U.S. Library and Information Science Education in recognition system
Qiu Ziheng
National Taiwan University, Institute of Doctoral Information Library and Information Science, Fu Jen University, Adjunct Lecturer
Summary
Library and Information Science Education in the United States by the American Library Association (ALA) of the Accreditation
Committee (COA) to conduct accreditation and evaluation, since the Institute has formulated and promulgated 1925, 1933, 1951, 1972 and 1992 and so five times the approved standards, and In 1992 the
"Master of Library and Information Studies Program recognized standards" for the latest approved standards. Since the inception of this recognition system, the promotion of Library and Information Science Education in the United States develop and improve educational standards of the great contribution. This article
describes the significance of accreditation system, the U.S. Library and Information Science education accreditation system, its
operation and implementation of the end of this paper two issues raised expectations and national library and information sector advanced fellow think about it.
Keywords: Library and Information Science Education,
accreditation system, accreditation standards, the American Library Association
1. Recognized the significance of the system "Approved" is defined as: a group of educational institutions,
professionals, or education composed of voluntary, non-government associations, in order to encourage and assist the various agencies or evaluation for the students and improve their education, and publicly recognize an organization or learning processes meet or exceed the quality of public education accepted standard. (Note 1)
quality control of American higher education is the recognition of such voluntary and non-official system to achieve.
In general, the recognition is divided into three levels: (Note 2) (1) national accreditation (national) - by the national educational institutions learn to perform.
(2) regional accreditation (regional) - learn from the regional educational institutions to implement.
3. Program of recognition (programmatic) - from the professional institutes in the field to perform.
The Library and Information Science Education in recognition belongs to the third, the purpose is to protect the interests of the community, and to provide teachers teaching direction. At the same time students, libraries, and library and information services concern the quality of the public know the results of the study approval process to confirm the quality of the science education process, to protect their own interests. (Note 3)
Mostly recognized standards such "quality of evaluation", and this is a subjective peer review of the way, so the professionalism of evaluators and evaluation experience and impartiality of
accreditation has a great influence. Although the qualitative evaluation of the risk may be biased, but it is recognized in many other professional societies to do when the evaluation mode, but also a trend. (Note 4) As the system only through authorized or not authorized, without further to do for the school ranking process, so you can remove the vicious competition among schools to promote participation of the members of the evaluation can be more just, more rational to a variety of evidence do the evaluation. (Note 5)
Second, the U.S. Library and Information Science Education in recognition system
(A) A Brief History
American Library Association (American Library Association, referred to as ALA) is the U.S. Secretary of Education (Secretary of Education) and Higher Education Accreditation (Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation, referred to as CORPA) the only accredited Library and Information Science Education in dedicated institutions.
ALA since 1924 began to develop evaluation criteria, and are on the U.S. (and possessions) and Canada's Library and Information
Science Graduate Program of Education for approval and evaluation.
ALA Board of Education was established in 1924 (Board of Education for Librarianship), responsible for library school education
accreditation issues. The Commission in 1925 and 1933, respectively, announced the "minimum standards for school libraries" (Minimum Standards for Library Schools) and the "minimum requirements for school libraries" (Minimum Requirements for Library Schools), both of which focus on "quantity" minimum standards, and lack of quality assessment. 1951 published "in 1951 approved standard" (Standards for Accreditation, 1951) to a master's degree as the minimum
requirements for professional librarians. (Note 6) on the revised standards approved in 1951 the whole story, see Carnovsky (1967), Galvin (1969), Gitler (1960), Hefferlin (1968), Reed (1964) and others articles.
1956 ALA established the Accreditation Board (Committee on
Accreditation, referred to as COA), to replace the original work of the Board of Education for approval. COA in 1972 to "quality evaluation"
based on the concept of revised accreditation standards of library science education (Standards of Accreditation, 1972), the whole story, see Bidlack (1975, 1977, 1985), Govan (1978), Healey (1980), Holly
& Howick (1977), Rice (1986), Virgo (1976), Yungmeyer (1977) and others in the article. Social environment for the reaction after the changes, in 1992 through the "Master of Library and Information Studies Program approved standard" (Standards for Accreditation of Master's Program in Library & Information Studies), is the latest approved standards. (Note 7)
(B) 1992 approved amendments to the standard whole story (Note 8)
Since the 1970s, rapid advances in technology and socio-economic conditions in 1972, gradually recognized standards can not reflect the needs of the times, so in the early 1980s appeared in the 1972
proposed amendments to the standard noise. In the Wilson
Foundation (HW Wilson Foundation) under the auspices of the United States Institute of Library and Information Science Education
(Association of Library and Information Science Education, called ALISE) in 1984 held a seminar on the revised accreditation system, after the COA was President Robert M. Hayes secured a provision to the Ministry of Education to study the applicability of the current accreditation standards and amendments to the need for their research
"Accreditation: The Way Ahead" published in 1986 by ALA.
1988, when the COA has set up a sub-committee (subcommittee) to discuss whether the 1972 amendments to the standard. The sub- committee report pointed out that the basic spirit of the 1972
standards (such as to study for the evaluation process based on the objectives, importance of qualitative rather than quantitative
targets, indicators of style rather than the imperative standards, etc.) should be commended and continue, but its content is
modified to reflect the need for major changes in the environment.
COA was appointed in June 1989 of the sub-committee responsible for drafting amendments to the 1972 standard, the members of the ALA membership has long been interested in this topic and research members, and other relevant representatives of institutions (such as: American Association of Law Libraries , ALA's Standing Committee on Library Education, ALISE, American Society for Information Science, Canadian Library Association, Medical Library Association, Society of American Archivists, Special Libraries Association, etc.), and its revised target in response to community needs and use of information and Library and
Information sector of social change and to ensure the relevance of the new standards, appropriate and available. The new standard in the January 28, 1992 passed since January 1, 1993 came into effect, while CO A revised one after another all relevant supporting
documents, including approved policies, procedures, and operating documents and forms.
(C) 1992, accepted standards of emphasis (Note 9)
1. Scope and Nature of the Field
Emphasized that the standard applied in areas of the "Library and Information Studies" (Library and Information Studies), record of the range of their research information and knowledge, and all
information and knowledge to promote the use of these activities and technologies, including information and knowledge creation, communication, identification, selection, interviews, organization, description, storage and retrieval, preservation, analysis,
interpretation, evaluation, integration, delivery and management.
2. Functions rather than Work Settings
The standards emphasize the characteristics of information and knowledge, activities, functions, and to promote the use of
technology and activities, rather than the emphasis being given to research and practice in their institutions.
3. Qualitative rather than Quantitative
The standard stress is subject to evaluation of learning process to prove that proper use of resources to achieve the Library and Information Science professionals training objectives (quality of performance), instead of stress on the learning process the number of teachers, the number of devices required graduation credits Quantitative such figures.
4. Indicative rather than Prescriptive
The standard way to set the indicative, to avoid the provisions of the provisions it clear that the learning process to achieve specific educational objectives of the strategy to emphasize the direction of the Program of the autonomy of their development and learning process by themselves how they respond to the needs of Library and Information sector.
5. Declarative Language
The standard tone with declaratory statements to write the text (do not use should, may the words) to emphasize the learning process
according to this standard in order to achieve the determination of high-quality education.
6. Encouragement of Excellence and Innovation
The standard to encourage continuous learning process to prove to illustrate his pursuit of "excellence" approach, rather than just meet the minimum standards; In addition, the Program should also
encourage "innovation" concept, not only to meet the requirements of meet.
7. Continuous Program Planning, Development and Evaluation
The standard requires Program presented its ongoing planning, development and proof of self-assessment, the hope that with sustained efforts to improve all aspects of the learning process.
8. Technology Including Future Developments
The standard emphasizes the application of science and to teach all kinds of information technology, and stressed its teachers to the future of information technology development and application of some knowledge.
9. Distance Education
The standard is neither to encourage nor oppose distance education, advocating "place" and "way" is not the focus of its concern, its just the school part-way performance, it is the same criteria to evaluate distance learning Program.
10. Specialization
The standard in many parts of the stressed the importance of specialization, such as the school self-evaluation process in the preparation of the report (program presentation report) may refer to the relevant documents of the specialized Institute; In addition, the standards also stressed that teachers should have special areas expertise to help the teaching and research.
11. Research
The standard understanding of research on the development of Library and Information Science and stressed teachers and students of various learning processes help to achieve the objectives of the Program; In addition, the standard full-time teachers should be more emphasis on research work and can not spend all time in teaching.
12. Multicultural, Multiethnic, Multilingual and Global Society
The standard understanding of the complexity of the external environment and the diverse (multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multilingual and global), so many parts in the standard has repeatedly stressed that these factors.
(D) 1992 accepted standards of content
Recognized standards for the 1992 Library and Information Studies Master's Program of the mission and objectives, curriculum,
teachers, students, administration and funding support, and hardware information and equipment of six levels of the following criteria: ( Note 10)
1. Mission and goals
Professional courses of the educational objectives should be: (1) Library and Information Studies of the characteristics of the research record of the information and knowledge, and to promote the
activities of its management and use of a discipline and technology, this subject covers information and knowledge creation,
communication, identification, selection, interviews, organization, description, storage and retrieval, preservation, analysis,
interpretation, evaluation, integration, delivery and management; (2) professional in the field of philosophy, principles and ethics; (3) list for in the discipline of disciplines, and related professional
organizations have established policies and documents; (4) the value of the professional disciplines of teaching and service purposes; (5) the importance of professional disciplinary research;
(6) the professional disciplines of research applications in other disciplines; (7) application of other disciplines, the importance of the professional disciplines; (8) with the multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-language needs of society, library and information services should play a role; (9) face the rapid changes in technology and the global community needs, library and information services sector should play a role; (10) of the professional courses should meet the needs of library and information services.
2. Course
Programs should be designed in accordance with the following important and regularly review and improvement to adapt to future changes: (1) focus on the development of library and information professionals, expecting to be able to play in their service
independent role; (2) the relevant disciplines in The application of professional disciplines; (3) integration of theory and application of science and technology; (4) fully reflects the multi-cultural, multi- ethnic and multi-language needs of the community; (5) in response to an increasingly technological and global social needs; (6 ) to provide professional direction for the future development of the field; (7) is committed to continuing education professionals.
3. Teacher
Library and Information Studies, should be excellent teachers to participate in the learning process of teaching, research and service activities. Including full-time and part-time teachers, full-time teachers should maintain a fixed post, and with different expertise, part-time teachers should have special expertise to balance the lack of full-time teachers. Team shall have the following characteristics of teachers: (1) a high level of education and come from different academic institutions; (2) with different subject background; (3) a research capacity; (4) planning and evaluation with the ability and experience ; (5) and other teachers of learning and teaching
communication; (6) and the closely linked areas of expertise; (7) is committed to creating high-quality teaching and learning
environment in order to achieve the objectives of the learning process.
4. Student
Library and Information Studies, teaching objectives should be developed with their recruitment, admissions, tuition assistance, employment counseling, and other academic and administrative policy. In addition, it should be written outside the right to provide new information, including: the course objectives, course
description, teacher information, entry requirements, financial support, performance evaluation standards, employment policies and procedures. Schools should be in accordance with
performance, intelligence and other relevant standards to admit students, and considering the views of multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-language principles. In addition, schools should establish a systematic evaluation procedure places.
5. Administrative and financial support
Library and Information Studies at the parent institution should be an independent academic unit, in the professional course content, selection and appointment of teachers, and students taking such autonomy. In addition, the president and the teachers should cooperate with each other, joint decision-making, and regularly assess the decision-making process and outcome. Mother agency should provide sustained and adequate funding to maintain the accepted standards of the principles set forth in support of teachers group, management and administrative staff, and teaching
resources and equipment, in order to promote Library and Information Studies education development.
6. Hardware information and equipment
Library and Information Studies, the hardware should have sufficient resources and equipment to provide teachers and
students in teaching and learning environment to enhance teaching, research, services, consultation and communication, and promote the effective management of the learning process. Teaching and
research equipment and services, including: libraries, audio-visual, multimedia resources and retrieval services, computer and other information technology to support independent research and media production of auxiliary equipment.
In addition to the standard itself, and ALA accredited work-related documents supporting another five, it is separately listed below:
(Note 11)
The Outcomes Assessment for Library and Information Studies Resource Manual - provides evaluation of the learning process to accept a reference of the Resource Manual.
Overview - brief description of ALA accreditation system for all kinds of conditions and procedures.
Guidelines for the Program Presentation - guide the evaluation of the learning process to accept how to prepare for its self-
evaluation report.
Guidelines for the External Review Penal - site visit team member guiding the implementation of the principles and details of their work.
Guidelines for Appeals - Guidance Program is not approved applications by petition process.
3, ALA accredited executive jobs (12)
ALA COA for the operation and development in the implementation of the approved and revised accreditation standards committee, composed of 12 members, of which two must be non-IT sector, the public library representatives, in addition to representatives from the public two-year term, renewable once, the other members term of four years, and can not re-elected, the chairman shall be one year, renewable once. COA meeting by ordinary resolution of the quorum is 7, but the meeting on matters relating to recognition must be at least 8 were present, and there were 8 votes in favor to pass effect. The recognition set up under the Office of (Office for
Accreditation), responsible for the implementation of approved COA when operating in the planning and secretarial work, the office also
offers a variety of Library and Information Science Education in recognition system information to a member of ALA, the Library and Information Program for teachers, students, libraries and the
general public.
In general, the decision whether or not a school recognized by the information process of "self evaluation" and "peer evaluation" from two sources: the former for the Program provided their own written Program Presentation Report, which is outside the jury ( External Review Panel) through field visits (site visit) made after the report. COA on next ALA's annual meeting to vote based on these data to determine whether a learning process by recognition. In general, COA will study every seven years to do a re-approval process (Reaccreditation), but before the next accreditation evaluation, the Program should send their annual statistical report (Statistical Report), every two years to send its narrative Report (Biennial Narrative Report) to the
authorized office to report their current status and development, this is between two approved COA evaluation to ensure the quality of school education, the monitoring mechanism.
The following are authorized state (Accreditation), Program self- evaluation report (Program Presentation), outside the jury (External Review Panel), approved the resolution (Accreditation Decision) and charges (Fees) and other parts, and further illustrates the recognition operating procedures and details.
(A) a recognized status (Note 13)
Authorized state is divided into the following four, it is on its condition, respectively:
Initial recognition (Initial Accreditation) -
Program approved for the first time need to be evaluated in their intended office two years ago to the approved application. Program prerequisite is the parent body must be properly accredited
educational institution authorized institutions. Once it is allowed, following the usual procedures and re-approved.
Endorsed candidate (Candidacy for Accreditation) Prior to the initial recognition, learning process can also choose to apply for the endorsed candidate for evaluation after the approval of the planning required to prepare. Recognized the status of the candidates to maintain 2 to 4 years Program can always quit, but after 5 years before they can re-apply for the endorsed candidate.
COA Program will look at self-evaluation documents provided, may also need site visits before deciding whether to accept the
application. Authorized by a candidate, the director of the Program and the COA should meet regularly and have been approved
Program and receive the same information and participate in
training. In addition, the endorsed candidate will not be included in the approved list of ALA, but the learning process in school-related documents indicate the status of their endorsed candidate, the only must express this does not mean that will be endorsed.
Re-accreditation (Reaccreditation)
About two years ago, at the next accreditation evaluation, recognition will inform the Office of the Program list of approved evaluation of its scheduled date. Program and the COA after
confirmation dates, visit the school when particular attention to the characteristics and development process, and that jury members should have background and expertise. Based on the above
information, COA Chairman of the Jury of the candidates proposed, finalized by the Program agreement. Approval of operating
procedures and details, please see Table 1.
Table 1: Authorized program schedule
Source: ALA website(http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oa/overview.html)
Time Action
24 months before evaluation
o Program that "initial approval" for
o COA has been approved Program to inform their next
evaluation date
o Program to confirm the year and semester visits
18 months before evaluation
o COA assigned Judging Panel
o Program presented three proposed date of visit Evaluation of the
previous 12 months
o COA appointed members of the jury
o Send a self-evaluation Program (Program Presentation) report to the accreditation office plan
4 months before evaluation
o Send a self-evaluation Program (Program Presentation) approved the draft report to the office and the Judging Panel 6 weeks before
evaluation
o Send a self-evaluation Program (Program Presentation) report to the authorized offices and Judging Panel
o Judging Panel and the Program to develop a common agenda of visits
Evaluation o Jury Assessment Program members with teachers, students and other relevant personnel contact and interviews
Evaluation 3 weeks after
o Judging Panel sent the first draft of its evaluation report to the school by the assessment process, the jury members, and authorized the Office
4 weeks after evaluation
o Program evaluation proposed in the draft report be revised factual content to the jury chair, and can selectively send a copy to the authorized office
o Program evaluation report prepared for the response content to do (optional)
5 weeks after the evaluation
o Judging Panel evaluation report sent to the Assessment Program and approved by the Office of
o Office then approved the report mailed to every member of the jury
6 weeks after the next evaluation COA 1 month before the meeting
o Assessment Program may be subject to evaluation report for the evaluation of content, to respond to the authorized offices
o Authorized office sent this response to the jury members
o Evaluation report and the response is also sent to the COA's members
COA meeting o Judging Panel
Assessment Program and by the representatives attending the meeting to jointly review the evaluation report and the Program's response to report
o COA consider all the
information, and then vote to approval, does not endorse, or conditions of approval of the resolution
ALA annual meeting or after the winter
meetings the first Monday of
o Sent notice of the resolution approved by the comments to the Program and its parent organization
Out of recognition (Withdrawing from Accreditation) In the accreditation process at any stage, learning the right way decided to withdraw recognition, but must be approved by the COA made out of a plan intended to and inform students. Program for the protection of the students have been registered in its exit
authorized (to deal with the COA out of the case on that occasion as the commencement date of the meeting date) within 18 months of graduating students are still learning as a process from a recognized graduating . And the Program will be released next ALA's list of approved withdrawal.
(B) Program self-evaluation report (Note 14)
Program self-evaluation report to describe the learning process the content of how to achieve "approved standard in 1992," the six key elements in the main, the plan, draft and finalization of the payment schedule, please see Table 1. Such a report, the main function as a reference document approved at the time of evaluation, but also as a way teachers and students of the school planning documents, the parent organization of the other units to illustrate the Program's efforts, and provide the public's understanding of the Program the basic situation. COA requests made by the Assessment Program of the report is to be able to record the learning process of how to achieve accepted standards in 1992, indicating plans to continue to meet the standards, and to write the report as a continuing program to urge Program tool.
(C) the outside panel
Outside the jury's chairman (chair) and members of the proposal by the COA, subject to review lists of Assessment Program can express their views on the list, and right based on "expertise", "background",
"fairness" or "avoid arousing suspicion," and so on reason to require the removal of a member which does not fit. Similarly, if members of the jury found for some factors that may affect the objectivity of their judgments, which also have the responsibility to propose the replacement candidate to the requirements of COA. (15)
Judging Panel (chair) of the main tasks of planning the visit for the contents of the jury members of the list of suggestions, each member assigned to the work assigned the direction, writing evaluation reports visit and attend the COA meeting approved the resolution to provide advice . (16) President's visit sent to COA evaluation report consists of four parts: 1). The fact that part 2).
Evaluation part 3). Sections, type proposals, 4). On the approved resolution proposal. (Note 17)
The jury members (member) need only a few days (usually four days) and visit to check all the files in the content, and a variety of related person interviews, observation by the assessment standards for school accreditation process in six item and overall performance, and to visit before the end of specific recommendations, so except for outside of Library and Information Science professional quality, they need have 人 interpersonal communication, time management, team work, data organization ability, in addition they must also time, ability to complete tasks under pressure. (18)
(D) approved the resolution (19)
COA invited the jury chair and by the comments of the resolution approved school to attend its meetings Chengsuo Chang, to jointly review the jury's evaluation report and the school self-evaluation process the report, and add that not clear enough where the written report. After the jury chair and leave by the comments of school Chengsuo Chang, made by the voting members approved the resolution COA (COA's 12 members must be present in 8, and at
least 8 votes agree to be endorsed). After the COA will be the resolution by double registered letter sent by the comments of the way the director of Program and its parent organization.
Resolutions of the book include: 1). Assessment Program and its parent by the name, 2). The process of the evaluation study received approval status (approved, not approved, or conditions of approval) and the effective date of 3). state the date and the recognition evaluation target date for the next accreditation evaluation, 4).
attached to all recognized standards by 1992, a list of learning processes, 5). have been recognized in Program lies, 6 ). need to reply to the list of relevant reports to the COA and pay period 7). If the resolution is not approved or the conditions of approval,
indicating that the Program does not match accepted standards in the six key elements that part.
Assessment Program to protect the rights, has been assessed as
"not authorized" to learn the results of this process may petition (Appeal). Petition application must be received in COA Resolution of the registered joint on the date of receipt within six weeks, and in accordance with the provisions of ALA policies and procedures.
The so-called "conditional approval" means the date of COA limited, if not improve by the assessment process is that learning problems, lose their accredited status. Once the Program decided to Zhenchu the conditions of approval and recognition of their offices to be linked to arrange the last ALA annual and winter meetings, sent by the Assessment Program and its parent agency representatives and COA meeting . Will be in the jury's evaluation report and the school self-evaluation process based on the report to discuss the learning process of the problem, the Program should also make specific improvement plans, and to prove its ability to implement it. After the improvement period, COA and then voting on resolutions based on the results of the Program is through this recognition.
(E) charge (Note 20)
Expenses recognized candidate
Candidates to apply for accreditation application fee of 1,000
dollars, and to maintain the candidate in their state of 2 to 4 years to pay 2,000 U.S. dollars per year annual fee. COA's annual winter meeting of ALA regularly review the cost, to decide whether to make adjustments. If during this period, COA staff need to visit the field to understand the status of the Program, then all of the cost burden by the Program.
Approved Program of the annual fee
ALA list of approved school annual process required to pay an annual fee. Authorized office in the winter meeting of ALA and COA to discuss the amount of annual fees and fee payment deadlines of six months in the number of the annual fee, and then re-sent the invoice, the learning process as long as September 1 ( ALA beginning of the fiscal year) before the payment can be.
Late submission of reports shall be fined
Mentioned before, the two recognized in order to ensure the learning process between evaluation of education quality, COA Program requires an annual statistical report sent every two years to send narrative reports, while the October 15 deadline for the Write . For each late report, COA will be 150 U.S. dollars for the Program imposed the fine.
Evaluation of the costs recognized
Evaluation of the cost of approved 750 dollars, but also by the Program Assessment external Jury members have to pay an on-site visits to the school's travel and accommodation expenses.
However, the jury members themselves are unpaid.
IV Conclusion
Since the ALA Library and Information Studies of the Graduate Program of implementation of the accreditation has been in
promoting the development of library science education and
educational standards should be upgraded by one. Over the years,
the COA has also been responsible for the accreditation system is the only unit. According to ALA AD in February 2000 in its World Wide Web on the latest news bulletins, current access to the U.S.
and Canada ALA accredited Library and Information Science Education Program a total of 56.
It is worth noting that if I want to become a School Library Media Specialist (School Library Media Specialist), in addition to ALA
accredited library and information science schools to provide the necessary process, the more teacher education by the National Accreditation Board (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education, referred to as NCATE) accredited education schools also offer such curriculum. NCATE published annually to provide school library media specialists have programs related to teacher
education program under its approved list. (Note 21) As recognized by different institutions of the two recognized by the Comparative Study Program, see Grayson's doctoral thesis (22), and Royal (23) and Gibbons (24) master's thesis.
At last, I would like to raise two issues worthy of further consideration -
1. Authorization does not necessarily guarantee the survival of this Program:
U.S. since 1978, a large number of long-standing recognized by the ALA library schools have closed the famous; while some have not been recognized in regional small-scale library schools are allowed to continue enrollment. Although the parent body that closed well- known libraries in their respective schools is based on the
consideration of various factors, but reflect the recognition system guarantees even if the Library and Information Science Education process quality, quality can not guarantee its survival. So, what is the meaning recognition system? Paris doctoral thesis (25) is to discuss the issue.
2. Taiwan approved the implementation of Library and Information Science Education and the
feasibility of the system:
China's national audit by the Ministry of Education degree awarded by higher education institutions are recognized. The appointments of professional librarians, the public information unit Youyi books Civil Service Examination, to take distribution of their librarians, even if recognized by the Ministry of Education, Department of Library and Information Science graduate and do not have professional librarians as the conditions of these libraries . In addition, the Library and Information Science Education in Taiwan focus on a small number of schools (National Taiwan University, National Taiwan Normal University, Fu Jen, Tamkang University, Shih Hsin, Xuanzang, National Chengchi University, ZTE) to provide, the map information department teachers and practitioners among the experts How much will teachers and students, students, seniors (percent), school brother (sister) and so affect the objectivity of the assessment of interpersonal factors exist, even if the Library
Association of ALA model to the implementation of accreditation system, "justice" and "to avoid arousing suspicion," the assessment group would be difficult for the candidates generated. The status of the above, I believe that Taiwan is currently no suitable environment for the implementation of Library and Information Science Education in recognition system.
Explanatory Note
1. Rice, PO "T he accreditation of library and information science education: a content analysis of COA recommendations, 1973-1985." (Ph.D. Dissertation, SUNY Buffalo, 1986), 1-2.
2. With the pre-note, page 2.
3. American Library Association. "Overview: Accreditation under the 1992 Standards for Accreditation of Master's Programs in Library and Information Studies" Retrieved February 24, 2000 from WWW =
http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oa/overveiw.html
4. Robbins, JB "Standards for accreditation, 19xx." Journal of Library Administration 16:1-2 (1992): 11-12.
5. With Note 3.
6. Full Text. "Library and Information Science Education
Standards of." Chinese Library Association 63 (1999), page 108.
7. With Note 3.
8. With note 4, page 6-7.
9. With note 4, page 8-10.
10. With Note 6, page 108-109.
11. With Note 3.
12. With Note 3.
13. With Note 3.
14. With Note 3.
15. With Note 3.
16. With Note 3.
17. Frankie, SO "Preparing for and the management of the Accreditation Visit." Journal of Library Administration 16:1-2 (1992): 205-206.
18. With the former note, p. 209.
19. With Note 3.
20. With Note 3.
21. American Library Association. "Guidelines for choosing a Master's Program in Library and Information Studies" Retrieved March 8, 2000 from WWW = http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oa/guide.html
22. Grayson, B. L. R. "A comparative analysis of the American Library Association accredited graduate library schools and selected non-accredited graduate library schools in the United States utilizing the 1972 ALA
Accreditation Standard." (Ph. D. Dissertation, Peabody College for Teachers of Vanderbilt, 1983)
23. Royal, SW "A profile of selected characteristics of faculty in library education programs lacking accreditation by the American Library Association." (MA Thesis, Texas Woman's University, 1990)
24. Gibbons, RD "A core curriculum? Master's degree catalog course offerings at universities and colleges with NCATE-approved school library media specialist programs." (MS Thesis, Central Missouri State University, 1999) 25. Paris, M. "Library school closings: four case studies." (Ph. D. Dissertation,
Indiana University, 1986)
