Event Information
This study utilized the International Society for Performance Improvement's (ISPI) Human Performance Technology (HPT) model as a basis for improving a media program. Within the various sections of the model, the following theoretical frameworks were used:
Lewin's Change Model,
Current Reality Tree,
Ishikawa Diagram,
5-Whys,
User Experience (UX),
Four Principles of Design,
Dublin's I3 Change-Focused Implementation Model,
Full Scope Evaluation
The study used a mixed-methods design grounded in the HPT framework to answer the primary research question: What are the areas of performance improvement in the media center in the selected rural school district in the Southeastern United States? The design integrated organizational analysis (desired performance) and environmental analysis (actual conditions) to identify gaps between how the media center should function and how it was currently operating.
Participants were selected to ensure representation from all key stakeholder groups involved in or influenced by the media center’s operations:
Teachers and staff were recruited through school email communications to complete surveys and join focus groups.
Students in grades five and six participated voluntarily with parental consent.
Parents were invited through digital newsletters and school communication channels.
Administrators and district media specialists were interviewed to provide leadership and system-level insight.
Data were collected using a blend of surveys, interviews, focus groups, and document reviews, each designed to answer specific subquestions within the study.
Surveys – Distributed to teachers, parents, and students; contained both Likert-scale items (e.g., satisfaction with resources, space usability, or specialist availability) and open-ended questions (e.g., “What resources would make the media center more valuable to you?”).
Interviews – Conducted with the principal, superintendent, and district media specialists; included semi-structured questions such as “What do you see as the role of the media center in instructional support?” and “What barriers prevent optimal use of the space?”
Focus Groups – Involved county media specialists and teachers; used guiding prompts about collaboration, access, and communication practices.
Document Review – Examined circulation data, budget reports, AASL standards, and Georgia Department of Education guidelines to compare actual and expected performance.
The analysis followed the HPT model’s performance improvement phases:
Gap Analysis: Compared desired media center performance to current performance, identifying deficiencies in communication, access, and resource availability.
Root Cause Analysis: Used a Current Reality Tree (CRT), Ishikawa (fishbone) diagram, and 5-Whys method to trace surface-level problems to deeper systemic causes.
Triangulation and Validation: Ensured reliability through multiple data sources, stakeholder verification of interview transcripts, and alignment with extant documentation.
Three core themes emerged: (1) the need for modern, relevant resources; (2) the need for greater media specialist availability and visibility; and (3) improved communication between the media center and its patrons.
The data revealed two major performance gaps:
Inadequate and outdated resources that failed to engage students and support curriculum needs.
Limited media specialist accessibility, caused by scheduling conflicts and role reassignments.
The root causes were identified as a lack of communication between faculty and the media specialist and a lack of student input in resource selection. Based on these findings, the following interventions were designed:
A digital public relations campaign featuring monthly newsletters and electronic signage to promote resources, events, and professional development opportunities.
Procedure manuals and job aids for teachers and students to streamline communication and clarify how to request assistance or materials.
Implementation followed Dublin’s I3 Change-Focused Implementation Model, which includes the stages Inform, Involve, and Integrate:
Inform: Faculty, staff, and students were notified of upcoming changes through digital newsletters, faculty meetings, and student announcements. This stage focused on transparency and building awareness of the initiative.
Involve: The media specialist collaborated with the media committee and technology staff to design and launch the new tools.
Digital newsletters were developed monthly to showcase new materials, instructional resources, and collaborative opportunities.
Digital signage was installed in the media center to provide real-time updates on featured books, events, and media services.
Procedure manuals were created in both print and digital formats for accessibility by teachers, students, and parents.
Integrate: The interventions were embedded into the school’s routine operations. The media specialist monitored usage metrics (newsletter views, resource circulation) and gathered feedback from teachers and students to refine implementation.
The project plan also detailed resource needs, identified potential barriers (e.g., time constraints, limited staffing), and established a communication timeline to sustain stakeholder engagement.
Improved Communication and Awareness: The newsletters and digital signage increased visibility of available resources and services. Teachers reported greater awareness of collaboration opportunities and professional development offerings.
Increased Circulation and Engagement: Book circulation rose, particularly for titles featured in newsletters and on digital signage. Students also began suggesting new materials, showing renewed interest in reading and research.
Enhanced Teacher Collaboration: Faculty began to partner more frequently with the media specialist for co-taught lessons and technology integration.
Greater Accessibility and Efficiency: The procedure manuals streamlined requests for resources and helped students and teachers navigate services independently.
The interventions successfully closed the identified performance gaps by improving stakeholder communication, updating resource awareness, and redefining the media specialist’s visibility and role within the school.
Formative and summative evaluations indicated that both the communication campaign and job aids were effective in increasing engagement and satisfaction.
Confirmative evaluation data showed sustained use of resources and continued collaboration months after implementation.
The study "Service Improvement of the Media Center and Media Specialist" provides both educational and scientific significance because it demonstrates how data-driven decision-making and Human Performance Technology (HPT) can be applied in K–12 educational settings to improve school library and media center effectiveness. While performance improvement models are common in business and industry, this study bridges that framework into education, showing that systematic performance analysis, root cause identification, and targeted interventions can lead to measurable gains in communication, access, and student engagement.
Educationally, the study highlights the role of the school media specialist as an instructional partner, technology leader, and change agent rather than a passive resource manager. By using a mixed methods approach, the research captures stakeholder perspectives from students, teachers, administrators, and parents, ensuring that improvement efforts reflect real needs. Scientifically, it contributes to the evidence base for applying performance improvement methodologies in educational contexts and supports the growing body of research advocating for the integration of systems thinking in the field of education.
For the conference audience, this study is geared toward educators, instructional technologists, administrators, and school improvement leaders. The study provides a replicable model for sustainable change in educational environments. Attendees will be informed about the following topics.
Using HPT in education: How to apply a structured, research-based model for diagnosing organizational problems and implementing evidence-based solutions.
Leveraging stakeholder feedback: How student and teacher voice can be incorporated to design more effective programs.
Bridging communication gaps: Strategies for increasing collaboration between teachers and media specialists using digital tools, newsletters, and visual communication.
Evaluating interventions: How to employ formative, summative, and confirmative evaluations to assess the long-term success of educational initiatives.
This study is valuable because it moves beyond theory to show a measurable impact. The study's results showed improvements in book circulation, faculty collaboration, and student engagement through cost-effective, replicable interventions.
Abellana, D. P. (2020). A proposed hybrid root cause analysis technique for quality management. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 38(3), 704–721. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-11-2019-0356
Adams, M. (2008). The 2008 housing crisis and its impact on education funding. Education Finance Journal, 12(2), 45–58.
American Association of School Librarians. (2018a). National School Library Standards for Learners, School Librarians, and School Libraries. American Library Association.
American Association of School Librarians. (2018b). Empowering learners: Guidelines for school library programs. American Library Association.
American Library Association. (2013). ALA history and mission. https://www.ala.org/aboutala/history
Babbie, E. (2020). The practice of social research (15th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Baker, D. (2014). Public school funding during economic downturns. Education Policy Review, 26(1), 14–29.
Baker, S., & Alexander, B. (2018). The evolving role of learning commons in K–12 schools. Teacher Librarian, 45(3), 14–20.
Battaglia, D. (2008). The role of the school library media specialist. School Library Media Research, 11, 1–10.
Benjamin Franklin Historical Society. (2014). History of the Library Company of Philadelphia. https://benjaminfranklinhistoricalsociety.org/library-company
Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. (2022). Design-concepts upon which to build programs. https://www.cpedinitiative.org/design-concepts
Center for Community Health and Development at the University of Kansas. (n.d.). Identifying and analyzing stakeholders and their interests. The Community Toolbox. https://ctb.ku.edu
Clark, C., & Teravainen-Goff, A. (2018). The impact of school libraries on student well-being and academic achievement. National Literacy Trust.
Cooper, J. L., & Bray, N. (2011). Partnering for school improvement: The role of the school librarian. School Library Monthly, 27(7), 10–13.
Cummings, T. G., Bridgman, T. O., & Brown, K. G. (2015). Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. Human Relations, 69(1), 33–60.
Curtis, D. (2017). Redefining the modern library: Collaborative spaces and student empowerment. Journal of Library Innovation, 8(2), 23–34.
Dessinger, J. C., Moseley, J. L., & Van Tiem, D. M. (2012). Fundamentals of performance improvement: Optimizing people, processes, and organizations (3rd ed.). Wiley.
Doggett, A. M. (2005). Root cause analysis: A framework for tool selection. Quality Management Journal, 12(4), 34–45.
Farmer, L. (2011). School library media programs and student achievement. Libraries Unlimited.
Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2017). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (5th ed.). Pearson.
Fox, R., & Doshi, A. (2011). UX and libraries: User experience in academic settings. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(5), 367–376.
Francis, B. H., & Lance, K. C. (2011). The impact of school libraries on student achievement and learning. Library Media Connection, 30(2), 10–15.
Franch, M., Martini, U., & Buffa, F. (2010). Stakeholder identification in participatory processes: Lessons from tourism. Tourism Review, 65(2), 51–60.
Georgia Department of Education. (n.d.-a). Library Media Services. https://www.gadoe.org
Georgia Department of Education. (n.d.-b). Teacher Keys Effectiveness System (TKES). https://www.gadoe.org
Georgia Department of Education. (n.d.-c). College and Career Readiness Performance Index (CCRPI). https://www.gadoe.org
Georgia Library Media Association. (2022). School Library Evaluation Instrument. https://glma-inc.org
Guerra-López, I. (2016). Performance evaluation: Proven approaches for improving program and organizational performance. Jossey-Bass.
Harada, V. H. (2007). Librarians as learning leaders: The evolution of a role. School Libraries Worldwide, 13(2), 1–15.
Hasbini, S. (2017). Economic downturn and its effects on public education. Education Economics Quarterly, 9(4), 62–70.
Hawley, T. (2016). School libraries: Their past, present, and future roles in education. Library Media Connection, 35(2), 18–25.
Hussain, S. T., Lei, S., Akram, T., Haider, M. J., & Hussain, S. H. (2018). Kurt Lewin’s change model: A critical review. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 3(3), 123–127.
Independence Hall Association. (1995). Benjamin Franklin and the first American libraries. https://www.ushistory.org
Ingersoll, R. (1994). The rise of the school librarian and its impact on education. Education Research Quarterly, 18(3), iii–12.
Johnson, D. (2012). The modern school library: Reimagining space, services, and sustainability. School Library Monthly, 28(6), 13–17.
Jones, K., & Grote, L. (2018). Transforming the school library into a learning commons. Knowledge Quest, 46(4), 38–47.
Juch, A. (2015). The influence of school libraries on student academic achievement. Educational Research International, 4(1), 21–29.
Kachel, D. E. (2006). Building support for school library programs. Libraries Unlimited.
Kachel, D. E., & Lance, K. C. (2013). Librarians and learning: The impact of collaboration on student success. Teacher Librarian, 40(5), 8–14.
Kang, H. (2017). Performance improvement models and organizational effectiveness. Performance Improvement, 56(3), 30–38.
Kohout, A., & Gavigan, K. (2015). Redefining school libraries as learning commons. Knowledge Quest, 43(3), 18–25.
Kompar, F. (2015). Makerspaces in schools: The next chapter. Library Media Connection, 33(4), 12–15.
Lance, K. C., & Kachel, D. E. (2018). Why school librarians matter: What years of research tell us. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(7), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721718767854
Lanclos, D. (2016). Understanding the library user experience. Journal of Library Administration, 56(3), 211–226.
Levasseur, R. (2001). People skills: Change management tools—Lewin’s change model. Interfaces, 31(4), 71–73.
Lewis, L. (2021). Library support staff and their roles in school media centers. School Library Research, 24, 1–16.
Lynch, B. P. (1995). School library media centers: Standards and policies. American Library Association Reports, 49(1), 4–10.
Markovitz, D. (2020). Using fishbone diagrams to solve root causes. Harvard Business Review Digital Articles. https://hbr.org
Moaveni, M., & Chou, P. (2016). Problem-solving tools for performance improvement. Performance Improvement, 55(2), 17–25.
Moseley, J. L., & Dessinger, J. C. (2009). Handbook of improving performance in the workplace, Volume 1: Instructional design and training delivery. Wiley.
Mueller, A. (2015). School libraries as learning commons: Empowering the 21st-century learner. Teacher Librarian, 42(4), 14–19.
Overall, P. M. (2006). Cultural competence: A conceptual framework for library and information science professionals. The Library Quarterly, 76(2), 175–204.
Pershing, J. A. (2006). Handbook of human performance technology: Principles, practices, and potential. Pfeiffer.
Robertson, J. (2019). Makerspaces and learning commons in 21st-century schools. Knowledge Quest, 47(4), 42–48.
Serrat, O. (2017). The five whys technique. In Knowledge solutions: Tools, methods, and approaches to drive organizational performance (pp. 307–310). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_32
Shinde, R., Vikas, G., & Patil, P. (2018). Quality improvement using Ishikawa diagrams. International Journal of Engineering Research, 7(9), 46–49.
Slameto, S. (2016). Applying the fishbone method to solve educational performance issues. International Education Studies, 9(8), 64–71.
Stroup, D. F., & Thacker, S. B. (2016). Meta-analysis and public health research: A review. American Journal of Public Health, 106(7), 1206–1213.
Taylor, A., & Thomas, G. (2008). Using current reality trees for problem identification. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(2), 218–232.
Toran, M. S. (2020). The school library as a safe space: Inclusivity and student well-being. School Libraries Worldwide, 26(1), 52–63.
Van Tiem, D. M., Moseley, J. L., & Dessinger, J. C. (2012). Fundamentals of performance improvement: Optimizing people, processes, and organizations (3rd ed.). Wiley.
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the U.S. and abroad. National Staff Development Council.
Wells, R., Jackson, K., & Brown, E. (2014). Applying HPT models for continuous improvement. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 27(3), 13–25.
Wiegand, W. (2007). The history of American libraries and their cultural impact. American Libraries, 38(9), 42–49.
Wilmoth, J. D., Fogel, K., & Lawler, K. (2014). Foundations of HPT: Influences from Gilbert, Mager, and Rummler. Performance Improvement, 53(8), 32–38.
Williams, R. (1994). The non-designer’s design book. Peachpit Press.
Williams, R., & Tollett, J. (2007). The non-designer’s design book: Design and typographic principles for the visual novice (3rd ed.). Peachpit Press.
Zickuhr, K., Rainie, L., Purcell, K., & Duggan, M. (2012). Libraries, patrons, and e-books. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org
Other presentations in this group:
Back
Trips and Tours