NYS Library Development -- IMLS "Making it REAL" grant evaluation, Student Survey 2006

Overview. This is an interim evaluation report for the Making It REAL! (MIR) project of New York State Library which is funded by Institute of Museums and Library Services award RE-01-04-0053-04 and matching New York State funds. The report concerns the results of a survey of 34 of the 40 Making It REAL! scholarship students that took place online between August 1 and September 1, 2006. The survey focused on student progress during academic year (AY) 2005/2006, the first one in library school for most, plans for the future, and additional feedback about the grant and its activities. The respondents make up a non-random but representative selection of 85% of the scholarship students.

Staggered Start Terms. All but five of the students were in their first year of library school during AY 2005/2006. Due to program delays and recycling of funds, some students only received their scholarships beginning in January 2006 (Spring 2006). Some students started library school before receiving their scholarships (up to 12 units are allowable under scholarship terms), or reported attending library school without using scholarship funds. No students received scholarship funds when they were not in school. Most students did not attend during Summer 2005 (with or without scholarship support). Those who had scholarship funds available to them by then usually started attending library school in Fall 2005. By the Spring term of 2006 all 34 students were attending library school with MIRS support.

Part-time and Full-time Library School Attendance. Receipt of a MIR scholarship is not sufficient to encourage full-time library school attendance all of the time by all students. Some of the scholarships were only partial, not providing sufficient funds to cover even tuition and fees.
Teaching Library scholarship recipients were significantly more likely than those with University awarded scholarships to attend library school part-time and in summer terms. Since Teaching Library scholarship students often went to school part-time, their average credit unit and course loads were less than University awarded students in any term. Even their greater likelihood of summer attendance was not sufficient for Teaching Library scholarship students to match full-time University awarded scholarship students in total units earned over the course of an academic year (plus summer). The Teaching Library scholars were one or two courses behind their counterparts at the beginning of the following fall. Therefore, Teaching Library scholars should need more terms than University award scholars to complete their degrees, at the same library school.

Academic Success. MIRS students did very well academically. About two-thirds had a 3.75 average or better, including 22% with a “straight A” 4.0 average.

Core Courses. MIRS students took a wide variety of courses, but especially concentrated on required core courses in their curricula. This is normal since most were in their first year of study. The most commonly taken courses included those related to Reference/Information Access, Information Technology/Service, Fundamentals of Librarianship/Social Issues, Library Management, and Organization of Information and Cataloging.

Specialization Courses. About 62% of the courses were in areas in which students intended to specialize. Some did double duty as both core and specialization courses.

Online Courses. Almost one-quarter (22%) of the courses were online. Over half (53%) of the MIRS students took at least one online course between Summer 2005 and Spring 2006. Teaching Library scholarship students were especially likely to do so (12 took 28 online courses, while 6 University MIRS students took 9 courses), partly because some were in online-only programs offered by out-of-state universities.

Academic Problems. MIRS students passed 95% of their courses. About 84% of the students reported no specific difficulties in completing their library school work. A few students reported problems with not knowing HTML code (a computer language used for website creation), or with using it. Some experienced typical problems found once in a while at any University: e.g., use of outdated texts, unclear communication of course purposes and expectations, and instructors who didn’t know how to teach material they understood. Only one Teaching Library student reported that a MIR partner stepped in to help her with academics by arranging for her to obtain a licensed copy of software needed to do her coursework in one class. Otherwise Teaching Library students did not report any help from their libraries in relation to their academics.

Working and Going to School Simultaneously. Depending on the term, 62% to 83% of the MIRS students contended that it was somewhat or very difficult to work and attend school at the same time. As they had predicted in earlier reports, Teaching Library students were mostly working while going to school. When University award MIRS students work, they worked about the same range of hours as Teaching Library students, but a greater proportion of the Teaching Library students worked 31 hours or more per week. The way that Teaching Library students navigate work and school is to cut back on the school by going part-time. Only 8 students going to library school full-time in Spring 2006 were working, compared to 20 going to school part-time and working.

Future Library School Plans. Future library school attendance plans indicate that Teaching Library students are more likely to intend to take courses in Summer 2006 and Summer 2007 than University award recipients. When most students from both subgroups expect to be in school in the Fall and Spring terms, Teaching Library students plan on taking four to 6 units (two courses); for the most part. University award recipients will most likely take 10 to 12 units in the fall (4 courses) and 7 to 9 in the spring (3 courses). Second year students plan to take fewer courses each term.

The required core courses at the Universities that the students are attending vary considerably, from 4 to 13. In 2006/2007 students usually had none to three core courses left to take if there were between four and seven required courses at their library schools. The MIRS students as a group are progressing normally in completion of core courses.

Reasons for students planned schedules for taking core courses certain terms remind us that student plans are subject to faculty plans and exigencies of terms, days and times when required core and other courses are offered. Teaching Library scholarship students also have to juggle their class and work schedules until they fit. These are limits on what MIRS students can do in relation to their schedules. Some things take place outside of their control as well as outside the control of the grant program.

Graduation Plans. As of August 2006, 88% of the MIRS students expected to graduate by December 2007 (end of Fall 2007 term). Four students expected to graduate later and two didn’t reply.

Students with University MIRS awards plan to graduate earlier than Teaching Library scholars. Of the 14 with University awarded scholarships who were in their first year of library school last year, 43% expected to graduate in Spring 2007 and 71% in or before then. Of the 13 Teaching Library MIRS students in their first year of library school last year, only 8% expected to graduate that early. Rather, 62% of Teaching Library students expected to graduate in Fall 2007, the last term that they can and meet scholarship/grant requirements. We have seen that this is because most are attending school part-time. It can be viewed as “just in time” graduation or as “too close or comfort” because if anything goes wrong in completing courses as planned, some Teaching Library students might not be able to graduate on time through no particular fault of their own.

University awards are time efficient and give many students a cushion of a summer and a Fall term if anything goes wrong. Teaching Library students take longer because of going to school part-time and yet most have little or no cushion in completing on time. This is also the group at greatest risk of having to pay back scholarship money through no fault of their own if they can’t complete all needed courses by December 2007

Academic Advisors. About 97% of the students had academic advisors, and 72% were satisfied or very satisfied with them. However, academic advisors are not coordinating with Teaching Libraries and vice versa.

Librarian Mentors. In contrast, only 39% of the students had a new librarian mentor that they didn’t have before starting in the MIR program. About 42% had no librarian mentor. Teaching Library scholarship recipients were statistically more likely to have a new mentor. Those mentors were well-received.

Faculty Mentors. Only 31% of all MIRS students had a faculty mentor by August 2007. Thee is no significant difference by which type of partner awarded the scholarship. So it is the University grant recipients who are losing out on mentoring by faculty at the Universities that gave them the scholarship as well as by working librarians. Mentoring does not seem to be organized anywhere in a formal, programmatic sense.

General Lack of Attention to Mentoring under MIR. While mentoring was built into the original grant as a concept, as of August 2006 almost one-third (31%) of the MIR students had neither a faculty nor a librarian mentor (new or previous). This underlines the general lack of attention in the program to the mentoring aspect of the grant, except by Teaching Libraries. It also highlights the general lack of Teaching Library-University or University-library interaction using new models of cooperative effort.

Student Appreciation of Mentoring. While those who did get mentored by someone appear to be satisfied or very satisfied with the mentoring they got, many dodged the question by not answering it or declaring it “N/A” (Not Applicable). Students also got advice from peers and recent graduates of their programs. In response to an open-ended question, Teaching Library students in particular wrote very favorable comments about mentoring they had received. Students recognize and appreciate good mentoring when they get it, and express a desire for it when asked about it and they haven’t gotten it. MIR partners and NYSL are missing a bet by not paying more systematic attention to mentoring in the Making It REAL! program.

Library Specializations and Concentrations. Specializations remain widespread, although about 16% of students don’t have any. There are 10 students intending to become School Library Media specialists, four or five anticipating work in children’s or youth librarianship, and five or six headed toward public library careers in adult services, including two in small and rural libraries. Two want to be art librarians, and one or two students are into digitization. Only a few students changed specialties (one switching from a focus on medical librarianship to one on Children’s Librarianship).

Changes in Why One is Earning a Library Degree and Career Goals. Few have changed in their reasons for going into library school. Only four students (12%) have new career goals. These few expressed a great deal of excitement as they discovered new career directions.

New York Library Association Conferences. Only 7 (22%) of the MIRS students attended NYLA 2005, although 63% planned to go to NYLA 2006 and another quarter were considering it. Location is a key factor in attendance, along with cost. Those who went last year found attendance useful, interesting, and a good way to start to “feel” like a librarian.

One student appreciated MIR sponsored sessions at NYLA 2005. In August 2006 most MIRS students – and particularly those with University awards – knew only some to nothing about NYSL MIR sponsored plans for NYLA 2006. NYSL might do a better job communicating with students about such plans and a variety of other program related matters besides the rules and logistics of the scholarship program. NYSL is getting better at this as the grant progresses but students (as well as partners) want more communication from NYSL and among themselves. That includes sharing ideas and learning what other MIR students/partners are doing.

Overall Student Satisfaction with Making it REAL! Overall, 90% of the students are satisfied or very satisfied with the Making It REAL! program and the worst ratings were simply “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.” Teaching Library MIRS students had more “very satisfied” ratings (41%) than University award recipients (21%), although not statistically significantly more.

Student Recommended Changes. Students suggested a variety of recommended changes to the program. Many echoed points made above: more or more flexible time in which to complete the degree, more opportunities for networking among students, better or more formal mentorship, and more communication about the program and what it is trying to do (especially to University award recipients).

Overview

This is an interim formative evaluation report to the New York State Library (NYSL) concerning the program Making It REAL! Recruitment, Education and Learning: Creating a New Generation of Librarians to Serve All New Yorkers. The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) funded the program in 2004 under its Librarians for the 21st Century program (Award Number RE-01-04-0053-04), with $995,630 of IMLS funds and a state match of $645,058. The purpose of the program is to recruit and educate a next generation of librarians in such a way that diversity in the profession will be increased and new librarians will be well prepared to serve diverse populations. The New York State Library, library systems throughout the state (referred to as “Teaching Libraries”) and New York State schools of library and information science, along with the New York Library Association (NYLA), formed a partnership to carry out such a plan. Together the Teaching Libraries and library schools have awarded scholarships funded by the grant to recruit and educate professional librarians, and cultivate a diverse new workforce that is well prepared to serve community needs, especially those of diverse groups and special populations. The library systems and library schools are expected to build strong partnerships and develop new means of collaboration to develop new strategies and alternatives for library education.

The Survey

This report is based on an online survey of Making It REAL! scholarship recipients that took place between August 1 and September 1, 2006 (with all but one response received by August 23). The scholarship students were asked to provide feedback on a variety of questions concerning what was for most their first year in library school. The survey received 34 usable replies from the 40 students in the program for an 85% response rate.

Responses by Partner Type

The respondents are nearly evenly split between those with Teaching Library scholarships (47%) and with University scholarships (53%). Five of the six students who did not reply are among those awarded scholarships by universities. Three who did not respond are students at the State University of New York at Buffalo, which has the largest number of Making It REAL! students, and one each from Pratt Institute and the Palmer School of Long Island University. One student who did not reply (and one who did respond but not provide any usable data and who reported having withdrawn from the program) is a Queens Borough Library scholarship recipient. At least one other student from each of the partner institutions did reply so the responses provide a fair representation of student opinions of students from all teaching library and university partners participating in the grant program.

Demographics

The survey did not include demographic questions, but ethnicity and gender were coded into the dataset based on responses to a 2005 student survey and program records. Such information is also available for non-respondents. Chart 1 compares survey respondents to non-respondents. Three of the minority groups – males, African Americans, and those of “Other” ethnicity – are completely represented in the responses and Caucasians/Whites are proportionally represented.

Chart 1. Gender and Ethnicity of Respondents and Non-Respondents

* Includes Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and those of mixed Hispanic heritage as well as White South Americans.

The opinions of Latino/Hispanic ethnic origin may be under-represented in the survey responses. Otherwise the survey respondents match well or extremely well to the population as a whole. Since the sample was not randomly selected, however, the survey sample of opinions cannot be reliably projected statistically to the program population as a whole. With 85% of the Making It REAL! scholars participating, though, and not much demographic difference between participants and non-participants, and all teaching libraries and university partners represented, the opinions reported below may be considered broadly typical of those of students in the program.

University Attendance and Course Taking Patterns in 2005/2006

The survey primarily asked retrospective questions about the 2005/2006 academic year (AY), although it did include some questions about Summer 2006 course taking. Given exigencies of program start-up, many of the students did not start classes until the Fall 2006 term, although a few started earlier. Also, the terms of the scholarship allowed students to have earned up to 12 units before entering the Making It REAL! program. Therefore, 85% of the survey respondents were in their first year of graduate school in AY 2005/2006, and only 15% (5 students) indicated that they were in their second year of graduate school. There was no significant difference by origin of the scholarship (i.e., Teaching Library or University awarded) in this response.

Several situations complicate interpretation of the attendance data patterns for AY 2005/2006. First, some students started taking library school courses before they received Making It REAL! scholarships. Second, late awards and start-up problems with the program delayed award of some scholarship money past the Summer 2005 term. Third, some students who had scholarship funds available to start in Summer 2005 chose to start in Fall 2005. Finally, some students were added to the scholarship program only in January 2006 (i.e., Spring term) as replacements for others who had dropped out of the program even before starting school and by design of the partners. Teaching Libraries tended to have the replacement problems and Universities tended to have the late award and save some scholarships for the Spring term situations.

Without considering the cause, Chart 2 shows the actual attendance patterns reported by the survey respondents, including whether or not they received Making It REAL! scholarship funds in a term. There were no instances reported by students of scholarship funds being awarded for a term that a student was not, in fact, taking any courses.

Chart 2. Full-time and Part-time Enrollment Patterns and Making It REAL! Scholarships

The first thing to note about Chart 2 is the draw of students into library school. While the respondents are all Making it REAL! scholarship (MIRS) recipients, in Summer 2005 more than half of them (56%) weren’t attending library school at all. Only 4 (12%) were attending library school without a MIRS and then only part-time. In contrast, 9 (26%) were already using their MIRS to attend part-time in Summer 2005, and one (4%) even went to school full-time then. By Fall 2005, when the program became more active, only 5 (15%) weren’t attending library school at all, while only one (3%) was attending part-time and one (3%) full-time without an MIRS. Some of these had scholarship awards in process that would allow them to start in January 2006 (Spring 2006 term). Meanwhile, 27 (79%) were already attending library school with their MIRS helping them do so, just over half (51%) on a full-time basis and the rest (48%) on a part-time basis. By Spring 2006 all of these students should have been awarded their scholarships, and every one of the 34 respondents was in library school. However, 3 (9%) were attending part-time without drawing on MIRS funds, while 17 (50%) went part-time and got MIRS funds, and 14 (41%) attended full-time using their scholarships. The three who were not using their scholarship funds in Spring 2006 may have been on approved leaves of absence from the program. [NOTE: This is an assumption that needs to be verified with the program director at New York State Library.]

The second point to note about Chart 2 is that receipt of a Making It REAL! scholarship does not mean that all recipients will be going to library school full-time every term. Indeed, the requirement is that they complete their programs by December 2007. During the first student survey in Summer 2005 the scholarship recipients from the Teaching Libraries were more likely to expect to attend library school part-time. Indeed, in both Fall 2005 and Spring 2006 terms MIRS recipients sponsored by Teaching Libraries were significantly and very much more likely to say they attended library school part-time than were those who were awarded MIR scholarships directly by the Universities they were attending. [NOTE: After limiting the dataset to include only those attending library school in Fall 2005, Fisher’s Exact Test p ,> .001 for a one-sided test, Phi = -.672, p < .001 where part-time is the second row category and University awardee is the second column category. In Spring 2006, when all respondents were enrolled in library school, Fisher’s Exact Test p < .001 for a one-sided test, Phi = -.669 with the same table layout.] The percentage of MIRS scholars from Teaching Libraries who were attending library school part-time was 92% in Fall 2005 and 94% in Spring 2006. In comparison, 77% and 72% of the eventual University MIRS scholarship recipients were going to library school full-time in both the fall and spring terms. The program implication is clear: if this attendance pattern persists, and assuming equivalent academic progress, the recipients of scholarships awarded directly by the Universities are liable to finish their library school programs more rapidly than those from Teaching Libraries who are attending the same University.

The mere fact of receiving a Making It REAL! scholarship is not sufficient to encourage students to go to library school full-time. Every term there were a few students who were attending library school without this scholarship, and their full-time or part-time attendance patterns were never significantly different from those with MIR scholarships.

Use of MIR Scholarships by Term

All of the respondents had at some point in the past year benefited from MIRS funds to help them attend library school, but the term in which they first had access to those funds varied by individual and among partners. Some Teaching Libraries, such as Queens Borough Public Library and New York Library Network, had assorted problems fielding and retaining scholarship recipients, and brought in new scholarship winners part way through the academic year. SUNY Buffalo was able to award some additional scholarships for the Spring 2006 term when money that another partner had been unable to place with scholarship recipients became available. At least one University had planned all along to phase in scholarship award winners over several terms.

Looking at whether Teaching Library or University MIRS recipients were using their scholarship funds in any particular term, Teaching Library recipients were significantly and very strongly more likely to be using their MIRS to attend library school in both Summer 2005 and Summer 2006.[NOTE: In Summer 2005 Fisher’s Exact Test p = .002 for a one-sided test and Phi = -.555 with p = .001. In Summer 2006 Fisher’s Exact Test p < .001 for a one-sided test and Phi = -.764 with p < .001.] The Summer 2005 finding could be simply an artifact of when some University recipients received their awards. However, the Teaching Library scholarship recipients expected to use their awards in Summer 2006 more often than University MIRS recipients did suggests a different course taking pattern. There is no statistically significant difference in the Fall 2005 and Spring 2006 terms. Scholarship recipients using their funds those terms were proportionally split by partner type. We shall review the evidence on that later in this report. Teaching Library scholarship recipients could be making up for their greater likelihood of being part-time students during the Fall and Spring terms by attending more often in the Summer.

Student Credit Units Completed

Chart 3 includes only students using Making It REAL! scholarship funds in any term and looks at the average student credit unit load for full-time and part-time students each term.

Chart 3. Student Credit Units Completed by Full-time and Part-time Making It REAL! Scholarship Users by Term

After controlling for full-time or part-time attendance status, there are no statistically significant differences in average student unit loads in any term for Teaching Library and University MIRS recipients (using MIRS funds in that term). However, since the Teaching Library students are more likely to be part-time students, in the Fall and Spring terms as a group they averaged significantly fewer total units. [NOTE: ANOVA statistic F = 17.624, p < .001 in Fall 2005 and ANOVA statistic F = 19.599, p < .001 in Spring 2006 for completed units. Similar significant statistics held for attempted units.] Teaching Library scholars averaged 5.08 completed units in Fall 2005 compared to 9.00 for University award scholars, and 5.20 completed units in Spring 2006, compared to 9.21, respectively. During those two terms, then Teaching Library scholars would have averaged 10.28 total units, compared to 18.21 for those with University MIRS. While more Teaching Library scholars intended taking summer courses in 2006 (94% compared to 64% or University MIRS students), 87% were taking six units or less (53% 1 to 3 units, 33% 4 to 6 units). By the end of the summer, these students would still be shy by one or two courses of the units earned by the University MIRS scholars even without attending the University in the summer. Since over 60% of the University MIRS students did attend during Summer 2006 and there was no significant difference in their unit patterns in the summer than the Teaching Library MIRS students, the University MIRS award group should still be ahead of the Teaching Library group in total units earned as they entered Fall 2007.

Assuming that this pattern continues over time the expectation is clear: Teaching Library students may need more terms to complete their library degrees than University awarded MIRS students at the same University, simply based on average numbers of units completed per term. If the grant period allows a sufficient amount of time for the students moving more slowly through their library school programs to complete their degrees, this is not a problem. This is explored later in the report. If the period permitted by the grant to complete a degree is shortened too much, Teaching Library MIRS scholars may be the first to suffer. This could be a problem for the “grow you own” programs of Teaching Libraries seeking to advance their more junior employees to certified librarian status. The flip side is that the quickest way to bring more diverse people through their education and into the library workforce as librarians might be to award scholarships primarily through the Universities, making sure that the recipients continued to attend full-time and had sufficient financial resources available from the MIRS scholarship and other financial aid resources to attend full-time.

Approximate Grade Point Averages

About 94% of the Making It REAL! students provided self-reports of the range in which their grade point averages fell. As shown in Chart 4, MIR students are doing exceptionally well in graduate school.

Chart 4. Approximate Grade Point Averages of MIR Students as of Spring 2006

Approximately two-thirds (66%) of the MIRS students had earned a 3.75 average or better, including 22% with a straight A average. More than 8 out of 10 had earned a 3.50 or better GPA. Although Making It REAL! students from Teaching Libraries had earned 5 out of the 7 straight A averages, overall there is no statistically significant difference in the GPAs of MIR students by origin of the scholarships.

Credits per Course, Type, Course Taking Patterns, Success and Problems

All of the Universities attended ran on semester systems with some variations in the summer (i.e., one University had two summer sessions). It is typical of universities on semester systems that most courses offered are worth three (3) units each. Indeed, of the 165 courses that students reported taking, 94% were 3 credit unit courses, 5% were worth one unit, and one course each was worth two or four units.

As shown in Chart 5, the courses were in a variety of library and information science areas. Since there were more courses focused primarily on Reference/Information Access, some students took more than one such course.

Chart 5. Types of Courses Taken by MIR Students between Summer 2005 and Spring 2006

The six most commonly taken types of courses were in key library and information science areas, as one might expect a group of mostly first year students would take. That includes courses dealing primarily with Reference/Information Access, Information Technology/Service, Fundamentals of Librarianship/Social Issues, Library Management, and Organization of Information and Cataloging. Indeed, MIRS students reported that 70% of all courses they took (and 73% of those taken by first year students) are considered core courses at their library schools. About 43% of the core courses that first year students took, they took in the Fall term and 38% in the Spring term.

The survey asked separately if the course was in the student’s specialization. Note that some courses could be both core courses and in the student’s specialization. Students checked that about 62% of the courses were in the areas of librarianship in which they intended to specialize. That included 63% of the courses of first year students and 54% of the courses of second year students. First year students took almost half (49%) of their specialization courses in Spring 2006, 36% in Fall 2005 and 15% in Summer 2005. The second year students followed an only slightly different pattern, taking 21% of their specialization courses in the Summer 2005, 36% in Fall 2005 and 43% in Spring 2006. Of course the course taking patterns are driven to some extent by the terms in which faculty schedule different kinds of courses.

About 22% of the courses taken (37 of 165 courses) were online. Eighteen (or 53%) of the students took at least one online course between Summer 2005 and Spring 2006. This included 12 Teaching Library MIRS students and 6 University awarded MIRS students. The 12 Teaching Library students attempted 28 online courses, so averaging 2 1/3 courses each, while the six University MIRS students took only 9 such courses, so averaging 9 ½ courses each. This is consistent with earlier information from the 2005 student survey in which a greater proportion of Teaching Library than University awarded MIRS students indicated that they expected to take online courses. To some extent this is due to location of the Teaching Library students and their online Universities include not only Syracuse University, but also North Texas Women’s College and Southern Connecticut State University. The most popular types of online courses included Reference/Information Access (22 online courses taken), Information Technology/Service (17 online), Library Management (10), Fundamentals of Librarianship/Social Issues (9), Organization of Information (8), and Cataloging (4).

The MIR students checked that they had definitely passed 157 or 95% of the 165 courses that they had identified. In fact only two students mentioned not passing any courses. Both of the admitted failures to pass courses occurred in Spring 2006. One of the courses was in Reference/Information Access, and the other in Cataloging. Neither course was online and both were considered by the students to be core courses at the library school and ones in their specializations.

About 84% of the 32 survey takers who answered said they had not experienced in specific difficulties with their AY 2005/2006 courses. Chart 6 lists the difficulties in the students’ own words. They do not appear to be particular to the Making It REAL! program.

Chart 6. Specific Difficulties Encountered by MIRS Students in AY 2005/2006 Courses

The five students who did report specific difficulties were all in their first year in the program. Several of the problems dealt with knowing HTML (Hypertext Markup Language) coding, which is a computer language used to set up web pages. Other problems are occasionally found at any University even at the graduate level – use of outdated textbooks, course without clear communication of purposes and expectations to students, and poor teaching by people who understand their subjects but don’t know how to teach them effectively. There was no significant difference in having difficulties among Teaching Library or University scholarship recipients, by gender, or by ethnicity.

The one positive impact of the program in relation to student course difficulties is in the last message, when the Director of a Teaching Library (and MIR partner contact) stepped in to help a MIRS student obtain a licensed copy of software needed in her class. This is one of only a few instances reported by MIRS recipients of Teaching Library staff helping them in their academic efforts.

Working While Attending Library School

Past evaluation reports have indicated that Teaching Library and University students anticipated that it would be difficult to both work and attend library school at the same time. Teaching Library MIRS students were more likely than University MIRS students to expect to have to work longer hours while taking classes. What were the students’ opinions in August 2006 after some had actually experienced working and attending graduate school at the same time?

Depending on the term, 62% to 83% of the students continued to say that it would be somewhat or very difficult to work and attend school at the same time, with no significant difference in response by source of scholarship. From 80% to 94% of MIRS students working 31 or more hours a week said that it was difficult or very difficult to work and attend school at the same time. Small numbers of respondents make it impossible to say with statistical certainty that those working more hours a week are more likely to view going to school and working at the same time as difficult or very difficult.

What may be happening is that students are able to juggle the number of hours of work per week and the number of courses or units of school in a dynamic fashion so that they can better handle doing both. Chart 7 shows that Teaching Library students correctly predicted that many would have to work long hours while attending school.

In the Fall and Spring terms there were approximately equal numbers of Teaching Library and University award MIRS students taking library school classes. In those terms, as well as in the summer when few University award students take classes, Chart 7 also shows more Teaching Library students than University award MIRS students working more hours a week while going to school.

Chart 7. Hours of Work per Week While Attending School

However, when there are different total numbers of students having to work in any term, the fairer comparison is the percentage of students in each category who work different numbers of hours. This is shown in Chart 8.

Chart 8. Percentages of Teaching Library and University Award MIRS Students Working Different Numbers of Hours per Week

Chart 8 shows that among those who do have to work, the proportion of University MIRS scholars working 31 or more hours a week is closer to the proportion of Teaching Library MIRS scholars having to work that much. It is, however, still lower. Simply put, if MIRS students do have to work at all while attending library school, and many do, they often have to work many hours a week for pay.

How then, do the students manage working and going to school at the same time, given the difficulty of doing that – a matter on which all agree? The answer comes from the Teaching Library students: go to library school part-time. By taking fewer courses per term and still finding it difficult or very difficult to go to school and work at the same time, Teaching Library MIRS scholars are better able to successfully navigate the treacherous waters of academia. The tradeoff for doing well in library school, as these students have done, is to take longer to complete the program. This again underlines the importance of future Making It REAL! programs involving Teaching Library scholarships allowing for those scholars to attend library school part-time, and giving them a sufficient number of terms to complete their degrees with part-time study.

Chart 9. Difficulty of Working While Attending Library School by Full-time or Part-time School Attendance and Hours Worked Per Week in Spring 2006

Modal (most common) values in each row are shown in boldface. Percents are of the row total.

Chart 9 illustrates this finding for working students during Spring 2006, when all the MIR scholars were taking classes and 85% were working for pay at least a few hours a week. None of those who were working found it very easy to work and attend school at the same time. The only person who found it “easy” to do so was only going to school part-time and working 31 to 40 hours a week. Most students found it “somewhat difficult” or “very difficult” to attend school and work at the same time, especially if working 21 hours a week or more, or going to school full-time and working any number of hours.

Future Library School Attendance Plans

When asked about their future library school plans, Teaching Library and University award MIRS students differ slightly in anticipated attendance patterns, as shown in Chart 10

Chart 10. Anticipated Library School Attendance of Making It REAL! Students between Summer 2006 and Summer 2007

Of the survey takers who answered this question, 25 had been first year students in AY 2005/2006, almost equally split between Teaching Library MIRS recipients (13) and University MIRS recipients (12). These are the two groups on the left half of Chart 10. There were also five respondents who indicated that they were second year students in AY 2005/2006, and they also were almost equally split between Teaching Library MIRS recipients (3) and University MIRS recipients (2). Those two groups are shown in the right half of Chart 10. Percentages are used rather than raw numbers to better represent the differences in attendance patterns, but it should be remembered that there second year students in AY 2005/2006 were one-fifth the number of first year students.

First one can see from Chart 10 that most first year teaching library recipients intend to take courses in library school every term between Summer 2006 and Summer 2007. While first year University MIRS recipients all anticipate taking courses in Fall 2006, and most also in Sprint 2007, lower proportions intend to take courses in either Summer. This is consistent with the pattern of library school attendance seen in AY 2005/2006, where Teaching Library scholars tended to go to school year round, including summers, much more than University award scholars did.

Second, Chart 10 shows that a greater proportion of University award students than of Teaching Scholar award students indicate that they may or will not be taking library school courses in Spring 2007. This is especially noticeable among students who were already in their second year of attendance at some point in AY 2005/2006. One reason for that, which will be discussed later in this report, is that University award recipients may graduate sooner than Teaching Library students. Note that all second year students in AY 2005/2006, both Teaching Library and University award recipients, intend to not take courses in Summer 2007. This is probably because these five students plan to be finished with library school by then. In fact, five MIRS students have already graduated as this report is being written at the end of February 2007.

Chart 11 indicates the number of students planning to take different numbers of courses in a term. Generally, the Making It REAL! students who are taking courses will take one or two courses in the Summer, and two courses or more in the Fall and Spring terms.

Chart 11. Number of Courses MIRS Students Plan to Take Each Term

The average, median, and most common numbers of courses that Teaching Library and University award MIRS students intend to take between Summer 2006 and Summer 2007 is given in Chart 12.

The most common number of units expected to be earned each term are shown in boldface in Chart 13. The pattern of number of credits planned per term in Chart 13 is similar to the mode of courses per term shown in Chart 8. This is to be expected, since we saw earlier that most courses at these universities are three units. Students already in their second year of study at some point in AY 2005/2006 have relatively few courses left to complete their degrees, and intend to take fewer units each term.

Chart 12. Number of Courses Planned per Term by Partner Type and Student Year

Chart 13. Number of Credits Planned per Term by Partner Type and Student Year

Remaining Core Course Requirements

Since the ultimate goal of each MIRS student is to obtain a library school Masters degree, a natural concern over AY 2006/2007 would be completing required cores courses for the degree in a timely fashion. This will vary by library school where the students are studying, since the number of required core courses varies in different library schools. For almost two-thirds (66%) of the students the number of required core courses is five (38%) or four (28%). For others, though, it is seven (19%) or six (6%), but for a few almost their entire program of 12 (6%) or 13 (3%) courses consists of required courses.

Chart 14. MIRS Students and Number of Core Courses Required and Left to Take as of August 2006

There is no significant difference in the number of core courses in the programs of first and second year students, but by August 2006 all of the second year students had completed all of their core courses and so had none left to take. Those in their first year had approximately two courses, on average, left to take, although some had many more.

When asked about when they planned to take core courses and why they planned to take the core courses in certain terms, students provided the responses shown in Chart 15. The comments here serve as a reminder that students cannot just take any course that they want in any term, but are subject to the faculty plans and exigencies of terms, days, and times when required core courses and other courses are offered. MIRS students with Teaching Library scholarships have other considerations as well, related to schedules of where they work. Any future Making It REAL! programs might want to try to take into account these kinds of limitations outside of student control on when they can complete required and desired courses.

Chart 15. Reasons for Taking Remaining Core Courses in Certain Terms

Library School Graduation Plans

The Making It REAL! program expects scholarship recipients to graduate by December 2007, no matter when they started, as a condition of their scholarships. All scholarship recipients who responded to the survey had started by January 2006, and many had started library school earlier, including some before they received the scholarship. [NOTE: The Making It REAL! program allowed students to have earned up to 12 library school credits before receiving the scholarship. As discussed in earlier reports, some students had started library school before the scholarship availability was even announced, and others started library school before the term that scholarship funds were actually available to them. This is how five students happened to reach their second year in library school at some point during AY 2005/2006.] By August 2006, did the students expect to be able to graduate on time, according to the requirements of the scholarship?

Chart 16. Anticipated Graduation Term

The answer is that 88% of the survey respondents indeed do expect to graduate by December 2007 (i.e., by the end of the Fall 2007 term), but four MIRS students (12%) expect to graduate later and two students (who may be dropping out of library school?) didn’t respond at all. The two principal graduation periods will be at the end of the Spring term 2007 and the end of the Fall term 2007. As of the writing of this report in late February, 2007 five Making It REAL! students have graduated, which is exactly the number who had anticipated graduating by the end of the Fall 2006 term. The plans reported above for AY 2006/2007 seem reasonable for students to meet their anticipated graduation date.

After controlling for year in school in AY 2005/2006, it appears that students with University awarded MIR scholarships will be more likely to graduate earlier than those with Teaching Library MIR scholarships. [NOTE: This cannot be reliably proven to be statistically significant because of the small numbers of students involved and looking at seven potential graduation terms. Pearson Chi-Square results are not reliable since all cells have expected counts less than five, and minimum expected counts are less than 1 person. The five second year students in AY 2005/2006 anticipated graduating either in Summer 2006 (early), or in Spring or Fall 2007 (the most usual graduation terms). As seen in Chart 13, the larger number of students who were in their first year of library school attendance in AY 2005/2006 show a much more distinct difference in anticipated graduation terms of Teaching Library and University awarded MIR scholars, with most University awarded MIR scholars expecting to graduate earlier. However, some University awarded MIR scholars as well as some Teaching Library scholars did not receive there scholarships until Spring term 2006 and some of those had not taken any library school courses earlier. When one does not control for year in school, the Pearson Chi-Square is still not reliable, with 71% of the cells having expected counts less than 5 and a minimum expected count less than 1. Even if the Chi-Square had been reliable, the significance was p = .051 so not significant at the usual .05 level of significance. When the graduation period is collapsed into three groups – AY 2006/2007, Summer & Fall 2007, and Spring & Summer 2008, the Pearson Chi-Square comparing Teaching Library and University award scholars is significant with Chi-Square = 16.683, df = 2, p < .001 but still not reliable because two cells (33%) still have expected counts less than 5, although the minimum expected count is now 1.93.] This is shown in Chart 17. Of the 14 MIR students who had University awarded scholarships and who were in their first year of library school during AY 2005/2006, 43% anticipated graduating in Spring 2007 and fully 71% expected to graduate by or before then. However, only 8% of the 13 MIR students with Teaching Library awarded scholarships expected to graduate that early. Rather, 62% of the Teaching Library MIR scholars anticipated graduating in Fall 2007, or right at the end of the allowable graduation period under the terms of the scholarship.

Chart 17. Anticipated Graduation Term of Teaching Library and University Award MIR Students, Controlling for Year in Library School in AY 2005/2006

All five of the MIR students who were in their second year of graduate school expected to graduate by the end of Fall 2007, the grant deadline – as one might hope of the more advanced students. Also, about 92% of the MIR Teaching Library scholars thought they would graduate on time, and 79% of those with University scholarship awards expected to do so. It is somewhat curious that only one Teaching Library scholar but three MIR scholars with University awards expected in August 2007 to graduate within the deadline specified by the grant, while at the same time more of the University award recipients expected to graduate much earlier than the deadline. This may deserve a closer like during the summative phase of the grant evaluation. The numbers are small in any case and may be exceptional cases. However why one would find more exceptional cases among the University awarded scholars than the Teaching Library scholars is not clear, since one might expect without additional information that University awarded scholars might be better informed about the terms of their scholarships simply because faculty partners would be more used to administering scholarships than Teaching Library partners. Other factors may be at play.

We also note that with so many of the Teaching Library MIR students planning to graduate at the end of the last term possible to meet grant conditions, that group is at greatest risk of having pay back scholarship money if something goes wrong with their planned course taking patterns before or during Fall 2007, through no fault of their own. This could include needed classes being cancelled at the last minute or other problems outside of the direct control of the students. While the time allotted in the grant for completing a library school degree appears to be sufficient for most scholarship recipients, it does not allow much leeway for error for Teaching Library scholars in particular.

Graduation Date Changes

As of August 2006 the anticipated graduation date shown above had not changed for 81% of 31 respondents to the question. It had changed for six (19%). There was no significant difference in the anticipated date having changed by library school program year in AY 2005/2006, being a Teaching Library or University award recipient, or being mostly a full-time or a part-time student. While statistical significance is not reliable because of the small number of cases, there is not much difference in response among those who intend to graduate in or before Spring 2007, those who intend to graduate in Summer or Fall 2007, and those who intend to graduate late (i.e., after Fall 2007).

Chart 18. Reasons Given for Expected Graduation Date Change

Of the six students with changed expectations of their graduation date, two-thirds expect to graduate later than they had previously thought and one-third to graduate earlier than previously anticipated. None of these six have pushed their expected graduation date later than Fall 2007 – i.e., all do plan to graduate within the time frame specified in the grant and in their scholarship terms. For the most part these reasons for changing graduation dates are outside of the control of the individual students. Even “family obligations” can be outside of one’s control if something happens that unexpectedly places an extra burden on the student. The one student who miscalculated credits and is not sure if she can return to school did have some academic difficulties in AY 2005/2006 and now anticipates not being able to graduate until after the end of the MIR scholarship deadline of December 2007.

The reasons given in Chart 18 remind us that things happen to change plans. If there is another phase of the Making It REAL! grant program, the program staff might want to consider in advance the types of circumstances, if any, in which they are willing to allow flexibility in planned graduation dates, especially if graduation dates have to be pushed past the original grant deadline.

It is relevant to note that three of the four MIR students intending to graduate after the scholarship deadline of December 2008 (i.e. in Spring or Summer 2008) did not indicate that their graduation plans had changed. This needs further investigation by the evaluator or program administrator as to why those students expect to graduate after the grant deadline, and if they understand the consequences of doing so (i.e. having to pay back their scholarship funds if they don’t graduate on time). This could be a calculated risk on the part of the students (e.g., it might be cost beneficial from their perspective to continue through library school now and pay back the grant funds later), or have they somehow been misinformed or had poor communication about the terms of the grant?

Advisors and Mentors

Fully 97% of the MIRS students who answered the question do have an academic advisor. Only one person did not and two did not answer. Overall MIRS students with academic advisors viewed them positively. Nearly half (46%) were very satisfied with them, and another quarter (26%) were satisfied. About one in five were neutral.

Chart 19. Satisfaction with Academic Advisor

Student comments about their academic advising from their academic advisor and others are shown in Chart 16 divided by the source of the scholarship. The question asked was “Please comment on any academic advising you have received so far, from an academic advisor or others.” Comparing the responses of those with Teaching Library and University scholarships one sees similar types of relationships with university academic advisors, including those who have only one advisor, those with academic advisor turnover, good and poor relationships, harried professors pre-occupied with other matters than students, etc. While the Teaching Library MIRS students do not appear to be receiving any special treatment from their academic advisors, a few do report advisors understanding work-school conflicts. Only a few Teaching Library MIRS students comment on special support from Teaching Library staff regarding their academics.

What is noticeably missing from these comments is any mention by the students of academic advisors conferring and cooperating with Teaching Libraries. Those students (with both Teaching Library and University awarded scholarships) who have gone through their required fieldwork speak of cooperative fieldwork coordinators at the University but not any discussion or coordination between those individuals and Teaching Libraries or any libraries where the student might work. One Teaching Library scholarship student is having difficulty with her School District in getting unpaid leave time to complete the fieldwork experience needed for her library degree. A University award recipient complains about a University not accommodating her when she has trouble obtaining time off from teaching to do required fieldwork. The divide between University and libraries as institutions has not been addressed differently for students in the MIR program.

Chart 20. MIRS Student Comments about their Academic Advising

Mentors and Mentoring

It was anticipated in the Making It REAL! grant that MIRS students would receive additional mentoring to help them adjust to library school and to becoming 21st century librarians serving the diverse communities of New York. As discussed in earlier evaluation reports, some off the students are the first in their families to go to graduate school (or undergraduate school), or diverse individuals themselves not used to the world of graduate school or librarianship.

Evidence of program success would be if MIRS students gained a librarian mentor that they did not have before receiving a Making It REAL! scholarship.

Chart 21. Do Students Have a New Librarian Mentor?

The Making It REAL! program can claim partial success in this regard, since almost four out of 10 students do have a new librarian mentor that they didn’t have before receiving a Making It REAL! scholarship. Almost one out of five remain in contact with former librarian mentors that they had before entering the program. The program cannot claim credit for those prior mentor relationships, although it is positive that the students are continuing those relationships with former librarian mentors.

A closer look at the data reveals a strong correlation with important program implications: it is mostly the Teaching Library scholarship students who are reporting new librarian mentorship relationships, not the University award recipients, as shown in Chart 22. [NOTE: Pearson Chi-Square = 9.474, df = 2, p = .008, with 2 cells (33.3%) having expected count less than 5. Technically this large a number of cells with expected counts less than five makes the Chi-square result unreliable. However, the correlation is strong to very strong and the correlation so skewed (Lambda = .389 with having a librarian mentor dependent, Approx. T = 2.071, approx. p = .038, and Cramer’s V = .561, p = .008) that it seems very unlikely to have occurred by chance] The Teaching Library partners have started to form new mentoring relationships with the students chosen to receive Making It REAL! scholarships. Only one Teaching Library MIRS student, who felt the question was inapplicable, commented “I have made contact with several local school librarians but no one came to me and offered to help or was assigned to me.” The MIRS students who for the most part have not gained from any new relationships with librarian mentors are those with University MIRS scholarships. This is again an indication of a lack of contact or cooperation between Universities and Teaching Libraries or other libraries near the Universities to try to set up any mentoring relationships for MIRS students with practicing librarians.

Chart 22. Do Students Have a New Library Mentor, by Source of MIR Scholarship

Bar chart shows new library mentors of MIRS students by scholarship source

Perhaps the MIRS students have gained Library School faculty mentors instead?

Chart 23. Do Students Have a Faculty Mentor?

Pie chart shows 'do you have a faculty mentor?'

The answer is mostly no. More than six out of every 10 MIRS students do not have a faculty mentor as of August 2006. Only three out of ten are sure they have one, and two students think they might but aren’t certain. As shown in Chart 24, there is no statistically significant difference in response between the students with Making It REAL! scholarships awarded by Universities or by Teaching Libraries.

Chart 24. Do Students Have a Faculty Mentor by Scholarship Source

Pie chart shows 'do you have a factuty mentor' by source of scholarship

The universities that the Making It REAL! students are attending are for the most part partner institutions for the Making It REAL! grant. While the usual involvement of faculty at these universities is in mentoring students is not known, there does not appear to be any special effort by faculty at these Universities to mentor most Making It REAL! students. The faculty at partner institutions are treating Making It REAL! students equally in this regard by mentoring both few of the MIR students to whom their University awarded scholarships and few of the Teaching Library MIR students to faculty mentorship.

Chart 25 shows the overall mentoring situation for Making It REAL! students as of August 2006, with percentages being of all respondents. Nearly one-third (31%) of the MIRS students have no mentoring relationship with faculty, new, or former librarian mentors.

Chart 25. Mentoring Situation of Making It REAL! Students as of August 2006

Do You Have a New Librarian Mentor?		Do You Have a Faculty Mentor?
Do You Have a New Librarian Mentor?		Yes	Maybe	No	Total
Yes	N	4		8	12
Yes	Pct.	12.5%		25.0%	37.5%
No, but in contact with a prior one	N	4	1	1	6
No, but in contact with a prior one	Pct	12.5%	3.1%	3.1%	18;8%
No	N	2	1	10	13
No	Pct	6.3%	3.1%	31.3%	40.6%
N/A or Other	N			1	1
N/A or Other	Pct			3.1%	3.1%
Total	N	10	2	20	32
Total	Pct	31.3%	6.3%	62.5%	100.0%

Only four students (12.5%) have obtained both a new librarian mentor and a faculty member and can be counted as the most successful recipients of mentorship as a result of their participation in the Making It REAL! program.

The survey asked Making It REAL! students “Overall, how satisfied have you been with any mentoring you have had since receiving a Making It REAL! scholarship?” The responses are shown in Chart 26. Often satisfaction levels are reported out only for those who provide a rating, and from that perspective about two-thirds of the raters are satisfied or very satisfied (and evenly split between those two categories). On that basis one might argue that Making It REAL! is doing acceptably if not outstanding in regards to mentoring. However, Chart 26 also shows that as many students (8) felt the question was not applicable as were either satisfied or very satisfied. Further investigation revealed that the 8 students who checked “N/A” on this question had neither librarian mentors nor faculty mentors. The numbers of students are too small to explore the distribution of responses for statistical significance. Can the Making It REAL! program be viewed as successful in regards to mentoring when one-quarter of the scholarship recipients don’t provide a satisfaction rating since they did not receive any mentoring? These students are being fair to the program by not providing a rating of something of which they have had no experience.

Chart 26. Satisfaction with Any Mentoring Students Have Had Since Receiving a Making It REAL! Scholarship

Bar chart shows satisfaction with any mentoring students have had since receiving a MIR scholarship

Is the program being fair to all scholarship students in the level of mentoring provided? That depends partly on what program expectations are. While there is a general expectation of mentoring in the Making It REAL! grant application, the specific partner proposals did not all include specific mention of mentoring components to their programs. This is a formative report part way through the program and there is still time for partners to provide mentoring. We shall therefore leave a response to that question to the final summative evaluation report, and examine it more closely in relation to the specific expected actions laid out in each partner proposal. At this point we simply point out that it is mostly Teaching Libraries who have put forth an effort to provide mentorship to their Making It REAL! scholarship recipients.

Finally, do or did students expect to receive mentoring as part of their Making It REAL! scholarship program? What do they think of any type of assistance, advice, or consultation they have received about library school or future library work since they started library school? Who gave them advice or consultation and in what context? The survey asked students to elaborate on their experiences to date, as of August 2006. In Chart 27 we let the students who chose to answer the question speak for themselves.

Chart 27. Who Provided Assistance, Advice or Consultation about Library School or Future Library Work Plans and What Type of Advice or Consultation?

Source of MIRS	Student Comment on Mentoring or Other Consultation
Teaching Library	I have several friends (coworkers) who have recently graduated from this program.
	I am receiving support from grant provider, /a Teaching Library/ and /a librarian at a/ Public Library /in the rural system/. /The librarian/ has 37 years of experience at the library. She does not have an MLS. However, her years account for much more. I am also the secretary for the … County Library Assistants Committee. The members are very supportive of my schooling.
	I have been fortunate enough to have a few mentors. Working in the academic library in undergrad offered me the opportunity to work closely with a few of the reference librarians who have remained in contact with me. I have also acquired a mentor since I began library school. They have given me various perspectives on the library environment and have encouraged me to try different avenues in the library field. I have also spoken to my peers which have also offered insight into library school.
	I have been lucky to have had many people (some of who I work with currently in my public library) and some who I know from my community that have given me advice, help, and tips when I have needed it.
	I have been working in a library for 8 years and find that I require minimal mentoring. When I have questions or concerns there are several people I can turn to including my mentor for the grant, a former library student and coworker and my director.
	I receive advice from a SU advisor about classes I need to take. It has been tough getting ideas on how to work with a district who will not allow me to complete fieldwork needed for this degree. I cannot afford to quit my job. I also have a mentor who I met with this year who is coordinating the grant. She is following my progress thus far. I find the SU program to be extremely demanding and am hoping to make it through taking 2 courses this semester while working full time. If I am unable to, I may have to give up the grant as I am really squeezed for time. I question if I should have taken this program through a less rigorous online university, but I wanted the SU degree for it is one of the best. The Dec. '07 timeframe is tough though, since I work full time and have a family.
	/Name of a person/, the middle school librarian in my district is my first go to person as she is in the same building. I try not to overuse her as she doesn't receive any recognition or compensation for helping me. I wish there was because then I wouldn't feel like I have to hold off and could get the help when I really needed it. I have also used /another person/ in the past semesters but this spring/summer she was busy with her election and the SLMS retreat. /Two other people/ both allowed me to interview them for assignments and /one of those people/ allowed me to use her collection for two assignments. /The Teaching Library MIRS partner contact person/ has kept me up to date with my scholarship account, helped me with cataloging, and discussed possible issues with the practicum. Some of my online classmates have acted in mentor like ways and I remain in contact with several after they have finished the program.
	My current supervising librarian on my job has been an incredible mentor as I have worked through this program. This experience is invaluable! Other librarians in my school district have also taught me many great lessons. Also - /a MIR partner contact person/ of the ..., the organization that sponsored me in this program, has been a great support to me. I talk quite frequently with other students in the program and this has also been great for sharing experiences, giving advise, and especially support when things get rough.
	My library director.
	My mentor is another YA librarian in the … system. We meet periodically to discuss youth services and specific issues in our libraries. I also shadowed her for a day at her branch.
	My mentor who is part of the IMLS program has been excellent. My colleagues from neighboring libraries have been supportive. I took a brief internship at New York Public Library with the Hunamities and Social Science Division. The librarians there were great. The IMLS scholarship has opened doors for further learning that may not have been available without the scholarship.
	Several recent library school graduates and students have given me advice on which library school courses, class schedules, and professors. They also provide assistance with courses assignments, like proof reading and just recently one tutored me on how to use HTML codes properly.
	The lbirary teachers that I visited and interned with were my mentors. They each gave me practical advice. I knew they would steer me in the right direction because my success or failure will affect librarianship in the future. These wonderful mentors were very clear about what was expected of me. I am grateful for their honesty. The biggest suggestion from each was to advocate for my program and be a great public relations representative for librarianship.
University	Having worked in a Public Library in Larchmont ( NY) I did have my former library director as a mentor.
	I had an in depth conversation with /a person with a doctorate -- a professor?/. I had planned to become a Medical Librarian and she has many years of experience in that field. My decision has since changed to become a Children's Librarian.
	I searched out my own mentor -- a certified librarian who works for the /a specialty/ Library and who I work with as a volunteer for /a non-profit/ which is funded by the …Foundation.
	In addiiton to the gentleman mentioned earlier, there is a senior academic advisor at Post who has also been very helpful to me. In fact, she just completed a letter of recommendation for me for another scholarship opportunity I'm seeking. Whenever I call her on the phone, she immediately responds to my questions/concerns. She has been a great help to me as a respresentative from Post.
	My academic advisor is /name/ and she is extremely helpful and knowledgeable.
	My advisor and two professors that I have had have been helpful in telling me about conferences or symposia that I can attend for information or instruction about my interests in /… / and Special Libraries.
	Somo of the professors have made themselves very available for any kind of consultation and one in particular has offered advice, help and recommendations. While being very grateful for the scholarship, I think that one of the weaknesses it has is that mentoring was mentioned from the beginning, but to my knowledge, nobody was really personally assigned to be my mentor.
	Teachers have advised me throughout but the most important source of information and mentoring has come from my Inroduction course professor who has encouraged to look at the libraries that we plan on working in and talk to them about what we need to focus one. For example the importance of a Civil Service test when we plan on working in the public library.
	The faculty member who helped me with this scholarship is not longer at Pratt. However, the new Assistant to the Dean was my former supervisor at my … internship.

In Chart 27 we note particularly the examples of mentoring providing by Teaching Library librarians including but going well beyond the Making It REAL! partner contact person. We notice that some practical career advice is built into courses of some academic programs. And we notice that MIRS students turn to peers – friends and co-workers who have recently graduated – for advice about navigating graduate school as well as becoming a librarian. Finally, some students who were already experienced with libraries in jobs other than professional librarian felt less need for mentorship because of their experiences.

Library Specializations and Concentrations

The Making It REAL! students reported a wide variety of library school specializations or concentrations, as has been true since the beginning of the program. Indeed, three-quarters of the MIR scholars report that they have the same specialization or concentration as before. Another 16% report that they never had a specialization or concentration and still didn’t as of August 2006.

Chart 28 lists the current specializations for which MIRS students are being educated.

Chart 28. MIRS Student Specializations or Concentrations

Library School Specialization/Concentration

Children's Services

Archives, Special Collection, Art Librarianship

At this point I do not have any specialization. However, I am thinking of looking into reference services.

Children's and young adult services in public libraries.

Currently public library concentration.

digital Library Certificate

I am concentrating in Public Libraries

I am considering public and school media specialists

I am interested in Art History and Visual Resources associated with art collections. I would like to continue my interest in Art History and learn more about digitizing images for special collections.

I am specializing as a school media specialist.

I don't have a specific specialization.

I want to work as a Children's Librarian. After taking the core courses, I realize that almost all of my courses have been dealing with the Children's Collection and services that are available to them.

Library and Information Services

Library Media Specialist. I wish to stay as a librarian in the NYC Public Schools that are high need students.

My aim is to work in a public library environment helping children and young adults. I also look forward to utilizing my 20 years experience in public relations and marketing in a library setting.

My current library school specialization is business.

My library school specialization is technically called: School Media.

Organization of Information

Public Libraries. I may also continue with School Library Media Specialization.

Public Library

Reference and user services

Right now I am taking just core courses but I plan on specializing in youth services.

School Library Media

school library media specialist

school library media.

School Library Media.

School Media Specialist

Small and rural libraries.

/a particular University/ School Media Specialization.

The MSLS online program from …University has a main focus for working in rural libraries.

There is no concentration with in the SLMS program at /a University/. The concentration within the LS Master Program is SLMS, academic, public, health or other special...

Youth Services/director

At least 10 of the 34 students intend to become School Library Media specialists. Four or five anticipate working in children’s or youth librarianship. Five or six are headed toward public library careers in adult services, including two in small and rural libraries. Two are interested in art librarianship.

The grant is training diverse students and students to serve diverse New York populations in a variety of specialties. Teaching Libraries often had special target specialties in mind when awarding their scholarships. The summative evaluation will look at whether students who received scholarships from those libraries actually graduated in particular specialty areas. At this point it looks like many may.

Students who changed specializations or concentrations were asked to indicate why they had changed their directions. Chart 29 shows their replies.

Chart 29. Reasons for Changes in Specializations Since Entering Library School

I have not had a change in my interests. It has been difficult to get more computer training for the digitizing aspect of my interests. I will continue to see if LILRIC can provide some workshops in digitizing art images.

I started as public and have changed to school media specialists because I have decided that I would like to at least have the certification under my belt in case I decide to work in a school library.

I wasn't planning on going for the digital library certificate originally, but now I am.

My initial choice was to become a Medical Librarian. It was during the Internship this Summer that I had the opportunity to help some children with literature choices. I will also be doing a program on Saturday, August 19. I will be introducing small children to musical instruments. I will be playing several instruments and working with the Children's Librarian during Story Hour.

3 responses of n/a, N/A, and Not applicable

Library Degree and Career Goal Changes

Only one person indicated that his or her reasons for earning a library degree had changed since entering library school. Several students, however, used an open-ended survey question response to reflect on their going into library school.

Chart 30. Changes in Reasons for Earning a Library Degree and Why Changed

I have recently been involved in a Worker's Compensation case with my former library employer. I am now studying the professional ethics a librarian is suppose to be guided by. This may change where I end up in the library field.

I realized that having a Master of Arts degree in Art History was not enough to continue to organize analog collections for the Visual Arts Department of the college where I worked. The organizational skills associated with the Master of Library Science Degree are helpful in the area of Visual Resources.

N/A

No Change. I am still interested in earning the degree because I know how the library played a crucial role in my life and I am still interested in being able to do the same for someone else.

This is my 2nd Masters Degree. This is something I am doing for me. Call it a mid-life crisis, I don't know, but I am truly enjoying the challenge of returning to school. I have a full-time job and a fifteen-year old son. My plate is full. Sometimes, when up late at nights completing homework assignments, I ask myself, 'what are you doing?' But when I return to the classroom and interact with classmates and instructors, discuss library issues/trends, etc. I realize again it's all worth it.

Four students (12%) indicated that their career goals had changed since starting library school. It is normal for some students to change the direction that they are heading in their careers as a result of graduate education. The survey asked the MIRS students who had changed career goals how and why their goals had changed. Four students gave substantive answers. The excitement of discovering possible new career directions and learning new things is apparent in these responses. The Making It REAL! program is at least partly responsible for opening up these new career directions to its scholars.

Chart 31. How and Why Career Goals Changed Since Entering Library School

I planned on becoming a Medical Librarian. My plan changed when I started doing the internship at the /public/ Library.

I would like to use the skills learned in library school to persue a career in a visual resources collection of a college or university facility.

My interests have become more broad. My concentration is the organization of information. My day-to-day work is in the area of digital librarianship. I love digital library work AND cataloging, but I also loved my reference classes. I wouldn't mind being a reference librarian one day!

Ultimately, I want to work in a public library. Now, I do PR and Marketing for an educational institution in New York. Actually, I'd welcome the challenge of going to a really remote area and starting a new library. That would be exciting!

New York Library Association Conferences

As part of the effort to enculturate students into professional librarianship, the New York State Library, Division of Library Development (NYSL) identified some funds that would allow MIRS recipients to attend the New York Library Association (NYLA) Conference in 2005. These funds were made available rather late for students who had not originally expected to be able to attend the conference, partly because many were just starting up in library school in Fall 2005. Funds were available mostly to cover the student conference fee cost. The conference was held in Buffalo, the western part of New York State, far away for many students.

New York Library Association Conference 2005

Only 7 (22%) MIRS students out of 34 were able to attend NYLA 2005 - three from Teaching Libraries and four with University MIRS awards. All four with University awards are attending the SUNY Buffalo so the conference was very conveniently located for them. The three Teaching Library scholars came from Rochester (not far away), northern New York (far from everywhere), and the Albany area. One student each recognized that NYLA or NYSL had paid for their conference fees, two from Teaching Libraries said that their employers paid for part of their attendance costs, and one student from the University of Buffalo said that the University paid for his or her attendance.

Comments from students who did attend NYLA 2005 are shown in Chart 32. Especially encouraging from the perspective of grant goals are that students appreciated the experience and began to feel more involved with librarianship.

Chart 32. Student Comments about NYLA 2005

I had some schedule conflicts during the conference. I volunteered some hours at NYLA boot.

The Making It Real workshops were great! I learned many useful items that I was then able to directly apply to my current job in the school library. Some of the items I learned were multicultural literature and services and serving patrons with disabilities.

The NYLA conference immersed me into the library world. I felt a bit overwhelmed at all of the people and the vendors. I learned so much about being a librarian, and most of the librarians that I met were helpful and showed me around a bit. It was a great experience to have while being a new library student.

The seminars were most useful.

The vendors, the authors were the most interesting for me. The workshops were informative. I really felt like a librarian.

One student attended workshops sponsored at NYLA 2005 for all conference attendees and found them immediately useful for her school library work. In general these conferences were well-received by all of those attending them, as reported previously.

New York Library Association Conference 2006

NYSL also identified funds for MIRS student attendance at NYLA 2006, held in Saratoga Springs, NY during November 1 to 3, 2006. The location in eastern New York State was also more convenient for most students because it was nearer their library schools or Teaching Libraries. This time the funds were made available in a timely fashion and students encouraged to attend.

Even as early as August 2006, when these survey results were gathered, the student response about attending NYLA was much more positive. As shown in Chart 33, 63% of respondents said in August that they were planning to attend the early November conference, and another quarter were considering it.

Chart 33. August Plans to Attend NYLA 2006 in November

Bar chart shows August plans to attend NYLA 2006 in November

Five of the eight University award students who were not going or were unsure about it were from the University at Buffalo in the western part of the state. Two of the Teaching Library students planning on not going and unsure about it were from the Rochester area, again in the western part of the state, and one from northern New York. Location and the cost of travel were again prime reasons for not attending. Concern over school or paid work, and costs also played a part in the responses. This is shown in Chart 34.

Chart 34. Reasons Given for Planning Not to Attend NYLA 2006

Family and work obligations prevent me from attending.

Funds! Difficult to justify taking time off when the students will suffer from my absence. In my public school ther is little budget for substitutes.

I will attend the 2006 conference.

I would like to, but I am not sure I can secure time off of my job.

It will depend on school obligations and reimbursement for expenses.

Money and also my work schedule.

My funds are limited. I realize we will get reimbursed for expenses, however for me, getting the initial funds is a real challenge. I'm am working on it.

New York State Library had planned a pre-conference workshop for NYLA 2006 on library services for Spanish Speakers, as well as a conference session on Diversity in librarianship by nationally recognized expert Dr. Clara Chu. In addition, NYSL had asked Dr. Suzanne Stauffer, formerly an employee of REAP Change Consultants on this evaluation, to prepare a paper on Teaching Libraries for NYLA 2006. These plans were well-advanced by August 2006. Were the Making It REAL! students aware of them?

Chart 35 indicates that Making It REAL! students for the most part had only received some information about NYSL plans for Making It REAL! programming at NYLA 2006. At least a quarter claimed to have no information on these events in August 2006. University award recipients knew significantly less about Making It REAL! plans for NYLA 2006 than did Teaching Library scholars. [NOTE: Cramer’s V = .580, p = .013, and Spearman Correlation = -.565, p = .001.]

Chart 35. Student Knowledge in August 2006 of NYSL Making It REAL! Sponsored Sessions at NYLA 2006

Bar chart shows student knowledge of NYS Library Plans for NYLA 2006 MIR sessions

The New York State Library, Division of Library Development may have planned to send information to the Making It REAL! students later, after the beginning of the academic year, the amount and more information were forthcoming later. However, the type of communication taking place between NYSL, the partners, and the Making It REAL! students seems sporadic and incomplete. This especially appears to be a problem with the University partners and students.

This matter has surfaced several times from partners and students and been mentioned in previous evaluation reports. While there are differing views about what was communicated, partners complained to the evaluators in summer 2005 that NYSL had provided contradictory or incomplete information about grant expectations before the IMLS grant proposal was submitted. These were later clarified by NYSL. Partners expressed an interest at training workshops in June 2005 in communicating amongst themselves, and NYSL and the evaluation team set up a trial Yahoo! Group and website to foster such communication. This did not work, with only an occasional message from the evaluators about plans and reports, and occasional directives from NYSL being placed on the site. Because of timing problems, NYSL made no effort to convene a special formal meeting of partners and the few students who happened to attend NYLA 2005. However, neither did it attempt an informal meeting or reception. Perhaps there was no funding. While NYSL continues to communicate with students and partners about detailed aspects of program requirements, even though it had plans well advanced for NYLA 2006 by spring 2006, it apparently had not successfully communicated with many MIR students about those plans as of August. Yet NYSL staff did intend to make a concerted effort to get students to NYLA 2006, and did later provide noticeable advertising about the Making It REAL! workshop and sessions in the NYLA 2006 program itself.

As will be seen at the end of this report students in 2006, like partners in 2005, expressed an interest and desire to get together to meet and know one another better. The students also expressed an interest in having had this happen earlier in the program. While the students and many partners did get together at a Friday morning breakfast session of NYLA 2006, better communication between NYSL and the partners and students might have fostered more excitement and synergy about the program if it had been done earlier that November 2006. In late 2006 NYSL did mount a New York Library Careers website that includes photos and brief information about different students involved with the Making It REAL! program. This website has been planned since the grant proposal was submitted, although its content has not been clear.

To date the evaluation staff feels that NYSL has missed several possible opportunities for advancing the program by fostering different kinds of communication with partners and MIRS students, and between them. The summative evaluation to be completed later in 2007 will take a look at student responses to the NYSL efforts at NYLA 2006 and with the website. REAP Change Consultants will also soon provide a separate report on participant reactions to Making It REAL! sponsored NYLA 2006 sessions from those who attended them, MIRS students, partners, and others.

Overall Student Satisfaction with Making It REAL! and Comments

Overall, about one-third (32%) of the Making It REAL! students were very satisfied, 58% satisfied, and 10% neutral about the Making It REAL! program. There is no statistically significant difference in these responses by type of partner providing the scholarships.

Chart 36. Overall Student Satisfaction with the Making It REAL! Program

Bar chart shopws overall satisfaction with MIR program

The final two questions on the survey invited students to make comments. The first question was “What would you change about the Making It REAL! program if you could?” The comments focused specifically on the need for more communication, contacts with other students, better mentoring, possibly more time to complete the program, and scattered problems related to the flow of funds and taxability of the scholarships.

Chart 37. What Students Would Change about the Making It REAL! Program

	What would you change about the Making It REAL! program if you could?
Teaching Library	Give a little more time to earn the degree if needed.
	Clearer definition of what a 'Teaching Library' is and what their role is. Perhaps some documentation to provide to the staff at the 'Teaching Library.'
	I believe that there could be a bit of financial help when it comes time to do interships/student teaching.
	I think consideration should be given to those taking online courses. They are 3 times as intensive as F2F courses. I feel that the computer hardware and Internet connection are tools of the program and should have been reimbursed to some degree by the scholarship. We had to access eBooks, Discussion Boards, and an abudance of articles using the Internet.
	I would like to have attended a workshop with all 44 participants so that we could network in the future. I think it is crucial to develop student relationships with others in the field. It would be nice to ask course questions of those who attend your same school.
	Mentorship. Have mentors connected with the univiersity, so that meetings are convenient for the candidates. Possibly have a current librarian in the same specialization that the candidate is interested in mentor. Alot of mishaps could have been avoided if I had more contact with a mentor. I worked full time and went to school at night, as well as raising two children. I didn't have time to chase down people. It would have been nice to get an encouraging note, or voice mail from time to time.
	More flexible deadlines taking into account individual school districts lack of cooperation for us to meet these deadlines. I am still in a real bind!!!!! I look forward to the NYLA conference this fall!
	Nothing as of yet.
	Nothing at this time.
	Nothing, it's been a good experience so far. I think keeping requirements as simple as possible is key. Balancing work, family and school is difficult and time consuming. To do our best in school we need minimum distractions.
	The only complication I received through the program is the paying of the tuition. I did not know that the money was taxable and was not prepared to pay the difference. Just letting students know up front would be a wonderful idea next year. I am very, very thankful the program, I cannot imagine paying the whole tuition. I was just unaware of the tuition taxes. I would change nothing else.
	The way funding is released. Ran out of money before the next round of grant money was released so I had to take out a student loan for a semester. Disrupted the flow of things.

	What would you change about the Making It REAL! program if you could?
University	I think it would help to recieve more information throughout the year not just questions to insure that we are still attending the school.
	I would like to be part of some meeting where I can meet the other applicants and the coordinartors.
	I would like to know more of what they expect of me.
	In general I am very satisfied with the program and I feel that it has been an incredible help in persuing my degree. Since mentoring seems to be an important part of the program from the beginning, I would try to formalize this aspect in a way that would let recepients recieve specific help and advice having to do with serving diverse communitites as a future librarian.
	More communication. I was unclear when I would get my funding. Still have not received but am advised that the fundes will arrive Fall 200. Also, want more dirrection on ways to get more funding so that I can continue serving the high need community on a new teachers salary and be able to continue my education...
	Overall I am in the dark about certain clauses/goals of the program.
	Right now,I really can't think of anything. It's been really nice emailing back and forth with Stephen from time to time. He brngs the 'human element' back into email correspondence.
	The Making It REAL program has enabled me to attend library school. I am very grateful for this opportunity. I will be happy to work within the New York library system to give back to this community the learning experience that I have received that has enriched my appreciation of art historical resources.
	The overall timeline required to complete the program.

The last question asked students to reflect on what they would include in a new Making It REAL! grant proposal. This report ends with the students speaking for themselves.

Chart 38. What Students Recommend Including in a New Making it REAL! Grant Proposal (concluded)

	From a student perspective, what do you think it would be most important to include in the new grant proposal?
Teaching Library	Giving people who are working fulltime more time to earn the degree.
	Along with working in a public library full time and being able to observe in the speciality is a wonderful opportunity. I am learning a lot, especially when I use my class assignments to focus on the business librarianship field. It is a little difficult when working, going to school and having a family but it will pay off in the future.
	For those adult learners working full-time and taking courses at the same time the time constraints need to be considered! Hardware/Software/Internet compensation.
	I am not sure. Perhaps more meetings with specific mentors. Also, placing the student in different fields of the library with a specific project or purpose.
	I am working for a local public library. I feel that our library board was not interested or even supportive of my professional development. We are often (where I work) discouraged from development by having all of our vacation/personal time taken away when trying to further our educations. Would it be possible to somehow encourage local libraries to be more supportive of those in the program?
	I believe the schools chosen for the masters degree should be from a NY state schools. People from diversified fields should be encouraged. I have met many wonderful people from all walks of life. Recipients should be expected to participate in NYLA conferences. Mentors coordinating the grants are a wonderful resource. Please offer flexibility in timeframe as it has caused considerable stress in my life...it would be great if NYSED could step in and write to our districts stating they support the grants and to ask the school districts to be cooperative when fieldwork needs to be done so the certification requirements can be fulfilled. I would be happy to talk to anyone who is interested in applying for this grant. I am honored to have been a recipient.
	I think there needs to be a larger grant that allows for students to cut back on their work hours and concentrate on their studies. Many students in my classes now complain that the professor doesn't realize they are taking more than one class. The professors assign more required reading than you have time for. Plus, some students work and have children. The grant needs to be supportive of this.
	I would not load the student up with too much extra activity. Mentoring is important. Being accountable to the IMLS program is important, but any extra activities should relate directly to the student's ongoing courses.
	Perhaps the requirement for at least one national PLA or ALA conference attendance, if it is paid for by the grant. It's a great experience.
	The expectations from the university are quite comprehensive. Could the expectations of the grant integrate with the university expectations? As a candidate it was reasonable, but I wonder how the mentors felt completing so much paperwork.

	From a student perspective, what do you think it would be most important to include in the new grant proposal?
University	emphasize the importance of the good that can be done with the program. perhaps show successful graduates of the program and where they are, as well as possible contact information.
	I am not sure.
	I am very grateful for this wonderful grant opportunity and I feel very lucky to be part of it. In my experience with the grant, I think some aspects could be made more clear for students wanting to apply. Are recepients expected to work? Are they expected to be GA/TA's? What does the mentoring process involve?
	I don't know all the details on how the grant amount is decided, however I do feel that it would help future students to increase the amount when the school tuition is so high.
	I was not given this scholarship or grant until the spring of 2006, and I feel like I missed out on a lot of the goals of the program. I am not sure I experienced the whole thing.
	It would be very godd to include a 'hands on' experience in a museum or art library that enabled students to work with some aspect of the special collections there. I would have loved to have the experience of working with creating digital images for a musuem or library project. Aspects of presevation or conservation in the museum or art library environment is also very good.
	One thing I have to mention - One of the requirements is that recipients work in a library system 2 years upon graduation. For some, this could be a hardship. People are forced to move (NY is becoming increasingly financially difficult to live in) and sometimes have to go to other states. I think this stipulation should apply to wherever the recipient is forced to live.
	Possibiliteds for those of us who are serving the community to contue getting financial support.
	There should be no time line to complete the program.

Last modified on March 15, 2007 -- asm
or further information, please contact Mary Linda Todd.
URL: http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/libdev/imls/survey/survey06.htm

Library School Attendance	Hours of Paid Work Per Week		Working and Attending Library School at Same Time is
Library School Attendance	Hours of Paid Work Per Week		Very Easy	Easy	Neither Difficult nor Easy	Somewhat Difficult	Very Difficult
Part-Time	1 to 10	N
	1 to 10	Pct
	11 to 20	N			1	1
	11 to 20	Pct			50%	50%
	21 to 30	N			1	1
	21 to 30	Pct			50%	50%
	31 to 40	N		1		9	3
	31 to 40	Pct		8%		69%	23%
	Over 40	N				1	2
	Over 40	Pct				33%	67%
	Total	N		1	2	12	5
	Total	Pct		5%	10%	60%	25%
Full-Time	1 to 10	N				1
	1 to 10	Pct				100%
	11 to 20	N			1	2
	11 to 20	Pct			33%	67%
	21 to 30	N			1	3
	21 to 30	Pct			25%	75%
	31 to 40	N					1
	31 to 40	Pct					100%
	Over 40	N
	Over 40	Pct
	Total	N			2	6	1
	Total	Pct			22%	67%	11%

MIRS Student Year in School in 2005/2006	Scholarship Awarded by:	Statistic	Summer 2006	Fall 2006	Spring 2007	Summer 2007
First Year in School in AY 2005/2006	Teaching Library	Average (Mean)	1.83	2.00	2.09	1.67
		Median	1.5	2.0	2.0	2.0
		Mode	1	2	2	1 or 2
	University	Average (Mean)	2.50	3.08	2.25	2.00
		Median	2.5	3.5	2.5	2.0
		Mode	2 or 3	4	3	1, 2, or 3
Second Year in School in AY 2005/2006	Teaching Library	Average (Mean)	1.33	2.00	1.50
		Median	1	2.0	1.5
		Mode	1	2	1 or 2
	University	Average (Mean)	1.00	2.00	1.50
		Median	1.0	2.0	1.5
		Mode	1	2	1 or 2

MIRS Student Year in School in 2005/2006	Scholarship Awarded by:	Student Credit Units Planned	Summer 2006	Fall 2006	Spring 2007	Summer 2007
First Year in School in AY 2005/2006	Teaching Library	1 to 3	6 (50%)	2 (17%)	1 (9%)	4 (44%)
		4 to 6	4 (33%)	8 (67%)	8 (73%)	4 (44%)
		7 to 9	1 (8%)	2 (17%)	2 (18%)	1 (11%)
		10 to 12
		13 to 15	1 (8%)
	University	1 to 3	2 (25%)	1 (8%)	2 (22%)	1 (33%)
		4 to 6	3 (38%)	3 (25%)	2 (22%)	1 (33%)
		7 to 9	2 (25%)	2 (17%)	5 (56%)	1 (33%)
		10 to 12	1 (12%)	5 (42%)
		13 to 15		1 (8%)
Second Year in School in AY 2005/2006	Teaching Library	1 to 3	2 (67%)		1 (50%)
		4 to 6	1 (33%)	1 (50%)	1 (50%)
		7 to 9		1 (50%)
		10 to 12
		13 to 15
	University	1 to 3	1 (100%)		1 (50%)
		4 to 6		2 (100%)	1 (50%)
		7 to 9
		10 to 12
		13 to 15

	Student Year	None Left	1 left	2 left	3 left	4 left	6 left	8 left
Four Required Core Courses	1st	1	5	1
Four Required Core Courses	2nd	2
Five Required Core Courses	1st	5	1	2	1
Five Required Core Courses	2nd	3
Six Required Core Courses	1st		1	1
Six Required Core Courses	2nd
Seven Required Core Courses	1st	1	2	1	1	1
Seven Required Core Courses	2nd
Twelve Required Core Courses	1st							2
Twelve Required Core Courses	2nd
Thirteen Required Core Courses	1st						1
Thirteen Required Core Courses	2nd

Academic Program Year in AY 2005/2006	Type of MIR Scholarship Award	Core Course Scheduled Plans and Rationale for AY 2006/2007
1st Year	Teaching Library	I plan on taking them over the next 2 semesters whenever they are offered.
		1 - Fall 06 1 - Spring 07 2 - Summer 07 2 - Fall 06 (Practicaa) Works well with my work schedule plus I have the requirement through the scholarship to complete the program by December of 2007.
		Fall 2006 - availability.
		I am completing the last core this summer. My final day is tomorrow.
		I plan on taking the remainder of the core courses in the Fall Semester
		I plan to take the last core course in Spring 2006 because that is the only time it is offered.
		N/A
		one in fall '06 and one spring '07
		See answer to question 11 above.
		The last core course is the Student Practicum which must be done at the end of the degree. I plan on doing it next summer, the semester starts June 6, 2007. I can't do it in the spring because my district does not allow time off for student teaching experiences and I (my family budget) could not afford to take time off with out pay.
		This fall to allow flexibility in choosing electives.
		Two coruses per semester. The program ends December 2007.
	University	Fall 2006. The schedule was determined by the availability of classed.
		Fall and Spring, depending on when they are available.
		Fall semester- Internship
		I am taking my final core course during Spring '07 semester. I would take this fall ('06) however, it is not being offered at this time.
		I will be finishing up this Fall - 2006. I only have 2 courses left. I wanted to finish up as soon as possible so I could go job hunting.
		I will take them in the fall and spring. This is because they are both offered each semester and in the fall they are offered at the same time.
		I will take two core xcourses during Summer 2007 because I am not teaching full-time during the summer and am more able to handle the course load.
		In the fall, because this core class is always offered, and other classes are not.
		My last core course will be this coming fall for cataloging.
		The only core course that I haven't taken is the Internship course which is normally taken in the last semester.
2nd Year	Teaching Library	N/A
	Teaching Library	I will be finished by the fall 2006.
	University	I have taken one core course in Fall of 2004. I then took two core courses in the Spring of 2005 and two more core courses in the Fall of 2005.

Category	Survey Respondents		Survey Non-Respondents
Category	N	Percent	N	Percent
Gender
Female	30	88%	6	100%
Male	4	12%
Ethnicity
Caucasian/White	17	50%	3	50%
African American	7	20%
Latino/Hispanic *	5	15%	2	33%
Two or more Ethnicities	3	9%	1	17%
Other	2	6%
Total	34	100%	6	100%

	N of Courses	% of 165 Courses	% of 32 respondents
Reference / Information Access	33	20%	103%
Information Technology / Service	23	14%	72%
Fundamentals / Social Issues	17	10%	53%
Library Management	14	8%	44%
Organization of Information	11	7%	34%
Cataloging	10	6%	31%
Children's / Youth Services	10	6%	31%
Public Libraries	7	4%	22%
Collection Development	6	4%	19%
School Libraries	5	3%	16%
Service to Diverse Clients	4	2%	12%
Research Methods	4	2%	12%
Archives / Conservation / Preservation	3	2%	9%
Academic Libraries	2	1%	6%
Special Libraries	1	1%	3%
Bibliography	1	1%	3%
Internship	1	1%	3%
Other	14	8%	44%

Type of MIR Scholarship	Student Comments on Academic Advising
Teaching Library	Have not received any to date.
	Advising has been good but I am having an EXTREMELY DIFFICULT time getting cooperation from my school district to give me unpaid time off to do the NY state REQUIRED fieldwork (100 hours). I need to complete this prior to my 10 weeks od practicum. I am having difficulty thinking that I can do all this prior to December of 2007 as the grant required me to be done by then.
	As required, all my questions have been answered in a very timely manner by my academic adviser. The fieldwork coordinator was also very helpful when I did my fieldwork in Spring of 2006.
	Everyone at St. John's is wonderful. They are very attentive to student needs and always willing to take a few minutes to chat.
	I am satisfied with my academic advisor. She has been very accommodating to my work and school schedules.
	I have no electives in my course, so this is not an issue. My advisor is very helpful when trying to understand the NYS requirements for school certification.
	I have not spoken directly to the academic advisor, but have had interaction with my professors. My advisor has recently changed.
	My college advisor has been very supportive and replys to my emails very quickly. In addition /… a name/ my library director, has also been very supportive this summer.
	No academi advising given so far.
	She doesn't respond to emails. Her secretary returns my phone calls. I would say she has had no input to date.
	Since I am a teacher taking library courses, I wasn't required to follow the typical course load. My advisor was very helpful when I needed to meet my core requirements for library school.
	The intensive summer institute in which we took our first two core courses provided some advising. So far that is the only contact with an advisor I've had. However, I will be discussing an independent study soon with my advisor.
	The secretary of the MSLS program is always available to answer questions as they arise. Often she responds to all program attendees via e-mail which answers many questions before they arise.
University	I have been dissatisfied with my academic advisor because this person does not show any interest in my studies outside of her required duties. She always makes students feel as though you are interrupting activities she has much more interest in (research mainly). Classmates who also have this person as an advisor have had similar experiences. I am aware that I could have changed my advisor, but I have opted to develop closer relationships with other professors instead.
	I have found my advisor to be very supportive. She has also provided excellent suggestions as to how I might best complete my degree.
	It was during my Internship that I decided to become a Children's Librarian. I spoke with my advisor and she gave me good advice and the names of some people to contact regarding my interest in Children's Librarianship.
	My academic advisor at Long Island University, CW Post campus, has been extremely helpful to me. He emails scholarship and job opportunities, as well as other pertinent information. I've also had the chance to have him for one of my courses - and he really knows his subject materials. He's great!!
	My academic advisor is very helpful, and she is encouraging when she helps me plan my schedule. She is very aware of the job market for our field, and is helpful.
	My academic advisors change per semester, but I have received helpful feedback on courses, etc.
	My academic advisors have been very helpful in preparing me for working the library field. They have helped me make the right decisions for my education.
	My advisor is amazing, she has helped me figure out exactly the right plan to graduate when I want. She is always trying to help me out, in fact, she is the one who told me about this scholarship.
	The academic advisement has been good. I would have liked more help in getting computer training in computer graphics for visual resources management(i.e. working with slides and art historical images).
	The plus with my advisor is that shew is very informed about public school libraries. She is also always available. On the other hand she is stressed out usually and runs information by quickly making it sometimes difficult to discipher.Pratt Institute is not accomodating at all when it comes to required firldwork especially when I am teaching full-time and unable to take days off to satisfy requirements.
	They have been great in helping to select courses that would be both usful and required

Making It REAL! Recruitment, Education, And Learning: Creating a New Generation of Librarians to Serve All New Yorkers

Student Survey 2006 Making It REAL! Grant Evaluation Report

February 27, 2007

Stephen C. Maack

Contents

Charts

Executive Summary