ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 338 / C&RL News ■ M ay 2002 College & Research Libraries news The library’s role in distance education Survey results from ACRL’s 2000 Academic Library Trends and Statistics by Hugh Thompson Background In 1998, ACRL instituted the Academ ic Library Trends a n d Statistics, an annual survey that attempts to capture data from all institutions of higher learning in the United States and Canada. The survey instrument is based on the Asso­ ciation of Research Libraries form, but it also includes a survey of current trends that changes each year. For example, in 1999 data was col­ lected on faculty status for academic librarians, in 2000 the survey looked at distance learning, and for 2001 it will cover information literacy. The 2 000 Academic Library Trends a n d Sta­ tistics saw another significant increase in par­ ticipation over the previous year. Out of a sample of 3,069 institutions, a total of 1,678 responded, representing a 54.7 percent re­ sponse rate, or an increase of 22.7 percent over the previous year. As was done previously, the institutions reporting w ere separated accord­ ing to their Carnegie classifications of associ­ ate of arts, baccalaureate, master’s degree-grant­ ing, and doctoral degree-granting. (Note: The 2000 data was grouped according to the previ­ ous designations, but for 2001 will reflect the revised terminology.) The results are published in both print and electronic form. Trends questions O ne of the m ost rapidly expanding sectors in higher education today is distance learning. w hether it is K-12, higher education, or cer­ tificate program s. In addition to providing courses “at a distance” to students w ho are separated by a large physical distance from the institution, coursew ork is being offered at the local level to students w ho are physi­ cally proximate but w ho w ant to manage their time by using “distributed” courses that are primarily virtual. Perhaps the greatest obstacle to creating a complex and comprehensive set of distributed learning offerings lies in meeting the informa­ tion needs of students in an electronic m e­ dium. While many campuses have defined ini­ tial approaches to offering courses over the Internet, few, if any, have defined a scalable and viable strategy for making information re­ sources available to these distant learners.1 How are academic libraries responding to the growth in distance learning and its corre­ sponding dem and for library services that are compatible with this model? To capture data measuring the impact and the responses of aca­ demic libraries to these challenges, the trends section of the 2000 survey looked at how insti­ tutions are providing library services for dis­ tance learning. The survey was in two parts. The first part covered demographics and details of how aca­ demic libraries administer their programs. The second part asked for data on methods of de- About the author Hugh Thompson is ACRL director o f publications, e-mail: hthompson@ala.org mailto:hthompson@ala.org C&RL News ■ May 2002 / 339 livery for three key services: reference, materi­ als, and library instruction. There was some variance in the data reported by different insti­ tutions according to their Carnegie classifica­ tion, reflecting their different educational mis­ sions. The results support the notion that dis­ tance learning is becom ing an important part of higher education and that increasingly there will be technical and budgetary implications for academic libraries. Findings Associate of arts institutions overwhelmingly reported participating in distance learning ac­ tivities at 90.3 percent, w hereas other catego­ ries, though less involved, still show signifi­ cant activity, with bachelor’s institutions at 50.6 percent, m aster’s at 76.1 percent, and doctoral-granting at 83.2 percent. The total num ber of students involved at each institution is still relatively low, how ­ ever, with the majority of institutions in all four categories reporting that the num ber of FTE students in distance education programs is in the 0-499 range. At well over 90 percent of institutions in all categories, distance learn­ ing library services are part of the main li­ brary rather than administered as a separate unit. As might be expected, library staff par­ ticipation in the overall distance learning ex­ perience is restricted to library support ser- . . . academic libraries w ill need to cope w ith p o te n tia lly explosive g ro w th in d istrib u ted learning as an educational m odel and, alth o u g h m any are already involved in providing library services to these students, th e m ethods used seem to be a m ix o f tra d itio n a l and n e w e r technology. vices and does not tend to include direct in­ volvement in developm ent of course content, with around 90 percent of all institutions re­ porting only som ew hat or no involvement of staff in this area. To introduce students to library services for distance learners, academic libraries employ a variety of methods with 40 to 50 percent of all institutions using orientation sessions within the university or the library. Less frequently used are information literacy instruction pro­ grams (averaging 11%) and classroom visits (averaging 8%). All other methods account for 33 to 43 percent of those reported. Perhaps reflecting that these programs are still at an early stage of development, 90 to 95 percent 340 / C&RL News ■ May 2002 of all institutions stated that they do not have a separate budget item for the delivery of li­ brary services to distance learners. The survey asked about delivery m ethods for three types of services: reference, materi­ als, and instruction. The findings are that in­ stitutions are using a mix of n ew er technol­ ogy and m ore traditional m ethods of deliv­ ery. For reference service, libraries rely most heavily on e-mail (averaging 86%) and the telephone (averaging 81%). Som ewhat un­ expected is the num ber reporting face-to-face m ethods of reference service delivery. An average of up to 57 percent of baccalaureate, m aster’s, and doctoral-granting institutions reported using this m ethod, while as m any as 71 percent of associate of arts institutions use direct contact for reference services. This perhaps reflects the character of their learn­ ing program s as distributed learning rather than distance learning in the sense that stu­ dents may not be in a traditional classroom, but neither are they at such a large distance from the institution that they are unable to physically have access to its services. Deliv­ ery of materials, which may often be in physi­ cal form as well as in electronic form, is dis­ tributed m ore equally across a w ider range of m ethods, such as e-mail (46%), face-to- face (55%), fax-on-dem and (51%), interactive Web pages (34%), and courier (45%). Library instruction is still largely offered by m ore traditional m ethods, although more recent technology is being em ployed as well. Almost 78 percent of libraries reported using face-to-face m ethods of delivering library in­ struction, with e-mail (41%), interactive Web pages (41%), and telephone (32%) usage also show ing significant use. The high percent­ age of face-to-face m ethodology might be e x­ plained if instruction is delivered m ost often in orientation sessions on site before the b e ­ ginning of courses. Among the broad conclusions that may be draw n are that academic libraries will need to cope with potentially explosive grow th in distributed learning as an educational m odel and, although m any are already involved in providing library services to these students, the m ethods used seem to be a mix of tradi­ tional and n ew er technology. As th e distrib u ted learning tre n d grow s, libraries will n e e d to c o n tin u e to ex p lo re a n d “p u sh th e e n v e lo p e ” to k e e p pa c e with th e n e w p a rad ig m of inform ation delivery. N ote 1. Diana G. Oblinger, Carole A. Barone, and Brian L. Hawkins, D istributed Education a n d Its Challenges: A n Overview (Washing­ ton, D.C.: American Council on Education, 2001). ■ There's still tim e to subm it a proposal fo r the A CRL 11th National Conference ACRL’s 11th National Conference, “Learning to Make a Difference,” will emphasize the need for academic and research librarians to anticipate and prepare for transformations in the profession and will encourage innova­ tive ways to create and implement change. The conference will be held in Charlotte, North Carolina, April 10-13, 2003. ACRL seeks the best ideas of o ur profes­ sion a n d invites proposal subm issions for contributed papers, panel sessions, w ork­ shops, poster sessions, preconferences, and roundtable discussions. The full text of the Call for Participation is available at the ACRL National C onference W eb site at h ttp :// w w w .a l a .o r g / a c r l / c h a r l o t t e / p r o g r a m / cfp.html. The call also appears as an insert in the N ovem ber 2001 issue of C&RL News. Proposals and the completed program pro­ posal form should be sent to the appropriate committee cochair listed in the call. Dead­ lines for proposal submissions are as follows: • C ontributed papers, panel sessions, w orkshops, and preconferences: May 31, 2002 • Poster sessions: Novem ber 4, 2002 • Roundtable discussions: January 7, 2003 Helpful hints abo u t preparing success­ ful program proposals are online at h ttp :// w w w .ala.org/acrl/confm ar02.htm l. Q u e s­ tions? Contact (800) 545-2433, ext. 2519; e-mail: acrl@ala.org. http://www.ala.org/acrl/charlotte/program/ http://www.ala.org/acrl/confmar02.html mailto:acrl@ala.org