Research Article
What Are They Doing Anyway?: Library as Place and
Student Use of a University Library
Angelica Ferria
Curator
University Libraries
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rhode Island,
United States of America
Email: aferria@uri.edu
Brian T. Gallagher
Associate Professor
University Libraries
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rhode Island,
United States of America
Email: bgallagher@uri.edu
Amanda Izenstark
Associate Professor
University Libraries
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rhode Island,
United States of America
Email: Amanda@uri.edu
Peter Larsen
Associate Professor
University Libraries
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rhode Island,
United States of America
Email: plarsen@uri.edu
Kelly LeMeur
Learning Commons Librarian
University Library
Roger Williams University
Bristol, Rhode Island,
United States of America
Email: klemeur@rwu.edu
Cheryl A. McCarthy
Professor Emerita
Graduate School of Library
and Information Studies
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rhode Island,
United States of America
Email: chermc@uri.edu
Professor
University Libraries
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rhode Island,
United States of America
Email: dmongeau@uri.edu
Received: 8 Nov. 2016 Accepted:
10 Feb. 2017
2017 Ferria, Gallagher, Izenstark, Larsen, LeMeur,
McCarthy, and Mongeau. This is an Open Access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objective - To
determine student use of library spaces, the authors recorded student location
and behaviors within the Library, to inform future space design.
Methods - The case study method was used with both quantitative and
qualitative measures. The authors had two objectives to guide this assessment
of library spaces: 1) To determine what
library spaces are being used by students and whether students are working
individually, communally, or collaboratively and 2) To determine whether
students use these spaces for learning activities and/or social engagement.
Results - After
data collection and analysis, the authors determined students are using
individual or communal spaces almost equally as compared with collaborative
group spaces. Data also revealed peak area usage and times.
Conclusion - Observed
student individual and social work habits indicate further need for spaces with
ample electrical outlets and moveable tables. Further study is recommended to
see whether additional seating and renovated spaces continue to enhance
informal learning communities at URI and whether the Library is becoming a
“third place” on campus.
Introduction
In 2008, Bennett
defined information commons as spaces
in libraries with technology that support individual learning and learning commons as spaces in libraries
that impact or enhance the learning experience by enacting the institutional
mission through collaborative partnerships with “academic units that establish
learning goals for the institution” (Bennett, 2008, p. 183). In 2011, the University of Rhode Island (URI)
redefined its library, rebranding the University Library with the name Robert
L. Carothers Library and Learning Commons (the Library). The
University of Rhode Island is a public Land, Sea, and Urban Grant institution,
offering Bachelors, Masters, and Doctoral Degrees, with three campuses across
the state. The Library is located on the main campus in Kingston, RI. Of URI’s
nearly 17,000 undergraduate and graduate students, approximately 6,700 live on
campus (URI Communications and Marketing, undated).
While the Library’s
mission to acquire, organize, preserve, and provide access to resources in all
formats and provide instruction in their use has remained constant, its role on
the Kingston, RI, campus requires new and evolving ways of thinking about its
physical spaces. The Library’s spaces have evolved into places of individual
intellectual inquiry as well as collaborative engagement where students connect
with others to build shared learning communities.
Academic library
planners have begun to embrace the notion of creating welcoming shared learning community spaces
where users connect informally and the library can become the third place on campus. Ray
Oldenburg, in his book The Great Good
Place (1991), defined the third place
in a community as a place that provides the diversity of human contact where
people come together to connect and build a shared community when not at home
(first place) or work (second place). Arguably, academic libraries can become
that third place on campus, with spaces that welcome a diversity of human
contact that nurtures growth when outside the classroom (first place) or campus
housing (second place). The Library as the third place can enrich campus life,
create a sense of belongingness, and support the institutional mission of
lifelong-learning. Thus, the Library spaces at URI, were assessed for their
impact on how students are using library spaces by identifying what spaces are
used and whether students work individually, communally, or collaboratively.
Literature Review
The evaluation of the
academic library as place, and specifically its impact on learning, has
challenged the library profession, administrators in higher education, and
accreditation agencies. Joan Lippincott of the Coalition of Networked
Information (CNI) stated in an interview: “I’d like to challenge the notion
that brand-new, beautiful learning spaces in and of themselves can change
learning. I believe that it has to be a combination of the space and the
pedagogy and the technology” (Lippincott, van den Blink, Lewis,
Stuart & Oswald, 2009, p. 10). Lippincott (2006) advocated making
managerial decisions in libraries based on assessment data that measures the
effectiveness, efficiency and extensiveness of learning spaces in libraries.
There is growing concern for universities to evaluate their library facilities,
services, technology, and information resources to determine the impact on
student learning and how libraries support the research and public service
mission of the institution.
According to Fox and Doshi (2013),
group spaces are growing. Additionally, Diller (2015) identified that study
areas are the second highest used library spaces. Khoo, Rozaklis, Hall, and
Kusunoki (2016) commented on redesigned library spaces to encourage group
interaction where talking, moving around, and moving furniture is acceptable.
The advent of digital tools and
resources as well as pedagogical shifts that emphasize collaboration, creation,
and student centered learning have changed the library landscape.
Libraries have responded to calls for
user-centered learning with good reason; student-centered learning is
social—active and interactive (Foster & Gibbons, 2007). In that tradition,
Montgomery (2014) explained: “The importance of library space is shifting from
the content on our shelves to how students use and learn in our space” (p. 71).
Trying to remain relevant, libraries allocate and reallocate space in
recognition of the pedagogical shift toward interaction among learners (Jackson
& Shenton, 2010) by becoming physical and virtual platforms for knowledge
creation.
At the same time, there are those who
want the academic library to honor its historical mandate as a place for quiet
study and contemplation. Gayton (2008), in particular, supports this role for
the library by pointing out that, in spite of its diminished importance as a
storehouse and access point, gate counts have remained steady. Similarly, Demas
(2005) emphasized the library’s cultural roles. Gayton and Demas urge decision
makers not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Gayton (2008) clarifies,
There is a profound
difference between a space in which library users are engaged in social
activity and a space in which they are engaged in communal activity. Social
activity in a library involves conversation and discussion among people, about
either the work at hand or more trivial matters. Communal activity in a library
involves seeing and being seen quietly engaged in study (p. 61).
There is value to learning that takes
place independently or communally in a shared space; it is a privilege students
do not want to risk losing.
Yoo-Lee, Tae, and Velez (2013) found
that students responded to two survey questions with contradictory preferences
for library spaces: “37 percent of the participants chose quiet study spaces
and 28 percent, social spaces. However, 35 percent of them responded that they
used both quiet spaces and social spaces almost equally” (p. 503).
Looking at the quantitative results of
space studies introduces notions of capacity and occupancy that warrant
consideration. Applegate (2009) noted, “Previous observations had shown that
unaffiliated people (people not arriving together or working in a group) almost
never preferred to sit right next to each other, so an area might reach ‘full’
comfortable use at 50% of maximum capacity” (p. 343). In their discussion about
a place and space survey Khoo et al. (2016) elaborated on this point: “Thus,
while seating availability is initially evidenced by an empty table, this
availability is reduced incrementally and ambiguously, . . . In agreement with Gibbons and Foster,
this study suggests that tables may be perceived to be ‘full’ when only
approximately 50 percent of the seats at each table are occupied” (p. 7).
Khoo et al. (2016) advocated the use of
mixed methods when studying library spaces. Montgomery (2014) and Holder and
Lange (2014) both used mixed-methods successfully. As Holder and Lange argued,
“Using survey and observation methods together provided a more complete picture
of user satisfaction with the spaces, as well as user preference for particular
areas and furniture types” (p. 8).
Hall and Kapa (2015) found in their
study at Concordia University that some students prefer to work in isolation,
as illustrated by one of their survey responses: “More single study spaces. Not
beside desks or other people” (p. 14). This is consistent with Applegate’s
(2009) study where 30-40% of group study room users were individuals, despite
signage encouraging group use. As
planning for spaces goes forward, it is worth considering the value of offering
rooms for individuals versus space intended for groups, or using “territorial
dividers” to subdivide groups as recommended by İmamoğlu and Gürel (2016, p.
65).
Aims
Embracing the concept
of the third place along with Bennett’s 2008 definition of the library as
learning commons, the Library administration at URI assembled a team of
librarians and staff during the 2014-2015 academic year to examine the
evolution of library spaces to assess how the new spaces are being used and
whether the Library is becoming the third place on campus. The assessment team
hoped to identify student preferences for type of seating and level of
engagement through the behavior and activities observed. Students were not
asked their preferences, however we could identify the most heavily used spaces
and times as well as how students were using them for individual, communal, or
group activities on each level (i.e., lower level, first floor, second floor,
or third floor).
The librarians used
the following research questions as guides:
1. What library spaces are being used by students and are
students working individually, communally, or collaboratively?
2. How do students use these spaces for learning activities
and/or social engagement?
Methods
The case study
methodology used both qualitative and quantitative measurements to assess the
overarching research questions. The assessment team recorded sweep counts and
unobtrusive observations on maps and coding sheets and examined aggregated
usage statistics including gate counts to get a complete picture of library
use.
The assessment team
performed sweep counts of students using the Library spaces for one week at the
end of two semesters, Fall semester (December 1-7, 2014) and Spring Semester
(April 25-May 1, 2015), three times a day (10 a.m.-12 p.m., 2-4 p.m., and 8-10
p.m.). The sweep counts identified the number of students using the Library as
well as the activities of those students for each day and time. Activity codes
included reading, writing, using devices, studying in groups, and using movable
white boards. The assessment team also observed behavior: individual, communal,
or group study. Team members submitted the coded information sheets and key
personnel created Excel spreadsheets to compile the numbers and highlight
comparisons of times, days, and semesters to determine peak use times. No identifying
information about participants was recorded and thus, user privacy was
protected.
In assessing the use of space, the URI
assessment team devised a strategy consistent with McCarthy and Nitecki (2011),
Given and Leckie (2004), and Applegate (2009). The URI researchers identified
the use of library space with sweep counts and structured observations of
activities and behaviors. The URI researchers recorded information directly on
maps and coding sheets with predetermined categories similar to coders in other
studies (May, 2011; McCarthy & Nitecki, 2011).
Quantitative
Assessment Measures
1. What Library spaces are being used
by students and are they working individually, communally, or collaboratively?
The team identified
space use by counting and recording the number of people occupying seats in the
various areas (e.g., tables, group study rooms, informal spaces such as soft
seating, and the 24 Hour Room) on all four levels of the Library for each day
and time slot during the two sweep count weeks. Library personnel created Excel
spreadsheets from the coded data sheets to show occupancy rates, and the
assessment team analyzed the combined data to determine the most heavily used
seating areas, peak times of use, and how spaces were being used.
Qualitative
Assessment Measures
2. How
do students use these spaces for learning activities and/or social engagement?
The assessment team
observed and recorded activities on coding sheets for each time period and date
to identify students’ activities and behaviors, to record how the spaces
appeared to enhance informal learning communities. These coding sheets were
compiled into spreadsheets to compare observations of activities and behaviors such
as reading, writing, and using devices and to identify commonalities using
content analysis.
Observers determined whether students were engaged individually, communally
(working alongside), or collaboratively (working together in groups) as well as
their activities and behaviors. The assessment team analyzed these findings
individually and collectively for relations between the two semesters, times of
day, days of the week, levels of the building, and so on to determine the
effectiveness of the Library’s environment in building a shared learning
community.
Table 1
The Library
Floor Level Identification
|
Floor Location |
Atmosphere/Behavior |
Noise Level |
Furnishings |
|
Lower Level |
Mostly individual study, some flexible
use |
Quiet, Soft voices |
Carrels, some small tables |
|
First Floor/ Main Floor |
Meet and greet, constant motion, café in
the 24 Hour Study Room, Learning Commons spaces, group study rooms,
presentation room, and collaborative spaces with whiteboards and flat screens
for projection, as well as moveable furniture and roving white boards |
Conversation, Collaboration, Mall or
busy lobby |
Grouped soft seating, high top bar
seating, café tables, booths, moveable tables and chairs with wheels, |
|
Second Floor |
Group work or communal study at tables
alongside others, flexible use with roving whiteboards, group study rooms and
graduate carrels (small rooms) |
Conversation, Café style seating |
Moveable tables and chairs on wheels,
bar seating, some carrels and some soft seating, group study rooms |
|
Third Floor |
Library designated quiet zone |
Silent |
Carrels and tables |
Results and Discussion
Student Use of Spaces
by Floor
Tracking student occupancy by floor is
only one aspect of measuring use of space. Another method is to measure use of
space by specific location, time of day, and number of seats available. In this
study, discerning students’ choices of seating may be influenced by segregation
of library atmosphere and noise level by physical floor level as well as by
flexible furnishings. The exception is the third floor, which the Library has designated
as a quiet zone. Enforcement is primarily self-policing by other users. Table 1
offers a brief snapshot of each floor, its atmosphere, and behaviors
identified.
As the total number of seats varies
greatly by floor, preferred use was measured by number of seats filled as
compared to number of seats available on each floor. Counts provided a clear
picture of preferred seating across various floors by both day of week and time
of day. Although the percentage of seats actually taken may be one-third or
one-half full, the actual number of tables occupied appears to be a full house.
There may only be one or two students at a table with four to six seats.
Students arriving unaccompanied seemed reluctant to approach an
already-occupied but not fully-used table, unless they knew the occupants.
This is consistent with what Applegate (2009) and Khoo et al. (2016) observed
in their studies.
The relatively high occupancy of first
floor seating can be explained by the newly renovated Learning Commons area
with the highly popular booths (with 1-4 students), flexible and moveable
tables and seats, curtained areas, café-style tables, laptop-bar high seating,
and a 24 Hour Room with a café where students frequently meet and greet and
wait for their next class, or utilize their own electronic devices as well as
library materials and white boards. Thus, the first floor areas including the
Learning Commons and the 24 Hour Room, appear fully occupied throughout the day
and evening. Table by table, however,
occupancy was approximately 30% of the seats occupied with an increase in seat
occupancy between 2-4 p.m.
Table 2
Behavioral Use of Library Spaces, by
Floor
|
|
Date |
IS/Communal |
GS/Social |
|
Lower Level |
December 2014 |
60.9% |
39.1% |
|
April 2015 |
54% |
46% |
|
|
First Floor |
December 2014 |
48.2% |
51.8% |
|
April 2015 |
51.2% |
48.8% |
|
|
Second Floor |
December 2014 |
40.1% |
59.9% |
|
April 2015 |
41.6% |
58.4% |
|
|
Third Floor |
December 2014 |
69.8% |
30.2% |
|
April 2015 |
71.1% |
28.9% |
|
|
Average for all floors |
December 2014 |
52% |
48% |
|
April 2015 |
47.8% |
52.2% |
The lower level and third floors had
the least amount of students occupying seats and they also do not have as much
seating nor have moveable tables or seats. Both levels are used primarily for
quiet study or individual work in carrels and thus, may explain the significant
difference in variation of seating by floor. Observers noted that, where
carrels were placed side-by-side, students showed a reluctance to take a seat
next to an occupied carrel.
The first floor sometimes had double or
triple the occupancy of the next highest used floors, with a peak usage from
2-4 p.m. on Monday through Friday. The second and third floors were the next
highest in use. Occupancy of these floors typically varied by less than twenty
users (second floor being slightly higher) with patterns of occupancy that
tended to move in tandem. Like the first floor, peak time was 2-4 p.m. daily
Monday through
Friday. The lower level was by far the least used floor, with only half the use
of the second and third floors. Unlike the rest of the building, use of the
lower level remained moderately steady, with variations seldom rising or
falling more than 15 students between scheduled counts. Saturday occupancy grew
steadily across all floors for time periods measured while Sunday’s use spiked
at 4-6 p.m. in May but in December the numbers grew steadily throughout the
day.
Figure 1
Carothers Library occupancy by floor,
day, and time for Fall 2014.
Figure 2
Carothers Library occupancy by floor, day, and time
for Spring 2015.
In summary, first through third floor
use was consistent comparing both semesters, with heaviest use from 2-4 p.m.
Monday-Friday. Lower level floor use was steady throughout all the observation periods
although the number were the least. Saturday use was steady across all floors
with a small spike from 4-6 p.m. Sunday use in December showed a steady
increase during the day and night, but in May, use spiked from 2-4 p.m. The
December count (possessing greater variations) clearly aligns with the fact
that classes were still in session, while the April count had less drastic
variations with May 1 as a reading day prior to the start of exams.
While
analyzing occupancy numbers by day of the week tends to support the
observations drawn from Table 2 (e.g., usage tends to be highest in the 2-4
p.m. time slot, the first floor is used noticeably more than the other floors),
the data does not reveal further meaningful patterns. More than two weeks of
observation are needed to uncover significant patterns at the week by week
scale. Note that the low values for Sunday, April 26, 8-10 p.m., are the result
of lack of data rather than absence of students.
Behavioral Use
of Spaces
The framework devised to show how
students use library spaces originally identified three criteria to be observed
as a set of behaviors defined as
Independent Study (IS), Alongside Study (AS), and Group Study (GS). The charts
created to record data for the sweep counts also used the codes IS, AS, and GS
to record behaviors observed. Discussion by the assessment team after the first
count identified that observers may interpret these categories differently, and
to label all behavior as study may be
inaccurate. Thus, the original category of studying alongside (AS) was merged
into the existing heading of individual study (IS) because group work (GS)
should indicate active collaboration with interaction at the time of
observation. These categories correlate to a similar examination of students
using library space by Holder and Lange (2014) who also found it necessary to
clarify proximity: “interaction (students working alone/students working
collaboratively/other)” (p. 9).
Some observers noted that it was a
subjective call whether to label student use IS or AS when they were working
independently but at the same table or space although they were not directly
interacting. So alongside (AS) became identified as communal and was combined with IS for the count. Group work implied
interaction among participants and may incorporate social activities as well.
Space Use
Table 2 provides an
overview of how students were using each floor during each of the study
periods. The
lower level has more carrels and fewer tables than other floors and provides
more individual/communal activity rather than group work/study. Accordingly, the results showed
significantly more individual work: the lower level had 20% more individual
than communal study in December and approximately 10% more in April.
The first floor, which includes a
Learning Commons with booths, cluster soft seating, high top and moveable
tables, a café in the 24 Hour Room with moveable seating, as well as service
points (circulation and reference), shows almost equal use of space between
individual/communal (IS/Communal) versus group/social activities (GS/Social).
Data for this floor closely parallels findings for the Library as a whole and
is fairly consistent between semesters with almost equal behavioral use with
48% individual/communal versus 52% group work in December with 51% individual
versus 49% group work in April.
The second floor shows significantly
more Group/Social activity compared with all floors and is consistent over two
semesters with approximately 40% individual versus 60% social. One reason for
the high usage is the preference shown by many Greek Society students who use
these spaces for communal study.
The third floor, designated as the
silent floor, has vastly more individual/communal than group/social use and is
consistent between semesters with the highest number of individual use of all
floors with approximately 70% individual and only 30% group or social activity.
When all floors are averaged for
behavioral use of space, it is almost equally distributed between IS/Communal
and GS/Social. In the observation of behavior, the counts indicated that the
lower level 60% vs. 40% preference for individual versus group activity and
third floor (quiet area) approximately 70% vs. 30% preference for individual
over group activity; whereas, the first floor showed nearly equal preference
for individual vs. group activity but only the second floor was higher in group
work/activity with approximately 40%-60% individual vs. group engagement. The
average totals for all floors for both semesters indicate approximately 52% and
48% individual vs. group activity for December but the opposite, 48% - 52%
individual vs. group activity, for April.
The data collected about behavioral use
of library spaces revealed the total average percent for all floors in the
Library is almost equal for individual/communal work vs. group work or social
activity/learning. The results indicate that students at URI gather in the library
to work both communally and collaboratively in almost equal amounts throughout
the day and evening with peak times in the late afternoon. Thus, it appears
that more tables and seats are needed to accommodate students’ desire to work
communally or collaboratively.
The data is notably consistent.
Observation at the Library demonstrates that close to 50% of the library is
used for independent study or communal alongside and approximately 50% of the
library space is used for group collaborating or social engagement. Some
observed activities by groups include collaborative learning projects using
white boards with equations, scientific data, charts, diagrams, engineering
formulas, preparing presentations, and practicing performances, as well as
using roving white boards or shared electronic devices and flat screens in the group
study rooms. This sort of collaborative work supports the learning commons
concept as advocated by Bennett (2003). At the same time, regardless of
intention or design, library space is being used communally, individually, for
group work with socializing, as well as for interacting with both print and
electronic information resources.
Group study rooms are very popular
spaces. The Library has 21 group study rooms of various configurations on 3 of
the 4 levels. Fifteen of these rooms can accommodate up to six students, and
six rooms are intended for one or two students. Students frequently indicate
preferred spaces when they request a study room, however, they were identified
as full even if only one or two students occupied the room.
Some group study rooms have a small
counter permanently mounted at desk height with seating for one or two
students. Others have freestanding tables with wall-mounted whiteboards, and
some have large monitors in the rooms in the Learning Commons where students
can plug in their laptops for greater screen visibility during group work.
Rooms on the second and third floor of the Library are sometimes less appealing
than rooms on the first floor due to their older furnishings, but they remain
quite popular and all are frequently full on all floors. Group study rooms are
available on a first-come-first-served basis only, with no option to reserve
rooms. Students can check out a key to a room for up to three hours at a time,
and can renew the room if no other students or groups are waiting to use the
next available room.
While the group study rooms were often
in use by groups during both survey periods, on a number of occasions only one
student occupied a small group study room. In most cases, however, when large
group study rooms were in use, groups of more than two students were using
them. The few exceptions to this trend—for example, only one student occupied a
room intended for use by three or more students—occurred during the early hours
on weekends. This is a time when Library use as a whole is lower than average,
and there is consequently lower demand for group study spaces.
Occupancy Rate by
Floor and Hour
Although the building rarely has more
than 20-35% total seat occupancy during the observation weeks, it was noted
that frequently only 1-2 students occupied tables that seat 4-6, further
confirmation of Applegate’s observations (2009). Students seem
reluctant to sit next to unfamiliar students which likely accounts for similar
low occupancy of the carrels on the lower level and third floor, as noted
above. The 2-4 p.m. time period Monday-Friday accounts for the highest
occupancy rates with the 8-10 p.m. time slot generally close behind. The
evening count was almost always higher than the morning count in December but
the opposite was true in the Spring semester. Another curiosity is that the
first floor use drops off more than other floors between the afternoon and
evening especially during the Spring semester count. There is no accurate way
to determine why usage declines between late afternoon and evening without more
intrusive interactions with the students. It is obvious from the data summary
charts that the lower level and third floor (designated quiet zone) are
underutilized (see Table 3).
Table 3
Occupancy Rate (Occupied Seats vs.
Available Seats) by Floor and Hour
|
|
December 2014 |
April 2015 |
|
Lower Level |
|
|
|
Totals |
525/2289 (22.9%) |
557/2289 (24.3%) |
|
10-noon |
153/763 (20.0%) |
165/763 (21.6%) |
|
2-4pm |
182/763 (23.9%) |
266/763 (34.9%) |
|
8-10pm |
190/763 (24.9%) |
126/763 (16.5%) |
|
First Floor |
|
|
|
Totals |
2720/14700 (18.5%) |
3548/14700 (24%) |
|
10-noon |
727/4900 (13.9%) |
1255/4900 (25.6%) |
|
2-4pm |
1130/4900 (19%) |
1490/4900 (30.4%) |
|
8-10pm |
893/4900 (16.8%) |
783/4900 (16%) |
|
Second Floor |
|
|
|
Totals |
1575/5796 (27.2%) |
1283/5796 (22.1%) |
|
10-noon |
427/1932 (24.9%) |
365/1932 (18.9%) |
|
2-4pm |
605/1932 (31.3%) |
661/1932 (34.2%) |
|
8-10pm |
543/1932 (28.1%) |
257/1932 (13%) |
|
Third Floor |
|
|
|
Totals |
1504/7833 (19.2%) |
1005/7833 (12.8%) |
|
10-noon |
326/2611 (12.5%) |
240/2611 (9.2%) |
|
2-4pm |
599 /2611 (22.9%) |
541/2611 (20.7%) |
|
8-10pm |
579/2611 (22.2%) |
224/2611 (8.6%) |
Limitations
Discussion of initial data exposed a
discrepancy: unobtrusive observation could not definitively state whether
people sitting in close proximity to one another were working collaboratively
or if those students were working communally by sharing space. Consequently,
the team adjusted data categories to reflect the reality of what could be
observed. This reclassification of terms reflects a standard downside to
research that is limited to observation as also observed by May (2011). Without
direct intervention by either interviewing or surveying students, researchers
could not define some behaviors and activities precisely, such as using a
computer for study versus social media. Likewise, the findings could have been
enhanced by surveys similar to those from Yoo-Lee et al.’s (2013) investigation
of how students perceive space. Because we did not ask students directly what
spaces and modes of study they preferred, we cannot speculate on their
preferences with any great certainty. Since this study used multiple
observers, the assessment team pre-tested the coding sheets and clarified codes
to minimize discrepancies and inconsistencies, however subjectivity among
coders must be acknowledged.
Conclusions and Further Research Questions
This study broadly
supports the conclusions of other researchers. For example, Montgomery (2014)
found that “…the renovation provided users with a better space to work alone in
addition to it being used for social learning. We did not anticipate users
seeking individual studying space in a social learning environment, but
welcomed the flexibility of the space to meet this learning behavior” (p. 73).
Additionally, Holder and Lange (2014) suggested that students’ use of space is
need specific: as a consequence of either opportunity or necessity students
repurpose space to meet their individual, time sensitive needs. Their data
demonstrated that an area intended for collaborative study on the third floor
of McGill University’s McLennan Building was used for quiet, singular study 50%
of the time (Holder & Lange, 2014). The shared use of space observed at URI
also supports theories and findings for the need of both types of spaces as
posited by Freeman (2005), Demas (2005), and Lin, Chen, and Chang (2010).
The URI case study
reveals that the Library is a popular venue for student use with almost equal
individual or communal study as compared to group work or social engagement
during these two weeks of observation. The Library provides both a refuge for
quiet study as well as a venue for social activity or collaborative engagement,
thereby creating social learning communities where students want and need both
types of spaces. Differences are minimal between communal/social use as
compared to individual/quiet use of spaces on each floor when the total
building use is considered. It also speaks to how students use any space available, although the renovated first floor, including the
Learning Commons area, 24 Hour Room and café, are the most aesthetically
appealing spaces and the most used spaces in the Library. Given these
observations, it is reasonable to say, at least provisionally, that the
Carothers Library is serving as the third place on the URI Kingston campus.
Without surveying or interviewing users, however, researchers cannot know why
students have chosen to use a particular library space.
Determining the need
for both kinds of places (quiet individual study versus collaborative
engagement) in the wider campus environment would help determine whether the
Library has become the sole third place on campus or whether there are other
spaces serving these needs. Further research on campus-wide availability of places for
communal and social spaces could inform an understanding of what students
desire and prefer and give a better view of the Library’s central role in
providing those needs. That kind of study might include interviews or survey
questions about the appropriate applicability of other
spaces to connect and build shared learning communities, such as in dormitories, social
houses, classroom buildings, the student union, or other available
spaces on campus for study or social and communal use by students.
If those responsible for designing
library spaces document how students actually use spaces with an understanding
of student-centered learning, then it may be possible to coordinate the
intended function and actual use of the Library’s communal space for both
intellectual conversations and social engagement.
Answers to the questions of purpose and
student preferences by incorporating a survey or interviewing students could
supplement the library observations and sweep counts and thus provide more
valuable data for the allocation of both space and money. The activity recorded
during this study speaks to student use of spaces and types of behavior
observed but not students’ specific preferences.
As
academic libraries evolve, library spaces should be continuously assessed,
identified, and renovated to further identify how they are meeting the
teaching, learning, research, and social learning needs of the university
community. This first assessment study of the Library as place at URI helped to
identify what spaces are being used and how students are using them. Since this
study, the Library has already added significant student seating and additional
service points. Future iterations of this study should address these physical
changes, as well as develop tools to explore student choices and opinions
rather than relying solely on observation.
Questions for Further
Research on Use of Library Spaces
To determine whether the academic library
is becoming the third place on campus, a comprehensive campus snapshot should
investigate the availability and quality of spaces for use across campus and
incorporate student preferences. Questions for future investigations of the
impact of the Library spaces on the learning community may include:
1.
Is
the Library becoming the sole third
place on campus where students go to
connect and to study individually, communally, or collaboratively by building informal
learning communities outside the classroom?
2.
How
do library spaces and services support the institutional mission for student
success and what spaces are needed for future learning and engagement?
Acknowledgements
The authors also wish to acknowledge
the contributions by the following colleagues: Lauren Mandel for use of her
data and mapping library space use, Mary C. MacDonald and Mona Niedbala for the
use of their data, and Celeste DiCesare for her work designing maps and coding
sheets.
References
Applegate,
R. (2009). The library is for studying: Student preferences for study space. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(4),
341-346. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2009.04.004
Bennett,
S. (2003). Libraries designed for
learning. Retrieved from Council on Library and Information Resources
website: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub122/pub122web.pdf
Bennett,
S. (2008). The information or the learning commons: Which will we have? The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(3),
183-185. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2008.03.001
Demas,
S. (2005). From the ashes of Alexandria: What’s happening in the college
library? In Library as place: Rethinking
roles, rethinking space (pp. 25-40). Retrieved from Council on Library and
Information Resources website: https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub129/pub129.pdf
Diller,
K. R. (2015, March). Reflective practices:
Library study spaces in support of learning. Paper presented at the
Association of College & Research Libraries conference, Portland, OR. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2015/Diller.pdf
Foster,
N. F., & Gibbons, S. L. (2007). Studying
students: The undergraduate research project at the University of Rochester.
Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries.
Fox,
R., & Doshi, A. (2013). Longitudinal assessment of “user-driven” library
commons spaces. Evidence Based Library
and Information Practice, 8(2), 85-95. doi:10.18438/B8761C
Freeman,
G. T. (2005). The library as place: Changes in learning patterns, collections,
technology, and use. In Library as place:
Rethinking roles, rethinking space (pp. 1-9). Retrieved from Council on
Library and Information Resources website: https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub129/pub129.pdf
Gayton,
J. T. (2008). Academic libraries: “Social” or “communal”? The nature and future
of academic libraries. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 34(1), 60-66. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2007.11.011
Given,
L. M., & Leckie, G. J. (2004). “Sweeping” the library: Mapping the social
activity space of the public library.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 365-385.
doi:10.1016/S0740-8188(03)00049-5
Hall,
K., & Kapa, D. (2015). Silent and independent: Student use of academic
library study space. Partnership: The
Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 10(1),
1-38. doi:10.21083/partnership.v10i1.3338
Holder,
S., & Lange, J. (2014). Looking and listening: A mixed-methods study of
space use and user satisfaction. Evidence
Based Library and Information Practice, 9(3), 4-27. doi:10.18438/B8303T
İmamoğlu,
Ç, & Gürel, M. Ö. (2016). “Good fences make good neighbors”: Territorial
dividers increase user satisfaction and efficiency in library study spaces. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(1),
65-73. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.10.009
Jackson,
M., & Shenton, A. K. (2010). Independent learning areas and student
learning. Journal of Librarianship and
Information Science, 42(4), 215-223. doi:10.1177/0961000610380821
Khoo,
M. J., Rozaklis, L., Hall, C., & Kusunoki, D. (2016). “A really nice spot”:
Evaluating place, space, and technology in academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 77(1),
51-70. doi:10.5860/crl.77.1.51
Lin, P., Chen, K., & Chang, S. (2010). Before there was a
place called library – Library space as an invisible factor affecting students'
learning. Libri, 60(4), 339.
doi:10.1515/libr.2010.029
Lippincott,
J. K. (2006). Linking the information commons to learning. In D. Oblinger
(Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 7-18).
Washington, D.C.: Educause.
Lippincott,
J. K., van den Blink, C. C., Lewis, M., Stuart, C., & Oswald, L. B. (2009).
A long-term view for learning spaces.
EDUCAUSE Review, 44(2), 10-11. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/
May,
F. (2011). Methods for studying the use of public spaces in libraries. Canadian Journal of Information and Library
Science, 35(4), 354-366. doi:10.1353/ils.2011.0027
McCarthy,
C. A., & Nitecki, D. A. (2010, October). An assessment of the Bass Library
as a learning commons environment. Presented at the Library Assessment
Conference, Baltimore, MD.