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

P r e s en t ed t o th e C o u n c i l o f C h i ef L i b r a r i an s o f C a l if o r n i a C o m m u ni t y C o l le g e s E x e c u t iv e B o a r d By C h a r Bo o th & th e L i b r a r y & T e c h n o l o g y S u r v e y W o r k i n g G r o up 1 4 J u l y 2 0 1 1 R e v i s ed R ec o m m e n d at i o n s S u b m i tt ed 1 7 J u ly 2 0 1 1 , F i n a l R e p o r t 2 5 S e p te m b e r 2 0 1 1

Introduction 1Executive Summary 21 - Methodology 62 - Demographics 123 – Library Engagement 164 - Technology Engagement 245 - Library Technology Receptivity 34Recommendations for Statewide Implementation 38Conclusion 41Appendix A: Common Promotional Language 42Appendix B: LTES Pilot Questionnaire 43Appendix C: LTES Revised Questionnaire 54Contact, Citation, & Copyright Information 65About the Author/Principal Researcher 65

Table 1 – Matrix of Sampling Strategies by Campus ...................................................... 7Figure 1 - What community college do you attend? ........................................................ 8Table 2 - Response and Returns ..................................................... ............................. 8Figure 2 - How did you find out about this survey? Check all that apply. .......................... 9Figure 3 - How old are you? ....................................................................................... 12Table 3 - Statewide Enrollment by Age, Fall 2010 ........................................................ 12Figure 4 - What best represents your ethnicity? Choose all that apply. ........................... 13Table 4 - Statewide Enrollment by Ethnicity, Fall 2010 ............................................. .... 13Figure 5 - What is your gender? ................................................................................ 13Figure 6 - What best describes your enrollment status? Check all that apply. ................. 14Figure 7 - Which of the following best describes your reasons/goals for attending communitycollege? Check all that apply. .................................................................................... 15Figure 8 - When classes are in session, about how often do you.................................... 16Figure 9 - Cross-tabulation of “How did you learn about this survey?” with Library Use ... 18 Figure 10 - Check all of the ways you have accessed class readings, textbooks, and otherschool-related materials in the past year. .................................................................... 19Figure 11 - For each of the following statements, choose the best answer. .................... 21Figure 12 - Have you ever attended a workshop or presentation from a community collegelibrarian... ................................................................................................................ 22Figure 13 - Impact of Library Instruction on Library Use and Awareness ......................... 22Figure 14 - Impact of Library Instruction on Library Perceptions .................................... 23Figure 15 - Which of the following statements is most accurate? ................................... 24Figure 16 - Do you own the following items, and, if so, how old is the most recentpurchase? ................................................................................................................ 25Figure 17 - About how many hours do you spend USING THE WEB in a typical week for thefollowing purposes? .................................................................................................. 26Figure 18 - How often do you do the following (for school, work, or recreation? .............. 27Figure 19 - Percentage of participants who “Haven’t heard of it” .................................... 28Figure 20 - For each of the following web tools and social sites, select the best option. ... 29Figure 21 - Do you currently own a web-enabled mobile phone, smartphone, or handhelddevice such as an iPad? ........................................................................................... 29

Figure 22 - How often do you use your web-enabled mobile phone, smartphone, or handhelddevice to do the following? ........................................................................................ 30Figure 23 - When classes are in session, about how often do you.................................. 31Figure 24 - For the following statements, choose the best answer. ................................ 31Figure 25 - What is your skill level with the following items (1 = very low, 5 = veryhigh)? ...................................................................................................................... 32Figure 26 - For each web tool and social site, would you "friend," "follow," or "add" yourcampus library? ........................................................................................................ 34Figure 27 - Figure 27 - If your mobile device supported the following library services, howlikely would you be to use them? ............................................................................... 36

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 In 2010, the Executive Board of the Council of Chief Librarians of California Community Colleges (CCLCCC) initiated the California Community College Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey, a five-campus pilot research project intended to provide actionable insight into the library, information, and learning technology ecologies of student populations across California. This effort arose from an acknowledgement that, at a time of widespread transition and resource scarcity in higher education, robust inquiry is needed at the campus level to understand the diversity of user needs and characteristics. If known, these factors can facilitate a streamlined library and academic technology framework that supports student learning through evidence-based practice. The Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey was designed to address the following goals: • Understand local users. Examine the library, information, communication, and academic technology characteristics of California community college (CCC) students. • Track technology trends. Chart the use of emerging media platforms and communication tools by CCC students. • Support learning needs. Determine the library’s role in the personal learning environments of CCC students, and identify how to respond more strategically to academic/information needs. • Prioritize and refine services. Evaluate and adapt traditional and tech-based library services based on user insight. • Foster cohesion. Provide a common user research strategy for CCC libraries. In coordination with the CCL Executive Board, principal researcher Char Booth and a Working Group of pilot participant library directors, including Tim Karas of Mission College (Chair), John Koetzner of Mendocino College, Kenley Neufeld of Santa Barbara City College, Choonhee Rhim of East Los Angeles Community College, and Susan Walsh of Merced College, developed and administered the study between Fall of 2010 and Spring of 2011. This report describes the design process and initial findings of this pilot, concluding with recommendations for scaling a similar research strategy to the statewide level. Char Booth September 20111

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 In response to pervasive resource insecurity and technology change throughout academia, the California Community College Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey pilot was developed to provide campus-specific and comprehensive insight into two areas of inquiry: student library engagement (use, perceptions, awareness, receptivity) and technology engagement (adoption, ownership, use, perceptions) in personal and educational contexts. Scope This research project was conceived in early fall 2010, developed through winter 2011, and administered on a trial basis between February 7 and March 7 of 2011. Five colleges comprised the initial group of Library & Technology Engagement Survey (LTES) participants: East Los Angeles College, Mendocino Community College, Merced College, Mission College, and Santa Barbara City College. These campuses reflect the diversity of enrollment sizes, socio-economic/cultural contexts, and urban/suburban/rural environments characteristic of California community colleges (CCCs). Purpose In its pilot phase, this initiative was not intended to produce a set of findings generalizable to community college students across the state of California or beyond. Rather, it was created to test the practical feasibility of three outcomes within the research contexts of CCC campuses: 1. To create a centrally administered, longitudinal, and pragmatic student survey strategy that could be joined with minimal resource outlay by any CCC campus. 2. To produce a centralized data set as well as filtered, campus-specific findings that could be easily communicated to participating institutions. 3. To deliver recommendations for questionnaire revisions and campus-level sampling strategies for broader survey implementation in 2011-12. Iteratively designed, researcher reviewed, and field-tested to ensure reliability and validity, the survey instrument should nonetheless be subjected to additional testing if revised and adopted for statewide use by CCLCCC.2

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 Research Design The LTES instrument (Appendix B) consisted of 28 multiple-choice and open-ended questions (some required and others optional) and was deployed primarily online with selective print administration. In recognition of the myriad institutional conditions that would confront a research initiative involving up to 110 colleges in 72 districts, pilot campuses employed distinct sampling strategies based on contextual factors and feasibility of coordination with local offices of institutional research or other academic support units. These strategies included: • All-student email promotion at East Los Angeles College. • On-campus flyering, faculty outreach, library workshop administration, library/college website linking, and librarian word-of-mouth promotion at Mendocino College. • All-student email promotion, library website and Facebook linking at Merced College. • Selective in-class multimodal (paper and online) sampling at Mission College. • Social media (Twitter, Facebook) posting, library website and student portal linking, and word-of-mouth promotion at Santa Barbara City College. Delivered exclusively online at four campuses, in-class participants at Mission College completed an identical print version of the questionnaire (distance learners completed the web survey form). A $100 cash prize was offered to a randomly selected student at each campus, incentivization contained in common survey promotional language (Appendix A). Returns A total of 3,168 students from five pilot campuses attempted the LTES survey at an 80% rate of completion and a 12% average rate of return based on estimated full time enrollment (FTE) at the time of the survey (N = 25,625). Campus participation as a percentage of aggregate responses varied according to sampling method and FTE, with a sizeable majority representing two all-student email administration and medium-to-large enrollment colleges, East LA and Merced (74% of total responses). Generalizability This report provides a combined snapshot of student library and technology attitudes and behaviors captured through different sampling methods at five CCC campuses. Findings described herein should not be interpreted as representative of all CCC students, and generalizability of institutional data varies based on promotional strategies and rates of return. Although detailed findings specific to their campuses have been communicated to3

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 pilot institutions, this report is not intended to (nor do disparate promotional methods permit) close comparison of library and technology engagement between campuses. Rather, it is a study in the implications and feasibility of coordinated, library-sponsored research among California community colleges, and indicative of the types of insight that could be gained at the local and systemwide level by a broader implementation in subsequent years. Limitations In the context of this pilot, findings are comprised of a mixture of convenience and probability sampling for which accurate confidence intervals cannot be determined, and are skewed toward campuses with the highest rates of return and/or FTE. Furthermore, they are the product of a survey instrument designed to provide a practical, action-oriented research strategy and achieve operational improvement among CCC campus libraries, as opposed to more formal research intended for complex statistical analysis. Campus Cultures and Demographic Difference It should be noted that findings reveal significant distinctions among campus populations, influenced by demographic and contextual factors as well as the robustness of each campus’ sampling strategy. Despite previously described limitations, distinct “library cultures” and technology access are evident at the campus level, validating the utility of a research strategy that provides local data that can be benchmarked among peers and interpreted against aggregate findings (provided that they are representatively drawn). Cross-tabulations within age, enrollment rationale, ethnicity, and gender also reveal significant divergences in variables such as social media engagement, skill self-perception, and library use; while exploring these differences in-depth is not the focus of this report, cross-tabulated findings of significance are described in the context of other variables. Key Findings Survey results provide insight into the connections between library and technology perceptions, use, and receptivity to emerging library platforms at each pilot campus. These findings are communicated in three broad categories: library engagement, technology engagement, and library technology receptivity. L ib ra ry E n g a g e m e n t • Student populations interacted frequently with their physical and digital campus libraries (though significantly more so with brick-and-mortar facilities), and tended to access4

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 information resources for research purposes at varied points during the semester based on assignment-related information need. • “Library as place” was a central theme among participants, who consistently expressed the desire for longer hours, larger facilities, and more resources. • Respondents frequently cited the quiet, clean atmosphere of campus library facilities as conducive to academic productivity, often in contrast to their home environments. • Participants rated their information search abilities in an open web context significantly higher than their library research abilities. • Students who had participated in library instruction reported more positive library perceptions and higher levels of library use and awareness than those who had not. • Students accessed course readings using an array of web, commercial, library-provided, and informal methods. • Open-ended comments conveyed a widespread perception of library value as well as a positive reaction to the survey project itself, which can be interpreted as creating ancillary outreach/awareness effects for participating campuses. T e c h n o lo g y E n g a g e m e n t • Participants owned and used a wide variety of technology devices, web tools, and social media sites, but also expressed a lack of awareness and/or interest in some technology platforms relative to others. • Participants reflected an ongoing trend toward reliance on mobile devices such as smartphones, which they applied to diverse academic and personal uses. • Students valued their technology skill development at community college. • Information technology use was perceived as a positive factor in learning, academic productivity, and collaboration. • Social and multimedia platforms were often used in the context of coursework. • Many participants reported challenges affording necessary academic technologies. L ib ra ry T e c h n o lo g y R e c e p tiv ity • Participants demonstrated interest in library services delivered via social media platforms. Among the available options, respondents were most receptive to services offered via Facebook and YouTube. • Respondents indicated high levels of interest in library services delivered via mobile platforms, but expressed greater receptivity to some types of mobile library functionality over others (e.g., hours, overdue notices, and renewal features rated higher than “ask a librarian” options).5

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 The Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey pilot was constructed to investigate how CCC students view, use, understand, and critique campus library services and information technology in the context of their academic experience. Designed and managed through a centralized CCLCCC SurveyMonkey account, the survey featured 28 total items representing a range of question types (rating scales, short answer, and multiple-choice). Questionnaire Design The pilot questionnaire was loosely based on a template student library and technology survey instrument originally published in Informing Innovation (ACRL, 2009), itself inspired by large-scale student survey initiatives such as the annual ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, and OCLC’s College students perceptions of libraries 1 and information resources study. This Creative Commons-licensed survey, developed for use at a doctoral-granting institution, was adapted for the community college environment 2 by Austin Community College in 2010. Building on this adaptation, Booth and the Working Group revised, and refined the questionnaire to address the following research questions: 1) What are the library and technology engagement characteristics of CCC students? 2) Is there a relationship between library engagement, academic/information technology engagement, and self-perceived research skill? 3) How willing are students to integrate social and mobile library tools into their personal learning environments? 4) Do demographic factors such as age, location, and enrollment motivation impact library and technology engagement? To ensure instrument reliability and validity, between November 2010 and January 2011 iterative survey drafts were reviewed and revised by the Working Group, the Director of Research and Planning at Mission College, two external researchers representing the Coalition for Networked Information (Joan Lippincott) and Austin Community College (Ellie 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.6

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 Collier), and field-tested by two student focus groups. The pilot survey is reproduced in full in Appendix B. Sampling and Promotional Strategies To explore sample quality and rates of return in the diverse research contexts likely to exist within a statewide administration of this project, the LTES pilot was constructed so that each of its five participating campus used a common instrument but defined its survey population through distinct sampling methods and research modes (Table 1): Table 1 – Matrix of Sampling Strategies by Campus Secondary Primary Sample Mode Method Promotion East Los Angeles CC all-student email n/a online blanket probability classes, faculty convenience/ campus site, library outreach, fliers at Mendocino CC online elective non- site main campus and two probability campus centers blanket probability & library site, flyering, convenience/ Merced CC all-student email online Facebook elective non- probability representative set of paper & Mission College classes (in-person n/a cluster probability online and distance) convenience/ campus portal, social media, word-of- Santa Barbara CC online elective non- library website mouth probability • East Los Angeles Community College worked with its internal office of institutional research to distribute a promotional email to all enrolled students (see Appendix B) with no additional sampling strategy. • Mendocino College linked to the survey from its library website and the main college website, conducted on-campus flyering and direct outreach to faculty, and administered the online survey in computer classrooms during several library instruction sessions. • Merced College distributed an all-student email, publicized a survey link on its library website, posted flyers, and promoted the survey through Facebook.7

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 • Mission College selected a probability sample of distance learning and in-person courses and administered either the online survey or a paper duplicate in-class. • Santa Barbara City College posted survey-related messages to its campus student portal, posted the survey URL through Facebook and Twitter, linked from the library website, and promoted via word-of-mouth in library instruction sessions All included a common, optional incentive to increase participation: a $100 cash prize was offered to a randomly selected respondent at each campus. Returns Between February 7 and March 7 of 2011, a total of 3,168 CCC students participated in the LTES pilot at an 80% rate of completion. Rates of return varied widely by institution, with a large majority of participants representing all-student email campuses (East Los Angeles Community College and Merced College, see Figure 1). East Los Angeles and Merced comprised 51% and 23% of total participants respectively, while Mendocino accounted for only 4% of total returns. Figure 1 - What community college do you attend? Santa Barbara Mendocino City College College 11% 4% Merced College 23% East Los Angeles College 51% Mission College 11% Response Response Estimated Rate of Table 2 - Response and Returns Percent Count FTE 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%8

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 Best-estimate FTE at the time of the survey was 8,853 at East Los Angeles, 1,516 at Mendocino, 4,853 at Merced, 3,451 at Mission, and 7,170 at Santa Barbara, based on Fall 2010 enrollment figures for East LA, Merced, and Mendocino, and Spring 2011 enrollment estimates for Mission and Santa Barbara (Table 2).3 Rates of return expressed as a percentage of campus enrollment ranged from a high of 18% at East LA to a low of 5% at Santa Barbara. The mean rate of return was 12% of combined FTE. As anticipated, disparate promotional and sampling strategies significantly impacted the size and character of the returns at each pilot campus, consequently influencing the representativeness of local as well as aggregate data. Findings should be understood to reflect a non-probability sample and therefore not generalizable with confidence to community college students statewide or, in two of the five pilot campuses (Mendocino and Santa Barbara), locally. Survey Discovery Promotional and sampling differences among campuses produced a broad distribution of survey discovery methods (Figure 2). Sixty-six percent of respondents learned about the questionnaire by email, 15% from a librarian or instructor (largely in-class administration at Mission College), and 14% from their community college student portal or website. Discovery through a course management system drew 6% of respondents. Library website linking accounted for less than 4%, while via social media, campus flyering, and word-of- mouth promotion each netted 2% or less of the total sample. Figure 2 - How did you find out about this survey? Check all that apply. Email 66% Instructor/Librarian 15% Community college website or student portal 14% In class (online) 6% Course management system (Moodle, etc.) 6% Library website 4% In class (paper) 3% Flyer 2% Facebook or TwiCer 2% Friend/Classmate 2% Other (please specify) 1% 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.aspx9

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 Based on this discovery pattern, the most robust sample in a broader survey administration would be generated (in order of generalizability) by a) randomized email sampling, b) class- based administration through cluster probability sampling, c) a campus-wide student email, or d) survey promotion at the campus website or student portal level. The most cost- effective and scalable sampling method in a statewide context is likely to be all-campus email or randomized email sampling, provided that collaboration with a research office, registrar, or other campus unit can provide an accurate contact list. Convenience sampling methods such as survey distribution by library website or flyering capture a survey population considerably more likely to be heavy library users than in-class or email participants (see section 3 – Library Engagement), thus providing few insights generalizable to an overall campus population. If randomized or blanket email sampling methods are not feasible, survey distribution solely by elective or self-selected methods (e.g., library website link, Facebook, flyering) should be understood to produce findings that cannot be interpreted as representative of the student body, and furthermore that carry implications for the quality of the statewide dataset. Demographic Benchmarking In response to the non-probability sampling limitation that will likely confront some CCC libraries in a wider survey administration, the LTES instrument was designed to aid in benchmark survey population to local FTE through common demographic data points (e.g., age, ethnicity, gender) collected by all California community colleges and publicly discoverable through the CCC Chancellor’s Data Mart (see section 2 - Demographics for 4 examples of demographic alignment and divergence). Additional Limitations In addition to stratified non-probability sampling methods, the following factors should be considered as additional limitations to the current study. Due to its primarily web-based administration, participants are likely to be modestly skewed towards higher technology competency. Data is based on participant self-perceptions and self-assessments rather than objective evaluation or observation. Although the survey was anonymous, social desirability bias may have motivated some participants to intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent information relating to technology and library use. While the majority of responses originated from library-neutral space (email, as opposed to a library website link), each campus library was clearly identified as survey sponsor in all sampling scenarios. Some 4 Chancellor’s Data Mart, http://www.cccco.edu/SystemOffice/Divisions/TechResearchInfo/MIS/DataMartandReports/tabid/282/Default.aspx10

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 degree of self-selection bias in the population can therefore be assumed: those motivated to participate may have been influenced by established library relationship. Human Subjects Research Exemption By virtue of evaluating the public/operational benefit of campus library services and protecting the anonymity of its participants, human subjects research (HSR) exemption under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45 – Public Welfare, Department of Health and Human Services reasonably applies but was not formally sought through offices of 5 institutional research in this pilot survey phase. That said, library directors at each campus requested questionnaire review and formal approval to conduct the pilot survey through the following institutional officers: • East Los Angeles Community College - Reviewed by the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness and approved by the Vice-President of Student Services • Mendocino College - Reviewed and approved by the Dean of Instruction and Vice President of Education and Student Services • Merced College - Reviewed and approved by the Technology Master Planning Committee • Mission College - Reviewed and approved by the Director of Research and Planning • Santa Barbara Community College - Reviewed and approved by the Executive Vice President of Educational Programs In the event of broader administration, formal HRS review and/or exemption should be pursued on a statewide basis in coordination with research-focused units in the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, or through campus offices of institutional research in the event that blanket approval or exemption is infeasible. 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#46.10111

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 Among the survey population (N = 3,168), 25% of respondents were 19 years old or younger, 38% were aged between 20 and 24, 14% were 25 through 29, 8% were 30 to 34, and the remaining 15% represented the 36 and older student demographic (Figure 3). Figure 3 - How old are you? 40 to 49 50 + 35 to 39 6% 4% 19 or Less 5% 25% 30 to 34 8% 25 to 29 14% 20 to 24 38% This distribution is roughly comparable for statewide figures from Fall of 2010 (Table 3): the 19 or less, 25 to 29, 30 to 34, and 35 to 39 categories match closely with the present study, 6 but divergences of several percentage points are seen in the 20 to 24 and 50+ ranges. 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 ethnicity, survey participants (Figure 4) diverge significantly from the statewide community college population, a result of the unique composition of the 5-campus sample. Although Hispanic students are the majority in both categories, statewide enrollment by ethnicity in Fall 2010 (Table 4) shows differences from the pilot population among white, African-American, and other groups (response choices differed slightly from statewide data; correcting this discrepancy is among our instrument revision suggestions). Among pilot survey participants, sharp distinctions in ethnicity are apparent at the campus level. 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.aspx12

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 example, whereas almost 60% of the survey populations of Santa Barbara City College and Mendocino Colleges identified as white, only 4% of East Lost Angeles College and 20% of Mission college participants did so. Figure 4 - What best represents your ethnicity? Choose all that apply. Prefer not to say African-‐ White 4% American 21% 3% American Indian/Alaskan NaSve 3% Paciﬁc Islander Asian 1% 19% Filipino Hispanic 4% 45% Table 4 - Statewide Enrollment 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 Figure 5 - What is your gender? survey population were female than male, Female Male Transgendered 66% versus 34%, with.2% reporting 0.2% transgender status (Figure 5). This differs from the state CCC population; according to the Chancellor’s Data Mart, in 2010 34% statewide students represent a gender distribution of 54% female, 45% male, and 66% 1% unknown.13

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 It should be noted that gender imbalance in survey results is not uncommon. A number of studies in the past decade have shown that female-gendered individuals participate at significantly higher rates in web-based surveys, particularly in the higher education 7 environment. Figure 6 - What best describes your enrollment status? Check all that apply. 69% 28% 16% 15% 8% 3% 2% Student enrollment status indicated a survey population heavily weighted toward full-time onsite students; only 8% of participants reported attending virtually (Figure 6). Enrollment status in the present study cannot be compared to statewide figures due to divergence in response choices from that commonly tracked statistic; aligning these options comprises another questionnaire revision suggestion. An item that invited participants to specify one or more rationales for attending community college (Figure 7) indicated that a majority were engaged in coursework in order to transfer to a 4-year institution (68%) or obtain an Associate’s degree (42%). Other responses included self-improvement/personal enjoyment (31%), certificate program completion (15%), career change (13%), and updating job-related skills (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.14

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 Figure 7 - Which of the following best describes your reasons/goals for attending community college? Check all that apply. To complete a cerSﬁcate program 15% To obtain or update job-‐related (vocaSonal) skills 12% To obtain an Associates degree 42% To transfer to a 4-‐year college or university 68% To change careers 13% Self-‐improvement/personal enjoyment 31% Other (please specify) 3% Cross-tabulated by age, younger students were more likely to be pursuing transfer or Associates degree plans, while older respondents were significantly more likely to be motivated by vocational training and career change aspirations. Enrollment for personal enjoyment was the most consistently shared rationale across all demographics and locations, with a common representation of +/-30%.15

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 The Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey pilot sought to portray the library engagement levels of CCC students, including their attitudes, perceptions, needs, and expectations in respect to digital and physical library facilities and information resources. Findings are presented in three sections: Use, Perceptions, and Awareness. Use Respondents were consistently engaged with their community college libraries when classes were in session, although somewhat more so with their physical than digital facilities (Figure 8). In the overall survey population, 34% percent of respondents visited their campus library frequently or very frequently, while 23% used the library website frequently or very frequently. Twenty-seven percent talked with a librarian at least occasionally, while 33% searched for items in the library catalog at least occasionally. Among the options listed, Figure 8 - When classes are in session, about how often do you... Very frequently Frequently Occasionally Rarely Very rarely Never Didnt know I could Visit the library in person? 14% 20% 26% 11% 14% 13% 2% Use the library website to research for an 10% 17% 23% 15% 13% 18% 4% assignment? Use library databases (EBSCO, Proquest, 8% 12% 19% 14% 12% 26% 8% etc.)? Visit the library website? 8% 15% 24% 17% 16% 18% 3% Check library hours or contact informaSon 6% 9% 20% 14% 16% 32% 4% online? Search for items in the library catalog? 5% 9% 19% 15% 15% 33% 5% Talk with a librarian in person? 3% 6% 18% 15% 20% 34% 3% Talk with a librarian via IM or chat? 4% 7% 9% 58% 21% Talk with a librarian on the phone? 4% 7% 11% 65% 12% Email a librarian? 3% 6% 8% 67% 15% Text message a librarian? 2% 6% 4% 66% 21% 16

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 web-based and phone librarian contact points were the least used and least known, although in-person library contact was more common. Only eight percent of participants indicated that they were not aware that they could use library subscription databases; 65% reported using them to some extent. Low engagement with remote ask a librarian options can be attributed to actual participant use/awareness as well as uneven service availability (creating representative yet comprehensive response arrays is one of acknowledged challenges of this cross-institutional survey design; in this case, not all pilot libraries offered a text messaging service). Thirteen percent of participants reported never using a library facility when classes were in session, while 18% never accessed a library website. An optional open-ended item that asked students to describe what influences the frequency of their library use elicited a variety of responses (N = 1,457), most frequently invoking current level of research need, as well as “conditions at home,” “hours of operation,” and “how crowded/noisy it is, how much space there is, etc.” The number of students that reported rarely or never using online library resources relative to physical facilities indicates that many likely conduct course-related research exclusively on the open web, which may at times direct them unknowingly to library-sponsored content. L ib ra ry U s e b y C a m p u s a n d S u rv e y D is c o v e ry M e th o d Campus-level cross-tabulation reveals distinctions in library use and perceptions that could be attributed as much to disparate sampling as to actual differences in use. In order to explore sampling effects on library use, Figure 9 compares use frequency of four brick-and- mortar library tasks (checking out books, studying alone, using library computers for research, and doing independent research for an assignment) by survey discovery method (library website, email, Instructor/librarian, community college website/student portal, or course management system). Respondents who learned of the survey through a link posted to a library website or social media platform were far more likely to be frequent users of library facilities, services, and resources than those who discovered the survey through library-neutral interfaces and methods (e.g., email, course management systems, instructors). Survey takers funneled through library websites in particular engaged in library use tasks more frequently than those in other discovery categories (e.g., they were on average four to five times less likely to indicate “never” using the library in any specified category), and therefore represent a cohort of library “superusers” that can be valuable sources of information but not generalizable to the CCC population. A more accurate portrayal of campus-wide use is evident through email, in-class, college website, or learning management system discovery.17

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 Figure 9 - Cross-tabulation of “How did you learn about this survey?” with Frequency of Library Use Library website Main community college website or student portal Email Course management system (Blackboard, Moodle, etc.) Instructor/Librarian 66% Frequently 19% Study alone Occasionally 11% Rarely 4% Never 30% Check out books or journals Frequently 32% Occasionally 27% Rarely 7% Never 57% Do research for an assignment Frequently 28% Occasionally 12% Rarely 2% Never 46% Frequently Use library computers for 32% schoolwork Occasionally 19% Rarely 3% Never 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 18

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 Figure 9 should provide additional evidence that email or randomized email sampling should be pursued whenever possible. Campuses that promote their survey solely (or even in a supplementary capacity) via a library website link should understand that their results will present a skewed perspective of student library awareness and use. C o u r s e M a te r ia ls A c c e s s Participants were asked to indicate the ways they accessed course-related readings (textbooks, articles, etc.) in the past year (Figure 10). Participants selected on average four different methods of course materials access, and relied heavily on reading items from the open web (68%) or downloaded and printed (62%). Fifty-nine percent purchased textbooks, while 47% reported checking items from their campus library and an additional 44% used in- library course reserves (the same number borrowed items from a friend or classmate). Thirty percent purchased course packs, and 24% used online library e-reserves. Thirty-one percent rented online or printed textbooks, while the most common verbatim choice among “other” submissions was photocopying materials. Figure 10 - Check all of the ways you have accessed class readings, textbooks, and other school-related materials in the past year. Read items on the web 68% Download and print out 62% Buy printed textbook(s) 59% Check items out from the library 47% Borrow from a friend or classmate 44% Use "reserve" books in the library 44% Buy paper course pack(s) 30% Use online library "e-‐reserves" 24% Rent printed textbook(s) 20% Rent online textbooks(s) 11% Other (please specify) 5% Whereas cross-tabulation revealed few age-related trends in course materials access, respondents between 20-24 indicated using the greatest number of formats during the past19

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 year, and were by extension the heaviest users of library course materials. Participants between 19-24 years were more likely to borrow course readings from friends or classmates. Perceptions Participants responded to three optional items that invited them to provide open-ended positive and negative feedback about their campus libraries, as well as to describe the academic environment in which they were most productive (N1 = 2,424, N2 = 2,363, N2 = 2,338). Students expressed a wide range of opinions and suggestions regarding library facilities, services, staff, resources, and technologies, and the context in which they find themselves most academically productive. These comments tended provide the most pointed location-based insights, and, if systematically coded and analyzed by participant institutions, carry considerable potential to directly evaluate and affect specific operations. W h a t d o y o u a p p re c ia te a b o u t y o u r c a m p u s lib ra ry ? In open-ended commentary students were highly appreciative of a wide range of library services, providing positive assessments of staff (“helpful librarians are always there when you need them”), technology tools (“Easy access to computers”), collections (“able to borrow the books that we couldnt afford"), and learning activities (“I am thankful for its [sic] helpful staff and the workshops that they offer for our ELAC community”). Students often cited the library’s quiet ambiance as positive (“They supply students with a safe and quiet environment to work and study in, plus have lots of access to books, computers, and etc.”). Comments such as this one, which offered a combined appreciation of library staff, collections, quiet space, and/or technology, were offered frequently. W h a t w o u ld y o u c h a n g e a b o u t y o u r c a m p u s lib ra ry ? When asked to specify aspects of their campus library that they would change, trends concerned expansion and updating of physical, computing, and collection resources. Students across all demographic groups requested seating, technology availability (“More tables and outlets for laptops”), extended hours, increased staffing (“Have more people to help the students”), better website design (“I dont have any problems with the library, but the website gets confusing”), building enhancements, and enforcement of quiet areas and use policies (actual or imagined: “kick out the youngsters there that arent there to really use its resources”). Requests for increased and updated collections were also common (“We need to get updated books and have many MANY more online journals and scholarly texts!”) East Los Angeles’ library was under construction at the time of the survey, leading to a number of comments such as “have it built faster” and “Is the new library open yet?” Finally,20

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 the following quote summarizes a sizeable proportion of responses: “No need to fix something that isnt broken.” Awareness Figure 11 shows that a majority of students either agreed or strongly agreed with the following library-related statements, “I am aware of the services my campus library offers (60%),” “My campus library supports my community college experience (65%),” and “My campus library has materials that are useful to me in my classes (72%).” A consistent quarter of students evaluated these statements neutrally, while only a small percentage disagreed or strongly disagreed with the latter two statements (6% and 5%). The first statement concerning library awareness had the highest level of disagreement or strong disagreement, 11% and 4%, respectively, indicating that augmented marketing and educational measures could raise student awareness. Figure 11 - For each of the following statements, choose the best answer. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 46% 44% 43% 26% 26% 26% 25% 24% 16% 11% 4% 4% 2% 3% 2% I am aware of the services my My campus library supports my My campus library has materials campus library offers. community college experience. that are useful to me in my classes.21

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 Figure 12 - Have you ever attended a workshop Library instruction (Figure 12) reached or presentation from a community college 40% of respondents in-library, 35% in- librarian... class, and 13% online, and had a clear 100% impact on awareness and use of library 80% resources and services. Figure 13 60% demonstrates four categories of library 40% contact (from left to right: in-person visits, website use, database use, and 20% an average of librarian contact through 0% In the In your IM/chat/in-person/via phone) and use Online? library? classroom? frequency/awareness among those who No 54% 56% 80% have or have not attended an Yes 40% 35% 13% instruction session within the library. Not sure 6% 8% 8% Figure 13 - Impact of Library Instruction on Library Use and Awareness Has NOT aCended in-‐library instrucSon Has aCended in-‐library instrucSon 38% 10% 9% 28% 52% 6% 29% 12% 11% 24% 16% 36% 20% 10% 11% 15% 24% 15% 18% 25% 21% 13% 24% 13% 15% 14% 19% 18% 17% 20% 16% 17% 13% 5% 15% 14% 12% 11% 2% 13% 14% 14% 1% 10% 10% 8% 9% 8% 6% 4% 4% 5% 6% 2% 3% 1% Didnt know I could Never Very rarely Didnt know I could Didnt know I could Frequently Never Very rarely Very rarely Didnt know I could Very rarely Frequently Never Frequently Never Frequently Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Very frequently Very frequently Very frequently Very frequently Rarely Rarely Rarely Rarely Visit the library in person? Visit the library website? Use library databases (EBSCO, Talk with a librarian in person or etc.) via IM/chat? 22

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 Independent of survey discovery method, participants who had not attended in-library instruction (N = 1,384) were twice as likely to answer “Didn’t know I could” for any of the library use options listed, while students who had attended in-library instruction (N = 1,034) were significantly more likely to be frequent or very frequent users of physical and digital library facilities and services. Students who had not attended library instruction were between two to three times as likely to indicate that they “never” used at least one of the library options listed. Those who attended in-library instruction rated their research abilities slightly higher than those who had not (3.7 versus 3.4 on a scale of 1 = very low to 5 = very high). Figure 14 - Impact of Library Instruction on Library Perceptions Has NOT aCended in-‐library instrucSon Has aCended in-‐library instrucSon 48% 46% 49% 18% 21% 32% 31% 17% 41% 22% 45% 5% 40% 31% 3% 28% 28% 3% 21% 22% 2% 15% 12% 2% 2% 2% 5% 5% 2% 3% Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Neutral Neutral Neutral My campus library supports my I am aware of the services my campus My campus library has materials that community college experience. library oﬀers. are useful to me in my classes. According to Figure 14, they were also more prone to agree or strongly agree that they were aware of the services their campus library offered (79% versus 62%) to feel that their library supported their community college experience (77% versus 62%), and that their library provided materials useful to them in their classes (80% versus 67%).23

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 The Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey was designed to provide an accurate snapshot of the technology ownership and use patterns of California community college students, including their attitudes, perceptions, needs, and expectations in respect to a range of information, computing, and communication tools in both personal and academic contexts. Findings are presented in four sections: Adoption, Ownership, Use, and Skill/Perceptions. Adoption When asked to identify with a series of Figure 15 - Which of the following statements is most accurate? statements that described how quickly they tended to adopt new technologies, 39% of I love new technologies and am students selected, “I tend to use new among the first to experiment 16% with and use them. technologies when most people I know do,” I like new technologies and 25% indicated that they typically “use them usually use them before most 24% before most people,” another 16% people I know. responded that they were “among the first I tend to use new technologies 39% to experiment with and use [new when most people I know do. technologies].” Sixteen percent identified I am usually one of the last with the statement that they were “one of people I know to use new 16% the last people I know to use new technologies. technologies,” while only 6% indicated that I dont like new technologies and use them only when I have 6% they “use them only when I have to” to. (Figure 15). Campus-based comparisons show that students at East LA, Mission, and Santa Barbara were the most likely to characterize themselves as early technology adopters, while Mendocino respondents were the most likely to characterize themselves as late adopters. Ownership Participants were asked to indicate their current or planned ownership of common computing and communication devices (smartphones, laptops, gaming consoles, digital cameras, e- book readers, etc.) as well as the approximate age of the most recent purchase in each category (Figure 16).24

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 Figure 16 - Do you own the following items, and if so, how old is the most recent purchase? 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 Smart phone (iPhone, Blackberry, etc.) 25% 15% 5% 2% 21% 29% Laptop or notebook computer 22% 28% 17% 9% 21% 5% Printer 18% 21% 18% 22% 14% 10% Digital camera (non-‐mobile phone) 18% 23% 19% 15% 15% 14% Mobile phone (non-‐web enabled) 17% 19% 10% 14% 5% 35% Portable media player (iPod, etc.) 17% 21% 17% 12% 11% 21% Gaming console (PS3, etc.) 13% 14% 10% 10% 11% 43% Handheld web browser (iPod Touch, etc.) 12% 11% 5% 2% 18% 48% Desktop computer 6% 11% 17% 30% 12% 26% Handheld gaming device 6% 8% 7% 8% 8% 62% E-‐book reader (Kindle, Nook, etc.) 5% 0% 23% 70% Tablet computer (iPad, etc.) 4% 2% 26% 64% While ownership patterns differed significantly across campuses and demographic categories (for example, 65% of respondents at Mission College owned a web-enabled handheld device, versus 55% at Merced College and 42% at Mendocino College), participants demonstrate a clear trend towards increasing ownership of mobile technologies such as laptops, smartphones, and handheld web browsers. Laptops were almost ubiquitously owned or desired by respondents, with less than 5% reporting that they neither owned nor planned to own one a laptop the next few years. 50% of respondents were25

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 smartphone owners (which tended to be two years old or less), while close to 70% owned an iPod or MP3 player. Almost half of respondents owned a gaming console such as a XBOX or PlayStation, while close to 30% owned a handheld gaming device. Commonly owned but aging technologies included desktop computers, printers, portable media players, non web-enabled mobile phones, and digital cameras. Uncommonly owned but desired devices included e-book readers and tablet computers - whereas roughly 5% of respondents owned an eBook reader or a tablet computer, respectively, roughly 20% indicated that they planned to acquire each type of device in the future. That said, approximately 70% of respondents neither owned nor planned to own an eBook reader or tablet in the coming years. Use Survey participants indicated the amount of hours in a typical week they spent using the web for the following purposes: classwork, paid work, and personal/leisure purposes (Figure 17). Over eighty percent spent between 1 to 20 web-engaged hours on classwork, Figure 17 - About how many hours do you spend USING THE WEB in a typical week for the following purposes? 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 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% 26

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 and a similar proportion spent an equivalent number of hours online for personal or leisure- related purposes. Sixty-two percent spent no time online for paid work purposes. Only 6% of participants reported spending in excess of 30 hours a week online in any of the use categories. Cross-tabulations reveal little difference in web use for leisure purposes, but older students were significantly more web-engaged for paid work purposes and reported somewhat more time spent online for academic purposes. Participants indicated if and how frequently they did a variety of common social media, computing, and communication media tasks, from text messaging to using social networking software to watching online videos to visiting virtual worlds such as Second Life. Figure 18 displays these tasks from highest (text messaging) to lowest (editing a wiki) engagement. Respondents indicated that they “very frequently” text message (36%) and use social networking sites (33%), as well as watching online videos (16%), posting a comment to a website (13%), instant messaging, downloading media, or using Google Docs (all 11%). Figure 18 - How often do you do the following (for school, work, or recreation)? Very frequently Frequently Occasionally Rarely Very rarely Never Havent heard of it Text message 36% 23% 18% 5% 9% 8% 0% Use social networking sites 33% 22% 16% 7% 10% 13% 1% Watch online videos 15% 22% 28% 11% 13% 9% 1% Post a comment on a website 13% 12% 19% 13% 18% 22% 2% Download music or videos 11% 15% 25% 13% 17% 17% 2% Instant message 11% 10% 21% 15% 16% 23% 2% Use Google Docs 11% 14% 19% 12% 15% 20% 10% Use Skype or another web calling program 7% 7% 13% 11% 13% 42% 9% Play online games 5% 7% 16% 13% 21% 35% 3% Listen to podcasts 4% 6% 12% 13% 17% 39% 9% Write a blog post 4% 3% 8% 10% 14% 54% 6% Visit a virtual world (Second Life, etc.) 2% 6% 4% 60% 26% Edit a wiki 2% 4% 7% 69% 16% 27

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 Among the lowest engagement tasks listed, 69% of respondents indicated that they “never” edited a wiki, visited a virtual world (60%), or wrote a blog post (54%). Over half of respondents indicated that they on websites, downloaded music, instant messaged, use Google Docs, or played online games at least “rarely.” Approximately 90% of all respondents texted, use social networking sites, or watched online videos, while close to as many use Google Docs (70%) as IM (74%). Respondents’ lack of awareness of social Figure 19 - Percentage of participants media and other technology options is also who “Haven’t heard of it” interesting to note. Figure 19 shows the Text message 0% percentage of students in the previous question that “hadn’t heard” of each tool. Use social networking sites 1% The concept of visiting a virtual world was Watch online videos 1% unknown to 16% of participants, Skype, and Post a comment on a website 2% podcasts, and Google Docs commenting Download music or videos 2% were unknown to approximately 9-10% of the Instant message 2% survey population, whereas writing a blog Use Google Docs 10% post was unknown to 6%. Texting, social Use Skype or another web 9% networking, downloading music, commenting Play online games 3% on websites, watching online videos, were Listen to podcasts 9% close to ubiquitously recognized. Write a blog post 6% Visit a virtual world (Second 26% Edit a wiki 16% S o c ia l M e d ia E n g a g e m e n t In order to gauge their waxing and waning popularity among survey participants, Figure 20 portrays use frequency and change of different social media tools via the following categories: “Use it all the time,” “Using it more lately,” “Use it about as much,” “Using it less lately,” Used to use it,” “Never used it,” and “Haven’t heard of it.” Facebook and YouTube were most likely to be used “all the time” (44% and 31%, respectively) as well as “more lately” (Facebook at 9%, YouTube at 15%) and, somewhat paradoxically, “less lately” (Facebook at 14%, YouTube at 19%). Those with the highest levels of former use include MySpace (51%) and Twitter (11%). Tools most commonly known but not used were Twitter (68%), Flickr (58%). FourSquare, LinkedIn, and Yelp were all not used by approximately 47% of students. Respondents were most likely not to have heard of FourSquare, LinkedIn, Yelp, and Flickr.28

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 Figure 20 - For each of the following web tools and social sites, select the best option. 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 Havent heard of it Facebook 44% 9% 10% 14% 8% 14% 0% YouTube 31% 15% 23% 19% 6% 6% 1% Yelp 5% 3% 7% 8% 4% 46% 27% TwiCer 4% 2% 4% 8% 11% 68% 3% MySpace 2% 2% 12% 51% 30% 2% Flickr 1% 3% 6% 8% 58% 23% FourSquare 1% 2% 47% 48% LinkedIn 1% 4% 3% 48% 42% M o b ile E n g a g e m e n t A majority of survey participants (56%) Figure 21 - Do you currently own a web- indicated that they owned a web-enabled enabled mobile phone, smartphone, or handheld device such as an iPad? mobile device such as a smartphone or iPad (figure 21). Those who owned a web- enabled mobile device (N = 1,453) were No asked to indicate the frequency with which 44% they engaged in a variety of common mobile device tasks, from updating a social media profile to texting to taking photos to reading Yes e-books (Figure 22). 56% 29

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 Figure 22 - How often do you use your web-enabled mobile phone, smartphone, or handheld device to do the following? Very frequently Frequently Occasionally Rarely Very rarely Never (doesnt interest me) Never (didnt know I could) Never (my phone/device cant) Text message 62% 17% 11% 3% 2% 2% 3% Take pictures 42% 21% 21% 7% 4% 1% Use a search engine 42% 21% 16% 6% 4% 5% 3% Check Facebook, MySpace, etc. 42% 15% 11% 7% 6% 13% 4% Send email 37% 18% 19% 10% 6% 6% 4% Check informaSon (news, speciﬁc facts) 36% 22% 18% 8% 6% 5% 3% Download apps 31% 16% 21% 11% 7% 8% 1% 6% Make a status update 31% 15% 14% 9% 9% 15% 2% 4% Conduct personal business 26% 18% 16% 11% 9% 12% 2% 6% Watch videos 22% 14% 22% 13% 11% 10% 1% 7% Download music 21% 10% 19% 15% 12% 16% 1% 7% Play games 20% 12% 22% 15% 12% 13% 1% 5% Do research for an assignment 19% 15% 16% 14% 13% 14% 2% 7% Check in to a locaSon-‐based service 13% 5% 8% 10% 9% 34% 9% 11% Read e-‐books 10% 6% 12% 14% 15% 24% 6% 12% Students were highly engaged in and aware of many types of mobile device use. Texting, taking pictures, mobile searching, using social media sites, and sending email were all used frequently or very frequently by a majority of survey takers. Lowest use tasks included checking into location-based services and e-book reading. Seventy-seven percent of respondents used their mobile devices for research; 19% did so “very frequently.” A c a d e m ic E n g a g e m e n t A survey item asked students to indicate how often, when classes were in session, that they logged into a course management system (CMS), used multimedia formats in class assignments, contributed to course-related online forums or discussions, and/or contacted their instructors via email, IM, or phone.30

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 Figure 23 - When classes are in session, about how often do you... Very frequently Frequently Occasionally Rarely Very rarely Never Didnt know I could Log into your course management system (Moodle, Blackboard, etc.)? Use images, video, or other media in a class assignment? Contribute to a class-‐related forum or online discussion? Email, IM, or call your instructors? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 23 indicates that a majority of students log into their CMS at least occasionally, while between to 40-50% used media in a class assignments or contributed to online course- related discussions at least occasionally. Close to 20% of participants reported contacting their instructors at least frequently. Participants were also asked to rate their level of agreement with the following academic technology-related statements: “Technology helps me collaborate with other students,” Technology helps me be more productive,” and “Technology helps me learn” (Figure 24). Figure 24 - For the following statements, choose the best answer. Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 49% 46% 41% 38% 36% 25% 21% 18% 13% 4% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2% Technology helps me collaborate Technology helps me be more Technology helps me learn. with other students. productive.31

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 Students were most likely to strongly agree that technology supported learning and productivity, but somewhat less likely to strongly agree that it supported collaboration with other students. Few students disagreed or strongly disagreed with any of the technology- related statements. Skill To gauge levels of self-perceived proficiency, survey participants were asked to rate their skill levels in a variety of computing and research-related tasks on a 1-5 scale (1 = very low, 5 = very high). According to Figure 25, students were most confident in their abilities to use word processing software such as Microsoft Word (4.2), using the web to find information for personal and academic use (4.2, respectively). Students rated their web research skills significantly more highly than their library research skills (3.5). Respondents rated themselves moderately skilled at using presentation software (3.7), spreadsheets (3.1), and course management system software (3.1). Students were least confident using graphics software (2.8), addressing computer problems (2.6), and creating and editing web pages (2.2). Figure 25 - What is your skill level with the following items (1 = very low, 5 = very high)? Using word processing sokware (Microsok Word, Open 4.2 Office) Using the internet to find informaSon for assignments 4.2 Using the internet to find informaSon for personal use 4.2 Using presentaSon sokware (PowerPoint, Prezi) 3.7 Using the library to find informaSon for assignments 3.5 Using spreadsheets (Excel) 3.3 Using the course management system (Moodle, Blackboard) 3.1 Using graphics sokware (Photoshop, Acorn) 2.8 Fixing computer or sokware problems 2.6 CreaSng and ediSng web pages 2.2 32

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 According to cross-tabulations, most skill categories showed no significant gender, ethnicity, or age-based differences. However, female-identified respondents were significantly more likely to characterize their ability to fix computer or software problems as “very low” (31% as compared to 17% of male respondents), and notably more likely to rate their library research abilities as “very high” (23% versus 17%). Students who had engaged in course-related library instruction rated their library research abilities only slightly higher than those who had not (3.7 versus 3.4). However, those who have received library instruction were more likely to be frequent library users, have significantly higher awareness of library services, and be more positively disposed toward the library as well as receptive to technology-based library services.33

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 To assist campus libraries in prioritizing emerging technology development based on student input, the Library & Technology Engagement Survey asked respondents to indicate their interest in a number of library-oriented mobile and social tools, from Facebook liking and Twitter following to sending a call number or renewing books via SMS or through a mobile app. The following section describes survey population interest in emerging library technologies in two sections, Social and Mobile. Social The following survey item attempted to identify if students are sufficiently interested in interacting with library organization in personal or “social” spaces to warrant their development (Figure 26). Library social media penetration into the CCC population has well Figure 26 - For each web tool and social site, would you "friend," "follow," or "add" your campus library? I already have Yes Maybe No I dont use this Facebook 9% 33% 25% 17% 17% YouTube 5% 27% 25% 26% 17% TwiCer 1% 10% 11% 21% 57% MySpace 1% 9% 11% 26% 53% Yelp 1% 8% 10% 22% 59% Flickr 1% 5% 7% 23% 65% LinkedIn 4% 5% 22% 68% FourSquare 3% 5% 22% 70% 34

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 begun: 9% of respondents indicated that they had already liked a campus library profile on Facebook, 5% watched library videos on YouTube, and 2% followed a library on Twitter. The library profiles or pages most likely to be “friended, followed, or added” by those not already doing so are Facebook (33% yes, 25% maybe) and YouTube (27% yes, 25% maybe) – these s i t e s h a v e e q u i v a l e n t l e v e l s o f u s e r p e n e t r a t i o n , a s w e l l ( 8 3 % ). T w i t t e r , M y S p a c e , a n d Y e l p all demonstrate similar interest figures (+/-10% yes, 21-26% maybe) as well as similar rates of participant non-use (53-59%). A relatively consistent 21-27% of respondents were uninterested in friending, following, or adding the library across almost all platforms; only Facebook, with 17% non-interest, fell below this range (participants were twice as likely than not to indicate that they would engage with a library on Facebook). The social sites with lowest participant use and library engagement interest included FourSquare (location-based service), LinkedIn (professional social network), and Flickr (photo sharing service). O p e n -E n d e d A s s e s s m e n t An optional open-ended item that asked participants to describe why they would or wouldn’t engage with their library in social media spaces (N = 846) revealed that student opinion is highly polarized. Positive verbatim responses ranged from an affinity for libraries (“i love libraries. why not?”), a desire to receive news and updates (“I guess it would be nice to know whats going on there.”) and a hope that library social media engagement would support academic success (“It might have helpful tools for research or other school work.”) Negative responses often indicated that existing library services were sufficient (“I can go directly into its web; why would I [use library social media]?”), that social sites should remain separate from school activities (“I use social networking for more non-academic purposes”), or that the tools were not of interest in the first place (“Social tools are a waste of time.”) In general, comments trended more toward receptivity than resistance. Mobile The following survey item gauged whether users of web-enabled mobile devices such as smartphones, iPads, etc. (N = 1,453) would be likely to use the following library-related functions or services on their devices (Figure 27).35

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 Figure 27 - If your mobile device supported the following library services, how likely would you be to use them? Very likely Fairly likely Not sure Unlikely Very unlikely Check your library account/renew books 54% 25% 6% 9% 6% Receive renewal or overdue noSces 54% 26% 5% 9% 6% Access online reserves 46% 29% 6% 12% 7% Send a call number from the catalog 34% 27% 8% 21% 9% Search for books in the catalog 48% 30% 4% 11% 7% Search for arScles in library databases 48% 32% 4% 10% 6% Search for e-‐books in the catalog 42% 29% 5% 16% 8% Use library research guides and tutorials 43% 31% 4% 15% 8% Ask a librarian for help or advice via text 33% 28% 4% 24% 11% message Ask a librarian for help or advice via chat 33% 29% 5% 23% 10% Find library hours, locaSons or phone 49% 33% 4% 9% 6% numbers Interest in mobile library resources and services far exceeded expectations, and can be characterized even from a conservative standpoint as highly positive. Across eleven response categories, an average of 44% percent of web-enabled mobile device owners reported that they would be “very likely” to use mobile library services and a further 29% indicated that they were “fairly likely” to do so. By comparison, 14% reported that they were “unlikely” to use mobile library options, while only 8% of reported that they would be “very unlikely” to do so. The categories that received the highest positive reception from respondents were functional, personal services related to library resources and operations; for example, “Check your library account/renew books” and “Receive renewal or overdue notices” on a mobile device were each “very likely” to be used by 54% of respondents, closely followed by36

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 “Find library hours, locations, or phone numbers” with a 49% “very likely” rating. Somewhat less popular but still very well received relative to most categories of social technology receptivity were mobile chat or text message help from a librarian and sending call numbers from the catalog. Implications for Library Technology Development Social media tools are among the lowest-cost and highest-impact technologies a library can pursue, while mobile platforms are an area of considerable user interest that may carry a higher entry barrier in terms of development resources and staff expertise. Pilot survey findings across demographic, discovery, and campus populations demonstrate receptiveness to library services and resources offered via mobile platforms as well as dominant multimedia and social media providers such as Facebook and YouTube. The greatest interest among survey respondents was for practical, “traditional” library functions translated to the mobile environment (hours and information, materials notices, research tools, etc.), and for resource and library-related news and information channeled through Facebook and YouTube. Tools on the low end of the user interest spectrum (branded location-based services, smaller social media providers, and virtual worlds) reside there for different reasons: location-based services are emerging and not yet well known, MySpace continues to experience popularity decline, Yelp and LinkedIn are niche services with potentially unclear library applications, and virtual world adoption has plateaued in comparison to other social tools.37

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 In the event that the Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey is adopted for wider implementation, the Principal Researcher and Working Group submit the following recommendations for consideration by the CCLCCC Executive Board [first submitted 14 July 2011, revised and resubmitted 17 July 2011]. In s tru m e n t R e v is io n s 1) The LTES questionnaire should include two demographic items that track a) self- reported GPA and b) cumulative units of community college enrollment in order to correlate library engagement and academic success. 2) Demographic items similar but not equivalent to statewide metrics (enrollment status, ethnicity) should be revised to mirror state response arrays exactly in order to enable more accurate population benchmarking. 3) Response arrays should be consolidated or shortened to five items or less (when possible) in order to increase completion rates and enable easier cross-tabulation within SurveyMonkey. 4) Demographic and other items using “check all that apply” and/or “other” options should be revised with a forced-choice strategy (when possible) to simplify analysis and increase response quality. 5) Category types (in-class, in-library, web-based) on the survey item concerning library instruction (Q8) should be consolidated. A d m in is tr a tio n 1) The CCLCCC Executive Board should retain ownership and administrative authority over the LTES survey instrument and collected data, reserving sole rights to their administration and distribution. 2) California Community College libraries should not conduct the LTES or any derivation thereof external to common survey administrations conducted by the CCLCCC Executive Board. 3) The LTES should consist of one centralized survey instrument and coordinated data collection method managed through the CCLCCC SurveyMonkey account. The first item on the questionnaire should require respondents to choose from a drop-down list of participating institutions. 4) The CCLCCC Executive Board should pursue statewide human subjects research (HSR) exemption through the CCC Chancellor’s Office. In the event that blanket HSR38

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 exemption is not feasible, participating campuses should seek institutional review board (IRB) approval or exemption through local research offices. 5) To ensure longitudinal consistency of data, the LTES questionnaire from the most recent administration should be duplicated and carefully reviewed/tested by a CCLCCC Executive Board subcommittee and/or supporting researchers before subsequent administration, but should be revised in as limited a capacity as possible according to research need and changes in the library/technology landscape. 6) The CCLCCC Executive Board should commit to long-term curation of LTES data and consider the potential benefits and/or HSR, etc. implications of dataset publication and/or findings dissemination beyond the CCC community. 7) Common promotional language and a shortened survey URL (see Appendix A) should be distributed by the CCLCCC Executive Board to participating campuses to ensure consistency of messaging and student access. 8) The survey should be collectively deployed in mid-Fall or mid-Spring semester on an annual or biennial basis, and SurveyMonkey support staff should be consulted as to any technical limitations related to high rates of return prior to administration. 9) Equivalent incentivization should be required of all campuses (one randomly awarded $100 cash prize per institution is recommended). 10) Web-based administration should be pursued whenever possible to ensure cost control and data consistency among participating institutions. The additional implications (data entry, coordination, etc.) involved in paper-based administration of an exact duplicate of the online questionnaire should be understood by participating campuses. 11) LTES institutions should receive filtered, campus-specific datasets and summary reports in multiple formats (PDF, CSV, Excel, SPSS, etc.) for local analysis, a summary statewide report, and (if sampling consistency and resources permit) a benchmarking report cross-tabulated with campuses of similar size & rates of return. 12) Recognizing the limitations of survey research, participating libraries should consider supplementing LTES findings with qualitative and/or ethnographic inquiry to ensure a well-rounded portrayal of student library and technology engagement. S a m p lin g S tra te g ie s 1) The CCLCCC Executive Board should maintain an annual matrix of sampling strategies used by participating institutions (see Table 1). 2) At the campus level, random or all-campus email sampling from a frame of all enrolled students should be pursued whenever possible to produce survey data about which accurate and generalizable conclusions can be drawn.39

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 3) Participating libraries should coordinate with local research or other administrative offices to identify a probability sample or facilitate an all-student email. 4) In the event that all-student email or probability sampling is not feasible at their location, participant libraries should understand the impact of their promotional strategy on local and statewide generalizability of data and take adequate measures to a) compare respondents to campus FTE based on state-tracked demographic data points, and/or b) weight data to account for population discrepancies during analysis.40

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 The Library Technology Engagement Survey pilot demonstrates that campus libraries at California community colleges are actively contributing to the student experience, providing much-needed quiet and safe spaces for collaboration and study, offering personalized assistance, and facilitating access to technology and resources many struggle to afford. Through coordinated user research, CCC libraries can equip themselves to meet the common challenge of understanding user communities while creating responsive service and 8 operational strategies that leverage limited resources. An unexpected outcome of this initiative was conveying a sense of library investment in the lives and learning processes of California community college students, thus engendering goodwill among many participants. Appreciation for the opportunity to provide personal input was clearly communicated in responses to the concluding questionnaire item, which invited final comments or suggestions. In more than 800 additional submissions, a great number expressed a simple appreciation for libraries, as in “Libraries are awesome. We just have to use them to figure that out,” and, “A library that is equiped [sic] with the modern tools - new books, computers, etc. - and supportive staff can highly impact the students’ learning experience.” Others commented positively on the project and its goals: “Great survey! Glad to be a part of it. :D I hope there will always be new changes in the future to improve our school,” and, “I think this survey was a good idea to get more feedback on the library system.” If implemented throughout California community colleges on an annual or biennial basis, the LTES can support libraries, academic technology units, and institutional research offices in the process of programmatic evaluation and resource prioritization. It can also provide a means to demonstrate investment in student success and achieve incidental outreach and education gains among current and untapped user populations. 8 Deiss, K., & M. Petrowski. (2009). ACRL strategic thinking guide for academic librarians in the new economy. http://connect.ala.org/node/7657741

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 Students! How do you use technology and libraries? Tell us for a chance to win $100. We need your help to understand how California community college students use technology and libraries - please take our survey. It is about 25 questions and should take you 15-20 minutes to complete. Your participation is voluntary and anonymous, and your honest, thorough responses will help participating libraries provide you with better services. We will be collecting responses from February 7th until March 7th. You will be asked for basic contact information at the end *only* if you want to enter a cash prize drawing for $100 at each campus. You may only take this survey if you are a currently enrolled student at one of the represented campuses, and you can enter the drawing once. http://www.tinyurl.com/libtechsurvey Note on privacy and confidentiality: All responses and personal information will be kept confidential, and you will not be contacted for follow-up surveys. If you provide your email address for the prize drawing, it will not be shared, stored, or associated with your responses in any way. If you have any questions or concerns, please email ccltechsurvey@gmail.com.42

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 The following survey instrument was used in the 2011 LTES Pilot; a revised instrument for future implementation follows in Appendix C, while an open access template is available at tinyurl.com/ltes-oatemplate. Appendix C revisions are based on content and demographic suggestions from the Principal Researcher and CCLCCC Executive Board.43

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 201144

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 This revised and final survey instrument was submitted to the CCL Executive Board following the 2011 LTES Pilot. It will serve as the basis for future statewide survey implementations. Note: California community colleges may not administer this survey outside of CCLCCC coordination. A open access template questionnaire is available for non- California community college adaptation at tinyurl.com/ltes-oatemplate.54

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011 If you have questions about this study or its open access questionnaire template (tinyurl.com/ltes-oatemplate), please visit www.cclccc.org/contact.html or email charbooth@gmail.com. This report is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To cite this work: Booth, C. (2011). California Community College Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey: 2011 Pilot, Final Report. Sacramento, CA: Council of Chief Librarians of California Community Colleges, available from http://www.cclccc.org/. Char Booth is Instruction Services Manager & E-Learning Librarian at the Claremont Colleges Library. An ALA Emerging Leader and Library Journal Mover and Shaker, Char advocates for library cultures of experimentation and assessment, free and open source solutions to library sustainability, and instructional design and pedagogical training in library education. She completed a Masters in Computer Education and Technology at Ohio University in 2008, a Masters of Science in Information Studies at the University of Texas at Austin School of Information in 2005, and a Bachelor of Arts in History at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, in 2001. Char blogs at infomational.com and tweets @charbooth.65

http://infomational.wordpress.com	4173
http://infolitlib20.blogspot.com	716
http://infolitlib20.blogspot.co.uk	154
http://infolitlib20.blogspot.com.au	75
http://infolitlib20.blogspot.ca	48
http://martinas23things.blogspot.com	34
http://martinas23things.blogspot.com.au	25
http://paper.li	25
http://infolitlib20.blogspot.in	14
http://infolitlib20.blogspot.com.es	11
http://infolitlib20.blogspot.se	8
http://infolitlib20.blogspot.co.nz	8
http://translate.googleusercontent.com	7
http://translate.google.com	5
http://www.newsblur.com	5
http://infolitlib20.blogspot.mx	3
http://infolitlib20.blogspot.com.br	2
http://infolitlib20.blogspot.pt	1
http://www.infolitlib20.blogspot.co.uk	1
http://infolitlib20.blogspot.fr	1
http://infolitlib20.blogspot.de	1
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com	1
http://www.blogger.com	1
http://www.infolitlib20.blogspot.com	1

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

by char booth on Sep 25, 2011

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

24 Embeds 5,320

Statistics

California Community College Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey: 2011 Pilot, Final Report — Document Transcript