet. They might be confused by the questions concerning access points and connections.
Internet access is arranged differently in different towns and also in different private schools. There are town wide strategic plans for schools to access the Internet and there are single school solutions. It is easy for the principals, too, to be confused with the number of connections and access points.
In Finnish schools, computers and Internet usually are in hands of computer teachers.
The National Board of Education was contacted at the beginning of the research for moral support and financial assistance. On November 14th , 1997, permission was given to send the supportive letter as an attachment (supplement 2), but no funding was allocated to the research. The Finnish School Library Association also promised to support the research. We had two complimentary mainstays to be used to gain research permission from the local authorities and later, hopefully, more answers from the schools.
Letters asking for study permission (supplement 3) were sent to the educational authorities of each chosen town after this. Every town gave its consent before December 4th , 1997. Mauno Rissanen, the leading principal of Tampere upper secondary schools, wrote in his letter of consent: "These questions seem to reflect a reality totally different from Finland with working possibilities totally different from ours, yet it may be that just the things worth developing became visible in this questionnaire."
Both the principal’s and school librarian’s research instruments were sent out in the same envelope to each school library by the sixth of December 1997 (supplement 4). The questionnaire was in paper form with my letter telling about the research and with another letter by the National Board of Education. - Why in paper form? It was known that not all schools had the Internet access. Many participants were also supposed to be inexperienced Internet users, so the online survey format could diminish the amount of answers. Most responses arrived by 20.12.1997, before Christmas leave. The last ones arrived when principals and teachers returned to work at the beginning of January 1998. No reminder letters were sent in Finland.
The overall response percentage in Finland was 49 per cent. Principals and school librarians in pairs answered 38%, principals alone in 5 cases, school librarians alone in three cases. The principal and school librarian was the same person in two cases. Research instrument 3 was left unanswered by eight principals and three school librarians, and it was answered partially by ten principals and seven school librarians. Many research instruments were answered partially. There were empty spaces and question marks in the answers. Reasons for the low response percentage might be: Research instruments were complicated to complete. The whole survey was very long and detailed. It was very busy time at schools before Christmas leave. Still, however, it seemed to be very accurate to some respondents, who even attached detailed letters with their answers.
A Finnish student translated January
1998 the research data into English. The researcher loaded the data into
the Finnish Web-site during one week in early February 1998.
| Nr of schools | Total schools replied | Principal only | School- librarian only | Principal
= school
librarian |
Principal
& School –
librarian pairs |
Total persons replied | |
| Vantaa | 10 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | ||
| % | 30 | 20 | 10 | 20 | |||
| Tampere | 12 | 9 | 1 | 8 | 17 | ||
| % | 75 | 67 | 71 | ||||
| Espoo | 11 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 10 | ||
| % | 55 | 36 | 45 | ||||
| Kauniainen | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
| % | 100 | 100 | 100 | ||||
| Lahti | 14 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 9 | ||
| % | 36 | 29 | 32 | ||||
| Helsinki | 38 | 18 | 2 | 1 | 15 | 33 | |
| % | 47 | 39 | 43 | ||||
| TOTAL | 86 | 42 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 33 | 75 |
| TOTAL % | 49 | 38 | 44 |
3.1. Demographics
of the schools
All schools in the research were
located in urban area. Most schools were quite small, 75% of schools had
max. 599 students. More than half of schools (65%) have max. 39 teachers.
Usually the school was a community school (67%). Private schools were 25%
and governmental schools 8% of the research sample. Most schools were ordinary
upper secondary schools, 37% of schools were reform schools, combined usually
of an upper secondary school and either a vocational school or a business
college. 18% of ordinary upper secondary schools were specialized in arts,
9% in business, 36% in languages, 9% in media, 9% in sciences and 18% in
sports.
Most schools (65%) have not a full time school librarian, but 35% of schools have a qualified school librarian. The questions about the Internet have been misunderstood: School librarians replied that 96% had 0-4 Internet connections in the school library, but 14% told that they had more than 5 Internet access point in the school library. Principals replied that 30% of the schools had more than 100 Internet connections and 17% had more than 100 Internet access points at their schools. It can be seen from the answers that schools usually have Internet connections and access in the computer classrooms but not in the school library.
3. 2. Analysis
of the data
The quantitative data analysis was
done in Australia for the whole international research. The following results
are based on the analysis and quality interpretations of the data.
3. 2. 1.
School librarians
The Finnish school librarian is
mainly a female MA, over 40 years of age. She is usually appointed through
an unadvertised position. School librarianship belongs to her as the duty
of mother tongue teacher. As teacher librarian she takes care of the school
library less than nine hours per week, most common 2 – 3 hours per week.
She has been a school librarian for either less than four years or more
than five years (50%- 50%). She has been a teacher prior to appointment
as school librarian more than four years. She has no library qualifications.
She is a member of the teachers’ union and the Association of the Mother
Tongue Teachers. If she is a qualified librarian, she does not belong to
the teaching staff. Being a teacher she does not follow Finnish library
listservs or Finnish library journals, instead, she reads journals of her
own subject area and of the Teachers’ Union.
The majority of the school librarians believe that the following statements are accurate (appendices 1,3):
Principals differed to school librarians in that they felt the following statements to be accurate (appendix 4):
3.2.3. Sample
findings from the research instrument 3 and open questions
Research instrument 3 and open questions
were analyzed as follows: After the responses to individual questions have
been analyzed, the responses to instrument 3 provided by teacher-librarians
and principals in the same school were examined for possible patterns.
Principals (10) saw IT and acquisition
of both printed and electronic material as the biggest challenges in the
school library. More room, professional staff and cooperation between teachers,
students and the library were also important. School librarians considered
adequate library space and the acquisition of modern basic materials the
most important. The importance of following the general library development
was self-evident even to teachers. After these followed IT and IT user
education, teaching information skills and weeding out old material. The
low salary compared to teachers’ wages and low status of qualified school
librarians were also mentioned: "To get the appointment, status and
salary of a real school librarian. The other challenges, e.g. integration
into curriculum etc., follow long behind." Overall, principals emphasized
the importance of IT more than school librarians. School librarians saw
sometimes IT as an enemy to reading. (Total 30 principals and 31 school
librarians)
Principals (12) considered most important
the school librarian’s task to teach information skills/user education
and to inspire and encourage students and staff. Traditional library tasks
like cataloguing or converting the card catalogue to the database, selecting
and acquiring material and organizing the school library were next. School
librarians saw as their most important tasks the acquisition of material,
the guidance of students to the right sources of information and the quality
of library collection. Three school librarians did not consider their work
critically valuable. Two instead thought that the enthusiasm to promote
the reading and the use of the library was critical. There were also mentions
about keeping the library tidy, integrating the library into the curriculum
and taking care that the IT machines work. - School librarians saw as their
most important task the acquisition of the materials, whilst according
to principals’ opinion it was the teaching of information skills. (Total
25 principals and 29 school librarians)
The majority of the principals (14) considered that the students’ independent work would become more difficult, but three thought that it would not affect school work at all. There were also opinions that students would have to go else were and the teaching strategies could not vary during the closure.
Six school librarians also thought
that the closure would be ineffective or they could not comment. Eight
emphasized that students could not work independently at school or they
could not complete their assignments /essays. Some teachers have access
to the school library, so it could be used, but in three cases students
would not have space to work. Some mentioned: "Behavioristic teaching
methods would come back, and very strongly. Project works would be endagered.
The reading habits would diminish, only the most eager would go the city
library." Or "The dialogue would diminish from the library side.
Teachers and students lose a good, familiar working space. Many students
would lose the ability to study independently. It means going back to teacher-centered
teaching." Overall principals saw the affects less important than school
librarians. (Total 26 principals and 25 school librarians)
Seven principals reported that the school library was always open in their school. Seven others thought that the absence of the school librarian would cause some harm, but would not upset the whole school. In four cases there was some kind of a stand-in librarian. In three schools this situation would threaten the independent search for information. One principal considered the absence of the school librarian as a catastrophe!
Eight school librarians on the other
hand mentioned the practical side of the school librarian’s absence: The
library will be messy and the material is returned to the wrong places.
The majority, 13 respondents, thought that absence had no or hardly any
effect. Five would not comment. In four cases the teachers had keys or
they could use the library independently. There were also those school
librarians who remembered the learners: Guidance will become to an end
and the same happens to the co-operation and integration, or: "Chaos!
Material will be lost. Students will have no help in using the machines,
or in seeking information. Lessons cannot be taught cooperatively by the
teacher and school librarian." School librarians and principals agreed
that affects would not be essential, but on the other hand some regarded
is as a as a very serious matter. (Total 26 principals and 28 school librarians)
Eight principals told that other teachers had keys, five that the library was always open or they had substitute arrangements. In three cases the janitor opened the door.
Nine school librarians told that
teachers had keys, seven that the door was always open. In six cases someone
of the school staff opened the door. In some papers it was pointed out
that students knew the rules of the library and self-service was arranged
to the school library. It seems clear that inside school there are arrangements
to ensure that the school library can be used during school terms. (Total
27 principals and 29 school librarians)
The majority (10) of the school librarians
saw information literacy as an ability to find information from various
sources, three as traditional and media literacy. It was also mentioned
that it is knowing how to acquire, understand, analyze, criticize and apply
information, to distinguish the important from the unimportant, to see
the cause and result. One school librarian also stated: "You must know
how to use the library catalogue and search for appropriate information."
Both principals and school librarians had quite a similar idea about information
literacy. (Total 22 principals and 26 school librarians)
A small majority of the principals (6) saw the limited subject areas or the rigid areas of compulsory courses and their fixed contents as the major barriers. Four principals lacked resources. Lack of time, space and training were also mentioned as barriers.
The school librarians had a slightly
different picture: Four told about the lack of time, three about the rigid
borders between subject areas and tight timetables. Qualified school librarians
also told of negative attitudes of the teachers, low status of the school
librarian and of ignorance about the work of the school librarian. (Total
22 principals, 19 school librarians) Principals and school librarians differ
significantly from each other in this question.
Two extremes are seen:
"Your questionnaire is idealistic but really very far from the real situation. In your questionnaire you totally ignore the importance of the school librarianship from the point of a view of teachers’ employment. I have got the responsibility of the school library because it gave me my minimum of teaching hours." (teacher)
" The questions asked in this questionnaire and the comparison to the real situation in our school library are much apart from each other: Our school library is in the cellar (or in the bomb shelter or in the attic or in the rear of the assembly hall), because of lack of space. We do not have a qualified school librarian but a mother tongue teacher, who takes care of the school library for three hours per week. The responsibility of the development of IT is upon our principal and IT-teacher." (teacher)
" I feel I am an important member of the school community. My duties don’t include tasks like coffee making or other people’s tasks. Teachers are not yet ready to develop the library, they say: "You can decide about the library matters." Still there are exceptions: Many teachers are in the long run interested in the acquisition of material of their subject area and also in classification. Teachers also bring me their schedules and time tables and we talk about the contents of the courses." (librarian)
"I feel I have a key position in our information center. In addition we try within the quality criteria to maintain the quality of collection and service, level of the knowledge of the personnel and the coziness and functionality of the space, we also aim at the ongoing grass-root-level collaboration with teachers to integrate information skills to all teaching. Tomorrow is that we work together with students in an inspiring information atmosphere, where we all have windows open to the world. We will have possibilities in the process of creating "new information" or "new knowledge". The contents of my work are always changing and growing." (teacher-librarian)
Following results are preliminary:
Principals and school librarians in Finland differ significantly in gender,
and age. Whilst school librarians are primaly female, principals are primaly
male. Whilst school librarians are likely to be between 40-49 years of
age, principals are likely to be between 50-59 years of age. Their co-operation
varies, too. The analysis of all the answers shows three probable types
of co-operation between principals and school librarians in Finnish upper
secondary schools:
This survey also aims at showing the challenges of the Finnish school libraries:
Principals and school librarians should be equal partners in a shared process. The earlier studies (Hafsteinsdottir (1997), Hay, Henri & Oberg (1998), Oberg (1997), have shown that principal’s support is vital to the well-being and development of the school library. The school librarian should also bear her/his part of the challenge of the educational reform. Above all, the educational policy and the socio-economic factors within each country establish possibilities for school libraries.
This research gave some hints for developing Finnish school libraries, whether in collaboration with public libraries or inside schools as the school’s learning resource centers. The results of the research may not be valid for a small amount of the participating schools, but they can and need to be used for the benefit of Finnish learners and teachers.
Sources:
Haavisto, Tuula: Country focus – Finland. In: Information Europe, spring 1998, s.28-29.
Hafsteinsdottir, Hafdis Dögg: The attitude of Icelandic principals towards school libraries. Paper presented at IFLA council and general conference, Sect. School libraries and resource centres, Copenhagen, 1997. Available: http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla63/63hafh.htm
Hay, Lyn, Henri, James & Oberg, Dianne: The principal’s role in developing information literacy: Findings from Australia and Canada. Paper presented at IASL conference, Jerusalem, 1998.
Niinikangas, Liisa: An Open learning environment – new challenges for the Finnish school library. Scandinavian Public Library Quarterly 28(1995): 4, 4-10
Niinikangas, Liisa: Uudesta kirjastosta ammattikorkeakoulun ylpeys. Ammattikorkeakoulukirjastojen nykytila ja ehdotuksia kehittämisvaihtoehdoiksi ja-mahdollisuuksiksi. Ammattikasvatushallinnon koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja 2/1996. Tampere, 1996.
Oberg, Dianne: Principal support: a research from Canada. Paper presented at IFLA council and general conference, Sect. School libraries and resource centers, Copenhagen, 1997. Available: http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla63/63obed.htm
Appendix
Appendix 1: Descriptive Statistics
from frequency analysis for Teacher Librarians
perception of time spent on tasks/
or in support of tasks by the Principal
| Question | Present | Present | Future | Future |
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| 1 | 3.25 | 1.05 | 3.81 | .40 |
| 2 | 2.89 | 1.26 | 3.64 | .76 |
| 3 | 3.39 | .96 | 3.64 | .76 |
| 4 | 2.61 | 1.10 | 3.42 | .81 |
| 5 | 2.56 | 1.21 | 3.17 | 1.03 |
| 6 | 2.47 | 1.38 | 3.31 | .89 |
| 7 | 1.64 | 1.38 | 2.22 | 1.59 |
| 8 | 2.69 | 1.55 | 3.11 | 1.37 |
| 9 | 2.17 | 1.13 | 2.97 | 1.18 |
| 10 | 1.81 | 1.26 | 2.67 | 1.29 |
| 11 | 3.03 | 1.28 | 3.14 | 1.27 |
| 12 | 1.69 | 1.31 | 2.58 | 1.48 |
| 13 | 3.11 | 1.14 | 3.06 | 1.24 |
| 14 | 2.44 | 1.46 | 3.67 | .76 |
| 15 | 2.56 | 1.32 | 3.39 | 1.15 |
| 16 | 1.39 | 1.34 | 2.31 | 1.45 |
| 17 | 2.64 | .99 | 2.94 | 1.01 |
| 18 | 1.44 | 1.05 | 2.06 | 1.26 |
| 19 | 2.03 | 1.32 | 2.44 | 1.34 |
| 20 | 1.72 | 1.03 | 1.78 | 1.33 |
| 21 | 2.61 | 1.50 | 3.0 | 1.20 |
| 22 | 1.39 | .90 | 1.56 | 1.32 |
| 23 | 1.06 | 1.04 | 1.19 | 1.26 |
| 24 | 2.56 | 1.54 | 3.19 | 1.09 |
| 25 | 1.22 | .99 | 1.61 | 1.42 |
| 26 | 1.17 | .88 | 1.92 | 1.32 |
| 27 | 1.56 | 1.13 | 1.83 | 1.36 |
| 28 | 2.33 | 1.55 | 2.94 | 1.37 |
| 29 | 1.83 | 1.18 | 3.03 | 1.08 |
| 30 | 1.61 | 1.50 | 3.11 | 1.14 |
| 31 | 1.14 | 1.13 | 2.50 | 1.32 |
Appendix 2: Descriptive Statistics
from frequency analysis for Principals perception of
time spent on tasks/ or in support
of tasks by themselves
| Question | Present | Present | Future | Future |
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| 1 | 3.40 | .78 | 3.5 | 1.09 |
| 2 | 3.25 | .49 | 3.47 | .78 |
| 3 | 3.68 | .73 | 3.67 | .92 |
| 4 | 2.78 | .95 | 3.10 | 1.08 |
| 5 | 2.83 | 1.13 | 3.22 | 1.05 |
| 6 | 3.05 | .75 | 3.32 | .76 |
| 7 | 1.70 | 1.34 | 2.05 | 1.30 |
| 8 | 2.15 | 1.35 | 2.45 | 1.38 |
| 9 | 2.70 | 1.04 | 3.15 | .95 |
| 10 | 2.62 | 1.03 | 3.07 | 1.10 |
| 11 | 3.67 | .47 | 3.70 | .72 |
| 12 | 2.42 | .96 | 2.95 | .99 |
| 13 | 3.28 | .60 | 3.40 | .81 |
| 14 | 3.18 | .81 | 3.38 | .77 |
| 15 | 2.85 | 1.17 | 2.88 | 1.26 |
| 16 | 1.75 | .87 | 2.15 | 1.05 |
| 17 | 2.80 | 1.14 | 2.90 | 1.24 |
| 18 | 2.05 | 1.11 | 2.32 | 1.12 |
| 19 | 2.30 | 1.09 | 2.53 | 1.22 |
| 20 | 1.90 | .98 | 2.07 | 1.14 |
| 21 | 3.00 | 1.34 | 3.15 | 1.21 |
| 22 | 1.62 | .87 | 1.80 | 1.24 |
| 23 | 1.63 | 1.10 | 1.63 | 1.10 |
| 24 | 3.4 | .63 | 3.48 | .78 |
| 25 | 1.65 | 1.12 | 2.05 | 1.36 |
| 26 | 1.28 | .85 | 1.80 | .07 |
| 27 | 2.02 | 1.21 | 2.20 | 1.32 |
| 28 | 2.90 | .98 | 3.07 | 1.12 |
| 29 | 2.10 | 1.08 | 2.53 | 1.20 |
| 30 | 2.08 | 1.25 | 2.37 | 1.41 |
| 31 | 1.85 | .98 | 2.17 | 1.22 |
Appendix 3: Descriptive Statistics from frequency analysis for Teacher Librarians Beliefs
Mean of 2.10 of under is considered
disagreement.
Mean of 2.90 or over is considered
agreement.
| Question | Mean | SD |
| 32 | 2.67 | 1.12 |
| 33 | 2.67 | 1.33 |
| 34 | 2.72 | 1.34 |
| 35 | 2.22 | 1.59 |
| 36 | 2.17 | 1.21 |
| 37 | 2.67 | 1.43 |
| 38 | 1.94 | 1.55 |
| 39 | 1.61 | .96 |
| 40 | 1.81 | 1.60 |
| 41 | 3.56 | .97 |
| 42 | 3.44 | .97 |
| 43 | 1.83 | 1.32 |
| 44 | 1.89 | 1.35 |
| 45 | 2.56 | 1.40 |
| 46 | 2.19 | 1.64 |
| 47 | 1.78 | 1.40 |
| 48 | 1.50 | 1.46 |
| 49 | 2.08 | 1.18 |
| 50 | 2.97 | 1.06 |
| 51 | 3.53 | .77 |
| 52 | 1.19 | 1.14 |
| 53 | 2.42 | 1.34 |
Appendix 4: Descriptive Statistics
from frequency analysis for Principals Beliefs
| Question | Mean | SD |
| 32 | 2.72 | 1.18 |
| 33 | 3.08 | .80 |
| 34 | 3.35 | .58 |
| 35 | 2.50 | 1.40 |
| 36 | 1.80 | 1.16 |
| 37 | 2.88 | 1.21 |
| 38 | 2.33 | 1.33 |
| 39 | 1.65 | 1.10 |
| 40 | 1.85 | 1.39 |
| 41 | 3.55 | .93 |
| 42 | 3.63 | .74 |
| 43 | 1.75 | 1.21 |
| 44 | 2.55 | 1.15 |
| 45 | 3.07 | 1.05 |
| 46 | 2.77 | 1.37 |
| 47 | 1.75 | 1.28 |
| 48 | 1.38 | 1.44 |
| 49 | 2.25 | 1.35 |
| 50 | 1.67 | 1.37 |
Appendix 5: T –Tests – Present
vs. Future Analysis – School librarians
| Question | Present | Present | Future | Future | P value |
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
| 1 | 3.25 | 1.052 | 3.806 | .401 | .002 |
| 2 | 2.89 | 1.26 | 3.64 | .762 | .000 |
| 4 | 2.61 | 1.103 | 3.42 | .81 | .000 |
| 5 | 2.56 | 1.206 | 3.167 | 1.03 | .004 |
| 6 | 2.47 | 1.38 | 3.31 | .89 | .000 |
| 9 | 2.17 | 1.13 | 2.97 | 1.18 | .000 |
| 10 | 1.806 | 1.26 | 2.67 | 1.29 | .000 |
| 12 | 1.69 | 1.31 | 2.58 | 1.48 | .000 |
| 13 | 3.11 | 1.14 | 3.67 | .76 | .002 |
| 14 | 2.44 | 1.46 | 3.06 | 1.24 | .003 |
| 15 | 2.56 | 1.32 | 3.39 | 1.15 | .000 |
| 16 | 1.39 | 1.34 | 2.31 | 1.45 | .000 |
| 18 | 1.44 | 1.05 | 2.06 | 1.26 | .000 |
| 26 | 1.17 | .88 | 1.92 | 1.32 | .000 |
| 28 | 2.33 | 1.55 | 2.94 | 1.37 | .004 |
| 29 | 1.83 | 1.18 | 3.03 | 1.08 | .000 |
| 30 | 1.61 | 1.50 | 3.11 | 1.14 | .000 |
| 31 | 1.14 | 1.13 | 2.5 | 1.32 | .000 |
Appendix 6: T –Tests – Present
vs Future Analysis - Principals
| Question | Present | Present | Future | Future | P value |
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
| 10 | 2.625 | 1.03 | 3.075 | 1.092 | .002 |
| 12 | 2.425 | .958 | 2.95 | .986 | .003 |
| 16 | 1.75 | .870 | 2.15 | 1.051 | .000 |
| 26 | 1.275 | .847 | 1.8 | 1.067 | .000 |
| 29 | 2.1 | 1.081 | 2.53 | 1.198 | .004 |
Appendix 7: Present and Future
Overall
| Present | Future | Beliefs | |
| Teacher Librarian - Mean | 66 | 85.19 | 41.31 |
| Teacher Librarian - SD | 20.79 | 20.99 | 11.32 |
| Principal - Mean | 77.88 | 85.48 | 44.83 |
| Principal - SD | 17.24 | 23.10 | 10.76 |
| Levenes F-value | .785 | .212 | .116 |
| Levenes p-value | .378 | .646 | .741 |
| t-value | -2.72 | -.06 | -1.39 |
| df | 74 | 74 | 74 |
| p-value | .008 | .956 | .169 |
Appendix 8: Other Variables
| Age | Gender | |
| TL - Mean | 3.22 | 1.08 |
| TL - SD | 1.045 | .28 |
| Principal - Mean | 3.95 | 1.58 |
| Principal- SD | .552 | .501 |
| Levenes F-value | 23.004 | 74.315 |
| Levenes p-value | .000 | .000 |
| t-value | -3.74 | -5.35 |
| df | 51.87 | 62.46 |
| p-value | .000 | .000 |