Brist, Frazier, Pugh, Shoemaker

The school chose to survey teachers and administration to get a picture of how they
envision a media center and media specialist and how those views compare to their current
views of how the media center and media specialist are doing. We sent out a survey to all
teachers, paraprofessionals, and administration with the invitation to complete voluntarily.
There were no incentives or motivation to complete the survey other than telling the stake
holders it was an opportunity to voice their opinions about the library program.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lmhzGn1UwCinl1POqlPGILmlionX66YsytIiemGdTaw/
viewform?usp=send_form
First collected was some demographic data, to get an idea of exactly what types of
faculty members completed the survey, which could help with more detailed analysis if needed.
Most respondents (24) were classroom teachers, with the rest being Admin (2), Resource (4),
and Sped (1). That being said, there are not enough "other" respondents to do a comparison of
how teachers feel against other faculty members. The largest group of respondents had
between 6-10 years of teaching experience, but overall the years of experience was pretty split
half and half with teachers who had 10 years or less and more than ten years experience. This
turned out well because there is a wide range of experience and there will not be too much
one-sided opinion from the younger vs. older generation of teachers. The results, therefore, are
more reliable because of this balance.
The first set of questions were created to determine what teachers felt was most
important and valuable in a media program, with the latter set of questions asking about how
successful the actual media program is. The results from the first and second sections can be
compared to see where goals and objectives should be aimed.
In the very first question, respondents were asked which collaborative activities they
most want from their MS. Over half the respondents, 52%, said they wanted the MS to co-teach
or teach a lesson in the classroom, but only half that many, 26%, wanted collaboration with the
MS on the design and delivery of an instructional unit. These numbers certainly appear counterintuitive, as to get the first, which many wanted, the second would naturally go hand in hand.
Now, without going back and seeing if the 26% and the 52% have any overlap, or if they are
completely separate, it still seems like the teachers want the lessons taught, but don't want any
part of the planning. It's like, "we want the MS more involved, but we don't want to help her
do it." This is somewhat of an abrupt conclusion to jump to, but the data certainly suggests
that, especially when respondents could check ALL that applied, and not just one option. The
results also could be an indication of the teachers who responded had a different idea of what
these choices meant to them, versus the intended meaning of the questions. Because of this
discrepancy, however, this could be an area that would need further review. The additional
questions in the survey help to add some clarity to this initial look at teacher perception. It
must be remembered, or course, that in any opinion based survey, there are going to be
idiosyncrasies like that. Additionally, this first question shows that 68% of the teachers who

Brist, Frazier, Pugh, Shoemaker

responded said they wanted both information literacy skills taught and to work with the MS on
projects that utilize 21st Century skills.
The next section, the rankings of services most desired from the media center, was an
area that was very split in opinions. First each item will be discussed separately, then the overall
"rankings" as gauged by overall response. The first item, "teaching/learning space in the
library," was pretty split amongst respondents. Approximately one third of teachers placed it as
the most important thing, while about half ranked it lower in importance with either a 4 or 5.
This result tells seems to reveal that it is important enough to consider the learning space as a
strong consideration in library design. The next item, "a resourceful and welcoming MS," by a
long shot ranked as the most important by respondents, with 40% of teachers placing it at the
top, and then it gradually went down, with the next highest response being a 2, then 3, and so
forth. This exhibits just how important a person can be. It is also a 'relatively' easy thing to
control, as the MS is in complete control of this item and it costs absolutely nothing to
maintain! A person's demeanor can make or break a program, especially when that person is in
charge of that program. The third item, "various resources" being available, was valued fairly
high by all respondents, with the majority of those surveyed (75%) ranking it between a 1 and
3. This promotes the importance of having a diverse set of resources, technology, and support
available in today's media center. The fourth item, having "open access" seemed to be the item
that was sacrificed in favor of the other options, with the majority of respondents placing it in
the lower half of importance between a 3 and 5. Though, nearly a third of those surveyed put it
in the middle, with a 3. It appears this is one those items that teachers do feel is important, but
when compared to the other items on the list, this one was an "important, not urgent"
(Indispensable Librarian) item to the teachers. The last item, having "planned learning
activities," was another of the items that was split, with a third ranking it fairly high, but the
majority placed it lower on the spectrum, but at a 4, not a 5, saying "oh, it's not as important as
the others, but it's not the least..." This result seems to piggyback off the results of the first
question where teachers want the support and lessons from the MS, but do not want to put in
the time of planning them. Again, this conclusion is supported by other results later. It is an
unfortunate side effect of having too much to do and not enough time, rather than apathy on
the part of the teachers. This statement, however, without further investigation and support, is
merely an opinion based on the experience of the survey team. Overall, to rank all 5 items
based on total response, the welcoming and supportive MS is definitely the most important,
with a teaching/learning space and a variety of resources coming in at a tie for second, open
access to the library being the third most important, and the planned learning activities coming
in as the least important of the group. Not to say it isn't important, it just didn't get the priority.
That can be the difficulty with ranked surveys. While it definitely helps to see where priorities
lie, it does lead to questions about how important respondents feel the lower scored items are.
It sometimes helps to investigate further how valuable those items are in isolation.

Brist, Frazier, Pugh, Shoemaker

The next set of rankings was about the MS specifically. In the area of "teacher tech
support," the rankings were very split, with 42% of respondents considering this need as the
most important (1 or 2), and also 42% ranking it the least important, (4 or 5). This result, the
team believes, comes from the level of comfort teachers have in being able to work with
technology (and troubleshoot) comfortably on their own. The second item was about the MS
teaching digital literacy skills to students. Most of the respondents considered it to be of
moderate importance, with most results being between 2 and 4. So teachers do recognize the
need for this service and support, and do not consider the most or least important of all. The
next item, having the MS collaboratively plan with teachers was fairly level across all areas of
importance, with no area jumping out as the clear victor. This result suggests further support of
the divide amongst teachers in how they want collaboration, but they don't want to put in the
time it takes to support collaboration. The next item, about the MS providing instruction on
information literacy to impact student achievement, was ranked fairly high by all respondents,
with the majority putting it a 2, and half of all responses being between 1 and 3. This shows
that teachers do recognize the fact that information literacy is a vital skill and is needed to
support student success. The last item, Web 2.0 training for teachers and students bottomed
out as the least important, with nearly half marking it a 5, though there was a spike where a
little over a quarter of the respondents marked it a 3, of moderate importance. This result is a
stark contrast to the fact that tech support was marked number one. Teachers feel that no
training is needed, yet consider tech support the most important? This leads to some questions.
There are three possibilities that are immediately considered. Is it that the actual
hardware/equipment that teachers want tech support for, meaning the school and library has
technology that does not reliably work? Another idea is that teachers call out for tech support
yet are overconfident in their abilities to use technology and Web 2.0, or they feel they do not
have time to spare for trainings and just want help as they need it. The third conclusion is in the
make-up of the questions themselves. In thinking "tech support," teachers may be thinking of
the need for the MS to be immediately available for any hardware, tech, tool, resource, support
question or need they have, and thinking "Web 2.0 training" is about using email and online
sites. They may not really know the extent of what's out there either. It's the idea that you
don't know what you don't know until you know what you're missing. Also, the need for tech
support is one of those "urgent and important" things. Teachers feel like if they can't get
immediate support, they are lost until help arrives.
The next section of the survey was made up of questions about teacher perception of
the current media center and media specialist, and following are the results of what teachers
feel the library is actually doing. Note, there was not a "neutral" option, this was done to
eliminate the option for teachers to be non-committal in response. The good news is that the
results were mostly positive, with the majority of respondents choosing agree/highly agree to
all questions about the media center. The very first question, which was basically your overall

Brist, Frazier, Pugh, Shoemaker

"how is our library doing?" question, resulted in 90% of respondents thinking that yes, the
library is supporting the school program. Without going question by question, the following
details some areas in which the positive/negative response was not as overwhelming in order
to discuss any areas that may need to be the focus of goal setting.
The two most split responses were in the areas of non-print materials supporting
curriculum and instruction, and the media center asking for input in selecting new materials.
Both of these questions were about half positive and half negative. And really, these two can go
hand in hand. Teachers feel that they are not being asked about what materials to purchase,
and then feel that non-print materials are not supportive. If teachers had more input about
what non-print materials to procure and purchase, then their usability and support would go
up, since teachers helped select them, and obviously did so for their ability to support
instruction. Therefore, in creating a plan for the library, this is definitely something that needs
to be considered - gathering more input from teachers about their needs for non-print
materials. Of course, it would also need to be more in-depth, as "non-print" does cover a wide
variety of options. The next areas to look at are being informed of new additions, teacher
comfort with the MS creating lessons, and the technology resources supporting
teacher/student needs. While not an overwhelming split like the first mentioned items, when
looking for areas to improve, these would be the next areas, as they scored around 70/30 splits
in positive and negative responses. Again, the being informed of new resources will go in
hand with the earlier mentions of giving teachers more input about what materials are needed,
and then telling them when these things arrive and are available. The availability of technology
resources will fit with this as well, as technology would fall under the category of "non-print"
materials as well; teachers can be more involved in offering input as to what technology
resources they feel would be beneficial to instruction. The last element, teacher comfort with
the MS creating lessons, again, though more subtly, goes back to earlier results in the survey.
Most teachers (64%) recognized that the MS was a competent educator who could provide
lessons that supported their particular subject area, while the other 36% were not as
comfortable with this. This discomfort may stem from numerous possibilities, anywhere from
teachers being particular to teachers thinking the MS not knowledgeable enough. The
reasoning does not need to be highly speculated. Instead, the focus from this result should be
on increasing collaboration and communication between the MS and the rest of the faculty.
Finally, the open response question at the end of the survey really brings home support
for the underlying assumptions made in analyzing the results. The survey item was I would use
the library more if Of those who chose to answer the question (it was made optional), an
overwhelming number of responses referenced the availability of time either directly or
indirectly. Teachers feel like they do not have the time available to visit the library, use the
library or the services of the MS, or to plan with her/him at all. Therefore, one major focus for

Brist, Frazier, Pugh, Shoemaker

the future is showing teachers that time spent with the MS and the MC can actually improve
instruction, achievement, and success. In other words, there has to be buy-in from the teachers
that using the services of the MC is worth the time and energy. That of course goes hand in
hand with the other conclusion of increasing communication among MS and faculty. This survey
leads to some strong conclusions about where the library needs to focus its goal setting efforts.