California Community College Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey: 2011 Pilot, Final...

California Community College Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey: 2011 Pilot

Fina l Repor t

Presented to the Counci l of Chief Librarians of Cal ifornia Community Col leges Execut ive Board

By Char Booth & the Library & Technology Survey Working Group 14 July 2011

Revised Recommendat ions Submitted 17 July 2011, Final Report 25 September 2011

Con ten t s

Introduction 1

Executive Summary 2

1 - Methodology 6

2 - Demographics 12

3 – Library Engagement 16

4 - Technology Engagement 24

5 - Library Technology Receptivity 34

Recommendations for Statewide Implementation 38

Conclusion 41

Appendix A: Common Promotional Language 42

Appendix B: LTES Pilot Questionnaire 43

Appendix C: LTES Revised Questionnaire 54

Contact, Citation, & Copyright Information 65

About the Author/Principal Researcher 65

L i s t o f I l l u s t r a t i ons

Table 1 – Matr ix o f Sampl ing Strateg ies by Campus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

F igure 1 - What communi ty co l lege do you at tend? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 2 - Response and Returns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 2 - How d id you f ind out about th is survey? Check a l l that apply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

F igure 3 - How o ld are you? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 3 - Statewide Enro l lment by Age, Fal l 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

F igure 4 - What best represents your e thn ic i ty? Choose a l l that apply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table 4 - Statewide Enro l lment by Ethnic i ty , Fa l l 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

F igure 5 - What is your gender? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

F igure 6 - What best descr ibes your enro l lment s ta tus? Check a l l that apply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 7 - Which of the fo l lowing best descr ibes your reasons/goals for a t tending communi ty

co l lege? Check a l l that apply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 8 - When c lasses are in sess ion, about how of ten do you. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

F igure 9 - Cross- tabulat ion of “How d id you learn about th is survey?” wi th L ibrary Use . . . 18

F igure 10 - Check a l l o f the ways you have accessed c lass readings, textbooks, and o ther

school- re la ted mater ia ls in the past year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 11 - For each of the fo l lowing s tatements, choose the best answer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

F igure 12 - Have you ever a t tended a workshop or presentat ion f rom a communi ty co l lege

l ibrar ian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 13 - Impact o f L ibrary Inst ruct ion on L ibrary Use and Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

F igure 14 - Impact o f L ibrary Instruct ion on L ibrary Percept ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 15 - Which of the fo l lowing s ta tements is most accurate? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 16 - Do you own the fo l lowing i tems, and, i f so, how o ld is the most recent

purchase? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 17 - About how many hours do you spend USING THE WEB in a typ ica l week for the

fo l lowing purposes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 18 - How of ten do you do the fo l lowing ( for school , work, or recreat ion? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 19 - Percentage of par t ic ipants who “Haven’ t heard of i t ” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 20 - For each o f the fo l lowing web too ls and soc ia l s i tes, se lect the best opt ion. . . . 29

F igure 21 - Do you current ly own a web-enabled mobi le phone, smartphone, or handheld

dev ice such as an iPad? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure 22 - How of ten do you use your web-enabled mobi le phone, smartphone, or handheld

dev ice to do the fo l lowing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 23 - When c lasses are in sess ion, about how of ten do you. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

F igure 24 - For the fo l lowing s tatements, choose the best answer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

F igure 25 - What is your sk i l l leve l w i th the fo l lowing i tems (1 = very low, 5 = very

h igh)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 26 - For each web too l and soc ia l s i te , would you " f r iend," " fo l low," or "add" your

campus l ibrary? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Figure 27 - F igure 27 - I f your mobi le dev ice supported the fo l lowing l ibrary serv ices, how

l ike ly would you be to use them? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

CCLCCC L ib ra ry & Techno logy Engagemen t Su r vey P i lo t , 2011

1

I n t r oduc t i on

In 2010, the Execut ive Board of the Counci l o f Chief L ibrar ians of Cal i forn ia Communi ty

Col leges (CCLCCC) in i t ia ted the Cal i forn ia Communi ty Col lege Student L ibrary &

Technology Engagement Survey , a f ive-campus p i lo t research pro ject in tended to prov ide

act ionable ins ight in to the l ibrary , in format ion, and learn ing technology ecolog ies of s tudent

populat ions across Cal i forn ia . Th is e f for t arose f rom an acknowledgement that , a t a t ime of

w idespread t rans i t ion and resource scarc i ty in h igher educat ion, robust inquiry is needed at

the campus leve l to understand the d ivers i ty o f user needs and character is t ics . I f known,

these factors can fac i l i ta te a s t reaml ined l ibrary and academic technology f ramework that

supports s tudent learn ing through ev idence-based pract ice.

The Student L ibrary & Technology Engagement Survey was designed to address the

fo l lowing goals :

• Understand local users. Examine the l ibrary , in format ion, communicat ion, and

academic technology character is t ics o f Cal i forn ia communi ty co l lege (CCC) s tudents .

• Track technology trends. Char t the use of emerg ing media p la t forms and

communicat ion too ls by CCC students .

• Support learning needs. Determine the l ibrary ’s ro le in the personal learn ing

env i ronments of CCC students , and ident i fy how to respond more s t ra teg ica l ly to

academic/ in format ion needs.

• Priori t ize and ref ine services. Evaluate and adapt t rad i t ional and tech-based l ibrary

serv ices based on user ins ight .

• Foster cohesion. Prov ide a common user research s t ra tegy for CCC l ibrar ies.

In coord inat ion wi th the CCL Execut ive Board, pr inc ipa l researcher Char Booth and a

Work ing Group of p i lo t par t ic ipant l ibrary d i rectors , inc lud ing T im Karas of Miss ion Col lege

(Chair ) , John Koetzner o f Mendocino Col lege, Kenley Neufe ld o f Santa Barbara Ci ty

Col lege, Choonhee Rhim of East Los Angeles Communi ty Col lege , and Susan Walsh of

Merced Col lege, developed and admin is tered the s tudy between Fal l o f 2010 and Spr ing of

2011. This repor t descr ibes the des ign process and in i t ia l f ind ings of th is p i lo t , conc lud ing

wi th recommendat ions for sca l ing a s imi lar research s t ra tegy to the s ta tewide leve l .

Char Booth

September 2011


2

Execu t i ve Summary

In response to pervas ive resource insecur i ty and technology change throughout academia,

the Cal i forn ia Communi ty Col lege Student L ibrary & Technology Engagement Survey pi lo t

was developed to prov ide campus-speci f ic and comprehensive ins ight in to two areas of

inquiry : s tudent l ib rary engagement (use, percept ions, awareness, recept iv i ty ) and

technology engagement (adopt ion, ownersh ip, use, percept ions) in personal and educat ional

contexts .

S c o p e This research pro ject was conceived in ear ly fa l l 2010, developed through winter 2011, and

admin is tered on a t r ia l bas is between February 7 and March 7 of 2011. F ive co l leges

compr ised the in i t ia l group of Library & Technology Engagement Survey (LTES ) par t ic ipants :

East Los Angeles Col lege, Mendocino Communi ty Col lege, Merced Col lege, Miss ion

Col lege, and Santa Barbara Ci ty Col lege. These campuses re f lect the d ivers i ty o f enro l lment

s izes, soc io-economic/cu l tura l contexts , and urban/suburban/rura l env i ronments

character is t ic o f Cal i forn ia communi ty co l leges (CCCs).

P u r p o s e In i ts p i lo t phase, th is in i t ia t ive was not in tended to produce a set o f f ind ings genera l izab le

to communi ty co l lege s tudents across the s ta te of Cal i forn ia or beyond. Rather , i t was

created to test the pract ica l feas ib i l i ty o f three outcomes wi th in the research contexts o f

CCC campuses:

1 . To create a centra l ly admin is tered, longi tud ina l , and pragmat ic s tudent survey

s t ra tegy that could be jo ined wi th min imal resource out lay by any CCC campus.

2 . To produce a centra l ized data set as wel l as f i l tered, campus-speci f ic f ind ings that

could be eas i ly communicated to par t ic ipat ing inst i tu t ions.

3 . To de l iver recommendat ions for quest ionnaire rev is ions and campus- leve l sampl ing

s t ra teg ies for broader survey implementat ion in 2011-12.

I terat ive ly des igned, researcher rev iewed, and f ie ld- tested to ensure re l iab i l i ty and va l id i ty ,

the survey inst rument should nonetheless be subjected to addi t ional test ing i f rev ised and

adopted for s ta tewide use by CCLCCC.


3

R e s e a r c h D e s i g n The LTES inst rument (Appendix B) consis ted of 28 mul t ip le-choice and open-ended

quest ions (some required and others opt ional) and was deployed pr imar i ly on l ine wi th

se lect ive pr in t admin is t ra t ion. In recogni t ion of the myr iad inst i tu t ional condi t ions that would

confront a research in i t ia t ive invo lv ing up to 110 co l leges in 72 d is t r ic ts , p i lo t campuses

employed d is t inct sampl ing s t ra teg ies based on contextua l factors and feas ib i l i ty o f

coord inat ion wi th loca l o f f ices of inst i tu t ional research or o ther academic support un i ts .

These s t ra teg ies inc luded:

• A l l -s tudent emai l promot ion at East Los Angeles Col lege.

• On-campus f lyer ing, facu l ty outreach, l ibrary workshop admin is t ra t ion, l ib rary /co l lege

websi te l ink ing, and l ibrar ian word-of-mouth promot ion at Mendocino Col lege.

• A l l -s tudent emai l promot ion, l ib rary websi te and Facebook l ink ing at Merced Col lege.

• Se lect ive in-c lass mul t imodal (paper and onl ine) sampl ing at Miss ion Col lege.

• Soc ia l media (Twi t ter , Facebook) post ing, l ib rary websi te and s tudent por ta l l ink ing,

and word-of-mouth promot ion at Santa Barbara Ci ty Col lege.

Del ivered exc lus ive ly on l ine at four campuses, in-c lass par t ic ipants a t Miss ion Col lege

completed an ident ica l pr in t vers ion of the quest ionnaire (d is tance learners completed the

web survey form). A $100 cash pr ize was of fered to a randomly se lected s tudent a t each

campus, incent iv izat ion conta ined in common survey promot ional language (Appendix A) .

R e t u r n s A tota l o f 3 ,168 students f rom f ive p i lo t campuses at tempted the LTES survey at an 80%

rate of complet ion and a 12% average rate of re turn based on est imated fu l l t ime enro l lment

(FTE) at the t ime of the survey (N = 25,625) . Campus par t ic ipat ion as a percentage of

aggregate responses var ied accord ing to sampl ing method and FTE, wi th a s izeable major i ty

represent ing two a l l -s tudent emai l admin is t ra t ion and medium-to- large enro l lment co l leges,

East LA and Merced (74% of to ta l responses) .

G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y This repor t prov ides a combined snapshot o f s tudent l ibrary and technology at t i tudes and

behaviors captured through d i f ferent sampl ing methods at f ive CCC campuses. F ind ings

descr ibed here in should not be in terpreted as representat ive of a l l CCC students, and

genera l izab i l i ty o f inst i tu t ional data var ies based on promot ional s t ra teg ies and rates of

re turn. A l though deta i led f ind ings speci f ic to the i r campuses have been communicated to


4

p i lo t inst i tu t ions, th is repor t is not in tended to (nor do d isparate promot ional methods

permi t ) c lose compar ison of l ib rary and technology engagement between campuses. Rather ,

i t is a s tudy in the impl icat ions and feas ib i l i ty o f coord inated, l ib rary-sponsored research

among Cal i forn ia communi ty co l leges, and ind icat ive of the types of ins ight that could be

ga ined at the loca l and systemwide leve l by a broader implementat ion in subsequent years.

L i m i t a t i o n s In the context o f th is p i lo t , f ind ings are compr ised of a mixture of convenience and

probabi l i ty sampl ing for which accurate conf idence in terva ls cannot be determined, and are

skewed toward campuses wi th the h ighest ra tes of re turn and/or FTE. Fur thermore, they are

the product o f a survey inst rument des igned to prov ide a pract ica l , act ion-or iented research

s t ra tegy and achieve operat ional improvement among CCC campus l ibrar ies, as opposed to

more formal research in tended for complex s ta t is t ica l analys is .

C a m p u s C u l t u r e s a n d D e m o g r a p h i c D i f f e r e n c e I t should be noted that f ind ings reveal s ign i f icant d is t inct ions among campus populat ions,

in f luenced by demographic and contextua l factors as wel l as the robustness of each

campus’ sampl ing s t ra tegy. Despi te prev ious ly descr ibed l imi ta t ions, d is t inct “ l ib rary

cu l tures” and technology access are ev ident a t the campus leve l , va l idat ing the ut i l i ty o f a

research s t ra tegy that prov ides loca l data that can be benchmarked among peers and

in terpreted against aggregate f ind ings (prov ided that they are representat ive ly drawn).

Cross- tabulat ions wi th in age, enro l lment ra t ionale, e thn ic i ty , and gender a lso reveal

s ign i f icant d ivergences in var iab les such as soc ia l media engagement, sk i l l se l f -percept ion,

and l ibrary use; whi le explor ing these d i f ferences in-depth is not the focus of th is repor t ,

c ross- tabulated f ind ings of s ign i f icance are descr ibed in the context o f o ther var iab les.

K e y F i n d i n g s Survey resul ts prov ide ins ight in to the connect ions between l ibrary and technology

percept ions, use, and recept iv i ty to emerg ing l ibrary p la t forms at each p i lo t campus. These

f ind ings are communicated in three broad categor ies : l ib rary engagement , technology

engagement , and l ib rary technology recept iv i ty .

Library Engagement • Student populat ions in teracted f requent ly w i th the i r phys ica l and d ig i ta l campus l ibrar ies

( though s ign i f icant ly more so wi th br ick-and-mortar fac i l i t ies) , and tended to access


5

in format ion resources for research purposes at var ied po ints dur ing the semester based

on ass ignment-re la ted in format ion need.

• “L ibrary as p lace” was a centra l theme among par t ic ipants , who consis tent ly expressed

the des i re for longer hours, larger fac i l i t ies , and more resources.

• Respondents f requent ly c i ted the qu iet , c lean atmosphere of campus l ibrary fac i l i t ies as

conducive to academic product iv i ty , o f ten in contrast to the i r home env i ronments.

• Par t ic ipants ra ted the i r in format ion search ab i l i t ies in an open web context s ign i f icant ly

h igher than the i r l ib rary research ab i l i t ies .

• Students who had par t ic ipated in l ib rary inst ruct ion repor ted more pos i t ive l ibrary

percept ions and h igher leve ls o f l ib rary use and awareness than those who had not .

• Students accessed course readings us ing an array of web, commerc ia l , l ib rary-prov ided,

and in formal methods.

• Open-ended comments conveyed a widespread percept ion of l ib rary va lue as wel l as a

pos i t ive react ion to the survey pro ject i tse l f , which can be in terpreted as creat ing

anc i l lary outreach/awareness ef fects for par t ic ipat ing campuses.

Technology Engagement • Par t ic ipants owned and used a wide var ie ty o f technology dev ices, web too ls , and soc ia l

media s i tes, but a lso expressed a lack of awareness and/or in terest in some technology

p la t forms re la t ive to o thers .

• Par t ic ipants re f lected an ongoing t rend toward re l iance on mobi le dev ices such as

smartphones, which they appl ied to d iverse academic and personal uses.

• Students va lued thei r technology sk i l l development a t communi ty co l lege.

• In format ion technology use was perce ived as a pos i t ive factor in learn ing, academic

product iv i ty , and co l laborat ion.

• Soc ia l and mul t imedia p la t forms were of ten used in the context o f coursework.

• Many par t ic ipants repor ted chal lenges af ford ing necessary academic technolog ies.

Library Technology Receptivity • Par t ic ipants demonstrated in terest in l ibrary serv ices de l ivered v ia soc ia l media

p la t forms. Among the avai lab le opt ions, respondents were most recept ive to serv ices

of fered v ia Facebook and YouTube.

• Respondents ind icated h igh leve ls o f in terest in l ib rary serv ices de l ivered v ia mobi le

p la t forms, but expressed greater recept iv i ty to some types of mobi le l ibrary funct ional i ty

over o thers (e .g. , hours, overdue not ices, and renewal features ra ted h igher than “ask a

l ibrar ian” opt ions) .


6

1 - Me thodo logy

The Student L ibrary & Technology Engagement Survey p i lo t was constructed to invest igate

how CCC students v iew, use, understand, and cr i t ique campus l ibrary serv ices and

in format ion technology in the context o f the i r academic exper ience. Designed and managed

through a centra l ized CCLCCC SurveyMonkey account , the survey featured 28 to ta l i tems

represent ing a range of quest ion types ( ra t ing sca les, shor t answer, and mul t ip le-choice) .

Q u e s t i o n n a i r e D e s i g n The p i lo t quest ionnaire was loosely based on a template s tudent l ib rary and technology

survey inst rument or ig ina l ly publ ished in In forming Innovat ion (ACRL, 2009), i tse l f insp i red

by large-scale s tudent survey in i t ia t ives such as the annual ECAR Study of Undergraduate

Students and In format ion Technology , and OCLC’s Col lege s tudents ' percept ions of l ib rar ies

and in format ion resources s tudy.1 Th is Creat ive Commons- l icensed survey, developed for

use at a doctora l -grant ing inst i tu t ion, was adapted for the communi ty co l lege env i ronment

by Aust in Communi ty Col lege in 2010.2 Bui ld ing on th is adaptat ion, Booth and the Work ing

Group rev ised, and ref ined the quest ionnaire to address the fo l lowing research quest ions:

1) What are the l ibrary and technology engagement character is t ics o f CCC students?

2) Is there a re la t ionship between l ibrary engagement , academic/ in format ion

technology engagement, and se l f -perce ived research sk i l l?

3) How wi l l ing are s tudents to in tegrate soc ia l and mobi le l ibrary too ls in to the i r

personal learn ing env i ronments?

4) Do demographic factors such as age, locat ion, and enro l lment mot ivat ion impact

l ibrary and technology engagement?

To ensure inst rument re l iab i l i ty and va l id i ty , between November 2010 and January 2011

i terat ive survey draf ts were rev iewed and rev ised by the Work ing Group, the Director o f

Research and Planning at Miss ion Col lege, two external researchers represent ing the

Coal i t ion for Networked In format ion (Joan L ipp incot t ) and Aust in Communi ty Col lege (E l l ie

1 Booth, C. (2009). Informing innovation: Tracking student interest in emerging library technologies at Ohio University. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, American Library Association.; Salaway, Gail and Caruso, Judith B., with Mark R. Nelson. The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, (2008). (Research Study, Vol. 8). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2008, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.; De, R. C., & OCLC. (2006). College students' perceptions of libraries and information resources: A report to the OCLC membership. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online Computer Library Center. 2 Collier, E. & A. Whatley. (2010). Take the template and run: Austin Community College’s Student Library and Technology Use Study. In the Library with the Lead Pipe, http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org.


7

Col l ier ) , and f ie ld- tested by two student focus groups. The p i lo t survey is reproduced in fu l l

in Appendix B.

S a m p l i n g a n d P r o m o t i o n a l S t r a t e g i e s To explore sample qual i ty and rates of re turn in the d iverse research contexts l ike ly to ex is t

w i th in a s ta tewide admin is t ra t ion of th is pro ject , the LTES p i lo t was constructed so that

each of i ts f ive par t ic ipat ing campus used a common inst rument but def ined i ts survey

populat ion through d is t inct sampl ing methods and research modes (Table 1) :

Table 1 – Matr ix of Sampling Strategies by Campus

Pr imary Sample Secondary

Promotion Mode Method

East Los Angeles CC all-student email n/a online blanket probability

Mendocino CC campus site, library site

classes, faculty outreach, fliers at

main campus and two campus centers

online convenience/ elective non-probability

Merced CC all-student email library site, flyering, Facebook online

blanket probability & convenience/ elective non-probability

Mission College representative set of

classes (in-person and distance)

n/a paper & online cluster probability

Santa Barbara CC campus portal, library website

social media, word-of-mouth online

convenience/ elective non-probability

• East Los Angeles Communi ty Col lege worked wi th i ts in ternal o f f ice of inst i tu t ional

research to d is t r ibute a promot ional emai l to a l l enro l led s tudents (see Appendix B)

wi th no addi t ional sampl ing s t ra tegy.

• Mendocino Col lege l inked to the survey f rom i ts l ib rary websi te and the main co l lege

websi te , conducted on-campus f lyer ing and d i rect outreach to facu l ty , and

admin is tered the on l ine survey in computer c lassrooms dur ing severa l l ib rary

inst ruct ion sess ions.

• Merced Col lege d is t r ibuted an a l l -s tudent emai l , publ ic ized a survey l ink on i ts l ibrary

websi te , posted f lyers , and promoted the survey through Facebook.


8

• Miss ion Col lege se lected a probabi l i ty sample of d is tance learn ing and in-person

courses and admin is tered e i ther the on l ine survey or a paper dupl icate in-c lass.

• Santa Barbara Ci ty Col lege posted survey-re la ted messages to i ts campus student

por ta l , posted the survey URL through Facebook and Twi t ter , l inked f rom the l ibrary

websi te , and promoted v ia word-of-mouth in l ibrary inst ruct ion sess ions

A l l inc luded a common, opt ional incent ive to increase par t ic ipat ion: a $100 cash pr ize was

of fered to a randomly se lected respondent a t each campus.

R e t u r n s Between February 7 and March 7 of 2011, a to ta l o f 3 ,168 CCC students par t ic ipated in the

LTES p i lo t a t an 80% rate of complet ion. Rates of re turn var ied wide ly by inst i tu t ion, w i th a

large major i ty o f par t ic ipants represent ing a l l -s tudent emai l campuses (East Los Angeles

Communi ty Col lege and Merced Col lege, see F igure 1) . East Los Angeles and Merced

compr ised 51% and 23% of to ta l par t ic ipants respect ive ly , whi le Mendocino accounted for

on ly 4% of to ta l re turns.

F igure 1 - What community col lege do you attend?

Table 2 - Response and Returns Response Percent

Response Count

Estimated FTE

Rate of Return

Mendocino College 4% 116 1516 8%

East Los Angeles College 51% 1607 8853 18%

Mission College 11% 359 3219 11%

Merced College 23% 725 4853 15%

Santa Barbara City College 11% 361 7184 5%

Total: 100% Total: 3168 Total: 25625 Avg: 12%

Mendocino College

4%

East Los Angeles College

51%

Mission College 11%

Merced College 23%

Santa Barbara City College

11%


9

Best-est imate FTE at the t ime of the survey was 8,853 at East Los Angeles, 1 ,516 at

Mendocino, 4 ,853 at Merced, 3 ,451 at Miss ion, and 7,170 at Santa Barbara, based on Fal l

2010 enro l lment f igures for East LA, Merced, and Mendocino, and Spr ing 2011 enro l lment

est imates for Miss ion and Santa Barbara (Table 2) . 3 Rates of re turn expressed as a

percentage of campus enro l lment ranged f rom a h igh of 18% at East LA to a low of 5% at

Santa Barbara. The mean rate of re turn was 12% of combined FTE.

As ant ic ipated, d isparate promot ional and sampl ing s t ra teg ies s ign i f icant ly impacted the

s ize and character o f the re turns at each p i lo t campus, consequent ly in f luencing the

representat iveness of loca l as wel l as aggregate data . F ind ings should be understood to

re f lect a non-probabi l i ty sample and therefore not genera l izab le wi th conf idence to

communi ty co l lege s tudents s ta tewide or , in two of the f ive p i lo t campuses (Mendocino and

Santa Barbara) , loca l ly .

S u r v e y D i s c o v e r y Promot ional and sampl ing d i f ferences among campuses produced a broad d is t r ibut ion of

survey d iscovery methods (F igure 2) . S ix ty-s ix percent o f respondents learned about the

quest ionnaire by emai l , 15% from a l ibrar ian or inst ructor ( large ly in-c lass admin is t ra t ion at

Miss ion Col lege) , and 14% from the i r communi ty co l lege s tudent por ta l or websi te .

D iscovery through a course management system drew 6% of respondents. L ibrary websi te

l ink ing accounted for less than 4%, whi le v ia soc ia l media, campus f lyer ing, and word-of-

mouth promot ion each net ted 2% or less of the to ta l sample.

F igure 2 - How did you f ind out about this survey? Check al l that apply.

3 Personal correspondence with Kenley Neufeld and Tim Karas, June 2011. Also, Chancellor’s Data Mart, http://www.cccco.edu/SystemOffice/Divisions/TechResearchInfo/MIS/DataMartandReports/tabid/282/Default.aspx

1%

2%

2%

2%

3%

4%

6%

6%

14%

15%

66%

Other (please specify)

Friend/Classmate

Facebook or TwiCer

Flyer

In class (paper)

Library website

Course management system (Moodle, etc.)

In class (online)

Community college website or student portal

Instructor/Librarian

Email


10

Based on th is d iscovery pat tern, the most robust sample in a broader survey admin is t ra t ion

would be generated ( in order o f genera l izab i l i ty ) by a) randomized emai l sampl ing, b) c lass-

based admin is t ra t ion through c luster probabi l i ty sampl ing, c) a campus-wide s tudent emai l ,

or d) survey promot ion at the campus websi te or s tudent por ta l leve l . The most cost-

e f fect ive and sca lab le sampl ing method in a s ta tewide context is l ike ly to be a l l -campus

emai l or randomized emai l sampl ing, prov ided that co l laborat ion wi th a research of f ice,

reg is t rar , or o ther campus uni t can prov ide an accurate contact l is t .

Convenience sampl ing methods such as survey d is t r ibut ion by l ibrary websi te or f lyer ing

capture a survey populat ion considerably more l ike ly to be heavy l ibrary users than in-c lass

or emai l par t ic ipants (see sect ion 3 – L ibrary Engagement) , thus prov id ing few ins ights

genera l izab le to an overa l l campus populat ion. I f randomized or b lanket emai l sampl ing

methods are not feas ib le , survey d is t r ibut ion so le ly by e lect ive or se l f -se lected methods

(e .g. , l ib rary websi te l ink , Facebook, f lyer ing) should be understood to produce f ind ings that

cannot be in terpreted as representat ive of the s tudent body, and fur thermore that carry

impl icat ions for the qual i ty o f the s ta tewide dataset .

D e m o g r a p h i c B e n c h m a r k i n g In response to the non-probabi l i ty sampl ing l im i ta t ion that w i l l l ike ly confront some CCC

l ibrar ies in a wider survey admin is t ra t ion, the LTES inst rument was des igned to a id in

benchmark survey populat ion to loca l FTE through common demographic data po ints (e .g . ,

age, e thn ic i ty , gender) co l lected by a l l Cal i forn ia communi ty co l leges and publ ic ly

d iscoverable through the CCC Chancel lor ’s Data Mart (see sect ion 2 - Demographics for

examples of demographic a l ignment and d ivergence) . 4

A d d i t i o n a l L i m i t a t i o n s In addi t ion to s t ra t i f ied non-probabi l i ty sampl ing methods, the fo l lowing factors should be

considered as addi t ional l im i ta t ions to the current s tudy. Due to i ts pr imar i ly web-based

admin is t ra t ion, par t ic ipants are l ike ly to be modest ly skewed towards h igher technology

competency. Data is based on par t ic ipant se l f -percept ions and se l f -assessments ra ther than

object ive evaluat ion or observat ion. A l though the survey was anonymous, soc ia l des i rab i l i ty

b ias may have mot ivated some par t ic ipants to in tent ional ly or un in tent ional ly misrepresent

in format ion re la t ing to technology and l ibrary use. Whi le the major i ty o f responses

or ig inated f rom l ibrary-neutra l space (emai l , as opposed to a l ibrary websi te l ink) , each

campus l ibrary was c lear ly ident i f ied as survey sponsor in a l l sampl ing scenar ios. Some 4 Chancellor’s Data Mart, http://www.cccco.edu/SystemOffice/Divisions/TechResearchInfo/MIS/DataMartandReports/tabid/282/Default.aspx


11

degree of se l f -se lect ion b ias in the populat ion can therefore be assumed: those mot ivated to

par t ic ipate may have been in f luenced by estab l ished l ibrary re la t ionship.

H u m a n S u b j e c t s R e s e a r c h E x e m p t i o n By v i r tue of eva luat ing the publ ic /operat ional benef i t o f campus l ibrary serv ices and

protect ing the anonymity o f i ts par t ic ipants , human subjects research (HSR) exempt ion

under the Code of Federa l Regulat ions, T i t le 45 – Publ ic Wel fare, Department o f Heal th and

Human Serv ices reasonably appl ies but was not formal ly sought through of f ices of

inst i tu t ional research in th is p i lo t survey phase.5 That sa id , l ib rary d i rectors at each campus

requested quest ionnaire rev iew and formal approval to conduct the p i lo t survey through the

fo l lowing inst i tu t ional o f f icers :

• East Los Angeles Communi ty Col lege - Reviewed by the Dean of Inst i tu t ional

Ef fect iveness and approved by the V ice-Pres ident o f Student Serv ices

• Mendocino Col lege - Reviewed and approved by the Dean of Inst ruct ion and Vice

Pres ident o f Educat ion and Student Serv ices

• Merced Col lege - Reviewed and approved by the Technology Master P lanning

Commit tee

• Miss ion Col lege - Reviewed and approved by the Director o f Research and Planning

• Santa Barbara Communi ty Col lege - Reviewed and approved by the Execut ive V ice

Pres ident o f Educat ional Programs

In the event o f broader admin is t ra t ion, formal HRS rev iew and/or exempt ion should be

pursued on a s ta tewide bas is in coord inat ion wi th research- focused uni ts in the Cal i forn ia

Communi ty Col leges Chancel lor ’s Of f ice, or through campus of f ices of inst i tu t ional research

in the event that b lanket approval or exempt ion is in feas ib le . 5 PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS - §46.101... (b) Unless otherwise required by department or agency heads, research activities in which the only involvement of human subjects will be in one or more of the following categories are exempt from this policy: (2) Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior, unless: (i) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and (ii) any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation. (5) Research and demonstration projects which are conducted by or subject to the approval of department or agency heads, and which are designed to study, evaluate, or otherwise examine: (i) Public benefit or service programs; (ii) procedures for obtaining benefits or services under those programs; (iii) possible changes in or alternatives to those programs or procedures; or (iv) possible changes in methods or levels of payment for benefits or services under those programs. US Department of Health and Human Services, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html#46.101


12

2 - Demog raph i cs

Among the survey populat ion (N = 3,168) , 25% of respondents were 19 years o ld or

younger, 38% were aged between 20 and 24, 14% were 25 through 29, 8% were 30 to 34,

and the remain ing 15% represented the 36 and o lder s tudent demographic (F igure 3) .

F igure 3 - How old are you?

Th is d is t r ibut ion is roughly comparable for s ta tewide f igures f rom Fal l o f 2010 (Table 3) : the

19 or less, 25 to 29, 30 to 34, and 35 to 39 categor ies match c lose ly wi th the present s tudy ,

but d ivergences of severa l percentage points are seen in the 20 to 24 and 50+ ranges. 6

Table 3 – Statewide CCC Enrollment by Age, Fall 2010 Percent

19 or Less 25% 20 to 24 30% 25 to 29 13% 30 to 34 8% 35 to 39 5% 40 to 49 9% 50 + 10%

By ethn ic i ty , survey par t ic ipants (F igure 4) d iverge s ign i f icant ly f rom the s ta tewide

communi ty co l lege populat ion, a resu l t o f the un ique composi t ion of the 5-campus sample.

A l though Hispanic s tudents are the major i ty in both categor ies, s ta tewide enro l lment by

ethn ic i ty in Fal l 2010 (Table 4) shows d i f ferences f rom the p i lo t populat ion among whi te ,

Afr ican-Amer ican, and other groups ( response choices d i f fered s l ight ly f rom statewide data;

correct ing th is d iscrepancy is among our inst rument rev is ion suggest ions) . Among p i lo t

survey par t ic ipants , sharp d is t inct ions in e thn ic i ty are apparent a t the campus leve l . For 6 Statewide Student Demographics for Age by Fall 2010 Term, Chancellor’s Data Mart. http://www.cccco.edu/SystemOffice/Divisions/TechResearchInfo/MIS/DataMartandReports/tabid/282/Default.aspx

19 or Less 25%

20 to 24 38%

25 to 29 14%

30 to 34 8%

35 to 39 5%

40 to 49 6%

50 + 4%


13

example, whereas a lmost 60% of the survey populat ions of Santa Barbara Ci ty Col lege and

Mendocino Col leges ident i f ied as whi te , on ly 4% of East Lost Angeles Col lege and 20% of

Miss ion co l lege par t ic ipants d id so.

Figure 4 - What best represents your ethnicity? Choose al l that apply.

Table 4 - Statewide Enrol lment by Ethnicity, Fall 2010 Percent

African-American 7% American Indian/Alaskan Native 1% Asian 11% Filipino 3% Hispanic 34% Multi-Ethnicity 2% Pacific Islander 1% Unknown 9% White Non-Hispanic 32%

Considerably more respondents in the

survey populat ion were female than male,

66% versus 34%, wi th .2% report ing

t ransgender s ta tus (F igure 5) . Th is d i f fers

f rom the s ta te CCC populat ion; accord ing to

the Chancel lor ’s Data Mart , in 2010

statewide s tudents represent a gender

d is t r ibut ion of 54% female, 45% male, and

1% unknown.

F igure 5 - What is your gender?

African-‐American

3% American

Indian/Alaskan NaSve 3%

Asian 19%

Filipino 4% Hispanic

45%

Pacific Islander 1%

White 21%

Prefer not to say 4%

66%

34%

0.2%

Female Male Transgendered


14

I t should be noted that gender imbalance in survey resul ts is not uncommon. A number of

s tud ies in the past decade have shown that female-gendered ind iv iduals par t ic ipate at

s ign i f icant ly h igher ra tes in web-based surveys, par t icu lar ly in the h igher educat ion

env i ronment. 7

Figure 6 - What best describes your enrol lment status? Check al l that apply.

Student enro l lment s ta tus ind icated a survey populat ion heavi ly weighted toward fu l l - t ime

onsi te s tudents; on ly 8% of par t ic ipants repor ted at tending v i r tua l ly (F igure 6) . Enro l lment

s ta tus in the present s tudy cannot be compared to s ta tewide f igures due to d ivergence in

response choices f rom that commonly t racked s ta t is t ic ; a l ign ing these opt ions compr ises

another quest ionnaire rev is ion suggest ion.

An i tem that inv i ted par t ic ipants to speci fy one or more ra t ionales for a t tending communi ty

co l lege (F igure 7) ind icated that a major i ty were engaged in coursework in order to t ransfer

to a 4-year inst i tu t ion (68%) or obta in an Associa te ’s degree (42%). Other responses

inc luded se l f - improvement/personal en joyment (31%), cer t i f icate program complet ion (15%),

career change (13%), and updat ing job-re la ted sk i l ls (12%).

7 Sax, L, S. Gilmartin, & A. Bryan. (2003). Assessing Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Web and Paper Surveys. Research in Higher Education, (44), 4, 409-432. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024232915870. Also, Underwood, D., H. Kimand, & M. Matier. (2000). To mail or to Web: Comparisons of survey response rates and respondent characteristics. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Cincinnati, OH, May 21–24, 2000. Also, Hunt-White, T. (2007). The Influence of Selected Factors on Student Survey Participation and Mode of Completion, Center for National Education Statistics, http://www.fcsm.gov/07papers/Hunt-White.III-C.pdf.

28%

69%

16% 15%

3% 2% 8%


15

Figure 7 - Which of the fol lowing best describes your reasons/goals for attending community col lege? Check al l that apply.

Cross- tabulated by age, younger s tudents were more l ike ly to be pursu ing t ransfer or

Associates degree p lans, whi le o lder respondents were s ign i f icant ly more l ike ly to be

mot ivated by vocat ional t ra in ing and career change aspira t ions. Enro l lment for personal

en joyment was the most consis tent ly shared ra t ionale across a l l demographics and

locat ions, w i th a common representat ion of + / -30%.

15%

12%

42%

68%

13%

31%

3%

To complete a cerSficate program

To obtain or update job-‐related (vocaSonal) skills

To obtain an Associate's degree

To transfer to a 4-‐year college or university

To change careers

Self-‐improvement/personal enjoyment



16

3 - L i b ra r y Engagemen t

The Student L ibrary & Technology Engagement Survey p i lo t sought to por t ray the l ibrary

engagement leve ls o f CCC students , inc lud ing the i r a t t i tudes, percept ions, needs, and

expectat ions in respect to d ig i ta l and phys ica l l ib rary fac i l i t ies and in format ion resources.

F ind ings are presented in three sect ions: Use , Percept ions , and Awareness .

U s e Respondents were consis tent ly engaged wi th the i r communi ty co l lege l ibrar ies when c lasses

were in sess ion, a l though somewhat more so wi th the i r phys ica l than d ig i ta l fac i l i t ies (F igure

8) . In the overa l l survey populat ion, 34% percent o f respondents v is i ted the i r campus l ibrary

f requent ly or very f requent ly , whi le 23% used the l ibrary websi te f requent ly or very

f requent ly . Twenty-seven percent ta lked wi th a l ibrar ian at least occas ional ly , whi le 33%

searched for i tems in the l ibrary cata log at least occasional ly . Among the opt ions l is ted,

Figure 8 - When classes are in session, about how often do you. . .

3%

5%

6%

8%

8%

10%

14%

6%

9%

9%

15%

12%

17%

20%

2%

3%

4%

4%

18%

19%

20%

24%

19%

23%

26%

4%

6%

7%

7%

15%

15%

14%

17%

14%

15%

11%

6%

8%

11%

9%

20%

15%

16%

16%

12%

13%

14%

66%

67%

65%

58%

34%

33%

32%

18%

26%

18%

13%

21%

15%

12%

21%

3%

5%

4%

3%

8%

4%

2%

Text message a librarian?

Email a librarian?

Talk with a librarian on the phone?

Talk with a librarian via IM or chat?

Talk with a librarian in person?

Search for items in the library catalog?

Check library hours or contact informaSon online?

Visit the library website?

Use library databases (EBSCO, Proquest, etc.)?

Use the library website to research for an assignment?

Visit the library in person?

Very frequently Frequently Occasionally Rarely Very rarely Never Didn't know I could


17

web-based and phone l ibrar ian contact po in ts were the least used and least known, a l though

in-person l ibrary contact was more common. Only e ight percent o f par t ic ipants ind icated that

they were not aware that they could use l ibrary subscr ip t ion databases; 65% reported us ing

them to some extent . Low engagement wi th remote ask a l ibrar ian opt ions can be at t r ibuted

to actua l par t ic ipant use/awareness as wel l as uneven serv ice avai lab i l i ty (creat ing

representat ive yet comprehensive response arrays is one of acknowledged chal lenges of

th is cross- inst i tu t ional survey des ign; in th is case, not a l l p i lo t l ib rar ies of fered a text

messaging serv ice) . Th i r teen percent o f par t ic ipants repor ted never us ing a l ibrary fac i l i ty

when c lasses were in sess ion, whi le 18% never accessed a l ibrary websi te .

An opt ional open-ended i tem that asked students to descr ibe what in f luences the f requency

of the i r l ib rary use e l ic i ted a var ie ty o f responses (N = 1,457), most f requent ly invok ing

current leve l o f research need, as wel l as “condi t ions at home,” “hours of operat ion,” and

“how crowded/noisy i t is , how much space there is , e tc . ” The number of s tudents that

repor ted rare ly or never us ing on l ine l ibrary resources re la t ive to phys ica l fac i l i t ies ind icates

that many l ike ly conduct course-re la ted research exc lus ive ly on the open web, which may at

t imes d i rect them unknowingly to l ib rary-sponsored content .

Library Use by Campus and Survey Discovery Method Campus- leve l cross- tabulat ion reveals d is t inct ions in l ibrary use and percept ions that could

be at t r ibuted as much to d isparate sampl ing as to actua l d i f ferences in use. In order to

explore sampl ing ef fects on l ibrary use, F igure 9 compares use f requency of four br ick-and-

mortar l ib rary tasks (check ing out books, s tudy ing a lone, us ing l ibrary computers for

research, and do ing independent research for an ass ignment) by survey d iscovery method

( l ibrary websi te , emai l , Inst ructor / l ib rar ian, communi ty co l lege websi te /s tudent por ta l , or

course management system).

Respondents who learned of the survey through a l ink posted to a l ibrary websi te or soc ia l

media p la t form were far more l ike ly to be f requent users of l ib rary fac i l i t ies , serv ices, and

resources than those who d iscovered the survey through l ibrary-neutra l in ter faces and

methods (e.g. , emai l , course management systems, inst ructors) . Survey takers funneled

through l ibrary websi tes in par t icu lar engaged in l ibrary use tasks more f requent ly than

those in o ther d iscovery categor ies (e .g . , they were on average four to f ive t imes less l ike ly

to ind icate “never” us ing the l ibrary in any speci f ied category) , and therefore represent a

cohort o f l ib rary “superusers” that can be va luable sources of in format ion but not

genera l izab le to the CCC populat ion. A more accurate por t raya l o f campus-wide use is

ev ident through emai l , in-c lass, co l lege websi te , or learn ing management system d iscovery.


18

Figure 9 - Cross-tabulat ion of “How did you learn about this survey?” with Frequency of Library Use

3%

19%

32%

46%

2%

12%

28%

57%

7%

27%

32%

30%

4%

11%

19%

66%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Never

Rarely

Occasionally

Frequently

Never

Rarely

Occasionally

Frequently

Never

Rarely

Occasionally

Frequently

Never

Rarely

Occasionally

Frequently

Use library compu

ters fo

r scho

olwork

Do re

search fo

r an assig

nmen

t Ch

eck ou

t boo

ks or jou

rnals

Stud

y alon

e

Library website Main community college website or student portal Email Course management system (Blackboard, Moodle, etc.) Instructor/Librarian


19

F igure 9 should prov ide addi t ional ev idence that emai l or randomized emai l sampl ing should

be pursued whenever poss ib le . Campuses that promote the i r survey so le ly (or even in a

supplementary capaci ty) v ia a l ib rary websi te l ink should understand that the i r resu l ts wi l l

present a skewed perspect ive of s tudent l ib rary awareness and use.

Course Materials Access Part ic ipants were asked to ind icate the ways they accessed course-re la ted readings

( textbooks, ar t ic les, e tc . ) in the past year (F igure 10) . Par t ic ipants se lected on average four

d i f ferent methods of course mater ia ls access, and re l ied heavi ly on reading i tems f rom the

open web (68%) or downloaded and pr in ted (62%). F i f ty-n ine percent purchased textbooks,

whi le 47% reported check ing i tems f rom the i r campus l ibrary and an addi t ional 44% used in -

l ibrary course reserves ( the same number borrowed i tems f rom a f r iend or c lassmate) . Th i r ty

percent purchased course packs, and 24% used onl ine l ibrary e-reserves. Th ir ty-one percent

rented on l ine or pr in ted textbooks, whi le the most common verbat im choice among “other”

submiss ions was photocopying mater ia ls .

Figure 10 - Check al l of the ways you have accessed class readings, textbooks, and

other school-related materia ls in the past year.

Whereas cross- tabulat ion revealed few age-re la ted t rends in course mater ia ls access,

respondents between 20-24 ind icated us ing the greatest number of formats dur ing the past

5%

11%

20%

24%

30%

44%

44%

47%

59%

62%

68%


Rent online textbooks(s)

Rent printed textbook(s)

Use online library "e-‐reserves"

Buy paper course pack(s)

Use "reserve" books in the library

Borrow from a friend or classmate

Check items out from the library

Buy printed textbook(s)

Download and print out

Read items on the web


20

year , and were by extens ion the heaviest users of l ib rary course mater ia ls . Par t ic ipants

between 19-24 years were more l ike ly to borrow course readings f rom f r iends or c lassmates.

P e r c e p t i o n s Part ic ipants responded to three opt ional i tems that inv i ted them to prov ide open-ended

posi t ive and negat ive feedback about the i r campus l ibrar ies, as wel l as to descr ibe the

academic env i ronment in which they were most product ive (N1 = 2,424, N2 = 2,363, N2 =

2,338) . Students expressed a wide range of op in ions and suggest ions regard ing l ibrary

fac i l i t ies , serv ices, s ta f f , resources, and technolog ies, and the context in which they f ind

themselves most academica l ly product ive. These comments tended prov ide the most po inted

locat ion-based ins ights , and, i f systemat ica l ly coded and analyzed by par t ic ipant

inst i tu t ions, carry considerable potent ia l to d i rect ly eva luate and af fect speci f ic operat ions.

What do you appreciate about your campus l ibrary? In open-ended commentary s tudents were h igh ly apprec ia t ive of a w ide range of l ib rary

serv ices, prov id ing pos i t ive assessments of s ta f f ( “he lp fu l l ib rar ians are a lways there when

you need them”), technology too ls ( “Easy access to computers”) , co l lect ions ( “ab le to

borrow the books that we couldn ' t a f ford" ) , and learn ing act iv i t ies ( “ I am thankfu l for i t 's [s ic ]

he lp fu l s ta f f and the workshops that they of fer for our ELAC communi ty” ) . Students of ten

c i ted the l ibrary ’s qu ie t ambiance as pos i t ive ( “They supply s tudents wi th a safe and quiet

env i ronment to work and s tudy in , p lus have lo ts o f access to books, computers, and etc . ” ) .

Comments such as th is one, which of fered a combined apprec ia t ion of l ib rary s ta f f ,

co l lect ions, qu ie t space, and/or technology, were of fered f requent ly .

What would you change about your campus l ibrary? When asked to speci fy aspects o f the i r campus l ibrary that they would change, t rends

concerned expansion and updat ing of phys ica l , comput ing, and co l lect ion resources.

Students across a l l demographic groups requested seat ing, technology avai lab i l i ty ( “More

tab les and out le ts for laptops”) , extended hours, increased sta f f ing ( “Have more people to

he lp the s tudents”) , bet ter websi te des ign ( “ I don ' t have any prob lems wi th the l ibrary , but

the websi te gets confus ing”) , bu i ld ing enhancements, and enforcement o f qu ie t areas and

use pol ic ies (actua l or imagined: “k ick out the youngsters there that aren ' t there to rea l ly

use i ts resources”) . Requests for increased and updated co l lect ions were a lso common (“We

need to get updated books and have many MANY more on l ine journals and scholar ly texts ! ” )

East Los Angeles ’ l ib rary was under construct ion at the t ime of the survey, leading to a

number of comments such as “have i t bu i l t faster” and “ Is the new l ibrary open yet?” F ina l ly ,


21

the fo l lowing quote summarizes a s izeable proport ion of responses: “No need to f ix

someth ing that isn ' t broken.”

A w a r e n e s s Figure 11 shows that a major i ty o f s tudents e i ther agreed or s t rongly agreed wi th the

fo l lowing l ibrary-re la ted s ta tements, “ I am aware of the serv ices my campus l ibrary o f fers

(60%),” “My campus l ibrary supports my communi ty co l lege exper ience (65%),” and “My

campus l ibrary has mater ia ls that are usefu l to me in my c lasses (72%).” A consis tent

quar ter o f s tudents evaluated these s ta tements neutra l ly , whi le on ly a smal l percentage

d isagreed or s t rongly d isagreed wi th the la t ter two s tatements (6% and 5%). The f i rs t

s ta tement concern ing l ibrary awareness had the h ighest leve l o f d isagreement or s t rong

d isagreement, 11% and 4%, respect ive ly , ind icat ing that augmented market ing and

educat ional measures could ra ise s tudent awareness.

Figure 11 - For each of the fol lowing statements, choose the best answer.

16%

25% 26%

44% 43% 46%

26% 26% 24%

11%

4% 3% 4%

2% 2%

I am aware of the services my campus library offers.

My campus library supports my community college experience.

My campus library has materials that are useful to me in my classes.

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree


22

F igure 12 - Have you ever attended a workshop or presentat ion from a community col lege l ibrar ian. . .

Library inst ruct ion (F igure 12) reached

40% of respondents in- l ibrary , 35% in-

c lass, and 13% onl ine, and had a c lear

impact on awareness and use of l ib rary

resources and serv ices. F igure 13

demonstrates four categor ies of l ib rary

contact ( f rom le f t to r ight : in -person

v is i ts , websi te use, database use, and

an average of l ib rar ian contact through

IM/chat / in-person/v ia phone) and use

f requency/awareness among those who

have or have not a t tended an

inst ruct ion sess ion wi th in the l ibrary .

Figure 13 - Impact of Library Instruct ion on Library Use and Awareness

In the library?

In your classroom? Online?

No 54% 56% 80%

Yes 40% 35% 13%

Not sure 6% 8% 8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2%

19% 16% 12%

24% 17%

11% 4%

25% 18% 17% 20%

10% 5% 6%

10%

36%

13% 14% 15%

8% 14%

52%

14% 9% 8%

3% 1%

1%

6% 11%

11%

28%

24%

18%

2%

9%

12% 16% 29%

21%

13% 5%

13%

10%

15% 24% 20%

14%

10%

38%

15%

13% 15%

6% 4%

Didn

't know

I could

Never

Very ra

rely

Rarely

Occasionally

Freq

uently

Very freq

uently

Didn

't know

I could

Never

Very ra

rely

Rarely

Occasionally

Freq

uently

Very freq

uently

Didn

't know

I could

Never

Very ra

rely

Rarely

Occasionally

Freq

uently

Very freq

uently

Didn

't know

I could

Never

Very ra

rely

Rarely

Occasionally

Freq

uently

Very freq

uently

Visit the library in person? Visit the library website? Use library databases (EBSCO, etc.)

Talk with a librarian in person or via IM/chat?

Has NOT aCended in-‐library instrucSon Has aCended in-‐library instrucSon


23

Independent o f survey d iscovery method, par t ic ipants who had not a t tended in- l ibrary

inst ruct ion (N = 1,384) were tw ice as l ike ly to answer “D idn ’ t know I could” for any of the

l ibrary use opt ions l is ted, whi le s tudents who had at tended in- l ibrary inst ruct ion (N = 1,034)

were s ign i f icant ly more l ike ly to be f requent or very f requent users of phys ica l and d ig i ta l

l ib rary fac i l i t ies and serv ices. Students who had not a t tended l ibrary inst ruct ion were

between two to three t imes as l ike ly to ind icate that they “never” used at least one of the

l ibrary opt ions l is ted. Those who at tended in- l ibrary inst ruct ion ra ted the i r research ab i l i t ies

s l ight ly h igher than those who had not (3 .7 versus 3.4 on a sca le of 1 = very low to 5 = very

h igh) .

Figure 14 - Impact of Library Instruct ion on Library Perceptions

Accord ing to F igure 14, they were a lso more prone to agree or s t rongly agree that they were

aware of the serv ices the i r campus l ibrary o f fered (79% versus 62%) to fee l that the i r l ib rary

supported the i r communi ty co l lege exper ience (77% versus 62%), and that the i r l ib rary

prov ided mater ia ls usefu l to them in the i r c lasses (80% versus 67%).

2% 5%

31% 41%

21% 5%

15% 28%

40%

12% 2% 3%

28%

45%

22% 2% 3%

18%

46%

31%

3% 5%

21%

49%

22%

2% 2%

17%

48%

32%

Strongly disa

gree

Disagree

Neu

tral

Agree

Strongly agree

Strongly disa

gree

Disagree

Neu

tral

Agree

Strongly agree

Strongly disa

gree

Disagree

Neu

tral

Agree

Strongly agree

My campus library supports my community college experience.

I am aware of the services my campus library offers.

My campus library has materials that are useful to me in my classes.

Has NOT aCended in-‐library instrucSon Has aCended in-‐library instrucSon


24

4 - Techno logy Engagemen t

The Student L ibrary & Technology Engagement Survey was designed to prov ide an accurate

snapshot o f the technology ownersh ip and use pat terns of Cal i forn ia communi ty co l lege

s tudents, inc lud ing the i r a t t i tudes, percept ions, needs, and expectat ions in respect to a

range of in format ion, comput ing, and communicat ion too ls in both personal and academic

contexts . F ind ings are presented in four sect ions: Adopt ion , Ownership , Use , and

Ski l l /Percept ions .

A d o p t i o n

When asked to ident i fy w i th a ser ies of

s ta tements that descr ibed how quick ly they

tended to adopt new technolog ies, 39% of

s tudents se lected, “ I tend to use new

technolog ies when most people I know do,”

25% ind icated that they typ ica l ly “use them

before most people,” another 16%

responded that they were “among the f i rs t

to exper iment w i th and use [new

technolog ies] . ” S ix teen percent ident i f ied

wi th the s ta tement that they were “one of

the last people I know to use new

technolog ies,” whi le on ly 6% ind icated that

they “use them only when I have to”

(F igure 15) . Campus-based compar isons

Figure 15 - Which of the fol lowing statements is most accurate?

show that s tudents at East LA, Miss ion, and Santa Barbara were the most l ike ly to

character ize themselves as ear ly technology adopters, whi le Mendocino respondents were

the most l ike ly to character ize themselves as la te adopters .

O w n e r s h i p Part ic ipants were asked to ind icate the i r current or p lanned ownersh ip of common comput ing

and communicat ion dev ices (smartphones, laptops, gaming consoles, d ig i ta l cameras, e-

book readers, e tc . ) as wel l as the approx imate age of the most recent purchase in each

category (F igure 16) .

6%

16%

39%

24%

16%

I don't like new technologies and use them only when I have

to.

I am usually one of the last people I know to use new

technologies.

I tend to use new technologies when most people I know do.

I like new technologies and usually use them before most

people I know.

I love new technologies and am among the first to experiment

with and use them.


25

Figure 16 - Do you own the fol lowing i tems, and i f so, how old is the most recent purchase?

Whi le ownership pat terns d i f fered s ign i f icant ly across campuses and demographic

categor ies ( for example, 65% of respondents at Miss ion Col lege owned a web-enabled

handheld dev ice, versus 55% at Merced Col lege and 42% at Mendocino Col lege) ,

par t ic ipants demonstrate a c lear t rend towards increas ing ownersh ip of mobi le technolog ies

such as laptops, smartphones, and handheld web browsers . Laptops were a lmost

ub iqu i tous ly owned or des i red by respondents, w i th less than 5% repor t ing that they ne i ther

owned nor p lanned to own one a laptop the next few years. 50% of respondents were

25%

22%

18%

18%

17%

17%

13%

12%

6%

6%

5%

4%

15%

28%

21%

23%

19%

21%

14%

11%

11%

8%

2%

5%

17%

18%

19%

10%

17%

10%

5%

17%

7%

0%

2%

9%

22%

15%

14%

12%

10%

2%

30%

8%

21%

21%

14%

15%

5%

11%

11%

18%

12%

8%

23%

26%

29%

5%

10%

14%

35%

21%

43%

48%

26%

62%

70%

64%

Smart phone (iPhone, Blackberry, etc.)

Laptop or notebook computer

Printer

Digital camera (non-‐mobile phone)

Mobile phone (non-‐web enabled)

Portable media player (iPod, etc.)

Gaming console (PS3, etc.)

Handheld web browser (iPod Touch, etc.)

Desktop computer

Handheld gaming device

E-‐book reader (Kindle, Nook, etc.)

Tablet computer (iPad, etc.)

Less than 1 year old 1-‐2 years old

3-‐4 years old More than 5 years old

Don’t own, but plan to in the next few years Don’t own, don’t plan to


26

smartphone owners (which tended to be two years o ld or less) , whi le c lose to 70% owned an

iPod or MP3 p layer . A lmost ha l f o f respondents owned a gaming console such as a XBOX or

P layStat ion, whi le c lose to 30% owned a handheld gaming dev ice.

Commonly owned but ag ing technolog ies inc luded desktop computers, pr in ters , por tab le

media p layers, non web-enabled mobi le phones, and d ig i ta l cameras. Uncommonly owned

but des i red dev ices inc luded e-book readers and tab le t computers - whereas roughly 5% of

respondents owned an eBook reader or a tab le t computer , respect ive ly , roughly 20%

ind icated that they p lanned to acquire each type of dev ice in the fu ture. That sa id ,

approx imate ly 70% of respondents ne i ther owned nor p lanned to own an eBook reader or

tab le t in the coming years.

U s e Survey par t ic ipants ind icated the amount o f hours in a typ ica l week they spent us ing the

web for the fo l lowing purposes: c lasswork, pa id work, and personal / le isure purposes (F igure

17) . Over e ighty percent spent between 1 to 20 web-engaged hours on c lasswork,

F igure 17 - About how many hours do you spend USING THE WEB in a typical week for the fol lowing purposes?

Classwork Paid work/job Personal/leisure

More than 40 3% 3% 3%

31-‐40 3% 3% 3%

21-‐30 9% 5% 12%

11-‐20 25% 6% 22%

1-‐10 59% 22% 53%

None 2% 62% 3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


27

and a s imi lar proport ion spent an equiva lent number of hours on l ine for personal or le isure-

re la ted purposes. S ix ty- two percent spent no t ime onl ine for pa id work purposes. Only 6% of

par t ic ipants repor ted spending in excess of 30 hours a week onl ine in any of the use

categor ies. Cross- tabulat ions reveal l i t t le d i f ference in web use for le isure purposes, but

o lder s tudents were s ign i f icant ly more web-engaged for pa id work purposes and repor ted

somewhat more t ime spent on l ine for academic purposes.

Par t ic ipants ind icated i f and how f requent ly they d id a var ie ty o f common soc ia l media,

comput ing, and communicat ion media tasks, f rom text messaging to us ing soc ia l network ing

sof tware to watch ing on l ine v ideos to v is i t ing v i r tua l wor lds such as Second L i fe . F igure 18

d isp lays these tasks f rom h ighest ( text messaging) to lowest (ed i t ing a wik i ) engagement.

Respondents ind icated that they “very f requent ly” text message (36%) and use soc ia l

network ing s i tes (33%), as wel l as watch ing onl ine v ideos (16%), post ing a comment to a

websi te (13%), instant messaging, downloading media, or us ing Google Docs (a l l 11%).

F igure 18 - How often do you do the fol lowing (for school, work, or recreat ion)?

36%

33%

15%

13%

11%

11%

11%

7%

5%

4%

4%

23%

22%

22%

12%

15%

10%

14%

7%

7%

6%

3%

18%

16%

28%

19%

25%

21%

19%

13%

16%

12%

8%

2%

2%

5%

7%

11%

13%

13%

15%

12%

11%

13%

13%

10%

4%

4%

9%

10%

13%

18%

17%

16%

15%

13%

21%

17%

14%

6%

7%

8%

13%

9%

22%

17%

23%

20%

42%

35%

39%

54%

60%

69%

0%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

10%

9%

3%

9%

6%

26%

16%

Text message

Use social networking sites

Watch online videos

Post a comment on a website

Download music or videos

Instant message

Use Google Docs

Use Skype or another web calling program

Play online games

Listen to podcasts

Write a blog post

Visit a virtual world (Second Life, etc.)

Edit a wiki

Very frequently Frequently Occasionally Rarely Very rarely Never Haven't heard of it


28

Among the lowest engagement tasks l is ted, 69% of respondents ind icated that they “never”

ed i ted a wik i , v is i ted a v i r tua l wor ld (60%), or wrote a b log post (54%). Over ha l f o f

respondents ind icated that they on websi tes, downloaded music , instant messaged, use

Google Docs, or p layed on l ine games at least “ rare ly . ” Approx imate ly 90% of a l l

respondents texted, use soc ia l network ing s i tes, or watched onl ine v ideos, whi le c lose to as

many use Google Docs (70%) as IM (74%).

Respondents ’ lack of awareness of soc ia l

media and other technology opt ions is a lso

in terest ing to note. F igure 19 shows the

percentage of s tudents in the prev ious

quest ion that “hadn’ t heard” o f each too l .

The concept o f v is i t ing a v i r tua l wor ld was

unknown to 16% of par t ic ipants , Skype, and

podcasts , and Google Docs comment ing

were unknown to approx imate ly 9 -10% of the

survey populat ion, whereas wr i t ing a b log

post was unknown to 6%. Text ing, soc ia l

network ing, downloading music , comment ing

on websi tes, watch ing on l ine v ideos, were

c lose to ub iqu i tous ly recognized.

F igure 19 - Percentage of part ic ipants

who “Haven’t heard of i t”

Social Media Engagement In order to gauge the i r waxing and waning popular i ty among survey par t ic ipants , F igure 20

por t rays use f requency and change of d i f ferent soc ia l media too ls v ia the fo l lowing

categor ies: “Use i t a l l the t ime,” “Using i t more la te ly , ” “Use i t about as much,” “Using i t less

la te ly , ” Used to use i t , ” “Never used i t , ” and “Haven’ t heard of i t . ” Facebook and YouTube

were most l ike ly to be used “a l l the t ime” (44% and 31%, respect ive ly) as wel l as “more

la te ly” (Facebook at 9%, YouTube at 15%) and, somewhat paradoxica l ly , “ less la te ly”

(Facebook at 14%, YouTube at 19%). Those wi th the h ighest leve ls o f former use inc lude

MySpace (51%) and Twi t ter (11%). Tools most commonly known but not used were Twi t ter

(68%), F l ickr (58%). FourSquare, L inkedIn, and Yelp were a l l not used by approx imate ly

47% of s tudents . Respondents were most l ike ly not to have heard of FourSquare, L inkedIn,

Yelp, and F l ickr .

0%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

10%

9%

3%

9%

6%

26%

16%

Text message

Use social networking sites

Watch online videos

Post a comment on a website

Download music or videos

Instant message

Use Google Docs

Use Skype or another web

Play online games

Listen to podcasts

Write a blog post

Visit a virtual world (Second

Edit a wiki


29

F igure 20 - For each of the fol lowing web tools and social s i tes, select the best option.

Mobile Engagement A major i ty o f survey par t ic ipants (56%)

ind icated that they owned a web-enabled

mobi le dev ice such as a smartphone or iPad

( f igure 21) . Those who owned a web-

enabled mobi le dev ice (N = 1,453) were

asked to ind icate the f requency wi th which

they engaged in a var ie ty o f common mobi le

dev ice tasks, f rom updat ing a soc ia l media

prof i le to text ing to tak ing photos to reading

e-books (F igure 22) .

F igure 21 - Do you currently own a web-enabled mobile phone, smartphone, or handheld device such as an iPad?

2%

4%

5%

31%

44%

1%

2%

3%

15%

9%

1%

3%

2%

4%

7%

23%

10%

3%

1%

6%

12%

8%

8%

19%

14%

4%

2%

8%

51%

11%

4%

6%

8%

48%

47%

58%

30%

68%

46%

6%

14%

42%

48%

23%

2%

3%

27%

1%

0%

LinkedIn

FourSquare

Flickr

MySpace

TwiCer

Yelp

YouTube

Facebook

Use it all the Sme Using it more lately Use it about as much Using it less lately

Used to use it Never used it Haven't heard of it

Yes 56%

No 44%


30

Figure 22 - How often do you use your web-enabled mobile phone, smartphone, or handheld device to do the fol lowing?

S tudents were h igh ly engaged in and aware of many types of mobi le dev ice use. Text ing,

tak ing p ic tures, mobi le search ing, us ing soc ia l media s i tes, and sending emai l were a l l used

f requent ly or very f requent ly by a major i ty o f survey takers. Lowest use tasks inc luded

check ing in to locat ion-based serv ices and e-book reading. Seventy-seven percent o f

respondents used the i r mobi le dev ices for research; 19% did so “very f requent ly . ”

Academic Engagement

A survey i tem asked students to ind icate how of ten, when c lasses were in sess ion, that they

logged in to a course management system (CMS), used mul t imedia formats in c lass

ass ignments, contr ibuted to course-re la ted on l ine forums or d iscuss ions, and/or contacted

the i r inst ructors v ia emai l , IM, or phone.

10%

13%

19%

20%

21%

22%

26%

31%

31%

36%

37%

42%

42%

42%

62%

6%

5%

15%

12%

10%

14%

18%

15%

16%

22%

18%

15%

21%

21%

17%

12%

8%

16%

22%

19%

22%

16%

14%

21%

18%

19%

11%

16%

21%

11%

14%

10%

14%

15%

15%

13%

11%

9%

11%

8%

10%

7%

6%

7%

3%

15%

9%

13%

12%

12%

11%

9%

9%

7%

6%

6%

6%

4%

4%

3%

24%

34%

14%

13%

16%

10%

12%

15%

8%

5%

6%

13%

5%

2%

6%

9%

2%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

1%

12%

11%

7%

5%

7%

7%

6%

4%

6%

3%

4%

4%

3%

1%

2%

Read e-‐books

Check in to a locaSon-‐based service

Do research for an assignment

Play games

Download music

Watch videos

Conduct personal business

Make a status update

Download apps

Check informaSon (news, specific facts)

Send email

Check Facebook, MySpace, etc.

Use a search engine

Take pictures

Text message

Very frequently Frequently Occasionally Rarely Very rarely Never (doesn't interest me) Never (didn't know I could) Never (my phone/device can't)


31

Figure 23 - When classes are in session, about how often do you. . .

Figure 23 ind icates that a major i ty o f s tudents log in to the i r CMS at least occas ional ly , whi le

between to 40-50% used media in a c lass ass ignments or contr ibuted to on l ine course-

re la ted d iscuss ions at least occas ional ly . C lose to 20% of par t ic ipants repor ted contact ing

the i r inst ructors at least f requent ly .

Par t ic ipants were a lso asked to ra te the i r leve l o f agreement wi th the fo l lowing academic

technology-re la ted s ta tements: “Technology he lps me co l laborate wi th o ther s tudents , ”

Technology helps me be more product ive,” and “Technology helps me learn” (F igure 24) .

F igure 24 - For the fol lowing statements, choose the best answer.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Email, IM, or call your instructors?

Contribute to a class-‐related forum or online discussion?

Use images, video, or other media in a class assignment?

Log into your course management system (Moodle, Blackboard, etc.)?

Very frequently Frequently Occasionally Rarely Very rarely Never Didn't know I could

1% 2% 1% 4% 3% 2%

21% 18%

13%

49%

41%

46%

25%

36% 38%

Technology helps me collaborate with other students.

Technology helps me be more productive.

Technology helps me learn.

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree


32

Students were most l ike ly to s t rongly agree that technology supported learn ing and

product iv i ty , but somewhat less l ike ly to s t rongly agree that i t supported co l laborat ion wi th

o ther s tudents. Few students d isagreed or s t rongly d isagreed wi th any of the technology-

re la ted s ta tements.

S k i l l

To gauge leve ls o f se l f -perce ived prof ic iency, survey par t ic ipants were asked to ra te the i r

sk i l l leve ls in a var ie ty o f comput ing and research-re la ted tasks on a 1-5 sca le (1 = very

low, 5 = very h igh) . Accord ing to F igure 25, s tudents were most conf ident in the i r ab i l i t ies to

use word process ing sof tware such as Microsof t Word (4 .2) , us ing the web to f ind

in format ion for personal and academic use (4 .2, respect ive ly) . Students ra ted the i r web

research sk i l ls s ign i f icant ly more h igh ly than the i r l ib rary research sk i l ls (3 .5) . Respondents

ra ted themselves moderate ly sk i l led at us ing presentat ion sof tware (3 .7) , spreadsheets

(3 .1) , and course management system sof tware (3 .1) . Students were least conf ident us ing

graphics sof tware (2 .8) , address ing computer prob lems (2.6) , and creat ing and edi t ing web

pages (2.2) .

Figure 25 - What is your ski l l level with the fol lowing i tems (1 = very low, 5 = very

high)?

2.2

2.6

2.8

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

4.2

4.2

4.2

CreaSng and ediSng web pages

Fixing computer or sokware problems

Using graphics sokware (Photoshop, Acorn)

Using the course management system (Moodle, Blackboard)

Using spreadsheets (Excel)

Using the library to find informaSon for assignments

Using presentaSon sokware (PowerPoint, Prezi)

Using the internet to find informaSon for personal use

Using the internet to find informaSon for assignments

Using word processing sokware (Microsok Word, Open Office)


33

Accord ing to cross- tabulat ions, most sk i l l categor ies showed no s ign i f icant gender,

e thn ic i ty , or age-based d i f ferences. However, female- ident i f ied respondents were

s ign i f icant ly more l ike ly to character ize the i r ab i l i ty to f ix computer or sof tware problems as

“very low” (31% as compared to 17% of male respondents) , and notab ly more l ike ly to ra te

the i r l ib rary research ab i l i t ies as “very h igh” (23% versus 17%). Students who had engaged

in course-re la ted l ibrary inst ruct ion ra ted the i r l ib rary research ab i l i t ies on ly s l ight ly h igher

than those who had not (3 .7 versus 3.4) . However, those who have received l ibrary

inst ruct ion were more l ike ly to be f requent l ibrary users, have s ign i f icant ly h igher awareness

of l ib rary serv ices, and be more pos i t ive ly d isposed toward the l ibrary as wel l as recept ive

to technology-based l ibrary serv ices.


34

5 - L i b ra r y Techno logy Recep t i v i t y

To ass is t campus l ibrar ies in pr ior i t iz ing emerg ing technology development based on

s tudent input , the Library & Technology Engagement Survey asked respondents to ind icate

the i r in terest in a number of l ib rary-or iented mobi le and soc ia l too ls , f rom Facebook l ik ing

and Twi t ter fo l lowing to sending a ca l l number or renewing books v ia SMS or through a

mobi le app. The fo l lowing sect ion descr ibes survey populat ion in terest in emerg ing l ibrary

technolog ies in two sect ions, Socia l and Mobi le .

S o c i a l The fo l lowing survey i tem at tempted to ident i fy i f s tudents are suf f ic ient ly in terested in

in teract ing wi th l ibrary organizat ion in personal or “soc ia l ” spaces to warrant the i r

development (F igure 26) . L ibrary soc ia l media penetrat ion in to the CCC populat ion has wel l

F igure 26 - For each web tool and social s i te , would you "fr iend," "fol low," or "add" your campus l ibrary?

1%

1%

1%

1%

5%

9%

3%

4%

5%

8%

9%

10%

27%

33%

5%

5%

7%

10%

11%

11%

25%

25%

22%

22%

23%

22%

26%

21%

26%

17%

70%

68%

65%

59%

53%

57%

17%

17%

FourSquare

LinkedIn

Flickr

Yelp

MySpace

TwiCer

YouTube

Facebook

I already have Yes Maybe No I don't use this


35

begun: 9% of respondents ind icated that they had a l ready l iked a campus l ibrary prof i le on

Facebook, 5% watched l ibrary v ideos on YouTube, and 2% fo l lowed a l ibrary on Twi t ter . The

l ibrary prof i les or pages most l ike ly to be “ f r iended, fo l lowed, or added” by those not a l ready

do ing so are Facebook (33% yes, 25% maybe) and YouTube (27% yes, 25% maybe) – these

s i tes have equiva lent leve ls o f user penetra t ion, as wel l (83%). Twi t ter , MySpace, and Yelp

a l l demonstrate s imi lar in terest f igures (+/-10% yes, 21-26% maybe) as wel l as s imi lar ra tes

of par t ic ipant non-use (53-59%).

A re la t ive ly consis tent 21-27% of respondents were un interested in f r iending, fo l lowing, or

adding the l ibrary across a lmost a l l p la t forms; on ly Facebook, w i th 17% non- in terest , fe l l

be low th is range (par t ic ipants were tw ice as l ike ly than not to ind icate that they would

engage wi th a l ibrary on Facebook) . The soc ia l s i tes wi th lowest par t ic ipant use and l ibrary

engagement in terest inc luded FourSquare ( locat ion-based serv ice) , L inkedIn (profess ional

soc ia l network) , and F l ickr (photo shar ing serv ice) .

Open-Ended Assessment An opt ional open-ended i tem that asked par t ic ipants to descr ibe why they would or wouldn ’ t

engage wi th the i r l ib rary in soc ia l media spaces (N = 846) revealed that s tudent op in ion is

h igh ly po lar ized. Posi t ive verbat im responses ranged f rom an af f in i ty for l ib rar ies ( “ i love

l ibrar ies. why not?”) , a des i re to rece ive news and updates ( “ I guess i t would be n ice to

know what 's go ing on there.” ) and a hope that l ib rary soc ia l media engagement would

support academic success ( “ I t might have he lpfu l too ls for research or o ther school work.” )

Negat ive responses of ten ind icated that ex is t ing l ibrary serv ices were suf f ic ient ( “ I can go

d i rect ly in to i ts web; why would I [use l ibrary soc ia l media]?”) , that soc ia l s i tes should

remain separate f rom school act iv i t ies ( “ I use soc ia l network ing for more non-academic

purposes”) , or that the too ls were not o f in terest in the f i rs t p lace ( “Socia l too ls are a waste

of t ime.” ) In genera l , comments t rended more toward recept iv i ty than res is tance.

M o b i l e The fo l lowing survey i tem gauged whether users of web-enabled mobi le dev ices such as

smartphones, iPads, e tc . (N = 1,453) would be l ike ly to use the fo l lowing l ibrary -re la ted

funct ions or serv ices on the i r dev ices (F igure 27) .


36

Figure 27 - I f your mobile device supported the fol lowing l ibrary services, how l ikely would you be to use them?

In terest in mobi le l ib rary resources and serv ices far exceeded expectat ions, and can be

character ized even f rom a conservat ive s tandpoint as h igh ly pos i t ive. Across e leven

response categor ies, an average of 44% percent o f web-enabled mobi le dev ice owners

repor ted that they would be “very l ike ly” to use mobi le l ibrary serv ices and a fur ther 29%

ind icated that they were “ fa i r ly l ike ly” to do so. By compar ison, 14% reported that they were

“un l ike ly” to use mobi le l ib rary opt ions, whi le on ly 8% of repor ted that they would be “very

un l ike ly” to do so.

The categor ies that rece ived the h ighest pos i t ive recept ion f rom respondents were

funct ional , personal serv ices re la ted to l ib rary resources and operat ions; for example,

“Check your l ib rary account / renew books” and “Receive renewal or overdue not ices” on a

mobi le dev ice were each “very l ike ly” to be used by 54% of respondents, c lose ly fo l lowed by

49%

33%

33%

43%

42%

48%

48%

34%

46%

54%

54%

33%

29%

28%

31%

29%

32%

30%

27%

29%

26%

25%

4%

5%

4%

4%

5%

4%

4%

8%

6%

5%

6%

9%

23%

24%

15%

16%

10%

11%

21%

12%

9%

9%

6%

10%

11%

8%

8%

6%

7%

9%

7%

6%

6%

Find library hours, locaSons or phone numbers

Ask a librarian for help or advice via chat

Ask a librarian for help or advice via text message

Use library research guides and tutorials

Search for e-‐books in the catalog

Search for arScles in library databases

Search for books in the catalog

Send a call number from the catalog

Access online reserves

Receive renewal or overdue noSces

Check your library account/renew books

Very likely Fairly likely Not sure Unlikely Very unlikely


37

“F ind l ibrary hours, locat ions, or phone numbers” w i th a 49% “very l ike ly” ra t ing. Somewhat

less popular but s t i l l very wel l rece ived re la t ive to most categor ies of soc ia l technology

recept iv i ty were mobi le chat or text message help f rom a l ibrar ian and sending ca l l numbers

f rom the cata log.

I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r L i b r a r y T e c h n o l o g y D e v e l o p m e n t Socia l media too ls are among the lowest-cost and h ighest- impact technolog ies a l ibrary can

pursue, whi le mobi le p la t forms are an area of considerable user in terest that may carry a

h igher entry barr ier in terms of development resources and s taf f exper t ise. P i lo t survey

f ind ings across demographic , d iscovery, and campus populat ions demonstrate recept iveness

to l ib rary serv ices and resources of fered v ia mobi le p la t forms as wel l as dominant

mul t imedia and soc ia l media prov iders such as Facebook and YouTube.

The greatest in terest among survey respondents was for pract ica l , “ t rad i t ional ” l ib rary

funct ions t rans la ted to the mobi le env i ronment (hours and in format ion, mater ia ls not ices,

research too ls , e tc . ) , and for resource and l ibrary-re la ted news and in format ion channeled

through Facebook and YouTube. Tools on the low end of the user in terest spectrum

(branded locat ion-based serv ices, smal ler soc ia l media prov iders, and v i r tua l wor lds) res ide

there for d i f ferent reasons: locat ion-based serv ices are emerg ing and not yet wel l known,

MySpace cont inues to exper ience popular i ty dec l ine, Yelp and L inkedIn are n iche serv ices

wi th potent ia l ly unc lear l ibrary appl icat ions, and v i r tua l wor ld adopt ion has p la teaued in

compar ison to o ther soc ia l too ls .


38

Recommenda t i ons f o r S ta tew ide Imp lemen ta t i on

In the event that the Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey is adopted for w ider

implementat ion, the Pr inc ipa l Researcher and Work ing Group submit the fo l lowing

recommendat ions for cons iderat ion by the CCLCCC Execut ive Board [ f i rs t submit ted 14 Ju ly

2011, rev ised and resubmit ted 17 Ju ly 2011] .

Instrument Revisions 1) The LTES quest ionnaire should inc lude two demographic i tems that t rack a) se l f -

repor ted GPA and b) cumulat ive un i ts o f communi ty co l lege enro l lment in order to

corre la te l ibrary engagement and academic success.

2) Demographic i tems s imi lar but not equiva lent to s ta tewide metr ics (enro l lment s ta tus,

e thn ic i ty) should be rev ised to mir ror s ta te response arrays exact ly in order to enable

more accurate populat ion benchmark ing.

3) Response arrays should be consol idated or shor tened to f ive i tems or less (when

poss ib le) in order to increase complet ion ra tes and enable eas ier cross- tabulat ion

wi th in SurveyMonkey.

4) Demographic and other i tems us ing “check a l l that apply” and/or “o ther” opt ions

should be rev ised wi th a forced-choice s t ra tegy (when poss ib le) to s impl i fy analys is

and increase response qual i ty .

5) Category types ( in-c lass, in- l ibrary , web-based) on the survey i tem concern ing l ibrary

inst ruct ion (Q8) should be consol idated.

Administration 1) The CCLCCC Execut ive Board should re ta in ownership and admin is t ra t ive author i ty

over the LTES survey inst rument and co l lected data, reserv ing so le r ights to the i r

admin is t ra t ion and d is t r ibut ion.

2) Cal i forn ia Communi ty Col lege l ibrar ies should not conduct the LTES or any der ivat ion

thereof external to common survey admin is t ra t ions conducted by the CCLCCC

Execut ive Board.

3) The LTES should consis t o f one centra l ized survey inst rument and coord inated data

co l lect ion method managed through the CCLCCC SurveyMonkey account . The f i rs t

i tem on the quest ionnaire should require respondents to choose f rom a drop-down l is t

o f par t ic ipat ing inst i tu t ions.

4) The CCLCCC Execut ive Board should pursue statewide human subjects research

(HSR) exempt ion through the CCC Chancel lor ’s Of f ice. In the event that b lanket HSR


39

exempt ion is not feas ib le , par t ic ipat ing campuses should seek inst i tu t ional rev iew

board ( IRB) approval or exempt ion through loca l research of f ices.

5) To ensure longi tud ina l consis tency of data, the LTES quest ionnaire f rom the most

recent admin is t ra t ion should be dupl icated and carefu l ly rev iewed/ tested by a

CCLCCC Execut ive Board subcommit tee and/or support ing researchers before

subsequent admin is t ra t ion, but should be rev ised in as l im i ted a capaci ty as poss ib le

accord ing to research need and changes in the l ibrary / technology landscape.

6) The CCLCCC Execut ive Board should commit to long- term curat ion of LTES data and

consider the potent ia l benef i ts and/or HSR, etc . impl icat ions of dataset publ icat ion

and/or f ind ings d isseminat ion beyond the CCC communi ty .

7) Common promot ional language and a shor tened survey URL (see Appendix A) should

be d is t r ibuted by the CCLCCC Execut ive Board to par t ic ipat ing campuses to ensure

consis tency of messaging and s tudent access.

8) The survey should be co l lect ive ly deployed in mid-Fal l or mid-Spr ing semester on an

annual or b iennia l bas is , and SurveyMonkey support s ta f f should be consul ted as to

any technica l l im i ta t ions re la ted to h igh ra tes of re turn pr ior to admin is t ra t ion.

9) Equiva lent incent iv izat ion should be required of a l l campuses (one randomly awarded

$100 cash pr ize per inst i tu t ion is recommended).

10) Web-based admin is t ra t ion should be pursued whenever poss ib le to ensure cost

contro l and data consis tency among par t ic ipat ing inst i tu t ions. The addi t ional

impl icat ions (data entry , coord inat ion, e tc . ) invo lved in paper-based admin is t ra t ion of

an exact dupl icate of the on l ine quest ionnaire should be understood by par t ic ipat ing

campuses.

11) LTES inst i tu t ions should rece ive f i l tered, campus-speci f ic datasets and summary

repor ts in mul t ip le formats (PDF, CSV, Excel , SPSS, etc . ) for loca l analys is , a

summary s ta tewide repor t , and ( i f sampl ing consis tency and resources permit ) a

benchmark ing repor t cross- tabulated wi th campuses of s imi lar s ize & ra tes of re turn.

12) Recogniz ing the l imi ta t ions of survey research, par t ic ipat ing l ibrar ies should

consider supplement ing LTES f ind ings wi th qual i ta t ive and/or e thnographic inquiry to

ensure a wel l - rounded por t raya l o f s tudent l ib rary and technology engagement.

Sampling Strategies 1) The CCLCCC Execut ive Board should mainta in an annual matr ix o f sampl ing

s t ra teg ies used by par t ic ipat ing inst i tu t ions (see Table 1) .

2) At the campus leve l , random or a l l -campus emai l sampl ing f rom a f rame of a l l

enro l led s tudents should be pursued whenever poss ib le to produce survey data about

which accurate and genera l izab le conclus ions can be drawn.


40

3) Par t ic ipat ing l ibrar ies should coord inate wi th loca l research or o ther admin is t ra t ive

of f ices to ident i fy a probabi l i ty sample or fac i l i ta te an a l l -s tudent emai l .

4) In the event that a l l -s tudent emai l or probabi l i ty sampl ing is not feas ib le a t the i r

locat ion, par t ic ipant l ib rar ies should understand the impact o f the i r promot ional

s t ra tegy on loca l and s tatewide genera l izab i l i ty o f data and take adequate measures

to a) compare respondents to campus FTE based on s ta te- t racked demographic data

po ints , and/or b) weight data to account for populat ion d iscrepancies dur ing analys is .


41

Conc lus i on

The Library Technology Engagement Survey pi lo t demonstrates that campus l ibrar ies at

Cal i forn ia communi ty co l leges are act ive ly contr ibut ing to the s tudent exper ience, prov id ing

much-needed quiet and safe spaces for co l laborat ion and s tudy, o f fer ing personal ized

ass is tance, and fac i l i ta t ing access to technology and resources many s t ruggle to a f ford.

Through coord inated user research, CCC l ibrar ies can equip themselves to meet the

common chal lenge of understanding user communi t ies whi le creat ing responsive serv ice and

operat ional s t ra teg ies that leverage l im i ted resources.8

An unexpected outcome of th is in i t ia t ive was conveying a sense of l ib rary investment in the

l ives and learn ing processes of Cal i forn ia communi ty co l lege s tudents, thus engender ing

goodwi l l among many par t ic ipants . Apprec ia t ion for the opportun i ty to prov ide personal input

was c lear ly communicated in responses to the conclud ing quest ionnaire i tem, which inv i ted

f ina l comments or suggest ions. In more than 800 addi t ional submiss ions, a great number

expressed a s imple apprec ia t ion for l ib rar ies, as in “L ibrar ies are awesome. We just have to

use them to f igure that out , ” and, “A l ibrary that is equiped [s ic ] w i th the modern too ls - new

books, computers, e tc . - and support ive s ta f f can h igh ly impact the s tudents ’ learn ing

exper ience.” Others commented pos i t ive ly on the pro ject and i ts goals : “Great survey! Glad

to be a par t o f i t . :D I hope there wi l l a lways be new changes in the fu ture to improve our

school , ” and, “ I th ink th is survey was a good idea to get more feedback on the l ibrary

system.”

I f implemented throughout Cal i forn ia communi ty co l leges on an annual or b iennia l bas is , the

LTES can support l ib rar ies, academic technology un i ts , and inst i tu t ional research of f ices in

the process of programmat ic eva luat ion and resource pr ior i t izat ion. I t can a lso prov ide a

means to demonstrate investment in s tudent success and achieve inc identa l outreach and

educat ion ga ins among current and untapped user populat ions.

8 Deiss, K., & M. Petrowski. (2009). ACRL strategic thinking guide for academic librarians in the new economy. http://connect.ala.org/node/76577


42

Append i x A : Common P romo t i ona l Language Students! How do you use technology and libraries? Tell us for a chance to win $100.

We need your he lp to understand how Cal i forn ia communi ty co l lege s tudents use technology

and l ibrar ies - p lease take our survey. I t is about 25 quest ions and should take you 15-20

minutes to complete. Your par t ic ipat ion is vo luntary and anonymous, and your honest ,

thorough responses wi l l he lp par t ic ipat ing l ibrar ies prov ide you wi th bet ter serv ices.

We wi l l be co l lect ing responses f rom February 7th unt i l March 7th.

You wi l l be asked for bas ic contact in format ion at the end *only* i f you want to enter a cash

pr ize drawing for $100 at each campus. You may only take th is survey i f you are a current ly

enro l led s tudent a t one of the represented campuses, and you can enter the drawing once.

h t tp : / /www.t inyur l .com/ l ib techsurvey

Note on privacy and confidential i ty: A l l responses and personal in format ion wi l l be kept

conf ident ia l , and you wi l l not be contacted for fo l low-up surveys. I f you prov ide your emai l

address for the pr ize drawing, i t w i l l not be shared, s tored, or associated wi th your

responses in any way. I f you have any quest ions or concerns, p lease emai l

cc l techsurvey@gmai l .com.


43

Append i x B : LTES Su r vey Ques t i onna i r e The fo l lowing survey inst rument was used in the 2011 LTES P i lo t ; a rev ised instrument for

fu ture implementat ion fo l lows in Appendix C, whi le an open access template is ava i lab le at

t inyur l .com/ l tes-oatemplate. Appendix C rev is ions are based on content and demographic

suggest ions f rom the Pr inc ipa l Researcher and CCLCCC Execut ive Board.


44


45


46


47


48


49


50


51


52


53


54

Append i x C : Rev i sed LTES Ques t i onna i r e Th is rev ised and f ina l survey inst rument was submit ted to the CCL Execut ive Board

fo l lowing the 2011 LTES P i lo t . I t w i l l serve as the bas is for fu ture s ta tewide survey

implementat ions. Note : Cal i forn ia communi ty co l leges may not admin is ter th is survey

outs ide of CCLCCC coord inat ion . A open access template quest ionnaire is avai lab le for non-

Cal i forn ia communi ty co l lege adaptat ion at t inyur l .com/ l tes-oatemplate.


55


56


57


58


59


60


61


62


63


64


65

Con tac t , C i t a t i on , & Copy r i gh t I n f o rma t i on

I f you have quest ions about th is s tudy or i ts open access quest ionnaire template

( t inyur l .com/ l tes-oatemplate) , p lease v is i t www.cc lccc.org/contact .h tml or emai l

charbooth@gmai l .com.

Th is repor t is l icensed under a Creat ive Commons At t r ibut ion-NonCommerc ia l -ShareAl ike

3.0 Unported L icense. To c i te th is work:

Booth, C. (2011). Cal i forn ia Communi ty Col lege Student L ibrary & Technology Engagement

Survey: 2011 Pi lo t , F ina l Report . Sacramento, CA: Counci l o f Chief L ibrar ians of Cal i forn ia

Communi ty Col leges, ava i lab le f rom ht tp : / /www.cc lccc.org/ .

Abou t t he Au tho r /P r i nc i pa l Resea rche r

Char Booth is Inst ruct ion Serv ices Manager & E-Learn ing L ibrar ian at the Claremont

Col leges L ibrary . An ALA Emerging Leader and Library Journal Mover and Shaker, Char

advocates for l ib rary cu l tures of exper imentat ion and assessment, f ree and open source

so lu t ions to l ibrary susta inabi l i ty , and instruct ional des ign and pedagogica l t ra in ing in

l ibrary educat ion. She completed a Masters in Computer Educat ion and Technology at Ohio

Univers i ty in 2008, a Masters of Sc ience in In format ion Stud ies at the Univers i ty o f Texas at

Aust in School o f In format ion in 2005, and a Bachelor o f Ar ts in His tory at Reed Col lege in

Port land, Oregon, in 2001. Char b logs at in fomat ional .com and tweets @charbooth.

California Community College Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey: 2011 Pilot, Final...

Education

Transcript of California Community College Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey: 2011 Pilot, Final...