Advertisement

TechTrends

, Volume 59, Issue 3, pp 85–91 | Cite as

Libraries in Online Elementary Schools: A Mixed-Methods Study

  • Laura HibbardEmail author
  • Teresa Franklin
Article

Abstract

School libraries serve an important role; however, elementary students who attend schools online typically do not have a school library. This study followed an online school’s inaugural year in instituting a library. A mixed methods approach examined data from focus groups, interviews, surveys, library-use records and oral reading fluency scores. Stakeholders had various goals from “to get books into the hands of the students” to teachers requesting that Library be a special class to encourage reluctant readers to access the resources. It was found that students who accessed the libraries most were those who were already motivated readers. The findings suggest that access to libraries alone was not enough to motivate students to use the resources. Rather, to empower students to access libraries, a librarian is needed to serve as an instructional partner, an information specialist, a teacher and a program administrator.

Keywords

distance learning economically disadvantaged elementary library online education reading school libraries virtual schools 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Braxton, B. (2008). The teacher-librarian as literacy leader. Teacher Librarian, 35(3), 22–26.Google Scholar
  2. Church, A. R. (2011). School librarians as teacher leaders. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 77(3), 10–12.Google Scholar
  3. Common Core State Standards Initiatives. (2012). English language arts standards. Retrieved on 12/11/2014 from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy
  4. Crowe, E. C., Connor, C. M., & Petscher, Y. (2009). Examining the core: Relations among reading curricula, poverty, and first through third grade reading achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 47(3), 187–214. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2009.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., & Mazzoni, S. A. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. Reading Teacher, 49(7), 518. doi: 10.1598/RT.49.7.2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hagans, K. S. (2008). A response-to-intervention approach to decreasing early literacy differences in first graders from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34(1), 35–42. doi: 10.1177/1534508408314170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hixson, M. D., & Mcglinchey, M. T. (2004). The relationship between race, income, and oral reading fluency and performance on two reading comprehension measures. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 22(4), 351–364. doi: 10.1177/073428290402200405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1648–1663. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hunter, P. C. (2004). Classroom libraries level the playing field. Instructor (New York, N.Y.: 1999), 113(5), 36–40, 71.Google Scholar
  10. International Association for K-12 Online Learning. (2013). Fast facts about online learning. Vienna, VA: iNACOL: International Association for K-12 Online Learning.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2012). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Krashen, S. (2006). Free reading. School Library Journal, 52(9), 42–45.Google Scholar
  13. Lebens, M., Graff, M., & Mayer, P. (2009). Access, attitudes and the digital divide: Children’s attitudes towards computers in a technology-rich environment. Educational Media International, 46(3), 255–266. doi: 10.1080/09523980903135467 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee, E. A., & Klinger, D. A. (2011). Against the flow: A continuum for evaluating and revitalizing school libraries. School Libraries Worldwide, 17(1), 24–35.Google Scholar
  15. Martinez, D., & Peterson, T. (2008). Digital discrimination: Combating prejudice in the online classroom. Paper presented at the Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2008, 35003504. Retrieved on 12/11/2014 from http://www.editlib.org/p/30170
  16. McTague, B., & Abrams, B. (2011). Access to books: A scaffolded program creates readers. Reading Improvement, 48(1), 3–13.Google Scholar
  17. Moreillon, J., Cahill, M., & McKee, R. (2012). State library conferences as professional development venues: Unbalanced support for the AASL-defined roles of the school librarian. School Library Research, 15 Google Scholar
  18. Pearson Education, I. (2013). Reading Street Common Core 2013. Retrieved 12/11/2014 from http://pearsonschool.com/index.cfm?locator=PS1gC9
  19. Popp, P. A. (2004). Reading on the go! Students who are highly mobile and reading instruction. .National Center for Homeless Education.Google Scholar
  20. Rasinski, T. V. (2009). The lost art of teaching reading. College Reading Association Yearbook, (30), 66–73.Google Scholar
  21. Revenaugh, M. (2005–2006). K-8 virtual schools: A glimpse into the future. Learning in the Digital Age, 63(4), 60–64. Retrieved on 12/11/2014 from http://imoberg.com/files/K-8_Virtual_Schools_--_A_Glimpse_into_the_Future_Revenaugh_M._.pdf
  22. University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning. (2011). DIBELS (dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills). Retrieved 12/11/2014 from https://dibels.uoregon.edu/market/assessment/dibels
  23. White, T. G., & Kim, J. S. (2008). Teacher and parent scaffolding of voluntary summer reading. The Reading Teacher, 62(2), 116–125. doi: 10.1598/RT.62.2.3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ohio UniversityAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations