Research Article
Exploring Library Activities, Learning Spaces, and Challenges Encountered Towards the Establishment of a Learning Commons
Maryjul T. Beneyat-Dulagan
Librarian
Cordillera State Institute
of Technical Education
(Baguio City School of Arts
and Trades)
Baguio City, Philippines
Email: djul351@gmail.com
David A. Cabonero
Faculty, School of Graduate
Studies
Saint Mary’s University
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya,
Philippines
Email: bluegemini7777@yahoo.com
Received: 6 May 2022 Accepted: 10 Oct. 2022
2023 Beneyat-Dulagan and Cabonero. 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.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30164
Abstract
Objectives
–
This study was conducted to
determine the library activities, preferred learning spaces, and challenges
encountered by the students of Mountain Province State Polytechnic College
(MPSPC) Library, Philippines. Specifically, it sought to answer the following
problems: 1) What are the library activities of MPSPC students?; 2) What are
the preferred learning spaces in terms of a) physical environment and b)
virtual environment?; and 3) What are the challenges associated with library
learning activities encountered by the MPSPC students? The study then will be
used to explore the feasibility of proposing a learning commons.
Methods – This study used a
descriptive research method to determine the library activities, learning
spaces, and challenges encountered by MPSPC students in the Philippines. It
made use of a researcher-made survey questionnaire. Problem statement number 1
dealt with the library activities of MPSPC students. Problem statement number 2
dealt with the preferred learning spaces. Data were gathered from 500 graduate
and undergraduate students from a total of 3,015 enrolled during the first
semester of the SY 2019-2020 using a purposive random sampling technique.
Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage, and rank were used.
Results – The most frequent library learning activities
performed by the MPSPC students were doing assignments, using reference books,
searching/browsing printed materials, reviewing notes, and writing. Students’
least frequent library activities were surfing the web, using the computer,
using e-resources, eating while reading/writing, and sleeping. The most
preferred physical learning spaces were a makerspace, group study spaces, quiet
study rooms, and individual study spaces (individual study carrels), while the
most preferred virtual learning spaces were computer workstations, interactive
learning spaces, video viewing stations, and internet cafés. The overall
challenges encountered by MPSPC students were insufficient learning spaces,
poor internet connection, inability to find documents or books needed, lack of
reading area, lack of printing or photocopying service, lack of professional
books, and lack of e-resources. The least challenges encountered by MPSPC
students included very high library fees, poor ventilation, poor lighting
facility in the designated area, uncomfortable furniture, and lack of staff’s
kindness.
Conclusion – The MPSPC students perform
various educationally purposeful library activities, which are generally
engaging and support the library's mission. Students vary in their needs of
physical and virtual learning environments. Both of these learning spaces are
in demand among students, which are the key components of the learning commons.
Also, they specified the need for adequate learning spaces to support their
various library learning activities. The findings serve as the basis for
crafting a project proposal to establish a learning commons tailored to MPSPC
students’ library activities and preferred learning spaces, with consideration
for the challenges encountered by students, to support their learning and
academic success.
Introduction
A library is a place for nurturing the mind. It supports
learning, information, and research needs; thus, it is vital to students'
educational growth. In support of an institution's educational objectives to
meet its diverse learners' needs, libraries should provide a quiet and social
space for students’ various learning activities (Choy & Goh, 2016), a
healthy and safe environment for learning (Barton, 2018), and offer education
and relaxation (Waxman et al., 2007). Moreover, the library is a learning
environment characterized by abundant and rich information sources and
well-designed learning spaces. Within a library space, students identify
physical and virtual environments that help them achieve their learning goals.
Twenty-first century learners are connected to
digital technologies as their primary learning tools, but as global changes in
information occur, students’ learning activities are affected (McLeod, 2015).
The nature of tertiary education drastically changed as the 21st century
evolved and has impacted the nature of academic libraries (Turner et al.,
2013). Twenty-first century learning is often connected to an inquiry approach
in which students actively engage in their learning, accessing material and
scaffolding their knowledge to create rather than solely acquire information
(Stripling, 2008). The preferences of library users in library spaces can
change quickly and unpredictably (Gstalder, 2017), which affects library
support of the teaching and learning process (Roberts, 2007). In relation to
this, Turner et al. (2013) observed that new teaching and learning pedagogies
in higher education were influenced by social constructivist learning theories
and self-discovery practices. These theories supported that the most
significant learning takes place when individuals participate in social learning
activities (Matthews et al., 2011). As such, library users have high
expectations of quality academic facilities, such as the provision of library
spaces, library commons, and the like (Flaspohler, 2012).
How can a library position itself in these academic
environments? How can a library be responsive to the changing nature of
information access and the changing nature of users? There is a need for
rethinking the information and physical needs of students. Moreover, there is a
need for academic library innovation to better support the diverse learning
needs of students and accommodate students’ learning styles. Lankes (2016)
suggested that redesigning and conceptualizing the library is essential to the
21st century. He further stated that a move to a learning commons
approach is one tactic to meet users’ expectations. Roberts (2007) believed
that establishing a learning commons will support the teaching mission of an
institution. It would complement new teaching and learning pedagogies in higher
education which have shifted away from a teaching culture and toward a culture
of learning (Bennett, 2003).
Furthermore, libraries reinvent themselves as they
face new roles, such as making resources more accessible, connecting learners,
and constructing knowledge. Also, students do not just need information, they
need a place that encourages active involvement and motivates them. Learning
commons allow various learning activities (Holland, 2015), and help both
libraries and students remain current with modern demands and lifestyles.
With these paradigm shifts in libraries and
education, changes gradually occur with the library’s environment and ambiance.
In the Mountain Province State Polytechnic College (MPSPC) Library, not enough
areas serve the different learning needs of library users. A lack of technology
and facilities to help library users explore, create, and share knowledge has
been observed. Moreover, poor services have reduced both the number of users
and use of the library collection. Students’ needs and expectations affect all
aspects of their learning, specifically in the library. Diverse reading habits
and preferences of the students have been observed by the researchers as well.
The MPSPC Library has been accessible to all users
because it is almost centrally located on campus, but the reading area was not
enough to accommodate the students. Instead, students use the corridor as a
learning area since the reading room was insufficient. Students studying in the
corridor and even inside the room complained to the library staff because they
were distracted by students passing by. Students found it hard to study and
concentrate because of the noise. There were not enough individual study spaces
or group discussion rooms because the room was just a common space for every
user engaged in any activity. Based on observation by the researchers, the
problem was the slow internet connection, wherein students found it hard to
conduct research online, which caused some students to leave the library.
Faculty and school administrators noticed complaints about the insufficient
reading area and the misbehaviour of users. Hence, the plight of this academic
library encouraged the researchers to conduct this study.
Problems of the Study
This study was conducted
to determine the library activities, preferred learning spaces, and challenges
encountered by the students of MPSPC Library. Specifically, the study sought to
answer the following problems: 1) What are the library activities of MPSPC
students?; 2) What are the preferred learning spaces in terms of a) physical
environment and b) virtual environment?; and 3) What are the challenges
associated with library learning activities encountered by the MPSPC students?
Scope and Limitations of the Study
The study was
limited to one state college in the Philippines primarily to determine the
learning activities and spaces in the library and the challenges encountered by
the students, which served as the basis for establishing a learning commons.
This was conducted during the first semester of SY 2019-2020 and focused on 500
participants who were both undergraduate and graduate students.
Literature Review
In the
Philippines, some libraries are still traditional in giving services to their
users, resulting in a lack of social opportunities within the library. This
limits the opportunities for students to interact with each other in the
library spaces (McCunn & Gifford, 2015). This can be observed through the
image projected by the librarian, such as shushing students for speaking too
loudly, ringing a bell to remind them of their unruly behaviour, and the like.
With the new breed of library users, their diverse learning activities, habits,
styles, and needs are changing and should be addressed. This could be answered
by adopting a new library model such as the learning commons, which allows
students to enhance their social skills while researching, reading, and
learning. In establishing a model, there are imperative things to consider,
such as: 1) to identify the key priorities, such as which learning activities
occur in a successful learning commons (King, 2016); 2) to know the learning
activities of the users better to realize their needs (Spencer, 2007); 3) to
analyze the various activities, including which are most prevalent among
library users (Choy & Goh, 2016); 4) to understand the various learning
needs of students, such as learning activities, preferred learning spaces, and
challenges faced by students (Qayyum Ch. et al., 2017); and 5) to relate the various
activities of the students in the library to academic achievement (Paretta
& Catalano, 2013).
Implementing a
learning commons would primarily encourage students to use the library and
benefit from its services. However, this idea must be supported by asking the
right questions to students regarding their library activities, how they learn,
and their use of library services (Suarez, 2007). These learning activities and
study space preferences of library users relate to establishing a functional
learning commons. Thus, surveying students' library activities and preferred
learning spaces provides the evidence necessary to make effective decisions
about what facilities and equipment should meet their various needs (McCrary,
2017).
The learning
spaces model furthers the mission of the learning commons by providing various
formal and informal flexible learning spaces that facilitate better learning
(Turner et al., 2013), and these physical and virtual learning spaces can
impact learning (Oblinger, 2006). It can bring people together to encourage
exploration, collaboration, and discussions. These spaces should be flexible
and networked, bringing together formal and informal activities in an
environment that acknowledges that learning can occur anywhere, at any time, in
either physical or virtual spaces. The physical and virtual environments
provide students with a comfortable place to relax, learn, and create
(Cicchetti, 2015). Moreover, spatial designs influence students' learning
activities, and the relevance of spatial designs that encourage and support
dynamic, engaged, and inspired learning is a fundamental feature of the
learning spaces (Roberts, 2007). The impact of spaces becomes more prominent as
higher education pedagogical practices move from the traditional to a more
flexible, student-centred approach. Evolving learning spaces convey a new image
of the library, marking a new direction in library and educational philosophies
(Somerville & Harlan, 2008).
The development
of learning spaces supports innovative pedagogical approaches and environments
that promote student engagement in the learning process (Elkington & Bligh,
2019). How and why users have different preferences in learning spaces depends
on their individual needs and styles. Moreover, there are advantages to student
learning in providing a range of spaces. Various collaborative and independent
spaces promote self-directed learning (Keating & Gabb, 2005). Non-quiet
spaces in the library, such as group study and flexible learning spaces, are
ideal for many library users (Freeman, 2005).
A learning
commons consists of physical and virtual environments designed for learning.
The centre for student learning fosters creativity, encourages patron use of
space, offers new technologies, and uses space creatively to encourage
inquiry-based thinking (Mihailidis & Diggs, 2010). It is a space designed
for collaboration and access to information and other tools, such as electronic
resources. Here, students will be empowered as they take part in the learning commons,
which will lead to more learning and better preparation for their careers.
Students’ involvement in the learning commons produces a better student success
rate (Khan, 2020), and students learn best when they are allowed to learn in an
environment that is both welcoming and supportive (Holeton, 2020).
A clear
understanding of how the learning commons benefits students is also the
foundation for a successful transition (Cicchetti, 2015). Libraries need to
remain relevant and support learning in new ways. Libraries recognize that,
because of the Internet and Web 2.0 applications, students have new powers and
abilities that facilitate independent access to information (Watstein &
Mitchell, 2006). Blummer and Kenton (2017) mentioned that learning commons has
no standard definition. Yet, learning commons represent academic library spaces
that provide computer and library resources and a range of academic services
that support learners and learning. Turner et al. (2013) argued that designers
of learning commons readily understand that learners are not merely information
consumers. Instead, they actively participate with information to create
meaningful knowledge and wisdom.
As society
continues to experience a pedagogical shift in learning, students should be
given more opportunities to make connections, collaborate, communicate, think
critically, and be creative. Learning in a learning commons environment is
purposeful, authentic, active, and student-centred (McCunn & Gifford,
2015). There have been numerous studies on learning commons, one of which
performed surveys on their own users’ needs (Yebowaah & Plockey, 2017).
Students’ various learning activities have to be considered in order to provide
appropriate learning spaces (Brown-Sica et al., 2010). Rawal (2014) asserted
that:
Like
Bandura’s (1977) idea of “reciprocal determinism,” where the interactions among
environmental, cognitive, and behavioral influences create the synergy to
affect how one behaves in a specific context, so does the reciprocity among the
physical, virtual, and socio-cultural aspects of a learning commons affect how
students learn within a commons. A truly holistic learning commons is a nexus
for negotiating ideas and producing new knowledge. It is that bustling bazaar
where knowledge, discoveries, and innovations are born, nurtured, and set forth
to impact the rest of the world. (p. 67)
Our review of
the literature revealed that our study is unique as it dwells on library
activities and preferred learning spaces among students in the Philippines.
Hence, this study will be used to explore a learning commons as one of the new
features of our library. Barton (2018) mentioned that the learning commons
model is geared to understand and identify learning needs in accordance with
the learning activities, preferences, and challenges of library users.
Methods
This study utilized a descriptive method of research to determine the
library activities, learning spaces, and challenges encountered by MPSPC
students in the Philippines. It made use of a researcher-made survey
questionnaire. Problem number 1 dealt with the library activities of MPSPC
students and was based on the study of Cabfilan (2012). Problem number 2 dealt
with the preferred learning spaces and was adopted from the study of Peterson
(2013). However, it has been modified to suit the research design by
contextualizing the items in the MPSPC Library. The survey questionnaire is
composed of three parts, namely: 1) the different library activities of MPSPC
students, 2) the preferred learning spaces, and 3) the challenges encountered
by the respondents relative to learning activities within the library. This
questionnaire underwent face and content validity by three library and
information science professors and one research professor at Saint Mary’s
University (Philippines).
Data were gathered from 500 graduate and undergraduate students from
3,015 enrolled during the first semester of the SY 2019-2020, from August to
December 2019 at MPSPC, Bontoc Campus (Table 1), using a purposive random
sampling technique. In gathering the needed data, the following procedures were
undertaken: 1) A permission letter was sent to the MPSPC President to seek
approval for the conduct of the study for the students enrolled in the various
programs; 2) The letter was addressed to the President through the Deans of
undergraduate and graduate studies; 3) Upon seeking approval, a letter was
submitted to the Director of MPSPC-Registrar for the number of enrollees in the
various programs to identify the number of students in each program; 4) The
questionnaire was administered to the students who were visiting the library
voluntarily. One of the researcher’s colleagues helped administer the
questionnaire; 5) An informed consent letter was attached to the questionnaire.
The respondents did not receive any payment for their participation nor any
reimbursements. Participants had the right to refuse to continue, with any
information already provided not used in the study. It was emphasized to them
the assurance of the confidentiality of their answers; 6) The questionnaires
were immediately retrieved and checked if all items were answered; and 7)
Questionnaires were submitted to the statistician. Descriptive statistics such
as frequency, percentage, and rank were used.
Table 1
Respondents of
the Study
|
Course/Department |
No. of Enrollees |
No. of Respondents (n) |
|
Bachelor of Science and
Criminology |
1,244 |
206 |
|
Bachelor of Science in
Nursing |
213 |
35 |
|
Bachelor of Science and
Information Technology |
123 |
20 |
|
Bachelor of Science Office
Administration |
75 |
12 |
|
Bachelor of Arts in
Political Science |
41 |
7 |
|
Bachelor of Science in
Business Administration |
170 |
28 |
|
Bachelor of Science in
Accountancy |
158 |
26 |
|
Bachelor of Secondary
Education |
400 |
66 |
|
Bachelor of Elementary
Education |
233 |
39 |
|
Bachelor for Early Childhood
Education |
9 |
2 |
|
Bachelor of Special Needs Education |
13 |
3 |
|
Graduate School |
174 |
29 |
|
Bachelor of Science in
Tourism Bachelor of Science in
Tourism Management Bachelor of Science in Hotel
and Tourism Management Bachelor of Science in
Hospitality Management Associate of Arts in Hotel
and Restaurant Management |
162 |
27 |
|
Total |
3,015 |
500 |
Results and Discussion
The Library Activities of Students
This study
refers to the various activities performed by diverse students in the library.
These learning activities are purposeful and aim to improve behaviour,
information, knowledge, understanding, attitude, values, or skills (Table 2).
This includes different types of learning, such as self-learning and others,
and learning could be formal or informal (Eurostat, 2016).
The preferred
activities done in the library were doing
assignments, using reference books, searching or browsing printed materials,
reviewing notes, writing research works, reading (periodical/ fiction books/
non-fiction books), studying in a group, and studying alone on my books or materials. These activities were all
academic-related, supporting the fact that the library is the first place to
get information as it houses universal knowledge (Bailin, 2011). This indicates
that libraries significantly impact students’ academic achievements (Khan,
2020; Sriram & Rajev, 2014). It could be attributed to the availability of
resources when doing their assignments. Also, students go to the library to
search or browse printed materials and eventually use reference books, which
suggests that materials in the library are useful and relevant.
Table 2
The Library
Activities of Students
|
Activities |
n |
% |
Rank |
|
Doing
assignments |
455 |
91.0 |
1 |
|
Using
reference books |
396 |
79.2 |
2 |
|
Searching/ Browsing printed
materials |
385 |
77.0 |
3 |
|
Reviewing notes |
384 |
76.8 |
4 |
|
Writing (research works) |
369 |
73.8 |
5 |
|
Reading (periodical/ fiction
books/ non-fiction books) |
362 |
72.4 |
6 |
|
Studying
in a group |
345 |
69.0 |
7 |
|
Studying alone on my own
books/ materials |
324 |
64.8 |
8 |
|
Sitting comfortably while reflecting |
316 |
63.2 |
9 |
|
Interacting with librarians/
Getting help from staff members |
314 |
62.8 |
10 |
|
Listening to music while
studying/ reading/writing |
290 |
58.0 |
11 |
|
Surfing the web |
270 |
54.0 |
12 |
|
Using computer |
265 |
53.0 |
13 |
|
Using
e-resources |
255 |
51.0 |
14 |
|
Eating
while reading/ writing |
168 |
33.6 |
15 |
|
Others: Sleeping |
35 |
7.0 |
16 |
This coincides
with Iroaganachi and Ilogho (2012), who found that
students use reference materials frequently, which can be attributed to the
orientation program designed for students. On the other hand, listening to
music while studying, reading, or writing; using e-resources; using computers;
surfing the web; and eating
while reading or writing were the least common activities done in
the library. Also, eating while reading or writing was ranked 15th,
which means that some students do not favor the library policy that food and
drink are prohibited inside. However, some MPSPC students prefer a place to
study while having a snack, and this could be observed in some libraries
allowing them to bring food and drinks. This finding corroborates the idea in
21st-century learning wherein libraries are innovating to meet the demands of
these learners, in which food and drink are welcomed in the libraries (Roberts,
2007).
Also, it is
worthwhile to mention that 35 respondents wrote sleeping as one of their library activities. This connotes that the
library is not just a place to study but a place that provides relaxation to
students (Waxman et al., 2007).
However, it is
very surprising to note that learning activities relating to computer
technology, such as surfing the web, using computers, and using e-resources were ranked 12th, 13th, and 14th, respectively.
Seemingly, students do not prefer using information technology to satisfy their
library information needs, thus resulting in minimal utilization of e-resources
(Yebowaah & Plockey, 2017). This contradicts the findings of Martin (2008),
that students use technology frequently thus changing the learning environment
of higher education. This suggests that a slow internet connection would make
students dissatisfied with using computers and resources and make it
challenging to research online.
The Preferred Learning Spaces
According to
Head (2016), there are appropriate library designs for learning spaces, and
they should be different in every library since it is in accordance with the
learning activities and preferences of every library user. It was further
pointed out by Bieraugel and Neill (2017) that designing library spaces is
imperative for the different intended needs, activities, preferences, and
styles of library users. Also, Choy and Goh (2016) reiterated that the design
of spaces in support of learning is far more complex as a variety of users’
activities and styles need to be considered.
Figure 1
Preferred
learning spaces in physical environment.
In this study,
the most preferred learning spaces in terms of physical environment were makerspace, group study spaces, quiet study rooms, and individual study spaces, respectively,
as shown in Figure 1. Makerspace was
the most prevalent, which infers that learning is best acquired through
hands-on activities. Group study space
was second, which assumes that students may feel they can learn better in
groups. This indicates that noise should be welcomed and considered in the
group study area within the library (Mohanty, 2002). Meanwhile, study lounge was ranked 5th as the
preferred learning space, implying that there are students who prefer working
while socializing as well (Waxman et al., 2007). Undeniably, some students
expect the library to offer space not only for scholarly pursuits but also for
socializing (Paretta & Catalano, 2013). However, some students still prefer
individual study spaces/ individual study
carrels and quiet study rooms.
Seemingly, they prefer to learn best in silence and do not like being disturbed
when they are studying (Arenson, 2013).
Figure 2
Preferred
learning spaces in virtual environment.
The most preferred learning spaces in the virtual
environment were computer workstations,
interactive learning spaces, video viewing stations, and internet cafés, respectively (Figure 2).
The computer workstation is the most preferred learning space in terms of the
virtual environment. This implies that activities which demand computer are
prevalent among the students. As mentioned by Singh and Wadhwa (2006), computers
are an excellent learning tool. This signifies that 63% of library users prefer
to work individually in a computer workstation, while others prefer working in
an interactive learning space.
It is interesting to note that interactive learning space was ranked 2nd, which implies that
students want spaces that encourage them to study independently through
technology. This finding supports the idea that learning is engaging, and
engagement is expected to increase students’ learning outcomes (Vercellotti, 2018).
This preference for interactive learning space implies that students have
varied learning styles, and, in this case, it requires the use of technology
for them to learn better.
Also, the video
viewing station was ranked 3rd, which implies that there are students who
are both visual and auditory learners who prefer watching and listening in some
areas of the library. As mentioned by Alawani et al. (2016), students still
prefer video technologies that boost their learning experience. However, internet
café ranked last, implying that few students prefer learning while having
coffee or snacks. Seemingly, this idea is not yet practiced by the students and
the library. Perhaps their traditional beliefs of eating inside the library are
not accepted as the standard norm. As mentioned, 21st-century libraries should
meet the needs of these learners, thus allowing them to eat while learning in
the library (Holland, 2015).
As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the physical and virtual environments were
rated as learning space preferences among students, which are the key
components of a learning commons (Pressley, 2017). The findings show that
students demand such spaces in accordance with their learning activities in the
library.
Challenges Encountered by the MPSPC Students
McMullen (2008) described a learning commons as a
“dynamic place that encourages learning through inquiry, collaboration,
discussion, and consultation.” (p. 1). She further asserted that it is
necessary to understand the activities engaged by students. The learning
commons is not just a concept but a place for learning in the library (Roberts,
2007). These learning commons have been created to support the teaching
missions of the respective parent institutions. Academic institutions support
this model because faculty and administration recognize that students learn in
dynamic and various ways. McCrary (2017) supported the need to develop a
learning commons since the library is not just a place to store books and study
but rather a place where meaning and learning emerge from access to knowledge.
However, its implementation can also be hampered by challenges, which are
listed in Table 3.
Table 3
Challenges Encountered by the MPSPC Students
Relative to Their Library Learning Activities
|
Areas |
Challenges |
n |
% |
Rank |
|
Physical
Facilities |
Insufficient
learning spaces for various activities |
319 |
63.8 |
1 |
|
Services |
Poor
internet connection |
262 |
52.4 |
2 |
|
Services |
Inability
to find documents/ books needed |
231 |
46.2 |
3 |
|
Physical
Facilities |
Lack
of reading area/ Reading area is not enough |
209 |
41.8 |
4 |
|
Services |
Lack
of printing or photocopying services |
208 |
41.6 |
5 |
|
Library
Collection |
Lack
of professional books |
207 |
41.4 |
6 |
|
Library
Collection |
Lack
of e-resources |
206 |
41.2 |
7 |
|
Physical
Facilities |
Lack
of toilet facilities |
166 |
33.2 |
8 |
|
Physical
Facilities |
Lack
of installed security equipment |
149 |
29.8 |
9 |
|
Financial
Resources |
Lack
of support /budget is not enough to sustain library projects or programs |
142 |
28.4 |
10 |
|
Human
Resources |
Lack
of support staff |
135 |
27 |
11 |
|
Human
Resources |
Limited
number of professional librarians |
124 |
24.8 |
12 |
|
Financial
Resources |
Very
high library fee |
118 |
23.6 |
13 |
|
Physical
Facilities |
Poor
ventilation |
113 |
22.6 |
14 |
|
Physical
Facilities |
Poor
lighting facility in the designated reading areas |
112 |
22.4 |
15 |
|
Physical
Facilities |
Uncomfortable
furniture |
110 |
22 |
16 |
|
Services |
Lack
of staff’s kindness |
109 |
21.8 |
17 |
Among the physical facilities, insufficient learning spaces for various activities (ranked 1st,
with 63.8% in agreement) and lack of
reading area or reading area is not enough (ranked 4th, with 41.8% in
agreement) were challenges encountered by the MPSPC students. Students
have various activities, but not all spaces can accommodate these activities.
Libraries should be well designed to accommodate students' learning
requirements and enhance their learning outcomes and satisfaction (Li et al.,
2018). Furthermore, the result corroborates with the study of Bailin (2011)
that students demand ample space for reading, especially when they flock to the
library. Indeed, Ranganathan’s 5th law states that the library is a growing
organism (Barner, 2011). As collections continuously increase, the physical
spaces also widen to accommodate more library users and eventually maximize the
use of the collections, thus making the library a growing institution of
learning.
The least challenges encountered on physical
facilities were lack of toilet facilities, lack of installed security
equipment, poor ventilation, poor lighting facility in the designated reading
area, and uncomfortable
furniture. In relation to the findings on preferred learning spaces,
these challenges reported by the respondents might impact group study spaces, study
lounges, individual study spaces/
individual study carrels, and quiet
study rooms. Poor ventilation has great impact on students’ learning, and
this was supported by Haverinen-Shaughnessy and Shaughnessy (2015), who found
that students did not perform well in a poorly ventilated environment. Also,
inadequate lighting in the library is not suitable for students and would
affect students’ performance. The findings also imply that there are students seeking
comfort while learning (McDonald, 2011). Hence, librarians and administrators
should make libraries more comfortable for students (Mohanty, 2002). The lack of installed security equipment (ranked
9th) can also be attributed to non-return of items by borrowers and theft of
library materials (Maidabino & Zainab, 2011). Thus, it is necessary to
provide security equipment in the library to ensure longevity, availability,
and effective provision of services to users.
Table 3 revealed that among the top five challenges
encountered by the MPSPC students, three were reported that emerge from
challenges encountered relative to library services, namely: 1) poor internet connection (52.4%, ranked
2nd), 2) inability to find documents or
books needed (46.2%, ranked 3rd), and
3) lack of printing/ photocopying services (41.6%, ranked
5th). Poor internet connection is
quite noticeable because students frankly complain about the internet
connection in the library. This shows that there are MPSPC students who are
internet users, and they surf the net since information is easily available
(Shrestha, 2008). Thus, students prefer using the internet, as compared with
printed materials, because it provides information readily at all times. The
internet also gives faster access to information as well as offers a large
amount of information (Kumah, 2015). As mentioned by Yebowaah (2018), the use
of internet among students has a positive influence on their academic
performance. Also, the MPSPC students ranked 3rd the inability to find documents or books needed (46.2%). This shows
that students are not aware of how materials are organized in the library. This
can be attributed either to students’ unfamiliarity with the services or how
the materials are organized (Hughes, 2010). Lack
of printing/photocopying services was
also in the top five challenges encountered (41.6%, ranked 5th). This suggests
the need for photocopying services to save time in taking down notes from books
in the library. Materials in the library often copied by students are of more
rare materials that tend not to be available in book shops for sale. Sriram and
Rajev (2014) mentioned that libraries must provide various services such as
photocopying to enable users to utilize the library collections at greater potentials.
On the other hand, the lack of staff’s
kindness (21.8%, ranked 17th) was
ranked last among the challenges encountered by the students, which shows that
librarians are approachable and accommodating.
Under human resources, lack of support staff (27%, ranked 11th) as one of the challenges
encountered by students suggests the need for support staff. Students do not
just deal with librarians every time they visit the library, but also
paraprofessionals serving them (Guion, 2012). This implies that support staff
have to undergo seminars on how to manage library patrons. The limited number of professional librarians
(24.8%, ranked 12th) can be either attributed to a lack of professional
librarian positions (with appropriate title, salary, and benefits) or a lack of
licensed librarians. Tanhueco-Tumapon (2017) reiterated that librarians should
be given an academic status (that is, like any teaching or research faculty
member), wherein there is a corresponding increase in salary and therefore is
due an academic rank provided they have a master’s degree. Having an academic
status in higher education leads them to be motivated in doing their functions
as dignified librarians, since librarians and paraprofessionals may have
different service standards.
For the library collection, lack of professional books and lack
of e-resources were the challenges encountered by students. This implies
that the collections of both books and e-resources were perceived to be
insufficient. To address this, the library should build partnerships among
other academic libraries to strengthen its collection (Munro & Philps,
2008) and increase its budget to purchase more collections.
In terms of financial resources, lack of
support/budget is not enough to sustain library projects or programs
(28.4%, ranked 10th), and very high library fees (23.6%, ranked 13th)
were the perceived challenges encountered by the students. State colleges and
universities in the Philippines collect fewer library fees than in private
schools. This may be why it is ranked almost at the bottom. Although these
challenges were at the bottom, the budget is essential in realizing library
programs and projects, such as establishing or improving a library space. It
could mean that increasing library fees would make students expect that the
library can satisfy their needs and demands.
Recommendations
The library
should support the various learning activities of students, which include doing
assignments, using reference books, searching/browsing printed materials,
reviewing notes, writing, and others. It should design functional and flexible
learning spaces tailored to the students’ ideal needs, such as their learning
activities. Thus, the study suggests strong recommendations to provide various
learning spaces such as a makerspace, group study spaces, quiet study rooms,
individual study spaces, computer workstations, interactive learning spaces,
video viewing stations, and an internet café within the library premises to
cater to the diverse students with various learning preferences and learning
activities.
To continue
building literature and knowledge in this area, it is recommended to conduct
further research to include: 1) other areas such as policies, budgeting, and
linkages; 2) categories of users such as faculty, alumni, and visitors; and 3)
statistical tools such as using correlations, factor analysis, and others.
Conclusion
A learning
commons is a place to culture the mind wherein student learning encourages
creativity, promotes social learning, enhances new information technology
skills, and stimulates inquiry-based thinking. It is a space to nurture
students’ minds for collaboration, learning, and interaction through a
welcoming and supportive environment.
The MPSPC
students perform various educationally purposeful library activities. The
activities among the students are generally engaging and support the library's
mission. Students vary in their needs of physical and virtual learning
environments. Both of these types of learning spaces
are in demand among students, which are the key components of the learning
commons. Also, students specified the need for adequate learning spaces to
support their various library learning activities. Thus, the findings serve as
the basis for crafting a project proposal to establish a learning commons
tailored to MPSPC students’ library activities and preferred learning spaces,
with consideration for the challenges encountered by students, to support their
learning and academic success.
Author Contributions
Mrs. Maryjul T. Beneyat-Dulagan:
Conceptualization (equal), Data curation, Formal analysis (lead), Investigation
(equal), Writing – original draft (lead), Writing – review & editing
(equal) Mr. David A. Cabonero: Conceptualization (equal), Formal
analysis (supporting), Investigation (equal), Visualization, Writing – original
draft (supporting), Writing – review & editing (equal)
References
Alawani, A.
A., Senteni, A., & Singh, A. D. (2016).
An
investigation about the usage and impact of digital video for learning. In J.
Novotná & A. Jančařík (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 15th European Conference on e-Learning: ECEL 2016 (pp.
1–9). Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited.
Arenson, M.
(2013). The impact of a student-designed
learning commons on student perceptions and use of the high school library.
Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/THE-IMPACT-OF-A-STUDENT-DESIGNED-LEARNING-COMMONS-Arenson/83e55c93e23d913fca7565cdb210e40411c5019e
Bailin, K.
(2011). Changes in academic library space: A case study at the University of
New South Wales. Australian Academic
& Research Libraries, 42(4), 342–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2011.10722245
Barner, K. (2011). The library is a
growing organism: Ranganathan's fifth law of library science and the academic
library in the digital era" (2011). Library
Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 548. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/548
Barton, C.
(2018). Transforming an academic library
to a learning commons model: Strategies for success [Doctoral dissertation,
Concordia University Irvine]. CUI Digital Repository. http://hdl.handle.net/11414/3385
Bennett, S.
(2003). Libraries designed for learning.
Council on Library and Information Resources. https://www.clir.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/pub122web.pdf
Bieraugel, M.,
& Neill, S. (2017). Ascending Bloom's pyramid: Fostering student creativity
and innovation in academic library spaces. College
& Research Libraries, 78(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.1.35
Blummer, B.,
& Kenton, J. M. (2017). Learning commons in academic libraries: Discussing
themes in the literature from 2001 to the present. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 23(4), 329–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2017.1366925
Brown-Sica, M.,
Sobel, K., & Rogers, E. (2010). Participatory action research in learning
commons design planning. New Library
World, 111(7/8), 302–319. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074801011059939
Cabfilan, N.
(2012). Customers’ satisfaction on the
circulation, reference, online and instruction services at Benguet State
University Main Library [Master’s thesis, Saint Mary’s University
(Philippines)].
Choy, F. C.,
& Goh, S. N. (2016). A framework for planning academic library spaces. Library Management, 37(1/2), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-01-2016-0001
Cicchetti, R. (2015).
Transitioning a high school library to a learning commons: Avoiding the tragedy
of the commons [Doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University]. Northeastern University Library
Digital Repository Service. https://doi.org/10.17760/D20193587
Elkington, S.,
& Bligh, B. (2019). Future learning
spaces: Space, technology and pedagogy. Advance
HE. https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02266834
Eurostat.
(2016). Classification of learning
activities (CLA): Manual. https://doi.org/10.2785/874604
Flaspohler, M.
(2012). Engaging first-year students in
meaningful library research: A practical guide for teaching faculty. Chandos.
Freeman, G.
T. (2005). The library as place: Changes
in learning patterns, collections, technology, and use. Council on Library
and Information Resources. http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/publ129/freeman.html
Gstalder, S. H.
(2017). Understanding library space
planning [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania]. University of
Pennsylvania Libraries ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI10289537/
Guion, D. (2012,
March 14). Library staff: The paraprofessional. Reading, Writing, Research. https://www.allpurposeguru.com/2012/03/library-staff-the-paraprofessional/
Haverinen-Shaughnessy,
U., & Shaughnessy, R. J. (2015). Effects of classroom ventilation rate and
temperature on students’ test scores. PLoS
ONE 10(8), e0136165. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136165
Head, A. J.
(2016). Planning and designing academic
library learning spaces: Expert perspectives of architects, librarians, and
library consultants. Project Information Literacy Research Institute. https://projectinfolit.org/publications/library-space-study/
Holeton, R.
(2020). Toward Inclusive
Learning Spaces: Physiological, Cognitive, and Cultural Inclusion and the
Learning Space Rating System. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/2/toward-inclusive-learning-spaces
Holland, B.
(2015, January 14). 21st-century libraries: The learning commons. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/21st-century-libraries-learning-commons-beth-holland
Hughes, H.
(2010). International students’ experiences of university libraries and
librarians. Australian Academic &
Research Libraries, 41. https://doi:10.1080/00048623.2010.10721446
Iroaganachi, M. A., & Ilogho, J. E. (2012). Utilization of reference books by
students: A case study of Covenant University, Nigeria. Chinese Librarianship: An International Electronic Journal, 34,
48–56. http://www.white-clouds.com/iclc/cliej/cl34II.pdf
Keating,
S., & Gabb, R. (2005). Putting learning into the learning commons: A
literature review. Post-compulsory Education Centre, Victoria University. https://vuir.vu.edu.au/id/eprint/94
Khan, S.
(2020). Impact
of learning spaces on student success. Retrieved from https://www.edtechreview.in/trends-insights/insights/impact-of-learning-spaces-on-student-success/
King,
J. G. (2016). Extended and experimenting: Library learning commons service
strategy and sustainability. Library
Management, 37(4/5), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-04-2016-0028
Kumah,
C. H. (2015). A comparative study of use of the library and the internet as
sources of information by graduate students in the University of Ghana. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal).
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1298/
Lankes, R. D.
(2016). Expect more: Demanding better libraries for today's complex world (2nd ed.). http://dx.doi.org/10.26153/tsw/13962
Li, L. H., Wu,
F., & Su, B. (2018). Impacts of library space on learning
satisfaction – An empirical study of university library design in Guangzhou,
China. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 44(6), 724–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.10.003
Maidabino, A. A., & Zainab, A. N. (2011). Collection
security management at university libraries: Assessment of its implementation
status. Malaysian Journal of Library
& Information Science, 16(1), 15–33. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/1301.5385.pdf
Martin, A. (2008). Digital literacy and the “digital
society.” In C. Lankshear, & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies, and practices (pp.
151–176). Peter Lang.
Matthews, K. E.,
Andrews, V., & Adams, P. (2011). Social learning spaces and student
engagement. Higher Education Research and
Development, 30(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.512629
McCrary, Q. D.
(2017). Small library research: Using qualitative and user-oriented research to
transform a traditional library into an information commons. Evidence Based Library and Information
Practice, 12(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8863F
McCunn, L. J.,
& Gifford, R. (2015). Teachers’ reactions to learning commons in secondary
schools. Journal of Library
Administration, 55(6), 435–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2015.1054760
McDonald, C. A. (2011). The library transformed into learning
commons: A look at the library of the future [Master’s thesis, University
of Central Missouri]. James C. Kirkpatrick Library Digital Repository. https://ucmo.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/delivery/01UCMO_INST/1284617640005571
McLeod, S.
(2015). “It’s not just about signing out
books!”: From library to library learning commons: A catalyst for change
[Master’s thesis, University of Victoria]. UVicSpace. http://hdl.handle.net/1828/6315
McMullen, S.
(2008). US academic libraries: Today's
learning commons model (PEB Exchange 2008/04). Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development. https://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/40051347.pdf
Mihailidis, P., & Diggs, V.
(2010). From information reserve to media literacy learning commons: Revisiting
the 21st century library as the home for media literacy education. Public Library Quarterly, 29(4),
279–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2010.525389
Mohanty, S. (2002). Physical comfort in library study
environments: Observations in three undergraduate settings [Master’s
thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill]. Carolina Digital
Repository. https://doi.org/10.17615/mne6-v039
Munro, B., &
Philps, P. (2008). A collection of importance: The role of selection in
academic libraries. Australian Academic
& Research Libraries, 39(3), 149–170. http://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2008.10721347
Oblinger, D. G. (Ed.). (2006). Learning spaces. EDUCAUSE. https://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications/books/learning-spaces
Paretta, L. T.,
& Catalano, A. (2013). What students really
do in the library: An observational study. The
Reference Librarian, 54(2), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2013.755033
Peterson, N. K.
(2013). The developing role of the
university library as a student learning center: Implications to the interior
spaces within [Master’s thesis, Iowa State University]. Iowa State
University Digital Repository. https://doi.org/10.31274/etd-180810-3678
Pressley, L.
(2017). Charting a clear course: A state of the state of the learning commons.
In D. M. Mueller (Ed.), At the helm:
Leading transformation: The proceedings of the ACRL 2017 Conference, March
22–25, 2017, Baltimore, Maryland (pp. 112–119). Association of College and
Research Libraries. https://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2017/ChartingaClearCourse.pdf
Qayyum Ch., A.,
Hina, Q. A., & Abid, U. (2017). An empirical investigation of problems and
issues being faced by the students while using the libraries in University of
the Punjab, Lahore. Bulletin of Education
and Research, 39(2), 225–238. http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/ier/PDF-FILES/17_39_2_17.pdf
Rawal, J.
(2014). Libraries of the future: Learning
commons: A case study of a state university in California [Master’s thesis,
Humboldt State University]. The California State University ScholarWorks. http://hdl.handle.net/10211.3/134872
Roberts, R. L. (2007). The evolving
landscape of the learning commons. Library
Review, 56(9), 803–810. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530710831257
Shrestha, N. (2008). A study on student’s use of library
resources and self-efficacy [Master’s thesis, Tribhuvan University]. E-LIS.
http://eprints.rclis.org/22623/
Singh, S., & Wadhwa, J. (2006).
Impact of computer workstation design on health of the users. Journal of Human Ecology, 20(3),
165–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2006.11905922
Somerville, M.
M., & Harlan, S. (2008). From Information Commons to Learning Commons and
learning spaces: An evolutionary context. In B. Schader (Ed.), Learning commons: Evolution and
collaborative essentials (pp. 1–36). Chandos.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-312-7.50001-1
Spencer, M. E.
(2007). The state-of-the-art: NCSU Libraries Learning Commons. Reference Services Review, 35(2),
310–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00907320710749218
Sriram, B.,
& Rajev, M. K. G. (2014). Impact of academic library services on user
satisfaction: Case study of Sur University College, Sultanate of Oman. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information
Technology, 34(2), 140–146. https://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/djlit/article/view/4499
Stripling, B.
(2008). Inquiry: Inquiring minds want to know. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 25(1), 50–52. https://www.teachingbooks.net/content/InquiringMindsWantToKnow-Stripling.pdf
Suarez, D.
(2007). What students do when they study in the library: Using ethnographic
methods to observe student behavior. Electronic
Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 8(3). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ejasljournal/83/
Tanhueco-Tumapon,
T. (2017, August 18). 21st-century
academic libraries. The Manila Times. https://www.manilatimes.net/2017/08/18/opinion/analysis/21st-century-academic-libraries/345157/
Turner, A.,
Welch, B., & Reynolds, S. (2013). Learning spaces in academic libraries – A
review of the evolving trends. Australian
Academic and Research Libraries, 44(4), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2013.857383
Vercellotti, M. L. (2018). Do
interactive learning spaces increase student achievement? A comparison of
classroom context. Active Learning in
Higher Education, 19(3), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417735606
Watstein, S. B.,
& Mitchell, E. (2006). Do libraries matter? Reference Services Review, 34(2), 181–184. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320610669416
Waxman, L.,
Clemons, S., Banning, J., & McKelfresh, D. (2007). The library as place:
Providing students with opportunities for socialization, relaxation, and
restoration. New Library World, 108(9/10),
424–434. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074800710823953
Yebowaah,
F. A., & Plockey, F. D. D. (2017). Awareness and use of electronic
resources in university libraries: A case study of University for Development
Studies Library. Library Philosophy and
Practice (e-journal). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1562/
Yebowaah, F. A.
(2018). Internet use and its effect on senior
high school students in Wa Municipality of Ghana. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1817
Appendix
Research
Instrument
Dear
Respondents,
A pleasant day!
The undersigned
is presently engaged in gathering data for her research entitled “Exploring
Library Activities, Learning Spaces, and Challenges Encountered Towards the
Establishment of a Learning Commons” as a requirement for the Degree Master in
Library and Information Science.
In line with
this, the researcher earnestly requests you to be one of the respondents of the
research study. The researcher assures that your answers will be dealt with
utmost confidentiality.
Thank you and
God bless!
Sincerely yours,
Researchers
Name (Optional):
____________________
Course/Year:
_______________________
1.
The following are the library activities
performed by students in the library. Put a check mark (√) to all that applies to you.
|
Doing assignments |
|
|
Eating while reading/writing |
|
|
Interacting with librarians/
Getting help from staff members |
|
|
Listening to music while
studying/reading/writing |
|
|
Reading (periodical/fiction books/non-fiction
books) |
|
|
Searching/ Browsing printed
materials |
|
|
Sitting comfortably while
reflecting |
|
|
Studying alone on my own
books/materials |
|
|
Studying in a group |
|
|
Surfing the web |
|
|
Using computer |
|
|
Using electronic resources |
|
|
Using reference books |
|
|
Writing (research works) |
|
|
Reviewing notes |
|
|
Others (Pls. specify) |
|
2.
Which of the following is your favorite
place to study or learn at the library? [You may check (√) one or more].
2.1.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
|
Group study space - a space where you can
talk with friends while studying |
|
|
Individual study space
(Individual study carrels) - a
cubicle, stall, enclosed area for individual to read and study |
|
|
Makerspace -a
space where you can create hands-on projects in groups or individually |
|
|
Quiet study room - a
private, very quiet workspace |
|
|
Research study room -a
room assigned for individual for research and other scholarly activities that
requires extensive use of library materials |
|
|
Study lounge - an
area open for students for gathering, studying and
relaxing |
|
2.2
VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT
|
Computer
workstation - an area consist of computer that is connected to a network for
individual use |
|
|
Internet
café - an area where there is
convenient access to coffee that offers internet access on its own computers
or desktops |
|
|
Interactive
learning space -a space provided for
individual or group user/s for school work that needs computer technology |
|
|
Video
viewing station -an area that is highly
equipped with computer for watching specifically for educational purposes |
|
3.
Put a check mark (√) on the challenges you encountered in the library. [You may check
one or more].
|
|
|
Limited number of
professional librarian |
|
|
Lack of support staff |
|
|
Others (pls. specify) |
|
|
|
|
Poor lighting facility in
the designated reading areas |
|
|
Poor ventilation |
|
|
Lack of toilet facilities |
|
|
Lack of installed security
equipment |
|
|
Insufficient learning spaces
for various activities |
|
|
Uncomfortable furniture |
|
|
Lack of reading area/
Reading area is not enough |
|
|
Others (pls. specify) |
|
|
|
|
Very high library fee |
|
|
Lack of support /budget is
not enough to sustain library projects or programs |
|
|
Others (pls. specify) |
|
|
|
|
Lack of professional books |
|
|
Lack of e-resources |
|
|
Others (pls. specify) |
|
|
|
|
Inability to find documents/
books needed |
|
|
Lack of staff’s kindness |
|
|
Lack of printing or
photocopying services |
|
|
Poor internet connection |
|
|
Others (pls. specify) |
|