1. Quality school library – how do we find out? Polona Vilar Department of LIS&BS, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, SLO Ivanka Stričević Department of Information Sciences, University of Zadar, CRO

2. Introduction  Dynamic and good SL‘s  development of learning competences  What constitutes a good SL?  Complex issues, accompanied by questions about future sustainability and roles of SL‘s  The ongoing development & testing of quality assessment models and frameworks are very important, in fact critical, for the SL profession  Question of methodology of SL research

3. In this paper  SL‘s in Slovenia and Croatia  Until 1991 (  YU) developed according to the same EDU and LIBR laws and standards  Since then partly different development  But, their development should follow (at least it can be expected) the same theoretical foundation and fundamental professional guidelines

4. Why methodological paper?  Methodological issues, which should guide quality, comprehensive empirical research, too rarely come into discussion.  Often methodology is developed through small-scale research  Its results (perhaps too limited) then serve as a baseline for the development of theories and concepts, and consequently also indicators of quality.

5. CISSL model of quality school library (Todd&Kuhlthau et al., 2005  ) – the methodology!  Key quality factors, identified through in-depth research of intentionally chosen good SL‘s  Excellent & effective schools - rating excellent and employing a certified LMS  A set of criteria based on the Ohio SL Guidelines (Library Guidelines, 2003)  An International Advisory Panel  the final set of criteria  Invitation to Ohio schools meeting the criteria to apply for participation, provide documentation.  Finally: 11-member Ohio Experts Panel set up – final selection of participating 39 schools; principle of judgement sampling. Phase 1: Selection of good libraries

6. Criteria (Tepe & Geitgey, 2005, p. 59) Minimum requirements: The school building includes at least one of the K-12 grades. The building library program is managed by a full time, certified library media specialist The school library media specialist and the library program are instrumental partners in a systematic information literacy instruction program taught within the school. A physical school library exists within the building A 2002 Ohio School District Report Card rating with supporting data must be available. The school must have a building IRN registered with the Ohio Department of Education. The following areas (adapted from the January, 2003 draft of the Ohio Effective School Library Guidelines) will be used to evaluate the prospective school with regard to selection for the research project. Criterion 1: (School Goals and Leadership)-Effective school library media programs support the mission and continuous improvement plan of the school district. Criterion 2: (Curriculum)-Effective school library media programs support and enhance the curriculum and are an integral part of teaching and learning. Criterion 3: (Information Literacy) (Including technological and media literacies)- Effective school library media programs provide information literacy skills instruction. Criterion 4: (Reading)-Effective school library media programs promote and encourage reading for academic achievement and life- long learning. Criterion 5: (Technology Resources)-Effective school library media programs provide, integrate, and utilize a technology rich environment to support teaching and learning. Minimum requirements + Areas  Criterion 1: School Goals and Leadership  Criterion 2: Curriculum  Criterion 3: Information Literacy  Criterion 4: Reading  Criterion 5: Technology Resources From the Ohio Effective School Library Guidelines

7. Further CISSL methodology  ‘Evidence-based practice’  The characteristics of these SL analyzed to see how students benefit from them  Looking at the “conceptions of help”  Two key instruments (questionnaires)  For students perceptions of helpfulness of the library to students  For staff Phase 2: Research

8. Result: CISSL Model (Todd & Kuhlthau, 2005a, p. 6)

9. Our aim & research questions  What methodology is needed (and how it can be developed) for investigation of the quality of existing SL‘s in Slovenia and Croatia, having in mind the parameters which will enable comparative analysis in respective countries?  Questions:  Which criteria can be applied in choosing effective libraries on which the quality of SL will be explored; which will further serve as a comparison with the CISSL model?  Which parts of the research methodology from the CISSL research can be adopted and what should be changed according to the context?  Which methods will/could be applied in investigation of the SL‘s in Slovenia and Croatia?

10. Discussion  Development of the methodology of researching the quality of SLO/CRO SL‘s  Identification of good libraries (= sample) – the most demanding part of the research  Why?  (Re)framing of criteria?  The second part of research could be applied unchanged.

11. Phase 1 (SLO/CRO) Issues of criteria & methodology (1)  Identification of good SL‘s  SL‘s – part of EDU system – influenced by the social, economic and political system; these elements need to be considered in the methodology.  Lack of relevant statistic  Lack of scientific analyses of school practice, and worrying lack of interest from the school authorities.  PISA results – a strong evidence of students‘ achievements and an indicator of the „quality“ of EDU system  But, no exact evidence on role of SL‘s – its influence on students‘ learning achievements  Novljan (1994): The actual educational system influences the development of SL‘s more than professional guidelines.

12. Issues of criteria & methodology (2)  No unique data which could give the exact indicators related to the criteria used in the CISSL study.  If the criteria are based only on the general level (documents, regulations), this would not give the real picture.  School management and librarians know these documents – in reality the practice and the overall situation often differ from what has been prescribed.

13. Issues of criteria & methodology (3)  Basis for the criteria setup:  Documents and regulations – only as a starting point  Theoretical foundations („quality SL“)  Measurable and comparable context-based indicators  Unique criteria should be developed which are not general but very precise and take into consideration the context.  If the criteria are not operationalized in detail, measurable and comparable, school management and school librarians might show the picture of what is desired/required, not of the real condition. Content analysis Surveys

14. Phase 2 (SLO/CRO) Further steps in research  Questionnaire CISSL – in-depth research of what makes a quality SL (perceptions of help)  When data is collected, it will be useful for anaysis:  Of the situation in each country  Of similarities/differences between the countries Comparative analysis

15. Conclusions  Such approach will enable the verification of the validity of the CISSL model of a quality SL, when applied in SLO/CRO  And/or the need for changes  We also need to try to position our discussion in a wider, possibly more international context.  Similar approaches could be used to further verify the CISSL model.

16. Thank you! polona.vilar@ff.uni-lj.si istricev@unizd.hr