359

The Role of the Academic Library in 
Promoting Student Engagement in 
Learning1

George D. Kuh and Robert M. Gonyea

George D. Kuh and Robert M. Gonyea were involved in the College Student Experiences Questionnaire 
Research Program, Center for Postsecondary Research, Policy, and Planning, School of Education, at 
Indiana University Bloomington; e-mail: kuh@indiana.edu.

This study examines the nature and value of undergraduate students’ 
experiences with the academic library. The data represent responses 
from more than 300,000 students between 1984 and 2002 to the College 
Student Experiences Questionnaire. Although library use did not appear 
to make independent contributions to desirable outcomes of college, such 
experiences were related to important educationally valuable activities. 
Because the emphasis a campus places on information literacy is a strong 
predictor of students becoming information literate, librarians should 
redouble their collaborative efforts to promote the value of information 
literacy and help create opportunities for students to evaluate the quality 
of the information they obtain. 

t is hard to imagine a college without a library. A required stop on cam-
pus tours, the library is the physical manifestation of the core values and 
activities of academic life. The size of the collection is used as an indicator 
of academic quality. Though recent years have not necessarily been kind 
in terms of budget support, the library’s central role in the academic com-

munity is unquestioned. 
It is almost heretical to ask (given the library’s iconic status as a symbol of academic 

values), but just what does the library contribute to student learning, broadly defined? 
Student learning certainly is not the only relevant dimension on which to appraise 
the library’s value and utility. Nevertheless, in the increasingly harsh light of public 
accountability and financial constraints, the question has never been more important 
or timely, nor can it be avoided.2 Three major trends demand an answer. They are (1) 
unfettered asynchronous access to an exponentially expanding information base; (2) 
a shift in the focus of colleges and universities from teaching to learning; and (3) the 
expectation that all university functions and programs demonstrate their effectiveness. 

Awash in Information
With unlimited access to information via the Internet, the need for and practical value 
of a physical repository for printed and other material are less compelling today. On 
average, college students spend as much time on the Internet as they do studying.3 At the 

doi:10.5860/crl.76.3.359



360  College & Research Libraries 75th Anniversary Issue

same time, the information highway introduces new challenges for librarians to meet.4 
To state the obvious, not everything available electronically is valid and reliable. In the 
past, knowledge gatekeepers (journal editors, publishers) and librarians determined 
what was worth reading and collecting. Today, students make more of these judgments 
without assistance. Only about half of all students are confident in their ability to find 
good information and about the same percentage admit to having difficulty in judging 
the quality and accuracy of what they do find.5 For this reason, students must develop 
a capacity for critical discernment to judge the quality and utility of information, during 
and after college. The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) refers to 
the ability to “find, retrieve, analyze, and use information” as “information literacy.” 

One cannot become information literate without first acquiring the foundational 
skills and competencies traditionally associated with general education—critical 
thinking and reasoning abilities, written and oral communication skills, and so forth.6 
According to Shapiro and Hughes: 

Information literacy should in fact be conceived more broadly as a new liberal 
art that extends from knowing how to use computers and access information to 
critical reflection on the nature of information itself, its technical infrastructure, 
and its social, cultural and even philosophical context and impact—as essential 
to the mental framework of the educated information-age citizen as the trivium 
of basic liberal arts (grammar, logic and rhetoric) was to the educated person in 
medieval society.7

To prepare librarians for the task, ACRL developed five competence standards 
and founded an Institute for Information Literacy (IIL) that, among other things, as-
sists librarians in working with others in the educational community to promote and 
cultivate information literacy. One strategy suggested that librarians move out of the 
library into classrooms where they team-teach courses with faculty colleagues from 
various disciplines. Most of this work takes place in lower-division courses where, for 
better or worse, institutions emphasize general education skills and competencies. At 
Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, for example, a librarian serves on 
each of the four-person instructional teams (instructor, librarian, academic advisor, 
student mentor) that deliver the Learning Community course designed for first-year 
students.8 At Sonoma State University, a librarian teams with the instructor of the 
Freshman Interest Group seminar to increase information competence.9

Embracing the Learning Paradigm
The shift from emphasizing teaching to focusing on student learning as the primary 
goal of undergraduate education is gaining traction in all types of postsecondary in-
stitutions.10 Accreditors and policy makers are pushing and applauding this change 
in emphasis that promises to have profound effects on many aspects of academic life. 
The implications for the library are plain: Students’ experiences with academic libraries 
should make direct or indirect contributions to desired outcomes of college.11 In ad-
dition to information literacy, are there other outcomes that library experiences could 
and should foster? The limited evidence on this point is mixed. 

R. R. Powell summarized evidence that the use of the library correlated with student 
persistence rates and college grades.12 However, he based his conclusions on studies 
that, for the most part, did not control for student ability or institutional factors such as 
selectivity. A more recent study at Glendale Community College in California showed 
that students who participated in library workshops had much higher pass rates in 
English and ESL classes, but, again, this study did not account for student ability.13 



The Role of the Academic Library in Promoting Student Engagement in Learning 361

Considering factors that might influence student performance, the relationships be-
tween the library and student performance are less clear. For example, J. C. Ory and 
L. A. Braskamp reported positive relationships between using the library and gains 
in critical thinking.14 Others, such as Patrick T. Terenzini and others found negative 
relationships between library experiences and critical thinking scores.15 

The most probable explanation for the contradictory results related to critical 
thinking and library use is that students use library resources in different ways. To 
illustrate, library experiences can be divided into two types of activities.16 One is 
routine, but generally tentative, exploration, such as looking for information, reading 
assigned reference materials, and using the facility primarily to study. The second type 
of use—and arguably more powerful in terms of learning—is more focused explora-
tion, analysis, and evaluation of information, driven by learner- (or collaborative work 
group) generated questions or, perhaps, stimulated by problems introduced by the 
instructor for which library resources are required to solve. Ethelene Whitmire found 
that the latter type of activity had a significant positive effect on student self-reported 
critical thinking gains.17 These effects also appeared to be independent of key student 
characteristics such as race and ethnicity.18

Demonstrating the Library’s Educational Value 
The increasing interest from all quarters in information literacy and student learning 
makes it difficult to ignore the heretical question posed at the outset: To what extent 
do libraries today contribute to information literacy and other aspects of student learn-
ing? One way to demonstrate the library’s contribution is to assess whether students’ 
experiences with the library directly or indirectly contribute to desired outcomes of 
college. Using the library also may have salutary effects, such as developing an ap-
preciation of a wide range of literature or different philosophies of life. To obtain and 
interpret this kind of information, librarians need to understand the conditions that 
foster learning and how they might independently, or with others, assess the outcomes 
associated with library experiences.

Decades of research on college student development point to two simple propositions 
that account for many of the more important influences on student learning. First, the 
more time and energy students invest in activities related to desired outcomes of col-
lege, the more likely they are to benefit in those areas.19 Second, educationally effective 
institutions design experiences that channel students’ energies toward educationally 
purposeful activities.20 Unfortunately, relatively little is known about what and how 
students’ academic library experiences contribute to desired outcomes of college (in-
cluding information literacy) or about the nature of the relationships between library 
use and college experiences that research studies show directly affect student learning, 
such as student–faculty interaction, writing activities, and so forth. 

Purpose
This study examines the nature and value of students’ experiences with the academic 
library. Its aim is to discover the unique contributions of library experiences (including 
contact with librarians) to the quality of effort students expend in other educationally 
purposeful activities, the gains they report making during college, and their overall 
satisfaction with the college experience. More specifically, the study attempts to answer 
the following questions: 

1. Has student use of various library resources changed between 1984 and 2002? 
That is, given the availability of information via the Web and other sources, 
are students using the library more or less for certain reasons (for studying, 
for finding information)? 



362  College & Research Libraries 75th Anniversary Issue

2. Is frequent use of the library associated with greater gains in information lit-
eracy? What does the library contribute to other desired outcomes of college? 

3. Finally, how does student use of library resources affect their engagement with 
effective educational practices? That is, are students who frequent the library 
more likely to report increased contact with faculty members inside and outside 
the classroom? Are they more likely to talk with peers about substantive topics 
such as social, political, and economic issues? 

Serious conversations with other students may be an indicator of the extent to which 
a college’s general education program animates lively discussions beyond the classroom 
and initiates debates on new topics. Moreover, the more engaged students are in these 
and other educationally purposeful activities, the more likely they are to engage fully 
in productive activities after college, including civic participation and so on.

Methods
Instrument
The College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) assesses the quality of effort 
students devote to educationally purposeful activities. As mentioned earlier, quality of 
effort is the single best predictor of what students gain from college; thus, this measure 
also can be used to estimate the effectiveness of an institution or its component orga-
nizations (such as the library) in promoting student learning. 21,22 Overall, the CSEQ is 
considered to have excellent psychometric properties.23

The fourth edition of the CSEQ is made up of 166 items divided into four sections.24 
The first section (18 items) asks for information about the student’s background (age, 
year in school, major field, parents’ education), how many hours per week they study, 
how many hours they work on and off campus, and how they are paying for their 
education. The second section (111 items) contains the 13 College Activities scales (in-
cluding experiences with the library and computing and information technology) that 
measure the amount of time and energy (quality of effort) students devote to various 
activities. The fourth edition of the CSEQ contains both a revised library experiences 
scale and a computing and information technology scale that did not appear on previ-
ous editions of the instrument. The response options for these items are: 1 = never, 2 = 
occasionally, 3 = often, and 4 = very often. This section also includes two questions about 
the amount of reading and writing students do. The third section (10 items) measures 
student perceptions of the extent to which their institution’s environment emphasizes 
important conditions for learning personal development, including the importance 
of information literacy. Student responses are scored on a 7-point scale ranging from 
7 (strong emphasis) to 1 (weak emphasis). Three questions gauge student opinions 
about the quality of relationships with faculty members, administrative personnel, 
and other students on campus. Two additional questions measure student satisfaction. 
In the final section, students estimate the extent to which they have gained or made 
progress since starting college in twenty-five areas that represent desired outcomes of 
higher education. Response options for the “gains” items are: 1 = very little, 2 = some, 
3 = quite a bit, and 4 = very much.

Samples
To answer the three guiding research questions, the authors draw on two overlap-
ping samples of students from the CSEQ Research Program at Indiana University 
Bloomington. The first sample consists of more than 300,000 students from about 
300 different four-year colleges and universities who completed the second, third, 
and fourth editions of the CSEQ over a nineteen-year period (1984 through 2002). 
The second sample is composed of more than 80,000 full-time students from 131 



The Role of the Academic Library in Promoting Student Engagement in Learning 363

baccalaureate degree-granting institutions who completed the fourth edition of the 
CSEQ between 1998 and 2002. The background characteristics of the respondents in 
both samples generally mirror the population of undergraduate students attending 
four-year colleges and universities with a couple of exceptions. Women and white 
students are slightly overrepresented; and men, black, and Hispanic students are 
underrepresented.25

Variables of Interest
The particular variables of interest in this study are the eight items that make up the 
CSEQ library experiences scale (QELIB) (table 1). The scale is reliable (Table 1, Cron-
bach’s alpha = .80), and the eight items moderately correlate with one another (ranging 
from .19 to .58; see appendix A).

TABLE 1
CSEQ Library Experiences Scale (QELIB)

In your experience at this institution during the current school year, about how often have 
you:
Item 
name

Item label Response set

LIB1 Used the library as a quiet place to read or study materials 
you brought with you

1 = never 
2 = occasionally 
3 = often  
4 = very often

LIB2 Found something interesting while browsing in the library
LIB3 Asked a librarian or staff member for help in finding infor-

mation on some topic
LIB4 Read assigned material other than textbooks in the library 

(reserve readings, etc.)
LIB5 Used an index or database (computer, card catalog, etc.) to 

find material on some topic
LIB6 Developed a bibliography or reference list for a term paper 

or other report
LIB7 Gone back to read a basic reference or document that other 

authors referred to
LIB8 Made a judgment about the quality of information ob-

tained from the library, World Wide Web, or other sources
Cronbach’s alpha = .80

This study uses three outcome variables. The first two are composed of outcomes 
represented by students’ responses to twenty-five questions about how much 
progress they have made since starting college (1 = very little, 2 = some, 3 = quite 
a bit, 4 = very much). The first of these is an Information Literacy Scale (INFOLIT) 
(table 2), which approximates the skills and competencies ACRL considers impor-
tant for information literacy as reflected by student responses to six “estimate of 
gains” questions. The second is overall gains, or GAINSUM, the sum of responses 
to all twenty-five “estimate of gains” items. (See appendix B for the list of “gains” 
items.)26 Because the twenty-five “gains” items encompass a holistic set of outcomes 
in college, GAINSUM is a measure of the student’s perceived overall impact of the 
college experience.27



364  College & Research Libraries 75th Anniversary Issue

TABLE 2
Information Literacy Scale (INFOLIT)

In thinking about your college or university experience up to now, to what extent do you 
feel you have gained or made progress in the following areas?
Item name Item label Response set
GNCAREER Gaining a range of information that may be relevant 

to a career
1 = Very little 
2 = Some 
3 = Quite a bit 
4 = Very much

GNGENLED Gaining a broad general education about different 
fields of knowledge

GNCMPTS Using computers and other information technolo-
gies

GNANALY Thinking analytically and logically
GNSYNTH Putting ideas together, seeing relationships, simi-

larities, and differences between ideas
GNINQ Learning on your own, pursuing ideas, and finding 

information you need
Cronbach’s alpha = .80

The last outcome variable is satisfaction (OPINSCOR) and is composed of two CSEQ 
items: “How well do you like college?” and “If you could start over again, would you 
go to the same institution you are now attending?” (See table 3.) Student satisfaction 
is widely considered an important indicator of an institution’s commitment to student 
success, and it is reasonable to expect that library experiences should contribute to this 
indicator. Additional statistics for the library scale and the three outcome variables 
appear in appendix C.

TABLE 3
Satisfaction with the College Experience Scale (OPINSCOR)

In thinking about your college or university experience up to now, to what extent do you 
feel you have gained or made progress in the following areas:
Item name Item label Response set
LIKECOLL How well do you like  

college?
1 = I am enthusiastic about it 
2 = I like it 
3 = I am more or less neutral about it 
4 = I don’t like it

SAMECOLL If you could start over again, 
would you go to the same 
institution you are now  
attending?

1 = Yes, definitely 
2 = Probably yes 
3 = Probably no 
4 = No, definitely

Data Analysis
To answer the first research question, “Has student use of the library changed over 
time?” the authors examined seven library experience items that remained exactly or 
essentially the same on the second, third, and fourth editions of the survey, spanning 
the years 1984 through 2002. One exception is the second and third edition question, 
“How often have you used a card catalogue.” On the fourth edition of the CSEQ, this 



The Role of the Academic Library in Promoting Student Engagement in Learning 365

item was changed to: “How often have you used an index or database (computer, card 
catalog, etc.) to find material on some topic?” The authors mapped student responses 
to this set of library experience items by charting the combined yearly percentage of 
students responding “often” or “very often” to each item.

To answer the second and third questions, the authors examined the frequencies of 
responses to the library experiences items by gender, year in school, race, and insti-
tutional type. (See appendix D for frequency tables.) The authors also conducted an 
analysis of variance tests to determine whether groups differed significantly in their 
use of the library and in their self-reported gains. Finally, the authors conducted a 
series of regression analyses to examine the relationships among variables (regression 
tables are available from the authors).

Student characteristics and institutional characteristics can affect student collegiate 
experiences and outcomes.28 For example, students majoring in the humanities (which 
include more women than men) may be more likely to use the library facility because 
the nature of their academic work requires more reading and, therefore, a greater need 
to obtain a variety of reference material. For this reason, the authors dummy-coded gen-
der (women as reference group) and major field (preprofessional as reference group). 
They also dummy-coded race and ethnicity (white as reference group) and class level 
(freshmen as reference group) because the success of these groups of students are of 
keen interest to institutions and policy makers.

The regression analyses also control for three institutional characteristics: (1) institu-
tional type as defined by the 2000 Carnegie classification (doctoral/research-extensive 
universities, doctoral/research-intensive universities, master’s colleges and universities, 
baccalaureate liberal arts colleges, and baccalaureate general colleges), (2) institutional 
selectivity, and (3) institutional control (public and private, with public institutions as 
reference group).29, 30 The Carnegie classifications were dummy-coded and entered 
into the models with doctoral/research-extensive universities as the reference group.

Four regression models were constructed. In the first model, the Library Experiences 
scale (QELIB) is the dependent variable and student and institutional characteristics are 
control variables. Then, selected items were added from the CSEQ College Activities 
scales that are conceptually associated with library use to determine which ones may 
account for an additional portion of variance in the library scale. These items are use 
of computer and information technology, course-learning activities, interactions with 
faculty members, writing experiences, and use of campus facilities.

The three remaining regression models examine the contribution of library expe-
riences to three outcome measures: (1) gains in information literacy (INFOLIT), (2) 
overall gains in college (GAINSUM), and (3) satisfaction with the college experience 
(OPINSCOR). Control variables in each model include student and institutional char-
acteristics, perceptions of the campus environment, and the academic challenge scale 
(table 4). The authors controlled for academic challenge because students at institutions 
that have high-performance expectations for academic work are more likely to use the 
library. Finally, the authors added the library activity items to the model to see if they 
would explain additional variance in the outcome measure. 

In reporting the regression results, the authors will focus only on those findings that 
are both statistically significant and have reasonable effect sizes. That is, the objective 
is to identify library experiences that have practical implications as well as statistical 
significance.32 To do this the authors computed Y-standardized effect sizes by dividing 
the unstandardized coefficient by the standard deviation for the dependent variable.33 
They considered effect sizes greater than |.08| worthy of attention because they rep-
resent potentially important relationships between library experiences, gains from 
college (including information literacy), and student satisfaction.34



366  College & Research Libraries 75th Anniversary Issue

Results
Trend Analysis
Figures 1 and 2 depict the proportions of first-year and sophomore students (combined) 
and juniors and seniors (combined) that responded “often” or “very often” to four 
selected library experiences between 1984 and 2002. These activities are: (1) used the 
library to read or study, (2) asked a librarian for help, (3) read in the library’s reserve 
or reference section, and (4) used an index or database. These four experiences showed 
the greatest changes over the nineteen-year period, with the other four library experi-
ences being generally stable. Because different students and institutions participate in 
a given year, year-to-year deviations from the trend line are common. Nevertheless, 
the overall multiyear trends probably reflect meaningful changes over time.

Two trends stand out. First, greater numbers of students are using indexes and 
databases to find information. This likely reflects the rapid and expansive deployment 
and use of computers and information technology during the past decade that makes 
more information accessible to more people as well as easier to navigate. To illustrate, 
in the mid-1980s, only about 30 percent of first-year and sophomore students said they 
frequently used indexes or databases. Beginning in the early 1990s, this percentage 
jumped to close to half. Juniors and seniors showed similar increases, from about 38 
percent in the 1980s to over 60 percent by 2001. 

The second trend is the decline in the proportion of students who use the library 
as a place to read or study. This is probably due to the explosion of the World Wide 
Web in the mid-1990s, making it possible for many students to access information and 

TABLE 4
Academic Challenge Items 

Item name Item Response set
STUDIES4 Hours per week on out of class academic work 1 = Up to 5 

2 = 6–10 
3 = 11–15 
4 = 16–20 
5 = 21–25 
6 = 26–30 
7 = 30+

READTXT4 Number of texts read 1 = none 
2 = fewer than 5 
3 = between 5 and 10 
4 = between 10 and 20 
5 = more than 20

READPAK4 Number of course packets read
WRITTRM4 Number of term papers written

COURSE5 Put together different facts and ideas 1 = never 
2 = occasionally 
3 = often 
4 = very often

COURSE11 Worked on project integrating ideas
COURSE8 Applied class material to other areas
FAC9 Worked to meet faculty expectations
FAC5 Worked harder due to instructor feedback
ENVSCH4 Emphasis on developing academic, scholarly, 

and intellectual qualities
7 = strong emphasis to 
1 = weak emphasis

ENVCRIT4 Emphasis on developing critical, evaluative, and 
analytical qualities

Cronbach’s alpha = .74



The Role of the Academic Library in Promoting Student Engagement in Learning 367

library resources online from their dorm rooms, fraternity and sorority houses, other 
campus locations, and off-campus residences.35 Another factor may be the availability 
of additional campus venues where students can do academic work, such as computer 
labs, academic support centers, and study lounges in campus unions or residence halls. 
These locations may be especially attractive to commuter students if parking near the 
library is problematic.

 A less definitive trend is a slight increase in the number of students asking a librar-
ian for help during the 1980s and early 1990s. Librarians about this time began to offer 

FIGURE 1
CSEQ Library Items (1983–2002) 

Freshmen and Sophomores

CSEQ Library Items (1983-2002)
Freshmen and Sophomores

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

P
er

ce
n

t "
O

ft
en

" 
o

r 
"V

er
y 

O
fte

n
"

used library to read or study

asked librarian for help

read in reserve or ref section

used index or database

  

FIGURE 2
CSEQ Library Items (1983–2002) 

Juniors and Seniors

CSEQ Library Items (1983-2002)
Juniors and Seniors

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

P
er

ce
n

t "
O

ft
en

" 
o

r 
"V

er
y 

O
ft

en
"

used library to read or study

asked librarian for help

read in reserve or ref section

used index or database



368  College & Research Libraries 75th Anniversary Issue

instructional workshops and guidance on how to use the Web.36 Another factor may 
have been the involvement of librarians in student success programs, such as orientation 
and first-year student seminars. This behavior varies a bit more from the mid-1990s on, 
perhaps because librarians were more or less involved in such efforts at the different 
schools participating in various years. What cannot be told from these data is whether 
the nature of the requests of librarians made by students changed through time. For 
example, are students more frequently asking librarians for technical assistance with 
online databases and search engines? Are students asking for assistance in finding 
materials contained in the library building?

Frequency of Library Use
Examination of students’ library experiences shows some interesting differences by 
class, race, major, and institutional type (appendix D). The ANOVA tests support these 
differences.37 On balance, as students move through the college years, they become more 
information literate each year, a finding corroborated by Steve Jones.38 For example, each 
successive year from first-year to senior shows a significant increase in the frequency 
of library use. That is, more seniors frequently make judgments about information 
quality (43%) compared with first-year students (34%); fewer seniors compared with 
first-year students (18% and 26%, respectively) say they “never” do this. 

Hispanic, Latino, and black students use library resources more frequently, whereas 
white students use libraries the least. Students majoring in humanities and social 
sciences are, as expected, the most frequent users of the library, as are students who 
report two or more majors. Students with undecided majors and those majoring in 
business, math, and science score the lowest on the library scale. Finally, students at-
tending baccalaureate liberal arts colleges use the library more often, whereas those 
attending baccalaureate general colleges and doctoral/research-extensive universities 
do so least often. The next section discusses whether these differences hold up after 
controlling for student and institutional variables simultaneously.

Regression Results
The first regression model uses the library experiences scale (QELIB) as the depen-
dent variable to answer the question, “Who uses the library most?” (See appendix E.) 
After controlling for student and institutional characteristics, students of color use 
the library more frequently compared with white students; students majoring in the 
humanities and preprofessional fields use the library more often than those major-
ing in business, math, or science. Access to computing and information technology 
inversely relates to library use and shows a relatively large effect size (.17); that is, 
students who do not have a computer where they live or work (or nearby) tend to use 
the library more. Perhaps for these students, the library is one place where they can 
use a computer that, in turn, allows them to access databases and obtain information 
from other libraries. At the institutional level, students at doctoral/research-extensive 
universities use the library less frequently compared with students attending the other 
four types of institutions. 

Academic challenge relates positively to library use. Of the eleven academic chal-
lenge items (table 4), five have effect sizes greater than |.08|. These include three items 
related to course learning experiences (put together different facts and ideas, worked 
on projects integrating ideas from various sources, and applied class material to other 
areas in life) and two student–faculty interaction items (worked harder than you 
thought you could to meet faculty expectations and worked harder due to instructor 
feedback). In addition, all other items in the scale show statistically significant differ-
ences, although with smaller effect sizes.



The Role of the Academic Library in Promoting Student Engagement in Learning 369

The results from the three regression models predicting desired college outcomes—
gains in information literacy, overall gains in college, and satisfaction—appear in 
appendix F. Taken together, these models indicate that none of the individual library 
activities appears to have a substantial influence on any of the three outcome variables, 
after controlling for student and institutional characteristics, perceptions of the envi-
ronment, and academic challenge.

The outcome variable represented in the first regression is information literacy. 
In this model, transfer students and first-year students make the least progress in 
information literacy. For first-year students, this is surely due to the small amount of 
time they have been in college. For transfer students, the finding is more difficult to 
interpret and is cause for concern if this sizeable fraction of students is not gaining as 
much as other students in this important area. Although students majoring in math 
and science do not use the library as much as their peers do, they report gaining more 
in information literacy relative to preprofessional majors. Humanities majors gain 
less in information literacy (relative to preprofessional majors), after controlling for 
other factors. Students at doctoral/research extensive universities report the greatest 
gains in information literacy, followed by students at baccalaureate general colleges, 
doctoral/research-intensive universities, and baccalaureate liberal arts colleges. Finally, 
as expected, students who perceive that their institution places a strong emphasis on 
acquiring information literacy skills report higher gains in information literacy.

The model predicting overall gains tells a somewhat different story. Women and 
transfer students report making less progress during college, after controlling for other 
student and institutional characteristics. Black, Hispanic, and Latino students report 
greater gains than do white students. In terms of institutional type, students at bac-
calaureate liberal arts and baccalaureate general colleges report lower gains relative 
to students in doctoral/research-extensive universities. 

The third model shows that transfer students are less satisfied with their overall 
college experiences, and, as expected, students with higher grades are more satisfied. 
Black and Asian students are also less satisfied than are white students, but Hispanic 
students are on par with whites in this category. In general, students at the large 
doctoral-extensive institutions are more satisfied with college than are students at the 
other four institutional types. It appears that a key to satisfaction may be the quality 
of relationships with other students. This item shows a large effect size (.21) even after 
controlling for other factors. Still, as with the previous two, this model produced no 
significant relationships between library experiences and satisfaction with college, after 
controlling for student and institutional characteristics, perceptions of the environment, 
and academic challenge.

In summary, frequency of library use varies depending on the type of student and 
the type of institution. The least frequent library users are white students, math and 
science majors, those who have ready access to a computer, and those who are at-
tending doctoral-extensive universities. Those who use the library more frequently 
report a higher degree of academic challenge. On balance, library experiences are not 
directly related to information literacy, overall gains in college, or satisfaction with 
the college experience. 

Discussion 
The results of this study indicate that student use of the library has changed over 
time. This is not surprising given the now near-universal access college students have 
to computing and information technology. Nonetheless, these data corroborate anec-
dotal reports and other studies.39 More important, student contact with librarians has 
increased somewhat during this period, suggesting that librarians may be becoming 



370  College & Research Libraries 75th Anniversary Issue

more visible and accessible to larger numbers of students. Perhaps students need help 
to find good information and to make judgments about the quality of the information 
they do find.40 It is supported by the relatively high correlations produced in this study 
between “asked a librarian” and other behaviors such as “used index or database,” 
“found something interesting while browsing,” and “developed a bibliography for a 
term paper.” At the same time, almost one-fifth of all seniors say they never made judg-
ments about the quality of the information they obtain for use in the academic work. 
This is an unacceptably high number of students about to graduate from college who, 
by their own report, are underprepared to live and work in an information-rich world.

Smallness begets distinctiveness in American higher education.41 This appears to be 
the case for the library as well, as the character of experiences with academic libraries 
at small, academically challenging baccalaureate liberal arts colleges sets them apart 
from other types of institutions. For example, more students at baccalaureate liberal arts 
colleges (40%) say they frequently make judgments about the quality of the material 
than at any other type of institution (33% at doctoral/research-extensive universities; 
37% at doctoral/research intensive universities; 34% at master’s institutions, and 33% 
at baccalaureate general colleges) (appendix E). In addition, library experiences at 
the baccalaureate liberal arts colleges strongly correlated with one another and with 
other educationally purposeful activities, such as working with a faculty member on 
research or discussing papers with faculty members. One obvious explanation for this 
is that because most of these institutions are residential in nature, the library is in close 
proximity to where students live, making access much easier. In contrast, library use 
is least frequent at larger doctoral/research-extensive universities. In part, this may be 
because of the array of alternate academic support venues such institutions provide, 
such as computer labs and academic skills centers. Having these options possibly mutes 
the impact of the academic library on many of the outcomes measures and reduces 
the necessity that a student must use the library for these vital academic services. In 
addition, research institutions are more likely to claim better wiring for technology—
with broadband access to computer networks, excellent library search engines online, 
network access in residence hall rooms, and so on.

Academic Challenge Matters
Size and selectivity are not the only factors that influence library use. Academic chal-
lenge also is important. That is, institutions that set high standards for academic work 
seem to impel students to use a variety of intellectual resources actively, including the 
library. As a result, students who frequently use library resources are also more likely 
to work harder than they thought they could to meet a faculty member’s expectations 
and in response to instructor feedback; and they are assigned projects that require in-
tegrating ideas, putting different facts and ideas together, and applying class material 
to other areas in life. In addition, students at academically challenging institutions are 
more likely to ask a librarian for help, use indexes and databases, and make thoughtful 
judgments about the quality of information they receive. At the same time, using the 
library does not appear to be associated with the amount of effort students put forth 
on their own in many other learning activities, such as the amount of effort they put 
forth in writing or the frequency with which they converse about substantive matters 
with peers. 

The Library’s Contribution to Student Success
On balance, the results of this study indicate that libraries play an important role in 
helping the institution achieve its academic mission. It is particularly gratifying that 
students of color generally use the library as much or more than do other students, 



The Role of the Academic Library in Promoting Student Engagement in Learning 371

especially black, Asian and Pacific Islander, Hispanic and Latino students. Perhaps 
students of color find the academic library to be a safe haven, a place that supports 
and nurtures academic success in collaboration with peers of the same racial and 
ethnic background, much in the same way the campus union provides a venue for 
social gatherings. If so, the library is providing a very valuable service for a subset of 
undergraduates that is increasing in number.

The most surprising (and mildly disappointing) finding is that library experiences 
do not seem to directly contribute to gains in information literacy, to what students 
gain overall from college, or to student satisfaction. There are three plausible ex-
planations for this. First, the information literacy scale created from selected CSEQ 
items may not be a valid proxy; that is, other measures may more accurately estimate 
information literacy as defined by the ACRL. Second, the lack of baseline measures 
for information literacy and the other gains makes it difficult to draw conclusions 
from student self-reported estimates of their gains.42 For example, students attending 
different colleges or majoring in different fields may start college at various levels 
of information literacy. Some students who report gaining relatively little may have 
been fairly information literate when they started college. Other students who say 
they gained a good deal may have started college with a lower level of literacy. So, 
whereas the latter group may have, indeed, gained a substantial amount during col-
lege, their actual level of information literacy may be the same as, or even lower than, 
their peers who reported making less progress in the area since beginning college. This 
same caveat holds for the overall gains measure. Finally, as with most other desired 
outcomes, a variety of experiences during college, inside and outside class, contribute 
to gains and satisfaction, not just one type of experience. That is, critical thinking is 
not primarily or exclusively cultivated in the classroom or in the major field; rather, 
it is the product of cumulative experiences over time in a variety of venues.43 There 
is no reason to expect that the relationship between library experiences and gains in 
information literacy or other areas would be different. Indeed, the findings of this 
study offer no silver bullet (or single intervention) that will produce an information-
literate college graduate. 

For example, students who report higher levels of information literacy were attend-
ing institutions that emphasized the importance of information literacy and encouraged 
students to use computers and other information resources. They also performed a 
good deal of reading, including some basic references that are more likely to exist ei-
ther in the library or online. In addition, students who gained the most in information 
literacy more often made judgments about the quality of the information they obtained. 
In other words, students who make the greatest gains in information literacy attend 
institutions that communicate the importance of information literacy and practice the 
skills that lead to information literacy. 

Implications for Practice and Additional Research
This brings us to one of the more important findings from this study: Students who 
perceive that their campus emphasizes information literacy gain more in this area, net 
of other influences. This underscores the need to collaborate with classroom instructors 
and student affairs professionals to deliver clear and consistent messages regarding 
the value of learning about various sources of information, requires evidence that 
students make discerning judgments about the quality of the information they use, 
and, equally important, gives students feedback on the quality of these judgments. 
Anecdotal experience suggests that students are more likely to evaluate critically the 
quality of sources when instructors explicitly require them to do so.44 This suggests 
that if institutions are serious about graduating information-literate students, they 



372  College & Research Libraries 75th Anniversary Issue

should require activities that give students practice and require them to demonstrate 
their competence in evaluating the quality of the information they use. Librarians, 
faculty members, and others will have to be directly involved in giving students 
prompt, ongoing feedback about their performance. The University of California at 
Berkeley is an example of this, where the teaching library and the departments of 
political science and sociology are designing a graduated program of instruction across 
the undergraduate years that will require students to use information resources.45 
Librarians also might partner with student affairs staff to help them identify ways to 
identify students who may be struggling with using information appropriately and 
responsibly.

A reasonable amount of interaction with knowledgeable adults on a college cam-
pus is very important to student learning. These interactions are especially valuable 
when they focus on substantive or course content matters.46 Transfer students are 
one group of students that would benefit from more attention in this regard. At least 
40 percent of seniors attending four-year colleges and universities started college at 
a school other than the one from which they are about to graduate.47 Yet, they are 
generally less engaged in educationally purposeful activities than are their native 
student counterparts. It is difficult to reach transfer students directly, as they are 
not concentrated in living units or certain courses. Perhaps librarians could col-
laborate with academic departments to explore ways to induce transfer students 
to use the library more frequently and to help them attain levels of information 
literacy comparable to students who start and graduate from the same college. The 
California State University system has recognized this need, and its twenty-three 
campuses are joining with community colleges as well as high schools to improve 
information literacy.48

Higher education needs more investigations into the library’s effectiveness in 
promoting student learning. One fruitful line of inquiry would be to determine the 
kinds of student interactions with librarians beyond those represented on the CSEQ 
that effectively promote learning or affect other aspects of the college experience. The 
CSEQ does not ask about whether students made effective use of what they learned 
in a session focused on information literacy facilitated by a librarian; answers to this 
and related questions would be very instructive in terms of the library’s contribution. 
Another instructive effort would be to determine which approaches are most effec-
tive in teaching information literacy. Are these skills and competencies best cultivated 
through a freestanding course, sprinkled throughout the curriculum, or learned within 
the context of the discipline or a specific topic? Other research indicates that students 
learn what they study. It would be useful to compare the information literacy levels of 
students at institutions that require library assignments as part of one or more courses 
with those that do not.

Another research question is whether student use of the library and interactions with 
librarians are associated with persistence and graduation, net of other factors. Previous 
research has suggested that library experiences relate positively to persistence and 
student achievement. Most of this research is dated, however, and did not employ ad-
vanced statistical methods that controlled for student ability or institutional selectivity. 

A time-honored improvement strategy in higher education and other sectors is to 
identify high-performing organizations, find out what they do well, and adapt these 
promising practices for use in other settings. For example, some institutions have higher-
than-predicted graduation rates and student engagement levels.49 Perhaps students 
at certain colleges and universities use the library more and benefit more than might 
be predicted, all things being equal. It would be instructive to learn more about these 
institutions and their libraries. 



The Role of the Academic Library in Promoting Student Engagement in Learning 373

Limitations
This study is limited in that the data are from colleges and universities that voluntarily 
administered the CSEQ. If data from other institutions were included, the findings 
might change in unknown ways. Another factor that could affect the results is whether 
additional student-level measures (e.g., ability, motivation) and institution-level data 
(e.g., resources) were included in the models. There also is the possibility that, as men-
tioned earlier, students use different baselines when reporting gains.50 Despite these 
limitations, the CSEQ research program represents one of the most extensive national 
databases with survey information from college students related to their quality of 
effort and gains from college. It is one of the few multi-institution sources of informa-
tion about the undergraduate experience that examines the influence of the library on 
information literacy and other aspects of student learning and personal development. 

Conclusion
The results of this exploratory study indicate that library experiences of undergraduates 
positively relate to select educationally purposeful activities, such as using computing 
and information technology and interacting with faculty members. Those students 
who more frequently use the library reflect a studious work ethic and engage in 
academically challenging tasks that require higher-order thinking. Although certain 
student background characteristics (race, major, year in school, transfer status, access 
to computers) affect the nature and frequency of students’ library activities, the library 
appears to be a positive learning environment for all students, especially members of 
historically underrepresented groups.

At the same time, library use does not appear to contribute directly to gains in in-
formation literacy and other desirable outcomes. This is not surprising, as rarely does 
any single experience or set of activities during college affect student learning and 
personal development one way or the other; rather, what is most important to college 
impact is the nature and breadth of a student’s experiences over an extended period. 

Academic librarians are well positioned to provide leadership and expertise to 
outcomes associated with information literacy. However, higher education institu-
tions should not expect them to do this alone. The findings of this study indicate that 
it takes a whole campus to produce an information-literate college graduate. For this 
reason, librarians would do well to redouble their efforts to collaborate with faculty 
members, instructional development staff, and student affairs professionals in promot-
ing the value of information literacy in various in-class and out-of-class activities and 
to provide students with as many opportunities as possible to evaluate the quality of 
the information they encounter, on and off the campus. 



374  College & Research Libraries 75th Anniversary Issue

APPENDIX A
CSEQ Library Scale Inter-Item Correlation Coefficients*

LIB1 LIB2 LIB3 LIB4 LIB5 LIB6 LIB7 LIB8

LIB1
Used the library to 
study

LIB2
Found something 
interesting browsing

.37

LIB3
Asked a librarian/staff 
member for help

.19 .31

LIB4
Read assigned 
material not texts

.40 .39 .30

LIB5
Used index or data-
base to find material

.26 .39 .38 .38

LIB6
Wrote bibliography 
for a term paper

.21 .27 .33 .32 .58

LIB7
Gone back to read 
basic reference

.26 .37 .28 .36 .36 .43

LIB8
Made a judgment 
about quality of info

.21 .31 .23 .27 .42 .44 .39

*Item-total correlations range from .40 to .62, indicating that each item contributes substantially 
to the scale.



The Role of the Academic Library in Promoting Student Engagement in Learning 375

APPENDIX B
CSEQ Gain Scales and Items*

Category Item name Item label
General  
Education

GNARTS Understanding and enjoyment of art, music, drama
GNLIT Acquaintance with and enjoyment of literature
GNHIST Knowledge of history
GNWORLD Knowledge about different parts of the world and people
GNPHILS Awareness of different philosophies, cultures, ways of life
GNGENLED Broad general education

Personal  
Development

GNVALUES Values and ethical standards
GNSELF Self-understanding 
GNOTHERS Ability to get along with others 
GNTEAM Teamwork skills 
GNHEALTH Good health habits and physical fitness

Science and 
Technology

GNSCI Science and experimentation
GNTECH Science and technology developments
GNCONSQ Consequences of science and technology

Vocational 
Preparation

GNVOC Job or work skills 
GNSPEC Background for further education 
GNCAREER Career information 

Intellectual 
Development

GNWRITE Writing 
GNSPEAK Presenting and speaking
GNCOMPUT Computers and other information technologies
GNANALY Analytical and logical thinking
GNQUANT Quantitative problem solving 
GNSYNTH Synthesis ability 
GNINQ Self-directed learning 
GNADAPT Adapting to change

Response set for all Gains items: 1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much
*GAINSUM Cronbach’s alpha = .92; item-total correlations range from .39 to .68

APPENDIX C
Descriptive Statistics for Dependent Variables Used in the Study

Measure Valid N Missing N
% 

Missing Mean S.E.M.
Std. 
Dev. Skewness Kurtosis

QELIB 78,425 1,844 2% 17.0 0.02 4.6 0.37 0.08

INFOLIT 76,987 3,282 4% 17.7 0.01 3.5 –0.29 –0.25

GAINSUM 75,103 5,166 7% 67.8 0.05 13.1 –0.07 –0.14

OPINSCOR 78,487 1,782 2% 6.3 0.01 1.5 –0.76 0.19
All four scales have a minimal percentage of missing values and good normal curve proper-
ties as indicated by skewness and kurtosis values in the normal range (between –1 to +1).



376  College & Research Libraries 75th Anniversary Issue

APPENDIX D
Frequencies to Library Experience Items by Sex, Class, Race,  

and Institutional Type
Frequency of Responses to CSEQ Library Experiences 
Items by Sex Male Female

Response Options Col% Col%
Used the library to study Never 24.6 23.3

Occasionally 46.2 48.7
Often 17.5 16.8
Very often 11.6 11.2

Found something interesting 
browsing

Never 33.5 36.2
Occasionally 45.7 47.2
Often 14.7 11.6
Very often 6.2 4.9

Asked a librarian/staff member 
for help

Never 29.9 23.0
Occasionally 49.7 52.6
Often 15.6 18.0
Very often 4.8 6.4

Read assigned material not texts Never 32.5 31.2
Occasionally 45.1 44.3
Often 16.4 17.4
Very often 6.0 7.1

Used index or database to find 
material

Never 13.3 9.1
Occasionally 39.9 34.1
Often 30.0 33.0
Very often 16.9 23.8

Wrote bibliography for a term 
paper

Never 20.9 16.8
Occasionally 40.4 34.2
Often 25.8 28.6
Very often 13.0 20.5

Gone back to read basic reference Never 53.9 58.3
Occasionally 34.0 30.6
Often 8.7 7.6
Very often 3.4 3.6

Made a judgment about quality 
of info.

Never 24.3 22.6
Occasionally 39.5 41.0
Often 23.7 24.0
Very often 12.6 12.4



The Role of the Academic Library in Promoting Student Engagement in Learning 377

APPENDIX D
Frequencies to Library Experience Items by Sex, Class, Race,  

and Institutional Type

Frequency of Responses to CSEQ  
Library Experiences Items by Class First-year Sophomore Junior Senior

Response Options Col% Col% Col% Col%
Used the library to 
study

Never 25.5 21.6 22.6 23.3
Occasionally 47.8 47.6 47.0 48.5
Often 16.5 17.9 17.7 16.9
Very often 10.1 12.9 12.7 11.3

Found something 
interesting browsing

Never 39.2 34.7 32.1 29.6
Occasionally 44.9 46.8 48.6 48.4
Often 11.6 13.1 13.3 14.7
Very often 4.3 5.4 6.0 7.3

Asked a librarian/
staff member for help

Never 28.4 26.1 25.0 19.9
Occasionally 48.4 52.4 53.0 55.9
Often 17.4 16.1 16.4 18.0
Very often 5.8 5.4 5.7 6.2

Read assigned  
material not texts

Never 37.4 29.2 28.8 24.3
Occasionally 42.0 46.3 45.0 48.3
Often 15.1 17.3 18.0 19.9
Very often 5.5 7.1 8.2 7.5

Used index or data-
base to find material

Never 12.9 10.2 9.9 7.3
Occasionally 37.1 38.7 35.6 33.0
Often 30.8 31.9 32.2 33.4
Very often 19.2 19.2 22.3 26.3

Wrote bibliography 
for a term paper

Never 20.9 18.4 17.0 13.9
Occasionally 35.7 39.8 37.3 34.7
Often 26.8 27.0 28.2 28.6
Very often 16.5 14.8 17.5 22.8

Gone back to read 
basic reference

Never 61.1 58.1 54.0 47.5
Occasionally 29.0 31.8 33.8 36.5
Often 7.2 7.4 8.1 10.5
Very often 2.8 2.8 4.1 5.5

Made a judgment 
about quality of info.

Never 25.7 23.7 21.7 18.7
Occasionally 40.2 41.5 40.3 39.9
Often 22.8 23.4 24.5 26.2
Very often 11.3 11.4 13.5 15.3



378  College & Research Libraries 75th Anniversary Issue

APPENDIX D
Frequencies to Library Experience Items by Sex, Class, Race,  

and Institutional Type

Frequency of Responses to CSEQ 
Library Experiences Items by 
Race and Ethnicity

Asian, 
Pacific 

Islander

Black, 
African 

American
White, 

Caucasian

Mexican-
American, 

Puerto Rican 
or Other 
Hispanic

Other 
Race

Response 
Options Col% Col% Col% Col% Col%

Used the library 
to study

Never 14.7 21.4 25.3 18.6 22.3
Occasionally 45.5 47.2 48.3 46.9 46.9
Often 21.6 18.2 16.3 19.3 17.8
Very often 18.2 13.2 10.2 15.2 13.1

Found some-
thing interesting 
browsing

Never 30.1 27.4 36.9 29.1 30.9
Occasionally 48.7 46.6 46.5 44.8 46.7
Often 14.3 19.1 11.8 17.9 15.3
Very often 6.9 7.0 4.9 8.2 7.1

Asked a librarian/
staff member for 
help

Never 27.4 17.6 26.1 25.1 24.7
Occasionally 53.3 48.1 51.9 47.5 49.5
Often 14.7 23.7 16.7 19.2 18.1
Very often 4.6 10.7 5.3 8.2 7.6

Read assigned 
material not texts

Never 28.7 28.7 32.4 29.0 30.7
Occasionally 46.2 42.9 44.9 42.4 43.0
Often 17.0 19.5 16.6 20.1 17.7
Very often 8.1 9.0 6.1 8.5 8.6

Used index or 
database to find 
material

Never 11.7 10.2 10.6 10.5 10.9
Occasionally 37.0 32.6 36.8 34.9 34.2
Often 30.8 31.3 32.0 31.0 31.3
Very often 20.5 25.9 20.6 23.6 23.6

Wrote bibliog-
raphy for a term 
paper

Never 20.2 18.5 18.0 18.6 19.4
Occasionally 39.9 33.5 36.6 35.2 35.3
Often 24.6 27.5 27.8 27.4 27.3
Very often 15.3 20.5 17.6 18.8 18.1

Gone back to 
read basic refer-
ence

Never 50.9 49.1 58.3 49.3 54.0
Occasionally 35.4 35.0 31.1 34.9 32.2
Often 9.8 10.9 7.4 10.3 9.3
Very often 3.9 5.0 3.2 5.5 4.4

Made a judgment 
about quality of 
info.

Never 25.4 26.8 22.8 22.5 23.1
Occasionally 39.3 37.3 41.3 37.3 37.1
Often 23.7 22.7 23.8 25.8 24.2
Very often 11.6 13.1 12.1 14.4 15.6



The Role of the Academic Library in Promoting Student Engagement in Learning 379

APPENDIX D
Frequencies to Library Experience Items by Sex, Class, Race,  

and Institutional Type
Frequency of Responses to CSEQ 
Library Experiences Items by  
Carnegie Classification*

Doctoral  
Extensive

Doctoral  
Intensive Master’s

Liberal 
Arts  

Colleges
General 
Colleges

Response 
Options Col% Col% Col% Col% Col%

Used the library to 
study

Never 22.9 24.1 25.5 14.8 28.9
Occasionally 47.1 47.4 48.9 46.3 48.1
Often 17.3 17.0 16.4 20.8 15.1
Very often 12.7 11.5 9.1 18.1 7.9

Found something 
interesting brows-
ing

Never 38.0 32.3 35.0 23.7 38.4
Occasionally 45.5 42.8 48.4 50.4 46.6
Often 11.4 16.0 12.5 17.4 11.1
Very often 5.1 8.9 4.1 8.6 3.8

Asked a librarian/
staff member for 
help

Never 29.5 23.5 23.0 23.0 24.6
Occasionally 51.4 48.2 51.8 56.2 51.1
Often 14.5 19.5 19.1 16.1 18.3
Very often 4.6 8.8 6.1 4.7 6.1

Read assigned 
material not texts

Never 33.3 31.7 32.5 17.0 35.1
Occasionally 43.9 43.7 45.9 44.5 44.7
Often 16.1 17.4 16.5 24.6 15.4
Very often 6.7 7.2 5.2 13.9 4.8

Used index or 
database to find 
material

Never 11.6 10.2 10.4 5.6 14.0
Occasionally 37.6 34.1 36.2 30.4 40.5
Often 30.8 33.2 32.7 33.8 28.8
Very often 20.1 22.5 20.8 30.2 16.7

Wrote bibliog-
raphy for a term 
paper

Never 20.7 19.3 17.3 12.0 16.3
Occasionally 37.9 35.7 35.9 33.8 37.5
Often 25.2 27.6 29.4 29.5 27.7
Very often 16.1 17.4 17.4 24.8 18.4

Gone back to read 
basic reference

Never 58.1 55.9 58.1 44.5 56.2
Occasionally 30.9 31.7 30.9 39.0 33.2
Often 7.6 8.6 7.8 10.7 7.4
Very often 3.4 3.8 3.1 5.8 3.2

Made a judgment 
about quality of 
info.

Never 24.1 24.0 23.3 16.4 24.3
Occasionally 39.0 39.7 42.3 38.9 41.4
Often 23.8 23.9 23.4 27.1 23.4
Very often 13.1 12.4 11.0 17.6 10.9

*Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Carnegie Classification of Institutions of 
Higher Education.



380  College & Research Libraries 75th Anniversary Issue

APPENDIX E
Variables with Significant and Reasonable Effects on the  

Library Experiences Scale

Independent Variables
Effect 
Size*

Student  
Characteristics
 

Race and ethnicity  
(White as reference 
group)

Black, African American 0.17
Asian, Pacific Islander 0.15
Hispanic or Latino 0.16
Other race or ethnicity 0.09

Major Categories 
(Pre-professional as 
reference group)

Math and Science –0.12
Humanities 0.08
Social Sciences
Business –0.09
Undecided
Two or more majors

Year in school  
(First-year students as 
reference group)

Sophomore
Junior 0.08
Senior 0.14

Transfer status (1=transfer, 0=non-transfer) –0.09
Access to a computer (1=yes, 2=no) 0.17
Expect to enroll for an advanced degree (1=yes, 2=no) 0.11

Institutional 
Characteristics
 

Carnegie classification  
(Doctoral-Extensive as 
reference group)

Doctoral-Intensive 0.24
Master’s 0.18
Liberal Arts Colleges 0.21
General Colleges 0.10

Academic  
Challenge Scale 
Items

STUDIES Hours out-of-class academic work
READTEXT Number of texts read
READPAK Number of course packets read
WRITTRM Number of term papers written
COURSE5 Put together different facts and ideas 0.08
COURSE11 Worked on project integrating ideas 

from various sources 0.19
COURSE8 Applied class material to other areas 

in life 0.08
FAC9 Worked harder than thought to meet 

faculty expectations 0.10
FAC5 Worked harder due to instructor 

feedback 0.11
ENVSCH Environmental emphasis on scholarly, 

academic and intellectual qualities
ENVCRIT Environmental emphasis on de-

veloping critical, evaluative, and 
analytical qualities

N = 69,923; R2 = .25
*Y-standardized effect size (unstandardized B coefficient divided by the standard deviation of the 
dependent variable).



The Role of the Academic Library in Promoting Student Engagement in Learning 381

APPENDIX F
Predictors of Three Outcome Variables from the CSEQ*

Independent Variables Dependent Variables

Category Variable
Information 

Literacy

Overall 
Gains 
Score

Satisfaction 
with  

College 
Experience

Student  
Characteristics

Age
Sex (0=male, 1=female) –.08
Transfer Status –.09 –.08 –.09
Grades at this college .09
Expect to enroll for an ad-
vanced degree
First generation student

Race and  
Ethnicity

Black, African American  .11 –.27
Asian, Pacific Islander –.29
Hispanic or Latino .12
Other race or ethnicity   –.08

Major Category Math and Science .16 .15  
Humanities –.09
Social Sciences
Business
Undecided –.15
Multiple Majors    

Class Standing
 

Sophomore .21 .25
Junior .30 .33
Senior .34 .39 –.11

Institutional 
Characteristics

Barron’s selectivity code    
Control (0=public, 1=private)    

Institution Type
 

Doctoral-Intensive –.13  –.14
Master’s I and II –.09 –.20
Baccalaureate Liberal Arts –.15 –.10 –.23
Baccalaureate General –.11 –.10 –.32

Perceptions of 
Environment
 

Env. Emphasis: Aesthetics    
Env. Emphasis: Diversity
Env. Emphasis: Info. literacy 
skills .13
Env. Emphasis: Vocational
Env. Emphasis: Practical 
courses
Relationships: Other students .21
Relationships: Administrative 
personnel
Relationships: Faculty mem-
bers    

Academic  
Challenge

CSEQ Academic Challenge 
Scale    



382  College & Research Libraries 75th Anniversary Issue

APPENDIX F
Predictors of Three Outcome Variables from the CSEQ*

Independent Variables Dependent Variables
Library 
Experiences
 

Used the library to study    
Found something interesting 
browsing
Asked a librarian/staff  
member for help
Read assigned material not 
texts
Used index or database to find 
material
Wrote bibliography for a term 
paper
Gone back to read basic  
reference
Made a judgment about  
quality of info    
Model R2 .39 .44 .31

*Only Y-standardized effect sizes greater than |.08| are shown.

Notes

 1. This paper was originally prepared for an invited session at the 2003 ACRL National 
Conference. The authors thank Ann Bristow, Polly D. Boruff-Jones, Ilene Rockman, and Carolyn 
Walters for their comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper.

 2. B. G. Lindauer, “Defining and Measuring the Library’s Impact on Campuswide Outcomes,” 
College and Research Libraries 59, no. 6 (1998); Measuring Up, Measuring Up 2002: The State-by-State 
Report Card for Higher Education (San Jose, Calif.: National Center for Public Policy and Higher 
Education, 2002).

 3. Steve Jones, The Internet Goes to College: How Students Are Living in the Future with Today’s 
Technology (Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2002).

 4. K. Dunn, “Assessing Student Information Literacy Skills in the California State University: 
A Progress Report,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 28, no. 1/2 (2002); I. F. Rockman and Gordon 
W. Smith, “A Multi-dimensional Project to Assess Student Information Competence Skills,” paper 
presented at the E-Learn Conference, Montreal, 2002.

 5. National Center for Postsecondary Improvement, “The Landscape: A Report to Stakeholders 
on the Condition and Effectiveness of Postsecondary Education,” Change 33, no. 3 (2001); Outsell, 
Managing Online Information to Maximize Corporate Intranet ROI (2001) [cited July 2001]). Available 
online from http://w.moreover.com/.

 6. Lindauer, “Defining and Measuring the Library’s Impact on Campuswide Outcomes.”
 7. J. J. Shapiro and S. K. Hughes, “Information Literacy as a Liberal Art: Enlightenment 

Proposals for a New Curriculum,” Educom Review 31, no. 2 (1996): 2.
 8. P. Boruff-Jones, personal communication, November 2002.
 9. K. Brodsky and S. Toczyski, “Information Competence in the Freshman Interest Group at 

Sonoma State University,” paper presented at the First Year Experience Conference, Orlando, 2002.
 10. Robert B. Barr, and John Tagg, “From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Un-

dergraduate Education,” Change 27 (Nov. /Dec. 1995); John Tagg, The Learning Paradigm College 
(Bolton, Mass.: Anker, 2003).

 11. Lindauer, “Defining and Measuring the Library’s Impact on Campuswide Outcomes”; R. 
A. Wolff, “Rethinking Library Self-studies and Accreditation Visits,” in The Challenge and Practice 
of Academic Accreditation: A Sourcebook for Library Administration, ed. E. D. Garten (Westport, Conn.: 
Greenwood, 1994).

 12. R. R. Powell, “Impact Assessment of University Libraries,” Library and Information Science 



The Role of the Academic Library in Promoting Student Engagement in Learning 383

Research 14 (1992).
13. Glendale Community College, “Information Competency Improves Grades” (2001).
 14. J. C. Ory and L. A. Braskamp, “Involvement and Growth of Students in Three Academic 

Programs,” Research in Higher Education 28 (1988).
 15. Patrick T. Terenzini, “Influences Affecting the Development of Students’ Critical Thinking 

Skills,” Research in Higher Education 36, no. 1 (1995); Patrick T. Terenzini, et al., “First-generation 
College Students: Characteristics, Experiences, and Cognitive Development,” Research in Higher 
Education 37, no. 1 (1996).

 16. C. Robert Pace, Measuring the Quality of College Student Experiences. An Account of the De-
velopment and Use of the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (Los Angeles: Higher Education 
Research Institute, 1984).

 17. Ethelene Whitmire, “Development of Critical Thinking Skills: An Analysis of Academic 
Library Experiences and Other Measures,” College and University Research Libraries 59, no. 3 (1998).

 18. ———, “Racial Differences in the Academic Library Experiences of Undergraduates,” 
Journal of Academic Librarianship 25, no. 1 (1999).

 19. Alexander W. Astin, “Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education,” 
Journal of College Student Personnel 25 (1984); Ernest T. Pascarella and Patrick T. Terenzini, How 
College Affects Students, The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series (San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1991).

 20. George D. Kuh, J. H. Schuh, E. J. Whitt, and associates, Involving Colleges: Successful Ap-
proaches to Fostering Student Learning and Development outside the Classroom (San Francisco: Jossey 
Bass, 1991); Roy Romer, Making Quality Count in Undergraduate Education (Denver, Colo.: Education 
Commission of the States, 1995).

 21. Pace, Measuring the Quality of College Student Experiences.
 22. George D. Kuh, “Assessing What Really Matters to Student Learning: Inside the National 

Survey of Student Engagement,” Change 33, no. 3 (2001).
 23. Peter T. Ewell, and Dennis P. Jones, Indicators of “Good Practice” in Undergraduate Educa-

tion: A Handbook for Development and Implementation (Boulder, Colo.: National Center for Higher 
Education Management Systems, 1996); Robert M. Gonyea, Kelly Kish, George D. Kuh, Richard 
Muthiah, and Auden Thomas CSEQ: Norms for the Fourth Edition (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana 
University Center for Postsecondary Research, Policy, and Planning, 2003).

 24. Robert C. Pace, and George D. Kuh, College Student Experiences Questionnaire (fourth edition) 
(Bloomington, Ind.: Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning, 1998).

 25. The respondents in the first sample who completed the CSEQ between 1984 and 2002 include 60 
percent women; 80 percent are white, 6 percent black, 3 percent Hispanic, 6 percent Asian, and 4 percent 
other race or ethnicity. First-year students total 35 percent, sophomores 21 percent, juniors 17 percent, 
and seniors 26 percent. Of the respondents in the second sample who completed the fourth edition of 
the CSEQ, 61 percent were women and 77 percent were white, 8 percent Asian or Pacific Islander, 5 
percent black, 3 percent Mexican-American, Puerto Rican, or other Hispanic, 1 percent American Indian, 
3 percent multiracial, and 3 percent other race or ethnic identity. Approximately 43 percent were first-year 
students, 20 percent sophomores, 17 percent juniors, and 20 percent seniors. About 20 percent were 
majoring in a preprofessional program (e.g., agriculture, education, communications, and health-related 
fields); 11 percent in social sciences (e.g., multidisciplinary studies, sociology, and public administration); 
16 percent in mathematics, science, or related area (e.g., computer science and engineering); 8 percent 
in the humanities (e.g., ethnic studies, foreign languages, history, and visual and performing arts); and 
15 percent in business. Four percent were undecided as to major field, and 21 percent had two or more 
majors. In terms of institutional type, 38 percent were from twenty-nine doctoral/research-extensive 
universities, 13 percent from seventeen doctoral/research-intensive universities, 33 percent from forty-
one masters’ colleges and universities, 8 percent from twenty-one baccalaureate liberal colleges, and 9 
percent from twenty-three baccalaureate general colleges; Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement 
of Teaching, Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 2000 edition (Menlo Park, 
Calif.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2000); Robert M. Gonyea, Kelly 
Kish, George D. Kuh, Richard Muthiah, and Auden Thomas CSEQ: Norms for the Fourth Edition 
(Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, Policy, and Planning, 
2003).

 26. George D. Kuh, Nick Vesper, Mark R. Connolly, and C. Robert Pace, “College Student 
Experiences Questionnaire: Revised Norms for the Third Edition,” (Bloomington, Ind.: Center 
for Postsecondary Research and Planning, Indiana University, 1997).

 27. Note that INFOLIT is a subset of GAINSUM.
 28. Pascarella and Terenzini, How College Affects Students.
 29. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Carnegie Classification of Institutions 

of Higher Education.
 30. Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges, 23rd ed. (Hauppauge, N.Y.: Barron’s Educational 



384  College & Research Libraries 75th Anniversary Issue

References

Astin, Alexander W. 1984. “Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education.” 
Journal of College Student Personnel 25: 297–308.

Barr, Robert B., and John Tagg. 1995. “From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Under-
graduate Education.” Change 27 (November/December): 13–25.

Barron’s profiles of American colleges. 23rd ed. 1998. Hauppauge, N.Y.: Barron’s Educational Series.
Brodsky, K., and S. Toczyski. 2002. “Information Competence in the Freshman Interest Group at 

Sonoma State University.” Paper presented at the First Year Experience Conference, Orlando, Fla.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 2000. Carnegie Classification of Institutions 

of Higher Education, 2000 edition. Menlo Park, Calif.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advance-
ment of Teaching.

Clark, B. 1972. “The Organizational Saga in Higher Education.” In ASHE Reader in Organization 
and Governance in Higher Education, ed. E. Birnbaum. Washington, D.C.: Association for the 
Study of Higher Education.

Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. 
Erlbaum Associates.

Dunn, K. 2002. “Assessing Student Information Literacy Skills in the California State University: 
A Progress Report.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 28 (1/2): 26–35.

Ewell, Peter T., and Dennis P. Jones. 1996. Indicators of “Good Practice” in Undergraduate Education: 
A Handbook for Development and Implementation. Boulder, Colo.: National Center for Higher 
Education Management Systems.

Glendale Community College. 2001. “Information Competency Improves Grades.”
Gonyea, Robert M., Kelly Kish, George D. Kuh, Richard Muthiah, and Auden Thomas. 2003. CSEQ: 

Norms for the Fourth Edition. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary 
Research, Policy, and Planning.

Series, 1998).
 31. Response values on items appended by a ‘4’ were mathematically collapsed to four-point 

range, giving all items an equal portion of the total scale score.
 32. Jacob Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. (Hillsdale, N.J.: 

L. Erlbaum Associates, 1988).
 33. R. Light and D. Pillemer, “Numbers and Narrative: Combining Their Strengths in Research 

Reviews,” Harvard Educational Review (1982).
 34. The expression “|.08|” should be read “the absolute value of .08.”
 35. I. Rockman, personal communication, December 19, 2002.
 36. Ibid.
 37. ANOVA results are not reported in this paper but are available from the authors.
 38. Jones, The Internet Goes to College.
 39. Ibid.
 40. Dunn, “Assessing Student Information Literacy Skills in the California State University”; Rock-

man and Smith, “A Multi-dimensional Project to Assess Student Information Competence Skills.”
 41. B. Clark, “The Organizational Saga in Higher Education,” in ASHE Reader in Organiza-

tion and Governance in Higher Education, ed. R. Birnbaum (Washington, D.C.: Association for the 
Study of Higher Education, 1972); George D. Kuh and Elizabeth J. Whitt, The Invisible Tapestry: 
Culture in American Colleges and Universities, ed. J. D. Fife ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 
1 (Washington, D.C.: Association for the Student of Higher Education, 1988); B. K. Townsend, L. J. 
Newell, and M. D. Wiese, Creating Distinctiveness: Lessons from Uncommon Colleges and Universities, 
AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Report, no. 6 (Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, 
School of Education and Human Development, 1992).

 42. Ernest Pascarella, “Using Student Self-reported Gains to Estimate College Impact: A Cau-
tionary Tale,” Journal of College Student Development 42 (2001).

 43. Pascarella and Terenzini, How College Affects Students.
 44. Carolyn Walters, personal communication, December 22, 2002.
 45. P. D. Maughan, Information Literacy Survey (Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley 

Library, 2002).
 46. George D. Kuh, and Shouping Hu, “The Effects of Student–Faculty Interaction in the 

1990s,” Review of Higher Education 24, no. 3 (2001).
 47. George D. Kuh, “What We’re Learning about Student Engagement from NSSE,” Change 

35, no. 2 (2003).
 48. Dunn, “Assessing Student Information Literacy Skills in the California State University.”
 49. Kuh, “What We’re Learning about Student Engagement from NSSE.”
 50. Pascarella, “Using Student Self-reported Gains to Estimate College Impact.”



The Role of the Academic Library in Promoting Student Engagement in Learning 385

Jones, Steve. 2002. The Internet Goes to College: How Students Are Living in the Future with Today’s 
Technology. Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Kuh, G. D. 2003. “What We’re Learning about Student Engagement from NSSE.” Change 35(2).
Kuh, George D. 2001. Assessing What Really Matters to Student Learning: Inside the National 

Survey of Student Engagement.” Change 33(3): 10–17, 66.
Kuh, George D., and Shouping Hu. 2001. “The Effects of Student–Faculty Interaction in the 1990s.” 

Review of Higher Education 24(3): 309–32.
Kuh, George D., J. H. Schuh, E. J. Whitt, and Associates. 1991. Involving Colleges: Successful Approaches 

to Fostering Student Learning and Development outside the Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Kuh, George D., Nick Vesper, Mark R. Connolly, and C. Robert Pace. 1997. College Student Experi-

ences Questionnaire: Revised Norms for the Third Edition. Bloomington, Ind.: Center for Postsec-
ondary Research and Planning, Indiana University.

Kuh, George D., and Elizabeth J. Whitt. 1988. The Invisible Tapestry: Culture in American Colleges 
and Universities, ed. J. D. Fife. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No 1. Washington, D.C.: 
Association for the Student of Higher Education.

Light, R., and D. Pillemer. 1982. “Numbers and Narrative: Combining Their Strengths in Research 
Reviews.” Harvard Educational Review (1982): 1–26.

Lindauer, B.G. 1998. “Defining and Measuring the Library’s Impact on Campuswide Outcomes.” 
College and Research Libraries 59(6): 546–63.

Maughan, P. D. 2002. Information Literacy Survey. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley 
Library.

Measuring Up. 2002. Measuring Up 2002: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education. San 
Jose, Calif.: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement. 2001. “The Landscape: A Report to Stakehold-
ers on the Condition and Effectiveness of Postsecondary Education.” Change 33(3): 27–42.

Ory, J. C., and L. A. Braskamp. 1988. “Involvement and Growth of Students in Three Academic 
Programs.” Research in Higher Education 28: 116–29.

Outsell. 2001. Managing Online Information to Maximize Corporate Intranet ROI [cited July 2001]. 
Available online from http://w.moreover.com/.

Pace, C. Robert. 1984. Measuring the Quality of College Student Experiences. An Account of the Devel-
opment and Use of the College Student Experiences Questionnaire. Los Angeles: Higher Education 
Research Institute.

Pace, C. Robert, and George D. Kuh. 1998. College Student Experiences Questionnaire (fourth edition). 
Bloomington, Ind: Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning.

Pascarella, Ernest. 2001. Using Student Self-reported Gains to Estimate College Impact: A Cau-
tionary Tale.” Journal of College Student Development 42: 488–92.

Pascarella, Ernest T., and Patrick T. Terenzini. 1991. How College Affects Students, The Jossey-Bass 
Higher and Adult Education Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Powell, R. R. 1992. “Impact Assessment of University Libraries.” Library and Information Science 
Research 14: 254.

Rockman, I. F., and Gordon W. Smith. 2002. “A Multi-dimensional Project to Assess Student In-
formation Competence Skills.” Paper presented at the E-Learn Conference, Montreal.

Romer, Roy. 1995. Making Quality Count in Undergraduate Education. Denver, Colo.: Education 
Commission of the States.

Shapiro, J. J., and S. K. Hughes. 1996. “Information Literacy as a Liberal Art: Enlightenment 
Proposals for a New Curriculum.” Educom Review 31(2): 31–35.

Tagg, John. 2003. The Learning Paradigm College. Bolton, Mass.: Anker.
Terenzini, Patrick T. 1995. “Influences Affecting the Development of Students’ Critical Thinking 

Skills.” Research in Higher Education 36(1): 23–39.
Terenzini, Patrick T., et al. 1996. “First-generation College Students: Characteristics, Experiences, 

and Cognitive Development.” Research in Higher Education 37(1): 1–22.
Townsend, B. K., L. J. Newell, and M. D. Wiese. 1992. Creating Distinctiveness: Lessons from Uncom-

mon Colleges and Universities, AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Report, No. 6. Washington, D.C.: 
The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Whitmire, Ethelene. 1998. “Development of Critical Thinking Skills: An Analysis of Academic 
Library Experiences and Other Measures.” College and University Research Libraries 59(3): 266–73.

———. 1999. “Racial Differences in the Academic Library Experiences of Undergraduates.” Journal 
of Academic Librarianship 25(1): 33–37.

Wolff, R. A. 1994. “Rethinking Library Self-studies and Accreditation Visits.” In The Challenge 
and Practice of Academic Accreditation: A Sourcebook for Library Administration, ed. E. D. Garten. 
Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.