Needs Assessment Study of Texas Academic, Public, and .../67531... · Needs Assessment Study of Texas Academic, Public, and School Libraries: Final Report Special Collections •

Needs Assessment Study of

Texas Academic, Public, and School Libraries:

Final Report

Submitted by

The Texas Center for Digital Knowledge University of North Texas

Prepared by the

The Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Needs Assessment Study Team

William E. Moen, Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Carol Simpson, Texas Center for Digital Knowledge

Florence Mason, F. Mason & Associates Louella Wetherbee, Library Management Consultant

October 2002

Project Website URL: www.unt.edu/needz

http://www.unt.edu/needz

Needs Assessment Study of Texas Academic, Public, and School Libraries: Final Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction This document contains the final report with the summary of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations for consideration by the TIFB Library Working Group as part of the Needs Assessment Study of Texas Academic, Public and School Libraries as defined by the April 1, 2002, Project Plan. The report is the work of the Needs Assessment Study Team, Texas Center for Digital Knowledge at the University of North Texas. The study was conducted during the period of February through September 15, 2002. Funding for the study was provided by Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund Board (TIFB). Study Objectives

The purpose of the Needs Assessment study was to investigate the extent to which TIFB funds have had an impact on Texas academic, public, and school library media center libraries. The Needs Assessment Study Team used a set of framing questions, a document review, and a series of focus groups with participants from a representative cross section of all types of libraries. At the mid point of the study, an Open Forum was held at the Texas Library Association Conference in March 2002, to obtain further input. In addition, the Study Team and developed and distributed a series of surveys designed to discover the impact of TIFB grants on each type of library. The full report contains a discussion of the various data gathering activities, including the focus group sessions, and results from the questionnaires distributed to academic, public, and school library media centers. Summary Results of Data Gathering Activities Use of TexShare Databases

• TexShare databases have become a critical part of library service for all types of libraries. • The academic libraries are the heaviest users. • Public libraries and schools are more likely to report having never used the databases. • Size appears to influence the use of the databases with smaller libraries being less likely to use the

databases than larger libraries. • The data for the public libraries show that 100% of the larger libraries use the TexShare databases

heavily or daily, while 51% of the medium sized public libraries and only 12% of the small public libraries report using the databases heavily or daily.

Use of Non-TexShare Databases

• A majority of the academic libraries (52.7%) use non-TexShare databases heavily, 32.3% say they use them daily, 12.9% say they use them weekly and 1.1% say they use them monthly.

• A small number 1.1% say they do not use non-TexShare databases. • Thirty percent (30%) of the public libraries said they use non-TexShare databases at least daily,

43% say they used them a few times per month, 25% of the libraries never use non-TexShare databases.

• Twenty-six percent (26%) of schools use the databases heavily or daily, 33% weekly, 26% monthly.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge i University of North Texas


Purpose for Using Online Resources

• In academic and school library media centers, online resources are being used to actively support curriculum needs.

• Academic libraries most frequently use online resources to create instructional materials and to get Internet images.

• School library media centers use online resources most frequently to do basic research, to enhance class instruction, to get information from the Internet for lessons, and to promote Texas Library Connection (TLC) databases.

• Public libraries use online databases for basic research to answer reference questions, to look up journal, magazine and newspaper materials, to search for information on computer technology, literature, and medical/health information.

Common Application Software used in Libraries

• Word processing is the most commonly mentioned software, followed by electronic mail and anti-virus software and web browsers.

• Academic and public library staff is most likely to use word processing software, e-mail, anti-virus software, web browsers and spreadsheet software.

• School library media centers said they used web browsers more frequently than academic or public libraries.

• All types of libraries provide a platform of personal computers and laser printers for staff. Remote Access

• Academic libraries are most likely to provide authentication methods for users to provide access to selected resources, with 91% of the academic libraries using authentication, schools, 50%, and public libraries, 34%.

• Proxy server with login/password is the chosen method of access for all three types of libraries. Two thirds of the academic and school respondents said they use this method, as do 45% of the public libraries.

Websites and Technical Support

• Nearly all academic libraries have their own websites; 97% of the academic libraries said they have a website as compared to 61% of the public libraries and 53% for school libraries.

• Academic libraries felt external technical support was more likely to be adequate (91.6%), while 77% felt their own in-house technical support was adequate and 67% said their campus wide technical support was adequate.

• Schools felt that the technical support they received from their District was “very adequate” or “adequate” in 77% of the school libraries.

Access

• Most academic libraries (92.4%) provide at least one workstation for those with physical disabilities. Eighty-two percent (82.4%) of public libraries and 80% of school library media centers said they offer workstations for those with physical disabilities.

• Six percent (6%) of academic libraries said they provide Spanish instructions for online resources. Twelve percent (12%) of the public libraries said they offer Spanish language instructions.

• Few libraries provide any access in other languages, and less than 5% of the academic libraries provide online instructions in languages other than English or Spanish.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge ii University of North Texas


Special Collections

• Twenty-five percent (25%) of the academic libraries said that they have digitized a portion of their collection and made them available on the web.

• Only 4.8% of public libraries said they had special collections materials on the web. • One percent (1%) of school library media centers said they had collections that have been digitized. • Thirty nine percent (39%) of the academic libraries said they have finding aides while only 8.3%

of the public libraries said they do and 3 percent of the school library media centers. Training Issues

• Learning how to use the TexShare/TLC databases and using other online databases are the most important current training needs for all types of libraries.

• Learning how to use the TexShare/TLC databases and using other online databases are also reported as the most important future training needs for all types of libraries.

• Academic and school library media centers were most likely to attend training offered by in-house trainers or by commercial vendors.

• Public libraries were most likely to attend TIFTech Training or commercial training. • Almost 50% of the staff in all three types of libraries received at least one day of training. • A significant number of library respondents reported no training days for staff. School library

media centers reported in 40.9% of the cases that they received no training, 36% of public libraries and 23% of academic libraries said they had received no training days.

Distance Learning Issues

• Academic libraries provide more distance learning capability than public libraries. • Only 26% of the public libraries said they have distance learning via the Internet; 4% said they had

videoconference capability and 3% said they had teleconference capability. • School library media centers, report that 29% have T-Star access, 36% have Internet access, 29%

have videoconference capability, and 15% have teleconference capability. TIFB Impact on Libraries Increase in Student Use

• All libraries said they are serving more students than a year ago. • Two-thirds of the academic libraries (65.6)%) said they were serving more students and

estimated the increase from 8% to 35%. • Seventy-two percent (72%) of school library media centers reported an increase. • Seventy-one percent (71%) of public libraries say they are seeing more school students in the

library than a year ago. Other Sources of Local Funding

• Thirty-seven percent (37%) of public libraries said they had developed other sources of local funding as a result of TIFB funding.

• Fifteen percent (15%) of academic libraries said they were able to develop other sources of local funding.

• Nine percent (9%) of the school library media centers said they were able to leverage additional funds

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge iii University of North Texas


Grants from Other Sources

• Forty-six percent (46%) of public libraries said they had developed other grants. • Seventeen percent (17%) of academic libraries said they were able to develop other grants as a

result of TIFB funds. • Five percent (5%) of school library media centers said they had been able to obtain other grants

from other sources Partnerships with Community Entities

• Forty-two percent (42%) of public libraries reported partnerships with other community institutions. • Thirty percent (30%) of academic libraries reported they had developed partnerships with other

community institutions. • Ten percent (10%) of the school library media centers said they had established partnerships

Partnerships with TIFB-Eligible Entities

• Twenty-nine percent (29%) of academic libraries reported partnerships. • Thirty-three percent (33%) of public libraries reported partnerships. • Twenty percent (20%) of school libraries reported partnerships.

. Sustainability

• Equipment updates and sustaining the technical platform were the most important factors for all libraries to maintain their current level of access, followed by enhanced connectivity and access to more online databases.

• Libraries indicated that the three most important factors in integrating technology into the library are having access to hardware and software, the quality of computer technology available, and staff technology skills.

• Barriers to Internet use in libraries were lack of adequate funding, costs of technology, cost of training, and limited time of staff for using technology.

Future Needs

• All types of libraries report that keeping up with equipment replacement in the next one to three years will be their most important issue.

• Public and school libraries were more concerned about security issues and adequate technical support, while academic libraries were more concerned about access to online databases and being able to hire staff with technical skills

Key Study Findings Access to Online Databases

• Licensing and implementation of high quality electronic information resource databases has radically enhanced the service capabilities of Texas libraries.

• Wide and almost universal adoption of the Internet and the World Wide Web makes it is important that libraries fully integrate these tools as part of their basic service platform.

• Texas libraries have the ability to acquire, store, manage, and provide wide access to a broad array of high quality, credible, carefully selected, and well organized electronic information resources, whether locally produced or sourced from external vendors.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge iv University of North Texas


Access to Technological Resources and Services

• Texas libraries need to focus on continually increasing knowledge of and improving access to the resources located within their institutions.

• Basic access levels Texas residents currently enjoy will be likely to degrade fairly rapidly unless libraries focus more attention and resources on issues of sustainability.

• The integration of various electronic information resources (such as local OPAC’s, TexShare, TLC, or other online databases, office software, educational software, Internet search engines) into an easy to use interface is a key issue for most libraries and work has just begun on this issue.

• Security issues are important for libraries and a significant number of libraries reported that library staff members appear to be uncertain of their knowledge of this area. Libraries are looking for an agency or organization that can provide leadership, guidance, and training in this area.

Immediate Technology Needs

• Texas libraries will need planning help to continually update and upgrade the basic technology platform as new technology and services become available.

• Increasing bandwidth requirements, acquiring wireless technology, and replacing equipment are also important concerns.

Future Technology Needs

• Libraries are most concerned about maintaining the quality of their technology platforms, being able to hire staff, maintaining security, providing training, securing adequate bandwidth, and adding more online services.

Learning, Education, Training and Staff Development

• Training opportunities are a critical requirement for all types of libraries. It would be difficult to overemphasize this need.

• Training needs were consistently ranked among the top three issues for all types of libraries • More training is needed to better equip library staff to train and to assist library users. • The new technology environment of the Internet drives training needs for the staff, public,

teachers, faculty, students, and public users. • The most important training needs are to train library staff and users on the availability and use of

the TexShare/ TLC databases and related resources. • Libraries desire TIFB to play a role in addressing training issues and determining future training

topics and training delivery methods. • Librarians and technologists need to become partners in order to plan and train together. • It will be important that libraries take full advantage of the installed technology base and TIFB’s

technology investment to deliver more training to the desktop. • While many libraries have used and benefited from TIFB-provided training, it is critical to know

that a significant percentage of public and school libraries report they have access to no training. Impact of TIFB Funding

• TIFB has allowed Texas libraries – which were way behind other states in the integration of database resources - to catch up and stay abreast; “if it wasn’t for TIFB we’d be 30 years behind.”

• TIFB has brought collaboration that has saved money. • Collaboration has been an important benefit in closing the gaps between the haves and have-

nots; TIFB has been a great equalizer by providing funds for the broad population to have access to technology.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge v University of North Texas


• TIFB funding can be used to create incentives and matching requirements so as to encourage local entities to assume funding responsibility for library technology services.

• TIFB funds have had a pronounced impact on the service delivery and the technology platform for all types of libraries.

• TIFB funds have changed and improved library service for Texans. All libraries said they are serving more students than a year ago.

• More people are being served now. • There are new and different types of library users: more teenagers; more people doing job

searches and resumes; and more unemployed people coming who have lost access to their work computers.

• Collaboration on TIFB grants has been important in bringing together different types of libraries and in helping libraries cooperate with different agencies and community groups.

• A number of libraries said they were able to increase library services at the same time as staff has been reduced and that they had managed this because of technology. Patrons now get better service and it takes less staff time.

Sustainability

• Sustainability and security are key future issues. • For the future, all types of libraries said that that keeping up with equipment replacement in the next

one to three years will be the most important issue, along with security concerns, and training for users and staff.

• Having funds for equipment is the critical sustainability issue for all types of libraries. • All libraries express concern that having adequate technical support and access to staff with

technical skills will be critical. Awareness

• Creating broader awareness of the new online resources and services is an unfinished job. • Public awareness of the contributions of TIFB funding to library technology and resources is not

common. Key Conclusions and Recommendations Four key areas composed the framework for the conclusions and recommendations: building sustainability, broadening adoption and utilization of online resources through training, achieving equity among libraries, and addressing security needs.

• The Needs Study Team concludes that TIFB should seek to extend its mandate beyond the initial ten-year legislative term. Without continuing support from TIFB (or another similar state body) local libraries will not be able to maintain the significant, demonstrable improvements in public access to the Internet and access to a wide array of both state and locally funded electronic library resources that have gone online as a result of TIFB.

• Sustainability will be, by necessity, a partnership of libraries, their funding agencies, external funding agencies, state and federal funding agencies, and the TIF Board.

• It will be critical that TIFB programs focus on ways to deepen and broaden the utilization by all Texans of the technology innovations provided through the TIFB grant funding.

• The innovation cycle remains incomplete until the public becomes much more aware of these resources.

• The importance of providing accessible ongoing training for users and library staff cannot be overemphasized.

• Training for staff and users in all types of libraries will unlock the full benefit of the TIFB funded resources.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge vi University of North Texas


• Shifting rapidly toward desktop training delivery, with appropriate support and documentation, will be the next step for TIFB in helping grantees take full advantage of TIFB resources.

• It is important for TIFB to address the equity issue by reckoning with a significant but diminishing number of libraries, principally smaller school libraries and public libraries, that are not yet benefiting from the resources available from TIFB grants

• Libraries need special support and assistance in the near term to better manage the security of resources purchased or licensed with TIFB funds.

Recommendations The Needs Study Team summarizes the recommendations in eleven broad categories. Sustainability Recommendations Changes in library infrastructure, information content, and staffing requirements have been so large and sweeping that the time horizon for full integration will stretch at least another 10 years into the future. As access to the Internet and online resources increasingly becomes a “public good” there must be a means to sustain these resources equitably for use by all Texans. Security Recommendations The ability of many TIFB library grantees to adequately manage security issues shows signs of being outstripped by the pace of technological change. The rapid deployment of modern electronic networked information resources and services has brought into sharper focus the need for a broad statewide approach to ensuring the critical library systems and information resources are secure from physical or virtual damage. Planning Recommendations The rapid change in the fundamental library service platform brought about by the integration of new computer and networking equipment, new types of connectivity, and new information delivery models, such as TexShare and TLC, coupled with changing and expanding expectations of network savvy library users, brings into focus the need to help libraries update their planning model to reflect these new realities. Anywhere, Anytime Access Recommendations The new paradigm for information access is rapidly shifting to an “anytime/anywhere” model, requiring libraries to change their traditional service model from “will get it for you as soon as we can and you are welcome to pick it up at the library” to a new model that endeavors to deliver information the user wants at the time and place that the user chooses. Incentive Recommendations There should be more incentives and matching requirements, as well as clear grant guidelines, to encourage local entities to assume funding responsibility for library technology services. Training Recommendations The Texas library community is ready for new training approaches that take full advantage of the installed and evolving technology base and TIF’s investment in libraries to date. Study findings point to the need for major changes and improvements in training programs for basic, advanced, and ongoing training focusing on a very broad array of training needs. It is time to rethink programs that provide training and support to TIFB grantees, and indeed to all Texas library/media personnel, to ensure that basic

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge vii University of North Texas


fundamental needs are adequately addressed in a comprehensive way. No single organization can accomplish this complex task. Awareness Recommendations The ultimate success of a statewide effort to extend broad equitable access to modern electronic resources will be limited unless all Texans know about these resources. Measurement Recommendations Broad public and legislative support for expensive public infrastructure development programs requires the recipients of such support, in this case, libraries, to convincingly demonstrate the benefit to Texas through robust and meaningful outcomes-based measurement and evaluation. Collaboration and Leveraging Recommendations The resource demands dictated by TIFB’s mandate to bring broad connectivity and equitable access to high quality information to all Texans will best be met when Texas libraries, working closely together and in cooperation with other stakeholders, discover new ways to build an excellent shared system in the most cost effective and cost efficient way with the least duplication of effort and expenditure. Equity of Access Recommendations From its inception, TIFB has been working toward broad equitable statewide access to modern networked services; while great strides have been made, benefiting Texans of all communities, more work remains to complete the “final mile.” Proven Practices The speed of change in library related technology applications is accelerating. The Needs Study Team believes that Texas libraries will derive tremendous benefit from the systematic identification and application of existing “Proven Practices Near Term Funding Priorities for Grant Programs Based on the recommendations above, the Needs Study Team believes that the following priorities should guide the development of the next cycle of TIFB grants.

• Promoting sustainability in hardware, software, information resources, and connectivity among local institutions, including securing the safety of these resources. The Needs Study Team assumes that the Library Working Group has already determined and acted on the paramount need to safeguard the TexShare/TLC database investment.

• Ensuring that all Texans enjoy basic access to electronic technology and information resources through their schools and libraries by completing connectivity to eligible entities.

• Finding strategies to deepen and broaden the learning opportunities for staff and members of the public that will bring about fuller use of the rich array of electronic resources now available in Texas libraries and that will be added in coming years.

• Achieving greater public awareness and use of TIFB funded online resources, training, and equipment.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge viii University of North Texas


Acknowledgements The Needs Study Team acknowledges the support and guidance provided by the Library Working Group to the study process. Bob Gaines provided effective leadership for the LWG and assisted the Needs Study Team in many ways with good advice and counsel. The LWG members -- especially Sue Phillips, Sarah Ferguson, and Barbara Gubbin -- gave generously of their time, reviewed drafts of the survey questionnaires, reviewed the preliminary report documents, and shared examples and illustrations of studies relevant to this study effort. The Needs Study Team thanks Pat Smith of the Texas Library Association for arranging the TIFB Forum session at the Texas Library Association meeting in Dallas on April 25, 2002. Valerie Johnson and Deborah Littrell of the Texas State Library and Archives met with members of the Needs Study Team in Austin and provided background information. Russlene Waukechon prepared spreadsheet data concerning academic and public library use of TexShare databases. TEA representative Mary Lankford provided review of the surveys and comments on the study reports as did former TEA staff member, Gloria McClanahan. Michelle Martin, Manager of Quality Management, and Richard Brown, Director of Grants and Services, Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund Board provided the Needs Study Team with copies of the TIF/KPMG quality assurance documents and met with members of the study team to answer questions.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge ix University of North Texas


Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ ix Section I: Introduction and Overview ............................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Study Organization and Structure................................................................................... 1 Study Objectives ............................................................................................................. 1 Document and Background Information ......................................................................... 2 TIFB/KPMG Quality Assurance Documents ................................................................... 2 AMIGOS Training Evaluation Documents ...................................................................... 2 Published Research Documents, etc.............................................................................. 2 Summary of TIFB Forum ................................................................................................ 3 Summary......................................................................................................................... 3 Section II: Summary of Data Gathering Activities .......................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Sampling Design............................................................................................................. 1 Survey Data Collection Methodology.............................................................................. 2 Survey Questionnaire Development ............................................................................... 3 Survey Distribution and Data Collection ......................................................................... 3 Preparation of the Survey Data Base ............................................................................. 3 Data Analyses................................................................................................................. 3 Size Categories for Public and Academic Libraries........................................................ 4 Frequently Asked Questions Survey .............................................................................. 5 Summary of Focus Groups With The Representatives from Different Types of Libraries .............................................................................. 6 Presentation of the Preliminary Report and Results....................................................... 6 Final Survey Documents................................................................................................. 6 Section III: Results from the Surveys of Academic, Public and School Media Center Libraries........................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Library Services and Databases..................................................................................... 1 Access Issues ................................................................................................................. 5 Training Issues................................................................................................................ 8 TIFB Impact on Academic Libraries................................................................................12 Partnerships with Community Entities ............................................................................15 Sustainability and Future Needs.....................................................................................17 Section IV: Key Study Findings ........................................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Access to Online Databases........................................................................................... 1 Access to Technological Resources and Services......................................................... 2 Immediate Technology Needs ........................................................................................ 3 Future Technology Needs............................................................................................... 4 Learning, Education, Training and Staff Development ................................................... 5 Impact of TIFB Funding .................................................................................................. 8 Sustainability ...................................................................................................................10 Awareness ......................................................................................................................10

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge x University of North Texas


Section V: Key Conclusions from the TIFB Needs Assessment Data Gathering ........ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 TIFB Funds as an Agent of Change ............................................................................... 1 Broaden Adoption and Utilization ................................................................................... 2 The Need for Equity ........................................................................................................ 3 Security Needs................................................................................................................ 3 Section VI: Recommendations.......................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Key Recommendations................................................................................................... 1 Sustainability Recommendations ............................................................................. 1 Security Recommendations ..................................................................................... 2 Planning Recommendations .................................................................................... 3 Anywhere / Anytime Access Recommendations...................................................... 4 Incentive Recommendations .................................................................................... 5 Training Recommendations ..................................................................................... 6 The Overarching Recommendations........................................................................ 6 Supporting Training Related Recommendations ..................................................... 7 Awareness Recommendations................................................................................. 9 Measurement Recommendations ............................................................................ 9 Collaboration and Leveraging Recommendations ...................................................10 Equity of Access Recommendations........................................................................11 Proven Practices ......................................................................................................11 Section VII: Near Term Funding Priorities for Grant Programs..................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Near Term Grant Programs ............................................................................................ 1 CHARTS

1 Comparison of the Frequency of Use of TexShare Databases .............................................................................................. III-1 2 C5 Comparison of Most Frequently Used Software Applications ............................................................................................ III-3

3 C2 Comparison of Equipment Provided for Users ................................................. III-3 4 C1 Comparison of Equipment Provided to Staff/Teachers ................................................................................................... III-4

5 Comparison of Libraries that Provide Authentication for Users ........................................................................................ III-5 6 C4 Comparison of Authentication Methods for Remote Access to Database............................................................................ III-6

7 C7 Comparison of Libraries That Have Special Collection Materials that Have Been Digitized and Made Available on the Web ............................................................................................................. III-7 8 Comparison of Libraries That Have Finding Aids on Their Websites to Assist With Special Collections .......................................................... III-8 9 C16 Comparison of the Importance of Current Training Needs............................. III-9 10 C18 Comparison of Future Training Needs ........................................................... III-10 11 Comparison of Training Sources............................................................................ III-11 12 C20 Comparison of Increase of Student Use......................................................... III-13 13 C21 As a Result of TIFB Funding, Have You Developed Other Sources for Funds ........................................................................................ III-14

14 C22 Libraries Have Developed Grants From Other Sources............................................................................................... III-15

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge xi University of North Texas


15 Library Has Developed Partnerships With Other Institutions............................................................................................. III-16

16 Libraries Developed Partnerships With Other TIFB Eligible Libraries ...................................................................................................... III-16 17 Comparison of the Priorities for Maintaining the Current Levels of Computing Access ................................................................................... III-17 18 C9 Comparison of Importance of Factors in

Integrating Technology............................................................................................ III-18 19 C10 Comparison of Importance of Barriers to Use of the Internet in the Library .............................................................................................. III-19 20 Comparison of the Most Important Issues in the Next 1 to 3 Years ............................................................................................................. III-19 21 Comparison of the Least Important Issues in the Next 1 to 3 Years ............................................................................................................. III-20 TABLES 1 Number of Public Libraries by Size ........................................................................II-4 2 Public Library Respondents by Size ......................................................................II-4 3 Number of Academic Libraries by Size ..................................................................II-5 4 Number of Academic Library Participants..............................................................II-5 5 Summary of Libraries Acquiring Funds or

Forming Partnerships (Percent) ................................................................................. III-17 6 Frequency of Use of TexShare Databases ................................................................ IV-1 7 Most Important Technology Needs ........................................................................IV-5 APPENDICES I Framing Questions II Summary of Focus Groups Transcripts III TIFB Forum Summary IV.A Summary of the Survey Results by Type of Library: Academic, IV.B Summary of the Survey Results by Type of Library: Public IV.C Summary of the Survey Results by Type of Library: School Library Media Center V Results of the 2 & 4 Year Comparison (Charts) VI Proven Practices VII Resources Consulted VIII Study Participants IX.A Survey Questionnaires: Academic IX.B Survey Questionnaires: Public IX.C Survey Questionnaires: School

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge xii University of North Texas


Section I: Introduction and Overview 1. Introduction This document contains the final report with the summary of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations for consideration by the TIFB Library Working Group as part of the Needs Assessment Study of Texas Academic, Public and School Libraries as defined by the April 1, 2002, Project Plan. The report is the work of the Needs Assessment Study Team, Texas Center for Digital Knowledge at the University of North Texas. The study was conducted during the period of February through September 15, 2002. Funding for the study was provided by Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund Board (TIFB). 2. Study Organization and Structure The Needs Study Team included Dr. William E. Moen, Principal Investigator and Project Manager, Texas Center for Digital Knowledge, School of Library and Information Science, University of North Texas. Dr. Moen was responsible for assembling the team of researchers and research assistants to work on the study. Dr. Carol Simpson, also a faculty member at UNT, served as Co-Principal Investigator and assisted in the coordination of the school library data collection aspect of the study. In addition to the Principal Investigator and Co-Principal Investigator, the team consisted of:

• Principal Researcher, Florence Mason • Principal Researcher, Louella Wetherbee • Graduate Research Assistant, Sandal Miller • Graduate Research Assistant, Yeh Chang-Ching

Florence Mason and Louella Wetherbee served as the primary researchers to carry out the data collection and analysis activities for the study. The University of North Texas and the Texas Center for Digital Knowledge issued subcontracts with consultants Florence Mason and Louella Wetherbee. The subcontracts were signed in February 2002 and subcontractors work commenced at that time. 3. Study Objectives The development of the study was guided by two factors, the study objectives as set forth in the Request for Proposal and the Project Work Plan, as well as by the “Framing Questions” that were first developed by the Needs Study Team and further defined through discussions with the Library Working Group:

• To identify and document the current technological capability and readiness of each type of library to meet user group needs.

• To identify and document the major categories of user technical and information needs in

areas related to TIFB funded programs.

• To determine the state’s role in ensuring that Texas libraries can complete and maintain an adequate technological capacity to deliver information services in the future.

• To determine the state’s role in ensuring that librarians and library staff at all levels have

appropriate technology skills.

• To examine how state-funded, centralized information resources can be integrated into and complement locally provided resources.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Section I – Page 1 University of North Texas


• To identify the appropriate organizations to develop and deliver various levels of support to ensure long-term maximum integration and use of state-provided information resources and technology.

• To identify the probable costs and type of TIFB grants required to meet existing and future

library and user needs for the period 2003-2007.

• To identify appropriate outcome and other evaluation measures to assess the impact of the TIFB grant programs.

The framing questions are found in the Report Appendix I. 4. Document and Background Information The Needs Study Team reviewed three categories of background data. These are the TIFB/KPMG library quality assurance documents, assessments of TIFTech training (AMIGOS), and published research reports on technology implementation in libraries. 5. TIFB/KPMG Quality Assurance Documents The Needs Study Team identified and examined TIFB evaluation materials produced by KPMG. KPMG had a subcontract with TIFB to produce a Quality Assurance Program. The Needs Study Team examined the available Quality Assurance Program Deliverable Reports for the library-related grants included for cycles LB 1 through LB 4 and LB 6. The reports reviewed included the cycle questionnaires, the responses, and the resulting summary reports for each of these cycles. The Needs Study Team found that the results from the Quality Assurance Program were and are valuable to TIFB in terms of assessing the extent of compliance by the grantees with the terms of the TIFB grants. The actual assessment information, however, is mostly concerned with deadlines and compliance matters and does not provide information related to the impact of TIFB funds on library programs, user behavior, faculty instructional programs, or students’ learning abilities. 6. AMIGOS Training Evaluation Documents Documents available for review included the AMIGOS TIFTech training evaluation form; responses to evaluation narrative questions in regard to future training requests from 7/00 - 2/15/02; and the summary of AMIGOS training session evaluations for the period 8/00 - 2/02. The AMIGOS evaluation material principally deals with presenter style and participant satisfaction with the presentations. 7. Published Research, Documents, Etc. The Needs Study Team obtained and reviewed a number of studies and public research reports on technology implementation in educational institutions and public libraries. The most relevant reports to the current research include the following: The EGS studies, Texas School Libraries: Standards, Resources, Services and Students’ Performance; and Evaluation of the Effective Use of the Texas Library Connection. The Texas STaR Chart: School Technology and Readiness, and the CORD and Concord Consortium report on a plan to implement more technology in Texas education. Other reports include:

• The TexShare Communication Plan, by the Center for Media Training, August 26, 2002 • The Texas Center for Digital Knowledge, UNT, ZLOT Technology Inventory and Assessment,

Technology to Improve Texas Education (the TITLE Report); • The Urban Libraries Council study, Impacts of the Internet on Public Library Use, (2002); by Dr.

George D’Elia and Eleanor Jo Rodger



• The reports to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation U.S. Library Program on the impacts of the Gates Grants (May 2001): and

• An article from Public Libraries, May/June 2002, summarizing the “Impact of External Technology Funding Programs for Public Libraries: A Study of LSTA, E-Rate, Gates and Others” by Bertot, McClure and Ryan.

The Needs Study Team found that the discussion and findings in the published documents are generally consistent with the findings from this assessment. Appendix VII provides a list of referenced research publications consulted in the course of this study. 8. Summary of TIFB Forum An open session was held on April 25, 2002, at the Texas Library Association Annual Conference to gather comments from the Texas library community about the effects of TIFB grants on their institutions. Approximately ninety members of the Texas library community signed in and attended the session. The questions posed to the audience by the study team were as follows:

How has TIFB served your library? What benefits have you experienced? What are the most pressing and critical needs your library faces in the next 2-3 years in

implementing public access to electronic information resources? Describe the type of TIFB grant that would best serve your library in the next 2-3 years.

Describe the training needs for libraries and library staff.

Describe the training needs for users.

A summary of the comments from the Forum along with a list of attendees is appended to

the report (Appendix III). 9. Summary The key study question that shaped the Needs Assessment study was to investigate the extent to which TIFB funds have had an impact on Texas academic, public, and school library media center libraries. The study questions and the document review helped the Team to develop questionnaire and focus group questions designed to discover the impact of TIFB grants on Texas Libraries. The following report sections discuss results from the various data gathering activities, including the focus group sessions, and results from the questionnaires distributed to academic, public, and school library media centers.



Section II: Summary of Data Gathering Activities 1. Introduction Questionnaires were prepared by the Needs Study Team with input from the LWG and mailed to school libraries, academic libraries (including community college libraries), and public libraries during the period May 2-10, 2002. The packets included a cover letter, a copy of the questionnaire, and a self-addressed envelope. The questionnaires contain approximately 275 individual response items. A number of questions allowed for open responses. 2. Sampling Design The Needs Assessment Study was designed to obtain input from all libraries that had received TIFB grants during the period 1997-2001. Determining the sampling design parameters for the academic and public libraries was straightforward. The decision was made to mail a survey to each of the Texas academic and public library systems in the state, since almost all of these institutions had received at least one TIFB grant. The Needs Study Team was able to obtain lists of public and academic libraries receiving grants through a review of the “LB” grantee lists posted on the Texas Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund website and made available to the Needs Study Team in paper form by the TIFB staff. The entire population of public and academic libraries was mailed surveys. The decision parameters related to the school survey were more difficult. The school population represented a greater challenge in that no list existed showing all of the school library media centers that had received TIFB grants. There are overall 7,467 schools in Texas. It is known that school districts and schools at the local level had received grants from the “PS” grant cycles that provided funds to public schools, yet it could not be readily determined if these grant funds were used in the school library media center or elsewhere in the school or the school district. After discussion, the Needs Study Team determined that the best option for developing a survey population was to assemble the list of schools that had received funds and/or had implemented Texas Library Connection databases in their school library media centers. Texas Library Connection databases are the school equivalent of TexShare databases in the academic and public libraries and are funded in part by TIFB grants in association with the administrating agency, the Texas Education Agency (TEA). TEA receives an annual appropriation from the TIFB fund for implementation of the Long-Range Plan for Technology that has been $14.6 million each year for several years. From that $14.6M, TEA allocates funds for the TLC databases and other technology initiatives. In addition, the agency has received additional TIFB funds through various riders for other projects such as the Ed Tech Pilot program. Prior to the creation of TIFB, TEA funded the initiatives of the Long-Range Plan for Technology from General Revenue funds appropriated from the legislature. Because no exact list existed as to the school media centers that had previously received TIFB grants, the sample was drawn from Texas Library Connection eligible schools.1 Unlike the public and academic 1 To participate in the TLC, a campus must meet the following criteria: • The school must have a certified librarian to supervise the library. • The library must have at least one Internet-connected computer for student use, in schools with fewer

than 200 students,. In schools with 200 to 299 students, the library must have at least two Internet-connected computers for student use. In schools with 300 or more students, the library must have at least three Internet-connected computers for student use.

• The library must have records of its database that can be exported in USMARC format.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Section II – Page 1 University of North Texas


libraries, the school survey was distributed to a randomized stratified sample of Texas schools. According to the Texas Education Agency as of August 31, 2002, there are 5,635 schools, including charter and alternative schools, of a total population of 7,467 that participate in the Texas Library Connection. In addition to the public school campuses, 113 private schools, 39 public libraries, and 11 academic libraries are active participants in the TLC for a total of 5,798 libraries of different types participating in the TLC. The Needs Study Team reasoning on selecting the TLC schools was that these library media centers could at least assess the impact of the TLC online resources on students and teachers and could comment about their training needs in using these online resources. An additional list of schools were added to the TLC member libraries, those schools that received grant funds during the LB 5 grant cycle that was intended to provide funds to schools otherwise not eligible for TIFB grant funds in early grant cycles. The list of school library media centers that are TLC libraries consisted of 5,768 schools. The Needs Study Team then obtained a random number generator from the Internet (www.Random.org) and selected 600 integers, which, were then used to select schools from the TLC schools list. The Needs Study Team intended to have the sample proportionately represent schools from the 20 Educational Service Center Regions and from the different types of Texas schools. Presently according to TEA, the schools are 54% elementary schools, 19% Middle/junior high schools, 21% High schools and 6.3% Elementary-Secondary Schools. Once the sample was pulled, the Needs Study Team matched the sample against these criteria to ensure that the sample reflected the desired regional and school characteristics. The final sample included schools from the four types as well as a number of “special” schools such as magnet and charter schools. The sample size for the questionnaire distribution to the schools was set at 600 schools. A random number table was used to select the sample from the list of Texas Library Connection eligible schools. After the sample was pulled, the sample was manually checked to ensure that the sample proportionately represented schools from the 20 Education Service Center Regions and also proportionately represented different types of schools (Elementary, Middle/Junior High, High, and Elementary/Secondary Schools). Some charter and alternative schools also were selected to receive surveys. In addition, 149 schools that are not TLC members but whose schools received TIFB grants through the LB – 5 grant cycle also received surveys. Survey personnel used the Texas Library Connection and TEA listserv to encourage school librarians receiving the surveys to fill them out and to return them. Survey personnel also e-mailed the Education Service Center library contact persons and urged them to contact schools in their area to download a survey and to fill it in and to fax it back. In addition, a number of school librarians voluntarily returned additional surveys that they had downloaded and completed. 3. Survey Data Collection Methodology The needs assessment methodology relies on a number data gathering strategies including review of background documents, such as technology needs assessment reports; research results and impact surveys from Texas and other states; a review of the Quality Assurance Program results from KPMG; interviews with key informants, focus groups with representatives from academic, community college, public and school libraries. The Study Team also used an online survey of public librarians asking the types of questions they receive from users; and a mailed survey to academic, public and school libraries assessing their future needs as related to planning for future TIFB grant cycles. The participating campus must agree to Conditions of Participation that require responsible use, training seminars, and demonstration that TLC resources are integrated into student learning.



4. Survey Questionnaire Development Three questionnaire instruments were developed to survey academic, public, and school library media centers. The Needs Study Team developed a set of survey questions for each type of library based on the Framing Questions that had been earlier developed and reviewed with the Library Working Group and which were considered to represent the type of information the LWG desired to have gathered through the surveys. Due to the number of issues that were to be raised in the survey, the open-ended responses were kept to a minimum. One category of questions was yes / no responses. Questions that sought opinion and attitude rather than straightforward responses were developed using a four-point scale with statements ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Other questions utilized scales to test respondent agreement or disagreement on the importance or unimportance of certain factors. Scales were numbered from “4” for “strongly agree” or “very important” to “1” for “strongly disagree” or “very unimportant.” Each question utilizing a scale provided a category for “do not know.” After the set of questions was developed, drafts of the questionnaire instruments were reviewed with the Library Working Group at a meeting held April 9, 2002 at THE University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. The Library Working Group was asked to provide comments and review of the questions through April 23, 2002. Next, the survey instruments were formatted and distributed to academic, public, and school library media center librarians in order to pre-test the survey instruments. The pretest concluded April 30, 2002, and the final forms of the surveys were prepared. 5. Survey Distribution and Data Collection Questionnaire packets were prepared that contained a cover letter, the survey instrument and a self-addressed return envelope. The cover letter provided the survey respondents with contact information in the event they had questions about filling out the surveys. The school media center surveys were mailed out during the week of May 6th, the public and academic surveys were mailed during the week of May 13, 2002. School library media personnel were asked to return the questionnaires by May 22, 2002, the academic and public libraries had a deadline of May 27, 2002. In addition to the mailed surveys, the surveys were posted in online form and e-mails were sent to the Educational Service Center library contact persons, asking them to encourage their regional members to locate survey instruments online. Phone calls were made to Educational Service Center library contact persons and school library media center staff asking them to complete and return surveys. 6. Preparation of the Survey Data Base Input of data from the completed questionnaires was conducted by the Texas Center for Digital Knowledge at UNT. Student workers were recruited to perform the data entry. Editing of the survey input, the process of checking each questionnaire for missing responses and duplicate responses, and for clarification of codes for the data entry people was also carried out during the first ten days of June. The Texas Center for Digital Knowledge also created the survey file in Excel and the responses as an SPSS file. 7. Data Analyses Using statistical procedures appropriate both to the data collected and to the objectives of the surveys, the Needs Study Team analyzed the data using the SPSS statistical package. The results were first loaded into the SPSS software program that provided frequency and a detailed analysis for each question. Microsoft Excel was utilized to convert the question results into pie and bar charts. In addition,



cross tabulations were constructed for a number of questions. The key questions assessed were whether there was a connection between the frequency of use of the TexShare/TLC databases, staff training needs and the future needs of libraries. Descriptive statistics are used to analyze the data collected in this study. Descriptive statistics include measures of the number and percent of responses for each question. The results summaries report the number of respondents to a question as "n", which refers to the number of responses to the particular question. A comparison of total responses and missing cases, which represent non-responses to questions is given in the detailed listing of each question. Questions that employed scales were added and then divided by the total number of scores to give an average or a mean score. A number of question responses are displayed as means scores in the results. The Technical Appendix for this report includes a detailed breakdown of the descriptive statistics for each question in the survey questionnaire. Four summaries of the results were prepared, for the academic, public, and school media center data. The final report contains the summary comparing the results from the three surveys. The data from each of the surveys was loaded into Excel spreadsheets and charts were produced for many of the survey questions to display the data graphically. Coding categories were developed for all of the open-ended questions and open-ended responses were then coded. Information about the open-ended responses is included with the data summaries and is also included in the Appendix. 8. Size Categories for Public and Academic Libraries In order to perform additional analysis, the public library respondents were classified according to population served. The public libraries had previously been coded by size categories for use in the ZLOT survey and this scheme was utilized in the Needs Assessment analysis. Public library size categories were assigned using the Texas Library Systems Act's (TLSA) scheme for determining library system membership categories. The following table lists the number of public libraries in the study population by size category.

Table 1 Number of Public Libraries by Size

Category Population Served Number Percent

Small 0 – 10,000 321 58.3 Medium 10,001 – 100,000 199 36.1 Large 100,001 or more 31 5.6 Total 551 100.0

The following table breaks shows the public library respondents by size categories and also displays the percentage of the total number of public library respondents in each size category.

Table 2 Public Library Respondents by Size

Category Population Served Number Percent

Small 0 – 10,000 148 54 Medium 10,001 – 100,000 105 38 Large 100,001 or more 20 7 Total 273 100.0



Academic libraries were also coded into one of three size categories. As with the public libraries, the academic libraries had been coded for analysis purposes in the ZLOT survey, and these codings were used in the Needs Assessment analysis. The size categories were adapted from enrollments, as measured in full-time student equivalents (FTSE). Data was used from the Annual Report of Public Universities from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for fiscal year 2001 to classify 4-year public institutions, data from the Annual Report for the Independent Colleges and Universities in Texas (ICUT) was used to classify independent colleges and universities and 2-year community and technical colleges. The following table lists the number of academic libraries in the study population by size category.

Table 3 Number of Academic Libraries by Size

Category Enrollment (FTSE) Percent

Small Less than 2000 32.7 Medium 2,001 – 9,999 51.0 Large 10,000 or more 16.3 Total 100

The following table displays the academic library respondents by size categories and indicates each category's percentage of the total number of academic library participants.

Table 4 Number of Academic Library Participants

Category Enrollment (FTSE) Percent

Small Less than 2000 27 Medium 2,001 – 9,999 47 Large 10,000 or more 26 Total 100

Size category data was not available from the ZLOT Survey for school library media centers and no categorization was attempted in the Needs Assessment Survey. 9. Frequently Asked Questions Survey The needs assessment Study Team was not charged with obtaining input directly from users regarding their use of online resources and their future needs for technology support. Indirect evidence was gathered through the survey instruments. In addition, the Needs Study Team utilized an online survey tool available on the Internet and available from www.createsurvey.com to ask public librarians about the types of questions they receive at the reference desk and their use of online TexShare databases to answer these questions. These data are intended to supplement and extend the needs assessment surveys sent to academic, public and school libraries with some additional information about categories of information needs. The first survey instrument was mounted at the Northeast Texas Library System (NETLS) approximately June 1, 2002. The survey was later mounted on system web sites by the rest of the Texas Library Systems around the state for the period through June 15, 2002. A set of tabulated responses was created for each of the systems. The summary of the results from this survey are included on the project website.


http://www.createsurvey.com/


10. Summary of Focus Groups With the Representatives from Different Types of Libraries The Needs Study Team conducted a total of eight focus groups using telephone conference calls to connect the participants with the moderator. Focus group sessions held between May 13 and June 5, 2002, include the following: Date Invited Participated

ESC Library Directors 5/13/02 10 2

“Mixed” School Library Directors 5/13/02 27 6

Large School Districts Library Directors 5/22/02 26 4

Community Colleges Library Staff 5/22/02 25 7

Academic/Academic Medical Library Staff 5/23/02 29 7

Large/Suburban Public Library Staff 5/24/02 53 11

Small School Libraries Staff 5/28/02 38 5

Small Public Library Staff 6/05/02 19 7

Potential participants were identified from TIFB grantee institution lists, from other databases available to the Study Team, and from personal interviews and contacts made by Team members. Invitees were notified of focus group times by telephone and/or e-mail. Focus groups participants were selected to represent all types and all sizes of TIFB library grantee institutions. Representatives were sought in all areas of the state in order to ensure that the diversity of TIFB grantees was well represented. Most participants were either senior or mid-level library managers; a few participants were informants selected because of broad knowledge of their library constituencies. There was focus group participant coverage by library size, type, and region. Transcripts of the focus groups were prepared and the summary of the key points is given in Appendix II. A follow-up focus group form was sent to all participants as well as invitees who were unable to attend the focus groups. Appendix II also contains a summary of responses from the online focus follow-up forms. 11. Presentation of the Preliminary Report and Results Prior to a scheduled May 29, 2002, meeting with the Library Working Group, the Needs Study Team filed a Preliminary Report that contained a presentation of the design and execution of the surveys followed by a presentation of the results of the data analyses as of that date. The Needs Study Team met with the Library Working Group (LWG) to present the preliminary results of the surveys and to discuss their preliminary implications. 12. Final Survey Documents The Needs Study Team has assembled the surveys and the survey results into a number of documents.

1) The questionnaire instruments – included in the Appendix IX.



2) A report of the design and execution of the surveys by type of library, academic, public, school library media center – included in the Appendix IV. 3) Survey results with frequency distributions for each question can be found on the Project website. URL: www.unt.edu/needz


http://www.unt.edu/needz


Section III: Results from the Surveys of Academic, Public and School Media Center Libraries 1. Introduction Summaries and comparison from the surveys of the three different library types, academic, public and school library media centers are given in the following section. This section provides an overview of the results and features charts comparing the results across the three types of libraries. For a more detailed review of the results by type of library, these results have been compiled into three separate reports and are found in the report Appendix IV. Charts are also included to show the differences in results between the 2-year and 4-year academic institutions Appendix V. The public health institutions are not included in this comparison due to the small size of the respondent pool (6). 2. Library Services and Databases Use of TexShare Databases TexShare databases have become a critical part of library service for all types of libraries. The following chart shows the use of TexShare databases for the different types of libraries. The academic libraries are the heaviest users. Public libraries and schools are more likely to report having never used the databases.

Chart 1

Comparison Of the Frequency Of Use Of TexShare Databases

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Hea

vily

Dai

ly

2-3

times

per

wee

k

1-2

times

per

mon

th Nev

er

Frequency

% o

f Res

pons

es

Academic Public School

How frequently do you use a Texas Library Connection database to answer a question for a library user? A. 17, P. 20, S. 34

Frequency % of Responses

Academic Public SchoolHeavily 64.2 10.3 9.3Daily 24.2 23.5 17.22-3 times per week 9.5 21.3 33.01-2 times per month 2.1 25.7 26.8Never 0 19.1 13.7

Size appears to influence the use of the databases with smaller libraries being less likely to use the databases than larger libraries. The data for the public libraries show that 100% of the larger libraries use the TexShare databases heavily or daily, while 51% of the medium sized public libraries and only 12% of the small public libraries report using the databases heavily or daily. This finding is consistent with the results from the recently released ZLOT Technology Inventory and Assessment that found that larger public and academic institutions are more likely to adopt new technology than smaller institutions.2 (See AC 1 Chart, Appendix V)

2 ZLOT Technology Assessment and Inventory. Texas Center for Digital Knowledge, 2002, p. 2.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Section III -- Page 1 University of North Texas


Purpose for Using Online Resources In academic and school library media centers, online resources are being used to actively support curriculum needs. Academic libraries most frequently work with faculty and use online resources to create instructional materials and to get Internet images. The academic libraries are less likely to use online resources to create web based courses or tutorials for students or for faculty. School library media centers said they used online resources most frequently to do basic research, to enhance class instruction, to get information from the Internet for lessons, and to promote TLC databases to others outside the library. Data on public library use of the databases indicate they use the online databases for basic research to answer reference questions, to look up journal, magazine and newspaper materials, to search for information on computer technology, literature, and medical/health information. Use of Non-TexShare Databases A majority of the academic libraries (52.7%) use non-TexShare databases heavily, 32.3% say they use them daily, 12.9% say they use them weekly and 1.1% say they use them monthly. A small number 1.1% say they do not use non-TexShare databases. Most commonly used non-TexShare databases were Lexis/Nexis (8.9%), SIRS (6%), Gale (4.5%) and Psych Info (4.5%). Thirty percent (30%) of the public libraries said they use non-TexShare databases at least daily, 43% say they used them a few times per month, 25% of the libraries never use non-TexShare databases. The most commonly used non-TexShare resources named by the public libraries were search engines: 5.7% said they used Reference USA, 4.4% said Google, 3.7% named Amazon and Ask Jeeves. Government web sites including the Internal Revenue Service web site and US Government web sites were 2.7% of the responses and 3% named Learn a Test. School library media centers were not asked about their use of non-Texas Library Connection databases in the survey. (See AC 2 Chart, Appendix V) Software Applications Used All types of libraries utilized similar software applications. Word processing is the most commonly mentioned software, followed by electronic mail and anti-virus software and web browsers. Academic and public library staffs are most likely to use word processing software, e-mail, anti-virus software, web browsers and spreadsheet software. Least used are computer time controls, print charging control and image editing software. School library media centers said they used web browsers more frequently than academic or public libraries. Use of other applications falls off sharply with comparatively little use of presentation, graphics, and database software.



Chart 2

C 5 Comparison of Most Frequently Used Software Applications

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Wordprocessingsoftware Electronic mail

Anti-virussoftware Web browser

Spreadsheetsoftware

Databasesoftware

Presentation /graphics /publishing

Software Applications

Ran

king

, One

is H

ighe

st

Academic Public Schools

Do your library staff and users regularly use the following:

Software Application Ranks

Academic Public SchoolsWord processing 1 1 1Electronic mail 2 2 3Anti-virus software 3 3 4Web browser 4 4 2Spreadsheet software 5 5 6D t b ft 7 8 9

Equipment Checkout and Access for Users All libraries are most likely to provide laser printers, personal computers and flatbed scanners for users. All libraries are least likely to provide portable or wireless technologies such as personal digital assistants.

Chart 3

C 2 Comparison Of Equipment Provided For Users

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

Lase

r prin

ters

Pers

onal

com

pute

rs

Flat

bed

scan

ners

Lapt

ops

CD

bur

ners

Inkj

et p

rinte

rs

Dig

ital c

amer

as

DVD

bur

ners

Han

dhel

d or

pen

scan

ners

Pers

onal

dig

ital

assi

stan

ts

Equipment

% o

f Res

pons

es


Equipment % of Responses

Academic Public SchoolsLaser printers 94.70 92.5 81.7Personal computers 91.40 92.5 84.0Flatbed scanners 60.40 45.7 43.8Laptops 55.60 18.3 20.4CD burners 39.60 10.9 13.5Inkjet printers 31.80 48.6 52.9Digital cameras 27.80 12.1 23.9DVD burners 6.60 0.8 1.2Handheld or pen scanners 3.40 1.9 9.3Personal digital assistants 1.10 1.5 0.8

Does your library provide the following equipment for Users/Students?



A minority of public libraries provides laptops (18.3%) or Ethernet cards for laptops (13.3%) or digital cameras (12%) to the public and only a few provide e-books (2.6%) PDA’s (1.5%) or DVD burners (0.8%). Twenty percent (20%) of the school library media centers said they loan digital cameras and other equipment, DVD burners (17.5%), handheld scanners (14.3%). Approximately one half (51%) of the academic libraries provide laptops for checkout, and 61% permit user laptops to be connected to the library’s network. Only 18% of public libraries provide laptops, but 95% of the public libraries say they would permit checkout of laptops, but (92%) would not permit laptops to be connected to the library’s LAN. Eighty-two percent (82%) of the school library media centers do not provide laptops for use in the library, but those that do loan laptops are more likely to loan them to staff and teachers (39%) than to students (20%). All types of libraries provide a platform of personal computers and laser printers for staff. Equipment less frequently provided includes e-book readers, personal digital assistants (PDA’s) and CD burners. Academic libraries are more likely to provide an array of technology equipment for their staff than public or school library media centers. Academic libraries and school library media centers are more likely to supply data projectors than public libraries and most libraries are not yet supplying staff with DVD equipment or personal digital assistants.

Chart 4

C 1 Comparison of Equipment Provided to Staff/Teachers

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

Pers

onal

com

pute

rs

Lase

r prin

ters

Dat

a pr

ojec

tors

Flat

bed

scan

ners

Dig

ital c

amer

as

Lapt

ops

Inkj

et p

rinte

rs

CD

bur

ners

Han

dhel

d or

pen

scan

ners

Wire

less

Eth

erne

tca

rds

for l

apto

ps

Vide

o co

nfer

enci

ngeq

uipm

ent

DVD

bur

ners

Pers

onal

dig

ital

assi

stan

ts

E-bo

ok re

ader

s

Equipment

%of

Res

pons

es

Acad Public School

Equipment % of Responses Academic Public SchoolPersonal computers 99.00 94.8 89.9Laser printers 96.90 93.2 86.4Data projectors 87.20 41.3 Flatbed scanners 85.10 74.1 57.5Digital cameras 77.70 63.5 63.0Laptops 76.00 46.8 38.9Inkjet printers 74.70 79.8 64.7CD burners 73.90 39.3 30.7Handheld or pen scanners 53.20 57.1 38.7Wireless Ethernet cards for laptops 41.80 19.6 17.7Video conferencing equipment 38.00 7.5 9.4DVD burners 20.90 1.9 3.2Personal digital assistants 17.00 15.4 9.5E-book readers 16.30 3.0

Does your library provide the following equipment for Staff/Teachers?

Chart C1



3. Access Issues Remote Access Academic libraries are most likely to provide authentication methods for users to provide access to selected resources, with 91% of the academic libraries using authentication, schools 50% and public libraries 34%.

Chart 5

Comparison Of LibrariesThat Provide Authentication For Users

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Academi c Publ i c School

T ype Of Li br ar y

Yes No

D o es the library pro vide authent icat io n (require passwo rds o r lo gins) fo r its users fo r remo te access to lo cally pro vided databases? A. 5, P . 6 , S. 22

% R espo nses Academic Public SchoolYes 91.4 34.3 50.3No 7.5 54.0 42.8

(See Chart AC 6, Appendix V) Proxy server with login/password is the chosen method of access for all three types of libraries. Two thirds of the academic and school respondents said they use this type of method as do 45% of the public libraries.



Chart 6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

% R

espo

nses

Proxy server with IPaddress

Proxy server withlogin/password

Integrated library systemauthenticity module

Do not know

Methods

C 4 Comparison of Authentication Methods for Remote Access to Databases


If your library provides authentication of its users, what is the authentication method used? ( from home)


Proxy server with IP address 1 6 6 9Proxy server with login/ password 63 45 66Integrated library system authenticity module 16 16 3Do not know 4 33 22

(See Chart AC 6, Appendix V) Academic libraries appear to be better informed about authentication requirements than public libraries. Public libraries were the most uncertain about authentication methods; one third of public libraries (33%) were unsure about the type of authentication they provide as compared to 22% for school library media centers. Twenty-six percent (26%) of academic libraries said they could provide authentication with an additional module to their integrated library system, while 17.5% of public libraries said they could, but many (72.2%) were unsure. Academic and public libraries were asked if the state library were to provide an authentication method to TexShare databases, would (the library) be more likely to provide remote access for users? The percent of academic libraries that said yes was 69%; the percent of the public libraries that said yes was 71.3%, and 23.3% were unsure. Technological Capability Nearly all academic libraries have their own websites; 97% of the academic libraries said they have a website as compared to 61% of the public libraries and 53% for school libraries. Public libraries were not asked to report on this issue. Academic libraries felt external technical support was more likely to be adequate (91.6%), while 77% felt their own technical support was adequate and 67% said their campus wide technical support was adequate. Compared with academic ratings on technical support adequacy, the schools felt that the technical support they received from their District was “very adequate” or “adequate” in 77% of the school libraries. Access for Persons with Physical Disabilities Libraries are making progress in offering technology access to persons with disabilities. Most academic libraries (92.4%) provide at least one workstation for those with physical disabilities. Eighty-two percent



(82.4%) of public libraries and 80% of school library media centers said they offer workstations for those with physical disabilities. Access for Non-English Speaking Users Few libraries provide instructions or information for their online resources or websites in any other language than English. Six percent (6%) of academic libraries said they provide Spanish instructions for online resources. Twelve percent (12%) of the public libraries said they offer Spanish language instructions. Few libraries provide any access in other languages, and less than 5% of the academic libraries provide online instructions in languages other than English or Spanish. School libraries were not asked to report on this issue. Access to Special Collections Some progress is being made to digitize and make available online special collections held by libraries. More academic libraries have unique special collection materials on local history or special subjects that have been digitized. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the academic libraries responded about the percent of their special collections that have been digitized and made available on the web.

Only 4.8% of public libraries said they had special collections materials on the web.

One percent (1%) of school library media centers said they had collections that have been digitized.

Chart 7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% o

f Res

pons

es


Types of Libraries

C 7 Comparison of Libraries That Have Special Collection Materials That Have Been Digitized and Made Available on

the Web

Yes No

Q21 -- Does your library have unique special collection materials (for example; archives, photographic images, letters, manuscripts) that have been digitized and made available over the web?

% of Responses

Academic Public SchoolYes 25 5 1No 74 93 98

Libraries have not yet begun to create finding aids for digital materials, which suggest that users are not able to access many of the resources held by Texas libraries.



More academic libraries have finding aids on their websites to assist users than do public libraries or schools. Thirty nine percent (39%) of the academic libraries said they have finding aides while only 8.3 percent of the public libraries said they do and 3 percent of the school library media centers.

Chart 8

Comparison of Libraries That Have Finding Aids on Their Websites To Assist With Special Collections

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Academic Publ ic School

T ype of Li br ar i es

Yes No

Q23 - - D o es yo ur library have f inding aids o n yo ur library's website to assist users o f yo ur special co llect io ns materials?A. 23, P . 28, S. 32

% o f R espo nses

Academic Public SchoolYes 38.5 8.3 2.9No 60.4 87.7 92.4

4. Training Issues Current and Future Training Needs The most important current staff training needs for all libraries are being able to use the TexShare databases and using online databases. Training issue importance varied by type of library. Schools gave more importance to web design techniques, and public and academic libraries felt training for interlibrary loan activities were more important than school library media centers. (See Chart AC 17, Appendix V)



Chart 9

C 16 Comparison of the Importance of Current Training Needs

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

Hav

ing

an o

verv

iew

of g

rant

writ

ing

Know

ing

basi

c w

eb d

esig

n te

chni

ques

Know

ledg

e of

doc

tran

smis

sion

softw

are

for I

LL

Know

ledg

e of

ILLe

porti

ng s

oftw

are

Lear

ning

OC

LC in

terli

brar

y lo

an is

sues

Lear

ning

pre

serv

atio

n te

chni

ques

Man

agin

g el

ectro

nic

jour

nals

Man

agin

g sp

ecia

l col

lect

ions

Und

erst

andi

ng re

sour

ce s

harin

g is

sues

Usi

ng o

nlin

e da

taba

ses

via

the

web

Usi

ng T

exSh

are

data

base

s

Training Needs

Mea

ns H

ighe

st is

Mos

t Im

port

ant


How important are the following current training needs for your staff?

Training Needs Means Academic Public SchoolsHaving an overview of grant writing 2.51 2.85 2.73Knowing basic web design techniques 2.64 2.44 3.10Knowledge of doc transmission software for ILL 2.79 2.50 2.32Knowledge of ILLeporting software 2.61 2.54 2.37Learning OCLC interlibrary loan issues 2.72 2.65 2.36Learning preservation techniques 2.44 2.56 2.94Managing electronic journals 2.96 2.22 2.55Managing special collections 2.36 2.46 2.45Understanding resource sharing issues 2.75 2.77 3.18Using online databases via the web 3.22 3.29 3.39Using TexShare

All types of libraries rated future training needs in a similar manner. In addition, most of the important future needs for all types of libraries were similar to the current training needs. Libraries felt that training to use the TexShare databases, searching the Internet, and using the library’s online catalog are important needs. Of lesser importance are digitizing images, and managing the library’s network. Public libraries rated their current training needs higher than academic libraries and also rated them higher than the school library media centers.



Chart 10

C 18 Comparison of Future Training Needs

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

Dev

elop

ing

and

mai

ntai

ning

Dig

itizi

ngim

ages

M

anag

ing

emai

lac

tiviti

es

Man

agin

gth

e lib

rary

'sne

twor

kSe

arch

ing

the

inte

rnet

U

sing

TexS

hare

data

base

s U

sing

the

libra

ry's

onlin

e

Training Needs

Mea

ns H

ighe

st Is

Mos

t Im

port

ant


How important are the following future training needs for your library staff during 2003-2005?

Training Needs Means Academic Public SchoolsDeveloping and maintaining the library's web site 3.26 3.20 3.35Digitizing images 2.89 2.98 3.09Managing email activities 2.60 2.92 2.81Managing the library'snetwork 2.46 3.15 2.85Searching the internet 3.20 3.40 3.51Using TexShare databases 3.38 3.66 3.58Using the library's online catalog 3.12 3.36 3.25

(See Chart AC 9, Appendix V) Training Providers How staff receives training differs by type of library. Staff in academic and school library media centers were most likely to attend training offered by in-house trainers or by commercial vendors. Public libraries were most likely to attend TIFBTECH Training or commercial training. This finding may suggest that training costs may be more likely to be included in overhead or indirect costs for academic and school libraries and that public libraries are more likely to include training as a budgeted expense.



Chart 11

Comparison of Training Sources

0

1

2

3

4

5

In house training fromyour library or jurisdiction Commercial providers

Distance learningopportunities TIF Tech training

Ran

ked

Valu

e M

ost U

sed


Which of the following types of training have you personally attended or used in the past 12 months?

Training Source Rankings

Academic Public SchoolIn house training from your library or jurisdiction 1 3 1Commercial providers 4 2 2Distance learning opportunities 3 4 3TIF Tech training 2 1 4

Training Quality Academic and public libraries were asked to evaluate whether they felt the training they received from the different providers was adequate. One hundred percent (100%) of the academic libraries answering this question indicated that they felt distance education was adequate, 95% rated in-house training adequate, 93% rated AMIGOS training adequate and 91% rated commercially provided training as adequate. Fewer academic libraries felt TIFTech training was adequate with 62% indicating they felt this training was adequate.3 Public library respondents felt that online training was adequate according to 100% of the responses, followed by Texas State Library training in 95% of the cases. Distance education was rated as adequate by 91%; commercial providers were rated adequate by 89%, in house by 86% and TIFTech by 80%. AMIGOS was rated adequate by 76% of the public library respondents. Amount of Training The amount of training staff received shows variations among the types of libraries. Percentages for staff receiving one to five days of training are as follows: The amount of training staff receive shows that almost 50% of the staff in all three types of libraries received at least one day of training. Academic libraries received reported the most amount of training, public libraries the least. Academic library respondents indicated in 53% of the cases that they had received between one and five days of training, 52.6% of school library media center staff and 48.5% said they had received between one and five days of training. A significant number of library respondents reported no training days for staff. School library media centers reported in 40.9% of the cases that they received no training, 36% of public libraries and 23% said they had received no training days.

3 Academic libraries wee not asked to rate the adequacy of online self-paced and Texas state Library Training.



Access to Distance Learning Capabilities Academic libraries and school library media centers have more access to distance learning capabilities than do public libraries. This result may be related to the efforts that have been made to create standardized platforms for the delivery of distance education in higher education and for schools. Academic libraries provide more distance learning capability than public libraries. Only 26% of the public libraries said they have distance learning via the Internet. Four percent (4%) said they had videoconference capability and 3% said they had teleconference capability. For school library media centers, 29% have T-Star access, 36% have Internet access, 29% have videoconference capability and 15% have teleconference capability. Academic libraries are more active in creating distance education programs. Academic libraries indicated one quarter of the libraries are creating distance education programs while 75.8% said they are not. Only 3% of public libraries are creating their own programs. Libraries were asked if staff, teachers, faculty and students can take distance education courses offered by another institution. The majority of academic libraries said that students (67.1%), faculty (67.7%) and library staff (78.3%) have access to distance education classes from other institutions. Sixty percent of the public libraries said that library staff have access to distance education courses from other institutions, 57% said that users have access to distance education classes from other institutions. In the school library media centers only 19% of the students have access to distance learning courses. Library staff (39%) and teachers (33%) have more access to distance education opportunities from other institutions than students. (See Chart AC 10, Appendix V) 5. TIFB Impact on Academic Libraries Increase in Student Use All libraries said they are serving more students than a year ago. Two thirds of the academic libraries (65.6)%) said they were serving more students and estimated the increase from 8% to 35%. Seventy-two percent (72%) of school library media centers reported an increase.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of public libraries say they are seeing more school students in the library than a year ago.



Chart 12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% o

f Res

pons

es


Type of Library

C 20 Comparison of Increase of Student Use

Yes No

% Responses

Academic Public SchoolYes 65.6 71.2 71.8No 22.6 18.2 21.4

Do you believe your library is serving more students coming into the library now as compared to one year ago?

Ability to Attract Other Sources of Local Funding Public libraries have been most successful in attracting other sources of funding as a result of TIFB funding. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of public libraries said they had developed other sources of local funding as a result of TIFB funding. Fifteen percent (15%) of academic libraries said they were able to develop other sources of local funding. Nine percent (9%) of the school library media centers said they were able to leverage additional funds. (See Chart AC 11, Appendix V)



Chart 13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

% o

f Res

pons

e


Type of Library

C 21 As a Result of TIF Funding, Have You Developed Other Sources for Funds

Yes No

As a result of TIF Board technology funding has your library developed other sources of local funds?

% Responses Academic Public SchoolYes 14.7 36.9 9.2No 65.3 51.8 45.6

Grants from Other Sources Public libraries were also the most successful in obtaining other grants from sources other than TIF. Forty-six percent (46%) of public libraries said they had developed other grants. Seventeen percent (17%) of academic libraries said they were able to develop other grants as a result of TIFB funds. Five percent (5%) of school library media centers said they had been able to obtain other grants from other sources. (See Chart AC 12, Appendix V)



Chart 14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

% o

f Res

pons

e


Type of Library

C 22 Libraries Have Developed Grants From Other Sources

Yes No

As a result of TIF Board technology funding, has your library developed other grants from other sources?

Academic Public SchoolsYes 17.0 46.2 5.3No 64.9 47.0 59.9

Partnerships with Community Entities Public libraries were most likely to have developed partnerships with other institutions. Forty-two percent (42%) of public libraries reported partnerships. Thirty percent (30%) of academic libraries reported they had developed partnerships with other community institutions. Ten percent (10%) of the school library media centers said they had established partnerships. (See Chart AC 13, Appendix V)



Chart 15

Library Has Developed Partnerships With Other Institutions

0

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

Academi c Publ i c School s

T ypes of Li br ar i es

Yes No


H as the receipt o f T IF B o ard techno lo gy funds by yo ur library enco uraged yo ur library to develo p partnerships with o ther inst itut io ns in yo ur co mmunity?

7. Partnerships with TIFB-Eligible Entities Public libraries developed more partnerships with other TIF-eligible entities than academic or school libraries.

Chart 16

Libraries Developed Partnerships With Other TIF Eligible Libraries

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Academi c Publ i c School s

T y p e s o f L i b r a r i e s

Yes No


H as the receipt o f T IF B techno lo gy funds enco uraged yo ur library to develo p partnerships with o ther T IF -eligible libraries?

The following is a summary table comparing the impact of TIFB funds on the different library types by receipt of additional grants or local funds and their success in creating partnerships with other agencies. The results show that public libraries have leveraged the TIFB funds in more cases than either academic or school libraries, but that all types of libraries have been successful in leveraging TIFB funds to either attract additional funding or to establish collaborative partnerships with other entities.



Table 5

Summary of Libraries Acquiring Funds or Forming Partnerships Percent

Local Funds Local Grants Community TIFB Eligible

Academic 14.7% 17% 29.5% 29.5% Public 36.9% 46.2% 41.5% 41.5% School 9.2% 5.3% 10.5% 10.5%

8. Sustainability and Future Needs When asked about the most important factors to sustain the current levels of computing access in their libraries, the respondents indicated that equipment and the ability to sustain the technical platform were most important followed by enhanced connectivity and access to more online databases. Consistent with the ratings for future needs for libraries academic libraries were more concerned about access to online databases than the school or public libraries. Public libraries were more concerned about security and viruses. Schools ranked having access to hardware and software as most important followed by technical training, connectivity and security. In Chart 17 the highest scores reflect the lowest rank, and conversely lowest scores indicate highest rank.

Chart 17

Comparison Of the Priorities For Maintaining the Current Levels Of Computing Access

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Fa c t or s


In o rder to maintain yo ur current level o f co mputing access, please prio rit ize the impo rtance o f each o f the fo llo wing:A. 53, P . 66, S. 69

Fa c t or Ra nk i ng Academic Public SchoolsDeskt op comput ers & associat ed equipment 3.28 2.34 2.36Dist ance learning 5.10 5.89 6.31Enhanced connect ivit y 3.17 3.48 3.38Inf ormat ion secur it y 5.69 4.74 5.76More online dat abases 2.38 4.13 4.01Online library cat alog issues 4.56 3.59 3.83Technical

When asked about the importance of factors to help integrate information technology into the library, the libraries rated most of the factors as important, based on the high means scores assigned to all of the factors.



Libraries indicated that the most important factors in integrating technology into the library are having access to hardware and software, the quality of computer technology available, and staff technology skills as the three most important factors. In Chart 18 the highest scores reflect the lowest rank, and conversely lowest scores indicate highest rank.

Chart 18

C 9 Comparison Of Importance Of Factors In Integrating Technology

3.00

3.10

3.20

3.30

3.40

3.50

3.60

3.70

3.80

3.90

4.00

Adeq

uate

acc

ess

to h

ardw

are

and

softw

are

Qua

lity

of c

ompu

ter t

echn

olog

yav

aila

ble

Staf

f tec

hnol

ogy

skills

Avai

labl

e st

aff t

ime

to d

evot

e to

this

task

Use

r ini

tiativ

e

Stud

ent t

echn

olog

y sk

ills

Factors

Mea

n Va

lues

Hig

hest

is m

ost I

mpo

rtan

t


In your opinion, how important are the following factors in helping to integrate information technology in the library?

Factors Means Academic Public SchoolAdequate access to hardware and software 3.90 3.81 3.85Quality of computertechnology available 3.88 3.84 3.77Staff technologyskills 3.79 3.82 3.64Available staff time to devote to this task 3.71 3.72 3.80User initiative 3.49 3.50 3.76Student technology skills 3.35 3.39 3.33



Barriers to Internet use in libraries were lack of adequate funding, costs of technology, cost of training and limited time of staff for using technology.

Chart 19

C 10 Comparison of Importance of Barriers to Use of the Internet in the Library

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Lack

of a

dequ

ate

fund

ingy

C

ost o

f com

pute

r har

dwar

e C

ost o

f com

pute

r sof

twar

e C

ost o

f tra

inin

g an

d ed

ucat

ion

Staf

f's li

mite

d tim

e fo

r usi

ng te

chno

log

Inad

equa

cy o

f Int

erne

t spe

ed

Phys

ical

spa

ce li

mita

tions

La

ck o

f in

hous

e te

chni

cal e

xper

tise

Inad

equa

cy o

f loc

al te

leco

mm

unic

...La

ck o

f man

agem

ent s

uppo

rt La

ck o

f tra

inin

g on

how

to u

se th

e In

teC

ost o

f pho

ne c

harg

es

Barriers

Mea

ns,

Hig

hest

is M

ost I

mpo

rtan

t


In your opinion, how important are the following as barriers to the use of your library's Internet services?

Barrier Means Academic Public SchoolLack of adequate funding 3.31 3.49 3.27Cost of computer hardware 3.10 3.52 3.38Cost of computer software 3.03 3.45 3.25Cost of training and education 2.96 3.46 3.23Staff's limited time for using technology 2.61 3.24 3.30Inadequacy of Internet speed 2.56 2.72 2.74Physical space limitations 2.48 3.28 2.98Lack of in house technical expertise 2.39 3.09 2.76Inadequacy of local telecom access 2.34 2.80 2.32Lack of management support 2.26 2.73 2.70Lack of training on how to use Internet 2.22 2.91 2.91Cost of phone charges 1.82 2.92 2.03

All types of libraries found that keeping up with equipment replacement in the next one to three years will be their most important issue. Libraries differed in their ranking for the other most important issues but agreed that security concerns, and training for users and staff, are important library issues. (See Chart AC 14, Appendix V)

Chart 20

Comparison Of the Most Important Issues In the Next 1 To 3 Years

3.00

3.25

3.50

3.75

4.00

I ssue sAcadPubSchls

I ssue s M e a ns Academic Public SchoolReplacing obsolete technology on a r egular schedule 3.87 3.84 3.81Being able to hi r e staf f wi th technical ski l ls 3.77 3.62 3.45Adding mor e onl ine inf or mation r esour ces 3.72 3.48 3.41Having adequate technical suppor t f or our l ibr ar y 3.65 3.79 3.71Having adequate Inter net bandwidth f or our l ibr ar y 3.60 3.57 3.50Pr oviding cur r ent staf f wi th mor e access to technical tr aining 3.58 3.74 3.63Keeping l ibr ar y equipment secur e f r om vi r uses and other secur i ty pr oblems 3.58 3.83 3.70Integr ating the l ibr ar y technology w/ the

H o w impo rtant do yo u believe the fo llo wing issues will be fo r yo ur library in the next 1 to 3 years?A 54 P 68 S 70



Public and school libraries were more concerned about security issues, and adequate technical support, while academic libraries were more concerned about access to online databases and being able to hire staff with technical skills. (See Chart AC 15, Appendix V)

Chart 21

Comparison Of the Least Important Issues In the Next 1 To 3 Years

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

I ssues

I ssue s M e a ns Academi c P ubl i c School

Incr easing the number of l ibr ar y catalog (OPAC) computer s 2.64 2.89 3.07Managing technology issues of f i l ter ing 2.01 3.28 3.32Incr easing the number of staf f desktop computer s 2.51 2.87 3.00Having the abi l i ty to pr ovide publ ic laptop computing 2.85 2.72 2.64Over coming staf f r esistance to technology 2.36 2.67 2.88Implementing a publ ic access catalog 1.52 2.74 2.67

H o w impo rtant do yo u believe the fo llo wing issues will be fo r yo ur library in the next 1 to 3 years?A. 54, P . 68, S. 70

Academic Publ ic School



Section IV: Key Study Findings 1. Introduction The key findings and conclusions discussed in this section are taken from the analysis of the input gathered through the focus groups and supplemented with the surveys conducted with academic, public and school libraries. Summaries of the focus group sessions along with lists of participants are found in Appendices II & VIII. 2. Access to Online Databases The licensing and implementation of high quality electronic information resource databases, initially in academic libraries and later in public libraries, as the TexShare databases, and to school library media centers as the Texas Library Connection (TLC), has radically enhanced the service capabilities of Texas libraries. Access to these databases, through TexShare and TLC, has become a critical component of library service for all types of libraries. A summary of the use frequency of TexShare databases show the extent to which all types of libraries have integrated these sources into their service delivery program.

Table 6 Frequency of Use of TexShare Databases

Academic Academic Public Public

Use TexShare Non-TexShare TexShare Non-TexShare Heavily 64.2% 52.7% 10.3% 6% Daily 24.2% 32.3% 23.5% 24.4% Weekly 9.5% 12.9% 21.3% 27.4% Monthly 2.1% 1.1% 15.7% 16.2% Never - 1.1% 19.1% 25.9%

There is no doubt that with the wide and almost universal adoption of the Internet and the web as the key information delivery technology, it is important that libraries fully integrate the web and the Internet as part of their basic service platform. The study results show Texas libraries have made significant progress in this area with almost all (97%) of the academic libraries having their own website. The needs assessment survey show that while more than 50% of public and academic libraries now have websites, future efforts should focus on increasing the number of libraries hosting their own websites to facilitate easy and seamless access to local and state resources. Focus group participants noted that they would benefit from help in creating and maintaining websites, especially those from libraries with limited staff and resources to manage a web presence. It will be imperative that Texas libraries have the ability to acquire, store, manage, and provide wide access to a broad array of high quality, credible, carefully selected, and well organized electronic information resources, whether locally produced or sourced from external vendors. Academic libraries have made the most progress in developing websites for their libraries as a key customer service and service delivery feature. Academic libraries frequently use online resources to support faculty so that the development of subject specific electronic portals is emerging as an important library function. Public librarians report that their patrons frequently used library computers to check e-mail, surf the Internet, and use web search engines, and that they are most frequently called upon to perform general Internet searching, undertake computer troubleshooting tasks, and assist users with basic computer skills. School library media center participants said they used online resources most frequently to do basic research, to enhance class instruction, and to get information from the Internet for lessons.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Section IV – Page 1 University of North Texas


3. Access to Technological Resources and Services Texas libraries need to focus on continually increasing knowledge of and improving access to the resources located within their institutions. Access is a complex concept and depends on a set of diverse factors including hardware capacity, software choices, network community, staff knowledge, and local policies. Libraries have made good progress in some areas and need to do more work in others as summarized below. The data available show that the basic access levels Texas residents currently enjoy will be likely to degrade fairly rapidly unless libraries focus more attention and resources on issues of sustainability. More than 50% of all types of libraries now provide remote access for users, most commonly via proxy server with login/password. Most academic libraries and more than 80% of public and school library media centers provide at least one workstation for those with physical disabilities. Twelve percent (12%) of public libraries and 6% of academic libraries offer Spanish language instructions for using online resources, but almost no libraries offer instructions in languages other than English and Spanish. Digitization and access to digital collections is moving more rapidly in the academic libraries with 25% of the academic libraries already making digitized special collections available electronically. To date less than 5% of public and 1% of school library media centers have digitized collections available electronically. The integration of various electronic information resources (such as local OPAC’s, TexShare, TLC, or other online databases, office software, educational software, Internet search engines) into an easy to use interface is a key issue for most libraries and work has just begun on this issue. Participants in the Education Service Center focus group, for example, indicated that a great deal remains to be accomplished in providing an easy to use, web-based interface that could be used by all school libraries. This finding was echoed in other focus groups as well. The surveyed libraries are uniformly interested in portal developments. Needs for school library media centers include the need for web pages to integrate sources; the need to make resources available through icons on the desktop; the need for resources to be accessible on equipment within the library and throughout campus; and the need for more web page development assistance. Participants from large school districts felt that their staff members need more training on how to integrate the various databases and web resources. They need training on creating web pages, developing and maintaining web portals, and creating local web page links to useful information resources. Focus group participants from other school library media centers emphasized the importance of having easy-to-use web based access to information resources through an interface page. Some also felt that there need to be more pictures added through access to web resources such as the Associated Press website. Web-based catalogs are emerging as a future service in school library media center. Public library focus group participants are also struggling with the lack of an easy-to-use interface for various online information resources. Participants stressed the importance of the web as an important library service tool, but indicated that their local library online resources, Gates Foundation funded software resources, and local community (city or county) networked online resources all have different interfaces. Better access through a uniform web interface would facilitate staff and user access. Current work underway through the ZLOT project points toward resolution of this problem. Other groups and vendors are likely to offer options for public libraries as well. One new program, funded by the Gates



Foundation, is OCLC’s three-year, $9 million dollar project to build a web-based, public access computing portal for public libraries, and other organizations. 1 Academic library focus group participants indicated that academic libraries are employing many different strategies to cope with the access complexity issue. Academic libraries are struggling with the fact that they are increasingly dependent on having a sizable technical staff to integrate products and to handle metering, security, and accessibility. Libraries that lack in-house technical support or excellent external support persons to develop, monitor, and manage the integration of information resources are facing daunting technical challenges. All types of libraries are integrating the various electronic information resources through websites with multiple links; some libraries are creating discipline-specific electronic guides and/or electronic resources pages. Some academic institutions have already created discipline-specific electronic resource guides that dynamically generate updates to their web pages, keeping resource links up-to-date. Security issues are important for libraries and a significant number of libraries reported that library staff members appear to be uncertain of their knowledge of this area. Focus group information from academic and public libraries show that security (virus protection, authentication, protection of personal information, etc.), is an important topic to them now and they believe it will continue to be one of the most important issues for their libraries in the years to come. Survey evidence indicates that not all library staff members are familiar with security and authentication issues as evidenced by the high “do not know” responses from public and school respondents on security related questions. Almost three quarters of the academic and public libraries feel they could improve their remote access for users if the State Library were to provide leadership in this area. School library media center staff in large schools indicated the need for training on security software and school library media centers identified security as one of the important future technology planning issues. In general, libraries are looking for an agency or organization that can provide leadership, guidance, and training in this area. 4. Immediate Technology Needs Texas libraries will need planning help to continually update and upgrade the basic technology platform as new technology and services become available. While Texas libraries have made significant progress through TIFB funding, the survey research results show they are mostly providing the basics and are not yet moving into providing new types of digital and electronic devices for staff or their users. Public libraries provide a basic platform of personal computers and laser printers to staff and users, as do academic and school libraries. Academic library staff members are most likely to use word processing software, e-mail, anti-virus software, web browsers, and spreadsheet software. Beyond this basic profile however, few libraries are providing newer types of technology or more advanced software or equipment. In addition to the basic items listed above, school library media centers are often providing digital cameras, but most school library media centers are not yet purchasing or providing more expensive items such as laptops, Ethernet cards for laptops, PDA’s, pen scanners or DVD burners. Likewise for software, all types of libraries are less likely to use imaging, HTML editing, and web development tools than the more common tools such as word processing and spreadsheets. School library media centers seem to be especially likely to use and support presentation software such as PowerPoint and to desire help in training staff and users on its features.

1 “The portal will address the ongoing needs of public libraries for managing hardware and software, implementing advanced applications, training staff and patrons, and delivering digital library services … www.oclc.org. “ Online, July/August 2002, p. 10.



The focus group participants in large school districts said they want additional hardware, district level access to resources particularly through the web, and software to maintain security. Video streaming capability is needed, as is more bandwidth and wireless access capability for the districts. Participants in focus groups from small school districts indicate that acquiring additional workstations remains a real need along with other peripheral equipment, improved bandwidth, and technology support assistance for web site development. School focus group participants said there are a number of school libraries that still need to be automated. Some campuses have “fallen through the cracks” in terms of basic access. Some districts still have not converted local campus catalogs to automated access. In addition, there is concern with increasing bandwidth requirements, acquiring wireless technology, and replacement of equipment. Participants felt the TIFB grant program should help every school library in the state to be automated. Directors from the Educational Service Centers see a real need for tools that will provide a universal interface to the online resources and also improve subject searching. They also want to see technical service products such as MARC Magician and feel that TIFB could possibly fund this type of product. Public library participants feel the most significant need that they face is to replace hardware on a regular cycle and replace their aging automated systems. Without ongoing support from TIFB, equipment will age rapidly and will be replaced infrequently. In addition, their other critical needs include replacement and upgrades to current software. Public libraries need help in developing stable funding sources, local plus external, to be able to regularly replace outdated equipment, ideally on a three-year cycle. Community College library participants felt that they need more sophisticated technology applications particularly to permit greater connectivity between various types of libraries. Their needs include more high-speed transmission capability and much higher bandwidth. Community colleges reported a willingness to help small communities by linking with public libraries to share information and transmit classes. Community colleges are desirous of receiving more support from their campus technical support departments. More space for instructional rooms is important to community college librarians and they feel that they need to more heavily promote what they already have to improve awareness among their users. Participants from medical and other academic institutions (4 year +) felt that increased bandwidth was very important along with funds to continuously upgrade equipment as well as having access to a varied menu of information resources including full image databases. Their other needs include better wireless capability and more personal digital assistants (PDA’s). Upgrading equipment on a regular cycle is also important. Academic libraries understand the need to be able to manage full image databases and digitizing projects, and they need funds for these activities. 5. Future Technology Needs The following chart shows the top issues expressed as most important by the academic, public and school library media centers in response to the survey question about what they felt were the most pressing technology needs over the next one to three years. The comparison shows that the libraries are most concerned about maintaining the quality of their technology platforms. Libraries also are concerned about being able to hire staff, maintain security, and provide training, adequate bandwidth and more online services.



Table 7 Most Important Technology Needs


Replacing obsolete technology on a regular schedule.



Being able to hire staff with technical skills.

Keeping library equipment secure from viruses.

Improving the level of user skills.

Adding more online information resources.

Having adequate technical support.

Providing adequate security and anti-virus protection for equipment.

Having adequate technical support for our library.

Providing staff with more technical training.

Providing users with technology training.

Having adequate Internet bandwidth for our library.

Coping with the speed of technological change.

Having adequate technical support.

Academic library focus group participants felt that their greatest challenge will be making online resources easier for incoming students to use. The health science related schools felt this is also a very important issue for them because their students have heavy research needs and students need to have familiar tools similar to the ones they used in their undergraduate institutions. Almost universally, academic libraries feel that helping users gain access to online information through a single interface is a critical issue. They are trying to cope with the increasing demands from users for training and instruction; consequently, they need better strategies for making users more autonomous in using and searching online resources. Academic libraries feel they also should have more tutorials for helping users learn on the web. There is a strong interest in determining whether universal interface portals can be employed to reduce the need for users to be trained for typical search routines. The academic libraries feel there is a role for TIFB funding for portals, which may in turn reduce the extreme needs for user training. Participants from small school libraries said that their needs are still more fundamental. They need access to current information (print and electronic), access to current technology, and the opportunity to learn how to use the technology and resources they have. They would like to see laptops available during summer for teachers to check out and more access to video conferencing units where students can use these facilities. The directors from the Educational Resource Centers feel that scanners are important but most agreed that libraries not ready yet to use them effectively. School library media centers are sometimes involved in supporting PowerPoint software; however, these and other higher end applications are frequently coming from the computer labs, not the library. 6. Learning, Education, Training and Staff Development Training opportunities are a critical requirement for all types of libraries. Given the frequency with which focus group participants referred to training needs and the survey data on training, it would be difficult to overemphasize this need. Training needs were consistently ranked among the top three issues for all types of libraries. The public library focus group participants identified a range of staff training needs from basic information on the use of computers and applications to learning about emerging technology applications. The groups preferred that training be offered at basic and advanced levels, supplemented by refresher or update sessions so that library staff have access to the training as it is needed to perform their work assignments. User needs are shifting as they adopt new technology and begin to make greater use of online resources; this shift is placing pressure on library staff to do more to assist and train users. Focus group participants from large school districts were concerned about the need for teachers to become more comfortable with



using online resources and integrating these resources into the curriculum and in guiding their students in using Internet resources. Another major issue, for K-12 librarians as well as academic librarians, is in establishing evaluation criteria and teaching the criteria for evaluation of Internet resources to teachers and students. Teachers need a better understanding of the research process, how to locate information, and how to conduct an effective and fruitful search. Then they need assistance in integrating the resources they find into the curriculum. Teachers are starting to change their traditional teaching methods and they will need different training on the use of research tools. One participant indicated that the new TAKS test is going to be more difficult and more subjective in some areas than TASS and that teachers would need specific help in the areas of finding authentic literature, expository pieces, and visual representations. Students need training in software applications and in learning how to do research in the library using new electronic resources. Students also need to learn criteria so they can evaluate online sources and avoid just taking the easy and quick information off the Internet by limiting their researches to generic search engines. Public library focus group participants felt there were a broad spectrum of training needs for the public that differ based on the group and/or individual (e.g., senior citizens, high school students, etc.). Also, those individuals who are in not school do not typically come to the library with computer knowledge and skills; they need to begin with basic training. The public libraries also need to find a way to move away from the one-on-one training to group instruction using more tutorials on the Web. The demand for training cannot be met solely with one-to-one sessions. Survey and focus group data confirm that the most important public library training needs include using TexShare and other databases, basic Internet use, and e-mail account training. Also, training in software packages such as word processing programs is important, as is assistance with typical tasks such as resume writing and genealogy research. Innovative approaches may be needed to get people to participate in training; for example, information literacy needs to be integrated into the curriculum of the schools. Some ideas from focus groups include that schools should open after hours with “No child left behind money” to train parents to help their children with new technology. Parents should also be included in information literacy training. TIFB funding helps now with after-school-hours operations. Perhaps librarians could be paid to staff buildings for more hours. Retired librarians could be recruited to work and/or school library staff needs could be coordinated with public libraries so that they could work together to address the need for parental training on Internet resources. The survey results show that important training needs for all types of libraries relate to staff and users being able to use the TexShare and online databases. School library media centers gave more importance to training for web design techniques, while public and academic libraries felt training for interlibrary loan activities was important. All types of libraries rated future training needs in a similar manner. Most important future needs were similar to the current training needs. Libraries felt that training to use the TexShare databases, searching the Internet, and using the library’s online catalog are important. Of lesser importance are managing e-mail activities, digitizing images and managing the library’s network. The new technology environment of the Internet drives training needs for the staff, public, teachers, faculty, students, and public users. The most important training needs are to train library staff and users on the availability and use of the TexShare/ TLC databases and related resources. The survey results show that patrons and other Internet users are using online databases and resources. Public library focus group participants particularly stressed the need provide leadership and funding to address training, security issues, and sustainability planning. Public libraries hope that programs can be developed that will enable training to be outsourced to trainers who are well qualified in terms of basic knowledge in order to help public librarians master training requirements. The participants want TIFB to



play a role in determining future training topics and training delivery methods, including the delivery of training to the desktop using state-of-the-art means. Library media center focus group participants all emphasized the need for more training for all staff, most particularly for the librarians. In larger school districts, library media center focus group participants said librarians need training to improve search strategies with online resources and to develop teaching skills, while library aides need basic training in online resources. Small school media center staff said they need training on how to develop web pages and on the use of basic software such as PowerPoint as well as skills training in computer and peripheral troubleshooting. School library media center participants also agreed that there is a significant need for quality training using different approaches such classroom, web tutorials, and videoconferencing. Participants seem to be interested in using distance learning for training delivery; however we cannot assume that distance education training facilities are universally available for training classes. Academic focus group participants noted that the lack of standards for distance education delivery systems would pose a significant stumbling block for libraries in adapting to distance education delivery models. Public libraries would have to adopt standards for interoperability or they would be faced with incompatible systems offered by different vendors. Unlike most academic and school libraries that are part of larger networked systems, public libraries face greater hurdles in participating in standardized statewide delivery systems. They often purchase connectivity from local, independent Internet service providers. Participants in large school districts focus group meetings said that finding space for small group training is often difficult. Staff members want hands-on training, more one-on-one training, and direct assistance as they learn. There also is a concern among school library media personnel with their lack of involvement with instructional technology staff. They feel that better cooperation would improve training. There is a need to bridge the gap between librarians and technologists – to become partners in order to plan and train together. One participant said, “things run better when instructional technology and libraries are better integrated.” Directors of educational service centers emphasized that the key training issues are the lack of training offerings as well as an inability on the part of library staff members to take advantage of training when it is offered; often they do not have a chance to be trained due to workload and scheduling problems. Scheduling of training is very important so that staff can have advance notice and devise ways to attend. The best strategy would be to offer training at the time of need and only when the new skill will be used immediately. Training should be scheduled with recognition of time constraints for staff to attend. On-demand training should be developed to enable school library personnel to fit learning into their schedules by using computer based training, online training and web tutorials. Focus group participants seem ready and willing to use online training, as an alternative to classroom training. Texas libraries need continuous and extensive access to training; although they have begun to use distance education strategies, it will be important that libraries take full advantage of the installed technology base and TIFB’s technology investment to deliver more training to the desktop. While many libraries have used and benefited from TIFB-provided training, it is critical to know that a significant percentage of public and school libraries report they have access to no training. Slightly over 40.9% of the school library media centers, 36% of the public libraries, and 23% of the academic libraries reported no days allocated for training last year. This does not mean that training was not available from TIFB or other sources, but rather that the libraries did not use the training.



Academic libraries and school library media centers have more access to distance learning capabilities than do public libraries. This result may be related to the efforts that have been made to create standardized platforms for the delivery of distance education in higher education and for schools. The barriers faced by public library staff in acquiring the training they need are primarily lack of time available for learning and lack of funds available to pay for all costs related to training. The specific barriers identified include time constraints with limited numbers of staff whose tasks and responsibilities make it difficult or impossible to participate in training; the time available after training to practice what they have learned in training sessions; inadequate training budgets; direct costs for training, travel time; distance to training sessions; and the perceived quality of training available. A major barrier to staff participation in training among academic libraries is the distance that individuals must travel to participate. Academic libraries reported interest in finding other approaches to training such as web-based classes or tutorials. Community college library participants would like to see network-training sites. Use of voice/web conferences and more access to virtual training options such as the distance-learning program from AMIGOS were also mentioned as alternatives to face-to-face training. A number of school library media center participants from different size libraries said the most significant barrier is time to schedule training because of the requirements of the library work schedule. This was a particular issue for staff from small school districts. ESC Directors concurred that time, workload, and the distance to training sessions were barriers. Barriers include the fact that the school day does not allow time off for training. Often it is not possible to get release time nor hire a substitute; typically the schools are not paying people for training time. Other participants indicated that while time and location of training is a barrier for some library staff, finding space for small group training on-site is also difficult. ESC Directors said that a commitment by administrators in viewing the library as part of curriculum development team would also help foster more support for training. 7. Impact of TIFB Funding The data clearly indicate that TIFB funding can be used to create incentives and matching requirements so as to encourage local entities to assume funding responsibility for library technology services. TIFB funds have had a pronounced impact on the service delivery and the technology platform for all types of libraries. Public libraries have been able to leverage the TIFB funds in more cases than either academic or school libraries, but all types of libraries have been successful in leveraging TIFB funds to either attract additional funding or to establish collaborative partnerships with other entities. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of public libraries, 15% of academic libraries, and 9% of the school library media centers said they were able to leverage additional funds as a result of TIFB funds. Forty-six percent (46%) of public libraries, 17% of academic libraries, and 5% of school library media centers said they had been able to obtain other grants from other sources as a result of TIFB funds. Forty-two percent (42%) of public libraries, 30% of academic libraries, and 10% of the school library media centers said they had established partnerships with other community organizations as a result of TIFB funds. Forty-two percent (42%) of public libraries, 30% of the academic libraries, and 11% of school media center libraries said they had partnered with other TIFB eligible entities as a result of TIFB funds. Participants in the focus groups from large school districts agreed that TIFB funding has made significant changes in their use of technology and access to resources and expanding services. One participant said “I don’t think we would be in 21st century if we didn’t have it.” TIFB funds have changed library service. All libraries said they are serving more students than a year ago. Sixty-five percent (65%) of academic libraries, 72% of school library media centers, and 71% of



public libraries say they are seeing more school students using the library than a year ago. Survey Question C 40 a. The impact for the schools included “being really able to prepare kids for college” and having an open system where students have 24/7-access and are not bound geographically. As an example, TIFB money has paid for laptops for every teacher in one district. TIFB funds have meant that schools have better hardware including quality printers. Focus group participants believe that “many schools would not have an automated library if not for TIFB funding.” Participants from small school library media centers said the TIFB funding has been essential in providing new equipment and upgrades to existing equipment, but also in strengthening services to students, teachers, and the community. Librarians are able to work directly with students all the time and can teach access to OPAC in the library and computer laboratory. Some libraries now have extended library hours in the evenings for students, teachers, and community members. In addition, some have been offering computer classes to business people and seniors in community. Others said that teachers have been able to be very progressive in integration of technology and information using TIFB funded resources. For example, libraries are acquiring digital cameras that can be checked out for use by teachers. Public library focus group participants indicated that TIFB funding has been essential to their libraries in implementing and supporting the use of technology as well as having access to specific resources such as TexShare. The participants expressed many of the same views regarding the difference that this funding has made for their libraries. There is agreement that TIFB has meant increased availability of hardware and software. One participant said, “I wouldn’t have computers at all if not for TIF.” More people are being served now. One focus group participant from a small public library reported that library visits, principally as a result of TIFB equipment availability, jumped from 500 – 4000 per month. This anecdotal information is consistent with the results from the surveys showing there has been an increase in the number of students using the library. Some said the mix of those coming to the library has changed. There are new and different types of library users: more teenagers; more people doing job searches and resumes; and more unemployed people coming who have lost access to their work computers. TIFB has also meant that many libraries were able to update aging equipment with newer computers that could run modern software and access online resources, a factor that likely attracted new users. The academic libraries participants said that TIFB has made a huge difference in libraries having access to the technology that permits delivery of new services and more resources at lower costs. TIFB had allowed Texas libraries – which were way behind other states in the integration of database resources - to catch up and stay abreast; “if it wasn’t for TIFB we’d be 30 years behind.” TIFB has brought collaboration that has saved money. Collaboration has been an important benefit in closing the gaps between the haves and have-nots. TIFB has been a great equalizer by providing funds for the broad population to have access to technology. Collaboration on TIFB grants has been important in bringing together different types of libraries and in helping libraries cooperate with different agencies and community groups. Participants in the academic/medical public health focus group said that the impact of the TIFB funding has been considerable on their institutions, providing support to upgrade machines, provide wireless technology and servers and, most importantly, access to TexShare and other databases. They have been able to develop digital reference service and employ wireless technology in some libraries. A number of libraries said they were able increase library services at the same time as staff has been reduced and that they had managed this because of technology. Patrons now get better service and it takes less staff time. A participant noted that it has long been difficult to meet the biomedical information needs in rural and west Texas; TIFB funding has helped to improve this situation, although not all needs are being met.



8. Sustainability Sustainability and security are key future issues. For the future, replacing equipment, security concerns, and training for users and staff are important library issues. Having funds for equipment is the critical sustainability issue for all types of libraries. It is most important to maintain the current levels of computing access. Looking to the future, all types of libraries said that that keeping up with equipment replacement in the next one to three years will be the most important issue facing their libraries. School library media center focus group participants from large school districts said that public access barriers in the schools included security; lack of sufficient numbers of computers; the technical issues around connectivity in old buildings; sufficient physical to accommodate adequate workstations; and the need for improved support and better, more collaborative relationships with the information technology support staff. Based on responses from the focus group participants, TIFB funding has provided an incentive for a number of public libraries to seek out new partners and collaborative opportunities although this is not yet highly developed or completely successful. Public library focus group participants wanted TIFB to provide leadership in determining what is needed on security and to help with training to address security for individual libraries. One of the major problems for public libraries is the inability to establish a replacement policy for equipment. This is a problem for a number of reasons; city budgets do not necessarily have established policies for replacement funds and, in some cases, there is not an understanding by city officials of the need to replace expensive equipment on a regular basis. Libraries most often compete with other city or county departments for scarce funds and cannot count on cyclical replacement of outdated equipment. Some libraries, particularly public libraries, also may treat TIFB equipment differently than locally funded equipment in terms of maintenance or replacement. A majority of Texas libraries rely on their own institutions to supply technical support and the majority of the libraries responding in the surveys felt their technical support is adequate. For the future, however, all libraries express concern that having adequate technical support and access to staff with technical skills will be critical. School library personnel in particular expressed the need for closer collaboration with IT personnel. 9. Awareness Creating broader awareness of the new online resources and services is an unfinished job. Directors from the Educational Service Centers identified as one of the most significant barriers the reality that teachers do not recognize the value of using online resources and that there is a general lack of knowledge of what is available online. This lack of awareness is further fostered by the fact that some classrooms have only one computer in the classroom, so students don’t have access at the point of need; and in many schools there are still too few computers, and some that are too old. Public libraries also report that public awareness of the contributions of TIFB funding to library technology and resources is not common. As well, academic libraries see the need to broaden and deepen awareness of TIFB funded resources. The Communication Plan Study conducted by the Center for Media Training summarized their findings with regard to awareness and their findings fit with the results and findings from the Needs Assessment study on the problems of creating awareness: A paraphrase of the Communication Plan’s findings are as follows:

• Librarians do not always inform patrons about the existence of the databases, possibly because librarians have very limited time to work closely with patrons.



• Many patrons accessing services are not aware they are using a component of TexShare, because libraries use their own gateway pages.

• Librarians say a lack of knowledge about specific databases is an obstacle. The need for further

training at the local level is apparent.

• Signage does not advertise the TexShare databases.

• Explaining TexShare in understandable terms is difficult.

• Funding is limited for public awareness activities across the state.2

2 Center for Media Training. TexShare Communication Plan, Austin, TX, August 26, 2002, p. 5.



Section V: Key Conclusions from the TIFB Needs Assessment Data Gathering 1. Introduction In developing the study conclusions and recommendations, the Needs Study Team has attended to the priorities defined by the TIF Board in the analysis of data and formation of recommendations.1 The Needs Study Team feels the following discussion is in line with the TIFB Board priorities and suggests practical methods of extending the reach and impact of these established priorities. 2. TIFB Funds as An Agent of Change The data gathered in the course of this study leave no doubt that the grant programs designed and adopted by the TIF Board, in cooperation with the working groups and the TIFB staff, have promoted rapid, in many cases, comprehensive change in libraries throughout the state. Participants in the focus groups and the TIFB Forum attested to this fact unambiguously and in detail, and survey results support the same conclusion. The centerpiece of innovation has been the implementation of the TIF-supported TexShare/TLC online resources to Texas libraries. These online resources and the other technology resources provided through the TIFB grant program have had the effect of promoting significant innovation in grantee libraries and their organizations.

1 TIFB Board Governing Principles and Priorities (February 2002) *TIFB serves disadvantaged, diverse populations that the private sector does not serve; *TIFB programs focus on connecting people, and on providing people with the technological tools – and training necessary to use tools—needed for the 21st century; *The TIFB Board facilitates the implementation of technology by providing vision and leadership, as well as by encouraging leadership among its constituents; *TIFB programs enable low-cost equal access, while encouraging local solutions to local problems; *TIFB encourages programs that are replicable and have wide application; *TIFB Board gives priority to rural and underserved urban areas; *TIFB promotes collaborative efforts; *TIFB funded programs supplement but do not supplant other efforts or programs; *TIFB programs are problem-solving oriented, and encourage the use of technology to develop new solutions to old problems; *TIFB functions, not as entitlement, but as a catalyst for the deployment of technology and to facilitate the development of strategies of sustainability. Based on these principles, the Board priorities for both funding and allocation of time for FY 2001-02 are (listed in order of priority):

1. Ensure access to technology in under-served areas. 2. Develop and promote strategies to address sustainability. 3. Provide professional development for all constituents. 4. Identify policy issues, including broadband, “last mile,” and distance learning, and develop

strategies to collaborate with other agencies to propose solutions. 5. Support appropriate technology applications, which address the demonstrated needs of

underserved populations. 6. Fund third party programmatic evaluation. 7. Leverage funds through public/private/philanthropic partnerships. 8. Educate the policy sector on effective technology investments. 9. Reinvest in the most promising strategies. 10. Set technical standards to promote efficiency, reliability and interoperability. 11. Compile and promote a clearinghouse of evaluated best practices. 12. Incorporate outreach opportunities into agency activities.

Source: http://www.tifb.state.tx.us/board/Governing%20Principles.htm

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Section V – Page 1 University of North Texas


TIFB funds have brought resources, (notably TexShare/TLC online resources) to institutions and environments where these resources have not existed before and have increased cost effective access to resources where libraries had already invested in networked information. School librarians, public librarians, and academic librarians consistently pointed out that TIFB funds brought their library service “out of the dark ages.” The collaborative purchase and availability of TexShare/TLC online resources along with enhanced Internet connectivity and network expansion is, however, just the first major step in the innovation/adoption process to significantly increase technological access to information for all Texans. It is not the conclusion of this process. In order to sustain and equitably build out the statewide library network infrastructure that TIFB has successfully funded to date, the Needs Study Team concludes that TIFB should seek to extend its mandate beyond the initial ten-year legislative term. Without continuing support from TIFB (or another similar state body) local libraries will not be able to maintain the significant, demonstrable improvements in public access to the Internet and access to a wide array of both state and locally funded electronic library resources that have gone online as a result of TIFB. The basic networked services now enjoyed by residents almost universally across the state through public, school, academic, and health science libraries would degrade rapidly, especially in areas or localities where TIFB was the catalyst for initial electronic library development.2 Focus group and survey data show libraries will be unable to sustain their current technology resources without additional funding from state sources. Local funds alone will not be capable of sustaining technological innovation in most communities and institutions. Likewise, libraries that have used TIFB funds to leverage and protect prior local investment would revert to a limited service model. TIFB grant recipients also share a responsibility to sustain and build on the innovation achieved to date. Sustainability will be, by necessity, a partnership of libraries, their funding agencies, external funding agencies, state and federal funding agencies, and the TIF Board. Therefore, a key issue for the next few years will be developing the next generation of TIFB grants so that they focus more on sustaining the innovation already achieved within grantee organizations and more deeply integrating networked services into everyday library operations, rather than solely on promoting more innovation. These preliminary recommendations and the suggestions for grant programs focus on this central theme of ongoing sustainability. 3. Broaden Adoption and Utilization A second key conclusion derived from the study data is the need for the TIFB program to focus on ways to deepen and broaden the utilization by all Texans of the technology innovations provided through the TIFB grant funding. There must also be a concerted effort to ensure that users in all types of libraries learn about the availability and capability of the new technologies and online resources made available via TIFB. Until the public becomes much more aware of these resources, the innovation cycle remains incomplete. The recently released TexShare Communication Plan and the TexShare databases have the potential to reach massive audiences through libraries: 478 public library libraries with 17,900,000 users; 52 community colleges with 647,000 users; and 94 four-year institutions with 438,000 users. The Communication Plan study surveyed libraries, and similar to the Needs Assessment study, found that . . .“over 70% of the public librarians . . . in the telephone survey and all of the academic librarians 2 The recent ZLOT Survey confirms that smaller libraries, generally are the later adopters of technology, and are significantly more likely to lack a replacement equipment strategy. (Source: Murray and Moen. Project Deliverable B: Technology Inventory and Assessment. August 2002.) Many libraries who received TIFB funding to automate are in this category and therefore at greater risk of obsolescence.



rated access to the databases from “important” to “critical” for their patrons. Similarly, nearly 60% of the public libraries and all of the academic libraries reported they actually use the databases either “frequently” or “all the time.” The Communication Plan study goes on to note:

“In the first year of the expanded database program, July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2002, estimates reveal that the 634 libraries participating in the program would have paid $602,022,000 to purchase the database subscriptions and e-book collection that were purchased by TSLAC (through a grant from TIFB) for under $11,000,000. The database subscriptions, if purchased individually, would have cost participating libraries over $129 million. The e-book collection would have cost these libraries more than $473 million. “3

At the center of this issue is the importance of providing accessible, ongoing training for users and for library staff. The importance of this cannot be overemphasized. Sustained, effective, and comprehensive training for staff and users in all types of libraries will unlock the full benefit of the TIFB funded resources. Hand-in-hand with training, the Needs Study Team believes that a program to build citizen awareness is critical to sustaining TIFB’s innovations. The Needs Study Team believes that educating users and library staff is paramount if full benefits from TIFB’s investment are going to be realized. Training is interpreted in a broad manner here, including making quality documentation readily available and designing excellent online presentation of electronic resources. Shifting rapidly toward desktop training delivery, with appropriate support and documentation, will be the next step for TIFB in helping grantees take full advantage of TIFB resources.4 4. The Need for Equity A third conclusion involves the need for TIFB to address the equity issue by reckoning with a significant but diminishing number of libraries, principally smaller school libraries and public libraries, that are not yet benefiting from the resources available from TIFB grants. A special effort should be mounted to ensure access equity by finding innovative strategies to connect all eligible libraries. The Needs Study Team believes that a successful effort to connect the remaining libraries will be most likely to succeed if it is mounted in close collaboration with larger libraries and/or community networks that have several years of experience with the TIFB grant process. 5. Security Needs A fourth conclusion is that libraries need special support and assistance in the near term to better manage the security of resources purchased or licensed with TIFB funds. Needs related to security have begun to emerge as more equipment has gone online in libraries and more resources are available via the web. TIFB has a role to play in helping libraries effectively secure the state’s investment in equipment, software, databases, and related assets by leading a program to educate and inform TIFB grantees about their security responsibilities and to help identify practical strategies for guarding hard assets as well as personal patron data.

3 Source: TSLAC 4 Needs Assessment Survey data confirm that training issues were among the top concerns for all the libraries.



Section VI: Recommendations 1. Introduction The Needs Study Team summarizes the recommendations in eleven broad categories. The recommendations are focused on two important issues: developing planning strategies for the sustainability of the current technology platform and creating equity of access for all libraries and thus for all Texans. 2. Key Recommendations The following recommendations are discussed in the following section. The last section of the report discusses the near term grant programs that might be developed to begin to address these recommendations.

• Sustainability • Security • Planning • Anywhere/Anytime Access • Incentives • Training • Awareness • Measurement • Collaboration and Leveraging • Equity of Access • Proven Practices

Obviously, Texas libraries have many needs, only some of which can be addressed by TIFB funding. Over the longer term, the Needs Study Team recommends that the Library Working Group channel its energies into finding ways to work with TIFB and the broader library community to implement these recommendations. Where appropriate we have linked related recommendations that should proceed in tandem. Sustainability Recommendations Changes in library infrastructure, information content, and staffing requirements have been so large and sweeping that the time horizon for full integration will stretch at least another 10 years into the future. As access to the Internet and online resources increasingly becomes a “public good” there must be a means to sustain these resources equitably for use by all Texans.

• As a first priority, the Library Working Group should endeavor to secure for the foreseeable future the funding needed to maintain the foundation components of TexShare and TLC databases where the foundation is the content, the hardware, and connectivity to access online databases. The importance of these resources to Texas libraries is primary; in order for libraries to adequately serve library users, there must be continuity in the funding of these resources. Loss of these resources would severely erode and restrict access to modern electronic information resources provided through libraries.1 Therefore, local libraries working in tandem with relevant state agencies and other stakeholders so that everyone is co-responsible will ensure that Texas

1 For 60% of the libraries that responded to the Needs Assessment Survey, those libraries are the only free local community access points. Therefore, equity of access over the long term is closely related to sustainability planning.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Section VI – Page 1 University of North Texas


libraries have the technology base, the content, and the skills needed to provide modern, sustainable, networked library services for all residents.

• A first step in creating a sustainable infrastructure model should be the provision of “planning for

sustainability” grants to existing TIFB grantees. The TIFB grant program should establish some funds for a library grantee equipment replacement planning strategy. While it is not feasible for the state to be responsible for all local equipment needs, state funding sources such as TIFB grants must play a key role in ensuring continued equitable access to electronic networked information. TIF, or another appropriate state body, must assume a continuing long term commitment to sharing with local entities the ongoing cost of equipment, connectivity, content, and training if the promise of better library service for all residents is to be realized. For example, every TIFB grantee institution could apply for a non-competitive grant in the third year after they received a TIFB grant to cover up to one-third of the replacement/enhancement cost of up to one-third of the TIFB funded infrastructure. However, sustainability is a broad concept and must be understood to include not only hardware upgrades, but bandwidth upgrades, software enhancements, adequate human resources, and a stable ongoing funding model.

• Given the rapidly expanding bandwidth requirements, particularly for academic and community

college libraries, the TIFB Library Working Group should convene a “Library Bandwidth Forecasting Summit” for the purpose of identifying and forecasting library bandwidth needs through 2008.2 This will give the Library Working Group better information to give the TIFB Board regarding bandwidth needs of the library community as part of the overall TIFB planning for connectivity. This could take the form of regional planning sessions and/or a teleconference to provide TIFB library grantees an input method and a worksheet to help them forecast bandwidth needs. In addition, the Library Working Group should endeavor to find out what other groups in the state are involved in forecasting in order to save time and coordinate efforts with other stakeholders.

• All sustainability planning should carry a collaborative component. The success of the

TexShare/TLC database model based on shared access to expensive resources is the right model for Texas libraries as they look to sustainability of equipment and infrastructure as well as content and training.

Security Recommendations The ability of many TIFB library grantees to adequately manage security issues shows signs of being outstripped by the pace of technological change.3 The rapid deployment of modern electronic networked information resources and services has brought into sharper focus the need for a broad statewide approach to ensuring the critical library systems and information resources are secure from physical or virtual damage.

2 Among school libraries, Needs Assessment Survey data seem to show that the Internet is emerging as the favored delivery system for distance learning. As distance-learning curricula increase in sophistication, bandwidth requirements will grow. Likewise, distance education capability is only present in 29% of public libraries. If public libraries are to be fully integrated into the education and information delivery network, adequate bandwidth must be available. 3 “Providing the level of security that is expected of the public sector is another major hurdle. The success of 3-govement will ultimately rest on the ability to protect the public interest and build public trust. TexasOnline therefore offers participating governments the highest levels of security and privacy possible. In this area, no cost has been spared, implementing isolated networks, multiple firewalls, continuous intrusion detection and response, multiple levels of encryption and physical and logical segregation of services” (Source: Texas Department of Information Resources / TexasOnline Program http://www.dir.state.tx.us/egov/Program/overview_main.htm#4)



• The Needs Study Team believes that the Library Working Group can build on the ground breaking model of the TIFB community networking grants by adding grant requirements to mandate that participating institutions collaboratively develop sustainability strategies that will be mutually supportive. The Needs Study Team found a “silo” effect even within some institutions that had TIFB grants in more than one unit, but where intra-institutional collaboration was absent.

• Provide a grant program to assist libraries to master the capability to directly advise and assist

TIFB library grantees with a wide array of technology related security issues to ensure the integrity and viability of TIF’s investments in infrastructure. All types of libraries would benefit from this security initiative.4 It would be practical to address this in the framework of the proposed sustainability planning grants. In addition, the library community should work together to provide training for security and/or partnering with TIFB library grantees and/or other state agencies to issue practical security guidelines and strategies that could be effectively implemented locally. There is also a role (through the State Library) for central management of certain authentication mechanisms that can solve some security problems for libraries.

Planning Recommendations The rapid change in the fundamental library service platform brought about by the integration of new computer and networking equipment, new types of connectivity, and new information delivery models, such as TexShare and TLC, coupled with changing and expanding expectations of network savvy library users, brings into focus the need to help libraries update their planning model to reflect these new realities.

• Provide planning grants that help the different types of libraries define appropriate basic technology platforms for modern effective information delivery and manipulation to most effectively exploit the networked infrastructure and online content funded by TIFB. At a minimum, the Needs Study Team believes that Texas libraries should offer library users the following basic platform:

Commercially vended electronic library resources that are carefully chosen and available

anytime and anywhere through the library. Currently, the TexShare and TLC databases are seen as the minimum platform.

An up-to-date integrated library system that supports national and international technical

standards for interoperability, either standalone or shared,5 with cataloged library resources maintained in standard formats.

An easy to use, web-based search and retrieval interface application that integrates

externally acquired resources seamlessly with those of the local library collection, in all formats. It is critical that the Library Working Group work closely with other stakeholders to integrate findings in this area that flow from the Library of Texas ZLOT Project so that TIFB libraries can take early advantage of approaches explored and developed by that project.

Library facilities equipped on-site with sufficiently up-to-date workstations and related

infrastructure to be able to deliver full-text electronic information, including images and

4 The Needs Study Team found, for example, that libraries’ willingness to provide remote access to TexShare databases increased with the potential of having secure authentication through a state provided server. 5 The Needs Study Team believe that over the long-term, shared integrated systems will serve smaller libraries well, where equipment and expensive technical expertise can be shared across several institutions.



sound, whether maintained on a local server or acquired from other sources, locally or to remote sites, in a secure system environment resulting in speedy electronic delivery of information in the library, to the home, office, school or other location of the user’s choice.

Anywhere, Anytime Access Recommendations The new paradigm for information access is rapidly shifting to an “anytime/anywhere” model, requiring libraries to change their traditional service model from “will get it for you as soon as we can and you are welcome to pick it up at the library” to a new model that endeavors to deliver information the user wants at the time and place that the user chooses.

• It is important to ensure that Texas libraries can acquire, store, manage, and provide wide access to a broad array of high quality, credible, carefully selected and well organized electronic information resources, whether locally produced or procured from external vendors.

• The Library Working Group should request a grant to identify the remaining problems associated

with providing remote access to TexShare and TLC databases and resolve these problems through collaboration with the managers of the programs, the Texas State Library, and the Texas Education Agency. Failure to resolve these problems will hamper the use of these resources outside the walls of libraries; eventually external use of these databases will dwarf in-house use, but only if remote access is reliable, easy-to-use, and well supported. It may be desirable to fund a short-term 24/7 toll-free remote access hotline to track down, isolate, and resolve remote access problems.

• The Library Working Group, building on the data from the Needs Assessment Surveys, should

communicate to the TIFB Board the emerging broadband needs in the library community through 2008. The penetration of this technology into libraries is uneven; grantees’ ability to deliver images and audio/video resources will not advance unless libraries adequately plan now about how build out this capability. Obviously library connectivity enhancements will depend in part on the speed of adoption of this technology in other TIFB eligible entities and on the availability of local funding. For public libraries, in particular, attention to this issue will be critical since most public libraries do not operate within a larger Internet structure such as THEnet (Texas Higher Education Network).6 7 Academic and school libraries are more likely to be connected to the Internet via larger umbrella service providers. Public libraries are often purchasing service from independent ISPs.

• Coordinate the resolution of remote access problems with virtual reference training for library staff

members who serve remote library users so that users who do not physically come to libraries can receive the same standard of assistance and support that on-site users receive. While training and support of library users in the library is fairly well understood, the process of assisting, training, and supporting remote library customers needs careful attention if off-site library users are to receive high quality service. A practical strategy would be a TIFB grant

6 See the Lonestar Broadband web site for specific examples of how rural communities have addressed the emerging issues connected with gaining adequate bandwidth to provide up-to-date services. The LWG should consider some of the specific strategies used by these communities to generate ideas for sustainability planning in regard to Internet connectivity. (Source: Lonestar Broadband. Policy research project on telecommunications and economic development in Texas managed by the LBJ School of Public Affairs. URL: http://www.lonestarbroadband.org/html/aboutus.htm) 7 The LWG should review the strategies recommended by the Public Utility Commission. See the presentation: Broadband Task Force Meeting, Strategies for Making Texas a Leader in Broadband Deployment, March 20, 2002 (URL: www.tea.state.tx.us/technology/etac/campus_txstar ) (PowerPoint – Download only)


http://www.tea.state.tx.us/technology/etac/campus_txstar


training initiative (perhaps Discovery Grants) focused on the development and delivery of virtual reference services.

Incentive Recommendations There should be more incentives and matching requirements, as well as clear grant guidelines, to encourage local entities to assume funding responsibility for library technology services.

• TIFB grant guidelines should clearly state that TIFB equipment will be treated the same as local

equipment for purposes of maintenance and replacement.8 In the longer term the use of matching funds and the inclusion of incentives into grants that reward upgrade and maintenance will result in a more sustainable library service platform. Follow-up on this aspect of the grant cycle in evaluating project outcomes will be important. There is evidence in some instances that TIFB funded resources are not necessarily maintained nor replaced in tandem with locally funded resources, but rather are seen as one time equipment acquisition. Focus group participants commented that their institutions did not in all cases consider TIFB funded equipment to be part of the local responsibility.

• Direct library grant incentives should encourage TIFB grantees to participate in the resolution of

common problems. For example, TIFB grant guidelines could encourage the extension of Internet connectivity to non-networked libraries by funding incentive grants to community colleges or other TIFB libraries who reach out to these un-served entities to help them quality for TIFB funding.

• The Library Working Group should identify those libraries, of any type, that have not received

TIFB funds. The Needs Study Team notes that Texas libraries have almost universally had access to at least some non-competitive grant funds. In those cases where local infrastructure is weak, the Library Working Group should encourage the creation of a grant program to encourage libraries to seek partners or mentor institutions within existing collaborative systems that can work with these libraries at the local level and assist them to connect. Modest incentive grants to larger libraries, especially community colleges, academic libraries and large public libraries, could further this effort. For example, a community college could use such a grant to upgrade their integrated library system so that small school or public libraries could connect to it and use it as their online catalog.

• The Library Working Group should encourage the use of incentives to reward meaningful

measurement and assessment of TIFB funded programs by favoring grantees in upcoming grant cycles if they convincingly outline the concrete benefits that library users and other stakeholders have already received as a result of TIFB funds and/or have a viable plan to conduct an assessment. These incentives ought to focus on expanding and securing existing successes, rather than innovations.

• There should be incentives offered through relevant grant cycles for libraries to collaborate and

share locally developed strategies that effectively organize and present electronic information resources to the end user. While no single “portal” can serve all libraries, the new standard of library access is a friendly, accessible, trustworthy web site that organizes information, selects sites, and provides links to resources. Whether this web site is state funded, sourced elsewhere, and/or locally created and maintained, it will give the user the ability to find and request information easily and quickly from any workstation connected to the Internet. In addition, it will

8 The Needs Assessment demonstrates that TIFB funds have an effect on the ability of libraries to develop other sources of local funds. For example, public libraries reported that TIFB funds helped secure more local funds (city/county), more funds from Friends groups and foundations, and from other sources such as private or business contributions. Source: Question P.58



reduce the need for some types of database training. The outcomes of the ZLOT Library of Texas concept should be evaluated to determine how best to use the results of that project for the early benefit of all libraries. (Source: Murray and Moen. Project Deliverable B: Technology Inventory and Assessment. August 2002.)

• The Library Working Group should urge that new grantees adopt demonstrated “Proven

Practices” as a way to shorten the innovation cycle. TIFB should give priority to library proposals that commit the grantee to implementing proven “best practices.” TIFB can assist grantees to replicate and adapt proven technology innovation strategies by making available on its web site a database of proven Texas-based best practices. This database, to be useful, should be weeded and updated at least annually because programmatic successes age rapidly. (See Appendix VI for Proven Practices)

Training Recommendations The Texas library community is ready for new training approaches that take full advantage of the installed and evolving technology base and TIF’s investment in libraries to date. Study findings point to the need for major changes and improvements in training programs for basic, advanced, and ongoing training focusing on a very broad array of training needs. It is time to rethink programs that provide training and support to TIFB grantees, and indeed to all Texas library/media personnel, to ensure that basic fundamental needs are adequately addressed in a comprehensive way. No single organization can accomplish this complex task. The Needs Study Team recommends that effective library and information related technology training in the future should have these characteristics:

• It should be coordinated statewide and should involve all those organizations and funding agencies that currently provide training services to Texas libraries.

• It should be delivered on demand over the web and/or using other anytime/anywhere methods

such as web tutorials supported by audio conferencing.

• It should be targeted, practical and focused on actual library needs. The Needs Study Team offers an overarching training recommendation and a series of more specific recommendations based on findings from the survey and focus groups. The Overarching Recommendation The Library Working Group should urge TIFB to fund a Library Technology Education Planning Meeting for the purpose of identifying and harnessing collective resources and knowledge to build a long-term, sustainable, and coordinated state-wide program of technology related continuing education. The outcome of this meeting, at a minimum, would be (1) a clear definition of technology education goals for Texas libraries, (2) a description of preferred roles of the various stakeholders, (3) development of a mechanism to coordinate the various existing training efforts into a cohesive program, and (4) a plan for inventorying existing training resources, networks, programs, etc., that can be drawn together in a coordinated training effort. The initial list of organizational participants in such a meeting, at minimum, should include:

• TIFB Library Working Group • TIFB Library Program Officer(s) • Texas State Library (TSL) Staff • System Coordinators/Trainers • Texas Education Agency (TEA) representatives



• Education Service Center (ESC) representatives • Large institutional stakeholders such as major state universities, public library systems, etc. • AMIGOS Library Services • Higher education institutions offering degrees and/or programs in library, information, and media

related fields. • Representatives of foundations or other funders who have an interest in library technology

advancement in Texas. Supporting Training Related Recommendations TIFB training for libraries should recognize at least these four tiers of training:

• Basic training in a specific concept, product, area (PC troubleshooting, web search engines, security concepts, etc.).

• Intermediate/advanced training that would follow an initial introductory skills class or course. • “Refresher” or update training to help staff keep skills up-to-date. • Training on TIFB grant administration and broad policy issues (Filtering, copyright, technology

planning and forecasting, etc.).

• The Library Working Group should recommend that training for libraries be delivered in tiers and modules to cohorts of trainees that would allow trainees to identify what training content and level is most appropriate for each person and ideally to connect with other trainees at their level of skill, creating thereby TIFB Library Learning Communities. For the purposes of this report, “tiers” is defined as various levels of training such as basic, advanced, refresher, etc. “Modules” are defined as training components that stand alone, are well defined, and can be integrated with other modules as needed depending on user requirements. Ideally the content of training modules would be built on standard adult training concepts and could be delivered in several ways, such as online, or in a classroom setting; “cohorts” is defined as a group of learners with similar characteristics and needs who could proceed through training in tandem, creating a mutual learning network. The Library Working Group must first identify the target audiences for training and then recommend that training be addressed to “cohorts” from within those audiences. (Example: School library media specialists in large urban districts constitute a defined target audience.) A cohort of these specialists would be defined within a region, would receive training in tandem, and would be encouraged to collaborate throughout the learning cycle, possibly through online forums and teleconferencing.

• The Library Working Group should work with TIFB funded libraries and other institutions and organizations to help spur the creation and implementation of a variety of technology related training strategies, with an emphasis on desktop delivery of training, at the time and place preferred by the trainee. Wherever possible, the library technology training curriculum should be built around short focused modules and should use or adapt existing materials to save time and money. (See the “Proven Practices” in Appendix VI for illustrative examples.)

• There should be more focus on web-based classes that use local library computer laboratories

and/or standalone computers to deliver content and provide hands-on practice. Findings from both the Survey and the focus groups confirm that the field is ready for this approach.

• At least some web-based training modules should be available 24/7 where feasible. The Needs

Study Team recommends that the successful TexShare database shared purchasing model should be enlarged to include statewide licensing of online training programs for common software packages that are available in may libraries. Initially these training components should



be available to staff and eventually, if proven successful, to all library users. (See the “Proven Practices” in Appendix VI for illustrative examples.)

• The Library Working Group should work with other library stakeholder groups to identify various

target audiences. This will encourage more focused training programs that can be targeted to specific library staff needs. Initial Texas library/media training cohorts should include:

School library media personnel (librarians and support staff). Academic library staff, including community college and medical librarians; examples

of sub-cohorts include: administrators/managers; public service librarians; technical support librarians/staff; support and clerical staff who serve the public or interact with TIFB funded databases. These trainees could be grouped by function and region.

Public librarians and staff; example include administrators/managers; public service librarians and support staff; branch personnel; technical support librarians and staff). Size of institution should be considered in developing the cohorts.

Library stakeholders including trustees, Friends, donors, funders, and city and county administrators who need to learn about TIFB’s many benefits to libraries and Texans.

Information technologists and instructional technologists with whom librarians should closely coordinate. One way to encourage collaboration would be to create a combined cohort from these groups.

• Important training topics, as revealed in the survey and focus groups, that should receive

early attention, center on these areas:

Training on how to use the databases and other electronic resources and how to integrate them into local efforts (Examples: Schools: How to integrate database resources into curriculum and use databases to prepare for TAKS tests; Public Libraries: Teaching users how to use TexShare databases or use library software to create a resume; Academic Libraries: Practical ways to work with faculty to help them learn about and integrate TexShare resources into their courses.)

Security issues (safeguarding and effectively managing and protecting TIFB funded resources, included hardware, software and connectivity.)

Training on information literacy concepts, especially evaluating the credibility and usefulness of electronic information from the Internet and other sources.

Training on how to maintain and update library web sites and make them more user friendly.

Intellectual property issues for staff and for the public/students. Training on how to help the library user quickly learn to use library equipment,

resources, access databases, navigate the Internet, and set up E-mail accounts. Basic PC training and basic Internet resources such as search engines, web

directories, online library catalogs, etc. (Not all libraries need this, but many do, especially those just now introducing electronic resources in their communities.)

Train-the-trainers (covering both adult training concepts and content specific help). Training focusing on special user groups, especially seniors and ESL library users.

(See “Proven Practices” Appendix VI for illustrative examples.)

• Many TIFB libraries cannot do group training for users or library staff during library hours because no local training classroom or training lab exists. The Library Working Group could suggest that TIFB address this training barrier in the following three ways:

Encourage and support the purchase of, or in some specialized areas the

development of, tutorials and self-paced web-based training units for library users that can be administered with the advice and assistance of a staff member who understands the tutorial subject and has already mastered the tutorial.



Inventory existing training resources in the Texas library community (expert trainers, training facilities, training software, training programs or documentation, network delivery methods and gaps) to take better advantage of what has already been accomplished and to distribute existing resources more widely, sharing expertise across library boundaries. Make the inventory available to library administrators and trainers. (See the Overarching Recommendation above for additional information on this idea.)

Offer a grant cycle targeted toward libraries that need to do group or classroom

training, but who lack the space, workstations, and other equipment needed to do so. Grants could be offered to equip these libraries with laptops on a cart that could be stored and used as needed. Successful models of this strategy are in operation in Texas now. A requirement of such a grant would be that the grantee library offer regular training opportunities to external users such as local citizens, other library staff, or teachers and students. Focus groups data show that some libraries must use their existing public access workstations for training, thereby limiting the hours that training can be offered to time slots either before or after library hours.

Awareness Recommendations The ultimate success of a statewide effort to extend broad equitable access to modern electronic resources will be limited unless all Texans know about these resources.

• The Library Working Group should encourage Texas libraries to create a vigorous public information program to inform Texas residents about the availability of high-quality, credible TIFB-funded TexShare/TLC online resources and the Internet connectivity available for all in local libraries. TIFB libraries could work together to inform Texas residents about electronic databases in libraries and promote the widest possible use of these resources. TLA and TEA could be partners in this effort as well as other appropriate organizations.

• The Library Working Group should review the recommendations from the TexShare

Communication Plan and determine a course of action appropriate to working with the Texas State Library and Archives Commission to implement the plan recommendations.

• The Library Working Group should consider piggybacking on the national @ your library

campaign, funded by the American Library Association, to promote and encourage use of TexShare and TLC and to extol the benefits of the equipment, connectivity, and resources funded by TIF.

Measurement Recommendations Broad public and legislative support for expensive public infrastructure development programs requires the recipients of such support, in this case, libraries, to convincingly demonstrate the benefit to Texas through robust and meaningful outcomes-based measurement and evaluation.

• The Library Working Group should work closely with TIFB to strengthen the TIFB grant evaluation process as it pertains to libraries and base future evaluations on user outcomes and performance measures. The Library Working Group should support TIFB to:

• Continue the quality assurance evaluation of grantees and add additional questions

for each grant cycle that assess outcomes beyond the deadline and compliance monitoring requirements.



• Consistently map evaluation outcome questions across grant cycles for ease of comparison and data aggregation.

• The Library Working Group should help enhance the evaluation process for library grantees

to provide feedback that will better show how TIFB’s investment in library technology is working to improve statewide access to electronic resources and is helping the state meet access, educational, and instructional goals.9 The Library Working Group should begin a process of defining outcomes that all libraries can strive to achieve and suggest measurement data points to be systematically collected.

• The Library Working Group should work to strengthen the TIFB technology training directed

to libraries by basing future training evaluations on library technology competencies and/or instructional objectives. For example, pre- and post testing could be implemented so that data can be gathered on the efficacy of training.

Collaboration and Leveraging Recommendations The resource demands dictated by TIF’s mandate to bring broad connectivity and equitable access to high quality information to all Texans will best be met when Texas libraries, working closely together and in cooperation with other stakeholders, discover new ways to build an excellent shared system in the most cost effective and cost efficient way with the least duplication of effort and expenditure.10

• In order to encourage further cooperation among libraries, future library grant guidelines should signal that TIFB favors collaborative proposals for purchase and management of shared integrated library systems. This will extend and enhance the continuing emphasis of TIFB on cooperation among grantees and may lead to more effective sustainability.

• All institutions that receive TIFB funds from more than one grant program should be asked to

ensure that personnel associated with the various TIFB grants meet, talk, and actively collaborate in order to gain maximum benefit from the funding going to the local agency and to reduce redundancy, competition, and duplication of effort. The Library Working Group should ensure that library grant recipients actively reach out to other grantees, within their own institutions and throughout their local area.

• Given the nature of TIFB’s limited staffing, a feasible way to serve the continuing needs of

many grantees for advice, consultation, support, grant development assistance, maintenance, and training, is through contracts or direct grants to larger TIFB grantees to supply these services. The Needs Study Team urges the Library Working Group to recommend that TIFB work directly with experienced grantees to capitalize on their knowledge and skill.11

• The Library Working Group should suggest that there be more collaboration with other state

entities that could have a leveraging effect on the grants that TIFB provides. For example, TIFB, working with TEA, could recommend that school libraries and school library media specialists take an active partnership role in local school technology planning and implementation. Likewise, a similar recommendation should apply to public and academic libraries in their respective technology planning environments.

9 The Needs Study Team will provide the Library Working Group a white paper on evaluation as part of the final report. 10 System is used here in a broad sense, not in reference to a specific brand vendor. 11 Any legal constraints to such contracts would, of course, need to be reviewed.



• The Library Working Group should encourage TIF Board Members, staff, and grant recipients to reach out to Texas county, city, school, health, and university administrators, through relevant professional groups, to inform them of TIFB programs and benefits. In many cases, TIFB grants to libraries have beneficial effects beyond the library that may not be well understood by the public at large. A fact sheet or brochure summarizing TIFB’s accomplishments should be developed as a tool for such contacts. Further, this would be a way to help local administrators understand the state’s expectation of local investment to sustain the infrastructure improvements funded by TIFB. Accomplishments should be described in terms of their impact on actual library users, rather than on institutional objectives.

• The Library Working Group should take the lead in finding new ways to better integrate TIFB

funding with other funding sources include E-rate, Gates Foundation programs, Tocker Foundation grants, and federal Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) funding. At a minimum, the Library Working Group and relevant TIFB leaders could initiate regular consultation with these entities. Alternatively the Library Working Group, working with the Texas Library Association, might host a “Texas Library Funders” colloquium to help identify gaps, reduce funding overlap, and increase integration.

Equity of Access Recommendations From its inception, TIFB has been working toward broad equitable statewide access to modern networked services; while great strides have been made, benefiting Texans of all communities, more work remains to complete the “final mile.”

• Given TIFB’s mandate, the Library Working Group should look for innovative means to help complete the build out of the statewide infrastructure to bring connectivity to all libraries (including the presently unconnected libraries).

• The Library Working Group should work with TIFB and other relevant entities, especially TEA

and TSL, in order to continue efforts to reach as many state residents as possible by bringing connectivity, equipment, and electronic content to every part of the state. In order to complete this library infrastructure build-out, TIFB should focus at least some future funding on identifying and targeting specific library communities of need within the library environment. Thus TIFB grants could be customized to more closely match local needs.

• The grant program should reserve some funding for very specific, broadly applicable

programs that will serve all or most Texas libraries, regardless of what grants they have or have not received. In addition to database funding, two specific areas identified in the Study that fall into this categories include (a) training and (b) assistance with security issues related to equipment and databases. A grant project with specified objectives that address these areas could dramatically improve the situation; therefore many libraries could benefit, even libraries that have not gone through typical grant cycles. For example, a program to license training materials at the state level, available via TexShare, would help all libraries choose high quality training resources.

Proven Practices The speed of change in library related technology applications is accelerating. The Needs Study Team believes that Texas libraries will derive tremendous benefit from the systematic identification and application of existing “Proven Practices.” The Needs Study Team has chosen the term “Proven Practice” in preference to “Best Practice.” In the context of this study, ‘Proven Practice” means a program or service that is well developed and implemented in at least one library. The term “Best Practice” can be confusing unless specific standards are developed. The Needs Study Team has developed a template for describing “Proven Practices” that is used to capture information about the practices that are contained in



Appendix VI. This is the first step toward creating agreed upon standards for what constitutes a “Best Practice.

The LWG should seek a sponsor for the housing and management of a database of “Proven Practices” that are applicable to Texas libraries. Such a repository could help libraries that wish to speed up the implementation of new technologies and applications by using or adapting strategies tried and proven elsewhere. This might be discussed in tandem with other topics at the Library Technology Training Meeting suggested under Training Recommendations above.

The LWG should recommend a format for recording these “Proven Practices” that is

standardized, descriptive, and contains all the information that a library might need to follow-up on learning more about the practice. See Appendix VI for a recommended format. A good next step would be the development more stringent guidelines to apply in including a practice in the “Proven Practices” database. Ideally, a proven practice would be selected for the database only if had been evaluated and is known to be effective based on a real evaluation of its efficacy. (See the web site of the New Jersey Office of Innovative Programs and Schools. This agency has developed straightforward method of identifying and disseminating “best practices” that meet specific standards. This method could be readily adapted for use with TIFB programs. URL: http://www.state.nj.us/education/bp-ss/factsheet.htm)

The development of a “Proven Practices” database for Texas libraries should draw together

existing data and resources on specific practices known to be effective as well as provide a means to gather and make available new practices and ideas that are implemented among Texas libraries. The Needs Study Team has provided a suggested format for documenting proven practices; see Appendix VI for illustrative examples, including a number of useful practices gathered from Texas libraries in the course of this study.



Section VII: Near Term Funding Priorities for Grant Programs 1. Introduction

The next phase of TIFB library grant funding should focus on these key goals in the order suggested:

• Promoting sustainability in hardware, software, information resources, and connectivity among local institutions, including securing the safety of these resources. The Needs Study Team assumes that the Library Working Group has already determined and acted on the paramount need to safeguard the TexShare/TLC database investment.

• Ensuring that all Texans enjoy basic access to electronic technology and information resources

through their schools and libraries by completing connectivity to eligible entities.

• Finding strategies to deepen and broaden the learning opportunities for staff and members of the public that will bring about fuller use of the rich array of electronic resources now available in Texas libraries and that will be added in coming years.

• Achieving greater public awareness and use of TIFB funded online resources, training, and

equipment. 2. Near Term Grant Programs Suggested grant programs that would move toward these goals in the next 12-18 months:

• The Library Working Group should ask TIFB to develop a “sustainability planning grant program” that would provide specific funds to libraries for the purpose of developing a practical sustainability plan that moves toward local funding independence. These planning grants should go to existing grantees and could be either individual grants or collaborative grants. The Needs Study Team sees this as the most critical near term program, assuming that TexShare and TLC databases are securely funded, in light of the current funding outlook in the state. In addition, in order to ensure that sustainable systems are supported by a commitment to training, these planning grants should not only address hard assets requirements, connectivity needs, but training and support as well. A practical strategy might be one where the grant program encourages collaborative sustainability planning grant applications from several institutions in a community that have received prior TIFB grants and may, or may not have collaborated previously.

• There should be a special TIFB “Final Push Challenge” grant program created for the express

purpose of connecting those library entities as yet unconnected. For example, this includes school libraries without computer equipment, an Internet connection, and/or TLC membership; unconnected public libraries and branches; and a very limited number of unconnected academic libraries. TIFB should complete the unfinished statewide library infrastructure to honor the promise of wide access across the state. However, at this stage of the TIFB program, this project should use a collaborative model described above in the recommendations. If libraries have not yet taken advantage of earlier grant cycles, the traditional methods will not be likely to work. Some communities may simply lack the resources to use or apply for TIFB funding unless they are drawn into a shared system or group. The proposed grant program could be managed in close collaboration with existing TIFB library grantees that may be in a position to assist those libraries that are not yet connected. This could be accomplished either by inviting unconnected libraries into collaboration or by managing their connectivity and service needs more directly. For example, a community college might work with an unconnected school library and/or public library in their regions, using a TIFB “Final Push Challenge Grant.” As an incentive to perform this vital

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Section VII – Page 1 University of North Texas


service, the assisting institution might receive priority for other TIFB program grants and/or additional equipment, connectivity, or training.

• The Library Working Group should encourage TIFB to fund a few targeted training goals that

encourage the development and deployment of alternative training delivery methods such as those described above under Training Recommendations. These grants would ideally be awarded to TIFB grantees that have already developed or are developing local training that could be replicated statewide. These grants should go to institutions that already have significant investment in training skills and resources in order to take advantage of existing talent and make training available more rapidly. Likewise, the Library Working Group should urge TIFB to add some online learning databases to TexShare and TLC in order to quickly increase the availability of basic software training at the desktop level.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Section VII – Page 2 University of North Texas

APPENDIX I

FRAMING QUESTIONS


A Needs Assessment of Texas Academic, Public, and School Libraries

Framing Questions and Methods

Draft for Review by TIFB Library Working Group

February 13, 2002

Overview The TIFB Library Working Group (TIF/LWG) provided the University of North Texas Center for Digital Knowledge (TxCDK) User Needs Assessment Study Team with a list of questions that suggested the information wanted by TIF/LWG to help develop recommendations on funding priorities. The study team examined the questions and proposes a number of framing questions that we will attempt to answer through data collection and analysis. We request that the TIF/LWG review the questions below to see if answers to these questions will provide the necessary information to achieve the goal and objectives of this study. Once we have agreement on the framing questions, the study team can then identify specific and appropriate questions to ask academic, school, and public libraries to gather appropriate data. Further, the study team proposes a number of methods and strategies to gather appropriate data. These methods relate to the types of questions needing answers. These are described below. Framing Questions for the Study The following questions reflect the study team’s interpretation of information needed by the TIF/LWG to assist it in developing recommendations for funding priorities. These are intended to be broad questions for which answers will be suggested in the study’s final report. These framing questions will guide the development of more specific questions to gather appropriate data from the three types of libraries. 1. How can Texas libraries maintain the stability and capability of their technology base,

content, and skills over the long term? 2. What is the current level of technological capacity in Texas libraries? 3. What is the state’s role in ensuring that librarians and library staff at all levels have the

appropriate skills? 4. What is the state’s role in ensuring that Texas libraries can complete and maintain an

adequate technological capacity to deliver information services? 5. How can state-funded, centralized information resources be integrated into and

complement locally provided resources?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Appendix I – Page 1 University of North Texas


6. Which are the appropriate organizations to develop and deliver various levels of support to ensure long-term maximum integration and use of state-provided information resources and technology?

7. What user groups are common across the different types of libraries? 8. What are the most common categories of users information requests? 9. What are the key baseline conditions for librarians and library staff that will best support

access to and effective use of technology-based information resources? 10. What conditions must be present for users to make the most effective use of technology-

based information resources? 11. What types of training do librarians and library staff members need to deliver technology

based information resources? 12. What are the long-term training and support requirements? 13. Who should have primary responsibility for coordinating the training and retraining of

librarians? 14. What are the appropriate levels and types of training that should be made available? 15. How can Texas libraries take advantage of existing “best practices” in training and support

from within the state or elsewhere? Types of Data and Methods to Collect the Data The study team identified four areas of data collection reflecting different types of data to be collected to address the questions above. The different types of data require different data collection strategies. 1. Data relating to technology and capacity.

These are generally “how much” type questions, and the data can be collected through online or faxed surveys to the libraries. Data will include:

• The installed platform of technology at different libraries and types of libraries • A snap shot of the present state of library technology capability. • Funding sources for technology (size of budget) • Indication of future needs

2. Data relating to user needs by categories of users.

These are generally “what kinds” of questions that can help identify tools and resources needed to answer user information needs. The strategy is to define needs in relation to available online resources to understand the match or mismatch between needs and provision. Data will be gathered through a process of obtaining lists of “frequently asked questions” from libraries for questions asked by different categories of users. This data



gathering process will depend on reports from librarians related to their experience with users.

3. Data relating to training and accessibility.

These are generally “how much” and “what kinds” of questions to find out the extent to which librarians are training, the training that has been given and what training is needed. What training methods and tools are they using and whether any of these can be adopted more widely? Data will be collected through focus groups, group telephone call-in sessions, and other types of interviews. Reference will be made to existing CE studies (if they exist).

4. Data related to “best practices” and “models”

These are generally “what are others doing” types of questions to see what can be replicated in Texas. This data gathering process will depend on interviews and data gathered from other states and library agencies.


APPENDIX II

SUMMARY OF FOCUS GROUP TRANSCRIPTS


Focus Group Script In-Depth Inquiry

April 6, 2002

The Needs Assessment Team will carry telephone focus groups with selected librarians to explore and understand the needs of library staff and library users in greater detail. The Principal Researchers will contact and interview by telephone representatives drawn from the list of all previous TIFB grantees. For each library type, the Principal Researchers will set up and conduct up to three dial in teleconference calls to adequately accommodate each of the grantee populations. The following is a draft script and questions that will guide the focus group sessions.

1. In your opinion what are the critical information technology training needs in your library in coming 12-24 months?

a. Staff b. Public training needs for public access computer resources

2. Barriers to staff getting training? 3. Barriers to public access?

4. Classes related to information technology currently offered in your library?

5. Classes requested by the public that you do not currently offer? 6. Who are the trainers? How are they trained?

7. When and how should training be offered for trainers?

8. Who needs to be trained next?

9. After initial training, what is needed in regard to follow up?

10. Good programs to copy or adapt locally that they have seen?

11. Are there other assessments we should review (local)?

12. What documents and/or other training materials are needed to support training?

13. What have been the principal effects of TIFB funding on your library?

14. What are the most pressing information technology related needs in the next 12-24 months in

your library? Why are they critical to you and your library?

15. Does your library integrate the various electronic information resources (such as your local OPAC, TexShare TLC, or other online databases, office software, educational software, Internet) into an easy to use interface for the library user? If so, how are you accomplishing this now?

16. What do you personally consider to be the fundamental technology related services and/or

products that libraries of your type and size should offer?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Appendix II – Page 1 University of North Texas


SUMMARY Focus Group Notes

Education Service Center May 13, 2002, 2 – 3:30 pm

1.a Staff critical information technology training needs? The responses show that there is a lack of training available and an inability to take advantage when training is available because of workload and scheduling problems. Participants acknowledge that there are significant training needs for library staff, most particularly for the librarians. Train the trainer sessions would be useful. Participants’ comments:

• On going training is needed, some staff may know how to use databases but have not transferred knowledge to their other staff; 50% do not have training.

• Larger libraries may send one person for train the trainer classes. Multiple campuses within the district need training for library staff.

• Training needed in other modalities, such as online tutorials, but no assessment done to date of district’s readiness for this.

• Great need for training, but no time to go to training sessions due to workload/schedule. • Librarians need training, but several libraries face severe funding problems and are doing away

with librarians altogether. • Could be more effective if she had training on more topics. Because of grants her libraries have

gained access to Internet resources. • Aides need training on Texas Library Connection (TLC) databases. • Library media specialists may know how to use the databases, but they are not able to transfer

this knowledge to their staff; they are supposed to train their local staff but this does not seem to be happening.

• Needs training for herself and one aide. But time to do training is the key problem. She has no time to go to meetings.

• Videoconferencing rooms are available in most schools and this might be an option for delivering training.

• More training using methods other than face-to-face, such as online tutorials Maybe online tutorials would work.

• Need training on databases and software. 1.b Public training needs for public access computer resources? There does not as yet appear to be a strong program on how to teach students and teachers about the online library resources. The need for this type of training is not widely understood by district librarians. In some cases, the libraries prefer to use the “train the trainer” model. Participants’ comments:

• Librarians not passing information along in a formal way and do not have opportunities to transfer new skills to faculty; students learn from librarians one-on one.

• Training materials are customized or adapted for each individual or group. • Training focuses on database, not hardware. • Adapting training materials they receive from other sources.

2. Barriers to staff getting training? Participants indicated that the key barriers are lack of time, workload, distance to training sessions, and lack of commitment by administrators in viewing the library as part of curriculum development team. Participants’ comments:

• Lack of time due to workload and scheduling.



• When there is commitment from administrators to importance of the library in relation to the curriculum, librarians are proactive.

• Lack of funding for training is a barrier. • A three-hour trip is too long to get to a training session. • Librarians who see themselves as part of the teaching community fit in and make a difference,

others do not. 2.b. What about the use of TIFB databases and equipment. Are there barriers? The main barriers are lack of knowledge as to what is available. Also, another barrier is the lack of computers so that students can get to the Internet when they need to use it. Participants’ comments:

• Lack of knowledge on part of teachers about what is available and what is possible. • TIFB has given a lot of money, but teachers may have only one computer connected to the

Internet and students do not yet have point-of-need access. • Lack of computers in the classrooms. • Aides as trainers may not work; if doing training, aides begin to look like certified library

specialists. 3. Barriers to public access? Participants’ comments:

• Lack of knowledge; aren’t aware of what is available online. • Some classrooms have only one computer - the teacher’s computer --so students don’t have

access at point –of-need. • Too few computers and those are very old.

4. Classes related to information technology currently offered in your library? Participants’ comments:

• No classes. • Aides do not do training though they could. • Aides training has a downside – downgrades the jobs of library media specialists.

5. Classes requested by the public that you do not currently offer?

NA 6. Who are the trainers? How are they trained? Participants’ comments:

• Primarily one staff person provides training – “Databases 101”. • Recruits some of the best librarians to do training on a contract basis. • Training is offered for TexShare, Gale Resources and MARC (to help use the Cataloging

resources.) 7. When and how should training be offered for trainers? NA



8. Who needs to be trained next?

NA 9. After initial training, what is needed in regard to follow up?

Participants’ comments:

• Time to practice individually on your own. • Need updates on TLC databases. • Training needed when there are changes in the databases - we are not keeping the librarians

up-to-date.

10. Good programs to copy or adapt locally that they have seen? Participants’ comments:

• Rusk ISD has a local web page with portal to numerous databases. There is a link to that one on TLC web page.

• Librarians are asked to do the web pages. Librarians could adapt a web page format easily from a template.

• Templates could be pre-completed –would be useful for replication? . 11. Are there other assessments we should review (local)? Only two ideas were suggested in terms of assessment. Participants’ comments:

• State Board of Education Certification (SBEC) is driving an interest in how teachers may be able to rise to the level dictated by SBEC. Texas STAR charts are being created for districts and eventually these will also be available at the campus level.

• It would be helpful to have a list of topics or questions to use introduce the databases – they want to use something to get users’ attention – should be pre-tested and should attract people in a fun way; should be helpful for students and adults.

12. What documents and/or other training materials are needed to support training? Participants’ comments:

• Instructional materials to take home from a training session. • List of topics that are fun to look up when different groups are learning a database; used to gain

the attention of the participants. 13. What have been the principal effects of TIFB funding on your library? There is general agreement that the TIFB funding has made a considerable difference in the libraries. The reasons for this vary widely. Participants’ comments:

• Databases, library automated systems, retrospective conversion, and equipment. • Quality printers. • Many schools would not have an automated library if not for TIF B funding. • Automating access to their library collections.

13.b What equipment needs are critical? Participants’ comments:



• Scanners are important but most libraries not ready yet to use them. • Accelerated reading programs have reduced the time students spend in the library researching

and exploring – the come to the library to check out books only. • Equipment for Power Point presentations, but most of the higher end applications are handled

from the computer lab, not the library. • Heavy testing means that teachers consider the use of computers for teaching as a “frill.”

14. What are your most pressing information technology related needs in the next 12-24 months in your library? Why are they critical to you and your library? The respondents reported that their most important needs revolve around implementing access systems and training library users on current technology and on the use of online resources. Participants’ comments:

• Some would like multi-media capability, but most libraries are not at that level yet; they need equipment or they cannot move forward.

• Students use PowerPoint (in computer classes); libraries usually don’t provide that type of service (no time for students to work on it in the library.

15. Does your library integrate the various electronic information resources (such as your local OPAC, TexShare, TLC, or other online databases, office software, educational software, Internet) into an easy to use interface for the library user? If so, how are you accomplishing this now? Participants agreed that a great deal remains to be accomplished in providing an easy-to-use interface with all the various resources presented to customers in a portal concept. Some libraries have web pages that accomplish this goal in part. Participants’ comments:

• Library’s own Web page integrates the sources. • Using an icons on the desk top, in library, and throughout campus; this is more common than a

web page portal. • A web home page with a good presentation of resources is not yet available in all libraries or

even in all the schools. 16. What do you personally consider to be the fundamental technology related services and/or products that libraries of your type and size should offer? Participants’ comments:

• Training on use of TLC databases; MARC Magician. • Products that let users search the Internet for web sites by subjects; possible fundable TIFB item. • Autographics has a free Agent software; they could use it, but results are not that great yet. • MARC Magician software if could be funded (initially) because it is so expensive. • MARC Magician – if libraries received it through TLC databases, they could get a group discount. • TLC database training.

WRAP UP COMMENTS

• Use of statistics for remote and campus access for Gale resources should be reconsidered in order to show specific campus use.

• TIFB needs to continue; not go away in 2005. Teachers are not aware that it could end. • Funding for library automation still needed. • Staffing is slender as well so this should be available through grants.



• Library equipment needs to be updated. • Some small schools have not qualified for TIFB funds and that needs to be reviewed • Library has to demonstrate that it is ready [for technology] – this is a must with TIFB grants. • Token service may be all that exists in some cases. • It is important to let the legislators know how important TIFB is to schools and libraries; need to

educate legislators.




Mixed School Library May 13, 2002, 4-5:30 PM

1.a. Staff critical information technology training needs in your library in coming 12-24 months? Training is a clear need for library staff but also for teachers. However, participants feel that teachers do not consider this a priority. Librarians need training to improve search strategies with online resources; help in developing abilities in training for adults; and library aides need basic training in online resources. Participants’ comments:

• Implementing a software system (3 years) - didn’t anticipate the heavy need for training and a

training facility; scheduled two trainings; and need at least six; • Ongoing training; • Training for TLC databases and school district databases (a separate group) for teachers,

students and parents; • Train librarians in better search strategies; • Need statistics to show database usage (may be a training issue); • Aides need more integrated system training (Follett). Substitutes are needed to cover for the

aides. • Training for teachers; TLC training is available at the ESC for teachers but is not a priority for

them. • TIFB fund to pay for teacher training in the summer? • Regional person come in the summer months to provide training; • Training for aides; • Training on how to train others.

1.b Public training needs for public access computer resources? The responses indicate not only a need for training for parents, teachers and children but that innovative approaches may be needed to get people to participate in training. School partnerships with other types of libraries are needed. The issue of how to cover costs related to training also is a concern. Participants’ comments:

• Schools open after hours with federal “No Child Left Behind Money” to train parents to help their children; include parents in Information literacy;

• TIFB funding needed to help with after-school hours operations including the library planning; • Ongoing training is needed for public; • Need software and equipment (including video projection device) to use in training; • Pay for librarians to staff after hours; look at retired librarians or coordinate with public libraries so

that they could work together, to bring in the parents; • Information literacy needs to be integrated into the curriculum of the schools; • School and library partnerships.

2. Barriers to staff getting training? The most significant barrier is time to schedule training because of the requirements of the library schedule and staff work assignments. Participants’ comments:

• School day does not allow training – not possible to get release time and a substitute so it is not possible to go offsite for training;

• Not paying people for training time; • Travel distance to get to training;



• Distance learning facilities should be used; lab facilities in Houston are just too limited. Just barely making a dent in training needs;

• Motivation is an issue - reward people intrinsically or extrinsically; • Salary or equipment.

3. Barriers to public access? The most significant barriers are lack of equipment in the library specifically for training, and teachers not recognizing the value of learning about and using online resources. Participants’ comments:

• Lack of equipment; • Remote access to databases available but most parents do not have computers in the house; • Need lap tops for kids to check out; or cooperate with public libraries on this to increase

availability; • Teachers are focused on their subject and do not see value if not related to their classroom

needs. • Teachers do not know how to use the databases – 50 % or less seem to know how. Teachers

and students lack training. • Library staff struggle to get teachers to agree to come to training and time is limited; teachers are

standoffish about new information and things that change 4. Classes related to information technology currently offered in your library? The courses offered vary greatly. Libraries offer everything from one-on-one training to a very active program for training and the use of innovative approaches to getting the attention of teachers. Participants’ comments:

• No training classes. When a teacher comes in, library staff members help one-on-one, at point of need.

• In- Service training day for teachers may allocate a little time for library related information. • Librarians have equipment in their classes and they do intensive training. • Some elementary school librarians who are IT specialists work in both classrooms and in

libraries. • Librarians work with IT specialists; they coordinate with librarians to train together. Might help

teachers with PowerPoint; or train 20 students on how to use Gale databases. • Provides Information Power (PROJECT CLEAR) as HISD curriculum (Librarians took Goal A

(Writing) and wrote a curriculum; librarians trained on this project and now collaborate with Language Arts teachers. Viewed as a practical approach - might be able to sell it to TIFB to provide.

• Collaboration works in some cases but not always – depends on the people. • Librarian made personal presentations to the school principals about Gale resources; this

stimulated them to help integrate the databases; also precipitated similar presentations to PTA’s by librarians.

• Library offers programs district wide that serve homeowners. They train people from the community on technology and introduce the databases to them; (85% of this group have no children in school).

5. Classes requested by the public that you do not currently offer?

NA

6. Who are the trainers? How are they trained? Participants’ comments:



• Large library --staff as well as contract trainers; librarians; vendors; • Small library – librarians; vendors; district IT person.

7. When and how should training be offered for trainers? In general the best times to schedule training for school library staff is after school and during summers. While there is some interest in online tutorials there is also a view that some trainees need individual attention; one-on-one training is needed. Participants’ comments:

• Monthly meetings on Monday; two hour blocks of time after school; summer; TLA conference is important for training.

• Summer training; just signed up six cohorts of trainees. Also has a tech supervisor that arranges each Tuesday and Thursday for one-on-one training after school on demand. There is a huge need for individual attention.

• Hands-on training; all training by system done in a lab. • ESC does a lot of training, especially going back for basic hardware training. • ESC has done training before in the Center, now coming to the schools. • ALA online training has been used as well as Internet training. A few used it, found it beneficial;

but to do it on their own, not too successful - needs to be done as a group. • Online courses work for college students - motivation is the key. • Teach PowerPoint with a CD ROM; • Web based course.

8. Who needs to be trained next? Participants’ comments:

• Aides need training now - turnover is high so that training of aides is critical. • Aides training is critical; often there is no one else available to help students and teachers.

9. After initial training, what is needed in regard to follow up? NA 10. Good programs to copy or adapt locally that they have seen? NA 11. Are there other assessments we should review (local)? NA 12. What documents and/or other training materials are needed to support training? NA 13. What have been the principal effects of TIFBB funding on your library? The TIFB funding was central to acquiring computers and other technology and wiring libraries. Participants’ comments:

• Without TIFB funding doesn’t know what he would do; it is a mainstay; schools were wired by TIFB. Wants to get the parents trained, up to the level of using e-commerce.

• TIFB money paid for laptops for every teacher in the district. Library has to kick in $100. (Depreciated over that period.)



• Computers on every desk for teachers, video in every classroom. TIFB has not funded in the library but have had three TIFBS for different schools in the district.

• Invaluable for the equipment; • Libraries wired with TIFB money though - need more for Internet access.

14. What are your most pressing information technology related needs in the next 12-24 months in your library? Why are they critical to you and your library? The responses indicate that there are still a number of school libraries that still need to be automated. In addition, there is concern with increasing bandwidth needs, acquiring wireless technology and replacement of aging equipment. Participants’ comments:

• Automation for 17 elementary schools. District has made automation a local site decision. So to get it done, she will need TIFB money to do it. Costs 16-17K per site. Just need more capability for Internet use. Without TIFB she can’t do it. It is not a luxury. Hispanic community needs special help. Video streaming is needed. Need bandwidth. As they do more and more online courses, they will need it.

• Needs laptop and wireless for the districts. • 53 libraries needing automation, including conversion of local catalog. Infrastructure is awful.

Must be wireless. Will solve the problems of asbestos, cabling, etc. • Hardware always needed but wireless technology would really serve them. • Bandwidth needed - must have full time real time motion video at all locations. • Building servers need to be replaced (1.5 GB); needs 270 modern PC servers. Most of his are

two-years old. Will need TIFB funds to replace; can’t do it locally. • TIFB should help every library in the state get automated. Everyone should get technology in

their communities. She knows schools that still have no automation. Parents use the school equipment if students don’t need it. School is the center of the small town.

15. Does your library integrate the various electronic information resources (such as your local OPAC, TexShare TLC, or other online databases, office software, educational software, Internet) into an easy to use interface for the library user? If so, how are you accomplishing this now? NA 16. What do you personally consider to be the fundamental technology related services and/or products that libraries of your type and size should offer? The participants have different views but, in general, want to see technology available that brings the appropriate information into the classroom curriculum, and provides resources to the community. Participants’ comments:

• Strong library curriculum K-12 to get kids able to be information and technology literate. Librarian has key role here.

• Video streaming is forbidden in his district because it consumes too much bandwidth. • Need to balance technology with hard copy. Must have good books. • TIFB essential and if it goes away, there will be no books or technology. Feels that their

infrastructure has been funded by TIFB. • TIFB provides resources to the school and community that they don’t have otherwise. Uses the

databases to substitute for hard copy magazines. She gets a national newspaper (required to have) but by mail it is 3-5 days old. College is 60 miles away.

• Need separate T1 for conferencing – will need a bigger pipe line (fiber?).



WRAP UP COMMENTS

• TIFB grant with money sitting in the district (but she can’t get to it); has been held up for 3 weeks. Had a difficult time getting TIFB staff on the phone to answer questions.

• Panhandle Information Network went under, partially because of TIFB. [Note: PIN is not a TIFB eligible entity under legislation].

• Logistics with TIFB are difficult.




Large Schools April 6, 2002, 4 - 5:30 pm

1.a Training needs for library staff? Participants agreed that there is a significant need for readily available quality training that is offered when needed and using different approaches such as classroom, web tutorials, and videoconferencing. There also was agreement that TIFB should take a leadership position in facilitating the development of a wide range of training for library staff. Participants’ comments:

• Training needed in databases. • Training in developing web-based training. • Training for librarians so they are able to train staff and the public – training for trainers/teachers. • On-demand training is a great need so staff are able to fit learning into their work schedule at the

time they need it, using software and tutorial programs on the web. • Training in how to develop and deliver online or videoconference training. • Training how to do technical training for librarians. • Scheduling of training is very important so that staff has advance notice and are able to attend. • Training should be scheduled when it is needed and the new skills should be used immediately. • Training should be scheduled with recognition of staff time constraints.

1.b Training needs for public? The needs for library users training primarily focused on the needs for teachers to become comfortable with using online resources; integrating these resources into the curriculum; and guiding their students in using the Internet resources. Another major issue is establishing and teaching criteria for evaluation of Internet resources to teachers and students. Participants’ comments:

• Training for users about evaluation of resources; tendency for individuals to think everything found on Internet is true.

• Criteria are needed to help students to evaluate online sources and to avoid just taking the easy and quick sources.

• Teachers need better understanding of the research process; how to locate information online; and how to conduct a search.

• Different teaching approaches require different training to meet the needs of teachers. • Teachers need more experience in integrating information and putting the technology with the

content. • Teachers not always comfortable with online resources; don’t always check websites before

using them in teaching situation. • Teachers need to develop confidence in online searching. • Teachers and students do not understand the Boolean process; they don’t know how the search

changes when they use the Boolean operators. • Information literacy is a big challenge for library staff. • New TAKS test is going to be more difficult and more subjective in some areas than TASS.

Teachers are wanting and needing Internet training; teachers are talking about technology; these need with kids training requirement is twofold: (1) Library staff must be able to do training; (2) teachers must “wake-up” to new resources; need to know how to set up teacher training; need authentic literature; need to expose students to visual and expository sources; training teachers this summer.

• In first year for TAKS; teachers have used 6 elements in high school level. As students learn they move at different rates, not all using the same search at the same time. Training on information seeking strategies; key words, search strategies; do online tutorial.



• Web instruction targeting TAKS reading & writing elements. • New TAKS test (replacement for TASS) will have questions on Venn diagrams as related to

searching. Test will have three parts and one will be on resources –students will be taking a different type of test and teachers will require different resources. Students will need to know more about resources and what goes into research; and how to search.

2. Barriers to staff getting training? While time and location of training is a barrier for some library staff, finding space for small group training is also difficult. Staff wants hands-on training and more one-on-one training and/or assistance as they learn. There also is a concern with lack of involvement between instructional technology staff and the library staff to improve the training. Participants’ comments:

• Time for staff to attend training is a problem; need training in the local area to reduce travel time to training.

• Staff members who attend have to provide training for other staff. • Hard to schedule training and include para-professional staff in training. • Need facility for training. • Want small group or one-on-one training. • Hands-on training and interaction needed, otherwise not effective; people tend not to be very

comfortable with technology. • Need to bridge the gap between librarians and technologists; need to work as partners to plan

and train together. • Things run better when instructional technology and libraries are better integrated/

3. Barriers to public access? There were less barriers to public access for participants in this focus group though they did report needs related to security, insufficient numbers of computers; inadequate connectivity in old buildings; insufficient physical space in some libraries to accommodate adequate number of workstations; and need for improved relationship with the information technology support staff. Participants’ comments:

• Grants are helping – working on broadband network, adequate stations in library, every classroom has 2 computers.

• Access not a problem for students/teachers for one participant. • Need to protect data bases and need password protection to allow students access across the

world. • Need greater ease to access sophisticated databases and provide more academic resources. • Never seem to have enough workstations. • Older schools do not have adequate workstations or enough drops for connectivity. • Technology access is major problem in all schools. • Physical space problem in school libraries is insufficient for new equipment. • Lack of adequate technology support; technology department should practice on somebody else,

not library. • Library solves own technology problems. • Technology people do not understand the language spoken by the library –they do not

understand MARC records or other technology issues for libraries; need people in technology who understand how libraries and librarians work.

• Wireless is not being implemented among this group. • Technology people want to make technology decisions without understanding library needs and

processes. 4. Classes related to information technology currently offered in your library? NA



5. Classes requested by the public that you do not currently offer? NA

6. Who are the trainers? How are they trained? Participants indicated that the librarians or other library staff are the primary trainers for both staff and the public. There also is a tension between librarians and the technology staff in schools regarding the responsibility for training and allocation of source funds. Participants’ comments:

• Principal trainers are people working for the library. • Software company trainers are used sometimes. • Librarians teach trainers. • District technology people. • Librarians train the faculty on databases. • Technology liaisons provide less training; can be an issue when they are not paid comparable to

teachers. • Technology liaisons feel they are competing with libraries for same funds.

7. When and how should training be offered for trainers? Participants generally agreed that more staff development/training opportunities needed to be offered both in classroom training sessions and via web-based tutorials. Participants’ comments:

• Training can be offered during staff development period to train staff. • Need campus-based training that could be offered by a librarian for other staff. • Do district-based training for a group of librarians with trainers from different regions. • Need more than one training session so groups are not too large. • Need refresher course on how to download files from the Internet. • Need “point of need” training on web – difficult for trainers to get around to all districts. • Online training modules provide immediate access to information when needed. • Point of need training is probably the only real option – Texas too big and schools widely

dispersed. • Region 20 leading in area of online training modules – new concept. • Trainers are needed for face-to-face training. • More staff development for librarians overall. • One region has contracted with a vendor to create a training module on basic skills.

8. Who needs to be trained next? Participants expressed the general view that training the trainers is a major need at this time. Participants’ comments:

• Librarians will be trainer of trainers. • Training is needed on both adult education concepts and on using technology. • Some libraries feel they have enough training.

9. After initial training, what is needed in regard to follow up? The participants indicated a need for multiple types of training approaches to ensure that people maintain their level of knowledge and skill. Participants’ comments:

• Train only up to a certain point and then provide additional training later.



• Create modules that would offer beginning, advanced, and refresher or update training. • Need training on TLC database.

10. Good programs to copy or adapt locally that they have seen? There was only one suggestion for an existing program to use. Participants’ comments:

• UT-Austin has excellent training on web that can be used with libraries; this is the TILT program. 11. Are there other assessments we should review (local)? Participants’ comments:

• Mary Lankford did an assessment at TLA – it might be effective as a benchmark for a library program and as a measurement tool later on.

12. What documents and/or other training materials are needed to support training? NA 13. What have been the principal effects of TIFB funding on your library? The participants agreed that TIFB funding has generated significant changes in their use of technology and users’ access to resources and expanded services. Participants’ comments:

• “Don’t think we would be in 21st century if we didn’t have it.” • Really able to prepare kids for college [using new database resources]. • Everything online now, Gale resources – it has been wonderful, a “godsend.” • Back a century if they did not have TIF, brought them up to date with the network. • Able to prepare kids for college. • The LAN and WAN development are important. • The media retrieval system; able to broadcast from a central location in the school including the

library is important. Can broadcast tapes to special classrooms and students can broadcast their own programs.

• Virtual online resources are important. • Virtual databases – it is no longer a closed system; students have 24/7 access; not bound

geographically. 14.What are your most pressing information technology related needs in the next 12-24 months in your library? Why are they critical to you and your library? In general the participants wanted additional hardware, district level access to resources, and software to maintain security. Participants’ comments:

• Software for library to utilize to maintain a secure environment. • Wireless should be used in libraries. • Training need. • New TIFB grant cycle for web based access. • Move away from closed LAN, and create web district - look to TIFB grant. • School district need level access; TLC catalogue is available. Could scope the holdings to the

district level; only have monographs online now. • Mini labs to classrooms. • More student workstations in the library. • Work with technology people to help them understand the needs of the library.



• Monitoring the PC’s is difficult. • LanSchool is a software package that helps with monitoring the PC’s. • Deepfreeze - a software package that resets default settings and provides security software. • Software applications for a secure pedagogical environment. • Wireless.

15. Does your library integrate the various electronic information resources (such as your local OPAC, TexShare TLC, or other online databases, office software, educational software, Internet) into an easy to use interface for the library user? If so, how are you accomplishing this now? Participants’ comments:

• Training needed on creating web page, web page portal. • TLC training addressed the development of a local web page and how to create links to the web

page from sources. • Sam Houston State did a nice job of presenting a web based portal.

16. What do you personally consider to be the fundamental technology related services and/or products that libraries of your type and size should offer? The responses show that the librarians see that the library should have available and incorporate whatever new technology will ensure access to the resources for their faculty and students; the primary focus currently is on creating web access on a broader basis. Participants’ comments:

• Library as the major place to go for information. • Gale resources needed – won’t go below what we have now. • Ease of use; web-based access with easy to use interface page. • Additional resources beyond current Gale resources. • Need a source for picture like the Associated Press database. • One major source to go for a particular resource. • Library of Texas and access to some of the TexShare databases; a tiered membership structure

based on need [Example: students that had high SAT scores would access the TexShare databases - they would start with TLC and then could go to a higher tier of services as needed].

• Web based catalog would be wonderful. • Keep TLC as it is and continue it. • TLC – cannot go below what we have now. • Web based union catalog.



SUMMARY Focus Group Notes Community College

May 22, 2002, 2-3:30 PM 1.a Staff information technology training needs in your library? The responses indicate a desire for training for librarians on how to teach students and faculty about the resources available in the online environment. Participants’ comments:

• Information literacy – what is it? • Database access. • Librarians who can teach; need teacher training. • Staff needs to know how to teach and make assessment – assess what student is learning. • Many more students coming into library – how do we help them get resources they need –

tutorials may be helpful. • Students need training to know what resources the library has available. • Faculty not computer literate, upset when dropping paper subscriptions – can’t understand that

online journals can replace print copies – not something they can hold in their hands. • Students need same training. • Usage gone up 86% on databases since last year. (EBSCO, etc.) • Focus on electronic resources. • Integrate online resources with teaching (English classes, sciences, etc.). • Virtual reference. • Web design and accessibility.

2. Barriers to staff getting training?

The participants identified the principle barriers to staff training as lack of time available to attend training and lack of funds to pay for the training and related costs. Participants’ comments:

• Getting all staff together for training sessions is difficult. • Staff capability of learning/thinking using new technology; some are in holding on to old ways and

not up to speed on technology. • Training needed on helping people be more open to change. • Training should be scheduled so trainees can use new skills immediately. • Refresher training needed. • No opportunity to practice and use what they have learned. • Lack of funding. • Conflict between operating the library and training the staff at the same time.

2.1 What would make it easier for you to offer or make available training you want – what would be good? Participants’ comments:

• TIFB does not fund personnel – that’s big challenge. • Keeping the library open and providing all staff training simultaneously. • Fulltime, training, etc - all. • Hire someone on temporary basis with specialized skills to develop program. • Funding source to pay salary to get started on training. • More time – we’ve only got so many people – services have to keep flowing - not enough time for

staff training. • Video-tape for training -easier if staff don’t have to travel.



• Online courses developed. • Need hands on in technology. • With the SACS focus on information literacy-the librarian need training on what is information

literacy. • Staff taught piece meal but they need to know differences between databases and the Internet,

what constitutes a good source. • Conflict between time for staff training and operating the library particularly with few staff.

2.2 Is there a need for everyone to get training? (Follow up) Participants’ comments:

• Not necessarily but some get left out. • Could training sessions be videotaped so staff could replay and comment on the training? Could

there be online courses? • Online has not been effective. • One of the barriers is staff capabilities in learning and changing over into the new technologies –

they are set in the old ways; if there are three people who can do high tech, eight might be still using older methods. Word processing is not even up to date. (Lou-are you saying what?) It is an acceptance that it is going to be that way until some people retire, they are not going to change.

3. Barriers to public access? The barriers to public access are both technical (e.g., remote access) as well as training related; keeping library staff up to date so that they can in turn teach students and the faculty to access, use and evaluate electronic resources. Participants’ comments:

• Remote access not well implemented; this is a problem in serving 12 counties. • Databases always changing and cannot keep up. • Password and ID are changed without notifying library. • Wide geographic area served so imperative that people have database access remotely. • Access not reliable. • State Library staff refer library questions to database producers. • TexShare database access is difficult. • Database producers share responsibility on access. • Community college students need better training. • Remedial students are not ready to use databases. • Limited time available for student training. • Student training needs – libraries need training to know what students need. • Need to market databases to the students. • Cannot tell whether students are using the library resources in the lab or something else. • Integrated information literacy curriculum - English and other courses. • Librarians who can teach. Staff needs know who to teach and how to make assessments as to

what the students are learning. • Students require assistance in using library resources when they are online from remote

locations. • Remote users need tutorials and document delivery.

4. Classes related to information technology currently offered in your library? The responses indicate that there are a number of varied efforts underway to teach the community college students what is available and how to gain access to electronic library resources. Participants’ comments:



• Offer classes, consultation, one-on-one and group training (e.g., entire class). • Faculty attends when a class is offered training. • Instruction for an English class that requires research paper. • TIFB access has accelerated orientation/instruction for students. • Entire class involved - use laptop, demo, handouts, and focus the training on current events. • Librarian able to talk about resources in class context. • Specific classes come in for database training – business; social work; nursing; training focuses

on what the students currently are working on. • First year experience (special program for freshman) provides basic training so when they go to

class they know about resources. 5. Classes requested by the public that you do not currently offer? In general, the responses indicate that students/faculty are not making requests for additional training (probably because they do not know what is available) or are uncomfortable admitting they do not know how to use certain resources. Participants’ comments:

• More requests would be welcome but people are not coming in with skills needed – faculty included. (All participants agreed.)

• Few people know of library resources so they do not ask for training. • Users are reluctant to admit they don’t know how to use databases. • In a small college, people think the library doesn’t have everything they need. • Advertising to public needed, mostly to faculty. • Training should be offered by academic department as a way to reach a lot of people at once. • Attractive emails should be developed to send out but so much stuff coming in already. • Advertise. • Leverage the ALA national advertising campaign. • Try to get students to use TILT, a UT Austin online training program. • Librarians use all approaches - make appointments one on one, groups with classes coming to

bibliographic instruction rooms. They do what they need to do. 6. Who are the trainers? How are they trained?

• Need training in all areas – do not have time for training. • Would rather motivate staff than lecture. Training for staff is more important. • Staff members get together to learn new databases. • There is a reluctance to admit what they do not know. Users tend to think the library does not

have much, they do not know what the capability is; there should be a huge advertising campaign and it needs to be directed to the faculty.

• In order to reach faculty go in at the department level with faculty liaisons. • Everyone has email; if you could develop some attractive emails - that might be a way to reach

faculty. • There is too much coming through the e –mail. • Maybe a mass communication approach that links the whole information literacy effort and

success in education. • Publicity has to be Texas related for people to pay attention; the UT-Austin TILT tutorials are very

good and helpful. • All agree (definitely) that the faculty and other users do not have the skills they need when they

come in. 7. When and how should training be offered for trainers? NA




• Front line librarians are going to be the ones to do the training. • Better motivate staff than lecture them. • Stay directly involved in making sure that staff and students get training.

9. After initial training, what is needed in regard to follow up? NA 10. Good programs to copy or adapt locally that they have seen? The focus group had ideas for adapting or sharing programs but in general felt limited due to lack of time, staff and funds to take advantage of available training sessions or the materials developed by others. They would like to see more efforts that would result in coordinating training and training resources. Participants’ comments:

• Galileo project in Georgia is coordinated throughout the state; has an interface that was developed by OCLC.

• Galileo uses the same search strategy to search all the databases; has a state web page with all the database links kept current; no updating needed at local level.

• Texas needs a page that links to good database sites that would be maintained for all types of libraries not just community colleges.

• Virtual reference service could be developed by cooperating libraries who would share maintenance of the site.

• 24/7 reference is a possibility with OCLC and LC involved. • Need a quality site to link to that could be related to the local site. • Galileo succeeded because library automation system shared throughout the state of Georgia;

Solinet provides all training. • Texas libraries must learn a number of search strategies, where the search buttons are, etc.; nice

thing about the Georgia system is the single interface. • AMIGOS provides training – very expensive for library; Georgia subsidizes training. • Expensive training means that many people can’t afford it and so don’t attend. • Distance to reach AMIGOS is problem; if not within one hour driving time can’t go. • Would it be feasible to centrally submit some of the local web portal efforts – if not juried at least

available to everyone. • Need a clearinghouse to share training materials – downloadable files most practical.


NA 12. What documents and/or other training materials are needed to support training? NA 13. What have been the principal effects of TIFB funding on your library? There is agreement among all participants that the TIFB funding has made a significant difference in their ability to expand services and provide access to resources through technology. Participants’ comments:



• TIFB made workstations possible and provided access to TexShare. Program is a very interesting interchange, not just a source of money; the ideas coming with it were useful too.

• Because of TIFB dollars, library became more robust within institution; other departments are using the library server and the streaming video service.

• Automation system upgraded with a lot more capabilities; they have remote authentication and they could not have done these things on their own without TIFB funds.

• Proxy servers in place; would not have been able to do this without TIFB. • ADA stations and desktop conferencing between the campuses. • TIFB dovetails with TexShare –this is very good. • Key benefits - library automation system, the large number of computer stations, the ability to

transmit data • TIFB should know that more is needed in the network environment; the linking of the libraries is

critical because a lot of tiny communities and people do not have access to resources and the colleges need to take a leadership role.

• Texas is seen as behind Illinois and Mississippi in support of technology for libraries and without TIFB Texas would still be in the dark ages.

• Enabled library to go from “old time library” to a modern library. • Have specialized services for digitization; they can serve students in remote counties.

14. What are your most pressing information technology related needs in the next 12-24 months in your library? Why are they critical to you and your library? Respondents reported that more sophisticated technology applications, particularly to permit greater connectivity between various types of libraries, is important; also important that libraries get support from the campus technology departments. Participants’ comments:

• More high-speed transmission; micro wave systems and much higher bandwidth. • Community colleges need to be the helper to the small communities, by linking with public library

to share info and transmit classes; bring rural communities up to the same capabilities as the metro areas.

• Bandwidth is the big need – T3’s everywhere would be wonderful. • Coordinate between AMIGOS and TexShare to provide this to libraries. • Texas needs to make sure needs are met. • Campus technology departments need to help libraries remove roadblocks. Libraries either have

to go at it alone or totally depend on technology department. • Some libraries have moved to install their own server and hire staff to operate so as not to

depend on campus technology department. • Need space for an instructional room for teaching. • Need to promote what is currently available and train people to use it; then let users define future

needs, etc., need to use what we already have more efficiently. 15. Does your library integrate the various electronic information resources (such as your local OPAC, TexShare TLC, or other online databases, office software, educational software, Internet) into an easy to use interface for the library user? If so, how are you accomplishing this now? Participants’ comments:

• Currently implementing a system that allows access to databases; they can integrate databases into OPAC and would like to get more.

• New system - SIRSI - will allow them to do more; link interface allows all things to come together; already have Web interface through their OPAC.

• Have the Z39.50 interface, but not the links to all other resources they can use. • Have a college web page that has a link to TexShare; everyone who has access to a browser can

use it. Just now buying about 200 computers for lab.



• Voyager system being in implemented; this will allow them to integrate more sources through the OPAC.

• Exciting people with new development; project for scanning in digital images so people can look at photographs through the catalog on the Internet.

• Have a library web page and a link; online system that can be used from home with a browser; they are using Triple III (Innovative) and they are buying about 300 new computers.

16.What do you personally consider to be the fundamental technology related services and/or products that libraries of your type and size should offer? The responses show that these libraries will continue to want and need current and emerging technologies in order to provide services that meet the needs of local and distance/remote student and faculty users. Participants’ comments:

• More databases or at least like ProQuest; get discount thru state. • Full text databases of any kind. • System compatibility across the state. • Virtual reference statewide rather than just local. • TexShare program is good; HS students come and already have used TexShare. • Link State Library to school, public, college libraries. • Bandwidth issue always with us as more digital projects etc. • Continue programs i.e., NetNet, demand going up for bandwidth and need to look at increasing

capacity statewide. • Core pieces are library automated system; access off the Internet; e-libraries – more books

online. • Distance learning – compatibility with online delivery service. • Platforms so the learners that are remote will have the same service as those on campus to

access library resources electronically. • Access to resources, physically, electronically. • Local level web sites; faculty need to develop online resource finders to locate subject materials. • Screening technology. • Equipment should be compatible with future directions and with other institutions. • Local level – have the Interlibrary loan forms to request a class; have online request forms and

also online resource and pathfinders so faculty can find materials. Need an online “Sheehy” (guide to online resources) to use.

• Streaming technology to help deliver information; even high schools would use the teleconferencing if schedules would be more coordinated.

WRAP UP COMMENTS Why TIFB is important? The responses indicate that TIFB has made a huge difference; libraries have access to the technology that permits delivery of new services and more resources at lower costs. Participants’ comments:

• TIFB allowed Texas libraries – which were way behind every state - to catch up and stay that way; if it weren’t for TIFB we’d be 30 yrs behind.

• Libraries could not do it alone; TIFB money has made it possible in the state of Texas. • TIFB has brought things together, collaborations occur with TIFB money. • Collaborative purchase of databases is more cost efficient. • TIFB been great equalizer by providing funds for total population to have access to technology. • Without TIFB money hard pressed to do what they have done. • Locally the library is last to get local monies because TIFB is funding library services; means the

library is not eligible to access other funds internally. • Collaborative environment encouraged.



• Access community with senior citizens; basic training on Internet for community. • Texas was way behind until TIFB came along and only a program like TIFB will keep Texas

moving forward. • Legislators should know that we do not come to the end; there must be a long-term commitment. • Legislature needs to understand that libraries cannot do it alone. • TIFB has brought all the different entities together – this is the first time this has occurred. • Cost of the databases purchased through TIFB would be an additional $10 million more if they

were purchased independently. • Collaboration has been an important benefit in closing the gaps between the haves and have-

nots. • Collaboration in other ways also important in bringing together different libraries, agencies and

community groups.



SUMMARY Focus Group Notes Academic/Medical

May 23, 2002, 3-4:30 pm 1a. in your opinion what are the critical information technology training needs in your library in the coming 12-24 months? (Staff) The training needs are broad based ranging from learning how to design web pages and use all electronic files and products, as well as developing expertise with digital reference. A need for individuals to provide the training around the state was also identified. Participants also noted the need for trainers to provide training around the state. Participants’ comments:

Web pages – how to link all resources, how make design better. Evaluating and learning how to use new software; vendor training costs are high. Manage digital access, all file formats. Specific product training. Developing interfaces with different electronic resources (e.g., Ovid/Platform vs. EBSCO vs. First

Search product). Implementing digital reference products; learning how to provide good reference service in new

medium. Digital reference, regardless of product vendor requires training to provide quality of service. Virtual reference (Iliad) training. Training on the new Endeavor system; using special features, etc. A cadre of trainers for some of the products; a training team to go around the state, people who

could come from individual libraries and go to other institutions; perhaps use a chat room format for training

Need a group of staff who know how to manage the active web links and keep them updated, accurate.

1. b In your opinion what are the critical information technology training needs in your library in coming 12-24 months? (members of the public, library users) Focus group participants said that establishing information literacy programs is a high priority while gaining faculty understanding and support for this kind of training continues to be a major challenge. There is an interest in exploring teaching centers at other institutions to identify successful programs for faculty. An example of such a center is the Teaching Excellent Center Texas A&M (information literacy). Campus wide information literacy programs require that faculty understand the program and view their own information and computer skills as important; it is difficult for local librarians to train faculty at their own institution. Participants’ comments:

Convert faculty; then students can get information literacy training. Faculty members think students understand plagiarism but they don’t realize that students get

confused when cutting and pasting from online resources; training needed on this issue. Students need to learn critical appraisal of online resources. Perhaps could develop a program that could be moved around, shared among institutions. Copyright issues. Experts in certain subjects/topics should be in the field (state-wide) and not only providing training

locally. Need training that can teach that a Google search is not equivalent to a search on a legitimate

database. Perhaps use incentives to gain faculty participation in using new resources online. Take advantage of people with whom faculty can identify and who are not local. Need TILT program (Texas Information Literacy Tutorial); modify for local use. Hold a “boot camp” for faculty with stipend for attending; update faculty on Web CT Faulty provide access to the students – if the faculty point the way –the students will show up.



Critical appraisal of the materials that students use for study. Campus wide information literacy program to share people and information literacy training

across campuses. Use TILT, pull into Web CT and gear it toward students.

2. Barriers to staff getting training? The major barrier to staff participating in training is the distance that individuals must travel to participate in a training class or program. Participants expressed interest in finding other approaches to training such as web based training as an alternative to face-to-face instruction. Participants’ comments:

Distance getting to train centers in state problematic. Like to see more network training sites. Lack of time and money. Web training could help. Use Voice/web conference - appeal, dynamic in having a group of peers interact – creates

cohort. ElementK – virtual training). Expense of bringing a trainer onsite locally – hard to justify expense.

3. Barriers to public access? The most significant barrier is slow response time and/or bandwidth limitations that create frustration in access. Connection speed is a major issue for the libraries represented in the focus group Participants’ comments:

Bandwidth needs are an enormous problem - people frustrated with length of time required to

access files. Slow response time on library PC’s (some of which may be due to students downloading movies,

music). Proxy servers – some are confusing students. TIFB funding needed to acquire networking packages. Need to have campus wide strategy for packet sharing technology since most of the traffic is

coming from the dorms not from the libraries. Need to address physically handicapped special access needs such as hardware to provide

means interpreting screens for visually handicapped users. 4. Classes related to information technology currently offered in your library? The responses indicate that there is introductory training offered for new students as well as product specific training and/or discipline specific training for students while faculty training is on-demand and one-on-one. Participant’s comments:

Discipline or product specific training. State- of- the-art classrooms for training at the level of college major in planning stage. Package or discipline specific in health sciences library. Use wireless laptops on a central “truck” that can go to classrooms. Mandatory freshman 1 hour course – have strengthened it by putting more on web; classes are

grouped On demand training for faculty. University has a goal of information literacy as an educational outcome; TIFB funding helped

install labs for library instruction 5. Classes requested by the public that you do not currently offer? Participants’ comments:



Three -tier program freshman survival/English/ instructions take place; plans on paper – thanks to

TIFB. 6. Who are the trainers? How are they trained?

NA 7. When and how should training be offered for trainers?

NA 8. Who needs to be trained next?

NA 9. After initial training, what is needed in regard to follow up? NA 10. Good programs to copy or adapt locally that they have seen?

NA 11. Are there other assessments we should review (local)? NA 12. What documents and/or other training materials are needed to support training?

NA 13. What have been the principal effects of TIFB funding on your library? The impact of the TIFB funding has been considerable in these ways: providing support to upgrade machines, providing wireless technology and servers and, most importantly, facilitating access to TexShare and other databases. Participants’ comments:

• Upgrading machines; OPAC and general searching on campus. • Upgrading PC’s in public areas/network infrastructure/ wireless communications. • Wireless technology in some libraries. • Digital reference service. • Increase in service at same time staff reduction; managed because of technology. • Buying new equipment and software. • ILL turn around time faster with purchase of new equipment • Patrons get better service/ takes less staff time. • Digitizing microforms – this increased use of microforms; TIFB funds also used to get equipment

to digitize sound recordings. • Wired institution’s residence hall – this is indirectly benefiting the library. • TexShare database is fundamental and the major benefit; added so much that otherwise would

not be affordable. • Biomedical information needs in rural and west Texas are not being met. • Telemedicine information coming soon. • Databases have made all the difference.



• Proxy service and remote use of databases by students. • Distance education in Texas would have no “wings” if not for TIFB funding.

14. What are your most pressing information technology related needs in the next 12-24 months in your library? Why are they critical to you and your library? The participants felt that increased bandwidth was very important along with funds to continuously upgrade equipment. They also want continued access to various electronic information resources including full image databases. Participants’ comments:

• More wireless equipment and more Palm pilots. • Upgrading equipment important. • Additional bandwidth. • Full image databases. • Access to information resources. • Digitizing project funds (including staff costs) for large special collections.

15. Does your library integrate the various electronic information resources (such as your local OPAC, TexShare TLC, or other online databases, office software, educational software, Internet) into an easy to use interface for the library user? If so, how are you accomplishing this now? Participants indicated that the integration of the various electronic information resources is being addressed through a variety of approaches ranging from creating a single website with multiple links to creating discipline specific electronic guides. Participants’ comments:

• Goal for a decade – sizable technical staff to integrate products and to handle the metering, accessibility. They deliver about 150 things to the desktop.

• Hot links where applicable – template provided by campus web master. • Different software platforms not problem, no problem with navigation. • Web site has electronic resources page, adding to online catalogue; added subject headings by

subjects that students understand; gather together all applicable links. • Home page for FAQ section and “ topic a month. • Creating discipline specific screens for all the disciplines -- like pathfinders that are built around

the discipline. • Electronic resources guide to the disciplines – dynamically generate updates to the web pages

16. What do you personally consider to be the fundamental technology related services and/or products that libraries of your type and size should offer? The responses indicate that providing access to information about electronic information is important along with increasing access to online resources and also tutorials for learning on the web. Participants’ comments:

• Ease of use for incoming students - with five health science related schools the ease of access has to be apparent, familiar, and similar to other tools they have used in undergraduate institutions.

• Struggling with question. • Full text online sources. • Online resources. • Online catalog that ideally contains 100% of holdings and enable s access to library holdings of

related libraries. • Z39.50 protocol? We question how important is to our institutions. • High quality tutorials that cover the basics are desperately needed – TIFB funding? • OCLC with World Cat and discipline specific pages.



WRAP-UP COMMENTS:

• TIFB equipment standards were too low; better computers available than we were instructed to buy.

• One TIFB grant was announced as a library grant, but institutions were not required to use it for library purposes.

• TIFB fund infrastructure within library building but campus as well • Noncompetitive grants are best if the idea is o establish a level playing field • Could TIFB provide some staffing support? • Funding for content is important.




Large Public Libraries Friday, May 24, 2-3:30 pm

1.a Training needs for library staff? The group identified a range of staff training needs from basic information on the use of computers and applications to learning about new and developing technology applications. Training should be offered at basic, advanced and refresher (update) sessions so that library staff have access to the ongoing training as it is needed to perform their work assignments. Participants’ comments:

• Basic functions of a computer. • Internet searching. • Hardware and software problems identified, and solve basic problems. • Changes to hardware or software. • TexShare database and other available databases. • Web site design and maintenance. • Web site usability studies. • Network servers. • Developments in emerging technology applications (video, audio, etc.). • Basic assistance to public in using computer workstations, and teaching the TexShare database

and other available databases. • Best practices training for technology staff. • Planning for technology.

1.b Training needs for public? There is a broad spectrum of training needs for the public that differ based on the group and/or individual (e.g., senior citizens, high school students, etc.). Also those individuals who are in not school do not typically come to the library with computer knowledge and skills but have to begin with basic training. The public libraries also need to find a way to move away from the one-on-one training to group instruction and/or Web tutorials. Participants’ comments:

• TexShare and other databases. • General Internet skills. • Email accounts – getting started. • Word processing programs. • Resume writing. • Genealogy on the Internet. • Using peripherals, such as digital camera.

2. Barriers to staff training? The barriers faced by public library staff in acquiring the training they need are primarily lack of time available for learning and scarcity of funds available to pay for all costs related to training. Participants’ comments:

• Little or no time available to attend training sessions because of staff size (too small) or lack of backup to participate in training.

• Time available after training to practice what they have learned in training session. • No budget allocation for training. • High perceived training, travel costs. • Inconsistent training quality.



• Training seminars do not teach attendees how to train at home library. 3. Barriers to public access?

NA


NA 5. Classes requested by the public not currently offered? The public library participants all offer training to the public though they would like to offer more advanced sessions on certain topics. Participants’ comments:

• Criteria for evaluating Internet sources. • Accessing TexShare databases from remote sites. • Setting up and using free Internet e-mail accounts. • Spanish resources on the Internet.

6. Who are the trainers? How are they trained? The responses by participants included both trainers for staff and trainers for the public. There are different approaches used for staff training. Participants’ comments:

• Microsoft products training materials. • Vendor training (e.g., Horizon). • Community college courses.

Providing training for the public is a staff responsibility with some libraries using volunteers including retired librarians or an expert in the topic (genealogy).

7. When and how should training be offered for trainers? NA 8. Who needs to be trained next? NA 9. After initial training, what is needed in regard to follow up?

NA

10. Good programs to copy or adapt locally? There was a view among the focus group participants that there are not useful programs to adapt. Instead they require staff to develop and deliver programs. Participants’ comments:

• Kiosk might be used as they are in a museum. • Better Website menus to ease user access.



• Organizations other than the library can offer certain training to permit library staff to focus on library related resources.

11. Are there other assessments we should review (local)? NA 12. What documents and/or other training materials are needed to support training? Everyone agreed on the need for a paper guide (instructions on one page) on using Gale database. 13. What have been the principal effects of TIFBB funding on your library? The response from the focus group participants indicate that the TIFBB funding has been essential to their libraries in implementing and supporting the use of technology as well as specific resources such as TexShare. The participants expressed many of the same views regarding the difference that this funding has made for their libraries. Participants’ comments were in three primary categories: availability of hardware and software; people served; availability of resources. Availability of Computers

• Wouldn’t have computers at all if not for TIFB. • No way to keep up with technology and update equipment without TIFB funds. • New computers eliminated problem of people losing work as they did on old computers. • Limit on time at workstations before TIFB because not enough computers before TIFB. • Not automated before receiving the second TIFB grant; did not have a network before receiving

first TIFB grant. “TIFB funds have been miraculous.” • Local area network and library automation system possible with TIFB funds. • Getting computers with the same structure and the same operating system (purchased with

TIFB funds) saves staff time. People Served

• The number of people in the library has increased considerably. • Different categories of users and more people overall served; many more teenagers; people

doing job searches, resumes; unemployed people who lost access to their work computers. • Library has extended services as a result of TIFB funding. • City can see that the library can deliver services in a new way. • TIFB allows one library to support city training for Microsoft. Permitted another library to become

the ISP for the city and gain leverage as a player in the city administration. Availability of Resources

• “TexShare is marvelous resource.” • Library can provide access to resources through the Internet. • Library can have their catalog on Internet providing access to more people by substituting

electronic resources for some print materials, this is true even for the small libraries even for the small libraries.

• Libraries are able to stretch resources of book collection. 14. What are your most pressing information technology related needs in the next 12-24 months in your library? Why are they critical to you and your library? The most significant issue for the public library participants is the replacement of hardware on a regular cycle and replacement of the automated system for the library are priorities. Participants’ comments:



• Replacement automation system. • Replacement of hardware; libraries are worried about obsolescence of equipment. • Replacement and upgrades to current software. • Funding for 3 yr cycle replacement not possible through the city. • Replacing PC’s as the age is a problem. • Disposal of old computer equipment.

14.1 Does library have a replacement policy? In general the public libraries are unable to establish a replacement policy because city budgets do not provide for replacement funds and, in some cases, there is not an understanding by city officials of the need to replace expensive equipment on a regular basis. The responses indicate a desirable approach to a replacement policy and reasons why active replacement policies are difficult to implement. Participants’ comments:

• Replacement policy in a current issue, and also a developing one. • City administration practices mean that equipment should last a very long period – 20 years! • City budget – replacement not considered ongoing expense. • City funds for replacement – challenge in future. • Hub and routers not too expensive; switches and whole system is expensive. • Wireless technology may be the direction to go for the future. • Funds needed to expand electrical capacity within the building. • Withdrawal cycle/replacement of technology is based on discarding equipment only when it stops

working. • Long waits to get to computers and increasing numbers of people in the library may influence city

administration in getting new equipment by raising public support. • Grants need to be pursued (as an alternate funding source). • City IT Budget supportive of the library but depends on budget. Hoping to replace maybe a

quarter to a third of PCS each year. • Turnover in key positions -- finance director, assistant city manager – affects progress even

when management is supportive. • Small city IT department.

14.2 Why is the IT department supportive? Some of the public library participants report that the city information technology (IT) departments are supportive but the reasons vary. Participants’ comments:

• Management of the library has been supportive of technology all along. • The situation that brought TIFB into being is still there (need for funds to modernize equipment

and access). • Introduced Texans to online resources though this needs to be encouraged as a statewide

initiative. • Incentives in implementing technology are positive.

15. Does your library integrate the various electronic information resources (such as your local OPAC, TexShare, TLC, or other online databases, office software, educational software, Internet) into an easy to use interface for the library user? If so, how are you accomplishing this now? Currently, participants report that there is not a generally available easy to use interface for the library public in locating various online information resources. Participants’ comments:



• Current library interface not easy to use - there is Internet Explorer, plus 4 office programs. • Seamless and portable interfaces are not “out there” yet. • Gates, city network - all have different interfaces as do databases - “horrible.” • Important to understand that our web site is not the tool it could be. • Very few web stations have OPAC access. • Incorporates everything on a web page –it is on the library’s front page; a Web interface is

important. 16. What do you personally consider to be the fundamental technology related services and/or products that libraries of your type and size should offer? NA 17. In terms of work in community, can you say TIFB has given incentive; if so what have you done? Based on responses from the focus group participants, TIFB funding has provided an incentive for a number of public libraries to seek out new partners and collaborative opportunities although this is not highly developed or successful yet. Participants’ comments:

• Collaborating with other TIFB entities. • Collaboration in process but may generate more of a crowd for public library in future as local

school library is closed. • Greater hope for collaboration in three years. • Collaboration with local university and/or college with incentive funds from TIFB; somewhat

because of loss of school libraries. • Collaboration is supported and is an accepted mind-set in city government so TIFB, is less a key

influence than providing support to existing policy. • Community networking is supported but does not affect public library funding. • City government looks for collaboration in RFPs such as TIFB grants. • Collaboration via the community networking grant; TIFB has provided an incentive for this.

WRAP UP COMMENTS The issues that the focus group participants stressed where they hoped that TIFB would provide leadership include planning and funding to address training, security issues, and future sustainability planning. Other comments:

• TIFB outsourced the training and trainers did not have basic knowledge. • Training was a waste of time to staff, wrong information provided in training. • TIFB should play a role in determining future training issues and delivery means. • TIFB provide leadership in determining what is needed on security issue and then fund it. • TIFB grants should address security for individual libraries. • TIFB should communicate with libraries on program changes and future plans.




Small School Libraries May 28, 2002, 4-5:30 pm

1.a Staff critical information technology training needs in your library in coming 12-24 months? The responses indicate that most staff members are managing to work adequately within the framework of the available technology; however some people need training related to developing web pages and using software like Power Point as well as developing skills in troubleshooting for computers and peripherals. Participants’ comments.

Library home page needs help; librarian not technology literate so administration brought someone in with expertise to work with librarian – no help from TIFB on this issue.

PowerPoint software, software training, troubleshooting with computer, printers, etc. Technology coordinator for district helpful but also busy; works better to have someone on-site. Vendor for automation training; Lack of training availability and lack of desire to get training. Level of training offered needs attention;

• Education Service Center in Region XVII very helpful in training, etc. • Vendor has provided a day of training for 2 years – very lucky.

1.b Public training needs for public access computer resources?

Participants’ comments:

• Student training needed - software applications, learning how to do research in library. • Teachers training needed for software and library automated system. • Basic computer and research skills; utilizing automated system • Internet being used for research; need training on browsers, how to evaluate the information, etc. • Web design • PC maintenance and repair training needed for teachers.

2. Barriers to staff getting training? Participants’ comments:

Time is a significant problem because staff members cannot be away from classes or any of their regular duties. Regular duties.

• Distance to get to training classes; has to be nearby. • Barriers to public access?

3. Barriers to public access?

NA 4. Classes related to information technology currently offered in your library?

NA 5. Classes requested by users that you do not currently offer?

NA



6. Who are trainers? How are they trained?

NA 7. When and how should training be offered for trainers? The general agreement is that training needs to occur outside of the normal library and work schedule after hours or during the summer. Participants’ comments:

• Avoid conflict with school year. • Summer training is best. • TLA conference has offered some training; TIFB grants have supported librarians at conferences. • TCEA first week in February is good conference; good place to do training for librarians. • Need online training courses so trainees can learn at their convenience.


• Library aides need training also. 9. After initial training, what is needed in regard to follow up?

NA 10. Good programs to copy or adapt locally that they have seen?

The group did not have specific suggestions regarding existing programs although they did have a few ideas about how best to provide the needed training. Participants’ comments:

• Set up training session for teachers who provide tech support; and provide stipend for this responsibility.

• People who went to ESC TIFB tech trainings really formed a group; they returned and trained others;


NA 12. What documents and/or other training materials are needed to support training?

NA 13. What have been the principal effects of TIFB funding on your library? The participants indicated that the TIFB funding has been essential in providing new equipment and upgrades to existing equipment and also in strengthening services to students, teachers and the community. Participants’ comments:

• New equipment for library. • Upgrades to equipment. • Enhanced resources, particularly for kids in rural area. • Access to a computer lab. • Computer equipment added for student use.



• Librarians able to work directly with students all time. • Librarian can teach and access local online catalog in the microcomputer lab; • Research, scanner, laser printer available to teacher/students. • Extended library hours in evenings for students, teachers, and community members to use the

equipment. • TIFB helped library build a program – offering computer classes for business and seniors in

community. • Students will be better prepared because of TIFB funded computers and equipment. • Brought technology to school; people gaining confidence in using computers and electronic

information. • TILT (Texas Information Literacy Tutorial) very helpful in all classes. • Library acquired digital cameras (used by students in science class, fossil digs, etc., came back

with pictures). • Teachers very progressive in integration of technology and information

14. What are your most pressing information technology related needs in the next 12-24 months in your library? Why are they critical to you and your library? The respondents indicated that critical needs are acquiring additional workstations, other equipment, improved bandwidth, and technical support; also need assistance for web site development. Participants’ comments:

• Workstations – increase the number to meet needs; children learning in elementary to do research.

• Having access to “Best practices” information would be helpful. • Website development. • Presentations equipment - that could be checked out from library. • Digital cameras. • Faster backbone. • Technology support for schools – TIFB funding to schools on a cooperative basis sense. • Is it feasible like a 24/7 800 phone number with TIFB f support; also more training hand-on? • Hands-on training best, different district using different software/applications – almost not feasible

to train on different packages. • Keeping someone long term – they get to know system; much better situation; get familiar with

system/faculty, etc. • Could TIFB fund Tech support positions; could we write a grant for funds that would get trained

staff to stay long term? • Is it feasible to have TIFB phone support 24x7? • More hands-on training too. • It is difficult to keep qualified technical staff from moving to better jobs; could TIFB fund technical

support? 15. Does your library integrate the various electronic information resources (such as your local OPAC, TexShare TLC, or other online databases, office software, educational software, Internet) into an easy to use interface for the library user? If so, how are you accomplishing this now? NA 16. What do you personally consider to be the fundamental technology related services and/or products that libraries of your type and size should offer? The participants felt that the fundamental technology related services/products that should be offered are (1) access to current information for school and community (print and electronic), (2) access to current technology, and an (3) opportunity to learn how to use the technology. Participants’ comments:



• Current up to date information with choices in resources for students. • Familiarity with technology; able to access resources using the computers. • Provide information in both print and non-print. • Databases. • Community-wide access to resources. • Remote access. • Laptops available during summer for teachers to check out. • Video conferencing units that will be installed in various areas where students can use it.

WRAP-UP COMMENTS Library encountered some problems with meeting TIFB grant timelines: caused library to loose some TIFB funding.



SUMMARY Focus Group Notes Small Public Library June 5, 2002, 2pm

1a. Staff critical information technology training needs in your library in coming 12-24 months? A range of training needs were identified including learning different Internet search engines, skills in troubleshooting to manage computer problems, “train-the-trainer” instruction and learning to use an array of word processing programs in order to assist users. Participants’ comments:

• Training on troubleshooting for basic computer problems and checklists to help staff keep

computers running. • Search engine training and the differences between Netscape and Internet Explorer browsers. • Train-the-trainer training to help staff develop quick and easy training resources in order to help

staff and the public. • Evaluating of Internet information. • Use of word processing programs for such tasks, as writing reports or preparing resumes, cutting

and pasting of pictures – need training and a checklist. • Email program training in order to help patrons – need training and a checklist for patron email

set up. • Local area network issues such as managing several different PC’s connected to public printers,

how to change from color to black and white printing and the interface with a card based charge system for printing.

1b. Public training needs for public access computer resources?

The training needs among the public served by these libraries includes email basics; more advanced use of the Internet and TexShare databases; and handouts that can be made available to instruct users. Participants’ comments:

• Email basics. • Internet intermediate level training. • Using the internet for common tasks such as finding a job, sending an electronic resume, sending

a student loan application using Adobe, and finding games for younger children. • TexShare specific training for high school and community college students. • Handouts or “cheat sheet” describing the available application programs – could be used as a

ready reference tool 2. Barriers to staff training? Small public libraries with few staff say that it is difficult to leave the library to attend training sessions; therefore there is an interest in online training. Participants’ comments:

• Online training would be a lot easier. • Need access to computers so that staff can participate in TIF training. • Lack of time, small staff. • Need some self-paced training modules that are bite sized; self-paced training is important

especially in smaller libraries. 3. Barriers to public access? The barriers for the public relate very much to the level of staff knowledge to assist the users as well as limited availability of staff. Additionally, better presentation of library resources on a web page for example would assist some users. Participants’ comments:



• Users lack knowledge about the resources that exist. • Patrons don’t know how to ask for help (sometimes don’t ask for the right thing, so librarian has to

know). • Small staff size makes it difficult to always help users. • Need a web page to provide an introduction to TexShare as a place for users to start. • Staff lacks the resources to get training for those resources they do not know.1 • Need a portal page with search interface for all databases to aid access.


The libraries offer primarily basic level Internet classes presented either by library staff and/or volunteers, or in some situations by the city IT staff. Participants’ comments:

• Basic level Internet class in the Library Computer Lab offered by the city IT department. • Basic training on Internet offered by the library staff and/or by volunteers.

5. Classes requested by the public that you do not currently offer? These focus group participants recognize that basic Internet training and computer skills training are needed but they also acknowledge that there are uncertain about the range of training that their users would like. Participants’ comments:

• Basic Internet training or basic computer skills. • Don’t know what they want. • Staff observes the needs and sees what public needs. • Free private tutoring.

6. Who are the trainers? How are they trained? The training offered is fairly informal among these libraries and is more likely to be one-on-one than classroom or group based.

• Reference staff provides impromptu training. • Head of reference, with assistance from technology systems administrator, does training. • All three staff members provide on the spot and on request training. • Volunteers and various staff members provide training.

7. When and how should training be offered for trainers? There was agreement that online tutorials and self-paced training would be advantageous and that other training classes need to be offered close to the library. Participants’ comments:

• Online, self-paced is best. • Periodic one day training that is close - in the county (hour’s drive at the most).

8. Who needs to be trained next? NA 1 Note: We have a print copy of Web feat that we use a lot. What is good about it is that it is very subject oriented and is constantly updated. Helps the clerks especially. Can look up a subject and can offer a page of credible web sites. All staff can us it and it has a lot of topics. Would be great for small libraries with few staff.



9. After initial training, what is needed in regard to follow-up? The primary ongoing training needs identified were learning about changes that occur in search engines, and databases and well as other software products. Participants’ comments:

• Don’t know what we don’t know. • Changes in the databases. • Internet Explorer or Netscape browser changes. • Office application software upgrades.

10. Good programs to copy or adapt locally that they have seen? There were no specific programs from other libraries or organizations identified. Instead they suggested types of materials that would be helpful.

• Cheat sheets – Gates Foundation was really good at providing these tools, laminated and ready to go.

• Resume preparation. 11. Are their other assessments we should review (local)? NA 12. What documents and/or other training materials are needed to support training? Participants suggested the use of video as a means to train as well as other resources that would have a practical application for library staff and users. Participants’ comments:

• Video of a one-on-one training session that people could check out. • Training video on TLC or TexShare. • Training materials that have practical application.

13. What have been the principal effects of TIF B funding on your library? The small public libraries have benefited by providing the public with access to expanded resources (primarily through the TexShare databases) as well as having library computers for Internet access. This has increased the number of people using the libraries as well as attracting new users to the library. Participants’ comments:

• Increase in number of library users that are new to the library. • Shift in users: more “have-nots” coming in to use the computers. • Users who did not come to a “book and paper library,” but are now using the library computer

resources (e.g., email). • Has expanded the library patron base. • Along with access to new resources, the use of traditional library materials has increased. • TexShare databases not affordable except through TIF - single best thing that TIF can do and

has done; database money is critical. • Loss of TexShare in small and medium sized libraries would be devastating; it would be like

losing interlibrary loan sources. • Without TIF funds, library would be three years behind in getting on the Internet. • City Council now has a high regard for the library. Library is really respected now by city IT

department (are now considered partners, not stepchild.) These changes all came about because of TIF grant.

• High speed, high quality Internet access for staff, for public, and for most city departments.



• IS department ignored the Library until they got their TIF grants; not ignored anymore. • Library benefits by shifting allocation away from print items (not getting Contemporary Authors in

print anymore because it is available in TexShare; this frees up thousands of dollars to get other resources.

• Being able to pre-search ILL requests on World Cat means they save time and money searching OCLC

14. What are your most pressing technology related needs in the next 12-24 months in your library? Why are they critical your library? Participants reported that the main needs are additional computers and better connectivity capacity. Participants’ comments:

• Resources to upgrade the computers. • Additional terminals – competition for access to computers in the library intense. • Space to house additional terminals. • Upgrading connectivity capacity between branches and central system. • The use of wireless or fiber needs to be explored – big cost issue. • Losing the HB 2128 discounts is a real setback - small companies now can charge full rates to

libraries. • Staff to handle the demands with existing and additional computers.

15. Does your library integrate the various electronic information resources (such as your local OPAC, TexShare, office software, educational software, Internet) into an easy to use interface for the library user? If so, how are you accomplishing this now? There is some attention to this in the small public libraries but resume integration has not been addressed by most. Participants’ comments:

• Integrating everything in Horizon Catalog using Z 39.50 protocol. • Considering Horizon Sunrise; staff is fearful of letting the OPAC terminals go away because users

may do so much email checking that people won’t be able to use the online catalog. 16. What do you personally consider to be the fundamental technology related services and/or products that libraries of your type and size should offer? The respondents indicated that libraries should offer new services and resources based on the use of technology while still maintaining their traditional materials and services. Participants’ comments:

• Internet access. • Broad range of traditional services and newer services. • More one-on-one help (computer aid) than they can currently provide. • Interlibrary Loan • Videos, DVDs, CDs. • New formats and new types of information. • User friendly staff; additional staff.

WRAP UP COMMENTS

• Without funds from Gates Foundation and TIF, library wouldn’t have anything; wouldn’t have computers for the public. Funding for first TIF computers and the initial T1 services were critical. City has funded the replacement of some computers. City seems to understand the need to upgrade. Another library is on a 3-year replacement and all TIF computers will be replaced as



they become obsolete. Libraries don’t always have a way to replace equipment if the city does not have a replacement policy.



SUMMARY Email Focus Group Feedback

1. What do you see as the two highest priority finding needs for your library the TIFB should address? The respondents overwhelmingly identified two primary areas for continued funding –upgrading and expanding computer hardware and software, and the continued support and expansion of access to online databases. Other responses included

• After hours programming. • Training for students, staff, parents and the community. • Enhancements for media equipment. • Records cleanup. • Furniture for computer workstations. • Bandwidth increased and maintenance paid for by grants. • Retrospective conversion or software so records meet TLC standards (school libraries). • Training on how to teach, on integration of the technology into library services and on modules of

the automation system. • Collection development for books and media. • Continued and expanded access to databases.

2. What are two key challenges you and your library face when responding to TIFB grant program? There was a strong response indicating that there was a lack of time to complete TIFB applications, poor deadlines when applications are due for public libraries, and that the amount of time between announcement of applications and due dates was inadequate. There were many different responses though a general concern that the lack of matching funds for small libraries makes them ineligible, and problems occur with early deadlines on when grant applications are due as well as completing work under a deadlines. Other responses were varied. Participants’ comments:

• Qualified staff lacking who could complete application. • Partnering with K-12 as well as the city is very difficult. • Formulating a good technology plan including an evaluation process. • High cost of line charges and services to maintain connectivity after the grant. • Statistical data difficult to supply. • Lack of physical space to dedicate to a Distance Learning Lab. • Keeping up with the paperwork. • Finding personnel to implement a grant. • Lack of feedback/communication from the TIFB grant administrator. • Matching funds or willingness by district to continue funding. • In-kind “funds” instead of matching fund requirement should be used for small libraries. • Exclusions on grant applications including furniture for equipment, personnel or existing line

charges as well as requirements/limitations on existing technology in a library. • Keeping hardware up to date. • Bandwidth requirements. • Training for project managers needed on rules/regulations required by TIFB on grant

administration. • Staff lacking to implement grants when awarded.

3. What are the two most important benefits that have resulted from TIFB grant programs?



The overwhelming response was the ability to purchase, upgrade and/or expand the computers available to library users, and to enhance services through the technology by providing access to databases including remote access. Also, the grantees benefited by achieving a more positive impact on the role of the library. Participants’ comments:

• Library automation system. • Networking through district grants. • Staying “cutting edge.” • Internet access efficiency improved enormously for patrons and library staff. • Online data base usage increased 86%. • Automated entire library operation. • Thorough training of key staff in Microsoft has resulted in improved service. • Freed up money so regular budget for other purposes. • Improved instructional presentations. • Established a graphic production workroom for students. • Purchase of media equipment and peripherals as well as computers. • Broader bandwidth capacity.

4. If your library has not received a TIFB grant, what are the two biggest obstacles to applying for such funding?

• Other areas in the school have greater need for the TIFB funds. • Better planning and execution of projects and better ongoing service. • TIFB grants not available to ESCs. • Staff too small to help each patron find what is needed. • Participating in the grant writing process. • Asking to update MARC record; if time permits activity could be done by local staff without

additional costs, since training and program have been purchased with local funds. • Deadlines too short. • Time to complete the application.

WRAP UP COMMENTS The benefits of TIFB funding identified by the respondents included the following:

• TIFB funding has taken the libraries from operating at about 3 years behind the current technical standard all the way to state-of-the-art technology.

• TIFB funding of the TexShare databases increased student access to periodicals from 500 titles to 5,000 titles, representing a significant improvement in information access for college curriculum.

• TIFB grant programs have made an enormous difference in the quality and quantity of technology on our campus.

• TIFB grant program needs to be continued because students and teachers are just now becoming comfortable with the databases; shouldn't start something so great and then abandon it before its potential has been fully explored.

• Fortunate that people that manage TIFB funding in my district make the libraries a benefactor in many ways.

• TIFB funds help solve specific library problems (staffing/records) that seem overwhelming in a district that hires only one certified staff position.

• The TIFB funds have been extremely important to the libraries at the college. They have funded telecommunications, distance education programs, streaming video, replacement of equipment and software, establishment of low-vision centers for compliance with ADA requirements, establishment of Desktop Video Conferencing centers to extend our reference services to rural



areas and supplemental funds for the development of online courses - a program pioneered and maintained by the library within our institution.

• Small libraries depend on these funds to enhance library service. There would be no funds to replace them if lost.

• TIFB funds continuing support of the TexShare databases is the single most important support; if access to these resources were to go away, all libraries--large and small--would be hurt.

• TexShare databases are the one thing that has the ability to help every Texan (and the visitors to our state as well).

• TIFB enabled our library system to make giant leaps forward in technology. • Every Texas resident has benefited from TIFB funding and their subsequent knowledge of

computers and the Internet; these skills translate into a more educated population, which in turn attracts economic growth.

The respondents suggested the following for consideration for future TIFB funding:

• Lift restrictions on matching funds (not allowing personnel costs or existing line charges); these have been very difficult.

• Anticipated changes in the academic library grant program (moving to a competitive format, requiring collaboration between TIFB eligible entities), along with the current limitations on matching funds will likely prevent our library from applying for future grants.

• Web page (like Georgia's Galileo) that has links to online resources, internet subject and library links, online tutorials (TILT), etc.

• Virtual Reference services shared by all Texas libraries and OCLC's new reference service could offer 24/7 reference services.

• Sponsor ALA, ACRL, and LITA training and workshops - especially for information literacy. • Retrospective conversion of records of a school library is essential and should be required if TIFB

funds are used to purchase hardware and software for library automation. • Some TLC member libraries have not been directly aided by TIFB funds because there have

been unable to meet TLC membership requirements. Fund automated catalogs and computer workstations to replace aging ones as well as printers, scanners, and digital cameras.

• TIFB funding should be available to upgrade library automation programs in school districts. • Programs to incorporate the “bleeding edge” information/library technology into the curricula of

the community college. Community college libraries need to provide access to information and remote databases for the distance learner.

• TIFB could cover registration fees for conferences that academic librarians need to attend; many workshops are often offered at these conferences (ALA,TLA for example).

• TIFB could provide a grant that allows media center or educational media services upgrade their technology, i.e., broadcast systems, closed circuit TV, duplication or editing systems to provide instructional needs to the classrooms as well as for distance learners. [Many Libraries also include a Learning Resource Center (LRC) but somehow the LRC issues are not given equal funding].

• TIFB funding to compensate current employees that manage the grant since they handle this along with all of their other duties since release time is not possible.

Finally, one respondent indicated that libraries have really struggled to find a meaningful way to publicize how the Texas Legislature makes this possible for all its residents. The terms (Telecommunication Infrastructure Fund) are difficult to say or write and its not easy to educate people about how the funding works.


APPENDIX III

TIFB FORUM SUMMARY


MEETING NOTES

TIF Forum at TLA

April 25, 2002

Session conducted

by

Louella Wetherbee

at

Texas Library Association Meeting

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Appendix III – Page 1 University of North Texas


ATTENDEES TIF Forum at TLA

April 25, 2002 Name Affiliation / Library Walter Betts Dallas ISD Gay Patrick Dallas ISD Linda Wells Keller Public Library Sue Coleman Taft ISD Betty McFarland Educational Service Center 2 Brenda Yates Aransas Pass ISD Leautry Joan Anderson LTT Charter Vivian Crouch Pottsboro Area Public Library Barbara Bertoldo Alamo Heights ISD Mary D. Lankford TEA – Austin Dr. Kim Ruddy Amarillo College Debbie Brown Bullard Community Library Carolyn McCown Educational Service Center 15 Sharon Gullett Region VII Sherilyn Bird Southern Methodist University Steve Brown North Richland Hills Public Library Doris Ross Carlisle ISD Librarian Nancy Turner Hays CISD Director Marsha Harper Abilene Christian Univ., Director Joyce Crockett Fort Worth ISD Librarian Sandra Jones Seymour ISD District Librarian Jackie Dodson Waco-McLennan County Library Sandra Goodman Melissa ISD Librarian Martha Tandy Weatherford College Constance McGary Austin ISD Librarian Jeanette Mosey Austin Community College Jana Knezek Northside ISD, San Antonio, Director Marian Grona Vernon College, Wright Library “Vickie” Phillips Houston Area Library System Willie Braudaway Val Verde County Library (Del Rio) Kathy Hoffman MD Anderson Cancer Center Research Medical Library Tommie Wingfield UT Arlington Library Luanne James Port Isabel Public Library Beth Salas South Texas Library System Sarah Ferguson DCCCD Brookhaven College Jim Hundemer Houston ISD Mary Queyrouze Southern Methodist University Sally Bickley TAMU-CC Bell Library

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Appendix III – Page 2 University of North Texas


Name Affiliation / Library Toni Lambert Houston Public Library Chris Travis Round Top Library Rhoda Goldberg Harris County Public Library Cathy Threadgill Brazoria County Library System Lynne Handy North Texas Regional Library System Gloria Meraz Texas Library Association Marvin Rich TLA Legis-Comm Patrick Heath City of Boerne, TX Lee Shafer Mineola Memorial Library, Mineola Laura Kimberly Amigos Library Services Robert Williams Williams Consulting Chris Peterson Amigos Library Services Carla Felsted St. Edwards Univ. Library Eilean Shechet St. Edwards Univ. Library S. Joe McCord U.H. Clear Lake Becky Young San Angelo ISD Mary Duffy Univ. of TX – El Paso Ann Smelly Pleasanton ISD Sue Haas Richardson Public Library Martha Knott San Antonio Public Library Marilyn Powers Como-Pickton CISD Larry D. Justis Tom Green County Library Jerry McCulley Northeast Texas Library System Peg Jennings Central Texas College Beverly Shirley Texas State Library Archives Comm. Eugene Holden Southwestern A/G University Suzanne Quick Thorndale ISD John Deats Midland College Ron Homick Houston Comm. College System Sara Joiner Brazoria City Lib Sys Margaret Waring Comanche Public Library Sharon Carr El Paso ISD Linda Garrett Dallas ISD Loriann Thompson Region 10 Educational Service Center JoAnne Moore Region 13 Educational Service Center Susie Monda Moore Memorial, Texas City Joan Leach Fort Worth ISD Vickye Drwey Fort Worth ISD Becky Ice Glen Rose High, Glen Rose Rose Aleta Laurell Dr. Eugene Clark Library, Lockhart James Karnes Irving Public Library Julie Daehners West Main Elem, Lancaster ISD Linda Watson Millbrook Elem, Lancaster Joanne Flashe Slaton HS, Slaton Beatrice Takares Big Country Library System William L. Kincade Howard College Wanda Vent Richardson Public Library Darryl Haynes Mansfield Steve Standefer Mansfield P.L. Mansfield

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Appendix III -- Page 3 University of North Texas


Question 1. How has TIF served your library?

• Dallas County Community College: Equipment • Public Library: CNI grant: comm. networking grants + 2 others; leveraged w/city; the city has

been able to leverage the T-1 line & they (city) have networked all the city offices. • Val Verde Del Rio: 2 TIF grants 100,000 – TIF Tech training helpful to start – level playing field;

T1 line • MD Anderson: Use for content. • Mansfield Public Library: Leveraged capabilities with the Gates grant; went from 2 PC’s plus dial-

up to 12 fast Internet connections. • Harris County Public Library: 2 grants – they have expanded public access capability at all

branches and have been able to leverage county funds and buy databases and content (900,000 was used for databases).

• Dallas ISD: Received workstations, server, they have been allowed to replace 3.1computers - machines in the school library. Libraries are not “technology.”

• ESC Region 10: They have 40 schools with small campuses - 5 computers – if they had not been able to access the TIF, the rural child would be in jeopardy. Computers & automation & TLC.

• The Colony: Two years ago they started up and they added 22 computers and a T1 line – they have office programs, the TexShare databases – use of the library by school children, public library. They are conduit to bring money back into the community. They are building a classroom with TIF funding to show users how to use.

• Amarillo College: Community network grant. Non-profit websites and Internet training. • UT Arlington: Build classrooms to teach Internet. • San Antonio: They have bought day trips, they have 6 classes per month – now they use

Laptops – wireless LAN. • North Richland Hills: They have ½ million hits per year access from without the library. • Houston ISD: Teachers received laptops at Houston ISD. • Bastrop ISD: Don’t know where hardware is going in schools but TLC database funds is

wonderful – they can buy books with savings – training is wonderful. databases and training. Question 2. What are the most pressing needs 2-3 years, to fully implement public access?

• Dallas ISD: Web by catalog w/ Z39.50 • Houston: They have a problem getting all the resources to the students – they need a single

interface to multiple resources. Houston ISD – “screen for every face”; wireless. • Fort Worth: Large school districts use all their money for infrastructure but they need things for

libraries – automation systems. • San Angelo ISD: They get a lot of hardware & software – but they are now updating hardware

and the schools are not going to provide upgrades, replacements; wireless is going to be a key issue.

• Houston Public Library: Bandwidth growth is extreme – if you do not have the bandwidth and connections – things are degrading. Need more bandwidth; telecom fees.

• East TX ISD: Gilmer IA school – not automated: wants to be automated – need automation!! Still

• Round Top Public Library: They have 1 ISP in town – very limited and crisis at the basic curriculum level. Urban ?? expectations drive needs. Needs to supplement poor schools; adults computer illiterate, no resources for adults.

• Bullard Public Library: Not automated, slow awkward & wants a grant from TIF. Needs automation.

• Del Rio County Library: TIF grants have sustainability as an issue – but they have no way to do the sustainability upgrading hardware and connectivity; they are creating higher expectations among our public.



• Keller Public Library: Totally agree with Del Rio Critical – Can the TexShare databases be in the State Library budget – please let the public use the databases from home.

• Mineola Public Library: They are automated, but TIF grants unavailable because of lack of electrical wiring; they cannot afford to have grounded electrical plugs. They have not been able to go to the training classes because they could not add a training room.

• Melissa ISD: Experiencing great growth, automated but the server is degrading with growth. Hardware cannot handle modern software.

• Irving Charter School: Wants a grant but does not have a library. • Dallas County Community College: Wires and boxes are critical and are important tool; they

have an ongoing need. Repair and replacement is ongoing need. Question 3. Type of grant that would best serve your library in the next 2-3 years:

• School: Longer hours for service; have no partner requirement; the partnership creates turmoil. After hours access.

• Round Top Public Library: Has a large building funded by a private donor; hardware needed. • MD Anderson: Keep the grants non-competitive. • Keller Public Library: Grants take staff time, do multi year grants – more years to spread out the

work. • Dallas ISD: They need specific grants from TLC & TIF, they need more, broader databases. • Northside ISD San Antonio: 78 campuses – the school districts need grants too – keep grants to

schools for network connectivity. Continue connectivity and TLC. • TEA: 14% of students do not have services of library – infrastructure is #1 or you can’t get to

content. 17.1% of the school population economically disadvantaged, not receiving library services; 13% of these receive no library services; school libraries should serve school.

• Schools infrastructure; databases. • Richardson Public Library: They were not eligible, guidelines should be less restrictive. Open up

grants so RPL can apply. • Dallas County Community College: Change match from cash to in-kind. Make it a requirement to

automate library. • Academic grants greatly benefited academic libraries and the campuses. • Higher ED: Infrastructure grants are good.

Question 4. What kind of training needs are there for libraries and staff?

• Public Library: Grant REQUIRES training. • Richardson Public Library: Have cooperative, organized, frequent training; cooperative between

Educational Service Center (ESCs) and Systems for training delivery. • Mansfield Public Library: Training leads to sustainability, and there is a link between the two.

External or internal training should be provided. • Public Library: Staff trainer • School, TIF money should include money for hiring people. • Schools: Having release time & funds for a substitute – each principal decides who gets for

training and support – put strings what training be. • Keller Public Library: Use Tocker model for funding – they had to go through training – small. • ISD: TIF will pay for substitutes; every recipient feels that they need more training; wants more

variety in training, more release time for training. • Del Rio: Training online for particular systems and would be helpful – patrons as well as staff;

training needs are great; a lot need one on one training. • Alamo Heights ISD: Need training at point of need, Alamo Heights is undergoing teacher training

program for proficiency needs: Gates have great tutorials. • Throndale ISD: Training is required for TLC. • Public Library: Varieties of training available; online training.



• ISD: Repeated training may be necessary; point of need training, convenience, online, establish standards.

Question 5. What needs are there for patron training?

• Dallas ISD: Wants integrated searching capability; Googleize. • Bullard Public Library: Space and time issues; they have to do after hours; can’t do. • Del Rio: Get a training classrooms but they can teach people who are qualified to teach; so go to

the online tutorial. • Dallas County Community College: Student retention; they can’t track how students are doing

literately; retention. • Houston Public Library: Biggest problem is getting trainers, libraries too busy; Bush no child left

behind has federal to open schools after hours. • Public Library: Shuts down library. • Public Library: After hours. • Public Library: Need trainers and can’t find them so prefers online modules. • Dallas County Community College: Link training outcomes to library training. • TEA: What resources are available, and where? • Public Library: Personnel costs for trainers.


APPENDIX IV.A

SUMMARY OF THE SURVEY RESULTS BY TYPE OF LIBRARY:

ACADEMIC

Needs Assessment Study of Texas Academic, Public and School Libraries: Final Report

A Needs Assessment Study of Texas Academic, Public and School Libraries Overview of the Academic Library Survey Data

1. Introduction This overview presents selected results from the survey of academic libraries that was carried out as part of the project, A Needs Assessment Study of Texas Academic, Public, and School Libraries, conducted by the Texas Center for Digital Knowledge at the University of North Texas. The Needs Assessment Study Team developed a questionnaire for academic libraries based on a set of Framing Questions that had been previously developed and reviewed with the Library Working Group (LWG) and which were considered to represent the type of information the LWG desired to gather through the surveys (see Appendix I). The following report gives the results from a survey mailed to all Texas Academic institutions, including libraries located in all public and private 4-year academic institutions, 2-year academic institutions and academic public health institutions. A total of 147 surveys were mailed to the academic libraries. A total of 100 surveys were returned for a 68% response rate. Based on type, there were 39 responses or 40.6% of the total responses from 4-year private and academic institutions, 52 or 54.1% of the responses came from 2-year private or public institutions and 5 or 5.2% of the responses were from academic libraries in public health institutions. The libraries were also coded by size of their institution, small, medium or large. Based on size categories, 26% of the responses were received from large academic institutions, 47% from medium and 27% from small institutions. Entering data, quality checking of data entry, and analysis of the data occurred from early June through August. 2. Overview of the Survey Questionnaire The survey questions were organized into six categories as follows. This overview of selected results, for the most part, follows this sequence of questions.

Table A-1 Survey Questionnaire Categories

Section Title Questions

1 Respondent Information 1-3 2 Technology Resources 4-23 3 Technology and Curriculum 24-27 4 Training 28-39 5 TIF Technology Impact 40-51 6 Future Needs 52-54

There are three types of questions reported on in this analysis. Questions answered with “yes” or “no” responses are shown as pie charts. Questions asking respondents to rate or rank a condition or issue are shown as charts sequenced in order of importance, frequency, etc. Open-ended responses were coded by category. A number of questions report means scores; unless otherwise indicated, scale for means questions were on a 4-point (4-1) scale. These responses are displayed in Charts on the report. For each of the results reported, the question number on the questionnaire (see Appendix # VIII for a copy of the questionnaire) is provided in parentheses.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Appendix IV.A – Page 1 University of North Texas


3. Characteristics of Surveyed Academic Libraries Presence of a Web site Ninety-seven percent (97%) or almost all of the academic libraries said they have a web site (Q11). Academic libraries are most likely to have campus-based technical support, 73 of the libraries or 51% have this type of technical support. Forty percent (40%) have their own technical support staff, 8.3% contract for external technical support. Q. A 9.

Chart A-1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80#

of R

espo

nses

Cam

pus-

wid

e te

chni

cal

supp

ort s

taff

Ow

n te

chni

cal s

uppo

rtst

aff

Con

tract

with

ext

erna

lte

chni

cal s

uppo

rt

Do

not k

now

Form of Support

Form Of Technical Support For Library

Q A9_1 -- What form of technical support does your library have?

Form of Support # of %Responses

Campus-wide technical support staff 73 51Own technical support staff 58 40.5Contract with external tech support 12 8.3Do not know 0

Academic libraries felt external technical support was more likely to be adequate (91.6%), while 77% felt their own technical support was adequate and 67% said their campus-based technical support was adequate. Q. A 9.



Chart A-2

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

% A

dequ

ate

Con

tract

with

ext

erna

lte

chni

cal s

uppo

rt

Ow

n te

chni

cal s

uppo

rtst

aff

Cam

pus-

wid

e te

chni

cal

supp

ort s

taff

Do

not k

now

Technical Support

Type and Adequacy of the Library's Technical Support

Technical Support % Adequate

Contract with external technical support 91.67%Own technical support staff 77.59%Campus-wide technical support staff 67.12%Do not know 0.00%

Q A9_2 -- What form of technical support does your library have? Is your technical support adequate?

Authentication Academic libraries provide authentication (require passwords or logins) for users in 91% of cases for remote access to locally provided databases. Q. A 5.

Chart A-3

Library Provides Authentication For Remote Access by Users

Yes91%

No8%

DNK1%

Yes No DNK

Q A5 -- Does the library provide authentication (require passwords or log ins) for its users for remote access to locally provided databases?

# of Responses Percent

Yes 85 91.4No 7 7.5DNK 1 1.1Total 93 100.0



In providing authentication for users from locations other than the library to remote databases, 62% of the academic libraries use proxy server login/password, 16% use proxy server by IP address, 16% use integrated library system authentication, and 15% used other methods or were unsure about the method used. Q. A 6.

Chart A-4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

# of

Lib

rarie

s

Prox

y se

rver

logi

n/pa

ssw

ord

Prox

y se

rver

by

IPad

dres

s

Inte

grat

ed li

brar

ysy

stem

aut

hent

icat

ion

Oth

er

Do

Not

Kno

w

Method

Library Provides Authentication Of Its Users From Home

Q A6_1 -- If your library provides authentication of its users, what is the authentication method used? ( from home)

Method # %

Proxy server login/password 62 56.9Proxy server by IP address 16 14.7Integrated library system authentication 16 14.7Other 11 9.0Do Not Know 4 3.7Total 109

Twenty-six percent (26%) of academic libraries said they could provide authentication with an additional module to their integrated library system. Ten and one-half percent (10.5%) said no, and 62.8% were unsure. Q. A 7.



Chart A-5

Library Could Provide Authentication With an ILS Module

No10%

Yes27%

DNK63%

Yes No DNK

Q A7 -- Could your library provide authentication with an additional ILS module?


Yes 23 26.7No 9 10.5DNK 54 62.8Total 86 100.0

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the academic libraries said that if the state library were to provide an authentication method for accessing TexShare databases, they would be more likely to provide remote access for users, 2l.8% said they would not, 9.2% were unsure. Q. A 8.

Chart A-6

Library Would Be Likely To Promote Remote Access With a Provided Authentication Method

No22%

DNK9%

Yes69%

Yes No DNK

Q A8 -- If the State Library were to provide your library with an authentication method for accessing TexShare databases, would your library be more likely to promote remote access to users?

# of Responses PercentYes 60 69.0No 19 21.8DNK 8 9.2Total 87 100.0



Access for those with Physical Disabilities Most academic libraries (92.4%) provide at least one workstation for those with physical disabilities. Seventy-two percent (72%) of the libraries have accessible workstations for those with vision disabilities, and forty-two percent accommodate hearing disabilities. Q. A 14.

Chart A-7

Library Provides Workstation For Persons With Physical Disabilities

Yes92%

No8%

Yes No

Q A14_1 -- Does your library provide at least one workstation: Accessible to persons with physical disabilities?


Yes 85 92.4No 7 7.6Total 92 100.0

Academic libraries in 6.4% of the cases said they provide Spanish instructions for online resources and less than 5% of the academic libraries provide online instructions in languages other than English or Spanish. Q. A 15,16.



Chart A-8

Library Has Instructions In Spanish

Yes6%

No94%

Yes No

Q A 15 -- Are instructions on how to access your online resources available on the web in Spanish?


Yes 6 6.4No 88 93.6Total 94 100.0

Chart A-9

Library Has Instructions In Other Languages

DNK1%

No99%

No DNK

Q A16 -- Are instructions on how to access your online resources available on the web in languages other than English and Spanish?


Yes 0 0No 95 95.0DNK 1 1.0Total 96 96.0

Given the recent census returns for Texas, supplying more services and access in Spanish and other languages may become more important. 4. Equipment, Software and Loans



Academic library staff is most likely to use word processing software, e-mail, anti-virus software, web browsers and spreadsheet software. Least used are computer time controls, print charging control software and image editing software. Q. A 10.

Chart A-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

# of

Res

pons

es

Wor

d pr

oces

sing

sof

twar

eEl

ectro

nic

mai

lAn

ti-vi

rus

softw

are

Web

bro

wse

r Sp

read

shee

t sof

twar

e W

eb d

evel

opm

ent s

oftw

are

Dat

abas

e so

ftwar

e Pr

esen

tatio

n / g

raph

ics

/ pub

lishi

ngH

TML

editi

ng s

oftw

are

Secu

rity

softw

are

Imag

ing

editi

ng

Prin

t cha

rgin

g / c

ontro

l sof

twar

eU

ser c

ompu

ter t

ime

cont

rol s

oftw

are

Software

Software Regularly Used By Staff

Q A10_1 -- Do your library staff and users regularly use the following software applications? (Staff)

Software # of Responses

Word processing software 97Electronic mail 97Anti-virus software 97Web browser 96Spreadsheet software 91Web development software 83Database software 82Presentation / graphics / publishing 82HTML editing software 74Security software 64Imaging editing 59Print charging / control software 24User computer time control software 1

The most commonly provided equipment to staff are personal computers (99%), laser printers (96%) and data projectors (87%). Staff is less likely to have access to e-book readers (16%), personal digital assistants (15%), or DVD burners (20%). Q. A 4.



Chart A-11

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

% o

f Lib

rarie

s

Pers

onal

com

pute

rs

Lase

r prin

ters

Dat

a pr

ojec

tors

Flat

bed

scan

ners

Dig

ital c

amer

as

Lapt

ops

Inkj

et p

rinte

rs

CD

bur

ners

Han

dhel

d or

pen

sca

nner

s

Wire

less

Eth

erne

t car

ds fo

r lap

tops

Vide

o co

nfer

enci

ng e

quip

men

t

DVD

bur

ners

Pers

onal

dig

ital a

ssis

tant

s

E-bo

ok re

ader

s

Equipment

Library Provides Equipment For Staff

Q A4_1 -- Does your library provide the following equipment for Staff

Equipment % of Libraries

Personal computers 99.00Laser printers 96.90Data projectors 87.20Flatbed scanners 85.10Digital cameras 77.70Laptops 76.00Inkjet printers 74.70CD burners 73.90Handheld or pen scanners 53.20Wireless Ethernet cards for laptops 41.80Video conferencing equipment 38.00DVD burners 20.90Personal digital assistants 17.00

Libraries are also most likely to have the following equipment available for use within the library: laser printers (94.7%) and personal computers (91.4%). More than one half of the academic libraries are providing laptops (55.6%) and 38.5% provide Ethernet cards for laptops. E-books are being offered to users by 16% of the academic libraries. Only a few academic libraries supply users with personal digital assistants (1.1%), pen scanners (34%), or DVD burners (6.6%). Q. A 4.2.

Chart A-12

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

% o

f Lib

rarie

s

Lase

r prin

ters

Pers

onal

com

pute

rs

Flat

bed

scan

ners

Lapt

ops

Dat

a pr

ojec

tors

CD

bur

ners

Wire

less

Eth

erne

t car

ds fo

r lap

tops

Inkj

et p

rinte

rs

Dig

ital c

amer

as

Vide

o co

nfer

enci

ng e

quip

men

t

E-bo

ok re

ader

s

DVD

bur

ners

Han

dhel

d or

pen

sca

nner

s

Pers

onal

dig

ital a

ssis

tant

s

Equipment

Library Provides Equipment For Users

Q A4_2 -- Does your library provide the following equipment for Users?

Equipment % of Libraries

Laser printers 94.70Personal computers 91.40Flatbed scanners 60.40Laptops 55.60Data projectors 42.70CD burners 39.60Wireless Ethernet cards for laptops 38.50Inkjet printers 31.80Digital cameras 27.80Video conferencing equipment 21.10E-book readers 16.90DVD burners 6.60Handheld or pen scanners 3.40Personal digital assistants 1.10



Ninety-five percent (95%) of the libraries say they permit checkout of laptops, although as indicated earlier only 18% of the libraries provide laptops. Q. A 14.2. Most libraries (92%) said they would not permit laptops to be connected to the library’s LAN. Q. A 14. 3. Software applications used by the public and the staff are similar. Most common applications are word processing, e-mail, web browser, anti-virus software. Staff is more likely to use spreadsheet and presentation/graphics software than users. Q. A 13.1. Both staff and users are less likely to use HTML editing and web development tools or imaging editing software. 5. Library Services and Databases The TexShare databases are a core part of academic library service. Sixty-five percent (65%) of academic libraries say they use TexShare databases “heavily” to answer user questions and 88.4% said they use the TexShare databases either heavily or daily, 9.5% say they use them weekly and 2.1% said they use them monthly. Q. A 17.

Chart A-13

Frequency That Librarians Use TexShare Databases

Daily24%

2-3 times per week9%

1-2 times per month2%

Heavily65%

HeavilyDaily2-3 times per week1-2 times per month

Q A17 -- How frequently do your librarians use TexShare databases to answer questions for library users?


Heavily 61 64.2Daily 23 24.22-3 times per week 9 9.51-2 times per month 2 2.1Total 95 100.0

The results were also analyzed by size. Results show that 100% of the large libraries are likely to use the TexShare databases heavily or daily. Ninety-three percent of the medium-sized libraries reported using the TexShare database heavily or daily and 68% of the small institutions reported using the TexShare databases heavily or daily. There are 60 TexShare databases available. Respondents were asked to indicate two or three examples of databases used recently. They gave 233 specific responses in the open-ended responses. The most frequently mentioned databases used were EBSCO with 103 or 40% of the libraries indicating they searched “EBSCO”, Academic Search Premier (n 52), 20.2%, and Business Source Premier (n 21), 8.2%. The next most frequently mentioned databases used were Literature Resource Center (n17) 6.6% and “Gale” (n17) 6.2%. There were an additional 29 other databases mentioned by the respondents. The most frequently mentioned subjects and formats were magazines, journal articles and newspapers. The most



frequently mentioned subject searches were in the areas of general reference, medical/health, business and literature. Q. A 18. The survey does not identify the universe of non-TexShare databases these libraries are referring to. However, use of non-TexShare databases by academic libraries shows that 52.7% of the libraries use non-TexShare databases heavily, 32.3% say they use them daily, 12.9% say they use them weekly and 1.1% say they use them monthly, 1.1% say they do not use non-TexShare databases. Q A 19.

Chart A-14

Frequency That Librarians Use non-TexShare Resources

Heavily53%Daily

32%



Never1%

Heavily Daily

2-3 times per week 1-2 times per month

Never

Q A19 -- How frequently do your librarians use non-TexShare online resources to assist library users?


Heavily 49 52.7Daily 30 32.32-3 times per week 12 12.91-2 times per month 1 1.1Never 1 1.1Total 93 100.0

6. Use of Online Resources Academic libraries use online resources to support the faculty’s teaching and educational activities by assisting faculty in integrating resources into the curriculum and to obtain images from the Internet. Q. A 24.



Chart A-15

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Mea

ns

Cre

ate

inst

ruct

iona

lm

ater

ials

/han

dout

s

Get

imag

es fr

om th

eIn

tern

et fo

r use

inpr

ojec

ts

Prov

ide

inst

ruct

ion

onsp

ecifi

c co

mpu

ter

appl

icat

ions

Use

or a

ssis

t with

clas

sroo

m s

oftw

are

Assi

st w

ith d

igiti

zing

cour

se-re

late

d m

ater

ials

Cre

ate

web

-bas

edco

urse

s or

tuto

rials

for

stud

ents

Cre

ate

web

-bas

edco

urse

s or

tuto

rials

for

facu

lty

Resources

Library Staff Members Use Online Resources To Support Faculty

Q A24 -- How frequently do library staff members use online resources to support faculty to do the following:

Resources Means

Create instructional materials/handouts 2.43Get images from the Internet for use in projects 2.22Provide instruction on specific computer applications 2.19Use or assist with classroom software 2.07Assist with digitizing course-related materials 1.91Create web-based courses or tutorials for students 1.62Create web-based courses or tutorials for faculty 1.36

The means scores are reported below. The scale asked respondents to rate these responses on a five point scale; 5 = heavily; 4 = daily; 3 = 1-2 week; 2 = 1-2 x month 1 = never. The means scores indicate that libraries are reporting using online resources at least a few times monthly to assist faculty.

Table A-2 Staff Use of Online Resources

Assistance Mean Scores

To create instructional materials and handouts 2.43 To get images from the Internet for use in projects 2.22 To provide instruction on specific computer applications 2.19 To assist with computer software 2.07

The academic libraries, however, are less likely to use online resources to support formal teaching. They are also less likely to create web-based courses or tutorials for students or for faculty. Q. A 24. 7. Integration of Technology and Resources Academic libraries said that more online databases, more bandwidth and more equipment would be important factors to maintain their current level of computing access. The following table summarizes the responses as a ranking of a set of factors. Q. A 53.



Chart A-16

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Wei

ghte

d R

anki

ng

One

is H

ighe

st ra

nk

More on

line d

ataba

ses

Enhan

ced c

onne

ctivit

y

Deskto

p com

puter

s & as

socia

ted eq

uipmen

t

Online

librar

y cata

log in

stalla

tion,

upgra

de, o

r repla

cemen

t

Websit

e dev

elopm

ent

Techn

ical tr

aining

Distan

ce le

arning

Inform

ation

secu

rity

Factors

Importance Of Factors To Maintain Your Current Level Of Computing Access

Q A53-- In order to maintain your current level of computing access, please prioritize the importance of each of the following (Please rank each statement with a "1" for most important, "2" for second most important, "3" for third most important and so on

Factors Ranking

More online databases 1Enhanced connectivity 2 Desktop computers & associated equipment 3Online library catalog installation, upgrade, replacement 4Website development 5Technical training 6Distance learning 7Information security 8

Table A-3 Computing Access Level

Factor Rank

More online databases 1 Enhanced connectivity-bandwidth 2 Desktop computers and associated equipment 3 Online library catalog installation, upgrade, or replacement 4 Web site development 5 Technical training 6 Distance learning 7 Information security 8

Academic library survey participants were asked to rate on a 1-5 point scale, with 4 being the highest, the importance of certain factors as barriers to use of Internet services. The results are reported as means scores that show that the issues that were considered the most important barriers were money issues, inadequate funding to sustain technology and the cost of computer hardware and software. Q A 26



Chart A-17

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

Mea

ns

Lack

of a

dequ

ate

fund

ing

to s

usta

in te

chno

logy

C

ost o

f com

pute

r har

dwar

e C

ost o

f com

pute

r sof

twar

e C

ost o

f tra

inin

g an

d ed

ucat

ion

Facu

lty's

lack

of s

kills

in u

sing

tech

nolo

gy

Lim

ited

staf

f ski

lls in

usi

ng te

chno

logy

St

aff's

lim

ited

time

for u

sing

tech

nolo

gy

Stud

ents

' lac

k of

ski

lls in

usi

ng te

chno

logy

In

adeq

uacy

of I

nter

net s

peed

Ph

ysic

al s

pace

lim

itatio

ns

Lack

of i

n ho

use

tech

nica

l exp

ertis

e In

adeq

uacy

of l

ocal

tele

com

mun

icat

ions

acc

ess

Lack

of m

anag

emen

t sup

port

Lack

of t

rain

ing

on h

ow to

use

the

Inte

rnet

C

ost o

f pho

ne c

harg

es

Barriers

Importance Of Barriers To Use Of the Internet In the LibraryQ A26-- In your opinion, how important are the following as barriers to the use of your library's Internet services?

Barriers Means

Lack of adequate funding to sustain technology 3.31Cost of computer hardware 3.10Cost of computer software 3.03Cost of training and education 2.96Faculty's lack of skills in using technology 2.90Limited staff skills in using technology 2.63Staff's limited time for using technology 2.61Students' lack of skills in using technology 2.57Inadequacy of Internet speed 2.56Physical space limitations 2.48Lack of in house technical expertise 2.39Inadequacy of local telecommunications access 2.34Lack of management support 2.26

Reported as means scores, the academic libraries rated the following three issues as the least important barriers:

Table A-4 Least Important Barriers

Factor Mean Scores

Lack of management support 2.26 Lack of training on how to use the Internet 2.22 Cost of phone charges 1.82

8. User Complaints Academic librarians said users complain most frequently about noise in the computer area, staff not having the skills to assist users with technology and that wait times to use computers are too long. Q. A 27.



Chart A-18

1.4

1.45

1.5

1.55

1.6

1.65

1.7

1.75

1.8

Mea

ns

Com

pute

r are

a is

too

nois

y

Staf

f not

hav

ing

the

skills

to h

elp

user

s w

ithte

chno

logy

Wai

ting

lines

are

long

tous

e co

mpu

ters

Com

pute

rs a

re o

ut o

for

der t

oo fr

eque

ntly

Prin

ting

is n

ot re

adily

avai

labl

e fro

mw

orks

tatio

ns

Wor

ksta

tion

furn

iture

isun

com

forta

ble

Complaints

Frequency of User Complaints

Q A27-- In your opinion, how frequently do users complain about the following?

Complaints Means

Computer area is too noisy 1.76Staff not having the skills to help users with technology 1.62Waiting lines are long to use computer 1.59Computers are out of order too frequently 1.57Printing is not readily available from workstations 1.55Workstation furniture is uncomfortable 1.53

9. Special Collections Twenty-five percent (25%) of academic libraries have unique special collection materials subjects that have been digitized and 74% do not.1 Q. A 21.

Chart A-19

Library Has Special Collection Materials On the Web

No74%

DNK1%

Yes25%

Yes No DNK

Q A21 -- Does your library have unique special collection materials (for example; archives, photographic images, letters, manuscripts) that have been digitized and made available over the web?


Yes 24 25.0No 71 74.0DNK 1 1.0Total 96 100.0

1 The questionnaire did not ask what the type or subject of the special collections were.



Twenty academic libraries responded about the percent of their special collections that have been digitized and made available on the web. The libraries reported that between 5% to 75% of their collections have been digitized. Q. A 22.

Chart A-20

% of Special Collection on the Web

6 to 1020%

11 to 200%

21 to 305%

0 to 575%

0 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30

Q A22_1 -- If yes, what percent of your unique special collections materials would you estimate have been digitized and made available via the web?


0 - 5 15 756 - 10 4 2011 - 20 0 021 - 30 1 5

Academic libraries indicated that more than one third, 38%, have finding aids to their special collections on their websites to assist users. Q. A 23.



Chart A-21

Library Has Finding Aids on Its Website To Assist With Special Collections

No61%

DNK1% Yes

38%

Yes No DNK

Q A23 -- Does your library have finding aids on your library's website to assist users of your special collections materials?


Yes 35 38.5No 55 60.4DNK 1 1.1Total 91 100.0

These results suggest that academic libraries have not yet begun to fully exploit the power and benefits of digitizing their special collections in order to make these materials available remotely. 10. Technology, Online Resources and the Curriculum Academic libraries said the most important factors in helping to integrate information technology into the library are adequate and high quality access to equipment, staff skills and quality training. Q. A 25.



Chart A-22

3.003.103.203.303.403.503.603.703.803.90

Mea

ns

Adeq

uate

acc

ess

to h

ardw

are

and

softw

are

Qua

lity

of c

ompu

ter t

echn

olog

y av

aila

ble

Staf

f tec

hnol

ogy

skills

Avai

labl

e st

aff t

ime

to d

evot

e to

this

task

Qua

lity

of te

chni

cal t

rain

ing

Use

r ini

tiativ

e

Influ

ence

of u

ser d

eman

ds

Expe

ctat

ions

of f

acul

ty

Facu

lty te

chno

logy

ski

lls

Stud

ent t

echn

olog

y sk

ills

Factors

Important Factors In Integrating Information Technology In the Library

Q A25_1 -- In your opinion, how important are the following factors in helping to integrate information technology in the library?

Factor MeanAdequate access to hardware and software 3.90Quality of computer technology available 3.88Staff technology skills 3.79Available staff time to devote to this task 3.71Quality of technical training 3.60User initiative 3.49Influence of user demands 3.44Expectations of faculty 3.41Faculty technology skills 3.35Student technology skills 3.35

The mean scores related to the importance of certain factors in helping to integrate information technology show that the respondents were in agreement about the importance of these factors. Rating these factors on a 4 point scale of importance, the factors of adequate access to hardware and software, quality of computer technology and staff technology skills were ranked high by almost all respondents. Still important but rated lower were the need to train the faculty and staff in technology use. Q. A. 25.

Table A-5 Information Technology Factors

Factor Mean Scores

Faculty technology skills 3.35 Student technology skills 3.35 Expectations of faculty 3.41

11. Availability of Distance Learning Academic libraries indicated the following in relation to distance learning capabilities: Libraries were most likely to have distance learning capability via the Internet with 73.7% stating they had distance learning capability via the Internet. Video-conference and teleconference capability is available in 46% of the academic libraries. Q. A 12.



Chart A-23

Library Has Distance Learning Via Internet

No26%

Yes74%

Yes No

Q A12_1 -- Does your library have distance learning available via Internet ?


Yes 70 73.7No 25 26.3Total 95 100.0

Academic libraries indicated one quarter of the libraries are creating distance education programs while 75.8% said they are not. The survey data does not provide information as to whether their parent institutions are engaged in authoring distance education programs even if the library is not doing so. Q. A 13.



Chart A-24

Library Creates Distance Education Programs

Total50%

Yes12%

No38%

Yes No Total

Q A13_1 -- Does your library? Create distance education programs?


Yes 23 24.2No 72 75.8Total 95 100.0

The majority of academic libraries permit students (67.1%), faculty (67.7%) and library staff (78.3%) to use library computer and other distance learning equipment to take classes at other institutions. Q. A 13.

Chart A-25

Library Allows Faculty To Take Distance Education Courses From Other Institutions

No29%

DNK3%

Yes68%

Yes No DNK

Q A13_3 -- Does your library? Allow faculty to utilize your library's computers to take distance education courses offered by another institution?


Yes 63 67.7No 27 29.0DNK 3 3.2Total 93 100.0

The results indicate that while many academic libraries have distance education capabilities, there is room for more development of distance education strategies for academic libraries.



12. User Training Issues Academic libraries feel it is important that faculty receive training in how to assess the quality of online information and in building Internet skills, particularly as related to classroom instructional purposes. Q. A 35. The respondents were asked to rate the importance of training for faculty on a 4-point scale.

Table A-6 Importance of Faculty Training

Factor Mean Scores

Evaluating the quality and reliability of online information 3.63 Using the Internet to conduct research 3.61 Creating web-based classroom assignments 3.52 Managing classroom courseware 3.45 Creating multimedia presentations 3.34

On the other hand, staff feel the faculty do not need troubleshooting training and this may reflect the presence of the campus technical support which deals with these issues. The following training issues received lower mean scores. Q. A 35.

Table A-7 Faculty Troubleshooting Training

Factor Mean Scores

Troubleshooting computer peripheral problems 2.38 Troubleshooting software problems 2.32 Troubleshooting hardware problems 2.18

Asked to rate on a 4- point scale how important it is for students to receive certain kinds of training, the academic libraries also feel it is important for students to receive training in how to assess the quality of online information and in building Internet skills, particularly as related to classroom instructional purposes. Most of the academic libraries agreed that helping faculty and students to evaluate the reliability and quality of Internet resources is an important issue. A 35. Q. A 36.

Table A-8 Evaluating Internet Resources

Factor Mean Scores

Evaluating the quality and reliability of online information 3.87 Integrating online resources into classroom assignments 3.54 Learning basic computer skills 3.28 Creating multi media presentations 3.01

Staff also feel that students do not need troubleshooting training as much as other types of training. A number of issues had somewhat lower mean scores, although the scores indicate that these training issues were of importance to some libraries. Q. A 35.



Table A-9 Student Troubleshooting Training

Factor Mean Scores

Troubleshooting computer peripheral problems 2.48 Troubleshooting software problems 2.43 Troubleshooting hardware problems 2.38

13. Staff Training Issues Academic libraries rated their staff as most skilled in the areas of using e-mail and the library catalog followed by searching the Internet and using web search engines, TexShare databases and word processing. Academic respondents were asked to rate the level of skill of their staff, 4= very skilled, 3= somewhat skilled, 2= somewhat unskilled and 1= very unskilled. Q. A 28. The mean score results show the academic library respondents mostly agree that their staff are well skilled. The high mean scores occur for 10 of 27 skills assessed.

Table A-10 Staff Level of Skill

Skill Mean Scores

Accessing e-mail 3.81 Searching the library’s catalog 3.79 Searching the Internet 3.60 Using web search engines 3.54 Using TexShare databases 3.47 Using Microsoft Word 3.35 Using online encyclopedias 3.31 Accessing TexShare databases from home 3.04 Using the Internet as a teaching tool 3.04

Staff were still skilled, but there was less agreement among the libraries resulting in lower mean scores. The areas where there seems to be more agreement that staff are less skilled are related to newer user practices and ones not necessarily related to the curriculum or instruction, accessing and manipulating music files-MP 3 files.

Table A-11 Staff Skill Level in Newer User Practices

Skill Mean Scores

Using Microsoft Access 2.20 Accessing music files on the Internet 2.08 Downloading music files from the Internet 2.00 Using filters and parental controls 1.51



14. Staff Instructional Skills When asked to rate their staff skill levels related to instructing users on a 4-point scale, academic library respondents said their staff was most skilled in instructing users in the use of their library’s catalog, online resources and the Internet. Q. A 29.

Chart A-26

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Mea

n

On

the

use

of th

e lib

rary

cat

alog

In th

e us

e of

onl

ine

reso

urce

s

In th

e us

e of

the

Inte

rnet

On

the

use

of b

asic

com

pute

r fun

ctio

ns

In th

e us

e of

sea

rch

engi

nes

On

loca

ting

med

ical

and

hea

lth re

sour

ces

on th

eIn

tern

et

On

loca

ting

finan

cial

info

rmat

ion

on th

e In

tern

et

On

loca

ting

lega

l res

ourc

es o

n th

e In

tern

et

On

loca

ting

gene

alog

ical

reso

urce

s on

the

Inte

rnet

Instruction Topics

Staff IS Skilled At Instructing Users

Q A29 -- Overall, how skilled is your staff in instructing users :

Topics Mean

Instructing users on the use of : The library catalog 3.74 Online resources 3.63 The Internet 3.54 Basic computer functions 3.48 Search engines 3.46 Locating medical and health resources on the Internet 3.24 Locating financial information on the Internet 2.84 Locating legal resources on the Internet 2.79 Locating genealogical resources on the Internet 2.49

The following skills had high mean scores that indicated there is likely to be more agreement among libraries that these skills are important.

Table A-12 Staff Skill at Instructing Users

Skill Mean Scores

The library catalog 3.74 Online resources 3.63 The Internet 3.54



15. Staff Training Academic library staff were most likely to attend training offered by the following providers. Q. A 31.

Chart A-27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

# of

Res

pons

es

In h

ouse

trai

ning

from

your

libr

ary

orju

risdi

ctio

n

Com

mer

cial

pro

vide

rs

Amig

os L

ibra

ry S

ervi

ces

train

ing

Dis

tanc

e le

arni

ngop

portu

nitie

s

TIF

Tech

trai

ning

Types of Training

Types Of Training Attended

Q A31_1 -- Which of the following types of training have you personally attended or used in the past 12 months?

Types of Training # %

In house training from your library or jurisdiction 41 31Commercial providers 35 26.5Amigos Library Services training 33 25Distance learning opportunities 15 11.3TIF Tech training 8 6.9T t l 132

Table A-13 Types of Training Attended

Training Provider Percent (%)

In house training from your library or jurisdiction 31 Commercial providers 26.5 Amigos Library Services training 25 Distance learning opportunities 11.3 TIF Tech training 6.0

More academic libraries felt distance education learning was more adequate than in-house training, Amigos Library Services training, commercial providers or TIF Tech training. Distance learning was felt to be adequate by 100% of the respondents while 62.5% felt TIF Tech training was adequate. This result suggests that the academic library community is open to the concept of distance education as a delivery mechanism for training. Q. A 31.



Chart A-28

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

% A

dequ

ate

Dis

tanc

e le

arni

ngop

portu

nitie

s

In h

ouse

trai

ning

from

your

libr

ary

orju

risdi

ctio

n

Amig

os L

ibra

ry S

ervi

ces

train

ing

Com

mer

cial

pro

vide

rs

TIF

Tech

trai

ning

Types of Training

Evaluation Of Training

Q A31_2 -- How adequate was the training you personally attended in the past 12 months?

Types of Training % Adequate

Distance learning opportunities 100.00%In house training from your library or jurisdiction 95.12%Amigos Library Services training 93.94%Commercial providers 91.43%TIF Tech training 62.50%

Academic librarians indicated they had attended the following number of days of training last year. The staff was more likely to have TexShare and training related to the automated library catalog and less likely to have Internet and personal computer training. Q. A 32.

Table A-14

Number of Academic Library Staff Training Days

Days None 1 day 2-5 days More than 6 TexShare Training 12% 33% 39% 10% Internet 28% 27% 28% 10% Automated Library Catalog 23% 14% 39% 20% Personal Computer 27% 23% 35% 8%

Academic libraries were most likely to receive training in basic technology skills and received less training in the application of technology to the library or the classroom. Q. A 33.

Table A-15 Basic Technology Skill Training

Training Skill Frequently Monthly Yearly Never

Computer Skills 5.3% 9.5% 45.3% 40% Software Skills 6.3% 9.5% 57.9% 36.3% Integrate Technology into the Library

7.4% 10.5% 48.4% 33.7%

Integrate Technology into the Classroom

4.3% 6.4% 22.3% 67%

Between 40 and 67% of the respondents indicated they had never received training in any of the given areas, which indicates that training needs are present in academic libraries for many staff.



Survey participants were asked to respond on a 4-point scale to the importance of certain barriers to training. Academic library respondents indicate that the most important barrier was a poor fit between the training needed and availability of training. Other important barriers, but with lower mean scores, were the lack of sufficient staff to permit staff to attend training and lack of funds and time for practice once training was received. Q. A 30.

Table A-16 Importance of Barriers to Training

Factor Mean Scores

Training needed is not offered 3.58 Lack of staff backup 3.09 Lack of training funds 3.00

Forty percent (40%) of academic library staff did not participate in any training to learn computer skills in the past year. Twenty six percent (26%) of staff did not receive training to learn software skills in the past year and 33% did not participate in training to learn how to integrate technology into library services. Academic staff indicated that the most important current training needs for staff are to keep up to date with the online resources, to plan for technology, to use the existing TexShare databases and other online databases. Q. A 37.

Table A-17 Current Training Needs for Staff

Training Need Mean Scores

Keeping up to date on online reference databases 3.50 Planning for technology 3.37 Using TexShare databases 3.27 Using online databases via the web 3.22 Searching the Internet 3.02

Training to anticipate newer online resources received priority over a number of other training needs associated with library services.

Table A-18 Online Resources Training

Training Need Mean Scores

Having an overview of grant writing 2.51 Learning preservation techniques 2.44 Managing special collections 2.36 Managing the library’s network 2.29 Developing and maintaining the library’s web site 2.09

16. TIF Impact on Academic Libraries Service Improvements Ninety-eight of the academic libraries said that availability of online resources has resulted in service improvements, 2% said they had not. Q. A 52.



Chart A-29

Availability Of Online Resources Has Resulted In Service Improvements

Somewhat2%

Definitely98%

Definitely Somewhat

Q A52 -- Has the availability of online resources in or through your library resulted in service improvements?

# Of Responses Percent

Definitely 96 98.0Somewhat 2 2.0Total 98 100.0

Increase in Student Use Nearly three quarters of the academic libraries (65.6%) said they were serving more students this year as compared to a year ago. Academic libraries were asked to estimate the percent increase, and estimates ranged from 8% to 35% increase. Of those responding, 90% said they felt the increase was between 30% and 35%. Q. A 40, 41.



Chart A-30

Library Is Serving More Students Than It Was a Year Ago

No23%

DNK12%

Yes65%

Yes No DNK

Q A40 -- Do you believe your library is serving more students coming into the library now as compared to one year ago?


Yes 61 65.6No 21 22.6DNK 11 11.8Total 93 100.0

Chart A-31

Estimated Increase in Student Use Of Library Over the Last Year

1 to 512%

101+2%

51 to 1008%

21 to 5013%

11 to 2030%

6 to 1035%

1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20

21 to 50 51 to 100 101+

Q A41 -- If your library is serving more students than a year ago, please estimate the percentage increase as compared to one year ago?


1 to 5 7 11.676 to 10 21 35.0011 to 20 18 30.0021 to 50 8 13.3351 to 100 5 8.33101+ 1 1.67



Other Sources of Local Funding Fourteen percent (14%) of academic libraries said they were able to develop other sources of local funding as a result of TIF Board technology funding; 65.3% said they had not been able to do so. Q. A 44.

Chart A-32

Library Has Developed Other Sources Of Local Funds

DNK20%

No65%

Yes15%

Yes No DNK

Q A44 -- As a result of TIF Board technology funding has your library developed other sources of local funds?


Yes 14 14.7No 62 65.3DNK 19 20.0Total 95 100.0

On this question there were only 17 open-ended responses as to whether the TIF funding had helped libraries to develop other sources of local funds. Four libraries said grants, and three each said budget increases and local matching funds were obtained. Q. A 45. Other Grants from Other Sources Seventeen percent (17%) of academic libraries said they were able to develop other grants as a result of TIF Board technology, 64.9% said they were not, and 18% were unsure. Q. A 46.



Chart A-33

Library Has Developed Grants From Other Sources

DNK18%

Yes17%

No65%

Yes No DNK

Q A46 -- As a result of TIFB technology funding has your library developed other grants from other sources?


Yes 16 17.0No 61 64.9DNK 17 18.1Total 94 100.0

Twenty-three libraries in the open-ended responses indicated they had developed other grants as a result of TIF funding. Three libraries indicated that they had received local foundation money while two libraries indicated they had received National Science Foundation funds and two libraries had received funds from Tex Treasures. Q. A 47. Partnerships with Community Entities Thirty-five percent (35%) of academic libraries reported they had developed partnerships with other community institutions as a result of TIF Board technology funds. Q. A 48.



Chart A-34

Library Has Been Encouraged To Develop Partnerships With Other Institutions

No54%

DNK11%

Yes35%

Yes No DNK

Q A48 -- Has the receipt of TIF Board technology funds encouraged your library to develop partnerships with other institutions in your community?


Yes 34 35.1No 52 53.6DNK 11 11.3Total 97 100.0

Forty-six open-ended responses were received. Academic libraries partnered most frequently with other academic libraries, (n 11) 23.9% partnered with college or university libraries, (n 9) 19.5% with public libraries, and (n 6) 13% with consortia. Academic libraries partnered less frequently with K-12 schools. Academic-school partnerships occurred in (n 5) 10.9% of the responses, with hospitals in 8.7% of the cases; one partnership each was reported with a business, community group, or museum. Q. A 49. Partnerships with TIF Eligible Entities Twenty-nine percent (29%) of the academic libraries said that they had developed partnerships with other TIF eligible institutions. Q A 50.



Chart A-35

Library Has Been Encouraged To Develop Partnerships With Other TIF-eligible Libraries

Yes29%

DNK12%

No59%

Yes No DNK

Q A50 -- Has the receipt of TIFB technology funds encouraged your library to develop partnerships with other TIF-eligible libraries? (TIF-eligible libraries include academic, public, K-12 schools and health-related organizations)


Yes 28 29.5No 56 58.9DNK 11 11.6Total 95 100.0

There were 32 open-ended responses. Academic libraries listed public library partnerships most frequently (n 9) 28%, academic libraries (n 8) 25% and K-12 school libraries (n 5) 16% of the cases. Q. A 51. Academic libraries felt that the greatest challenges they faced in applying and implementing the TIF funds were the lack of time (n 24) 13.3%, TIF rules, regulations (n 22) 12.2%, planning and needs assessment (n 20) 11.1%, accounting or budgeting issues (n 16), 8.9% and lack of support from their administration or departments (n 15) 8.3%. There were 180 responses to Q. A 43. 17. Future Needs Survey respondents rated on a four-point scale the importance of 27 issues for their library over the next one to three years. The following table gives the mean score results. The top five issues are displayed below, rated as the most important issues those with the highest mean scores, that suggests that most libraries felt these issues were important. In rating the importance of these issues, 18 different issues received mean scores of more than 3.0, which suggests that many of the issues were considered important by many of the libraries. Q. A 54.

Table A-19 Most Important Future Needs

Factor Mean Scores

Replacing obsolete technology on a regular schedule 3.87 Being able to hire staff with technical skills 3.77 Adding more online information resources 3.72 Having adequate technical support for our library 3.65 Having adequate Internet bandwidth for our library 3.60

Results that indicate the issues of least importance are given below. The two lowest rated mean scores were for filtering and implementing a public access catalog. It is not surprise that implementing a public



access catalog would be rated as relatively low importance since most, if not all, academic libraries operate successful public access catalogs already. Q. A 54.

Table A-20 Issues of Least Importance

Factor Mean Scores

Managing technology issues of filtering 2.01 Implementing a public access catalog 1.52


APPENDIX IV.B


PUBLIC


A Needs Assessment Study of Texas Academic, Public, and School Libraries Overview of the Public Library Survey Data

1. Introduction This overview presents selected results from the survey of public libraries that was carried out as part of the project. A Needs Assessment Study of Texas Academic, Public and School Library Media Centers conducted by the Texas Center for Digital Knowledge at the University of North Texas. The Needs Assessment Study Team developed a questionnaire for public libraries based on the Framing Questions that had been previously developed and reviewed with the Library Working Group (LWG) and which were considered to represent the type of information the LWG desired to have gathered through the surveys. The survey was mailed to all Texas Academic institutions, including libraries located in all public and private 4-year academic institutions, 2-year academic institutions and academic public health institutions. The detailed results for each type of library are located in the Technical Report Appendices (Volume 2) of the Needs Assessment Study of Academic, Public and School Library Media Centers. Questionnaires were distributed by mail to the central library of each of 551 Texas public libraries. There were 276 responses received from public libraries, a response rate of 50%. Participation from libraries by regional system ranged from a high of 17.2% from the Northeast Texas Library System (NETLS) to a low of 2.9% from the Texas Trans-Pecos system. Five libraries responded that were not members of a system. Libraries were also coded by size type, small, medium and large. Based on size categories, 20 (7%) libraries were coded as large, 105 (38%) as medium and 148 (54%) as small. Entering data, editing the survey input, and checking the survey input was conducted during early June and July. The results were first loaded into an SPSS software program that provided frequency and a detailed analysis for each question. Microsoft Excel was utilized to convert the question results into pie and bar charts. In addition, cross tabulations were constructed for a number of questions. The key questions assessed were whether there was a connection between the frequency of use of the TexShare databases, staff training needs and the future needs of public libraries. Correlations were found for only a few issues; these are reported in the following summary. 2. Overview of the Survey Questionnaire The questions were organized into six categories as follows. This overview of selected results, for the most part, follows this sequence of questions.

Table P-1 Survey Questionnaire Categories

Section Title Questions

1 Respondent Information 1-3 2 Technology Resources 4-29 3 Technology and User Needs 30-34 4 Training Needs 35-42 5 TIF Technology Impact 43-52 6 Future Needs 53-67

There are three types of questions reported in this preliminary analysis. Questions answered with “yes” or “no” responses are shown as pie charts. Open-ended questions were coded by category and these responses are displayed in charts in the report. A number of questions report means scores, unless

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Appendix IV.B – Page 1 University of North Texas


otherwise indicated. Scale for means questions were on a 4-part (4-1) scale. Questions asking respondents to rate or rank a condition or issue are shown as charts sequenced in order of importance, frequency, etc. Open-ended responses were coded to group responses by common themes or terms. Not all questions provided for open-ended responses. For each of the results reported, a code is given to designate the question number on the questionnaire Q= question, A = academic and the number indicates the questionnaire (see Appendix # for a copy of the questionnaire) is provided in parentheses. 3. Technological Capacity The survey found the following information about public libraries: The majority of public libraries have internal networks (85%) and less than 10% do not. Q. P11.

Chart P-1

Library Has an Internal Network

Yes85%

No9%

DNK6%

Yes No DNK

Q P11 -- Does the library have an internal network (LAN)?


Yes 227 85.0No 25 9.4DNK 15 5.6Total 267 100.0

A majority of the libraries have less than T-1 capacity. Nearly 60% of the public libraries said their networks were 100 mbs (20%) or less. Q. P 12.



Chart P-2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

# of

Res

pons

es

100m

b/s T1

10 m

b/s

10-1

00

128k

b/s

56 k

b/s

129

to 1

mb/

s

32 m

b/s

128

mb/

s

1 gi

gabi

t

Speed

Speed of Library's Internal Network

Speed # of Responses Percent

100mb/s 56 20.07T1 15 5.3810 mb/s 10 3.5810-100 9 3.23128kb/s 8 2.8756 kb/s 6 2.15129 to 1mb/s 3 1.0832 mb/s 1 0.36128 mb/s 1 0.361 gigabit 1 0.36

Q P12-- What is the speed of the library's internal network?

Sixty percent (60%) of the public libraries said they have a website, and 38% do not. Q. P 14.

Chart P-3

Library Has Website

No38%

DNK1%

Yes61%

Yes No DNK

Q P14_1 -- Does your library have a website?


Yes 167 60.9No 104 38.0DNK 3 1.1Total 274 100.0

Thirty-four percent (34%) of public libraries provide authentication to access the TexShare databases, 54% do not, and 11% said they were unsure if they did or not. Q. P 6.



Chart P-4

Library Provides Authentication For Off Site Users To Access Locally Provided Databases?

Yes34%

DNK12%

No54%

Yes No DNK

Q P6 -- Does the library provide authentication (require passwords or log ins) for its users for remote access to locally provided databases?


Yes 91 34.3No 143 54.0DNK 31 11.7Total 265 100.0

Of those providing authentication, almost one third of public libraries (30%) were unsure about the type of authentication they provide for users from home. Forty-one percent (41%) use proxy server login/password, 14.5% use library system authentication, and 7.7% use proxy server by IP address. Q. P 7.

Chart P-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

# of

Res

pons

es

Prox

y se

rver

logi

n/pa

ssw

ord

Do

Not

Kno

w

Inte

grat

ed li

brar

ysy

stem

(ILS

)

Oth

er

Prox

y se

rver

by

IPad

dres

s

Methods

Library Provides Authentication of Its Users From Home

Method # of Resp. % of Resp.

Proxy server login/password 43 41.7Do Not Know 31 30Integrated library system (ILS) authentication module 15 14.5Other 8 5 8

Q P_7_1 -- If your library provides authentication of its users, what is the authentication method used from home?

Seventeen and one-half percent (17.5%) of public libraries said they could provide authentication with an additional module to their integrated library system, 10.3% said no, and 72.2% were unsure. Q. P 8.



Chart P-6


DNK73%

Yes17%

No10%

Yes No DNK

Q P8 -- Could your library provide authentication with an additional ILS module?


Yes 46 17.5No 27 10.3DNK 190 72.2Total 263 100.0

Forty percent (40%) of the libraries currently provide remote authentication for TexShare databases, 29.3% were unsure, and 30% said they do not. Q. P 9

Chart P-7

Library Can Provide Remote Authentication For the TexShare Databases

DNK29%

No30%

Yes41%

Yes No DNK


Yes 110 40.7No 81 30.0DNK 79 29.3Total 270 100.0

Q P9 -- Can your library currently provide remote authentication for the TexShare databases

Seventy-one percent (71%) of the public libraries said that if the state library were to provide an authentication method to TexShare databases, they would be more likely to provide remote access for users, 5.5% said they would not, 23.32% were unsure. Q. P 10.



Chart P-8

Library Would Be More Likely To Promote Remote Access If an Authentication Method For Accessing TexShare

Databases Was Provided

Yes72%

DNK23%

No5%

Yes No DNK

Q P10 -- If the State Library were to provide your library with an authentication method for accessing TexShare databases, would your library be more likely to promote remote access to users?


Yes 184 71.3No 14 5.4DNK 60 23.3Total 258 100.0

Most libraries (83%) provide at least one workstation for users with physical disabilities. Half of the libraries have accessible workstations for those with vision disabilities, but only one third (35%) accommodate hearing disabilities. Q. P 17.

Chart P-9

Library Provides At Least One Workstation Accessible To Persons With Physical Disabilities

Yes83%

No13%

DNK4%

Yes No DNK

Q P17_1 -- Does your library provide at least one workstation accessible to persons with physical disabilities?


Yes 224 82.4No 36 13.2DNK 12 4.4Total 272 100.0

Some libraries provide Spanish instructions for online resources (12%); however, the majority does not. Only 3% of the libraries said they provide instructions in other than English or Spanish. Q. P 19.



Chart P-10

Library Has Instructions On How To Access Online Resources In Languages Other Than English and Spanish

DNK7% Yes

3%

No90%

Yes No DNK


Yes 7 2.6No 246 90.4DNK 19 7.0Total 272 100.0

Q P19 -- Are instructions on how to access your online resources available on the web in languages other than English and Spanish?

Overall, the majority of public libraries are using technology within the walls of their institutions, but only two-thirds of the respondents have created access for users via a library web site. Given the high degree of use by public library users of the Internet, there appears to be a gap between user behavior and the libraries’ adoption of web access as a core service. More remains to be done related to security and authentication of users for remote access. This may be an area where the Texas State Library and Archives Commission can assist libraries in improving authentication procedures. Libraries have not yet begun to offer access to resources in any language other than English. 4. Library Services and Databases The TexShare databases have made a significant penetration into public library service in a short time. Thirty-three percent (33%) said they use TexShare databases at least daily, 10% said they are heavy users; 47% said they use TexShare databases at least a few times a month and 19% said they never use the databases. Q. P 20.



Chart P-11



Never19%

Heavily10%


Daily24%

Heavily Daily 2-3 times per week 1-2 times per month Never

Q P20 -- How frequently do your librarians use TexShare databases to answer questions for library users?



Analyzed by size of institution, the results indicate that size of the institution appears to be related to the extent of use of the TexShare databases. Large libraries are more likely to depend on the TexShare databases than small libraries, 100% of the larger libraries use the TexShare databases heavily or daily, 51% of the medium size public libraries said they use the TexShare database heavily or daily and 12 % of the small libraries said they use the TexShare databases heavily or daily. Twenty-five percent of the small libraries and 31 percent of the medium size libraries said they never use the TexShare databases. Public libraries say that all TexShare databases are available from home in 55.2% percent of the cases, while the library catalog is available in 48.4% of the cases as are other library catalogs via the website (35.5%). Responses from the open-ended question ask public librarians to list one or two recent examples of TexShare databases they have used. The results are as follows: Q. P 21 Of the TexShare databases, public library respondents listed World Cat in 14.8% of the responses, EBSCO databases in 12% of the responses, and Books in Print comprised 10.4% of the responses. While there are a total of 60 TexShare databases available to public libraries, there were a total of 492 mentioned with 415 mentioning specific database titles. The same set of open-ended responses about the databases when analyzed by subject and format shows that reference information sources accounted for 34% of the specific databases mentioned. Respondents mentioned the library’s online catalog in 17.5% of the responses, (even though this is not a TexShare database), and Books in Print was named in 12% of the responses. Q. P 17.1 1 The Texas State Library prepared a review of the use of TexShare databases. Results from the survey show that the highest ranking services in terms of use were EBSCO, First Search, Gale, Grolier/Big Chalk, Books in Print. Spreadsheet Comparison of Academic and Public Library Use of TexShare Databases September 2001-May 2002. Memorandum from Russlene Wauckechon, TSLAC, September 4, 2002.



5. Use of Non TexShare Databases The survey results show that the 30% of the public libraries use non-TexShare databases at least heavily or daily, 27% say they use the databases weekly, 16% say they used them a few times per month, 25% of the libraries never use non- TexShare databases. Q. P 22.

Chart P-12

Frequency That Librarians Use Non-TexShare Databases

Heavily6%Never

26%



Daily24%

Heavily Daily 2-3 times per week 1-2 times per month Never

Q P22 -- How frequently do your librarians use other non-TexShare online resources to assist library users?



The respondents were asked to report on one or two recent uses of the non- TexShare databases and there were a total of 296 open-ended responses. Forty-four different non-TexShare resources were named as having been used recently by academic libraries. Most common were search engines; 5.7% said they used Reference USA, 4.4% said Google, 3.7% named Amazon, and 3.7% Ask Jeeves. Government web sites, including the Internal Revenue Service web site and US Government web sites, were 2.7% of the responses and 3% named Learn a Test.2 Q. P 23. 6. Integration of Technology and Resources When asked what would be the most important factors in helping public libraries to sustain their current level of public access computing, respondents were asked to rate the factors on a four- point scale. 4= very important, 3 = somewhat important, 2= somewhat important, 1= unimportant. The libraries ranked the following equipment as most important: Q. P 66.

2 The survey did not collect information that names or enumerates the number of non-TexShare databases present in the academic libraries, therefore the results do not give insight into the total universe of the non-TexShare databases that might be available for use.



Table P-2 Most Important Factors to Sustaining Current

Level of Public Access Computing

Issue Rank Desktop computers and associated equipment 1 Technical training 2 Enhanced connectivity-bandwidth 3 Online library catalog 4

Survey participants were also asked to rate the importance of factors for creating support for technology in the library. Respondents said that all the factors were important, including financial resources, adequate equipment, staffing, and technical support. All factors had a mean score of 3 or greater on this question when rated on a 1-4 point scale. Q P 33

Table P-3 Importance of Factors Creating Support

for Technology in the Library

Activity Mean Scores The quality of technology 3.84 Staff technology skills 3.82 Adequate access to hardware and software 3.81 Quality of technical training 3.79 Available staff time to devote to this task 3.72

7. Barriers to Use of Internet Services When asked about barriers to use of Internet services, respondents scored their assessment of the importance of barriers on a 1-4 scale. The results show that the top five most important barriers to the use of the library's Internet services are money, and education.

Table P-4 Barriers to Use of Internet Services

Activity Mean Scores

Cost of computer hardware 3.52 Lack of adequate funding to sustain technology 3.49 Cost of training and education 3.46 Cost of computer software 3.45 Physical space limitations 3.28

Barriers of lesser importance to use of the Internet were related to issues such as Internet Service provider costs and training issues. Public libraries differ from schools and academic libraries in certain cases because they have to provide Internet services through a private Internet Service Provider (ISP) whereas school and academic libraries receive Internet services through their host institutions. Scores were all below 3.0, which indicate that these barriers were not as important for the public libraries.



Table P-5 Barriers of Lesser Importance


Inadequacy of local telecommunications access 2.80 Lack of training on how to use the Internet 2.80 Cost of telecommunication line to Internet service provider 2.76 Lack of management support 2.73 Cost of Internet service provider monthly fees 2.73 Inadequacy of Internet speed 2.72

The problem of the sustainability of their current level of technology is important for all public librarians. Upgrading, replacing and sustaining a certain level of technology platform is a consistent and important issue. 8. Special Collections Libraries have a preponderance of photographs in special collections that have not yet been digitized. Many public libraries have photographs in their local history and special collections. Public libraries were asked if they have unique special collection materials on local history or special subjects and more than half of the libraries (53.9%) said they do, while 43% percent said they do not have these special resources. Q. P 24.

Chart P-13

Library Has Unique Special Collection Materials Relating To Local History Or Subject Strengths Of Library

No44%

DNK2%

Yes54%

Yes No DNK

Q P24 -- Does your library have unique special collection materials (e.g., archives, photographic images, letters, manuscripts) relating local history or subject strengths of your library?


Yes 145 53.9No 118 43.9DNK 6 2.2Total 269 100.0

In the open-ended responses, public libraries gave 195 responses as to types of special collections they hold. The most common were local history (70.2%), genealogy (13.8%), Texana (7.2%). These collections were most likely to be photographic images (31.3%), books 19.2%, letters and manuscripts (16.2%), microfilm (14.15) and archival (12.1%). Q. P 25.



When asked if these materials had been digitized and made available over the web only 4.8% said they had, while 93% said they had not. Only 10 libraries responded as to the percent of their special collections that have been digitized, the responses ranged from 10% to 30%. Q. P 26, 27.

Chart P-14

Special Materials Have Been Digitized and Made Available Over the Web

Yes5%

DNK2%

No93%

Yes No DNK

Q P26 -- If yes (Q24), have any items been digitized and made available over the web?


Yes 9 4.8No 174 93.0DNK 4 2.1Total 187 100.0

Chart P-15

Amount Of the Special Collection, In Percent, That Has Been Digitized and Put on the Web.

Five10%

Fifteen10%

Twenty-five10%

One Hundred10%

Zero30%

One30%

Zero One Five Fifteen Twenty-five One Hundred

Q P27_1 -- If yes, what percent of your unique special collections materials would you estimate have been digitized and made available via the web?

Amount # of Responses Percent

0 3 30.01.0 3 30.05.0 1 10.015.0 1 10.025.0 1 10.0100.0 1 10.0Total 10 100.0



The libraries with web finding aids for special collections were relatively few as well. Eight and three-tenths percent (8.3%) of the public libraries said they have finding aids on their website, 88% said they do not. Q. P 28.

Chart P-16

Library Has Finding Aids on Website For Special Collections

No88%

DNK4%

Yes8%

Yes No DNK

Q P28 -- Does your library have finding aids on your library's website to assist users of your special collections materials?


Yes 21 8.3No 221 87.7DNK 10 4.0Total 252 100.0

TexShare databases available only for less than 24 months in public libraries have already become important services in many public libraries and are already more accessible remotely for users than the libraries’ online catalog. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the libraries said they provide home access to all TexShare online databases, 48.4% said they provide remote access to their library catalog. Other online databases and catalogs are less likely to be available remotely. Q. P. 5.



Chart P-17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Perc

ent o

f Lib

rarie

s

All T

exSh

are

onlin

e da

taba

ses

Your

libr

ary

cata

log

Sele

cted

Tex

Shar

e on

line

data

base

s O

ther

libr

ary

cata

logs

via

you

r lib

rary

web

site

N

on-T

exSh

are

full-

text

ser

vice

s,

Non

-Tex

Shar

e co

mm

erci

al o

nlin

eda

taba

ses

Acce

ss to

a p

orta

l pag

e gr

oupi

ng a

ll yo

urlib

rary

's e

-reso

urce

s C

D-R

OM

dat

abas

es a

t you

r lib

rary

Online Sources

Online Sources Accessible Off Site

Online Information Sources Percent Accessible All TexShare online database s 55.2Your library catalog 48.4Selected TexShare online databases 48.4Other library catalogs via your library website 35.5Non-TexShare full-text services, 16.7Non-TexShare commercial online databases 16.5Access to a portal page grouping all your library's e-resources 13.5

CD-ROM databases at your library 10.7

Q P5-- Are the following accessible from your users' homes or offices?

9. Equipment and Loans Public libraries are providing a suite of equipment to the staff that commonly consists of personal computers (95%), laser printers (93.2%) and ink jet printers (79.8%). The majority of staff now also has access to flatbed scanners (74%), digital cameras (63%) and pen scanners (57%). Laptop access for staff is just below 50% of the libraries (46%). Staff is less likely to have access to DVD burners (1.9%), e-book readers (3%) or video conferencing equipment (7.5%). Q. P 4.



Chart P-18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent o

f Lib

rarie

s

Pers

onal

Lase

rIn

kjet

prin

ters

Flat

bed

Dig

ital

Han

dhel

d or

Lapt

ops

Dat

aC

D b

urne

rsW

irele

ssPe

rson

alVi

deo

E-bo

okD

VD b

urne

rs

Equipment

Library Provides Equipment For Staff

Equipment Percent of Libraries

Personal computers 94.8Laser printers 93.2Inkjet printers 79.8Flatbed scanners 74.1Digital cameras 63.5Handheld or pen scanners 57.1Laptops 46.8Data projectors 41.3CD burners 39.3Wireless Ethernet cards for laptops 19.6Personal digital assistants 15.4Video conferencing equipment 7.5E-book readers 3.0

Q P4_1 -- Does your library provide the following equipment for staff?

While public libraries are moving into providing a diverse set of communication and information technology tools for their staff, these are not yet widely available to the public who visit public libraries. The equipment provided to the public within public libraries is also most likely to consist of laser printers (92.5%) and personal computers (92.5%). While flatbed scanners are provided by 45% of the public libraries, libraries are not yet routinely providing laptops (18.3%) or Ethernet cards for laptops (13.3%) or digital cameras (12%) to the public. E-books are being offered to the public by only a few libraries (2.6%) and almost no libraries provide PDA’s, personal digital assistants (1.5%), or DVD burners (0.8%). Q. P 4.2.



Chart P-19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent o

f Lib

rarie

s

Lase

r prin

ters

Pers

onal

com

pute

rs

Inkj

et p

rinte

rs

Flat

bed

scan

ners

Dat

a pr

ojec

tors

Lapt

ops

Wire

less

Eth

erne

t car

ds fo

r lap

tops

Dig

ital c

amer

as

CD

bur

ners

Vide

o co

nfer

enci

ng e

quip

men

t

E-bo

ok re

ader

s

Han

dhel

d or

pen

sca

nner

s

Pers

onal

dig

ital a

ssis

tant

s

DVD

bur

ners

Equipment

Library Provides Equipment For Public


Laser printers 92.5Personal computers 92.5Inkjet printers 48.6Flatbed scanners 45.7Data projectors 1 9.8Laptops 18.3Wireless Ethernet cards for laptops 13.3Digital cameras 12.1CD burners 10.9Video conferencing equipment 5.6E-book readers 2.6Handheld or pen scanners 1.9Personal digital assistants 1.5DVD burners 0.8

Q P4_2 -- Does your library provide the following equipment for the public?

Very few public libraries provide loans of equipment to their users. Public libraries also do not make available a wide array of equipment for loan to their users. Data projectors (8.8%) and laptops (6%) were the most frequently cited types of equipment loans. Q. P. 4.3.

Chart P-20

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Perc

ent o

f Lib

rarie

s

Dat

a pr

ojec

tors

Lapt

ops

Dig

ital c

amer

as

Pers

onal

com

pute

rs

E-bo

ok re

ader

s

Lase

r prin

ters

Flat

bed

scan

ners

Wire

less

Eth

erne

t car

ds fo

r lap

tops

Inkj

et p

rinte

rs

Pers

onal

dig

ital a

ssis

tant

s

Han

dhel

d or

pen

sca

nner

s

CD

bur

ners

DVD

bur

ners

Vide

o co

nfer

enci

ng e

quip

men

t

Equipment

Library Provides Equipment To Loan to Users


Data projectors 8.8Laptops 6.0Digital cameras 4.8Personal computers 1.6E-book readers 1.6Laser printers 1.2Flatbed scanners 0.8Wireless Ethernet cards for laptops 0.8Inkjet printers 0.4Personal digital assistants 0.4Handheld or pen scanners 0.0CD burners 0.0DVD burners 0.0Video conferencing equipment 0.0

Q P4_3 -- Does your library provide the following equipment to loan to users?



Ninety-five percent (95%) of the libraries say they do not permit checkout of laptops, although as indicated earlier only 18% of the libraries say they actually provide laptops. Q. P 14.2.

Chart P-21

Library Permits Checkout Of Laptops

No95%

Yes5%

0%

Yes No

Q P14_2 -- Does your library permit the public to checkout laptops?


Yes 13 4.7No 262 95.3Total 275 100.0

Most libraries (92%) said they would not permit laptops to be connected to the library’s LAN. Q. P 14. 3.

Chart P-22

Library Permits Laptops To Be Connected LAN

No92%

DNK2%

Yes6%

Yes No DNK

Q P14_3 -- Does your library permit users to connect their laptops to the library's network?


Yes 17 6.3No 249 91.5DNK 6 2.2Total 272 100.0



Software application use by the public and the staff is similar. Most common applications are word processing, e-mail, web browser, anti-virus software. Staff is more likely to use spreadsheet, and presentation/graphics software than users. Q. P 13.1.

Chart P-23

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

# of

Pos

itive

Res

pons

es

Wor

d pr

oces

sing

El

ectro

nic

mai

lAn

ti-vi

rus

Web

bro

wse

r Sp

read

shee

t Pr

esen

tatio

n / g

raph

ics

/ pub

lishi

ngSe

curit

y so

ftwar

e D

atab

ase

W

eb d

evel

opm

ent

Imag

ing

editi

ng

HTM

L ed

iting

Pr

int c

harg

ing

/ con

trol

Use

r com

pute

r tim

e co

ntro

l

Types of Software

Software Applications Regularly Used by Staff

Type of Software # of Positive Responses

Word processing 269Electronic mail 267Anti-virus 263Web browser 262Spreadsheet software 229Presentation / graphics / publishing 188Security software to prevent computer abuse 186Database software 150Web development software 124Imaging editing software 115HTML editing software 83Print charging / control software 61User computer time control software 14

Q P13_1-- Do your library staff regularly use the following software applications?

Both staff and users are less likely to use HTML web development tools or imaging editing software. This result also suggests that libraries are not focusing on digitizing projects or the management of digital images. 10. Availability of Distance Learning Public libraries indicated the following in relation to distance learning capabilities: Libraries were most likely to have distance-learning capability via the Internet, with 26% of the respondents saying they have distance learning via the Internet. Four percent (4%) said they had videoconference capability and 3% said they had teleconference capability. Q. P 15.1.



Chart P-24

Library Has Distance Learning Available Via Internet

No67%

Yes26%DNK

7%

Yes No DNK

Q P15_1 -- Does your library have distance learning available via internet


Yes 73 26.4No 183 66.3DNK 20 7.2Total 276

Libraries are not yet authoring distance-learning programs; 97% said they do not create their own programs. A majority (60%) said they permit staff and 57% said they allow users to take distance education courses from another institution. Q. P 16.1.

Chart P-25

Library Creates Distance Education Programs

DNK2%

Yes1%

No97%

Yes No DNK

Q P1 6_1 -- Does your library create distance education programs?


Yes 2 .7No 263 97.0DNK 6 2.2Total 271 100.0

Public libraries have not yet made the commitment to distance education capabilities as a basic library service. This delivery system is not yet widely available to most public libraries and therefore, unless a



stronger commitment is made to extend distance-learning capability to public libraries, it remains accessible only to a small percentage of the public library population. Results from the surveys of the academic and school libraries and from the focus group sessions indicate that public libraries have less access, less interoperability than other types of libraries. This is an area where leadership to create more interoperability and greater adoption of distance learning may greatly assist public libraries. 11. Library Users and Training Public libraries were asked about how frequently patrons used library computers to perform certain activities: The respondents rated different statements about patron use on a 1-5 point scale. 5= heavily, 4=- daily 3= 1=2 times a weekly 2= 1-2 times per month, 1= never. The means scores show that users use computers heavily for e-mail, surfing the net and using search engines in most libraries.

Table P-6 Frequency of Computer Usage by Library Patrons


Use e-mail 4.59 Surf the Internet 4.57 Use Web Search Engines 4.40

For the same question, the respondents indicated that public library users using the library’s computer’s more infrequently to do the following: Q. P 31.

Table P-7 Infrequent Use of Computer Usage by Library Patrons


Using presentation software 2.18 Downloading files 2.12 Creating web pages 1.97

Respondents were asked how frequently users complained about certain factors. Respondents rated their responses as 4= Daily, 3= 1-2 times per month, 2= 1-2 monthly, 1= never. Respondents indicated that users most frequently complained about their lack of skills in using computers and understanding available capabilities. In addition, users were likely to complain about capacity issues including too few computers for the demand and slow Internet speeds.

Table P-8 Computer Users Complaints


Not having skills to use computers 2.71 Not knowing what computer capabilities are available 2.30 Having to wait in long lines to use computers 2.11 Finding the Internet too slow 2.09

Public librarians say users are complaining less frequently about problems with broken equipment, lack of skilled staff, and printing issues. Rated on a 1-4 scale, the mean scores for the factors are low, suggesting these issues were not major problems for users. Q. P 35



Table P-9 Less Frequent Complaints by Users


Computers being out of order too frequently 1.56 Staff not having skills to help users with technology 1.55 Printing being too costly 1.51 Printing not readily available from workstations 1.39 Workstation furniture being uncomfortable 1.32

The results indicate that users are lacking skills and seeking help from staff to use computers. There are at least two ways Texas libraries could choose to deal with users’ skill gaps. One course is to pursue better methods to standardize access to computer resources and databases in order to improve user autonomy and shorten the learning curve for using resources, or the library community can choose the alternative path of investing more money and resources into training sessions for the public. 12. User Training Issues Asked whether they provide technology to the public, less than one-half of all public libraries said they offer technology classes to the public. Forty-four percent (44%) said they offer training, 55% said they do not offer training. Q. P 36.

Chart P-26

Library Offers Technology Related Classes

No55%

DNK1%

Yes44%

Yes No DNK

Q P36 -- Does your library offer any technology related classes to the public?


Yes 121 44.2No 149 54.4DNK 4 1.5Total 274 100.0

Eighty-six percent (86%) of the public libraries felt it was very or somewhat important to offer one-on-one training to the public, while 9.1% felt it was somewhat or very unimportant. Q. P 38.



Chart P-27

Importance Of One-To-One Training By the Library

Somewhat Important43%

Somewhat Unimportant5%

Very Unimportant4%

Very Important43%

DNK5%

Very ImportantSomewhat ImportantSomewhat UnimportantVery UnimportantDNK

Q P38 -- How important is it for the library to offer one-on-one training for users?

# of Response Percent

Very Important 117 42.7Somewhat Important 119 43.4Somewhat Unimportant 15 5.5Very Unimportant 10 3.6DNK 13 4.7Total 274 100.0

Respondents were asked about the most heavily demanded training course in an open-ended question. Respondents gave one or two examples and there were 308 open-ended responses. The Internet was the most frequently named training being requested with (n 105), 34% of the responses, basic computer skills (n 63), 20.5%, Microsoft Office Suite software (n 57), 18.5%, and e mail (n 37) 12% comprised 85% of the responses. Q. P 39. Public library staff supplies most of the training support in public libraries. Q. P 41.

Table P-10 Personnel Providing Training

Activity Percentages

Staff offer most or all of training 71% Volunteers provide most or all of training 7% Vendors 4% Others (outside contractors, etc.) 4%

As to the importance of offering user training, 80% of the responding libraries said it was “somewhat to very important” to offer formal classes and 86% said it was “somewhat to very important” to offer one-on-one training for users. Q. P 37. Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of public training on a 1-4 point scale. The high mean scores indicate that respondents felt all of these topics were important.



Table P-11 Importance of Training


Acquiring basic computer skills 3.60 Learning about search engines 3.50 Using basic library catalog functions 3.48 Using TexShare online databases 3.46 Accessing TexShare online databases users from home or office 3.27

The need for training the public on databases and search engines is a result of the lack of a common search and retrieval interface. This results in more need for staff training for the public. Q. P 40. The following topics show that these topics were of lesser importance to the respondents and have lower mean scores. Few respondents indicated that training for gaming or downloading music was important.

Table P-12 Least Important Public Training Topics


Using Microsoft Access 2.62 Using Microsoft Outlook 2.60 Learning to scan images 2.50 Creating web pages 2.27 Training on gaming 1.64 Accessing music files on the Internet 1.48

While accessing music files on the Internet is an important issue for users, the lack of perceived importance for training may be related to copyright and permission problems associated with downloading activities, or the fact that many young people are skilled in this technique. Public library users, according to the public library respondents, want more skills for using technology and they want more capacity, more access to equipment and faster Internet speeds. These results are very consistent with the general finding from other technology studies (Gates, IS Society, etc.) that users’ expectations continue to rise as they become accustomed to the technology. 13. Awareness and Marketing Technology Training Most public librarians agree that the channels they use most frequently to inform the public about technology training are, also the most important. Public libraries said they use the following methods most frequently to inform the public about technology training. Respondents were asked to rate the frequency of use of certain methods to inform the public. The low mean scores indicate that most of the methods are not being heavily used by the responding libraries. Q. P 42.



Table P-13 Methods Most Frequently Used to

Inform Public about Technology Training

Activity Mean Scores Articles in local newspapers 2.64 New releases 2.43 Flyers 2.24 Community meetings 1.92 Articles in the library’s newsletter 1.91

The public librarians were also asked about the methods they felt were most important in order to inform the public about technology training available to them: Rated on a 1-4 point scale of importance, the respondents indicated that newspaper coverage is most important to them as well as news releases. Q. P 43

Table P-14 Most Important Methods to Inform Public

of Technology Training

Activity Mean Scores Articles in local newspaper 3.47 News releases 3.21 Flyers 3.06 Web sites 2.86 Articles in the library’s newsletter 2.73

Least used sources were mass media sources. Q. P. 42

Table P-15 Least Used Sources


Public service announcements 1.69 TV or cable announcements 1.56 Media advertising 1.29 E-mail 1.27

Least important were public service announcements, TV or cable announcements, media advertising, and e-mail. Q. P 42. Public libraries are using traditional means to advertise and market their services and have not yet begun to explore the possibilities of using Internet or web resources. This result is also consistent with the fact that only two thirds of the respondents have their own web site. 14. Staff Training Needs Respondents were asked to assess the overall skills of their staff, and about how skilled the staff was in assisting users and how skilled the staff was in instructing users. Respondents were asked to indicate how skilled they felt their staff were on a 1-4 point scale with 4 = very skilled, 3= somewhat skilled 2= somewhat unskilled and 1 = very unskilled. . The means scores show that respondents indicated that staff are most



skilled at searching the catalog, using e-mail, searching the Internet and using web search engines and using word processing software. 15. A Comparison of Staff Skills and Public Use of Technology Public libraries were asked their opinion about the frequency of the patron’s use of library computers. The respondents rated different statements about use on a 1-5 point scale with 5 = heavy use and 1 = never. The results (as shown earlier in another section show the public uses e mail, the Internet and search engines heavily.

Table P-16 Public Patron’s Use of Technology


Use e-mail 4.59 Surf the Internet 4.57 Use Web Search Engines 4.40

When compared to the results that asked respondents about the level of staff skills, public library respondents indicated their staff were very or somewhat skilled in these areas.

Table P-17 Library Staff Skills

Skill Mean Scores

Searching the library’s catalog 3.65 Accessing e-mail 3.55 Searching the Internet 3.33 Using web search engines 3.31 Using Microsoft Word 3.08

A comparison of the frequency of use of computers by the public with areas where the public libraries feel the staff are skilled appears to show that the public use of technology and the staff skills are in alignment. Staff are skilled in the areas most frequently used by their public. Q. P 31,32. Rated on a 1-4 point scale, the mean scores show that public librarians said their staff was least skilled in using database and presentation tools, downloading music and managing network problems. Q. P 48.

Table P-18 Library Staff Least Skilled


Using Microsoft Access 2.09 Using Microsoft PowerPoint 2.07 Accessing music files on the Internet 1.79 Downloading music files from the Internet 1.53 Managing networks, problem solving 1.41

The survey also asked public librarians to assess to what extent their staff were skilled in instructing users with technology tasks. Another question asked to what extent staff were skilled in assisting users in technology tasks. The following table reports the mean scores for the two questions. Each question asked survey participants to assess the skills of their staff on a four point scale with 4 = very skilled and 1 = skilled. The results show that skill level ratings for staff were similar with high skill ratings for skills related to the library’s online catalog and use of Internet search engineers and basic computer functions.



Table P-19

Comparison of Staff Skills in Instructing and Assisting Users with Technology Related Tasks Ranked Highest to Lowest Q. P 45, 46

Staff Are Skilled in Instructing Users

to: Mean Staff are Skilled in Assisting Users to: Mean

Use the library catalog 3.59 Search the library catalog 3.66Use of Internet 3.29 Print out information 3.65Use basic computer functions 3.26 Send and receive e-mail message 3.51Use Internet search engines 3.19 Use Internet search engines 3.38Use of online resources 3.07 Look up specific factual information on

the Internet 3.29

Locate medical/health resources on the Internet

2.83 Use personal computers 3.17

Locate Internet genealogical resources 2.65 Access TexShare databases 2.91Locate Internet financial information 2.56 Use office software 2.91Locate Internet legal resources 2.54 Search a TexShare database 2.83 Use presentation software 2.06 Download music files 1.58

Lower mean scores for staff skill levels were for the ability of the staff to assist users with presentation software and downloading music files. Q. P 45. Public libraries said their staff were less skilled in instructing users in locating financial and legal resources on the internet, although the mean scores were higher for these skills. This suggests that more libraries felt their staff were more skilled in these areas. Public librarians said their most important current training needs were the following: Survey participants were asked to rate the importance of current training needs based on a 1-4 scale with 4= very important, 3 = somewhat important, 2= somewhat unimportant and 1 = very unimportant. . The results show that overall the public libraries rated all these factors as important. Q. P-52.

Table P-20 Most Important Current Training Needs


Planning for technology 3.40 Keeping up to date on online resources 3.38 Managing e-mail 3.31 Searching the Internet 3.31 Using online databases via the web 3.29

Current training issues with lower mean scores are the following: Q. P-50.



Table P-21 Current Training Issues With Lower Scores


Managing electronic journals 2.22 Knowledge of web design techniques 2.44 Managing special collections 2.46

There were 208 open-ended responses to this question which indicates that public librarians were interested in training in the areas of professional activities (n. 42) 20.2%, software applications (n 28) 13.5%, automation (n 17) 8.2% and Internet/Websites issues, (n 16), 7.7%. Survey participants were asked to rate the importance of future staff training needs for the period 2003 through 2005. Ratings were based on a 1-4 scale with 4= very important and 1= very unimportant. Of the 21 items that were rated by the public libraries, 11 items had mean scores of 2 or higher, which would indicate that these items were all rated as somewhat to very important. The highest rated training issue was using the TexShare database with a score of 3.66, which indicates that most libraries agree this is an important issue for their libraries. Q. P 51.

Table P-22 Highest Rated Training Issues


Using TexShare databases 3.66 Using web based online databases 3.61 Planning for technology 3.56 Keeping up-to-date with online reference databases 3.54

All of the future training needs received mean scores of over 2.59, which indicated that many of the training issues were rated as having some importance. The training issues receiving the lowest mean scores were: Q. P 51.

Table P-23 Lowest Rated Training Issues


Managing electronic journals 2.59 Managing special collections 2.67 Having knowledge of web design techniques 2.74

A cross tabulation of the results from question P 20 that asked about the frequency of use of the TexShare databases with question P 51 that assessed the importance of future staff training issues found that respondents who were frequent users of the TexShare databases were more likely to say that searching the Internet and managing databases programs such as Excel and Access were more important to them than those who used the databases less frequently. 16. Availability of Staff Training Staff access to training indicates that more than one quarter of public staff do not appear to receive any training time for technology topics. Staff appears to be most likely to receive training in TexShare databases than on other topics. Q. P 47.



Chart P-28

Days Of Staff Training For TexShare Databases

2 to 534%

132%

DNK5%0

26%

6 to 102%

11 to 150%

16+1%

1 2 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16+ 0 DNK

Q P47_2 -- For the last year, approximately how many days per staff member were allotted to technology training for the following: TexShare databases?


1 86 32.02 - 5 92 34.26 - 10 5 1.911 - 15 .416+ 2 .7None 69 25.7DNK 14 5.2

Public librarians said they were most likely to have attended training offered by the Texas State Library, TIF Tech training, training by local providers or in–house training by the local library or jurisdiction. They were least likely to receive training through online self-paced computer training, distance learning and Amigos services training. Q. P 44.

Chart P-29

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Trai

ning

Texa

s St

ate

Libr

ary

train

ing

TIF

Tech

trai

ning

Trai

ning

pro

vide

d by

oth

er lo

cal p

rovi

ders

In h

ouse

trai

ning

from

you

r lib

rary

or j

uris

dict

ion

Amig

os L

ibra

ry S

ervi

ces

train

ing

Dis

tanc

e le

arni

ng o

ppor

tuni

ties

Onl

ine

self

pace

d co

mpu

ter r

elat

ed tr

aini

ng

# Attended

Types Of Training Attended

Training Attended

Texas State Library training 98TIF Tech training 87Training provided by other local providers 82In house training from your library or jurisdiction 79Amigos Library Services training 30Distance learning opportunities 23Online self paced computer related training 18

Q P44_1 -- Which of the following types of training have you personally attended or used in the past 12 months?



The following chart shows the number of days of training public library staff said they received last year by training categories. Q. P 47.

Table P-24 Number of Staff Training Days

Days None 1 day 2-5 days More than 6

TexShare Training 32% 34.2% 3% 25.7% Internet 22.4% 32.8% 6.8% 32.8% Automated Library Catalog 16.7% 31.8% 10.6% 36% Personal Computer 19% 29.4% 9.7% 35.7%

Public library respondents were asked their assessment of training from different providers. Of those taking training, 95% felt the Texas State Library training was adequate, followed by distance learning (91%), local providers training (89%), in-house training (86%), TIF Tech training (80%), and Amigos (77%). 17. Barriers to Training Survey participants were asked to rate the importance of training barriers based on a 1-4 scale. Public library respondents indicated that the most important barriers to receiving training based on mean scores were the following:

Table P-25 Barriers to Training


Lack of staff backup 3.56 Lack of training funds 3.51 No time to practice 3.16

The percentage of public libraries stating whether a factor was important or unimportant is given below:

Table P-26 Training Barriers Importance to Public Libraries

Factor Very or Somewhat

Important Very or Somewhat

Unimportant Lack of Training Funds 86.5% 11.7% Lack of Staff Backup 89.7% 7.9% Lack of Transportation 39.9% 56.6% Training Not Offered 61.7% 28.4% Timing Does Not Meet Schedule 62.7% 30.2% No Time to Practice 76.9% 19.8% Not Sure Training Needed 57% 37.5% Quality Training Not Available 48.9% 36.2%

Public librarians were not able to leave their libraries if no staff backup was available. Less important barriers were that the training was not offered or that the staff lacked transportation to the training site. Q. P 49.



18. TIF Impact on Public Libraries When asked if there are other places in the community where Internet access is available without charge, 24% of the libraries indicated there were, 60% said no, and 17% did not know. In many communities the public library is the only free point of public access to the Internet. Q. P 29.

Chart P-30

Other Places That Have Internet Access At No Charge

No59%

Yes24%

DNK17%

Yes No DNK

Q P29 -- Other than in the library, are there other places in your community where the public can gain access to the Internet at no charge?


Yes 66 24.3No 161 59.2DNK 45 16.5Total 272 100.0

Eighty-four percent (84%) of public libraries felt that the availability of online resources in and through the library had “definitely” resulted in service improvements. Q. P 65.

Chart P-31

Availability Of Online Resources Has Resulted In Service Improvements

Definitely85%

Somewhat12%

Not Much0%

Not at All0%

DNK3%

Definitely Somewhat Not Much Not at All DNK

Q P65 -- Has the availability of online resources in or through your library resulted in service improvements?


Definitely 217 83.8Somewhat 32 12.4Not Much 1 .4Not at All 1 .4DNK 8 3.1Total 259 100.0



Public libraries indicated that 72% of the libraries are serving more students now than a year ago and 18% said they were not. Of the total, 10% said they were unsure if there had been an increase. Q. P 53.

Chart P-32

Library Services More School Students Than One Year Ago

No18%

DNK10%

Yes72%

Yes No DNK

Q P53 -- Do you believe your library is serving more school students (K-12) coming into the library now as compared to one year ago?


Yes 193 71.7No 49 18.2DNK 27 10.0Total 269 100.0

One hundred and eighty-three (183) public libraries estimated the percent increase in student usage over a year ago. Almost 50% of the respondents indicated up to 20% increase in utilization, 30% felt it was between 21% and 40%, and 21% felt the percent of increase in utilization was 40% or more. Q. P 54.

Chart P-33

Percentage Increase In Student Usage As Compared To One Year Ago

# 1 to 2049%

# 21 to 40 30%

# 41 to 6013%

# 61 to 803%

# 81 to 1004% # 200

1%

# 1 to 20 # 21 to 40 # 41 to 60 # 61 to 80 # 81 to 100 # 200

Q P54 -- If your library is serving more students than a year ago, please estimate the percentage increase as compared to one year ago?


0 - 20% 89 48.6321 - 40 % 55 30.0541 - 60% 24 13.11 61 - 80% 6 3.2881 - 100% 8 4.37200% 1 .55Total 183 100.00



When asked how TIF funds have benefited libraries, the respondents gave 469 responses. The majority (n 173) 36.7%, said they had received new equipment and computers, 22.2% (n 104). In terms of equipment, printers were the most commonly mentioned equipment. Scanners, wireless technology and digital cameras were also mentioned. In addition, respondents said Internet access and the others named networking, databases, software and training as benefits from TIF training in the open-ended responses for Q. P 55. Other Sources of Local Funding Thirty-seven percent (37%) of public libraries said they were able to develop other sources of local funding as a result of TIF Board technology funding, but 52% said they had not been able to do so. Q. P 57.

Chart P-34

Library Developed Sources Of Funds As a Result Of TIF Board Funding

No52%

DNK11%

Yes37%

Yes No DNK

Q P57 -- As a result of TIF Board technology funding, has your library developed other sources of local funds?


Yes 92 36.9No 129 51.8DNK 28 11.2Total 249 100.0

In the open-ended responses associated with Q57, there were 1203 responses. Most libraries (58%) said their funds came from city funds (42.7%) or Friends/Foundation (13.6%). Twelve public libraries (11.7%) indicated they had received budget increases. The remainder indicated that local funding had come from private donations, school district funds, grants and fund raising. Only 1.9% (n 2) said they had obtained e-rate funds. Q. P 58. Other Grants Public libraries were asked if they were able to develop other grants from other sources as a result of receiving TIF funding. Forty- six percent (46%) said they had been able to, 47% said they had not and nearly 7% were unsure. Q. P 59.



Chart P-35

Library Developed Sources Of Grants As a Result Of TIF Board Funding

Yes46%

DNK7%

No47%

Yes No DNK

Q P59 -- As a result of TIF Board technology funding, has your library developed other grants from other sources?

# Of Responses PercentYes 114 46.2No 116 47.0DNK 17 6.9Total 247 100.0

In terms of the libraries’ success in attracting other grants as a result of TIF funding, 138 responses were given to an open-ended question. Libraries were most successful using TIF grants with Tocker, Gates and “other” grants such as grants from Dell, their library system, etc. Q. P 60 Partnerships with Community Entities Forty-one percent (41%) of public libraries said they had developed partnerships with other community institutions as a result of TIF grant funds. Q. P 61.



Chart P-36

Library Has Developed Partnerships With Other Institutions

DNK13%

No46%

Yes41%

Yes No DNK

Q P61 -- Has the receipt of TIF Board technology funds encouraged your library to develop partnerships with other institutions in your community?


Yes 100 41.5No 110 45.6DNK 31 12.9Total 241 100.0

Open-ended response data from the public libraries indicated that there were 144 responses to this question. Of the libraries, 63% said they had formed partnerships with other libraries (40.3% school, 12.5% city/county) and 11.1% college). Eighteen percent (18%) said they had formed partnerships with community groups (8.3%), businesses (5.5%), and hospital/medical entities (4.9%). Q. P 62 Partnerships with TIF eligible Entities One third (33%) of public libraries had developed partnerships with other TIF eligible institutions. Q. P 63.



Chart P-37

Library Has Developed Partnerships With Other TIF-Eligible Libraries

No53%

DNK14%

Yes33%

Yes No DNK

Q P63 -- Has the receipt of TIF Board funds encouraged your library to develop partnerships with other TIF-eligible libraries or their parent institutions? (academic, public, K-12 schools and health-related organizations)


Yes 80 33.3No 127 52.9DNK 33 13.8Total 240 100.0

Open-ended response data included 101 responses. K-12 schools were mentioned most frequently; 44% of the respondents said they had formed partnerships with these TIF-eligible entities. Academic, public and health organizations were the others mentioned. Q. P 64 19. Future Needs Public libraries were asked to assess the most important issues their library faced in the next one to three years. Survey participants were asked to rate importance based on a 1-4 scale. The following issues received the highest rating based on the mean scores. The issues in order of importance show that the public libraries were largely in agreement that these issues were important based on the high mean scores for these issues: Q. P 68.

Table P-27 Future Needs Important Issues

Issue Mean Scores

Replacing obsolete technology on a regular schedule 3.84 Keeping library equipment secure from viruses 3.83 Having adequate technical support 3.79 Providing staff with more technical training 3.74 Coping with the speed of technological change 3.72



Less important issues for public libraries were the following issues reported by mean scores:

Table P-28 Less Important Future Needs Issues

Issue Mean Scores

Overcoming staff resistance to technology 2.67 Having the ability to provide public laptop computing 2.72 Implementing a public access catalog 2.74 Increasing the number of staff desktop computers 2.87 Increasing the number of library catalog (OPAC) computers 2.89

A cross tabulation of the results from question P 20 that asked about the frequency of use of the TexShare databases and question P 68 that assessed the importance of staff training issues found that those respondents who were the most frequent users of the TexShare databases were more likely to indicate that improving staff digitization skills was an important issue.


APPENDIX IV.C


SCHOOL


A Needs Assessment Study of Texas Academic, Public and School Libraries Overview of the School Library Media Center Survey Data

1. Introduction The following is the first release of the preliminary results from the School Library Media Center survey returns. The Needs Study Team developed a set of survey questions for each type of library based on the Framing Questions that had been developed earlier and reviewed with the Library Working Group (LWG) and which were considered to represent the type of information the LWG desired to have gathered through the surveys. The survey reports on results of a stratified random sample of 750 schools that are Texas Library Connection (TLC) members throughout Texas. There are presently 5,798 libraries that are TLC eligible. The sample also includes school library media centers that are not TLC eligible but which received grant funds during the LB 5 grant cycle that was intended to grant funds to schools otherwise not eligible for TIF grant funds. A total of 314 surveys were returned for a response rate of 41.8%. In addition to the mailed surveys, the surveys were posted online and e-mails were sent to the Educational Service Center Directors, asking them to encourage their regional members to complete surveys. Entering data, editing the survey input, and checking the survey input was conducted during late May and early June. The results were first loaded into an SPSS software program that provided frequency and a detailed analysis for each question. Microsoft Excel was utilized to convert the question results into pie and bar charts. In addition, cross tabulations were constructed for a number of questions. The key questions assessed were whether there was a connection between the frequency of use of the Texas Library Connection databases, staff training needs and the future needs of school libraries. Correlations were found for a number of issues and are reported on in the following summary. 2. Overview of the Survey Questionnaire The questionnaire questions were organized into six categories as follows. The preliminary review, for the most part, follows this sequence.

Table S-1

Survey Questionnaire Categories

Section Title Questions 1 Respondent Information 1-15 2 Technology Resources 16-33 3 Technology and Curriculum 34-40 4 Training 41-54 5 TIF Technology Impact 55-66 6 Future Needs 68-70

There are three general types of questions reported in this preliminary analysis. Questions answered with “yes” or “no” responses are shown as pie charts. Questions asking respondents to rate or rank a condition or issue are shown as charts sequenced in order of importance, frequency, etc. Opened ended responses were coded by category and these responses are displayed in charts in the report. A number of questions report means scores, unless otherwise indicated. Scale for means questions were on a 4-point (4-1) scale asking for opinions on frequency of use, importance, etc.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Appendix IV.C – Page 1 University of North Texas


3. Characteristics of Surveyed School Library Media Centers Surveys were received from all 20 Education Service Center Regions. The most responses came from Region 4 with 15.6% of schools responding; Region 10 and Region 11 both had 10.2% of schools responding. The lowest percentage responses came from Region 2 (1.6%), Regional 14 (2.3%) and Region 6 (2.3%). Q. S 5. As expected, the survey population was drawn from TLC members for the most part and 98% of the school library media center respondents said they are TLC members. Q. S10.

Chart S-1

Library Is a TLC Member

2. No2%

1. Yes98%

1. Yes 2. No


Yes 286 97.9No 6 2.1Total 292 100.0

Q S10 -- Is your library a Texas Library Connection (TLC) member?

Many of the responding schools had service from librarians. Ninety-one percent (91%) of the school library media centers said they had the services of a certified librarian while 49% of the school library media centers said they had a certified school librarian on staff. Of the school library media centers with certified librarians on staff, 45% of these librarians held a Masters Degree in Library Science, and 87% were employed full-time. Since a certified librarian may work for more than one school site, these results should be interpreted that the school media center has a certified librarian responsible for the library, but that the librarian is not necessarily on that school site daily. Q. S 13, 14



Chart S-2

School Library Certification

2. No7%

3. No Librarian2%

1. Yes91%

1. Yes 2. No 3. No Librarian

Q S13_1 -- Does your librarian: have school library certification?

# of Responses Percent Yes 250 91.2No 18 6.6No Librarian 6 2.2Total 274 100.0

Chart S-3

Certified Librarian - Full Time or Part Time

2. Part time13%

1. Full time87%

1. Full time 2. Part time

Q S14 -- Is your certified librarian full time or part time?


Full time 249 87.1Part time 37 12.9Total 286 100.0

Twenty-eight percent (28%) of the school library media centers indicated they had completed the Texas STaR Chart, 5.4% said they had not, and 66% were unsure. Q. S 27.



Chart S-4

District Has Completed the Texas STaR Chart

3. DNK67%

1. Yes28%

2. No5%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK

Q S27_1 -- Has your district completed the Texas STaR Chart?


Yes 78 28.2No 15 5.4DNK 184 66.4Total 277 100.0

Nearly 30% of the school library media centers are rated as exemplary or recognized per the state school library standards, but also 25% of the responding school library media centers were below par. Q. S12.

Chart S-5

Library Ratings

3. Acceptable45%

2. Recognized26%

1. Exemplary4%

4. Below Standard25%

1. Exemplary2. Recognized3. Acceptable4. Below Standard

Q S12 -- Per the current state library standards, is your library: Exemplary, Recognized, Acceptable orBelow Standard


Exemplary 9 3.6Recognized 65 25.8Acceptable 116 46.0Below Standard 62 24.6Total 252 100.0



4. Technology Impact Schools are connected. Ninety percent of respondents indicate they are part of their campus network, while 88% said they are part of their district network. Q. S 6, Q. S 7.

Chart S-6

Library is Part of Campus Network

1. Yes90%

3. DNK1%

2. No9%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK

Q S6 -- Is the library part of a campus network?


Yes 258 89.9No 26 9.1DNK 3 1.0Total 287 100.0

Chart S-7

Library Is Part of a District Network

3. DNK1%

2. No11%

1. Yes88%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK


Yes 253 88.5No 31 10.8DNK 2 .7Total 286 100.0

Q S7 -- Is the library part of a district network?



E-mail has become commonplace in schools for teachers. Ninety-two percent (92%) of teachers have access to e-mail. Students do not have the same level of access, however, as only 8% of students have e-mail accounts available through the district. Q. S 8, 9.

Chart S-8

All Teachers Have E-mail Available Through a District System

1. Yes92%

3. DNK2%

2. No6%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK


Yes 271 92.5No 17 5.8DNK 5 1.7Total 293 100.0

Q S8 -- Do all teachers have e-mail available through a district system?

Chart S-9

All Students Have E-mail Available Through a District System

2. No87%

8%3. DNK

5%

2. No 3. DNK


Yes 22 7.6No 253 87.2DNK 15 5.2Total 290 100.0

Q S9 -- Do all students have e-mail available through a district system?

LANs are used in schools. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the school library media centers indicated they had an internal LAN. Q S.18



Chart S-10

Library Has LAN

3. DNK8%

2. No23%

1. Yes69%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK

Q S18 -- Does the library have an internal Local Area Network (LAN)?


Yes 195 68.7No 66 23.2DNK 23 8.1Total 284 100.0

Internet access is considered adequate in many school library media centers, 79% said their Internet speed was fast or adequate. Q. S 20.

Chart S-11

Adequacy Of Internet Access Speed

3. Slow20%

4. DNK1% 1. Fast

23%

2. Adequate56%

1. Fast 2. Adequate 3. Slow 4. DNK

Q S20 -- From your experience, do you consider your Internet access speed to be?


Fast 68 23.4Adequate 162 55.7Slow 59 20.3DNK 2 .7Total 291 100.0



More than 90% of the school library media centers’ staff reported using word processing, web browsers, e-mail and anti-virus software regularly. TLC databases are used regularly by almost 90% of the staff. Q. S 17.

Chart S-12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent o

f Lib

rarie

s

Wor

d pr

oces

sing

sof

twar

eW

eb b

row

ser

Elec

troni

c m

ail

Anti-

viru

sTe

xas

Libr

ary

Con

nect

ion

Dat

abas

esSp

read

shee

t sof

twar

e Pr

esen

tatio

n / g

raph

ics

/ pub

lishi

ng

Secu

rity

softw

are

to p

reve

ntD

atab

ase

softw

are

Imag

ing

editi

ng s

oftw

are

Prin

t cha

rgin

g / c

ontro

l sof

twar

eU

ser c

ompu

ter t

ime

cont

rol

Met

adat

a so

ftwar

e

Software

Software Applications Regularly Used by Staff

Q S17A-- Does your library staff regularly use the following software applications?

Software Percent

Word processing software 99.0Web browser 97.6Electronic mail 96.6Anti-virus 93.4Texas Library Connection Database 89.4Spreadsheet software 83.8Presentation / graphics / publishing 81.0Security software 72.7Database software 56.5Imaging editing software 38.7Print charging / control software 10.1User computer time control 7.1

f

Student use of software applications largely mirrors that of the staff. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of the students use web browsers and word processing software and 80% regularly use TLC databases. Q. S 17.

Chart S-13

Library Provides Remote Access Authentication to TLC Databases

1. Yes73%

2. No20%

3. DNK7%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK

Q S21 -- Does the library provide authentication (require passwords or logins) for its users for remote access to Texas Library Connection (TLC) databases?


Yes 215 73.9No 57 19.6DNK 19 6.5Total 291 100.0



Remote access is available in many libraries. Seventy-six percent (76%) of the school library media centers say users can access TLC databases from home, and 79% say they make TLC access available to users from outside the library. Q. S 26 Many school libraries appear to be permitting remote use but more frequently for TLC resources than other local resources. Seventy-three percent (73%) of the libraries provide authentication and 50% provide authentication for local databases. Q. S 21, 22

Chart S-14

Library Provides Remote Access Authentication to Local Databases

2. No43%

1. Yes50%

3. DNK7%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK

Q S22 -- Does the library provide authentication (require passwords or logins) for its users for remote access to locally provided databases?


Yes 146 50.3No 124 42.8DNK 20 6.9Total 290 100.0

School library media centers are generally satisfied with the technical support they receive. They are more likely to be satisfied when support comes from the district. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of school library media centers reported they found their district-provided technical support very adequate or adequate. Q S 24



Chart S-15

Rating of Technical Support

2. Adequate49%

3. Inadequate19%

1. Very Adequate28%

4. Very Inadequate4%

5. DNK0%

1. Very Adequate 2. Adequate 3. Inadequate 4. Very Inadequate 5. DNK

Q S24 -- In your opinion, is the technical support your library receives from your District?


Very Adequate 82 28.2Adequate 141 48.5Inadequate 54 18.6Very Inadequate 13 4.5DNK 1 .3Total 291 100.0

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of school library media centers receiving technical support from other providers said their support was very adequate or adequate. Q. S 25

Chart S-16

Rating of Non-District Technical Support

1. Very Adequate19%

2. Adequate49%

3. Inadequate12%

4. Very Inadequate2%

5. DNK18%

1. Very Adequate 2. Adequate 3. Inadequate 4. Very Inadequate 5. DNK

Q S25 -- If you receive technical support from a source other than your District, in your opinion, is the technical support your library receives?


Very Adequate 31 18.6Adequate 82 49.1Inadequate 20 12.0Very Inadequate 4 2.4DNK 30 10.0 Total 167 100.0



A majority of the school library media centers reported that they had one or more of the factors found in other studies to promote positive acceptance of technology in schools1. Q. S 27.

• Eighty-one percent (81%) said they have a skilled technology coordinator. • Seventy-three percent (73%) said they regularly collaborate with technology staff.

• Eighty-two percent (82%) said they have a visible advocate for technology at their school.

A cross tabulation of the responses to Q S 11 and Q. S 24 was performed. Q. S 11 asked, ”Did your library receive TIF Board funds –other than for TLC databases – for hardware and networking.” While Q. S. 24 asked, “ Is your District technical support adequate? The results show that there is an association between receipt of funds and adequacy of District technical support. There was also a correlation between the receipt of adequate funds and whether the library provides access to the Internet inside the library to users which suggests that TIF grant dollars are making a difference in the services and quality of the school library media centers. 5. Library Services and Databases Eighty percent (80%) of the respondents said their library provides workstations accessible to disabled persons. Q. S 26.

Chart S-17

Library Provides Workstations for Persons With Disabilities

2. No16%

1. Yes80%

3. DNK4%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK

Q S26_9 -- Does your library provide workstations accessible to disabled persons?


Yes 228 79.7No 47 16.4DNK 11 3.8Total 286 100.0

Ninety-nine percent (99%) of the school library media centers provide access to the Internet for staff and 97% provide access to users inside the library. Q. S 26.

1 TITE Report,



Chart S-18

Library Has Internet Access for Staff Inside the Library2. No

1%

3. DNK0%

1. Yes99%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK

Q S26_3 -- Does your library provide access to the Internet to staff inside the library on library computers?


Yes 292 99.0No 2 .7DNK 1 .3Total 295 100.0

School library media centers are most likely to use the Internet and use local software daily, typically search the shared union library catalog 1-3 times per week, and they use interlibrary loans infrequently. Q. S 38 Eighteen percent (18%) of the school library media centers said they use the TLC databases daily. Nearly 60% of the school library media centers use the Texas Library Connection (TLC) databases at least two or three times a week. Thirty three percent (33%) said they use them weekly, (27%) said they use them monthly, and 13% said they “never” use the databases. Q. S 34.



Chart S-19

Frequency Of Texas Library Connection Database Use


Daily18%

Heavily9%

Never13%


1-2 times per month

2-3 times per week

Daily

Heavily

Never

Q S34--How frequently do you use a Texas Library Connection database to answer a question for a library user?

# Response Percent

1-2 times per month 83 272-3 times per week 101 33Daily 54 18 Heavily 28 9Never 41 13

If asked what TLC databases they were likely to use, school library media centers provided 552 responses. Broken down by categories, 62.6% responses referred to use of the Gale databases, 14% mentioned use of the online Encyclopedia Britannica, 11% the online union library catalog, and 11% “other” databases. Q. S 35. Respondents indicated they used online resources most frequently to do basic research, 1-2 times per week. They also used online resources frequently to enhance class instruction, to get information from the Internet for lessons and to promote TLC databases to others outside the library. Q. S 36. School library media center respondents said they were least likely to use online resources to create web-based courses as tutorials for teachers or for online learning projects. Q. S 34. Of those that exist, school library media centers have only a small number of special collections that have been digitized and made available over the web. Library collections in the schools are still focused on delivering traditional services and have not yet adopted digitization or online aids. Ninety-eight percent (98%) said they have no unique collections that have been digitized. Q. S 30.



Chart S-20

Library Has Unique Special Collection Materials on the Web

1. Yes1%

3. DNK1%

2. No98%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK

Q S30 -- Does your library have unique special collection materials (for example: archives, photographic images, letters, manuscripts) that have been digitized and made available over the web?


Yes 2 .7No 288 98.3DNK 3 1.0Total 293 100.0

Ninety-two percent (92%) said they do not employ web-finding aids and only 2.9% said they do have archival finding aids for special collection materials on the web. Q. S 32.

Chart S-21

Library Has Archival Finding Aids for Special Materials on the Web

3. DNK5%

1. Yes3%

2. No92%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK

Q S32 -- Does your library have archival finding aids to assist users of special collections materials to find your materials on the web?


Yes 8 2.9No 257 92.4DNK 13 4.7Total 278 100.0



6. Technology, Online Resources and the Curriculum Library media centers provide more than books; they loan equipment as well. Twenty percent (20%) of the school library media centers said they loan digital cameras and other equipment; DVD burners (17.5%), and handheld scanners (14.3%). Q. S 16.

Chart S-22

0

5

10

15

20

25

Perc

ent o

f Lib

rarie

s

Dig

ital c

amer

as

DVD

bur

ner

Han

dhel

d or

pen

sca

nner

s

CD

bur

ner

Pers

onal

com

pute

rs

Flat

bed

scan

ners

Inkj

et p

rinte

rs

Lase

r prin

ters

Lapt

ops

Pers

onal

dig

ital a

ssis

tant

s

Equipment

Library Provides Equipment for Loan

16 SC--Does your library provide the following equipment? (Loan to Users)

Equipment Percent

Digital cameras 21.6DVD burner 17.5Handheld or pen scanners 14.3CD burner 14.0Personal computers 8.1Flatbed scanners 4.8Inkjet printers 3.7Laser printers 3.6Laptops 1.8Personal digital assistants 0.4

More than 80% of the respondents indicated they provided personal computers and printers to staff, students and teachers. Q. S 16 Teachers and staff are more likely to be provided with scanners, or digital cameras than students. Q. S 16 Eighty-two percent (82%) of the libraries do not provide laptops for use in the library, but those that do loan laptops are more likely to loan them to staff and teachers (39%) than to students (20%). Q. S 16, Q. S 26. In assessing the factors that help integrate technology into the classroom, the survey participants were asked to rate on a 4-point scale the importance of factors for integration. The mean score results show that adequate access to hardware and software and available time to integrate technology were most important. The mean scores are very high for all the issues, which suggests that the school library respondents felt all of these issues were important. Q. S 37.



Table S-2 Importance of Factors for Integration

Factor Mean Scores

Adequate access to hardware and software 3.85 Available time 3.80 Quality of the computer technology available 3.77 Teacher initiative 3.76 Expectations of teachers 3.71 Relationship to student coursework 3.70 Teacher technology skills 3.69 Staff technology skills 3.64 Resources to support Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills 3.63 Student technology skills 3.33

Respondents were also asked on a four point scale if they felt that the availability of online resources had an impact on their work and interaction with students and faculty, 4 = definitely, 3= somewhat 2= not much or 1= not at all. According to respondents, the availability of online resources is most likely to have had an impact on enhanced motivation of students. Other factors also had high mean scores including the need for students to incorporate technology and databases into courses, the need for stronger student research skills and promotion of the role of the librarian as a facilitator. Q. S 39.

Table S-3 Impact of Online Resources

Factor Mean Scores

Enhanced student motivation 3.59 Creating a need for teachers to incorporate technology 3.40 Strengthened student research skills 3.38 Promoted the role of the librarian as a facilitator 3.35

Availability of online resources has had the least impact on helping to create more access to the library beyond the scheduled school day and helping students work in groups. Q. S 39 7. Barriers to Internet Use Barriers to use of Internet services are most likely to be time and money. Respondents said that teachers’ and staff’s limited time, a lack of awareness by teachers and a lack of money were important factors while telecommunications costs were seen as less important as barriers. There were 35 open-ended responses to this question. Four respondents each named security/filtering (11.4%), equipment needs (11.4%) and “other” (11.4%) as barriers. Q. S 40. 8. Training Issues The goal of developing technology skill competencies is finding its way into the schools. Eighty-one percent (81%) of those responding said their professional development plans included training for basic technology skills. Q. S 47.



Chart S-22

Staff Training Programs Stress Basic Technology Skills

1. Yes81%

2. No15%

3. DNK4%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK

Q S47 -- Does your library staff have access to professional development programs that stress basic technology skills?


Yes 225 80.9No 42 15.1DNK 11 4.0Total 278 100.0

Forty-six percent (46%) of the school library media centers said the school technology plans discussed competencies. Q. S 28.

Chart S-23

School Long Range Plan Discusses Competencies

1. Yes46%

2. No42%

3. DNK12%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK

Q S28 -- Does your school library have a long-range technology plan that discusses staff and student technology skill competencies?


Yes 135 46.1No 123 42.0DNK 35 11.9Total 293 100.0

Overall, between 76% -100% of the respondents indicated that training for basic technology skills is included in their technology plans at either the campus or district level (or both).



• Fifty-three percent (53%) said the competencies are in their campus plan. Q. S 29 • Seventy-one percent (71%) said the competencies were in their district plan. Q. S 29

Chart S-24

Technology Skill Competencies are Included in Campus Technology Plan

2. No26%

1. Yes53%

3. DNK21%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK

Q S29_1 -- If answer to Question 28 is No, are these competencies included: in a campus plan?


Yes 78 53.1No 38 25.9DNK 31 21.1Total 147 100.0

School library media center staff is most likely to be trained through Educational Service Center courses. TIF tech training is used by 44% of the respondents, while the least used for training are commercial providers. Q. S 41. School library media center respondents named a number of other training providers in the open-ended responses. There were 29 open-ended responses. State and National training conferences and workshops were named by 5 respondents. Five respondents also said they received training from campus and district sources. Four respondents each said they received training from “knowledgeable Associates, self-study. Other providers named were vendors and online classes. TIF tech training is seen as most effective for imparting understanding of how the Internet affects student performance and creating an understanding of the Internet. Q. S 43. All staff training needs are seen as somewhat important. The most important library staff training needs were (in order of importance):

• Teaching students and staff about databases. • Using the Internet to conduct research. • Evaluating the quality of online information.

A cross tabulation of Q. S 34 that asked about the frequency of use of the Texas Connection databases and Q S 44 that assessed the importance of staff training issues found a correlation between frequency and four of the training issues. Respondents who were frequent users of the Texas Connection databases were more likely to say that troubleshooting hardware and software and the importance of learning basic computer skills and learning how to teach basic computer skills were important. Q. S 44.



In the view of the librarians reporting, most of the teacher training needs were also considered to be important. The most important teacher training needs were: Q. S 45.

• Collaborating with librarians. • Integrating online resources into assignments. • Using the Internet to conduct research. • Using TLC resources.

The most important student training needs were: Q. S 46.

• Using the Internet to conduct research. • Using the TLC resources. • Learning basic computer skills. • Evaluating the quality of online information.

Survey participants were asked to rate the importance of current training needs on a 4-point scale. In discussing current training needs, all categories of training were important for staff including web based databases, TLC databases, resource sharing issues and web design techniques. Least important were interlibrary loan training issues. This is not surprising, since many of the school library media centers are unlikely to have access to interlibrary loan programs such as Aerial or to OCLC services for interlibrary loan. Q. S 52.

Table S-4 Importance of Current Training Needs

Skill Mean Scores

Web based databases 3.39 Overview of Texas Library Connection Databases 3.37 Resource sharing issues 3.18 Basic web design techniques 3.10 Preservation techniques 2.94 Overview of grant writing 2.73 Managing electronic journals 2.55 Managing special collections 2.45 Interlibrary loan reporting software such as CLIO 2.37 OCLC interlibrary loan issues 2.36 Document transmission software for ILL such as Ariel 2.32

9. Availability of Distance Learning When asked about the type of distance learning system available, the percentage results show that schools do not appear to favor one method of providing access to distance learning. Q. S 48.



Table S-5 Availability of Distance Learning

Have Access T –Star 29% Internet 36% Videoconference 29% Teleconference 15%

The Internet seems to have a slight lead a delivery system for distance learning. Q. S 48.2

Chart S-25


1. Yes36%

3. DNK17%

2. No47%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK

Q S48_2 -- Does your school library have distance learning available via Internet?


Yes 101 35.8No 133 47.2DNK 48 17.0Total 282 100.0

Students trail in their access to distance learning. Library staff and teachers have more access to distance education opportunities from other institutions than students. Q. S 49, 50, 51.

Table S-6 Opportunities for Distance Learning Education

Have Access Do Not Have

Access Library Staff 39% 42% Teachers 33% 48% Students 19% 67%

10. TIF Impact on School Library Media Centers



Nearly three quarters of the school library media centers (72%) report that they have seen an increase in student use of the library in the past year. Twenty-one percent (21%) said they had not seen an increase and 7% were unsure. Q. S 55.

Chart S-25

Library Is Serving More Students

2. No21%

3. DNK7%

1. Yes72%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK

Q S55 -- Do you believe your library is serving more students coming into the library now as compared to one year ago?


Yes 201 71.8No 60 21.4DNK 19 6.8Total 280 100.0

When asked how TIF funds have benefited school library media centers, respondents indicated that new computers and equipment are the greatest benefit.

Table S-7 TIF Funding Benefits to School Library Media Centers

Factor Mean Scores

New computers or equipment 26.2% Internet access 10.8% TLC database access 10.8% Specific equipment 9.8% Networking assistance 8.2% Library catalog automation 8.0% Training 7.7%

Four percent (4%) said there had been no benefit, 10% said there had been “other” benefits such as enhanced awareness of the library and better service. Q. S 57. It appears that one of the most important impacts of TIF funding is the presence of the TLC databases in the school library media centers. Almost 90% of the school library media centers report that staff and teachers use the databases, and 80% say students use TLC databases regularly. Q. S 17. School library media center respondents were asked to rate the importance of technology access on a 4 point scale of 4 = most important 3= somewhat important 2= somewhat unimportant and 1 = very unimportant. Most of the respondents were in agreement that that it is important to have technology access, with 89% indicating this was important and only 8% stated it was unimportant to their libraries. Q. S 68.



Chart S-27

Importance of Available Technology

1. Very Important65%

3. Somewhat Unimportant

4%

2. Somewhat Important24%

4. Unimportant4%

5. DNK3%

1. Very Important 2. Somewhat Important3. Somewhat Unimportant 4. Unimportant5. DNK

Q S68 -- How important is having available access to technology for your users and students in your library?


Very Important 191 65.4Somewhat Important 69 23.6Somewhat Unimportant 12 4.1Unimportant 12 4.1DNK 8 2.7Total 292 100.0

TLC member libraries are likely to have received TIF funds for services other than databases, with 62% of the school library media centers reporting that they had received TIF funds for other purposes than databases. Q. S 11.

Chart S-28

Campus Library Receives TIF Board Funds - Other Than for TLC Databases

1. Yes62%

3. DNK12%

2. No26%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK


Yes 168 61.5No 71 26.0DNK 34 12.5Total 273 100.0

Q S11 -- Did your campus library receive TIF Board funds - other than for TLC databases - for hardware, networking and/or connectivity?



TIF emphasis on collaboration seems to influence cooperation.

• Twenty percent (20%) of school media center libraries said they had partnered with other TIF eligible entities. Q.S 66.

Chart S-29

Library Develops Partnerships With Other TIF-Eligible Libraries

3. DNK33%

2. No47%

1. Yes20%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK

Q S66 -- Has the receipt of TIF Board technology funds by your library encouraged your library to develop partnerships with other TIF-eligible libraries? (TIF-eligible libraries include academic, public, K-12 schools and health-related organizations?


Yes 50 20.2No 115 46.6DNK 82 33.2Total 247 100.0

• It also appears that school library media centers are more likely to seek partnerships with TIF

eligible partners. Only 11% of the school media center libraries reported partnerships with non-TIF-eligible entities. Q. S 64.



Chart S-30

Library Develops Partnerships With Other Institutions

2. No60%

1. Yes11%3. DNK

29%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK

Q S64 -- Has the receipt of TIF Board technology funds by your library encouraged your library to develop partnerships with other institutions in your community?


Yes 27 10.5No 154 60.2DNK 75 29.3Total 256 100.0

• Of the partnerships formed, 52 (25%) school library media centers responded that they had formed partnerships with their District/Region, and 17% with public libraries. Q S 67

• Eleven percent (10.5%) of the school library media centers said they had been encouraged to

partner with other community institutions. A fairly large percentage, 29.3 percent, said they were unsure about the answer to this question. When asked to name what type of institutions, 34 school library media centers responded and the majority (15) said with public libraries, and 4 each named District/Region libraries, college/university or “other.” Q. S 64.



Chart S-31

Library Develops Partnerships With Other Institutions

2. No60%

1. Yes11%3. DNK

29%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK

Q S64 -- Has the receipt of TIF Board technology funds by your library encouraged your library to develop partnerships with other institutions in your community?


Yes 27 10.5No 154 60.2DNK 75 29.3Total 256 100.0

Most school library media centers have not yet been able to leverage additional grant funds or to leverage funds as a result of TIF funding.

• Nine percent (9%) said they were able to leverage additional funds Q. S 60.

Chart S-32

Library Has Developed Other Sources of Local Funds

2. No46%

1. Yes9%

3. DNK45%

1. Yes 2. No 3. DNK

Q S60 -- As a result of TIF Board technology funding, has your library developed other sources of local funds?


Yes 23 9.2No 114 45.6DNK 113 45.2Total 250 100.0



Five percent (5%) said they had been able to obtain other grants from other sources. Q. S 62. In the open-ended responses, school library media centers in 15 cases named grants. Eleven libraries named specific sources such as “TIE” Academic 2000 and Intel Teach for the Future. Four libraries said they had received “business” grants and “other” grants. Q. S 63. There were 29 responses to the open-ended question about other sources of local funds; 38% said other sources of funds came from schools or district funds, and 14% said from matching funds. Other sources named included grants, business contributors (3), and fund-raising activities (3). In responding to a question about the challenges they faced in applying for or implementing their TIF grants, 20% of the school library media center responses in an open-ended question indicated that lack of training and lack of time were the two most important challenges. For 8.8% the fact that paperwork was handled at the district office was a challenge, 6% said lack of grant writing experience was a challenge and 6% said the grant paperwork was a challenge. Q. S 58. 11. Future Needs Asked about the two or three most pressing needs they face in fully implementing public access to electronic information resources, school library media center respondents indicated that one third feel that equipment needs are the most pressing, while a minority of the libraries (7%) feel that access and speed are issues. Q. S 59.

Table S-8 Most Pressing Future Needs

Issue Percent

Equipment needs 29.3 Training needs 20.2 Operating concerns 9.2 Access and speed 6.6

Survey participants were asked to rate the importance of future training needs on a four point scale with 4= very important, 3= somewhat important 2= somewhat unimportant and 1 – unimportant. The means scores indicated that school library media center respondents indicated that using the TLC databases, and searching the Internet were rated as the most important future training needs. Most the issues received support from the libraries as to importance. Rated last, and of lesser importance, are network management and managing e-mail activities but these issues are still considered somewhat important future training needs. Q. S 53.

Table S-9 Importance of Future Training Needs

Skill Mean Scores

Using TLC online databases 3.58 Searching the Internet 3.51 Creating/enhancing the library web site 3.35 Using the library’s online catalog 3.25 Processing materials and books 3.20 Providing basic computer support 3.16 Scanning images 3.09 Using video streaming 3.03 Managing the library’s network (LAN, etc.) 2.85 Managing e-mail activities 2.81



A cross tabulation of the responses from Q S 34 which asked about the frequency of use of the Texas Library Connection databases and Q S 53, which asked respondents to assess the importance of future staff training needs, showed an association between the two factors. Respondents who most frequently use the TLC databases are most likely to feel that training in the management of the library’s network is important. There were 154 open-ended responses to the question about training. Of the responses, 9.7% said that training in general was important. The most frequently listed training need was for more training in how to instruct users (14.3%), while 13% said that training in database access was important. Other training issues included automation (8.4%), digital resources (8.4%), Internet/website (7.8%) and software (6.5%) training. School library media center participants were asked to rate 27 issues as to how important the respondents felt these issues were for their library in the next one to three years. A four point scale was used with 4 = very important and 1 = unimportant. In their response more than 94% of the school media center libraries as important include: Q. S 70.

• Replacing obsolete technology regularly. • Improving the level of user skills. • Providing adequate security and anti-virus protection for equipment. • Providing users with technology training. • Having adequate technical support.

The following chart displays some of the highest means scores, indicating that most of the respondents were in agreement as to the importance of these issues.

Table S-10 Important Issues for Library in the Next 1-3 Years

Issues Mean Scores

Replacing obsolete technology and a regular schedule 3.81 Having adequate technical support for our library 3.71 Keeping library equipment secure from viruses and other security problems 3.70 Integrating library technology with a district technology planning 3.66 Providing current staff with more access to technical training 3.63 Improving the level of user technical skill 3.62 Providing users with access to technology training 3.62

The mean scores response show that 24 of the top issues scored a mean score of 3 or higher which indicates that the school library media center respondents indicated that many of the issues were considered important for their future. A cross tabulation of Q. S 34, which asked about the frequency of use of the TLC databases with Q S 70, which asked respondents to rate the importance of certain issues for libraries in the future on a four point scale found a significant relationship between frequency of use and the respondents’ belief that it will be important to hire staff with technical skills in the future. There was also a strong relationship between higher frequency of use of the TLC databases and the belief that it will be important to provide users with access to technology training. The statement that it will be important that the public access catalog be enhanced with additional features (digital images, more full text) also had a significant relationship to higher frequency of use of the TLC databases. Asked about the issues most likely to impact their school library media centers in the next one to three years, the most important issues were upgrading equipment, technical support and security. Q. S 70.


APPENDIX V

RESULTS OF THE 2 & 4 YEAR COMPARISON (CHARTS)


Chart AC-1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Perc

ent

2-Year Institutions 4-Year Institutions


Heavily Daily 2-3 times/week

Comparison of 2-Year Institutions to 4-Year Institutions

Q17 -- How frequently do your librarians use TexShare databases to answer questions for library users?

Percents 2-Year Institutions 4-Year Institutions

Heavily 62.0 77.5Daily 28.0 17.52-3 Times/Week 10.0 5.0

Chart AC-2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Perc

ent


Frequency That Librarians Use non-TexShare Resources

Heavily Daily 2-3 times/week

1-2 times/month Never


Q19 -- How frequently do your librarians use non-TexShare online resources to assist library users?


Heavily 28.6 76.9Daily 49.0 15.42-3 Times/Week 18.4 7.71-2 Times/Month 2.0 0.0Never 2.0 0.0

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Appendix V – Page 1 University of North Texas


Chart AC-3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Perc

ent


Library Permits Users to Connect Laptops To the Library's Network

Yes No DNK

Q11_3 -- Does your library permit users to connect laptops to the library's network?


Yes 50.0 75.0No 46.0 25.0DNK 4.0 0.0


Chart AC-4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Perc

ent



Yes No DNK

Q7 -- Could your library provide authentication with an additional ILS module?


Yes 19.1 42.9No 14.9 5.7DNK 66.0 51.4




Chart AC-5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Perc

ent


Library Would Be Likely To Promote Remote Access With a Provided Authentication Method

Yes No DNK


Q8 -- If the State Library were to provide your library with an authentication method for accessing TexShare databases, would your library be more likely to promote remote access to users?


Yes 77.1 58.8No 10.4 35.3DNK 12.5 5.9

Chart AC-6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Perc

ent



Yes No

Q12_1 -- Does your library have distance learning available via Internet ?



Yes 82.4 66.7No 17.6 33.3



Chart AC-7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Perc

ent


Library Allows Students To Take Distance Education Courses From Other Institutions

Yes No DNK

Q13_2 -- Does your library? Allow students to utilize your library's computers to take distance education courses offered by another institution?



Yes 76.0 60.0No 16.0 40.0DNK 8.0 0.0

Chart AC-8

Ratings of Staff Skill Levels

150

170

190

210

230

250

270

290

310

330

Acce

ssin

g Te

xSha

reda

taba

ses

from

hom

e

Acce

ssin

g th

e lib

rary

reso

urce

s fro

m a

rem

ote

loca

tion

Usi

ng M

icro

soft

Exce

l

Man

agin

g so

ftwar

e -

inst

alla

tion,

con

figur

atio

n,pr

oble

m s

olvi

ng

Man

agin

g co

mpu

ters

-in

stal

latio

n, s

yste

mad

min

istra

tion

Man

agin

g ne

twor

ks -

netw

ork

man

agem

ent,

prob

lem

Wei

ghte

d Sc

ores


In general, how would you rate your staff's skill level in the following areas?

Areas Weighted Score Institutions 2-Year 4-YearAccessing TexShare databases from home 258.2 302.5Accessing the library resources from a remote location 270.5 320.0Using Microsoft Excel 245.2 292.5Managing software - installation, configuration, problem solving 192.2 260.0Managing computers - installation, system administration 180.0 284.6Managing networks - network




Chart AC-9

Importance of Current Training Needs For Staff

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

360

Using T

exSha

re da

tabas

es

Search

ing th

e inte

rnet

Manag

ing el

ectro

nic jo

urnals

Knowled

ge of

Inter

librar

y loa

n rep

orting

softw

are

Manag

ing sp

ecial

colle

ction

s

Wei

ghte

d Sc

ore

2-Year Institutions

4-Year Institutions


Q37 -- How important are the following current training needs for your staff?

Frequency Percent Institutions 2-Year 4-Year Using TexShare databases 346.3 305.0Searching the internet 315.3 280.0Managing electronic journals 259.7 332.5Knowledge of Interlibrary loan reporting software 238.6 282.5Managing special collections 215.2 265.0

Chart AC-10

Importance Of Barriers To Use Of the Internet In the Library

150

170

190

210

230

250

270

290

Physic

al sp

ace l

imita

tions

Lack

of in

hous

e tec

hnica

l exp

ertise

Inade

quac

y of lo

cal te

lecom

munica

tions

acce

ss

Lack

of m

anag

emen

t sup

port

Lack

of tra

ining

on ho

w to us

e the

Inter

net

Cost o

f pho

ne ch

arges

Barriers

Wei

ghte

d Sc

ore


Q26 -- In your opinion, how important are the following as barriers to the use of your library's Internet services?


Barriers Weighted Score Institutions 2-Year 4-YearPhysical space limitations 271.5 231.6 Lack of in house technical expertise 263.2 217.8Inadequacy of local telecom. access 251.3 217.6Lack of management support 253.1 205.2Lack of training on how to use the Internet 234.0 210.2Cost of phone charges 198.0 159.0


APPENDIX VI

PROVEN PRACTICES


PROVEN PRACTICE: Integrating Electronic Resources into Curriculum Program: Teaching with Innovative Style & Technology (TWIST) Organization: University of Iowa Libraries, Iowa City, IA 52242 Contact Information: Ericka A. Raber, Instruction Librarian, Instructional Services Department, Main Library, email: [email protected] Description: A collaborative approach between librarians and faculty to integrate library information resources into academic courses. A librarian is paired with a faculty member to develop a course-specific resource page that will lead students to high-quality electronic resources related to the course subject. Librarians may also serve as research consultants for the class and they may give course presentations to demonstrate the resource page or the use of databases provided on the course resource page. A call for application to participate in the TWIST program is sent out to faculty and then a librarian is identified to work with the faculty member as a partner. There is an initial consultation between the librarian and the faculty member to discuss course content, resource needs, website design, training needs, pedagogical issues, copyright and student privacy. Each librarian is provided with a guide for topics of discussion with the faculty member – e.g., Highlights for the TWIST Librarian-Faculty Meeting. This program was initiated in 1996 as a pilot project with librarians working with a small number of faculty in one academic department. Since that time, this collaboration has grown into a successful model known as “TWISTed Pairs” with over 170 librarian/faculty partners to create over 500 course websites with the resource pages identifying electronic resources and providing a content-rich interactive learning experience for students. Additionally, the TWIST website provides tutorials for faculty and provides links to other university resources and Internet resources on topics such as Evaluating Information, Copyright and Fair Use Guidelines. Critical Success Factors: 1) using a pilot project approach permits librarians to develop knowledge, skill and methods that will work best for the librarian/s and faculty/teachers; 2) flexibility in adapting resources and presentation to the needs of the course, faculty and students; 3) willingness to draw on existing web pages and resources to develop appropriate materials. Website: http://twist.lib.uiowa.edu. The website provides an overview of the program as well as forms, questions and issues to discuss with faculty, access to course listings and the course syllabus, and a resources and tools page. Related Key Recommendations: 1) Collaboration and Leveraging; 2) Training.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Appendix VI – Page 1 University of North Texas

http://twist.lib.uiowa.edu/


PROVEN PRACTICE: Training Volunteers to Train People in the Community to Use the Internet, the online library catalog, and databases. Program: INFOTRACKERS Volunteer Training Program Organization: Kitsap Regional Library, 1301 Sylvan Way, Bremerton, WA. 98310. Contact Information: Karen Miller, Kitsap Regional Library, email: [email protected] Description: The Infotrackers Volunteer Training Program provides training to volunteers from the community who in turn teach others how to use the World Wide Web, email, and the online library catalog. Infotrackers Volunteers are given a 4-hour orientation and training session so that they will learn how to train people to unlock the doors to the vast store of information on the Internet. Volunteers are also given the necessary information to help them meet the responsibility of representing Kitsap Regional Library. The Infotrackers program is geared for recruiting trainers who already have a fair amount of experience with computers. Volunteers for the program are expected to teach at least 4 public classes approximately an hour and a half long at a branch library. The three class subject areas (one taught per class) are: WWW, email, and library catalog/periodicals searching skills. Class size is between 4-6 people and the times of the classes are by mutual agreement between the volunteer and the branch library where the class is taught. Many branch libraries have periods in the morning when the site is not open to the public, which is ideal for teaching. Also, early evening and Saturdays are popular times for classes to accommodate people's work schedules. The program offers approximately 16 classes at different branches each month taught by volunteers. The website provides Infotrackers Volunteers with support and supplemental materials for their training sessions, but anyone interested in learning more about the electronic information environment is welcome to surf the site. Attendance in the Infotracker Trainer classes is by confirmed sign-up-- the maximum capacity is eight. The Library offers this training for trainers four times a year. This program was established in 1997 and has had over 50 volunteers participating, some regularly and some for brief periods. The volunteers come from throughout the community and many are retirees, while others are housewives, and business people. This website has a number of pages that would be useful to any library or library consortium considering a similar program. There are pages on Teaching Tips for the WWW, Catalog, Database, and Basic Computer classes as well as handouts for each of the four subjects the volunteers teach. Additionally there is a description of the program, and the desired background of volunteers, and an application form. Critical Success Factors: Frequent and visible contacts in the community through the libraries, schools, etc. to interest individuals in volunteering. Flexibility in scheduling the classes taught by volunteers, and quality support materials to assist the volunteers in their teaching. Website: http://infotrackers.krl.org. Related Key Recommendation: 1) Training, 2) Collaboration and Leveraging, 3) Awareness.


mailto:[email protected]

http://infotrackers.krl.org/


PROVEN PRACTICE: Increase the information literacy of students in the county by librarians working in partnership with local schools to connect students and educators with the critical information resources of the public library. Program: School Corps Organization: Multnomah County Library, Portland Oregan Contact Information: Jackie Partch, School Corps Team Leader. Email: [email protected] Description: The School Corps is an outreach program that supports the curriculum and increases student and faculty awareness of and use of print and electronic information resources available through the public library. The School Corps librarians from the Multnomah County Library offer several services/programs. An early project involved registering as many elementary school students as possible with library cards by mailing letters and posters to public and private school inviting them to take part in a contest. 103 schools signed up to participate and four schools registered 100% of their students while the fifth had 99.44% register. A similar program for middle and high school students called “Get Carded,” resulted in 11,000 new library cards issued and these were used almost 42,000 times over 9 months. An ongoing and major program of the School Corp is for the librarians to visit classrooms teaching skills for using the online catalog, navigating library databases, and other web resources. And they work with teachers to enhance their curriculum with custom-created guides to the electronic and print resources of the Library. The School Corps also has a website to provide online training/learning of electronic resources including topics such as an introduction to the Library catalog, a basic introduction to subject and keyword searching for articles in the library’s full-text database, and a presentation on the library’s web sites and a session on how to evaluate web sites. The School Corps website also provides other services such as a customized booklist. And the website provides information on other services such as presentations for a parent/family programs or assistance in how to start a book club. Critical Success Factors: Public and school media librarians willing to work together to provide the training and the resources of the public library for teaching and learning. Website: www.multcolib.org/schoolcorps/menu.html. Related Key Recommendations: 1) Collaboration and Leveraging, 2) Training, 3) Awareness.



http://www.multcolib.org/schoolcorps/menu.html


PROVEN PRACTICE: Providing homework support for young people and linking resources to curriculum to support teachers and students via Internet resources. Program: Homework Helper Web Site Links Organization: Dallas Public Library, Dallas, TX. 214 670 1700 – Information & Reference Contact Information: No one specific. Description: The Dallas Public Library Homepage has a link to both a “Kids” page and a “Teen” page. These web pages in turn provide links to existing Internet sites that provide both content on topics in broad areas such as history, science, math, social studies and to sites that provide assistance in conducting research and writing a paper. Examples of the content sites to assist students include: BJ Pinchbeck’s Homework Helper, Homework Help, Ask Experts, KidsConnect FAQs, AfterSchool, Ask Dr. Math, Math Homework Helper, Discovery.com and Fact Monster among many subject-based sites. Additionally the Homework Helper site at the Dallas Public Library – as well as other libraries – links to other library websites that in turn provide access to rich content online to assist students and teachers. These include the Internet Public Library (hosted at the University of Michigan), and the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh Homework Help and the Library of Congress. Any or all of these resources can be established as a link on a school or public library website providing a valuable information resource for students and teachers with a minimum of effort from the library staff. Critical Success Factors: willingness to review and use existing websites to link from local library homepage for kids, teens and college students; keeping website updated with new resources and deletion of any sites that are no longer current. Websites: Dallas Public Library, TX.: www.dallaslibrary.org/kids.htm. Multnomah County Library, Org: www.multcolib.org/homework/index.html High Point Public Library, NC.: www.hipopl.org/yapages/yapages/Homework/homework.html Canton Public Library, Org.: www.cantonpl.org/youth/homework.html Internet Public Library, MI: www.ipl.org/div/teen/browse/gh/0000/ Carnegie Public Library of Pittsburgh,PA. www.carnegielibrary.org/subject/homework/ Fairfax County, VA.: www.co.fairfax.va.us./library/teens/homework/htm Library of Congress, D.C.: www.lcweb.loc.gov/homepage/lchp.htm. Related Key Recommendations: 1) Collaboration and Leveraging, 2) Training, 3) Anywhere, Anytime, Access.


http://www.dallaslibrary.org/kids.htm

http://www.multcolib.org/homework/index.html

http://www.hipopl.org/yapages/yapages/Homework/homework.html

http://www.cantonpl.org/youth/homework.html

http://www.ipl.org/div/teen/browse/gh/0000/

http://www.carnegielibrary.org/subject/homework/

http://www.co.fairfax.va.us./library/teens/homework/htm

http://www.lcweb.loc.gov/homepage/lchp.htm


PROVEN PRACTICE: Students and teachers acquire skills in accessing and critically evaluating information found on the Internet and have access to subject materials on the Internet. Program: Internet Detectives and the Electronic Library. Organization: Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD), Wisconsin. Contact Information: Barbara Spitz. Internet Detectives, email: [email protected] and Joanne Lenburg, Education Reference Library, email: [email protected]. Description: This is an initiative for all middle school social studies teachers and students to acquire skills in accessing and critically evaluating information found on the Internet. Students write a summary of their evaluated Web sites. Classes then select a cluster from the evaluated and summarized Web Sites for publication on the Web and in this way build a student-generated library of evaluated Internet resources. The Electronic Library website is maintained by the Education Reference Library to provide links organized by subject and themes in response to requests from the School District staff. The website describes the goals of the projects as well as providing an overview of how the project was developed over several years and the materials and support provided. Critical Factors for Success: willingness of teachers, librarians and instructional designers to work together to create a project that contributes to teaching and learning; use of established website as appropriate, and frequent updating of the Internet Detectives site with student evaluated websites. Website: Internet Detectives: www.madison.k12.wi.us/tnl/detectives/overview.htm Electronic Library: www.madison.k12.wi.us/elib. Related Key Recommendations: 1) Training, 2) Collaboration and Leveraging.



http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/tnl/detectives/overview.htm

http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/elib


PROVEN PRACTICE: Staff training through competition to win a gift/prize Program: Learning Electronic Databases Organization: Houston Public Library, Houston TX. Contact Information: Barbara Gubbin, email: [email protected] Description: On a regular basis a set of questions regarding a specific database are sent out to the library staff listserv with a deadline for responding. The staff member who responds correctly to the questions regarding the database receives a gift. The following is an example of the Database Practice Questions: EBSCO Database: Middle Search Plus. Student Resource Center provides access to many of Gale’s well-known reference tools, along with full-text articles of current periodicals, journals, magazines, and pamphlets. It is comparable to Electric Library. Search Tips • Toolbox, which is located in the upper left corner of the main page, includes useful tools and tips for

organizing information into a good report. • Person Search allows searching for a person by name or by identifying characteristics, including

occupation, nationality, ethnicity, birth and death year, birth and death place, and gender. • Use Multimedia Search to locate images, videos, audio clips, maps, flags, or seals. 1. I need a list of at least 5 medical discoveries or developments from the 18th century. 2. What is a footnote, and when do I use one? 3. Who or what is a Brobdingnag? 4. How did Otto Preminger fight censorship? Why? 5. I need pictures of shopping malls from different countries. Can you help me? 6. What does “frame-dragging” have to do with time? 7. Help me find literary criticisms on short stories about greed for my literature class. 8. What were some of the concerns Senate Democrats had with the original draft of the Anti-terrorism

bill supported by Attorney General Ashcroft? 9. What is another name for the Arctic Archipelago? 10. I need an article on affluenza from a journal with “medical” in the title. EBSCO Database: Middle Search Plus 1. In the economic stimulus bill that Congress has been debating recently, how much of a tax break

would IBM receive after the repeal of the alternative minimum tax for corporations? 2. In the U.S., what percentage of Caucasian women married between 1980 and 1985 were virgins? 3. What is Alan Greenspan’s current occupation? 4. I heard that the Boxer Rebellion had something to do with demonic possession. Can you help me find

an article about that aspect of the uprising? 5. Can you find me a peer-reviewed article with statistics about the Hepatitis B virus? Critical Factors for Success: Conduct the competition on a regular basis to sustain interest among the staff; make the gift or gift certificate desirable; create questions that will contribute to practical learning and relevant to providing service to the public. Related Key Recommendations: 1 Incentive, 2) Training.




PROVEN PRACTICE: Develop a resource web page for a specific audience Program: Resources for Librarians Organization: Texas State Library and Archives Commission Contact Information: Beverly Shirley, Director, Library Resource Sharing, 512 463 7610. email: [email protected] Description: The Texas State Library provides a website of Resources for Librarians. This website is a useful one for Texas librarians and library staff to use as well as offering links for their library users. The sources on this website are in the following broad categories: Library Development Resources (e.g., jobline, library science collection, professional library resources), Library Systems Documents, Library Technology which includes a link to Distance Learning in Libraries, and Youth Services. The website also offers web-based course resources covering topics such as Searching the Web, Library Research, and Internet Guides, Tutorials and Training Information. Additionally, this website provides a model for how a library might develop a website identifying resources for a specific audience. For example, a website focused on Resources for Teachers might be developed at a school and/or public library. Or a web page on Resources for Local Businesses might be developed by the public library. Critical Success Factors: willingness to search out appropriate and relevant resources that currently exist on the Internet and provide a link for library patrons from the library web page. There are web sites for teens, kids, and for seniors that could be made available by linking to existing Internet sites. Website: www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/pubs/index.html Other websites for library staff: Librarians’ Index to the Internet (Library of California): http://lii.org/ Tech Soup – the technology place for non-profits: www.techsoup.org/ College Library with Virtual Reference Resources (University of Wisconsin/Madison): http://college.library.wisc.edu/services/reference/virtual/html/ Related Key Recommendations: 1) Training, 2) Collaboration and Leveraging, 3) Sustainability.



http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/pubs/index.html

http://lii.org/

http://www.techsoup.org/

http://college.library.wisc.edu/services/reference/virtual/html/


PROVEN PRACTICE: Introduce first-year college students to research sources and skills. Program: Texas Information Literacy Tutorial (TILT) Contact Information: [email protected] Description: This is an educational website designed at the University of Texas/Austin Library to introduce first-year students to research sources and skills. The tutorial offers an introduction and three modules that can be completed in any order with each tutorial taking approximately 30 minutes. There two versions available online “Full Tilt” (with high interactivity) and “Tilt Lite” (which requires no plug-ins). The TILT program has three modules: Module I introduces different information sources and determining what sources are needed for a research paper; Module II covers the skills required to effectively search library databases and the Web; and Module III addresses assessing the credibility of sources and how to cite print and online information. Each module contains a brief self-assessment section or quiz with no more than 10 questions. As students answer each question, they receive an immediate response and the final quiz page provides a summary of their answers and the percentage correct. If completion of the TILT program is required for a class, then it is possible to print off the quiz to turn in to the professor. A version of the TILT program is available at no charge under an Open Publication License. All of the materials developed can be download. The TILT website also provides a Frequently Asked Question page, a listserv for those interested in communicating with others who use TILT or a version of yourTilt. Critical Success Factors: working with instructors to introduce the TILT program as part of specific courses that require research; adapting the TILT program to the local education environment. Website: http://tilt.lib.utsystem.edu Related Key Recommendations: 1) Sustainability, 2) Training, 3) Measurement.



http://tilt.lib.utsystem.edu/


PROVEN PRACTICE: Learning resources for staff and public – paper, CD and Internet. Program: Gates Foundation Training for Public Libraries Organization: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, www.gatesfoundation.org. Contact Information: [email protected] Description: The Gates Foundation U.S. Library programs works in partnership with public libraries to provide access to computers, the Internet and digital information for patrons in low-income communities in the United States. Technology training, ongoing technical assistance, and additional support for grantees are provided as part of the grant because of the pivotal role librarians play in helping patrons use computers and navigate the Internet. As part of this program, the Gates Foundation has developed extensive training and instructional materials that can be used for library staff and patrons. All of the publications issued by the Gates Foundation are free to reproduce as long as these materials are not resold or redistributed for any cost whatsoever. Libraries not in the Gates Foundation program should request a “terms of agreement” form from the Foundation before using any of these materials. The publications of the Gates Foundation include paper-based Quick Guides providing information such as “Logging on,” “Word 2000,” “Excel 200,” “Internet Explorer,” “PowerPoint 2000,” “Publisher 2000,” as well as other topics related to gaining access to specific software packages. The Quick Guides are formatted with information on both sides of an 8½ x 11 sheet. These can be reproduced as handouts for the public users. Additionally, the Gates Foundation website provides access to a great deal of other information that can be downloaded and used without charge. The Web Guides are available in Adobe Portable Document Format, which requires Adobe Acrobat Reader. The downloaded version of Acrobat Reader is free and more information on access to Acrobat is available on the Gates website as well. The Web Guides print out on standard 8 1/2 x 11 paper. Some of the topics covered include Children’s Resources, Senior Resources, Employment Resources, Health and Medical Resources and more. The Children’s Resources Web Guide provides information on Safety on the Net, Homework Help and Research Tools, Museums and Interesting Places to Visit and Fun sites. Also from the Gates Foundation website, signs that provide information and instruction to users can be downloaded including “Log on, Log off,” “What can I do with this computer,” “Never used a mouse. ” Signs in Spanish are available as well. Finally, the Gates Foundation has a CD available that contains all of their publications that can be downloaded and used for staff and patrons. Texas public libraries that are part of the Gates Foundation U.S. Library Program could be contacted to receive copies of materials. The Texas libraries: www.gatesfoundation.org/libraries/uslibraryprogram/grant/texas.htm. It might also be feasible for the State Library to act as a distribution point for Gates materials. Critical Success Factors: willingness to seek out the Gates Foundation publications from online sources and the Texas Gates libraries; willingness to use appropriate materials as they appear without having to revamp/edit the material; agreement to distribute without cost whatsoever. Website: www.gatesfoundation.org/libraries/uslibraryprogram See Training Overview. Related Key Recommendations: 1) Training, 2) Equity of Access (in Spanish also), 3) Collaboration and Leveraging, 4) Sustainability.


http://www.gatesfoundation.org/

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/libraries/uslibraryprogram/grant/texas.htm

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/libraries/uslibraryprogram


PROVEN PRACTICE: Online tutorials for staff training Program: Amigos Distance Learning Organization: Amigos Library Services, Dallas, TX. Contact Information: Laura Kimberly, Training Manager, 800 843 8482 x164. email: [email protected] Description: Amigos Library Services provides access to many distance learning courses some of which cover specific technology topics. Amigos Distance Learning is provided through joint ventures with other organizations. They offer subscriptions for training in Office Productivity, Computer Professional courses, and Design and Media through ElementK training. They also offer access to other subscription fee technology courses through a partnership with MindLeaders and OCLC that covers Word, Office and Excel software applications. The Amigos Distance Learning website also provides access to self-paced tutorials that have no fee such as the tutorial on Digital Imaging produced by Cornell University Library (available in English and Spanish), and the TILT (Texas Information Literacy Tutorial) from the University of Texas/Austin. Critical Success Factors: ability of library to provide minimal funding for fee based training; willingness of individuals to learn via online; willingness of individuals who experience online training to teach others in the library. Website: www.amigos.org/learning/ Related Key Recommendations: 1) Training, 2) Anytime / Anywhere, 3) Collaboration and Leveraging.



http://www.amigos.org/learning/


PROVEN PRACTICE: Library consortium approach to providing reference service 24/7

Program: New Jersey Library Network – www.qandanj.org/ Contact Information: [email protected]

Description: A consortium of public libraries in New Jersey offers a free round-the-clock live-chat reference services. This is a service of the New Jersey Library Network to help individuals get answers to questions, any time and anywhere through Internet access. Unlike other "expert" sites on the Web, there is no charge to use this service.

Professional librarians from over thirty (30) participating libraries across the state of New Jersey staff Q AND A NJ. When a Q and A NJ session is started, a librarian will chat and co-browse with you in real-time. The service uses technology that combines Internet chat with the ability to send web sites and other information directly to the individual’s computer. Designed to provide fast answers from web-based resources, including specialty databases funded by libraries, Q and A NJ combines the speed of the Internet with the information smarts of librarians. And when a question is submitted, the person has immediate access to a page “While You’re Waiting” that provides links to the Librarians” Index to the Internet (maintained by the Library of California) and a Virtual Reference Desk as well as News from the “Paperboy” with access to newspaper databases.

The reference services is open 24 hours a day 7 days a week with the exception of the following holidays: Easter Sunday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's Day.

Q and A NJ is administered by the South Jersey Regional Library Cooperative, a state tax-funded service of the New Jersey Library Network, and supported by Federal Library Services and Technology Act funds administered by the New Jersey State Library.

Critical Success Factors: Willingness to work in a consortium arrangement and contribute staff time to this service; willingness to be entrepreneurial in approach to reaching patrons beyond standard hours.

Website: www.qandanj.org/

Other 24/7 websites are: Cleveland Public Library www.knowitnow24x7.net and Southern California www.asknow.org or www.247ref.org.

Related Key Recommendations: 1) Anytime / Anywhere, 2) Collaboration and Leveraging, 3) Equity of Access.


http://www.qandanj.org/


http://www.qandanj.org/

http://www.knowitnow24x7.net/

http://www.asknow.org/

http://www.247ref.org/


PROVEN PRACTICE: Online Course Offerings for Staff Training

Program: TexasTeacher.net

Organization: Epic Learning, 4151 Ashford Dunwoody Road, Suite 220, Atlanta, GA 30319

Contact Information: Mark P. Pavluvcik, Director of Education Solutions, EpicLearning Inc. 888 452 6775 x215. email: [email protected]

Description: EpicLearning sponsors TexasTeacher.net providing a wide variety of self-paced online technology courses for a fee for teachers, administrators, support staff, and IT professionals in the education field. These online courses are interactive, media rich with audio narration, and have built-in assessments to gauge the learner’s mastery of the material.

Districts may save up to 40% depending on course commitment level. A small sample of the more than 1000 online courses include: Effective Technology Integration in the Classroom for Teachers, Introduction to PCs and Application Software, Introduction to the Internet and the WWW, and the Microsoft Office 2000 courses addressing Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access, Outlook, and FrontPage.

Critical Success Factors: ability of library to provide minimal funding for staff training; willingness of individuals to learn via an online approach using self-paced tutorials; willingness of individuals who experience this training to teach others in their library.

Website: www.epiclearning.com

Related Key Recommendations: 1) Training, 2) Anytime / Anywhere, 3) Measurement



http://www.epiclearning.com/


PROVEN PRACTICE: Online Course Offerings for Staff Training

Program: LearnatGateway

Organization: Gateway,

Contact Information: www.gateway.com/training

Description: (Note: This information has been provided by Gateway.) Gateway offers several different approaches to technology related training. Online Training is based on a subscription for a year of unlimited Internet access to hundreds of courses. The options are self-paced tutorials or learning in a virtual classroom with an online instruction. Another option is to purchase CD ROM multimedia discs and learn step-by-step to use software applications for Microsoft Office. And the final option is to attend an Instructor-Led Training at a local Gateway Country Store. The popular courses include: Surfing the Web and Using Email, Using the PC with Digital Photography, Office Productivity. There are currently fourteen (14) Gateway Country stores throughout Texas.

The list can be found at their website: www.gateway.com/stores/tx/index.xml.

Critical Success Factors: ability of library to provide at least minimal funding for staff training; willingness of individuals to learn via an online approach using self-paced tutorials; willingness of individuals who experience this training to teach others in their library.

Website: www.gateway.com/training

Related Key Recommendations: 1) Training, 2) Anytime / Anywhere, 3) Measurement


http://www.gateway.com/training

http://www.gateway.com/stores/tx/index.xml

http://www.gateway.com/training


PROVEN PRACTICE: Volunteers Providing Technology Support Program: Monitoring Library Computer Lab and providing assistance, and Surveying Community regarding Technology Needs. Organization: Blacksburg Branch of the Montgomery Floyd Regional Library System, Blacksburg, Virginia. 540 382 6965. Contact Information: No one specific. Description: The library has successfully used volunteers for two different programs that support efforts in integrating technology for user services. They approached the local university, Virginia Tech, to identify an average of ten (10) volunteers each semester to monitor the library’s computer lab weekday afternoons when local middle-school students come to use the facility. These volunteers ensure a low noise level in the lab and also provide assistance whenever needed. Additionally, when the university students are on semester break, the library has found that the more mature middle school students can successfully fill in. The library also worked with volunteers from the local chapter of RSVP, a national organization of senior citizens. These volunteers helped the library conduct a survey to determine the community’s need for computing services. The senior volunteers distributed copies of the surveys to local service and civic organizations. The survey results indicated that senior citizens have the highest need for computer training. The library plans to capitalize on its partnership with RSVP to reach out to older community members and encourage them to enroll in basic computer classes at the library. The public library also participates in the Blacksburg Electronic Library which provides links to various websites such as other libraries. It also connects to the Senior Center website which includes access to online tutorials for learning the Internet and other software applications. Critical Success Factors: An active program to create partnerships with groups/individuals in the community to act as volunteers for specific library activities/services; a willingness to describe thoroughly the role for volunteers and to provide the necessary training and supervision for these individuals. Website: www.bev.net/library (Blacksburg Electronic Library) Related Key Recommendations: 1) Training, 2) Collaboration and Leveraging, 3) Awareness, 4) Equity of Access.


http://www.bev.net/library


PROVEN PRACTICE: Digitizing images of historical value to community and researchers. Program: 1890 Danish Settlers Photographs Organization: Wharton County Junior College, Wharton, TX Contact Information: Jerry C. Hoke, Director of Library Service. 979 532 4560. email: [email protected]. Description: A community near El Campo, TX. called Danavang is still populated by the descendants of the Danish settlers who came to this part of Texas in the 1890s. The Wharton Junior College offered to catalog and provide a web link to the Danish Heritage Society’s collection of approximately 300 negatives. The Library is using an HP ScanJet 5370c; there was a learning time involved in getting used to equipment since this was the first project. They are creating images in jpegs though not entirely satisfied with the current standards. Staff attended a workshop sponsored by Amigos and are consulting a knowledgeable colleague. They are probably going to change to a higher resolution than they have used to date. The EOSi GLAS Access Catalog can find the images and reproduce them for printing, emailing or saving to a disc. When the project is complete, there is an interest in working with the College institutional advancement office to gather a few hundred photographs of the college’s history for scanning and including in the public access catalog. Critical Success Factors: seeking funding for the appropriate equipment; willingness to work cooperatively with a local community historical association or academic department to identify and scan a useful collection; willingness to learn new technology and new requirements for cataloging. Website: www.wcjc.cc.tx.us/library/index.html - click on Public Access Catalog and conduct a “simple search” with the term “digital photo”. This will show the collection digitized to date. Related Key Recommendations: 1) Collaboration and Leveraging, 2) Anytime / Anywhere Access.



http://www.wcjc.cc.tx.us/library/index.html


PROVEN PRACTICE: Training librarians from a group of libraries Program: Training for Computer Software and Internet Applications Organization: Sandhill Regional Library System Contact Information: Carol Walters, Director, Sandhill Regional Library System, Rockingham, North Carolina 910 997 3388. email: [email protected] Description: Training is provided each week for librarians from the 15 libraries in the five-county regional library system. The training covers computer software and Internet applications focused on learning by librarians in order to assist patrons. The training is scheduled every Friday during times when the libraries are less busy. Each library is responsible for sending two (2) staff members each week to the training session. Some of the topics covered during the first four months of the training included using MS Office applications, working in Publisher, navigating the Internet, using online databases and using the Internet to plan trips and access maps. After the initial four months, the participants were surveyed to find out what else they would like to/need to learn in the future. Critical Success Factors: A knowledgeable trainer; a commitment from participating libraries to have staff attend the sessions; a willingness by trained staff to teach other staff as well as library users. Website: Sandhill Regional Library System – www.204.211.56.212/ - general website.

Related Key Recommendations: 1) Training, 2) Collaboration and Leveraging.



http://www.204.211.56.212/


PROVEN PRACTICE: Integrating TLC Databases into Classes and Teaching Research and Search Skills Program: High School Library Instruction Organization: Alamo Heights High School Library, San Antonio, TX Contact Information: Barbara Bertoldo, Library Media Specialist, Alamo Heights High School and Alamo Heights Independent School District Liaison. 202 832 5750. email: [email protected] Description: At the beginning of every school year, the library offers a freshman orientation. They begin with the print copy of the Readers Guide (as a familiar tool for the students) and have them find an article using the Guide. Then they have them work with the online databases beginning with magazines to find an article on a specific topic or a specific article. By beginning with the freshman, the students become familiar very early with all library resources including the online resources. The Library staff work closely with teachers to determine what they want to accomplish in the course and how much research they want the students to conduct. Then a module is developed for the students in a particular course and the instruction in databases, searching the Internet, and evaluating resources on the web is offered during a class session. This program was started by initially working with those teachers who were innovative and interested in incorporating the full range of online and information resources into the curriculum. These teachers, in turn, talked with other teachers about the success of their class and by word-of-mouth established a positive response from other teachers. Through this continuing instructional program and the availability of TLC databases, students become adept at conducting research and in particular being able to study and evaluate trends overtime in specific topics. In teaching in the high school computer lab, LanSchool software is used to provide the instructor/librarian full control of the student computers by blanking out student computer screens, broadcasting the teacher’s screen to all students in the lab, view any computer screen from the teacher’s computer, and/or broadcast any student’s screen to the class. This software product is designed for educational institutions and is priced by the classroom.




Critical Success Factors: willingness to use a “pilot” approach in initiating a similar program; willingness to work with teachers to meet their curricula needs; flexibility in trying different approaches; willingness to build a comprehensive program beginning with freshman. Website: www.lanschool.com Related Key Recommendations: 1) Training, 2) Collaboration and Leveraging.


http://www.lanschool.com/


PROVEN PRACTICE: Providing Information and Instructional Guides to faculty and students from the library web page that individuals are able to download. Program: Texas A & M Libraries Instructional Services Organization: Texas A & M Libraries, College Station, TX. Contact Information: Eva Maddox, Instructional Services, 979 862 1060. email: [email protected] Description: The web site for the Texas A & M Libraries provides an extensive list of guides and helpful descriptive materials under the heading of “Research Guides.” There are guides for Faculty and Graduate Students that include the following topics: Creating Effective Library Assignments, Creating Successful Library Assignments, Intellectual Property Guide and Resources to Help Your Students Avoid Plagiarism. In some cases, for example the guide on plagiarism, there are web links given to other resources on this topic. Under the heading of General Research Guides, thirteen topics are covered including Evaluating Web Sources, Getting Started Doing Research, and Introduction to the World Wide Web. Another category of Research Guides covers Citing Sources for both the Internet and print. Additionally, there are subject guides available, which suggest print sources and provides links to electronic resources on Humanities and Social Sciences, Science and Engineering, Business and Agriculture. Most of the resource guides are two pages in length and could be easily used as they current are or modified for a another library and made available both on the library website as well as print handouts. Any library planning to use or adapt this material should contact the Texas A & M Library Instructional Services librarian. (see above) Critical Success Factors: willingness to use and/or adapt materials from another library to make information readily available to students and instructors; willingness to work with instructors to learn what will be most useful for them in the classroom and their students. Website: www.library.tamu.edu/bi/handouts.html

Related Key Recommendations: 1) Training, 2) Collaboration and Leveraging.



http://www.library.tamu.edu/bi/handouts.html


PROVEN PRACTICE: Outreach and Technology Training Program Designed for Seniors Program: “Surf’s up for Seniors” Organization: Vigo County Public Library, Terre Haute, IN Contact Information: Jeanne Holba Puacz, 812 232 1113. email: [email protected] Description: The library staff determined that they need to take a different approach to respond to senior citizens frustration and desire to learn about using a computer. They listened to the comments and concerns voiced by seniors regarding attending the regular computer classes offered by the library in the computer lab. A new program was designed specifically for “seniors only” to address their concerns while ensuring that they gained an introduction to computer operations and an overview of using the World Wide Web. The material to be covered was divided into four separate sessions in order to keep the amount of information presented at each class manageable. Classes one and three would be presentations and discussions held in a “non-computer” location while the second and fourth class would be hands-on at the library computer lab with this latter session being for smaller groups. The outreach effort to the senior citizens involved using a branch of the library popular with senior citizens and located in a shopping mall where many seniors walked for exercise. The intention was to not only attract regular patrons but to encourage new users for the library. Posters were put up throughout the mall and many mall businesses distributed fliers about the program. The posters and fliers used humor in presenting the course information. Within 5 days, 30 senior citizens had signed up for the first series with a waiting list of more than 40 people for the next class series. The non-computer location chosen was at a community center of a local retirement village only one block from the mall-branch of the library. All of the sessions were occasions to hand out applications for a library card for those who did not already have one. The presentations also relied on humor in order to create a more relaxed mood so that the topic of computers would be less intimidating. Handouts of the PowerPoint presentations were made available along with pencil and paper to encourage note taking. Also books and videotapes on computer topics were brought to the presentations and the senior citizens were encouraged to consider checking these materials out. Following the first sessions, changes were made to improve and refine the course based on what was learned. The response has been very positive and enthusiastic. In fact, the library is taking names of individuals interested in joining a library-sponsored computer club for seniors. Critical Success Factors: flexibility in designing a program to meet the needs of a specific patron group; willingness to consider different locations for instruction; inclusion of humor in publicity and in the teaching of computers. Website: www.infotoday.com/cilmag/sep00/puacz&bradfield.htm Computers in Libraries Magazine online article entitled “Surf’s Up for Seniors! Introducing Older Patrons to the Web” by Jeanne Holba Puacz and Chris Bradfield. Full text available. Related Key Recommendations: 1) Awareness, 2) Training, 3) Proven Practices.



http://www.infotoday.com/cilmag/sep00/puacz&bradfield.htm


PROVEN PRACTICE: Establishing a Partnership for Technology Training Program: Computer Skills Class for Library Patrons Organization: Webster County Library, Marshfield, MO Contact Information: Vicky Stever, 417 859 5679. email: [email protected] Description: This small library did not have the staff to develop curriculum or to teach a computer skills class for library patrons. They partnered with the local University Extension Service to teach a class. The University Extension provided an experienced instructor, who had a curriculum and handouts prepared. The library provided a space with a fast connection and a computer lab with 10 laptop computers. The library also provided staff as assistants for the class. The University was required to charge to cover expenses but the collaboration with the library kept the prices low -- $15.00 for a 2-hour class. The presentations were professional and extremely effective. The public attending the class was exposed to both the library and the Extension Service in this way, and they realized that both organizations offer more services than they may have previously known. This type of partnership also might be explored with a local university or college information technology or library staff to identify individuals with the training and experience to offer a computer skills course with the public library. Critical Success Factors: Willingness to seek out and develop a partnership with another organization/agency; clear idea of what the public library patrons want in the way of computer training in order to ensure relevance. Related Key Recommendations: 1) Collaboration and Leveraging, 2) Training, 3) Equity of Access.




PROVEN PRACTICE: Consortial Approach to Establishing a Network Program: Access Brownsville Organization: Valley Information Alliance – a consortium of 19 public libraries in the Rio Grande Valley. Contact Information: Joseph Muniz, Harlingen Public Library, 956 430 6650. email: [email protected] Description: The Valley Information Alliance formed initially in 1996 in order to apply for a Texas State Library grant. In this initial effort by sixteen (16) public libraries, they were able to establish T1 lines and routers for the libraries and split the cost for an Internet provider among them. This approach was very economical and the group of recognized there was future potential in maintaining this consortium beyond the initial grant. They were able to obtain a number of discounts that were particularly important for the public libraries in smaller communities. Once the public libraries had computers available and Internet service, demand quickly grew. The results was that the Brownsville Public Library offered to become the Internet provider for the Valley Information Alliance and the city of Brownsville invested in their library to allow sufficient bandwidth for this to become a reality for now nineteen (19) public libraries. In turn, some of the public libraries have become the Internet service providers for their cities. The benefits to the public libraries have been considerable since city managers understand and value the Internet and even in tight budget times are willing to provide support for the infrastructure of this network. Also with usage of the public libraries increasing considerably because of access to computers and the Internet, there is overall greater support in the communities for the public libraries. Critical Success Factors: willingness to work cooperatively with other libraries including compromising when necessary; ability to put forward a strong case to the city agency for funding to support a consortia venture; willingness to contribute to ongoing efforts to sustain the consortium. Website: www.accessbrownsville.com Related Key Recommendations: 1) Collaboration and Leveraging, 2) Sustainability, 3) Security, 4) Planning, 5) Awareness.



http://www.accessbrownsville.com/

APPENDIX VII

RESOURCES CONSULTED


Resources Consulted ALA Office for Information Technology Policy. National Survey of U.S. Public Library Outlet Internet Connectivity,1998-1997. www.ala.org/oitp/digitaldivide/survey.html Bertot, John Carlo, Charles R. McClure and Joe Ryan. Impact of External Technology Funding Programs for Public Libraries A Study of LSTA, E-Rate. Public Libraries. May/June 2002, pp 166 – 171. Bertot, John Carlo and Charles R. McClure. “Measuring Electronic Services in Public Libraries Issues and Recommendations.” Public Libraries. May/June 1998, pp 176-180. Bielefeldt, Talbot. “Technology in Teacher Education: A Closer Look.” Journal of Computing In Teacher Education Vol. 17, 4 Summer 2001. www.intel.com/education/iste/research04.htm Boon, Belinda and Dawn Vogler. “TexShare Database Training.” Texas Library Journal. Winter 2001, pp 158-159. Burnham, Byron R. and Virginia E. Gilbert. Focus Group Interview Evaluation Report for the LSTA. Spring 2001 Center for Media Training. TexShare Communication Plan. Texas State Library and Archives. August 26, 2002. Christie, Jack, Kathleen Fulton, Annette Griffin, et. al. Technology to Improve Texas Education Developed by CORD and The Concord Consortium under sponsorship from the AT&T Foundation. CORD. 2001. D'Elia, George, and Eleanor Jo Rodger. Impacts of the Internet on Public Library Use. Urban Libraries Council. 2002. www.urbanlibraries.org/Internet%20Study%20Fact%20Sheet.html Durrance, Joan C. and Karen E. Pettigrew. “Toward Context-Centered Methods for Evaluating Public Library Networked Community Information Initiatives.” First Monday. Vol. 6. 4 April 1, 2001. http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_4/durrance/index.html (Peer-Reviewed Journal on the Internet) Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC). Texas STaR Chart: A Tool for Planning and Assessing School Technology and Readiness, 1996-2010. ETAC Educational Technology Division Texas Education Agency. 2002 – 2003. EGS Research & Consulting. Texas School Libraries: Standards, Resources, Services, and Students' Performance. Texas State Library and Archives Commission. April 2001. Fidishun, Dolores. “People Servers vs. Information Providers: The Impact of Service Orientation on Technology Training.” Information Technology and Libraries, Vol.20, no.1 Jan. 30, 2002. Gordon, Andrew C. Margaret T. Gordon and Elizabeth J. Moore. Library Patrons Heavily Use Public Access Computers & Other Library Services and Want More: A Report to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. UW PACP (Public Access to Computing Project Evans School of Public Affairs University of Washington.) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation U.S. Library Program: (Patron Survey 2000.)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Appendix VII – Page 1 University of North Texas

http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_4/durrance/index.html


Gordon, Andrew C. Margaret T. Gordon, Elizabeth J. Moore. Library Staff Support Public Access Computing; Experience Increased Workloads, Stress and Satisfaction: A Report to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. UW PACP (Public Access to Computing Project Evans School of Public Affairs University of Washington): Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. U.S. Library Program. 2001: (Opinion Survey 2000) Klobas, Jane E. and A. Clyde. “Adults Learning to Use the Internet: A Longitudinal Study of Attitudes and Other Factors Associated with Intended Internet Use.” Library & Information Science Research, Volume 22, NO.11, pp. 5-234. Lenhart, Amanda, Maya Simon and Mike Graziano. The Internet and Education: Findings of the Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington, D.C.: 2001. http://www.pewinternet.org Murray, Kathleen and William Moen. ZLOT: Technology Inventory & Readiness Assessment. Texas Center for Digital Knowledge. 2002. New Jersey. Department of Education. Office of Innovative Programs & Schools. Star Schools/Best Practices: Fact Sheet. NCRTEC North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium . Learning With Technology Profile Tool. North Central Regional Education Laboratory, 2002. http://www.ncrtec.org/capacity/profile/profwww.htm Poole, Carolyn E. and Emmett Denny. “Technological Change in the Workplace: A Statewide Survey of Community College Library and Learning Resources Personnel.” College & Research Libraries. November 2001, pp. 504 – 515. Silverstein, Gary,Joy Frechtling, et.al. . Evaluation of the Use of Technology in Illinois Public Schools: Final Report. June 2000. The UCLA Internet Report: Surveying the Digital Future: Year Two. UCLA Center for Communication Policy. http://www.ccp.ucla.edu United States National Library of Medicine . 1999 Followup Survey of Internet Connectivity in NN/LM Member Libraries. 2002. http://medicineplus.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/reports/99survey.html Wesley, Ted. Perceived Educational Technology Needs Survey. NCTP National Center for Technology Planning. www.nctp.com

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Appendix VII – Page 2 University of North Texas

http://www.pewinternet.org/

http://www.ncrtec.org/capacity/profile/profwww.htm

http://www.ccp.ucla.edu/

APPENDIX VIII

STUDY PARTICIPANTS


STUDY PARTICIPANTS Focus Group #1: ESC Library Directors Date: May 13, 2002 Participants: 2 Name District/School Phone Email Gullett, Sharon Region 7 (East Texas) 903/988-6941 [email protected] Hatley, Glenna Region 16 (Panhandle) 806/677-5121 [email protected] Focus Group #2: Mixed School Library Directors Date: May 13, 2002 Participants: 8 Name District/School Phone Email Bishop, Barry Spring Branch ISD [email protected] Harvill, Diane ESC Region 5 (SE Texas) 409/951-1866 [email protected] Holland, Dixie Paradise ISD 940/969-2411 [email protected] Hundemer, Jim Houston ISD 713/861-1204 [email protected] Jones, Kathy Amarillo ISD 806/354-4327 [email protected] Smith, Pelinda Kenedy ISD 830/583-3416 [email protected] Focus Group #3: Large School Districts Library Directors Date: May 22, 2002 Participants: 4 Name District/School Phone Email Bertoldo, Barbara Alamo Heights ISD 210/824-2483 [email protected] Carr, Sharon El Paso ISD 215/779-3781 [email protected] Cooley, Mary Cypress-Fairbanks ISD 281/897-4142 [email protected] Diaz, Deloris Laredo ISD x127 956/795-3850 [email protected]

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Appendix VIII – Page 1 University of North Texas














Focus Group #4: Academic/Medical Libraries Date: May 23, 2002 Participants: 7 Name University Phone Email Cage, Al [email protected] Chiejka, Pat [email protected] Fortin, Maurice Angelo State Univ. 915/942-2222 [email protected] Harper, Mary Queyrouze, Mary Southern Methodist Univ. 214/768-2030 [email protected] Wood, Richard Texas Tech Univ. 806/742-0133 Yeh, Helen Prairie View A&M Univ. 936/857-3192 [email protected] Focus Group #5: Large Public Libraries Date: May 22, 2002 Participants: 11 Name Library Phone Email Brown, Steve N. Richland Hills Public 817/581-5700 Decker, Terry Odessa Public X30 915/332-0633 Dodson, Jackie Midland County Public 915/688-8991 [email protected] Hughes, Linda Wichita Falls Public 940/767-0868 Muniz, Joseph Harlingen Public 956/430-6650 [email protected] Musgrave, Mary DeSoto Public 972/230-9656 [email protected] Ricklefs, Dale Round Rock Public 512/218-7010 [email protected] Saucier, Cynthia Stewart, James Victoria Public 512/572-2704 [email protected] Stuartz, Kathryn San Antonio Public 210/207-2612 [email protected] Sveinsson, Jan The Colony Public 972/625-1900 [email protected]















Focus Group #6: Community Colleges Libraries Date: May 22, 2002 Participants: 7 Name District/School Phone Email Chapparro, Luis El Paso Community 915/831-2132 [email protected] College Clark, Jay San Jacinto Community 281/476-1850 [email protected] College Fair, Kathy Kilgore Community 903/983-8639 [email protected] College Hoke, Jerry Wharton County Junior 979/532-6354 [email protected] College Jennings, Peg Central Texas College 254/526-1237 [email protected] Reid, Dennis Angelina College 936/633-5217 [email protected] Ruddy, Karen Amarillo College 806/371-5401 [email protected] Focus Group #7: Small School Libraries Date: May 28, 2002 Participants: 5 Name District/School Phone Email Airhart, Mary Bordon County ISD 806/756-4313 [email protected] Choate, Jerry Cisco ISD 254/442-3397 [email protected] Gillean, Glendon Daingerfield-Lone ISD 903/645-3968 [email protected] McMurray, Pat Fort Davis ISD 915/426-4440 [email protected] Thompson, Max Gordon ISD 254/693-5582 [email protected] Focus Group #8: Small/Rural Public Libraries Date: June 5, 2002 Participants: 7 Name Library Phone Email Frazee, Deanna Killeen Public Library 254/501-8995 [email protected] Lilley, Sue Lampasas Public Library 512/556-3251 [email protected] Moeller, Sherry Euless Public 817/685-1484 [email protected] Oliphant, Joan Joe Barnhart Bee County 361/362-4901 [email protected] Public Threadgill, Catherine Brazoria County Public 979/864-1505 [email protected] Weatherly, Carolyn Clute Public 979/265.4582 [email protected] Williams, Sheila Euless Public 817/685-1484 [email protected]





















APPENDIX IX.A

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES: ACADEMIC

This study has been approved by the University of North Texas Committee

Texas Center for Digital Knowledge University of North Texas

Academic Library Future Needs Survey

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify future needs for Texas academic libraries

and library users in the areas of technology, training, and use of technology resources. Results from this survey will be used to make recommendations related to the future direction for Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (TIF) Board programs and grants from which your library can potentially and directly benefit.

Directions: For most questions, either place an X or circle a choice to indicate your answers,

or enter text in the appropriate spaces. Help: If you feel you are not qualified to answer these questions, please ask the person

most qualified to compete this questionnaire and to return it promptly.

Please return the completed paper copy of the survey in the enclosed envelope. You may fax the completed questionnaire to 940-565-3101.

PLEASE MAIL THE SURVEY NO LATER THAN MAY 27, 2002.

You may contact William E. Moen or Carol Simpson at the Texas Center for Digital Knowledge with inquiries about the questionnaire.

Moen email: [email protected] Moen telephone: 940-565-3563 Simpson email: [email protected] Simpson telephone: 940-565-3776 Study Information: The Texas Center for Digital Knowledge at the University of North Texas has a

contract with the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund Board to conduct the Needs Assessment of Texas Academic, Public, and School Library Study. More information is available at: http://www.unt.edu/needz.

START HERE (This information will not be included in the survey reports and is for the purpose of asking follow up questions only) Respondent’s Name: (Person completing the survey) _________________________________________

Respondent’s Title: ___________________________________________________________________

Respondent’s E-mail Address: __________________________________________________________

Please continue →

for the Protection of Human Subjects | 940-565-3940

NEEDZ: Academic Library Future Needs Survey Page 3

Section 1: Identification This section asks for general information about your library.

1. Library Name:

__________________________________________________________________

2. Name of your college or university: _________________________________________________

3. What is the primary classification of your library’s parent institution? (Circle one answer)

Academic 4-year institution private Public Academic 2-year institution private Public Academic-public health institution private Public

Section 2: Technology Resources This section asks you about your library’s current technology environment.

4. Does your library provide the following equipment? (Circle “yes or no” for each statement)

Staff Users

Inkjet printers Yes No Yes No Laser printers Yes No Yes No Personal computers Yes No Yes No Flatbed scanners Yes No Yes No Handheld or pen scanners Yes No Yes No Personal digital assistants (e.g. Palm) Yes No Yes No Laptops Yes No Yes No Wireless Ethernet cards for laptops Yes No Yes No Digital cameras Yes No Yes No CD burners Yes No Yes No DVD burners Yes No Yes No E-book readers Yes No Yes No Data projectors Yes No Yes No Video conferencing equipment Yes No Yes No

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________________________

5. Does the library provide authentication (require passwords or log ins) for its users for remote access to locally provided databases? (Circle one answer)

Yes No Do Not Know

6. If your library provides authentication of its users, what is the authentication method used?

(Check applicable answers)

From Home From Library Proxy server by IP address Proxy server login/password Integrated library system authentication module Other Do Not Know



7. Could your library provide authentication with an additional ILS module? (Circle one answer)

Yes No Do Not Know 8. If the State Library were to provide your library with an authentication method for accessing

TexShare databases, would your library be more likely to promote remote access to users?

Yes No Do Not Know 9. What form of technical support does your library have? (Check all that apply and indicate if

adequate)

Type Adequate? Own technical support staff Yes No Campus-wide technical support staff Yes No Contract with external technical support Yes No Do not know Yes No

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________________________

10. Do your library staff and users regularly use the following software applications?

Circle “yes” or “no” Staff Public Word processing software Yes No Yes No Spreadsheet software (Excel, etc) Yes No Yes No Database software (Access, etc) Yes No Yes No Presentation / graphics / publishing Yes No Yes No Electronic mail Yes No Yes No Web browser (Netscape, etc) Yes No Yes No Imaging editing software Yes No Yes No Anti-virus software Yes No Yes No Security software to prevent computer abuse Yes No Yes No Print charging / control software Yes No Yes No User computer time control software Yes No Yes No HTML editing software Yes No Yes No Web development software such as FrontPage Yes No Yes No

11. Does your library? (Circle appropriate answers. DNK=Do Not Know)

Have a web site? Yes No DNK Provide checkout service for laptops? Yes No DNK Permit users to connect laptops to the library’s network? Yes No DNK

12. Does your library have distance learning available? (Circle appropriate answers. DNK=Do Not Know)

Via Internet Yes No DNK

Via videoconference Yes

No DNK

Via teleconference Yes

No DNK



Please continue →


NEEDZ: Academic Library Future Needs Survey Page 6 13. Does your library? (Circle appropriate answers. DNK=Do Not Know)

Create distance education programs? Yes No DNK Allow students to utilize your library’s computers to take distance education courses offered by another institution? Yes No DNK

Allow faculty to utilize your library’s computers to take distance education courses offered by another institution?

Yes No DNK

Allow library staff to utilize your library’s computers to take distance education courses offered by another institution?

Yes No DNK

14. Does your library provide at least one workstation: (Circle appropriate answers. DNK=Do Not

Know)

Accessible to persons with physical disabilities? Yes No DNK

Accessible to persons with hearing disabilities? Yes No DNK

Accessible to persons with vision disabilities? Yes No DNK

15. Are instructions on how to access your online resources available on the web in Spanish? (Circle

one answer. DNK=Do Not Know)

Yes No Do Not Know 16. Are instructions on how to access your online resources available on the web in languages other

than English and Spanish? (Circle one answer. DNK=Do Not Know)

Yes No Do Not Know 17. How frequently do your librarians use TexShare databases to answer questions for library users?

(Circle one answer)

Heavily Daily 2 – 3 times per week

1-2 times per month Never

18. If your librarians use TexShare databases, please give two or three examples of databases used

most frequently.

a. _______________________________________________________________

b. ________________________________________________________________

c. ________________________________________________________________

19. How frequently do your librarians use non-TexShare online resources to assist library users? (Circle

one answer)



20. If your librarians use non-TexShare online resources, please give two or three examples of

databases used most frequently.

a. _________________________________________________________________



b. _________________________________________________________________

c. _________________________________________________________________

Please continue →


NEEDZ: Academic Library Future Needs Survey Page 8 21. Does your library have unique special collection materials (for example; archives, photographic

images, letters, manuscripts) that have been digitized and made available over the web?

Yes No Do Not Know ↓ 22. If yes, what percent of your unique special collections materials would you estimate have been

digitized and made available via the web? (Please provide percentage, if known) ________% _______ Do Not Know

23. Does your library have finding aids on your library’s website to assist users of your special

collections materials? (Circle one answer)

Yes No Do Not Know Section 3: Technology and the Curriculum

This section asks how your library uses technology to meet the needs of students and faculty and for instructional purposes.

24. How frequently do library staff members use online resources to support faculty to do the following?

(Circle one answer for each statement)

Heavily Daily 1-2 times week 1-2 times month Never Do Not Know 5 4 3 2 1 9

Use or assist with classroom software such as Blackboard, e.college, WebCT, etc. 5 4 3 2 1 9

Create instructional materials/handouts 5 4 3 2 1 9 Get images from the Internet for use in projects 5 4 3 2 1 9 Assist with digitizing course-related materials 5 4 3 2 1 9 Provide instruction on specific computer applications (spreadsheets, etc) 5 4 3 2 1 9

Create web-based courses or tutorials for students 5 4 3 2 1 9 Create web-based courses or tutorials for faculty 5 4 3 2 1 9

25. In your opinion, how important are the following factors in helping to integrate information technology

in the library? (Circle one answer for each statement)

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Important Important Unimportant Unimportant

Do Not Know 4 3 2

1 9

Quality of computer technology available 4 3 2 1 9 Adequate access to hardware and software 4 3 2 1 9 Expectations of faculty 4 3 2 1 9 User initiative 4 3 2 1 9 Staff technology skills 4 3 2 1 9 Faculty technology skills 4 3 2 1 9 Student technology skills 4 3 2 1 9 Influence of user demands 4 3 2 1 9



Available staff time to devote to this task 4 3 2 1 9 Quality of technical training 4 3 2 1 9

Please continue →

26. In your opinion, how important are the following as barriers to the use of your library’s Internet services? (Circle one answer for each statement) Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Important Important Unimportant Unimportant

Do Not Know 4 3 2

1 9

Cost of computer hardware 4 3 2 1 9 Cost of computer software 4 3 2 1 9 Cost of training and education 4 3 2 1 9 Cost of phone charges 4 3 2 1 9 Inadequacy of local telecommunications access 4 3 2 1 9 Physical space limitations 4 3 2 1 9 Lack of training on how to use the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Lack of in house technical expertise 4 3 2 1 9 Lack of management support 4 3 2 1 9 Staff’s limited time for using technology 4 3 2 1 9 Limited staff skills in using technology 4 3 2 1 9 Faculty’s lack of skills in using technology 4 3 2 1 9 Students’ lack of skills in using technology 4 3 2 1 9 Inadequacy of Internet speed 4 3 2 1 9 Lack of adequate funding to sustain technology 4 3 2 1 9

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________________________

27. In your opinion, how frequently do users complain about the following? (Circle one answer for each statement) Daily 1-2 times week 1-2 times month Never Do Not Know

4 3 2

1 9

Waiting lines are long to use computers 4 3 2 1 9 Printing is not readily available from workstations 4 3 2 1 9 Computer area is too noisy 4 3 2 1 9 Workstation furniture is uncomfortable 4 3 2 1 9 Computers are out of order too frequently 4 3 2 1 9 Staff not having the skills to help users with technology 4 3 2 1 9

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________________________

Please continue →


NEEDZ: Academic Library Future Needs Survey Page 10 Section 4: User Training Needs

This section asks you about future training needs. 28. In general, how would you rate your staff’s skill level in the following areas? (Circle one answer for

each statement)

Very Somewhat Skilled Skilled Novice Unskilled Not Applicable 4 3 2 1 9

Searching the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Accessing email 4 3 2 1 9 Using web search engines 4 3 2 1 9 Using TexShare databases 4 3 2 1 9 Accessing TexShare databases from home 4 3 2 1 9 Troubleshooting computer problems 4 3 2 1 9 Using Microsoft Outlook 4 3 2 1 9 Using Microsoft Word 4 3 2 1 9 Using Microsoft Excel 4 3 2 1 9 Using Microsoft Access 4 3 2 1 9 Using Microsoft PowerPoint 4 3 2 1 9 Using the Internet as a teaching tool 4 3 2 1 9 Scanning images 4 3 2 1 9 Playing games 4 3 2 1 9 Using filters and parental controls 4 3 2 1 9 Accessing music files on the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Using online encyclopedias 4 3 2 1 9 Managing computers – installation, system administration, etc. 4 3 2 1 9 Managing software – installation, configuration, problem solving 4 3 2 1 9 Managing networks – network management, problem solving 4 3 2 1 9 Accessing the library resources from a remote location 4 3 2 1 9 Downloading music files from the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Searching the library’s catalog 4 3 2 1 9

29. Overall, how skilled is your staff in instructing users? (Circle one number for each statement)

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Skilled Skilled Unskilled

Unskilled Not Applicable 4 3 2 1

9

Instructing users in the use of the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Instructing users on the use of basic computer functions 4 3 2 1 9 Instructing users on the use of the library catalog 4 3 2 1 9 Instructing users in the use of online resources 4 3 2 1 9 Instructing users in the use of search engines 4 3 2 1 9 Instructing users on locating financial information on the Internet 4 3 2 1 9

Instructing users on locating genealogical resources on the Internet 4 3 2 1 9

Instructing users on locating legal resources on the Internet 4 3 2 1 9



Instructing users on locating medical and health resources on the Internet 4 3 2 1 9


NEEDZ: Academic Library Future Needs Survey Page 12 30. In your opinion, how important are the following as barriers to your ability to obtain technology

training? (Circle one answer for each statement) Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Important Important Unimportant Unimportant

Do Not Know 4 3 2

1 9

Lack of training funds 4 3 2 1 9 Lack of staff backup 4 3 2 1 9 Lack of transportation to training site 4 3 2 1 9 Training needed is not offered 4 3 2 1 9 Timing of training is not appropriate to my schedule 4 3 2 1 9 No time to practice 4 3 2 1 9 Not knowing what training I need to take 4 3 2 1 9 Quality training needed is not available 4 3 2 1 9

31. Which of the following types of training have you personally attended or used in the past 12 months,

and were they adequate? (Check all that apply and circle “yes” or “no” for each)

Attended Types of Training Adequate? TIF Tech training Yes No In house training from your library or jurisdiction Yes No Commercial providers Yes No Amigos Library Services training Yes No Distance learning opportunities Yes No

Other (please specify): _____________________________________________________________

32. For the last year, approximately how many days per staff member were allotted to technology training for the following? (Circle the appropriate # of days or other choices for each statement)

Number of days

Your library automation system 1 2-5 6-10 11-15 16+ No training in the last year Do not know

TexShare databases 1 2-5 6-10 11-15 16+ No training in the last year Do not know

Personal computer training 1 2-5 6-10 11-15 16+ No training in the last year Do not know

Internet searching 1 2-5 6-10 11-15 16+ No training in the last year Do not know

33. How frequently have you participated in any of the following technology training in the past 12

months? (Circle one answer for each statement) Frequently 1-2 times per month 1-2 times year Not at All 4 3 2 1

To learn computer skills 4 3 2 1 To learn software skills 4 3 2 1 To learn how to integrate technology into library services 4 3 2 1 To learn how to integrate technology into classroom lessons 4 3 2 1


NEEDZ: Academic Library Future Needs Survey Page 13 34. How important would you rate the need for your staff to receive training in the following areas?



Do Not Know 4 3 2

1 9

Teaching basic computer skills (mouse use, etc.) 4 3 2 1 9 Creating multimedia presentations 4 3 2 1 9 Creating web pages 4 3 2 1 9 Troubleshooting computer peripheral problems 4 3 2 1 9 Troubleshooting hardware problems 4 3 2 1 9 Troubleshooting software problems 4 3 2 1 9 Using the Internet to conduct research 4 3 2 1 9 Creating web-based instructional units 4 3 2 1 9 Scanning images (maps, etc) 4 3 2 1 9 Creating Encoded Archival Description files 4 3 2 1 9 Evaluating the quality and reliability of online information 4 3 2 1 9

35. How important would you rate the need for faculty to receive training in the following areas?



Do Not Know 4 3 2

1 9

Teaching basic computer skills 4 3 2 1 9 Creating multimedia presentations 4 3 2 1 9 Creating web pages 4 3 2 1 9 Troubleshooting computer peripheral problems 4 3 2 1 9 Troubleshooting hardware problems 4 3 2 1 9 Troubleshooting software problems 4 3 2 1 9 Using the Internet to conduct research 4 3 2 1 9 Creating web-based classroom assignments 4 3 2 1 9 Managing classroom courseware 4 3 2 1 9 Scanning images (maps, etc) 4 3 2 1 9 Evaluating the quality and reliability of online information 4 3 2 1 9

36. How important would you rate the need for students to receive training in the following areas?



Do Not Know 4 3 2

1 9

Learning basic computer skills 4 3 2 1 9 Creating multimedia presentations 4 3 2 1 9 Creating web pages 4 3 2 1 9 Troubleshooting computer peripheral problems 4 3 2 1 9 Troubleshooting hardware problems 4 3 2 1 9 Troubleshooting software problems 4 3 2 1 9



Using the Internet to conduct research 4 3 2 1 9 Integrating online and Internet resources into classroom assignments 4 3 2 1 9

Scanning images (maps, etc) 4 3 2 1 9 Evaluating the quality and reliability of online information 4 3 2 1 9

37. How important are the following current training needs for your staff?

(Circle one answer for each statement) Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Important Important Unimportant Unimportant

Do Not Know 4 3 2

1 9

Using online databases via the web 4 3 2 1 9 Knowing basic web design techniques 4 3 2 1 9 Learning preservation techniques 4 3 2 1 9 Understanding resource sharing issues 4 3 2 1 9 Managing special collections 4 3 2 1 9 Managing electronic journals 4 3 2 1 9 Having an overview of grant writing 4 3 2 1 9 Knowledge of Interlibrary loan reporting software such as CLIO 4 3 2 1 9 Knowledge of document transmission software for ILL such as Ariel 4 3 2 1 9 Learning OCLC interlibrary loan issues 4 3 2 1 9 Using the library’s online catalog 4 3 2 1 9 Using TexShare databases 4 3 2 1 9 Managing the library’s network (LAN, WAN, etc) 4 3 2 1 9 Managing email activities 4 3 2 1 9 Searching the internet 4 3 2 1 9 Managing databases such as Access 4 3 2 1 9 Keeping up to date on online reference databases 4 3 2 1 9 Developing and maintaining the library’s web site 4 3 2 1 9 Digitizing images 4 3 2 1 9 Converting documents/databases to the web 4 3 2 1 9 Planning for technology 4 3 2 1 9

38. How important are the following future training needs for your staff for the time period 2003 – 2005?

(Circle one answer for each statement) Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Important Important Unimportant Unimportant

Do Not Know 4 3 2

1 9

Using online databases via the web 4 3 2 1 9 Knowing basic web design techniques 4 3 2 1 9 Learning preservation techniques 4 3 2 1 9 Understanding resource sharing issues 4 3 2 1 9 Managing special collections 4 3 2 1 9 Managing electronic journals 4 3 2 1 9 Having an overview of grant writing 4 3 2 1 9 Knowledge of Interlibrary loan reporting software such as CLIO 4 3 2 1 9 Knowledge of document transmission software for ILL such as Ariel 4 3 2 1 9 Learning OCLC interlibrary loan issues 4 3 2 1 9 Using the library’s online catalog 4 3 2 1 9



Using TexShare databases 4 3 2 1 9 Managing the library’s network (LAN, WAN, etc) 4 3 2 1 9 Managing email activities 4 3 2 1 9 Searching the internet 4 3 2 1 9 Managing databases such as Access 4 3 2 1 9 Keeping up to date on online reference databases 4 3 2 1 9 Developing and maintaining the library’s web site 4 3 2 1 9 Digitizing images 4 3 2 1 9 Converting documents/databases to the web 4 3 2 1 9 Planning for technology 4 3 2 1 9

39. What other training needs do you anticipate for your staff during the time period 2003-2005?

a. __________________________________________________________________________

b. __________________________________________________________________________

c. __________________________________________________________________________

Section 5: TIF Board Funding Impact

This section asks you about the impact of TIF Board funding on your library technology services.

40. Do you believe your library is serving more students coming into the library now as compared to one

year ago? (Circle one answer)

Yes No Do Not Know ↓

41. If your library is serving more students than a year ago, please estimate the percentage increase as compared to one year ago? _______ %

42. How have TIF Board funds benefited your library? Explain one or two benefits to your library.

a. __________________________________________________________________________

b. __________________________________________________________________________

43. What were the two or three greatest challenges you faced in applying for and/or implementing your

TIF Board grant (s)?

a. __________________________________________________________________________

b. __________________________________________________________________________

c. __________________________________________________________________________

44. As a result of TIF Board technology funding has your library developed other sources of local

funds? (Circle one answer)


45. If yes, please describe ______________________________________________________


NEEDZ: Academic Library Future Needs Survey Page 16 46. As a result of TIFB technology funding has your library developed other grants from other

sources? (Circle one answer)


47. If yes, please describe _______________________________________________________

Please continue →


NEEDZ: Academic Library Future Needs Survey Page 17 48. Has the receipt of TIF Board technology funds encouraged your library to develop partnerships

with other institutions in your community? (Circle one answer)


49. If yes, please list your library’s partners _________________________________________

50. Has the receipt of TIFB technology funds encouraged your library to develop partnerships with other TIF-eligible libraries? (TIF-eligible libraries include academic, public, K-12 schools and health-related organizations) (Circle one answer)

Yes No Do Not Know

↓

51. If yes, please describe ________________________________________________________ Section 6: Future Needs

This section asks about your future needs related to planning for the future TIF Board grant programs.

52. Has the availability of online resources in or through your library resulted in service improvements?

(Please circle one answer)

Definitely Somewhat Not Much Not at All Do Not Know 53. In order to maintain your current level of computing access, please prioritize the importance of each

of the following (Please rank each statement with a “1” for most important, “2” for second most important, “3” for third most important and so on.

Rank Desktop computers & associated equipment

Online library catalog installation, upgrade, or replacement

Enhanced connectivity (more bandwidth, more speed)

Technical training

More online databases

Website development

Information security

Distance learning

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________________________



Please continue →


NEEDZ: Academic Library Future Needs Survey Page 19 54. How important do you believe the following issues will be for your library in the next 1 to 3 years?



Do Not Know 4 3 2

1 9 Being able to hire staff with technical skills 4 3 2 1 9 Providing current staff with more access to technical training 4 3 2 1 9 Overcoming staff resistance to technology 4 3 2 1 9 Improving staff digitization skills 4 3 2 1 9 Having adequate technical support for our library 4 3 2 1 9 Having adequate Internet bandwidth for our library 4 3 2 1 9 Improving my library’s website 4 3 2 1 9 Increasing the number of staff desktop computers 4 3 2 1 9 Increasing the number of public desktop computers 4 3 2 1 9 Increasing the number of library catalog (OPAC) computers 4 3 2 1 9 Increasing the capability of my library’s desktop computers 4 3 2 1 9 Keeping library equipment secure from viruses and other security problems 4 3 2 1 9

Replacing obsolete technology on a regular schedule 4 3 2 1 9 Managing technology issues of filtering 4 3 2 1 9 Adding more online information resources 4 3 2 1 9 Adding more wireless technology for my building 4 3 2 1 9 Having the ability to provide public laptop computing 4 3 2 1 9 Improving the level of user technical skills 4 3 2 1 9 Providing users with access to technology training 4 3 2 1 9 Integrating the library technology with the college or university technology planning 4 3 2 1 9

Meeting competition from other information sources 4 3 2 1 9 Retraining staff 4 3 2 1 9 Implementing a public access catalog 4 3 2 1 9 Enhancing the public access catalog 4 3 2 1 9 Integrating technology services with traditional library services 4 3 2 1 9 Enlarging the size of the library to accommodate technology. 4 3 2 1 9 Coping with the speed of technological change in the library 4 3 2 1 9

Thank you for completing this survey! Your responses are important input to the TIF Board’s

planning and evaluation process.


APPENDIX IX.B

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES: PUBLIC

This study has been approved by the University of North Texas Committee


Public Library Future Needs Survey

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify future needs for Texas public libraries and

library users in the areas of technology, training, and use of technology resources. Results from this survey will be used to make recommendations related to the future direction for Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (TIF) Board programs and grants from which your library can potentially and directly benefit.









START HERE (This information will not be included in the survey reports and is for the purpose of asking follow up questions only) Respondent’s Name: (Person completing the survey) _________________________________________ Respondent’s Title: ___________________________________________________________________


Please continue →

for the Protection of Human Subjects | 940-565-3940

NEEDZ: Public Library Future Needs Survey_________________________________________Page 3

Section 1: Identification This section asks for general information about your library.

1. Library Name:

__________________________________________________________________

2. City where your library is located: __________________________________________________

3. In which Regional Library System is your library a member? (Circle the appropriate system)

AALS Alamo Area NTRLS North Texas Regional BCLS Big Country STLS South Texas Regional CTLS Central Texas TPLS Texas Panhandle HALS Houston Area TTPLS Texas Trans-Pecos NETLS Northeast Texas WTLS West Texas Other Not a system member

Section 2: Technology Resources

This section asks you about your library’s current technology environment.


Staff Public Loan to users

Inkjet printers Yes No Yes No Yes No Laser printers Yes No Yes No Yes No Personal computers Yes No Yes No Yes No Flatbed scanners Yes No Yes No Yes No Handheld or pen scanners Yes No Yes No Yes No Personal digital assistants (e.g. Palm) Yes No Yes No Yes No Laptops Yes No Yes No Yes No Wireless Ethernet cards for laptops Yes No Yes No Yes No Digital cameras Yes No Yes No Yes No CD burners Yes No Yes No Yes No DVD burners Yes No Yes No Yes No E-book readers Yes No Yes No Yes No Data projectors Yes No Yes No Yes No Video conferencing equipment Yes No Yes No Yes No


5. Are the following accessible from your users’ homes or offices? (Circle “yes or no” for each statement)

Your library catalog Yes No Other library catalogs via your library website Yes No All TexShare online databases Yes No Selected TexShare online databases Yes No Non-TexShare commercial online databases Yes No CD-ROM databases at your library Yes No Non-TexShare full-text services, e.g., encyclopedias, etc. Yes No Access to a portal page grouping all your library’s e-resources Yes No




6. Does the library provide authentication (require passwords or log ins) for its users for remote access

to locally provided databases? (Circle one answer)

Yes No Do Not Know 7. If your library provides authentication of its users, what is the authentication method used?

(Check applicable choices)

From Home From Library Proxy server by IP address Proxy server login/password Integrated library system (ILS) authentication module Other Do Not Know

8. Could your library provide authentication with an additional ILS module? (Circle one answer)

Yes No Do Not Know 9. Can your library currently provide remote authentication for the TexShare databases?

(Circle one answer)

Yes No Do Not Know 10. If the State Library were to provide your library with an authentication method for accessing

TexShare databases, would your library be more likely to promote remote access to users?

Yes No Do Not Know 11. Does the library have an internal network (LAN)? (Circle one answer)

Yes No Do Not Know ↓ 12. What is the speed of the library’s internal network? (Please provide the speed, if known)

____________ (e.g., 10 mb/s, 100 mb/s) _____ Do Not Know

13. Do your library staff and users regularly use the following software applications?

Circle “yes” or “no” Staff Public Word processing software Yes No Yes No Spreadsheet software (Excel, etc) Yes No Yes No Database software (Access, etc) Yes No Yes No Presentation / graphics / publishing Yes No Yes No Electronic mail Yes No Yes No Web browser (Netscape, etc) Yes No Yes No Imaging editing software Yes No Yes No Anti-virus software Yes No Yes No Security software to prevent computer abuse Yes No Yes No Print charging / control software Yes No Yes No User computer time control software Yes No Yes No HTML editing software Yes No Yes No Web development software such as FrontPage Yes No Yes No




Have a website? Yes No DNK Permit the public to checkout laptops? Yes No DNK Permit users to connect their laptops to the library’s network? Yes No DNK

15. Does your library have distance learning available? (Circle appropriate answers. DNK=Do Not

Know)

Via Internet Yes No DNK Via videoconference Yes No DNK Via teleconference Yes No DNK


Create distance education programs? Yes No DNK Allow users to utilize your library’s computers to take distance education courses offered by another institution? Yes No DNK

Allow library staff to utilize library’s computers to take distance education courses offered by another institution?

Yes No DNK

17. Does your library provide at least one workstation: (Circle appropriate answers. DNK=Do Not

Know)

Accessible to persons with physical disabilities? Yes No DNK Accessible to persons with hearing disabilities? Yes No DNK Accessible to persons with vision disabilities? Yes No DNK

18. Are instructions on how to access your online resources available on the web in Spanish?

(Circle one answer) Yes No Do Not Know

19. Are instructions on how to access your online resources available on the web in languages other

than English and Spanish? (Circle one answer)

Yes No Do Not Know 20. How frequently do your librarians use TexShare databases to answer questions for library users?

(Circle one answer)



21. If your librarians use TexShare databases, please give two or three recent examples of databases

used most frequently.

a. _______________________________________________________________

b. ________________________________________________________________

c. ________________________________________________________________

22. How frequently do your librarians use other non-TexShare online resources to assist library users?

(Circle one answer)







23. If your librarians use other non-TexShare online resources, please give two or three examples of databases used most frequently. a. ____________________________________________________________________________

b. ____________________________________________________________________________

c. ____________________________________________________________________________

24. Does your library have unique special collection materials (e.g., archives, photographic images,

letters, manuscripts) relating local history or subject strengths of your library? (Circle one answer)

Yes No Do Not Know ↓ 25. If yes, please describe _________________________________________________________

26. If yes, have any items been digitized and made available over the web? (Circle one answer)


27. If yes, what percent of your unique special collections materials would you estimate have been digitized and made available via the web? (Please provide percentage, if known)

________% ______ Do Not Know

28. Does your library have finding aids on your library’s website to assist users of your special collections materials? (Circle one answer)

Yes No Do Not Know 29. Other than in the library, are there other places in your community where the public can gain access

to the Internet at no charge? (Circle one response)


30. If yes to Question 29, specify one or two of these places

a.

________________________________________________________________________

b.

________________________________________________________________________

Please continue →



Section 3: Technology and Public User Needs This section asks about your public users and their use of information technology.

31. In your opinion, how frequently do your patrons use computers in the library to do the following?

(Circle one answer for each statement) Heavily Daily 1-2 times week 1-2 times month Never Do Not Know 5 4 3 2

1 9

“Surf” the Internet 5 4 3 2 1 9 Use email 5 4 3 2 1 9 Use web search engines 5 4 3 2 1 9 Use office software (Word, etc.) 5 4 3 2 1 9 Access financial information 5 4 3 2 1 9 Do genealogical research 5 4 3 2 1 9 Access medical and health information 5 4 3 2 1 9 Search for legal information and statutes 5 4 3 2 1 9 Use instant messaging 5 4 3 2 1 9 Prepare resumes 5 4 3 2 1 9 Play games 5 4 3 4 1 9 Use online encyclopedias 5 4 3 2 1 9 Use presentation software (PowerPoint, etc.) 5 4 3 2 1 9 Download files (e.g., MP3) 5 4 3 2 1 9 Create web pages 5 4 3 2 1 9 Search the library’s catalog 5 4 3 2 1 9


32. In your opinion, how frequently does staff help the public users to do the following? (Please circle one answer for each statement) Heavily Daily 1-2 times week 1-2 times month

Never Do Not Know 5 4 3 2

1 9

Assist users to check personal e-mail accounts 5 4 3 2 1 9 Help users set up free e-mail accounts 5 4 3 2 1 9 Assist tourists checking email while traveling; 5 4 3 2 1 9 Assist users with basic computer skills (using the mouse, etc.) 5 4 3 2 1 9 Assist with using the Internet for general searching 5 4 3 2 1 9 Assist users with searching commercial databases 5 4 3 2 1 9 Provide computer trouble shooting (printing, resetting passwords, etc.) 5 4 3 2 1 9 Help with educational software 5 4 3 2 1 9 Help with word processing software 5 4 3 2 1 9 Help with spreadsheets and database software 5 4 3 2 1 9 Help with presentation software 5 4 3 2 1 9 Help with games 5 4 3 2 1 9 Assistance with scanning equipment 5 4 3 2 1 9 Advise users on Internet filters 5 4 3 2 1 9 Advise users about use of parental controls for Internet use 5 4 3 2 1 9



Help users evaluate the quality and reliability of online information 5 4 3 2 1 9 Assist users with using the library’s catalog 5 4 3 2 1 9


33. In your opinion, how important are the following factors in helping to integrate information technology in the library? (Circle one answer for each statement) Very Somewhat Somewhat Very

Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Do Not Know

4 3 2 1 9

Quality of the technology available 4 3 2 1 9 Adequate access to hardware and software 4 3 2 1 9 User initiative 4 3 2 1 9 Staff technology skills 4 3 2 1 9 User technology skills 4 3 2 1 9 Influence of user demands 4 3 2 1 9 Available staff time to devote to this task 4 3 2 1 9 Quality of technical training 4 3 2 1 9

34. In your opinion, how important are the following as barriers to the use of your library’s Internet

services? (Circle one answer for each statement) Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Important Important Unimportant Unimportant

Do Not Know 4 3 2

1 9 Cost of computer hardware 4 3 2 1 9 Cost of computer software 4 3 2 1 9 Cost of training and education 4 3 2 1 9 Cost of phone charges 4 3 2 1 9 Inadequacy of local telecommunications access 4 3 2 1 9 Physical space limitations 4 3 2 1 9 Lack of training on how use the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Lack of in house technical expertise 4 3 2 1 9 Lack of management support 4 3 2 1 9 Staff’s limited time for using technology 4 3 2 1 9 Limited staff skills in using technology 4 3 2 1 9 Cost of telecommunications line to Internet Service Provider 4 3 2 1 9 Cost of Internet Service Provider monthly fees 4 3 2 1 9 Inadequacy of Internet speed 4 3 2 1 9 Lack of training on how use the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Lack of adequate funding to sustain technology 4 3 2 1 9


35. In your opinion, how frequently do users complain about the following? (Circle one answer for each)

Daily 1-2 times week 1-2 times month Never Do Not Know 4 3 2

1 9 Waiting lines are long to use computers 4 3 2 1 9 Time limits on computers are too short 4 3 2 1 9 Users say they do not have skills to use computers 4 3 2 1 9 Users say they do not know what computer capabilities 4 3 2 1 9



are available Printing is not readily available from workstations 4 3 2 1 9 Printing is too costly 4 3 2 1 9 Computer area is too noisy 4 3 2 1 9 Workstation furniture is uncomfortable 4 3 2 1 9 Computers are out of order too frequently 4 3 2 1 9 Staff not having the skills to help users with technology 4 3 2 1 9 Internet too slow 4 3 2 1 9


Section 4: Public Training Needs This section asks you about training needs of your users.

36. Does your library offer any technology related classes to the public? (Circle one answer)

Yes No Do Not Know 37. How important is it for the library to offer formal training classes for users? (Circle one answer)

Very Important Somewhat Important

Somewhat Unimportant

Very Unimportant Do Not Know

38. How important is it for the library to offer one-on-one training for users? (Please circle one answer)


Somewhat Unimportant

Very Unimportant Do Not Know

39. If your library offers training classes for users, please list the two or thee most heavily demanded

technology related classes your library offered in the past 12 months.

a. ____________________________________________________________________________

b. ____________________________________________________________________________

c. ____________________________________________________________________________

40. How important is it for the library to offer the following training? (Circle one answer for each)

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Do Not

Know 4 3 2 1

9

Acquiring basic email skills 4 3 2 1 9 Learning about search engines 4 3 2 1 9 Acquiring basic computer skills 4 3 2 1 9 Learning basic library catalog functions 4 3 2 1 9 Using TexShare online databases 4 3 2 1 9 Accessing TexShare online databases from user’s home or office 4 3 2 1 9

Learning Gates grant computer software 4 3 2 1 9 Learning how to troubleshoot computer problems 4 3 2 1 9 Using Microsoft Outlook 4 3 2 1 9 Using Microsoft Word 4 3 2 1 9 Using Microsoft Excel 4 3 2 1 9 Using Microsoft Access 4 3 2 1 9 Using Microsoft PowerPoint 4 3 2 1 9 Using the Internet as a teaching tool 4 3 2 1 9



Learning to scan images 4 3 2 1 9 Finding financial information on the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Locating/accessing genealogical resources on the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Locating/accessing legal resources on the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Locating/accessing medical/health resources on the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Training on gaming 4 3 2 1 9 Training about filters and parental controls 4 3 2 1 9 Accessing music files on the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Creating web pages 4 3 2 1 9




41. Who provides technology training to library users? (Circle one answer for each statement)

Staff provides All Most Some Little None Volunteers provide All Most Some Little None Outside vendors All Most Some Little None Other providers All Most Some Little None

42. How frequently does your library use the following methods to inform the public about technology

training available at your library? (Circle one answer for each statement) Regularly Sometimes Infrequently Never Do Not Know

4 3 2 1 9

Flyers 4 3 2 1 9 Articles in library newsletter 4 3 2 1 9 News releases 4 3 2 1 9 Public service announcements (PSA’s) 4 3 2 1 9 Presentations 4 3 2 1 9 Community meetings 4 3 2 1 9 Articles in local newspaper 4 3 2 1 9 TV or cable announcements 4 3 2 1 9 Media advertising 4 3 2 1 9 E-mail 4 3 2 1 9 Web site 4 3 2 1 9


43. How important are the following methods to inform the public about technology training available at your library? (Circle one answer for each statement)


Do Not Know 4 3 2 1 9

Flyers 4 3 2 1 9 Articles in library newsletter 4 3 2 1 9 News releases 4 3 2 1 9 Public service announcements (PSA’s) 4 3 2 1 9 Presentations 4 3 2 1 9 Community meetings 4 3 2 1 9 Articles in local newspaper 4 3 2 1 9 TV or cable announcements 4 3 2 1 9 Media advertising 4 3 2 1 9 E-mail 4 3 2 1 9 Web site 4 3 2 1 9


Please continue →



Section 5: Staff Training Needs This section asks you to assess training needs for yourself and your staff.

44. Which of the following types of training have you personally attended or used in the past 12

months, and were they adequate? (Check all that apply and circle “yes” or “no” for each)

Attended Types of Training Adequate? TIF Tech training Yes No In house training from your library or jurisdiction Yes No Training provided by other local providers (commercial,

community college, systems) Yes No

Online self paced computer related training (such as the courses offered by the ALA) Yes No

Texas State Library training Yes No Amigos Library Services training Yes No Distance learning opportunities Yes No


45. In your opinion, how skilled overall is your staff in assisting users the following areas: (Circle one answer for each statement) Very Somewhat Somewhat Very

Skilled Skilled Unskilled Unskilled Not Applicable 4 3 2

1 9

Using personal computers 4 3 2 1 9 Searching the library’s catalog 4 3 2 1 9 Using an Internet search engine 4 3 2 1 9 Accessing TexShare databases 4 3 2 1 9 Searching a TexShare database 4 3 2 1 9 Sending and receiving e-mail message 4 3 2 1 9 Looking up specific factual information on the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Printing out information 4 3 2 1 9 Using presentation software (PowerPoint etc.) 4 3 2 1 9 Using office software (e.g., Word, Excel) 4 3 2 1 9 Downloading music files 4 3 2 1 9


46. Overall, how skilled is your staff in instructing users? (Circle one answer for each statement)

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Skilled Skilled Unskilled Unskilled Not Applicable 4 3 2

1 9

Instructing users in the use of the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Instructing users on the use of basic computer functions 4 3 2 1 9 Instructing users on the use of the library catalog 4 3 2 1 9 Instructing users in the use of online resources 4 3 2 1 9 Instructing users in the use of search engines 4 3 2 1 9 Instructing users on locating financial information on the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Instructing users on locating genealogical resources on the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Instructing users on locating legal resources on the Internet 4 3 2 1 9



Instructing users on locating medical/health resources on the Internet 4 3 2 1 9



47. For the last year, approximately how many days per staff member were allotted to technology training for the following? (Circle the appropriate # of days or other choices for each statement)

Number of days

Your library automation system 1 2-5 6-10 11-15 16+ No training in the last year Do not know

TexShare databases 1 2-5 6-10 11-15 16+ No training in the last year Do not know

Personal computer training 1 2-5 6-10 11-15 16+ No training in the last year Do not know

Internet searching 1 2-5 6-10 11-15 16+ No training in the last year Do not know

48. Overall, how skilled is your staff in the following? (Circle one answer for each statement)

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Skilled Skilled Unskilled Unskilled

Not Applicable 4 3 2 1

9

Searching the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Accessing email 4 3 2 1 9 Using web search engines 4 3 2 1 9 Using TexShare databases 4 3 2 1 9 Accessing TexShare databases from home 4 3 2 1 9 Using Gates grant computer software 4 3 2 1 9 Troubleshooting computer problems 4 3 2 1 9 Using Microsoft Outlook 4 3 2 1 9 Using Microsoft Word 4 3 2 1 9 Using Microsoft Excel 4 3 2 1 9 Using Microsoft Access 4 3 2 1 9 Using Microsoft PowerPoint 4 3 2 1 9 Using the Internet as a teaching tool 4 3 2 1 9 Scanning images 4 3 2 1 9 Playing games 4 3 2 1 9 Using filters and parental controls 4 3 2 1 9 Accessing music files on the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Using online encyclopedias 4 3 2 1 9 Managing computers – installation, system administration, etc. 4 3 2 1 9 Managing software – installation, configuration, problem solving 4 3 2 1 9 Managing networks – network management, problem solving 4 3 2 1 9 Accessing the library resources from a remote location 4 3 2 1 9 Downloading music files from the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Searching the library’s catalog 4 3 2 1 9

49. In your opinion, how important are the following as barriers to you and your ability to obtain

technology training? (Circle one answer for each statement) Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Do Not

Know 4 3 2 1

9

Lack of training funds 4 3 2 1 9 Lack of staff backup 4 3 2 1 9 Lack of transportation to training site 4 3 2 1 9



Training needed is not offered 4 3 2 1 9 Timing of training is not appropriate to my schedule 4 3 2 1 9 No time to practice 4 3 2 1 9 Not knowing what training I need 4 3 2 1 9 Quality training needed is not available 4 3 2 1 9

50. How important are the following current training needs for your staff? (Circle one answer for each) Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Do Not

Know 4 3 2 1

9

Using online databases via the web 4 3 2 1 9 Knowing basic web design techniques 4 3 2 1 9 Learning preservation techniques 4 3 2 1 9 Understanding resource sharing issues 4 3 2 1 9 Managing special collections 4 3 2 1 9 Managing electronic journals 4 3 2 1 9 Having an overview of grant writing 4 3 2 1 9 Knowledge of Interlibrary loan reporting software such as CLIO 4 3 2 1 9 Knowledge of document transmission software for ILL such as Ariel 4 3 2 1 9 Learning OCLC interlibrary loan issues 4 3 2 1 9 Using the library’s online catalog 4 3 2 1 9 Using TexShare databases 4 3 2 1 9 Managing the library’s network (LAN, WAN, etc) 4 3 2 1 9 Managing email activities 4 3 2 1 9 Searching the internet 4 3 2 1 9 Managing databases such as Access 4 3 2 1 9 Keeping up to date on online reference databases 4 3 2 1 9 Developing and maintaining the library’s web site 4 3 2 1 9 Digitizing images 4 3 2 1 9 Converting documents/databases to the web 4 3 2 1 9 Planning for technology 4 3 2 1 9

51. How important are the following future staff training needs for the period 2003 – 2005? (Circle one

answer for each statement) Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Do Not

Know 4 3 2 1

9

Using online databases via the web 4 3 2 1 9 Knowing basic web design techniques 4 3 2 1 9 Learning preservation techniques 4 3 2 1 9 Understanding resource sharing issues 4 3 2 1 9 Managing special collections 4 3 2 1 9 Managing electronic journals 4 3 2 1 9 Having an overview of grant writing 4 3 2 1 9 Knowledge of Interlibrary loan reporting software such as CLIO 4 3 2 1 9 Knowledge of document transmission software for ILL such as Ariel 4 3 2 1 9 Learning OCLC interlibrary loan issues 4 3 2 1 9 Using the library’s online catalog 4 3 2 1 9 Using TexShare databases 4 3 2 1 9 Managing the library’s network (LAN, WAN, etc) 4 3 2 1 9



Managing email activities 4 3 2 1 9 Searching the internet 4 3 2 1 9 Managing databases such as Access 4 3 2 1 9 Keeping up to date on online reference databases 4 3 2 1 9 Developing and maintaining the library’s web site 4 3 2 1 9 Digitizing images 4 3 2 1 9 Converting documents/databases to the web 4 3 2 1 9 Planning for technology 4 3 2 1 9



52. What are other training needs you anticipate for your staff during the period 2003-2005?

a. __________________________________________________________________

b. __________________________________________________________________

c. __________________________________________________________________

Section 6: Impact of TIF Board Funds This section asks you about the impact of TIF Board funding on your library technology services. 53. Do you believe your library is serving more school students (K-12) coming into the library now as

compared to one year ago? (Circle one answer)


54. If your library is serving more students than a year ago, please estimate the percentage increase as compared to one year ago? _______ %

55. How have TIF Board funds benefited your library? Explain one or two benefits to your library.

a. ____________________________________________________________________________

b. ____________________________________________________________________________

56. What were the two or three greatest challenges you faced in applying for and/or implementing your TIF Board grant (s)? a. ____________________________________________________________________________

b. ____________________________________________________________________________

c. ____________________________________________________________________________

57. As a result of TIF Board technology funding, has your library developed other sources of local funds? (Circle one answer)

Yes No Do Not Know

↓ 58. If yes, please describe _________________________________________________________

59. As a result of TIF Board technology funding, has your library developed other grants from other

sources? (Circle one answer)


60. If yes, please describe _________________________________________________________ 61. Has the receipt of TIF Board technology funds encouraged your library to develop partnerships

with other institutions in your community? (Please circle one response)


62. If yes, please list your library’s partners ____________________________________________



63. Has the receipt of TIF Board funds encouraged your library to develop partnerships with other TIF-eligible libraries or their parent institutions? (academic, public, K-12 schools and health-related organizations) (Please circle one response)

Yes No Do Not Know


Section 7: Future Needs This section asks you about your future needs related to planning for TIF Board grant programs.

65. Has the availability of online resources in or through your library resulted in service improvements?

(Circle one answer)

Definitely Somewhat Not Much Not at All Do Not Know 66. In order to maintain your current level of public access computing, please prioritize the importance of

each of the following (Please rank each statement with a “1” for most important, “2” for second most important, “3” for third most important and so on.)

Rank

Desktop computers & associated equipment Online library catalog installation, upgrade, or replacement Enhanced connectivity (more bandwidth, more speed) Technical training More online databases Website development Information security Distance learning


67. How important do you believe the following factors are in creating support for technology in your

library? (Circle one answer for each statement) Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Do Not

Know 4 3 2 1

9

Leadership from city/county officials 4 3 2 1 9 Commitment from city/county administrators 4 3 2 1 9 Presence of adequate financial resources 4 3 2 1 9 Presence of technical support 4 3 2 1 9 Mission to integrate technology into the library 4 3 2 1 9 Integration of library technology with other community partners 4 3 2 1 9 Presence of a long-range plan for technology integration 4 3 2 1 9 Adequately trained staff 4 3 2 1 9 Adequately sized facilities 4 3 2 1 9 Adequacy of equipment 4 3 2 1 9 Adequate time to train 4 3 2 1 9 Adequate staffing 4 3 2 1 9




68. How important do you believe the following issues will be for your library in the next 1 to 3 years?


Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Do Not

Know 4 3 2 1

9

Being able to hire staff with technical skills 4 3 2 1 9 Providing current staff with more access to technical training 4 3 2 1 9 Overcoming staff resistance to technology 4 3 2 1 9 Improving staff digitization skills 4 3 2 1 9 Having adequate technical support for our library 4 3 2 1 9 Having adequate Internet bandwidth for our library 4 3 2 1 9 Improving my library’s website 4 3 2 1 9 Increasing the number of staff desktop computers 4 3 2 1 9 Increasing the number of public desktop computers 4 3 2 1 9 Increasing the number of library catalog (OPAC) computers 4 3 2 1 9 Increasing the capability of my library’s desktop computers 4 3 2 1 9 Keeping library equipment secure from viruses and other security problems 4 3 2 1 9

Replacing obsolete technology on a regular schedule 4 3 2 1 9 Managing technology issues of filtering 4 3 2 1 9 Adding more online information resources 4 3 2 1 9 Adding more wireless technology for my building 4 3 2 1 9 Having the ability to provide public laptop computing 4 3 2 1 9 Improving the level of user technical skills 4 3 2 1 9 Providing users with access to technology training 4 3 2 1 9 Integrating library technology with our city/county’s technology planning 4 3 2 1 9

Meeting competition from other information sources 4 3 2 1 9 Retraining staff 4 3 2 1 9 Implementing a public access catalog 4 3 2 1 9 Enhancing the public access catalog 4 3 2 1 9 Integrating technology services with traditional library services 4 3 2 1 9 Enlarging the size of the library to accommodate technology. 4 3 2 1 9 Coping with the speed of technological change in the library 4 3 2 1 9

Thank you for completing this survey! Your responses are important input to the TIF Board’s

planning and evaluation process.


APPENDIX IX.C

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES: SCHOOL


School Library/Media Center Future Needs Survey

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify future needs for Texas school libraries,

media centers, and library users in the areas of technology, training, and use of technology resources. Results from this survey will be used to make recommendations related to the future direction for Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (TIF) Board programs and grants from which your library can potentially directly benefit.









START HERE (This information will not be included in the survey reports and is for the purpose of asking follow up questions only) Respondent’s Name: (Person completing the survey) __________________________________ Respondent’s Title: ___________________________________________________________________


Please continue →

NEEDZ: School Library/Media Center Future Needs Survey Page 3

Section 1: Identification. This section asks for general information about your library.

1. Your School Library/Media Center name:

_______________________________________________

2. Grade levels served:

_______________________________________________________________

3. City/Area where your school library is located:

___________________________________________

4. Name of your School District:

________________________________________________________

5. Region/county/district number (###-###-###) _______-________-________

6. Is the library part of a campus network? (Circle one response)

Yes No Do Not Know 7. Is the library part of a district network?

Yes No Do Not Know 8. Do all teachers have e-mail available through a district system?

Yes No Do Not Know 9. Do all students have e-mail available through a district system?

Yes No Do Not Know 10. Is your library a Texas Library Connection (TLC) member?

Yes No Do Not Know 11. Did your campus library receive TIF Board funds – other than for TLC databases – for hardware,

networking and/or connectivity? (Your technology support person may be able to help you with the answer to this question if you do not know.)

Yes No Do Not Know

12. Per the current state library standards, is your library: (Circle one answer)

Exemplary Recognized Acceptable Below Standard

13. Does your librarian: (Circle one response)

Have school library certification? Yes No No librarian Have a master’s degree in library science? Yes No Does your library have the services of a certified librarian? Yes No

14. Is your certified librarian:

Full time? Part time? 15. Describe your library’s staffing: (Indicate number of each for all that apply)

# of each



Certified librarian(s) Clerk(s)

Clerk (part time) Non certified staff

Volunteers

No staff

Section 2: Technology Resources This section asks you about your library’s current technology environment.


School Staff or Teachers

Students Loan to users

Inkjet printers Yes No Yes No Yes No Laser printers Yes No Yes No Yes No Personal computers Yes No Yes No Yes No Flatbed scanners Yes No Yes No Yes No Handheld or pen scanners Yes No Yes No Yes No Personal digital assistants (e.g., Palm) Yes No Yes No Yes No Laptops Yes No Yes No Yes No Digital cameras Yes No Yes No Yes No CD burner Yes No Yes No DVD burner Yes No Yes No Wireless Ethernet card for laptops Yes No Video servers Yes No Caching servers Yes No

17. Do your library staff and your students regularly use the following software applications? (Circle “yes

or no” for each statement)

Staff Students Word processing software Yes No Yes No Spreadsheet software (Excel, etc.) Yes No Yes No Database software (Access, etc.) Yes No Yes No Presentation / graphics / publishing (PowerPoint, etc.)

Yes No Yes No

Web development software Yes No Yes No Electronic mail Yes No Yes No Web browser (Netscape, etc.) Yes No Yes No Imaging editing software Yes No Yes No Anti-virus Yes No Yes No Texas Library Connection Databases Yes No Yes No Security software to prevent computer abuse Yes No Print charging / control software Yes No User computer time control Yes No Metadata software Yes No

18. Does the library have an internal Local Area Network (LAN)?

Yes No Do Not Know



19. What is the speed of the library’s internal LAN? ___________ (e.g., 10 mb/s, 100 mb/s) 20. From your experience, do you consider your Internet access speed to be? (Circle one response)

Fast Adequate Slow Do Not Know 21. Does the library provide authentication (require passwords or logins) for its users for remote access

to Texas Library Connection (TLC) databases?

Yes No Do Not Know 22. Does the library provide authentication (require passwords or logins) for its users for remote access

to locally provided databases?

Yes No Do Not Know 23. If your answer to Questions 21 or 22 was Yes, what authentication method(s) is used?

Proxy server by IP address Proxy server by login/password Integrated library system authentication module Do not know

24. In your opinion, is the technical support your library receives from your District: (Circle one response)

Very Adequate Adequate Inadequate Very Inadequate Do Not Know 25. If you receive technical support from a source other than your District, in your opinion, is the

technical support your library receives: (Circle one response)

Very Adequate Adequate Inadequate Very Inadequate Do Not Know 26. Does your library? (Please circle the appropriate answer. DNK=Do Not Know)

Have a library website? Yes No DNKHost the library website on a server in the library? Yes No DNKProvide access to the Internet to staff inside the library on library computers?

Yes No DNK

Provide access to the Internet inside the library to users? Yes No DNKProvide users (students, teachers) access to your school library TLC databases on an Internet connection from home?

Yes No DNK

Provide laptop computers for use inside the library? Yes No DNKProvide laptop computers for checkout use outside the library? Yes No DNKMake TLC databases available outside the library to users? Yes No DNKProvide workstations accessible to disabled persons? Yes No DNK

27. Please circle the appropriate answer. (DNK=Do Not Know)

Has your district completed the Texas STaR Chart? Yes No DNKDoes your school have a knowledgeable, skilled technology coordinator?

Yes No DNK

Do the librarian and the technology staff collaborate on a regular basis?

Yes No DNK

Does a visible advocate in your school, such as a superintendent or principal, support library technology use?

Yes No DNK



28. Does your school library have a long-range technology plan that discusses staff and student technology skill competencies? (Please circle one answer)

Yes No Do Not Know

↓

Please continue →

29. If answer to Question 28 is No, are these competencies included:

in a campus plan?

Yes No Do Not Know in a district plan?

Yes No Do Not Know

30. Does your library have unique special collection materials (for example: archives, photographic images, letters, manuscripts) that have been digitized and made available over the web?


31. If yes, what percent of your unique special collections materials would you estimate have been digitized and made available via the web?

________% _____ Do Not Know

32. Does your library have archival finding aids to assist users of special collections materials to find your materials on the web?

Yes No Do Not Know

33. In your opinion, how adequate are the following: (Circle a number for each statement)

Very Very Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate

Do Not Know 4 3 2

1 9

Funding for library equipment maintenance, repair 4 3 2 1 9 Funding for library equipment upgrades 4 3 2 1 9 Funding for library automation software and support 4 3 2 1 9 Funding for curricular software and support 4 3 2 1 9 Funding for library technology software (anti-virus, desktop security, etc.)

4 3 2 1 9

Section 3: Technology and the Curriculum



This section asks how your library uses technology to meet the needs of students and teachers and for instructional purposes. 34. How frequently do you use a Texas Library Connection database to answer a question for a library

user? (Circle one response)


1-2 times per month

Never

35. If you have used Texas Library Connection databases please give two or three recent examples of

databases you have used most frequently.

a. ____________________________________________________________________________

b. ____________________________________________________________________________

c. ____________________________________________________________________________

36. How frequently does your library staff use online resources to support teachers to do the following? (Circle a number for each statement)

Daily 1-2 times week 1-2 times month Never Do Not Know

4 3 2 1 9

Do basic library research 4 3 2 1 9 Create instructional materials/handouts 4 3 2 1 9 Enhance classroom instruction 4 3 2 1 9 Get information or pictures from the Internet for use in lessons 4 3 2 1 9 Develop electronic portfolios 4 3 2 1 9 Provide instruction on specific computer applications (spreadsheets, etc)

4 3 2 1 9

Create homework assignments 4 3 2 1 9 Correspond with parents 4 3 2 1 9 Create web-based courses or tutorials for students 4 3 2 1 9 Create web-based courses or tutorials for teachers 4 3 2 1 9 Use video streaming 4 3 2 1 9 Use online interactive projects such as Iditerod 4 3 2 1 9 Promote and collaboratively plan with teaching staff showing curriculum integration and Texas Library Connection (TLC)

4 3 2 1 9

Promote TLC databases inside the library to administrators, parents and students

4 3 2 1 9

37. How important are the following factors in helping to integrate information technology into classroom

practice? (Circle a number for each statement)

Very Somewhat Somewhat Important Important Unimportant Unimportant

Do Not Know 4 3 2

1 9

Quality of the computer technology available 4 3 2 1 9 Adequate access to hardware and software 4 3 2 1 9 Expectations of teachers 4 3 2 1 9 Teacher initiative 4 3 2 1 9



Staff technology skills 4 3 2 1 9 Teacher technology skills 4 3 2 1 9 Student technology skills 4 3 2 1 9 Resources that support the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills 4 3 2 1 9 Relationship to student coursework 4 3 2 1 9 Available time 4 3 2 1 9

38. How frequently do you use library technology to assist users for the following: (Circle a number for

each statement)

Daily 1-2 times week 1-2 times month Never Do Not Know 4 3 2 1 9

To do Internet searches 4 3 2 1 9 To search Texas Library Connection (TLC) databases 4 3 2 1 9 To use local software (Microsoft Word, etc.) 4 3 2 1 9 To search public access catalog 4 3 2 1 9 To use interlibrary loan 4 3 2 1 9

Please continue →

39. In your opinion, to what extent has the availability of online resources had an impact on the following? (Circle a number for each statement) Definitely Somewhat Not Much Not at All

Do Not Know 4 3 2

1 9

Strengthened students’ research skills 4 3 2 1 9 Improved the quality of students’ work 4 3 2 1 9 Helped students to work more effectively in groups 4 3 2 1 9 Enhanced students’ interest and motivation 4 3 2 1 9 Increased creative and critical thinking 4 3 2 1 9 Facilitated collaborative work efforts 4 3 2 1 9 Promoted the role of the teacher as facilitator 4 3 2 1 9 Promoted the role of the librarian as facilitator 4 3 2 1 9 Engaged students in interdisciplinary activities 4 3 2 1 9 Incorporated skills relevant to the workplace 4 3 2 1 9 Created more access to the library beyond the scheduled school day

4 3 2 1 9

Created additional need for teachers to incorporate technology, databases, into content.

4 3 2 1 9

40. In your opinion, how important are the following as barriers to the use of your library’s Internet

services? (Circle one number for each statement)


Do Not Know 4 3 2

1 9

Cost of computer hardware 4 3 2 1 9 Cost of computer software 4 3 2 1 9 Cost of training and education 4 3 2 1 9



Cost of phone charges 4 3 2 1 9 Inadequacy of local telecommunications access 4 3 2 1 9 Cost of telecommunications line to Internet Service Provider 4 3 2 1 9 Cost of Internet Service Provider monthly fees 4 3 2 1 9 Physical space limitations 4 3 2 1 9 Inadequacy of Internet speed 4 3 2 1 9 Lack of training on how use the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Lack of in-house technical expertise 4 3 2 1 9 Lack of management support 4 3 2 1 9 Staff’s limited time for using technology 4 3 2 1 9 Teachers’ limited time for using technology 4 3 2 1 9 Students’ limited time for using technology 4 3 2 1 9 Librarians’ lack of skills in using technology 4 3 2 1 9 Teachers’ lack of skills in using technology 4 3 2 1 9 Teacher’s lack of understanding on how to incorporate technology in classroom instruction.

4 3 2 1 9

Students’ lack of skills in using technology 4 3 2 1 9 Lack of adequate funding to sustain technology 4 3 2 1 9

Other: (Please specify) ____________________________________________________________

Please continue → Section 4: Training Issues

This section asks you to assess training needs for yourself and/or your staff.

41. How do you currently get training? (Please circle the appropriate answer. DNK=Do Not Know)

TIF tech training Yes No DNKIn-house training from your library or jurisdiction Yes No DNKLocal commercial providers Yes No DNKDistance education Yes No DNKRegional Educational Service Centers Yes No DNKDistrict technology department Yes No DNK

Other: (Please specify) _____________________________________________________________

42. For the last year, approximately how many days per staff member were allotted to technology

training for the following? (Check the appropriate # of days or other choice for each statement)

Number of days Your library automation system 1 2-5 6-10 11-15 16+ No training in

the last year Do not know

Texas Library Connection database content and use, scoping

1 2-5 6-10 11-15 16+ No training in the last year

Do not know

TLC databases


Do not know

Personal computer training 1 2-5 6-10 11-15 16+ No training in the last year

Do not know

Internet searching


Do not know



43. If you attended TIF technical training, how effective was this training in promoting your understanding of these ideas? (Circle a number for each statement) Very Somewhat Somewhat Very

Effective Effective Ineffective Ineffective Not Applicable 4 3 2

1 9

Creating an understanding of the history and design of the Internet

4 3 2 1 9

Helping you manage Internet use at your library 4 3 2 1 9 Helping you understand how Internet access can affect student performance

4 3 2 1 9

Assisting you in involving parents and the community in the Internet program at your school

4 3 2 1 9

Please continue →



44. How important would you rate the need for your library staff to receive training in the following areas? (Circle a number for each statement) Very Somewhat Somewhat Important Important Unimportant Unimportant

Do Not Know 4 3 2

1 9

Learning basic computer skills 4 3 2 1 9 Teaching basic computer skills 4 3 2 1 9 Creating multimedia presentations 4 3 2 1 9 Troubleshooting computer peripheral problems 4 3 2 1 9 Troubleshooting hardware problems 4 3 2 1 9 Troubleshooting software problems 4 3 2 1 9 Using the Internet to conduct research 4 3 2 1 9 Integrating online and Internet resources into classroom assignments 4 3 2 1 9 Digitizing documents and images for use in an electronic environment (maps, etc)

4 3 2 1 9

Evaluating the quality and reliability of online information 4 3 2 1 9 Teaching students and staff about databases available from TLC 4 3 2 1 9

45. How important would you rate the need for teachers to receive training in the following areas?

(Circle a number for each statement) Very Somewhat Somewhat Important Important Unimportant Unimportant

Do Not Know 4 3 2

1 9

Learning basic computer skills 4 3 2 1 9 Teaching basic computer skills 4 3 2 1 9 Creating multimedia presentations 4 3 2 1 9 Troubleshooting computer peripheral problems 4 3 2 1 9 Troubleshooting hardware problems 4 3 2 1 9 Troubleshooting software problems 4 3 2 1 9 Using the Internet to conduct research 4 3 2 1 9 Integrating online and Internet resources into classroom assignments 4 3 2 1 9 Digitizing documents and images for use in an electronic environment (maps, etc)

4 3 2 1 9

Evaluating the quality and reliability of online information 4 3 2 1 9 Using the resources available on TLC 4 3 2 1 9 Collaborating with librarians 4 3 2 1 9

46. How important would you rate the need for students to receive training in the following areas?


Do Not Know 4 3 2

1 9

Learning basic computer skills 4 3 2 1 9 Creating multimedia presentations 4 3 2 1 9 Troubleshooting computer peripheral problems 4 3 2 1 9 Troubleshooting hardware problems 4 3 2 1 9 Troubleshooting software problems 4 3 2 1 9 Using the Internet to conduct research 4 3 2 1 9



Integrating online and Internet resources into classroom assignments 4 3 2 1 9 Digitizing documents and images for use in an electronic environment (maps, etc)

4 3 2 1 9

Evaluating the quality and reliability of online information 4 3 2 1 9 Using the resources available on TLC 4 3 2 1 9

47. Does your library staff have access to professional development programs that stress basic

technology skills?

Yes No Do Not Know 48. Does your school library have distance learning available? (Circle one answer for each)

Via T-STAR Yes No Do Not Know Via Internet Yes No Do Not Know Via videoconference Yes No Do Not Know Via teleconference Yes No Do Not Know

49. Can students utilize your library’s computers to take distance education courses offered by another

institution? Yes No Do Not Know

50. Can teachers utilize your library’s computers to take distance education courses offered by another

institution? Yes No Do Not Know

51. Can library staff utilize your library’s computers to take distance education courses offered by

another institution? Yes No Do Not Know

52. How important are the following current training needs for your library staff? (Circle a number)

Very Somewhat Somewhat Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Do Not

Know 4 3 2 1

9 Overview of Texas Library Connection Databases 4 3 2 1 9 Web based databases 4 3 2 1 9 Basic web design techniques 4 3 2 1 9 Preservation techniques 4 3 2 1 9 Resource sharing issues 4 3 2 1 9 Managing special collections 4 3 2 1 9 Managing electronic journals 4 3 2 1 9 Overview of grant writing 4 3 2 1 9 Interlibrary loan reporting software such as CLIO 4 3 2 1 9 Document transmission software for ILL such as Ariel

4 3 2 1 9

OCLC interlibrary loan issues 4 3 2 1 9 53. How important are the following future training needs for your library staff during 2003-2005?

Very Somewhat Somewhat Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Do Not

Know 4 3 2 1

9



Using the library’s online catalog 4 3 2 1 9 Using TLC online databases 4 3 2 1 9 Managing the library’s network (LAN, WAN, etc.) 4 3 2 1 9 Managing e-mail activities 4 3 2 1 9 Providing basic computer support 4 3 2 1 9 Scanning images 4 3 2 1 9 Searching the Internet 4 3 2 1 9 Processing materials and books 4 3 2 1 9 Creating/enhancing the library web site 4 3 2 1 9 Using video streaming to provide digital resources 4 3 2 1 9

54. What other training needs do you anticipate for your library staff during the time period 2003-

2005?

________________________________________________________________________________ Section 5: Technology Impact This section asks you about the impact of TIF Board funding on your library technology services. 55. Do you believe your library is serving more students coming into the library now as compared to one

year ago?


56. If you are serving more students than a year ago, please estimate the percentage increase as compared to one year ago. ________%

57. How has TIF benefited your library? Identify the two or three key benefits your library has

experienced. (Please describe.)

a. ____________________________________________________________________________

b. ____________________________________________________________________________

c. ____________________________________________________________________________ 58. What were the two or three greatest challenges you faced in applying for and/or implementing your

TIF grant(s)?

a. ____________________________________________________________________________

b. ____________________________________________________________________________

c. ____________________________________________________________________________

59. What are the most pressing needs your library faces in the next 2-3 years in fully implementing

public access to electronic information resources for your constituents? (Please describe.)

a. ____________________________________________________________________________

b. ____________________________________________________________________________

c. ____________________________________________________________________________



60. As a result of TIF Board technology funding, has your library developed other sources of local funds?

Yes No Do Not Know


Please continue →



62. As a result of TIF Board technology funding, has your library developed other grants from other sources?


63. If yes, please describe _________________________________________________________ 64. Has the receipt of TIF Board technology funds by your library encouraged your library to develop

partnerships with other institutions in your community?


65. If yes, please list your library’s partners ____________________________________________ 66. Has the receipt of TIF Board technology funds by your library encouraged your library to develop

partnerships with other TIF-eligible libraries? (TIF-eligible libraries include academic, public, K-12 schools and health-related organizations)

Yes No Do Not Know


Section 6: Future Needs This section asks about your future technology services.

68. How important is having available access to technology for your users and students in your library?


Unimportant Very Unimportant Do Not Know

69. In order to maintain your current level of computing access, please prioritize the importance of each

of the following (Please rank each statement with a “1” for most important, “2” for second most important, “3” for third most important and so on.)

Desktop computers & associated equipment

Online library catalog installation, upgrade, or replacement

Enhanced connectivity (more bandwidth, more speed)

Technical training

More online databases

Website development

Information security

Distance learning



Other: (Please specify) ________________________________________________

Please continue →



70. How important do you believe the following issues will be for your library in the next 1 to 3 years? (Circle the appropriate number for each question)


Do Not Know 4 3 2

1 9

Being able to hire library staff with technical skills 4 3 2 1 9 Providing current staff with more access to technical training 4 3 2 1 9 Overcoming staff resistance to technology 4 3 2 1 9 Improving staff digitization skills 4 3 2 1 9 Having adequate technical support for our library 4 3 2 1 9 Having adequate Internet bandwidth for our library 4 3 2 1 9 Increasing the number of library staff desktop computers 4 3 2 1 9 Increasing the number of public desktop computers 4 3 2 1 9 Increasing the number of library catalog (OPAC) computers 4 3 2 1 9 Increasing the capability of my library’s desktop computers 4 3 2 1 9 Keeping library equipment secure from viruses and other security problems

4 3 2 1 9

Replacing obsolete technology in a regular schedule 4 3 2 1 9 Managing technology issues of filtering 4 3 2 1 9 Adding more online information resources 4 3 2 1 9 Adding more wireless technology for my building 4 3 2 1 9 Having the ability to provide public laptop computing 4 3 2 1 9 Improving the level of user technical skills 4 3 2 1 9 Providing users with access to technology training 4 3 2 1 9 Integrating library technology with our district’s technology planning

4 3 2 1 9

Meeting competition from other information sources 4 3 2 1 9 Retraining staff 4 3 2 1 9 Implementing a public access catalog 4 3 2 1 9 Enhancing the public access catalog 4 3 2 1 9 Integrating technology services with traditional library services 4 3 2 1 9 Enlarging the size of the library to accommodate technology 4 3 2 1 9 Increasing staff desktop computers 4 3 2 1 9 Increasing public access catalog computers 4 3 2 1 9

Thank you for completing this survey!

Your responses are important input to the TIF Board’s planning and evaluation process.
