Research Article
Space Use in the Commons: Evaluating a Flexible
Library Environment
Andrew D. Asher
Assessment Librarian
Indiana University
Bloomington Libraries
Bloomington, Indiana, United
States of America
Email: asherand@indiana.edu
Received: 15 Jun. 2016 Accepted:
21 Feb. 2017
2017 Asher. 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 – This article evaluates the usage
and user experience of the Herman B Wells Library’s Learning Commons, a newly
renovated technology and learning centre that
provides services and spaces tailored to undergraduates’ academic needs at
Indiana University Bloomington (IUB).
Methods – A mixed-method research protocol combining time-lapse photography,
unobtrusive observation, and random-sample surveys was employed to construct
and visualize a representative usage and activity profile for the Learning
Commons space.
Results – Usage of the Learning Commons by
particular student groups varied considerably from expectations based on
student enrollments. In particular, business, first and second year students,
and international students used the Learning Commons to a higher degree than
expected, while humanities students used it to a much lower degree. While users
were satisfied with the services provided and the overall atmosphere of the
space, they also experienced the negative effects of insufficient space and
facilities due to the space often operating at or near its capacity. Demand for
collaboration rooms and computer workstations was particularly high, while
additional evidence suggests that the Learning Commons furniture mix may not
adequately match users’ needs.
Conclusions – This study presents a unique
approach to space use evaluation that enables researchers to collect and
visualize representative observational data. This study demonstrates a model
for quickly and reliably assessing space use for open-plan and learning-centred
academic environments and for evaluating how well these learning spaces fulfill
their institutional mission.
Introduction
As
part of its efforts to transform library spaces and environments to meet
students’ learning, collaboration, technology, and research needs more
effectively, the Herman B Wells Library at Indiana University Bloomington (IUB)
opened a newly renovated and redesigned Learning Commons in fall 2014.
Occupying the entire first floor (approximately 25,000 square feet) of the west
wing of IUB’s main research library, the Learning Commons was designed as a
technology-focused learning centre that provides services and spaces tailored
to undergraduates’ academic requirements with the goal of supporting a
learning-centred paradigm of library use (see Bennett, 2009).
To
enable the diverse range of learning activities encompassed by this usage
paradigm, the Learning Commons was designed to maximize flexible
study and work spaces and was intended to represent a deliberate break from the
previous service model. Prior to the renovation, the Learning Commons’ space
was configured as an “information commons” with 260 desktop computers in mostly
hardwired and immobile computer-lab style rows, and with library and technology
support services anchored to large desks (see Forrest & Halbert, 2009, pp.
93-96 for a summary and diagram of this space).
In contrast, the redesigned space features a variety of multi-purpose spaces
and contains two classrooms (one configured with media tables and one in a
traditional teaching lab layout), a writing support and tutoring centre, 18
collaboration rooms with large-screen monitors, work tables, and whiteboards
(12 configured with media collaboration tables containing built-in laptop and
device display adaptors), 68 individual computer workstations, and
multi-purpose seating for about 400 people comprised of a mix of tables,
booths, soft benches, chairs, and lounge areas (see Figure 1). All of these
spaces are available for student use 24/7, except for the classrooms and
writing centre, which may be reserved for workshops and programming. An array
of walk-up services is provided in a “Genius Bar” style service hub containing
desks for library circulation, course reserves, and equipment check out,
directional and basic reference assistance, research consultation, technology
and computer support, and peer mentors for help in navigating student services,
degree planning, and career development. The configuration of these service hub
desks is designed to be flexible, and the composition of the services offered
varies based on the time of the semester and demand.
The emphasis on flexibility in the Learning Commons’
design assumes that users will engage in a variety of information production
and consumption tasks using many types of devices (see Delcore,
Teniente-Matson, & Mullooly, 2014). In this way, the Learning Commons can
be understood as occupying the centre of a continuum between low-intensity
informal spaces and high-intensity formal study spaces (see Delcore et al.,
2014; Priestner, Marshall, & Modern Human, 2016), and its mix of spaces and
furniture are intended to support people working throughout this spectrum.
Conducted approximately 9 months after its opening, this
study sought to evaluate not only these assumptions about the Learning Commons’
design, but also its effectiveness as a learning space, by observing students’
adoption and usage of its facilities and services in their everyday academic
activities.
Figure
1
The
floor plan of the Learning Commons with workstations, mixed use seating, and
the service hub highlighted. (Stock photographs provided by IUB Libraries
Communications. Used by permission.)
Literature
Review
Beginning
around 2000, the creation of “learning commons” was part of a larger trend in universities
to shift teaching and learning pedagogies from an emphasis on a “culture of
teaching,” to a “culture of learning” that recognizes the importance of the
social dimensions of learning activities (Turner, Welch, & Reynolds, 2013,
p. 228; Bennett, 2003, p. 10). In libraries, learning commons spaces tend to be
seen as an evolution and extension of the “information commons” model, which
reframes spaces originally intended to primarily support students’
information-seeking activities as locations for students to participate in
information processes and produce knowledge in “a vibrant, collaborative, [and]
technology-infused space” (Accardi, Cordova, & Leeder, 2010, p. 312; Turner
et al., 2013, p. 230; Somerville & Harlan, 2008, pp. 1-36; Bonnand &
Donahue, 2010).
A
commitment to an understanding of students as intentional learners is a key
aspect of the learning commons concept, and Bennett asserts that these spaces
should be “one of the chief places on campus where students take responsibility
for and control over their own learning, and [should] employ library staff to
enact the learning mission of the university through being educators” (2009, p.
194). A learning commons therefore supports the social dimensions of learning
by providing spaces that enable a “variety of teaching and learning
relationships” so that students can meet and work with fellow students,
faculty, librarians, and other university staff and support units (Head, 2016,
p. 8). To fulfill this mission, learning commons require flexible spaces that
are both formal and informal and that “accommodate both solitary and collaborative
learning behaviors” (Bennett, 2007, p. 18; see also Head, 2016, pp. 2, 13-14;
Turner et al., 2013, p. 231).
Although
they represent a significant capital investment for universities and libraries,
Head (2016, p. 25) observes that relatively few academic library learning space
renovation projects conduct systematic post-occupancy assessments, instead
tending to rely on goals developed during the design process. Nevertheless,
Bennett points out the importance of both initial post-occupancy performance
evaluation for assessing how well a learning space meets the needs of its users
in practice, and for continuing this evaluation “persistently” to assure the
space’s ongoing effectiveness (2007, pp. 15, 23).
Aims
The
opening of the Wells Library’s Learning Commons presented an opportunity to
help address the gap in ongoing assessment of learning spaces by enabling IUB
librarians to conduct a post-occupancy evaluation of the Learning Commons’ new
work environments and to develop methods for periodic long-term assessments of
the space. This study was designed to evaluate the Learning Commons by
exploring a series of research questions about the ways individuals and groups
were using its spaces and services on an everyday basis, including: “What types
of students are using (or not using) the Learning Commons, and for what
purposes?”; “What tasks and activities are taking place, and what are students
trying to accomplish?”; “Are students aware of the technology resources and
services available and are these resources meeting students’ needs?”; and
finally, “Are the underlying assumptions about learning commons design and use
requirements supported by students’ everyday practices?” Answering these
questions allowed librarians and administrators to appraise the efficacy of the
Learning Commons’ design and assess how well it was fulfilling its intended
mission as a learning space.
Methods
Data Collection Design & Instruments
Faced
with the challenge of systematically studying a large 24-hour space, this study
developed a mixed-method research protocol that combined time-lapse
photography, direct unobtrusive observation, and random-sample walk-up surveys
to gather a representative and multi-modal activity profile of the Learning
Commons. This approach not only enabled the research team to quickly assess the
usage of the Learning Commons, but also created tools that can be reused to
rapidly and meaningfully evaluate changes in services, policies, or space
configurations in the future.
The
overall occupancy and use of open study spaces was evaluated using 10
time-lapse cameras placed along the interior perimeter of the Learning Commons
so that its full area could be photographed automatically at regular intervals.
Usage data for group study rooms were collected using in-person
unobtrusive observation and head counts.
Walk-up
surveys were conducted with both individuals and groups working in the Learning
Commons.
These surveys collected demographic, user experience, and satisfaction
information using both open and close-ended questions (see Appendices A &
B), and were developed with the input of the Learning Commons Operation Team,
which included representatives from all service units that cooperate and provide
services in the space. The surveys were field tested with a small group of
students to verify the clarity of questions, the time required for individual
and group participants to complete the survey (about 5-10 minutes), and the
time required by a research team member to complete a round of surveying
according to the study’s sampling design (about 45 minutes-1 hour).
All
instruments and procedures for this study were reviewed and approved by the IUB
Institutional Review Board.[1]
Figure
2
Daily
gate counts for the Learning Commons during the study period. Peaks are
typically Mondays or Tuesdays, while valleys are typically Saturdays (Low usage
on March 14-21 was due to spring break).
Data Collection Procedures
When
utilizing observation and survey-based research methods in spaces like the
Learning Commons, ensuring a representative sample of the space’s usage over
time can be particularly difficult. The occupancy, types of users, and the
activities taking place in a library space can vary dramatically over the
course of a day, week, or semester (Figure 2), making studies of these spaces
potentially vulnerable to underlying structural bias within their sampling
design. A formalized sampling technique is therefore useful to construct a
study that accurately reflects a space’s use characteristics.
To
this end, the Learning Commons study randomly selected 175 data collection
times from all possible 5-minute increments between March 1 and May 8, 2015,
covering the second half of the spring semester. These data collection times
were used for both the automated time-lapse photographs and the actively
collected observation and survey data.
Observation
and survey data collection was completed by a research team consisting of one
librarian and seven graduate research assistants. These research team members
were trained in the study’s sampling methods and data collection procedures by
the study’s principal investigator, who also coordinated and oversaw the data
collection process.
At
each randomly selected data collection time the research team member first
collected observation data and head counts for the Learning Commons’ group
study rooms. Once these observations were complete, the researcher then
collected walk-up surveys from a group occupying one randomly selected room, as
well as three or four randomly selected individuals from throughout the
Learning Commons’ space. A tablet computer running Qualtrics web-based survey
software was used to generate the random selection and to conduct the surveys,
as well as to guide the researcher through data collection procedure from
beginning to end to ensure data were collected in a standardized way by all
research team members.
Figure
3
An
example zone with numbered seats used for the random selection of individuals
for walk-up surveys.
For
the group surveys, a group study room was selected randomly until a group
agreed to participate or at least four groups had been asked. For the
individual surveys, the Learning Commons was divided into zones of roughly
equal size. A zone was randomly selected first, and then a seat number was
randomly selected from within that zone until an individual agreed to
participate (Figure 3) or at least four individuals had been asked. A new
Learning Commons zone was then selected and the process was repeated until
three or four surveys had been collected. In cases where there were so few
people in the Learning Commons that randomly selecting an occupied seat was
unlikely (e.g., during early morning hours), the researcher was allowed to
override the selection and approach a person in any occupied seat to ask them
to complete a survey.
Data Analysis
A
combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches was employed to analyze
the collected data. The time-lapse photographs were reviewed at the sampled
data collection times to ascertain how many people were using the Learning
Commons and to construct heat maps of how different areas of the space were
utilized (see also Khoo, Rozaklis, Hall, Kusunoki, & Rehrig, 2014 for a
similar approach to heat mapping). Observation data of the group study rooms
were used to calculate occupancy rates, as well as to evaluate which
technologies were utilized in the rooms. The survey results from individuals
and groups were analyzed to obtain descriptive statistics about user
demographic information, time spent in the Learning Commons’ space, and
awareness and satisfaction with available services. Finally, answers to the
surveys’ qualitative questions were coded thematically and categorized for
analysis using NVivo qualitative data analysis software to identify and
understand patterns in users’ experience of and affective attitudes towards the
Learning Commons.
Results
In
total, all 175 sampled data collection times were completed for the time-lapse
photographs, while 95 data collection sessions were completed for the group
study room observation and walk-up surveys, resulting in the collection of 304
individual surveys and 96 group surveys. Data collection for the observations
and surveys was hindered by the practical difficulties of conducting surveys on
a 24-hour schedule (particularly with regard to the ability and willingness of
graduate research assistants to conduct lengthy observation and survey
procedures in the overnight hours). This number of observations produced a
margin of error of 5.62% for individual surveys and 9.98% for group surveys, at
a 95% confidence interval, which, although higher than what would be desirable
for a statistical study, is adequate for the primarily descriptive goal of
outlining the use of the Learning Commons during this time period. While I
believe these observations are sufficiently robust to support the validity of
the
findings and conclusions presented in this article, it is nevertheless possible
that not completing all the sampled times may introduce some degree of error
into the observations, especially given that overnight times were more likely
to be missed than times during the day.
User Demographics
The
demographic data collected during the Learning Commons survey revealed patterns
in the types of students using the space that differed substantially from
expectations based on IUB’s enrollment figures.
Kelley
School of Business students accounted for 37% of the undergraduate students
surveyed in the Learning Commons, while these students comprise 21% of IUB’s
enrollment (Figure 4). College of Arts and Science (CAS) students comprised the
next highest group at 29% of undergraduate users—slightly lower than the 34%
expected by its enrollment, and inside the survey’s margin of error. However,
CAS students in humanities disciplines
accounted for only 1% of the students using the Learning Commons, compared to
about 15% of undergraduate enrollment.
Figure
4
Undergraduate
use of the Learning Commons by IUB School of enrollment
Figure
5
Use
of the Learning Commons by year of study and international student status.
Undergraduates
early in their educational career used the Learning Commons at the highest
level, with first and second year students accounting for 49% of its use
(compared to about 18% of enrollment) (Figure 5). Usage appears to decline with
the third and fourth years of study, while graduate students accounted for
about 16% of users—lower than the 22% expected from their enrollment, but not
surprising given that the Learning Commons is targeted primarily for
undergraduate use.
At
28% of the surveyed users, international students comprised a much larger
proportion of the Learning Commons’ users than would be expected based on their
university-wide enrollment of 13%. This high proportion of international
students also resulted in a higher-than-expected number of self-identified
Asian students using the space (27% of users versus 6% of enrollment), while
observed usage by other self-identified ethnic and gender groups generally
corresponded to expected enrollment patterns.
Space
Utilization
Observations obtained from the time-lapse
cameras demonstrated strong patterns in the study space utilization of the
Learning Commons. While the entire space was in use fairly extensively, there
was a clear hierarchy in users’ preferences. As shown in Appendix C, computer
workstations were the most in-demand areas and were occupied 45-63% of the
time. Tables were the next most used category of furniture, typically occupied
from 16-36% of the time, while soft seating and lounge areas were the least
used, usually at 16% of the time or less. With 175 observations, the sampling
design of this aspect of the study enables the calculation of confidence
intervals for each of these observed frequencies. For example, for observed
values above 36%, the confidence interval is approximately +/-7% at a 95%
confidence level (see Bernard and Killworth (1993) for a detailed explanation
of this calculation at varying observed frequencies).
On
average, 10.5 of the 18 collaboration rooms in the Learning Commons were
occupied during the observation times. Every room exhibited an average occupancy rate of above
50%, while the four most popular rooms exceeded 70% occupancy (Appendix D). The
confidence interval for all of these observed frequencies is approximately 7%
at a 95% confidence level. Rooms configured in the media-table layout
were more popular than those with circular tables and chairs, and at the
Learning Commons’ busiest times of 4-8 p.m. and 8 p.m.-12 a.m., the group study
rooms were almost completely occupied (at 15/18 and 16/18 on average
respectively).
However,
based on the number of seats occupied, the group study rooms were often not
used to capacity. The average group size was 2.27 people per room, while the
average capacity is 5.5 (with room capacities ranging from 4 to 7). People
using the group study rooms also did not appear to be using the technology
provided in the rooms to as high a degree as was anticipated—the average number
of large-screen monitors in use in the group study rooms was only 5 of 18,
compared to 22 laptops that students had brought with them.
In
general, the Learning Commons’ users reported planning to stay for relatively
long blocks of time. A total of 78% of individuals and 71% of groups said they
planned to stay in the Learning Commons for least 2 hours, and only about 5%
said they would stay less than 1 hour (Table 1). When asked in the qualitative
section of the surveys what they wanted to accomplish while at the Learning
Commons, a majority (55.3%) of individuals described a specific academic task
such as completing projects or papers. Another 39.1% said “studying,” while 17%
said “preparing for an exam.” Groups followed a similar pattern, with 62%
mentioning a specific task, 60% studying, and 18% preparing for an exam.
Table 1
Intended duration of work in the Learning Commons
User Experience and Satisfaction
User satisfaction with the Learning Commons was
generally very high, with 87% of users indicating that they were either
“satisfied” or “very satisfied” overall.
When asked why they had decided to come to the
Learning Commons, individuals emphasized the atmosphere and availability of
computer workstations, while groups emphasized the collaborative space and its
associated technology (e.g., whiteboards and large computer screens), as well
as the availability of private and quiet spaces.
When asked what was best about the Learning Commons,
both individuals and groups again mentioned available technology, the overall
environment (especially private and quiet spaces, even though the Learning
Commons is not designated as a quiet space), the furniture, and the
availability of computers. In general, individuals tended to highlight features
that support working alone, while groups noted features that support
collaboration. Conversely, many of the same items were also discussed when
users were asked what was the worst thing about the Learning Commons. One third
of Learning Common users stated that there were not sufficient study spaces,
and both groups and individuals complained about insufficient or unavailable
technology, furniture, computers, and collaboration rooms. Noise levels and
inadequate soundproofing were also regularly mentioned as problems.
Figure 6
Learning Commons service awareness.
Figure 7
Learning Commons service use.
Of the services available in the Learning Commons,
students were more likely to be aware of technology support services, writing
tutorial services, and library circulation than peer mentoring and research
consultation support (Figure 6), but they were much more likely to have
utilized technology services than library services (Figure 7). Only 8% of
respondents reported using research consultations compared to 51% who had used
the University Information Technology Services (UITS) support centre. However,
60% of users reported that they had asked for help from the Learning Commons
staff at least once. The Learning Commons’ users continued to favor obtaining
assistance in-person, with 72% saying that if they needed help they would most
prefer to get it at a walk-up desk (online chat was the second most preferred
method at just 9%).
When students had used the Learning Commons’ services,
satisfaction was uniformly very high at around 70% for all services.
Satisfaction with technology-related services (IT Training, UITS Support, and
Technology Center Consulting) was even higher at around 90% (Figure 8). While
the most common answer was “nothing” when asked what additional services they
would like in the Learning Commons, a handful
of users reported a desire for more tutoring in a variety of subject areas
(particularly math, foreign languages, and writing).
Figure 8
Learning Commons service satisfaction.
Discussion
The
distinct patterns observed in the demographics of the Learning Commons’ users
likely result from a combination of space design, location, and pedagogical
factors. The Learning Commons appears to serve some types of students very
well, such as the business students that comprise the largest user group. The
intensive use of the space by these students is likely in part due to the Wells
Library’s close proximity to the business school, which is located less than one
block away (and whose own library is often occupied at full capacity), as well
as the collaborative work requirements of many business courses. The importance
of the Learning Commons as a group meeting location is further suggested by the
prevalence of students majoring in social science and STM disciplines,
curricula that also typically include a number of courses that emphasize
collaborative and group-based projects. Conversely, the relative absence of
humanities students may suggest that the open and group-oriented environment of
the Learning Commons does not serve the needs of these students. It is not
clear from the survey data whether this is because these students are engaged
in more solitary work that is not facilitated by the space or because they need
resources that are unavailable, and this finding warrants additional study.
Compared
to what would be anticipated by enrollment, students arriving at the Learning
Commons’ service desks are more likely to be early in their undergraduate
careers, more likely to be studying in the business school, and more likely to
be international students. Librarians, staff, and graduate assistants working
at these service desks should be especially trained and prepared to address the
needs of these groups. Follow-up
studies or surveys might seek to specifically identify if there are additional
needs of both high-use and low-use groups of students that could be met either
via current Learning Commons services or by collaboration with other campus
units: for example, ESL support or other international student services,
curriculum-targeted workshops, tutoring or research consultation, or services
and programming designed to
reach out to non-using groups of students, such as humanities majors.
The
overall success and popularity of the Learning Commons produces many of the
problems identified in this study. While users enjoyed the overall environment
and atmosphere of the space, they often complained that it was too crowded and
had insufficient collaboration rooms, available furniture, and workstations. In
a survey of library space choice, Cha & Kim (2015, p. 277) identified the
amount of space, noise level, crowdedness, and comfort of furnishings to be the
four most important factors students consider in choosing to use a space, so it
is perhaps not surprising that this cluster of characteristics appears
simultaneously in both positive and negative evaluations of the Learning
Commons. The observed problems in all of these areas can also ultimately be
linked to the Learning Commons routinely operating at or near its capacity.
The
usage patterns of the Learning Commons furniture and group study rooms suggest
that many of the spaces’ resources are in extremely high demand. Combined with
the relatively high observed use of workstations, the desire for additional
computers suggests that the nearly 75% reduction of workstations (from 260 to
68) after the Learning Commons’ renovation might have been too extreme, and
that the capacity of computing resources located in the Learning Commons is not
adequate for users’ needs. While reducing the number of workstations was a
deliberate decision to help make the Learning Commons’ space more flexible, and
many of the removed workstations were redistributed to other spaces in the
building (the net loss was only about 80 computers), users clearly experience
the diminished number of computers as a deficiency of the space. Nevertheless,
given the extensive overall use of the Learning Commons, workstations, tabletop
work surfaces, and group work spaces might be in such high demand that almost
any amount provided would be perceived as insufficient.
Users’
preference for tables likely reflects students’ need for hard work surfaces for
laptops, books, and other materials, a finding similar to Holder and Lange, who
also found that students indicated a preference for “traditional furniture such
as tables and desk chairs” (2014, p. 15). In terms of space planning, it is
probably worth considering allocating a higher proportion of seats to
workstations and table seating instead of soft seating and lounge areas. With a
current mix of 53% tables, 25% soft seating, and 17% workstations, the Learning
Commons’ most in-demand seating is also the least available, while a quarter of
available seats are under-utilized or used principally during the busiest times
when no other places are available.
Shifting
some soft seating and lounge areas to workstations or tabletop surfaces might
help alleviate demand on these resources and increase the capacity of the
space, although the Learning Commons’ managers should also carefully observe
how the delicate balance between space and furniture types might affect use. As
Khoo et al. (2014, pp. 617-618) observe, the perceived occupancy of a space is
often as important as its actual occupancy, and depending on the type of
furniture and its layout, a space can feel full from the standpoint of the user
even if many seats remain open—in some cases even if half of places remain
unused (Gibbons & Foster 2007, p. 28). Similarly, Priestner et al. argue
that library work spaces need to provide users with enough available “study
territory” so that each seat feels inviting, and they demonstrate that in some
cases occupancy can counterintuitively be increased by decreasing the number of
seats in a space to provide more territory to each seat (2016, pp. 22-24 ). Khoo
et al. conclude that “practical occupancy limits for open plan study spaces
could be significantly lower than the theoretical maximum seating” (2014, p.
618).
Within
an open environment like the Learning Commons, that is already perceived and
experienced as busy and crowded during many of its open hours, simply adding
additional seats and furniture might exacerbate the problem even if the
absolute capacity is increased. To determine an optimal layout and furniture
mix, the Learning Commons’ managers and administrators might consider an
iterative prototyping approach to adjusting the space (Priestner et al., 2016,
pp. 5-7), in which a series of changes are made to the space’s configuration
and the effects on usage and user behaviour are carefully observed at each
step. In this way the flexibility that was designed into the Learning Commons
could be effectively leveraged to balance the demand for both solitary and
collaborative spaces, to continue to improve the experience of the space for
its users, and to more fully respond to students’ learning needs.
Despite
these capacity issues, the relatively long planned study sessions reported by
both individuals and groups suggests that the Learning Commons adequately
supports the goal of creating a space that “acknowledge[s] the social dimension of . . . learning
behaviors and that enable[s] students to manage socializing in ways that are
positive for learning . . .” by “encourage[ing] more time on task and more
productive studying” (Bennet, 2007, p. 17). This sustained time in the Learning
Commons is important to its effectiveness as a learning space, and confirms the
presence of an audience for library and university support services.
While
the high levels of satisfaction with the services available in the Learning
Commons are encouraging, the relatively weak usage of the services available
suggests that the Learning Commons is not yet delivering on its goal of
delivering point-of-need learning. Particularly disappointing was the low use
and mostly moderate awareness of learner-focused services such as research
consultations, peer mentors, IT training, and writing tutorial services. This
low use of library services relative to technology support services further
indicates that there may be a disconnect between the types of help and
assistance students perceive to be available and the broader range of services
that are offered, and that more programming may be necessary to develop
students’ identification of the Learning Commons as a multifaceted learning space.
Conclusions
The
renovated Learning Commons is clearly a popular and well-used collaboration and
study space used for a variety of academic tasks and activities. However, it is
less certain the degree to which it is fulfilling the “learner-centered”
paradigm of design (Bennett, 2009) that asserts the need for providing flexible
spaces that support not only the multifaceted, frequently changing, and
self-managed learning activities of students, but also the diverse types of
teaching and learning relationships encompassed by the social dimensions of
learning (Turner et al., 2013, p. 231; Bennett, 2013, p. 38).
The
high rates of occupancy observed in the Learning Commons’ group study rooms and
open study spaces suggest that it is offering attractive locations for many types
of student work, while the high overall satisfaction with the redesigned space
supports the efficacy of shifting toward a more flexible approach to the
provision of space and library and technology services.
This
popularity may result in the Learning Commons’ falling short in providing
adequate spaces for all types of students and student activities. While it
contains areas for both solitary and group work, the Learning Commons’ design
and furniture configuration emphasizes collaborative activities. As is
illustrated by the disciplinary distribution of students using the Learning
Commons, the space appears to attract students in curricula that tend to have
high numbers of group-oriented assignments. The success of the Learning Commons
as a collaborative space may be pushing out students in need of a more solitary
work environment.
By
supporting collaborative relationships among students, the Learning Commons
effectively facilitates one aspect of the social dimension of learning.
Nevertheless, the low reported identification and usage of available services
besides IT and technology support indicates that additional outreach is needed
to build relationships between students, librarians, and other service
providers such as the writing centre and peer tutors, so that students begin to
identify the Learning Commons as a multifaceted learning space.
The
results of this study’s initial post-occupancy evaluation of students’ everyday
use of the Learning Commons thus illustrates a space that has been well received
by students and meets many of their educational needs, but only partially
fulfills its goals as a learning-centred space. While the Learning Commons
successfully enables some of the social dimensions of learning by providing a
variety of collaborative spaces and supporting technologies for students to
engage with one another and information resources, it has not yet fully
integrated relationships with other library and campus services. As with any
space committed to a learning-centred paradigm, developing these relationships
within the Learning Commons is a continuous project, needing ongoing outreach,
service development, and evaluation efforts to ensure its success.
Acknowledgements
This
study was funded by the IUB Libraries. The author would like to thank Joseph
Eldridge and Brian Winterman for their assistance in data collection and
analysis.
References
Accardi, M. T.,
Cordova, M., & Leeder, K. (2010). Reviewing the library learning commons:
History, models, and perspectives. College & Undergraduate Libraries,
17(2–3), 310–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2010.481595
Bennett, S. (2003). Libraries
designed for learning. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information
Resources. Retrieved from https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub122/pub122web.pdf
Bennett, S.
(2007). First questions for designing higher education learning spaces. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(1), 14–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2006.08.015
Bennett, S.
(2009). Libraries and learning: A history of paradigm change. Portal:
Libraries and the Academy, 9(2), 181–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pla.0.0049
Bernard, H. R.,
& Killworth, P. D. (1993). Sampling in time allocation research. Ethnology,
32(2), 207–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3773773
Bonnand, S.,
& Donahue, T. (2010). What’s in a Name? The Evolving Library Commons
Concept. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 17(2–3), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2010.487443
Cha, S. H.,
& Kim, T. W. (2015). What matters for students’ use of physical library
space? The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(3), 274–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.014
Delcore, H.,
Teniente-Matson, C., & Mullooly, J. (2014). The continuum of student IT use
in campus spaces: A qualitative study. Educause
Review Online. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2014/8/the-continuum-of-student-it-use-in-campus-spaces-a-qualitative-study
Forrest, C.,
& Halbert, M. (Eds.). (2009). A field guide to the information commons.
Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Gibbons, S.,
& Foster, N.F. (2007). Library design and ethnography. In N. F. Foster
& S. Gibbons (Eds.), Studying
students: The undergraduate research project at the University of Rochester. Chicago,
IL: Association of College and Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/booksanddigitalresources/digital/Foster-Gibbons_cmpd.pdf
Head, A. J.
(2016). Planning and designing academic
library learning spaces: Expert perspectives of architects, librarians, and
library consultants. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2885471
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.18438/B8303T
Khoo, M.,
Rozaklis, L., Hall, C. E., Kusunoki, D., & Rehrig, M. (2014). Heat map
visualizations of seating patterns in an academic library. iConference 2014
Proceedings. http://dx.doi.org/10.9776/14274
Priestner, A,
Marshall, D., & Modern Human (2016). The
Protolib Project: Researching and reimagining library environments at the
University of Cambridge. Retrieved from https://futurelib.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/the-protolib-project-final-report.pdf
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). Oxford: Chandos
Publishing.
Turner, A.,
Welch, B., & Reynolds, S. (2013). Learning spaces in academic libraries: A
review of the evolving trends. Australian Academic & Research Libraries,
44(4), 226–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2013.857383
Appendix A
Learning Commons Space Use Assessment
Survey for Individuals
1.
Why
did you decide to come to the Learning Commons today?
2.
What
would you like to do or accomplish while you are here?
3.
How
long will you stay in the Learning Commons for this visit?
·
Less
than 30 minutes
·
30
minutes to 1 hour
·
1-2
hours
·
2-3
hours
·
More
than 3 hours
4.
What
is the best thing about the Learning Commons space?
5.
What
is the worst thing about the Learning Commons space?
6.
How
many times in the last seven days have you used the Learning Commons space?
7.
What
would make you want to use the Learning Commons more often?
8.
Are
there sufficient study spaces in the Learning Commons?
·
Yes
·
No
·
I
don't know/ I'm not sure
9.
If
you need help with something you are working on, how would you most prefer to
get assistance?
·
In
person at a walk-up help desk
·
Online
chat
·
Email
·
Text
Message
·
Telephone
·
In
person by appointment
·
Other
____________________
10.
How
easy is it for you to get help in the Learning Commons?
·
Very
Easy
·
Easy
·
Neutral
·
Difficult
·
Very
Difficult
·
I
don't know
11.
Have
you ever asked for help from the staff in the Learning Commons?
·
Yes
·
No
·
I
don't know/ I'm not sure
12.
[If
yes selected for #11] Thinking about only the most recent time you asked the
staff of the Learning Commons for help, what did you need help with?
13.
[If
yes selected for #11] How effective were the Learning Commons' staff in
answering your question?
·
Very
Ineffective
·
Ineffective
·
Neither
Effective nor Ineffective
·
Effective
·
Very
Effective
14.
|
|
Prior to this
survey, I was aware that this service is available in the Learning Commons |
I have used
this service |
||
|
|
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
|
Technology Center
Consulting |
m
|
m
|
m
|
m
|
|
UITS Support Center |
m
|
m
|
m
|
m
|
|
Writing Tutorial Services |
m
|
m
|
m
|
m
|
|
Research Consultations |
m
|
m
|
m
|
m
|
|
Library Circulation |
m
|
m
|
m
|
m
|
|
University Division Peer
Mentors |
m
|
m
|
m
|
m
|
|
IT Training |
m
|
m
|
m
|
m
|
[For the services used] How
satisfied were you with the following service:
·
Very
Satisfied
·
Satisfied
·
Neutral
·
Dissatisfied
·
Very
Dissatisfied
[For the
services not used] How likely are you to use the following service:
·
Very
Likely
·
Likely
·
Undecided
·
Unlikely
·
Very
Unlikely
15.
What
additional services would you like to see offered in the Learning
Commons?
16.
What
is your overall satisfaction with the Learning Commons?
·
Very Dissatisfied
·
Dissatisfied
·
Neutral
·
Satisfied
·
Very Satisfied
Demographic Questions
D1. What is your age?
D2. What gender do you identify with?
·
Male
·
Female
·
I don't identify with either of these. I identify as:
____________________
D3. What is your year of study?
·
First Year
·
Sophomore
·
Junior
·
Senior
·
Graduate
·
Faculty Member
·
Other
D4. What is your Major or Department?
D5. What race or ethnicity do you most identify with?
·
Black or African American
·
Hispanic or Latino
·
White or Caucasian
·
Asian
·
American Indian or Alaska Native
·
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
·
I don't identify as any of these. I identify as:
____________________
D6. Are you an international student?
·
Yes
·
No
If yes, what is your country of citizenship:
Appendix B
Learning Commons Space Use Assessment
Survey for Groups
1.
How
many people are in your group?
2.
Why
did your group decide to come to the Learning Commons today?
3.
What
would your group like to do or accomplish while you are here?
4.
How
long will your group stay in the Learning Commons for this visit?
·
Less
than 30 minutes
·
30
minutes to 1 hour
·
1-2
hours
·
2-3
hours
·
More
than 3 hours
5.
Is
your group:
·
Working
together on a single assignment or project for a course
·
Working
or studying together but on different assignments
·
Working
on an extracurricular project
·
Socializing
or working on something not related to your studies
·
Working
on something else-- What? ____________________
6.
If
your group is working together on a course assignment or project, what course
is it for?
7.
What
is the best thing about the Learning Commons space?
8.
What
is the worst thing about the Learning Commons space?
9.
What
would make your group want to use the Learning Commons more often?
10.
Are
there sufficient group study spaces in the Learning Commons?
·
Yes
·
No
·
I don't know/ I'm not sure
11.
What
is your group's overall satisfaction with the Learning Commons?
·
Very
Dissatisfied
·
Dissatisfied
·
Neutral
·
Satisfied
·
Very
Satisfied
Appendix C
Heat Map of the Learning Commons Open Study Areas
Appendix D
Heat map of the Utilization of the Learning Commons’ Collaboration Rooms
