College and Research Libraries ARL, Libraries and Staff Development: A Suggested Model for Success Pat Weaver-Meyers An education model of staff development, the Readiness, Planning, Training, Implementa- tion, and Maintenance Model (RPTIM) is described. Concepts in the model are related to a broad overview of current staff development and continuing education efforts in academic li- braries. Results of a survey of staff developers in ARL libraries suggest that 80 percent of the model describes practices appropriate to the academic/research library setting. In addition, re- spondents indicated that existing staff development programs generally did not meet the crite- ria staff developers agreed should be part of their libraries' program. ffective continuing education and staff development pro- grams in libraries are becoming more pressing needs as fast- paced change remains with us. Sheila Creth identifies continuing education as a priority and exhorts academic librarians to assess critically the degree of support con- tinuing education receives from library administrators. 1 This study examines RPTIM, the Readiness, Planning, Train- ing, Implementation and Maintenance model. 2 Devised for use with staff devel- opment programs for education profes- sionals, RPTIM is a potentially valuable tool for improving staff development ef- forts in the field of academic librarianship as well. This study, which surveyed Asso- ciation of Research Libraries (ARL) staff development and personnel officers, is of- fered in support of the RPTIM model's ap- plicability to the academic library environ- ment. The survey assesses the status of current ARL staff development library programs in relation to the ideal practices embedded in the model. The following re- view of library staff development and con- tinuing education programs is provided as background to the survey results. CURRENT EFFORTS IN CONTINUING EDUCATION Continuing education (CE) and staff de- velopment (SD) are important compo- nents of librarianship in these days of rapid technological change and intensi- fied career concerns. Elizabeth Stone, in her thorough analysis of continued learn- ing in our profession, draws a distinction between CE and SD programs. Specifi- cally, she defines staff development as continued learning that fulfills the needs or goals of the institution and continuing education as any kind of learning experi- ence that will introduce new skills or con- cepts, fulfilling the needs of the individual for career advancement and improved personal competency. 3 Although such Pat Weaver-Meyers is Access Services Department Head at the University of Oklahoma Libraries, Norman, Oklahoma 73019-0528. Much of the interpretation of the RPTIM model is taken primarily from a series of lectures presented by Fred H. Wood. Assistance with the statistical analysis was provided by Robert Shull, University of Oklahoma Statistical Computing Laboratory. 251 252 College & Research Libraries distinctions are important, particularly to this study, staff development and contin- uing education remain closely inter- twined. In this paper, the focus will be on staff development as Stone defines it, but CE efforts will be reviewed due to their close relationship to staff development. Several organizations provide CE op- portunities to librarians. According to Brooke Sheldon, continuing education programs are being provided by numer- ous associations: American Society of In- formation Science, Special Library Associ- ation, the Continuing Library Education Network and Exchange of the American Library Association, International Federa- tion of Library Associations, and others. 4 However, extensive efforts by such orga- nizations to provide 11 quantity and acces- sibility'' have not been particularly suc- cessful. For example, Marion Paris and Herbert White indicate that continuing education in the area of special librarian- ship lacks a tmified core of coursework re- lated to special library issues. 5 Brooke Sheldon points out that only a small per- cent of librarians participate regularly in CE offerings. 6 A discussion of the quality assurance concerns of the associations and some analysis of their offerings are provided by Peggy O'Donnell, who concludes that as- sociation offerings are especially impor- tant since they represent "the concerns and voluntary professional involvement of the individual librarian. " 7 Sheldon's summary analyses of CE and SD in the most recent volumes of the ALA Yearbook demonstrate a high level of activity on the part of associations in developing pro- grams and in analyzing the most effective organizational stance towards these ef- forts. 8 Recently, a study sponsored by the Ontario Library Association analyzed var- ious existing CE models with the intent of proposing an organizational coordinatin& body and defining its responsibilities. This is one example of how library organi- zations are reassessing their commitment toCE. Regional and state library agencies are alternative providers of CE. William Asp and Suzanne Mahmoodi describe existing programs nationwide .10 Learning in Prog- May 1990 ress by Joan Wright and Douglas Zweizig· focuses on existing state programs and the coordination of all types of providers in- cluding library schools and associations. 11 James Nelson points to coordinating, planning, financing, linking (to national and regional programs), licensing, pro- viding, consuming and advocating as the major roles in CE and SD that should be assumed by stage agencies. 12 In many cases public, although not necessarily aca- demic, libraries benefit from the efforts of state agencies. Further, state agencies do much toward providing more staff development-type programming for non- professionals, rather than just CE for pro- fessionals. Another logical provider of continuing education and staff development oppor- tunities is ·the library ·school. Marilyn Miller provides a comprehensive analysis of the state of library schools in the contin- uing education effort. 13 She cites certifi- cates of advanced study and sixth-year programs as examples of CE program- ming. In addition, she analyzes the num- ber of CE courses provided by schools. From this analysis, Miller concludes that library schools have lost the initiative and failed to seize the opportunity to assume a dynamic leadership role in this arena. However, she maintains that they con- tinue to have a place in the continuing ed- ucation system. One example of a healthy library school CE program is offered at the University of Wisconsin-Extension. 14 This program involves teleconferencing of CE units in such subjects as management and automation. In brief, library schools, like associations and state agencies, appear to play one part in the overall continuing ed- ucation effort. The other players in this ef- fort are the individual and the employer. CURRENT EFFORTS IN STAFF DEVELOPMENT IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES The preceding review has concentrated on continuing education, because it seems that CE offerings in the form of work- shops, CEU training programs, and pre- conferences often constitute all the staff development some librarians encounter. This lack of in-house staff development is disturbing, since personal experience sug- gests that these CE programs, attended with enthusiasm and interest, can be quickly forgotten. What is taught is not al- ways implemented in the workplace. This may be because it is not seen as relevant to the attendee's current duties, because of lack of interest, or because of lack of follow-up by the supervisor. This does not mean that such coursework for the expan- sion of an individual's skills is a waste. It is a necessary part of career development. The problem. lies in the assumption by the institution that such programming repre- sents an adequate staff development pro- gram. Although staff development in some li- braries may be limited to CE coursework, some academic institutions are recogniz- ing that staff development requires a more complex response. In a recent article de- scribing a residency training program at the University of Michigan Library, Rich- ard Dougherty convincingly states that "the intellectual demands are too diverse, and time too short for library schools to as- sume the entire responsibility for training practicing librarians. " 15 Although training new library graduates in practical applica- tions is not new to library managers, Dougherty is emphasizing the responsi- bility of the library administrator to for- malize strategies for such efforts. Ronald Powell's recent study suggests that ARL librarians would prefer to acquire more of their professional knowledge through continuing education and staff develop- ment activities. 16 What is the current trend in academic libraries? The following sec- tion examines current staff development and training programs in academic li- braries with the intention of laying a framework for the use of the RPTIM model in a systematic staff development effort. On-the-job training has been employed by libraries. The Office of Management Services/ Association of Research Libraries has recognized the need to improve train- ing and has developed a new course that focuses on the learning process. It is di- rected toward personnel officers and staff involved in coordinating training activi- ties. This is one of many institutes and ARL Libraries 253 programs offered by OMS. According to their 1987 annual report, OMS has trained over 7,000 librarians since 1973.17 The em- phasis of OMS has been on self-study pro- grams and the use of institute and retreat formats in training programs is consistent with current research in the most effective adult training techniques. The Association of College and Re- search Libraries (ACRL) is another pro- vider of CE opportunities for academic li- brarians. Through local state chapters, their coursework is accessible to many un- able to participate in national precon- ferences. Although these organizations, particularly OMS with its onsite applied approach toward training, provide impor- tant development opportunities, the con- sistent application of this training within the library remains a responsibility of the individual and the institution. In addition to institutes, OMS has a spec kit program that pulls together in-house documents from different libraries. These kits serve as resources for self-training in academic libraries and provide a simple yet effective form of peer exchange. Sev- eral other recent publications provide a compendium of effective training tech~ niques in all types of libraries. 18 Although their coverage is not limited to paraprofes- sionals, most of these works emphasize practical training approaches to clerical tasks. The British seem to excel in devel- oping such programming, but paraprofes- sional training is also present in American academic libraries. Jacquelyn Gavryck de- scribes a program developed at the SUNY Albany Libraries. 19 What is particularly noteworthy about this program to train clerical staff is that an existing cadre of trainers was used to provide training within the organization rather than bring- ing trainers in from the outside. The as- signment of personnel charged with the coordination of staff training efforts has occurred in larger academic libraries and a movement in this direction is gaining mo- mentum in smaller academic libraries as well. Evidence of an increased emphasis on in-house training is demonstrated in the Resource Notebook on Staff Development b~ Jane Rosenberg and Maureen Sullivan. 254 College & Research Libraries This volume contains examples of current efforts in staff development at various aca- demic libraries. The inclusion of program statements used at various institutions is also useful. These authors stress that changes in library organization increase the need for a dynamic process of staff de- velopment. Defining career ladders and job exchange are two ideas suggested. The concept of diversifying staff and promot- ing flexibility fits with a new emphasis in the quality of work life, cited by Rosen- berg and Sullivan as an important trend forwarded by Charles Martell. 21 Impor- tantly, these authors conclude that the for- mal acknowledgement of staff develop- ment programming is a necessary prerequisite to formal budgetary commit- ment. Jana Varlejs addresses budgetary com- mitment on the part of library administra- tors through modeling of costs. In one ex- ample, she com~ares in-service training to off-site training. Varlejs further raises the question of how much should be spent for adequate staff development and suggests that modeling may be used to arrive at a possible recommendation. Once a bud- getary commitment is made, a closer ex- amination of effective programs is neces- sary to insure value for each dollar spent. Examination of proven models of staff de- velopment is one method of arriving at a successful strategy. "Research by Jana Varlejs suggests that learning styles should be taken into consideration in the formulation of continuing education and staff de- velopment work. 11 Such an examination of models in con- tinuing education has been done in the formulation of much of our Eresent-day li- brary continuing education. 23 Model com- parison and formulation in staff develop- ment practice are now being done. Margaret Trask describes several presup- positions in Australian libraries' staff de- velopment, which can serve as a base model and Christian Vink suggests some May1990 practical guidelines as welL~ Malcolm Knowles has put forth a model based on adult learning theory, which in may ways parallels the RPTIM model this paper will examine. 25 Furthermore, research by Jana Varlejs suggests that learning styles should be taken into consideration in the formulation of continuing education and staff development work. 26 The RPTIM model does this. Finally, the RPTIM model has been applied to higher educa- tion personnel, not the group for which it was originally formulated, and found to be an ~propriate guide for staff develop- ment. THE RPTIM MODEL The RPTIM model has five major subdi- visions from which the acronym is formed: readiness, planning, training, im- plementation, and maintenance. Within these broad categories are thirty-eight specific practices that are stressed as im- portant ingredients in an effective staff de- velopment program. In their original pre- sentation of the model, Fred Wood, Steven Thompson, and Sister Francis Russell forward these categories as essen- tial to a ''coherent paradigm for construct- ing (staff development) programs." 28 In addition to the 38 practices, the authors based their model on a series of assump- tions or beliefs. The model was supported by practitioners in teacher/staff develop- ment. 29 The following is a brief description of these categories as they relate to the aca- demic library environment. Readiness, the first step in the model, re- fers to the establishment of a positive work climate for staff development. This climate is characterized by the develop- ment of trust among colleagues, support, and open communication between ad- ministrators and staff. A clear vision of the organization's goals are put forth by the li- brary director, and the administration and staff work together to formulate goals that will achieve the vision. Why is readiness a necessary compo- nent of the staff development process? One reason is that change is a high-risk venture for an individual and activities such as team-building exercises foster a sense of support and gain the trust of those involved. In addition, readiness is a time when loyalty for the chosen goals is established and participation gives every- one the sense of ownership necessary for successful change. Also, readiness activi- ties refocus the attention of the group away from present concerns toward a new agenda. The Management Review and Analysis Program used by the Office of Management Studies, Association of Re- search Libraries and other OMS self-study programs include some of these con- cepts. 30 Readiness is not then a totally new concept in library management, but seems to be infrequently applied in any system- atic manner in staff development pro- gramming. Some of the existing programs in aca- demic libraries detailed in Resource Note- book on Staff Development indicate a climate that provides opportunities for staff devel- opment, but little mention is made of team building or actual staff input into defining beneficial staff development opportuni- ties. 31 The Texas A&M staff ex- change/sharing program is a positive ex- ception. This program allows depart- ments to plan, outline and train partici- pants in an employee exchange program. 32 However, in goal formulation and analysis of options, the participation of staff in libraries still seems limited. Sys- tematic connection between organization goals and staff development is also rare. Planning, the second component of the RPTIM model, generally occurs in most organizations, and academic libraries are no exception. Most academic libraries can produce a plan or policy for staff develop- ment when asked. However, how was that plan devised? Was information on weaknesses and strengths in work prac- tices gathered from the staff? Did the plan include assessment of participants learn- ing styles or was it based on research find- ings about adult learners? Did the plan- ners determine how the program related to a long-term plan for improvement and did they include a list of in-service re- sources such as videotapes, university personnel staff development offerings, money for trainers, release time available, or in-house experts? Who did the planning-personnel officers, directors, ARL Libraries 255 or everyone? These questions exemplify the focus of this stage in the model. Needs assessment, a part of planning, is being done in academic libraries. Rosen- berg and Sullivan include some good ex- amples of survey forms designed to ascer- tain staff needs. 33 In addition, their suggestions for information gathering in- clude many of the steps in this model. Training steps in the RPTIM model might best be understood by asking the following questions. Did the training pro- gram divide the group into teams to dis- cuss and share experiences? Were the training program objectives chosen by group consensus? Who selected the pro- gram and was attendance required? Did the training program include practice ses- sions in which all the participants could try out the new behaviors presented dur- ing training? Was the training program presented by colleagues? Did the library director or a supervisor attend the ses- sion? Were group leaders experts in the subject presented, or were they depart- ment heads or divisional leaders? As the training session progressed, did the trainer expect the participants to rely more on themselves to generate activities? Did the participants emerge from the training session more confident? Sue Courson's and Kenna Forsyth's public library program, in which librarians were given training in adult learning the- ory, learning objectives, needs assess- ment, training styles, transfer of learning and evaluation, and the new OMS course on training trainers, is evidence of in- creased awareness of these questions in li- brary staff development. 34 Stone also dis- cusses quality control issues that relate to the concerns in this step of the model. 35 The implementation criteria in the RPTIM model seem to be ignored most when li- braries rely on continuing education op- portunities to fulfill staff development needs. Most continuing education pro- grams stop at an evaluation survey passed out during the last fifteen minutes of the session. Libraries could maximize CE of- ferings by sending more than one partici- pant. When they returned to the work- place, they could observe one another using the new work practices, thereby en- 256 College & Research Libraries hancin'g implementation. Following up with resource support would also assist. Such follow-up activities are not common in CE coursework, but are sometimes em- phasized in on-the-job training. On-site institutes such as those provided by OMS improve the chances of implementation through the use of applied techniques. Maintenance is a method of assuring that the new work practices are stabilized and continued. The level of success with main- tenance is usually reflected in perfor- mance evaluations. Some self-evaluation techniques are also used to maintain new work behaviors. However, self-evaluation is underutilized. Most maintenance is closely tied to personnel office procedures that address performance evaluation. There is no problem with this approach, as long as it does not lead to a consistently negative view, lack of positive feedback, and an inadequate period of time to imple- ment the change before evaluation takes place. What seems to be missing is the use of measures that reflect improvement in overall quality with regard to the change in work practice. Measuring increased efficiency in cata- loging is merely one use of quantitative techniques for determining the effects of change in work procedure. They are quite rightly used. Qualitative changes are harder to measure, and perhaps for that reason seem to remain unrelated to staff development efforts. The debate about ef- fective performance measures will con- tinue for many years to come. 36 Once these measures become more refined, they should be included in the evaluation of staff development programs. It should be emphasized that staff development ulti- mately rests on the assumption that im- provement and change in job practice ben- efits the organization and the individual. Furthermore, organizational improve- ment should be measurable in terms of the patron's rate of success in filling informa- tion needs. METHOD In April of 1988, a questionnaire survey- ing RPTIM model practices was mailed to the staff development and personnel li- brarians in all ARL member libraries. Ap- May 1990 pendix A reproduces the survey form. The form is adapted from the survey form orig- inated by Steven Thompson and used by Ana Albino to assess perceptions of fac- ulty developmentJ'ractices in higher edu- cation personnel. Wording was altered as little as possible and most changes re- lated to position titles e.g., librarian=tea- cher or director= principal. One addi- tional question was added, belief ten. The first section of the survey lists ten beliefs or assumptions that underlie the model and asks respondents to rate whether they agree or disagree with the statements. The second section of the survey lists the thirty-eight practices that comprise the model. In this section, respondents are asked to rate the degree to which they think these practices should be part of li- brary staff development efforts and the degree to which they think the practices now exist in staff development efforts in their library. The survey closed with a query about who is responsible for staff development and the number of staff in the library. The question of size was used later as a control, because earlier research shows that size is highly correlated with change and the adoption of new technol- ogy, the end result of many staff develop- ment programs. 38 One hundred and six- teen surveys were mailed with a response rate of 47 percent. The objective of the survey was twofold. First, a confirmation of the model as ap- propriate to the academic and research li- brary setting was sought. Second, a mea- surement of the current state of staff development in these libraries in compari- son to the model's criteria was reviewed to determine how current staff development efforts might be improved. FINDINGS General descriptive analysis of respon- dents shows that 26 libraries qualified as small with fewer than 200 staff members. Large libraries, with staff greater than 200, accounted for 24 respondents. One re- spondent failed to complete the question. Fourteen libraries indicted they had staff development offices. When asked who was responsible for staff development programming, the responses varied con- siderably. Two libraries indicated no one had that responsibility while one library indicated that university personnel train- ing services performed this role. Several libraries indicated individual supervisors and administrative officers were responsi- ble. Most frequently, personnel man- agers, staff development officers, or per- sonnel managers in conjunction with professional development committees were responsible. "Staff should be closely involved in the planning and selection of a pro- gram.'' The use of a committee made up of para- professionals and professionals charged with establishing training priorities closely follows the planning techniques stressed in the RPTIM model. The model suggests that staff should be closely in- volved in the planning and selection of a program. A professional development committee was listed by seventeen of the responding libraries as the party responsi- ble for staff development. One library in- dicated it had such a committee, but it was a committee for paraprofessional training. Professionals were held responsible for their own continuing education. Although the questionnaire was mailed to the ''personnel/ staff development li- brarian'' the title of the respondents con- firmed that not all libraries have such a person. Directors, personnel librarians, assistant directors, and chairs of profes- ARL Libraries 257 sional development committees com- pleted the forms. General commentary in- dicated that several libraries were newly involved in staff development programs and had hopes of increasing their commit- ment. One library emphasized the impor- tance of shared responsibility between the organization and the individual. Another indicated that evaluation was important but was underemphasized in the RPTIM model. Three respondents mentioned that they were unclear about the differ- ence between continuing education, in- service, on-the-job training and staff de- velopment and therefore had trouble answering some parts of the survey. Quantitative analysis of the data fo- cused on the two objectives of the study. The mean of each question was examined to determine if respondents agreed with the beliefs and practices the model listed. If the mean response was less than 3.0, the questions were considered unimportant by respondents and excluded from analy- sis. The remaining responses were deemed important to the survey group. Beliefs 6,8 and practices 16,21-25, and 32 were excluded. This left a total of eight be- liefs and thirty-one practices that were supported by respondents. Table 1 is a list of the means for the eight questions con- cerning beliefs. Table 2 is a list of all the practices with a mean greater than 3.0 in the'' should'' cat- egories. In addition, the table lists the F and p values for the repeated measures MANOV A (multivariate analysis of vari- ance) compiled for the difference between "should" and "exists" (statistics com- piled by the SAS General Linear Models Procedure). The table shows significant values for all the questions. TABLE 1 MEAN OF RESPONSES TO MODEL BELIEFS > 3.00 Questions 1. Libr~ personnel need inservice 2. Signiftcant improvement takes time 3. lnservice education focus on improving 4. Staff motivated to learn new things 5. Staff varies in competencies and readiness 7. The working climate influences success 9. The library has responsibility for l.'roviding resources 10. The library should provide insemce activities n 54 54 54 53 54 53 52 52 3.53 3.01 3.12 3.35 3.37 3.52 3.05 3.11 STD .63 .71 .58 .48 .55 .54 .60 .58 258 College & Research Libraries May1990 TABLE2 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHOULD AND EXISTS FOR THOSE QUESTIONS WITH A MEAN > 3.00 Questionst 1. A positive work climate is developed 2. Liorary goals written collaboratively 3. Improvement goals for three to five years 4. The library staff adopts goals 5. Current library practices are examined 6. Current work practices are examined 7. Staff identifies plans to achieve goals 8. Leadership responsibility of library (a) director/dean (b) associate directors/ deans (c) staff development officer 9. Differences of desired and actual practices are examined 10. Planning of staff activities relies on information 11. Inservice planners use information 12. Staff development include inservice activities 13. Resources are identified prior to planning activities 14. Staff development activities for three to five years 15. Specific objectives are written 17. Staff development objectives include knowledge 18. Staff development objectives include skill development 19. Leadership is shared among librarians 26 . Leaders selected according to expertise 27. Leadership behavior becomes less directive 28. Leader transfers responsibility 29. Participants have access to support services 30. Library staff members are recognized 33. Resources are allocated to support new practices 34. The library director support changes 35. Sr.stematic program is used 36, Ltbrary staff use systematic techniques 37. Performance used to monitor new practices 38. Responsibility for maintenance is shared *Wilks Lambda values t p < .05 for all questions, df = 1 btw This suggests that the staff development programs in ARL libraries fall short of what experts in the field agree should ex- ist. As shown in table 2, all but four of the practices that should be part of staff devel- opment according to respondents fell be- low the 3.0 level when respondents rated the programs in their libraries. As mentioned earlier, libraries were grouped in small and large categories to determine if size had any significant effect on responses. No significant difference should exists difference n xl x2 xrx2 F* 52 3.34 2.59 .75 44.165 52 3.41 2.56 .85 43.764 53 3.60 2.73 .87 33.284 52 3.51 2.66 .85 41.974 48 3.39 2.50 .89 47.305 51 3.09 2.25 .84 57.614 53 3.24 2.56 .68 41.057 52 3.51 2.96 .55 25.591 52 3.51 3.08 .43 30.966 49 3.77 3.32 .45 10.348 54 3.33 2.44 .89 67.392 54 3.42 2.94 .48 23.597 54 3.14 2.03 .84 82.886 54 3.00 1.71 1.29 97 .137 53 3.50 2.98 .52 22.563 53 3.09 1.73 1.36 132.242 53 3.45 2.36 1.09 54.807 53 3.45 2.96 .85 25.432 53 3.37 2.86 .51 23.479 53 3.28 2.55 .73 45.767 53 3.45 3.11 .34 12.718 48 3.04 2.61 .43 24.805 49 3.32 2.54 .78 65.145 50 3.38 2.12 1.26 101.069 52 3.46 2.35 1.11 82.096 51 3.25 2.12 1.13 77.939 51 3.62 3.02 .60 24.955 53 3.09 2.07 1.02 60.536 52 3.07 1 .84 1.23 127.887 52 3.01 1.98 1.03 75.675 52 3.42 2.39 1.03 62.308 was found in a repeated measures MANOVA (multivariate analysis of vari- ance) of the two-by-two interaction be- tween should-exists and small-large. In addition, ANOVA (analysis of variance) results of tests between small and large li- braries show no significant difference with the exception of readiness one, a question concerning the importance of positive work climate. This question had an F value of 4.48 with p = .0394. The mean values were greater for small libraries indi- eating the smaller library respondents supported the importance of positive work climate and felt it existed to a greater degree in their libraries. DISCUSSION The survey results suggest that aca- demic and research library staff devel- opers feel that 80 percent of the RPTIM model practices should be part of staff de- velopment efforts in their libraries. In ad- dition, there is a significant difference be- tween existing conditions and what these same developers feel should be part of their library's programs. Although the RPTIM model is not comprehensive, it may be an appropriate beginning checklist for academic and research libraries inter- ested in improving their staff develop- ment programming. Most of the practices in the RPTIM model that were not confirmed by the sur- vey fall in the training category. Further research is needed to discover why expe- riential activities, peer teaching, self- determination and participation by ad- ministrators are not important concepts to library staff developers. Perhaps few li- brarians have personal experience with staff development that includes these practices. Also learning theory-based techniques may be more familiar to educa- tors, the groups surveyed in earlier stud- ies. An important trend can be seen in the difference column in table 2. Those ques- tions with the greatest difference between what should be and what exists in staff de- velopment programs occurred in plan- ning, implementation, and maintenance. ARL Libraries 259 This suggests that academic libraries inter- ested in improving their programs might concentrate limited resources in these ar- eas. In addition, those organizations in- volved with continuing education pro- gramming that is fulfilling staff development needs should place some emphasis on the use of training after par- ticipants return to their offices. There are some important limitations to this study. As mentioned earlier, a few re- spondents were confused about the gen- eral definitions of in-service, staff devel- opment, continuing education, and on-the-job training. No effort was made to define the concepts in a survey introduc- tion, so it must be presumed that respon- dents answered based on their own inter- pretation of staff development. Four respondents expressed difficulty in inter- preting questions or felt some of the word- ing was ambiguous. Also, comments sug- gested that evaluation of the quality of staff development programs should be a part of the model. One respondent ques- tioned the need to formalize staff develop- ment to such a degree. Further research using parallel models should be done to confirm these findings. Additional refinement of the RPTIM model by including a section on evalua- tion and by revising the section on train- ing should be part of any further testing. This study serves as an initial focus in the review of appropriate practice in academic and research library staff development and can be used by personnel officers and administrators as a guide in planning the most effective programs possible. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Sheila Creth, "National Adult and Continuing Education Week," College and Research Libraries News 47:657-58 (Nov. 1986). 2. Fred H. Wood, Steven R. Thompson, and Sister Frances Russell, "Designing Effective Staff De- velopment Programs," in Staff Development/Organization Development, ed. by Betty Dillion- Peterson (Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1981) p.59-91. 3. Elizabeth Stone, "Toward a Learning Community," in Continuing Education for the Library Informa- tion Professions ed. by William G. Asp (Hamden, Conn.: Shoe String Press, Inc., 1985) p.61-64. 4. Brooke Sheldon, ''Personnel and Employment: Continuing Education and Staff Development,'' ALA Yearbook of Library and Information Services: A Review of Library Events 12:233-35 (1986). 260 College & Research Libraries May1990 5. Marion Paris and Herbert S. White, "Mixed Signals and Painful Choices: The Education of Special Librarians," Special Libraries 77:207-11 (Fall1986) . 6. Brooke Sheldon, "Personnel and Employment: Continuing Education and Staff Development." 7. Peggy O'Donnell, "Continuing Education and Library Associations," in Continuing Education for the Library Information Professions, p.119-47. 8. The ALA Yearbook of Library and Information Services: A Review of Library Events contain summaries of current offerings and trends in CE and staff development annually. 9. Ethel Auster and Laurent-G. Denis, "Striving Toward Excellence: Continuing Education for Li- brary Personnel," Canadian Library Journal43:81-89 (April1986). 10. William G . Asp and Suzanne H. Mahmoodi, "Continuing Education and the State Library Agency," in Continuing Education for the Library Information Professions p .151-68. 11. Joan Wright and Douglas Zweizig, Learning in Progress: A Study of Continuing Library Education in North Carolina, (Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina State University, 1982). 12. James A. Nelson, "State Agencies and Continuing Education Opportunities," in Continuing Edu- cation: Issues and Challenges: Papers From the Conference Held at Moraine Valley Community College, Palos Hills, Illinois, USA, August 13-16, 1985 ed. by Esther E. Home (New York, N.Y.: Saur, 1985) p.157-63. 13. Marilyn L. Miller, "Library Schools and Continuing Education," in Continuing Education for the Library Information Professions p.213-75. 14. Darlene E. Weingand, "Continuing Education: The Wisconsin Experience," in Continuing Educa- tion for the Library Information Professions p.414. 15. Richard M. Dougherty, "A Nexus of Education and Practice: The Residency Program at the Uni- versity of Michigan Library-The Underlying Rationale," Library Journal 111: 118-20 (Feb. 15, 1986). 16. Ronald R. Powell, "Sources of Professional Knowledge for Academic Librarians," College & Re- search Libraries 49:332-40 Gu1y 1988). 17. Office of Management Studies, Association of Research Libraries, 1987 OMS Annual Report (Wash- ington: OMS, ARL, 1988). 18. Sheila D. Creth, Effective On-the-Job Training: Developing Library Human Resources (Chicago: Ameri- can Library Assn., 1986); Ronald J. Edwards, In-Service Training in British Libraries: Its Development and Present Practice (London: The Library Association, 1977); Ray Prytherch, Handbook of Library Training Practice (Brookfield, Vt.: Gower, 1986); Ray Prytherch, Staff Training in Libraries: The Brit- ish Experience (Brookfield, Vt.: Gower, 1986); Michael John Wells, Staff Training in University Li- braries: Final Report for the Period June 1982-February 1983 (Aberstwyth: College of Librarianship Wales, 1983). 19. Jacquelyn Gavryck, "Library Instruction for Clerical Staff: The Rest of the Iceberg" Journal of Aca- demic Librarianship 11:343-45 Gan. 1986). 20. Jane A. Rosenberg and Maureen Sullivan, Resource Notebook on Staff Development (Washington, D.C.: Office of Management Studies, ARL, 1983). 21. Charles R. Martell, Jr., The Client-Centered Academic Library: An Organizational Model (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1983). 22. Jana Varlejs, "Cost Models for Staff Development in Academic Libraries," Journal of Academic Li- brarianship 12:359-64 Gan. 1987). 23. Elizabeth W. Stone, Continuing Library Education as Viewed in Relation to Other Continuing Profes- sional Education Movements (Washington, D.C.: American Society for Information Science, 1974); Elizabeth Stone, Eileen Sheahan and Katherine J. Harig, Model Continuing Education Recognition System in Library and Information Science (New York: K.G. Saur, 1979). 24. Margaret Trask, "Interconnections in the Library and Information Science Career Development Process," in Continuing Education: Issues and Challenges p.142-55; Christian M. Vink, "In-Service Training By the Employer As a Continuing Education System,'' in Continuing Education: Issues and Challenges p .189-97. 25. Malcolm S. Knowles, "Understanding the Adult Leamer," in Continuing Education: Issues and Challenges p.13-20. 26. Jana Varlejs, "Learning Styles of Librarians and Satisfaction with Continuing Education Activi- ties: Looking for a Match," in Continuing Education: Issues and Challenges p.131-39. 27. Ana M. Delgado Albino, A Survey and Analysis of Puerto Rico Accredited Institutions of Higher Educa- tion Personnel Perceptions of Faculty Development Practices and Beliefs with a View to Identifying Some Critical Needs (Ph.D. diss., Pennsylvania State University, 1983). 28. Fred H. Wood, Steven R. Thompson, and Sister Frances Russell, "Designing Effective Staff De- velopment Programs," p.59. 29. Ibid., p.61-63. ARL Libraries 261 30. Duane Webster, Library Management Review and Analysis Program: A Handbook for Guiding Change and Improvement in Research Library Management Volume II: Manual. (Washington, D.C.: Office of University Library Management Studies, Association of Research Libraries, 1973). 31. Jane A. Rosenberg and Maureen Sullivan, Resource Notebook on Staff Development. 32. Ibid., p.182. 33. Ibid., p.9-50. 34. M. Sue Courson and Kenna Forsyth, ''Maryland's Staff Development: Training of Trainers,'' in Continuing Education: Issues and Challenges p.407. 35. Elizabeth Stone, "Toward a Learning Community," p.89-106. 36. George D'Elia, "Output Measurement-State of the Art: Materials Availability Fill Rates-Useful Measures of Library Performance?" Public Libraries 24:106-10 (Fall1985). 37. Steven R. Thompson, A Survey and Analysis of Pennsylvania Public School Personnel Perceptions of Staff Development Practices and Beliefs with a View to Identifying Some Critical Problems or Needs (D.ED. diss., Pennsylvania University, 1982); Ana M. Delgado Albino, A Survey and Analysis of Puerto Rico Ac- credited Institutions of Higher Education Personnel. 38. Fariborz Darnanpour and Thomas Childers, ''The Adoption of Innovations in Public Libraries,'' Library and Information Science Research 7:231-46 (1985) . APPENDIX A. RPTIM QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY FORM STAFF DEVELOPMENT SURVEY Below you w111 find e list of beliefs thet could shape practices for steff development. Next to eech statement there is e column of numbers. Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the statement by circling the number beneath the epproprh~te descriptor. 1. A1111brery personnel need inservice throughout their careers. 2. Significant improvement in library programs end services takes considerable time end long-term inservice programs. 3. lnservice education should focus on improving the quality of library programs and services. 4. Library steff are motivated to learn new things when they have some control over their learning and ere free from threat. 5. Library staff vary widely in their competencies and readiness to learn. 6. Professional growth requires commitment to new performance norms. !.... Q) > (/) Q) Q) z E <;;~ 0 Q) E E - 0 <{(f) c Q) _, .... 0 (/) =n co ~ -(I) 3: CD Q) (I) 3: Q) CD