College and Research Libraries


ALICE S. CLARK and RITA HIRSCHMAN 

Using the "Guidelines": A Study of the 

State-Supported Two-Year College 

Libraries in Ohio 
A study of the two-year college learning resources centers in Ohio in-
dicated that the <<Guidelines for Two-Year College Learning Re-
sources Programs" are a useful tool for providing ·basic theory, fur-
nishing a set of objectives, and stimulating research in evaluation of 
performance. 

THE "GuiDELINES FOR Two-YEAR CoL-
LEGE . LEARNING REsoURCES PRocRAMs,"t 
approved by the ACRL Board of Di-
rectors in June 1972, contains the fol-
lowing statement of purpose: 

They have been prepared to give di-
rection to two-year colleges desiring 
to develop comprehensive Learning 
Resources Programs. This document is 
designed to provide criteria for infor-
mation, self-study, and planning.2 

The new "Guidelines" have moved away 
from quantitative criteria to general de-
scriptions of organization and objec-
tives and services, and are in direct con-
trast to the specific recommendations set 
forth in the "Standards · for Junior Col-
lege Libraries."3 The introductory state-
ment of the "Guidelines" indicates that 
they are "diagnostic and descriptive."4 
James Wallace has defined diagnostic 
standards as <oased upon a model of 
the conditions existent in libraries 
(known to be providing superior ser-

Alice S. Clark is assistant dean fo-r read-
ers' services, the University of New Mexico 
General Library, Albuquerque. Rita Hirsch-
man is personnel librarian, The Ohio State 
University Libraries, Columbus. 

364 I 

vices) to be used by other institutions 
in self-evaluation."5 

The "Guidelines'' were.. a long time 
in creation, from the first criticism of 
the 1960 standards by the American As-
sociation of Junior Colleges (which was 
not consulted in their development) to 
the final publication. A joint committee 
from ALA and AAJC met in 1964 and 
1965. Although a draft had been pre-
pared by 1968, the imminent publica-
tion of the Standards for School Media 
Centers called the committee's attention 
to the need for involving the Associa-
tion for Educational Communications 
and Technology. As a result of this co-
operation, the final document describes 
a learning resources center which pro-
vides all forms of information and the 
technology for presenting information 
to students. Changes in the various 
drafts often seemed to reflect what was 
happening in the development of jun-
ior college libraries. 

The introduction to the "Guidelines" 
also states: . 

Many aspects of traditional library and 
audiovisual services in the two-year 
college and the integration of these 
services have not been studied ade-
quately for long-range projection of 



needs. Until such studies have been 
made these guidelines may serve as 
the foundations for research and for 
experirri~ntation in organization, struc-
ture, and services. 6 

In order to evaluate their applicabil-
ity, the "Guidelines" were chosen as the 
therrie for the second annual Branch 
Campus Mini-Conference on May 10-11, 
1973. This conference of librarians 
from branch campuses of the state-sup-
ported universities in Ohio was held at 
the Middletown and Hamilton cam-
puses of Miami University. Louise 
Heidler, head librarian of the Hamil-
ton Campus, and Virginia Brown, head 
librarian of the Middletown Campus, 
served as joint leaders. The conclusions 
of the discussion . and reaction groups 
at the conference indicated the need to 
apply the "Guidelines'' in a selective 
manner. Since the branch campuses may 
vary organizationally from the type of 
institution envisioned by the "Guide-
lines" . authors, the conference partici-
pants indicated they would use the 
"Guidelines" primarily in two ways: ( 1) 
to persuade administrators, both inside 
and outside the library, of the need for 
comprehensive .learning resources ser-
vices and ( 2) for self-evaluation of 
their centers. 

Another conclusion of the group was 
that, in order to study the degree to 
which the institutions conform to the 
"Guidelines," the latter need to be 
translated into measurable criteria and 
quantitative averages for groups of in-
stitutions. A search of the literature, as 
well as practical experiences within li-
braries, also reflect this need. Ottersen's 
bibliography on standards for evaluat-
ing libraries lists several studies using 
or recommending quantitative measures 
or check of books against standard bib-
liographies.7 Many of the studies estab-
lish ratios for size of collection per 
number of students and number of 
courses or degrees offered. Some studies 

Using the "Guidelines'' I 365 

·suggest elaborate formulas such as the 
Clapp-Jordan formula, and several sug-
gest comparative measurements of simi-
lar libr~ies. s · 

One of these studies, which has been 
used by some of ·the ·two-year institu-
tions in Ohio, is James· S. Spencer's ar-
ticle, · "Projection of Standards for _ the 
Multi-Media Center," a report on an ex-
amination of the public junior college 
libraries of Illinois and a description of 
their status in quantitative terms.9 Ar-
ranged in a series of tables indicating 
size of collection, nature of collection, 
space, personnel, and financial support, 
this report can be used to produce aver-
ages and to identify similar institutions 
with which any individual library may 
be compared. While the study included 
some quantitative recommendations, it 
also pointed up the need for a defini-
tion of the structure and functions of 
a complete multimedia center. 

DESIGN FOR THE STUDY 

In an attempt to provide a self-evalu-
ation tool based on the "Guidelines," 
the authors distributed a questionnaire 
to the librarians of the state-supported 
two-year college libraries in the state of 
Ohio. This instrument presented the 
statements from the "Guidelines," each 
followed by a series of questions de-
signed to elicit quantitative data. While 
following the format of the c'Guide-
lines" sometimes . made it difficult to 
group the information homogeneously, 
the relationship of the specific guide-
line to the question or questions was 
made explicit. For example, the ques-
tons following guideline VI. A., "Co-
operative arrangements for sharing of 
resources are developed with other in-
stitutions and agencies in the communi-
ty, region, state, and nation," were de-
signed to yield statistics on the number 
of interlibrary loans in 1972--73 by · li-
braries in the same university, in coop-
erative systems, and with the entire li-
brary community. This provided the li-



366 I College & Research Libraries • September 1975 

brarian with a translation of the 
"Guidelines" statement into practical 
terms ·and also made it possible for the 
authors to compare institutions with one 
another as to whether, and to what ex-
tent, they were following the guidelines. 

As the first step, the questionnaire was 
tested in five of the two-year college li-
braries and was modified. Since the in-
strument contained sixty-five involved 
questions, the librarians at all of the in-
stitutions were polled by postcard to de-
termine ( 1) if they would be willing to 
complete the form and ( 2) who was the 
proper person to provide this infonna-
tion. This procedure resulted in a good 
return of the questionnaire, with twen-
ty-three of twenty-six responding. 

ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES 

Goals 

The first section of the "Guidelines" 
calling for a clear definition of the 
goals and objectives of a learning re-
sources center (LRC) seemed to serve 
its purpose. In this study many of the 
institutions proved to be traditional 
print libraries providing a collection of 
materials for circulation. A majority of 
the LRCs had statements of their ob-
jectives and, in the broadest sense, met 
the guidelines requirement to "improve 
learning" and to be "an integral part of 
instruction." However, when these state-
ments were interpreted by the question-
naire to define a role in curriculum 
planning, selection of the appropriate 
media for instruction, and presentation 
of independent study programs, most 
of the LRCs were not directly involved. 

Also, the broad spectrum of possible 
services which an LRC might provide 
were not part of the service in most in-
stitutions. HaH of them did provide 
auto-tutorial carrels of some type, and 
a third had learning laboratory services 
and telecommunication production, but 
almost none of them provided com-
puter services, campus duplicating ( oth-

er than library photocopying), printing 
services, or dial access services which 
were items the "Guidelines" had sug-
gested. The institutions studied seemed 
to fall across a broad spectrum from a 
complete learning resources program in 
one case to a basic library collection in 
another. It is possible that those at the 
latter end of the spectrum should be 
designated libraries rather than learning 
resources centers, and the "Guidelines" 
may need to reflect these differences. 

Organization of the Learning 
Resources Center 

The second section of the "Guide-
lines'' is designed to define the organi-
zation and administration of a learning 
resources center in relation to its insti-
tution. Responses indicated that these 
Ohio LRCs are well integrated into the 
organization of the local campuses and 
the larger academic units and are accept-
ed as integral parts of their institutions. 
The head of the LRC, in most cases, 
was responsible to the head of the cam-
pus although several reported to the di-
rector of the university library in a 
branch campus situation. This variation 
may be fairly unique and a reflection 
of the fact that many of Ohio's junior 
colleges are branches of a university. 

Most of the LRC heads had faculty 
status and rank and served on commit-
tees both for the campus and for the 
main campus where that situation exist-
ed. Nearly all had advisory committees 
made up of faculty and students, but 
very few had any clerical and nonpro-
fessional staff involved in this way. 

Many of the LRCs did not have or-
ganization charts to define external and 
internal relationships, but a majority 
had job descriptions and provided meet-
ings or other means for involving all 
staff in policy and procedure decisions. 
They seem to have accepted the respon-
sibility for ''dissemination of informa-
tion'' as called for in the "Guidelines'' 
and produced statistics, annual reports, 



bibliographies, new book lists, hand-
books, and publicity releases. One of 
the advantages -of a self-evaluation 
against the "Guidelines" may be the 
production of such documents, state-
ments of objectives, organization charts, 
and written policies and procedures in 
those institutions which lack them. 

While the "Guidelines'' call for cen-
tralized administration of all learning 
resources services, not all of the LR Cs 
examined had complete control of 
learning -equipment and materials. More 
than one-third of them had neither the 
control nor any records for the location 
of learning equipment. This seemed to 
be .an indication that separate media 
centers existed on these campuses. Most 
of the LRCs did, however, control and 
keep catalogs of all learning materials. 
In some cases these may be only print 
materials. 

The "Guidelines" have a statement 
covering multicampus situations. In 
these situations all of the Ohio LRCs 
seemed to share materials, and about 
half shared equipment; but the sharing 
of services, such as telecommunications 
or a dial access listening service, was not 
as common. A substantial majority did, 
however, meet regularly with main cam-
pus representatives and with other 
branch campus representatives, so it ap-
peared that they may have shared an 
even more important asset, the expertise 
of personnel. This is not emphasized in 
the "Guidelines" and may be an area 
for amendment. In the multicampus sit-
uation, the number of professional li-
brarians and media specialists on a 
branch campus is often limited. It 
would seem to be especially important 
that the many experienced and well-
qualified professionals on the main 
campus be consulted regularly by 
branch campus personnel. 

Extent of Commitment to 
Program Budgeting 

The section of the "Guidelines" de-

Using the "Guidelines" I 361 

voted to the budget for learning re-
sources services yielded rather confused 
results. Whether this confusion exists 
in the "Guidelines" or in the interpre-
tive questions of the test instrument is 
not clearly evident. The "Guidelines" 
seem to be committed to program bud-
geting and a systems approach and yet 
also want line items clearly defined. The 
LRCs studied were in the same position, 
seemingly dedicated to making pur-
chases based on curricular needs but also 
quite understandably spending the 
amount allotted in any line item. An at-
tempt was made to determine if pur-
chases were on a ''systems app.roach" 
and using "valid criteria" by offering the 
option of answering "yes," "no," or 
"sometimes" to questions regarding the 
criteria for purchasing such as perform-
ance, cost, and availability of service. 
It was assumed that if purchases were 
made to meet the needs of a program, 
most of these .answers would have to be 
"sometimes," since the needs of the pro-
gram would take priority over other cri-
teria. Since the answers were overwhelm-
ingly "yes" to all criteria, it must be as-
sumed either that the "systems ap-
proach" is not used or that the question-
naire was improperly worded. 

This may be a very important area 
for further study. A question designed 
to test the commitment to a program or 
systems approach would by extension 
tell how much an LRC was involved in 
designing the best material and technol-
ogy for a unit of instruction. The 
"Guidelines" seem to call for the LR C 
to be an integral part of the instruction 
program rather than a warehouse on 
which the teaching faculty could call 
for material and equipment, and re-
sponses left this in doubt. 

The overall response to this section 
did indicate that the Ohio LRCs_ have 
a fair measure of freedom in control-
ling their own budgets and that they are 
exercising this control in a responsible 
manner. 



368 I College & Research Libraries • September 1975 

Personnel 

The section of the "Guidelines" en-
titled "Instructional System Compo-
nents" defines the nature of its person-
nel. Only three of the LRCs did notre-
quire a master's degree of some kind 
for the head of the LRC. Since sixteen 
of the LRCs required the M.L.S. degree 
and only one called for either an M.L.S. 
or the M.S. in audiovisual education, 
this may also indicate that many of the 
LRCs are primarily traditional print li-
braries or have nonbook services as just 
one more element of service provided. 
A majority had additional professional 
personnel. However, in some cases this 
was interpreted as including people 
without a degree or on a joint appoint-
ment with classroom teaching. The pro-
fessional staff had faculty rank, status, 
benefits, and responsibilities in a ma-
jority of the LRCs studied. However, 
the responsibility for advanced study, 
research, and publication was required 
in very few cases. The professionalism 
of the staff Is recognized in committee 
assignments, time off for meetings, and 
released time for preparation of teach-
ing assignments. The number of sup-
port staff varied widely, reflecting the 
wide variation in the size of the institu-
tions studied. 

The median salary for professional 
staff was $11,214, which compares favor-
ably with the national norms. Only two 
of the reporting institutions had profes-
sional personnel receiving less than 
$10,000. 

Adequacy of Physical Facilities 

The section of the "Guidelines" de-
scribing standards for the physical fa-
cilities for an ideal learning resources 
center was well met by these institutions 
and reflected the fact that most of the 
institutions are relatively new. They 
varied widely in size, from 1,000 square 
feet to 27,000 square feet. Nearly all re-
ported that the head and other profes-

sional staff were involved in the plan-
ning. In only five, however, were they 
consulted about other areas, e.g., suit-
ability of classrooms for use of media 
equipment. 

In nearly all of the institutions, the 
LRC was centrally located and half pro-
vided flexibility for possible · drastic 
changes in technology. Very few pro-
vided an area that could be opened for 
limited service and study. This could 
limit the number of hours of service if 
personnel budgets were cut or if the 
colleges ceased to be commuter cam-
puses and wanted longer hours. The re-
sponse to questions on the comfort fea-
tures and availability of power sources 
was almost unanimously positive, again 
a reflection of modem buildings. 

Measurement of MaterialY, 
Equipment, and Service 

In the sections on provision of ma-
terials, equipment, and services, the 
study took two approaches-one a quan-
titative measure of holdings and the 
other a measurement of the commit-
ment to structured planning an.d policy 
and testing of performance. In the first 
approach a detailed list of the types of 
materials held was obtairied (see Ap-
pendix). While it was possible to match 
holdings against the size of the student 
body, it was not appropriate to report 
this because of the small size of the 
sample and because so many of these in-
stitutions were relatively new, one only 
a year old. This correlation would be 
valuable if made on a broader basis in-
cluding states such as California, New 
York, and Illinois where the commit-
ment to junior and community colleges 
is of longer duration. 

The second approach called for ques-
tions designed to find out if the plan-
ning for services was well structured. A 
question was asked if a written ·policy . 
was available. For example, "Do you 
have a written acquisition policy provid-



ing for materials representing all sides 
of controversial issues?" Or to deter-
mine if a regular program was carried 
on to conduct one of the activities list-
ed in the "Guidelines," such a question 
might be asked: "Do you have a regular, 
systematic program of repairing or re-
placing damaged materials?" It was felt 
that direct questions about the provision 
of certain materials or equipment 
would be suitable in some cases, but 
might often elicit an automatic "yes" 
response. Responses to these two types 
of questions seemed to indicate that the 
respondents felt they were meeting the 
standards of the "Guidelines" in most 
cases but that many were not doing this 
under a written plan or policy state-
ment. However, the questions directed 
toward evaluation of services (e.g., 
"Have you conducted any research to 
determine what hours of opening your 
campus community prefers?") showed 
that not only were the services provided 
but also that there was a commitment 
to test the library user's response to li-
brary services. The responses also indi-
cated that not enough research has been 
done on such areas as refusals of ser-
vice on instructional equipment, delays 
in providing equipment, and delays in 
placing materials on reserve, but not 
necessarily a correlation with lack of 
service. 

SUMMARY 

The results of this study indicate that 
the "Guidelines" can be interpreted for 
use as a measure to compare two-year 
college learning resources programs and 
as a self-evaluative tool. The questions 
used in this study to interpret the 
"Guidelines" statements are but one way 
to create some quantitative averages. 

As indicated, several areas of the 

Using the "Guidelines" I 369 

"Guidelines" were open to question. 
Will LRCs be completely integrated 
into the des_igning of the proper media 
for instruction, or will they serve as 
extended libraries providing all kinds 
of media and equipment but on the 
basis of meeting the demand of teach-
ing faculty? While the "Guidelines" 
could serve a leadership role here, the 
actual development will depend on 
many factors outside of a learning re-
sources center. In this study about one-
third of the institutions seemed to have 
learning equipment under a separate 
agency. This phenomenon is probably 
even more common in two-year colleges 
of long standing. While the "Guide-
lines" call for a completely integrated 
program as most desirable, perhaps they 
should recognize also the need to mea-
sure performance in two separate agen-
cies. 

The quantitative measures obtained 
in this study, while valuable to the in-
stitutions in Ohio, would be more use-
ful if the study were replicated on a 
broader basis. It would be appropriate 
for the Community and Junior College 
Libraries Section of ACRL or some other 
organization to take the responsibility for 
development of better interpretations 
and numerical measures to fit the gen-
eral statements of the "Guidelines." A 
properly designed questionnaire could 
also stimulate two-year college librarians 
and media specialists to undertake more 
research on users' needs and perform-
ance measures. 

The committee responsible for the 
"Guidelines" has done a thorough job 
in creating them. It would be a serious 
waste of time and talent if they are not 
studied and used effectively by two-year 
college administrators, librarians, and 
media specialists. 

REFERENCES 

1. "Guidelines for Two-Year College Learning 
Resources Programs," College & Research 
Libraries News 33:305-15 (Dec. 1972). 

2. Ibid., p.306. 

3. "Standards for Junior College Libraries," 
College & Research Libraries 21:200-206 
(May 1960). 

4. "Guidelines," p.306. 



370 I College & Research Libraries • September 1975 

5. James 0. Wallace, "The Practical Meaning 
of Library Standards," in Irene Braden 
Hoadley and Alice S. Clark, eds., Quantita-
tive Methods in. Librarianship: Standards, 
Research, Management (Westport, Conn.: 

Research Libraries 32:127-44 (March 
1971 ). 

Greenwood, 1972), p.34. 

8. Verner W. Clapp and R. T. Jordan, "Quanti-
tative Criteria for Adequacy of Academic Li-
brary Collections," College & Research Li-
braries 26:371-80 ( Sept. 1965). 

6. "Guidelines," p.306. 
7. Signe Ottersen, "A Bibliography on Stan-

dards for Evaluating Libraries," College & 

9. James S. Spencer, "Projections of Standards 
for the Multi-Media Center," Illinois Librar-
ies 51:474-88 (June 1969). 

APPENDIX 

SuRVEY OF TwENTY-THREE Two-YEAR CoLLEGES IN OHIO. 

INFORMA noN oN HoLDINGs, STUDENT BoDY SIZE, AND LIBRARY SERVICES 

·volumes added to the collection during FY 72/73 
Total volumes held at the end of FY 72/73 
Serials (bibliographic volumes) 
Reels of microfilm 
Pieces of microfiche 
Other microforms (pieces) 
Periodical titles 
Reference books 
Newspaper titles 
Government documents 
Phonodiscs 
Audiotapes (includes reels, cassettes, 8 track, etc.) 
Films (includes 8mm, super 8 and 16mm, etc.) 
Filmstrips 
Filmloops 
Slide sets 
Kits (includes all combination kits of books, tapes, 

filmstrips, etc.) 
Videotapes 
Framed art prints 
Maps 
Number of drawers of vertical file material 

(assumes a twenty-eight-inch drawer depth) 
Other (includes realia, globes, and other items not listed above) 
Number of FTE students (average of fall, winter and 

spring quarters) 
How many hours per week is your LRC open (regular session)? 

Range 50--77 
For how many of these hours is professional personnel on duty? 

Range 30--7 4 

Range Average 

1,000--9,315 3,336 
1,682-59,762 29,382 

60--4,354 1,965 
223-6,963 2,992 

7-5,070 1,459 
Response not signific~nt 

92-3,305 520 
270--15,000 2,948 

0--18 11.5 
Response not significant 

147-2,318 691 
3-3,615 589 
1-383 49 

10--1,040 157 
6-350 77 

29-8,487 1,594 

1-349 59 
1-40 14 
3-219 47 
1-820 115 

0-35 16 
3-1,091 237 

250-5,600 1,201 

Average 64 

Average 51