College and Research Libraries .----------------------------------~ -- ~- - - Services to Developmental Education Students in the Community College: Does the Library Have a Role? Carol Truett A recent suroey of Texas community college libraries revealed that although over 90 percent of these colleges had a well-developed developmental education program, less than 28 percent of the schools provided a large number of library seroices to such programs. The results of this research agreed with two previous studies made in other parts of the country, which suroeyed library seroices to developmental programs and found such seroices to be nonexistent or mini- mal. Special library instruction for developmental students and bilingual handbooks were two notable areas lacking in the majority of colleges. While certain institutional variables character- ized those schools offering a high level of library seroices to developmental programs, no corre- lation was found between student persistence rates measured in terms of the percent of students remaining in classes at the end of a semester as a total percentage of those enrolled at the begin- ning of the semester, and the level of library seroice offered to developmental studies students. he role which the community- college library /learning re- source center should play in the education of developmen- tal education students seems so self- evident to most librarians that it is surpris- ing to discover the paucity of research on this subject. Lombardi defines develop- mental education as that segment of the community-college curriculum that is comprised of pre-transfer, handicapped, remedial, and adult basic education (ABE) courses. 1 Although developmental educa- tion, according to Lombardi, is often used synonymously with the term remedial, the trend today is to define it in broader terms than just those courses and programs for the academically disadvantaged. This new definition includes any courses that help students ''overcome any deficiencies they have in their preparation for post- secondary education. " 2 Lombardi pre- dicts that developmental education in its broadest definition will grow to comprise 50 percent of college enrollments within the next decade. The research described in this paper limited the definition of devel- opmental education by excluding the handicapped. SURVEYS OF LIBRARY SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENTAL STUDENTS Only two surveys could be found that attempted to describe the provision of li- brary services to developmental studies college students on a comparative basis. Shaughnessy3 surveyed eight publicly supported urban colleges and universities on a national level while Breivik' s4 study Carol Truett is assistant professor, Department of Educational Administration, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. 20 was limited to responses from ten of the thirteen City University of New York col- leges in existence before 1970, serving freshmen level students. Both drew simi- lar conclusions-that, in general, the li- braries had not recognized the special needs of their educationally disadvan- taged students. However, both also found that in those few exceptional cases where special staff was assigned to work with de- velopmental students and faculty, there was a distinct, and generally successful, program of services offered to those stu- dents. There is a good deal of evidence that the community-college learning resource cen- ter or library has a great deal to offer to de- velopmental education students. Breivik, 5 for example, reported on the results of re- search at Brooklyn College, where devel- opmental English students received course-related, integrated library instruc- tion from the college librarians for one se- mester. Their performance on four criteria were compare';~ with similar groups of En- glish classes who received no library in- struction or the traditional library orienta- tion lecture/tour. Those with the library instruction made the greatest academic gain measured in terms of ability to pro- duce a research paper and in the area of student retention. Fewer members of this group dropped out of their English courses during the semester and even completed the following semester with credit, as compared with students having no library instruction. Breivik also discov- ered that those with no library instruction surpassed those who had had the typical orientation treatment in the areas indi- cated. Wagner6 claimed that extensive library-based instruction included as part of a basic English course at Upsala College in East Orange, New Jersey, not only caused total class performance to go up, but resulted in even greater overall im- provement and quality of work for the de- velopmental high-risk students in the class than the class average. Various other authors have described special library programs that have ad- dressed the needs of special groups who were either developmental students at the time, or would most likely be channeled Developmental Education Students 21 into such courses when they actually en- rolled. Many of these students are ethnic minority-group members, but develop- mental students actually are comprised of more non-minority-group members than minorities according to Cross, 7 who says that two-thirds of these students are sim- ply the children of blue-collar workers who ceased their own formal education at an early are. Mallory has described library services and instruction to the SEEK (Search, Edu- cation and Elevation for Knowledge) stu- dents at Queens College in the late 1960s. Two other authors, Wright, 9 who also worked with SEEK students, and Josey, 10 who describes the efforts of the City Uni- versity of New York to make the open- admissions policy a success through in- volvement of the library as an integral support service, point out some of the po- tential activities that librarians can offer to aid developmental students. According to Josey, such services include: (1) special li- brary counseling, (2) reading guidance, (3) instruction, (4) special tutorial services in the library, and (5) selective dissemiriation of information utilizing honors students and other service-oriented volunteer groups to match the resources of the li- brary with the needs of disadvantaged students. Trejo11 relates the special prob- lems of Spanish-speaking students who are often disadvantaged both culturally and in their use of the English language and who thus frequently end up in devel- opmental education classes. And Dudleyu has documented a special library program aimed at Spanish-speaking Chicano stu- dents at the University of California at Los Angeles. These students lacked normal entrance requirements but showed prom- ise of academic success and were thus ad- mitted under the university's High Poten- tial Program, called the Chicano Library Program. This special instruction basically consisted of a one-quarter, no-credit course. It required students to spend two hours every afternoon, five days a week, in the library working on a series of sixteen self-paced tasks designed to teach them how to use the library. This program was so successful it was expanded to include not only blacks, but Indian and Oriental 22 College & Research Libraries January 1983 high-potential students as well. Though modest compared to UCLA's program, a special Spanish slide/tape li- brary orientation program geared to its bi- lingual students was produced by Passaic County Communi!J College in Paterson, New Jersey. 13 Haro "further delineates the cultural difficulties and frustrations con- fronting the Mexican American student that often create academic difficulties. Finally, numerous authors and re- searchers besides Breivik have attempted to address the relationship between col- lege support services, including libraries and student retention. One survey of two- year college administrators found that a large percentage of those polled felt "in- adequate institutional support to stu- dents'' was ''one of the three major rea- sons of attrition. ''15 Medsker and Tillery consider the low persistence rate of the community college student to be an area of serious criticism: "The public commu- nity college has been criticized for its lack of holding power. " 16 They cite attrition rates of 50 percent and more for the two- year student body: It is appropriate that concern about the lack of persistence among community college students be expressed. The record would suggest that the colleges themselves are failing to offer pro- grams and services of a nature and in a manner that hold students. This problem should be one of the greatest priorities for research . . . 17 In fact, one study attempts to tie attri- tion rates directly to library use. This re- search was conducted at California State Polytechnic University, at Pomona, by Lloyd and Martha Kramer, who con- cluded that freshman use of the library, as evidenced by library-book borrowing, is correlated to student retention: ... of those freshmen who failed to use the li- brary, 43 percent did not return the following year. But of those who did borrow at least one book, only 26 percent dropped out. 18 Thomas Atkins, president of the Library Association of New York during the early stages of the City University's open- admissions policy, claimed that any initial difficulties faced by potential develop- mental students will increase their nega- tive self-image, and he considers the pos- session of inadequate library skills a potential first step in the dropout process, for these skills are necessary to prepare al- most any type of college writing assign- ment.19 Thus, the research described in this study was an attempt to see if community-college libraries in a particular state with a well-developed two-year col- lege system were providing services to de- velopmental education students or pro- grams. If so, did these services appear to make any difference in terms of student persistence? METHODOLOGY: SURVEY OF TEXAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE LIBRARY SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES STUDENTS During the 1979-80 academic year, a ten-page questionnaire was sent to the head librarian or director of fifty-two pub- licly supported, two-year community col- leges in the state of Texas to determine the answer to several questions: (1) What role was the community-college library/LRC playing in the education of developmental studies students in this particular state? (2) What institutional factors, if any, ap- peared related to a high level of library ser- vices to developmental programs? (3) Was special library instruction being made available to developmental students in an effort to bolster their information-seeking- and-handling skills? (4) Was student achievement as measured by student persistence rates in three areas-college- wide, in developmental studies courses overall, and in developmental English- related to the degree or number of library services provided to developmental stu- dents? Student persistence was defined as the number of students still enrolled at the end of a semester as a percent of those who had been enrolled at the beginning of the respective course or courses. Of the forty-six returned question- naires, forty-three were usable, giving a return rate of almost 83 percent. Both de- scriptive analysis and correlational analy- sis were performed on the resulting data secured from the questionnaire which had been field-tested by both practitioners in the field as well as professors in the area of library science and educational adminis- tration. As part of the general descriptive analysis, the following statistics were run: frequencies, means, and standard devia- tions. As part of the correlational analysis, five additional statistical analyses were performed. These included breakdowns, cross tabulations, Pearson's correlation, T-tests of significance, and discriminant analysis. Discriminant analysis, in partic- ular, was useful in determining whether or not there were two or more clearly de- fined groups of community colleges offer- ing different levels of library services to developmental education students. The groups resulting from this discriminant analysis were then used to determine if a correlation existed between level of library service to developmental students and student persistence rates. FINDINGS The community colleges responding to the survey displayed tremendous diver- sity in their basic institutional characteris- tics. For example, they ranged in size from 536 to 27,114 students. Total institutional Developmental Education Students 23 budgets varied from under $38,000 for ac- ademic 1978/79 to well over a million dol- lars. Nineteen of the colleges were multi- campus institutions and twenty-four consisted of a single main campus. How- ever, in the area of developmental studies, the colleges were remarkably similar with 90 percent, or thirty-nine colleges, offer- ing developmental courses to their stu- dents. Developmental courses, as previ- ously defined, included any courses that helped students overcome any deficien- cies they had in their preparation for college-level course work. Most of the col- leges, in fact, had a well-developed pro- gram with a mean number of courses of- fered of 5.1 out of a possible total of 7 (see tables 1 and 2). The most frequently offered course was developmental reading, taught at 97.4 percent of responding institutions (all but one school providing a developmental program offered it). Next in order of most frequently taught courses were: develop- mental English (87.2 percent), develop- mental mathematics (84.6 percent), devel- opmental writing (76. 9 percent), adult basic education (66.7 percent), and other courses (33.3 percent). Most colleges (over TABLE 1 TEXAS COMMUNITY COLLEGES WITH DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAMS Percent Percent Category Number of Total Adjusted Colleges with developmental studies programs No program No response Total number reporting TABLE2 39 3 1 42 TEXAS COMMUNITY -COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM COURSE OFFERINGS 90 .7 92.9 7.0 7.1 2.3 Course Number Percent of Respondents Developmental English Developmental wrxting Developmental reading Developmental mathematics ABE (adult basic education) Study skills course Other courses Total number reporting No response 34 87.2 30 76 .9 38 97.4 33 84.6 26 66 .7 24 61.5 13 33.3 39 4 NOTE : Nonrespondents included one who did not answer and three who checked a " no" response to the question asking whether or not the college had a developmental studies program . 24 College & Research Libraries January 1983 TABLE 3 SPECIAL LffiRARY SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION STUDENTS IN TEXAS COMMUNITY COLLEGES Service Library instruction Library handbook Special edition of handbook Bilingual handbook Audiovisual orientation Bibliographies Tutoring Tutoring by library personnel Tutoring in library oy nonlibrary personnel Learning center in library Learning center administered by library Personalized reference work (counseling) Total number reporting No response 70 percent) gave college credit for their de- velopmental studies courses. Twelve possible library services that could be offered to developmental educa- tion students were used to create an Index of LRC Services to Developmental Educa- tion Programs (see tables 3 and 4). Library instruction was clearly the most prevalent service offered, with 82.9 percent provid- ing it. Analysis of library instruction meth- ods used resulted in table 5, which lists in rank order the ten most popular methods. It is obvious that library instruction is con- sidered synonymous with the traditional orientation lecture/tour by many librari- ans and the high incidence of this method in Texas is comparable to figures collected on a national basis. 20 It is very significant, however, that more than two-thirds (69.8 percent) also reported offering course- related instruction in their college and most colleges used a wide variety of meth- ods, which averaged over six methods per school. This perhaps indicates a willing- ness to accommodate the wide range of abilities and learning styles found among community college students. Thus, it ap- peared that both the worst method (the orientation lecture/tour) and the best method (course-related instruction), ac- cording to previous research on the devel- opmental student, were being offered side by side. Unfortunately, special library instruc- tion to . developmental students was not Number of Colleges Providing 34 18 1 1 22 10 11 3 11 12 5 13 41 2 Percent of Respondents 82.9 43.9 2.4 2.4 53.7 24.4 26 .8 7.3 26.8 29.3 12.2 31.7 being provided at almost 63 percent of the colleges, as table 6 shows. It is not clear whether librarians felt these students re- ceived adequate instruction in other TABLE4 LRC SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS INDEX Index Number Percent La, few services 0-2 19 44.2 Average services 3-4 12 27.9 Hi services 5-10 12 27.9 Range 10.0 Mean 3.3 Median 2.8 Total number cases 43 TABLE 5 TEN MOST POPULAR LffiRARY SKILLS METHODS RANK ORDERED BY PERCENT OF COLLEGES UTILIZING Method 1. Library tour 2. Orientation lecture 3. Course-related instruction 4. Handbooks 5. Point of use aids 6. Slide/tapes 7. Credit course 7. Textbooks, manual, guides 8. Term-paper clinics 9. Self-paced instruction 10. Audio tapes *These two methods were tied for seventh place . Percent 93.0 83.7 69.8 62.8 51.2 44.2 34.9* 34.9* 32.6 27.9 25.6 TABLE 6 PROVISION OF SPECIAL LffiRARY INSTRUCTION TO DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES STUDENTS Category Library provides special instruction to developmental students No special instruction is provided Total number reporting No response Percent Number of Total 16 37.2 27 62.8 43 0 courses or whether they simply did not consider such instruction necessary; how- ever, almost a third of the colleges did pro- vide special user instruction for such courses and programs as English litera- ture, criminal justice, business, health ca- reers and nursing, communications, and even horology. Lolley and Watkins 21 claimed that developmental students who need library skills the most appeared the least likely group to receive such instruc- tion, and the results of this study confirm their contention. Despite being the most frequently of- fered service to developmental students, library instruction was notable for its ab- sence at many institutions. Although 31 percent of the co_mmunity-college libraries reported that 90-100 percent of their stu- dents received instruction, half of the col- leges indicated that only 59 percent or less of their students were taught library skills, with one school reaching less than 1 per- cent! On the other hand, librarians did as- sume a responsibility for teaching library skills at the majority of colleges . All but one (97.6 percent) of the librarians agreed with the statement that librarians should teach library skills to students. Library staff shared this responsibility with fac- ulty at seventeen institutions (39 .5 per- cent) and assumed sole responsibility at twenty-two schools (51.2 percent). Despite the large Mexican American population in many major Texas cities (e.g., 86 percent and 52 percent are His- panic in Brownsville and San Antonio, re- spectively), only one school had a bilin- gual handbook. All major cities or towns in Texas that have large Spanish-speaking segments are bilingual cities. Signs in Developmental Education Students 25 public facilities, instructions for such ac- tivities as voting and buying licenses, and all written communications sent home with public school children are in both En- glish and Spanish. Therefore, it seems logical to assume that library handbooks might also be available in public community-college libraries in a Spanish edition. Other Library Services Again referring to table 3, it may be seen that other library services offered to devel- opmental education students by between . one-fourth to one-third of the colleges in- cluded bibliographies (24.4 percent), tu- toring (26.8 percent), tutoring in library by nonlibrary personnel (26.8 percent), learning center in the library (29.3 per- cent), and personalized reference work or counseling (31.7 percent). The largest number of services provided by any one college was 10, although the mean num- ber of library services offered was only 3.3. As table 4 indicates, 44.2 percent of the colleges, or nineteen schools, fell in the low-level-of-services category and even as generously defined as the high-services category was (i.e ., five to ten services out of a possible twelve), only slightly more than one-fourth of the colleges, or twelve institutions, could be thus classified. In other words, most of the colleges were providing a very small number of special services to developmental education stu- dents. Furthermore, the librarians sur- veyed felt that services to the disadvan- taged student were adequate; more than 76 percent agreed with this statement in regard to their school. On the other hand, more than half of the librarians queried (56 percent) felt their college should offer more services to disadvantaged students. Thus, there appeared to be both compla- cency and yet ambivalence toward present library services to developmental students, despite the fact that most of the community colleges were offering few such services. In fact, foreign and ESL (English as a Second Language) students were singled out twice as frequently as de- velopmental students (almost 42 percent combined versus 19 percent for remedial students) for special library services. And 26 College & Research Libraries January 1983 a number of write-in comments indicated that many librarians apparently resented the idea of singling out any particular group for special service. No Correlation between Library Services and Student Persistence In view of the minimal special library services being provided to developmental students at most of the community col- leges in the survey, it was not too surpris- ing to find no correlation between the number of library services being provided to developmental education programs and student persistence college-wide, in developmental programs overall, or in re- medial English courses. This is particu- larly true when one considers the enor- mous number of other variables that can affect a student's decision to persist or withdraw during the course of a semester-personal, economic, psycho- logical, and institutional factors-to name but a few. Certain institutional variables, on the other hand, were found to be related to a high number of library services to devel- opmental programs: size of college in terms of size of faculty and student enroll- ment; size of the budget, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of total institu- tional budget; the amount specifically ex- pended by the library/LRC for develop- mental studies; and the number of library staff members, in terms of total number of positions and total number of professional librarians. Number·ofbook volumes or au- diovisual materials, however, did not ap- pear to be an important concomitant of a large number of library services to devel- opmental education, although expendi- tures for the latter were relevant. This may indicate a point of diminishing returns so far as collection size is concerned for both print and nonprint materials, although more service-minded library/LRCs proba- bly attempt to keep their audiovisual col- lections current and viable by allocating sufficient funds on a continuing basis. Other findings of the study revealed that Texas community colleges do not rou- tinely assign professional librarians to work with developmental studies depart- ments, and where such assignments are made, very little time is spent on such du- ties which average about two and a half hours per week. Moreover, only 14 per- cent of the colleges spent more than 3 per- cent of the library budget on developmen- tal studies, including both materials and services; an important indicator of what an institution values or considers impor- tant is generally felt to be reflected by what it spends money on. Lack of time and funds were offered as excuses for not of- fering more library services to develop- mental students. Another important finding confirmed the low minority-group representation among library staff members and the fact that minority representation among de- velopment students was far greater than that of library employees. (See tables 7 and8.) To test whether there was a statisti- cally significant difference in ethnic repre- sentation between the LRC staff and the developmental studies students, a simple correlated T-test was run, using paired samples to test the differences in means. As table 9 shows, only one correlation, that for Anglo representation, was found to have a nonsignificant, no difference in TABLE 7 ETHNIC REPRESENTATION OF DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES STUDENTS Variable Number Ethnic Group 1 Anglo 2 Mexican American 3 Black 4 Oriental 5 Other Total number reporting No response Number of Colleges with Group Represented 36 34 35 25 17 37 6 Percent of Total 83 .7 79.1 81.4 58.1 39.5 Percent Adjusted 97.3 91 .9 94.6 67.6 45.9 ~ ------------------------------------------------------------------------~ I Developmental Education Students 27 TABLE 8 ETHNIC REPRESENTATION OF LIBRARY LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER STAFF Variable Number 6 Anglo Ethnic Group 7 Mexican American 8 Black 9 Oriental 10 Other Total number reporting No response Number of Colleges with Group Represented 39 23 25 5 3 39 4 Percent of Total 90.7 53.5 58.1 11.6 7.0 Percent Adjusted 100.0 59.0 64.1 12.8 7.7 TABLE 9 CORRELATED T-TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE USING PAIRED SAMPLE MEANS OF DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES AND LRC STAFF ETHNIC GROUP REPRESENTATION Variable No. of Standard Standard (Difference) Standard Standard T Degrees of 2-Tail Number Cases Mean Deviation Error 1 .9722 .167 .028 with 36 6 1.0000 0 0 2 .9167 .280 .047 with 36 7 .6389 .487 .081 3 .9444 .232 .039 with 36 8 .6389 .487 .081 4 .6944 .467 .078 with 36 9 .1389 .351 .058 5 .4722 .506 .084 with 36 10 .0833 .280 .047 means between the two groups. All of the other correlations resulted in a difference with a highly significant T-value (signifi- cant beyond the .Ollevel), indicating that a wide discrepancy exists between minor- ity group representation on library staffs and that found among developmental stu- dents. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION The results of this study basically con- firm the earlier surveys of both Shaughnessy and Breivik, which revealed the existence of a low level of library ser- vices to developmental college students. Leading community-college developmen- tal education spokespersons such as John Mean Deviation Error Value Freedom Prob . -.0278 .167 .028 -1.00 35 .324 .2778 .513 .086 3.25 35 .003 .3056 .467 .078 3.92 35 .000 .5556 .504 .084 6.61 35 .000 .3889 .599 .100 3.90 35 .000 Lombardi and John E. Roueche22 do. not see the developmental studies or remedial mission of the community college as di- minishing in importance. The results of this study serve to highlight the disparity between developmental program course offerings of community colleges and the provision of library services to such pro- grams. The majority of Texas community college libraries, in fact, provide a low level of services to these programs and, furthermore, the prognosis for change is not particularly bright since most librari- ans seem satisfied with current services. Texas has the potential to become a leader in the field of library services to community-college developmental educa- tion students, yet it does not appear to 28 College & Research Libraries January 1983 have reached this status. Perhaps the time has come for community-college librarians to look more closely at institutional priorities. If the role of the modern community-college library is to support the curriculum offerings, and if developmental education grows to con- stitute 50 percent of the community- college curriculum as Lombardi has pre- dieted, then present library services are going to become less and less relevant to the needs of community college students unless some sort of reassessment is forth- coming. Although Texas was the focus of this particular study, there is no reason to suppose that the situation is more favor-· able in any other part of the country. REFERENCES 1. John Lombardi, "Developmental Education: A Rapidly Expanding Function," Community College Review 7:65-72 (Summer 1979). 2. Cuyahoga Community College (Ohio), Conference Proceedings: Annual Ohio Developmental Education Conferenqe, 2d Cleveland, October 6-7, 1974 (Cleveland: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, 1975), ED 104 460. 3. Thomas W. Shaughnessy, "Library Services to Educationally Disadvantaged Students," .College & Research Libraries 36:443-48 (Nov. 1975). · 4. Patricia Senn Breivik, Open Admissions and the Academic Library (Chicago: American Library Assn ., 1977). 5 . Patricia Senn Breivik, "Resources: The Fourth R," Community College Frontiers 5:46- 50 (Winter 1977) . 6. Walter Wagner, "On Integrating Libraries and Classrooms," Learning Today 6:48-62 (Winter 1973). 7. K. Patricia Cross, Beyond the Open Door (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972). 8. Mordine Mallory, "The New College Student and the Library: The SEEK Program at Queens Col- lege," in A New College Student: The Challenge to City University Libraries (Rockaway Park, N.Y .: Scientific Book Service, 1969), p .32-40. 9. Sylvia Hart Wrigh!, "A Pre-College for the Disadvantaged, " Library Journal95 :2884-87 (Sept . 15, 1970). 10. E. G . Josey, "The Role of the Academic Library in Serving the Disadvantaged Student," Library Trends 20:432-44 (Oct. 1971). 11 . Arnulfo D. Trejo, "Library Needs for the Spanish-Speaking," ALA Bulletin 63:1079-81 (Sept. 1969). 12. Miriam Sue Dudley, Chicano Library Program, UCLA Library Occasional Papers, no.17 (Los An- geles: Univ. of California Library, 1970) . 13. J. Martinelli, "Bilingual Slide-Tape Library Orientation: An Unexplored Frontier," Audiovisualln- struction 21 :55-56 (Jan. 1976) . 14 . Robert P. Haro, "Academic Library Services for Mexican-Americans," College & Research Libraries 33:454-62 (Nov. 1972) . 15 . James L. Morrison and Reynolds Ferrante, Why the Disadvantaged Drop Out: The Administrators View (Bethesda, Md .: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, 1973), ED 071 665 . 16. Leland L. Medsker and Dale Tillery, Breaking the Access Barriers: A Profile of Two-Year Colleges (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971) . 17. Ibid. 18 . Lloyd A. Kramer and Martha B. Kramer, "The College Library and the Drop-Out," College & Re- search Libraries 29:310-12 (July 1968). 19 . Thomas V. Atkins, "Libraries and Open Admissions," LACUNY Journal1:3- 7 (Winter 1972) . 20. John Lolley, ''Instruction in Junior and Community Colleges," in John Lubans, Jr., ed., Progress in Educating the Library User (New York : Bowker, 1978), p.57-69. 21. John Lolley and Ruth Watkins, "Welcome to the Library, " Journal of Developmental and Remedial Education 3:25-26 (Fall1979). 22 . John E. Roueche and Oscar Mink, Holistic Literacy in College Teaching (New York: Media Systems, 1980).