Library User Survey 2017 Results << YOUR IMAGE GOES IN THE WHITE SPACE>>
Library User Survey - University of Virginiaassessment.library.virginia.edu/files/2012/11/PPT-2017-User-Survey... · Library User Survey ... Cost of individual materials for a course
constituencies, and services• Is strongly linked to the
decision-making process• Provides a sound basis for
budget decisions, resource allocation, and plans for institutional improvement.
Virgo Satisfaction
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Satisfaction with Virgo has increased with all user constituencies over the past year. This continues the trend of increasing satisfaction over the past 5 years.
Virgo Satisfaction
• All user groups have increased satisfaction with Virgo, both this year and over the previous 5 years.
• Changes to Virgo have stemmed from previous surveys and usability. Examples include interface changes and new features, including enhanced availability indicators and changes to enhance known item searching.
• Next Steps: Continued research and testing to drive the continuous improvement cycle.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
All user groups have increased satisfaction with Virgo, both this year and over the previous 5 years. Changes to Virgo have stemmed from previous surveys and usability. Examples include interface changes and new features, including enhanced availability buttons and changes to enhance known item searching. Next Steps: Continued research and testing to drive the continuous improvement cycle.
Cost of Course MaterialsText text text text text. Text text text text text. Text text text text text. Text text text text text. Text text text text text. Text text text text text. Text text text text text.
Not at allimportant
Slightlyimportant
Moderatelyimportant
Veryimportant
Extremelyimportant
Does notapply
Total cost of all materials for a semester 4.59% 5.50% 30.28% 31.19% 20.18% 8.26%Cost of individual materials for a course 4.59% 2.75% 31.19% 36.70% 17.43% 7.34%Time needed to gather a list of course materials 7.34% 4.59% 31.19% 33.94% 12.84% 10.09%On-line availability 3.67% 7.34% 18.35% 36.70% 29.36% 4.59%Print availability 7.41% 5.56% 28.70% 33.33% 20.37% 4.63%Open access materials 8.26% 8.26% 27.52% 27.52% 20.18% 8.26%Library access 5.56% 4.63% 17.59% 31.48% 33.33% 7.41%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Faculty: Course Material Assembly Considerations
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Faculty indicate that all of our cost and format aspects of course material assembly are important. For graduate students who teach, the results are very similar.
Cost of Course MaterialsText text text text text. Text text text text text. Text text text text text. Text text text text text. Text text text text text. Text text text text text. Text text text text text.
Not at allimportant
Slightlyimportant
Moderatelyimportant Very important Extremely
important Does not apply
Total cost of all materials for a semester 17.69% 23.01% 26.06% 15.03% 15.29% 2.93%Cost of individual materials for a course 17.47% 23.07% 25.87% 16.13% 14.80% 2.67%On-line availability 23.14% 18.75% 22.47% 18.35% 12.90% 4.39%Print availability 20.53% 17.73% 23.47% 20.00% 14.00% 4.27%Availability of other editions 29.24% 21.23% 22.96% 14.55% 6.68% 5.34%Ability to share course materials 23.40% 18.45% 22.19% 19.79% 10.70% 5.48%Library access 20.81% 15.03% 20.67% 19.46% 18.39% 5.64%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Undergrad: Considerations when Registering for a Course
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Undergrads do not indicate the same level of importance when registering for courses; in fact there are indications that some aspects are not at all important to a substantial number of Undergrads. Why are these aspects so important to Faculty and so much less so to Undergraduates? We can do a look into SERU data and the UVA Common data set to find indications about why UVA Undergraduates would have less concern about costs of materials (ex. Comparisons to peer public institutions with SERU data, financial aid peer comparisons with the Common data set)
Please rate the importance of the following when you are registering for a course:
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Taking a deeper look into the considerations of those Undergraduates who DO indicate that total cost of materials for a semester are very/extremely important when they are registering for a course. This slide is based on using this as a filter. 228 (about 30%) of Undergrads indicate that, when registering for a course, the total cost of materials was either very or extremely important. Of those 228, 204 also indicate that cost of individual materials for a course was very or extremely important. Of those 228, 163 (71% of the 228) indicate that Library access was very or extremely important. Only 12 indicate that Library access was not at all important. Compare this to the 38% of all Undergraduate respondents who indicate that Library access is very or extremely important. Also, while format is at least moderately important to most, there does not seem to be a clear preference for one over the other, at least when we are looking at print and online materials. A higher percentage of those Undergrads who indicate that total cost of materials for a semester is very/extremely important are frequent (weekly/monthly users of both physical and online materials and are frequent interactors with Library staff and with the Library website than Undergrads overall (56% frequent online for the filterered group, 48 for the overall; 31% frequent physical users for the filtered group, 25% for the overall; 20% frequent interactors with Library staff for the filtered group, 15% for the overall; 50% interactors with the Library website in the filtered group, 37.5 for overall)
Access to Collections in Ivy
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
Undergrad Grad Faculty
Requested materials from LEO/ILL
Access to Collections in Ivy• Based on the survey, we project that 64% of Undergrads (~9,500) may
need access to physical materials in any given year
• Currently, according to survey, 12% of Undergrads (~1900) indicate that they have used LEO/ILL
• These means that there will likely be an increased demand for resources to support Ivy requests—both for staffing and user training
22,315
26,208
21,961
Ald Checkouts by Constituent
Faculty Grad Undergrad
1,461
1,246
527
Ivy Checkouts by Constituent
Faculty Grad Undergrad
70,484 3,234
Total Checkouts Ivy and Ald
Ald Ivy
Undergrad-Primary Library
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Overall satisfaction has increased for both faculty and undergrads, while grad students have not seen a similar rise
Grad-Primary Library
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Overall satisfaction has increased for both faculty and undergrads, while grad students have not seen a similar rise
Faculty-Primary Library
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Overall satisfaction has increased for both faculty and undergrads, while grad students have not seen a similar rise
Undergrad-Space Enhancement
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Overall satisfaction has increased for both faculty and undergrads, while grad students have not seen a similar rise
Grad-Space Enhancement
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Overall satisfaction has increased for both faculty and undergrads, while grad students have not seen a similar rise
Grad Students Left Behind
3.90
3.95
4.00
4.05
4.10
4.15
4.20
4.25
4.30
4.35
Undergrad Grad Faculty
Overall Satisfaction 2016-20172016 2017
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Overall satisfaction has increased for both faculty and undergrads, while grad students have not seen a similar rise
Grad Students Left BehindUndergrad Grad Faculty
Very dissatisfied 1.32% 10.67% 8.11%
Somewhat dissatisfied 2.64% 1.33% 2.70%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 7.93% 5.33% 7.21%
Somewhat satisfied 38.33% 38.67% 20.72%
Very satisfied 49.78% 44.00% 61.26%
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The dissatisfaction profile of graduate students is similar to faculty, while the satisfaction profile is similar to undergrads, making the worst of both worlds.
Grad Students Left Behind• Strong dissatisfaction is not reflected in measured satisfaction
with individual services. Need to find the source(s) of discontent.
• While intense users of library services, they do not share the high satisfaction with the library that faculty do. Need to find the disconnect between use and satisfaction.
• Next steps: Begin treating grad students as a separate constituency, not simply as an extension of faculty or undergrads. Research how graduate students are different and modify next year’s survey and user research efforts accordingly.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Strong dissatisfaction is not reflected in measured satisfaction with individual services. Need to find the source(s) of discontent. While intense users of library services, they do not share the high satisfaction with the library that faculty do. Need to find the disconnect between use and satisfaction. Next steps: Begin treating grad students as a separate constituency, not simply as an extension of faculty or undergrads. Research how graduate students are different and modify next year’s survey and user research efforts accordingly.
Professional Research Staff• Have not been surveyed before.
• Includes Research Associates (Postdocs), and Senior Professional Research Staff (Research Scientists, Senior Scientists and Principal Scientists).
• Respondents primarily in School of Medicine, Arts & Sciences (in the science departments), and Engineering (but with a handful in Curry).
• We only used the non-SOM responses (52) for this analysis.
PRS similar to FacultyUndergrad Grad Faculty PRS
Very dissatisfied 1% 11% 8% 4%
Somewhat dissatisfied 3% 1% 3% 6%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 8% 5% 7% 8%
Somewhat satisfied 38% 39% 21% 31%
Very satisfied 50% 44% 61% 52%
Presenter
Presentation Notes
(non-School of Medicine) Professional Research Staff, including Postdocs and the Senior Professional Research Staff (Research Faculty) have overall satisfaction similar to Faculty/Undergrads (distinct from Graduate Students). Overall satisfaction is 4.21. No trend data, because this is the first time we’ve surveyed this group.
PRS and Research ToolsPRS only
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Word Cloud for just the PRS highlights their interests (online access to journals and books, databases).
<< YOUR IMAGE GOES IN THE WHITE SPACE>>
Overall
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Compare with previous slide
PRS - Primary Library
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Much different distribution than other populations, reflecting the STEM focus of this population (Online/NoPrimary accounts for 39% of users, Brown plus science satellites 30%, Alderman and Clemons only 19%).
PRS and Research Tools
Presenter
Presentation Notes
There are a lot of tools they haven’t heard of but are interested in (most popular response) – Opportunity for Outreach. Some categories of tools have low recognition (Libguides; DMPTool, Pivot, ShareLaTeX). Citation Management Tools seem to have the best awareness and use.
