Research Article
The Library’s Impact on University Students’ Academic
Success and Learning
Jung Mi Scoulas
Clinical Assistant Professor
and Assessment Coordinator
University of Illinois at
Chicago
Chicago, Illinois, United
States of America
Email: jscoul2@uic.edu
Sandra L. De Groote
Professor and Head of
Assessment and Scholarly Communications
University of Illinois at
Chicago
Chicago, Illinois, United
States of America
Email: sgroote@uic.edu
Received: 7 Jan. 2019 Accepted: 18 July 2019
2019 Scoulas and Groote. 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/eblip29547
Abstract
Objective
–
The purpose of this study was to examine relationships among student library
visits, library resource use, library space satisfaction (e.g., quiet study
space), and students’ academic performance (i.e., Grade Point Average or GPA)
using quantitative data and to better understand how the academic library has
an impact on students’ learning from students’ perspectives using qualitative
data.
Methods
–
A survey was distributed during the Spring 2018 semester to graduate and
undergraduate students at a large public research institution. Survey responses
consisted of two types of data: (1) quantitative data pertaining to multiple
choice questions related to the student library experience, and (2) qualitative
data, including open-ended questions, regarding students’ perceptions of the
library’s impact on their learning. Quantitative data was analyzed using
Spearman’s rank correlations between students’ library experience and their
GPAs, whereas qualitative data was analyzed employing thematic analysis.
Results
–
The key findings from the quantitative data show that student library visits
and library space satisfaction were negatively associated with their GPA,
whereas most students’ use of library resources (e.g., journal articles and
databases) was positively associated with their GPAs. The primary findings from
the qualitative data reveal that students perceived the library as a place
where they can concentrate and complete their work. Additionally, the students
reported that they utilize both the quiet and collaborative study spaces
interchangeably depending on their academic needs, and expressed that the
library provides them with invaluable resources that enhance their coursework
and research.
Conclusions
–
While the findings show that the
student library experience was associated with their academic achievements,
there were mixed findings in the study. The findings suggest that as a
student’s GPA increases, their in-person library visits and library space
satisfaction decrease. On the other hand, as a student’s GPA increases, their
library resource usage increases. Further investigation is needed to better
understand the negative relationship between students’ library visits, library
space satisfaction, and their GPAs.
Introduction
Academic libraries exert great effort to demonstrate with
empirical evidence that library use has an impact on students’ academic success
and learning. Our public research university library is no exception and
considers this an important task. We conducted a locally developed survey to
examine how students’ library experiences (e.g., frequency of library visits,
library resource use, and satisfaction with library spaces) are associated with
their academic achievement. At the same time, we further asked how they
perceived the library’s impact on their learning, using an open-ended question.
By integrating and comparing quantitative data with qualitative data, we aim to
gain a broader understanding of the influence of students’ library experiences
on academic achievement and learning. In this manner, this study aspires to
provide a deeper understanding of how an academic library demonstrates the
impact of the library on students’ learning, using their self-reported data and
institutional data (e.g., Grade Point Average or GPA).
Academic libraries are under constant pressure to prove
their value. To demonstrate their value in a “clear, measurable and
[meaningful]” way using existing information, the Association of College &
Research Libraries’ (ACRL) Value of Academic Libraries Initiatives issued Value
of Academic Libraries: Comprehensive Review and Report (Oakleaf, 2010, p.8)
suggesting several possible correlations between students’ academic success
(e.g., GPA) and their library data (e.g., checkouts, database use, and library
instructions). Since then, college and university
libraries have increasingly dedicated resources to reveal the library’s impact
on students’ academic success using various assessment measurements.
In an effort to demonstrate the library’s impact on students’ learning
and academic achievement, many researchers have used their library data such as
online library resource use and library instructional workshops. More than 200
higher educational institutions, from community colleges to doctorate/research
universities, participated in the Assessment in Action (AiA)
Project between 2013 and 2016 and provided compelling evidence regarding the
relationship between library use and students’ learning and outcomes (Brown,
2018). For example, Eastern Kentucky University, one of the participants in the
AiA Project, examined undergraduate students’ online
library resource use and their GPAs. The results showed that students who
logged into online library resources had a higher GPA than their peers who did
not access its online resources (Brown & Malenfant,
2018a). In addition to the Eastern Kentucky University study, similar results
from other institutions in the AiA Project (e.g.,
Murray State University, York University, California State University-East Bay)
showed a positive relationship between students’ library use and their GPAs
(Brown & Malenfant, 2018a, 2018b).
A study undertaken at the University of Minnesota by Soria, Fransen, and Nackerud (2013)
measured whether the use of library resources and services (e.g., databases and
library workshops) was associated with student retention and GPA for first-year
undergraduate students. Using student database login information and student
instructional and reference interactions, they demonstrated that students’ GPAs
were positively associated with students’ library use (e.g., database use,
electronic journals, and book loans), but students’ GPAs were negatively
associated with course-integrated instruction sessions. A two-year study at the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln examined whether use of library resources
activities (e.g., circulation checkouts and off-campus access to databases)
were related to both undergraduate and graduate students’ GPAs (Allison, 2015).
Data was employed from student information systems, including students’
identification number, GPA, and class information (e.g., undergraduate and
graduate students). A positive correlation between variations of library use
and changes in GPA was found for two years for both undergraduate and graduate
students. While Soria and colleagues (2013) focused only on first-year
undergraduate students and used internal data from their institutions and one
year of library data, Allison included undergraduate students beyond the first
year and examined two years of library data.
The studies above (Allison, 2015; Soria et al., 2013)
focused on the correlations between students’ use of library resources and
their academic achievements to examine academic libraries’ impact on students’
academic success. Other academic libraries have examined other types of library
usage data, including use of library space and technology (e.g., checking out
laptops). For instance, the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) from the AiA project, examined the relationships between library use
(e.g., entering the library, checking out laptops, and using study rooms) and
students’ GPAs. The results showed that students who used these library
resources and services had a higher GPA than their peers (Brown & Malenfant, 2018a). Massengale,
Piotrowski, and Savage (2016) used library usage data such as entry into the
library by collecting students’ ID numbers at the building entrance and when
reserving study rooms, and manually collected data (e.g., borrowing laptops) in
addition to institutional data (e.g., GPA and students’ participation in
extracurricular activities). They found that students who reserved group study
rooms had the highest GPAs, followed by those who used their laptop in the
library.
Other institutions also used library and institutional data to explore
the impact of libraries not only on students’ GPAs but also their learning. At
the University of Minnesota, Soria, Fransen and Nackerud (2017) used the Student Experience in the Research
University (SERU) survey, a campus-wide survey measuring the students’
educational experience and academic engagement. The survey data was used in
addition to library data (e.g., students’ library use in collections,
web-services, and online chat with librarian) and institutional data (students’
demographic information and GPA) to examine whether first-year college
students’ use of academic libraries was associated with students’ academic
outcomes (e.g., students’ academic engagement, academic skills and GPA). Soria
and colleagues found that students who consulted or met with reference
librarians had higher academic engagement and academic skills. In addition,
they found that students who used web-based services (e.g., databases or
library websites) and engaged in library instruction (e.g., workshops or course
integrated instruction) had a higher GPA in comparison to students who did not
use these services (Soria et al., 2017).
While the above-mentioned studies demonstrated a correlation between
library use and students’ academic success by utilizing a wide range of data
sources collected from libraries and institutions, academic libraries face
challenges to gathering and accessing this data (Oakleaf, 2016; Oakleaf, Whyte,
Lynema & Brown, 2017). Depending on the academic
institution’s policies (e.g., data privacy), capability (e.g., data analysis),
or capacity (e.g., recording data), not all academic institutions provide
access to this data. Given these limitations, what types of assessment methods
could institutions use to measure the library’s value in students’ academic
success when the data is not accessible, or the data is accessible but cannot
be used for research studies?
To get around these difficulties, some libraries have developed their
own survey instruments and examined whether or not students’ library space
usage has an impact on their learning needs and their academic achievements.
For instance, Montgomery (2014) created an ethnographic survey regarding
library space to examine whether or not students’ behaviours
using library spaces changed (e.g., spaces for working alone or working with
other students), and how these decisions impacted students’ learning before and
after renovation. She found that students’ use of library spaces for working
with others before and after the renovation were unchanged, while students
using library spaces to work alone increased after the renovation. While
Montgomery’s study contributed to measuring how students perceived the library
space, and how this perception affected learning behaviours,
this study did not attempt to directly link these decisions to students’
academic achievement, such as GPA. Other researchers attempted to examine how
students used the library space, and the relationships between the students’
library space use and their learning. Using survey questions including
self-reported GPA and observational sweep seating, a method observing students’
use of the library space, May and Swabey (2015) found
that students used the library space to do their academic work. However,
self-reported GPAs were not correlated with their number of visits to the
library nor the amount of academic work completed in the library.
By considering what types of data were available to our
institution, and our university library’s desire to measure the impact of the
library on students’ success, the current study used survey questions locally developed by the university’s library and examined how students’
library visits, use of library resources, and library space satisfaction are
associated with students’ GPAs. Unlike previous studies assessing only the
correlations of limited resources (e.g., books or multimedia checkout and GPA;
library instruction and GPA), the current study aims to examine the
comprehensive picture of the student library experience (e.g., library visits,
use of library resources, and library space satisfaction) and its influence on
GPA. Furthermore, students’ open-ended responses to the one survey question
were further analyzed to better understand how students perceived that the
academic library has an impact on their learning. Open-ended survey responses
give respondents an opportunity to explain and express themselves in a
narrative form, which is very helpful for organizations to gain insight and
better understand users’ needs (Jackson & Trochim, 2002). Additionally,
having a key open-ended question in online surveys can increase the richness of
responses, especially for respondents interested in the question topic (Holland
& Christian, 2009). As such, this study aims to address the following
questions:
- Question
1 from the quantitative data: What are the relationships among student
library visits, resource use, library space satisfaction, and their
academic achievement (GPA)?
- Question 2 from the qualitative data
(open-ended): How do students perceive the library’s impact on their
learning experiences?
Using both quantitative and qualitative data can assist library staff
with developing a better understanding of how students consider the benefits of
using the library for their own learning, and what types of resources are
associated with their learning.
Methods
In this study, a survey was distributed collecting both quantitative
data and qualitative data through the use of an open-ended question. After
analyzing the quantitative and qualitative data separately, the results were
used to address the two research questions above.
The institution is a public research university in the Midwest serving
approximately 29,000 students who are enrolled in 15 different colleges. It
offers hundreds of degree programs at a bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral
degree level, and has more than 80 undergraduate majors and 60 minors. At this
academic institution, a total of 5 libraries are located across multiple
campuses.
Measures
The student survey was developed in 2015 by
the Library’s Assessment Advisory Committee (AAC) in
collaboration with an outside research consultant with expertise in library
assessment and experience in developing library surveys. The AAC consisted of
seven library faculty who represented various units at the university library.
Hiring a research consultant ensured that the type of survey and content were
appropriate to guiding the university library in the right direction. The role
of the AAC was to ensure that all of the survey questions pertain to our
organization’s information needs by focusing on users’ satisfaction and library
usage. The first locally developed survey was distributed to the institutions’
students in 2016. For the 2018 student survey, AAC reviewed the 2016 student
survey questions and findings, and revised some scales (converting dichotomous
to interval scales) and questions focusing on five areas: (1) frequency of
in-person or online library visits; (2) frequency of library resource use; (3)
what the library is doing well; (4) identifying areas to improve students’
experiences; and (5) how the library might contribute to student success (see
the Appendix for the survey questions). To address the research questions for
this study, four variables were selected from the 2018 student survey
questions: multiple choice questions related to student library visits, either
in-person or online; use of resources; student library space satisfaction; and
an open-ended question regarding students’ perceptions of the library’s impact
on their learning. In both 2016 and 2018, the surveys were piloted with six to
eight students who read the questions and shared their thoughts aloud to allow
the research team to observe if there were any issues of interpretation with
the questions. Adjustments to the questions were made accordingly. To avoid any
confusion of the library terms, we also provided links to these within the
survey. To measure the library’s impact on students’ academic achievements,
students’ cumulative GPAs were provided by the Office of Institutional
Research.
Quantitative Data
Student Library Visits Either in Person or Online
The frequency of student library visits, either in-person or online, was
assessed by the following question: “Last semester, how often did you visit the
library (1) in-person and (2) online.” The responses were coded as: 0 (never),
1 (once a month), 2 (once a week), 3 (multiple days in a week), and 4 (daily).
Student Library Resource Use
Students’ use of library resources was measured by 11 items through the
following question: “Last semester, how often did you use each of the library
resources? (1) journal articles, (2) subject specific databases, (3) print
books from the stacks, (4) textbooks on reserve, (5) electronic books, (6)
library subject and course guides, (7) special collections and university
archives, (8) digital images, (9) streaming media, (10) DVDs on reserve, and
(11) patient care tools.” The answers were coded as: 0 (never), 1 (once a
month), 2 (once a week), 3 (multiple days in a week), and 4 (daily).
Student Library Space Satisfaction
To measure the extent that students are satisfied with library spaces,
the four items were included in the following question: “How satisfied are you
with the library spaces below at your library? (1) quiet study spaces, (2)
collaborative study spaces, (3) group study rooms, and (4) computer areas.” The
answer was coded as: 0 (I don’t use this space in the library), 1 (very
dissatisfied), 2 (dissatisfied), 3 (satisfied), and 4 (very satisfied).
Student Grade Point Average (GPA)
Students’ cumulative GPAs were taken from fall 2017 institutional
records. The cumulative GPA refers to overall GPA, including all of the grades
students earned from the beginning of the program to the end of the term. The
range of GPAs was from 0.00 to 4.00.
Qualitative Data
Students’ perceptions of the library’s impact on their learning was
assessed with the following open-ended question: “Thinking about your overall
library experience at the university, please tell us about your experiences
with the library that positively impacted your coursework or research.”
Participants
In Spring 2018, a total of 28,725 undergraduate and graduate students
were invited to participate in an online survey. A total of 2,277 students
completed the multiple-choice survey for an overall response rate of 8%. While
students across five library locations participated in the survey, for this
study we did not closely examine responses by location. The majority of the
respondents (about 92%) were enrolled in a program located in a large urban
location, where there are two libraries. Because students were not asked which
library they used, it is not possible to definitively determine which location
the students visited. While assumptions could be made that students enrolled in
the health sciences programs used the Library of Health Sciences, some of these
programs are located geographically closer to the other library. Students might
choose a library based on reasons outside of their program, such as proximity
to their home. It was also clear based on the open-ended questions that some
students were familiar with both urban library locations. All of those students
would have used the same University Library website and had access to the same
virtual resources.
As shown in Table 1, it appears that the ratio of respondents from the
student survey was similar to the ratio of the university population (a
difference of less than 5%) in all of the demographic variables, except for two
categories: female respondents (approximately 11%) and graduate students (about
9%) were overrepresented in the survey. We can claim that the survey
respondents were representative of the university’s population. Undergraduate
students made up 57% of the total, and 86% were commuters. With respect to the
range of students’ ages, 69.4% of respondents were between 16 and 25, followed
by respondents between 26 and 35 (22.4%), and over 35 years old (8.2%). With
respect to students’ ethnicity, 36.4% of the respondents were White, followed
by Hispanic (21.3%), Asian American (18.6%), International (13%), and African
American (7.2%).
Table 1
Students’ Demographic Information: Sample
from Quantitative and Qualitative Data and
University Population
Note: In this institution, “International status”
was included in the race/ethnicity category. “International”
refers to all international students, regardless of their race or ethnicity,
who were not born in the U.S. and are not permanent residents or U.S. citizens.
Qualitative
Data
While 2,277 students completed the multiple-choice survey, a total of
992 students completed the open-ended question at the very end. As with the
quantitative data, the qualitative data sample for the student survey is
representative of the university population, except for gender and class:
female students (more than 12%) and graduate students (8%) were overrepresented
in the qualitative data sample (see Table 1). With respect to students’
ethnicity, 38% of the respondents were White, followed by Hispanic (21.7%),
Asian American (17.1%), International (11.4%), and African American (7.6%).
Students’ demographic information is displayed in detail in Table 1.
This study was approved by the Institutional Review
Board at the institution. The list of potential students, including students’
demographic information and their cumulative GPAs, was obtained from the Office
of Institutional Research (OIR). The demographic information requested from the
OIR for this study includes gender, race/ethnicity, class standing, academic
program, campus location, commuter/resident/online, age, and first-generation (Table
1). All of the university students’ email addresses and the data listed above,
including GPAs, were uploaded as a “panel” in Qualtrics (2018 version). The
email address and the data including GPA of each student were linked in
Qualtrics to a unique URL created by Qualtrics. After distributing the survey,
Qualtrics was able to track who responded to the survey and provided
de-identified survey responses as well as the demographic data and GPAs for
only those students who completed the survey. The survey was administered
during the spring semester of 2018 and the survey reminder email, which
included a drawing to win an iPad, was sent to students four times in order to
increase the number of responses.
Data Analysis
Quantitative Data Analysis
Quantitative data was analyzed using quantitative data
analysis software SPSS 25. Prior to analyzing correlations, descriptive
statistics using frequencies were used to demonstrate how responses were
distributed. The median was also used for the variables (library visit, library
resource use, and library space satisfaction) and organized by class level in
order to demonstrate where the center of the data is located. The median is
appropriate for data that has the character of an ordinal scale, and is
generally used for skewed number distribution—that is, the majority of scores
tend to accumulate either at the high or low end of the distribution (King
& Minium, 2007). To examine whether the library
visits (in-person or online), library resource use, and library space satisfaction
were associated with students’ GPAs, a two-tailed Spearman’s rank correlation
was used. Given that most of the variables, except for students’ GPAs, are
ordinal scale (e.g., from 0 [never] to 4 [daily]), the Spearman’s rank
correlation coefficient, also called Spearman Rho (coefficient) is appropriate.
This type of correlation is used when testing non-linear correlations and
measuring the strength of the relationship between variables on a scale that is
at least ordinal (Gust & D’journo, 2015; King
& Minium, 2007; Pallant,
2011). Spearman rank correlation is commonly used in the field of psychology
research and medical literature (Pallant, 2011).
Qualitative Data Analysis
Prior to analyzing the data, students’ responses were
screened to verify that their answers were complete. During this process, 14
responses were excluded because their responses were recorded as “N/A.” A total
of 992 responses were reviewed several times. Qualitative thematic analysis was
employed using qualitative data analysis software (NVivo 12) in order to have
an in-depth understanding of the impact of the academic library on students’
learning. Thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analyzing, describing,
organizing, and reporting themes that emerge from a data set, and is widely
used for a qualitative research method in epistemology and psychology (Braun
& Clarke, 2006). Codes were developed mainly from guided research questions
(provisional coding) and, at the same time, they emerged from respondents’ quotations
(inductive coding). After initial coding, codes were reviewed and revised by
the first author. Afterwards, the pattern coding technique was utilized in
order to condense the existing codes into a small number of themes (Creswell,
2009; Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). Themes
for coding were organized by the main question, “Tell us about your experiences
with the library that positively impacted your coursework or research.” The
final codes and themes were reviewed by the second author, who designed the student
survey. At this stage, no codes and themes were changed.
Results
This study aims to examine whether students’ library visits, library
resource use, and library space satisfaction are related to their academic
achievements. Table 2 shows descriptive statistics for each measure of student
library visits and student library resource usage. As shown in Table 2, about
half of the students responded that they visited the library “multiple days in
a week” or “daily,” whereas 33% of the students replied that they visited the
library “once a month” or “never.” On the other hand, only 24% of the students
responded that they used the online library “multiple days in a week” or
“daily,” whereas about 45% of the students replied that they used the online
library “once a month” or “never.”
Quantitative Data: Descriptive Statistics on Students’
Library Visits and Library Resource Use
The frequency of students’ library resource use is also displayed in
Table 2. The most common response for students’ use of any type of library
resource fell into “never.” The top five resources that were marked as “never”:
DVDs on reserve were ranked first for “never” (91.1%), patient care tools were
ranked second (88%), followed by digital images (83%), special collections and
university archives (82.7%), and streaming media (81.7%). The patterns of library
resource use for students who replied “once a month” to “daily” were
consistent. The top three resources that were used “once a month” or more
include journal articles, subject specific databases, and electronic books.
With respect to student library space satisfaction (quiet and
collaborative study spaces, group study rooms, and computer areas), quiet study
room satisfaction (satisfied and very satisfied) was the highest (69.6%),
whereas group study room satisfaction was the lowest (44.6%) (see Figure 1).
Among library spaces, group study rooms were ranked the least used (31.8%).
Figure 1
Students’ library space satisfaction.
Taken together, students’ library usage (students’ library visits,
library resource use, and space satisfaction) are further shown in Table 3
using median values organized by class level. As shown in Table 3, the median
values of undergraduate students’ library visits in person and their online
library use were 3 (multiple days in a week) and 1 (once a month). However, the
pattern of library visits for doctoral students was the opposite: the median
values of doctoral students’ library visits in person and their online library
use were 1 (once a month) and 3 (multiple days in a week). In terms of student
library resource use, the results showed that the median values of undergraduate
students using both journal articles and databases were 1 (once a month).
However, the median values of doctoral students using journal articles and
databases were 3 (multiple days in a week) and 2 (once a week). Regarding
student library space satisfaction, the median values were the same across
class level, except for doctoral students. Specifically, the median values of
doctoral students’ satisfaction with collaborative spaces and group study rooms
were 0 (I don’t use this space in the library).
Table 3
Quantitative Data: Median Values for
Students’ Library Visits, Library Resource Use, and Library Space Satisfaction,
by Class Level
Note:
Variables for library visit and library resource use are ordinal scale: 0
(never), 1 (once a month), 2 (once a week), 3 (multiple days in a week), and 4
(daily). The library space satisfaction variable is ordinal scale: 0 (I don’t
use this space in the library), 1 (very dissatisfied), 2 (dissatisfied), 3
(satisfied), and 4 (very satisfied).
We further examined the relationships between students’ library visits,
library resource use, library space satisfaction, and their GPAs. A Spearman’s
rank correlation was employed, and the correlation matrix is shown in Table 4.
The results indicate that student library visits in person (rs[2,086]
= -.24, p < .01) and online (rs[1,794]
= .27, p < .01) were associated with their GPA. However, when looking
closely at the directions of the relationships, the results show that students’
in-person library visits were negatively associated with their GPAs, whereas a
positive relationship was observed between students’ GPAs and their online
library use. In other words, the higher the number of student library visits in
person, the lower the student’s GPA. On the other hand, the higher the
student’s online use, the higher their GPA.
The results of the relationship between library
resources and GPA revealed that all of the library resources, except for DVDs
on reserve (rs [2,062]
= -.03, p =.126), were correlated with students’ GPAs (see Table 4).
Most of the library resources (e.g., journal articles, databases, print books,
electronic books, subject course guides, and special collections) are
positively associated with student GPAs, suggesting that as a student’s GPA
increases, their use of resources such as journal articles and databases also
increases. On the other hand, some resources (e.g., textbooks on reserve,
digital images, streaming media, and patient care tools) were negatively
associated with student GPAs, indicating that as a student’s GPA increases,
their use of some resources such as digital images and streaming media
decreases.
In terms of the relationship between students’ library
space satisfaction and their GPAs, as shown in Table 4, the results revealed
that students’ satisfaction with all library spaces (quiet study spaces, rs [1,896] = -.11;
collaborative study spaces, rs[1,893] = -.11; group study rooms, rs[1,889] = -.11; and computer areas,
rs[1,889] = -.09; all p’s
< .01), were negatively correlated with students’ GPAs. This finding
suggests that as a student’s GPA increases, their library space satisfaction
decreases.
While most of the
variables (students’ library visits, resources use, and library space satisfaction)
were found to be statistically correlated with students’ GPAs at either p
< .05 or p < .01, the strengths of relationships across variables
were weak (all rss < |.30|), as
indicated by Dancey and Reidy (2011). The highest rs value is .29 for
journal articles (see Table 4).
Table 4
Quantitative Data: Correlations among Student
Library Visits, Library Resource Use, Library Space Satisfaction, and GPA
* indicates p < .05.; ** indicates p
< .01
Qualitative Findings
The second goal of the current study is to better
understand how libraries have an impact on students’ learning from the
students’ perspective. By utilizing an open-ended question, four overarching
themes relating to students’ perceptions of the library’s impact on their
learning emerged from the thematic analysis (Table 5). Those four themes
include: (1) primary activities in the library; (2) choosing an appropriate
space for academic and learning needs; (3) types of resources used for course
work and research; and (4) library staff and librarians assisting students.
Primary
Activities in the Library
Primary activities in the library represent the reasons why students
visited the library. The majority of students responded that they went to the
library for studying (n = 190), utilizing library resources for research
(n = 111), or working on their coursework/homework (n = 77). The
balance of the students used the library to prepare for an exam (n =
30), or work with their peers on group projects (n = 18).
Choosing an Appropriate Space for Academic and Learning Needs
A great number of students reported that they
considered the library as a place where they can stay focused without
distractions and get work done (n =
104). Specifically, students commented that when they needed to concentrate, or
had to finish coursework or a project, they utilized a quiet space.” One
representative comment included the following:
I spend time in the library to focus on homework and to study
efficiently on the quiet floors. The quiet environment influences me to focus
and get all of my work done (Criminal Law & Justice, Freshman, Female).
Of those students who perceived quiet spaces as an
essential place for their learning, some responded that the use of the quiet
space enabled them to increase their academic grades (n = 10). By way of example, one student commented:
My scores get lot more improved after
studying in quiet library space (Biological Sciences, Sophomore, Male).
While many
students reported that they were able to focus on their academic work and
finish their work in the library quiet space, other students stated that they
appreciated the library providing both a quiet space and a collaborative space
(n = 26). In other words,
students are likely to choose the appropriate library space depending on their
academic needs, studying independently, or working with their peers. For
example, a graduate student responded:
I love that both of the libraries have options for people who need all
different kinds of environments to study (i.e. quiet, shared space, etc.). Some
days I need absolute silence, other days I like to energy of being around
people talking. I recently learned about the study corrals, and I wish that was
something I knew about in undergrad, though. As a graduate student, that would
have been especially helpful to know (Public Health, Graduate Student, Female).
In addition to the themes mentioned above, a few students reported that
the library environment motivated them to work on their studies (n = 7).
Qualitative Data: Themes and Codes for
Students’ Perceptions of the Library’s Impact on Their Learning
Types
of Resources Used for Course Work and Research
Students expressed that it is critical for them to
access library resources in order to successfully complete their coursework and
research. The resources students used for their coursework and research include
journal articles (n = 140), books (n = 89), databases (n =
76), computers (n = 50), interlibrary loan, and reciprocal borrowing (n
= 35). In many classes, students were asked to write papers using
citations. Students perceived accessing library resources as the key to
completing their coursework or research. One student stated:
The online library
databases and journals helped me find scholarly articles to aid in my research
papers for my English and Art History courses (Graphic Design, Sophomore,
Female).
Library Staff and Librarians Assisting
Students
Some students admitted that they have difficulty
navigating resources in the library and online. When they encountered this
challenge, they sought help from a librarian through a one-on-one consultation,
online chat, and asking questions in person (n = 135). Overall, students
who received assistance from librarians and staff stated that they appreciated
receiving immediate help from librarians and staff. In additional, students
found it helpful when the librarians provided instructions on how to search for
resources on the library website to use in their coursework and research. A
master’s student acknowledged:
The ability to meet with a
librarian for individualized help was extremely helpful and we wouldn't have
been able to successfully complete our projects without it (Public Health,
Masters Student, Female).
Because the open-ended question was asking about the library’s “positive
impact” on students’ learning from the students’ perspective, the themes from
students’ responses mainly focused on the positive impact. While the majority
of students responded with their positive perceptions of the library’s impact
on their learning, some students expressed negative feedback on the library’s
facilities. For example, some students wanted a microwave to reheat food, while
others wanted more food vending machine options, and others wanted more quiet
study spaces.
Discussion
The first goal from the quantitative data was to learn how students’
library experiences (library visits, library resource use, and library space
satisfaction) were associated with students’ GPAs. The results revealed several
important patterns. Of interesting, the direction of the relationships between
students’ library in-person visits and students’ GPAs showed a negative
correlation. That is, the frequency of a student’s library visits in person is
negatively associated with student’s GPA. This finding is contrary to the
earlier studies indicating that students’ library visits were positively
associated with students’ academic success (Brown & Malenfant, 2018a; Massengale et al.,
2016). It is possible that students’ previous academic success may influence
their intention to visit the library. In other words, students with a lower GPA
may need a place where they can concentrate on studying, which results in an
increase in their visits to the library. On the other hand, students with a
higher GPA may not think it is necessary to go to the library because of their
self-discipline. Another possible explanation is that, due to the advantages of
technology (e.g., easy access to Internet), students may shift their library
use from a physical place of study to a place for accessing resources online.
However, it is not easy to clearly explain this negative relationship. Given
that this is merely a correlation, the results should not be interpreted that
one necessarily causes the other. As such, further research is needed to
investigate how this negative relationship occurs.
Most of the students’ library resource use was shown to be positively
associated with their GPAs. This finding is consistent with previous studies
indicating that library resource use (e.g., databases) was positively
correlated with students’ GPAs (Brown & Malenfant, 2018a; Soria et al., 2013, 2017). It is important to note that some resources
(textbooks on reserve, digital images, and streaming media) are negatively
associated with students’ GPAs. In the case of streaming media, it is possible
that students with a low GPA need access to online tutorials in order to catch
up on their studies, or the content of the streaming media may not be related
to their course work or research, which results in the negative relationship.
It will be useful to further investigate how specific resources are negatively
associated with students’ GPAs.
The results also revealed that there are correlations
between all types of library space satisfaction and students’ GPAs. However, it
is important to note that the directions of relationships were negative. That
is, the lower a student’s GPA, the higher their library space satisfaction.
Given that there was a negative relationship between students’ library
in-person visits and their GPAs in the current study, this finding can be
accounted for by the same explanation. Students with lower GPAs are likely to
use the library spaces and are satisfied with the library spaces. Again, this
correlation does not indicate causation; further research is required to
examine the relationship between students’ library space satisfaction and their
GPAs.
While the strengths of the correlations across all variables were weak,
the interpretation of the strengths of correlations should be made with
caution. For example, the rs value
for journal articles is .29. While this may appear weak, the R square value for
journal articles is .08, meaning that journal use accounted for 8% of
variability in GPA. Given all the potential variables that could impact GPA, it
is not insignificant to see the potential impact of journal article use on GPA.
Use of databases accounted for 4% variability with GPA. Again, with many
factors likely impacting GPA, there is a potential for a lower grade without
use of the library and its resources. On the other hand, some rs values were less than |.10| (e.g.,
special collections, digital images, steaming media, and patient care tools),
meaning that the variability related to the use of these and GPA is very small.
This is not surprising for some library resources like special collections. It
is likely that only students in specific programs would use some of these
resources, such as special collections or patient care tools. For these, it
might be more meaningful to look at their use and relationship with students’
GPAs within specific programs. In spite of the findings of the weak
relationships in the current study, it is important to note that the findings
of the correlations (e.g., resource use) were supported by the literature
discussed above (Allison, 2015; Soria et al., 2013, 2017). Weak correlations
between undergraduate students’ library use (e.g., checkouts and databases) and
GPAs also were found in Allison’s study.
Through quantitative data, the results provided evidence that the
library has an impact on students’ academic achievements. However, it is not
clear whether the library’s measurement of the relationship between students’
library experiences and their academic achievements are aligned with students’
perceptions of the library’s impact on their learning. Utilizing qualitative
data provided a deeper understanding of how students perceived the impact of
library use on their learning and, furthermore, the association between
students’ library use and their learning outcomes.
Findings from the qualitative data uncovered how the library spaces and
library resources impact students’ learning. The key findings related to
library spaces showed that students were able to increase their concentration
and productivity in a quiet space, and they selectively chose the library space
depending on their learning needs, studying independently or working with their
peers. This finding provides evidence that at least some of the students from
the study institution found that library spaces promote students’ learning behaviours within that space. Additionally, providing both
quiet and collaborative spaces in the library allows students to select the
space they need to achieve their academic goals. In particular, students
choosing and utilizing both kinds of spaces (quiet and collaborative spaces)
provides important evidence that the university library promotes students’
choice of learning venue. This finding is supported by the previous articles
which argue how library space plays a role, which impacts students’ learning.
That is, the library is regarded as a place that nurtures both “self-directed
learning and the creation of new knowledge” (Nitecki,
2011, p. 31), as well as “social learning” by providing an environment where
students talk and collaborate (Montgomery, 2014, p. 72). These findings help
library staff make decisions on how best to use library spaces to meet
students’ needs.
The qualitative findings further revealed which library resources have a
positive impact on students’ learning from their perspective. Students reported
that they valued library resources (journal articles, books, and databases) and
believed that those library resources have a positive impact on their
coursework and research. Students commented that interlibrary loan and
reciprocal borrowing are critical for them to complete their coursework and
research. Moreover, students mentioned that library instruction and research
consultations (learning how to search references and navigate the library
website), as well as library staff’s support when looking for assistance either
in person or online, were valuable resources in order to successfully complete
their course work and research. This finding is also supported by the results
of the quantitative data indicating that students’ library resource use was positively
associated with their GPAs. Other students have also reported similar findings
related to the positive impact that library resources and services (e.g.,
database use, interlibrary loan, library instruction, research consultations)
may have to promote students’ learning (Allison, 2015; Brown & Malenfant, 2018a, 2018b; Gaha,
Hinnefeld & Pellegrino, 2018; Soria et al., 2013,
2017).
Taken together, while the results from the quantitative and qualitative
data may look different, in fact, the findings from the qualitative data
complement the findings of the quantitative data. The quantitative data results
showed that students’ library visits in person and library space satisfaction
were negatively correlated with their GPAs. However, the findings from the
qualitative data revealed that students used the library for studying and
preparing for exams. In addition, findings from the qualitative data indicated
that respondents considered library space as a valuable space to accomplish
their academic goals. Therefore, we speculate that students with a lower GPA
tend to use the library to study and prepare for exams in order to improve
their GPA, and those with a lower GPA are likely to be satisfied with the
library spaces. Admittedly, the main focus of the current study weighs toward
the findings from the quantitative data, and the open-ended question from the
qualitative data are also largely presented from a quantitative perspective.
Nevertheless, when looking at these findings together, the findings from the qualitative
data may provide a better understanding of the results of the quantitative
data. While we cannot confirm the causation without knowing students’ previous
GPAs, it is worth noting that through the qualitative data at least we are able
to better understand why and how students used the physical library, and their
perceptions of library use for their learning.
Limitations and Future
Directions
A significant contribution to this study is the use of
the survey developed by the university library staff in an effort to measure
the impact of the library on university students’ academic success. In spite of
this contribution, there are some limitations to be addressed in this study.
The open-ended question, “…please tell us about your experiences with the
library that positively impacted your coursework or research,” asked
only about the positive impact on students’ coursework or research. How a
question is written might produce biased results. However, while it was written
to produce positive comments, based on the comments it would appear that those
who wanted to share negative feedback did so. While we do intend to use this
question again in a future survey because we are interested specifically in
understanding how students view the library in contributing to their success,
we may add another open-ended question asking them to let us know whether there
is anything additional they wish to share to provide the opportunity to give
other feedback or comments, including negative ones. Another limitation of the
current study is that it only focused on analyzing the relationship between
students’ overall library experience and their GPAs, rather than examining
other factors such as degree sought, because the correlation of students’
library use and GPAs may be influenced by those factors. Future research is
needed to further examine whether there are correlations with other factors
(e.g., class level or degree sought). Nevertheless, the finding of the negative
relationship between in-person library visits, library space satisfaction, and
students’ GPAs needs further investigation. The university library has already
begun designing a follow up study to further explore this finding by using the
qualitative approach.
The purpose of the current study was to examine whether students’
library experiences (student library visits, library resource use, and library
space satisfaction) were associated with students’ GPAs, and explore how
students perceived the library’s impact on their learning. The current study
provided evidence that, overall, the student library experience was associated
with their academic achievement even though the strength of correlations was
weak. When looking closely at the directions of the associations between
students’ library experiences and their GPAs, there were mixed findings:
students’ library in-person visits and library space satisfaction were
negatively associated with their GPAs, whereas most students’ library resource
usage was positively associated with their GPAs. The qualitative analysis
demonstrated students’ perspectives about how they benefited from using the
university library. The findings indicate that students’ primary activity in
the library was studying. Furthermore, students utilized both quiet and
collective study spaces, depending on their learning purpose, and valued
library resources (e.g., journal articles and interlibrary loan) for their
coursework and research. Last, students appreciated the assistance provided by
the librarians and library staff with explaining how best to utilize library
resources.
Acknowledgements
Our thanks to the University of Illinois at Chicago Library Assessment
Advisory Committee for the development of the surveys, and our colleagues Paula
Dempsey and Glenda Insua for their helpful internal
review of this article.
Allison, D. (2015). Measuring the academic impact of
libraries. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 15(1), 29-40. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2015.0001
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic
analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brown, K. (2018). Evidence of academic library
impact on student learning and success: Advancing library leadership and
advocacy with assessment in action. In K. E. Brown, D. L. Gilchrist, S. Goek, L. J. Hinchliffe, K. J. Malenfant,
C. Ollis, & A. Payne (Eds.), Shaping the
campus conversation on student learning and experience: Activating the results
of assessment in action (pp. 9-22). Chicago, IL: Association of
College & Research Libraries.
Brown, K., & Malenfant,
K. J. (2018a). Documented library contributions to student learning and
success: Building evidence with team-based assessment in action campus
projects. In K. E. Brown, D. L. Gilchrist, S. Goek,
L. J. Hinchliffe, K. J. Malenfant, C. Ollis, & A. Payne (Eds.), Shaping the campus
conversation on student learning and experience: Activating the results of
assessment in action (pp.79-104). Chicago, IL: Association of
College & Research Libraries.
Brown, K., & Malenfant, K. J. (2018b).
Academic library impact on student learning and success: Findings from
assessment in action team projects. In K. E. Brown, D. L. Gilchrist, S. Goek, L. J. Hinchliffe, K. J. Malenfant,
C. Ollis, & A. Payne (Eds.), Shaping the
campus conversation on student learning and experience: Activating the results
of assessment in action (pp. 105-132). Chicago, IL: Association of College
& Research Libraries.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dancey, C. P., &
Reidy, J. (2011). Statistics without maths
for psychology (5th ed). Prentice Hall/Pearson, Harlow,
England; New York.
Gaha, U., Hinnefeld,
S., & Pellegrino, C. (2018). The academic
library’s contribution to student success: Library instruction and GPA. College
& Research Libraries, 79(6), 737-746. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.6.737
Gust, L., & D’journo, X.
B. (2015). The use of correlation functions in thoracic surgery research. Journal
of Thoracic Disease, 7(3), E11-E15. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2015.01.54
Holland, J. L., & Christian, L. M. (2009). The
influence of topic interest and interactive probing on responses to open-ended
questions in Web surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 27(2),
196-212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439308327481
Jackson, K. M., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2002).
Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the analysis of open-ended
survey responses. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), 307-336.
https://doi.org/10.1177/109442802237114
King, B. M., & Minium,
E. W. (2007). Statistical reasoning in the behavioral sciences (5th
ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Massengale, L., Piotrowski, P.,
& Savage, D. (2016). Identifying and articulating library connections to
student success. College & Research Libraries, 77(2),
227-235.
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.77.2.227
May, F., & Swabey, A.
(2015). Using and experiencing the academic library: A multisite observational
study of space and place. College & Research Libraries, 76(6),
771-795. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.76.6.771
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A
methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Montgomery, S. E. (2014). Library space assessment:
User learning behaviors in the library. Journal of Academic Librarianship,
40(1), 70-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.11.003
Nitecki, D. A. (2011). Space assessment as a venue for defining the academic
library. Library Quarterly, 81(1),
27-59. https://doi.org/10.1086/657446
Oakleaf, M. (2010). The value of academic
libraries: A comprehensive research review and report. Chicago, IL:
Association of College and Research Libraries.
Oakleaf, M. (2016). Getting ready & getting
started: Academic librarian involvement in institutional learning analytics
initiatives. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(4), 472-475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.05.013
Oakleaf, M., Whyte, A., Lynema, E., &
Brown, M. (2017). Academic libraries & institutional learning analytics:
One path to integration. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(5),
454-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.08.008
Pallant, J. F. (2011) SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to
data analysis using the SPSS program (4th
ed.). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin Book
Publishers.
Soria, K. M., Fransen, J., & Nackerud, S. (2013). Library use and undergraduate student
outcomes: New evidence for students’ retention and academic success. portal:
Libraries and the Academy, 13(2), 147-164. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2013.0010
Soria, K. M., Fransen, J.,
& Nackerud, S. (2017). Beyond books: The extended
academic benefits of library use for first-year college students. College
& Research Libraries, 78(1), 8-22. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.v78i1.16564
Appendix
Student Experience Survey
I have read the “Agreement to Participate”
document and agree to participate in this research.
o Yes
o No
Last semester, how often did you visit the
university library?
|
|
Daily |
Multiple
days in a week |
Once
a week |
Once
a month |
Never |
|
In person |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Online |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
How satisfied are you with the library spaces
below at your library?
|
|
Very
satisfied |
Satisfied |
Dissatisfied |
Very
dissatisfied |
I
don’t use this space in the library |
|
Quiet study spaces |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Collaborative study
spaces |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Group study rooms |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Computer areas |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
If you study in places other than the university library, what do you
like about those spaces?
[Check all that apply]
o More study space
o Quieter study space
o Food/drink availability
o Software availability
o Equipment (e.g., computer, printer, scanner, etc.) availability
o Longer hours
o More comfortable furniture
o I can find a seat
o I prefer to study at home
o Other (Please specify) [ ]
Last semester, how often did you use each of
the library resources below?
|
|
Daily |
Multiple
days in a week |
Once
a week |
Once
a month |
Never |
|
Journal articles |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Subject specific
databases |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Print books from the
stacks |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Textbooks on reserve |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Electronic books |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Library Subject &
Course Guides |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Special collections
& University Archives |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Digital Images |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Streaming media |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
DVDs on reserve |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Patient care tools |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
Please indicate the relative IMPORTANCE
of each of the library resources/services for your research or coursework.
|
|
Very
important |
Important |
Somewhat
important |
Not
at all important |
I
don’t use this tool/service |
|
Journal articles |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Subject specific
databases |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Print books from the
stacks |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Textbooks on reserve |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Electronic books |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Library Subject &
Course Guides |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Special collections
& University Archives |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Digital Images |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Streaming media |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
DVDs on reserve |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Patient care tools |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Library instruction
arranged by your professor |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Library workshops that
you self-selected to attend |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Other (Please specify) |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
How Easy is to use the university library website for the
services below?
|
|
Very
easy |
Easy |
Difficult |
Very
difficult |
I
don’t use this service |
|
Finding journal
articles using the search box on the library home page |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Finding an e-book
using the search box on the library home page |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Finding a print book
using the search box on the library home page |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Accessing a database
to search for articles and other scholarly materials |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Requesting a print book
from another library |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Requesting an article
from another library |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Logging into my
library account to renew a book |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Asking for help from a
librarian by IM/chat |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Using library Subject
& Course Guides to access materials by subject |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Finding
media (e.g., films, videos, online images, etc.) |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Booking a group study
room online |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Other (Please specify) |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
How LIKELY are you to
recommend the following library services to another student?
|
|
Very
likely |
Likely |
Unlikely |
Very
unlikely |
I
don’t use this service |
|
One on one research
consultation with a librarian |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
Library workshops
about library research (e.g., finding resources, requesting materials, etc.) |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
IM/Online chat
research help |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
E-mail research help |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
Suppose you had funding to improve the university library. Please select
up to THREE of your most important priorities from the list below.
o Access to more online journals
o Access to more books (e-books, print books, textbooks)
o More computers
o More quiet study space
o More group study space
o More electronical outlets
o More white boards
o More drink/food options
o Additional comfortable furniture
o Other (Please list) [ ]
Think about your overall library experience at the institution, please
tell us about your experiences with the library that positively impacted your
coursework or research.
|
|