Making It REAL! Programs
and Student Survey Opinions
NYLA 2005 Conference
|
|
Suzanne M. Stauffer
|
|
This report also available in .PDF format. |
NYLA 2005 Programs
This report concerns the results of an evaluation survey of the participants in three programs on diversity and libraries that were sponsored by the Making It REAL! grant at the 2005 New York Library Association (NYLA) Annual Conference held in Buffalo, New York from October 26-29. The workshops were all held on Friday, October 28. Fred Gitner and Younshin Kim of the Queens Borough Public Library (a Making It REAL! Teaching Library partner) offered program 1, Reaching Immigrant Populations: Serving the Culturally and Linguistically Diverse - the New Americans Program Model, from 8:00-9:15 a.m. Pascal Pine, Linda Caycedo, and Elisabeth Olesh of New York Public Library (another Making It REAL! Teaching Library partner) offered program 2, Librarians' Toolkit for Serving Spanish Speakers, from 9:35-10:50 a.m. Finally Valerie Lewis of the Suffolk Cooperative Library System and Robert McBrien of the Andrew Heiskell Braille and Talking Book Library presented program 3, Disability Awareness and Resources for Your Library from 3:30-4:45 p.m. Participants were asked to complete an evaluation survey at the end of each program. Tables showing rating responses are in the Appendix as well.
This report also includes the results of several questions from a different survey of Making It REAL! scholarship students concerning whether they were going to attend the NYLA 2005 and why they were going (or not going). Four to eight of the scholarship program students who were able to attend NYLA 2005 were at the programs mentioned above.
Chart 1. Overall results for All Three Programs, Survey Question Two
SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; NO = No Opinion; D = Disagree ; SD = Strongly Disagree ; NA = No Answer |
Overall the programs were evaluated very positively by 74 survey respondents[1] on nearly
every item in question two of the survey, with 92% of the overall responses either "Strongly Agree" or
"Agree" and only 3% "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree." Non-response rates were 1%
to 12%, with non-responses above 5% for only two factors. The items asked about in question two are shown in the
Appendix in Table 1 and in abbreviated form below in Chart 2. [1] This is a duplicated count since some people attended more than one of the sessions. Because of inconsistencies in the data it was impossible to derive an unduplicated count of individuals who attended one or more of the programs. At least 40 did. |
Program 1, Reaching Immigrant Populations: Serving the Culturally and Linguistically Diverse - the New Americans Program Model
The 16 people who attended Program 1, Reaching Immigrant Populations, generally had a very positive response (in the 87% to 94% "strongly agree" or "agree" range) on all but two of the program factors covered in question two of the survey. Only 10% strongly agreed and none agreed that the presenter addressed participants' questions, with most (70%) neutral. Two people strongly disagreed. Only 13% strongly agreed and 56% agreed that they felt "prepared to provide professional development on program-specific ideas or approaches to others." Results for all items in question two regarding this program are shown in Table 4 in the Appendix.
Of the twelve responses to question 3, "Please briefly describe one concept or approach that you learned from this program," one said "Nothing I didn't really know," leaving eleven (69% of participants) who indicated that they had learned something. Of these, nine mentioned "developing partnerships in the community" or "marketing to ethnic communities." The remaining two referred to "major sources of data for community analysis" and "criteria of purchasing and developing a collection," both of which could be interpreted as "marketing." All five Making It REAL! participants (4 scholarship recipients and one partner) responded to the question. Being able to answer such a question is an indicator in the overall evaluation of the Making It REAL!, so the students and staff who attended this program all met the grant target.
The responses to question 4, "How could this program be made better?" provide an explanation for the two relatively lower ratings of this program. One respondent wrote that "It was very informative already," leaving ten critical responses. Fully half of those complained that there was no time for questions from the audience. This explains the low evaluation of "Participants' questions and concerns were addressed effectively." One participant left the item blank and wrote the letters "NA" for "not applicable" in the margin, indicating that questions and concerns were not addressed at all. Of the remaining comments, two (one a scholarship recipient) asked for printed copies of the electronic slide show, (again possibly suggesting that too much information may have been presented). One person complained that there was too much information about Queens and not enough about New York State. The presenters were from Queens Borough Library. One (a scholarship recipient) remarked that a presenter was difficult to hear. One (a scholarship student) suggested "lectures and workshops to help immigrants to life in their new country."
Program 2, Librarians' Toolkit for Serving Spanish Speakers
Program 2, Librarians' Toolkit for Serving Spanish Speakers, was the best attended of the three programs, with 40 survey respondents. It was also by far the best-received program, with all of the question two factors in the 92% to 100% "strongly agree" or "agree" range. Results for all items in question two concerning this program are shown in Table 5 in the Appendix.
Not surprisingly in light of the overwhelmingly positive response, three-quarters of the participants reported in question 3 that they had learned a new concept or approach. The majority (19) cited Spanish-language resources, including websites, and collection development. Another three refer to programming ideas, and the remaining mentioned the importance of knowing the community and outreach. The one identified Making It REAL! Scholarship recipient noted: "I now have many ideas and resources that I can utilize while collaborating with the Spanish teachers in our school."
Only 12 of the 40 participants responded to question 4, "How could this program be made better?" Of these, more than half praised the presentation - "All good," "It was perfection as presented," "Thanks for the food. I am always impressed by Lorda, Wilma, Elizabeth, & QBPL whenever they present. Thanks for making it fresh!", "You promised gold & delivered; outstanding!" and "Offer it on an annual basis." One who had also attended Program 1 noted, "I found the program to be very helpful & the opportunity for reactions & comments from the audience were also helpful." At least one comment was a suggestion for an additional program, not improvement of this one, "Please do a program spin off of just children's ideas." Several suggestions for improvement seem to be outside the scope of the program as described: "Include info not only on cultural programming, but also practical workshops (?) to assist immigrants." "Include more for prison populations." "More varied sources, ex - periodicals." "Examples of programs." and "Info on poetry & fotonovelos [sic] for those of us working with ESOL or correction facility patrons."
Program 3, Disability Awareness and Resources for Your Library
Program 3, Disability Awareness and Resources for Your Library, had 18 surveys returned, making it second best attended of the three. It also fell in the middle in ratings, with all but one response in the 87% to 94% range, except for one item. Only 13% strongly agreed and 38% agreed that they felt "prepared to provide professional development on program-specific ideas or approaches to others." Results for all items in question two for this program are in Table 6 of the Appendix.
All twelve of those who responded to question 3 noted that they had learned how to provide information and services to the blind and/or deaf, including the proper means of approach, variations in sight and hearing loss, improved signage and lighting, and the use of new electronic technologies. Making It REAL! participants answered with the majority on this question.
Responses to question 4 resemble those to Program 1. Of the seven who responded, four focused on time and organization, including technical issues, three suggested including the scope to include other disabilities in addition to the blind and the deaf, and one asked for more current materials.
Making It REAL! Partner Staff Responses to the NYLA 2005 Programs
A maximum of five (5) staff of Making It REAL! partners (other than presenters) attended any of the three programs and identified themselves as partner staff on the survey. A minimum of three (3) is possible, since that is the number who attended the second program and people could attend more than one program. The responses did not allow a clear determination of the unduplicated count of partner staff that attended the programs. None identified themselves as LIS faculty, so these were apparently all librarians or library staff of the Teaching Libraries. Those who did attend received the programs well, with 80% to 100% using the "strongly agree" or "agree" responses, especially the "agree" response, on all items. Their lowest rating was the neutral "no opinion." The partner ratings for question two, all programs combined, are shown in Table 3 in the Appendix.
Making It REAL! Scholarship Student Responses to the NYLA 2005 Programs
A maximum of eight (8) Making It REAL! scholarship students attended any of the three programs and identified themselves as such on the survey. A minimum of four (4) is possible since that is the number who attended the first program, with one at the second and three (3) at the third. Again, it is impossible to provide an unduplicated count of student attendees of these programs, since some students said they went to more than one program. Those who did attend received the programs well, with 86% to 100% "strongly agree" or "agree" responses, except for three items. About 80% strongly agreed or agreed that participants' questions and concerns were addressed effectively. About 75% strongly agreed or agreed that the program left them better "prepared to provide professional development on program-specific ideas or approaches to others." A still acceptable 71% strongly agreed that they would recommend this program to others, with one neutral and one disagreeing. The student ratings for question two, all programs combined, are given in Table 2 in the Appendix.
Demographics of Respondents
Although the majority of participants were white, non-disabled female librarians, twelve, or 16%, of the participants indicated that they were in one or more of the targeted diversity groups. Program 1 attracted the greatest racial/ethnic diversity with one African-American, one Asian-Pacific Island, one Hispanic, and two of other ethnicities, making up more than 30% of the audience. Program 1 also attracted one of the two identified disabled people, raising the overall diversity rate to 37.5%. Program 2, with more than twice the number of participants had a much lower diversity rate of only 10% (one African-American, one Asian/Pacific Island, one Hispanic and one Mixed Race/Other Ethnicity) and no disabled. However, it is important to note that eight at this program did not respond to the question on disability. Program 3 only attracted one member of an ethnic minority, one Hispanic (with two non-respondents), and one disabled individual (with three non-respondents).
The majority (51 or 70%) of participants were Librarians or Information Professionals, five of whom indicated that they were involved with Making It REAL!. There were also fourteen total students (19%) and eight administrators (about 10%) in the audiences, and two no answer. Of the 14 student responses, eight indicated that they were Making It REAL! scholarship recipients.
Of the non-respondents, two did not respond to the question on gender, eleven did not respond to the question about disability, and four did not respond to the question about race/ethnic origin. (See Table 7 in the Appendix).
Although thirteen respondents identified themselves as library school students, only eight of those indicated that they were Making It REAL! scholarship recipients. It seems possible that several of those who identified themselves as students neglected to also identify themselves as scholarship recipients. All eight recipients were female; one was an African-American, one an Asian/Pacific Islander, two were white, and two were disabled. One also identified herself as working as an administrator in a library. (See Table 8 in the Appendix)
Of the five participants who identified themselves as partners, 60 % (3) were female, none were disabled, one was an African-American, one an Asian/Pacific Islander and three were white. All were librarians or information professionals. (See Table 9 in the Appendix)
Student Survey Results Concerning NYLA 2005 Attendance
A separate student survey conducted by REAP Change Consultants in September and October 2005 asked 40 Making It REAL! scholarship recipients if they planned to attend NYLA 2005. Of the 37 who responded, 41% didn't know, 32% replied "Yes," 22% answered "No," and 5% checked "Maybe." The New York State Library Association meeting is the major annual state library conference and should be worth the while for students to attend, especially since the three Making It REAL! programs described above were going to be offered.
Chart 3. Student Plans to Attend NYLA 2005
|
Although the result is not demonstrably statistically significant because of the small numbers of students involved,[2] there is an important correlation of type of scholarship student with anticipated attendance
at NYLA 2005. Over half of the students (55%) with university awarded scholarships answered "don't know"
when asked if they would attend NYLA 2005 (compared to 20% of the Teaching Library scholarship students), while
47% of the Teaching Library students gave a more definite "No" response (compared to 5% of the university
awardees). [2] Pearson Chi-Square = 10.277, df=3, p = .016, but five (5) cells or 62.5% had an expected count less than 5, making the Chi-Square results unreliable, and the minimum expected count was .81 or less than one person (an impossibility). Phi = .527, p = .016 based on the Chi-Square value. |
Student Expectations of Gains from Attending NYLA 2005
The 14 students who answered "Yes" or "Maybe" to the screening question were then asked to separately rate eight reasons for attending on a scale of 1 (most expected gain) to 5 (least expected gain), or to check "not a reason for me to attend."
Chart 4. Primary Reasons to Attend NYLA 2005 - Most or Second Most Expected Gain
|
As seen in Chart 4 [left], the students mostly expected to get the largest or second largest gain from attending NYLA 2005 from four factors:
The last would have had to be informal since there were no special events planned at NYLA 2005 to specifically bring together Making It REAL! partners and students. Learning about diversity was also considered something to gain from NYLA 2005, and the three Making It REAL! programs offered at the conference would have allowed that to happen. Interestingly, just 64% of the students saw "Increased skills as a librarian" as something to especially gain from going to the state conference. Only half were interested in job hunting at this conference, but that is not surprising since they were just in their first term or two of library school. Only about one-third expected to gain much from traveling to another city or part of New York. There were no important or significant differences in these responses by origin of the scholarship. |
Reasons Students Weren't Going to NYLA 2005
The students who weren't planning to attend NYLA, who were unsure about it, or just didn't know where asked "what is keeping you from going"? They were given six (6) possible reasons and could check as many as were applicable, and write in additional responses. The results are shown in Chart 5.
Chart 5. Reasons Students Weren't Attending NYLA 2005 or Were Unsure About It
|
The primary reason to not attend or being unsure about attending NYLA 2005 was financial - the cost of travel was
mentioned by 60% of the students. In fact Making It REAL! project manager was able to find some funds to
subsidize travel, although students might not have been aware of that when they took the survey, or perhaps thought
the amount was too little. Time conflicts with either schoolwork or paying work affected almost half of the students
who weren't planning to go (48% and 44% respectively). Interestingly, more than one-fourth of the students were
not aware of the conference or of when it was being held. One out of six students mentioned family time conflicts.
No one said that she was not interested in going to the conference. There were no significant or important differences
in these reasons by whether the student received a Teaching Library or a university scholarship award. Three students with Teaching Library awards gave "other" reasons of "conflict with previous travel plans," "cost of hotel," and "I think going this year would be too much to handle since it will be the mid-point of my first semester. I had attended last year and plan on attending the conference in 2006." Two students with university awarded scholarships said: "I have to check with my school." And "If I had known earlier the date of the conference, I would have arranged my vacation time accordingly. With this in mind, I should be able to attend the conference next year." |
Conclusions
The Making It REAL! funds brought about three largely very successful programs focused on three distinct diversity issues. They were for the most part quite well received, and people walked away with more information than they had on arrival. The Making It REAL! partners and students who attended, as well as most other participants, were able to identify one or more things that they had learned. The second and third program in particular introduced participants to specific library resources related to Spanish speakers and to the blind and seeing disabled. Some participants left wanting even more resource information, notably that concerning children's services and library service in the criminal justice system. The one thing consistently lower rated, and apparently not planned for in the presentations, was training program participants so that they would feel comfortable going back to their current or future library systems, Councils, or branches and train others. With limited grant funds, NYSL cannot offer diversity programs like this every year. There is a demand for and appreciation of these kinds of diversity related programs, if some way can be found to mount them at NYLA meetings on a frequent basis. The second program, geared toward the needs of Spanish speaking communities and library clients, was the best attended and the best received, overall. It would seem to be worth repeating.
Making It REAL! scholarship students are eager to attend NYLA meetings, although about two-thirds were not able to go in 2006 or unsure they would go. Finances - the cost of travel and hotels - are a primary block to attendance. Time is a second block, although if given advance information about the conference, students seemed willing to juggle their school, work, and even family obligations to make time for the conference. Primary reasons that the students want to attend NYLA are to gain knowledge in library areas of interest to them, network with both students and professional library and information science people from throughout New York, and network with other Making It REAL! students and staff.. Faculty and staff in the recruitment survey (and in the June 2005 workshops) and now students all want to network and meet face-to-face with others in this grant funded program. This was not possible to arrange for NYLA 2005 but would be desirable for NYLA 2006 since students, faculty, and staff are all asking for more networking opportunities.
APPENDIX
Table 1 - All Question to Question Two, All Programs Combined
|
SA |
A |
NO |
D |
SD |
SA to SD |
NA* |
Total |
|
| 2a) I have improved my content knowledge about the topics covered |
45 |
26 |
1 |
1 |
|
73 |
1 |
74 |
| Percentage |
62% |
36% |
1% |
1% |
0% |
100% |
1% |
|
| 2b) I have a better understanding of how to apply what I learned in this program to my work |
36 |
33 |
1 |
2 |
|
72 |
2 |
74 |
| Percentage |
50% |
46% |
1% |
3% |
0% |
100% |
3% |
|
| 2c) Participants' questions and concerns were addressed effectively |
29 |
25 |
9 |
|
2 |
65 |
9 |
74 |
| Percentage |
45% |
38% |
14% |
0% |
3% |
100% |
12% |
|
| 2d) As a result of this program, I feel prepared to provide professional development on program-specific ideas or approaches to others |
23 |
32 |
11 |
4 |
1 |
71 |
3 |
74 |
| Percentage |
32% |
45% |
15% |
6% |
1% |
100% |
4% |
|
| 2e) I have a better understanding of the library service needs of diverse communities discussed in this workshop than I did before attending it |
34 |
34 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
72 |
2 |
74 |
| Percentage |
47% |
47% |
3% |
1% |
1% |
100% |
3% |
|
| 2f) I now have a better understanding of tools, resources or approaches to serving the library needs of the diverse communities discussed |
36 |
30 |
2 |
1 |
|
69 |
5 |
74 |
| Percentage |
52% |
43% |
3% |
1% |
0% |
100% |
7% |
|
| 2g) Presenters relayed information clearly |
37 |
32 |
1 |
2 |
|
72 |
2 |
74 |
| Percentage |
51% |
44% |
1% |
3% |
0% |
100% |
3% |
|
| 2h) I would recommend this program to others |
40 |
26 |
1 |
3 |
|
70 |
4 |
74 |
| Percentage |
57% |
37% |
1% |
4% |
0% |
100% |
5% |
|
| Total |
280 |
238 |
28 |
14 |
4 |
564 |
28 |
592 |
| Percentage |
50% |
42% |
5% |
2% |
1% |
100% |
5% |
|
SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; NO = No Opinion; D = Disagree ; SD = Strongly Disagree. Percentages are based on the sum of the above answers except for NA. Totals may not add up to 100% because of rounding.
* NA = No Answer. Percentage is based on the total number of surveys returned.
Table 2 - All Question Two Answers, All Workshops, Making it REAL! Scholarship Students' Responses Only
|
SA |
A |
NO |
D |
SD |
SA to SD |
NA* |
Total |
|
| 2a) I have improved my content knowledge about the topics covered |
8 |
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
8 |
| Percentage |
100% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
| 2b) I have a better understanding of how to apply what I learned in this program to my work |
6 |
2 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
8 |
| Percentage |
75% |
25% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
| 2c) Participants' questions and concerns were addressed effectively |
3 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
5 |
3 |
8 |
| Percentage |
60% |
20% |
20% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
38% |
|
| 2d) As a result of this program, I feel prepared to provide professional development on program-specific ideas or approaches to others |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
8 |
|
8 |
| Percentage |
38% |
38% |
25% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
| 2e) I have a better understanding of the library service needs of diverse communities discussed in this workshop than I did before attending it |
7 |
1 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
8 |
| Percentage |
88% |
13% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
| 2f) I now have a better understanding of tools, resources or approaches to serving the library needs of the diverse communities discussed |
5 |
1 |
|
|
|
6 |
2 |
8 |
| Percentage |
83% |
17% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
25% |
|
| 2g) Presenters relayed information clearly |
5 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
7 |
1 |
8 |
| Percentage |
71% |
14% |
14% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
13% |
|
| 2h) I would recommend this program to others |
5 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
7 |
1 |
8 |
| Percentage |
71% |
0% |
14% |
14% |
0% |
100% |
13% |
|
| Total |
42 |
9 |
5 |
1 |
|
57 |
7 |
|
| Percentage |
74% |
16% |
9% |
2% |
0% |
100% |
11% |
|
SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; NO = No Opinion; D = Disagree ; SD = Strongly Disagree. Percentages are based on the sum of the above answers except for NA. Totals may not add up to 100% because of rounding.
* NA = No Answer. Percentage is based on the total number of surveys returned.
Table 3 - All Question Two Answers, All Workshops, Making it REAL! Partners Only
|
SA |
A |
NO |
D |
SD |
SA to SD |
NA* |
Total |
|
| 2a) I have improved my content knowledge about the topics covered |
2 |
3 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
5 |
| Percentage |
40% |
60% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
| 2b) I have a better understanding of how to apply what I learned in this program to my work |
1 |
4 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
5 |
| Percentage |
20% |
80% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
| 2c) Participants' questions and concerns were addressed effectively |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
5 |
|
5 |
| Percentage |
40% |
40% |
20% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
| 2d) As a result of this program, I feel prepared to provide professional development on program-specific ideas or approaches to others |
1 |
3 |
1 |
|
|
5 |
|
5 |
| Percentage |
20% |
60% |
20% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
| 2e) I have a better understanding of the library service needs of diverse communities discussed in this workshop than I did before attending it |
1 |
4 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
5 |
| Percentage |
20% |
80% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
| 2f) I now have a better understanding of tools, resources or approaches to serving the library needs of the diverse communities discussed |
1 |
4 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
5 |
| Percentage |
20% |
80% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
| 2g) Presenters relayed information clearly |
3 |
2 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
5 |
| Percentage |
60% |
40% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
| 2h) I would recommend this program to others |
1 |
4 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
5 |
| Percentage |
20% |
80% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
| Total |
12 |
26 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
40 |
0 |
40 |
| Percentage |
30% |
65% |
5% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; NO = No Opinion; D = Disagree ; SD = Strongly Disagree. Percentages are based on the sum of the above answers except for NA. Totals may not add up to 100% because of rounding.
* NA = No Answer. Percentage is based on the total number of surveys returned.
Table 4 - All Question Two Answers, Program One, Reaching Immigrant Populations
|
SA |
A |
NO |
D |
SD |
SA to SD |
NA* |
Total |
|
| 2a) I have improved my content knowledge about the topics covered |
8 |
7 |
1 |
|
|
16 |
|
16 |
| Percentage |
50% |
44% |
6% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
| 2b) I have a better understanding of how to apply what I learned in this program to my work |
6 |
9 |
1 |
|
|
16 |
|
16 |
| Percentage |
38% |
56% |
6% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
| 2c) Participants' questions and concerns were addressed effectively |
1 |
|
7 |
|
2 |
10 |
6 |
16 |
| Percentage |
10% |
0% |
70% |
0% |
20% |
100% |
38% |
|
| 2d) As a result of this program, I feel prepared to provide professional development on program-specific ideas or approaches to others |
2 |
9 |
4 |
|
|
16 |
|
16 |
| Percentage |
13% |
56% |
25% |
6% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
| 2e) I have a better understanding of the library service needs of diverse communities discussed in this workshop than I did before attending it |
8 |
7 |
|
|
1 |
16 |
|
16 |
| Percentage |
50% |
44% |
0% |
0% |
6% |
100% |
0% |
|
| 2f) I now have a better understanding of tools, resources or approaches to serving the library needs of the diverse communities discussed |
9 |
4 |
2 |
|
|
15 |
1 |
16 |
| Percentage |
60% |
27% |
13% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
6% |
|
| 2g) Presenters relayed information clearly |
8 |
7 |
|
1 |
|
16 |
|
16 |
| Percentage |
44% |
50% |
0% |
6% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
| 2h) I would recommend this program to others |
8 |
6 |
|
2 |
|
16 |
|
16 |
| Percentage |
50% |
38% |
0% |
13% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
| Total |
49 |
50 |
15 |
4 |
3 |
121 |
7 |
128 |
| Percentage |
40% |
41% |
12% |
3% |
2% |
100% |
5% |
|
SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; NO = No Opinion; D = Disagree ; SD = Strongly Disagree. Percentages are based on the sum of the above answers except for NA. Totals may not add up to 100% because of rounding.
* NA = No Answer. Percentage is based on the total number of surveys returned.
Table 5 - All Question Two Answers, Program Two, Librarians' Toolkit for Serving Spanish Speakers
|
SA |
A |
NO |
D |
SD |
SA to SD |
NA* |
Total |
|
| 2a) I have improved my content knowledge about the topics covered |
30 |
10 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
40 |
| Percentage |
75% |
25% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
| 2b) I have a better understanding of how to apply what I learned in this program to my work |
22 |
17 |
|
|
|
39 |
1 |
40 |
| Percentage |
56% |
44% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
3% |
|
| 2c) Participants' questions and concerns were addressed effectively |
21 |
16 |
1 |
|
|
38 |
1 |
39 |
| Percentage |
55% |
42% |
3% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
3% |
|
| 2d) As a result of this program, I feel prepared to provide professional development on program-specific ideas or approaches to others |
19 |
17 |
3 |
|
|
39 |
1 |
40 |
| Percentage |
49% |
44% |
8% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
3% |
|
| 2e) I have a better understanding of the library service needs of diverse communities discussed in this workshop than I did before attending it |
19 |
18 |
2 |
|
|
39 |
1 |
40 |
| Percentage |
49% |
46% |
5% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
3% |
|
| 2f) I now have a better understanding of tools, resources or approaches to serving the library needs of the diverse communities discussed |
25 |
14 |
|
|
|
39 |
1 |
40 |
| Percentage |
64% |
36% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
3% |
|
| 2g) Presenters relayed information clearly |
28 |
12 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
40 |
| Percentage |
70% |
30% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
| 2h) I would recommend this program to others |
29 |
10 |
|
|
|
39 |
1 |
40 |
| Percentage |
74% |
26% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
3% |
|
| Total |
193 |
114 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
313 |
6 |
319 |
| Percentage |
62% |
36% |
2% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
2% |
|
SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; NO = No Opinion; D = Disagree ; SD = Strongly Disagree. Percentages are based on the sum of the above answers except for NA. Totals may not add up to 100% because of rounding.
* NA = No Answer. Percentage is based on the total number of surveys returned.
Table 6 - All Question Two Answers, Program Three, Disability Awareness and Resources for Your Library
|
SA |
A |
NO |
D |
SD |
SA to SD |
NA* |
Total |
|
| 2a) I have improved my content knowledge about the topics covered |
7 |
9 |
|
1 |
|
17 |
1 |
18 |
| Percentage |
41% |
53% |
0% |
6% |
0% |
100% |
6% |
|
| 2b) I have a better understanding of how to apply what I learned in this program to my work |
8 |
7 |
|
2 |
|
17 |
1 |
18 |
| Percentage |
47% |
41% |
0% |
12% |
0% |
100% |
6% |
|
| 2c) Participants' questions and concerns were addressed effectively |
7 |
9 |
1 |
|
|
17 |
1 |
18 |
| Percentage |
41% |
53% |
6% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
6% |
|
| 2d) As a result of this program, I feel prepared to provide professional development on program-specific ideas or approaches to others |
2 |
6 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
16 |
2 |
18 |
| Percentage |
13% |
38% |
25% |
19% |
6% |
100% |
11% |
|
| 2e) I have a better understanding of the library service needs of diverse communities discussed in this workshop than I did before attending it |
7 |
9 |
|
1 |
|
17 |
1 |
18 |
| Percentage |
41% |
53% |
0% |
6% |
0% |
100% |
6% |
|
| 2f) I now have a better understanding of tools, resources or approaches to serving the library needs of the diverse communities discussed |
2 |
12 |
|
1 |
|
15 |
3 |
18 |
| Percentage |
13% |
80% |
0% |
7% |
0% |
100% |
17% |
|
| 2g) Presenters relayed information clearly |
2 |
12 |
1 |
1 |
|
16 |
2 |
18 |
| Percentage |
13% |
67% |
7% |
7% |
0% |
100% |
11% |
|
| 2h) I would recommend this program to others |
3 |
10 |
1 |
1 |
|
15 |
3 |
18 |
| Percentage |
20% |
67% |
7% |
7% |
0% |
100% |
17% |
|
| Total |
38 |
74 |
7 |
10 |
1 |
130 |
14 |
144 |
| Percentage |
29% |
57% |
5% |
8% |
1% |
100% |
10% |
|
SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; NO = No Opinion; D = Disagree ; SD = Strongly Disagree. Percentages are based on the sum of the above answers except for NA. Totals may not add up to 100% because of rounding.
* NA = No Answer. Percentage is based on the total number of surveys returned.
Table 7. All Responses by Characteristics and by Program
| Program 1: Reaching Immigrant Populations 8:00-9:15 a.m. |
% |
Program 2: Librarians' Toolkit for Serving Spanish Speakers 9:35-10:50 a.m. |
% |
Program 3: Disability Awareness and Resources for Your Library 3:30-4:45 p.m. |
% |
|
| Total Surveys |
16 |
100% |
40 |
100% |
18 |
100% |
| Men |
3 |
19% |
7 |
18% |
4 |
22% |
| Women |
13 |
81% |
32 |
80% |
13 |
72% |
| No Answer |
|
0% |
1 |
3% |
1 |
6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Disabled |
1 |
6% |
|
0% |
1 |
6% |
| Not Disabled |
15 |
94% |
32 |
80% |
14 |
78% |
| No Answer |
|
0% |
8 |
20% |
3 |
6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| African-American |
1 |
6% |
1 |
3% |
|
0% |
| Asian- Pacific Islander |
1 |
6% |
1 |
3% |
|
0% |
| Hispanic |
1 |
6% |
1 |
3% |
1 |
6% |
| White |
11 |
69% |
34 |
85% |
15 |
83% |
| Other |
2 |
13% |
1 |
3% |
|
0% |
| No Answer |
|
0% |
2 |
5% |
2 |
11% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LIS Professional |
11 |
69% |
31 |
78% |
9 |
50% |
| Administrator |
|
0% |
6 |
15% |
2 |
11% |
| LIS Faculty |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
| ML(I)S Student |
5 |
31% |
2 |
5% |
6 |
33% |
| Ph.D. Student |
|
0% |
1 |
3% |
|
0% |
| No Answer |
|
0% |
1 |
3% |
1 |
6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Attended Program 1 |
|
0% |
12 |
30% |
2 |
11% |
| Plan to Attend Program 2 |
9 |
56% |
|
0% |
2 |
11% |
| Plan to Attend Program 3 |
8 |
50% |
6 |
15% |
|
0% |
Table 8. Scholarship Recipients in Attendance, by Characteristic and by Program
| Program 1: Reaching Immigrant Populations 8:00-9:15 a.m. |
% |
Program 2: Librarians' Toolkit for Serving Spanish Speakers 9:35-10:50 a.m. |
% |
Program 3: Disability Awareness and Resources for Your Library 3:30-4:45 p.m. |
% |
|
| Total Surveys |
4 |
100% |
1 |
100% |
3 |
100% |
| Men |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
| Women |
4 |
100% |
1 |
100% |
3 |
100% |
| No Answer |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Disabled |
1 |
25% |
|
0% |
1 |
33% |
| Not Disabled |
3 |
75% |
1 |
100% |
1 |
33% |
| No Answer |
|
0% |
|
0% |
1 |
33% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| African-American |
1 |
25% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
| Asian- Pacific Islander |
1 |
25% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
| Hispanic |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
| White |
2 |
50% |
1 |
100% |
3 |
100% |
| Other |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
| No Answer |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LIS Professional |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
| Administrator |
1 |
25% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
| LIS Faculty |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
| ML(I)S Student |
4 |
100% |
1 |
100% |
3 |
100% |
| Ph.D. Student |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
| No Answer |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Attended Program 1 |
|
0% |
1 |
100% |
2 |
67% |
| Plan to Attend Program 2 |
4 |
100% |
|
0% |
2 |
67% |
| Plan to Attend Program 3 |
4 |
100% |
1 |
100% |
|
0% |
Table 9. Making it REAL! Partners in Attendance, by Characteristic and by Program
| Program 1: Reaching Immigrant Populations 8:00-9:15 a.m. |
% |
Program 2: Librarians' Toolkit for Serving Spanish Speakers 9:35-10:50 a.m. |
% |
Program 3: Disability Awareness and Resources for Your Library 3:30-4:45 p.m. |
% |
|
| Total Surveys |
1 |
100% |
3 |
100% |
1 |
100% |
| Men |
|
0% |
1 |
33% |
1 |
100% |
| Women |
1 |
100% |
2 |
67% |
|
0% |
| No Answer |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Disabled |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
| Not Disabled |
1 |
100% |
3 |
100% |
1 |
100% |
| No Answer |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| African-American |
1 |
100% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
| Asian- Pacific Islander |
|
0% |
1 |
33% |
|
0% |
| Hispanic |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
| White |
|
0% |
2 |
67% |
1 |
100% |
| Other |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
| No Answer |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LIS Professional |
1 |
100% |
3 |
100% |
1 |
100% |
| Administrator |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
| LIS Faculty |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
| ML(I)S Student |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
| Ph.D. Student |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
| No Answer |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Attended Program 1 |
|
0% |
2 |
67% |
|
0% |
| Plan to Attend Program 2 |
1 |
100% |
|
0% |
1 |
100% |
| Plan to Attend Program 3 |
|
0% |
1 |
33% |
|
0% |
NYLA Making It REAL! Sponsored Workshops Questionnaire
NYLA used an IMLS grant awarded under the Making It REAL! project to fund the program in which you just participated. Please help us[3] evaluate the program. Use a pencil or a black or blue pen.
[3] REAP Change Consultants; 2872 Nicada Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90077-2024 is the NYSL contractor responsible for the overall evaluation of the Making It REAL! grant project and will analyze the survey results. Please contact lead evaluator Dr. Stephen C. Maack at 310-384-9717, or consultant@reapchange.com with any questions or concerns about the survey.
1) Which NYLA 2005 program did you just attend? (darken one circle)
O Reaching Immigrant Populations (8:00-9:15 a.m.)
O Librarian's Toolkit for Serving Spanish Speakers (9:35-10:50 a.m.)
O Disability Awareness and Resources for Your Library (3:30-4:45 p.m.)
| 2) Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of the following with respect to your
experience in this workshop. Darken one circle on each line. |
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
No Opinion |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
| a) I improved my content knowledge about the topics covered. |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
| b) I have a better understanding of how to apply what I learned in this program to my work. |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
| c) Participants' questions and concerns were addressed effectively. |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
| d) As a result of this program I feel prepared to provide professional development on program-specific ideas or approaches to others. |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
| e) I have a better understanding of the library service needs of diverse communities discussed in this workshop than I did before attending it. |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
| f) I now have a better understanding of tools, resources, or approaches to serving the library needs of the diverse communities discussed. |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
| g) Presenters relayed information clearly. |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
| h) I would recommend this program to others. |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
| 3) Please briefly describe one concept or approach that you learned from this program. |
| 4) How could this program be made better? |
5) Please indicate your gender. Darken one circle.
O Male
O Female
6) Please indicate your disability status. Darken one.
O Disabled
O Not Disabled
7) Which best describes you? Darken one circle.
O American Indian or Alaskan Native
O African-American
O Asian or Pacific Islander
O Hispanic, regardless of race
O White (not of Hispanic origin)
O Other or of mixed race
8) Which best describes you? Darken as many circles as apply.
O Librarian or Information Professional
O Administrator of a Library/System/Council/Information Organization
O Library/Information Studies School Faculty Member
O Library/Information Studies School Masters Student
O Library/Information Studies School Doctoral Student
9) Are you: Darken one circle only if applicable.[4]
O A Making It REAL! Scholarship recipient
O A staff person, administrator or faculty member involved with the Making It REAL! project at a partner organization, who is not a scholarship recipient
[4] People affiliated with the following organizations should answer question 9: Capital Regional BOCES SLS; Mid-York Library System; Monroe County Library System; NYPL -- Branches and Science, Industry and Business Library; Northern New York Library Network; North Country Library System; Clinton-Essex-Franklin Library System; Franklin-Essex-Hamilton SLS; Onondaga County PL; Queens Borough PL; Rochester Regional Library Council; SENYLRC; St. John's University LIS; Pratt Institute SILS; Palmer School of LIU; SUNY Albany SIS&P; SUNY Buffalo LIS; Syracuse University SIS.
10) Excluding the program you just attended, which of these other NYLA 2005 programs did you or do you plan to attend? (darken as many as apply)
O Reaching Immigrant Populations (8:00-9:15 a.m., Friday, October 28)
O Librarian's Toolkit for Serving Spanish Speakers (9:35-10:50 a.m., Friday, October 28)
O Disability Awareness and Resources for Your Library (3:30-4:45 p.m., Friday, October 28)
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ASSISTANCE!! PLEASE RETURN YOUR COMPLETED SURVEY TO THE PERSON COLLECTING THE SURVEY IN THE ROOM. Or mail it to REAP Change Consultants, 2872 Nicada Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90077-2024.
Back to the IMLS page | Back to the Library Development page