Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (Journal)
Not a member yet
1552 research outputs found
Sort by
Space Use in the Commons: Evaluating a Flexible Library Environment
No full textAbstract
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
Academic Library Department Experience Fosters the Development of Leadership Skills Relevant to Academic Library Directorship
No full textA Review of:
Harris-Keith, Colleen S. (2015). The Relationship Between Academic Library Department Experience and Perceptions of Leadership Skill Development Relevant to Academic Library Directorship. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(3), 246-263. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.017
Abstract
Objective – This study sought to identify if the perception of library leadership skill and quality development is equal across departmental experience, and what are the leadership skills and qualities most commonly perceived to be used in each department.
Design – Quantitative online survey instrument.
Setting – Master’s colleges and universities from 728 institutions in the United States of America, as classified by the Carnegie Foundation.
Subjects – 666 academic library directors.
Methods – Selected participants, representing academic library administrative leadership, were contacted by email a maximum of four times and were invited to complete an online survey instrument composed of six sections. The first three sections contained the purpose and confidentiality statements, demographic information, and data on the past five positions held by respondents prior to their current directorship. The next two sections each had 25 statements on a 5-point Likert scale, to collect data on perceived leadership skills and qualities exercised by respondents in their most recent three positions. The final section had four open-ended questions to help explain the academic library directors’ responses and provide context for the ratings in previous sections of the instrument.
Main results – A total of 296 responses were received, for a 40.66% response rate, which was representative of the institution type demographics, including private non-profit, public, and private for-profit.
The first research question asked: is the perception of library leadership skill and quality development equal across departmental experience? The data used for this question involved all library departments: Access Services, Administration, Collection Development, Digital Library Services, Information Technology, Reference and Instruction, and Technical Services. When departments were compared pairwise on composite leadership skill scores, Administration was significantly higher than another department. Results showed that perceptions of leadership quality development appeared to be equal across departments, but leadership skill development was not, and in fact, there was a significant difference between the variances of the composite scores in the population.
The second research question asked: what are the leadership skills and qualities most commonly perceived to be used in each department? Results revealed that every leadership skill score except for time management was significant, indicating a difference among library departments based on individual leadership skill scores. Respondents perceived that there was a difference in leadership skill (but not leadership quality) development opportunity by department.
Departments were also compared pairwise on offering a greater opportunity to develop leadership skills, and overall, academic library directors perceived that there were significant differences in skill development by department. Furthermore, respondents overwhelmingly indicated that Administration was where they perceived the most leadership skill development opportunities. There was no perceived difference in leadership quality development by department. As well, some departments were reported to provide targeted, department-specific leadership skills, such as resource allocation and budget management.
Conclusion – This study offers strong evidence that development of many of the leadership skills necessary for success as an academic library director only present themselves to professionals once they enter the Administration department, the library director position, or the assistant director position
Reference Mode Preferences of Community College (Two-Year) and Four-Year College Students: A Comparison Study
No full textAbstract
Objective – The purpose of this study was to examine the reference service mode preferences of community college (two-year) and four-year college students.
Methods – The researchers administered a paper-based, face-to-face questionnaire at two institutions within the City University of New York system: Hunter College, a senior college, and Queensborough Community College, a two-year institution. During the summer of 2015, the researchers surveyed 79 participants, asking them to identify their most and least preferred mediums for accessing library reference services.
Results – Nearly 75% of respondents expressed a preference for face-to-face reference, while only about 18% preferred remote reference services (online chat, e-mail, text message, and telephone). Close to 84% of the participants cited remote reference services as their least preferred modes and slightly more than 10% said this of face-to-face. The data reveal a widespread popularity of face-to-face reference service among all types of participants regardless of institutional affiliation, age, gender, academic level, field of study, and race or ethnicity.
Conclusion – This study suggests that given the opportunity academic library users will utilize face-to-face reference service for assistance with research assignments. Academic libraries at both two-year and four-year institutions might consider assessing user views on reference modes and targeting support toward services that align with patron preferences
Wayfinding Research in Library and Information Studies: State of the Field
No full textAbstract
Objective – Often people enter libraries focused on their primary information needs and haven\u27t considered their need for spatial information to find their way to what they need. This presents unique wayfinding information challenges for libraries. Papers on library wayfinding often include some discussion of the lack of wayfinding research in libraries, but apparently there has been no comprehensive review of the LIS literature on wayfinding.
Methods – This paper is a comprehensive review of library wayfinding literature, using the Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text (via EBSCOhost) database to collect the dataset.
Results – Findings indicate a small collection of library wayfinding research, primarily focused on academic libraries.
Conclusion – Empirical research in this area is limited. Suggestions for future research on library wayfinding, including potential foci for that research, are presented
STEM and Non-STEM Library Users Have Increased Their Use of E-Books
No full textA Review of:
Carroll, A. J., Corlett-Rivera, K., Hackman, T., & Zou, J. (2016). E-book perceptions and use in STEM and non-STEM disciplines: A comparative follow-up study. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 16(1), 131-162. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2016.0002
Abstract
Objective – To compile a set of usability and collection development suggestions and to examine a possible statistical correlation between visiting the physical library, online resource use, and e-book use.
Design – Online questionnaire survey.
Setting – Major public research university in Maryland, United States of America.
Subjects – 47,209 faculty, students, and staff.
Methods – This survey is a follow-up to a similar 2012 study at the same institution. Survey respondents completed 14 multiple-choice and up to 8 open-ended questions about academic e-book discovery, perception, and usage patterns for both STEM and non-STEM respondents using the Qualtrics online research platform. Seven of eight open-ended questions were conditional (i.e., dependent on answers to multiple-choice questions), thus the number of questions answered by respondents could vary. The survey was available from October 1 to November 22, 2014, and promoted across a variety of communication channels (email, library website, social media, print flyers and handouts). Incentives for completing the survey included one iPad Mini and eight U.S. $25 Amazon gift cards.
Main Results – 1,911 (820 STEM and 1,091 non-STEM) self-selected students, faculty, and staff from a total campus population of 47,209 faculty, students, and staff (4.2% response rate) participated in the survey, excluding 277 additional responses representing library personnel (70) and individuals not affiliated with the institution (207).
64% of respondents indicated more e-book use than three years before, with only 21.9% of respondents noting they never use e-books for academic purposes compared to 31% in 2012. 32.5% of respondents noted daily or weekly use of e-books for scholarly pursuits, with undergraduates reporting the most frequent use: 38.6% daily/weekly use versus 37.2% for graduate students, 16.2% for faculty, and 14.2% for staff. 38% of respondents reporting daily/weekly use were from STEM disciplines; 31.3% were from non-STEM fields.
Computers, not e-readers, were the primary devices used for accessing e-books: 72.5% of respondents reported using laptops or desktops to this end versus tablets, 37.9%; mobile phones, 36.7%; Kindles, 25.6%; Nooks, 5.9%; and other e-readers, 3.3%. Top “mixed device access” responses were tablet/mobile phone/computer (98 responses); mobile phone/computer (93 responses); and tablet/computer (81 responses).
The top three discovery tools respondents reported using for finding e-books were commercial sites (35.9%), free websites (26.8%), and the library website (26.2%). A weak-positive Spearman’s rho rank correlation of 0.25 provides some evidence that respondents who visit the library often are likely to use online resources and e-books. 35% of respondents reported they use e-books online “most of the time,” and 67% of respondents indicated they print out e-book content for use. Responses to the question “What, if anything, would make you more likely to use e-books for academic purposes?” included easier access via the library website (48% of respondents), better functionality for highlighting/annotating (44%), reduced cost (43.2%), easier downloading (38.5%), more e-books in area of research interest (37.3%), more textbooks (37.2%), and ownership of a dedicated e-reader (35.6%).
In 2012, 52% of respondents reported never having downloaded an e-book for offline use. This percentage dropped notably in this study, with only 11.5% of respondents indicating they had never downloaded for later use.
Conclusion – While this study indicates both STEM and non-STEM respondents at this institution are increasingly using e-books, preferences for electronic versus print format varied according to content type and type of user (e.g., STEM or non-STEM, undergraduate or graduate, student/faculty/staff). Key recommendations for usability and collection development include: improving discovery and awareness mechanisms, purchasing some content (e.g., references works, style guides) in e-format while ensuring multiple simultaneous use, taking advantage of print plus electronic options to serve users with different format preferences, and encouraging vendors to allow digital rights management free downloading and printing
Implementation of Proactive Chat Increases Number and Complexity of Reference Questions
No full textA Review of:
Maloney, K., & Kemp, J. H. (2015). Changes in reference question complexity following the implementation of a proactive chat system: Implications for practice. College & Research Libraries, 76(7), 959-974. http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl.76.7.959
Abstract
Objective – To determine whether the complexity of reference questions has changed over time; whether chat reference questions are more complex than those at the reference desk; and whether proactive chat increases the number and complexity of questions.
Design – Literature review and library data analysis.
Setting – Library of a doctoral degree granting university in the United States of America.
Methods – The study was carried out in two parts. The first was a meta-analysis of published data with empirical findings about the complexity of questions received at library service points in relationship to staffing levels. The authors used seven studies published between 1977 and 2012 from their literature review to create a matrix to compare reference questions based on the staffing level required to answer the questions (e.g., by a nonprofessional, a generalist, or a librarian). They present these articles in chronological order to illustrate how questions have changed over time. They sorted questions by the service point at which they were asked, either through chat service or at a reference desk.
In the second part of the study authors used the READ scale to categorize the complexity of questions asked at the reference desk and via proactive chat reference. They collected data for chat reference for six one-week periods over the course of eight months to provide a representative sample. They recorded reference desk questions for three of those same weeks. Both evaluators scored the data for a single week to norm their results, while the remaining data was coded independently.
Main Results – The complexity of questions in the seven articles studied indicated change over time, shown in tables for desk and chat reference. One outlier, a study published in 1977 before reference tools and resources moved online, reported that 62% of questions asked could be answered by nonprofessionals, 38% by a trained generalist, and only 6% required a librarian. The six other studies were published after 2001 when most resources had moved online. Of the questions from these six, authors found a range of 74-90% could be answered by a non-professional, 12-16% by a generalist, and 0-11% required a librarian. Once chat reference was added there was more variation reported between studies, with generalist questions at 30-47% of those reported and 10-23% requiring a librarian.
Though the underlying differences in the study designs do not allow for formal analysis, the seven studies indicate that more complex questions are asked via chat service than at the reference desk. Each staffing level was grouped and averaged for comparison. The 1977 study shows nonprofessional questions at 62%, generalist questions at 32%, and librarian questions at 6%. Reference desk questions in the post-2001 articles indicated 81% nonprofessional, 13% generalist, and 5% librarian questions. Post-2001 chat questions were at 49% nonprofessional, 36% generalist, and 15% at librarian level.
In the second part of the study, the data coded using the READ scale and collected from the proactive chat system showed an increased number and complexity of questions. The authors identified 4% of questions were rated at a level 1 (e.g., directional, library hours), 30% at level 2 (e.g., known item searching), 39% at level 3 (e.g., reference questions), and 27% at level 4 requiring advanced expertise (e.g., using specialized databases or data sets). Authors combined questions at levels 5 and 6 due to low numbers, and did not describe these when reporting their study. In comparison, 15% of reference desk questions were at a level 3 on the READ scale, and 1% were at level 4.
Conclusion – Proactive chat reference service increased the number and the complexity of questions over those received via the reference desk. The frequency of complex questions was too high for nonprofessional staff to refer questions to librarians, causing reevaluation of the tiered service model. Further, this study demonstrates that users still have questions about research, but for users to access services for these questions “reference service must be proactive, convenient, and expert to meet user expectations and research needs” (p. 972)
Academic Medical Library Services Contribute to Scholarship in Medical Faculty and Residents
No full textA Review of:
Quesenberry, A. C., Oelschlegel, S., Earl, M., Leonard, K., & Vaughn, C. J. (2016). The impact of library resources and services on the scholarly activity of medical faculty and residents. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 35(3), 259-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2016.1189778
Abstract
Objective – To assess the impact of academic medical library services and resources on information-seeking behaviours during the academic efforts of medical faculty and residents.
Design – Value study derived from a 23-item survey.
Setting – Public medical residency program and training hospital in Tennessee, USA.
Subjects – 433 faculty and residents currently employed by or completing residency in an academic medical centre.
Methods – Respondents completed a 23-question survey about their use of library resources and services in preparation for publishing, presenting, and teaching. The library services in the survey included literature searches completed by librarians and document delivery for preparation of publications, presentations, and lecture material. The survey also included questions about how resources were being accessed in preparation for scholarship. The survey sought information on whether respondents published articles or chapters or presented papers or posters in the previous three years. If respondents answered in the affirmative to one of the aforementioned methods of scholarship, they were provided with further questions about how they access library resources and whether they sought mediated literature search and document delivery services in preparation for their recent presentations and publications. The survey also included questions concerning what types of scholarly activity prompt faculty and residents to use online library resources.
Main Results – The study was provided to 433 subjects, including 220 faculty and 213 residents, contacted through an email distribution list. The response rate to the survey was 15% (N=65). Residents comprised 35% of the respondents, and faculty at each of the three levels of tenure comprised 60%. The remaining 5% of respondents included PhD and non-clinical faculty within the graduate school. Over 50% of respondents reported use of library services in preparation for publishing and presenting. These library services were literature searches, document delivery, and accessing online resources. Faculty and residents reported use of PubMed first (71%) and most often, with 56% of respondents reporting weekly use, followed by Google or Google Scholar, with 20% of respondents reporting its use first and 23% of respondents reporting weekly use.
However, regarding responses to the question concerning how journal articles are accessed, “using a search engine” was chosen most often, at almost 65%, followed by (in order) clicking library links in a database, contacting the library directly, searching the list of library e-journals, clicking publisher links in a database, using personal subscriptions, searching the library catalog, and using bookmarks saved in a web browser. Based on survey responses, faculty reported higher use of library services and resources than residents; however, residents reported higher use of library services and resources when preparing posters and papers for conferences and professional meetings. In addition, several comments spoke to the importance of the library for scholarly activity, many indicating the critical role of library assistance or resources in their academic accomplishments.
Conclusion – This study provides evidence in support of library resources and services for medical faculty and residents, which contributes to discussions of the contributions of medical libraries. As hospital libraries close and academic medical libraries see reductions in budgets, this study contributes to the value of a library’s presence, as well as the role of the health sciences librarian in medical research and scholarly communication. This academic medical library was reported to be first and most often used, in comparison with other resources or none, in preparation for publication and presenting. The results of this and similar studies can contribute to the generalizability of its findings relating to the value of medical libraries. In addition, PubMed, UpToDate, and Google were the resources used most often by respondents, along with search engines and library links in databases. These findings can be incorporated into future outreach, marketing, and instructional curriculum for this library’s users. The survey results also provide additional support for the library’s role in the academic research lifecycle, and free-text comments about the critical role of library services furthered those findings. The authors state that further research is necessary for improving awareness of library resources and services in the role of scholarship at institutions
Flipped Library Instruction Does Not Lead to Learning Gains for First-Year English Students
No full textA Review of:
Rivera, E. (2017). Flipping the classroom in freshman English library instruction: A comparison study of a flipped class versus a traditional lecture method. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 23(1), 18-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2016.1244770
Abstract
Objective – To determine whether a flipped classroom approach to freshman English information literacy instruction improves student learning outcomes.
Design – Quasi-experimental.
Setting – Private suburban university with 7,000 graduate and undergraduate students.
Subjects – First-year English students.
Methods – Students in six sections of first-year “English 2” received library instruction; three sections received flipped library instruction and three sections received traditional library instruction. Students in the flipped classroom sections were assigned two videos to watch before class, as an introduction to searching the Library’s catalog and key academic databases. These students were also expected to complete pre-class exercises that allowed them to practice what they learned through the videos. The face-to-face classes involved a review of the flipped materials alongside additional activities.
Works cited pages from the students’ final papers were collected from all six sections, 31 from the flipped sections and 34 from the non-flipped sections. A rubric was used to rate the works cited pages. The rubric was based on the Association of College and Research Libraries’ Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (ACRL, 2000), Standard Two, Outcome 3a, and included three criteria: “authority,” “timeliness,” and “variety.” Each criterion was rated at one of three levels: “exemplary,” “competent,” or “developing.”
Main Results – Works cited pages from the students who received non-flipped instruction were more likely to score “exemplary” for at least one of the three criteria when compared to works cited pages from the flipped instruction students (68.6% vs. 52.7%). Differences were found in the scores for “timeliness” (88.2% non-flipped scored “exemplary” compared to 58% flipped), and “variety” (55.9% non-flipped scored “exemplary” vs. 35.5% flipped). This pattern was not found for the “authority” category, in which 61.8% of non-flipped works cited pages scored “exemplary” vs. 64.5% of flipped works cited pages.
Conclusion – The results suggest that the flipped library instruction approach did not improve student learning outcomes. The study’s findings are limited by the small sample size, the unknown impact of the variability of research assignments between sections, and the lack of control over whether students in the flipped sections completed the pre-class assignments. The author also notes that future research should examine how well the content of flipped library instruction mirrors that of non-flipped instruction sessions. The study concludes that the flipped classroom model needs further research to understand whether it is a strong fit for one-shot library instruction