GSLIS Student Survey 2004
Results, n = 135; May 5, 2004

Respondent profiles

Respondents were matriculated students (93%), nearer the beginning of their programs than the end (46% had completed no more than 4 courses; 68% planned to graduate in 2005 or 2006). At least 93% were juggling real-world commitments (children, jobs) apart from school.

Matriculated GSLIS student? (n = 134): Yes 124 (93%) No 10 (7%)

Year admitted? (n = 112; 12 matriculated students not responding): 1999 or 200: 6 2001: 14 2002: 38 2003: 41 2004: 13

Expected graduation date? (n = 125): 2004: 34 (27%) 2005: 53 (42%) 2006: 32 (26%) 2007 or 2008: 6 (5%)

How many GSLIS courses completed? (n = 134) Although respondents were at all stages of their GSLIS programs, most were nearer the beginning than the end.

• 14 (10%) had not yet completed a course, and 2 (1.5%) had completed 13. Some noted that they were now taking LSC 596, the 9-credit school library media practicum.
• 62 (46%) of the respondents had taken 4 courses or fewer; only 32 (24%) had taken 9 courses or more.

This bias could have been influenced by upcoming comps or by the fact that students at the beginning of their program had more at stake in GSLIS decision making.

How many courses this semester? (n = 135) Most respondents were attending GSLIS part-time.

• 59 (44%) were taking just one course;
• 46 (34%) were taking two.
• Only 27 (20%) were fulltime, with three or more courses (two were taking five courses apiece).
• Three were on leave of absence, taking no courses.

How many courses from other institutions will be transferred into the GSLIS program (n = 125)?

• Most (98, or 78%) are not planning to transfer credit into the program; but
• 12 (10%) plan to transfer in one course,
• 11 (9%) plan on two courses (the usual maximum, assuming 3-credit courses), and
• two each plan on three or four.

Of the four who plan to transfer in more than two courses, three said they had completed programs of study, with one approved; these three spoke to their advisors on average one to three times a semester. The fourth never spoke to an advisor and relied primarily on other students for advice about the program.

What are students juggling? (n = 128) Asked what major time commitments affected their class schedules, students described a variety of commitments and responsibilities. The most common were family and work:

· Children (63 students, 47%); others for whom student is primary caregiver (9 students, 7%)

· One or more part-time jobs (60 students, 44%); full-time jobs (58 students, 43%)

Only four (3%) of those reporting had no caregiving, job, or other time commitments competing with school; 48 (38%) reported one commitment, 60 (47%) two commitments, 15 (12%) three commitments, and one had four. Other “time commitments” reported were not always time commitments, exactly. They included volunteer work, spouse’s work schedule, and commuting time, but also “how many courses I can afford,” “other courses being offered,” “access to computer,” and “driving at night.” If the category of “other” was excluded, 9 respondents (7%) had no conflicting time commitments, 66 (49%) had one, 54 (40%) had two, and 5 (4%) had three.

Advisement

How often do students contact advisors each semester? (n = 126)

• Don’t contact: 22 (17%)
• Once a semester: 71 (56%)
• Two to five times a semester: 33 (26%)

Do students use other sources of advisement? (n = 119) Forty-two (35%) said no, 77 (65%) said yes. Sources mentioned include fellow students (“to get the ‘scoop’” or “because my advisor is very hard to contact”), instructors, a librarian sister-in-law, practicing librarians, mentors, Dr. Havener, and Jennifer Legare.

Do students have approved programs of study?

• 88 (73% of 121 respondents) had completed programs of study
• 76 (65% of 117 respondents) had approved programs
• 21 (19% of 109 respondents) had changed programs; others said they were about to do so

How do students connect with advisors?

(Note: Where respondent ranked more than one item the same, ranks were averaged. For instance, if 2 items were ranked “1,” the coded rank was “1.5”; if 3 items were ranked “1,” the coded rank was “2.” Ranks after the tied ranks were adjusted, so if there were two items ranked “1,” the next highest item was coded “3” rather than “2.”)

Method of contact	Ranked 1	Ranked 1.5 or 2	Mean Rank
by e-mail (n = 114)	69 (61%)	31 (27%)	1.5
face-to-face in the faculty member’s office (n = 84)	24 (29%)	27 (32%)	2.3
face-to-face in a classroom (n = 69)	9 (13%)	26 (38%)	2.7
by telephone (n = 72)	3 (4%)	28 (39%)	3.0
face-to-face at a regional campus (n = 45)	1 (2%)	5 (11%)	3.9
Other (n = 8):			4.4

E-mail is far and away the most frequently used way of communicating with advisors, followed by face-to-face sessions in the advisor’s office or in the classroom. Telephone and meetings at a regional campus were rarer. The bathroom (mentioned by one respondent) seems like an unfair venue, but comments hint that at least some students feel ill done by and justified in ambushing advisors wherever and whenever possible:

• My advisor has spoken with me 2x & still doesn’t recognize me. I think this is unacceptable. How can you advise me if you don’t care who I am?
• [My advisor] is very difficult to get ahold of and get advice from. Does not return phone calls or emails.
• not at all satisfied w/response, have not contacted person again, doing own scheduling for now
• I never spoke to my advisor. The first semester, Fall 2001, I emailed the individual, received a response, but we never followed up. My academic advisory came from another faculty member whom I had for several classes and with whom I felt comfortable. I never had my advisor for a course and frankly, I don’t even know what the individual looks like.

• I think descriptions should be provided for the [special topics] courses offered in the summer. It’s hard to tell if a course is of interest by the title alone. It is hard to complete the POS using the available course descriptions – they don’t provide enough info in 2-3 sentences to really tell if the course is appropriate.

Face-to-face courses: Times, places, and the juggling act

Which scheduling considerations are most important?

Respondents were asked to rank the scheduling considerations in order of importance, with “1” being the top priority. (Note: Where respondent ranked more than one item the same, ranks were averaged. For instance, if 2 items were ranked “1,” the coded rank was “1.5”; if 3 items were ranked “1,” the coded rank was “2.” Ranks after the tied ranks were adjusted, so if there were two items ranked “1,” the next highest item was coded “3” rather than “2.”)

Consideration	Ranked 1	Ranked 1.5 or 2	Mean Rank
Campus (n = 134)	67 (50%)	38 (28%)	1.8
Time of day (n = 127)	32 (25%)	32 (25%)	2.6
Delivery mode (n = 134)	16 (12%)	20 (15%)	3.5
Day of the week (n = 129)	9 (7%)	23 (18%)	3.7
Length of session (n = 129)	1 (1%)	7 (5%)	4.4
Piggy-backing (n = 117)	1 (1%)	10 (9%)	5.0
Other : 19 students listed other considerations, of which only 6 were their top two issues

Campus locations, experience and preferences

Campus location was the most important consideration for the greatest number of students. Where respondents are taking courses this semester, and where they hope to take courses:

Campus or platform	Number students this Semester	Number Students Hoping
Amherst	7	7
Boston	1	2
Worcester	23	17
Durham	18	23
Kingston	76	62
Providence	27	34
Online	40	N/A

A significant minority of students reported taking courses at more than one campus: 17 (13%) were taking courses at both Kingston and Providence; 4 (3%) were taking courses at more than one location in Massachusetts and/or New Hampshire; and 7 (5%) were taking courses both in Rhode Island and out of state.

How much time is spent on campus or commuting? Students were asked to report their averages for this semester only, and reports for campuses where the student was not attending class were dropped from the analysis.

Campus	Average time spent attending class(es)	Average time spent on campus outside class	Average time spent commuting
Kingston n = 76	0 to 15 hrs; mean, 4.8 hrs.	0 to 30 hrs; mean, 4.2 hrs.	0 to 7; mean, 2 hrs
Providence n = 27	0 to 6 hrs; mean, 2.8 hrs.	0 to 3 hrs; mean, 0.5 hr.	0 to 3; mean, 0.8 hr
Durham n = 18	0 to 6 hrs; mean, 2.7 hrs.	0 to 17.5 hrs; mean, 4.1 hrs	0 to 7; mean, 1.7 hr
Amherst n = 7	3 to 10; mean, 5.1 hrs.	0 to 1; mean, 0.2 hrs.	0.2 to 4; mean, 2.7 hr.
Worcester n = 23	1 to 3.5; mean, 1.9 hrs.	0 to 0.5; mean, .03 hrs.	0 to 4; mean, 1.2 hr

The average weekly amount of time spent attending any one class is not a predictable 2.75 hours, because students attempted to factor in WebCT courses that met rarely, professional field experiences, and the school library media practicum. Still, it was clear that most students spend little or no time on campus outside class, socializing or using library resources, and correlations between class time and campus or commuting time were small.

• Of the 76 respondents taking courses at Kingston, 25 reported spending no time on campus outside class; 12 spent an hour or less; 16 spent from 1.5 to 3 hours; 14 spent from 4 to 9 hours; and 11 (probably including GAs and full-time students) spent from 10 to 30 hours
• Students at Worcester, where this semester’s classes overlapped and where the library is largely irrelevant to GSLIS needs, spent the least time on campus outside class; but they were closely followed by students at Amherst, which has excellent library resources
• Campus resources were most used at Durham, where 5 students spent from 4 to 9 hours and 3 spent 10 or more hours a week outside class

Some students reported as much as 7 hours a week commuting to class; the mean commute is lowest for Providence and highest for Amherst, but seems to average 2 hours a week for most campuses.

Asked if they thought we should withdraw from some campuses and concentrate our offerings in others, most students were not interested except in those that affected their own access:

Possible changes in campus offerings	Strongly against	Anti	Don’t care	Pro	Strongly in favor	Mean
Withdrawing from Amherst (n = 121)	9 (7%)	5 (4%)	95 (79%)	5 (4%)	7 (6%)	3.0
Withdrawing from Boston (n = 121)	6 (5%)	8 (7%)	98 (81%)	3 (3%)	6 (5%)	3.0
Offering a larger cluster of courses in Worcester (n = 123)	4 (3%)	2 (2%)	72 (59%)	23 (19%)	22 (18%)	3.5
Offering a larger cluster of courses in Durham (n = 124)	8 (7%)	2 (2%)	83 (67%)	6 (5%)	25 (20%)	3.3
Offering more courses in Providence (n = 128)	12 (9%)	5 (4%)	46 (36%)	25 (20%)	40 (31%)	3.6

Reasons for campus preferences

Asked why they preferred the campuses they did, some respondents listed more than one reason. Sometimes they expressed a trade-off (“Kingston – core faculty, Providence – convenience”; “Worcester because it is cheaper but in reality mostly in Kingston”). The counts below are from preliminary content analysis; the quotes are illustrative.

• Proximity: 76 (“closer to home and work”; “location”; “I moved to RI to complete my MLIS”). This was the most common response.
• Convenience or ease: 32. These responses were somewhat more ambiguous, as convenience might imply proximity (“easiest to get to from where I live”); the comfort of a “familiar campus”; access to dual degree programs (a history student preferred Kingston , an MPA student Providence); scheduling practices (“most offered in evening”); or even parking issues (“finding a parking spot in Kingston is almost impossible”)
• Library and facilities: 8 (“convenience of URI main library”; “large campus atmosphere”; “pleasant building facility”)
• Realism (resignation?): 7 (“Kingston – because that’s where they are offered. I would have liked if more courses are offered in the Providence campus”; “so that I may finish the program quickly”)
• Faculty: 7 (“The faculty is more accessible”; “since many of the main offices/professors are located here, it is more convenient”; “outstanding professors [at Durham]”)
• Economics: 4 (“have assistantship”; “parking stickers are expensive”; “Worcester because it is cheaper”)
• Safety: 3 (“although it is a 45 minute commute I feel safer here (at night) than parking in Prov.”; “I have a hard time driving the highway”)
• Students: 2 (“wonderful community of students”; “pleasure of making professional contacts in my state” [both from Durham])

Whatever their reasons, some respondents were fiercely loyal to their chosen campuses: “I took most of my face to face courses at Amherst when available. I made every effort to change my schedule to take a face to face course there.”

Scheduling preferences

Time of day was the second most important scheduling consideration for students choosing courses. Respondents were asked how likely they would be to take courses scheduled at various times (1 = very unlikely, I probably couldn’t take it even if it were the course I wanted most; 3 = medium, I’d make an effort if it was important to my program of study; 5 = such a convenient slot I’d be tempted to take it even if it weren’t on my program).

During the academic year evenings and late afternoons were most popular, followed by alternate Saturdays; Fridays, weekly Saturdays, and morning or early afternoon classes trailed.

Time slot (number responding)	Least likely	Second best	Most likely	Mean
Weekdays, 6:00 – 8:45 (130)	11 (8%)	25 (19%)	64 (49%)	4.0
Weekdays, 6:30 – 9:15 (131)	12 (9%)	37 (28%)	54 (41%)	3.9
Weekdays, 3:30 – 6:15 (132)	20 (15%)	23 (17%)	36 (27%)	3.3
Weekdays, 7:00 – 9:45 (133)	23 (17%)	34 (26%)	31 (23%)	3.2
Alternate Saturdays, 10 – 5 (129)	30 (23%)	16 (12%)	32 (25%)	3.0
Weekdays, 9 – 11:45 a.m. (128)	41 (32%)	13 (10%)	30 (23%)	2.8
Weekdays, 12:30 – 3:15 (130)	47 (36%)	22 (17%)	20 (15%)	2.7
Every Saturday, mornings (125)	45 (36%)	14 (11%)	16 (13%)	2.5
Every Saturday, afternoons (124)	49 (40%)	11 (9%)	14 (11%)	2.4
Every Friday, mornings (125)	53 (42%)	24 (19%)	12 (10%)	2.4
Alternate Fridays, 10 – 5 (125)	55 (44%)	18 (14%)	12 (10%)	2.4
Every Friday, afternoons (126)	52 (41%)	13 (10%)	7 (6%)	2.3

For the summer, 1-week courses in June and evening courses in the 10-week session were most popular.

Time slot		Least likely	Second best	Most likely	Mean
1-wk	June (n = 126)	24 (19%)	30 (24%)	39 (31%)	3.4
10-wk	5:30 – 9:15 (n = 122)	24 (20%)	25 (20%)	36 (30%)	3.3
1-wk	May (n = 126)	33 (27%)	25 (20%)	32 (25%)	3.1
5-wk I	5:30 – 9:15 (n = 116)	23 (20%)	20 (17%)	30 (26%)	3.1
1-wk	August (n = 126)	33 (26%)	24 (19%)	30 (24%)	3.1
5-wk II	5:30 – 9:15 (n = 118)	27 (23%)	27 (23%)	28 (24%)	3.1
5-wk II	12:30 – 4:15 (n = 122)	41 (34%)	29 (24%)	17 (14%)	2.7
10-wk	12:30 – 4:15 (n = 123)	40 (32%)	27 (22%)	12 (10%)	2.7
5-wk II	8:00 – 11:45 (n = 123)	44 (36%)	18 (15%)	19 (15%)	2.6
5-wk I	12:30 – 4:15 (n = 121)	45 (37%)	23 (19%)	14 (12%)	2.6
5-wk I	8:00 – 11:45 (n = 121)	46 (38%)	13 (11%)	18 (15%)	2.5
10-wk	8:00 – 11:45 (n = 123)	43 (35%)	15 (12%)	8 (7%)	2.4

Online courses: Cold convenience?

How many courses have respondents completed online? (n = 127)

• No online courses: 41 (32%)
• One: 45 (35%)
• Two: 28 (22%)
• Three or more: 13 (10%)

One online course, LSC 508, is required, and is recommended as the first course.

What delivery mode do students prefer? (n = 126)

· 86 (68%) prefer face-to-face

· 20 (16%) prefer online

· 3 (2%) prefer hybrid courses

· 17 (13%) prefer both

Preference for face-to-face courses seemed to decline slightly with online experience. Among those who had not yet taken an online course, 86% preferred face-to-face, compared to 73% of those who had taken one online course, 56% of those who had taken two, and 50% of those who had taken three. (One who preferred face-to-face said, “I’m more used to it,” and another mentioned “habit.”) In answer to a later question, 41 students agreed or agreed strongly that a WebCT course offering would be their first choice, while 32 agreed or agreed strongly that it would be their last.

Open-ended comments on preferences in delivery mode

Asked why they preferred online or face-to-face courses, respondents often gave more than one reason, sometimes balancing or contrasting: “Face to face because it’s easier to communicate & online for the convenience.” Some, even after stating their preference for face-to-face classes, went on to describe what they liked about online courses or circumstances under which they would take them; such responses are quoted under both the “Preference for either” and the “Preference for face-to-face” sections, and the unit of analysis here is the reason, not the respondent. One response (“greater learning”) could not be counted because the respondent’s ambiguous preference was for “yes.”

Preference for online: Respondents who preferred online courses usually cited convenience as their top reason, but a few also mentioned pedagogic considerations:

• Convenience: 19 ( “work at own pace”; “it’s easier to get work done on my own schedule, since my work schedule is not always the same week to week”; “single parent, easier on my schedule”; “It . . . allows me to ‘attend class’ whenever I want”; “less time spent commuting”)
• Learning effectiveness, learning style: 5 (“I don’t like lectures”; “mainly because I find it difficult to speak aloud and participate in discussions in a traditional face-to-face setting, and the online atmosphere allows me to participate more in discussions”; “am less self-conscious on-line”; “I receive the same quality and amount of information”)

Preference for either: Reasons here fell into three categories: Olympian impartiality (four respondents made helpful comments like “there are benefits to both”), an awareness of trade-offs, and a nuanced sense that some courses work better than others online.

• Trade-offs: 13. The most common trade-off weighed the convenience of WebCT (for a single mother, for instance, or a student who wouldn’t be able to take summer courses without it) against the “discussion and peer input” of face-to-face courses. If not all courses can be offered in Amherst, said one respondent, WebCT is the next best choice. Another added that in online courses, “thoughts are what is directly heard not physical effects which is unique—however, group projects are better face to face!”
• It all depends: 6 experienced students maintained that some courses work better online than others. This is partly because of the “intricacy of the course”: LSC 508 was cited as a good one, and “Gov Pubs is an excellent online class because it is so straightforward and assignments are easy to understand.” Another student said it “depends if it’s an electronic online subject matter, or a critical thinking brainstorming type course.” Also important is the professor’s online communication style: “online good only if professor is organized and explains what is expected!”

Preference for hybrid: 3 (“I like to meet & get to know fellow students in person but I also like flexibility of online. A class which is ½ & ½ is the best”)

Preference for face-to-face: Words such as “like,” “feel,” “human,” and “real” were common in these responses.

• Immediacy and connectedness: 44 (“I like human interaction and sharing ideas verbally”; “on-line loses human interaction of tone of voice, facial expressions—too impersonal”; “it’s easier to ‘network’ with fellow classmates”; “I like the interactions/dynamics of face-to-face classes”; “there is much to gain from discussion – that is lost in ‘chat format’”; “interact w/ other students & make more sense”; “no real discussion happens asynchronously even though called ‘discussion groups’”; “feel more a part of community”; “more interactive”; “I have never worked in a library—the personal contact is critical for me to meet w/ other students & hear cross conversations”; “online is too impersonal”; “I like a real person to talk to”)
• Learning effectiveness, learning style: 17 (“I learn better by being in person”; “I feel I learn more from other students in informal classroom discussions”; “I learn by auditory and written notes”; “better for my learning style”; “online simply does not work for me . . . Q and A is inefficient”; “I learn better if I take notes during a lecture, and work on projects in groups face-to-face, and interact with other class members”; “I’m a people person”; “clearer”; “suits my learning style better, although after 2 on-line courses, I find they are okay”; “online is nice but cold and you miss a lot of discussion and valuable exchange of ideas you get in person”; “many of the components make more sense to me when I can interact with my peers and have live discussions”)
• Feedback from professor: 11 (“Feedback from professor is a problem [online]”; “I need to be able to talk in person if I need assistance”; “Some teachers are not ready for the time it takes to teach a ‘good’ [online] class”; “Online courses lack the teacher-student contact that is at the heart of positive educational experiences. The professor has not even participated in online discussions we’re having which means we’re not benefiting from his own knowledge and expertise”; “instructors bring the subject to life and their enthusiasm is contagious”). In answer to a later question, only 31 respondents agreed or agreed strongly that it’s harder to get the professor’s attention in an online course, compared to 50 who disagreed or disagreed strongly.
• Time management: 5 (“helps my motivation to complete assignments”; “stops me from procrastinating”; “Also, it helps me stay on track—too many distractions@home to do online courses”; “online also takes much more time—reading screen difficult with large submissions”; “having a set time gives the course structure, it is nice”)
• Content, intensity: 4 (“online is not intense enough”; “better communication and additional information explained in classroom”; “more definite”; “more opportunity to ask questions and receive instruction in multiple forms”)
• Also mentioned were habit (3), technical problems (2; “a history of computer problems & have to fight with my 3 sons for the computer in the evening & weekend”), and proximity to campus (1)

More attitudes about online courses

Many of these open comments from the first page of the survey were echoed by responses to forced-choice questions on the third page. Students were asked to rate the accuracy of statements about WebCT or online courses. Earlier questions revealed that more students prefer face-to-face classes, but that mode of delivery ranks only third among considerations for taking a course—and whatever their ideal course might be, students tend to be pragmatic in their actual selections. Online courses fill up. This set of questions suggests attitudes toward some of the commonly discussed pros and cons:

Students are split on the desirability of WebCT	Disagree strongly	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Agree strongly	Mean
Would be my first choice (n = 121)	31 (26%)	7 (6%)	42 (35%)	18 (15%)	23 (19%)	3.0
Would be my last choice (n = 102)	28 (27%)	7 (7%)	35 (34%)	9 (9%)	23 (23%)	3.0

Most felt that WebCT courses are convenient to schedule, but 94 (79%) said they should have at least one face-to-face meeting, and 62 (52%) said they should have at least three. The majority said that WebCT courses take about the same amount of assignment time as face-to-face courses, and probably around the same amount of “class” time as well, but networking with other students is more difficult online.

Students agree that online courses:	Disagree strongly	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Agree strongly	Mean
Should have at least one face-to-face meeting (n = 120)	2 (2%)	4 (3%)	19 (16%)	17 (14%)	78 (65%)	4.4
Are easy to schedule around my other activities (n = 122)	3 (2%)	6 (5%)	16 (13%)	26 (21%)	71 (58%)	4.3
Take about the same amount of time for major assignments as other courses (n = 115)	7 (6%)	9 (8%)	29 (25%)	31 (27%)	39 (34%)	3.7
Make it harder to network with other students (n = 120)	7 (6%)	13 (11%)	32 (27%)	31 (26%)	37 (31%)	3.7
Should have at least three face-to-face meeting (n = 122)	17 (14%)	11 (9%)	31 (25%)	31 (25%)	32 (26%)	3.4
Take about the same amount of “class” time as other courses (n = 113)	13 (12%)	15 (13%)	40 (35%)	21 (19%)	24 (21%)	3.2
Other (n = 17)	2 (12%)	2 (12%)	7 (41%)		6 (35%)	3.4

Most disagreed that online courses are ideally suited to their learning styles, but did not consider the classes problematic because of poor Internet access, feeling inarticulate in online discussion, or difficulty getting the instructor’s attention online.

Students do not agree that online courses:	Disagree strongly	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Agree strongly	Mean
Are difficult because I do not have good enough Internet access (n = 120)	70 (58%)	22 (18%)	19 (16%)	4 (3%)	5 (4%)	1.8
Are scary because I feel inarticulate in discussion (n = 118)	43 (37%)	32 (27%)	22 (19%)	13 (11%)	8 (7%)	2.2
Make it harder to get the instructor’s attention (n = 120)	27 (23%)	23 (19%)	37 (31%)	14 (12%)	19 (16%)	2.8
Are ideally suited to my learning style (n = 121)	23 (19%)	26 (21%)	37 (31%)	20 (17%)	15 (12%)	2.8

Student access to Internet for WebCT courses, etc.

Students were asked to rate their Internet access to WebCT courses, online resources, etc. (1 = worst, no access at all; 3 = adequate but with problems; 5 = best, high speed and usually problem-free). Most students had reasonably good access at home and/or work. Campus access was seen as excellent by some, abysmal by others.

Point of access	Worst or bad	Second Best	Best	Mean
Home (n = 130)	9 (7%)	38 (29%)	60 (46%)	4.1
Work (n = 106)	25 (24%)	21 (20%)	43 (41%)	3.6
Campus (n = 91)	18 (20%)	22 (24%)	30 (33%)	3.6
Other (n = 13)	3 (23%)	3 (23%)	6 (46%)	3.9

Resources used to support student research

Students were asked to identify sources used to obtain resources for classes. (N/A = those you’ve never used; 1 = those you hardly ever use, 5 those you turn to first and most often). The most popular resources were 1) online databases accessible to students through GSLIS; 2) the free World Wide Web; 3) public libraries; and 4) the campus library where the respondent is a student. Eighty-eight students would be likely or very likely to use their public libraries, compared to 75 who would turn to their campus libraries.

Sources	N/A	Least Likely	Unlikely		Likely	Most Likely	Mean
GSLIS Internet		1 (1%)	2 (2%)	9 (7%)	24 (18%)	96 (73%)	4.6
Free WWW	1 (1%)	1 (1%)	6 (5%)	17 (13%)	32 (25%)	73 (56%)	4.3
Public library	1 (1%)	6 (5%)	12 (9%)	25 (19%)	32 (24%)	56 (42%)	3.9
Your GSLIS campus library	5 (4%)	12 (9%)	14 (11%)	23 (18%)	32 (25%)	43 (33%)	3.5
Internet: other	14 (13%)	7 (7%)	6 (6%)	14 (13%)	22 (21%)	42 (40%)	3.4
Academic library (other than GSLIS campus)	16 (12%)	19 (15%)	19 (15%)	33 (26%)	25 (19%)	17 (13%)	2.6
OLIS	37 (29%)	40 (31%)	12 (9%)	23 (18%)	9 (7%)	8 (6%)	1.6
SLMC	42 (33%)	40 (31%)	14 (11%)	12 (9%)	10 (8%)	10 (8%)	1.5
Special library	44 (35%)	42 (33%)	16 (13%)	12 (10%)	10 (8%)	2 (2%)	1.3
Govt Lib	52 (42%)	44 (35%)	13 (10%)	10 (8%)	3 (2%)	3 (2%)	1.0
Other	21 (72%)		1 (3%)	3 (10%)		4 (14%)	1.1

While some students preferred the Kingston campus for library access, a couple criticized the URI library. One was concerned with holdings, the other with access:

• “I feel that the URI library is very out of date, especially the library and information science resources.”
• “The fact that I have to be on the URI campus to get a student ID before I can use any of the URI library’s online resources is a huge pain. It would be great if there were some way around this for Regional students.”

General comments by respondents:

• please consider partnerships to increase the “ reality” needed to make this a viable program.
• Please continue to keep your finger on the pulse. Also please consider much more emphasis on technology!
• Overall I am very happy with the program. My only concern is the lack of classes at Amherst, I fell like it is going to be phased out!
• I would love to see the residency requirement dropped. It makes it very hard for full-time employees to attend these sessions
• I find the 2 courses I am taking presently (intro courses) totally unacademic. They are too easy and it’s really a joke to be paying x amount for. A master’s degree of any kind should be intense & thought provoking. These courses are a joke & are geared towards people with either poor academic backgrounds or little impetuous [sic] to assert themselves academically. I have been totally disappointed. I think the GSLIS program has lowered itself academically to let middle-aged mothers get all A’s & in the process abandoned what should be an effort to accept & graduate only the best & brightest. I mean really, open book on line quizzes? Get real. Why don’t you just give me an A?
• Online/hybrid class would be best. Meet every other week in class and the next online. Daytime classes in Kingston are difficult for regional students even from Worcester which is the closest. A morning class doesn’t get you to work until 2 – more than 1/2 day missed. You need summer classes to finish in time but they are difficult to take. Full day classes 1 time per week are better

• I’ve taken courses at other colleges and universities and have found the billing at URI to be atrocious – as have others. Lots of mistakes and it seems to take forever for them to bill and credit your account. They don’t communicate when there is a problem. There’s frequently a long wait on the phone. The employees are nice and do try to help you, but it seems like a structural problem that could be greatly improved.

Discussion

Electives for the region: Issues

Scheduling elective courses that meet the needs of regional students has always been difficult, and seems more so as expectations rise. Some students feel unable to select courses outside their immediate geographic neighborhoods, while potential classmates take advantage of offerings at multiple campuses and via WebCT, cutting into the audience for a given elective at a given site. (Thus, an offering at Amherst may fail to make because too many students have already taken it at Worcester, or one at Worcester may fail because students have taken it at Providence.)

Low enrollments: the math. We have nearly 250 students. An earlier survey indicated that 60% of our students were in Rhode Island; if that is still true, we probably have an average of just over 30 students for each of the three remaining out-of-state locations (Amherst, Worcester, and Durham). Analysis of programs of study on file shows that while a few electives (such as LSC 530 and 531, which are required for the school library media track and appeal to many aspiring public librarians as well) are chosen by 50% of our students, more are chosen by between 6% and 14%—not enough to make them viable as regional offerings, unless students change their programs of study. Some of the more popular electives are difficult to offer away from Rhode Island because of their technological requirements.

Flexible programs and student opportunism. GSLIS practice has been to offer electives that seem appropriate to regional students’ programs of study, so far as they can be determined. Many students’ practice has been to delay filing programs of study until they find out what will be offered. Survey response reinforces the impression that many are probably willing to change their programs to reflect the most readily available courses. Asked what type of librarianship they were aiming at, only 39 students identified a single area of interest. Six were “undecided,” but 46 identified 2 areas of interest, 34 identified 3, and 11 chose 4 or more; 135 students chose 285 directions in all. Areas selected, in rank order:

• Public libraries, 62
• Academic libraries, 61
• School library media, 51
• Archives, 32
• Information services, 30
• Special libraries, 26
• Other, 17
• Undecided, 6

Like programs of study, this information provides limited guidance. Of the 32 who are interested in archives, for instance, 2 are registered at Amherst this semester, 3 at Worcester, 4 at Durham, 21 at Kingston, and 7 at Providence. (The total is 37; again, some students take courses at more than one campus.)

According to one Worcester student, in independent e-mail, it is not right that students in the region should face the choice of commuting to Rhode Island for rarely offered electives or taking longer to complete their degrees. Yet as long as we can offer only one or two electives at any remote campus, and as long as not all students at a given campus agree on a single program track, the choice seems inevitable.

Solution 1: Growing the regional program. Sustaining the New England program requires a significant number of students. For instance, to remain a presence in Amherst—where there is an intense but perhaps small demand for our services—we will need to recruit significant numbers of new students in western Massachusetts. We will be in competition with Simmons, which has been offering several courses each semester at the Mount Holyoke campus, and with online programs. We have a competitive advantage in price, but our program could be more attractive if we were able to offer more courses and to give students a clearer picture of what electives would be offered when.

Faculty resources limit our growth. Our policy has been to have full-time tenure-track GSLIS faculty members teach half our regional courses; this is important for accreditation and to ensure parity between Rhode Island and regional students. We have 8 full-time faculty members, of whom 2 (the director and assistant director) have reduced teaching loads for administrative reasons; together, assuming nobody is on sabbatical, we teach 126 credit hours during the academic year (21 courses in the fall, and fewer in the spring, when two of us devote their efforts to the 9-credit-hour school library media practicum). We each (with the exception of the director) expect to teach one course a year outside Rhode Island. In practice, we average 6 courses a year by GSLIS faculty members in the region, and to retain our 50% ratio should offer no more than 6 courses through adjunct faculty members, or two courses a semester each in three regional centers, unless we can hire more tenure-track faculty.

Facilities are another consideration. Offering more courses in Worcester, which is a central location, would be attractive—but our pleasant arrangement with the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health is becoming untenable as the times they can schedule space for us dwindle and their ability to support our instructional technology needs has ceased. Even at UNH and UMass/Amherst, where we have been established and enjoyed stable, supportive relationships with local Colleges of Continuing Education for years, space and IT considerations limit which courses we can schedule and when we can schedule them.

Solution 2: The online option. Considering the numbers, it might seem like a good idea to offer more GSLIS electives online. If 10% of students choose an elective, that might be an average of only about 3 who would take it face-to-face at a regional campus, but 25 who could take it anywhere in New England by WebCT. Against this possibility, however, we have to weigh the reluctance of many colleagues and students to have anything to do with online courses.

Student aversion to WebCT is less evident in the forced-choice questions about it than in the free comments on why they prefer face-to-face courses. Studies of distance education have found that learning is equivalent in online and face-to-face courses, but subjectively, a significant number of our students feel that online courses are cold, impersonal, and unsupportive of their own learning styles. Some fear that they will not get adequate support from faculty in online courses. Few listed technology as a barrier to full participation in online courses, however, and there was a trend toward greater openness among those who had already taken at least one course online.

Faculty at GSLIS remain convinced that face-to-face contact with students is essential to good education and professional socialization for librarianship. It is also true that adapting a course for online delivery requires major investments of faculty time and effort, and these have been made with little support or release time. Tenure-track faculty members would not in any case be able to teach all the electives that could profitably be offered online; qualified adjunct faculty members would be essential to such an endeavor.

If all core courses (except LSC 508) were taught face-to-face most or at least some of the time, and electives that could be adapted to online delivery modes were taught online at least half the time, it might be possible to develop a more predictable rotation that would serve the needs of our geographically dispersed regional students. A predictable balance of face-to-face and distance learning could be scheduled to afford both personal interaction and convenient access to electives. Any such plan would need to address:

• Support for faculty—training, equipment, and time to adapt at least one course to any new delivery mode
• Support for students—courses structured to maximize the humanity of online interactions; realistic and carefully met expectations of faculty accessibility; possibly regional study groups; attention to other support needs, like advisement and library resources

Other thoughts

Advisement: We need to develop a structure that works better for both faculty and students. Part of this is setting reasonable expectations, but it isn’t always easy to be available to students when they need us. We have face-to-face office hours, but I wonder if we could develop an online site for advisement, with a clearly organized FAQ section and both synchronous (chat office hours) and asynchronous (mail) options for students to contact advisors? Of course, this wouldn’t solve the problem for those who think online communication is cold and heartless.

Research support: This may be an area we need to study further. Are students routinely using the most appropriate resources for their papers and presentations? Are they placing significant burdens on their local public libraries? Do they all know about and use GSLIS resources effectively? (I’m not sure I do.)

Continuing Education. Student opinion was largely in favor of adding 1- and 2-credit courses on a range of topics that would also meet practitioners’ continuing education needs.

Possible change	Strongly against	Anti	Don’t care	Pro	Strongly in favor	Mean
Adding 1- and 2-credit courses (n = 127)	2 (2%)	1 (1%)	33 (26%)	30 (24%)	61 (48%)	4.2

This looks like an exciting opportunity.