Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education & Practice, 2011

Library and Information Science Examination:
A Report on Provisional Implementation in Japan
HIROYA TAKEUCHI, hiroya@L.Achiba-u.ac.jp
Chiba University
AKIRA NEMOTO, anemoto@p.u-tokyo.ac.jp
The University of Tokyo
MAKIKO MIWA, miwamaki@ouj.ac.jp
The Open University of JapanYUKO YOSHIDA, yyoshida@slis.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba
EIJI AOYAGI, aoyagi@kisc.meiji.ac.jp
Meiji University
KENJI KOYAMA, koyama.kenji@nihon-u.ac.jp
Nihon University
FUKUJI IMAI, fukuji@rc5.so-net.ne.jp
The University of Tokyo

ABSTRACTThis paper aims to describe the details of the challenging Library and Information Science (LIS)
examinations, which the Japan Society of Library and Information Science (JSLIS) has conducted annuallyon a trial basis since 2007, and discuss some of observations. For such purposes, its objective, coverageof subject areas, examination style and reporting of results to students are described. We also discuss our
experiences and observations of the provisional implementation of the LIS examination over the past four
years. The results of the examination indicated that senior students achieved higher scores than juniorstudents in general, and that the students from university LIS faculties achieved generally higher scoresthan did those from the Shisho certificate courses, which cover a more limited subject area of LIS than LIS
specialty programs. These results suggest that the examination is a good measure of student proficiency,
which reflects the quality of the educational programs. The problems to be solved before full-scale
implementation can be summarized as follows: 1) the lack of standard textbooks covering the scope of theexamination; 2) the low economic base for an annual examination; 3) lack of awareness of the need forthis examination in standardizing the curricula for LIS education; and 4) the lack of a mechanism toimplement the examination nationwide to facilitate participation by students living far from examination
venues.
Keywords: Standardization of LIS education; Outcome evaluation; LIPER; LIS examination, Japan;
Japan.

INTRODUCTION
Aims of this study
Quality assurance is essential to maintain professional reliability and credibility of librarians
trained in library and information science (LIS) educational institutions or programs. One way toensure quality is through the accreditation of educational programs by professionalorganizations, a method that is accepted widely in the USA and Canada. Another way is to use
outcome evaluation through an examination that measures the students‘ understanding of thecontent of LIS educational and training programs. Following the proposals of the Library andInformation Professionals Education Reform (LIPER) research project, the Japan Society of
Library and Information Science (JSLIS) initiated annual LIS examinations on a trial basis in
2007, and more than 1,000 students have taken them since. This paper describes the details of
the challenging examinations and discusses our observations.
124

Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education & Practice, 2011

Background
The LIS training/educational programs in Japan are categorized into five types. According to
Nemoto (2009), these are the following:
1) Shisho (a certificate for librarians working for public libraries) training—provided by morethan 250 universities and colleges (including two-year colleges). The Shisho qualification is
stipulated in the Public Library Law enacted in 1950. The ordinance by the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) also specified the curriculumand number of credits in this program. The present 20-credit curriculum will be expanded tostrengthen the IT and information service areas in the curriculum in 2012.
2) Shisho-kyoyu (certificate for teachers working for school library management) training—provided by more than one hundred universities, colleges and training centers for teachers.
The Shisho-kyoyu qualification is stipulated in the School Library Law enacted in 1953. The
ordinance by MEXT also specified the number of credits and curriculum for this program.
Until now, a 10-credit program has been specified.
3) An undergraduate program—LIS as a major subject provided by fewer than ten universities.
4) A master‘s level graduate program in LIS provided by fewer than ten universities.
5) A doctoral level graduate program in LIS provided by fewer than five universities.
These five types of educational programs exist in parallel and complexity the situation in Japan.
LIPER ProjectIn this environment, the LIPER project was launched in 2003 as a three-year project to create a
blueprint for restructuring the LIS educational programs. Based on a series of studies, LIPER
reached the following understanding of current LIS education in Japan (Miwa, Kasai and
Miyahara, 2008):
1) The legal basis of Japanese LIS education was established by the Public Library Law and
the School Library Law, both of which were enacted more than 50 years ago. The structureof LIS education has not changed since it was established.
2) The legal framework for current LIS education is limited to those library professionals or
Shisho working for public or school libraries.
3) Current LIS education has expanded from traditional print-oriented library education to ICT
and knowledge-oriented informatics, in not only Western but also Asian countries.
4) The Shisho certificate receives limited recognition in Japanese society, because ofproblems inherent in the education system. Very small numbers of graduates with the
Shisho certificate have the opportunity to be hired by public or other types of libraries.
5) On the other hand, Japanese colleges and universities produce more than 12,000
graduates certified as Shisho annually.
6) Because the framework of Japanese LIS education is based on a training program, LIS
courses have seldom been included in formal university or college programs.
7) The current curriculum for the formal library-training program, stipulated by the MEXT
ordinance and offered by colleges and universities, is problematic even for public librarians.
Two goals were proposed on the basis of these results:1) to ―establish the LIS
examination for students so that they are able to self-evaluate learning from LIS education andobtain better employment opportunities,‖ and 2) to ―introduce a new standard curriculum forprofessional education in LIS that emphasizes the core topics of information organization,
information resources and services, information systems and retrieval, management and IT, andfacilitates understanding of user behavior‖ (Nemoto, 2009).

125

Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education & Practice, 2011

IMPLEMENTATION OF A PROVISIONAL LIS EXAMINATION
Report of the JSLIS ad-hoc committee
Based on the proposals of LIPER, the JSLIS Executive Board organized an ad-hoc committee
to consider the implementation of a LIS examination by the Society in 2006. The committee‘sreport, submitted to the JSLIS Executive Board, indicated the necessity of the society‘s
involvement in the examination to improve the quality of LIS education in Japan. The committee
also proposed some requirements for implementation of the examination, including thefollowing.
The examination should improve the quality of education for information specialists, byverifying the level of knowledge and skills obtained by information professionals.
Eligibility for the examination should not be restricted to Shisho certificate holders, but
open to everyone who is interested in the LIS field.
The scope of the examination should be the ―core‖ areas identified by LIPER for the
moment, but should be reconsidered in future with a view to including related areas
such as record management, archiving and museum studies.
Responsibility for the production of examination questions should be assumed by thesociety, but implementation and administration should be performed in cooperation withor delegated to other institutions.
In addition, the ad-hoc committee pointed out issues for further consideration anddiscussion, such as estimation of workload, workforce and examination administration costs,
investigation of effects of the examination and cooperation with other organizations in relatedareas. Such cooperation could investigate the possibility of expanding the present examination
to one covering information professionals in various areas such as archivists and professionals
in record management.
Implementation in 2007
In response to the ad-hoc committee‘s proposals, JSLIS first administrated the provisional LIS
examination in 2007, in close cooperation with the research team succeeding the LIPER project.
The ―core‖, which comprises eight areas, has been the targeted scope of the examination (seeTable 1).Twenty-four examination questions covering the eight areas were produced. Eachquestion had five choices, and students were asked to select the correct response. An answer
sheet was designed to enable students to mark an answer column for each question and toallow the answers to be processed by computer. The examination questions were sent to 10
participating universities or colleges providing LIS educational programs, and 549 students took
the examination in 2007.
Table 1: Core areas of LIS education, as identified by LIPER
Areas
Fundamentals of Library
and Information Science

CourseFundamentals of
Library and Information
Science
Fundamentals ofInformation
InternshipResearch methods

Information users

Information-seeking
behavior
User instruction

Organization of
information resource

Organization of
information resource: A

Major content
Understanding the basis of information flow,
legislation and policies pertaining to libraries andinformation
Understanding information and knowledge insociety
Gaining practical experience in libraries orinformation service agencies
Understanding the research methods required byinformation professionals
Understanding information-seeking behavior andits models
Understanding the curriculum for user instruction
and methods of information literacy training
Understanding bibliographic descriptions,cataloguing rules and name authority control
126

Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education & Practice, 2011

Organization of
information resource: B

Information media

Understanding content analysis and its
representation (classification, subject headings,
descriptors)
Practicing cataloging, classification and subject
indexing

Organization of
information resource:
practicum
Organization of
information resources:
special practicum A
Organization of
information resources:
special practicum B
Information media

Practicing cataloging of special collections suchas rare books, manuscript and nonbook typematerials
Practicing cataloging, indexing and abstracting insome subject areas

Collection development

Information media
specialInformation services

Information services
Information services:
practicum

Information systems

Management

Digital information

Basics of information
systems for libraries
Information retrieval
Database development:
practicum
Information retrieval:practicum
Basics of librarymanagement
Management ofintellectual information
resources
Planning oflibrary/information
services: practicum
Digital librarymanagement
Digital content: basics

Digital content: applied

Understanding the characteristics of various
types of media
Understanding the theory and historicalbackground of collection development, bookselection and the book trade
Developing a deep understanding of thecharacteristics of media, including selection andpreservation
Understanding the basics of information services
and their requirements in human society
Practicing information services in areas such as
knowledge of reference tools, questions andanswers, compilation of pathfinders
Understanding the basics of information systems
for libraries, databases and information networks
Understanding the basic techniques of
information retrieval
Practice of database development, including
utilization of DBMS
Practicing information retrieval
Understanding the management of libraries andinformation agencies
Understanding the basics of intellectual
information resources management, including
copyright, correct management, licensing andconsortia
Practicing library/information services and theirmarketing
Understanding digital libraries, digital resource
management, copyright and technical standards
for digital resources
Understanding basic information technology suchas information networks, databases, natural
language processing for processing digitalcontent
Understanding the collection, organization,
storage, preservation and provision of digitalcontent

As an output of the examination, a results sheet was produced for each student. The
results sheet contains a score, standard deviation, rankings of the student relative to allparticipants and to students at his/her university, and a radar chart showing the differences
between his/her marks and the average in eight areas. The sheet was designed to help
students evaluate their strengths and/or weaknesses in basic LIS knowledge. The participating
universities and colleges received a summary of their students‘ results. A detailed note on eachquestion was accessible to participating students via the Internet to allow them to review theresults and to study further.
127

Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education & Practice, 2011

Implementation in 2008
There were two major changes in the 2008 examination. First, the number of examinationquestions was increased to 50. Second, the three examination venues were set up in Tokyo,
Osaka and Tsukuba instead of the participating universities and colleges, to simulate theplanned future examination. Such a simulation was expected to reveal any problems in thedelivery of examination and to allow estimation of the workload and cost of administration. In
2008, 277 students from 20 universities and colleges took the examination. The same outputs
were provided for participating students and educational institutions as in the 2007 examination.
Implementation in 2009
There was no major change in the scheme of examination and outputs in the 2009
implementation except that some of the provisional examination was administered by the
Information Science and Technology Association, Japan to reduce the workload of the LIS
Examination Committee of JSLIS. Financial assistance was provided by the Library
Advancement Foundation to cover the cost of the examination. In 2009, 302 students from 25
universities and colleges took the examination.
Implementation in 2010
There were three major changes in the 2010 examination. First, a workbook was published inorder to show students the scope of the examination. In this workbook, based on the 2008
examination questions, a detailed explanation and recommended book list for further study wasprovided for each question. Second, an examination fee (2000 yen) was charged for eachparticipant. It aimed to simulate the process of receiving applications with payment and to
estimate the decrease in number of participants caused by the new charge. Third, theexamination was open to everyone interested in LIS. This meant that this was the firstprovisional implementation of an examination in which librarians or information specialists could
participate in addition to LIS students.
A total of 270 applied, but only 238 took the examination in 2010. About 55% of theparticipants were students from universities or colleges at graduate or undergraduate level andthe remainder came from various libraries/information organizations or other institutions,
including government offices and private companies. The same outputs as the previous year
were provided for each participant and educational institutions applied for the examination as agroup. In addition, the participants who recorded higher scores (more than 90%) werecommended. Such commendations were intended to encourage the participants to study
further.
ANALYSIS OF EXAMINATION RESULTS
Average scores
The average scores of the examinations over four years are shown in Table 2. There is a large
discrepancy between the scores for 2009 and 2010. This may be because the questions wereeasier in 2010 than in 2009 or previous years, and the high scores achieved by the participantsin the nonstudent group increased the average score.
Each question was composed to meet the criteria that 80 percent of the participants could
choose the correct answer if they had studied the topic of the question. However, there havebeen questions with a lower rate of correct answers. The proportion of such questions was
drastically decreased in the 2010 examination. This indicated that the committee members
became skilled in formulating questions after several years of experience and could formulate
the questions at a consistent level of difficulty.

128

Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education & Practice, 2011

Table 2: Average score
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010

Average score
57.1
54.6
52.5
70.2

Note: Because the number of possible marks is not the same every year, the average score is converted to apercentage.

Score distribution
The score distribution is not normal, and there are multiple peaks (see Figures 1, 2 and 3). The
first peak in the results of the 2008 and 2009 examinations is formed by students majoring in
LIS. That in the 2010 examination represents the nonstudent participants.

Figure 1: Distribution of Scores (2008)
Note: Full score is 50

Figure 2: Distribution of Scores (2009)
Note: Full score is 49.

129

Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education & Practice, 2011

Figure 3: Distribution of Scores (2010)
Note: Full score is 50.

Among the students, the LIS-major students generally achieve higher scores every year.
For example, the average score of these students is 10 points higher in the 2008 and 2009
examinations than for those majoring in humanities (see Table 3).
Table 3: Average score by subject background (2008 and 2009)
Subject background
SocialScience

Law
Economics & Management.
Sociology
Subtotal
Humanities
LIS
OthersInformatics
Science & Technology
Food & Agriculture
Others
Total

Number
9
14
19
41
134
92
2
3
2
35
302

2009
Average score
49.4
52.7
49.0
50.4
49.6
61.0
62.2
38.2
38
76.1
52.5

Number
11
5
13
29
104
113
2
4
0
25
277

2008
Average score
52.6
48.0
55.0
52.8
50.0
60.0
60.0
61.0
–
50.0
54.6

Note: Average score is converted to a percentage

The comparison of average scores by duration of LIS study is shown in Table 4. This
indicates that senior students generally achieved higher scores than junior students.
Interestingly, the range of average scores among LIS-major participants and those in otherdisciplines is not large in the 2010 examination, to which allowed nonstudents were admitted(See Table 5). Those who have a science and technology background, although there are very
few, tend to achieve higher scores, particularly in the areas of organization of information
resources, information media, information systems and digital information.
Table 4: Average score by study years (2008 and 2009)

One year
Two years
Three years
Four years & more
Total

No.
34
98
140
30
302

2009
Ave. score
48.0
50.2
54.1
58.8
52.5

No.
43
101
108
48
277

2008
Ave. score
46.4
52.2
58.8
60.0
54.6

Note: Average score is converted to a percentage

130

Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education & Practice, 2011

Table 5: Average score by subject background (2010)
Background
LIS
Humanities
Social Science
Science &Technology
Others
Not specified
Total

No.
84
92
23
7
20
12
238

Ave. score
75.8
68.0
65.4
73.4
60.8
70.6
70.2

SD
5.1
7.4
6.8
5.1
7.8
4.7
6.9

DISCUSSION
The results of the provisional examination indicated that senior students who had studied LIS fora longer period in general achieved higher scores than junior students and that those majoringin LIS achieved generally higher scores than did those from the Shisho certificate courses,
which cover a more limited subject area of LIS than major programs. These results suggest thatthe examination is a good measure of student proficiency and reflects the quality of theeducational programs. For nonstudent participants, it seems the examination is a good
opportunity to evaluate and to review their knowledge and skills.
Four years of formulating examination questions has enabled committee members to
produce questions at the expected level consistently. The administration of the examination has
been stable and is improving, and cooperation with other organization is functioning well.
Through the provisional implementation, however, we have confronted some problems tobe solved before full-scale implementation is undertaken.
Lack of standard textbooks covering the scope of the examination
We recognize the need for standard textbooks as a reference framework in formulating
examination questions. At the same time, from the comments of examination participants, werecognize that such textbooks would help students or participants prepare for the examination.
To accommodate such needs, the preparation of standard textbooks has begun as part of theresearch project named LIPER3, which is next in the series of LIPER projects. It should be also
noted that such textbook must be based on the discussion concerning the core competencies
on LIS profession, which is still lacking in Japan.
The lack of an economic baseWe have only a low economic base from which to conduct the examination. The past four
examinations were implemented with external financial assistance from the Grants-in-Aid for
Scientific Research, which is a form of government funding scheme for research, and from the
Library Advancement Foundation, one of the major funding agencies for library activities.
According to our rough calculation based on the experience of the past three years, theamount of 2,000,000 Japanese Yen is required annually to implement the examination. Without
external financial assistance, 500 participants paying an examination fee of 4,000 Japanese
Yen are needed to implement the examination on a cost recovery basis. Considering the rather
limited number of participants in the recent examinations, urgent consideration of ways toincrease the number of participants is required to achieve sustainability. It is recognized thatincentives such as linking the examination records to job opportunities would be a good way to
attract the students to the examination, but would require a longer time to realize, if it is feasible.
Lack of awareness of the need for this examination in standardizing ILS education
curricula
It seems that the examination is gaining wider attention among those who are concerned with
LIS education, but the need for this examination in standardizing curricula has not beenrecognized. Harmonization between the proposed core areas of LIPER targeted in the131Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education & Practice, 2011

examination and the new 24-credit curriculum for Shisho training stipulated by the MEXT
ordinance should be sought.
Lack of a mechanism for implementing the examination nationwide
As mentioned in the previous chapters, we established examination venues in Tokyo, Osakaand Tsukuba for the convenience of participants. It is very desirable, however, to have morevenues to enable students from around the country to participate in the examination easily. One
possible way to achieve this is to share the administrative roles with universities in several
regions to provide venues to cover all the areas of Japan.
CONCLUSION
As mentioned above, we still have some problems to be solved before implementing the LIS
examination in full scale. We have also expected that the provisional implementation of theexamination would stimulate the discussion on the standardization of curricula or on the
improvement of the quality of LIS education in Japan. It is not, however, always successful.
The revision of the Public Library Law in 2008 changed the legal status of the Shisho
training conducted for more than 50 years, incorporating its curriculum into formal university
educational programs and introducing the new curriculum in 2012. The evaluation is thus more
important than previously. The provisional implementation over four years shows that theexamination is a good way to evaluate the outcomes of the program and proves that it ispossible to formulate examination questions consistently. However, more participants areneeded to continue provision of the examination in a sustainable manner.
It should be noted that the international trend in LIS education is toward professional
education at master‘s level. The professional schools at master‘s level were legislated in 2003
in Japan. As of May 2010, 130 universities have 184 schools or programs in various areas suchas law, education, public health, business management, and public policy (Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2010). Even though, considering Japan‘slong tradition that in higher education professional education is borne by undergraduate
programs, it is not easy to upgrade our LIS education to master‘s level in a short period. An
initiative such as this examination is therefore just one-step in improving the quality of LIS
education along the long road to achieve the global standard.
REFERENCES
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2010). Senmonshoku
Daigakuin no Gaiyo (Professional Graduate School) Retrieved from(http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/senmonshoku/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2010/07/16/1236
743_1.pdf) (Text in Japanese)
Miwa, M., Kasai, Y., & Miyahara, S. (2008). Toward mutual accreditation and credit exchange
among LIS programs in the Asia–Pacific region. Bulletin of Library and Information
Science (Tu Shu Yu Zi Xun Xue Kan), 65, 1–13.
Nemoto, A (2009). Galapagos or an isolated model of LIS educational development? A
consideration on Japanese LIS education in the international setting. Paper presented at
the Asia–Pacific Conference on Library and Information Education and Practice, Tsukuba,
Japan, March 8, 2009.

132