A Comparative Study 01 the Libraη， School Accreditation 勾心 temsin U.S.A. and R.O.仁
A Comparative Study of the Library School Accreditation Systems in
U.
S. A. and R.O.C.Margaret Chang Fung
Department of Social Education College of Education
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . 66
ACCREDITA TION AND EVALUATION . . . .. . . .66
U.S. PRACTICE . . . 67
THE CHINESE PRACTICE. . . 69
STATE OF ART ON LIBRARY EDUCATION EVALUATION .. .... ....70
1. Accrediting Responsible Bodies . . . 70
2. Criteria Used in Evaluation. . . 71
3. Self-t>tudy... ...75 4. Accrediting Procedures. . . . .76 FINDINGS . . . 84 CONCLUSION . . . 86 POSTSCRIPT . . . 89 BIBLIOGRAPHY .. . . : . . . .90 APPENDIX 1. . . 94 APPENDIX 11 . . . .'. . . . 99
Bulletin of National Taiwan Normal University No. 28
A Comparative Study of the Library School Accreditation Systems in U.S.A. and R.O.C.
lNTRODUCTION
Librarianship plays an indispensable role in the communication process of society and acts as an important instrument of education, information, aesthetic appreciation, research, and recreation. Competency of librarians in rendering quality library services therefore is a key to the advancement of scholarship and culture, which are enhanced by librarians' ability to identify,
select, acquire, preserve, organize and disseminate recorded knowledge. (42,
pp. 358-63) It is imperative continuously to improve and upgrade the quality of professional library education in order to assure to' the public adequate service and accurate interpretation of knowledge. The accreditation process, being the control of academic standards, is recognized as one of the effective methods for maintaining quality education. (18, p. 150)
This study wi1l compare the accreditation systems used in the United States and the Republic of China on the first' professional degree programs in library education. No attempt will be made to compare the contents of the curricula or to discuss the justification of library education offered at the post-graduate or the under graduate levels.
Pertinent rules, regulations, standards, interpretations of standards,
statements, guidelines, self唱tudy samples, evaluation reports and related documents from the two nations have been examined in depth. Writings on accreditation and related topics 一 including those by Bingley, Bidlack, Allen,
Carnovsky, Churchwell, Dressel, Conant, Galvin, Gitler, Gaver, White, Chou,
Wang, Whalan, and Kuo - have been read. Definitions of accreditation and evaluation are identified. The governance, purpose, criteria, methods, and procedures of such operations are discussed and compared. The conclusions wi1l be presented as recommendatIons to improve upon present practice.
ACCREDITA TION AND EV ALUATION
Websters New Internationa1 Dictionary defmes “accredit" 的可o certify 品
maintaining .or surpassing a prescribed, or desirable standard" (44
,
p. 17). According to Selde尺，however,“accreditation" is defined as the process wherebyA Comparative Study of the Library School Accreditation 砂stemsin U.SA. and R.O.C.
an organization or an agency recognizes a college or university or a program of study as having met certain minimum qualifications on standards. (13, p. 29) It is a means by which a society of its segment maintains a measure of control over standards of accomplishment. (42, p. 489) “Eva1uation弋 on the other hand, means placing a value upon, or drawing va1ue from an action, decision,
or experience. It is both a judgment on the worth and impact of a program,
procedure, or individual and the process whereby the judgment is made.
“
Educational evaluation" is bringing about identification and examination of values and thereby fostering a rational approach to decision making in fu11 rea1ization of the value involved. (30, p. 6) Only at the time of evaluation, can the values of the programs be brought out for identification. Once the values are identified, weakness can be overcome, improvements made, and strength reinforced. The first step in the accreditation process is therefore that of evaluation. Evaluation takes the form of self-study, eva1uating visits, and evaluation reports, without which accreditation itself is groundless. Because the end result of accreditation in the ROC and the USA has become somewhat different from what the accreditation process originally intended, (25) (45) these two words 一“accreditation" and“
eva1uation" - are used interchangeably and with similar connotations at the present time.U. S. PRACT1CE
The American accreditation/evaluation process, different from that in other countries, is a unique American practice, dominated by the laissez faire concept (18, p. 13). Instead of centralized execution by the govemment, the accreditation of the educationa1 institution is carried out in a voluntary, self-disciplinary, and bipartite manner. For the improvement of educational institutions and for the development of effective working relationships among educational institutions, six voluntary non-profit, regiona1 accrediting agencies have been set up since 1885 to accredit individua1 institutions. The New England Association of Col1eges and Secondary Schools
,
Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, Westem Col1ege Association, North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools and Southern Association of CoUeges and Schools perform the task of institutional accrediting, under the overall guidelines of the Nationa1 Commission on Accreditation. Professiona1Bulletin of National Taiwan Normal Universìty No. 28
professicmal education) accrediting as it is manifested in the American Library Association's accrediting oflibrary schools (33, p. 63).
The process of library school accreditation in the USA has increasingly attracted attention and interest since the first appearance ofC. C. WilIiamson 's report on library education in 1923. In answer to Wi1liams's call, the American
Library Association has since 1924 carried the responsibi1ity of accrediting library schools,first through its Board of Education for Librarianship and, since 1956, by its Committee on Accreditation. Operating under the Council of the Association, COA is responsible for developing standards for education in librarianship and for the execution of the accreditation program of the Association. (6, p. 1) It is carried out under the following principles:
1) The purpose oCaccrediting is to improve the service of libraries through. the improvement of professional education of librarians; 2) The spirit of accrediting should be that of constructive evaluatíon of a library school; 3)
A己creditation of 1ibrary eclucation programs at the national level should continue t0 be coordinated through a single agency which is authorized by the members of the library profession and the professional library schools for aclvice ancl assistance in developing and administering standards; 5) In administering the accr.editing program in the field of librarianship, the accredjting agency should cooperate with accrediting groups in other fields in the general interest of improving higher education; 6) An accrediting agency should continually re-examine and revise its policies and procedures. In the application of stanclards, it should avoid rigidity and inflexibility which would hamper general progress in the education of librarians; 7) An accrediting agency should evaluate the library school in its institutional setting; 8) The standards should be set in a framework which will permit a líbrary school to initiate experiments in professional education and operate without conflict with the policies and organization of its own institution; 9) The standards should emphasize qualitative rather than quantitative criteria. Without setting up arbitrary specifications, they should indicate clearly those levels of achievement which contribute to continuing progress in the education of librari
A Comparative Study of the Libraσ School Accreditation Systems in 缸瓦A.and R.O.C.
the professi.onal associations in accreditation, there have been cooperative and coordinating efforts, such as joint visits, exchanges of reports, and sometimes even funding support by regional associations (13
,
pp. 36-37). The accreditation of a library education program by ALA is contingent upon the accreditation of the whole institution by the regiona1 accrediting agency. The process is carrie丘out only upon the request from the institution, and then only after it has already produced at least one c1ass of graduates.
American Library Association, at the present tin況， is not concerned with the undergraduate programs because of its beliefs that professional library education should be offered at the graduate level instead of the undergraduate, and that the first professional degree should be the master's degree. Margaret Rufsvold has drafted
“
The Standards and Guide for Undergraduate Programs in Librarianship" which has been adopted by the ALA Council as a guide for institutional self-evaluation, and as a means of assisting both the regional accrediting associations in their overall evaluation of institutions, and as an aid to the National Counci1 for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) in its eva1uation of teacher training institutions which offer undergraduate programs in library science. (9, p. 1) The on1y accreditation handled by ALA is a t the masters level in the gradua te school. (10, p. 1)THE CIDNESE PRACTICE
Entirely different from the unique American practice, the accrediting and evaluation system in the Republic of China is centra11y directed and administered. In the past two decades, the accreditation of schoo1s has been carried out by MOE when schools first started organizing. The Ministry of Education has eva1uated the applicant in view of its proposed goa1s, curriculum,
faculty, facilities, governanee, and financia1 support in accord with the stipulations of the University Laws of the Republic of China. Once a program or department got underway, there has been no follow-up evaluation in the sense of American
“
accreditation". The MOE has recently come to realize the importance of constant upgrading of the quality of education,
and in 1975 started the evaluating process. It has been carricd out by categories of major fields. The eva1uating process .for library education was started for the frrst timc in 1979. The purpose as statcd 'by MOE is to ascertain an understanding of the educationallevel, the faculty qualifications, the facìlities, the instructionalBulletin of National Taiwan Normal University No. 28
and research perfonnances of the library education programs. (20) The aim is to gain better understanding of the present status, which eventually faci1itates the improvements of education itself.
Initial accreditation resu1ts in the permission to establish, while subsequent accreditation resu1ts in grading by five ranks, indicating the adequacy and the quality of the program. The Chinese approach, being 1ess straightforward,
nevertheless, still serves as a means to improve professional education in accord with suggestions and recommendations made by a visiting team. Its impact on the maintenance of quality education is quite powerfu1. In Taiwan, the first professional degree in librarianship is offered at the undergraduate level. (37) The subsequent evaluation, therefore, is also done at the undergraduate level.
The first graduate degree program has just started operation in the fall of 1980. Previous graduate programs were short or limited courses offered in the Graduate School of History at the Cultural University.
STATE OF ART ON LIBRARY EDUCATION EVALUATION
In order to have a comprehensive picture of the differences between the American and Chinese accreditation systems in library education, this paper will summarize the state of art under the following headings:
1. Accrediting responsible bodies and their functions; 2. Criteria used in evaluation;
3. Self-study;
4. Accrediting procedure.
Accrediting Responsible Bodies
In the United States, the Committee on Accreditation (COA) of the American Library、 Association is a standing committee of twelve members (26,
p. 10) and a chairman appointed by the ALA Executive Board at the recom-mendation of the President呵elect. An ALA Accreditation Officer and staff serve as ALA liaison. (6)
In the Repub1ic of China
,
the Ministry of Education fulfills its accrediting responsibi1ity by organizing Ad Hoc Committees of qualified and experienced leaders from among both practitioners and library educators. The liaison staff is provided by the Department of Higher Education at the Ministry.A Comparative Study of the Library School Accreditation Systems in U.S.A. and R.O.C.
Criteria Used in Evaluation
The various focuses of evaluation are the same for any type of academic program. (30, p. 6) The items usua11y evaluated are those concerning:
1. educational program; 2. research program; 3. public service;
4. institutional operations, management, and administration.
Criteria are usually develope仕 for these four focuses. They can be broken down into the following categories: facu1ty, curriculum, student personnel,
organizationjadministration, resources, and facilities. They are independent of educational level in a university. Whether it is a university graduate program or an undergraduate program
,
the focuses of evaluation are identica1.The accreditation standards developed by the American Library Association have been changed three times in the last ha1f a century. The 1925 standards formulated four types of library schools with quantitative measures; in 1933
,
the standards used were based on admission requirements and programs; there were also 1951 standards which were superseded by the present 1972 standards. (3, pp. 18-21). The latest standards are indicative but not prescriptive and have as their aim to provide guidance for the present and to allow flexibi1ity for future development. (10, p. 3) Each statement of the standard is preceded by a rationale and followed by sources of evidence suggesting proofs to be presented.
The six main categories for evaluation are summarized as follows: 1) Program goals and objectives:
A. Are they consistent with the general principles of librarianship and library education?
B. Are they responsive to the needs of the constituency which the scho01 seeks to serve?
C. Are they sensitive to the emer區ng concepts of the role of librarians in the library and of libraries in a muIticultura1 society?
D. Are they aware of the contributions of other disciplines to librarianship? 2) Cuηiculum:
A. Do they emphasize the unified whole rather than the aggregation of courses?
B. Do they stress understanding rather than 1earning of facts; princip1es and ski11s rather than routines?
Bulletin o[ National Taiwan Normal University No. 28
C. Do they emphasize the significance and functions of subjects taught? D. Do they reflect the findings of basic and applied research in librarianship
and related disciplines?
E. Do they respond to current trends in library development and professional education?
F. Do they promote continuous professional growth?
G. Are the curriculua based on the goals and objectives which will enhance the totalleaming experience of the students?
H. Are they also to be reviewed and revised continua11y? 3) Faculty:
A. Is there a corps of full-time and part-time academically qualified faculty members who reflect a diversity of background
,
a substantial body of 1ibrary experience, advanced degrees from different academic institutions; specialized knowledge, record of scholarship, aptitude for educational planning, administering, evaluation?B. Do the faculty members have close and continuing liaison with the field?
4) Students:
A. Are the admission requirements, procedures, and policies well formulated?
B. Is the assessment of application based on evaluation of academic,
personal and intellectual qualifications?
C. Are there regular assessments of student performance and progress? D. Are there opportunities for guidance and counseling provided? 5) Govemance:
A. Is the library school an integral, distinctive academic unit with autonomy?
B.
Are the titles and status, and authority the same with comparable reppresentation in policy making for advisory committee of the institution?C. Are qualities required of the administrator to include understanding of the academic environment and management skill?
D. Is participation of faculty
,
staff and students a110wed?E. Does the institution give sufficient and comparable financial support to the library school?
6) Physical resources and facilities:
A Comparative Study ofthe Library School Accreditation Systems in U.S.A. and R.O.C.
A. Are the physical resources and faci1ities adequate and suitable?
Criteria developed by the Chinese Ministry of Education are for generàl use by a11 departments of the university. Being both quantitative and qua1itative, they are incorporated in the University Accreditation Guidelines and the Guidelines for Evaluating Report Writing. The important items eva1uated in the ROC standards are quite similar to those of the 1972 ALA Standards and the Under-graduate Standards, except that they omit mention of goa1s and objectives (21). 1) Faculty:
A. Are 2/3 of the required courses as stipu1ated by the MOE in the Cur-riculum Standards taught by full-time facu1ty members?
B. Faculty members are evaluated on the following bases: a. Has the faculty member been certified by MOE? b. What is his highest degree?
c. How is his teachlng experience?
d. How is his research activity/performance? e. How is his instructional methodology/attitude? f. How is the c
Ol,m
seling given to students?C. Does the faculty member publish? Are the publications scholarly? Are they associated with the research in his subject specia1ization? Are they published within the past five years?
D. 1s the ratio between full-time and part-time instructor proportionate? 2) Curriculum:
A. Are the required courses the same as. the ones stipulated by the Ministry of Education?
B. Are the sequence, credit hours and course contents appropriate?
C. Are the electives related to the required courses? Are they acadernic or practica1?
D. Are the required and elective courses proportionately ba1anced and appropriately arranged?
E. Are the instructiona1 materia1s appropriate and do they meet the de-mands?
F. Are the students observing credit load regu1ations?
a. No 1ess than 16 and no rnore than 25 credits per semester for fresmen. b. No less than 16 or no rnore than 22 credits for sophomorεs and
ju-niors?
Bulletin of National 自iwanNormal University No. 28
d. No less than 24 credits for master program students for the entire year, and no less than 18 credits for PH.D. students.
3) Library Resources:
A. Are there adequate library materia1s? Are they related to the subjects?
B. The existence of the departmenta1 libraries should be dependent on the environment of each individua1 department rather than eva1uated in unif ormi ty.
C. The usage made of books and resources is to be ascertained from the circulation statistics.
D. Is the library bui1ding well ventihited, well lighted, and well equipped with ample seating?
E. Are the library administration
,
opening hours,
and circulation systems satisfactory?4) Facilities:
A. Are the instructiona1 and research faci1ities appropriate? How are they used and maintained?
B. Do the faculties have offices or laboratory spaces for their research and counseling?
C. Is there laboratory equipment in proportion with the number of students? Is it adequate? How'is it used and maintained?
D. Does laboratory equipment meet instructiona1 needs?
E. Are the laboratories well venti1ated and welllighted? What are the safety measures? Are they appropriate?
5) Students:
A. Is the practicum for students well organized and supervised? Is the allocatiön satisfactory?
B. How are the field trips and student practice arranged? Are they appro-priate?
C. What are the criteria for eva1uation? D. Are the time for advising well a110cated?
E. Are the graduates positions in line with their majors? What is the ratio? F. How many graduates passed the examination to enter the graduate
schools? What is the ratio?
G. How many graduates passed the examination to pursue advanced studies abroad on government scholarships in the past five years?
H. What is the n~mber of graduates prusuing advanced study abroad and
what is the ratio?
A Comparative Study ofthe Libraη School Accreditation Systems in U.S.A. and R.O.C.
6) Administration and fmancial support:
A. Is the fund a110cation appropriate in proportion to the entire university budget?
B. Are the sa1aries of full-time faculties following the Standard Salary Scale for the Full-Time Faculty?
C. Is the administra位vestructure sound? D. Is the personnel arrangement appropriate?
E. Can the chilir of the depa.rtment participate in decision making regarding department appropriation of funds and the appointment of faculty members?
F. Is the department head full time? Is his specia1ization qua1ified for the position?
These standards are evidently inadequate and are handicapped by many problems
,
out of which the following ones are the serious ones:A.τ'hey are not specia11y designed for library education. B. They are neither comprehensive nor complete.
C. The omission of goa1s and objectives, which is rationa1ized as having been eva1uated at the initia1 accreditation
,
leaves the entire eva1uation mean-ingIess. A11 the other criteria should be eva1uated in light of the defmed goa1s and objectives, which are a1so subject to changes after the initia1accreditation
D. The contents of other relevant standards used are not inc。中oratedinto these criteria
,
sucha.
s University and College Libraries Standards,
SalaηFScale Standards, Curriculum Standards and Safety Measure Standards. How can the library resources be judged without the standard's exist-ence?
SelfStudy
1) Purpose:
τhe first and most important step of eva1uation is the self-study which is a composite statement about the library schodl's program ，也e present status and future prospects supported by factua1 data and eva1uative comments.
In the United States, four purposes are attributed to 也e self-study: (11) A. To encourage a candid eva1uation of the goa1s of the school, the
objec-Bu/letin 01 National Taiwan Normal University No. 28
tives of its program and the degr吋 towhich the goals and objectives have or have not been realized;
、
B. To provide infonnation for the use of COA in assessing the readiness of a library school for a state visit;
C. To present basic documentation about the program to be evaluated and indication of where the strengths and weaknesses of the program are. D. To be kept as ~n important document for the future of the library school
which may serve as a point of departure in program development and revision as well as an aid in preparing for periodic revisits scheduled by COA.
2) Procedures:
The preparation should involve the executive officer, faculty, students and staff of the library SCh001 as fully as possible through open meetings and in accordance with the instructions given in the Self-study: A Guide. (11, 12)
3) Fonnat:
In the United States,. a seven-part document consists of an introduction and sections dealing with each of the six standards for accreditation. Within each of the six sections, there are two subsections:
A. descriptive and statistical data; B. resu1t of self-study deliberations.
In Taiwan, the required self-study is to provide more factual infonnation than self-evaluation. The questionnaire type of fonns are designed to incorporate all items under evaluation in a compact fonnat. The ten fonns after completion shoùld summarize the pertinent data. The items on the fonn are correlated, so :hat the relationship can be ascertained, with individual and correlated infonna-tion avai1able for each item. An additional textual explanation should be added, but it is ~not required. In most cases, such supplmentary infonnation is necessary,
because of the compactness of the fonns (23) (See Appendix 1)
Accl"editing Procedures
1) Initiation of Accrediting Process:
In the USA the process starts with a letter of intention submitted by the institution seeking accreditation six months before the twelve-month period during which a visit is to be arranged. The silf-study, a letter from the President of the institution
,
and other documents aresubmitted to COA no later than-A Comparative Study ofthe ~Library School Accreditation Systenù in U.S.A. and R.O.C.
November 15 or April 15 each year. Following cxamination of the self. .. study by COA members, they vote upon be readiness of the institution to be eva1uated. If the vote is favorab1e, the eva1uating process will begin by arranging a site visit. A meeting between the institution representative and Accreditation Officer can be arranged at ALA midwinter or annua1 conference upon request.
In the ROC
,
the only voluntary request for accreditation occurs when the institution starts a new program or a department. The accreditation of existing1ibrary schools is an action imposed upon the institution by MOE, usua11y in the spring semester of the year. The institutions are officia11y notified about it two months ahead of the accreditation visit. The required forms and instructions are
a1so sent toge也erwith the notification.
2) The fonnation and organization of the vis.iting team:
The visiting team in the United Sates is usually composed of three on five members (not more than six) representing library educators and practitioners with at least one present or former nember of COA. Consideration is given to such factors as economy of time and expenses of 、travcl ， appointment of facu1ty of other library schools
,
geographic representation,
and representatives of specialized field emphasized. The schools can make suggestions for certain specific types of representation (not specific individua1s) with reasons stated. They can also reject a member of the visiting team proposed by COA. The Accrediation Officer can go along as an observor.In the Republic of China, four representatives of both library administrators and educators are picked objectively by the MOE to be members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Accreditation and the visiting team. There is not such a distinctive demarcation between administrator and educator, because most of the leading administrators in China are also educators. The committee elects its own chair-man. A team member can turn down the invitation to go on a particular visit if he is associated with the institution under eva1uation or simply for persona1
reasons. A member from the Ðepar伽lent of Higher Education at MOE can serve as the coordinator and the secretary of the team, but without voice in the actua1
process of evaluation.
3) Preparation ofVisiting Team Members:
Bulletùi of National Taiwan Normal University No. 28 convened by the chair of the visiting team is required.
In the ROC
,
The University Accreditation Guidelines,
and the Guidelines for Evaluation Report Writing, self-study, and other pertinent rnaterials are presented to the team rnernbers during a pre用visit conference convened by the Minister of Education in person. The accrediting standards are not issued separately and are rnerely incorporated into the Guidelines.4) Time for Visit:
In thè U.S., four days are spent for each eva1uation site visit starting frorn Sunday aftemoon or evening and ending the following Thursday.
In Taiwan, visiting tearn rnernbers discuss the tirne for visiting during the pre-visit conferencewithin the specifìc span of tirne given by the MOE, usual1y in the rnonth of February or May. One day is spent for each library schoo1. Since there are four universities offering library science prograrns, the visiting team spends four days in tota1 on the process.
5) Visit Forrnats:
In the United States
,
the work of accreditation is divided into three parts: A. A prelirninary rneeting to plan the visit is held on the first day.B. Meetings are scheduled with executive officers of the library school at the beginning of the visit, inforrnation sessions with faculty rnernbers ear1y in the visit, ta1ks with facul ty rnernbers individua11y as arranged by the team chair, rneeting with students and with representative a1urnni, conferenceswith 'the present and other appropriate executive and adrninistrative officers of the institution inc1uding the affirrnative action officer, conferences with the school's non-instructiona1 staff to de-terrnine their roles in support of the prograrn, conferences with persons in charge of placernent, the institution's head librarian, and the librarian having responsibility for library service.
c.
Visits are rnade to at least one c1ass of each full-tirne instructor is possi-ble, representative student records are examined to verify the school's adrnission and procedures, distribution of financia1 aid to students,acadernic requirernents and counseling pro.cedures, observing the physica1
resources and faci1ities of the school, examining the evidence represented by the library school to dernonstrate that its prograrn rneets the stand-ards including course out1ines, syl1abi, faculty publications, faculty evaluations and student projects, conferring as a group within the team
A Comparative Study _o[ t~e þibrary School Accreditation System-s in U.S.A. and R.O.C.
vidual team members that should be verified by similar observations by other team members; planning the report to COA and preparing a draft with recommendations on site.
ln the ROC
,
the preliminary meeting is held at the MOE when the meeting is convened by the Minister to plan the visit. Meeting with the executive officers of the library schools at 出e be區n叫ng is combined with the conferring with the head librarian, placement office恕，graduate counselo詣， the president, and other administrative officers of the institu-tions. lnfonna位on sessions with the facu1ty and students are usually immediately following the meetings with the executive officers. lndivi-dual or sample conferring is arranged with indivilndivi-dual faculty members and students. No conferring with alumni is scheduled. Class visitation is recommended but not required ，的 it is impossible to atten吐c1assesof a11 full-time facu1ty,
and there is no conferring with non-instructiona1 staff in the supportive capability. Observing physica1 resources and facilities,and examining the evidence of the program (course out1ines
,
syllabi,
facuIty publications
,
facu.lty evaluations,
and students projects) are done in great detail. Admission requirements are not examined because. the entrance examination is given nation-wide on a very competitive basis. Those who have passed the joint entrance examination in accord with their subject interest wil1 definitely be up to the academic standards. The visit conc1udes with a meeting with the school administrator.6) Preparation of the Evaluation Report:
The report of the American visiting team provides infonnation on which COA can base its judgment as to the accreditability of the school's program. The team is responsible for the preparation on site of a draft of the eva1uatioÍ1 report. Verification of the factua1 section is obtained from 位le school. The chair of the team assumes responsibility for writing the report and may assign specific sections to individua1 team members. ln the ROC
,
each member of the visiting team fills in the prescribed evaluation fonn, grades the items, comments on the program, and makes recommendations~ These individua1 reports are given to 也e chair for con-solidation, avera函ng and summadzation. Comments and recommendations are expected to be explicit and in detail.Bulletin 01 National Taiwan Norrnal University No. 28
visitors
,
dates,
purpose of the visit,
and a brief description öf the devel-opment ofprogram under evaluation;B. Factual section: description of the pr9gram of the school organized according to the six major headings of the standards with descriptive and statistical data gathered during the visit or extracted from the school's documentation and verified during the visit;
C. Evaluation section covering the team 's evaluation of the program organ-ized according to each of the six standards. Commerits are inc1uded under each heading dealing with desirable features and conditions
,
weaknesses,
observations and comments,
suggestions for improvements,
and recommenda位ons;
D. A consecutively numbered list of the principal recommendations of the report with clear justification in the standards for accteditation 1972. It
is usua1ly conc1uded by the recommendations for COA actions.
The Chinese evaluation report covers facu1ty, educational program and curriculum
,
library facilities and resources,
facilities,
student practices and prac-ticum,
placement,
financial support,
and administrative performances. Under each heading,
there are ten questions pertainíng to the headings,
and a grade is given to each heading. There are four grade levels for _each heading, ranging from the best to the worst. Each heading is given a fixed percentage, e.g. faculty 259毛;teaching and curriculum 20%; library,
faci1ities and resources 20%; student practice and practicum 20% and placeme肘， financial support/administration performance 15%. The rank of the school depends on the total grades obtained. There are five levels ofranks: (21)RankI 80 or above 一 Most satisfactory Execl1ent standing
Rank II 75一79 一 Satisfactory Very g∞d standing
Rank III 70-74 一 Fair1ysatisfactory Good standing Rank
Rank IV 65-69 -- N ot satisfactory Poor standing
RankV 640rbelow 一 Least satisfactolγ Bad standing
Additìonal comments are required after each heading, and recommendations are also requested. No evaluation is made of the objectives and goals of 血e
program. Findings contrary to the school's se1f-description should be written in the space designed for comments. (See Appendix II)
8) Appearance of Visiting Team Before the COA:
After the presenta位on of its report to COA
,
the visiting team is requested to discuss it with the chair øf the COA. The visíting team cannot take p缸t in 也e-A Comparative Study ofthe Library School -Accreditation 鈔stemsin U.S.A. and R.O.C.
fina1 decision on accreditation. The action to be taken depends on seven affinna-tive votes within COA. However, in the ROC, no more consultation is necessa:ry between the visiting team and the MOE. The ranks of the schools depend upon the jud伊n:ent of the visiting team. Whatever the 臼cision of the visiting team is,
the MOE follows automatica11y.
9) Distrfbution of Evaluation Report:
In the USA the chair of the visiting team mdls the original and one copy of the team 's full report to the Accre 吐itationOfficer wi.thin twenty-eight days of the conc1usion of the visit. The Accreditation Officer sends copies of the report to the President of the institution. Upon receipt of the team 's full report, the school sends one of the following four responses to the Accreditation Officer for trans-mi ttal to the CO A:
1) A statement of acceptance of the repo式， or
2) A statement of withdrawal of the request for accreditation, or
3) A written response to the report which becomes part of the documentation which must be received no later than three weeks prior to the COA meeting at which consideration of the report is scheduled
,
or4) A notice of intent to respond in writing no later than three weeks prior to the next regularly scheduled COA meeting. Otherwise
,
COA wi11 consider the team's report and make ìts decision.In the Repub1ic of China, visiting team members send their reports to the chainnan within fifteen days after the visit, and the chaÎr sends one original and one copy of each of the individual reports and summa:ry report to MOE withhl thirty days after the visit.
10) Notification of Decision or Action Taken:
Three copies of the fina1 COA report wil1 be sent by the Accreditation Officer by certified 立lail to the President or the Executive Officer of the universi-ty with the final recommendation from the visiting team omitted. An appended statement as the fol1owing serves as notification:
“
A its meeting,
the Committee on Accreditation of the American Libra:ry Association received and discussed the 把port of the visiting team on (exact n aJτ1e of the schoo1), it was VOTED, that the Committee on Accreditation of the Amelican Library Association (lnsert here the action)1. accredit . . 2. not accredit . . . .
Bulletin of National Taiwan Nm:mal University No. 28
3. continue accreditation of 4. accredit conditiona11y to (date) 5. discontinue accreditation . . . .
the program leading to the (exact name ofthe degree) offered by (the exact name of the school), under the standards for accreditation adopted by the ALA Council,“June 27, 1972" (5)
Whereas the decision on accreditation is made completely upon the report of the visiting team
,
within twenty days after MOE receives the report from the visiting team,
it sends the reports and the recommendations to the President of the institution for their improvements, and the ranking of the program is an-nounced publicly in newspapers. Comments or recommendations pertaining‘toMOE operations, support, or policies are distributed for further study to 曲eMOE
offices concemed within twenty days~ Case-by-case study and implementation are required after careful planning and conrete study. The COA Office
,
on the other hand,
releases the accreditation infonnation to the ALA Executive Board,
the 1ibrary press ，也e Association of American Library Schools, the appropriate units of the ALA, and other appropriate organizations 扭曲e field of library education; to the Counci1 on Postsecondary Accreditation
,
the Division of Eligibi-lity and Agency Evaluation of the U.S. Office of Education,
and the appropriate regiona1 accrediting associations. In case of denia1 of accn~ditation to a program,
the COA and the Office hold such action confidentia1, but leave to the library school and its p缸'entinstitution the decision regarding the release of information concerning such action. A list of ALA-accredited programs is distributed to the above mentioned organizations as well.
11 ) Appea1 Process:
This process may be requested by the institution which believes that it has sufficient reason to question the procedures followed by COA in examining its program
,
such 品:A. whe也er the COA and 也e visiting team have confonned tothe pro-cedures described 扭曲e Manual of Procedures for Evaluation Visits under the Standards for Accreditation 1972;
B. whether 血e visiting team fu1ly deterniined the facts of the case in accordance with the provision of the Standards of Accreditation;
C. whether the visit曲g team and COA correctly applied the Standard for
Accredit
“
!on to the facts. Any 扭stitution which is not granted fullaccreditation for its program by COA may appea1恥 COA decision
A Comparative Study ofthe _Library School Accreditation Systems in U.SA. and R.O.C.
within six weeks after the receipt of the final report. A Se1ect Committee appointed by the Executive Board wil1 hold hearings in order to conduct a full and detai1ed investigation. In Taiwan, on the other hand, MOE wi11
consider a petition for re-evaluation of its improvements within six months following the time of public announcement. No appeal is allow-ed because MOE considers the evaluation of the visiting team authorita-tive.
12) Miscellaneous:
A. In America
,
the Manual 01 Procedures for Evaluation Visits under the Standards lor Accreditation 1972 particu1arly mentions safety measures to prevent corruption, such as“
no social gatherin郎，no contact between visiting team members and the institutions,
etc." Such a precaution is also taken in the ROC in a letter accompanying the 1etter of appoint-ment to the visiting team by the MOE.B. Advisory and consu1tant services are avai1able from COA in ihe United States, whereas MOE does not provide consu1ting services, but advice is avai1able upon request to MOE.
C. Revisits take place every seven years, in the States. MOE does not specify any definite duration within which a revisit should take p1ace. It merely indicates that a re-run of the operation wi11 take place as soon as al1 the programs have been evaluated.
D. Annua1 reports are required by both countries.
E. The chair of the visiting team in the States is responsible for trivia1
administrative tasks, such as matters of transportation arrangements,
appointments, and schedu1ing. In China, the secretary from MOE wi11
coordinate such matters at the instruction of the chair. Reimbursement for travelling and expenses are made direct1y to the visiting team mem-bers and the Accreditation Officer by ALA, which is again reimbursed by the library school. It is also possible for the visiting team to charge its expenses direct1y to the account of the institution. The eva1uation work itself is offered on a service basis in the United States. The Ministry of Education in Taipei pays the visiting members a fixed amount of re-numera世on according to government standards, in addition to the pro-vision ofhotel rooms
,
food,
and transportation expenses.Bulletin 01 National Taiwan Normal University No. 28
FINDINGS
From the conditions described above
,
the important differences and similari-ties in these two systems may be summarized in this section of the paper as folIows:1 ) Governance:
Professiona1 association execution in contrast to govemment supervision is the paramount difference. The structures of the visìting team and commìttee are completely differen t. τhe team does not have the final say in the United States
,
because non-COA members are not to participate in the fmal decision. The visit-ing team in China at the invitation ofMOE are members ofthe ad hoc committee
,
but they 缸e entrusted with greater authority. Their decision and judgement are highly regarded by 也e governmen
t.
In spite of the difference inεovernance ，however, the entire philosophy of this evaluation mechanism is identìcal because it is based on peer evaluation.
2) End Result and Effects:
In spite of a11 the actions taken - such 倡“disaccreditation
",“
unaccredita-tion", or“
Rank 1", and“
Rank IV刊 in US and China 一 those organizations that rea1ly want to get accredited can get to 也 at status, because opportunities are provided for reversing decisions in the.States, and in China, MOE a誼通 at improve-mentsonly. According to Shera,
White,
and Carnovs旬， the accreditation process is not 晶晶reatening as it appear盲. The ac仙a1 result and effect 1ies only in what needs to be improved. Advising and consulting is a more accurate description of the function of such a process. In Taiwan, responsibility for shortcomings is not completely attributed to the instítutions; instead,
MOE admíts that some of the shortcomíngs might be caused by MOE itself. It therefore expresses wi1lingness to study each case íf the suggestíon is made to MOE regarding the support or the policy given to the institution by MOE. This shows that MOE considers the busi-ness of education its business. No matterhow much an individual institution isto be blamed, MOE cannot shirk its own due responsibility. (20, 21)
3) The Chinese MOE evaluates a11 the programs that are in existence. Theoret-ica11y COA accepts applications upon accept可nce of their elegibility and receipt of workable documents as shown in their self-study. With the COA consu1ting seIVÍce available, any ìnstitution which is interested in seeking accreditation will in fact be given the opportunties.
4) Criteria:
A Comparative Study oftheJAbrary School Accreditation Systems ín U.S.A. and R.O.C.
Goa1s and Objectives:
The COA accreditation is to detennine how weJJ a school 's program meets its own intentions and how successfully the specific parts of the program meet the requirements of 1ibrary education as interpreted by the Committee. (46, p. 2378) The entire existence and vaIue of a program depen吐 on its goa1s and objectives; unfortunately
,
however,
this concept is ignored by MOE,
which makes the whole eva1uating system considerably less va1uable than it could be.The importance of goa1s and objectives has a1so been emphasize 丘 byShelton (41) and specifica11y by the IFLA Standards for Library Schools, which s剖ta前te郎sthe case as follows:
school should function at a university level. It should have clearly fonnulated and accepted GOALS AND OBJECTIVES." (36) In the process of planning any perfonnance
,
goa1s and objectives are basic echelons. The genera1 standards incorporated 扭曲e Guidelines by MOE are not appropriate to be used for library education, because they are not specifica11y designed to be used in 1ibrary school evaluation. Even though Allen points out that there is difference of opinion regarding uniform or specia1ized c1iter誨， when goals and objectives are involved, professiona1 consideration must be taken into account in the design of the set of criteria. (4) In Taiwan, in the case of library schools, four other types of standards have to be used together with the uniforτn standards:A. University and College Library Standards, B. Salary scale stand釘釘，
C. Safety measure standards, and D. Curriculum standards.
None of these are incorporated into the Guidelines. As a result
,
both the institutions and the visiting team members have to look into different documents - \ t o find out if they are meeting the standards. Among the above-mentioned standards, the University and College Library Standards, drawn up by Library Association, of China, have not been officia11y adopted by the MOE, and thecurriculum standards have not been revised in the last six years. These outdated curriculum standards are deficient in themselves. (43) The on1y two which are of use are those with regard to sa1ary and safety measures. The criteria used in China are high1y quantitative, but they are sometimes subject to subjective eva1uation as well. For example ，世le visiting team member is supposed to decide whether an item under examination or eva1uation belongs t。“a very la培e portion"
,“
large portion",“
Bulletín of National Taiwan Normal University No. 28
portion"? How poor is
“
poor"? In a supposedly quantitative standard, there is not de面lite basis for one's judgement. The association affùiations and service aspects of faculty members, and non-printlibrary resources are overlooked by the Chinese criteria. Thus they are neither sound nor comprehensive.The American standards
,
on the contrary,
are flexible and qualitative,
allowíng subjective evaluation to come 卸to the scene. Dean White and Bingley have suggested that some quantitative criteria should be included with reference to facu1ty síze, student enrollment, course offerings and minimal facilities. (抖46ω)
Bing斟le叮y even points out 血a前t “on叫tly quantitative standards can be measured with any c臼er吋ta羽int句y.六"
the most general terms is a very dangerous 伊rap 缸ct此i包ce."叮(1 7 ，p. 88)
Accreditation in the United States aims at evaluating the program from the result
,
or the end product,
of the education. It is carried out on1y afterìhe school has graduated at least one c1ass. In China,
the precautíon against ínferior educa-tion starts prior to the beginníng of the program. Before the program starts, the efforts have to be directed to ascertain whether the program is appropriate, whe位1er facilities proposed are sufficient and adequate, and whether the cur-riculum planned is in line with MOE regu1atíons. Such safeguard measures and precautions are probably a good way to prevent inferior educatíon.5) Time for Evaluation:
There is a revisit cycle within seven years in the Uniteci Støtes, whereas in China, there is more flexibility which m~y result in 1抖ity.
6) Self-Study:
The American self-study is very explicitly explained, and the Chínese selt-study is compact. The merits of the latter lie in the presentation of objective data
'wi也 correlations， and litt1e room is left for subjective interpretation on 也epart
of the institution.
7) The Manual 01 Procedures lor Evaluation by COA is a very detailed and
infonnative document
,
but in many cases,
the contents are reduntant. The Chinese guide is more straight-forward and simpli自ed.CONCLUSION
In spite of pros and cons on the process of American library school
accredít-ation 部 viewed by sixty-two library schools reported by Bidlack (16)，位lesurvey conducted by Edward Hol1ey and Muriel Howick indicates that
,“
there is aA Comparative Study ofthe Library School Accreditation Systems in U.S.A. and R. O.C.
a11y positive view of the ALA standards of 1972, the procedures, the visiting teams, and the role ALA p1ays in the accreditation process. " (34, p. 84) The problems co:nfronting the accreditation process as indicated by Dean White
,
and the dissatisfaction with the process revea1ed by Galvin, Git1er, Bingley, Shera and Carnovsky in their writings, the importance of and the necessity for the existence of“
accreditation" have never been doubted. A1though many suggestions have been made to find a better way to accredit, to improve the procedures, and to seek better standards, (18, p. 凹的， discarding the practice has never been serious-1y proposed. Dean White suggested eight ways to improve the process,
of which three are veflj important:1) The addition of certain quantitative minimum standards regarding facu1ty size, students enrollment, course offerings, and faci1ities;
2) the broadening of the COA member representation; and
3) the continuation of an appea1 process on1y on matters regarding pro-cedures, but not about judgements. (46).
In addition
,
the following recommendations a1so appear warranted:1) P間-establishment eva1uation/accreditation be conducted by ALA on institutions intending to start new 1ibrary schoo1s.
2) Financial support from the government be given to COA. The autonomy of professiona1 accreditation in the United States. has won wor1d-wide admiration. However
,
this process and purpose should a1so be very much a concern of the government. Greater 品sistance and concrete support, from either the federa1 or state government, in the form of funding shou1d be 斟vento professiona1 associa-tions in conducting accreditation and in formu1ating standards. Accreditation itself, however, should remain independent of government interference.3) In spite of the fact that the first professiona1 degree should be offered at the graduate leve1, existing undergraduate programs and Ph.D. programs should a1so be eva1uated in order to have better articulation and solid foundation and so as to avoid redundancy and inferior qua1ity. A11 professiona1 education accredita-tion should be in the hands of American Library Association in order to achieve coherence and consistency.
4) Re-examination of existing standards shou1d be done as soon as possible for the following reasons:
a. The present standards are ei位t years old. Socia1 technologica1,
Bulletin of Natíonal Taíwan Normal University No. 28
These changes have been much greater than those that occurred during the previous twen句 years. New requirements should be
re呵estimated.
b. There is need for the incorporation of quantitative standards.
The Chinese evaluation process as described above presents a somewhat haphazard picture. There
,a
re some merits,
but these do not lessen the serious existing problems. A lack of standards specifically geared to wholesome library education, the lack of goals and objectives, and over-dependence on the judge-ment of the visiting team are some of the princípa1 drawbacks.A basic problem lies in the fact that there is no centra1ized agency in the ROC government responsible for library service. Library service has been allocated to the Department of Socia1 Educa組on， and library education is assigned to the Departments of Higher Education and of Vocationa1 Education. In thís arrange-ment little attention has been given to some matters of importance and magnitude.
There is little coordination between the planning of libraIY service and of library education. In each of the two departments that handle líbrary education and the one that handles library services, no fulHime person has been assìgned to look after matters conceming bo血 libraIY service and education. A fundamental problem to be solved is the lack of an organization in charge of such affairs. Better planning and development
,
better coordination and cooperation could thus be enhanced. A proposal to solve all these problems was proposed to the Govem-ment during the National DevelopGovem-ment Seminar which took place ín Taipei in July, 1980. The recommendation was made to organize a specia1 Commission on Cultural Development which is to be placed in the Executive Yuan, above theMinistri郎， and reporting directly to the Premier.τ'his Commissíon would be charged with the responsibi1ity of overall planning and execution of library and infonnation services and other cultu叫 activities throughout the nation. The planning will cover every facet of the cu1tural activities of the nation, inc1udíng that of librarianship
,
library services,
1ibrary education,
library standards,
and laws which will have great impacts on one another. Better coordínation, planning, and performance can be expected through a centralized admínistration at a higher level. Such a set-up is inevìtaþle to achieve expected performance, because the structure of the nation is traditiona1ly in the centralized mode. Approval of this proposa1 was officìally announced on November 22,
1980. With the establishment of this organization in the next six mon血仇 library education and services will greatlyby 0 bjectives.
A Comparative Study ofthe Library School Accreditation Systems in U.S.A. and R.O.C.
With the preliminary standa:rds of library services, 1ibrary 1aws, and p1anning well hand1ed by the Commission on Cu1tura1 Deve10pment, some of the basic prob1ems pertaining to library education in genera1 and accreditation in particular can be solved. With reference to library school eva1uation/accreditation, the followíng are recommended:
1. Organization:
The present ad hoc committee should be replaced by a standing committee with members holding overlapping two-year terms. Eight to ten 1ibrary educato:rs, administrators, practitioners, and lay readers of high professiona1 competence, scholarshlp, and integrity shou1d be invited to fonn such an accrediting group which should retain its present autonomy and authority.
2. Procedure:
The existing one-day evaluation does not lead to a thorough under-standing of the program. The complete reliance on indivìdua1
judgment might result in persona1 bias. More discussion fu--nong visiting team members is 了ecommended.
3. Standards
Accreditatio了1 Standards for Library Schools shou1d be formulated in accordance with the philosophy and theory of 1ibrary science
and libra:ry education. Goa1s and objectives should be stressed. 4. Execution
Strict execution ot the accreditation resu1ts should take place rather than the present advisorγfunction.
JPOSTSCRIPT
Accreditation as a m~ans of educationa1 qua1ity control is advocated by educators. This is evidenced by the proliferation of accreditation agencies and the popular execution of such practice by the professiona1 associations in the United States. The procedures and standards used may have a1ways been the focuses of argument in pursuit of perfection多 even though it is not possible to reach perfec-tio說， especia11y in the case of accreditation where the process is contingent upon many factors exerted by extemaJ changes in society and the inner aspiraíions of mankind. A1though it is a restrain1:, accreditation shou1d be considered as a s1:im u-Ius leading the profession in i1:s striving for thc opürna1 instead of the minm哇a1. Rea1 progress usually originates in se1f-motivation instead of in th弓 passive obser-vation of ex1:ema1 standards of criteria. Bejng a means by which quality is to be
Bulletin of National Taiwan Normal University No. 28
elevated
,
accreditation should be viewed as a vehicle for progress but not an ending itself. Meeting certain prescribed nonns should not be the aim of the institution which strives ever to be“
better",
on a successíve and continual basis.It is therefore necess訂Y to emphasize the stimulating and the provoking functions of accreditation, with which the real essence of quality education is able to accomplish its rnission.
This study has revealed some basic differences in the accreditation/eva1 ua-tion systerns of these two countries - differences in structure, govemance, criferia and procedures. It is not intended to judge which systern is better, because there are unique socia1 and cultura1 traditions in each nation which forbid an absolute judgment on values or the blind adoption of foreign practice. Moderate adapta-tion, however, will facilitate improvement. Mutual adaptation of these two tyPes of systems is 沿海 areafor future investigation.
Bibliography
1.“Accredítation Process: A Position Paper Adopted by the Association of American Library Schools." Journal o[ Education [or Librarianship. v. 19
,
Winter 1979, pp. 260-63.
2.
“
Accreditation of Programs of Ecuation for Ubrarianship." AmericanLibraries. v. 1, January 1970, pp. 63-65.
3. ALA World Encyclopedia o[ Libraη， and In[ormation Services. Chica~
ALA, 1980, pp. 18-21.
4. A11en
,
Charles M. ''Trends in the Accreditation of Higher Institutìons."in Research Methods in Librarianship: Measurement and Evaluation‘ Ed. by
Herbert Goldhor. Champaign, ILL., University of Illinois Graduate Schoolof
Library Science, 1968, pp. 40-50.
5. American Library Association. Comrnittee on
A.
ccreditation. Manual o[Procedures for Evaluation Visits under the Standards for Accreditation 1972.
Rev. 1977. Chicage
,
ALA,
1977,
p. 36.6. American Library Association. Organizations and Functíons. 1973
,
p. 5. 7. American Library Associatiòn. Réport onGraduate Libraη School ofIndíana University. Chicago
,
ALA,
1976,
p. 37.8. American Library Association. Statement olInterpretations 10 Aci:ompany
Standards lor Accreditation adopted by. the ALA Council
,
J u1y 13,
1951,
p.23.
A Comparative Study 01 the Libral少 Schoo/Accreditation
Systems in U.S.A. and R.O.C.
9. Arnerican Library Association. Standards and Guide for Undergraduate
Programs in Librarianship. Adopted by the Counci1 for the ALA, January
19, 1959, Chica阱， ALA， 1959, n.p.
10. Arnerican Library Association. Standards for Accreditation 1972. Adopted by the Counci1 of the Arnerican Library Association, June 27, 1972. Effec-tive January 1, 1973. Chicago, ALA, 1973, p. 12.
11. American Library Association. Self-Study: A Guide to the Process and to Preparation of a Report for the Committee on Accreditation of the Ameri-can LibraηI Association, 1973, p. 37.
12. A Supplement to Self-Study Report for Committee on Accreditation of
ALA, April 1976.
13. Beminghausen
,
David K. Undergraduate Library Education: Standards,Accreditation, Articulation. Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1959, p. 13.
14. Bid1ack, Russel.“Accreditation." ALA Yearbook. 1976, pp. 66-70. 15. Bid1ack, Russe1.“Accreditation." ALA Yearbook. 1977, pp. 7-11.
16. Bid1ack, Russe1. The ALA Accreditation Process, 1973-1976: A Survey of
Library Schools whose Programs Were EvaZuated Under the 1972 Standards
for Accreditation. Chicage, ALA, 1977, p. 85.
17. Bing1ey, C.“Certification ahd Accreditation." /n the World Trends in
Library Education. Ed. G. Bram1ey. Hamden: Shoestring, 1975, pp. 84-95.
18. Camovs旬， Leon.
“
Eva1uation and Accreditation of Library Schools."Library Education: An International Survey. Champaign, University of
I1linois, 1968, pp. 131-69.
19. China. Ministry of Education. Evaluation Reports on Library Science
Educa-tion at Nationa1 Taiwan University, Nationa1 Taiwan Norma1 University,
Catholic Fu Jen Univ. and Tamkang College of Arts and Sciences, 1979, n.p. 20. Ministry of Education, China. University Accreditation Guidelines. Taipei,
the Ministry, 1979, p. 4.
21. Ministry of Education, China. Guidelines for University Evaluation Report. n.p.
22. Ministry of Education, China.
Library Science." Libra1ηy Assod仿αt缸ion ofChina Bulletin. v. 17,1966, p. 25. 23. Ministry of Education, China. Survey Forms Used for University Evaluation,
1979,p.10.
24. Chou, Tsin-fu. “Library Education in 也e Republic of China Today."
45-Bulletin of National Taiwan Normal University No. 28 73.
25. Chung Hua Daily News.
“
The Sign(丹cance of School Evaluation." April 8,
1978.
26. Churchwel1, C.D.
“
Accreditation." ALA Yearbook. v. 1979, pp. 9-11. 27. Churchwell, C.D.“
Accreditation." ALA Yearb00 k. v. 1980, pp. 34-37. 28. Conant,
Ralph. The Conant Report: A Study of the Education of Librarians.Cambridge, MIT, 1980, p. 210.
29.
“
Criteria for Programs to Prepare Library Media Technica1 Assistants."American Libraries. November 1971, pp. 1 059~3.
30. Dressel, Paul L. Handbook、 ofAcademic Evaluation. San Francisco, Jossey Bass Publishers, 1976, p. 518.
31. Galv妞， Thomas 1.“The Accreditation Controversey: An Essay in Issues and Origins." Journal of Education for Librarianship. v. 10, Summer, 1969, pp.
11-27.
32. Gaver, Mary. “Eva1uation of Undergraduate Library Education Programs."
Journal of Education for Librariansh加. v. 1, Spring, 1961, pp. 200-05.
33. Gitler, Robert L.“Accreditation: Agencies, Practices, Practices and Pr
o-cedures." Journal of Education for Librariansh伊. v. 1, Fall, 1960, pp. 60-74. 34. Holley, Edward G. and Howick, Muriel.“The Accreditation Process: What the Task Force Learned." Journal of Education for Librarianshíp. v. 18,
1977, pp. 83-:91.
35. Indiana University. Graduate Library School. A Self-Study Report for
Commíttee on Accreditatíon ofthe ALA. Bloomington, IN., IU, 1975.
36. Internationa1 Federation of Library Associations.
“
Standards for Library Schools, 1976.IFLA Journal. v. 2, 1976,pp. 209-23.37. Kuo, Li, Ling. The Comparison on Chinese and American Library Education
- a Study. Taipei, Feng-cheng Publishing Conipany, 1978, p. 196.
38. Library Association of China. University and College Library Standards. Revision proposa1, 1979, n.p.
39.
“
Proposa1 for Accrediting Professiona1 Programs: A Statement of Policy by ALA Board of Education for Librarianship." ALA Bulletin. v. 45, Janu-ary 1951,
pp. 7-8.40. Rufsvold
,
Margaret 1.“Standards and Guide for Undergraduate Library Science Programs for Presentation to Council at Midwinter Meeting, 1959: Introductory Statement. ALA Bulletin. v. 52, October 1958, pp. 695-700. 4 1.、 Sheldon ， Brooke E. Planning and Evaluating Library Training Programs,A Comparative Study o[ the Library School Accreditation Systems in U.S.A. and R.O.C.
Washington, D.C., The Continuing Library Education Network and Ex-change, 1976, p. 61.
42. Shera, Jesse. Foundation
0/
Education for Librarianship. N.Y., Becker Hayes, 1972, p. 511.43. Wang, Cheng-ku. “Librarianship in Taiwan for the Past Thirty Years." Journal of Library and lnformation Science. v. 1, No. 2, October 1975, pp.
57毛 7.
44. Webster New lnterna βfonal Dictionary. 2nd. e止， N.Y. ， Merriam Co., 1947, p.321O.
45. Wha1en, Lucil1e. “Accreditation." ALA Yearbook, 1978, pp. 14“16.
46. White, Herbert S.
‘
'The Library Education Accreditation Process: A Retreat from Insistence on Excellence." Library Journal, v. 105, No. 20, November 15, 1980, pp. 2377-82.47. White
