Electronic information interactions with the university student: an Australian/UK

cross-national study

I3 - information: interactions and impact

Ruth Stubbings and Graham WaltonLoughborough University

Content

background the issues project outlines, methodology and challenges

results effectiveness and quality of interactions information interactions in different contexts impact of information interactions on people and space

lessons, issues and the future

Background: Reasons for exploring students’ interaction with information and its impact

Nature of impact and interaction is changing rapidly

move from print to electronic information PC use central to many areas of learning increasing use of group study and assessment different learning styles use of pcs proliferating across campus (including Library)

different student expectations and needs in 2006 / 7

Background

Explore how students’ relationship with electronic information was evolving across both Universities

how students choose what labs to use what software students frequently use when they use PCs joint with La Trobe, Australia

La Trobe University, Bundoora Campus

Loughborough University

Background: project partners

Ruth Stubbings,Academic ServicesManager,Loughborough University

Graham Walton,Service DevelopmentManager,Loughborough University

Liz Burke, AssociateLibrarian (Reader Services), University of Western Australia

Lea Beranek,Resource DeliveryServices & Audiovisual Collection Development Librarian,La Trobe University

Background: key players

Results: Category of Respondents

Libr

ary

Com

pute

r Stu

dy H

all

Dep

t/Fac

ulty

Hom

e/Ha

lls W

irele

ss n

etw

ork

Oth

er

Undergraduates

Postgraduates

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Count of Clients

PREFERRED LOCATION

CATEGORY 1

CLIENT CATEGORY 1 vs PREFERRED LOCATION

La Trobe Uni (Bundoora Campus) Loughborough University

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Count of Clients

PREFERRED LOCATION

CATEGORY 1

CLIENT CATEGORY 1 vs PREFERRED LOCATION

both institutions had a similar number of responses to the Survey.

La Trobe (757 responses)

Loughborough (697)

majority of respondents were undergraduate and full time

Effectiveness and quality of the interaction

Effectiveness and quality of the interaction

range of different applications used

factors that influence where to use applications / information

role of information literacy

Range: applications frequently used in the libraries

Applications frequently used in the libraries

0102030405060708090

100

Applications

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

res

po

ns

es

La Trobe Loughborough

Lboro: criteria for choosing PC location

Importance of criteria for choosing where to use a PC at Loughborough

01020304050607080

Criteria

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

res

po

nd

en

ts

Library

Computing Services

Departmental labs

Lboro: adequacy of services by lab

How Adequately Various Services and Facilities were provided in the different labs at Loughborough

01020304050607080

Ope

ning

hrs

Loca

tion

Sof

twar

e

Prin

tfa

cilit

ies

Nr

frie

nds

Phy

sica

len

viro

n

Clo

se to

reso

urce

s

Sup

port

avai

labl

e

Imm

edia

teav

aila

bilit

y

Per

sona

lsa

fety

Age

of

com

pute

r

Cos

t of

prin

ting

Oth

er

Criteria

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

res

po

nd

en

ts

Library Com puting Services Departm ental labs

Information literacy implications

students use Internet a lot

students do not use e-journals or MetaLib a lot

do they know what the resources are?

Information interactions in different contexts

Information interactions in different contexts

similarities: range of software frequency impact of economics (printing costs and

specialist software)

differences: preferred locations selection process for labs

Results: similarities between institutions

students expected to have immediate access to a PC more individual rather than group use of PCs most used applications: Internet, Microsoft Office and

e-mail least used applications: library portals and e-journals students perceived printing was too expensive

restrictive to have specialist software in specific labs

Results: preferred location for use of PCs

Comparison between institutions regarding preferred location for use of PCs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Preferred location

Per

cen

tag

e o

f re

spo

nd

ents

La Trobe Loughborough

Results: how often respondents used PCs in Library

Comparison between institutions regarding how often respondents use PCs in the Library

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

i. Severaltimes a day

ii. Oncea day

iii. Morethan once a

week

iv. Oncea week

v. Once amonth

vi. Lessthan once a

month

vii. Never

Frequency

Per

cen

tag

e o

f re

spo

nd

ents

La Trobe Loughborough

Results Lboro: frequency of PC use in labs

Comparison of frequency of PC use in different PC labs across campus

0102030405060708090

i.Severaltimes a

day

ii.Once a

day

iii.Morethan

once aweek

iv.Once aweek

v.Once amonth

vi.Lessthan

once amonth

vii.Never

Frequency of us of PCs at each location

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

res

po

nd

en

ts

Library Computer Halls Faculty / Dept Labs Halls of residence Wireless

Results: reasons for choosing different labs

La Trobe all three locations, top two

reasons same availability of PCs print facilities

third reason varied

Library & Departmental lab location

Computing Services opening hours

Lboro Library

opening hours environment availability of PCs

Computing Services availability of PCs location opening hours

Departmental labs software availability of PCs opening hours

Impact of information interaction on people and space

Impact of information interaction on people and space

what expectations do students have from Library from its physical space?

what expectations do students have from Library from its virtual space?

Physical space

Background: Loughborough University study on Library space use by students

Library space survey how often various study spaces are used how long people spend in the Library reasons for library use and library non use importance of various factors in choosing Library

space views on environment

Background: variety of study spaces in Loughborough University Library

Results Lboro: reasons for using the Library

1. Accessing resources :“I study in the Library as I have all resources to hand regardless of what I am doing (revising, coursework, research)”

2. Using learning space:“There is a good variety of atmospheres: i.e. Level 3 is noisy and busy, Levels 1 and 2 are good for serious work”

3. Learning environment: “It provides minimal distraction when I need to concentrate and get a piece of work done and When I see other students it encourages me to study”

Results Lboro: frequency of use of different spaces in Library

0

50

100

150

200

250

Group

study

rooms

Individual

carrels

Level 1

(no pcs)

Level 1

(pcs)

Level 2

(no pcs)

Level 2

(pcs)

Open3 Rest of

Level 3

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Once a year

Never

No answer

Results Lboro: space used in Library on daily basis

0

1020

30

4050

60

Group

stud

y roo

m

Indiv

idual

carre

ls

Leve

l 1 (n

o pc

s)

Leve

l 1 (p

cs)

Leve

l 2(n

o pc

s)

Leve

l 2 (p

cs)

Open3

Rest o

f Lev

el 3

Results Lboro: space types where need identified for more provision in Library

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Open3 Rest of

Level 3

PC

cluster

Level 2 Level 1 Group

Study

Room

Study

carrels

Virtual space

Virtual space

video conference on 7th June 2007 between library staff from both Loughborough University and University of Western Australia

overview of how Web 2.0 technologies are being used

Emerging issues on Web 2.0 applications in the two Universities

wide range of applications (blogs/ wikis/ podcasts/ RSS feed/ digital video)

low level of integration with services

uncertainty about whether: appropriate to have library profile on social

networking sites (e.g. Facebook) investment is justified

Lessons

students from two different institutions across the world want similar things:

access to PCs and software at a location & time that suits them

cheaper printing physical space is important

Issues

resources finance time staff expertise

building restrictions no room for more PCs need more electrical sockets for wireless laptops some labs seen as ‘not nice’

The future - 1

need for closer collaboration between different stakeholders

provision of thin client options to make applications more widely available

printing continues to be key and has to develop

cannot ignore physical environment where students interact with IT

The future - 2

continuously question assumptions

enhance interactions by increasing flexibility

make sure information providers have informed insight into how students interact with information

Acknowledgement

we would like to thank our project partners: Lea Beranek Liz Burke