ED 096 980

TITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATENOTE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

DOCUMENT RESUME

IR 001 161

Narrative Evaluation Report on the LeadershipTraining Institute. July 1, 1972 (through) June 30,1c73.Florida State Univ., Tallahassee. School of LibraryScience.Bureau of Libraries and Educational Technology(DHEV/OE), Washington, D.C.7362p.; For a related document see IR 001 146

NF-$0.75 HC-$3.15 PLUS POSTAGEEvaluation; Experimental Programs; *Institutes(Training Programs); *Leadership Training; *LibraryEducation; *Management Education: ProgramDescriptions; Vorkshc,osHigher Education Ac' qtle IIB; *Leadership TrainingInstitute; Reforma Conference

ABSTRACTDuring the 1972--973 pear the Leadership Training

Institute (LTI) implemented a vi.riety of program activities toimprove training skills, to assess needs, and to package certainproducts for dissemination to the profession in general. Specificactivities included training sessions, on-site visits, development ofinstructional materials, and planning meetings with kty professionalgroups. LTI has also edited reports from Title II-B institutes forinclusion in ERIC. All of these activities are described in detail,and there is a specific section on evaluation which includes aninternal assessment and description of training activities.Appendices include: training sessions participants, formats, agendas,and evaluation forms; correspondence; site visit reports; andinformation on the Reforma Conference and other LTI activities.(Author; LS)

July 1572

TO:Directors and

FacultyInstitutes forTraining in

Librarianship

HEA Title II-BFROM:Leadership

TrainingInstitute

HaroldGoldstein,

DirectorBrooke

Sheldon,Associate

Director forTraining

DorothyAnderson,

AssociateDirector for

ProgramCoordination

BeneDurant, Field

CoordinatorNancy

Hines,Secretary

RE: The LTI and YOUCongratulations on

receivinga grant foralibrary

traininginstitute!

Just in case you aren't sure what theLeadership

TrainingInstitute is, or how it

relates to

yourinstitutehere isa brief

introduction.

TheLeadership

TrainingInstitute

(LTI), alsofunded under HEA Title 11-B, is under the

direction ofDr.Harold

GoldsteinatFlorida State

University. Inaddition to the LTI head-

quarters inTallahassee,

Florida StateUniversity

maint'ins an LTIcoordinatingoffice in

Wash-

ington, D.C.LTI

differs from otherinstitutes for

training inlibrarianship in

severaluniqueways.

We are notatraining

institute in theaccepted sense of the

termthat is: we haveno

scheduledacademic

program, noinstructionalstaff, and no

enrolled

participantsrather,LTI

isresponsible fora

number ofdifferent

activitiesdesigned to

identify andaddress

libraryleader-

shiptraining needs as

expressed byinstitute

directorsandfaculty aswell as bya

broader group

ofkeylibrary and media

professionspersonnel.

LTrsProgram Will

Include:

I.specialized

leadershiptwining

programsgeared to these

needs, e.g.:evaluation,

communications, etc.2.

preparationanddistributionof

leadershipdevelopment

materials in theareas

identifiedabove.3.

sharingofinformation

betweeninstitutes. e.g.:

problemsolving

techniques,

strategiesforeffective

communication,successful

managementpractices, etc.

4. ""meaningful""

reportingonseminarsor

workshops whereinstitute

directors

andfaculties meet and

discusscommonand

uncommonproblems in

sublect

areas suchas thetrainingofurban

informationspecialists.

paraprofessionals.

mediaspecialists, etc.

S.technical

assistance toongoing

traininginstitutes

throughsite visitsand con-

sultations.Since allofus are asked toundertakean

internalevaluation ofour

Instituteprograms, it

seemedvaluable to have a

down-to-earth guide toinstitute

evaluationwhich we could all adapt

to our own usewithout

unduefrustration. So LT1, with

considerable input fromprevious in-

stitutedirectorsand staffs, is

preparing apractical

planning andevaluation

handbook for Insti-

tuteself-study.The most

commonleadership

Problemencountered in the

instituteprograms

seems to be

Communicationbetweenfaculty and

participants,project

directors and theOffice of

Educa-

tion,participantsand field work

supervisors, etc.

atTI will invite onelibrary

traininginstitute to work with a

communicationsconsultant

todevelopa

practicalmodel for

improvinginterpersonal and

interagency

communications

within theinstitute and

libraryframework. If we can

develop somepositive and

useful tools

to help you reach yourobjectives, we'll make the

trainingand/or

materialsavailable toall

ofyou.As the year goes on we are eager to hear from any ofyou who have

discovered or

developedspecial

materialswhich have been

effective in yourinstitute. We

would like to share

these with the otherinstitutes.

narrative evaluation report on the

leads shipt fininginstitte

U S DEPARTMENT OF NEAT TNEDUCATION A WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATIO()(( .11.4 Pa I N kif POO

I) I x A( TL V A. t44 ( .1.1 1, I MOMt 41 44 te..oN (44 (UV ; AT, ON ow utoN

.N., .1 Pr-Kit.. OW OPINION%,t.A Do Not Nf f . MOIL V RI PO.PF'.4 NT (1, AI NA T ,t1NAI ,NSTitlitl Of

011( AT ( N )..1 I ION (114 PO( V

funded under theHigher Education Act Title II B

The Florida State University School of Library ScienceLeadership Training Institute Harold Goldstein, Director

My 1, 1972 Juno 30, 1973

Contents

I. INTRODUCTION

II. NARRATIVE REPORT -A. ObjectivesB. Participants -C. Staff 2D. Program Activities 4

I. Coordination2. Planning3. Documentation (ERIC Project)

LTI Training Sessions5. Site visitsh. Leadership Planning and

Advisory Group MeetingsE. Product Development 8

I. Instructional Materials3. COMPACb. Planning & Evaluation Handbookc. Using Your Nation's Capitald. Building Bridges to the Futuree. A New Direction for Librariesfl Go People in Go Collegesg. Helping People Cope

Reports3. Product Dissemination

F. Facilities 10G. Consultants 10

III. EVALUATION I I

APPENDICESA. List of Participants. L TI Training Sessions A-IB. Impact (411E:1 Title II-13 institutes

in Librarianship Dorothy R. McCarthy B-1

C. Sample Agenda Training Sessions . . C-ID. Evaluation Forms-- Training Sessions . . D-1E. Examples of Correspondence from

Participants. Professional Representatives F- IF. Site Visit Reports F- I

Case Western Reserve University . . F -IUniv. of Wisconsin Milwaukee . F-2Fast Tennessee State University . . F-4Fisk University F-iCalif. State University --Fullerton F-hNorth Carolina Central University . F-8Burlington County College F-9

G. Internal Reports to II-B Directors and/orBLLR. USOE G-I

H. RecommendationsFuture NationalLibrary Training Goals H- I

I. Leadership Training Checklist I- I

J. LTI Seminar on Library ParaprofessionalTraining- Agenda & Participant list . . J-1

K. LTI Reform Conference Agenda &Participant list K- I

L. Advisory Meeting on Library TrainingGuidelines- Agenda & Participant list . . L-1

M Use of CIPP Model in LTI Self-StJtly . . M-IN. Format for Planning LTI Training Sessions N-I

ihts pubheation uas prepared pursuant to 41 izruot frimi Clwyd StatesOffice of Educatin, Iteporimeut rtf Monk Education, atiltntalertal ozluderl heron does Rol oceesarth reflect 11,r posthon orhollt.% ofthe Untied Mute Office of i..dutilom. and no co ulal .ueut 1 theUntied Slate' Office of Etturaluo, (I

1 Al Ift liginstitute

Section I

Introduction

The rationale behind the development and funding of the LeadershipTraining Institute is both very simple and extremely complex.

For administrators in the library /media and information science fields, theunfortunate lack of management skills has reduced leadership effectivenessimmeasurably. Training and experiences designed to increase leadership con-fidence and ability are rare and often perpetuate the status quo. At the sametime there exists the somewhat natural aversion among humanists (as mostprevious recruits to librarianship have been) to study the science of manage-ment. Inevitably some excellent librarians reach postions of administrativeresponsibility without an understanding of sound management methodology.It is particularly for managers of HEA Title II-B institutes that the presentLeadership Training Institute is designed.

Since taxpayers' money is the source of institute funding, another obvi-ous reason for leadership training emerges. In educational circles "accounta-bility" has become a key concept. In federally administered programs, fund-ing must be contingent on continuous program evaluation and highly respon-sible management.

Under present conditions in the library world, the Leadership TrainingInstitute must also be responsive to a number of changing needs as they areseen by leaders and other constituents in the library /media professions. Thisrequires a great deal of operational flexibility and often results in modificationof the Leadership Training Institute plan of operation.

These expressed needs, both obvious and complex, are addressed in avariety of ways within the constraints of the Leadership Training Institute'slimited staff and financial resources and the time span of fiscal year funding.

Section Il Part AObjectives

The effectiveness of Title Il -B programs will depend largely on the degreeof impact they may have on library education in general so that the profes-sion is equipped to meet the changing information needs of all clienteles.

The Leadership Training Institute has three major goals:

1. Improved leadership training skills for directors and staffs of feder-ally funded library training institutes and other key library andmedia professions personnel;

2. Assessment and establishment of priorities for critical training needsin the library and media professions;

3. Coordination of such training activities with the Bureau of Librariesand Learning Resources, national advisory groups, library associa-tions, etc.

During the year a variety of program activities were implemented toimprove training skills, to assess needs, and to package certain productsfor dissemination to the profession in general. Specific activities includedtraining sessions, on-site visits, development of instructional materials,andplanning meetings with key professional groups. Each activity had its ownspecific objectives developed in relation to, and as steps in, reaching over-all goals. All of these activities are described in detail in parts D and Eof this report. There is also a specific section on evaluation (Section III)which includes an internal assessment and description of trainingactivities.

Seaion II Part BParticipants

LTI differs from other institutes for training in librarianship in severalunique ways.

We are NOT a training institute in the accepted sense of the term.That is, we have no continuous academic program, no instructional staff,and no enrolled participants. Rather, LTI is responsible for a number ofdifferent activities designed to identify and address library leadershiptraining needs as expressed by institute directors and faculty as well as bya broader group of key library and media professions personnel. (See sec-tion D for full range of activities.)

A list of HEA Title II-B Institute Directors who, with their key staffmembers, participated in the LTI training sessions is appended. SeeAppendix A. It must be remembered, that members of advisory groupsand other professional leaders called together by LTI were representativeof most segments of the profession.

Section II Part CStaff

1) Director of the InstituteHarold Goldstein, Ed.D. Teachers College, Columbia University,

Dean and Professor, School of Library Science, Florida State Univer-sity. Dr. Goldstein has had more than thirty years of library serviceand library education experience in the U.S. and abroad. He committed1 percent of his time to the project in FY

-1,..0irate Director tor Ithrarie Leadership I miningBrooke E. Sheldon, NILS Simmons College, 1454. Experi...nce:

s'c'ars public , 2 years special, and 5 veins state agent v. this associatedirector had full responsibility for the implementation of training prog-rams. The Associate Director. under the guidance of the Director andworking closely with the Bureau and the LH Coordinating Office inWashington. arranged for evaluation and reporting on the LTI trainingsessions and training materials.

She was also concerned with the identification of leadership train-ing needs and was jointly responsible, with the Associate Director forCoordination, for the development of training models.

This Associate Director also worked with consultantspanels'g-roups as they were concerned with training activities and the achieve-ment of program objectives.3) Associate Director tir Program Coordination and Impleinentation

Dorothy Anderson, MLS, University of Washingten, 1960. Experi-ence: 5 years state agency, 5 years public, 2 years academic, 2 yearsALA headquarters; including teaching library management and staffdevelopment.

This Associate Director's responsibility was to manage the LT1Washington Office and coordinate program activities. She providedliaison between the Bureau, funded institutes, the profession, andpanels of experts.

Ms. Anderson supervised the Field Coordinator and providedgeneral assistance to funded institu;.es.The Washington Office pre-pared and distributed reports and other materials.

Further, she coordinated with the Director, the Associate Directorfor Training, and other groups in planning program directions. Sub-cc ntractual activities necessary for leadership assistance to other HEATitle 11 B programs were administered by this Associate Director, incooperation with the Training Director, as well as contracts relating toshort term training consultants. research assistants, etc. The Washing-ton Office reported its activities to the 111 Director on a regular basis.4) Field Coordinator

Bene Durant. MLS, Atlanta University, I%7, six years of publicand academic library experience.

The Field Coordinator was responsible for site visits to on-goingfunded institutes to facilitate communications with institute directors,their staffsifaculties, and participants. She recommended assistance toinstitute directors and recommended the use of outside consultantswhen indicated.She was responsible for the editing of 11-B reports forERIC and conducted other research studies relating to training aids,dissemination reports, etc.

Ms. Durant assisted with other LTI activities in the WashingtonOffice and reported to the ASsociate Director for Program Coordina-tion.5) SecretariiLTI Washington Office

Nancy Hines,;(% retary to 1.11 dim, tor I allahassee

lajut Weenink

3

See tion 11 l'art I)Program Activities

I. COOrdillatiOnDlie to tilt' 111Uhiplie and %ril 44 tasks unticrtaken bt the Leadtship

Training Institute and t pet tatil11N of 111.111\ ilIttVitllt levels- 01 constituents,the coordination of 1.11 effort,. has Iwo, eLtioinvh tfoaded and often tiff .ficult.

Coordination aenyities int hided rartiLipatin in stati planning fur trainingand materials development. reporting to , participants and selectedsegments ot the librarY media field; sharing strategies for effective leadershipand problem solving techniques; hiring and working yLith consultants andspecialists to produce specific training materials; disseminating these produc-ts; managing the LI1 Washington office ; responding to suddenly emergentleadership training needs as se v the Bureau of Libraries and LearningResources; Lommunieating with .ticipants, other library leaders, BUR Reg-ional Program Officers, and t i oordinating I T1 staffactivities. meeting arrangements; training sessions ttorkshops, senuaars;preparing recommendations for the I.11 Diree tot tonsideration.

2. PlanningInitial Pi 72-73 planning took place in lull' and August, 1q72. and moved

into the implementation stage tiloteing scheduled group meetings with eachoperating unit of the Bureau of Lilraries and Learning Resources. It was,understood that Leadership I raining activities and materials _ould affectmany library programs bevond ride Il-P and each 131.1.R division interestedin improved leadership should have input and information. Mans for threefall meetings, site visits, materials development. dissemination and research(needs assessmert) were then Larefully, developed in response to expressedconcerns of previous participants and stated 1.11 'Alice nee's.

3. Dot timentation l<1(A most serious intrmation gap ha, a istt at ht-tween hbeary proieets

funded by the L S.0./-. and the Iihlaer owdia 1aession. Eoi example, whilereports and produits from fat h !ILA i itie H-B institute are submitted to theOffiLe of Education where they are studied by the program manager andother interested persons, no money or time a% tillable to extrael and dis-seminate useful information twin these' reports to t uncut or prospettite librare educators, trainieg diretors. and resemehers. I:11 has undertaken thetask of obtaining and editing these reports from the four year. of IlEAI1 B institutes for inclusi..n in the Educational Rus(airLs Intiamation entei'sLibrary and Inhirmation ~dente t leartngh.Itini. t het will then he availableto library. leaders yLho wish to lean. tut I and pioleins in flawing librarians at eyetV i%

During the editing pro& ess. I II Field t IRthttoato. Belie Durant, tt tit %N o,

responsible for the I.TI.FRIC prow. t and ionsnitant Ihrothy Ryan M. (.'arth%noted the special features, slit VsSi.". and re's in the reports. NtisAlt C athv repa-ed 1.11 a paper on the MINI, t of title 11 B pri)gia:11*, asseen in a sampling of =I() institute's :-;ev Appends., B)

4 1 II 'hawing Se,sii:w.In the planning and 'napki i(iitaLitin of a Art lliL'o sits of pCtigi din

activities, it was imperative to keep m mind i If's primary. t dire. tors

and -.tans of tvderallv tunded institutes. t tt al k l'ts111 4111110M CVCE

at tIVitV Was developed as a step ti)%\alds 1. II'S 111,01 Ilk IPA.. the Anlprot e-ment of twining, skills for directors and staffs and utiles ke library and Mediaprofessions personnel.

In designing and nnplementing attual training institutes or workshopsfor this clientele. there were two major tattors to be ll.)41:Nklertll.

a) The minimal amount t time available to institute staffs to attendformal training sessions;

b) The difficulty of planning learning e\pelient is useful to InstituteDirectors and staffs involved in widely variant programs on a vari-ety of levels.

Needs:In planning for the training sessions, the 1 TI staff had several sourtes

of information on which to base program decisions. The participant evalua-tions of previous training sessions tx ere consulted, .ts well as the site visitreports of the LTI Field Coordinator. Personal ..mtat t was also made withmost of the Institute Directors concerning training needs.

All of this contextual intormation pointed up priority training needs inthe areas of planning, on going etaluation, and comonitation skills. Otherconcerns related to motivation of students. use of AV materials, curriculumplanning, general management, etc.

Operational Plan:Having assessed priority training needs, it has decided that a more rele-

vant training experience could he provided through dividing participants intosmaller groups by type of institute. Accoidingly. three-day programs wereorganized for Atlanta (Urban Information), New Hampshire (Paraprofessional'training), and Denver (Media Specialist).The objectives of the meetings were:

Apply managenu planning 1.4.614Institute problems;

2) Preview and evaluate 4 OMPnCiitS it a .orninu,ikation!, training;pn.gram developed for 111 (St... Sec tom t t .a

3) Provide opportunity tor Institute Ntatih to prObll'Ill t. throughsharing information;

4) Review input for a final draft of all evaluation 11.111.11%44 detelopedfor use in the training sessions, and for later use as a training aidfor institute directors and statts and other libraiv twiner!,

All Lurrenth, funded institutes here replesented x,epi one (faeultvAdditionally, several key elltliatOrs alld or libranans in the areas

ut tilban information, paraprofessional. anid media nainutg wereinvited to attend the appropriate Ili Appo..I\ pei sons,ir.Lluding staff. USOL representatives. and other bsertI he Associate Director fia- Coordination Fiyld Coto dioatm !tinning! intl. tor, and NCO:kW actively parliCipatt'd n, all fillet. sstons.

1 he program format used was snniliar in ea. 1, ses,li at. Cwt. ApenII\Etc first fixes k% as spent on a tonununit Atkins SI'111s1dr III 0.114 h C:t

rn (,route, In.. presented lecture, audio visual Ides. titati,a1., (utilizingNtitIltc stitilv! its Mitt faculty at t as. t\etein ke,eit 111%.01 "at 1 IOUs

'1.11114.4 t Itan.a,tttioal ; ,.vile It volt at tar atanagement -evaluation h., I lot k tlfunit test.' ved tor II 'put front students In the Instil ites

A discussion of how effective the training sessions were in improvingplanning and evaluation skills, exchanging information, and in illustratingapplications of transactional analysis to communications problems in lib-rary training is contained in Section III. (Also, see Appendix D for sampleevaluation forms.) In addition, letters from participants (see Appendix E)provide some informal insight into participant response.

5. Site Visitstechnical assistanc (see Appendix F for individual -reportsby LTI Field Coordinator)

In addition to providing technical assistance to 11-B institutes onrequest, LT1 staff was also a 'ailable to conduct small on-site workshopsessions in leadership areas such as communication. (See Appendix G.)The LT1 Field Coordinator requested recommendations on Future TrainingNeeds from Institute Directors (Appendix H) and gathered information oncurrent training needs. See LTI Checklist. (Appendix I)

6. Leadership planning and advisory group meetingsa) Advisory Committee on Paraprofessional Training.An LT1 Advisory Group met September 18-19, 1972, in Washington

to discuss the state of Library paraprofessional training and to provide theBureau of Libraries and Learning Resources with information necessary tothe development of HEA Title 11-8 guidelines for fiscal year 73-74. Thegroup, chaired by Dr. Harold Goldstein, LT1 Director, was representativeof the broad spectrum of library involvement with paraprofessional train-ing and utilization. A paper by Dr. Dorothy Deininger formed the back-ground for consideration of current training priorities.

The group expressed strong concern for the strengthening of teachersand instructional materials used in paraprofessional programs. Anothermajor area of discussion centered on the national standardization of Lib-rary Technical Assistant programs which lead to the AA degree.

The concept of differentiated staffing as outlined in the ALA state-ment on Education and Manpower was confirmed by the Advisory Group,and concern was expressed that state p:rsonnel hoards should incorpoi itethese positions into their personnel structure.

For agendas and participant lists see Appendix

Re forma meetingA significant component of the Leadership Training Institute's objectives

is to cooperate with key professional groups in enordiliating efforts, assessingneeds, and when appropriate, lending aSSISicillie.

//) RliFOKNIA, a group of professional and non- professional librarians con-cerned with improving library service to Spanish Speaking Americans, askedI.TI to sponsor and help organ:te a meeting to meet the following objective's:

I. Formulation of an action program for the group.2. ( omplete plan', for a program nwelIng at the American Library, lawn tIlAl raitIli In lin, Vvg,p, 1471ten Lt.% ittunibuts of R1 1-UICVIA nlcl v.ith I I I slat, in flirt %orth,

\pill r 31iti 7 1471 I hi. lust objvc five 14 the owe' e. tormulation of a

FP. 7-ty .vER64111111111111111111111 MISSING FROM THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS

SUBMITTED TO ERIC DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION SERVICE.

2) Advisory GroupsSee appendices j and L for members of Paraprofessional Training,

Leadership Planning, Training Guidelines, Meeting Agendas.

Section III. Evaluation --Part ASelf Study

Since a major portion of the training provided by the Leadership TrainingInstitute dealt with methods of improving evaluation skills for directors andstaffs of all Title II-B institutes, it seems extremely appropriate that this reportdescribe and assess to what degree these evaluative techniques were testedand practised by the LTI staff in its own program.

In addition to three training sessions primarily concerned with planningand evaluation, the LTI also developed and published a handbook or guideto evaluation for library trainers, Planning & Evaluating Library Training Prog-rams (available under separate cover). The handbook is not intended to setforth a definitive method of administering and evaluating training. Rather itis, as the LTI Director stated in the foreword, to be "used as a guide ratherthan a final answer."

In the training sessions, as in the handbook, an emphasis was placedupon the need for clear organizational objectives based on maximum inputfrom staff, students, and advisory groups as a primary means of achievingresults and improvement of training programs. The handbook also stressedthe importance of providing relevant data for the decision making processand suggested a number of techniques for changing and modifying coursesof action in midstream.

The concepts presented include references to a number of evaluationmodels as well as descriptions of a number of management systems andtechniques. There is, however, a definite emphasis on the CIPP modeldeveloped by Dr. Daniel Stufflebeam at Ohio State University. CIPP (anacronym for Context, Input, Process, and Product type of evaluation) is anevaluation model that has been widely presented to librarians, chieflythrough a year-long Title institute conducted in 1971-72 for state libraryagency heads and planners.

The CIPP model defines evaluation as "the process of delineating, obtain-ing, and providing useful information for judging decision alternatives."

In the CIPP model, there are four general types of decisions which mustbe made during a project (or training program). These are:

1. Planning decisions which determine needs, priorities and objectives(CONTEXT)

2. Structuring decisions which analyze and select strategies or coursesof action to achieve the objective (INPUT)

3. Implementing decisions which occur as the program progresses(PROCESS)

4. Recycling decisions which relate to the extent the program hasachieved the objectives and decisions that are made whether to continue,modify, or terminate a project (PRODUCT)

11

Appendix M of this report uses an adaptation of the CIPP model toindicate to what degree the LTI "practised what it preached" in its internalplanning and evaluation procedures. An overall assessment of the on-goimand final impact of the Institute is described by the outsideevaluator, Dr. Donald P. Ely (a report available under separate cover).

_,411Z;

40°' -11"11174:CA409

/gAralifts; -eartiOl44111011k

ANA.

Nor

"km

Alvin Goldwyn. Director of Institute program in Urban LibraryService Case Western Reserve University. talks with a child ata community agency where students do field work.

ItifticipantsJo Ann BayneumAtlanta UniversityAtlanta, Georgia

Miriam BravermanColumbia UniversityNew York, New York

Penelope BullockAtlanta UniversityAtlanta, Georgia

Jean E. CazortFisk UniversityNashville, Tennessee

Jean ColemanColumbia UniversityNew York, New YorkHiram DavisNorthwestern UniversityEvanston, Illinois

Alvin J. GoldwynCase-Western Reserve UniversityCleveland, Ohio

Roger Mae JohnsonCase-Western Reserve UniversityCleveland. Ohio

Virginia Lacy JonesAtlanta Un.versityAtlanta, Georgia

Carlton RochelleAtlanta Public LibraryAtlanta, Georgia

Rae RohfeldCase-Western Reserve UniversityCleveland, Ohio

Laurence SherrillUniversity of WisconsinMilwaukee, Wisconsin

Participants

George AbrahamUniversity of New HampshireMerrimack Valley BranchManchester, New Hampshire

Shirley AdamovitchUniversity of New HampshireMerrimack Valley BranchManchester, New Hampshire

Arthur BerlinSalem High SchoolSalem, New Hampshire

Appendix ALeadership Training Institute For Directors, Staffs

of Urban Information Institutes

Florida State UniversityAtlanta, Georgia

January 17 -18. 19,1973

Jessie Carney SmithFisk UniversityNashville, Tennessee

Mary Suit kUniversity of WisconsinMilwaukee, Wisconsin

Kinnie TateUniversity of WisconsinMilwaukee, Wisconsin

Josephine ThompsonAtlanta UniversityAtlanta, Georgia

Ella YatesAtlanta Public LibraryAtlanta, Georgia

Observer Participants

Elda ColomboChicago Public LibraryChicago, Illinois

Shelah-Bell CraginEl Paso Public LibraryEl Paso, Texas

Gwen CruzatUniversity of MichiganAnn Arbor. Michigan

Ann KincaidSan Francisco Public LibrarySan Francisco, California

StaffGary AllenConcern, Inc.Washington, D.C.

Beni DurantLeadership Training InstituteWashington, D.C.

Ken EyeEvaluation CenterOhio State UniversityColumbus, Ohio

Harold GoldsteinLeadership Training InstituteFlorid? State UniversityTallahassee, Florida

Brooke SheldonLeadership Training InstituteFlorida State UniversityTallahassee, Florida

MLR Staff & GuestsShirley BrotherLibrary Services Program Officer50 Seventh Ltreet, N.E., Room 550Atlanta, Georgia

Elizabeth ColeGeorgia Department of LibrariesAtlanta, Georgia

Yvonne HicksAdministrative Librarian for

Training ProgramsBureau of Libraries and Learning

ResourcesU.S. Office of EducationWashington, D.C.

Venable LawsonDirectorSchool of Library ServiceEmory UniversityAtlanta, Georgia

Prank StevensProgram ManagerBureau of Libraries and Learning

ResourcesU.S. Office of EducationWashington, D.C.

Leadership Training Institute For Directors, Staffsof Paraprofessional Institutes

Florida State UniversityBedford, New Hampshire

January 24, 2S, 26, 1973

Ron BoydCommunity College

Midway, Washington

John DaleyUniversity of New HampshireMerrimack Valley BranchManchester, New Hampshire

Lorenz GudeBurlington County CollegePemberton, New Jersey

AI

John R. LoughlinUniversity off. New HampshireMerrimack Valley BranchManchester, New Hampshire

Francis McCafferyUniversity of New HampshireMerrimack Valley BranchManchester, New Hampshire

Junius MorrisLearning Resources CenterHighline Community CollegeMidway, Washington

Appendix AJudith OlsenBurlington County CollegePemberton, New Jersey

Stanky PerryUniversity of New HampshireMerrimack Valley BranchManchester, New Hampshire

Hugh PritchardUniversity of New HampshireMerrimack Valley BranchManchester, New Hampshire

Fleming A. ThomasDivision of Learning ResourcesBurlington County CollegePemberton, New Jersey

Observes.Porticipants

Merle BauerBOCESBinghamton, New York

Hannah MacCauleyOhio University BranchLancaster, Ohio

McKinley MartinCoahoma Junior Collegeaarlcsdale, Mississippi

fizrticipants

Lucille HatchGraduate School of LibrarianshipUniversity of Denver

Norman HigginsDepartment of Educational Tech-

nology and Library ServiceArizona State UniversityTempe, Arizona

Patrick S. SanchezDivision of Library ScienceCalifornia State CollegeFullerton, California

Mary SytertGraduate School of LibrarianshipUniversity of Denver

Chow by TomGraduate School of BibUniversity of Denver

Tommie YoungSchool of Library ServiceNorth Carolina Central UniversityDurham, North Carolina

ObserverParticipants

Christina GlassEl Paso Public SchoolsEl Paso, Texas

Bill NealyOhio State UniversityColumbus, Ohio

Winifred VeazyBoard of EducationBronx, New York

StaffGary AllenConcern, Inc.Washington, D.C.

Dorothy AndersonLeadership Training InstituteWashington, D.C.

Brooke SheldonLeadership Training InstituteFlorida State UniversityTallahassee, Florida

Alfred SchutteTaconic Data Research, Inc.Uniondale, New YorkGuests

Yvonne HicksAdministrative Librarian for

Training ProgramsBureau of Libraries and Learning

ResourcesU.S. Office of EducationWashington, D.C.

Leadership Training For Directors, Staffsof Media Specialists Institutes

Florida State UniversityDenver, Colorado

February 7, 8, 9, 1973

Nina MartinAlabama School LibrariesMontgomery, Alabama

Bonnie MitchellOhio State LibraryColumbus, Ohio

Lotsee SmithUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerque, New MexicoJean WichersSan Jose State UniversitySan Jose, California

StaffGary AllenConcern. Inc.Washington. D.C.

Beni DurantLeadership Training InstituteWashington, D.C.

Ken EyeOhio State UniversityColumbus, Ohio

Harold GoldsteinFlorida State UniversityTallahassee, Florida

A-2

Arlene HopeLibrary Services Program OfficerJohn F. Kennedy Federal BuildingGovernment CenterBoston, Massachusetts

Art KinchenbaumBureau of Libraries and Learning

ResourcesPlanning, EvaluationU.S. Office of EducationWashington, D.C.

Frank StevensTraining DirectorBureau of Libraries and Learning

ResourcesU.S. Office of EducationWashington, D.C.

Adelaide ThomnProgram Spa1Public Careers ProgramWashington, D.C.

Brooke SheldonFlorida State UniversityTallahassee, Florida

BUR Sta ff & Guests

Henry FontaineLibrary Services Program OfficerFederal Office Building19th and Stout StreetsDenver, Colorado

Yvonne HicksAdministrative Librarian for

Training ProgramsBureau of Libraries and Learning

ResourcesU.S. Office of EducationWashington, D.C.

Jim MeeksState LibrarianDenver, Colorado

Henry ShearouseDenver Public LibraryDenver, Colorado

Frank StevensProgram Manager, Library

TrainingBureau of Libraries and Learning

ResourcesU.S. Office of EducationWashington, D.C.

APPEN DI X II

Impact of HEA Title 11 B Institutes in Librarianship

Dorothy R. McCarthy

This report is the result cf a survey of the narra-tive evaluations of 50 institutes for training in lib-rarianship conducted during the years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, and 1971-72 as written by directors of theinstitutes. It includes both summer and academic yearinstitutes, the latter both part-time and full-time. Ofthe 32 summer institutes, 16 were designed for schoollibrarians only, 12 were for either school, public, oracademic librarians, three were for academic librariansonly, and one for persons holding responsibility fortraining librarians. Of the 11 academic year part-timeprograms, six were for school librarians, and five werefor any type. All six of the degree-granting full-timeacademic year institutes were designed for school lib-

rarians.The 50 institutes were conducted under the

auspices of a variety of institutions of higher educa-tion located in all parts of the country. Twenty-twowere held at accredited library schools; 28 were heldat other institutions offering some preparation for lib-rarianship at the graduate level. The geographical dis-tribution included five on the east coast, 19 in thesoutheast, 12 in the mid-west, three in the southwest,and 11 in the west including Alaska aid Hawaii.

It is apparent that no definitive statements can bemade on the impact of the some 240 institutes heldduring this four-year period on the basis of reports ononly 50 of them. However, it is believed useful toexamine the directors' reports of this representativesample to determine what have been thought to beelements of success and failure in the institutes, andto make sone generalizations about the usefulness ofthe institute program to the schools and librariansinvolved. The following questions will be consideredin this report:

What educational featares of institutes developed dur-ing these years of federal support for library trainingproved to be useful and can be expected to conti,nuein the future?What has been learned of the uses of group dynamicsin library continuing education?Can a successful set of logistics for institutes be iden-tified which will be useful to future directors of suchprograms, whether federally funded or not?What comparisons can be made between short-termsummer institutes and part-time academic yearinstitutes?

B-1

Does the academic year institute which results in agraduate degree seem to accomplish the specific goalsset for it in the original proposal?What patterns of library cooperation have been estab-lished through federally funded institutes?Are there other permanent results on the libraryschools themselves?Finally, what activities might be useful in the future?Will follow-up of participants provide material for sig-nificant research studies in library education?

Perhaps a definition of the type of program beingconsidered will provide a focus for the considerationof the above questions. A recent article on short-terminstitutes written by a director of several, makes acomparison of the term "workshop" with "institute",in this way:

The institute . . . concentrates on the achieve-ment of a long-range effect. Its primary emphasisis theoretical; its secondary emphasis, the pragma-tic application of explicated theory, with or with-out direct participation . . . The successful design,implementation, and evaluation of institutes pre-supposes functional acceptance of the basicassumption that an institute should represent adistinct and totally definable entity rather than beingmerely an excerpt, extension, or adaptation of anestablished course in the curriculum of a profes-sional school, or exposition of "how I do itgood" in any particular system, agency, or state.'

In the conferences held for directors in prepraration forforthcoming institutes, the point was often made thatthe institute should be something more than could bedone in the normal academic program. It should be afully coordinated program with a specifiz goal andwith a homogeneous group of participants selectedbecause they could benefit from the particularemphasis. Few, if any, visitors should be allowed andthe participants should all devote full time t...) theinstitute for its duration. The work should upgradethe knowledge of already knowledgeable participants.Objectives should be clearly stated in the advancebrochure and both participants and staff should knowwhat they are expected to accomplish and by whatmeans. The group should remain together for the

1. Jane A. Hannigan. "The Short Term Institute: A Vehicle for Con-tinuing Education". School Media Quarterly1:194. (Spring 1973)

Appendix B

duration in both formal and inforinal activities. Thereshould be sufficient staff members to work closelywith students in small groups in an advisory capacityso that individual needs can be met.

Educational Features of institutes

With the above definition and goals in mind, thesummary evaluations written by institute directorswere examined for evidence that some innovations inlibrary education were made.

One comment that recurs in the summaries is thatan enthusiastic climate of learning was established atthe start of the institute and congeniality of partici-pants was a strong factor in its success. The very factof selection by a committee for participation in theprogram seemed to engender self-confidence andreadiness to learn in the group as a whole. At times,when grades were involved, competition becamesevere and the camaraderie was lost. Some institutedirectors came to the conclusion that a pass/fail systemwould be preferable to a letter system of grading. Thistrend is increasing in higher education today.

Good teaching is essential in any learning situa-tion. The opportunity to bring in outstanding consul-tants and lecturers to supplement the regular institutefaculty contributed to the success of many institutes.They brought a larger view of the profession, con-siderable expertise in many aspects, and favorablepublicity to the library school. An awareness ofactivities in other libraries that might be successfullyemployed in the libraries of the participants wascreated. Often the visiting consultants used locallyproduced tape/slide presentations which gave realityto the work they described. In few cases was thereunfavorable criticism of a visiting professional lectureror consultant in any institute. They were chosenwisely and they performed at a very high level.

Another feature of many institutes was the fieldtrip visit to exemplary media centers and libraries.Money was available to take the entire group on suchvisits with accompanying faculty members to interpretand evaluate the programs. Although generalized fieldtrips have been included in library school experiencesfor many years, the institute field trip with a specificgoal was different. It resulted in integration of thetheoretical and experienced-based learning in a shortperiod of time, especially in localities which had dis-tinctive libraries. Interaction seminars were often heldfollowing the visits, with students and faculty discuss-ing what they had seen. In fact, the follow-up wassometimes considered the most useful feature of thetrip.

Self-instructional components were developedwhich served to individualize instruction and resultedin practical use of the information presented to the

13-2

larger group. Most institutes exacted some type of pro-ject from each student. As directors became moreexperienced in conducting institutes, they tended toannounce this feature in advance so that participantscame with individual problems in mind,. clarified anddefined their needs during the institute, and produceda guidebook or bibliography or outline that would beuseful in their libraries. In at least one institute, a pat-tern of continuing education was developed by eachparticipant. In another, with no formal classes butgroup work in mini-units selected by participants, theprojects were not individually undertaken but done byfour or five persons working together. A "how to"manual was compiled by one group on the needs ofMexican/Americans or Indians in the upgrading of vb-rary programs. There is evidence that considerableexperimentation was done at this level with newlearning materials and methods and that some of thecompleted projects would be useful to other librariesthan those for which designed. If possible, these pro-jects should be made available through ERIC/CLIS.

In many of the academic year full-time institutes,a practicum was a distinctive feature. Participantswere assigned to work in a particular library or systemfor a concentrated period of time ranging from oneweek to a month or more under the combined direc-tion of library staff members and institute faculty.They were expected to learn from the association witheffective librarians on the job as well as to contributetheir knowledge gained from previous course work. Ingeneral, the host librarians felt that the librariesbenefited from the experience. The enthusiasm of theparticipants was in most cases very high. The prac-ticum required considerable time for planning andevaluating but the results were good. Some directorsreported that the practicum had since become a reg-ular part of the library school curriculum.

Participants in short-term institutes also expressedthe wish for more practice and less theory. The publi-cation of the 1969 ALA Standards for School Media Pro-grams coincided with the planning of institutes forschool librarians during these four years. This createda new awareness of the need for expertise in the useof audiovisual equipment and the knowledge ofmaterials available. Many of the institutes for schoollibrarians were planned to meet this need. Theirschools often had equipment available that was notbeing used and the librarians assumed that theywould gain practical knowledge at the institute thatwould enable them to make use of it with teachers.Money was available for.instructional materials in theinstitute budgets and commercial producers of materi-als solicited the opportunity to lend or give their pro-ducts. Thus the participants had ready access to bothequipment and matt rials. Their most common com-plaint was that not enough time was available to usethem during the institute day. Most students wanted

Appendbc B

a how-to-do-it short course in the use of equipment.They seldom received it. Some directors kept theaudiovisual labs open in the evening and presentedfilm programs, but novices in the use of equipmentdid not get the instruction they wanted. The definitionof an institute quoted earlier is applicable here. It con-centrated on a long-range effect and the emphasis wastheoretical. Time for practice was not often available inshort-term institutes.

Human RelationsThe era of federal institutes also coincided with a

period of increased emphasis on group dynamics. Inseveral summary evaluations there were references tothe use of staff who had some training in this field,and in others there was expressed a felt need for moreknowledge on the part of the director. The fact thatparticipants were selected for certain specific qualifica-tions meant that a degree of homogeneity wasthought to be achieved. They were offered a plannedprogramhowever structured or unstructuredthatshould give them further commonality. The time andlocation of the institute kept them together as a group.The voluntary participation made for a positive reac-tion to the program. It remained, then, for the leaderto achieve first-hand acquaintance with them and forstudents to get acquainted with each other to form acohesive group.

As in all endeavors involving human beings, themembers of the group did not always react asexpected. Despite the beginning enthusiasm andhopeful expectations, the orientation period includingintroductions, a social hour, statements of purposesand goals, the group did not always achieve totalcommunication. Speakers on interpersonal relationsand sensitivity training were employed in someinstitutes and demonstrations of principles involved ingroup dynamics were presented. The reaction to theseefforts was favorable.

Institutes, it has been said, were a composite ofmany things, experiences, and people. They involvedatmosphere and environment, inspiration and chal-lenge, and an opportunity for exchange of ideas andexperiences. Most institutes did not succeed in recruit-ing the full number of participants with the qualifica-tions sought. Candidates with different backgroundswere accepted. Sometimes the mix proved advantage-ous.

Most directors reported one or two misfits whocriticized the program, usually without constructivesuggestions for improvement. Some reported two ormore factions developing, particularly in the academicyear institutes, which tended to destroy rapportbetween students and faculty, as well as among theparticipants themselves. It was essential that the direc-tor have knowledge of methods of group dynamics aswell as a sense of humor. In addition, it was useful

B-3

to have an educational psychologist on the staff, or atleast to have access to one in the continuing program.The group reaction to such staff members in someinstances was dramatic. Librarians need to work withother special services personnel in many areas, andone of the most essential is in group dynamics.

One institute made an effort to teach librariansworking with the underprivileged and emerging com-munity to conduct formal and informal trainingexperiences for the staff. Methods of interpersonalcommunication, group dynamics, and groupencounter exercises were used, videotaped, and fol-lowed up through mini-institutes held later. Intenseintrospective analysis was done on participants. Theywere enthusiastic in their evaluations of these fea-tures.

Another aspect of human relations which shouldbe mentioned is the high degree of success noted inachieving integration among blacks and whites, Mex-ican/Americans and Indians, and persons with differ-ing religious beliefs. Among strengths of the instituteprogram most frequently noted by participants wasthe opportunity to get to know and appreciate personswhose race, religion, and culture were different fromtheir own. It was gratifying to the director that appli-cations came from qualified librarians of varying back-ground and that they were able to achieve under-standing in mixed groups. "A good mix" among par-ticipants was sought, particularly in the institutesemphasizing service to the disadvantaged. One pro-gram promoted scholarship in black culture for 25 li-brarians interested in developing collections by andabout the Negro. Another trained Indians for profes-sional service as media specialists, after considerabledifficulty in recruiting them. They were reluctant toundertake a full year of study in an area entirelyunknown to them. Increasingly positive attitudes :veredisplayed as the staff worked with them,and nineIndians received degrees at the end of the year.

An academic year institute in Indiana planned toprovide 30 places for elementary school librarians toachieve master's degrees in media included eight par-ticipants from Alabama, six from Indiana, six fromUtah, and one each from Minnesota, North Dakota,Nebraska, and Florida. The interracial experience inthis group was considered as important as the profes-sional knowledge gained. For seven of them thedegree provided entry into the profession. Otherswere already working as librarians, but they probablycould not have gone to graduate school withoutfederal funds. An institute in South Carolina designedfor para-professionals in school and college librariesguaranteed employment in sponsoring institutionswithin the state. All participants except one wereblack. They were serious and cooperative studentsand many of them were inspired to continue theireducation at a higher level.

Appendix B

In Colorado the multi-media approach to libraryservice for the Spanish-surnamed and the Mexican-American was emphasized in an institute in which"feeling-understanding" was the goal. Films and dis-cussions did lead to greater understanding amongAnglo and Spanish teams which produced plans to beimplemented back home. In Oklahoma, an institutewas held to increase the use of libraries by Indians byimproving the librarians' understanding of their needssocial, economic, and academic. The staff was partIndian and one Indian participant enrolled. Suchprograms as these brought about effective groupwork.

LogisticsThe area of logistics is one in which certain

specifics can be set forth as contributors to a success-ful institute. Directors were unanimous in their beliefthat an early announcement date was desirable, fol-lowed by a definitive brochure setting forth goals andobjectives, criteria for selection of participants, dead-lines, and stipends. USOE guidelines were most help-ful in preparation of the proposal and subsequentbrochure, though announcements of funding usuallyoccurred later than was desirable. Directors found itnecessary to approach potential faculty, consultants,and lecturers on a tentative basis at the time proposalswere written, rather than waiting until funding wasassured. It was not possible to announce the programto the public at the time of application, of course.Thus it proved difficult to recruit a desirable numberof candidates who met the criteria and could arrangeschedules to accomodate the period of the institute.

Most directors felt that the timing of the instituteswas about right. Summer programs usually coincidedwith summer school schedules and those for theacademic year with the normal school year. Some feltthat the short-term on one to three weeks was notlong enough and almost all admitted that they tried tocrowd too much into the period. Participants usuallyfelt that not enough free time was allowed for digest-ing the lectures, for examining materials, and for tak-ing advantage of library and community resources.Some felt that social events were an unnecessaryintrusion on valuable time, although this was onewears of drawing the group together at the beginningof the institute. Sometimes the staff tried too hard andthe participants not hard enough to justify the timeanti money provided for an institute. There was a ten-dency to "throw the book at them" in the first fewday I of a sumer institute with the result that partici-paws rebelled ..nd it took some time to come to areasonable understanding of the amount of work to bedone. In spite of this, the summary reports evaluatethe total accomplishments of the institutes to havebeen high.

13-4

The number of places offered in most instituteswas between 20 and 30, although some ran as high as40. The best number depends on local physicalfacilities as well as the length and nature of the prog-ram. Probably 25 to 30 is best in most places. It wasfound necessary to disperse the visiting consultantsthroughout the institute. Sometimes too many werescheduled within one week, usually at the beginning,and participants felt they could not make the most oftheir presentations. Field trips were another featurewhich required special scheduling. Usually theyoccurred after some initial study and discussion andbefore the last week of the institute. Participants werepleased with this arrangement.

Although many institutes were open to librariansfrom all parts of country, geographical distribution ofparticipants tended to be regional. All seemed to drawseveral local participants even though brochures wentto many states. Usually directors offered alternateplaces to local residents at the beginning, and tried torecruit first from a distance. When there were drop-outs near registration time, the local alternates wereoffered places. This tendency to form a regional groupwas a matter of convenience, and did not affect thework of the institute in any great degree.

Summer Short-Term vs. Academic Year InstitutesAlthough the proportion of summer to academic

year institutes was two to one in this sampling, it isclear that some conculsions as to the comparative suc-cess of the two types can be drawn. In general, partic-ipants and staff seemed to find the short-term prog-ram more conducive to the accomplishment of thegoals described. A five or six week program could bestructured to fit a particular purpose and the resultsseem to be more easily observed. Most librarians findit easier to get away from their normal work and liv-ing conditions in the summer. They are accustomed toundertaking summer study and view it as an oppor-tunity to learn new techniques relevant to their work.

In the academic year part-time institute, on theother hand, it was necessary for some persons totravel long distances on week-ends to be present forthe sessions. The time lapse between sessions meantthat they lost the enthusiasm engendered by workingtogether consistently. There was little time to examinematerials provided or to discuss the lectures pre-sented. The projects they were expected to completerequired more careful planning of time to take,advan-tage of consultation with faculty of week-ends. Therewas no opportunity to present projects to the groupas a whole so that all could benefit from the work ofindividuals. There was sometimes difficulty in arrang-ing suitable space for the week-end sessions on cam-pus.

In spite of these problems, the directors of the 11part-time academic year institutes found that partici-

Appendix B

pants were usually regular in attendance, industrious,and appreciative of the opportunity to do graduatework without interrupting the normal work week.One institute held on Saturdays upgraded com-petencies in collection building for 35 school librarianswithin a 100 mile radius of the site. Another was aplanning institute for a model curriculum in libraryservice to the disadvantaged which involved facultyfrom the School of Social Science, the State Depart-ment of Education, and the local public library, as wellas from the library school. The part-time basis wasmost convenient for these people, and the planningdone by them has resulted in a full-time academicyear institute on the subject of library service to thedisadvantaged.

Some of the part-time institutes were follow-upsto summer institutes in which the participants hadbeen together for a five or six week period and hadmade a beginning on projects to be completed duringthe year. These seemed to be useful, since follow-upis one of the seldom achieved goals in institutes.Unless a definite plan of follow-up is written into theproposal and budgeted, it is not likely to occur.

Finally, the summaries of the six degree-grantingacademic year institutes for school librarians wereexamined as a separate group because their goals,logistical problems, and end results seemed to differfrom the others. It was here that the problem ofrecruiting qualified applicants seemed to be greatest.Only one was conducted by an accredited libraryschool and that one enrolled only eight persons froma possible 20. It was at the sixth-year level with muchopportunity for independent study and research andan excellent faculty. The director recommended thatfuture OE funds support only short-term workshop-type institutes and use fellowships for academic yeardegree-granting programs.

The directors of the other five year-long instituteswere more successful in recruitment because qualifica-tions for admission were not so high and perhaps theneed for training was greater. Participants wereteachers or school library and with the bachelor'sdegree and usually some experience, who wanted themaster's degree and saw this as an opportunity toattain it without great financial sacrifice. Some wereable to obtain leave of absence. Others wanted tochange jobs. There were 20 or 30 in each program andalmost all of them did achieve their goals. Under thethen-existing fellowship award policies, not many ofthese people could have been granted fellowships atthe schools they wished to attend. Thus, theseinstitutes met a need in the public schools. They alsoserved to give prestige and impetus to the library ser-vice curriculum in the unaccredited schools by provid-ing additional faculty, instructional materials, and con-sultants. At least one of the schools has now reachedthe point of applying for ALA accreditation. In all of

13-5

them new courses were developed, and old onesimproved for the benefit of all students.

Patterns of Library CooperationThree areas of cooperation were noted: 1) among

various types of libraries, 2) among practitioners andteachers of librarianship, and 3) among agencies at thestate and local levels. The first usually occurred ininstitutes for workers with children and young adultsfor which both school and public librarians were eligi-ble. In some cases an effort was made to pair a schoollibrarian with a public librarian from the same systemso that projects for local use could be developedjointly. This was successful in the few places in whichit was possible, but public librarians found it difficultto obtain leave of absence in the summer. In aninstitute on materials for use in drug education, theplan to pair school and public librarians was changedto combine school and academic librarians because notenough public librarians applied. An institute on earlychildhood education which included both school andpublic librarians was preceded by a survey of publiclibrary services for children in the state. The goal wasto expand the library school curriculum to meet theneeds discovered. Another institute brought together40 people from state, large public, and academic li-braries to consider the adaptation of principles of pro-gram planning and budgeting to libraries. AU partici-pants were administrators or business managers withresponsibil lies for budgeting.

All institutes achieved some degree of cooperationbetween practitioners and library educators becausethey brought practicing librarians to the campus forstudy. The frequent use of outside consultants gaveboth students and faculty exposure to outstandingpersons working in the profession whom they usuallyencounter only in print or at conventions. The factthat so many participants objected to overcrowdedschedules which did not allow enough time for dis-cussion with the consultants indicates the value ofsuch exchange. It was, indeed, one of the most signi-ficant benefits of the institute program.

Cooperation among agencies occurred in severalways. Directors of school library institutes sought helpfrom state school library supervisors both in recruitingapplicants and in lecturing or teaching. Visits to stateagencies were often made. One institute which exploredthe library's role and responsibilities in the national Rightto Read effort drew supervisors and coordinators fromfour states. They were trainers of public and school lib-rarians who came from state agencies, state departmentsof education, public libraries, and institutions of highereducation. Another institute provided state school lib-rary supervisors and audiovisual coordinators twoweeks of discussion of state plans for implementation ofthe 1969 ALA Standards for School Media Programs.Theyviewed national trends in the curriculum and teaching

Appeedk B

methods, pinpointed basic financial problems, and weremade generally aware of the power they could generatein their home states.

Conclusions and RecommendationsFrom reading 50 summaries of a variety of institutes

held during the four year period in which federal supportof library training was at its peak, this reviewer makes thefollowing conclusions and suggestions:

The short-term institute designed for a specific group oflibrarians with a common purpose seemed most success-ful. It can be used as a model for continuing educationprograms for librarians in the future.

Most institutes attracted participants from the region inwhich they were held. Regional planning in the futureshould include continuing education programs.

The library school usually gained as much from the ex-perience as did the participants. Several schools receivedmore than one grant and the directors achieved consid-erable expertise in planning for continuing education.

Librarians and library educators cooperated in the plan-ning and execution of institutes to prepare personnel tomeet identified needs of the profession, with the resultthat hundreds of librarians are now better prepared to dotheir jobs.

In addition to the above, it should be noted thatmuch research material is available in institute reportsthat can be used to suggest new patterns for libraryeducation in the future. Many of the directors admittedinsufficient or inadequate planning for follow-up hadbeen done. Although some use of the files at OE has beenmade by graduate students working on theses or disser-tations, there is still need for concentrated effort to dis-cover what has happened to participants since their insti-tute experiences. It would be interesting to know whatuse has been made of the projects developed, whetherthe work plans have proved successful, what follow-upquestionnaires have been sent by the library schools, andwith what results, and what courses added to the cur-riculum have survived.

Perhaps a personal note on the four institutes withwhich this writer is most familiar will give direction to theremarks on follow-up. The following comments weremade in response to a questionnaire trom a doctoralcandidate regarding the post-institute phase of the prog-rams. They may be representative of answers given byother institute directors.

On July 10,1970, a questionnaire was sent to all formerparticipants in institutes for school librarians at the Univer-sity of Tennessee. This included 60 participants in twofive-week summer programs in 1966 and 1967, and 40participants in two academic year full-time institutes in

B-6

1968.69 and 1969-70. A second letter was sent in De-cember, 1970, to those who had not responded. The follow-ing percentages of return resulted: summer, 1966, 55%;summer, 1967, 52%; academic year, 1968 -69, 89%;academic year, 1969-70, 60%. The object of the question-naire was to discover what contribution participants thenfelt the institute had made upon their subsequent work. Asummary of comments made by graduates of the twoacademic year programs follows.

Ten of the participants returned to school libraries, butnot to the supervisory positions for which they had pre-pared; two did assume supervisory positions in schoolsystems, and four took work in academic libraries. Onechose not to work because of family responsibilities.

Among the activities deemed most useful by thesegraduates were bibliography courses, field trips to schoollibraries, the practicum, and reading guidance. In generalcomments, they indicated that the work of the institutewas applicable to their present jobs, that participation hadincreased their self-confidence, that shared experiences ofstudents and faculty were significant, and that the facultyhad been inspiring.

The questionnaire was distributed to this group inAugust, just before they left the campus, and they wereasked to wait until they had been on the job two or threemonths before replying. Eight of them had not replied sixmonths later. Of those who did reply, ten were working inschool libraries, one in a special library, and one in anacademic. Their comments were that the institute added totheir appreciation of the profession. They considered thereading guidance course most valuable, along with massmedia, audiovisual production, and the practicum. Most ofthem said that some aspects of the institute were provinghelpful in their present jobs, many said they felt moreconfident and could talk more intelligently with their col-leagues about new ideas and concepts in education. Sev-eral were starting new phases or programs in their schoolsbased upon ideas they acquired during the institute.

This example of the use of a follow-up questionnairein one school illustrates the kind of reaction that might beavailable from the hundreds of librarians who took partin federally supported institutes during the years inwhich money was available for them. Some beginningshave been made with all these programs. Some experi-ments tried have proved to be useful; others have not.Severe reduction of the institute program after a briefperiod of trial and error might be considered a waste offunds that have been expended, except for those par-ticipants who are now making a greater contributionthan would have been possible without the training.Many directors' reports answer this question aboutfollow-up with the sentence: "Only time will tell whetherthe program was a success or a failure." If time and fundswere now made available, there could also be a researchvalue to the institute program.

Appendix C

Leadership Training For Directors, Staffsof Urban Information Institutes

Atlanta, GeorgiaJanuary 17, 18, 19, 1973

Hosts: Atlanta Public Library, Carleton Rochelle, DirectorAtlanta University library School, Dr. Virginia Lacy Jones, Director

Agenda

Wednesday, January 17Atlanta Public Library (Second Floor Meeting Room)

9:00 Registration

9:10 Welcome and Remarks, Dr. Virginia Lacy Jones

9:15 Institute Overview/Objectives, Brooke Sheldon, Training Director,Leadership Training Institute

Communications Seminar9:20 "Recent Concepts in Communications"Dorothy Anderson, Associate

Director for Coordination, LTI

9:30 "Transactional Analysis"The "I'm OK, You're OK" TheoryGary Alien,Concern, Inc.Introductory ExerciseParent data

10:45 Coffee and discussion

11:00 Child, adult dataTransactional patternsApplications for training

12:00 Slide tape presentationdiscussion

12:30 Lunch

1:30 "Analyzing Communications Patterns"Video-tapes made by students-facultyat Case-Western Reserve UniversityDiscussion Moderator: Dorothy Anderson, LTI, with commentary byAlvin Goldwyn, Roger Mae Johnson, and Rae Rohfeld, CaseWestern Reserve.Participant Discussion.

3:00 Film: "Transaction"

3:30 Evaluation by participants of communications tools

ThursdayJanuary 19American Hotel, Inman Room, lower lobby

9:00 Harold Goldstein, Dean, Florida State University, School of Library Science,and Director, Lea :ership Training InstituteRemarks

C -1

Management/Evaluation Seminar

9:05 Overview and Seminar ObjectivesGoals Exercise

9:30 "The Institute Director as Manager"Brooke Sheldon, AssociateDirector for training, LTI

9:4S "Evaluation as a Continuing Process' Ken Eye, Ohio State UniversityA. Where are you in Evaluation?

10:30 B. Planning/Evaluation as a Continuous Processthe TheoryCoffee C. Applications for Training

12:30 Lunch

1:30 Workshop with Evaluation handbook draftBrooke Sheldon, Ken Eye

2:30 Topics for further discussion (at option of participants may include:

Milestone selectionProgram ModificationAlternatives selectionCriteria establishmentObjective treeBehavioral objectives

FridayJanuary 19American HotelInman Room

9:00 Application of the theory presented to specific training problems:Problem presentation:. . . Ella Yates, Administrative Coordinator, Atlanta Public Library. . . Howard Thomas, Student, Atlanta University Institute. . . A participant (volunteer or to be drafted) presents one training problem

evidenced in this Institute (for analysis)

10:45 Evaluation Simulation Exercise: Ken Eye, Brooke Sheldon, discussionCoffee leaders; participants test effectiveness of model in problem solving/planning

& Discussion related to the three problems presented.

Participants suggest LTI followup of meetingother -.,:fining needs.

Participants Evaluate Management/Evaluation Seminar

Noon Adjourn

C-2

Appendix D

Input for Communications Seminar

Section 1

The session opened with an interpersonal relationships introductory exercise.Please comment on its value as:

(a) Introduction to the subject of transactional analysisvery valuablemoderately valuableof little valueof no value

(b) A device to involve the group-ice-breaker, etc.very valuable

_moderately valuableof little valueof no value

(c) Do you feel that it would be useful in your own institute amongstudents-faculty?

very valuablemoderately valuableof little valueof no value

Section 11-Theory presentation

The concepts presented were: familiar non familiar

The material presented was: valuable and interesting __about righttoo technical too simple

The relationship of the theory of transactional analysis and its application to mywork as a training director/teacher were:

clearly apparentfairly apparentobscure

Please comment:

As a tool to improve communications, transactional analysis as outlined would appearto have the following potential. Please comment specifically:

Section 111 - Materials

Note: materials for the LTI Communications program, as presented here, are notin final form, so your specific recommendations for strengthening the programare encouraged.

(a) The slide tape presentation and the vocabulary of transactional analysis.As a teaching tool to be used in the communications program. I considerit:

very usefulusefulof little valueof no value

Comments:

(b) The film presentation "Transaction" is intended to describe and exemplifythe communications process. As such can you suggest examples of dialoguewhich reveal communications problems in library service?

Comments:

The afternoon video-tape role play by Case-Western Reserve studentsfaculty as a basis for analysis of communications patterns was:

very valuablemoderately valuableof little valueof no value

Comments:

(d) The discussion of communications patterns as related to actual trainingproblems was:

very helpfulmoderately helpfulof little valueof no value

Comments:

(e) The final communications program /package will be self contained and isdesigned to be used by Institute staffs with students. The package will includedetailed guides for both leaders and participants; a slide tape presentation;video-taped communications situations with discussion suggestions; the film"Transaction"; package of audio-tapes and charts; preliminary printed studymaterials to perpare students for the program. Suggested time to givecommunications program at your Institute would be about three days or24 hours in flexible time segments.

I think the materials presented at the "Communications Seminar," combinedwith the audio-visual materials in process of development provide sufficientinformation for me or a member of my staff to conduct a similar session,or adapt concepts to meet my needs to the following degree:

ample materials_sufficient materials

not enough materials

Materials:

do not clearly explain conceptsare too simpleare about right for intended audience

Please give your suggestions on distribution and publicity:

D-2

Management/Evaluation SeminarRating Sheet

To aid us in improving training programs please complete before you leave, utilizingthe following scale:

SAStrongly agree; AAgree; UUndecided; DDisagree; SDStrongly Disagree

L My expectations for the management/evaluationseminar were met.

2. The concepts presented will be helpful to me

SA

( )

A

(

UDSD)( )( )( )

in my current/future training activities. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

3. The level of presentation was appropriate. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )4. I would like to become involved in using

evaluation models in library training. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

S. With revision, the Evaluation Handbookcould be a useful tool for trainers. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

What aspect of the Planning/Evaluation seminar was most useful?

What aspect was least useful?

Further information on the following topics would be useful:

Additional comments:

D-3

Appendix E

TH

E M

ER

RIM

AC

K V

AL

LE

Y P

IAN

OS

TH

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F N

EW

HA

MPS

HIR

ESt

. Mal

ys B

oni

200

McG

rego

r Sw

eet

Mun

ch A

ter.

Nin

v Ik

mtp

shir

e 01

102

Mis

3vorothy Anderson

Leadership Training Institute

Washington, D.C.

Dear Miss Anderson:

Tat

phot

te. 6

08-0

700

January 30, 1973

Just wanted to drop you a note tc let

you know I

enjoyed the conference here in Manchester

very much.

Gary's approach to transactional analysis was both inter-

esting and above all useful in the training of

both myself

and the paraprofessionals.

I regret that I could not stay

for the entire three days of the convention and I

want to

let you know now that I left because of othercommitments

that I couldn't let vo unattended.

My intention for leaving did not stem from

a feeling

of boredom or uselessness. on the

contrary, I found

the program exciting and useful.

Anytime I can see the

Directors of varicus

programs brought together for the

purpose of sharing

cryl

-,,n

Ind

objectives, I really

think that its A rewarding onportunity.

Again thank you for

host

ing

the orort,a an!

cr!(

".:rxrely,

George Abraham

Career Counselor

E-1

FIS

K U

NIV

ER

SIT

Ym

amas

' tet

tiwie

ts s

ong

March 20, 1973

Mrs. Brooke Sheldon

Training Director

Leadership Training Institute

School of Library Science

The Florida State University

Tallahassee, Florida

32306

Dear Brooke:

I am especially glad that we were able to meet in Atlanta,

and it was good seeing you again at Midwinter ALA.

I have no objection to your using the Feedback Sheet from

the Fisk internship program as you prepare your handbook.

You

may identify Fisk if you prefer, but I really have no preference.

Attached you will find an evaluation assignment which was used

in a previous library training program which we had.

You may be interested in knowing that I used the preliminary

edition of your handbook in preparation of two proposals which I

submitted for Title Il -S funding.

I also incorporated some of

the ideas that I picked up from the Atlanta meeting.

So you ass,

your fine work is already producing results.

With kindest regards.

JCS/jh

Attachment

E-2

Sincerely yours,

TE

1.

D) Jessie Carney Smith

University Librarian

The

Com

mitt

ee o

n In

stitu

tiona

l Coo

pera

tion

lebs

ary

Sam

e D

oom

, 'fo

rmat

Mor

e M

b 75

1437

5ka

me.

stax

wku

m n

risom

mor

omea

ss a

= o

rmos

sow

se.

February 8, 1973

Mrs. Brooke Sheldon

Leadership Training Institute

Florida State Univ.

Tallahassee, Florida

Dear Brooke:

Urin

endi

id M

aws%

ladi

dria

Unn

enet

erol

lima

Imam

" of

?A

dman

Mad

man

Mar

I ,e

aner

wrir

imm

enst

, rd

Mum

rtul

aP

astIv

ivea

rrn

Virs

endt

Oho

Seg

e U

nner

iar

Pur

due

unne

na,

Unw

ind"

of I

NIo

nsol

I was certainly glad that I had an opportunity to see you, if only

briefly, during ALA midwinter.

As I indicated to you then, I had

been meaning to write you but somehow never found the time.

I thought you ant the LT1 staff did a tremendous job in Atlanta.

In

terms of my own program the input from the meetings and discussion were

educational, informative, and valuable overall.

Especially those por-

tions of the program dealing with evaluation and the managing of projects.

B etween airports and planes I hope to be able to send you some information

about certain books which you may wish to consider for the handbook biblio-

g raphy; as well as comments on the handbook.

Hope to have the opportunity of seeing you again.

My best wishes to you in

your future endeavors.

Bli)/dh

E3

Hiram I. Davis, Director

CIC Library Science Doctoral Program

October 2, 1972

ODARCIIIA JUNIOR COLLEGZ

MID

Mal

liCU

LTIII

IAL

NM

I Man

Ran

i 1E

on II

IM

USS

IIIM

PPIla

ps

Dr. Harold toldslein, Wolof Student

School of Library Incorporated

43 Library

Florida State University

Tallahassee, Florida 32306

D ear Harolds

I enjoyed very much the conference held on September 18-19 to develop

guidelines for pars-profossionslo in she Media Service.

Most of us shared our

opinions and gave our philosophy in the guidelines of the respective models;

however, there was a concern mentioned lightly in the afternoon the second

day that I did little responding to at the time but have given it very serious

thoughts.

The concern I refer to was the discussion relative to finding some

school to develop a program for the training of WTI trainers. The ides is

admirable and the need is eppearenc. Assming that any effort along this line

would be via some of the efforts of folk lib yourself, Ivories Hicks, Fmk

Stevens and significant@ others, it doss not seam too early to put in a plug

for process.

It was very clear that among the highly selected group represented

et the conference, their %stabile was mutest- although all seemed both late -

rested is and susceptible to those concepts relative to training process.

Taking

this in account, I offer the following suggestion to LTI and ILL

Any Maim school or any institution charged mita the responbilily of

developing a program for trainers should have an adult educator on its 's staff or

recces to a department °fade's Tducation on its campus. This needs no explanation.

In cams where institutions cannot purchase the full time service of an

adult educator and do not have a Department of Adult Education no their campus,

the proper safeguards, for assuring that those concepts of adulthood are accounted

for la efforts to implement program@ can and should be imaleimP prior to funding.

Thanks spin to WI for levities es.

Siaterel

C. Martin

sfC

eStI

nsis

. ide

telie

S

668

Ism blast

Dor

othy

ani

sres

she

es1 nem gym

B4

Appeals E

CA

LIF

OR

NIA

ST

AT

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y. F

ULL

ER

TO

NF

ULL

IBT

ON

. CA

LIV

OID

uA s

een

Barak 1, 1973

Brooke Sheldon, Training Director

Leadership Training Institute. School

of Library Science

Florida state University

Tallehassee, Florida

32306

Dear %woke'

It was a pleasure hearing from you thin week.

It seems

like time is my worst enemy.

I never get around to corres-

ponding with all the interesting people I meet.

I hope that we can be of some service to the New maxim

State Library should they ask.

We are proud of the people who

have opened new avenues to our (as a people) very old and

colorful past.

Me certainly invite them to contact us at any

time.

Presently. I an busy trying to tie our 72-73 proposal

together so that it can be considered for funding.

Again time

seems to be of the essence.

I'm sure that is true for your

work on the handbook.

It is a most important project and I

wish you all the success.

I would also like to congratulate you on a fine institute

in Denver earlier this month.

I hope that those La positions

of authority realize the value of such a working institute.

It most certainly offered me a great deal of valued insight

and experience.

I hope that sessions of this type will be a

continued activity.

On the personal side, I really did miss the group when

it ended.

I trtiely felt a closeness with everyone involved

and I vas able to Wok at a few things in our own institute

differently.

TH

E C

ALI

FO

RN

IA S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RS

ITY

AN

D C

OLL

EG

ES

App

eals

E March 1. 1973

Page Two

Brooke Sheldon

Again, thank you, Sane, Harold Goldstein, and Frank Stevens

for your program.

MS: lsi

/Yours in the Sp rit of people,

4 0

4',Valhi( S. SANCHEZ

Director, Graduate Institute for

Mexican American School Library

Science

Ep6

DE

PA

RT

ME

NT

OF

HE

ALT

H. E

DU

CA

TIO

N.A

ND

WE

LFA

RE

RU

MP

S il

lO

Mmow..

BIW

A°

SM

UT

pogi

tAow

toi"

, mensvaverow tetso

December 29, 1972

Miss Dorothy J. Anderson

LTI Program Coordinator

201 'Eye' Street, S.M.

Apt. V-742

Washington, D.C.

20024

Dear Dorothy:

Wal

l Of M

GM

*

amus

e00

1110

110.

sem

MN

tom

A00

.01

0010

%FM

You do not kw, how I welcomed the materials from you and from

Brooke Sheldon which arrived today (December 22).

At last LTI

becomes clear to me and I will probably finally be able to remember

what LTI means.

I do hope you will continue to send such materials

to the Regional Program Officers.

Even though we are so inundated

with mailings, memos, etc., a batch of clearly expressed material

such as yours and Brooke's does make an impression.

I especially

like the classification of the PT 72 - 73 institutes which you

included.

It brought them into focus.

Incidentally, the Drexel Cable TV institute was excellent and I think

this was the consensus of the participants too.

will there be any

resume of the New Hemisphere meeting of the Paraprofessional

Training

&Istituto'? I am interested in these particularly.

Sin

cere

ly y

ours

,

Mullen

Senior

Eve

lyn

Kul

Senior Program Officer

Libraries i Learning Resources

Dr. Darold Goldstein

cons. Brooke Sheldon

Aw

e& E

March 6, 1973

Mrs. Brooke Sheldon

Training Director

Leadership Training Institute

School of Library Science

The Florida State University

Tallahassee, Florida 32306

Dear Brooks:

I was indeed interested to see the "in-house" report of the

three meetings recently conducted by the Leadership Training Institute.

Thank you of thinking of se and for sending a copy of the report

I would also like to accept your offer of a copy of the handbook

on planning/evaluation for training directors when it becomes avail-

able.

Many Monks sad :ant Wanes.

map

Sincerely yours,

Agnes

Reagan

Accreditation Officer

Committee on Accreditation

Aw

ake

E

DE

PA

RT

ME

NT

OF

HE

ALT

H. E

DU

CA

TIO

N. A

ND

WE

LFA

RE

*Firm

s of

EO

UP

CA

TtO

ltvs

Aam

ieG

TO

N.D

C M

IA

November 6, 1972

Kr. Harold Goldstein

School of Library Science

Florida State University

Tallahassee, Florida 32306

Dear Harold:

It was good to see you at SELA /SIILA last week and to discuss

matters of mutual interest and interact with the membership

of your region.

This letter is to register my appreciation for your Washington

staff, who, on

very short notice, were asked by me to deliver

a detailed, polished summary report of the recent LTI advisory

committee on library training in crder to meet an important OE

deadline created by a *suddenly emergent need.

This report was excellent, on time, and extremely useful; the

staff is to be highly commended, from my point of view, and I

trust that this letter will be mode a part of their personnel

files.

Needless to say, the regular, ongoing program of

activities of your Washington office is always on time and

cooperative and responsive.

But in this instance I feel that

a special note of appreciation is in order.

With best wishes, I am,

Sincerely y

Frank A. Stevens

Program Manager, Library Training

Bureau of Libraries and Learning

Res

ourc

es

B-9

NO

VO

9 51

72

10a

LHA

LAJA

I E

uE

PA

RT

ME

NT

OF

LIS

IRA

FIY

SC

IEN

CE

TH

E C

AT

HO

LIC

UN

IVE

RS

ITY

OF

AM

ER

ICA

WA

SH

ING

TO

N O

.C. 2

0017

Dec

embe

r 9,

197

2

Ms.

Dor

othy

And

erso

nD

irect

or o

f Ser

vice

sLe

ader

ship

Tra

inin

g In

stitu

teB

urea

u of

Lib

rarie

s an

d E

duca

tiona

l Tec

hnol

ogy

u. S

. Offi

ce o

f Edu

catio

nW

ashi

ngto

n, D

.C.

Dea

r D

orot

hy:

How rosy thoughtful of you

to s

end

us y

our

copy

of U

sing

You

r N

atio

n's

Cap

ital:

Anindexed Guide

to M

ultim

edia

Res

ourc

es in

Was

hing

ton.

D.C

.It

is w

ande

rAd,

com

plet

e an

d be

autif

ul, a

nd a

s to

you

r of

fer

for

mor

eco

pies

, U y

ou a

re s

erio

us a

bout

it in

deed

I w

ould

like

to h

ave

42 c

opie

sin

ord

er to

dis

trib

ute

them

to th

e m

embe

re o

f the

inst

itute

we

are

plan

-ni

ng fo

r th

is s

umm

er o

n F

eder

al L

ibra

ries,

Info

rmat

ion

Cot

ters

=I

Dat

a B

anks

.If

we

cann

ot h

ave

this

num

ber,

we

will

take

a le

sser

num

ber,

but I

t %od

d be

pos

t to

give

eve

ryon

e h

ottlW

610

7 an

so

very

impr

essi

ve.

Man

y th

anks

.

Cor

dial

ly y

ours

,

1 L

Eliz

abet

h W

., C

hairm

anD

epar

tmen

t of L

ibra

ry S

cien

ce

ZW

EI/m

kt

E-1

0

A PP N DI X

Case Western Reserve University

Leadership Training Institute Site Visit Report

Site Visit Dates: September 25- 26,19:2

PROBLEM:As a result of a one year federally funded planning

grant, the Institute faculty at the School of Library Sci-ence, Case Western Reserve University, identified sixaspects of the public librarian in the 70's and beyond:program designer, advisor,educator, scholar and en-quirer, manager, and change agent. A model curriculum,using the interdisciplinary approach, was designed totrain students to function in these roles in public libraryservice to the urban disadvantaged.

PEOPLE:The Institute plan provides for fifteen students. At

present there are thirteen students enrolled in the Insti-tute with no plan for further recruitment. Of the thirteen,there are nine female and four males; six Blacks, twoMexican-Americans, and five Whites; eight are married(including one married couple!) and five are single; three ofthe studens have dependents. Their age.; range from 20to 39 with seven of them in the 20-24 age group. Two ofthe students have Masters degrees and nine have hadprevious library employment. Recruitment and selectionwas conducted on a nationwide basis and seven of thestudents are from outside the state of Ohio. Recruitmentconsisted of applications and personal interviews withprospective students in their home state.

PLAN:The two major components of the Institute are the

Modern Urban Library Seminar and Field Work. Theseminar course, taught by Dr. George Livingston of theSchool of Applied Social Science, is structured ro de-velop understanding of communities and the retation-ship between communities and libraries. Institute faculty,as well as students, attend and participate in the seminar.I attended the seminar and was impressed by Dr.Livingston's lecture on the organization and elementswithin a community and by the discussion and commentfrom the students and faculty. In the field work, eachstudent must work in two locationsa communityagency (12 hours a week) and a branch library (4 hours aweek) for a total of 16 hours a week. All field work issupervised and coordinated by Miss Roger Mae Johnson,Head of Lewis Carroll Room (Children's), ClevelandPublic Library and part-time Institute Field Director. Inthe first two weeks of the field assignment, students willremain in the branch libraries in order to become familiarwith the organization and operation of a library. Thereaf-ter, their time will be divided between the library and

F -1

community agency (see above) in planning and imple-menting a library-community program. At the time Ivisited the Institute, students were in their initial twoweeks of orientation at the branch libraries and had notstarted their actual field work. Most of the information Iusually gather from field work supervisors (students'work attitudes, initiative, work performance, programplanning, etc.) was not possible to attain. I did visit,however, two of the community agencies and one branchlibrary. The two agency directors and the branch lib-rarian all agreed that the students will be "on their own"and free to fully develop their programs. In the secondyear of the Institute students will receive new field as-signments.

With the exception of the Institute Seminar, stu-dents are enrolled in regular School of Library Scienceclasses. The summer session will consist of an UrbanStudies Seminar, taught by a faculty member from theDepartment of Education, and Field Work. At this point,the Institute is following the original plan of operationand there are no plans for modification.

PERCEPTIONS:Director: (Alvin Goldwyn) Despite the one year of

planning, there are some basic human problems thatcannot be planned forhousing, day care, transporta-tion.

Faculty Members: (Dr. Patricia Goheen) Students area little reluctant to speak out in class.

Students: Like interdisciplinary approach and em-phasis on people and communities; feel that they have toask for helphelp is not usually offered, bored by tradi-tional library courses; "Seminar course is excellent."

RESULTS:Dr. Patricia Goheen is developing self-instructional

.its in the areas of cataloging and reference mainly foruse in training paraprofessionals. I have received thepreliminary edition of the cataloging kit and will receivethe completed kits as soon as they are ready.

Students entering the Institute in Septembber 1972,and successfully completing the course of study, willgraduate with an M.L.S. degree in June 1974. In order togive in depth instructions and to gain insight into theproblem of a community, the faculty, staff and advisorycommittee decided the Institute should cover a two yearperiod.

Appendix F

RECOMMENDATIONS:Students: Seems to be a lack of communiation bet-

ween students and faculty. :vggest weekly group "rapsessions" as well as weekly individual counseling tosolve problems and to facilitate better communication.Would like to see the report and evaluation of last year'splanning grant and this year's plan of operation and beallowed to give input for modification. Prefer to reducetotal hours of field work a week to 12; do all field work intwo full days instead of several hours each day.Stipends should le increased; transpot tation shouldbe provided, or travel allowances should be given be-cause of the difficulty in getting to field assignments.Feel the Director and staff should have made betterplans for housing and day care. The married couple donot have permanent housing; their two children are stillin Tennessee, and so far they have not been able to findday care facilities for their oldest child. Needless to say,these problems may have an adverse effect on their suc-cess in, and adjustment to, the Institute.

Directors: Notification of federal funding came toolate to do housing, day care, etc.

LTI Staff RecommendationBene L. Durant. FieldCoordinator:Students should be given travel allowances.(see attachedmemo)

Because the Institute had only been in operation forthree weeks at the time of my visit, the faculty felt theyhad not had enough institute experience to complete theLTI checklist. They will mail the checklist to me at the endof the first semester. Mr. Goldwyn's statement of futurenational library training goals will also be mailed at a laterdate. I was accompanied by Gary Allen of ConcernGroup, Inc., who conferred with Mr. Goldwyn aboutdeveloping a communications model for all institutesand using Case Western Reserve as the model site.

Bene L. DurantField Coordinator

Leadership Training Institute

September 28. 1972

TO: Frank StevensFROM: Bene DurantRE: Possibility of Travel Allowances for Case WesternReserve Institute Paraticipants

On my recent site visit to Case Western Reserve Ilearned that in addition to course work at the University,each of the 13 participants is required to do 16 hours offield work a week in two locationsa community agency

and a branch library. Most of these sites are a long dis-tance from the University. There are only three carsamong the participants and since work hours vary, thetransportation problem is further exacerbated. Whiletravel allowances would not alleviate the transportationproblem altogether, it would help the financial problemby allowing the participants to use their stipends forliving expences and not depleting them for transporta-tion expences.

Is it possible to amend the budget for this insti-tute to include travel allowances? In Section I, page6, of the Institute Manual there is a provision fortravel allowances for institute participants. I was pleasedto see that one of our institutes (Highline CommunityCollege) provides travel allowances for its participants.When I visited Highline last year, transportation was avery serious problem.

The participants at Case Western Reserve are en-thusiastic and eager to do a good job in the institute andespecially in their field work. I'd hate to see them losetheir enthusiam because of a frustrating transportationproblem!

Leadership Training Institute Site Visit

Information Form

University of Wisconson-Milwaukee

Site Visit Dates: October 11-13, 1972

PROBLEM:Public libraries are not serving the needs of the inner

city, nor are they equipped to do so. In order for publiclibraries to serve this special clientele, change must beginon educational level with the restructuring of the libraryscience curriculum.

"EOPLE:This is the second year of a two year Institute. Five of

the original students have left the Institute, one chose toenter the regular library school, and the remaining ninestudents are continuing in the Institute. In addition to thenine continuing students, there are two new studentswho enrolled this year for a total of eleven Institutestudents. The Institute plan provides for fifteen stu-dents, and four more students are being recruted. Of theeleven students currently enrolled, there are ten Blacksand one Mexican-American; eight are female and threemales; four of the students are married and have depen-dents. Their ages range from 21 to 45. Recruitment wasconducted oi. i nationwide basis consisting of applicantsand personal interviews. Nine of the students are fromoutside the state of Wisconson. Only two of the studentshave had previous library employment.

Appendix F

PLAN:With the exception of a change in the directorship.

the Institute is following the plan of operation. The Insti-tute is nowssupervised by a corporate &rectorship con-sisting of fifteen voting members and Ls:presided over bythe Institute director. The fifteen membms include threestudents, the Institute director, twofield supervisors,two of the Advisory Board, and seven members from thecooperating community agencies. The major function ofthe corporate directorship is to devise the policies thatgovern the operation of the Institute and to review theInstitute curridum.

Field work is the major component of the Institute.Students work three days a week (minimum 20 hours) ina community agency where they are responsible for de-veloping programs and services to meet the needs oftheir clientele. Part-time field supervisors are responsiblefor placement, supervision and evaluation of all fieldwork. I visited the Martin Luther King CommunitySchool where the Institute student works with theteachers, librarian, and parents, as well as with the stu-dents.

The remaining two days a week are devoted toacademic courses. I attended the children's literatureclass, taught by Binnie Tate, that deals not only in iden-tifying books and material for children, but also with theimage of Blacks and other minorities in children's booksand the problems of Black publishing houses. This classis open to regular library school students as well as Insti-tute students. All academic courses are open to non-Institute students.

Once a week there is an Institute meeting ("rapsession") to resolve any problems and to share informa-tion concerning field work assignments. These meetingsare attended by Institute faculty, field supervisors, andstudents. I attended the meeting and although problemswere discussed, they were all of an individual nature andwere not Institute problems. In addition, every twoweeks each participant receives individual counselingfrom one of the faculty members.

Note: It was interesting to me that students in asimilar institute at Case Western Reserve Universityrequested that weekly meetings and individual counselingsessions be added to their plan of operation.

The summer session will consist largely of field workwith students continuing their respective communityprograms.

PERCEPTIONS:Director: (Laurence Sherrill) Optimistic about the

success of the Instiute in spite of the student protest lastyear.Students have some problems in written communica-tion, but not enough to warrant a special remedialcourse.Wanted more Mexican-Americans students

Faculty Members: (Theodore Samore) Students are

F-3

motivated (Binnie Tate) Happy to see intelligent Blackstudents in the Institute; there are no Blacks in the Lib-rary School at Milwaukee.

Supervisor, Field: (Lionel James) Students perfor-mance in their field assignments is mediocre. (Mary Sut-tle) Students lack iniative; have to be told what to do andhow to do itstep by stepno sense of creativeness andinnovation. Feels the institute plan of operation is verygood. Community Agency Contact: (Sister Reginalda - Mar-tin Luther King Community School) Student assignedhere is very shy and is reluctant to speak up and talk topeople; however, she shows improvement from lastyear.Institute has good goals and objectives.

Students"Institute is disorganized; informationdoes not filter down" (this student is referring to latestipend checks and information Concerning paymentschedules.)Students and faculty are all on the same level;adult-adult relationshipsFaculty is open to suggestions. Note: The continuingstudents wrote part of this year's plan of operation"Director and faculty need to stop vacillating; startedout innovative but is now traditional."Concerned about future employment because the Lib-rary School is nonaccreditedGlad to have bus passes for transportation to fieldwork assignmentsField work weak aspect of the Institute (only one stu-dent said this)Mrs. Tate and Mrs. Suttle are especially helpful inpersonal, as well as academic, problemsMrs. Tate's course is "entertaining, interesting, andinformative."

RESULTS:A new feature of the Institute this year is a bi-weekly

newsletter which serves as a means of interagency com-munication about resources, services, and commonproblems. I received the first two copies of the newsletterand will receive subsequent copies for distribution to theother urban information institutes.

Plans are being made to imitate three or four newcourses into the regular library science curriculum.

The nine continuing students, upon completion ofthe Institute, will graduate with a Master's degree inLibrary Science and a Specialist Certificate in Urban Lib-rary Services.

The two new students (and any other recruits) willearn a Master's degree in Library and Information Sci-ence.

RECOMENDATIONS:Director: Need a better mechanism and more time for

recruiting. Minimum of 6 months for recrutting.Leadership Training Institute and/or the AmericanLibrary Association's Minority Recruitment Specialist

Appendix F

should assist the Institute in job placement of graduates.Provisions should be made to pay students' transpor-tation costs from their home sites to Milwaukee (studentsconcurred)Stipends should be based on cost of living in an arearather than on a set formula (students concurred)

Students: Office of Education should provide stu-dents with medical benefitsSuggest a two day conference with representative of allurban foformation institutes to share lamination, pro-cedures, and goalsWant help in finding jobs; need job information NOW!

Faculty Members: Office of Education should changethe "wording and lingo" in the Institute guidelines; ie.:minorities, disadvantaged. "Too much emphasis is placedon them."

Ilene L. DurantField Coordinator

Lead( ship Tranning Institute

Leadership Training Institute Site Visit Report

"School Media Program

for Rural Disadvantaged Youth in Appalachia"

East Tennessee State University

Site Visit Dates: November 14-16,1972

PROBLEM :A characteristic of the educational systems of tiw

rural Appalachian region is the predominance of smalltwo and three room elementary schools and the lack ofcentral library service and trained school library mediaspecialists.

PEOPLE:There are 17 students currently enrolled in the Insti-

tute; originally there were 18, but one student left theInstitute after one month. All of them are from Ap-palachian region and were selected from the followingcategories:

1. students who dropped out of college because oflack of funds

2. college graduates with teaching certifications whohad not been able to secure teaching positions

F-4

3. experenced teachers who lack bachelors degrees

4. experienced, certified, school librarians whowished to up-date their training

Top priority was given to college graduates withteaching certification because it is expected that many ofthese will return to the same areas in which they previ-ously taught.Only one experienced, certified school lib-rarian was selected. For additional information on theirsex, race, marital status, dependents, income, employ-ment and educatational backgrounds, see attachedOpening Day Report.

PLAN:This is the second year of a two year institute that

offers training on two different levels: the Basic (certifica-tion) Program and the Graduate Program. Both prog-rams are divided into two phases: academic courses andan internship. All academic courses are open to institutestudents and regular library school students. There areno special institute courses. I sat in on Mr. Brunner'sChildren's Literature class and Mrs. Barrette's Basic Re-ferences class. The major emphasis of both programs isthe internship. Students will live and work in a ruralcommunity for one quarter (3 months) . The internship isunder the supervision of Mr. Douglas Cross, Coor-dinator of Media Services for the Clinch-Powell Educa-tional Cooperative, Harrogate, Tennessee. Students inthe Basic Program with no teaching and/or library experi-ence will work in a school with a central library. Studentswith previous library experience will work in a countymaterials center and then work in individual schools thathave no libraries. Students recleve 12 hours credit fortheir internship and are graded by Mr. Cross. Althoughnone of the students are currently serving internship, Ivisited ceveral of the schools where they will be working.The schools range from a modern, fully equipped openclassroom school to a two room school. I was fully awareof the necessity of students living in the communitiesbecause these schools are in isolated, rural, mountainousareas. Both programs are following the plan of operationand there are no plans for modification.

PERCEPTIONS:Director: (Mrs. Elise D. Barrette) "Institute is serving

as a model for the training of school library mediaspecialists who wish to work in rural schools."Most of the students were highly recommended byschool personal in Appalachia.Although there are no minority students in the insti-tute, the Library Service Department has graduatedthree Black students; received only one Black applicantfor the institute, but that student did not meet UniversityAdmission requirements.

Appendix F

Faculty Member: (Miss Dorothy Baird) Although theLibrary Service Department is nonALA accredited, thecurriculum meets certification requirements and serveslocal needs.Feels the Department is excellent in its one area oftrainingSchool Library Media Specialist.

Internship Supervisor: (Mr. Douglas Cross) Theteachers, parents, school children, and librarians whoworked with last year's interns were greatly impressedwith their services; expect the current students to pre-form equally as well.

Students : The most prevalent (and vehement) stat-ment from all students was "The institute is a life saver;I'd never been able to save enough money to completemy educatation."While they agreed living on a stipend is difficult, noneof them complained about the amount of their stipendsnor asked to have them increased. (note: This is the firsttime institute students did not complain or ask me aboutmoney!)Like living in Appalachia and are stronglycommitted to staying there and improving library serviceand educatation in the rural disadvantaged areas."Proud to be part of the Institute."Like the fact that there is no distinction between insti-tute and regular students.Faculty members, especially Mrs. Barrette, go out oftheir way to help students with personal, as well asacademic, problems.

RESULTS:Eleven of the students are enrolled in the Masters

Degree Program. The remaining six are enrolled in theBachelors Degree Program with teaching and library sci-ence certification. This is the final year of the Instituteand because students entered at different times and withvarying levels of college training, some of them will nothave completed all degree requirement ; by the end of theinstitute.

RECOMMENDATIONS:Director: The Office of Educatation should leave

stipends at the present level but give stipends to morestudents.

Students: Would like to have a monthly meeting forall Institute students. Many of them were unaware of thefact that the Institute offers two levels of training.

LTI Staff Recommendation-Beni I. Durant, FieldCoordinator

Financial assistance, either from East TennesseeState University or from the Office of Educatation,should be given to the students who will not be able toredeye their degrees by the end of the Institute. (SeeResults)

Mrs. Barrette is compiling a list of these students andtheir respective degree requirements for presentation to,

F-5

and discussion with, Mr. Frank A. Stevens, Acting Prog-ram Manager, Library Training, Bureau of Libraries andLearning Resources.

Beni L. DurantField Coordinator

Leadership Training Institute

Leadership Training Institute Site Visit

Internship in Black Studies Librarianship:

A Pilot Project

Fisk University, Nashville Tennessee

Site Visit Date: November 17,1972

PROBLEM:The problem is best stated by Dr. Jessie Carney

Smith, Internship Director: "The Black studies librarianis exposed daily to a wide variety of materials and serviceneeds such as may not be encountered during moretraditional modes of training. Further, efficient publicreference service in this field requires a knowledge ofwidely scattered bibliographic sources. This knowledgeoften comes best through day-to-day routine demand-supply situations, at the reference desk. The areas ofacquisition, processing, and special collections supervi-sion also require on-the-job competencies of a higherlevel, which hopefully, will come to many through dailyroutine problem-solving activities."

PEOPLE:The plan provides for seven mid-career or recent

graduate librarians. Although the internship is in BlackStudies Librarianship, interns were selected without re-gard to race. Unfortunately, the only white intern left theprogram. Currently there are eight internsseven lib-rarians and a non-librarian who is planning to establish aBlack Studies collection in his work with school drop-outs at the Urban League Street Academy, South Bend,Indiana. Seven of the interns are Black; the eighth is anative of Beirut, Lebanon, who is a reference librarian atState University of New York at Oswego. All of theinterns receive stipends from the program as well assalaries from their respective jobs. Aside from the twoalready mentioned, the interns are employed at the fol-lowing institutions: Jacksonville State University(Alabama), Winston-Salem State University, Universityof Illinois, Matthew Walker Health Center (Nashville),Michigan State University, and Coppin State College

Appendix F

(Maryland). Recruitment and selection was conductedon a nationwide basis and only one student is a native ofNashville, Tennessee.

PLAN:The internship is a full-time, fifteen week program

(September 5December 15, 1972) consisting of super-vised work in subject areas of the Fisk University Library,field trips to other outstanding Black Studiescollections,and guest speakers and lectures.

The ten subject areas are:1. Acquisition2. Cataloging and Processing3. Special Collections4. Emphemera5. Manuscripts and Archives6. Reference7. Music Resource Center8. Race Relations Information Center9. Black Oral History Project10. Art and Graphics Study Collection

Each intern spends two weeks at each of the subjectarea sections and four additional weeks at an area orareas of his or her individual choice. In the Black OralHistory Project, interns have conducted taped interviewswith such personalities as Welfare Rights Activist FannieLou Hamer, author and dancer Verta Mae, Judge EdithSampson, and Attorney Jewell LaFontant.

Their field trips thus far have included the NegroCollection, Atlanta University Library, Atlanta,Georgia;Martin Luther King, Jr. Library and DocumentationCenter, Atlanta; The Moorland Collection, Howard Uni-versity, Washington, D.C.; The National Archives andThe Library of Congress, Washington. D.C.; and theSchomburg Collection, New York Public Library, NewYork. I visited the "Pap and Read" Storefront Library(Nashville Public Library) with the interns. The library islocated in a predorainently Black area of Nashville and islargely a paperback collection.

Every Friday morning the interns meet with Dr.Smith and subject area supervisors to share experiencesand informattion, resolve problems, and frequently tohear a guest lecturer. I was particularly pleased to bepresent at the lecture by Dr. Ama Bontemps, notedau-thor and writer-in-residence, Fisk University. Dr. Bon-temps' talk, "Reminiscences of Harlem Renaissance",was very informative and was taped for inclusion in theBlack Oral History Project.

Plans are now being finalized to take the interns on amonth long trip to Africa to visit Universities, museums,and other collections of African materials.

F-6

PERCEPTIONS:Itite.rees: Like the fact that there is no pressure for

grades; can work at their own rateField trips are very valuable in actually seeing famouscollections and establishing contacts with curators, ar-chivists, and librariansComplained about housing facilitiesthey were under the impression they would be housed inUniversity dormitories but all dormitories were full.Some interns are living in apartments and othersare in anearby motel at a special rate of $6.00 per day per person.Complained about amount of stipends; not enoughmoney to cover expenses (Note: all interns receive theirsalaries I paid leave of absence] as well as stipends.)Most liked conducting interviews for the Black OralHistory Project

Area Supervisor: (Dr. Darius Thieme - Music) Al-though all the interns are well qualified, only one showsany real enthusiasm and involment in the program.

RESULTS:Certificatation in Black Studies Librarianship will be

awarded to those who complete the program. Internswere pre-tested at the begining of the program and willagain be tested at the end. In addition, the Director plansto conduct a follow-up study on each intern. The Intern-ship Director will publish a complete report of this pilotproject.

RECOMMENDATIONS:InternsStates should require librarians to periodi-

cally update their training.Library administrarors should be aware of this prog-ram and be advised to allow innovations and change as aresult of it.

Bene L. DurantField Coordinator

Leadership Training InstituteFisk '66

Leadership Traning Institute Site Visit Report

Graduate Education for Mexican Americans

School Library Media Specialist

California State University - Fullerton, California

Site Visit Dates: December 11-13, 1972

PROBLEMS:There is a critical shortage of Spanish speaking lib-

rarians and librarians of Mexican descent. Along withthis shortage there are severe inadequacies in libraryservice to Mexican Americans.

Appendix F

PEOPLEThere are sixteen students currently enrolled in the

instituteeight males and eight females. Recruitmentand selection was limited to the state of California andwas conducted with the help of representatives from theUniversity's New Educational Horizons Program (minor-ity recruitment and counseling) and the Committee toRecruit Mexican Americans Librarians. Approximatelytwenty-six applications were recieved. For additional in-formation concerning their ages. marital status. emp-loyment and educational background, see the attachedlist of participants.

PLAN:The plan provides for a one year program in school

library science with a concentration in instructionalmedia. Instruction is divided into academic courses and apracticum in a school library. Originally, the plan was torequire students to work a minimum of ten hours a week,at the rate of $1.65 an hour, for one semester. Funds forpayment were unavailable, therefore students are nowworking on a volunteer basis with no pay. The practicumis non-graded; students are evaluated by the InstituteDirector and the supervising school librarian. In additiontheir duties in the school library, they attend facultymeetings and work with parents. Although I asked tovisit one of the schools, I did not see or talk to any of thesupervising school librarians.

All courses are separate institute classes and are notopen to regular library school students. In addition toclasses and work assignments, there are regularlyscheduled field trips to public and school libraries andbookmobiles. The three library science courses are taughtby the same instructor. I sat in on Mr. Palmer's catalogingclass and also his reference class. The classes are taughtback to back and the questions and discussions The Insti-tute Director teaches the course in media skills. Plansarebeing made to hire two part time instructors. Two schoolprincipals have been added to the Advisory Committee.

PERCEPTIONS:Director: (Patrick Sanchez)Students are qualified

group; not necessary to dispense with regular admis-sions requirements; no severe academic deficiencies;Problem exists in use of University instructional mediafacilities - institute students should be scheduled for labtime like other students;Slight recruitment problems caused by the late noticeof federal funding;Fullerton's library science department is only threeyears old and is non-ALA accredited. Problem with somelibrarians who think the institute should have been at theUniversity of Southern California in Los Angeles, whichis an accredited library school.

F -7

Instructor: (Joseph Palmer)Limiting the institute toschool librarians is too restrictive - the need for MexicanAmerican librarians is in the communities;Apprehensive at first about teaching three coursesback to back and also about being an "Anglo" - now hasadjusted to teaching schedule and has learned a lot aboutthe culture and life style of Mexican Americans from hisstudents;Students are very clanish; they stick together and helpeach other.

Students While they agreed they had adjusted tothe three courses taught by Mr. Palmer, they wouldprefer to have a variety of instructors and be exposed todifferent points of view;the institute is "one of the best things that's ever hap-pened to me.""Why the emphasis on schoel librarianship?"

RESULTS:

Students who successfully complete the program ofinstruction will receive an MIS degree in August, 1973.

Long range goal is to conduct three year long insti-tutes to train three groups of students.

Two of the institute students are working on a Mexi-can American Oral History Project. The audio tapes arein both English and Spanish. An accompanying slidetape presentation is being planned.

The Institute Director plans to do a follow-up studyon each student.

RECOMMENDATIONS:Students: Need an Assistant Director so that the Di-

rector can give more time to his class lectures.Add a course in Chicano Studies.Need to meet and work with the regular library schoolstudents - meeting and working different types of peopleis more like the "real life" working situation. Note: Thereis strong disagreement on this point. Some students feelit is best to be seperate from the regular students - onestudent said, "It's not good to mix the races." Otherstudents feel the seperation is "unreal" and would preferbeing part of the larger group of library school students.Teaching methods should vary - need more use ofmedia in course instructions.Reduce the number of hours of work per week"Notreally learning anything. " "Experence not that valu-able."Further institutes mould not be limited to school lib-rary media specialists.COMMENT:

Although a proposal was originally submitted for aninstitute in Public Library Service, the new ESEA sup-ported institute under Mr. Sanchez, a School MediaSpecialist, emphasizes curricula for the training ofSchool Library Media Specialists.

Bene L. DurantField Coordinator

Leadership Training Institute

Appendix F

North Carolina Central University

Leadership Training Institute Site Visit

Information Form

Site Visit Dates: March 64,1973

PROBLEMThere has long been a need to train librarians to

serve the need of a large segment of the populationthe"nonreading" preschool age children. This Institute isdesigned to train librarians with an emphasis on EarlyChildhood Education.

Note: The Institute is funded jointly by the U.S. Office ofEducation and the Carnegie Corporation. Of the eightstudents enrolled, five are supported by the Office ofEducation. These five are he students referred tothroughout this report.

PEOPLE:The five students are all black females; two of them

are married and have children. Their ages range from theearly to mid-twenties. Two are recent college graduateswith no previous work experience; the others have beenout of college for a few years and have had some previousemployment. Two of the students have exceptional col-lege records and are listed in Who's Who in AmericanCollege and Universities. Recruitment and selection wasconducted on a nationwide basis with preference givento North Carolinians. All the students are from the stateof North Carolina.

PLAN:The two main components of the Institute are the

Early Childhood courses and the Practicum. The EarlyChildhood courses are taught by Mrs. Tommie Young,the Institute Director. These consist of Early ChildhoodMaterials, Methods, Services I and II, Early ChildhoodEducation, and Parent Education. These courses and theentire Early Childhood Education curriculum were de-veloped by Mrs. Young, who has found no comparablecourses of study in any Library School.

The Practicum is in two phases. In Phase I the stu-dents plan and implement learning experiences in theEarly Learning Center at NCC. Five black 4-year olds (3boys, 2 girls) are currently enrolled in the Center 2 1/2hours a day for three days a week. Monday and Wednes-day the children are taught by the students, and onFridays they are taught by their mothers, as well as thestudents. The Center is divided into four areas of interestand the 21/2 hours are carefully constructed to providelearning experiences in each of these areas. (see attached

F-8

Day-to-Day Operations, and Early Learning CenterSheets for more detailed information) In addition to theexperiences in the Center, each mother is required tocheck out one book and one other item of learningequipment a week (toys, games, cassettes, records,films, filmstrips, etc.) to spend at least three additionalhours with the child at home. The mothers also preparewritten reports on the child's learning experiences in thehome. I was simply amazed at the intelligence and socialawareness exhibited by these children in relating to eachother, their teachers, to me, and to other visitors to theCenter. Students are assisted, observed, and graded onPhase I by Mrs. White who is the full time instructor inthe Center and a 1972 graduate of the Early ChildhoodInstitute. In Phase II of the Practicum, the students workin a branch of the Public Library that is across the streetfrom a housing project where a large number of childrenreside. Mrs. White and Mrs. Young confer with thesupervising branch librarian in grading this phase of thePracticum.

Other required courses are taught by regular facultymembers in the School of Library Science and the De-partment of Education. Field trips to public libraries andguest lecturers and consultants are planned to enrich thestudents' educational experience.

Thus far, the only modification has been in schedul-ing students for Practicum experiences. The Institute isfollowing the plan of operation.

Note: This is the second of 2 one year Institutes. Thechildren in the Center have been enrolled for one year(1971 at ages 21/2 - 3) but the students enrolled in Sep-tember 1972.

PERCEPTIONS:Director: (Mrs. Tommie A. Young) Attitudes and

rapport with children are as important as academicachievements; the 1971 Institute students had less thanaverage academic backgrounds, but had beautiful rap-port with the children. On the other hand, this year'sstudents have above average academic backgrounds, butare like "cold fish" with the children.

This is Mrs. Young's personal observation of the stu-dents but Practicum supervisor concur. Interestinglyenough, all five of the students said theyenjoyed workingwith children and the emphasis on Early Childhood Edu-cation was the major incentive to enter the Institute!

Students. Two students who have children of their ownsaid the Institute has been a valuable asset in teachingand working with their children.

Appendix F

the Early Childhood courses are more interesting andmeaningful than the traditional library school courses;the concept of planned learning experiencees for pre-school age children is challenging, exciting, and needed;becoming familiar with the wealth of "non-printmedia" for all ages has been an education in itself.

Although the Library School at North Carolina CentralUniversity is non-ALA accredited, none of the studentsmentioned this as a hindrance to future employmentand/or advancement.

Parents: One parent said her child cried every daywhen she left him at the Center, was shy, and "non-verbal". Now, after having been in the Center for a year,he is eager to go to the Center, relates well with the otherchildren, and "talks my ear off." She was full of praise forMrs. Young, the students, and the entire Institute prog-ram. "It's just wonderful." She has learned a lot aboutbooks and other media for 3-5 year olds and is using herexperience from the Center to teach her other children. (Imet her son and could not conceive of him as ever havingbeen "non - verbal" )

Another parent said her experience at the Center hasemphasized one main concept"the importance of themother as a child's primary teacher."

RESULTS:Students who successfully complete the require-

ments will earn an MLS degree with a specialty in EarlyChildhood Education by July 1973.

Completion and dissemination of a survey of libraryservices to young children in North Carolina. Develop-ment of a plan to improve these services.

Plans will be made to relate the Institute's findings tothe Library School curriculum.

Follow-up study of the five children enrolled in theEarly Learning Center.

RECOMMENDATIONS:There were no recommendations made by the Direc-

tor, students, or parents. Mrs. Young is mailing the LTIchecklist to me at a later date.

Bene L. DurantField Coordinator

Leadership Training Institute

F-9

Leadership Traning Institute Site Visit

Information Form

Burlington County College, Pemberton, New jersey

Site Visit Dates: April 10- 12,1973

PROBLEM:The problem statment is best expressed by Lorenz

Gude, Institute Director:

The overall objectives are to:1. meet a present and anticipated need for educationalmedia and library technicians,2. provide training in this area to prison inmates,parolees, minority group members, and veterans,3. test the applicability of this and similar programs as ameans of reducing the rate of recidivism.

PEOPLE:Fourteen students are currently enrolled in the Insti-

tute. Of these, eleven are corrections-related (inmates orparolees) and the other three qualify as minority groupmembers (one Black female, one Black male) andveteransone Black male. Although the racial balance isseven whites and seven Blacks, the balance among thecorrection related students is seven whites and fourBlacks which is disproportionate to the population inmost penal institutions which is overwhelmingly Black.All of the corrections-related students have either com-pleted high school or received their GED while incarcer-ated; most are in their early or mid-twenties with theaverage age at 25; they are all males; most are single andthe married students, for the most part, are estrangedfrom their wives. Nine of them have a history of drugabuse or heroin addiction. The other four students havethe same general background with the exception of drugaddiction and previous incarceration. The corrections-related students were pre-selected by prison authoritiesor parole officers and then interviewed by the InstituteDirector. In interviewing, the Director looked for agenuine interest in Media and education and to this enddid not stress the $200 a month stipend nor the possibilityof early parole by being enrolled in the Institute. Theother students were recruited with the aid of veteransgroups, community action groups, and contact with lib-rary personnel in the county schools.

PLAN:This is the first year rtf a two year A.A. degree prog-

ram to train educational media and library technicians.The thirteen men in the program are in the media cur-riculum and the one woman is in the library program.Both groups of students, however, take courses in each

Appendix F

curridum. All of the students were tested at registrationfor reading, math, and English skills. Nine of themshowed deficiencies in one or more skills and were as-signed to the appropriate developmental reading, math,or English sections. in addition to these basic educationrequirements, students are enrolled in courses in MediaProduction, Photography, and Introduction to LibraryServices. I observed the photography class and visitedthe photography laboratory. In addition to course work,an internship in media technology and librarianship isplanned for the second year

The inmate students attend classes on a work-release basis. They spend the day on campus attendingclasses, studying, and working part-time in the Divisionof Learning Resources, and are returned to the prison atnight.

MODIFICATIONS:Although Fleming Thomas is listed on the Office of

Education Plan of Operation as Director, Lorenz Gude isthe actual Institute Director. Mr. Gude conducted all theinterviews of prospective students, is the principal in-structor, counsels students, maintains contact with perolofficers and prison authorities, and is the author of therenewal proposal. He maintains day-to-day contact withall the participants. Mr. Eaming's involvement is mainlythat of facilitator. He prepares the budget and is respon-sible for getting the proposal through proper college andOffice of Education channels for approval and funding.His day-to-day involement with the Institute is minimal.

The actual roster of students has changed since theprogram started in September of 1972. Three non-corrections-related students were asked to withdraw foracademic reasons; one inmate student failed to return toprison after class, was captured, and is now back inprison; another non-corrections-related student left be-cause of personal and family problems. Other people. ineach category, were recruited to fill these vacancies andthe institute is operating with a full quota of 14 students.

PERCEPTIONS:Director: (Mr. Lorenz Gude) Major problem with the

corrections-related students is one of attitude and val-ues. "They have often earned substantially more money,legally, as well as illegally, than they can expect to receiveas a library or media paraprofessional. Second, theyhave, with a couple of exceptions, no previous positiveschool experience and consequently come into collegewith very little idea of how college can benefit them.These attitudes are reflected in poor class attendance,lack of interest, and a general unfamiliarity with what isexpected of a college student. Hence, a large portion ofMr. Gude's time is spent in individual counselling ofstudents.Would consider the Institute a success for these stu-dents if "as a consquence of their involvement with theprogram they will find some viable alternative to the wayof life that has put them in jail in the past."

F- I 0

Instructor: (Mrs. Judith Olsen) teaches librarycourses Corrections-related students have performedwell in her course. Although none of them aspire to belibrary paraprofessionals and at first reacted negativelyto the course, developed an interest in and enthusiasmfor using the library.

(Mr. Fleming Thomas) Key problem with thecorrections-related students is shortsightedness; diffi-culty in seeing long range goals.part of the poor class attendance is due to logistics.There is no public transportation to the campus, all of theparolles and non-corrections-related students live ineither Camden or Trenton and only a few have cars.initial contacts for internship placement has been metwith some resistance because of their drug histories--internship and employment placement is going to be aproblem.

Students: The students, without exception,praisedMr. Gude and Mrs. Olsen as instructors and were veryenthusiastic in their respect for Mr. Gude. They feel thathe is genuinely concerned about them as individuals andgoes out of his way to help them with personal andacademic problems. Mr. Gude is giving one of theparokies free room and board at his home andon severaloccasions has mediated problems between parolees andtheir parole officers. Most have aspirations beyond theA.A. degreewant to complete a B.A. They are all awareof the possibilty of not being hired because of their prisonand drug background, but most are not too worriedabout future employment. Manyare interested in indus-trial libraries and journalism. One parolee has a 3.5 aver-age and is seeking financial aid to complete a B.A.Another parolee is interested in teaching in a penal in-stitution. I must admit that although they all "soundedgood" and "said the right things". I was later told by Mr.Gude that some of them have shown a lack of interest intLeir work and have fallen behind.

LTI Field Coordinator, Bens L.Durant: I spent a con-siderable amount of time talking to these students and Iam convinced that they represent "minority" in the truesense of the word. If they successfully complete the Insti-tute, find suitable employment, and live a drug andcrime free life in the future, this Institute hasnot only metits objectives, but has also contributed to a better societyfor all of us.

RESULTS:Students successfully completing the Institute will

earn an Associate in Applied Science degree with somecredits transferable to four year institutions.One student received an early release from prison as adirect result of his being enrolled in the Institute.All of the corrections-related studentsare involved in thecollege radio club and five of them have recorded theirown two-hour show.

Appendix F

The inmate students who are employed in the Division ofLearning Resources show a high degree of competenceand are performing exceptionally well in their respectivejobs. Thus far, there is no evidence of a return to drug useor crime.A follow-up study will be prepared by an evaluator fromRutgers University, the Institute Director, and Correc-tional Authorities to determine if the Institute helped inreducing the rate of recidivism.

RECOMMENDATIONS:Mr. Gude has asked for additional funds to hire a full

time counselor to counsel students, assist in housing andother logistical problems, and assist in placement of stu-dents. The person he. has interviewed for the job is anex-convict who has had considerable personal and pro-fessional experience with inmates and parolees. It is feltthat he can establish rapport with the corrections-relatedstudents and, possibly, motivate those who are losinginterest in the program. This staff member would relieveMr. Gude so that he can spend his time in teaching,instructional development, and making initial contact foremployment. Although my visit to the Institute was li-..dted, I was made fully aware of the need for a full timecounselor and I concur in this recommendation

dr

L

Bene L. DurantLTI Field Coordinator

t

V

Aborblit-

A I 50' .

Yolanda Alfero Maloney, Master's degree candidate in UrbanLibrary Service ProgramCase Western Reserve University.

ca.

41116Young clients at a Cleveland Community Agency where institute students do field work.

F- 1 1

4

APPENDIX (;

Internal Reports to II B Directors and/orBLLR, USOE

LTI Highlights September-October 1972

An advisiory Group met September 18-19, 1972, inWashington to discuss the state of Library paraprofe-sional training and to provide the Bureau of Libraries andLearning Resources with information necessary to de-velopment of HEA Title II-B guidelines for fisical year73-74. The group, chaired by Dr.Harold Goldstein, LTIDirector, was representative of the broad spectrum oflibrary involvement with paraprofessional training andutilization. A paper by Dr. Dorothy Deininger formedthe background for consideration of current trainingpriorities.

The group expressed strong concern for the streng-thing of teachers and instructional materials used inparaprofessional programs. Another major area of dis-cussion centered on the national standardization of Lib-rary Technical Assistance programs which led to theA.A. degree.

The concept of differentiated staffing as outlined theALA statment on Education and Manpower was con-firmed by the Advisory Group, and concern was expres-sed that state personnel boards should incorporate thesepositions into their personnel structure.

On September 25-26,1972, Field Consultant BeneDurant visited the institute on "Model Curriculum forLibrary Service to the Disadvantaged" at Case WesternReserve University. She interviewed the director, Mr.Goldwyn, faculty members and field work supervisorsand held a spontaneous, in-depth discussion with thethirteen masters candidates in the program

At Ill's request, educational consultant, Gary Allenis also working with the Case Western Reserve programon the development of a "communication trainingmodel" designed to increase the effectiveness of institutestudents and faculty as they communicate with eachother and with the "public" in library or communitysituations.

High line Community College, Midway, Washing-ton, one of three Title IFB funded institutes for the train-ing of library paraprofessionals at the AA level, wasvisited by Dorothy Anderson, LTI Program Coordinator,on Ocotober 10-13, 1972. She met with the institute direc-tor, Advisory Council, faculty, and students to identifyways in which LT1 could assist the program and share itsmost exemplary practices and materials with other simi-lar institutes.

Beni Durant met with faculty and students at theUniversity of Wisconsin's institute program in Mil-waukee on October 11-13, 1972.

G-1

On October 18, 1974 following a half day meetingfor final planning, Dorothy Anderson conducted a work-shop for library paraprofessional trainees at the Univer-sity of New Hampshire, Merrimack Valley Branch. Theworkshop, titled "Social Interaction Skills", featuredvideo-taped role play and role analysis as well as a dis-cussion of the importance of effective communicationsand pub relations in all kinds of library situations.Barbara Conroy of the Outreach Leadership Network,assisted in the workshop development and training.

The LTI Advisory Group on Library TrainingGuidelines, chaired by Dr. Goldstein, LTI Director, metin an intensive two day session October 25-26,inWashington, D.C. Drawn from across the country, anddifferent types of libraries, the group represented strongprofessional expertise in all major areas of library educa-tion and training.

Following a charge to the Advisory Group by BurtonLamkin, Associate Commissioner, Bureau of Librariesand Learning Resources, Dr. Goldstein sought inputfrom the group through a rigorous examination of nextyear's models for library training development by FrankStevens, Office of Education.

The participants revised and refined the existingtraining models and worked creatively on developing anew innovative model which reflects the priorities ofboth the Office of Education and the library profession asit relates to the information needs of society.

Prior to the conference, each participant had out-lined his or her "Concerns for the Future of the LibraryProfession in relation to training /education priorities fornext five years."

Discussion sessions were recorded and LTI staff hassince prepared a complete report for the Office of educa-tion including specific guidelines from the AdvisoryGroup.

NARRATIVE EVALUATION REPORT ON: The Leader-ship Training Institute

AT: Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306

DATES: December 1, 1972 to December 30, 1972

SUBMITTEDBY: Harold Goldstein, Dean; School of Lib-rary Science Phone: (904) 599-2130

The folldwing activities have been accomplished tomeet LTI objectives during December, 1972:

Appendix G

( I) On December I. the framing Director was hiredand began immediately to contact 11.13 training directorsand plan with the LTI Program Coordinator tor three train-ing sessions to be held in lanuarv-February. 1473. Pre-limimary arrangenents and general program content foreach of the sesions was completed (see attar tied memo andtentative agenda).

(2) The first draft ot a handbook onplanningevaluation for training directors has been com-pleted and mailed to training directors and other keymembers ot the library profession for their criticism andinput. The handbook draft based on materials provided byLT1 consultants, content of a Title 11 B Institute held at OhioState University last year, and other currentmanagmenttevaluation theory, will receive additional re-finements through participants input at each of the threeupcoming L TI training programs.

(3) The Program Coordinator and Training Directorspent two days at the Case-Western Reserve Institute pre-viewing components of the communications package inprocess of development by Concern Group, Inc. The visitalso provided considerable opportunity to work with Insti-tute faculty and students in sharing perceptions of leader-ship training net.ds. Components of the communicationspackage will be presented at each of the three trainingsessions se that the final "package" will reflect other TitleH-B Library Institute staff reaction.

(4) In mid-December a real estate policy changenecessitated removal of the LT1 Washington Office to moresuitable quarters nearby.

(5) A concerted effort is being made to keep trainingdirectors. lac ulty, and other concerned members of theprofession informed as to the activities of LTI. Informationpackets were mailed to all Regional Program Officers thismonth. and futher expansion of mailinglists is continuing.

IN A major objective of the Leadership Training Insti-tute is to provide techinical assistance to other on-goingBUR training programs. Since the beginning of theacademic year, the Field Consultant has completed the firstpart ot a systematic plan to achieve this objective throughon-site visits to Institute at the University of Wisconsin,Case-Western Reserve, East Tennessee State, Fisk, andCalifornia state College. Comprehensive reports on eachvisit have been submitted, and the visits have generatedconsiderable followup activity concerning special prob-les encountered. The reports include observations fromboth student., and *acuity as to success/failure factors in theInstitute program. and the Field Consultant's recommen-dation for program modification. !hew report, haveproved useful in making decisions as to program contentsfor the three scheduled training sessions. They have alsoprovided useful information tc u.iliied in planning fu-

6-2

tore institute training sessions. Additionally the visitsgreatly strengthen the routine telephonecorrespondencetechnical assistance provided by I II staff for other 11-B

Institutes.

NARRATIVE EVAl UATION REPORT ON: The Lead-ership Training Institute

AT: Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306

DATES: January 1, 1973 to February 28, 1973

SUBJECT: LTI institutes, lanurary--February 1973

SUBMITTED BY: Harold Goldstein, Dean; School of Lib-rary Science Phone: (904) 599-2130

As noted in last month's report, three meetings ofcurrently funded Institute directors and faculty wereplanned. These institutes were held in Atlanta (UrbanInformation), Manchester, New Hampshire (Paraprofes-sional), and Denver, Colorado (Media Specialist)

All currently funded institutes were represented ex-cept one (faculty illness). Additionally several keyeducators and/or librarians in the areas of urban informa-tion, paraprofessional and media specialist training wereinvited to attend the appropriate institute. Althogether,approximately 75 persons including staff, USOE rep-resentives, and other observers participated. The As-sociate Director for Coordination for LTi, the Field Con-sultant, the Training Director, and the LTI Director at-tended, and actively participated in the sessions.

Objectives for the three meetings and a brief evalua-tion follows:

1. To preview and evaluate components of the Communica-tions training packa,8,e now being developed by Concern Group,

Gary Allen of Concern Group presented the transactionalanalysis theory at all three sessions. Overall, his presenta-tion was dynamic and well received with decidedly morefavorable input from the New Hampshire and Denvermeetings after modification of the presentation based onthe Atlanta evaluations (written and verbal). Most Atlantacriticism related to level of presentation rather than disag-reement with concepts presented. The input received byConcern, Inc. will be utilized in assembling the final com-munication package for LTI.

2. Apply managementplannngievaluation theory to specificinstitute problems

At all three sessions current concepts in evaluation theorywere presented. The consultant utilized was Dr. Ken Eve,Ohio State University Evaluation Center for Atlanta andDeriver. and Dr Al Schuttc:, Vice President, Taconic DataResearch, Inc. in New Hampshire. A survey of the formscompleted showed that in Atlanta and Denver almost 99%of the participants felt that the planning/evaluation conceptpresented will be helpful in current and future training

Appendix G

activities. Even in New Hampshire where some evaluationforms indicated that evaluation content was tot general.there was an overall rating of 80% indicating that presenta-tion combined with distributed materials would be usefulin training activities.

3. Receive input for improvement of t.valuation handbookdraft (mailed to participants in advance of programs)

Most participants had read the handbook prior to theevaluation seminars. Input therefore was to the point andreflected thoughtful consideration of the handbook as atraining aide. Less than one percent of written evaluationsindicated doubt as to ultimate usefulness (with revision) ofhandbook. The recommendation centered upon additionsto text and appendices, change in tone and content, etc.Participants appeared interested in the handbook, but didnot see it as an important part of the programming fur theinstitute--i.e. a chance for the group to discuss revisionstogeher. One person suggested that the time would havebeen better spent in fuller discussion/exploration of evalua-tion theory with input provided individually by particip-ants to training directors.

4. Provided opportunity ftr Institute staff to engage in prob-lems solving through sharing information

More than 50 percent of attendees saw opportunity toexchange information with other institute directorsistaffwith similar problems as the most useful part of the insti-tutes.

This would reinforce the decision to regionalLe the prog-ram and divide them into groups concerned with similartraining problems.

One observer noted in his written evaluation. "I foundmost of the concepts presented applicable and illerkable .

Certainly the planning-evaluation handbook will serve aneed . . . The whole Institute showed hours of preparationand thought . . . It was worthwhile and opened up manyavenues of needed communication."

Certainly other evaluations were not as positive as this,particularly as they related to specific aspects of each work-shop. But these comments are nut overstated in summariz-ing the overall input from participants.

A number of areas of concern were aired as a resultof the problem solving sessions. These include:

a. the problem of getting university commitment toon-going institutes which are proving successful. Also,most institutes exist as entirely separate entities from theformal library school program. Therefore, traditional lib-rary school education is nct learning from either institutesuccesses or failures.

b. the problem of training professionals (urban infor-mation) to be change agents, and sending them to librariesthat are not ready to provide the opportunities needed--not ready or able to modify the system to effectivelyutilize the change agent.

G-3

c. the problem of training paraprofessionals for jobswhich are now being largely filled by "professionallytrained" libraria1's.

It was suggested that LT1 might be an effective vehi-cle to provide a forum for discussion with library schoolfaculties strategies for solving these and other problems

Participants were provided the opportunity to sug-gest other areas of activity for the Leadership TrainingInstitute. Many suggested the need to know more aboutwhat is going on in other Institutes in areas of curriculumcontent, training methodology, recruitment and place-ment procedures, student problems, attitudes, evalua-tions techniques, and finally the need for followup onInstitute graduates. Was their training appropriate forthe job situation they are in?

All of these areas of concern are being considered inLTI's planning fur the months ahead.

Evaluation Components for Library Training InstituteProposals

In accordance with the U. S. Office of Education'spolicy of program accountability to achieve maximumbenefit from the expenditure of funds, the Library Train-ing Program is placing greater emphasis on individualproject accountability.

Project evaluation and accountability as an ongoingactivity is essential to assure the quality of training forlibrarianship. Careful consideration of evaluation duringthe program planning phases will contribute to moreeffective program implementation and provide the op-portunity for restructuring during the operational phase.In order to assure quality control of the project, clearlydefined needs must be identified so that measurableobjectives can be devised. An evaluation schedule mustbe set up to insure objective evaluation of the projectfrom its inception to its close. if objectives are vague, if nopre-design evaluated strategy is developed, if all relevantdata and information are not systematically and objec-tively collected to implement the evaluation design, thena project has no real basis for improvement. On the otherhand, when the objectives of a project are clear andmeasurable, when there are specific plans of work anddata collection, and when sufficient resources are allo-cated to process the data adequately, then those objec-tives not reached may be worked on systematically untiltheir attainment is assured. This type of continuing pro-ject evaluation and redesign is essential if program objec-tives are to be realized.

Project accountability must receive appropriate at-tention and support. It is to this purpose that evaluationplans, including criteria, procedures and instrumentsmust be incorporated in all institute proposals submit-ted. Such evaluation should be provided independently

Appendix G

by two groups: (1) by the institution providing the train-ing, and (2) by evaluator or evaluation team not involvedin the planning of the fulfillment of the particular prog-ram.

PUBLIC SERVICE CAREERS CONFERENCE

Library Training

Two members of the LTI staff, the Training Directorand the Field Coordinator, attended the Public ServiceCareers Conference in Atlanta, Georgia, April 17-20,1973. For background information on the Public ServiceCareers Program, please see attachment.

The purpose of the conference was to enhance theknowledge and skills of Project Directors in human rela-tions, evaluation skills, social science, communitydynamics, and the process of training adults, with thehope that such knowledge and skills will increase effec-tiveness. Several experts gave talks and presentations onthese topics with a question- answer period and discus-

sG-4

sion following each speaker. Two of the more involved(and heated) discussions concerned the role of the libraryemployee as a human relationist and the library relationto the community.

In lieu of a scheduled speaker who did not attend,each of the five Project Directors gave a brief report on hisor her project. This change of schedule was extremelybeneficial to those conference participants who were notfamiliar with the Public Service Careers Program becauseit provided an opportunity for them to discuss theoryand practice with the Director.

An interesting aspect of this conference was that itwas being evaluated by a team headed by a Ph.D. candi-date in Research and Evaluation at Ohio State Univer-sity. Conference participants were given rating sheets atthe end of each speaker's presenation and a summarysheet at the end of the conference. Participants will beapprised of the team's findings.

The conference was valuable for LTI staff membersin being made aware of library programs in other gov-ernment agencies, learning different approaches in train-ing paraprofessionals, and, as at every conference, meet-ing and exchanging ideas with the people involved inthese programs.

(

V

Appendix H

Sample Responses to LTI inquiry on:Future National Library Training Goals

( Laurence Sherrill -Institute Director)Inner City Library Training Institute

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

I. Types of Librarianship

Possibly we should resist thinking about library education in terms of typesof libraries (ie.: school, public) or in terms of service to patrons by age level(ie.: children, young adults, etc.). Future developments in systems and infor-mation networks would seem to demand expertise in the highly complexfield of handling information of all types. If specialization is necessary, itshould be in the area of the problems of urban information needs andresources. Specialization in terms of clientele may be achieved on the job.

2. Target Groups

Targets should be students who are committed to social problem solving andwho are interested in information io its social uses. Since this group is notinclined to enter library services as the profession currently exists, a ratherelaborate job of recruitment is in order.

3. Content of Program

Let us stop reordering our priorities according to fads, such as ecology, Rightto Read, etc. Library training should be based on a study of society. Objectivesshould be determined by the identification of the informational needs, notlibrary needs, of a highly complex society. This is a large order, but one whichmust be accomplished before pertinent training can be achieved.

Why the emphasis on content? Education for urban librarians should includeextensive supervised field training. Not only for inner city services, but for allurban services.

Future National Library Training Goals(Elise D. BarretteeInstitute Director)

I. Types of Librarianship (school, paraprofessionals, children's etc.)School

2. Target Groups for training (ethnic minorities, males, etc.)Rural disadvantaged

3. Content of Program

Media skills, general management skills for operation of superior schoollibraries,

Statements from Institute Directors and/or Directors of Public Libraries:We have an interest in the preparation of media specialists for pre-school educa-

tion programs.We also have a strong interest in in-service programs for librarians in our service

area.

Future National Library Training Goats(Patrick Sanchez s Institute Director)

I. Types of Librarianship (school, paraprofessionals, children's etc.)

?Were is a greater need for preparation of school library media specialists. Agreater need for trainktg minorities in at a frofessional level rather than Fffa-proles:10nd

2. Target Groups for training (ethnic minoddes, males, etc.ethnic minorities:

3. Content of Program (media skills, management, ecology, Right to Read, etc.)Media skills and management.

Statements from Institute Directors and/or Directors of Public Libraries:There is a greater need to recognize the abilities and intelligence of minorities

such as the Mexican Americans, and make a greater effort to train them at the pro-fessional level. Greater emphasis in paraprofessional programs indicates that minor-ities are believed to be inferior and therefor cannot be trusted to succeed at themanagement level. Not only is this erroneous but a flagrant act of racism. Indeed,paraprofessional programs are needed but should not be considered at the highestlevel of achievement for minorities in Librarianship.

H-2

Appendix I

Leadership Training Checklist

For directf.rs and faculty of Institutes for training in LibrarianshipHEATitle 11 -B

In seeking the most effective approaches to providing leadership training which meets theneeds of the majority of institute directors and faculty, the LEADERSHIP TRAININGINSTITUTE would appreciate your response to the following questions:

A. As a result of your experience with a Library Institute this year, would you beinterested in further specialized training in the foiowing leadership skills? (Numberin order of priority.)

Formulating and reaching institute objectives

Instructional design and development

Evaluation, formative and summative

Group dynamics and interpersonal communications

Utilizing multi-media resources in instruction and reporting

Reporting and dissemination of institute progress and problemsMotivation of participants to reach personal/professional and institute goalsOther (please specify)

Institute Director Institute Instructor

B. Are there advantages to regionalizing training wssions rather than providing all trainingat a national center (usually Washington, D.C.)?

C. In your view, would the development and distribution of specialized leadershipmaterials (print or AV) be useful in improving the quality of your institute?(Check one)

In addition to training sessions

_ Instead of training sessions

D. Do you prefer to use LTI staff or special consultants to help solve specific problems asthey arise?(Check one)

_ In addition to training sessionsIn lieu of training sessions

E. General comments and suggestions:

I -1

Appendix el

Leadership Training InstituteSeminar on Library Paraprofessional Training

SEPTEMBER 18 and 19, 1972

GRAMERCY INN1616 Rhode Island Avenue

Washington, D.C. 20006

AGENDA

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1972 Southscott Room

AM 8:30-9:00 Coffee and rolls meet and greet!

9:00-9:30 Introductions and brief comment from each participant. Overview ofSeminar objectives Dorothy 3. Anderson, LTI

9:309:45 Information needs of the Bureau of Libraries and Learning ResourcesFrank Stevens

continuous COFFEE

9:45.10:30 Further Ramifications of Paraprofessional Training Dorothy Deininger

10:30 11:30 Discussion of "Deininger Paper" and BLLR staff paper

11:30 -12:00 Summary of key points from morning discussion

PM 12:00-1:30 LUNCH Northscott Room (catered by Devil's Fork)

1:30 Further discussion

2:00 Report on University of New Hampshire Pre-Professional CooperativeEducation Librarianship Institute

Shirley Adamovich, Profram CoordinatorAl Schutte Outside evaluatorvideo report on New Hampshire project

4:00 Summary of afternoon experience

Evening informal discussions (refreshments)

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1972 Northscott Room

AM 8:309:00 Coffee and rolls wake up!

9:00-11 :30 Identifying unanswered questions: Some possibilities for discussion1. geographic characteristics of paraprofessional market2. rural and urban needs Are there differences?3. curriculum specificity? How?4. Concurrent retraining of professionals in use of paraprofessionals

pro or con?

12:00 LUNCH Devil's Fork Lounge

PM 1:303:00 Identifying unanswered questions (cont.)5. paraprofessional job guarantees?6. What about career ladders/lattices: for clerks. LTA's, media technicians.

processing technicians, library assistants, etc. Should there be differenttraining models for each?

7. Should we develop training models for paraprofessionals with experienceand/or academic achievement beyond the AA toward upward pro-fessional mobility.

3 :00-3 :30 Summary

Note: Bend Durant, LT1 Field Consultant. Recorder of key concepts

3-1

J

Guidelines MeetingSeptember 18-19, 1972

Leadership Training InstituteSeminar on Library Paraprogessional Training

Participants

Shirley Adamovich, Program CoordinatorPre-Professional Librarianship InstituteUniversity of New Hampshire, MVBManchester, New Hampshire

Jo leen Bock, Director of Library ServicesCollege of the Canyons1306 ArmacostLos Angeles, California 90025

Walter W. Curley, DirectorCleveland Public library325 Superior AvenueCleveland, Ohio 44114

Dorothy F. Doininger, Associate ProfessorGraduate School of Library ServiceRutgers UniversityNew Brunswick, New Jersey 08903

Harold Goldstein, DirectorLeadership Training InstituteSchool of library Science43 LibraryFlorida State UniversityTallahassee, Florida 32306

Claude W. Green, Administrative LibrarianVoorhees CollegeDenmark, South Carolina 29042

Noel GregoKennedy-King Community College8722 S Calumet StreetChicago, Minim 60619

McKinley C. Martin, Director of Continuing EducationCoahonra Junior CollegeClarksdale, Mississippi 38614

Jim Michael, Chief Supervisor, Main LibrarySt. Louis Public Library1301 Olive StreetSt. Louis, Missouri 63103

J-2

Junius Morris, Directorlibrary Technician TrainingHighline Community CollegeMidway, Washington 98031

Elnora Portteus, Supervisor of School librariesCleveland Board of Education1380 E. 6th StreetCleveland, Ohio 44114

Carlton Rochell, DirectorAtlanta Public Library126 Carnegie Way, N.W.Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Alfred J. Schutt& Director Education DivisionTaconic Date Research, Inc.374 Uniondale AvenueUniondale, New York 11553

Carl Whisenton, ChiefReference Services SectionDefense Intelligence Agency LibraryWashington, D.C.

Representatives from the Bureau of libraries andLearning Resources:

I. Frank Stevens Chief, Training and Resources Branch2. Burton Lamkin Associate Commissioner3. Kathleen Molz Chief, Planning Staff4. Yvonne Hicks Administrative Librarian5. Ray Fry

LTI StaffHarold Goldstein, DirectorDorothy Anderson, Program CoordinatorBeni Durant, Field Consultant

Appendix K

Leadership Training InstituteREFORMA Conference

Midtown Holiday InnUniversity Drive and 1.20

Fort Worth, Texas

April 6.7, 1973

AgendaFriday, April 6,1973

8:45 AM Coffee

9:00 Conference ObjectivesDr. Amulfo Trejo, President, REFORMA

9:15 Exploring the Needsthe Spanish Speaking Americans and the LibraryProfessionAlberto habien, District of Columbia Public library, DiscussionLeader

1. Needs2. Problems3. Directions

12:00 Lunch

1:30 PM Implementation of Programs to Secure Needed Training for Library ServicesPatrick S. Sanchez, California State College, Discussion Leader

1. Paraprofessional2. Prospective librarians /continuing education3. Improved : :mununity services through curriculum change strategies4. Specific Etwaitional activity/resourcesDr. Harold Goldstein, Director,

Leadership Training Institute, Discussion Leader

Saturday, April 7

9:00 AM Coffee

9:15 Las Vegas Joint MeetingREFORMA/RASD Program recommendations,'Akan Lopez, New York Public library, Discussion Leader

10:15 Coffee

10:30 REFORMA Action ProgramObjectives/recommendations for implementationRobert P. Haro, University of Southern California, Discussion Leader

REFORM % ConferenceNarrative Report

gates: April 6, 7, 1973Mid Town Holiday InnFort Worth, Texas

Ruticipants:Dr. Amulfo Trejo, University of ArizonaJohn Ayala, Long Beach City CollegeAlberto Irabien, Washington, D.C. Public LibraryRobert Haro, University of Southern CaliforniaPatrick Sanchez, California State CollegeMarilyn Salazar, ALA Minority RecruitmentAlicia Godoy, Miami Public LibraryWilliam Ramirez, San Francisco Public LibraryNatalia Davis, Brooklyn Public Library

K- 1

LTI Staff:

Dr. Harold GoldsteinBrooke E. Sheldon

Observers:

She lah-Bell Cragin, El Paso Public LibraryArthur Kirschenbaum, USOE

The meeting of key members of REFORMA was organized in response to a requestfrom that group, and to meet the following objectives:

I. Formulation of an action program for REFORMA to improve library servicesto Spanish speaking Americans.

2. Complete plans for a program meeting at the American Library AssociationConvention in Las Vegas, June 1973.

The ten participants were asked to come "prepared to discuss the needs of theparticular ethnic group you represent, mutual areas of concern, in order to begin aconcerted effort to alleviate the problem."

In opening remarks to the group, Dr. Trejo, president of REFORMA, addressedthe problem of effecting change in the library profession and noted that over the yearsSpanish speaking librarians "waited quietly, hoping that the status quo would change .

silently questioned policies and work procedures. We have seen libraries measured bystandards which, in our opinion, tall short in fulfilling the needs of our people. We haveseen library schools accredited without a single course in the curriculum which wouldprepare librarians to serve the several million Spanish speaking residents of the UnitedStates. And so we continue to see Chicanos, Cubanos, Puerto Ricans, and many otherSpanish speaking people deprived of services and information which libraries couldprovide if they were equipped with the right materials and staffed by qualified librarians."

As the participants began to articulate the complexity of problems to be explored.it became apparent theat needs fell into these major categories:

I. Recruitmentwith emphasis on professional training.2. Identification and education of library agencies that do not now serve the

Spanish speaking.

3. Unity among Spanish speaking librarians to promote a group identity.4. Vertical mobility for Spanish speaking librarians -more in the policy making

echelon.

S. Inter-action with other national/state/local organizations with similar objectives.Group consensus was reached about the priority need for REFORMA to increase

the number of Spanish speaking entering the library profession.Some specific steps for REFORMA to take in the area of recruitment and library

education included:

I. A Spanish speaking librarian on ALA Accreditation teams.2. Commitments from library directors to hire the Spanish speaking the interface

with library schools.

3. Encouragement of library schools to utilize practicing librarians to teach com-munity services.

4. Establishment of a referral network for placement of Spanish speaking librarians.

5. Study of current employment patterns of library agencies in cities with largeSpanish speaking populations.

6. More Spanish speaking librarians into management courses.7. Promotion of library orientation, vocational programs for high school, junior

high students.

8. Cooperation with library schools to have funds allocated for scholarships forthe Spanish speaking.

K-2

Appendix K

The oiganitational role of REFORMA as outlined by Robert Haro for presentationat the Las Vegas meeting is based on the assumption that although the Spanish speckinggroups in the United States are much more similar than dissimilar, they do not have acollective identity The)' need a vehicle to speak li them as a group. Hero proposed asell-perpetuating organi,ation based on the similar concerns of the Spanish speaking toinclude both kutguagc e.thi cultural clutrizetertstics. lk noted that to make an impact onthe American library Association. and other organizations. P.EFORMA will have to sellboth people and methodology.

To do this, it will need both structure and identity. RLFORMA can, for example.provide lists of qualified librarians with specialties to meet needs of library directors.Thus it can provide a collective image with spin off through individuals to meet localand regional needs.

Haro suggests that:

I. REFORMA attempt to bring professionals and non-professionals togetherworking for a career ladder that would eliminate the dead-end job.

2. REFORMA function as a watchdog and as an advisory body to ALA, StateAssociations. State Libraries, Library Schools. etc.

REFORMA should be an identity model to unify Spanish speaking librarians as itfunctions in areas of research as to how best to serve the needs of the Spanish speakingas an information system functioning as part of several other cultural systems. Pluralismis important in this kind of organization as is democracy-everyone must have theopportunity to state his point of view.

Finally, the most important element is an action program and those who carry out(i.e., REFORMA members) should also be "card carrying" members of ALA.

Discussion after the Haro paper led to a suggested addition to the by-laws whichwould provide for local chapters of REFORMA in appropriate states.

Major topics for small group discussion at the Las Vegas program will include:Recruitment. Organization, Communication.

A final session of the meeting was devoted largely to organizational details, i.e.,purchase letterhead, communicate with professional journals, change by-laws to makeoffice of vice-president succeed to president; duplicate all communications and circulateamong executive board: improved communications to membership, etc.

Summary Evaluation

The first objective of the conference, formulation of a complete action program,was largely accomplished, although certainly not in minute and final detail. However,broad areas of agreement were reached as to the most pressing need (recruitment) andother priorities. Several policy decisions were made subject to membership approval(i.e., encourage formation of local chapters for program flexibility: interaction with andsupport of other organizations with similar objectives). The role of REFORMA as awatchdog and advisory group to ensure that the information needs of the Spanishspeaking are met by the library profession was established. In vetting these broadpolicies, many concrete suggestions for the action program were made and recorded.

The second objective. to complete plans for the program at Las Vegas was accom-plished since all of the decisions made here will form the basis for the Las Vegas programpresentations. A small committee is working out program details.

The REFORMA Conference provided a unique opportunity for long range planningby a group committed to improved library services for the Spanish speaking. All of theproblems could not be resolved in a two day session, but the decisions made will enableREFORMA to begin immediately to take positive action in a number of priority areas.

The response to the Las Vegas program and increased membership in REFORMAwill be immediate indicators of the value of the planning ..essions. Increased numbers ofSpanish speaking in the library profession and finally improved library services to theSpanish speaking are the long range performance indicators that can only be measuredduring the next two or three years.

K-3

Appendix L

Leadership Training institute Advisory Meetingon Library Training Guidelines

October 26-27, 1972

Skyline InnWashington, D.C.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26

AM 8:30.9:00 Coffee and Danish

9:00-12:00 1. Introduction: Harold Goldstein, Director2. Charge to the Advisory Group; Burton E. lamIdn, Associate

Commissioner, Bureau of Libraries and Learning Resources3. Review of current status of Title 11-13 grants, Frank Stevens, Acting

Program Manager, Library Training

PM 12:00.1:30 LUNCH

1:30.3:30 4. Are changed concepts of training institutes necessary?: HaroldGoldsteina) contentb) mechanismc) target groups

S. Presentation of proposed training models for consideration: FrankStevens

6. Summary concepts Beni Durant, LTI Field Consultant

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 27

AM 8:30.9:00 Coffee and Danish

9:00-12:00 Working sessions on training models, Goldstein, Stevens, Anderson, Durant

Discussion of modelsDevelopment of new models

PM 12:00-1:30 LUNCH

1:30-3:30 Working session continued

Summary

Reaction sheets

L-1

Leadership Training institute

Participants Guidelines MeetingOctober 26-27, 1972

ParticipantsRobert Booth, ChairmanDepartment of Library ScienceWayne State UniversityDetroit, Michigan 48202313/577-1825

Dale CallenAssociate Librarian1935 Sheridan RoadNorthwestern University LibraryEvanston, Illinois 60201312/492.7635Hardy FranklinDepartment of Library ScienceQueens CollegeCity University of New YorkFlushing, New York 113672121445.7500

Robert Geiman RPODREW /OEArcade Plaza Building1321 Second AvenueSeattle, Washington, 98101206/4424962

Ann HayesAppalachian Adult Education CenterU.P.O. Box 1345Morehead, Kentucky 40351606/783.2250

LTI StaffHarold Goldstein, Director Meeting ChairmanDorothy J. Anderson, Program CoordinatorDeno L Durant, Field Coordinator

BLLR Representatives

Burton Lamldn, Associate CommissionerFrank Stevens, Acting Program Manager. Library TrainingYvonne HicksElizabeth HugheyPaul JanaskeKathleen MolzPatricia Smith

or alternates

L-2

John HumphryAssistant Commissioner for LibrariesNew York State Department of EducationAlbany, New York 12224518/474.5930

Martha Boaz, DeanSchool of Library ScienceU. of Southern CaliforniaUniversity ParkLos Angeles, California213/746.2548Robert AltmannDirector of School LibrariesDeer Park Public Schools30 Rockaway AvenueDeer Park, Long Island, New York 11729William RamirezDirector Public LibraryBay Area Reference CenterSan Francisco, California415/558-2941Marilyn Salami.Minority Recruitment Specialist50 East Huron StreetChicago, Illinois 60611312/944-7780

APPENDIX NI

USE OF CIPP MODEL IN LTI SELF-STUDY

Problem: Several Institute Directors and facultymembers indicated a need for training in the area ofplanning and evaluation. Also, the Bureau of Libraries isnow requiring IIB Institutes to place more emphasis onevaluation and measurement of results. This problemillustrates how LTI adapted the UT model for its train-ing needs.

ADAPTATION OF CIPPMODEL FOR ONGOINGEVALUATION, ACTIVITIES IN LIBRARIES

CONTEXT

Identifying needs, problems oppor-tunities; setting goal-objectives; criteriafor assessing performance.

PRODUCT

Report of project,program results- -to

what degree are objectivesmet for recycling decisions?Transferability offindings.

INPUT

Provide informationrelating to program

structure. AU alternativestrategies for implementation.

Formulate action planwho does what? when?

PROCESS

Milestonesprovides for monitoringtraininginformation for programmodification

Appendix M

CONTEXT

1. The need is established through:a. Problem areas described by Institute Directors,

staff, and students through on-site observation, check listquestionnaires during on-site visits, requests for technicalassistance.

b. The difficulty current II-B Institute staffs had ineffecting mid-stream modification of programs. and anemphasis on product or summative evaluation rather thanprocess or formative apparent in Institute reports.

2. The objective: to improve planning and evaluationskills of institute staffs during FY 72-73. The criteria usedfor assessing validity of the objective, and for other as-

of the training activity, may be summarized asas-

pects

a. Goal RelatednessThe objective would be a con-crete step in meeting the overall goal of LTI, "Improvedleadership training skills for directors and staffs of feder-ally funded institutes." It also met a priority need as ex-pressed both by institute participants, and by adminis-trators of the Title II.B program.

b. Feasibility It seemed reasonable that LTI couldconduct training in this area since both the Training Direc-tor and the Coordinator had recent training in and practicalexperience in the areas of management, planning andevaluation. The Coordinator taught management at Fed-eral City College, and the Training Director had recentlydirected the planning and process of a 5 year program forstatewide library development. Additionally, resourceswere available to utilize outside consultants to assist in thetraining process.

c. Efficiency This type of training is no more expen-sive to provide than any other type of training. It was alsofelt by LT1 staff that many problem areas cited by institutestaffs (eg. motivating students) related directly to an over-all need for better administrative and planning skills ratherthan a minute focus on a specific problem so that providingexpertise in tIlese general areas would seem the most effi-cient effective way of attacking a number of widely variantproblems.

d. Effectireness Since training in planning and evalu-ation (project management) was high priority for both par-ticipants and administrators, it held potential for having amaximum impact on improvement of Title IIB training,and eventual impact on library education in general. Someperformance indicators used in evaluating program effec-tiveness for the planning and evaluation training include:

1) number of institute staff members participating intraining sessions, contributing to publication, etc.;

2) discernable improvements of evaluation segmentsof li -B reports;

3) improved planning for training proposals submit-ted to USOE;

4) evidence of use of or adoption of techniques pre-sented in on-going MB institutes;

5) greater use of outside evaluators by 11-B institutestaffs to improve on-going programs rather than as productevaluators.

M-2

INPUT

At several planning sessions throughout the fall theLTI staff brainstormed alternative methods of reachingthe objective. Some of the alternative strategies consi-dered were:

a. A meeting of all Institute Directori (and key staffmembers) in Washington, D.C., or some other centrallocation.

b. Regional meetings for attendance mixing type ofinstitute.

c. Regional meeth:gs by type of Institute.d. On-site visits providing individualized consultant

help in improving evaluation techniques.e. Produce materials (AV and other) for distrubution

to li-B institutes.

For all of these approaches the feasibilty of using a)LTI staff, b) outside consultants, or c) both were exp-lored. Each stratgey was evaluated in the light of anumber of factors, eg.: institute staff expressed a strongneed to meet with other institute staff to explore prob-lems of mutual concern; last year's centralized meeting ofall staff in Washington was criticized by several attendeesas "too big" and "unrelated to specific problems"; whiletraining sessions could be useful, a handbook organizingsome of the principales for future reference would rein-force the training, reach a broader audience, and fill a gapthat presently exists. These and many other considera-tions were analyzed in selecting the final strategies to beused. Highest attention was also given to the criteriaoutlined above.

In making these decisions, the opinion of potentialinstitute participants was sought (by telephone), and theevaluation forms from the previous year's training ses-sion were carefully analyzed as were reports of the FieldCoordinator.

Two major strategies for achievement of the objec-tives were selected:

1. Three training sessions, one for each of the threemajor subjects areas of the institutes (urban information,paraprofessional training, and media specialist training)to be held at the site of three of the Institutes.

2. Production of a Planning and Evaluation Hand-book applying recent management and evaluationtheory to practical problems of training directors andother library educators.

Objective: Improve planning and evaluation skills of In-stitute Directors and Staff during fiscal year 1972-73.

This simple diagram recorded all major events thathad occurred to reach the objective, and served as acreditability check so that LTI staff would not attempt theimpossible.

As it turned out, the time needed for final receipt offeedback, writing, editing and printing of the handbook,exceeded expectations so that copy did not go to the

Appendix M

printer until the first week in June. Therefore copies werenot available for distribution until September, 1973.

Expressed via the PERT chart, a more realistic viewshowing relationships between all activities is recorded.The critical path is the longest path and indicated theapproximate time needed to complete all absolutely es-sential functions.

Each workshop session was carefully planned fordetail through use of overall and individual meetingplanning forms. (See Apendix 14)

PROCESSThe three training sessions were conducted as

scheduled, and this section will discuss to what degreeprogram modification was achived.

The first session, held in Atlanta for Urban Informa-tion Institute Directors and key staff was well attended.Almost all Institute Directors brought at least one or morestaff members. The presence of key staff added greatly tothe overall quality of the disccussion as well as to poten-tial for subsequent follow through. LTI Staff invited allparticipants to their suite the night before the openingsession, and virtual open house was held after thatthrough-out the meeting. This kept the LTI staff accessi-ble for feedback, provided a forum for discussion ofmutual problems, and for technical assistance.

On a more formal level, two evaluation instrumentswere designed, one for the communications segment ofthe program, another for the management evaluationseminar. (See appendix D)

After the Atlanta session, the training directoranalyzed the evaluation forms and made the followingcomments and observations to presenters and LTI stafffor use in adopting presentation/program forms at tworemaining sessions. For the communications seminar, itwas suggested that less time be spent in reviewing trans-actional analysis principles, (audiences quite sophisti-cated) and that the seminar move quickly along intopractical applications. The reaction forms indicated thatmore time could have been devoted to specific evaluationtopics (get into detail earlier) related to library training(ie.: setting behavioral objectives). The group also sug-gested that less time could have been spent on hand-books, more on topics related to the "evaluated process,"although almost all participants saw the handbook as apotentially useful item in their work. It was thereforesuggested that the handbook as a program item be drop-ped, although suggestions would be solicited during thecourse of the remaining meetings. After Atlanta, overallfeelings about the usefulness of the meetings was verypositive with more interest evidenced in the evaluationseminar. (In New Hampshire these preferences werealmost reversed.)

The Communications Consultant modified his pre-sentation in New Hampshire and Denver, and received adecidedly more positive response. In New Hampshire, adifferent Evaluation Consultant was utlized. He had notattended the Atlanta meeting and did not attempt torelate his presentation to either specific evaluation mod-

M-3

els or specific institute evaluation problems, so it wasimpossible to test suggested modifications. The parap-rofessional meeting was a small one and several outsideobservers were invited from the paraprofessional train-ing field. Undoutedly these observers added strength todiscussion but their presence also eliminated some of thefreedom participants would have had to discuss currentmutual problems.

Both the Communications and EvaluationSpecialists did modify their presentation for the Denvermeeting with, in the case of the former, a large degree ofsuccess. The evaluation portion was less successful,perhaps because this group (school media trainingspecialists) were well along into their institutes, and insome cases it seemed too late to test many of the theoriespresented. Additionally larger numbers of students at-tended this meeting (based on the favorable reactionfrom their participants in the earlier meetings) and a largeamount of time was spent discussing problems from thestudents' point of view. This was probably equally asuseful and eye-opening to many of the participants, butleft less time to devote to evaluation theory.

PRODUCT

What did the LTI staff learn from all this that couldbe applied in the training for 1973-74?

We learned that the heavy attention paid to detailand orginazation at the first institute (less evident in theother because of time factor) paid off in strong feedbackas to the worth of the effort, and an ability to modifyslightly as we went along, without losing the overallstructure which is still very important to most people inthe library training field. Even if objectives were "allwrong", the group wanted them explained fully, andcarried out with adherence to the general structure of theprogram.

We found that one man's theory was another man'sdetail (minor) and there's probably no way of pleasingeveryone on that scoreor any other!

Going back to our original objectives, it seemed agood plan to regionalize by subject groups, but a betterjob could have been done tailoring the sessions to meetthe specific interests each session, this might have beenaccomplished. Our plan to hold more mini-workshopson specific topics in 73-74 is an outgrowth of this experi-ence.

Appendix E contains examples of participants reac-tion to the training sessions (and the handbook). Sincethere will be an overall summative evaluation of theobjectively assess impact of the training.

It is however perfectly obvious that training con-ducted at this level hits a relatively small number ofpeople, and its overall impact on improved quality oftraining for provision of informatation services is spottyat best. It is therefore incumbent c LTI to disseminate aswidely as possible, and reinforce when appropriate. Thehandbook is one attempt to do this, and other parts or thedissemination effort are described in section II.

Appendix NFormat for PlanningLTI Training Sessions

Title of Meeting:

Dates:

Location

Purpose:InformationExchange InformationDecision Making

Objectives:

Participants:Who

I

How many

Speakers:

Observers:

Consultants:

Total:

Local Arrangements Contact:

Alternate:

Hotel Rooms requiredTransportation

Approximate Arrival time

Approximate Departure time

Meeting rooms: Local ContactNumber needed:

Location:

Seating Capacity

Public address System

Special Equipment needed

Overhead projector

Film projector & screen

blackboard, chalk, etc

Other equipment needed

Costs Who pays MethodOperator for film projector

Water/glasses etc. for speaker's table

N-1

Aprndl N

Registration:

Name tags for participants/staff /speakers

Typewriters

Signs

Information on meals, etc.

Policy decision maker on hand

Other:

Duplication of registration lists

Invitations to local guests

Arrengements/equipment for taping, recording sessions

Evaluation instruments re: meeting

Opportunity for feedback during meeting (i.e. put notes on bulletin board)

Methods publicity

Handled by

Budget

Staff travel

Speaker/consultant Travel/honorariums

Equipment rental_

Audiovisual operator

Telephone. supplies

Published reports

List topics to b, covered (in order of priority)

(See planning sheets for individual sessions for program detail)