The full results from a 2008/2009 research study examining the application of a learning environment paradigm to the school library setting. Report the process of completing a comparative examination of the relationships among student perceptions of science programs and library programs with Third (ages 8 and 9), Fourth (ages 9 and 10) and Fifth (ages 10 and 11) Grades.

1. Assessing School Libraries as Learning
Environments:
Examining Students’ Perceptions in
Third, Fourth and Fifth GradesThird, Fourth and Fifth Grades
Barbara A. Schultz-Jones, Ph.D.
University of North Texas
Cynthia E. Ledbetter, Ph.D.
University of Texas at Dallas
IASL 39th Annual Conference,
Brisbane, Australia

2. Introduction
• Previous studies show that both strong school library
programs and positive learning environments contribute to
high student outcomes.
• Therefore, the role that a learning environment plays within
the school library media centre is of interest.
• “Learning environment refers to the social, psychological and• “Learning environment refers to the social, psychological and
pedagogical contexts in which learning occurs and which
affect student achievement and attitudes” (Fraser, 1998a,
p.3).
• This paper reports the full results of a 2008/2009 research
study that examined the application of a learning environment
paradigm to the school library setting.
9/28/2010 2Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter

3. Learning Environment
9/28/2010 3Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter

4. Background
• School library media specialists (SLMS) and
science teachers have complementary standards
related to affecting student achievement.
• Despite substantial efforts to document the• Despite substantial efforts to document the
positive relationship between SLMSs and student
achievement, any correlations between a strong
school library media program and positive
science achievement is, for the most part,
unreported.
9/28/2010 4Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter

5. Background
• Evaluation of innovative classroom
environments using My Class Inventory
– Developed with a psychological view of learning
that focused on students as co-constructors ofthat focused on students as co-constructors of
their own knowledge
– Uses a preferred and an actual form to assess
dimensions of satisfaction, competition, friction,
difficulty and cohesion
9/28/2010 5Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter

6. Research Setting
• School
– K – 5 setting with a mathematics and pre-
engineering integrated curriculum at each grade
levellevel
– Research and Design Center that functions as a
combination library and centre for the delivery of
a robotics program
9/28/2010 Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter 6

7. Participants
• 176 students in Grades 3 – 5 were surveyed
Table 1
Student demographics for Science Classes and R&D Center.
3-5th Grade Students in Science Class (n = 176) and 3-5th Grade Students in Center (n = 176)
9/28/2010 Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter 7
3-5th Grade Students in Science Class (n = 176) and 3-5th Grade Students in Center (n = 176)
Grade Male Female
African
American
Asian Hispanic
Native
American
Pacific
Islander
White Mixed
3 29 34 8 3 2 47 3
4 30 28 4 1 2 44 7
5 23 27 4 1 45
Total 82 89 16 2 5 2 136 10

8. Instruments
Table 2
Examples of the five scales from the MCI used to evaluate the learning environments of the R&D Centre and the Science Class
MCI Science MCI Library
Preferred Actual Preferred Actual
Satisfaction
In my science class the students
would enjoy their schoolwork.
The students enjoy their
schoolwork in my class.
Students would enjoy doing
their schoolwork in the R&D
centre.
Students enjoy doing their
schoolwork in the R&D centre.
Friction
In my science class students
would be always fighting with
Students are always fighting
with each other.
Students would always fight or
argue with each other in the
Students are always fighting
with each other in the R&D
9/28/2010 Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter 8
would be always fighting with
each other.
with each other. argue with each other in the
R&D centre.
with each other in the R&D
centre.
Competition
In my science class students
often would race to see who
could finish first.
Students often race to see who
can finish first.
Students would often race to
see who can find things in the
R&D Centre first.
Students often race to see who
can find things in the R&D
Centre first.
Difficulty
In my science class the work
would be hard to do.
In my class the work is hard to
do.
In my R&D Centre finding
different resources (such as
books, magazines, CDs) would
be hard to do.
In my R&D Centre finding
different resources (such as
books, magazines, CDs) is hard
to do.
Cohesion
In my science class everybody
would be my friend.
In my class everybody is my
friend.
In my R&D Centre everybody
would be my friend.
In my R&D Centre everybody
is my friend.

9. t-Test Analyses
• Why do it?
– To see if there is any difference in the averages of
scoresscores
– Tells us whether or not students perceptions are
different from preferred to perceived (actual).
9/28/2010 Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter 9

10. t-Test Analyses
• Results
– 3rd Grade:
• Prefer more friction in R&D Center than in the• Prefer more friction in R&D Center than in the
classroom
• Prefer more competition and difficulty in the science
classroom
9/28/2010 Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter 10

11. t-Test Analyses
• Results
– 4th Grade:
• Prefer more friction, competition and difficulty in R&D• Prefer more friction, competition and difficulty in R&D
Center than in the science classroom
• Perceive more satisfaction in the science classroom
than in the R&D Center
• Perceive more difficulty in the R&D Center than in the
science classroom
9/28/2010 Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter 11

12. t-Test Analyses
• Results
– 5th Grade:
• Prefer more friction in R&D Center than in the science• Prefer more friction in R&D Center than in the science
classroom
• Prefer more difficulty in the science classroom than in
the R&D Center
• Perceive more competition in the science classroom
than in the R&D Center
9/28/2010 Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter 12

13. Pearson r Correlations
• Why do it?
– Correlations tell us if one thing is related to
another; if there is an association between the
twotwo
• We’re looking at the relationship between the student
perceptions of the learning environment and state test
results
– Those associations can be positive or negative
– No correlation tells causation
– Potential to demonstrate impact of school library
9/28/2010 Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter 13

14. Pearson r Correlations
• Results
– 3rd Grade:
• Actual learning environment R&D Center perceptions
– Satisfaction is negatively correlated with friction, competition, and
difficulty; positively correlated with cohesion (matches the preferred)difficulty; positively correlated with cohesion (matches the preferred)
– Friction is positively correlated with competition and difficulty and
negatively correlated with cohesion and mathematics scores
– Difficulty is negatively correlated with cohesion, scores in mathematics
and scores in reading
• Actual learning environment science class perceptions
– Positive correlation between reading and mathematics
– No other correlations between the science class learning environment
and the math and reading scores
9/28/2010 Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter 14

15. Learning Environment
9/28/2010 Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter 15

16. Pearson r Correlations
• Results
– 4th Grade:
• Actual learning environment R&D Center perceptions
– Satisfaction is negatively correlated with friction and difficulty and
positively correlated with cohesion and mathematics scorespositively correlated with cohesion and mathematics scores
– Friction is positively correlated with competition and writing scores
and negatively correlated with cohesion and reading scores
– Reading is positively correlated with both mathematics and writing
• Actual learning environment science class perceptions
– Difficulty is negatively correlated with mathematics
– Positive correlation between reading and writing
9/28/2010 Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter 16

17. Learning Environment
9/28/2010 Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter 17

18. Pearson r Correlations
• Results
– 5th Grade:
• Actual learning environment R&D Center perceptions
– Difficulty is positively correlated with science
– Cohesion is positively correlated with mathematics– Cohesion is positively correlated with mathematics
– Positive correlation between science and mathematics and science and
reading
• Actual learning environment science class perceptions
– Negative correlation between satisfaction and friction; and satisfaction
and difficulty
– Negative correlation between satisfaction and mathematics
– Positive correlation between science and mathematics, reading and
mathematics, and reading and science
9/28/2010 Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter 18

19. Learning Environment
9/28/2010 Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter 19

20. Conclusions
• The methodology for assessing a science classroom environment can be
extended to the school library setting.
• Knowledge of student perceptions could be used to guide the evolution
and improvement of the learning environment.
• Assessment of a school library learning environment could be a key
factor in determining the success of new teaching methods andfactor in determining the success of new teaching methods and
resources.
• From a practical point of view, this study presents a new model for
considering the contribution of school libraries to the field of education,
specifically science education.
• From a research point of view, this study makes a unique contribution to
the field of learning environments by evaluating school library programs
and their relationship to classroom environments.
9/28/2010 Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter 20

21. Future Research
• Modified and validated new instruments that examine the
inquiry aspect of the learning environment
• Future research will include the application of these
instruments in a broader range of school settings
• Beyond applying these instruments to school library settings,• Beyond applying these instruments to school library settings,
the next step is consideration of intervention strategies to
affect the positive aspects of the learning environment
• Short term and longitudinal studies, including international
schools
9/28/2010 Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter 21

22. Future Research
9/28/2010 Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter 22

23. Contact Information
Barbara A. Schultz-Jones, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, School Library Program
Department of Library and Information Sciences
College of Information, University of North Texas
1155 Union Circle 311068, Denton, Texas 76203-5017
Office: 940-369-8081
Fax: 940-565-3101
Barbara.Schultz-Jones@unt.eduBarbara.Schultz-Jones@unt.edu
Cynthia E. Ledbetter, Ph.D.
Professor, Science Education
Science/Mathematics Education Department
University of Texas at Dallas
800 West Campbell Rd., FN32, Richardson, TX 75080-0688
Office: 972-883-2496
FAX: 972-883-6796
ledbetter@utdallas.edu
9/28/2010 Schultz-Jones & Ledbetter 23