College and Research Libraries The Two-Year College LRC: Promise Deferred? Esther Green Bierbaum The library and resource needs of two-year community-junior colleges are unique: instruc- tional programs range from academic to remedial and vocational, while the student population is equally diverse and various. Ideally, in response to these needs, the junior college ''library'' evolved into the community college "Learning Resources Center" (LRC). That evolution, however, has not been uniform, universal, nor even complete; indeed, the promise of the LRC has, for many institutions, been deferred. The basis for this premise may be found in three sources: the history of the two-year institution and its library; the development of standards expressing the ideal state of the LRC; and data derived from survey studies of the colleges and LRCs. he two-year community or jun- ior college is quintessentially an American institution. Typically community-oriented and serv- ing a diverse population, the two-year col- lege offers a wide range of educational op- portunities, such as the first two years of baccalaureate study, terminal programs in professions and skilled trades, and post- secondary personal interest and develop- ment courses. As Marilyn Searson Lary noted: "No other type of education insti- tution in this country is asked, indeed ex- pected, to provide so much diversity in programs and resources for so many dif- ferent demands."1 As the two-year institution developed, the need for a way to support both teach- ing and learning in such a diverse environ- ment grew. This need, and the strong in- fluence of the new learning theories and audio and visual media that permeated post-World War II education, helped fash- ion the concept of a multimedia, multiser- vice omnium-gatherum for all print and nonprint resources. "Resources" were defined as: "all informational and learn- ing materials-regardless of their format- that are brought together to enhance the teaching-learning process. ''2 Concurrently, a programmatic ideal, the "Learning Resources Program," devel- oped and the locale for this program evolved from ''library'' to ''media center'' and then to "learning resources center," or LRC. In its ideal state, the LRC prom- ised centralized instructional and infor- mational collections and services tailored to the needs of the local student body and faculty. But expressions of disquiet with the LRC concept have recently appeared in the library literature. Madison M. Mosley, calling into question the curriculum sup- port role of the LRC, urged the adoption of a mission statement in answer to the trou- bling question, "Why a library? [sic]"3 His solution was prompted by Doris Cruger Dale's study of college catalogs. She found that these public documents gener- ally ignored the LRC and concluded that was the reason for a library. 4 Dale's content analysis of catalogs re- flects the thesis of this paper: for many Esther Green Bierbaum is an Associate Professor at the School of Library and Information Science, The Univer- sity of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242. 531 532 College & Research Libraries two-year colleges, the LRC ideal has re- mained an ideal; the promise has been de- ferred. Three sets of sources are examined for evidence to support this premise: the literature that outlines the history of the community-junior college and library and explains what was; the standards for two- year college libraries and LRCs that tell what might be; and statistical studies re- lated to the standards, together with data from a recent survey, that reflect what is. The LRC concept did not spring full- blown into being with the junior- community college movement. HISTORY The literature indicates that the devel- opment of the community-junior college and its programs was uneven and often uncertain. So also was the development of the college library and media resources. The LRC concept did not spring full- blown into being with the junior- community college movement. Even the idea of a separate library for the junior col- lege was not universally adopted, because the college often resulted from commu- nity necessity during the Depression and shared quarters and library collections with the local high school. In 1931, Edith M. Coulter noted that: "the greatest sin- gle factor in the educational program of the junior college [an effective library] has yet to be developed.' ' 5 She urged colleges to secure profes- sionallibrary administrators and to exceed a collection size of 4,000 volumes, based on the library-related standards adopted by the American Association of Junior Colleges (AAJC) the previous year. 6 But while Coulter (a library school professor) perceived the role of the library to be the creation of ''assured and self-reliant users of libraries," she did not extend the con- cept of the collection beyond print materials-books and periodicals. Twenty years later Harriett Genung, in sketching the developing role of the junior-community college and the result- November 1990 ing changes in the library, likened the li- brary to the hub of the institutional wheel, and laid a firm claim to the multimedia ap- proach: "If one accepts as a basic philoso- phy the fact that the library's function is to implement the curriculum with all instruc- tional materials, then the audio-visual program rightfully falls under library su- pervision.' ' 7 Louis Shores supported this claim; in- deed, he saw the two-year college as the epitome of his library-college and its Ge- neric Book. 8 Janiece B. Fusaro, writing in 1970, seconded the library-college model as expanded into the "library-college me- dia center," a place for learning and "in- novations." However, she discussed staffing, administration, and nomencla- ture at greater length than collections and their development, access, or services.9 Kenneth W. Allen and Loren Allen were among the first to formalize the LRC con- cept. In their 1973 monograph, they dis- cussed the "rationale for merging the li- brary and audiovisual facilities into a single unit'' for better support of the pri- mary functions of the LRC, "service and instruction. ''10 Yet the traditional books/ audiovisual dichotomy is implicitly recog- nized when the authors, in discussing the selection of non print, noted that "[a]udio- visual personnel are generally more knowledgeable about learning theory and nonverbal communication than librari- ans."11 In 1977, California recognized the learn- ing resources center with a set of Guide- lines, which D. Joleen Bock and Leo R. La- Jeunesse cited as the model for providing the three LRC components: print, non- print, and "related instructional ser- vices. " 12 These authors, in outlining steps for libraries moving into the multimedia arena, implicitly acknowledged that inte- grated media services were not yet a real- ity on most junior college campuses. They also noted that matters of bibliographical access for non print media, as well as their storage and circulation, were not yet set- tled, although: "[w]ith the increased use of A V materials by students as well as fac- ulty, many institutions have brought A V materials into the mainstream of acquisi- tions, cataloging, processing, circulation and inventory control. ' 113 Even so, as research in the late 1970s suggested, the multimedia approach was not universal. Although Allen and Allen cited a 1970 lllinois survey showing that 75 percent of community-junior colleges had a unified center, 14 David R. Bender's 1978 survey of 322 public institutions (resulting in 150 usable questionnaires) indicated that 65 percent of these two-year institu- tions followed the LRC model. 15 Bender concluded that what existed was: "a movement toward the combination of print and nonprint materials in one center-a full range of instructionally re- lated activities under the direction of one administrator. ''16 The responses to Ben- der's specific questions about shelf ar- rangement of materials reflected the di- chotomy in practice between the junior-community library and the LRC: integrated shelving occurred in 85 percent of the LRCs, and in 57 percent of the cen- trallibraries.17 In a 1982 study specifically addressing the level of acceptance of the LRC concept, Peggy Holleman concluded, as a rationale for the finding of less than universal ac- ceptance, that the LRC was: "dependent upon historical and political factors pecu- liar to the campus and upon the initiative and philosophy of the director. " 18 A few years later Ruth Person added a caveat: the increasingly broad sweep of the learn- ing resources concept to include word processing and printing services may di- lute library and media services and lead to ''a zero sum game involving library and media services and all of the other parts of the learning resources program. ''19 This confusion in role definition is mir- rored in the various interpretations librari- ans have contributed to the literature: Coulter emphasized the support of faculty and instruction/0 Genung's aim was to teach library use/1 Bender's survey data indicated that his respondents perceived their primary role to be assisting students to learn course content; 22 and Harold J. Et- telt' s stated mission was to provide stu- dents with a life-skill, ''the ability to cope with rapid change." 23 The role of the library-LRC is, however, seldom dis- cussed in monographic treatments of the Two-Year College LRC 533 two-year college. 24 More objective assessments of the LRC are provided by the variously sponsored standards promulgated to describe and measure its role and function. STANDARDS The first standards for junior college li- braries were adopted in 1929 by the Amer- ican Association of Junior Colleges (AAJC) as part of a general set of institutional stan- dards. They called for a minimum of ' ''3,500 volumes,'' ''appropriate current periodicals," a reading room, a "trained librarian,'' and an annual appropriation of at least $500. 25 The Junior College Libraries Round Table of the American Library As- sociation (ALA}, meeting for the first time in June 1930, recommended quantitative standards for book collections, book budgets, and personnel that were sent to AAJC. 26 The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) took up the two-year college question in 1959 with "Standards for Junior College Li- braries. ''27 While the 1968 ALA guidelines for audiovisuals in academic libraries were not directed to the two-year college, they had implications for its multimedia ser- vices.28 It was not, however, until 1971 that audiovisuals entered the arena, when AAJC, ACRL, and the Association for Ed- ucational Communications and Technol- ogy (AECT) joined forces and produced a draft standard, which became "Guide- lines for Two-Year College Learning Re- sources Programs." 29·30 With these "Guidelines," the LRC concept stood alone in the title and incorporated the li- brary in its definition: ''Learning Resources. Includes library, audiovisual and telecom- munications and encompasses instruc- tional development functions and instruc- tional system components. " 31 AAJC dropped from joint sponsorship with the publication of the 1979 supplementary set · of quantitative standards by ACRL and the Community and Junior College Li- braries Section of ALA. 32 The most recent standards were adopted in June 1981, when ACRL and AECT issued a revision of the "Guidelines."33 The 1979 and 1981 "Guidelines" were qualitative, not greatly differing from the 1972 version in 534 College & Research Libraries statements of role and rationale. The community-junior college has, then, not lacked for direction and guid- ance from the library and media profes- sions and their national organizations in the development of the two-year college library into the LRC. However, the extent to which that guidance has borne fruit be- comes clear from Raymond L. Carpenter's comparison of the LRC statistics in the Higher Education General Information Surveys (HEGIS) with the 1979 quantita- tive standards.34 He found that staff size, hours of service, and size of print collec- tions (both books and periodicals) were generally below the levels of the stan- dards, but when specific forms of visual materials were brought together: "the data . . . do show that the holdings [of 'audiovisual units'] are much closer to standard than are either periodical sub- scriptions or books."35 The LRCs, then, to an extent had adopted at least an audiovisual advocacy relative to standards for print and non- print collections. Carpenter's conclusions regarding fiscal support for the LRC were less sanguine: "most institutions fall well below'' the standard that recommends al- lotting seven to twelve _Eercent of the gen- eral budget to the LRC. 36 Indeed, he cites this lack of institutional support as the rea- son that "most libraries are below the standard for nearly all factors. " 37 The final source of support for the prem- ise of the unfilled promise of the LRC is a recent survey of two-year institutions. SURVEY FINDINGS In 1989 the writer surveyed sixty-six two-year college libraries or LRCs, receiv- ing usable responses from fifty-four (82%); thirty-eight (70%) of the colleges were public institutions, sixteen (30%) were private. The findings are outlined in the sections following under the head- ings, ''Evaluation,'' ''Terminology,'' ''Collections,'' ''Bibliographic Access,'' and "Physical Access." Evaluation The responses to a question regarding institutional evaluation of the library-LRC parallel Carpenter's conclusion of with- November 1990 held support and Dale's finding of lack of involvement on the part of the college ad- ministrations. As shown in table 1, only 39 percent of the public and 31 percent of the private institutions with print and non- print collections and services are evalu- ated by their central administrations. The difference between public and private col- leges is not statistically significant. Six of the public institutions, or 40 percent, claimed to be evaluated under the 1982 "Guidelines," and four (26 percent), un- der a combination of 1972, 1979, and 1982 standards. Only one private institution claimed to be evaluated under the 1982 standards; the rest used "other" mea- sures such as ''reader polls and surveys.'' The reader may conclude that the guide- lines for LRCs have not greatly influenced the measurement of the resource pro- grams represented in this sample. Terminology ''Library'' or ''Learning resources cen- ter?'' Dale describes the terminology as "still in a state of flux. " 38 Indeed, the con- fusion in terminology is reflected in the ambiguity in dealing physically with print and nonprint resources in the two-year college. Respondents report that print and non print are housed together in a majority (61 %) of instances, and in what 56 percent of the institutions call their "library." When format categories are housed sepa- rately, print is as equally likely to be found in a ''learning resources center'' as a ''li- brary," while nonprint is more often in the LRC (60%) or the "media center" (26%). Even when print and nonprint are separated, in 43 percent of the colleges the same person directs both sites. While the small proportion of responses from pri- vate institutions precludes a statistically Yes No N/R TABLEt LffiRARY /LRC EVALUATION BY CENTRAL ADMINIS1RATION Public Private Total N % N % N % 15 39 5 31 20 37 21 55 10 62 31 57 _1 2 ..1 _Q _1 2 38 99 16 99 54 99 Two-Year College LRC 535 TABLE2 FREQUENCIES OF BOOK AND AV COLLECTIONS BY RANKED SIZE CATEGORIES Book Collections Descriptive Data 40,747 Mean S.D. 23,322 Cat~ry Ranks Sm (1) Size Rang_es 3,800- 3 ,000 Medium (2) 35,001- 65,000 Large (3) 65,001-101,600 Total valid conclusion, there appears to be some slight association of student body size to the term used for a multipurpose site. In the small schools (fewer than 1,000 stu- dents) the term is more apt to be ''li- brary," while LRC is favored by larger schools. Since in this sample-as in Car- penter's data-the smaller schools tend also to be private, the retention of the li- brary designation may also reflect institu- tional conservatism. Collections Carpenter found that junior-community colleges were closer to compliance with audiovisual than book and periodical standards. This finding does not address the question of the relative emphasis placed on the two media categories in the collections. It was possible to devise a sim- ple proportional scale of book-AV collec- tions based on the data found in the stan- dard directory. These data are self- reported, of course, and are not free of such inconsistencies as title/volume/item counts and ambiguous reporting of vari- ous types of visual media. However, parti- tioned into three size rankings as shown in table 2, they can be the basis for a good estimate of the size of book and media col- lections relative to collections in other in- stitutions. The data in table 2 indicate that "compliance" with non print standards still means that 61 percent of the institu- tions fall in the small category and 19 per- cent in the medium, while for print collec- tions, the figures are 51 and 35 percent, respectively. Table 3 compares within-institution size ranks of print and non print collections. In thirty-four (83%) of the institutions, the N . % A V Collections N . % 5,788 6,848 Size Ranges 26 51 50- 4,500 25 61 18 35 4,501- 9,000 8 19 _2_ _H 9,001-29,800 ~ 19 51 100 41 99 print collection ranking exceeds that of the non print, while in only seven (17%) is the opposite observed. In general, then, we see a continuing relative primacy of print. Indeed, for ten colleges, the print data were listed, but not the non print, suggest- ing that the latter formats were either of insufficient number or perceived impor- tance to submit on the directory form. Bibliographic Access Access to resources, both bibliographi- cal and physical, is an important element of library standards. Bibliographical ac- cess is provided by a card catalog in 74% of the college libraries or LRCs. In 77% of the institutions, the same person is in charge of both print and nonprint cataloging; 77% currently base records for print and nonprint on AACR2 (an increase from the 62% found in a similar 1984 survey). Cata- loging nonprint is more likely to be man- ual: for cataloging print, 76% of the re- spondents use a combination of biblio- graphic utility and original cataloging, and 20% use card services; but for non- TABLE3 COMPARISON OF WITHIN- INSTITUTION RANKS OF BOOK AND A V COLLECTIONS Book Rank AVRank N 1 1 17 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 1 8 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 0 3 2 5 3 3 _1 41 % 41.4 02.4 07.3 19.5 04.9 07.3 00.0 12.2 04.9 99.9 536 College & Research Libraries November 1990 TABLE4 CIRCULATION OF AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS To Faculty To Students Student/Faculty Medium % Reseondents* % Reseondents Circulation Ratio+ Map 65 37 .57 Filrilstrip 92 42 .46 Photoshde 92 42 .46 16mm. film 85 22 .26 Videocassette 98 54 .55 Videodisc 33 11 .33 CD-ROM (text) 9 4 .40 CD (audio) 24 9 .38 Audiocassette 96 74 .77 Phonodisc 87 63 .72 Graphic 55 29 .53 Object 42 17 .39 Otheg 15 9 .62 *Since faculty circulation apparently is universal, this datum also represents percent of institutions reporting the format in the collection. tThe higher the ratio, the greater is student access to the medium relative to faculty access . :j:Film loops, computer software, reel (audio) tape, transparencies, etc. print cataloging, 57% employ the combi- nation strategy, and 37% perform all origi- nal cataloging. Card production services are generally not an option. For 6% of re- spondents the solution is simply not to catalog audiovisuals. While the situation has improved with the wider adoption of AACR2, bibliographical access is not equally provided to print and non print re- sources. Physical Access Physical access is a variable situation also. While all respondents say that access is provided to both print and non print ma- terials, when it comes to circulation, for- mat and academic status matter. Save for customary restrictions on reference and periodical materials, all institutions circu- late print materials to students and faculty alike. Rank, however, has its privilege when it comes to borrowing non print (and circulation, for these media, includes in- house use). As table 4 indicates, sound cassettes enjoy the highest student/fa- culty circulation ratio (.77), with phono- discs next (.72). At the other extreme, 16- mm films have a low ratio of .26, and videodiscs, .33. The old standard media formats and the popular new formats are most frequently found in the non print col- lections, with 98 percent of respondents reporting videotapes, a format overtaking 16-mm film. 39 But student use of even the popular formats is restricted. Nonprint collections, then, are varied, but they are not uniformly accessible, either biblio- graphically or physically. ASSESSMENT AND FUTURE The history of the LRC explains what has been; the standards, what could be; the college catalog content and the HE GIS statistics analysis and the survey here re- ported, what is. For the most part, the concept of unified and integrated collec- tions of teaching and learning resources has been set aside or given administration lip service without meaningful support. What will be is in other hands-those of the administrators of the two-year col- leges and of the learning resources pro- grams and centers. The writer hopes that future literature will report an increas- ingly cooperative and supportive stance taken by the college administration, and an increasingly active role adopted by the LRC administration. Past and recent liter- ature suggests that the latter eventuality will need to come first: the LRC staff must formulate and publicize a mission state- The LRC staff must .Publicize a mis- sion statement, deliver informative copy for the college catalog, become familiar with the LRC standards, and demand to be evaluated annually. ment, create and deliver informative copy for the college catalog, become familiar with the LRC standards, and then seek- even demand-to be evaluated annually. The central administration may be igno- rant of the standards; the LRC staff cannot be and still make a claim to professional status. Only as the staff describes and ex- emplifies the unique role and function of the LRC will the college administration perceive and value that singularity. Moreover, the learning resources cen- ter, as a library specialty, also needs to be more highly valued by the library and me- dia community. ALA lists the Community and Junior College Libraries Section (CJ- CLS) of ACRL; but AECT does not sup- Two-Year College LRC 537 port a LRC specialty, and the Association for Library and Information Science Edu- cation (ALISE) lumps together under the heading of "Academic Libraries" its members' teaching and research interests in college and university libraries, re- search libraries, and LRCs. The LRC concept is unique, an ideal rich in promise for teaching and learning through many modes and media within the embracing context of the two-year, community-oriented community-junior college. Until its proponents and its col- leges find a mutual vision of mission and role, the promise seems likely to continue to be deferred. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Marilyn Searson Lary, "Community/Junior College Libraries: National and International As- pects,'' Library Trends 33:439-40 (Spring 1985). 2. Ruth J. Person, "The Organization and Administration of Two-Year College Learning Re- sources," Library Trends 33:441-57 (Spring 1985). 3. Madison M. Mosley, ''Mission Statements for the Community College LRC,'' College & Research Libraries News 49:653-54 (Nov. 1988). 4. Doris Cruger Dale, ''The Learning Resource Center's Role in the Community College System,'' College & Research Libraries 49:232-38 (May 1988). 5. Edith M. Coulter, "The Functions of the Junior College Library," Junior College Journal1:481-86 (April1931). 6. American Association of Junior Colleges, "Tenth Annual Meeting" (Atlantic City, N.J. ,- Nov. 19-20, 1929), p.156-57. 7. Harriett Genung, "Heart of the College," Junior College Journal24:136-46 (Nov. 1953) . . 8. Louis Shores, "The Library Junior College: A New and Larger Role for the Library in the Junior College," Junior College Journal36:6-9 (March 1966); and "The Junior College Impact on Academic Librarianship," College & Research Libraries 30:214-21 (May 1969). 9. Janiece B. Fusaro, "Toward Library-College Media Centers," Junior College Journal40:40-44 (April 1970). 10. Kenneth W. Allen and Loren Allen, Organization and Administration of the Learning Resources Center in the Community College (Hamden, Conn.: Linnet, 1973), p.12-13. 11. Ibid., p.58. 12. D. Joleen Bock and Leo R. LaJeunesse, The Learning Resources Center: A Planning Primer for Libraries in Transition (New York: R. R. Bowker, 1977), p.3. 13. Ibid., p.6. 14. Allen and Allen, Organization and Administration, p.13. 15. David R. Bender, Learning Resources and the Instructional Program in Community Colleges (Hamden, Conn.: Library Professional Publications, 1980), p.97. 16. Ibid., p.207. 17. Ibid., p.121. 18. Peggy Holleman, "How Widely Has the Learning Resources Program Concept Been Adopted?" Community and Junior College Libraries 1:1-8 (Fall1982). 19. Person, "The Organization and Administration," p.455. 20. Coulter, "The Functions," p.481-86. 21. Genung, "The Heart of the College," p.141. 22. Bender, Learning Resources, p.242. 23. Harold J. Ettelt, "Why Is This Library?" Community and Junior College Libraries 4:1-2 (Fall1985). 538 College & Research Libraries November 1990 24. An exception is the succinct treatment by Arthur M. Cohen and Florence B. Brawer in The American Community College (San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, 1982), p.157-60. 25. American Association of Junior Colleges, p.156-57. 26. "A Junior College 'Measuring Stick,' " Bulletin of the American Library Association 24:296-97 (Aug. 1930). 27. "Standards for Junior College Libraries," College & Research Libraries 21:200-6 (May 1960). 28. Audio-Visual Committee of the Association of College and Research Libraries, Guidelines for Audio-Visual Seroices in Academic Libraries (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1968.) 29. "AAJC-ACRL Guidelines for Two-Year College Library Learning Resources Centers," College & Research Libraries 32:265-78 (Oct. 1971). 30. "Guidelines for Two-Year College Learning Resources Programs," College & Research Libraries News 33, no.11:305-15 (Dec. 1972) (i.e., C&RL 33/7(B)); Audiovisual Instruction 18:50-61 (Jan. 1973). 31. "Guidelines," (1972), p.306. 32. ''Draft: Statement on Quantitative Standards for Two-Year Learning Resources Programs,'' Col- lege & Research Libraries News 40, no.3:69-73 (March 1979). 33. "Guidelines for Two-Year College Learning Resources Programs (revised)," College & Research Libraries News 43:5-10 (Jan. 1982) (Part One); 43:45-49 (Feb. 1982) (Part Two). 34. Raymond L. Carpenter, "Two-Year College Libraries: A Comparative Analysis in Terms of the ACRL Standards,'' College & Research Libraries 42:407-15 (Sept. 1981). 35. Ibid., p.412. 36. Ibid., p.413. 37. Ibid., p.415. 38. Dale, "The Learning Resource Center's Role," p.233. 39. The incidence of video formats exceeded that of 16 mm by 61 percent to 30 percent in forty-three California college and university libraries responding to a survey December 1985. Of these institu- tions, 66 percent collected audiocassettes and 72 percent, phonodiscs. From Henry J. DuBois, ''No Room at the Inn: Media Collections and University Libraries," C&RL News 49:530-32 (Oct. 1987). How does your collection measure up? You need reliable quantitative data to justify collection management decisions. You need a flexible analysis system designed with your library's goals in mind. Introducing ........................ OCLC/ AMIGOS Collection Analysis Systems. Collection Analysis CD compares your holdings against those of similar institutions, using a subset of the OCLC database on compact disc. Tape Analysis gives you a custom-designed MARC tape analysis for your library or group. A Tape Match against Books for College Libraries is also offered. OCLC/AMIGOS Collection Analysis Systems Available exclusively in the U.S. from AMIGOS Bibliographic Council, Inc. 11300 North Central Expressway, Suite 321 Dallas, Texas 75243 (800) 843-8482 (214) 750-6130