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

15,295
-1

Published on

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/.

Published in: Education
2 Comments
7 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Thanks for posting this. This report is right in line with an environmental scan we are trying to do at our library. I'd love to know more about this sort of activity as well as how other libraries are moving to incorporate a culture of assessment and responsiveness.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • 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.

    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/.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
15,295
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
22
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
52
Comments
2
Likes
7
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

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

  1. 1. 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  
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. 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
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. 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
  25. 25. 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
  26. 26. 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

×