College and Research Libraries 50th Anniversary Feature- Learning Resource Services in the Community College: On the Road to the Emerald City W. Lee Hisle This article discusses the community college environment in which learning resource services (LRS) programs exist. The history and growth of LRS programs are summarized and five ma- jor challenges for the future are outlined: focus, instructional involvement, adapting to tech- nology, service to nontraditional students, and professional commitment and liaison. It is sug- gested that, even though the LRS program concept is widely accepted, these challenges must be met if academic excellence in LRS programs is to be achieved. n 1939, Hitler invaded Poland. Sigmund Freud died in London at the age of 83. Albert Einstein wrote to President Roosevelt informing him that an atomic bomb was feasible. And MGM released The Wizard of Oz, a movie about a girl and her dog who, buffeted by the winds of change, discover they aren't in Kansas anymore. In the same year that Dorothy and Toto tra- versed the yellow brick road in search of one who could make their wishes come true, the Association of College and Re- search Libraries (ACRL) was formed. Dur- ing the ensuing fifty years, academic li- braries have helped millions of Americans make their wishes for knowledge and aca- demic achievement come true. One seg- ment of academic libraries, the commu- nity college learning resource services (LRS) program, has come of age and now serves more undergraduate students than any other single segment of American higher education. 1 LRS programs are still following that mythical highway of yellow brick, and though many adventures lie ahead, Oz is much closer today than it was fifty years ago. The past, present, and future of commu- nity college LRS programs correspond to the development of their parent institu- tions. Community colleges began in the early 1900s, yet they face serious ques- tions about their direction and mission in today' s educational environment. During the 1960s and 1970s, they came through a time of tremendous growth and change; now they are being challenged to develop a cohesive presence to deal with educa- tional problems in our society. The decade of the eighties has been called the turning point for American community colleges by some, while others have suggested that community colleges are in a "mid-life cri- sis" and are searching for new meaning. 2 As community college leaders question assumptions held from the early days, they are redefining the role and function W. Lee Hisle is Director of Learning Resource Services, Austin Community College District, Austin, Texas 78714. 613 614 College & Research Libraries of these colleges in the higher educational environment. Community college LRS programs, re- flecting their college environment, are in a similar state of redefinition. The too have had to deal with tremendous growth and change. They too are faced with questions regarding their role and function. While there is no longer a question in commu- nity college circles of the validity of the LRS concept, which combines library with media and often other educational sup- port services, LRS programs face many problems in building a cohesive approach to service. (Even the name, learning re- source services, is not standard, although for the purposes of this paper, LRS will encompass all variations.) Fortunately, as with any redefinition, LRS programs have the opportunity to become stronger, more adaptable, and better able to assist in achieving the community college mission. THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE ENVIRONMENT Background To understand the problems, trends, and opportunities facing community col- lege LRS programs, it is necessary to un- derstand the context in which they have developed and in which they exist. Al- though community colleges began in 1896 at the University of Chicago, in the elitist vision of William Rainey Harper, who wanted to separate lower- from upper- division students, the movement owes its strength to the American sense of democ- racy. As George Vaughan points out, Thomas Jefferson called for the establish- ment of a college within a day's travel for all Virginians. Jefferson believed that tal- ent and intelligence knew no social or eco- nomic barriers and even called for occupa- tional training, along with courses for 11The Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 established the land grant colleges and began a federally supported ef- fort to educate working people with- out the barrier of restrictive admis- sions." November 1989 avocational pursuits, to be taught in the evening when working people could at- tend.3 The Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 estab- lished the land grant colleges and began a federally supported effort to educate working people without the barrier of re- strictive admissions. For the first time, ag- ricultural and mechanical courses were taught in a higher education sphere. They were even called "people's colleges," foreshadowing the role of community col- leges in providing education to all citi- zens.4 The land grant colleges also pio- neered the idea of communitywide service through their agricultural and general ed- ucation extension programs. Access toed- ucation through extension programs in- creased enrollments and eventually led to the establishment of curricula reflective of vocations such as business management and journalism. Greater variety in pro- gramming led to increased diversity in student demogra~hics, which led again to newer programs. 5 In 1921, the American Association of Junior Colleges, later called the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges (AACJC), was founded to pro- mote the community college movement. 6 As early as 1936, A.D. Hollingshead sug- gested that junior colleges become more community oriented by providing pro- gramming designed to satisfy community needs: adult education offerings andre- creational/vocational programs. 7 By the end of World War II, these colleges were ready to integrate into the practices of higher education the democratic ideals for which the nation had fought. 8 Two events in the late 1940s set the stage for the unprecedented surge in commu- nity college enrollments and the establish- ment of a permanent place for community colleges in the higher education land- scape. In 1944, Congress passed the G.l. Bill of Rights, which provided to veterans the financial support needed for college expenses and, for all practical purposes, made their education seem an entitle- ment.9 Three years later, the 1947 Presi- dent's Commission on Higher Education for American Democracy, known as the Truman Commission, strengthened the future of community colleges when it called for open access to education two years beyond high school. This would be accomplished through locally controlled, commuting-distance institutions called community colleges. 10 The commission suggested that the role of community col- leges should be the provision of education for all the citizens of the community re- gardless of race, sex, religion, color, geo- graphic location, or financial status. 11 Although community colleges grew in part from the demand for trained workers for the nation's postwar industrial plants, another significant factor was the drive for social equality. 12 This drive complemented the expanding community college move- ment. Supported by the increase in fifteen- to twenty-four-year-olds, up by 68 percent between 1955 and 1970, com- munity colleges became known for equal and open access. 13 Many students, regard- less of their academic backgrounds, came to view community college education as a basic right, not necessarily an earned priv- ilege. Today, community colleges enroll approximately 43 percent of all under- graduates and 51 percent of all first-time entering freshmen, forming the largest single sector of higher education in the United States. 14 They have been phenom- enally successful at attracting students and gaining a central place in the Ameri- can higher educational environment. Problems Success, however, has lead to prob- lems. Although community colleges have sought excellence through providing open admissions to all students, open ac- cess with academic excellence has been a goal rarely achieved. For example, open access enrollments bring students who are unable to read, write, or compute on a ba- sic level-a group now becoming a major- ity in some colleges. The open door for these students can become a revolving door, ushering students out as fast as they enter unless a different, more responsive curriculum, along with other intervention strategies, are provided. 15 The time, en- ergy, money, and leadership needed to establish these strategies are often lack- ing. The conflict between the democratic Learning Resource Services 615 ''The open door ... can become are- volving door, ushering students out as fast as they enter unless a differ- ent, more responsive curriculum, along with other intervention strate- gies, are provided." ideal of open access and the societal pres- sure for standards is thus intrinsic to the modem community college. The overlap of transfer and technical courses has added to the complexity of un- derstanding community college educa- tion. Other problems include accommo- dating the return to college of single parents, women who desire to reenter the work force, older students, and other non- traditional students outside the mold of the eighteen- to twenty-two-year-old stereotype. 16 These students are typically, in the words of Edmund Gleazer, ''ambi- tious toward ends but uncertain of the means by which desirable but vague ob- jectives can be achieved. " 17 (As Barbara Moran points out, these enrollment trends are not totally unique to commu- nity colleges. However, community col- leges enroll a greater percentage of these students than do other segments of higher education. 18 Leveling enrollments and in- creasing fiscal restraints, both internally imposed and forced on colleges by gov- erning boards and legislatures, have in- creased the tension between dedication to a mission and the constraints of limited fi- nancial resources. 19 New technology and its ability to deliver instruction and com- municate information to distant locations permit new approaches to curriculum de- velopment. Inclusion of new technology in instruction requires a reconsideration of budgetary priorities as well. Gloria Terwilliger points out that "the adoption of large-scale high technology is straining the financial resources of our colleges and drawing funds away from existing in- structional supports and technologies.'' 20 All of these factors add to the difficulty community colleges have had establishing a distant, focused, institutional purpose 616 College & Research Libraries and organizational identity. As Arthur Cohen and Florence Brawer assert, "Community colleges do not even follow their own traditions.'' 21 New Direction Over the last few years, a significant new direction has begun to emerge for community colleges. In 1986, the board of directors of the AACJC appointed the Commission on the Future of the Commu- nity College. The commission's report, published in 1988, is entitled Building Com- munities: A Vision for a New Century. It sig- nals a refocused, invigorated approach to the mission of the community college. The report says: At their best, community colleges recognize and enhance the dignity and power of individ- uals. Students come to colleges to pursue their own goals, follow their own aptitudes, become productive, self-reliant human beings, and, with new knowledge, increase their capacity and urge to continue learning. Serving individ- ual interests must remain a top priority of com- munity colleges. But they can do much more. By offering quality education to all ages and so- cial groups, community colleges can strengthen common goals as individuals are encouraged to see beyond private interests and place their own lives in larger context. Community col- leges, through the building of educational and civic relationships, can help both their neigh- borhoods and the nation become self- renewing. 22 The report calls for "building communi- ties" to become rallying points for all com- munity colleges. It stresses, however, that outreach is not enough; rather, partner- ships based upon shared values and com- mon goals are essential. How are partner- ships formed? Through excellence in teaching, for ''at the center of building community there is teaching. Teaching is the heartbeat of the educational enterprise and, when it is successful, energy is pumped into the community, continu- ously renewing and revitalizing the insti- tution. ''23 The essential challenge of LRS pro- grams in community colleges is to partici- pate and contribute to this new vision of the community college mission. Excel- lence in teaching must be a metaphor for excellence in reference services, for excel- November 1989 lence in media production, for excellence in bibliographic instruction, collection de- velopment, and individualized instruc- tion, and for the host of other activities that a LRS program contributes to its col- lege environment. Partnerships must be formed with excellent teachers and ad- ministrators to provide leadership for the next fifty years. DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE LEARNING RESOURCE SERVICES History of Neglect As they matured more slowly than did the colleges themselves, excellence has rarely been a hallmark of community col- lege LRS programs. In 1939, when the ACRL was founded, most community col- lege libraries were only beginning to de- velop. 24 Collections were small and other resources were scarce. Responsiveness to institutional needs was a goal, but one that was difficult to accomplish and in lit- tle evidence. Mary Alice Webb recounts the history of neglect suffered by community college li- brary programs from their inception until the mid-sixties. 25 Joleen Bock substanti- ates this history while pointing out the few bright spots that were evident, includ- ing the work of B. Lamar Johnson. This early leader in the community college movement began as the librarian of Stephens College in Missouri (which was at the time a junior college). Johnson later developed the Community College Lead- ership Program at UCLA and founded the League for Innovation in the Community College. Propitiously, his seminal book, Vitalizing a College Library, was published in 1939. In it he called for community col- lege libraries to become curriculum lead- ers with campuswide instructional re- sponsibilities. 26 Johnson's efforts at creating mutually supportive relation- ships between the library and the class- room and his call to treat similarly all types of communications materials foreshad- owed the development of the LRS concept in the 1960s.27 Turnaround During the sixties, library leaders in 11During the sixties, library leaders in community colleges began moving their libraries from being merely re- positories of materials toward be- coming increasingly involved in their college's instructional pro- grams." community colleges began moving their libraries from being merely repositories of materials toward becoming increasingly involved in their college's instructional programs. Armed with the 1960 Standards for Junior College Libraries, 28 librarians 1 'at- tempted to mold community college li- braries into agencies of sufficient strength to meet the varieties of need in the com- munity college. " 29 This effort was valiant but needed the impetus of three signifi- cant events during the late 1960s and early 1970s to propel community college li- braries into a position of strength from which they could offer adequate service and develop into the often exemplary sup- port programs they are today. The 1960 Standards did not compel col- leges to strengthen their library programs sufficiently. Indeed, some community col- lege presidents were angered by the seem- ingly arbitrary recommendation about col- lection size. The stage was set for the first major event that began the turnaround to- ward excellence. In 1966, E. J. Gleazer, then the executive director of the Ameri- can Association of Junior Colleges, wrote a pivotal article for College & Research Li- braries, entitled "The Stake of the Junior College in Its Library.'' 30 Gleazer, writing that 11 of all aspects of junior college devel- opment, less attention has been given to the junior college library than to any other part of the instructional program,'' her- alded an awakened concern for the state of the library program in community col- leges. 31 Gleazer' s reputation and position in the community college profession en- couraged community college leaders, per- haps for the first time, to consider seri- ously the inadequacy of their colleges' library programs. His leadership in this area should not be underestimated. Learning Resource Services 617 Gleazer called for the development of 11 guidelines to encourage and support ef- fective library services both for new and existing institutions. ''32 He went on to say, It is not enough to borrow the patterns and forms and procedures which may have worked well for other kinds of educational institutions with other assignments and missions. It may be a dangerous fallacy to assume that these will fit the role of the community college. They may or they may not. What is needed is an honest ana- lytical examination of the kinds of library ser- vices required to give expression to the commu- nity college concept. 33 Gleazer' s words could not have better reflected the redefinition then occurring in community college libraries. The influx of audiovisual materials and attendant tech- nology found community college libraries expanding their role as these new types of materials and technology were woven into a program of service. Thus, the sec- ond major event to improve community college libraries, indeed to change them forever, was really more of a movement: the quickening shift toward a learning re- sources concept of service. The LRS em- bodied an organizational structure that in- cluded not only traditional library service but also audiovisual services, including instructional development and media pro- duction. The LRS concept may have begun as early as 1928 when the Carnegie Corpora- tion assisted colleges in acquiring phono- graph records. The concept gained credi- bility when the first audiovisual course was offered by Louis Shores at George Peabody College in 1935. The idea of the "library-college," also developed in the 1930s by Shores, helped mold LRS philos- ophy.34 In 1939, the same year that the ACRL was founded, B. Lamar Johnson gave significant support to the idea. 35 Bock reports that the term learning resource cen- ter was first used officially at a 1967 confer- ence entitled Junior College Libraries: De- velopment, Needs, and Perspectives sponsored by ALA, American Association of Junior Colleges, and the University of California at Los Angeles. (B. Lamar John- son was at UCLA by this time.) Repre- sentatives from Monroe Community Col- lege in Michigan and the Dallas County 618 College & Research Libraries Community College District used the learning resources terminology to de- scribe their evolving library programs. They called for libraries to become learn- ing resource centers by embracing a con- cept of service in which libraries are not just for books but for all types of media. The interrelationship between LRS and the college instructional program was also emphasized. 36 The concept of LRS gained attention in the late 1960s through the mid-1970s as new community colleges were being founded at an extraordinary rate and the LRS philosophy was instituted in a college at its founding. A broad range of services became the norm rather than the excep- tion and included, among others, library services, audiovisual materials collection, audiovisual equipment distribution, graphic and photographic reproduction, video production, audio- and video- learning laboratories, tutorial services, re- prography, career information centers, and learning assistance centers. 37 Ruth Person points out that the commu- nity college library embraced the LRS con- cept due to ... the pattern of initiation of services, experi- mentation, rapid change, tremendous growth, and struggle with challenges [which] character- ized the two-year college and its library. The need to provide learning and informational ma- terials to an enormous variety of students, com- bined with the lack of commercially-available materials to address different learning styles, educational needs and new subject areas placed a great burden on learning resources pro- grams.38 The movement toward the learning re- sources concept remains strong, although questions are arising regarding the opti- mal size and characteristics of LRS pro- grams. Some indviduals question whether LRS programs will or should ex- pand beyond library and audiovisual ser- vices to incorporate such ancillary support services as microcomputer labs and col- lege printing services. 39 Such debate is es- sential as LRS programs mature and helps keep the LRS concept vibrant and healthy. In 1972, the third major event in the de- velopment of community college libraries took place. Solidifying the LRS concept November 1989 and satisfying some of the needs that Gleazer enumerated in 1966, the adoption of the 1972 Guidelines for Two-Year College Learning Resources Programs40 was an im- portant step in the progress of community college libraries. The Guidelines reflected a change in philosophy for library pro- grams, including provisions for the inte- gration of library and audiovisual ser- vices, the inclusion of production in these services, and the involvement of learning resources in instruction. In addition, use of the term learning resources in the title of the Guidelines, reflecting the broad accep- tance of the LRS concept in community colleges, indicated the growth and matu- rity of the service. 41 Since the publication of the 1972 Guidelines, it has been less and less appropriate to speak of community college libraries. Most colleges and re- searchers in the field accept and use the LRS terminology or some similar varia- tion. Today, in most community colleges the term library has become at the least a misnomer, if not altogether anachronistic. Even with the importance of the title change, the 1972 Guidelines were most sig- nificant because for the first time stan- dards were adopted simultaneously by the three national organizations most im- portant to community college libraries: the ACRL, a division of the ALA; the As- sociation for Educational Communica- tions and Technology (AECT); and the AACJC. 42 The 1972 Guidelines had consid- erably more influence on community col- lege operations than earlier efforts and are in large part responsible for the success of community college LRS programs devel- oped since their publication. The 1972 Guidelines were later supplemented by quantitative standards in 1979 and were revised slightly in 1982, but the essential concepts and philosophy remain un- changed.43 New Standards Of course, the 1972 Guidelines could not meet the needs of the profession indefi- nitely. The authors recognized that their work would require significant upward revision when community colleges and LRS programs reached new stages in their development. Greater numbers of re- sources and greatly extended services would demand future revision. To accom- modate the changes in LRS programs and community colleges over the past twenty years, new standards have been devel- oped recently by a joint committee of the ACRL and AECT. Published in draft form in 1989, formal ACRL/AECT adoption should come in 1990.44 The new standards will once again as- sert the importance of the learning re- sources concept, but with new emphasis on microcomputer and telecommunica- tions technology. Among the changes will be the integration of (revised) quantitative figures into the textual discussion of quali- tative standards. A significant, though symbolic, difference is that the term two- year college in the title will be replaced with community, technical, and junior college, re- flecting the changing nature of student en- rollment patterns in community colleges (i.e., rarely does a student spend two years in a community college). Also, among the many changes in quantitative measures, the new standards will call for a much more realistic LRS percentage of a college's educational and general expend- iture budget. Unfortunately, the AACJC has not been involved in a formal way with the development of the new stan- dards as they were in 1972. This is likely to have a negative effect on college adoption of the new standards unless some form of support can be obtained from the AACJC. It is hoped that the inclusion of the term learning resources in the title, as was done in 1972, will encourage all community col- leges to adopt this designation. Consis- tent use of the term in all areas of the coun- try is necessary if administrators and others are to understand and accept LRS programs as an integral unit within a col- lege. WHAT OF THE FUTURE? Peter Drucker argues that the most im- portant time to ask "what is our busi- ness?" is when an organization has been successful. 45 The development of the learning resources concept over the past fifty years is evidence of LRS success and maturity. But there is another question Drucker insists be answered as well: Learning Resource Services 619 "what will our business be?" The changes in the higher education environment will have an impact on the future characteris- tics, mission, and purpose of learning re- sources. Thus it is necessary to ask "what will we be?" to plan effectively for present and future services.46 As community colleges are faced with new demands and considerations in de- fining their role and mission, LRS pro- grams, the instructional resources sup- port services in a college, are faced with questions about their role in a changing environment. Moran's comments about academic libraries are relevant here: Today' s academic libraries are facing a series of challenges that arise from factors both internal and external to the library itself. As libraries, the primary information resources on cam- puses, enter the so-called "information age," they face a number of common problems. Li- braries' [read Learning Resource Services') re- sponses to these challenges will determine the shape of the academic library of the future. 47 Moran goes on to say that there is little group consensus on appropriate re- sponses. LRS professionals may be view- ing changes in a II dangerously passive manner-expecting new roles . . . will evolve and that the changes taking place will be evolutionary rather than revolu- tionary. 1 ' 48 The development of the LRS has in part resulted from a collaborative relationship between instructional faculty and LRS staff. Instructional problems and their so- lutions have been a shared responsibility. However, Terwilliger reports that these relationships are breaking down as new technology requires new ways of deliver- ing instruction. 49 Carl Cottingham echoes her concerns, saying that new strategies and methods of teaching resulting from adoption of new technology have changed the ways learning resources are operating. 50 If old relationships are break- ing down and new strategies are forcing redefinition, what will be the new roles of LRS programs in this changing environ- ment? More importantly, what are the strategic issues facing community college LRS programs which will define these new relationships and roles? J 620 College & Research Libraries FIVE ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE The past, present, and future in aca- demic libraries were ably discussed by Moran in an earlier fiftieth anniversary feature. 51 Her research and insight are by and large applicable to the library aspect of community college LRS programs. I com- mend her excellent work to the reader. She, and others, have rightly pointed out that the difference between now and the future will likely be one of degree. With growth as the keyword, the problems that have beset us in the past will only loom larger in the future. Problems will not dis- solve into some mist of new technological wonderment. Rather, we will struggle with many of the same weaknesses with which we tussle today. As Jonathan Fan- ton, president of the New School for So- cial Research, says, The advent of a new century does not imply a radical change, a sharp break with the past. Rather, it signals an intensification of the dilem- mas we now face and an ever-mounting set of challenges, albeit ones that not are easily fore- seen. 52 Looking at the community college LRS environment, however, there are five crit- ical issues, five challenges, which must be faced if excellence is to be achieved. Not necessarily new, these issues nevertheless focus on what we must do-those areas of greatest importance-to provide LRS pro- grams with a future as distinguished as its past. Focus The concept of LRS was clearly defined in the 1960s and 1970s when audiovisual services were added to library programs. Now, there is less consensus as to what an LRS program should encompass. For ex- ample, Terwilliger argues forcefully that microcomputing labs should be organized as part of LRS programs. 53 Whether this new role will be a part of the LRS of the fu- ture is, however, undecided. Peggy Holle- man's research indicates there is disagree- ment over which additional services are appropriate to LRS programs. 54 My re- search, completed in 1988, indicates that LRS roles are clearly defined and accepted only for traditional library and audiovisual November 1989 "Both the 1972 Guidelines and the draft 1989 Standards encourage a sit- uational definition for LRS programs by accepting whatever is occurring at the local level as appropriate, so long as library and audiovisual services are represented.'' services. Whether it is appropriate to in- clude emerging areas such as telecommu- nications and microcomputer support into LRS programs is much less agreed upon, not only by LRS directors/deans, but also by presidents and vice-presidents of com- munity colleges. 55 Adding to the confusion, both the 1972 Guidelines and the draft 1989 Standards en- courage a situational definition for LRS programs by accepting whatever is occur- ring at the local level as appropriate, so long as library and audiovisual services are represented. 56' 57 Over thirty roles are identified as possible LRS functions in the 1989 Standards, including college catalog production, college press, copy shop, public museum, and telecourse adminis- tration. 58 The traditional LRS program, just as was observed about community colleges, seems to be one which has no tra- ditions. While local autonomy is desired, it is also important to have a degree of stan- dardization in LRS programs. A clearer and more consistent definition will facili- tate program comparison, foster better training programs for LRS professionals, and make easier the task of explaining to administrators, accrediting bodies, associ- ated professional organizations, and legis- lative overseers what the LRS program does. Too many areas under the LRS um- brella may also reduce the focus on the cornerstones of the LRS program-library and audiovisual services. A consistent LRS mission would heighten the per- ceived and real importance of the LRS concept in the educational community. Instructional Involvement The key to the future success of any LRS program is the degree to which it is inte- grally involved with the instructional pro- gram of its college. No more central issue exists, although sometimes this basic fact is overlooked as technological and admin- istrative demands cloud our vision. Cur- rently, there is evidence that instructional involvement is not seen as a critical need by LRS directors. 59 Other research indi- · cates that a paltry 38 percent of commu- nity college instructors use library re- sources in their instruction. 60 John Lanning, though speaking from the standpoint of a university environment, makes arguments that are applicable to community colleges. He states that the current relationship between faculty and librarians is "distant, ineffective, and of- ten driven by frustration.' ' 61 Role separa- tion between teaching faculty and librari- ans can impede progress and, as Donald Ray says, "Political divisions-librarians do this, teachers do that-hobble the li- brary in the most fundamental way.' ' 62 The most important way to achieve inte- gration is through developing partner- ships with teaching faculty and fostering a well-developed and heavily supported program of bibliographic instruction or, as it is often called in community colleges, li- brary use instruction (LUI). LUI, inte- grated into the curriculum, can foster li- brarian/teacher partnerships in the instructional program of the college. 63 LUI must be taught as a means and not as an end unto itself. LUI that offers "predi- gested information to be retrieved by pre- arranged procedures" is of little service to students who need skills for lifelong learn- ing. 64 Community college students in par- ticular need a LUI program that incorpo- rates the open-ended characteristics of the library's knowledge base in that it reflects real-world learning as distinct from classes, which may reduce learning to the assimilation of discrete bits of informa- . tion. 65 An LRS partnership with teaching en- courages faculty to look toward the LRS for help in developing new teaching meth- ods and materials and for assistance on curriculum development. With knowl- edge of collection strengths and the range of services available from the LRS, librari- ans and other LRS staff must seek to serve Learning Resource Services 621 on curriculum development committees as LRS advocates. As Mary Sue Ferrell, a former community college LRS director and now executive director of the Califor- nia Library Association, says, "The teaching-learning process is the heart of the institution and the role of the library is to enhance this process by forming part- nerships with faculty.'' 66 Adapting to Technology Technology will remain a force within LRS environments for the foreseeable fu- ture. In many colleges, the use of technol- ogy to assist with the work of the LRS is commonly accepted and survival without its help is unthinkable. Advances in tech- nology will continue and greater benefits from its use will be available. Even though, as Moran says, "The biggest un- answered questions related to the future of higher education is what impact the electronic information technologies will have on this nation's colleges and univer- sities,'' it is the responsibility of LRS pro- gram staff to keep abreast of new develop- ments, using technology to serve students, faculty, and staff effectively. 67 The LRS program should also provide technological leadership to other areas of the college. Telefacsimile systems, elec- tronic mail, and various forms of telecom- munications should be familiar to LRS staff and be developed for other college departments. One example of the way in which LRS programs have begun to use technology to improve services is in the area of resource sharing. As Richard Ernst, president of Northern Virginia Community College, says, community colleges cannot afford the luxury of dusty stacks. Consequently, he says, "We are dependent, and in our opinion appropriately so, on those institu- tions with larger and more in-depth re- sources to meet periodic special needs.'' 68 The opinion that LRS programs should not maintain exhaustive collections but should rely on other institutions for in- depth support is not a radical one among community college presidents or LRS di- rectors. In the future, however, LRS pro- grams must guard against deterioration of local holdings even as they look to meth- 622 College & Research Libraries ods of accessing and developing resource- sharing opportunities. Eileen Dubin and Linda Bigelow point out that LRS pro- grams are ''transforming their roles as col- lection centers into centers for accessing information.' ' 69 This activity will become increasingly important as new methods of storage and retrieval are invented and per- fected. Networking with other colleges to access little used but important CO-ROM- based indexes will increase. 70 The success of linking community colleges with dis- similar institutions into multitype net- works for resource sharing is likely to en- courage continuation of the trend. 71 In the future, it will be essential for LRS pro- grams to be proactively involved with net- works, consortia, and other agencies as means to obtain unowned materials. Au- tomation of LRS programs, especially the creation of local online databases for cata- log access and other LRS processes, must be a college priority. This will enable LRS programs to become part of resource- sharing networks. Resource sharing is just one area in which technology has changed the nature of LRS programs. In the future, other ar- eas in which the application of electronic information technology can improve op- erations must be developed. A measure of excellence will result when the application of technology to problems results in greater service to students, faculty, and staff. Service to Nontraditional Students Community colleges have a history of serving unique student groups, or what are commonly called nontraditional learn- ers. These students will make up an in- creasingly larger percentage of student enrollment. A significant number of edu- cationally disadvantaged students are en- rolling in community colleges. For exam- ple, estimates indicate that over 50 percent of all students entering community col- leges read at or below the eighth-grade level. 72 The increase in adult learners, an- other nontraditional student group, has prevented the predicted decline in college enrollments from occurring. 73 Enroll- ments in distance education programs, in which students typically receive instruc- November 1989 ''Estimates indicate that over 50 per- cent of all students entering commu- nity colleges read at or below the eighth-grade level." tion via telecommunications technology or through print-based independent study, have increased tremendously as the technology to deliver instruction to re- mote sites has become more varied andre- fined. 74 Colleges are engaged in providing instruction to employees in the workplace and to students still in high school. All of these nontraditional student groups re- quire innovative and planned approaches to service. Educationally disadvantaged students, in particular, need the attention of LRS programs. Carol Truett has documented the lack of community college LRS pro- grams geared to disadvantaged stu- dents.75 With its systems of complicated storage and retrieval procedures, the LRS can be a forbidding place to disadvan- taged students. Specific programs de- signed to deal with both the affective and cognitive needs of these students are re- quired if LRS programs are to serve this group of students more effectively. In- struction must be integrated into regular coursework, because these students in particular need to see the relationship be- tween the library assignment and their achievement. The development of an af- finity for the LRS in these students can be one of the greatest motivators for aca- demic progress and can introduce them to the resources needed for lifelong learn- ing.76 Students enrolled in distance education also need special consideration in the pro- vision of LRS services. Because they are not required to visit a campus or extension • site to receive instruction, special informa- tion access, identification, and delivery routines must be established to provide them with the educational services they need. With creative and planned effort, students can receive not only print materi- als, but audiovisual programming (ad- dressable cable TV channels); microcom- puter support (circulating microcom- puters with dial-access software); and in- dex access (dial access to CD-ROM networks and/or the college's online cata- log). Such access areas will be increasingly important in the future as enrollments grow. Professional Commitment and Liaison Excellence requires commitment. LRS leaders and staff must play a more active role in the higher education environment. Attending and participating in library as- sociation or educational technology asso- ciation conferences must be a continuing part of LRS staff life. However, program- ming should be directed toward educa- tional decision makers as well. For exam- ple, LRS programs should be represented in the AACJC annual meetings and on the programs of other meetings that draw community college administrators and teaching faculty. If the potential of LRS programs to serve their colleges with ex- cellence is to be achieved, it will only be because presidents and other instruc- tional administrators understand the dif- ference between high- and low-quality LRS programs and are able to see the ben- efits of fully developed LRS programs. Community college faculty and staff have never been required, nor particularly encouraged, to do research. This attitude must change if LRS programs are to achieve excellence in the future. Critical inquiry and thought are necessary to de- velop conclusions about quality service. The past must be analyzed and the future hypothesized. The direction and shape of LRS programs must be considered criti- cally in order to have a planned and in- tended future. The questions that face LRS programs need debate and discus- sion so the profession can flourish. As Terwilliger has said, "We will shape our destiny by describing it.''77 Learning Resource Services 623 "The value of research, however, is not always in sharing the results, but in the self-education that occurs dur- ing critical inquiry.'' Research does not have to be published in a juried journal to be important. Other means of commuicating with LRS peers include contributed papers and poster sessions at conferences or even the an- nouncement of findings in local college publications. The value of research, how- ever, is not always in sharing the results, but in the self-education that occurs dur- ing critical inquiry. By considering new data and rethinking one's assumptions, personal and professional growth takes place. Such growth is essential where ex- cellence is a goal. CONCLUSION There are many other areas that must be considered as part of the LRS future. The qualifications of future LRS directors, the size and type of future collections, the pro- jected need for space as older buildings are outgrown, the escalating costs of pro- viding more relevant resources and tech- nology, the need for appropriate training and education programs for LRS staff, and the local college administrative structure under which LRS programs will exist are all issues that need consideration. The five issues outlined here are intended to en- courage and guide LRS thought toward the challenges of the future-a future where excellence is desired and possible. For, although community colleges and their LRS programs are much closer to Oz, myriad challenges and hard work face them along the yellow brick road before they will enjoy the pleasures of the Emer- ald City. REFERENCES 1. Building Communities: A Vision fora New Century (Washington, D.C.: American Assn. of Commu- nity and Junior Colleges, 1988.) 2. Ruth J. Person, ''The Organization and Administration of Two-Year Learning Resources,'' Library Trends 33:445 (Spring 1985); Arthur M. Cohen and Florence B. Brawer, The American Community 624 College & Research Libraries November 1989 College (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982). 3. George B. Vaughan, ed., Issues for Community College Leaders in a New Era (San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1983). 4. Cohen and Brawer, The American Community College. 5. Ibid. 6. Vaughan, Issues for Community College Leaders in a New Era. 7. John E. Roueche and George A. Baker, Access and Excellence: The Open-Door College (Washington, D.C.: Community College Pr., 1987). 8. Vaughan, Issues for Community College Leaders in a New Era. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. Roueche and Baker, Access and Excellence. 12. Cohen and Brawer, The American Community College. 13. Vaughan, Issues for Community College Leaders in a New Era. 14. Elaine H. El-I