The charge to the CFLC Continuing Education Committee (CEC) from the Board this year was to investigate the feasibility and desirability of CFLC offering official Continuing Education Units (CEUs) for CFLC training sessions.
The Task: The CEC decided that its first task should be to determine if there is a need for CEUs in the Central Florida area, assuming that for most academic, community college, public and school librarians, certification of attendance and an indication of the number of contact hours is usually sufficient. (CFLC began adding contact hours to their attendance certificates some time ago.) The CEC also thought that if CEUs were not necessary to the majority of members, CFLC could play a different role in that arena, i.e., offering assistance to organizations that do provide CEUs; perhaps by allowing them to use the CFLC training room, by partnering with them, or by providing publicity opportunities.
Survey Purpose: The committee ultimately decided that a telephone survey of CFLC membership would accomplish several purposes. It would:
Survey Methodology: Committee members used the membership directory and telephoned the director and/or delegate of each member library to ask for names and phone numbers of (at least) branch librarians and department heads, if not all librarians. Committee members then used that information when conducting the phone survey.
Survey Results: The CEC attempted to call 235 members and reached 184, for a response rate of 78.3%. The survey itself and detailed responses by question are available on the Web at: http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~access/cflccehome.html.
Relevance of project: This project was a useful one for CFLC for various reasons. First, it was timely, as the July/August issue of SOLINEWS reports on the results of a 1997 membership survey. [
Nevins, Kate. "Member Survey Results." Solinews 24(4):3-4. July/August 1997.] There were six topics addressed by the survey: (1) major needs; (2) opportunities for library cooperation and collaboration; (3) current and potential new service areas for SOLINET; (4) staff development needs; (5) preferred methods for training delivery; and (6) benefits of membership. While only issues four and five directly addressed CE, continuing education was raised as an issue in every response. It was also ranked by each type of library as the third most important service area (right behind OCLC cataloging services and OCLC resource sharing).A second reason for the survey’s usefulness is that the last major CE survey done in Florida was in 1992 for the Florida Library Association (FLA). [
Mulla, Marilyn. "Continuing Education Needs Survey Results." Florida Libraries 36(6):106,08,10,12,13. June/July 1993.] Given that 777 people statewide responded to that survey, the information was helpful for a number of organizations attempting to plan CE activities. Nonetheless, it is now quite dated and there was a need to collect information reflecting strictly regional concerns.The third and final reason for the survey’s utility was that it met the goals initially set for it:
1. Determine the value of CE for members. There is a clear indication from the survey results for the need and value of CE programs. Of the 184 respondents, 77% of them have attended CFLC CE programs. These results reinforce the 1992 FLA survey where respondents expressed interest in CE, especially regional offerings.
2. Elicit the reasons for not attending CE programs. The majority who have not attended indicate problems with funding or release time, not a lack of interest.
3. Ascertain what interest exists for CEUs. While 21% of respondents replied with an outright yes, 59.5% indicated no interest and the rest indicated "it depends." Again, this mirrors the FLA survey results, where 23% indicated some interest in CEUs.
4. Provide information to help plan upcoming workshops. This may well have been the most successful part of the survey, garnering 342 suggestions (admittedly not unique) for workshops for librarians, 264 for workshops for support staff, and around 60 names for potential session instructors.
5. Gather information about distribution channels for CE (e.g., Internet, e-mail, teleconference). In terms of the training methodology, it will behoove CFLC to watch what SOLINET is doing, as one of the strong recommendations from their survey is "...SOLINET must implement alternative training delivery methodologies which enable members to receive training without physically attending a workshop or seminar." [
Nevins, op. cit., p.4.] At the same time, it is also imperative to note that in the question of "preferred methods for training delivery," for SOLINET's academic libraries, 93.8% still choose workshops/seminars over computer-based, distance learning, or videotapes (each of which ranks 70% or lower); for public libraries, it is 91.5%; and for special libraries, 95.2%. [Ibid., p.3.] Face-to-face training is an area where CFLC must still play a strong role. While the CFLC survey revealed interest in alternative methodologies, significant preference for face-to-face teaching methods was also expressed.6. Collect more individual names (or identify corrections) for the CFLC mailing list. Thirteen names (and one correction) were added to the list. Additionally, 80% of those surveyed were already on the mailing list, thus indicating that CFLC has done a good job reaching individual librarians in member institutions.
7. Publicize CFLC and CE products to many more potential attendees. Given that most of those surveyed were on the mailing list, current publicity efforts seem effective. (There were quite a few comments to that effect, as well.) Nonetheless, 184 staff members from CFLC member institutions were contacted and CE efforts were brought to their attention.