the dominican study
Public Library Summer Reading Programs
Close
the Reading Gap
.
.
Susan Roman
Deborah T. Carran
Carole D. Fiore
June 2010
THE DOMINICAN STUDY:
PUBLIC LIBRARY
SUMMER READING
PROGRAMS CLOSE
THE READING GAP
The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary
source of federal support for the nation’s 123,000 libraries
and 17,500 museums. The Institute’s mission is to create
strong libraries and museums that connect people to
information and ideas.
This project was made possible by a grant from the U.S. Institute of Museum
and Library Services. National Leadership Grant LG-06-06-0102-06.
contents
Acknowledgements.................................................... i
Executive Summary ................................................... 1
Introduction and Background .................................... 7
Literature Search ..................................................... 13
The Dominican Study ............................................... 21
Summary of Results ................................................ 47
Conclusions and Lessons Learned ............................ 51
Call to Action: Close the Reading Gap ....................... 55
Appendixes............................................................. 59
.
acknowledgements
A research study such as this one has been on my personal research agenda for close to twenty
years, but it always fell to the bottom of the agenda for a variety of reasons. It rose to the top
when it became apparent that librarians needed to account for the amount of time, energy, and
expenses that are involved in public library summer reading programs. Even more important at
this time was accountability through hard data as to whether the public library reading programs
held over the summer made a difference in student achievement; i.e., did children who
participated in summer reading programs at the public library maintain or even gain in their
reading ability? The time had come to test this question through a national study using rigorous
research and to try to replicate findings from a study conducted in the 1970s.
Research projects such as this Dominican study involve the talents of many individuals and the
financial support of a funder. For the earliest discussions about the possibility of a study, we
thank Martha Crowley at the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) for guidance as
we prepared the grant proposal. She continued that support throughout the research when we
had questions until Rachel Frick assumed that guiding role after Ms. Crowley retired. We also
thank IMLS staff members Mary L. Chute, Joyce Ray, and Kevin Cherry for their interest and
help throughout the project. For granting us the funds to conduct the research, we thank the
reviewers and administration of IMLS.
Thanks go to the following for original discussions for partnering on the project: Ron Fairchild,
then director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Summer Learning (now known as the
National Summer Learning Association, an independent organization since September 2009),
Carole D. Fiore, a consultant known for her publication on summer reading programs, Peggy
Rudd and Christine McNew of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, and Eugene
Hainer and Patricia Froehlich of the Colorado State Library.
For the rigor of the research, we thank the Johns Hopkins University Center for Summer Learning
research team, which included Brenda McLaughlin, Deborah T. Carran, and Susanne Sparks. For
guidance on the refinement of the research methodology and other issues that arose during
the study, we gratefully extend our thanks to advisory board members Janice Del Negro, Tracie
Hall, Denise Davis, and Penny Markey.
I express sincere gratitude and thanks to my co-authors of this report, Carole Fiore and Deb
Carran. Their input was invaluable. My home institution’s President Donna M. Carroll and
Provost Cheryl Johnson-Odim have been supportive and encouraging from initial discussions
and throughout the study. Thank you.
Susan Roman
Dean and Professor
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
Dominican University
River Forest, IL
Project Administrator and Principal Investigator
.
i
the dominican study
Public Library Summer Reading Programs
Close
the Reading Gap
.
.
executive summary
.
“In fact, all people
today—youth and
adults—spend the
majority of their lives
learning outside the
walls of formal
classrooms.”
— “Museums, Libraries, and 21st Century Skills,”
IMLS, July 2009
executive summary
1
executive summary
The Graduate School of Library and Information Science at Dominican University received a
National Leadership Grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) for a three-
year research study to answer the question: do public library summer reading programs impact
student achievement? Conducted between 2006 and 2009, the study had its roots in programming
that began in the late 1800s.
For over a century, public librarians have designed summer reading programs to create and
sustain a love of reading in children and to prevent the loss of reading skills over the summer.
Recently, however, federal and private funding agencies, along with departments of education,
have challenged the effectiveness of public library summer reading programs, especially
considering the large amount of resources, both financial and human, that is invested in
developing and marketing summer reading programs. The concern is exacerbated, as well, by
the dismal reading scores of students on standardized tests in low-performing schools. This
then begged the question as to whether public library summer reading programs, in fact, reach
the stated goals and impact student achievement.
Dominican University, as the lead agency, contracted with the Johns Hopkins University Center for
Summer Learning to conduct the research and also partnered with the Colorado State Library and
the Texas State Library and Archives Commission to help identify possible sites. The study was
piloted at three public libraries. The full study was conducted at eleven sites across the United
States and was overseen by an Advisory Committee that helped shape and guide the research
parameters.
The Dominican study, as it has come to be known, involved the collection of data through
pretesting and posttesting of students at the end of third grade and at the beginning of their
fourth-grade year. Interviews and surveys of public librarians were conducted, as well as surveys
of students, their parents, their teachers, and school librarians.
The results of this Dominican study include the following:
I
Students who participated in the public library summer reading program scored higher
on reading achievement tests at the beginning of the next school year than those
students who did not participate and they gained in other ways as well.
I
While students who reported that they did not participate in the public library summer
reading program also improved reading scores, they did not reach the reading level of
the students who did participate.
I
Students who participated in the public library summer reading program had better
reading skills at the end of third grade and scored higher on the standards test than
the students who did not participate.
.
I
Students who participated in the public library summer reading program included more
females, more Caucasians, and were at a higher socioeconomic level than the group of
students who did not participate.
I
Families of students who participated in the public library summer reading program
had more books in their homes than those families of students not participating.
I
Students enrolled in the public library summer reading program reported that they like
to read books, like to go to the library, and picked their own books to read.
I
Parents of children enrolled in the public library summer reading program reported that
their children spent more time reading over the summer and read more books, were
well prepared for school in the fall, and read more confidently.
I
Parents of children enrolled in the public library summer reading program reported that
they would enroll their children in a summer reading program at the library again, made
more visits to the public library with their children, and read more books to/with their
children over the summer.
I
Teachers observed that students who participated in the public library summer reading
program returned to school ready to learn, improved their reading achievement and
skills, increased their enjoyment of reading, were more motivated to read, were more
confident in participating in classroom reading activities, read beyond what was
required in their free time, and perceived reading to be important.
I
School librarians observed that students who participated in the public library summer
reading program returned to school ready to learn, improved their reading achievement
and skills, increased their enjoyment of reading, were more motivated to read, were
more confident in their reading abilities, read beyond what was required in their free
time, and perceived reading to be important.
I
Public librarians observed/perceived that students who participated in the public
library summer reading program returned to school ready to learn, improved their
reading achievement and skills, increased their enjoyment of reading, were more
motivated to read, were more confident in their reading abilities, read beyond what
was required in their free time, perceived reading to be important, were enthusiastic
about reading and self-selecting books, and increased their fluency and
comprehension.
It is time to close the achievement gap in reading for our nation’s children. Based on
this study’s findings, we recommend:
1. Recognizing that public libraries play a significant role in helping to close the
achievement gap in school performance.
2. Promoting the powerful role that public libraries play in the education community
in helping children maintain and gain reading skills.
3. Engaging families in public library programs to promote early childhood literacy.
4. Investing more money in summer reading programs—especially in public libraries
that serve children and families in economically depressed areas.
5. Marketing to parents of school-age children so they understand the importance of
their children participating in summer reading programs and other out-of-school
library activities.
2 The Dominican Study: Public Library Summer Reading Programs Close the Reading Gap
executive summary
3
6. Ensuring that librarians in public libraries work with teachers and school librarians
to identify non-readers and under-performing students and to reach out to those
students in order to engage them in library activities.
7. Reaching out to boys to get them involved in reading.
8. Expanding the definition of reading beyond books to include magazines, graphic
novels, etc.
9. Providing more books and reading material at the public library for children in economically
depressed neighborhoods since their more advantaged peers may have better access
to reading materials in their homes and in their local public libraries.
10. Helping children in lower-income areas build home libraries by partnering with
non-profit organizations such as First Book and Reading Is Fundamental.
11. Having librarians assume a role in influencing a child’s love of reading and lifelong
learning.
12
. Encouraging and supporting studies that continue research in this area and that offer
effective means for closing the reading achievement gap.
A complete report is available online at www.dom.edu/gslis.
the dominican study
Public Library Summer Reading Programs
Close
the Reading Gap
.
.
introduction and
background
.
“The 21st century
has changed how,
when, and where
we all learn.”
— “Museums, Libraries, and 21st Century Skills,”
IMLS, July 2009
introduction and background
7
introduction and background
THE “DOMINICAN STUDY”
Summer reading programs are offered by 95.2 percent of public libraries in the United States.
1
For years, public librarians have designed summer reading programs to create and sustain a
love of reading in children and to prevent the loss of reading skills, which research shows often
occurs during the summer months. Yet are summer reading programs actually accomplishing
the goals of the programs as hoped by the librarians? The study most often cited to support
librarian claims is over thirty years old. The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
at Dominican University with the Johns Hopkins University Center for Summer Learning, and in
partnership with the State Libraries of Texas and Colorado, prepared a National Leadership
Grant proposal for the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) to investigate these
important questions: do public library summer reading programs have an impact on student
reading achievement; do public library summer reading programs spur a motivation to read
and enjoyment of reading; and what is the effect when schools and public libraries collaborate
to support summer reading programs? With grant monies from IMLS, the research project
began in 2006 and continued through 2009.
ESTABLISHING A MODEL FOR COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION
In September 2005, IMLS brought representatives from eleven state libraries and their public
library partners to Washington, D.C., for a two-day workshop to develop outcome-based
evaluation logic models for evaluating summer reading programs. The goal of the workshop was
to assist public libraries in developing evaluation tools to gather data on the impact of summer
reading programs and to gather longitudinal data demonstrating the impact of public library
summer reading programs. Attendees were eager to develop a means of demonstrating the
value of summer reading programs to their funders, colleagues, and the community at large.
Many workshop participants concluded that while outcome-based evaluation of summer reading
programs is valuable, more rigorous research at the national level might provide stronger
evidence of the value of summer reading programs.
Public librarians are under pressure from their funders to prove that tax dollars spent on their
programs yield a valuable return on investment. In his article about current trends in budgeting,
“What is a Summer Worth,” workshop attendee Steve Brown wrote, “Last year, several public
libraries in the North Texas area suddenly found to their dismay that they were being asked to
explain the value of their summer reading activities.”
2
Mr. Brown stated that funders increasingly
1
F. William Summers, et al.,
Florida Libraries are Education: Report of a Statewide Study on the Educational Role of Public
Libraries
(Tallahassee, FL: School of Information Studies, Florida State University, 1999), iv.
2
Steve Brown, “What is a Summer Worth?”
Texas Library Journal
81, no. 2 (2005): 16–17.
.
regard survey data as insufficient evidence, instead preferring the rigor of quantitative research.
Certainly, outcome-based evaluation provides a convincing description of the impact of
programs; however, quantitative research is also needed to determine if there is a connection
between participation in public library summer reading programs and the prevention of
summer reading loss.
The methodology used by schools to study the impact of school-based intervention programs
on summer learning loss has included both quantitative and qualitative approaches, and
offered a model to study the impact of programs offered by public libraries. Student performance
on pretests at the end of a school year and posttest scores at the beginning of the following
school year had been compared to determine the impact of learning activities during the
intervening summer, and data on changes in motivation and enjoyment of reading had been
gathered through surveys. Yet due to the fiscal and logistical challenges of gathering pretest
and posttest data of summer reading program participants from their schools, this “dual”
methodology has rarely been utilized in studying summer reading programs sponsored by
public libraries. Heretofore, as well, studies were conducted in individual school districts or in
individual library systems—there had not been a research study conducted on a national scale.
This apparent division of labor and consequent assessment between schools and public libraries
begged the question: would research support that school and public library collaboration leads
to higher student reading achievement?
Certainly, both schools and public libraries have a stake in the nation’s children being successful
in school and beyond. National standards for school libraries, as outlined in Information Power:
Building Partnerships for Learning, as well as state standards, such as those found in School
Library Programs: Standards and Guidelines for Texas, recommend that school librarians
collaborate with teachers and public librarians to support higher student achievement.
3
Throughout the United States, school and public librarians are cooperating to support students,
and many of these collaborations are documented on the Association for Library Service to
Children (a division of the American Library Association) website.
4
While studies in more than a
dozen states demonstrate that student test scores are higher when school librarians collaborate
with teachers, we did not find research to demonstrate that collaboration between schools and
public libraries also supports student achievement.
5
8 The Dominican Study: Public Library Summer Reading Programs Close the Reading Gap
3
Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning
(Chicago: American Library Association, 1998). and
School Library
Programs: Standards and Guidelines for Texas
(Texas: Texas State Library and Archives Commission, May 2005).
4
www.ala.org/ala/alsc/alscresources/forlibrarians/SchPLCoopActivities.htm.
5
Library Research Service. School Library Impact Studies. (www.lrs.org/impact.asp)
introduction and background
9
An overview of existing research on summer reading programs in public libraries revealed that
the Barbara Heyns study, Summer Learning and the Effects of Schooling published in 1978, was
still being cited as the definitive study of the impact of summer reading programs on student
reading achievement. Subsequent quantitative research has primarily focused on the effect of
interventions by schools.
6
This Dominican University study provides a rigorous evaluation of the impact of public library
summer reading programs on summer reading loss through the examination of third-grade
students from large and small communities in rural, urban, and suburban areas, paying
particular attention to those students from low-income families. It also examines collaboration
between schools and public libraries.
The study focused on students at the end of third grade and followed them as they entered
fourth grade. This cohort was selected because less than one-third of U.S. fourth graders meet
the “proficient” standard on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Fourth
graders in high-poverty schools score dramatically lower on NAEP reading tests than the
general population: over 85 percent fail to reach the proficient level. Fourth grade appears
to be a transitional year from learning to read to reading to learn. As researchers Jeanne S. Chall
and Vicki A. Jacobs stated: “One possible reason for the fourth-grade slump may stem from lack
of fluency and automaticity (that is, quick and accurate recognition of words and phrases). We
found this particularly among the poorest readers who read slowly and hesitatingly in grade 2
and beyond. Lack of fluency tends to result, ultimately, in children’s reading less and avoiding
more difficult materials.”
7
AN ASSESSMENT OF NEED FOR THE STUDY
Research indicates that children from families across the socioeconomic spectrum achieve
similar levels of reading improvement during the school year. However, while the reading skills
of more economically advantaged children remain stable or improve slightly during the
summer, the reading skills of children from low-income families decline. In fact, research shows
that a reading achievement gap of approximately three months develops between students
from lower- and higher-income families over the summer months. This loss accumulates each
summer and may become a gap of eighteen months by the end of sixth grade, and two or more
years by middle school.
8
Since the 1970s, studies have suggested that summer reading is an effective way to prevent
summer learning loss. In the aforementioned landmark study, Summer Learning and the Effects
6
Barbara Heyns,
Summer Learning and the Effects of Schooling
(New York: Academic Press, 1978).
7
Jeanne S. Chall and Vicki A. Jacobs, “Poor Childrenʼs Fourth-Grade Slump,
American Educator
(Spring 2003).
http://archive.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring2003/chall.html
8
H. Cooper, B. Nye, K. Charlton, J. Lindsay and S. Greathouse, “The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores:
A narrative and meta-analytic review,”
Review of Educational Research
66 (1996): 227–268.
of Schooling, Barbara Heyns followed sixth and seventh graders in the Atlanta Public Schools
through two school years and the intervening summer and compared scores on reading
pretests and posttests. Heyns concluded that “The single summer activity that is most strongly
and consistently related to summer learning is reading.”
9
In her study, Heyns also stated that
“More than any other public institution, including the schools, the public library contributed to
the intellectual growth of children during the summer. Moreover, unlike summer school
programs, the library was used regularly by over half the sample and attracted children from
diverse backgrounds.”
10
For more than the last three decades, librarians have quoted this
study to justify summer reading programs.
A more recent study by Jimmy S. Kim concluded that summer achievement losses may be
prevented if elementary school students read four or five books during the summer. Kim
reported that regardless of race, socioeconomic level, or previous achievement, children who
read more books fared better on reading-comprehension tests in the fall than their peers who
had read one or no books over the summer.
11
A comprehensive bibliography of research on summer reading loss is available on the Alaska
State Library website at www.library.state.ak.us/pdf/checklist_161.pdf.
12
For this Dominican
study, an additional literature search was conducted. (See p. 13)
GRANT AWARDED
The Institute of Museum and Library Services awarded a multi-year National Leadership Grant
of $290,224 to Dominican University’s Graduate School of Library and Information Science to
conduct research from 2006 through 2009. The Cost Share Amount was $194,106 for a total
project cost of $484,330. Project Administrator and Principal Investigator, Susan Roman, dean
and professor of the Graduate School of Library and Information Science, contracted with the
Johns Hopkins University Center for Summer Learning to conduct the research, contracted with
Carole D. Fiore to manage the project, and worked with partners at the state library agencies in
Colorado and Texas to convene the Advisory Committee for the study. (Appendix A)
The charge to the advisory committee was to work with the administrative team to help refine
the research study plans, to help set objective parameters for the selection of sites for the
study, and to serve as guides and resources as the study progressed. The advisory committee and
the administrative team met for the first time during the Midwinter Meeting of the American
Library Association in January 2007. Following that meeting, a more comprehensive literature
search was conducted and the pilot sites for the study were selected.
10 The Dominican Study: Public Library Summer Reading Programs Close the Reading Gap
9
Heyns, 161.
10
Heyns, 177.
11
Jimmy S. Kim, “Reading Books is Found to Ward Of ʻSummer Slump,ʼ ”
Education Week
(May 2004).
12
Alaska State Library, “Preventing Summer Reading Loss,”
Checklist
161 (April 2005).
the dominican study
Public Library Summer Reading Programs
Close
the Reading Gap
.
.
literature search
.
“For every one line
of print read by
low-income children,
middle-income
children read three.”
— Donna Celano and Susan B. Neuman in
“When Schools Close, the Knowledge
Gap Grows,” 2008.
literature search
13
literature search
For years, librarians and educators have stated that summer library programs are a key to
creating a nation of readers. And, as such, summer library programs are a key to creating a
nation of literate citizens. In the aggregate, summer library programs are an integral part of
public library services. “Virtually all public libraries (95.2 percent) provide summer reading
programs for children. More children participate in public library summer reading programs
than play Little League baseball. Moreover, these programs have been shown to play a definite
role in children improving reading skills over the summer.”
1
Recently, there have been numerous studies, most of them within the education field, that
explore the value of reading over the summer. However, the study most often cited is more than
thirty years old. Conducted in 1978, Summer Learning and the Effects of Schooling by Barbara
Heyns was the first thorough investigation of summer learning. In this landmark study, Heyns
followed sixth- and seventh-grade students in the Atlanta Public Schools through two academic
years and an intervening summer.
2
The most significant finding from the Heyns study is that “The single summer activity that is
most strongly and consistently related to summer learning is reading.”
3
Reading during the
summer, whether measured by number of books read, time spent reading, or even by the
regularity of library usage, systematically increases the vocabulary test scores of children.
“Although unstructured activities such as reading do not ordinarily lend themselves to policy
intervention,” Heyns writes, “I will argue that at least one institution, the public library, directly
influences children’s reading. Educational policies that increase access to books, perhaps
through increased library services, stand to have an important impact on achievement,
particularly for less advantaged children.”
4
Heyns makes several other statements based on her research regarding the effectiveness of the
public library on summer learning. Since libraries facilitate reading, they also promote reading
achievement. “More than any other public institution, including the schools, the public library
contributed to the intellectual growth of children during the summer. Moreover, unlike summer
school programs, the library was used regularly by over half of the sample and attracted
children from diverse backgrounds.”
5
Heyns reported that socioeconomic status had little impact on reading achievement over the
summer. While reading tends to be patterned by family situation, the increases in summer
1
F. William Summers, et al.,
Florida Libraries are Education: Report of a Statewide Study on the Educational Role of Public
Libraries
(Tallahassee, FL: School of Information Studies, Florida State University), iv.
2
Barbara Heyns,
Summer Learning and the Effects of Schooling
(New York: Academic Press, 1978).
3
Heyns, 161.
4
Heyns, 161.
5
Heyns, 177.
.
learning are largely independent of a child’s social class. She also reported in her study that
“each additional hour spent reading on a typical day, or every four books completed over the
summer, are worth an additional vocabulary word, irrespective of socioeconomic status, for
both black and white children.”
6
A conclusion from the Heyns study is that “the unique contribution of reading to summer
learning suggests that increasing access to books and encouraging reading may well have
substantial impact on achievement.”
7
Both the number of books read and participating in a
group in which reading and literacy activities are valued add significantly to improved reading
abilities, achievement, and attitudes. Therefore, attracting children to the library during the
summer and getting them involved in an organized reading program appears to be a significant
way that libraries can increase the summer learning of the young people in their service area.
In addition to Heyns’s study, other research that has been done prior to the Dominican study
has been summarized in Carole D. Fiore’s Summer Library Reading Program Handbook (Neal-
Schuman, 2005). A selection of recent studies not included in that publication is highlighted here.
In 2005, John Schacter and Booil Jo studied children in a reading summer day-camp and reported
that during summer vacation children who are economically disadvantaged experience declines
in reading achievement, while middle- and high-income children improve.
8
They also cite
previous research where the most widely implemented intervention—sending economically
disadvantaged students to summer school—did not lead to increases in reading achievement.
Another factor Schacter and Jo discussed in relationship to the findings in their research and
others they reviewed was an attrition rate. This was related to the mobility rate reported by the
elementary schools that were involved in the various studies.
Among the more recent and notable studies related to access to books and other literacy
materials are those by Susan Neuman. Neuman and her colleague Donna Celano report that the
achievement gap is not rooted in the classroom but in the learning that children do outside the
classroom, including time after school, weekends, holidays, and summer breaks. That gap was
found to be wider in poor neighborhoods that have little access to information. They found that
“book availability for middle-class children was about 12 books per child; in poor neighborhoods,
about 1 book was available for every 355 children.”
9
They also found that even when children
are given equal access to books, computers, and other information sources, children in low-
socioeconomic neighborhoods do not use materials the same way that children in more
affluent areas do. They contend that “the nation’s public libraries fill a tremendous need by
providing print, computers, and other materials to many underserved populations.”
10
14 The Dominican Study: Public Library Summer Reading Programs Close the Reading Gap
6
Heyns, 168.
7
Heyns, 172.
8
John Schacter and Booil Jo, “Learning When School is Not in Session: A Reading Summer Day-Camp Intervention to Improve the
Achievement of Exiting First-Grade Students Who are Economically Disadvantaged,”
Journal of Research in Reading
28, no. 2
(May 2005): 158-169.
9
Donna Celano and Susan B. Neuman, “When Schools Close, the Knowledge Gap Grows,”
Phi Delta Kappan
(December 2009): 258.
10
Celano and Neuman, 258.
literature search
15
During their observations, Celano and Neuman found that “for every one line of print read by
low-income children, middle-income children read three.”
11
They also observed that while poor
and wealthier children can have equal access and spend equal time with information sources
such as books and computers while visiting public libraries during the summer, how they use
and interact with these materials differ greatly: “Poor children use books with less print and,
therefore, less information. They use the computer for more entertainment functions, rather
than information-gathering activities. In addition, as they use resources, they receive less
support from important mentors—parents, advisors, peers—who could scaffold and help them
absorb information.”
12
In addition, Neuman and Celano witnessed that the disparity between these socioeconomic
groups was greatest during the summer. They contend that public libraries are part of the
solution to solve this disparity. Part of the solution, according to Neuman and Celano, is to
“provide more opportunities for kids to be engaged during summers because, without these
opportunities, so much is lost.”
13
In 2008, Thomas G. White and James S. Kim designed and implemented a voluntary summer
reading program for third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade students. The study provided books and
encouraged silent and oral reading over the summer. White and Kim state: “Engagement with
text is the necessary first step if we want to improve reading skills when school is not in session
or prevent a decline in reading achievement that might otherwise occur.”
14
One of the experiments that White and Kim designed was comprised of groups of students in
grades three through five that received various levels of intervention (i.e. postcards or letters
to parents with suggestions for interaction with their child) and one control group that did
not receive any intervention. White and Kim documented that intervention had an impact on
students’ summer reading activity. Their results also imply that “merely giving students books
is not effective and that some form of scaffolding is necessary for voluntary summer reading to
have achievement benefits.”
15
White and Kim made the following recommendations for successful summer reading programs:
provide students with at least eight books closely matched to their reading level and interests;
send a postcard with each book to remind students of what they should be doing; send a letter
to parents asking them to listen and provide feedback on their child’s reading; and ask that the
postcards be returned so leaders can see if the program is being implemented as intended.
11
Celano and Neuman, 259.
12
Celano and Neuman, 259.
13
Susan Neuman, “Income Affects How Kids Use Technology and Access Knowledge,” Research in Brief, National Center for
Summer Learning (2009).
14
Thomas G. White and James S. Kim, “Teacher and Parent Scaffolding of Voluntary Summer Reading,”
Reading Teacher
(October 2008): 116.
15
White and Kim, 124.
Another pair of researchers who have added to the understanding of achievement by children
from high- and low-income families is Stephen Krashen and Fay Shin. They state that research
indicates there is surprisingly little difference in reading gains between children from high- and
low-income families during the school year. The difference is what happens in the summer.
They note that for children from low-income families, public libraries are the only obvious
source of books during the summer, and they report a strong relationship between the amount
of reading done over the summer and if the students had easy access to books at the library.
16
Krashen and Shin collaborated on a study that compared a traditional summer school reading
instruction program with one that featured voluntary free reading, also known as recreational
reading. The Krashen/Shin summer program lasted for six weeks, which is similar to the length
of time that many public libraries run their summer library programs. However, in the researchers’
program, students were in school for four hours per day. These hours were scheduled to allow
ample time for browsing and book selection; independent recreational reading; group-based
literature instruction; creation of related artistic projects; and participation in teacher-selected
group activities.
Findings and observations from the Shin/Krashen study include that students: who were in the
recreational reading group took out more books from the library over the course of the summer;
tended to select books that were at their grade level; who were once reluctant readers and
became enthusiastic readers confirmed the importance of access and conferences with teachers;
who were enthusiastic readers said that librarians and teachers encouraged them to read and
recommended specific books; having access to interesting reading and encouraging reading
year-round is important; and can improve in reading just by reading books they find interesting.
Overall, the results strongly confirm the importance of libraries. While not every community
would be able to set up a summer reading program as intensive as the one in the Shin/Krashen
study, the researchers recommended that communities should offer all children a plentiful
supply of reading material.
17
More recent studies from the public library side include the following two evaluations of
summer reading programs. The first is a final report on the evaluation of the “Books and
Beyond…Take Me to Your Reader!” summer reading program at the County of Los Angeles
Public Library, which was designed for children in kindergarten through grade three. The goals
of the program were to give these children the opportunity to improve and retain reading skills
to achieve greater success in school, and to encourage parents to participate and take an active
role in reading with their children. The findings were that the children who participated in the
program retained their skills, read more during the following school year, and had their parents
read more to them during the program.
18
16 The Dom inican Study: Public Library Summer Reading Programs Close the Reading Gap
16
Stephen Krashen and Fay Shin, “Summer Reading and the Potential Contribution of the Public Library in Improving Reading for
Children of Poverty,”
Public Library Quarterly
23 (3/4) (2004): 99–109.
17
Fay H. Shin and Stephen D. Krashen,
Summer Reading: Program and Evidence
(Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon, 2008).
18
“Evaluation of the Public Library Summer Reading Program: Books and Beyond…Take Me to Your Reader!” final report for The
Los Angeles County Public Library Foundation (December 2001).
literature search
17
The second report is an evaluation study of the 2007 “Guys Read” summer book club program,
designed by the Hennepin County Library in Minnesota for boys in grades four through six and
available to boys in the greater Minneapolis area. The program had goals to encourage boys to
read over the summer months and beyond; to foster boys’ positive attitudes/associations with
reading; and to promote positive relationships between boys and male book club facilitators.
Key findings from the study are that boys reported that they will read more, were more likely to
read, had a more positive perception about themselves as readers, were less likely to view girls
as being better readers, and were more likely to view reading as a positive, socially constructed
process.
19
As public librarians continue having to account for summer reading programs, it is anticipated
that more studies and evaluations of their programs, like the ones cited above, will be
forthcoming. In addition, independent studies such as the Dominican study will add to the
understanding of the great importance of reading and the beneficial role public libraries play
in closing the achievement gap in reading, not just for some but for all of the nation’s children.
Most importantly, however, is the contribution such research will have toward promoting
lifelong love of reading and learning.
19
Prepared by David OʼBrien, Deborah Dillon, and Cassandra Scharber, University of Minnesota. “Making a Difference: Guys
Read 2007,” An Evaluation Study completed in collaboration with the Guys Read Staff of Hennepin County Library, the Library
Foundation of Hennepin County Library and the College of Education + Human Development at the University of Minnesota.
the dominican study
Public Library Summer Reading Programs
Close
the Reading Gap
.
.
the dominican
study
.
“The public library is the
major source of reading
material for children of
poverty during the
summer.”
— Fay H. Shin and Stephen D. Krashen,
Summer Reading: Program and Evidence, 2008.
the dominican study
21
the dominican study
method
PARTICIPANTS
Students. A total of 367 students, attending 11 schools, returned signed parental consent forms
for program participation. All students attended one of the schools enrolled in the Dominican
study and were attending third grade during the Spring 2008 semester.
School Librarians. Nine (9) school librarians participated.
Fourth-Grade Teachers. Fifty-one (51) fourth-grade teachers participated.
Public Librarians. Eleven (11) public librarians who were partners with participating public schools
took part in the study. All librarians were working with or directing the public library summer
reading programs for elementary school-aged children.
Parents. Parents of student participants were encouraged to take part in the study. A total of
110 parents participated.
SETTINGS
Eleven schools and public library partners originally joined the study. Schools and public
library partners were located across the continental United States in the states of Oregon,
Colorado, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Virginia, Mississippi, and Minnesota.
Schools. Eligible schools were required to meet the following inclusion criteria (a) the entire
school population had to have 50% or more students who qualified for free and reduced meals
(FARM), a common measure for children living in poverty, (b) at least 85% of the school population
were not limited English proficiency and were able to be assessed for reading using English-
language reading software, (c) they had to agree to distribute an Dominican study summer
library reading log to students, and (d) they had to sign a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) with a local public library. Schools that agreed to participate and met inclusion criteria
were given the incentive of a free software and site license for the computer-administered
Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) Enterprise Version.
Public Libraries. Partner libraries were required to meet the following inclusion criteria (a) offer
a free public library summer reading program with curriculum content of their choice, (b) agree
to send librarians to the partner school to promote the public library summer reading program
at the end of the 2008 school year, (c) encourage students to complete a Dominican study
summer reading logs, (d) provide a summer reading program for a minimum of four weeks, and
(e) sign a MOU with the local partner school. Unlike their school counterparts, partner libraries
were given no incentives for participation.
INSTRUMENTS
Scholastic Reading Inventory. The Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) was developed by Scholastic
Inc. and is reported to be an objective assessment of a student’s reading-comprehension level
(Scholastic, 2006). The instrument was initially developed in 1999 as a print-based assessment
tool, which was redesigned in an electronic application (Version 4.0/Enterprise Edition) and was
used in this study. Test-retest reliability has been estimated to be 0.89 for grades three through
ten over a four-month period. Studies supporting the SRI (Stenner, Burdick, Sanford, and Burdick,
2006) have reported reproducible measures of reader performance independently of item author,
source of text, and occasion of measurement. Content validity of reading passages was used
during instrument development and results indicated that the instrument items were authentic
and developmentally appropriate. Because the instrument spans developmental levels, criterion-
related validity analyses also indicated reading comprehension increased rapidly during
elementary school and maintained during middle school.
Student Survey. A 22-item paper version was group administered for students to self-report
their summer reading habits and activities. This survey was created by the evaluation team
and validated with a small group of professional educators for face validity. See Appendix B
for questionnaire.
Parent Survey. Parents completed a 20-item paper survey to report their child’s summer
reading activities, expectations of benefits from a public library summer reading program, and
parent satisfaction with the public library summer reading program if their child attended. This
survey was created by the evaluation team and validated with a small group of professional
educators for face validity. See Appendix C for questionnaire.
School Librarian Survey. School-based librarians in participating schools were asked to
complete an 11-item paper survey. Librarians reported their opinions on the benefit of public
library summer reading programs. This survey was created by the evaluation team and validated
with a small group of professional educators for face validity. See Appendix D for questionnaire.
Teacher Survey. Fourth-grade teachers in participating schools were asked to complete a
11-item paper survey asking for their opinions on the benefit of public library summer reading
programs. This survey was created by the evaluation team and validated with a small group of
professional educators for face validity. See Appendix E for questionnaire.
Public Librarian Interview. A scripted-interview schedule was created by the evaluation team
that consisted of 15 questions with recommended probes. Questions asked public librarians
about their resident libraries, feeder schools, a description of the 2008 summer reading
program for grades 2–4, and their opinions on outcomes for children who attended summer
reading programs. The interviews were conducted by a professional evaluator who was a
member of the study evaluation team. See Appendix F for interview questions.
22 The Dominican Study: Public Library Summer Reading Programs Close the Reading Gap
the dominican study
23
Public Librarian Survey. Public librarians who agreed to be interviewed were asked to complete
a 20-item electronic survey posted on SurveyMonkey. Public librarians were asked to report
their opinions on the benefit of public library summer reading programs. This survey was
created by the study evaluation team and validated with a small group of professional
educators for face validity. See Appendix G for questionnaire and online survey.
Summer Reading Log. Students were asked to track their summer reading hours, number of books
read, times visited the library, and number of books checked out of the public library. This log was
created by the study evaluation team. See Appendix H for basic information sheet and log.
Figure 1. Dominican Study Procedure Timeline
PROCEDURE
This study occurred between Summer 2007 and Fall 2008, taking place in four time frames
(see Figure 1).
Summer/Fall 2007. During Summer 2007, the study evaluation team worked with the study’s
advisory committee on further developing evaluation questions and working through some of
the complicated issues of implementation. Several instruments were pilot-tested and several
local public library summer reading programs were consulted, including those from Palm Beach
County, Florida; El Paso, Texas; and Pueblo, Colorado. Helpful feedback from local public
libraries was incorporated into instruments and used to modify study procedures before
recruitment began.
Applications from public libraries and elementary schools were solicited during Fall 2007; public
libraries and schools across the United States were recruited to participate. See Appendix I for
school and public library application instructions. See Appendix J for school and public library
applications. Information about the program was posted on electronic professional
summer/fall 2007
I
Pilot
I
Recruitment
summer 2008
I
Public Librarian Interview
I
Public Librarian Survey
I
Summer Reading Log
spring 2008
I
Parent Consent
I
SRI Pretest
fall 2008
I
SRI Posttest
I
Student Survey
I
Parent Survey
I
Teacher Survey
I
School Librarian
Survey
announcement boards, sent to professional library and school organizations, and posted on a
study website. See Appendix K for recruitment flyers. The application deadline was October 31,
2007. A total of 26 schools and 34 libraries applied for the program, of which 18 were complete in
their required partnerships; 11 school and library partners were accepted into the study. See
Appendix L and M for the library and school privacy forms.
Spring 2008. Once library and school partners were identified, the process of parental permission
was initiated. See Appendix N for parental permission form cover letter. Participating schools were
sent packets of information to distribute to all third-grade student families. Materials consisted of
summary information about the study and a parental permission form that was required to be
signed and returned to the school; only students with signed parental consent forms were
included in the study. See Appendix O for parental permission form (in English and in Spanish.)
Contact information for study personnel, for the Johns Hopkins Homewood Institutional Review
Board, and for the Dominican University Institutional Review Board was also provided to parents
who might have had concerns or additional questions.
Schools were encouraged to initiate SRI testing in late Spring 2008 (pretest), prior to the end of
the school year. SRI scores were housed at the resident school sites. During this time, schools
were visited by the public librarians who called on the third-grade classrooms to promote the
public library summer reading program hosted by the public library. Students were encouraged
to participate in the library program and the summer reading logs were distributed to students.
Students exited third grade classrooms and their schools for summer.
Summer 2008. The public library summer reading programs were independently scheduled at
each host library and the library program curriculum selected by the host library. No constraints
were imposed on the libraries by the study in regard to content. The library programs were
authentic. Partner libraries programs were not given names of Dominican study student
participants due to issues of confidentiality. For this reason, libraries did not help track student
participants, nor did they record student attendance at summer reading programs. The student
self-report from the student surveys was used as the indicator of student summer reading
program attendance. Similarly, host libraries made decisions regarding custodial rights of the
summer reading logs: whether the library or the student retained the logs was at the discretion
of the host library. Public libraries that retained summer reading logs returned the logs to the
program office after the summer, and public libraries that did not retain the summer reading logs
told students to return logs to their fourth-grade teachers when school resumed in Fall 2008.
After the public library summer reading programs were concluded, public librarians were
contacted by the evaluation team for an interview, and they were also asked to fill out a survey
on SurveyMonkey.
24 The Dominican Study: Public Library Summer Reading Programs Close the Reading Gap
the dominican study
25
Fall 2008. Students returned to school in Fall 2008 to fourth-grade classrooms. Schools were
encouraged to initiate SRI testing (posttest) within three weeks of the new school year. SRI
Spring 2008 and Fall 2008 scores were compiled at the resident school sites, along with student
demographic information, and sent to the program office. During this time, students completed
the student survey, parent surveys were distributed (sent home with students and returned), and
teachers and school librarians completed their respective surveys. All completed surveys and
program materials were returned to the program office by October 2008.
DESIGN
The design of this study was causal comparative, which is that student participants were not
randomly assigned or randomized between attending/not attending public library summer
reading programs but instead independently decided to participate or not participate. The
treatment condition of program attendance was not manipulated by the evaluation team. The
treatment condition of the study was the exposure of student participants to the public library
summer reading programs at the partner public libraries, as selected by participants’ families.
“In causal comparative research the groups are already formed and already differ in terms of
the independent variable. The difference was not brought about by the researcher” (Gay, Mills,
& Airasian, 2006, p. 218).
This naturalistic type of research did not randomly assign students to conditions nor did it
control for reading materials students accessed over the summer. This was not a quasi-
experimental study; students were not randomly assigned to groups and participation was
voluntary. We did not have a control group in this study: we chose not to assign children to a
“non-treatment” control group that would withhold participation in a public library summer
reading program. Instead we allowed participants to self-select, and the students who reported
not participating in a reading program were used as a comparison group. In this methodology,
there was no control over the quantity or quality of reading materials of students. There was no
control over what students did or read during the summer; the study allowed families to do
what they would naturally do over the summer.
results and analysis
Results will be presented for each instrument in the study, beginning with the surveys from
students, parents, teachers, and librarians. These will be followed by the librarian interviews
and conclude with the SRI results. First, we present a description of how students were
identified as public library summer reading program participants and a description of
student participants.
PUBLIC LIBRARY SUMMER READING PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
The determination of student enrollment and participation in their local public library summer
reading program was a challenge for the study. For reasons related to student confidentiality,
public libraries were not permitted to ask students enrolling in the summer reading program if
they were participating in the Dominican study. Further, student participant names could not be
released to the local public libraries for the purposes of the study to match student names on
enrollment. To identify students who did and did not participate in the summer reading
programs, the study relied on student self-report of attendance on the student survey. The
student survey was completed in school settings by 219 students and returned to the project
office. One item on this survey was used to differentiate between students who attended and
who did not attend public library summer reading programs during summer 2008. Students
were asked, “Did you join the summer reading program at the library last summer?” Yes or No.
A total of 206 students completed this item and were used to compare responses and scores for
the results.
26 The Dominican Study: Public Library Summer Reading Programs Close the Reading Gap
the dominican study
27
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Total Pool of Students and Students Responding to
Survey Reported by Public Library Summer Reading Program Study Participants
Total Pool Yes: PLSRP No: PLSRP
N (%) N (%) N (%)
Participants 367 (100) 101 (100) 105 (100)
Gender Female 174 (51) 53 (54) 48 (47)
Male 166 (49) 45 (46) 54 (53)
IEP Yes 46 (14) 15 (15) 16 (16)
No 282 (86) 83 (85) 82 (84)
FARM Yes 202 (65) 51 (58) 58 (63)
No 110 (35) 37 (42) 34 (37)
Race American Indian/Alaska Native 2 (<1) 1 (1)
Asian 7 (2) 3 (3) 2 (2)
African American 116 (35) 27 (28) 35 (34)
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 4 (1) 0 3 (3)
Caucasian 162 (49) 61 (62) 51 (50)
Hispanic 28 (8) 2 (2) 5 (5)
Bi/Multi Racial 13 (4) 3 (3) 5 (5)
Other 4 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1)
Note: Yes: PLSRP = Yes, participated in public library summer reading program
No: PLSRP = No, did not participate in public library summer reading program
STUDENT DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Table 1 presents demographic characteristics for the total pool of students who received
parental consent to participate in the study (N=367), and for the subsamples of students
(n=206) who reported participation in the pubic library summer reading program. The
demographic characteristics were provided by the schools. There were no significant
differences between students who did and did not attend the public library summer reading
programs in regard to gender, educational disabilities (IEP), socioeconomic status (free and
reduced meals—FARM), and race. Examination of Table 1 indicates that students who did not
enroll in public library summer reading programs (No: PLSRP) were more similar to the total
pool of participants. Students who did enroll in the public library summer reading programs
(Yes: PLSRP) were different from the total pool:
I
A slightly higher percentage of Yes: PLSRP students were female compared to
the total pool (54% v. 51%) with a slightly lower percentage of male (46% v. 49%)
I
A higher percentage of Yes: PLSRP students were not FARM compared to the
total pool (42% v. 35%)
I
A higher percentage of Yes: PLSRP students were Caucasian compared to the total
pool (62% v. 49%)
Table 2. Student Responses to Survey Items Related to Reading Habits,
Reported by Public Library Summer Reading Program Study Participants
Student Survey Item Yes Sometimes I Don’t Not No Total
Know Really
N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
All
I like to read books 111 (51) 93 (42) 1 (<1) 10 (5) 4 (2) 219 (100)
Respondents I like to go to the library 133 (62) 53 (25) 7 (3) 18 (8) 5 (2) 216 (100)
I remember what I read later 81 (36) 72 (34) 18 (8) 30 (14) 17 (8) 218 (100)
I know how to use the library 186 (86) 18 (8) 3 (1) 5 (3) 4 (2) 216 (100)
I pick my own books to read 158 (74) 54 (25) 0 2 (1) 0 214 (100)
I spend my free time reading 42 (20) 115 (55) 3 (1) 28 (13) 23 (11) 211 (100)
I read better now than at the 157 (72) 13 (6) 26 (12) 14 (6) 8 (4) 218 (100)
beginning of summer
Yes: PLSRP I like to read books 61 (60) 35 (35) 0 4 (4) 1 (1) 101 (100)
I like to go to the library 66 (65) 22 (22) 2 (2) 10 (10) 1 (1) 101 (100)
I remember what I read later 38 (38) 42 (41) 4 (4) 11 (11) 6 (6) 101 (100)
I know how to use the library 84 (84) 11 (11) 2 (2) 1 (1) 2 (2) 100 (100)
I pick my own books to read 77 (78) 22 (22) 00099 (100)
I spend my free time reading 22 (22) 57 (58) 1 (1) 11 (11) 8 (8) 99 (100)
I read better now than at the 75 (74) 5 (5) 14 (14) 6 (6) 1 (1) 101 (100)
beginning of summer
No: PLSRP I like to read books 42 (40) 52 (50) 1 (1) 6 (6) 3 (3) 104 (100)
I like to go to the library 59 (58) 28 (28) 5 (4) 6 (6) 4 (4) 102 (100)
I remember what I read later 35 (34) 28 (27) 12 (12) 19 (18) 9 (9) 103 (100)
I know how to use the library 90 (87) 6 (6) 1 (1) 4 (4) 2 (2) 103 (100)
I pick my own books to read 70 (69) 30 (30) 1 (1) 00101 (100)
I spend my free time reading 18 (18) 49 (49) 2 (2) 17 (17) 14 (14) 100 (100)
I read better now than at the 72 (69) 7 (7) 11 (10) 8 (8) 6 (6) 104 (100)
beginning of summer
28 The Dominican Study: Public Library Summer Reading Programs Close the Reading Gap
the dominican study
29
Table 3. Student Responses to Survey Items Related to Library Usage,
Reported by Public Library Summer Reading Program Study Participants
Respondents Student Survey Item Yes No Total
N (%) N (%) N (%)
All Respondents
Do you have a library card? 144 (67) 72 (33) 216 (100)
Did you join the PLSRP last summer? 73 (35) 133 (65) 206 (100)
Did you read books NOT from the library? 185 (91) 19 (9) 204 (100)
Did you read books from the library? 137 (66) 69 (33) 206 (100)
Yes: PLSRP Do you have a library card? 80 (80) 20 (20) 100 (100)
Did you join the PLSRP last summer? 51 (50) 50 (50) 101 (100)
Did you read books NOT from the library? 89 (90) 10 (10) 99 (100)
Did you read books from the library? 72 (73) 27 (27) 99 (100)
No: PLSRP Do you have a library card? 54 (53) 48 (47) 102 (100)
Did you join the PLSRP last summer? 20 (20) 80 (80) 100 (100)
Did you read books NOT from the library? 92 (92) 8 (8) 100 (100)
Did you read books from the library? 63 (62) 39 (38) 102 (100)
Table 4. Student Responses to Survey Items about Summer Reading Materials and
Activities, Reported by Summer Library Reading Program Study Participants
Yes: PLSRP No: PLSRP Total
N (%) N (%) N (%)
What else did you read this summer?
Magazines 46 (55) 38 (45) 84 (28)
Comic books 34 (45) 42 (55) 76 (25)
Newspapers 21 (57) 16 (43) 37 (12)
Websites 23 (48) 25 (52) 48 (16)
Other 23 (40) 35 (60) 58 (19)
What activities did you do this summer?
Family Trip 63 (52) 57 (48) 120 (27)
Video Games 49 (44) 63 (56) 112 (25)
Watch TV 60 (53) 54 (47) 114 (26)
Summer Camp 28 (54) 24 (46) 52 (12)
Museum 24 (52) 22 (48) 46 (10)
Note: Multiple Response Items, Total Based on Total Responses
STUDENT SURVEY
When students returned to school in Fall 2008 they were administered the student survey that
asked students to recall their summer reading habits and activities. A total of 219 surveys were
returned to the project (note: 206 students responded to the survey item differentiating summer
library participation). Summary results are presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4.
Student reading habits are reported in Table 2. A higher percentage of students who
participated in the summer reading programs (Yes: PLSRP) reported they definitely liked to read
books, liked to go to the library, and picked their own books to read compared to students who
did not participate in the summer reading program. More students who participated in the
summer library program also reported they definitely or sometimes spent their free time
reading (80%) compared to the students who did not participate (No: PLSRP) (67%).
Student library usage is reported in Table 3. Compared to students who did not participate in
a summer reading program, a greater percentage of students who participated in a summer
reading program (Yes: PLSRP) had library cards, had joined a public library summer reading
program in past summers, and read books from the library.
Table 4 presents comparative results of student-reported summer reading materials and
activities. Students who attended a public library summer reading program (Yes: PLSRP)
reported reading more magazines and newspapers, watching TV, and attending summer camp;
students who did not attend a summer reading program (No: PLSRP) reported reading more
comic books and spending the summer playing video games.
PARENT SURVEY
When students returned to school in Fall 2008 the school sent home surveys for parents to
complete that asked parents to recall their child’s summer reading habits and activities. A total
of 110 surveys were returned to the project. Summary results are presented in Tables 5 and 6.
30 The Dominican Study: Public Library Summer Reading Programs Close the Reading Gap
the dominican study
31
Table 5. Parent Responses to Survey Items about Child’s Reading Habits and the Public Library Summer
Reading Program Attended,* Reported by Public Library Summer Reading Program Study Participants
Parent Survey Item Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Total
Agree Disagree
N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
All
My child likes to read 47 (43) 34 (31) 16 (14) 7 (6) 6 (6) 110 (100)
Respondents My child spends free time reading 23 (21) 31 (28) 30 (27) 18 (16) 8 (7) 110 (100)
My child forgot over summer and 3 (3) 27 (25) 38 (35) 35 (32) 6 (6) 109 (100)
needed review
My child is well prepared for school 26 (24) 48 (44) 31 (28) 3 (3) 2 (2) 110 (100)
this fall
My child is better prepared this fall 16 (15) 31 (28) 48 (44) 13 (12) 1 (1) 109 (100)
No: PLSRP My child likes to read 13 (30) 19 (43) 7 (16) 3 (7) 2 (4) 44 (100)
My child spends free time reading 8 (18) 6 (14) 17 (39) 9 (20) 4 (9) 44 (100)
My child forgot over summer and 1 (2) 9 (20) 18 (41) 15 (34) 1 (2) 44 (100)
needed review
My child is well prepared for school 0 9 (20) 23 (52) 11 (25) 1 (2) 44 (100)
this fall
My child is better prepared this fall 8 (19) 15 (35) 15 (35) 5 (12) 0 43 (100)
Yes: PLSRP My child likes to read 28 (60) 8 (17) 7 (15) 3 (6) 1 (2) 47 (100)
My child spends free time reading 11 (23) 21 (45) 8 (17) 5 (11) 2 (4) 47 (100)
My child forgot over summer and 2 (4) 14 (30) 11 (24) 16 (35) 3 (6) 46 (100)
needed review
My child is well prepared for school 14 (30) 18 (38) 11 (23) 2 (4) 2 (4) 47 (100)
this fall
My child is better prepared this fall 7 (15) 9 (19) 24 (51) 6 (13) 1 (2) 47 (100)
My child read more books because 10 (27) 10 (27) 10 (27) 6 (16) 1 (3) 37 (100)
of the PLSRP*
My child read more often because 3 (8) 10 (27) 14 (38) 9 (24) 1 (3) 37 (100)
of the PLSRP*
The PLSRP helped my child be 5 (14) 13 (35) 14 (38) 4 (11) 1 (3) 37 (100)
more prepared*
The PLSRP helped my child read 4 (11) 14 (38) 15 (40) 3 (8) 1 (3) 37 (100)
more confidently*
We felt welcome at the PLSRP* 14 (38) 19 (51) 4 (11) 0037 (100)
I will enroll my child again in 22 (60) 11 (30) 4 (11) 0037 (100)
the PLSRP*
*Note: Only parents with a child attending a public library summer reading program responded to these items.
Table 6. Parent Responses to Survey Items about Home Literacy Indicators,
Reported by Public Library Summer Reading Program Study Participants
Parent Survey Item Response Total Yes: No:
PLSRP PLSRP
N (%) N (%) N (%)
N Library visits with child during summer None 18 (18) 3 (7) 10 (27)
1 or 2 10 (10) 3 (7) 5 (14)
2 or 3 14 (14) 4 (9) 7 (19)
3 or 4 11 (11) 4 (9) 5 (14)
more than 4 46 (46) 31 (68) 10 (27)
Read book to/with child over summer Yes 76 (78) 37 (84) 25 (69)
No 21 (22) 7 (16) 11 (31)
N times read to child per week 1 or 2 31 (40) 13 (36) 12 (46)
2 or 3 19 (25) 10 (28) 7 (27)
3 or 4 8 (10) 4 (11) 2 (8)
more than 4 19 (25) 9 (25) 5 (19)
N books at home less than 5 2 (2) 1 (2) 1 (3)
5 to 10 7 (7) 3 (6) 4 (11)
10 to 25 11 (11) 4 (9) 5 (14)
25 to 50 18 (18) 5 (11) 8 (22)
more than 50 62 (62) 33 (72) 19 (51)
Child has internet access at home Yes 71 (72) 32 (71) 27 (75)
No 27 (28) 13 (29) 9 (25)
Child's reading ability this year Exceptional 30 (30) 14 (30) 11 (31)
Above Grade 41 (41) 22 (48) 14 (39)
At Grade 23 (23) 9 (20) 8 (22)
Below Grade 5 (5) 1 (2) 3 (8)
Parent responses to questions on student reading habits are reported in Table 5. Parents of
students who participated in a summer reading program (Yes: PLSRP) reported their children
spent more time reading over the summer (65% agree or strongly agree) compared to parents
of students who did not participate in a summer reading program (32% agree or strongly
agree). Parents of students who participated in a summer reading program also had a different
view of their child’s readiness for school in the fall compared to the parents of students who did
not participate (No: PLSRP). Parents of students in a summer reading program felt their children
needed a review over the summer (34% agree or strongly agree v. 22% No: PLSRP) but also felt
that their child was well prepared for school in the fall (68% agree or strongly agree v. 20% No:
PLSRP); not one parent of a child who did not attend the public library summer reading
program strongly agreed that their child was well prepared for school in the fall. However, more
parents of children who did not attend public library summer reading programs agreed or
strongly agreed (54%) that their child was ‘better’ prepared for school in the fall compared to
parents whose children attended the public library summer reading programs (34%).
32 The Dominican Study: Public Library Summer Reading Programs Close the Reading Gap
the dominican study
33
Table 5 also presents parent responses to items targeting efficacy of the public library summer
reading programs. Nearly 50% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that because of the summer
reading programs their child read more books, was better prepared for school in the fall, and
read more confidently. There was no consensus from parents as to whether their child read more
often because of the public library summer reading program; responses were nearly evenly split
among agree, neutral, and disagree. Positive responses to the summer reading programs were
reported by parents, with nearly 90% of parents reporting that they felt welcome at the summer
reading programs and would enroll their child again.
Home literacy indicators are presented in Table 6. Parents of children who attended summer
reading programs reported more library visits made during the summer with their child (more
than 4 visits, 68%) compared to parents of students who did not attend summer reading
programs (27%). Parents of children who attended summer reading programs also reported
more often reading books to/with their child and more times during the week over the summer,
and they had more books in their home (more than 50 books, 72%) compared to parents of
children who did not attend summer reading programs (51%). While parents in both groups
similarly reported their children reading ability to be at grade, above grade, or exceptional,
more children in summer reading programs were reported to be above grade level.
TEACHER SURVEY
Fifty-one (51) teachers from 72.7% of participating schools completed the teacher survey in Fall
2008. All responses were submitted and entered into an Excel database for analysis. Seven
teachers (13.7%) reported teaching for 1–2 years, 11 teachers (21.6%) reported teaching for 3–5
years, five teachers (9.8%) reported 6–10 years of experience, 19 teachers (37.3%) reported
11–20 years of experience, eight teachers (15.7%) reported 20–30 years of experience, and one
teacher (2%) reported 30+ years of experience. Twelve teachers (23.5%) reported having a
bachelor’s degree, 15.7% (n=8) reported having completed some graduate school, and 56.9%
(n=29) reported having a master’s degree or higher.
Table 7. Teacher Survey Responses to Items Related to Academic and
Reading Habits of Students who Attended Public Summer Library Reading Programs
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Don’t
Agree Disagree Know
N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%)
Returned to school ready to learn 13(25.5) 28(54.9) 8(15.7) 002(3.9)
Improved reading achievement and skills 28(54.9) 18(35.3) 3(5.9) 002(3.9)
Increased reading enjoyment 26(51) 23(45.1) 2(3.9) 000
Were more motivated to read 26(51) 18(35.3) 7(13.7) 000
Were more confident in classroom 19(37.3) 17(33.3) 10(19.6) 1(2) 1(2) 2(3.9)
Read beyond required reading 18(35.3) 22(43.1) 9(17.6) 1(2) 00
Perceived reading as important 23(45.1) 26(51) 2(3.9) 000
Teacher survey responses are presented in Table 7. Teachers mostly responded favorably to the
effect public library summer reading programs had on their students’ reading skills and habits.
Teachers strongly agreed, agreed, or were neutral when asked if students who participated in
public library summer reading programs were more motivated to read, had an increase in
reading enjoyment, and perceived reading as important. Eighty percent (80%) of teachers
agreed or strongly agreed that students who participated in public library summer reading
programs returned to school ready to learn and that these students read beyond what was
required in class. In addition, 90% agreed or strongly agreed that students who participated in
public library summer reading programs were more confident in classroom reading activities.
SCHOOL LIBRARIAN SURVEY
Five (5) school librarians completed the school librarian survey in Fall 2008, 45% of participating
schools. All responses were submitted to the project and entered into an Excel database for
analysis. One librarian (20%) reported being a librarian for 1–2 years, two librarians (40%)
reported 6–10 years of experience, and two librarians (40%) reported 20–30 years of experience.
One school librarian (20%) reported having a high-school degree and the rest (80%) reported
having a master’s degree or more.
School librarian survey responses are presented in Table 8 and were very favorable concerning
the impact of public library summer reading programs on student reading skills and habits.
Results indicate that all librarians agreed or strongly agreed that students who participated in a
public library summer reading program returned to school ready to learn with improved literacy
skills, were more motivated to read, and viewed reading as an important skill. Eighty percent
(80%) agreed/strongly agreed that students who participated in a public library summer reading
program also demonstrated more confidence in participating in classroom reading activities.
Table 8. School Librarian Survey Responses to Items Primarily Related to Academic and
Reading Habits of Students who Attended Public Library Summer Reading Programs
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Don’t
Agree Disagree Know
N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%)
Returned to school ready to learn 3 (60) 2 (40) 0000
Improved reading achievement and skills 4 (80) 1 (20) 0000
Increased reading enjoyment 4 (80) 1 (20) 0000
Were more motivated to read 3 (60) 2 (40) 0000
Were more confident in classroom 2 (40) 2 (40) 1 (20) 000
Read beyond required reading 2 (40) 2 (40) 0001 (20)
Perceived reading as important 3 (60) 2 (40) 0000
Your school library has a strong 3 (60) 2 (40) 0000
collaboration with public libraries
34 The Dominican Study: Public Library Summer Reading Programs Close the Reading Gap
the dominican study
35
PUBLIC LIBRARIAN INTERVIEWS
All nine (9) public librarians were interviewed to obtain their impression of the Dominican study
and to capture information on their summer library programs. Summary results are presented
below. Information obtained from these interviews shows differences between the librarians’
respective summer reading programs, which from the standpoint of the study strengthened the
“authenticity” of the participating summer reading programs.
Lakewood, OH: Main Library and Madison Branch
I
Two branches partnered with two different elementary schools. Both branches used
the theme “Catch the Reading Bug” and incorporated it into their six-week programs
and incentives. Main Library partnered with Grant Elementary and Madison Branch
partnered with Harrison Elementary.
I
Librarians from both branches visited the partner elementary schools. Students
participated in summer reading programs, but were difficult to track by specific grade
level or program attendance.
I
No feedback on reading logs, but only 11 were returned. Recommended online
version, but then would only track reading for 6 weeks.
I
Perceived students who participated in summer reading program improved or
at least maintained reading achievement levels.
Darien, IL: Indian Prairie Public Library District
I
Indian Prairie has a longstanding, productive relationship with partnership school,
Anne M. Jeans Elementary. Public librarians visited every classroom and attended
school open house to promote summer reading program.
I
Twelve-week summer program’s theme was “Get in the Game and Read,” which
incorporated almost daily activities ranging from reading activities, readers’ theater,
arts and crafts, performances, and presentations.
I
Participants received incentives to encourage participation. Student participants
commented that the reading logs were overwhelming to complete.
I
Perception that summer reading program participants were at least able to maintain
their reading level over the summer, and that participants were enthusiastic about
reading and self-selecting books.
Morton, MS: Morton Public Library
I
Librarians visited K–5 classrooms at partnership school, Morton Elementary, to advertise
summer reading program. The library has a good relationship with partner.
I
Theme for the six-week summer program was “Catch the Reading Bug.” In addition to
events during the day, evening sessions for the reading program were scheduled that
seemed to improve participation.
I
Staff thought the reading log was overwhelming to the students and parents.
Recommended a parent meeting which might improve return of reading logs.
I
Perceived that summer reading program participation increased fluency and
comprehension for students.
Columbus, OH: Columbus Metropolitan Library, Shepherd Branch
I
Shepherd Branch is partnered with Arlington Park Elementary School. Librarians placed
an emphasis on visiting school and building a relationship with students. Librarians
visited school (at least 1–2 visits) for interactive projects, book talks, etc.
I
Eight-week summer program’s theme was “Game on. Read,” with activities including
story time, written instruction, and language program.
I
No reading logs were turned back in. Librarians thought they were too plain and
complicated. Recommended online surveys.
I
Difficult to determine actual numbers for fourth-grade participation due to their data
collection methods. Perceptions were that students in the program maintained or
improved reading skills.
Fredericksburg, VA: Carl Road Branch
I
Carl Road Branch is partnered with Salem Elementary. Librarians speak at awards
assembly, pass out flyers, and try to visit the school at least three times per year.
I
Eight-week summer program’s theme was “Game on. Read.” Program was self-directed
with supporting programs including story time and performers.
I
No students returned reading logs perhaps because they had more in common with
school than the reading club. Recommended e-logs that would be more interactive
and easier for the library to track.
I
Perception that participation in program improved or maintained reading level, but
unable to say with certainty due to lack of information.
I
Perception that participants’ attitudes towards reading improved due to “dynamite”
programming.
I
Recommended that cooperation could improve if entire school system and library
system were involved in the project.
Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Public Library, Sumner Branch
I
Sumner Branch has an “easy” relationship with their partnership school, Bassoon.
Librarians visited third-grade classes to advertise the summer program.
I
The eight-week summer program’s theme was “Look What’s Cookin’ in Your Library,”
with activities including “Read to Win” and performers.
I
Librarians felt the reading log may have been too complex and overwhelming for the
students since it was given out at end of year and was to be returned to school.
Portland, OR: Multnoma County Library
I
Multnoma County Library is partnered with Cherry Park Elementary. Faces challenges
dealing with eight different school districts, Due to limited staff only able to visit
neediest school. Advertised programs on public transportation and in the community.
I
Summer program theme was “Catch the Reading Bug,” but also has year-round reading
program where students earn incentives for completing their game board.
36 The Do minican Study: Public Library Summer Reading Programs Close the Reading Gap
the dominican study
37
I
One reading log was turned in. Limited response possibly due to student turnover at
the local elementary school. Staff thought log was overwhelming. Staff does not
recommend e-logs due to the large percentage of their population who are immigrants
and may not have internet access.
I
Perception is that program participants improved their reading level and their attitude
towards reading. Teachers are happy that students have something to motivate them
during the summer.
Pueblo, CO: Pueblo City County Library District, Barkman Branch
I
Barkman Branch has a good relationship with partnership school, Haaff Elementary.
Librarians visit classrooms to promote the summer reading program.
I
The eight-week summer program’s theme was “Catch the Reading Bug.” Program
included programs presented by the zoo, music, and puppet shows. Library also hosts
“Books in the Park” to provide books in a park setting for children who cannot make it
to a library.
I
Staff thought logs were too lengthy and involved.
I
Perception that students maintained their reading because they checked out a good
number of books and improved their attitude towards reading.
Fredericksburg, VA: Central Rappahannock Regional Library
I
Central Rap Library has a longstanding relationship with partnership school, Lafayette
Upper Elementary. Staff visited school to promote the summer reading program.
I
Summer program theme was “Catch the Reading Bug,” with a variety of different
program components.
I
Program participation seemed to be down but book circulation was up.
Table 9. Public Librarian Survey Responses to Items Related to Academic and
Reading Habits of students who Attended Public Library Summer Reading Programs
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Don’t
Agree Disagree Know
N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%)
Returned to school ready to learn 1(11) 8(89) 0000
Improved reading achievement and skills 4(44) 4(44) 1(11) 000
Increased reading enjoyment 3(33) 6(67) 0000
Were more motivated to read 1(12) 7(88) 0000
Were more confident in classroom 1(12) 6(75) 0001(12)
Read beyond required reading 1(11) 5(56) 3(33) 000
Perceived reading as important 1(11) 5(56) 2(22) 001(11)
Your public library has a strong collaboration 5(55) 4(44) 0000
with one or more local schools
PUBLIC LIBRARIAN SURVEY
Nine (9) public librarians from six (6) different libraries responded to an electronic survey on
SurveyMonkey. 11.1% (n=1) of respondents reported being a librarian or library staff member for
1–2 years, 22.2% (n=2) reported 6–10 years of experience, 44.4% (n=4) reported 11–20 years of
experience, 11.1% (n=1) reported 20–30 years of experience, and 11.1% (n=1) reported more than
30 years of experience. All nine respondents reported having at least a bachelor’s degree with
88.9% (n=8) having earned a master’s degree or more. As shown in Table 9, public librarians
agree or strongly agree that public library summer reading programs support children’s
academic and literacy skills. All librarians (100%, n=9) strongly agreed/agreed that students
who participated in public library summer reading programs (PLSRP) returned to school ready
to learn. 88.4% (n=8) strongly agree/agreed that students who participated in PLSRP improve
their reading achievement and skills. 100% (n=9) strongly agreed/agreed that students who
participate in PLSRP increase their enjoyment of reading. 100% (n=9) strongly agreed/agreed
that their public library has a strong collaboration with one or more local schools.
DOMINICAN STUDY SUMMER LIBRARY READING LOGS
Seventeen (17) rising fourth-grade students from six (6) participating schools completed and
returned summer reading logs. One of the reading logs was excluded because the reading
log supplied to the student was improperly copied and subsequently was missing half of the
questions. As a result, data were collected and entered into Excel database for 16 respondents.
Frequencies were run through SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.) 56.3% (n=9) of
respondents were male and 37.5% (n=6) were female and one (6.2%) had missing data. 93.3%
(n=14) students did not have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Free and Reduced Meal
(FARM) information was available for 11 students. Of these eleven students, six (54.5%) were
FARM and five (45.4%) were not. 81.3% (n=13) of students were classified as white, 6.2% (n=1)
was American Indian or Alaska Native, 6.2% (n=1) was Hispanic or Latino, and one (6.2%) had
missing data.
Spring 2008 and Fall 2008 SRI scores were available for 15 of the 16 respondents. The mean
Spring SRI 2008 score was 717.80 (SD=246.07) with a range of 186 to 1099. The mean Fall SRI
2008 score was 736.00 (SD=228.15) with a range of 404 to 1078. The mean raw change
between Spring and Fall was 18.20 (SD=77.54). A dependent t-test indicated no significant
difference between scores, t(14) = -.909 p > .05. The difference between the means was -18.20
(CI95: -61.14 to 24.74). There was no significant difference between Spring 2008 SRI scores and
Fall 2008 SRI scores. Students who returned reading logs showed no significant difference in
SRI scores between Spring and Fall.
38 The Domin ican Study: Public Library Summer Reading Programs Close the Reading Gap
the dominican study
39
Correlations. Students completed a range of 4–14 weeks of the reading log (M=9.38, SD=2.80).
93.8% of respondents completed more than seven weeks of the summer reading log, with
43.8% (n=7) completing 10–14 weeks of the reading log. Respondents self-reported reading
between 6–89 books (M=34.56, SD=25.12). 93.8% (n=15) visited the library. 53.4% of
respondents reported visiting the library more than eleven times during the summer. 81.2%
read books while at the library, and 81.2% reported participating in public library summer
reading programs. 87.5% of respondents read library books at home. 86.7% checked out library
books. The majority of respondents (53.8%) checked out sixteen or more books. Data from the
reading logs is summarized in Tables 10 and 11.
For the sample of students who returned reading logs (n=16), a significant relationship was
found between SRI Raw Change Fall-Spring and SRI Percent Change Fall-Spring, r=.878, p <.01
and number of logs completed and total books read, r=.757, p <.01.
Table 10. Frequency and Percent of Responses to
Dominican Study Summer Reading Log Questions
Reading Log Item N (%)
Books Read over Summer < 25 books 7 (44)
25–50 books 5 (31)
>50 books 4 (25)
Number Visits to Library < 7 times 15 (94)
> 7 times 8 (33)
> 14 times 2 (13)
Number of Participants Who Reported Reading Books at Library 13 (81)
Number of Participants Who Reported Reading Library Books at Home 14 (88)
Number of Participants Who Participated in Library Program 13 (81)
Number of Participants Who Spoke with Librarian 13 (87)
40 The Dominican Study: Public Library Summer Reading Programs Close the Reading Gap
Table 11. Central Tendency Statistics (Mean, Standard Deviation, and Median)
for Responses to Dominican Study Summer Reading Log Questions
Reading Log Item M (SD) Median
Number of Books Read 34.5 (25.10) 25.50
Number of Books Checked Out 23.85 (17.49) 20.00
Hours Read Books at Library 3.19 (3.44) 1.50
Hours Read Library Books at Home 15.12 (9.11) 12.63
Hours Participated in PLSRP 3.42 (3.28) 3.00
Number of Times Read Books at Library 7.00 (6.81) 4.00
Number of Times Read Library Books at Home 28.43 (17.36) 24.00
Number of Times Participated in PLSRP 5.69 (4.85) 5.00
Figure 2. Student Participant SRI Testing Results
Spring 2008 Testing Fall 2008 Testing
SRI Scores
Missing
No Report
Not Tested
Moved
BR Scores
307
222
28
1
5
25
1
72
19
10
41
3
the dominican study
41
SCHOLASTIC READING INVENTORY (SRI)
Tracking the Participant Pool. Student SRI scores were tracked at two levels for this study.
Results will be reported for both levels of the study.
The first level of tracking was student participant’s SRI pretest (Spring 2008) and SRI posttest
(Fall 2008). Figure 2 presents the total number of SRI pretests (n=307) and SRI posttests (n=222)
that were recorded by the schools. Scores were not reported due to missing values, no report,
student not tested, student moved, and below reporting (BR) scores. When the pretests and
posttests are matched at the student level, there was a total of 213 matched pretest/posttest SRI
scores (see Figure 3). This level of student tracking does not include the student survey and does
not indicate student attendance of a public library summer reading program.
The second level of tracking, resulting in the final participant pool for this study, required that
students be matched on the SRI pretest (Spring 2008), the SRI posttest (Fall 2008), and the
student survey (Fall 2008). Due to student level linking across three variables, the final
participant pool started in Spring 2008 at N=367 (signed parental consent forms at 11 sites)
and concluded with n=149 (matched SRI pretest, SRI posttest, student survey). This level of
tracking includes an indication of whether or not students attended a public library summer
reading program during their summer hiatus. Figure 3 demonstrates the relationship among
the matched variables.
Figure 3. Participant Pool Stages for Dominican Study
367
Signed Parental
Consent Forms
(100%)
307
222
213
219
149
Spring 2008
SRI Scores (84%)
Fall 2008
SRI Scores (60%)
Fall 2008
Student Surveys
(60%)
Matched Spring/Fall 2008
SRI Scores (58%)
Matched SRI Scores & Surveys
(40%)
.
.
.
.
.
The final participant pool represented 40% of students who returned signed parental consent
forms in Spring 2008. One school was not able to participate in SRI posttesting due to technical
problems with their server.
Pretest/Posttest SRI Scores by Summer Program Participation. The second level of tracking
for this study matched student pretest, posttest, and student survey responses. Descriptive
statistics are presented in Table 12. Univariate results were examined at each testing time
comparing average SRI scores between summer program attendance (see Figure 4). For Spring
2008 SRI scores an independent t-test [t (176)=2.414, p=.01] found that students who reported
attending public library summer reading programs scored significantly higher on the SRI than
students who did not report attending the public library summer reading programs. Fall 2008
SRI scores were also compared using an independent t-test. Results approached a modest level
of significance [t (153)=1.357, p=.17] between groups. Again, students who attended the public
library summer reading program scored higher on the Fall 2008 SRI compared with students
who did not report attending the public library summer reading program.
Table 12. Means and Standard Deviations for the Spring and Fall 2008 SRI,
Reported by Summer Reading Program Attendance
Yes: PLSRP No: PLSRP Total
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Spring 2008 SRI 663.01 (252.69) 600.89 (224.05) 630.09 (238.60)
Fall 2008 SRI 667.67 (241.99) 615.05 (224.43) 639.77 (233.54)
Figure 4. Average Matched SRI Scores from Spring 2008 to Fall 2008,
Reported by PLSRP participation.
42 The Dominican Study: Public Library Summer Reading Programs Close the Reading Gap
Average SRI Score
Spring 2008 Fall 2008
700
650
600
550
500
450
400
663
667
600
615
Yes PLSRP
No PLSRP
the dominican study
43
An additional analysis was conducted comparing pretest and posttest results between
attendance conditions of public library summer reading programs. Results approached
significance [F (1, 147)=2.346, p=0.12] comparing average SRI scores between students who
reported attending public library summer reading programs and those who did not report
attending.
Correlations. Student self-reports of participation in public library summer reading programs
were found to be positively correlated with summer reading habits:
I
Liking to read books (r=.17, p <.05)
I
Spending their free time reading (r=.160, p <.05)
I
Having a library card (r=.286, p <.01)
I
Visiting the library more often (r=.255, p <.01)
Student self-reports of number of books read, regardless of public library summer reading
program participation, were also found to be positively correlated with summer library literacy
activities:
I
Books read from library (r=.304, p <.01)
I
Parent reported visits with child to library (r=.349, p <.01)
I
Parent reported times read to child per week (r=.270, p <.05)
Findings. Student reading outcome results found that students who participated in their local
PLSRP left school reading at a significantly higher level in Spring 2008. When students returned
in Fall 2008, those who participated in the SLRP were still reading at a higher level but it was no
longer statistically significant compared to students who did not participate in their local
PLSRP. Although the Fall 2008 results did not meet the statistically accepted level of significance
( =.05), as a descriptive and exploratory study a significance level approaching .10 was
encouraging.
STUDY LIMITATIONS
We encountered several problems during this study, including participant attrition, lack of a
control group, and lack of information regarding participants’ other activities during the
summer. We had serious attrition from the start of the study. We began the study with a
participant pool of more than 800 rising third-grade students at 11 sites across the United
States. We received 367 (45%) signed consent forms from parents. At the end of the study we
were able to match only 149 students to the outcomes of interest. This sampling attrition was
problematic and may have impacted our results.
It should also be reiterated that this was not a quasi-experimental study; students were not
randomly assigned to treatment groups (Yes: PLSRP or No: PLSRP) and participation was
voluntary. We chose not to randomly assign study participants to a non-treatment control group
during the summer, thus withholding public library summer reading programs. We had a
causal-comparative design for the study, and while there are many benefits to this type of
design, there are also weaknesses, including lack of randomization, manipulation, and control.
Random assignment/randomization is a critical aspect of research methodology that supports
the equity of treatment groups. When groups are not randomized, there is the possibility
that they are not equitable and differ on some unknown and unmeasured variable. A causal-
comparative design was chosen, however, as the variable of interest (choosing to attend/not
attend a public library summer reading program) was viewed as a family’s choice. Our
comparison group was the self reported student who did not attend the summer library reading
program; this does not mean that a student did not read over the summer or attend academic
summer camps focused on literacy. There was no control over what students did or read during
the summer; this type of naturalistic study relied on allowing families do what they would
naturally do over the summer.
We did initiate steps to offset the design’s inherent weakness, i.e., the lack of control and
manipulation of student reading materials was to be addressed by the study’s reading log. This
part of the study yielded no findings, however, since very few logs were returned to the project
from the local libraries. Our intent was to let children have authentic library experiences. We
allowed the libraries to plan their own summer reading programs and provide their own
incentives. In choosing this method there were neither controlled incentives nor consequences
connected to the summer reading logs. We had no leverage for the return of the logs. In addition,
we received feedback regarding the logs from the public librarian participants, and not one
single librarian had anything positive to report concerning them (see librarian interview notes).
Recommendations were made by several librarians that should be considered for future studies.
While not definitive in addressing the additive effect of summer library reading programs, this
study has been helpful in demonstrating the need for more rigorously controlled research
studies. If we were to replicate this study we would choose to do so in a single setting where we
could ensure more control and effort could be devoted to participant recruitment and instrument
completion. In spite of the methodological problems related to lack of control over group
assignment and in what students did and read over the summer, we are encouraged to note
that students who did attend public library summer reading programs left school reading at a
higher level than their peers, and maintained, if not increased, this higher level of reading over
the summer.
44 The Dominican Study: Public Library Summer Reading Programs Close the Reading Gap
the dominican study
Public Library Summer Reading Programs
Close
the Reading Gap
.
.
summary of results
.
“…There is surprisingly
little difference in reading
gains between children
from high- and low-income
families during the school
year. Rather, the difference
is what happens in the
summer.”
— Stephen Krashen and Fay Shin
“Summer Reading and the Potential
Contribution of the Public Library in Improving
Reading for Children of Poverty.” 2008.
summary of results
47
summary of results
Participation in the summer reading program was self-reported; i.e., we did not assign students to
a “treatment” or “control” group. Children who did not participate in the summer reading program
at the public library may have engaged in other summer learning activities of which we are not
aware. There was a formal agreement between the libraries and the schools, and the public
libraries had full control over their summer programs. While the study began with 11 sites and an
anticipated 800 students who would participate in the study, only 367 signed parental consent
forms were returned. Although the number of participants was not as large as we had hoped, it did
allow us to make some significant correlations, draw inferences, and use descriptive statistics.
In describing the students who participated in the public library summer reading program as
distinct from other students in the study, we found that there were:
I
More females
I
More students of a higher socioeconomic status
I
More Caucasian students
Students enrolled in the public library summer reading programs reported that they:
I
Like to read books, like to go to the library, and picked their own books to read
I
For the most part had library cards and read books from the library
I
Read more magazines and newspapers
Parents reported that their children who participated in the public library summer reading
program:
I
Spent more time reading over the summer and read more books
I
Were well prepared for school in the fall
I
Read more confidently
Parents of children enrolled in the public library summer reading program reported that they:
I
Would enroll their children in a summer reading program at the library again
I
Made more visits to the public library with their children
I
Read more books to/with their children over the summer
I
Had more books in their homes than in the homes of students not participating
.
Teachers observed that students who participated in the public library summer reading
program:
I
Returned to school ready to learn
I
Improved their reading achievement and skills
I
Increased their enjoyment of reading
I
Were more motivated to read
I
Were more confident in participating in classroom reading activities
I
Read beyond what was required in their free time
I
Perceived reading to be important
School librarians observed that when students who participated in the public library summer
reading program returned to school they:
I
Returned to school ready to learn
I
Improved their reading achievement and skills
I
Increased their enjoyment of reading
I
Were more motivated to read
I
Were more confident in their reading abilities
I
Read beyond what was required in their free time
I
Perceived reading to be important
Public librarians observed/perceived that students who participated in the public library
summer reading program:
I
Returned to school ready to learn
I
Improved their reading achievement and skills
I
Increase their enjoyment of reading
I
Were more motivated to read
I
Were more confident in their reading abilities
I
Read beyond what was required in their free time
I
Perceived reading to be important
I
Were enthusiastic about reading and self-selecting books
I
Increased their fluency and comprehension
The SRI (pretest and posttest) scores revealed that:
I
Students who reported participating in a public library summer reading program scored
higher than those who did not participate
I
Students who reported participating in a public library summer reading program started
with higher reading scores and stayed ahead of those students who reported that they
did not participate
I
Students who reported that they did not participate in a public library summer reading
program also improved their reading scores, but they did not reach the higher scores of
the students who did participate
48 The Dominican Study: Public Library Summer Reading Programs Close the Reading Gap
the dominican study
Public Library Summer Reading Programs
Close
the Reading Gap
.
.
conclusions and
lessons learned
.
conclusions and lessons learned
51
conclusions and lessons learned
CONCLUSIONS
And so to the question we set out to answer by our study: do public library summer reading
programs impact student achievement? Yes, we can state that in this study they do in positive
ways. Students who completed third grade and who participated in a public library reading
program during the summer in this study scored higher on reading achievement tests given at
the start of fourth grade. Indeed their reading skills not only were maintained but improved, and
they did not experience summer reading loss. And, although students in this study who said
they did not participate in a public library summer reading program also improved their reading
scores, they did not reach the higher scores of the students who did participate. The benefits
for students who did participate in public library summer reading programs extend beyond
improved test scores.
We found more and very interesting information regarding the benefits of public library summer
reading program participation from the adults in a student’s life and their views of the experience.
Those adults included parents, teachers, school library media specialists, and public librarians.
How did participation in the public library summer reading program impact classroom
performance? Teachers found that students who participated in the public library summer
reading program started the school year ready to learn, had improved reading achievement,
appeared to have increased reading enjoyment, were more motivated to read, were more
confident, read beyond what was required, and perceived reading as important.
In addition, the parents of children who participated in the summer reading program indicated
that they thought their children were better prepared to begin school at the end of the summer.
Not one parent of a student who did not participate in the summer reading program would
“strongly agree” that their child was better prepared to begin the school year.
Our study confirmed many findings from previously mentioned studies. Most notably that free
voluntary reading makes a difference in improving reading scores and prevents summer slide.
Students from our study who participated in a public library summer reading program reported
that they like to read books and like to go to the library. Public librarians also reported that
these students were enthusiastic about reading.
And so we can conclude, as well, that in this study public library summer reading programs did
spur a motivation to read and enjoyment of reading and children who participated had better
reading skills than their non-participating counterparts. In our study, the collaboration of
public libraries and schools resulted in successful summer reading programs where children
ended up more enthusiastic, more motivated, and more confident as a result of their
.
participation. Through reading, program participants experienced personal growth and
acquired lifelong skills for learning and enjoyment.
The one institution that offers unfettered access to a wide variety of reading materials—not
just during the summer but all year round—is the public library. In her 1978 landmark study,
Barbara Heyns wrote: “Although unstructured activities such as reading do not ordinarily lend
themselves to policy intervention, I will argue that at least one institution, the public library,
directly influences children’s reading. Educational policies that increase access to books,
perhaps through increased library services, stand to have an important impact on achievement,
particularly for less advantaged children.”
1
More than thirty years later, this still bears truth. It
is time to help our libraries close the reading gap—for all our nation’s children.
LESSONS LEARNED: STUDY NOTES FROM THE RESEARCHERS
Although we wanted a study that was national in scope, it might be wise to scale back this study
to conduct it again in one school district. With one district there could be greater control over the
research protocol and documentation of the quality and quantity of summer reading materials
for all participants. We were also able to identify parts of the methodology that should be refined
in future studies. A prime example of this is the reading log. This part of the study yielded no
findings, since very few logs were returned to the project from the local libraries. This result
confirmed what the Advisory Committee suspected. Our intent was to let children have authentic
library experiences so we did not provide additional incentives for return of library logs. We had
no leverage for the return of the logs. This is one aspect that could be better monitored if the
study were conducted in one school district.
A corresponding problem to the one identified above is that we were not able to track what
nonparticipants of summer reading programs at the public library did over the summer. That
information would have have added richness to the findings. We did not have a control group in
this study since it would not be ethical to randomly assign children to a notreatment control
group that would withhold participation in a summer library reading program. Instead we
allowed participants to self-select and the nonlibrary participants were used as a comparison
group. In this methodology, there was no control over the quantity or quality of reading materials
of students. If we had a log of what nonparticipants were doing over the summer, it may have
provided an indication of why they did not demonstrate the “summer slide.”
Another lesson learned from this study was the severe attrition that resulted. We began the
study with a participant pool of more than 800 rising third grade students at 11 sites. We
received 367 (45%) signed consent forms from parents. At the end of the study we were able to
match only 149 (40%) students to the outcomes of interest. In a single setting we could ensure
more control and effort could be devoted to participant recruitment and instrument completion.
52 The D ominican Study: Public Library Summer Reading Programs Close the Reading Gap
1
Barbara Heyns,
Summer Learning and the Effects of Schooling
(New York: Academic Press, 1978), 161.
the dominican study
Public Library Summer Reading Programs
Close
the Reading Gap
.
.
call to action:
close the reading gap
.
“Encouraging voluntary
reading during summer
vacation may be one
useful strategy for
helping struggling
readers acquire the
skills needed to
succeed in school.”
— James S. Kim, “Effects of a Voluntary Summer
Reading Intervention on Reading Achievement:
Results from a Randomized Field Trial,” 2006.
call to action
55
call to action:
close the reading gap
1. Recognizing that public libraries play a significant role in helping to close the
achievement gap in school performance.
2. Promoting the powerful role that public libraries play in the education
community in helping children maintain and gain reading skills.
3. Engaging families in public library programs to promote early childhood literacy.
4. Investing more money in summer reading programs—especially in public
libraries that serve children and families in economically depressed areas.
5. Marketing to parents of school-age children so they understand the importance
of their children participating in summer reading programs and other out-of-
school library activities.
6. Ensuring that librarians in public libraries work with teachers and school
librarians to identify non-readers and under-performing students and to reach
out to those students in order to engage them in library activities.
7. Reaching out to boys to get them involved in reading.
8. Expanding the definition of reading beyond books to include magazines,
graphic novels, etc.
9. Providing more books and reading material at the public library for children in
economically depressed neighborhoods since their more advantaged peers may
have better access to reading materials in their homes and in their local public
libraries.
10. Helping children in lower-income areas build home libraries by partnering with
non-profit organizations such as First Book and Reading Is Fundamental.
11. Having librarians assume a role in influencing a child’s love of reading and
lifelong learning.
12. Encouraging and supporting studies that continue research in this area and that
offer effective means for closing the reading achievement gap.
.
the dominican study
Public Library Summer Reading Programs
Close
the Reading Gap
.
.
appendixes
.
appendixes
59
appendixes
Table of Contents
A Project Administration and Advisory Committee
B Public Library Summer Reading Program Elementary Student Questionnaire
C Public Library Summer Reading Program Parent Questionnaire
D Public Library Summer Reading Program School Librarian Questionnaire
E Public Library Summer Reading Program Teacher Questionnaire
F School Privacy Form
G.1 Public Library Summer Reading Program Public Library Staff Member Questionnaire
G.2 Public Library Summer Reading Program Public Library Staff Member Questionnaire
(SurveyMonkey)
H Basic Information Sheet and Reading Program Attendance Log
I Application Instructions: Schools and Public Libraries
J Applications: Schools and Public Libraries
K Flyers to Recruit Public Libraries and Schools
L Library Privacy Form
M Librarian Interview Questions
N Parental Permission Form Cover Letter
O Parental Permission Form (in English and in Spanish)
.
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
Susan Roman, Project Administrator and Principal Investigator
Dean and Professor, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, Dominican University
Ronald Fairchild, Project Partner
Director, Johns Hopkins University Center for Summer Learning
Brenda McLaughlin, Project Research Team Leader
Johns Hopkins University Center for Summer Learning
Deborah T. Carran, Project Researcher
Professor, School of Education, Johns Hopkins University
Susanne Sparks, Project Research Team Administrative Manager
Johns Hopkins University Center for Summer Learning
Carole D. Fiore, Project Manager
Consultant, Dominican University
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(as of January 2007)
Peggy D. Rudd (original project partner)
Director and Librarian, Texas State Library and Archives Commission
Christine McNew (original project partner)
Youth Services Consultant, Texas State Library and Archives Commission
Eugene Hainer (original project partner)
Director, Colorado State Library
Patricia Froehlich (original project partner)
Public Library Senior Consultant, Colorado State Library
Tracie D. Hall
Assistant Dean, Dominican University
Janice Del Negro
Assistant Professor, Dominican University
Penny Markey
Youth Services Coordinator, County of Los Angeles Public Library and Board Member of the
Association for Library Service to Children, a division of the American Library Association
Denise Davis
Director, Office for Research and Statistics, American Library Association
Appendix A
Appendix B
Name: _____________________________________________ School: _______________________________________
PUBLIC LIBRARY SUMMER READING PROGRAM
ELEMENTARY STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
For each question, mark the circle below the best answer.
YES!
SOMETIMES
I DON’T
KNOW
NOT
REALLY
NO!
1.) I like to read books.
!
!
!
!
!
2.) I like to go to the library.
!
!
!
!
!
3.) I remember what I read and can talk about it later.
!
!
!
!
!
4.) I know how to use a library.
!
!
!
!
!
5.) I pick my own books to read.
!
!
!
!
!
6.) I spend my free time reading.
!
!
!
!
!
7.) My reading is better now than it was at the beginning of
the summer.
!
!
!
!
!
8. Do you have a library card? ! Yes ! No
If you have a library card, how long have you had it? ___________________
TURN OVER!
Appendix B
9. How often do you go to the library in the summer?
! Every week
! Almost every week
! A few times
! Hardly ever
! Never
10. Did you join the summer reading program at the library this summer? ! Yes ! No
If no, why not?
11. Did you join the summer reading program at the library last summer? ! Yes ! No
12. How many books did you read this summer? ________________
13. Did you read books from the library? ! Yes ! No
14. Did you read other books not from the library? ! Yes ! No
15. What else did you read this summer?
! Magazines
! Comic Books
! Newspapers
! Websites
! Something else (Tell us what you read!) __________________________________________
GO TO THE NEXT PAGE!
Appendix B
16. Over this summer, did you…
(Choose any activity you did over the summer. You can mark more than one!)
! Go on a family trip
! Play video games
! Watch television
! Attend summer camp or summer school
! Visit a museum
17. Are you: ! a girl ! a boy
18. Are you: ! African-American ! Asian-American ! Hispanic ! White ! Other ___________________
19. How old are you? _________________
20. What grade are you in? _________________________
21. If you participated in the public library summer reading program this summer, what did you like about the program?
22. If you participated in the public library summer reading program this summer, what did you not like about the program?
Appendix C
PUBLIC LIBRARY SUMMER READING PROGRAM
PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Name: _______________________________________________________________________________
Child’s Name: _________________________________________________________________________
Child’s School: ________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for taking a few minutes to complete this survey about your child. Please fill in the circle to indicate
your response.
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEUTRAL
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
1.) My child likes to read.
!
!
!
!
!
2.) My child chooses to read in his
or her spare time.
!
!
!
!
!
3.) My child forgot things during the
summer that he or she needed to
review at the beginning of the
school year.
!
!
!
!
!
4.) My child was well-prepared
academically when school began
this fall.
!
!
!
!
!
5.) My child was better prepared
academically for school to begin this
fall than in past years.
!
!
!
!
!
6. My child participated in the summer reading program at the library. ! Yes ! No
IF YES, PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN THE BOX BELOW. IF NO, PLEASE GO TO QUESTION #15.
7.) My child read more books than
he or she would have without the
library summer reading program.
!
!
!
!
!
8.) My child reads more often now
than before participating in the
library summer reading program.
!
!
!
!
!
9.) The library summer reading
program helped my child be more
prepared for the new school year.
!
!
!
!
!
10.) The library summer reading
program helped my child feel more
confident in his or her ability to read.
!
!
!
!
!
11.) I feel welcome when I go to the
library summer library reading
program.
!
!
!
!
!
12.) I would enroll my child in the
library summer reading program
again.
!
!
!
!
!
Appendix C
13. How would you rate your child’s overall experience in the library summer reading program?
! Excellent ! Good ! Fair ! Poor
14. Please state in your own words how (if at all) how the library summer reading program made a difference for
you and your child.
15. How many times did you and your child visit the library this summer?
! none ! once or twice ! 2 or 3 times ! 3 or 4 times ! more than 4 times
16. This summer, did you read a book to/with your child?
! Yes ! No
If yes, how often during a typical WEEK?
! once or twice ! 2 or 3 times ! 3 or 4 times ! more than 4 times
17. If your child did not participate in the public library summer reading program, why not?
! It is too far to go to the library
! We did not have transportation to the library
! I have never been to the public library
! The library is not open during convenient hours
! I did not know about the summer library reading program
! I did not know that it is important for my child to read during the summer.
! My child was out of town during the summer.
! I didn’t have enough time to take my child to the library.
! Other, please explain: ________________________________________________________
18. About how many books do you have at home?
! Less than 5 ! 5-10 !10-25 ! 25-50 ! Over 50
19. Does your child have access to the internet at home? !
Yes ! No
20. How do you think your child will do in reading this year?
! Will be an exceptional reader.
! Will read above grade level.
! Will read at grade level.
! Will read below grade level.
! Will be a poor reader.
Thank you for your time!
Appendix D
PUBLIC LIBRARY SUMMER READING PROGRAM
SCHOOL LIBRARIAN QUESTIONNAIRE
School: ______________________________________________________________________________________
1. I have been a school librarian for:
! 1-2 years ! 3-5 years ! 6-10 years ! 11-20 years ! 20-30 years ! 30+
2. My highest level of educational attainment:
! High school degree ! Some college ! Bachelor’s degree ! Some graduate school ! Master’s degree or more
How do you feel about each of the following statements? Fill in the circle below the answer that best expresses how
you feel.
11. Please make any comments about the impact (if any) of the public library summer reading program on youth.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Don’t
Know
3.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs return to school
ready to learn.
!
!
!
!
!
!
4.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs improve their
reading achievement and skills.
!
!
!
!
!
!
5.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs increase their
enjoyment of reading.
!
!
!
!
!
!
6.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs are more
motivated to read.
!
!
!
!
!
!
7.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs are more
confident in their reading abilities.
!
!
!
!
!
!
8.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs are willing to
read beyond what is required in their free
time
!
!
!
!
!
!
9.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs perceive
reading to be important.
!
!
!
!
!
!
10.) This school library has a strong
collaboration with one or more local public
libraries.
!
!
!
!
!
!
Appendix E
PUBLIC LIBRARY SUMMER READING PROGRAM
TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
School: ______________________________________________________________________________________
1. I have been a teacher for:
! 1-2 years ! 3-5 years ! 6-10 years !11-20 years ! 20-30 years ! 30+ years
2. My highest level of educational attainment:
! High school degree ! Some college ! Bachelor’s degree ! Some graduate school ! Master’s degree or more
How do you feel about each of the following statements? Select the answer that best expresses how you feel.
10. Did you encourage students to participate in the public library summer reading program? ! Yes ! No
If so, how? (Check all that apply.)
! Notes to parents
! Telling students about the summer library reading program during class
! Allowing public librarian to tell students about the reading club
! Placing posters about the summer library reading program in the public areas of the school, classroom, or
school library
! Other. Please explain: ______________________________________________
11. Please make any comments about impact (if at all) of the library summer reading program on students. You can
use the back of this sheet, if needed.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Don’t
Know
3.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs return to school
ready to learn.
!
!
!
!
!
!
4.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs improve their
reading achievement and skills.
!
!
!
!
!
!
5.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs increase their
enjoyment of reading.
!
!
!
!
!
!
6.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs are more
motivated to read.
!
!
!
!
!
!
7.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs are more
confident in participating in classroom
reading activities.
!
!
!
!
!
!
8.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs are willing to
read beyond what is required in their free
time.
!
!
!
!
!
!
9.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs perceive
reading to be important.
!
!
!
!
!
!
Appendix F
Librarian Interview Questions
Description of library
1. Identify your branch library name, address, number of full time librarians
employed, number of part time librarians employed, and number of library staff
employed.
a. Do you have any computers in the library?
2. Approximate number of books in your library (size of holdings). How large a
population is the library supposed to serve, particularly in regards to children?
Description of feeder elementary schools
3. Identify local partner elementary school name(s) and school district(s) for this
project.
4. Did the library work with the school to promote the summer library reading
program? In what ways (specific activities) did the library participate with the
school, how often during the 2007-08 school year, and when did the library
participate?
a. Did you conduct any school visits to the promote the summer library
reading program during Spring 2007?
5. Was working with the school easy for the library? Explain.
a. Did you have a working relationship with the schools before the project?
Has it improved or deteriorated? How could it be improved?
b. If we were to do this type of project again, what would you suggest to
improve this part of the project?
Description of 2008 summer library program, for students in grades 2 – 4 only
6. Length of summer program (number of weeks, number of days per week, daily
hours). Did you notice a change this year in summer library program attendance,
compared to previous years?
7. Theme of 2008 summer library program. (Note: The collaborative theme for 2008
is Catch the Reading Bug.)
a. Did you use the collaborative theme, another theme and materials
provided by the state library, or a locally developed program?
8. Approximately how many rising 4
th
grade students participated in the summer
library reading program by attending 50% of the time? Did you only see these
students during the summer library reading program, or did they come into the
library at other times? How easy/hard is it for you to know that a particular child
is attending events that are part of the summer library reading program?
Appendix F
9. Number of librarians working in the summer library program? Number of library
staff working in the summer program? Number of volunteers working in the
program? Number of youth volunteers? Roles for all?
10. Program components of summer library program (number hours literacy related
activities (i.e. reading activities only) at the library with a specific description of
each activity, number of hours of literacy enrichment (i.e. art, music, dance,
etc…) at the library with a specific description of each activity.
11. Did the librarians like the project’s summer library reading log? Did the
students? Did the parents make any comments about the reading log? Were the
logs kept at the library or did you send them home with the children and parents?
Did you collect them or did the school?
12. Description of awards made by library to students participating in the summer
library reading program. How are these awards made – number of books read,
hours read, attending programs, chance?
Outcomes of 2008 summer library program
13. Do you think rising 4
th
grade children who attended the summer program 50% of
the time or more, improved or maintained their end of school year reading level
by the end of the program? If yes, to what level do you think children’s reading
improved and in what way? What about students who attended the summer
reading program less than 50%? How do you know?
a. Do you think maintained should be before improved? Do you want to ask
if you think they lost or scores decreased?
14. Do you think rising 4
th
grade children who attended the summer program 50% of
the time or more, left the program with a better attitude toward reading? What
about students who attended the summer reading program less than 50%?
15. What proportion of rising 4
th
grade children who attended the summer reading
program had participated in previous years?
Appendix G.1
PUBLIC LIBRARY SUMMER READING PROGRAM
PUBLIC LIBRARY STAFF MEMBER QUESTIONNAIRE
Library: ______________________________________________________________________________________
1. I have been a librarian or a library staff member for:
! 1-2 years ! 3-5 years ! 6-10 years ! 11-20 years ! 20-30 years ! 30+ years
2. My highest level of educational attainment:
! High school degree ! Some college ! Bachelor’s degree ! Some graduate school ! Master’s degree or more
How do you feel about each of the following statements? Fill in the circle below the answer that best expresses how
you feel.
11. Please make any additional comments about the impact (if any) of the public library summer reading programs on
young people.
(Please complete the second part of this survey on the back of this sheet.)
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Don’t
Know
3.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs return to school
ready to learn.
!
!
!
!
!
!
4.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs improve their
reading achievement and skills.
!
!
!
!
!
!
5.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs increase their
enjoyment of reading.
!
!
!
!
!
!
6.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs are more
motivated to read.
!
!
!
!
!
!
7.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs are more
confident in their reading abilities.
!
!
!
!
!
!
8.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs are willing to
read beyond what is required in their free
time.
!
!
!
!
!
!
9.) Youth who participate in public library
summer reading programs perceive
reading to be important.
!
!
!
!
!
!
10.) This public library has a strong
collaboration with one or more local
schools.
!
!
!
!
!
!
Appendix G.1
Section II. Tell us more!
We are interested in knowing details about your programmatic offerings for elementary school age children.
12. How many children participated in the public library summer reading program at your branch? _______________
13. How many children leaving third grade and entering the fourth grade in the fall of 2007 participated in the summer
library reading program? ________________________________
14. What age range of children were eligible to participate? _______________________
15. Number of public library summer reading programs: _________________________
(Each event is counted as a single program.)
16. What promotional techniques did you use for the public library summer reading program? (Check all that apply.)
! Flyers ! Posters
! School visits ! Displays in the community/at community events
! Print media ! Television/radio/video public service announcements (PSA)
! Internet/Electronic promotion ! Other, please describe: ____________________________
17. What types of incentives did children receive for participating in the public library summer reading program?
(Check all that apply.)
! Certificate of Achievement/Participation ! Pencils
! Bookbags ! Gel bracelets
! T-shirts ! Entry into a raffle for a larger prize
! Restaurant food coupons ! Tickets to an event (ex. a sport game)
! Other, please describe: ___________________________________________________________
18. How were incentives awarded to participants in the public library summer reading program?
! Based on the number of books read ! Based on the amount of time spent reading
! Based on the number of pages read ! For reading on a daily basis
! Other, please describe: ___________________________________________________________
19. At what point in the program are the incentives awarded in the public library summer reading program?
! Weekly ! Intermittently throughout the program
! At the conclusion of the program ! After the program’s conclusion.
20. Types of programs offered for elementary school age children at the public library summer reading program:
(Check all that apply.)
! Story times ! Puppet shows
! Crafts ! Film/Video/Movie programs
! Family programs ! Book discussion
! Other, please describe: ______________________________________
Appendix G.2
Appendix G.2
Appendix G.2
Appendix G.2
Appendix G.2
Appendix G.2
Appendix H
Do Public Library Summer Reading Programs
Impact Student Achievement?
Basic Information Sheet
Student’s Name: _________________________________________________
Date of Birth: ____________________________________________________
School Child Attended During Spring 2007: ___________________________
School Child Will Attend During Fall 2007: ____________________________
Gender: Girl Boy
(circle one)
Race: American Indian or Alaska Native
(choose as
many as apply) Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White
Other
Is this child: Hispanic or Latino
(circle one)
Not Hispanic or Latino
________________________________________________________________
Parent’s Signature Date
Appendix H
Reading Program Attendance Log
Week ____________________________________ Number of Books Read This Week _________________
(dates of week)
How much time did you spend doing these activities this week?
Did you…
Example
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
1. Visit the
library?
For how long?
! Yes
" No
" 15 min
! 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
" or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
2. Read a book
while at the
library?
For how long?
! Yes
" No
!15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
" or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
3. Participate in a
library program?
For how long?
! Yes
" No
!15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
" or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
Please continue to the next page #
Appendix H
Did you…
Example
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
4. Read library
books at home?
For how long?
! Yes
" No
!15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
" Yes
" No
" 15 min
" 30 min
" 45 min
" 1 hour
or more
5. Talk to a
librarian?
! Yes
" No
" Yes
" No
" Yes
" No
" Yes
" No
" Yes
" No
" Yes
" No
" Yes
" No
" Yes
" No
6. Return library
books?
How many?
! Yes
" No
_2_ book(s)
" Yes
" No
___ book(s)
" Yes
" No
___ book(s)
" Yes
" No
___ book(s)
" Yes
" No
___ book(s)
" Yes
" No
___ book(s)
" Yes
" No
___ book(s)
" Yes
" No
___ book(s)
7. Check out
library books?
How many?
! Yes
" No
_1_ book(s)
" Yes
" No
___ book(s)
" Yes
" No
___ book(s)
" Yes
" No
___ book(s)
" Yes
" No
___ book(s)
" Yes
" No
___ book(s)
" Yes
" No
___ book(s)
" Yes
" No
___ book(s)
__________________________________ __________________________ ____________
Library Staff Member’s Signature Student’s Signature Date
Appendix I
Dominican University
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
Institute of Museum and Library Services,
National Leadership Grant
Do Public Library Summer Reading Programs
Impact Student Achievement?
Instruction for completing the
Application for Participation –
School/School District
Please complete one application form for each separate school
that wishes to be considered for this project.
1. School District. The official name of the school district.
2. School. Name of individual school.
3. Address. The school’s complete physical address. Include city, state, and zip. If
the school has a different mailing address, please add that with a note indicating the
difference in the two.
4. Contracting Agency Name.
The official name of the organization with which a
project agreement will be signed (i.e., “X” County School District or “Y” County Board
of County Commissioner).
5. School Contact Person Name. The name of the person who may be contacted
regarding all project-related information or activities.
6. School Contact Title. The title of the contact person (i.e., principal, school
librarian/media specialist).
7. School Contact Telephone and Fax Numbers. The school’s telephone and fax
numbers at which contact can be made regarding the application or the project.
8. Email Address. The email address of the school contact person.
9. Partnering Library Name. Name of public library with whom the school will be
collaborating.
10. Partnering Library Address. The address of the library the school with which the
school will be collaborating. Include city, state, and zip.
11. Library Contact Person Name. The name of the person at the public library who
may be contacted regarding all project-related information or activities.
12. Library Contact Telephone and Fax Numbers. The telephone and fax numbers
at which the library contact person can be reached.
13. Email Address. The email address of the library contact person.
14. Free and Reduced Meal Status. The percentage of the school’s population eligible
for free and reduced price meals under the National School Lunch Act as administered
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
15. Number of Third Grade Classrooms. The number of third grade classrooms in
this school during the 2007/2008 school year.
16. Number of Third Grade Students. Number of third grade students enrolled as of
October 15, 2007.
17. Use of SRI. Check appropriate boxes.
Appendix I
18. Percent of Students in Third Grade Able to Take the SRI in English. Provide
the percentage of third grade students during the 2007/2008 school year who can
take the SRI test in English.
19. Partnership Activity. Check the appropriate boxes and provide a brief description
of activities.
20. Summer Vacation.
a. If the school has a vacation during the summer months (June/July/August),
check yes.
b. Tell how many weeks long the 2008 summer break for students will be.
21. Agreement to do the following. Check which of these actions/activities the
school agrees to perform.
22. Authorized Signature. The principal, superintendent of schools, or other
authorized official’s typed and signed name and title along with the date signed.
Appendix I
Dominican University
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
Institute of Museum and Library Services,
National Leadership Grant
Do Public Library Summer Reading Programs
Impact Student Achievement?
Instruction for completing the
Application for Participation –
Library/Library System
Please complete one application form for library/library system that
wishes to be considered for this project and submit electronically.
Please complete one form for each individual school
with which you will be partnering.
1. Library System. The official name of the library system.
2. Address. The library system’s complete physical address. Include city, state, and
zip. If the school has a different mailing address, please add that with a note
indicating the difference in the two.
3. Contracting Agency Name. The official name of the organization with which a
project agreement will be signed (i.e., “X” County Library District or “Y” County Board
of County Commissioner).
4. Library Contact Person Name. The name of the person who may be contacted
regarding all project-related information or activities.
5. Library Contact Title. The title of the contact person (i.e., library director, branch
manager, children’s librarian, children’s coordinator, etc.).
6. Library Contact Telephone and Fax Numbers. The library’s telephone and fax
numbers at which contact can be made regarding the application or the project.
7. Email Address. The email address of the library contact person.
8. Partnering School Name. Name of school with whom the library will be
collaborating. (Please complete one application for each school with whom you will
be partnering.)
9. Partnering School Address. The address of the school with which the library will
be collaborating. Include city, state, and zip.
10. School Contact Person Name. The name of the person at the school who may be
contacted regarding all project-related information or activities.
11. School Contact Telephone and Fax Numbers. The telephone and fax numbers
at which the school contact person can be reached.
12. Email Address. The email address of the school contact person.
13. Experience for children during the summer of 2008.
a. Check yes or no.
b. If yes, please provide a brief list of they types of programs and activities that
will be offered (i.e., story times, craft programs, book discussions, film and
video programs, etc.). For the purpose of this application, this is considered
core programming.
Appendix I
14. Number of weeks that core programming takes place.
15. Beyond Core Programming. Check appropriate box. If yes, briefly describe (i.e.,
continue to track books on reading log, report on activities to volunteers, self paced
activities)
16. Partnership Activity. Check the appropriate boxes and provide a brief description
of activities.
17. Collaboration with study research team. Check appropriate box.
18. Number of years this library/library system has provided summer library
reading programs. Fill in number of years experience in providing summer
programs.
19. Agreement to do the following. Check which of these actions/activities the
public library agrees to perform.
20. Authorized Signature. The library director, library administrator, or other
authorized official’s typed and signed name and title along with the date signed.
Appendix J
Dominican University
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
Institute of Museum and Library Services,
National Leadership Grant
Do Public Library Summer Reading Programs
Impact Student Achievement?
Application for Participation – School/School District
Please complete one application form for each separate school
that wishes to be considered for this project and submit
electronically.
1. School District
2. School
3. Address
4. Contracting Agency
Name
5. School Contact Person
Name
6. School Contact Title
7. School Contact
Telephone and Fax
Numbers
Phone: ( ) Fax: ( )
8. Email Address
9. Partnering Library Name
10. Partnering Library
Address:
11. Library Contact Person
Name
12. Library Contact
Telephone and Fax
Numbers
Phone: ( ) Fax: ( )
13. Library Contact Email
Address
Please provide the following information that will be used for selecting individual schools to
participate in this project:
14. Percent of students that qualify to receive free or reduced meal __________%
15. Number of Third Grade Classrooms __________
16. Number of Third Grade Students __________
17. Scholastic Reading Inventory
a. This school already uses the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) test (Enterprise Edition)
! Yes ! No
Appendix J
b. If no, is the school willing to purchase the Scholastic Reading Inventory test (Enterprise Edition) and have it
installed on the school’s computers and ready to use at the end of the 2007/2008 school year?
! Yes ! No
c. If no, is the school willing to have the SRI purchased for them through the project and have it installed on the
school’s computers and ready to use at the end of the 2007/2008 school year?
! Yes ! No
18. Percentage of students in third grade able to take the SRI in English __________%
19. Has this school previously partnered and/or collaborated with the public library identified in this application?
! Yes ! No
If yes, please briefly describe this partnership/collaboration: ___________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
If no, is the school willing to partner/collaborate with the library identified on this application.
! Yes ! No
20. Summer Vacation
a. Does the school have a traditional (June/July/August) summer vacation period?
! Yes ! No
b. How long will the summer vacation for this school be in 2008? __________ weeks
21. If selected to participate in this study, the school agrees to do the following:
! The school will partner with the local public library to promote the summer library program emphasizing the
library program to third grade students.
! The school agrees to distribute and collect from parent(s) or guardian(s) the required informed consent forms
for eligible third grade students and send signed forms to the Center for Summer Learning.
! The school agrees to administer the computer-based Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) test to all third grade
students approximately one month prior to the end of the 2007/08 school year, and administer the SRI to the
promoted fourth graders no more than one month after the beginning of the 2008/09 school year.
! The school agrees to distribute and collect a parental survey to those parents who signed a consent form no
more than one month after to the beginning of the fourth grade 2008/09 school years and return them to the
Center for Summer Learning.
! The school agrees to administer and collect a brief student survey in conjunction with the administration of
the SRI approximately one month after the beginning of the 2008/09 school years to the promoted fourth
grade students and return them to the Center for Summer Learning.
! The school will provide demographic information about students who enroll in the study, including free and
reduced lunch status, IEP status, LEP status, and gender.
! The school will distribute and collect from fourth grade teachers of students involved in the project a teacher
survey in the fall of 2008 related to students’ attitudes towards reading and school and return them to the
Center for Summer Learning.
Signature of Authorized School Official
Name of Authorized School Official (print or type)
Title of Authorized School Official
Date
Appendix J
Dominican University
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
Institute of Museum and Library Services,
National Leadership Grant
Do Public Library Summer Reading Programs
Impact Student Achievement?
Application for Participation – Library/Library System
Please complete one application form for library/library system
that wishes to be considered for this project and submit
electronically.
1. Library System
2. Address
3. Contracting Agency
Name
4. Library Contact
Person Name
5. Library Contact Title
6. Library Contact
Telephone and Fax
Numbers
Phone: ( ) Fax: ( )
7. Library Contact Email
Address
8. Partnering School
Name
9. Partnering School
Address
10. School Contact
Name
11. School Contact
Telephone and Fax
Numbers
Phone: ( ) Fax: ( )
12. School Contact
Email
Please provide the following information that will be used for selecting public libraries to
participate in this project:
13. Will this library provide a variety of experiences for children during the summer of 2008?
a. ! Yes ! No
b. Please list types of programs and activities that will be offered. ______________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
14. How many weeks of active (core) programming will this library provide during the summer of 2008?
__________ weeks
Appendix J
15. Does this library allow participants to participate in the summer library reading program when active
(core) programming ceases?
! Yes ! No
If yes, please briefly describe how this is done: _______________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
16. Has this library previously partnered and/or collaborated with the school indicated in this application?
a. ! Yes ! No
If yes, please briefly describe this partnership/collaboration: _____________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
b. If no, is the library willing to partner/collaborate with the school cited on this application.
! Yes ! No
17. Is your library willing to collaborate with the study's research team to gather information from young
people who participate in the study with their parent's permission?
! Yes ! No
18. Number of years this library/library system has provided summer library reading programs.
________years
19. If selected to participate in this study, the library agrees to do the following:
! Public library staff will work in partnership with the local school district to promote the summer
library program.
! Public library staff will promote programs for third graders of the partner school during the spring of
2008.
! Public library staff will present summer library reading program with a minimum of six weeks of
active programming.
! Public library staff will provide information regarding summer library reading program
implementation.
! Public library staff will monitor student summer library program participation for the identified third
grade students through a reading log and return the reading logs to the Center for Summer
Learning at the end of the summer library program.
! Public library staff involved with summer library reading program planning and implementation will
complete surveys related to this research study and return the completed surveys to the Center for
Summer Learning.
Signature of Authorized Library Official
Name of Authorized Library Official
(print or type)
Title of Authorized Library Official
Date
Appendix K
Do you want to know if public library
summer reading programs impact
student achievement?
Does your public library ~
Provide a variety of programs and experiences for elementary school age children
during the summer?
Provide a minimum of 6 weeks of
active
programming during the summer?
Allow participants to “report” on books through the entire summer?
Have a history of or willingness for collaboration with area elementary schools?
Have a willingness to collaborate with the study's research team to gather information
from young people who participate in the study with their parent's permission?
If you answered yes to these questions
then you may want to participate in the
Dominican University’s National Leadership Grant Research
Project!
If selected to participate in the study,
public library staff agree to the following:
• Work in partnership with the local school district to promote the summer library
program.
• Promote the summer library program to third graders during the spring of 2008.
• Present summer library reading program with at least six weeks of active
programming.
• Provide data regarding summer library reading program implementation.
• With the consent of study participants, monitor program participation through use of
a log for children going into fourth grade and report that data to the researchers.
• Have public library staff involved with summer library reading program planning and
implementation complete surveys related to this research study.
Would you like to find out how you can be part of this project?
Carole D. Fiore
Carole@Fiore-tlc.biz
Contact
OR
Susan Roman
Do you
u want to know
w if public libr
rary
Do you
sum
s
e
o
D
o
r
p
f
o
y
t
e
i
r
a
v
a
e
d
i
v
o
r
P
u want to know
mmer reading p
student achi
r
u
o
y
s
p
public lib
s
e
c
n
e
i
r
e
p
x
e
d
n
a
s
m
a
r
g
o
?
r
e
m
m
u
s
e
h
t
g
n
i
r
u
d
w if public libr
rograms
impac
ievement?
y
brary
~
g
a
l
o
o
h
c
s
y
r
a
t
n
e
m
e
l
e
r
o
f
?
rary
ct
n
e
r
d
l
i
h
c
e
g
e
v
a
H
f
m
u
m
i
n
i
m
a
e
d
i
v
o
r
P
n
a
p
i
c
i
t
r
a
p
w
o
l
l
A
w
r
o
f
o
y
r
o
t
s
i
h
a
e
v
a
H
a
g
n
i
l
l
i
w
s
s
e
n
r
o
b
a
l
l
o
c
o
t
a
p
o
h
w
e
l
p
o
e
p
g
n
u
o
y
m
o
r
n
a
u
o
y
f
I
h
t
?
r
e
m
m
u
s
e
h
t
g
n
i
r
u
d
f
o
s
k
e
e
w
6
f
o
ve
i
t
c
a
e
v
o
r
p
t
s
k
o
o
b
n
o
”
t
r
o
p
e
r
“
o
t
s
t
t
a
r
o
b
a
l
l
o
c
r
o
f
s
s
e
n
g
n
i
l
l
i
w
s
e
r
s
'
y
d
u
t
s
e
h
t
h
t
i
w
e
t
a
w
y
d
u
t
s
e
h
t
n
i
e
t
a
p
i
c
i
t
r
a
e
h
t
o
t
s
e
y
d
e
r
e
w
s
n
i
t
t
t
?
m
u
s
e
h
t
g
n
i
r
u
d
g
n
i
m
m
a
r
g
o
m
m
u
s
e
r
i
t
n
e
e
h
t
h
g
u
o
r
h
t
y
r
a
t
n
e
m
e
l
e
a
e
r
a
h
t
i
w
n
o
i
r
e
h
t
a
g
o
t
m
a
e
t
h
c
r
a
e
s
n
i
i
m
r
e
p
s
'
t
n
e
r
a
p
r
i
e
h
t
h
t
i
s
n
o
i
t
s
e
u
q
e
s
e
h
t
i
t
i
?
r
e
m
m
?
r
e
m
?
s
l
o
o
h
c
s
y
n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
?
n
o
i
s
s
D
u
o
y
n
e
h
t
t
i
s
r
e
v
i
n
U
n
a
c
i
n
i
m
o
D
If selec
public lib
i
t
r
a
p
o
t
t
n
a
w
y
a
m
e
d
a
e
L
l
a
n
o
i
t
a
N
s
’
y
t
!
t
c
e
j
o
r
P
cted to
participate in the study,
rary staff
agree to t
e
h
t
n
i
e
t
a
p
i
c
a
e
s
e
R
t
n
a
r
G
p
i
h
s
r
e
n the study,
the following:
h
c
r
a
•
W
o
o
r
p
•
P
o
r
•
P
e
r
o
r
p
•
r
P
o
•
i
W
o
l
a
t
h
t
i
w
p
i
h
s
r
e
n
t
r
a
p
n
i
k
r
o
.
m
a
r
g
o
e
t
o
m
o
r
a
r
b
i
l
r
e
m
m
u
s
e
h
t
r
e
m
m
u
s
t
n
e
s
e
a
e
r
y
r
a
r
b
i
l
g
n
i
m
m
a
r
g
o
.
m
u
s
g
n
i
d
r
a
g
e
r
a
t
a
d
e
d
i
v
o
y
d
u
t
s
f
o
t
n
e
s
n
o
c
e
h
t
h
t
o
t
n
i
g
n
i
o
g
n
e
r
d
l
i
h
c
r
o
f
g
o
t
t
c
i
r
t
s
i
d
l
o
o
h
c
s
l
a
c
o
l
e
h
o
t
m
a
r
g
o
r
p
y
e
d
a
r
g
d
r
i
h
t
m
a
r
g
o
r
p
g
n
i
d
a
a
e
l
t
a
h
t
i
w
g
o
r
p
g
n
i
d
a
e
r
y
r
a
r
b
i
l
r
e
m
m
r
p
r
o
t
i
n
o
m
,
s
t
n
a
p
i
c
i
t
r
a
p
o
r
o
p
e
r
d
n
a
e
d
a
r
g
h
t
r
u
o
f
l
r
e
m
m
u
s
e
h
t
e
t
o
m
o
r
p
o
t
f
o
g
n
i
r
p
s
e
h
t
g
n
i
r
u
d
s
r
e
e
v
i
t
c
a
f
o
s
k
e
e
w
x
i
s
t
s
a
.
n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
e
l
p
m
i
m
a
r
g
o
r
h
t
n
o
i
t
a
p
i
c
i
t
r
a
p
m
a
r
g
o
a
e
s
e
r
e
h
t
o
t
a
t
a
d
t
a
h
t
t
r
y
r
a
r
b
i
.
8
0
0
2
f
o
e
s
u
h
g
u
o
.
s
r
e
h
c
r
a
•
v
a
H
p
m
i
C
r
a
C
s
y
r
a
r
b
i
l
c
i
l
b
u
p
e
v
n
i
f
f
a
t
u
s
e
t
e
l
p
m
o
c
n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
e
l
p
o
t
e
k
i
l
u
o
y
d
l
u
o
W
e
r
o
i
F
.
D
e
l
o
r
a
C
e
r
o
i
F
@
e
l
o
r
-
z
i
b
.
c
l
t
r
b
i
l
r
e
m
m
u
s
h
t
i
w
d
e
v
l
o
v
n
e
r
s
i
h
t
o
t
d
e
t
a
l
e
r
s
y
e
v
r
u
e
b
n
a
c
u
o
y
w
o
h
t
u
o
d
n
i
f
t
c
a
t
n
o
C
R
O
n
a
l
p
m
a
r
g
o
r
p
g
n
i
d
a
e
r
y
r
a
.
y
d
u
t
s
h
c
r
a
e
s
e
?
t
c
e
j
o
r
p
s
i
h
t
f
o
t
r
a
p
e
n
a
m
o
R
n
a
s
u
S
u
d
e
.
m
o
d
@
n
a
m
o
r
s
d
n
a
g
n
i
n
n
u
Appendix K
Are you concerned about the lack of knowledge students
experience over the summer?
Do you want to know if public library summer reading
programs impact student achievement?
Does your school district ~
Have elementary schools where at least 50% of the student population
qualify for free or reduced meals?
Use the Scholastic Reading Inventory computerized assessment test?
Have a student population where a minimum of 85% of students participating in the
study can take the SRI test in English?
Have a history of or willingness for collaboration with the public library?
Follow a traditional summer vacation period for the summer of 2008?
Have a summer vacation for 2008 that will be no more than 11 weeks long?
If you answered yes to all these questions
then you may want to participate in the
Dominican University’s National Leadership Grant Research Project!
If selected to participate in the study, the school district agrees to the following:
•
Work in partnership with the local public library to promote the summer library program.
• Distribute and collect the required informed consent form from parent(s) or guardian(s)
for each participating third grade student.
• Administer the computer-based Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) test to all third
grade students approximately one month prior to the end of the 2007/08 school year,
and administer the SRI the now fourth graders no more than one month after the
beginning of the 2008/09 school year, and with the consent of the students, report
those scores to the Center for Summer Learning.
• Distribute and collect a parental survey to those parents who signed a consent form no
more than one month after to the beginning of the 2008/09 school years.
• Administer and collect a brief student survey to those who consented to be in the study
in conjunction with the administration of the SRI approximately one month after the
beginning of the 2008/09 school years (fourth grade students).
• Provide demographic information about students whose parents signed a consent form
and enroll in the study, including free and reduced meal status, IEP status, LEP status,
and gender.
• Distribute and collect a survey from teachers of students involved in the project in the
fall of 2008 related to students’ attitudes towards reading and school. A similar survey
will be given to school librarians/media specialists who work with these students.
Would you like to find out how you can be part of this project?
Carole D. Fiore
Carole@Fiore-tlc.biz
Contact
OR
Susan Roman
Appendix L
Dominican University
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
Institute of Museum and Library Services,
National Leadership Grant
Do Public Library Summer Reading Programs
Impact Student Achievement?
Library Privacy Form
As part of the protection afforded to all human subjects of research, the identity of each organization
and person participating in this study will be kept private. In the final report, no agencies will be
mentioned by name and all data collected will be reported in the aggregate.
Libraries in the study have the option to reveal their names. The name of the library and sponsoring
agency will only be revealed only if indicated on this form. Names study participants (students,
librarians, and library staff) will never be revealed.
Please select an option below and then sign this form. Fax it to Carole Fiore, Project Manager, at
850-942-2802 by January 7, 2008.
! This library elects to share its name with others in the study and with the public. In the final
report, schools and libraries will be listed in an appendix without ties to specific data
outcomes. All data will be reported at an aggregate level. Names of study participants will
never be used.
! This library elects to remain anonymous to others in the study and to the public. All collected
data will be reported at an aggregate level. Names of study participants will never be used.
_________________________________________________________________________
Signature of Authorized Library Official
_________________________________________________________________________
Name of Authorized Library Official (print or type)
_________________________________________________________________________
Title of Authorized Library Official
_________________________________________________________________________
Date
Fax by January 7
th
to Carole Fiore at 850-942-2802.
Appendix M
Dominican University
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
Institute of Museum and Library Services,
National Leadership Grant
Do Public Library Summer Reading Programs
Impact Student Achievement?
School Privacy Form
As part of the protection afforded to all human subjects of research, the identity of each organization
and person participating in this study will be kept private. In the final report, no agencies will be
mentioned by name and all data collected will be reported in the aggregate.
Schools in the study have the option to reveal their names. The name of the school and school
district will only be revealed only if indicated on this form. Names study participants (students,
parents, teachers, and school librarians) will never be revealed.
Please select an option below and then sign this form. Fax it to Carole Fiore, Project Manager, at
850-942-2802 by January 7, 2008.
! This school elects to share its name with others in the study and with the public. In the final
report, schools and libraries that select this choice will be listed in an appendix without ties to
specific data outcomes. All data will be reported at an aggregate level. Names of study
participants will never be used.
! This school elects to remain anonymous to others in the study and to the public. All collected
data will be reported at an aggregate level. Names of study participants will never be used.
_________________________________________________________________________
Signature of Authorized School Official
_________________________________________________________________________
Name of Authorized School Official (print or type)
_________________________________________________________________________
Title of Authorized School Official
_________________________________________________________________________
Date
Fax by January 7
th
to Carole Fiore at 850-942-2802.
Appendix N
April 1, 2008
Dear Parent or Guardian,
I would like to tell you about a research study. Along with others, I am conducting a
study of public library summer reading programs across the country. We are pleased the
public library is working with your child’s school on this study, and we want to invite
your child to be part of this study.
In this study, we hope to better understand how summer library reading programs may
help students read better and want to read more books.
Attached is a Parental Permission Form for the study. Please read the form and consider
allowing your child to be part of this study. If you sign this form, we will also ask your
child if he or she would like to be part of the study. If your child chooses to join the
study, he or she will take a reading test in spring 2008 and another reading test in fall
2008. Also, your child will be asked to complete a survey about reading in the fall.
Your child will be encouraged to participate in the summer library reading program. If
your child chooses not to participate in this program, that is okay. He or she can still be a
part of the study. If your child chooses to participate in the summer library reading
program, he or she will be asked to complete a log of reading activities.
We do not think it is risky to be involved in this study. The risks are not bigger than day
to day life. This study might help us learn more about how public library summer reading
programs and how they could help young people.
The attached form explains more about the study and your child’s rights as a study
participant. Please read it carefully and discuss it with your child before signing it.
If you have any questions about the study, please contact Susanne R. Sparks at
410.516.6239. Thank you for considering this invitation.
Sincerely,
Susan Roman, Ph.D.
Dean and Professor
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
Dominican University
River Forest, IL
Study Investigator
Appendix O
Parental Permission Form (11/05)
Page 1 of 1
Johns Hopkins University
Homewood Institutional Review Board (HIRB)
Parental Permission Form
Title: Do Public Library Summer Reading Programs Impact Student
Achievement?
Principal Investigator: Ron Fairchild, Executive Director, Center for Summer Learning,
School of Education, Johns Hopkins University
Date: March 26, 2007
PURPOSE OF RESEARCH STUDY:
• The purpose of this study is to help us learn more about how public library summer reading
programs help students’ reading ability and impact their attitudes about reading. If you choose to
allow your child to participate, this study will document your child’s reading growth. Your child
is still eligible for the program even if you do not want them to participate in the research study.
• We anticipate that approximately 2,000 children will participate in this study.
PROCEDURES:
• Your child will be asked to take the Scholastic Reading Inventory, a computer based
assessment twice. Each time your child takes this assessment it will take about 20 minutes.
• You and your child will each be asked to complete a short survey about reading and the
public library summer reading program. The survey will also ask if they participated in the
public library summer reading program over the past summer. All survey information will be
kept confidential. Your child will complete the survey in school when he or she take the
Scholastic Reading Inventory in the fall upon entering fourth grade. It will take your child no
more than 10 minutes to complete the survey. Likewise, it will not take you more than 10
minutes to complete the parental survey.
• Your child will be encouraged to participate in the summer library reading program. If your
child chooses join the study and to participate in the summer library reading program, a
library staff member will assist your child in completing a reading program attendance log
each week. This log will record your child’s reading activities. Each time your child
completes the log with a library staff member, it will take approximately five minutes.
RISKS/DISCOMFORTS:
• The risks associated with participation in this study are no greater than those found during
school-year testing and daily life.
BENEFITS:
• Your child may maintain or gain reading ability over the summer if he or she chooses to
Appendix O
Title: Do Public Library Summer Reading Programs Impact Student Achievement?
PI: Ron Fairchild, Center for Summer Learning, Johns Hopkins University, School of Education
Date: March 26, 2007
Parental Permission Form
Page 2 of 2
participate in the public library summer reading program. Your child will be encouraged, but
not required, to participate in the public library summer reading program.
• This study may benefit society if the results lead to a better understanding of public library
summer reading programs in your community and across the country.
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION AND RIGHT TO WITHDRAW:
• You and your child’s participation in this study is entirely voluntary: You choose whether to
allow your child to participate, and we will also ask your child whether he or she agrees to
take part in the study. If you decide not to allow your child to participate, or your child
chooses not to participate, there are no penalties, and neither you nor your child will lose any
benefits to which you would otherwise be entitled. Your child will still be able to participate
in the public library summer reading program.
• If you and your child choose to participate in the study, you or your child can stop
participation at any time, without any penalty or loss of benefits. If you want to withdraw
your child from the study, or your child wants to stop participating, please contact the staff
at Johns Hopkins University at 410-516-6239.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION:
• You and your child do not need to join this study in order for your child to participate in the
public library summer reading program. Any child in your community may participate in the
public library summer reading program. Your child will be encouraged to participate in the
public library summer reading program, take a reading test, and complete a survey.
CONFIDENTIALITY:
• Any study records that identify you or your child will be kept confidential to the extent
possible by law. The records from your child’s participation may be reviewed by people
responsible for making sure that research is done properly, including members of the Johns
Hopkins University Homewood Institutional Review Board and officials from government
agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the Office for Human Research
Protections. (All of these people are required to keep your identity and the identity of your
child confidential.) Otherwise, records that identify you or your child will be available only to
people working on the study, unless you give permission for other people to see the records.
• To document overall program success and better support your child’s school year learning,
we are asking permission to share these reading test results with their teachers. These results
will NOT be used for program selection or for school-year placement purposes. Any
information included in journal articles or publications will be reported only as a group,
NOT individually.
• To protect confidential information, participants will be identified by code numbers on data
sheets. All physical records, such as surveys, will be kept in a locked file cabinet.
COMPENSATION:
• Neither you nor your child will receive any payment or other compensation for participating
in this study.
Appendix O
Title: Do Public Library Summer Reading Programs Impact Student Achievement?
PI: Ron Fairchild, Center for Summer Learning, Johns Hopkins University, School of Education
Date: March 26, 2007
Parental Permission Form
Page 3 of 3
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS:
• You and your child can ask questions about this research study now or at any time during
the study, by talking to the researcher(s) working with you and your child or by calling
Susanne R. Bell, Sr. Research Program Coordinator at the Center for Summer Learning at
410-516-6239.
• If you or your child have questions about your child’s rights as a research participant or feel
that your child has not been treated fairly, please call the Homewood Institutional Review
Board at Johns Hopkins University at (410) 516-6580.
SIGNATURES
Do not sign after the expiration date of:
WHAT YOUR SIGNATURE MEANS:
Your signature below means that you understand the information in this consent form.
Your signature also means that you agree to allow your child to participate in the study.
By signing this consent form, you have not waived any legal rights you or your child
otherwise would have as a participant in a research study.
Child’s Name
Signature of Parent or Legal Guardian Date
NOT VALID WITHOUT IRB
CERTIFICATION STAMP
Appendix O
Formulario de Consentimiento de Padres (11/05)
Página 1 de 1
Universidad Johns Hopkins
Junta de Revisión Institucional Homewood (HIRB)
Formulario de Consentimiento de Permiso e Información para Padres
Título: ¿Tienen Impacto los programas de lectura de verano de las
bibliotecas públicas en los logros de los estudiantes?
Investigador Principal: Ron Fairchild, Director Ejecutivo, Centro de Aprendizaje de Verano,
Escuela de Educación, Universidad Johns Hopkins
Fecha: 26 de Marzo de 2007
PROPÓSITO DEL ESTUDIO DE INVESTIGACIÓN:
• El propósito de este estudio es de ayudarnos a aprender más acerca de cómo los programas de
lectura de verano de la biblioteca pública ayudan con la habilidad de lectura de los estudiantes e
impactan sus actitudes acerca de la lectura. Si usted elige que su hijo participe, este estudio
documentará el crecimiento en la lectura de su hijo. Su hijo es aún elegible para el programa aún
si usted no desea que el/ella participe en este estudio de investigación.
• Nosotros anticipamos que aproximadamente 2,000 niños participarán en este estudio.
PROCEDIMIENTOS:
• Se le solicitará que su hijo tome el inventario de lectura de Scholastic dos veces, el cual es
una prueba computarizada. Cada vez que su hijo haga esta prueba durará aproximadamente
20 minutos.
• Se le solicitará a usted y a su hijo que completen una corta encuesta acerca de la lectura y de
los programas de lectura de verano de las biblioteca pública. En la encuesta también se le
preguntará si él/ella ha participado en el programa de lectura de verano de la biblioteca
pública durante el verano pasado. Toda la información de la encuesta será mantenida de
manera confidencial. Su hijo completará la encuesta en la escuela cuando él o ella tomen el
inventario de lectura de Scholastic en el otoño al entrar al cuarto grado. No le tomará a su
hijo más de 10 minutos el completar la encuesta. De la misma forma, no le tomará a usted
más de 10 minutos completar la encuesta para padres.
• Se le alentará a su hijo a participar en el programa de lectura de verano de la biblioteca. Si
su hijo elige unirse al estudio y participar en el programa de lectura de verano de la
biblioteca, un miembro del equipo de la biblioteca asistirá a su hijo para completar un
registro de asistencia cada semana. Este registro tomará nota de las actividades de lectura de
su hijo. Cada vez que su hijo complete este registro con un miembro del equipo de la
biblioteca le tomará aproximadamente cinco minutos.
RIESGOS/INCOMODIDADES:
• El riesgo asociado con la participación en este estudio no es mayor que aquel encontrado
Appendix O
Título: ¿Tienen impacto los programas de lectura de verano de las bibliotecas públicas en los logros
de los estudiantes?
I.P: Ron Fairchild, Centro de Aprendizaje deVerano, Johns Hopkins University, Escuela de
Educación
Fecha: 26 de Marzo de 2007
Formulario de Consentimiento de Padres (11/05)
Página 2 de 2
durante las pruebas de la escuela durante el año y la vida diaria.
BENEFICIOS:
• Su hijo puede mantener o ganar habilidades de lectura durante el verano o si él o ella elige
participar en el programa de lectura de verano de la biblioteca pública. Su hijo será alentado,
pero no solicitado, a participar en el programa de lectura de verano de la biblioteca pública.
• Este estudio puede beneficiar a la sociedad si los resultados llevan a un mejor entendimiento
de los programas de lectura de verano en su comunidad y a través del país.
PARTICIPACIÓN VOLUNTARIA Y DERECHO A RETIRARSE:
• La participación suya y de su hijo en este estudio son totalmente voluntarias: Usted elige si
permite la participación de su hijo y nosotros le preguntaremos a su hijo si él o ella está de
acuerdo en tomar parte en este estudio. Si usted decide no permitir participar a su hijo, o si
su hijo decide no participar, no existen penalidades y tampoco usted ni su hijo perderán
ningún beneficio en el cual usted se encuentre participando. Su hijo aún estará apto para
participar en el programa de lectura de verano de la biblioteca pública.
• Si usted y su hijo deciden participar en el estudio, usted y su hijo pueden dejar de participar
en cualquier momento sin ninguna penalidad o pérdida de beneficios. Si usted desea retirar a
su hijo del estudio, o si su hijo desea dejar de participar, por favor contacte al personal de la
Universidad Johns Hopkins al teléfono 410-516-6239.
ALTERNATIVAS PARA PARTICIPAR:
• Usted y su hijo no necesitan enrolarse en este estudio para que su hijo pueda participar en el
programa de lectura de verano de la biblioteca pública. Cualquier niño en su comunidad
puede participar en el programa de lectura de verano de la biblioteca pública. Su hijo será
alentado a participar en el programa de lectura de verano de la biblioteca pública, a tomar un
examen de lectura y completar una encuesta.
CONFIDENCIALIDAD:
• Cualquier registro de estudio que identifique a su hijo será mantenido confidencial en la
medida que sea possible por la ley. El registro de la participación de su hijo puede ser
revisado por gente responsable de asegurarse que el estudio se ha hecho de manera
apropiada, incluyendo miembros de la Junta de Revisión Institucional Homewood de la
Universidad Johns Hopkins y oficiales de agencias del gobierno tales como el Instituto de
Salud Nacional y la Oficina de Protecciones para los estudios Humanos (todas estas
personas están requeridas de mantener su identidad y la identidad de su hijo confidencial).
De otro modo, los registros que identifiquen a usted o a su hijo estarán disponibles
solamente para gente que trabaja en el estudio, a menos que usted le de permiso a otra gente
que vean los registros.
• Para documentar el éxito general del programa y apoyar de una mejor manera el año de
aprendizaje de su hijo, estamos solicitando permiso para compartir estos resultados de los
exámenes de lectura con sus maestros. Estos resultados NO serán usados para una selección
Appendix O
Título: ¿Tienen impacto los programas de lectura de verano de las bibliotecas públicas en los logros
de los estudiantes?
I.P: Ron Fairchild, Centro de Aprendizaje deVerano, Johns Hopkins University, Escuela de
Educación
Fecha: 26 de Marzo de 2007
Formulario de Consentimiento de Padres (11/05)
Página 3 de 3
del programa o para propósitos de ubicación para el año escolar. Cualquier información
incluída en artículos periodísticos o publicaciones serán reportadas solamente como grupo,
NO individualmente.
• Para proteger la información confidencial, los participantes serán identificados por código de
números en hojas de datos. Todos los registros físicos, tales como encuestas, serán
mantenidas en un archivador con cerradura.
COMPENSACIÓN:
• Ni usted ni su hijo recibirán ningún pago o cualquier otro tipo de compensación por
participar en este estudio.
SI USTED TIENE PREGUNTAS O PREOCUPACIONES:
• Tanto usted como su hijo pueden hacer preguntas acerca de este estudio de investigación
ahora o en cualquier momento durante el estudio, hablando con el (los) trabajador (es) del
estudio que trabajen con usted y con su hijo o llamando a Susanne R. Bell, Sr. Coordinadora
del Programa de Investigación al Centro de Aprendizaje de Verano al 410-516-6239.
• Si usted o su hijo tienen alguna pregunta acerca de los derechos de su hijo como participante
de la investigación o siente que su hijo no ha sido tratado de manera justa, por favor llame a
la Junta de Revisión Institucional de la Universidad Johns Hopkins a la Universidad de Johns
Hopkins al teléfono (410) 516-6580.
FIRMAS
No firme luego de la fecha de expiración de:
LO QUE SIGNIFICA SU FIRMA:
NO VÁLIDO SIN SELLO DE
CERTIFICACIÓN IRB
Appendix O
Título: ¿Tienen impacto los programas de lectura de verano de las bibliotecas públicas en los logros
de los estudiantes?
I.P: Ron Fairchild, Centro de Aprendizaje deVerano, Johns Hopkins University, Escuela de
Educación
Fecha: 26 de Marzo de 2007
Formulario de Consentimiento de Padres (11/05)
Página 4 de 4
Su firma abajo significa que usted entiende la información en este formulario de
consentimiento.
Su firma también significa que usted está de acuerdo en dejar participar a su hijo en el
estudio.
Al firmar este formulario de consentimiento, usted no ha rechazado ningún derecho legal
tanto suyos como de su hijo que de otra forma hubiesen tenido como participantes en el
estudio de investigación.
Nombre del Niño
Firma del Padre o Guardián Legal Fecha
DOMINICAN UNIVERSITY MISSION
As a Sinsinawa Dominican-sponsored institution,
Dominican University prepares students to pursue
truth, to give compassionate service, and to
participate in the creation of a more just and
humane world.
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE MISSION
We educate leaders in the library and information science professions who make a
positive difference in their communities. This service-oriented education takes place
within the larger context of the university’s commitment to values-centered student
development and is guided by relevant professional standards and core competencies.
We provide our students with an excellent graduate education leading to a meaningful
work life. We firmly believe that diversity inspires creativity, productivity, and growth.
7900 West Division Street
River Forest, IL 60305
Phone: (708) 524-6845
Fax: (708) 524-6657
Email: gslis@dom.edu
Web: www.gslis.dom.edu
