This document compares reference services at Kalamazoo College Library (KCL) and Grand Valley State University's Mary Idema Pew Library. Both libraries have learning commons that are less than two years old. At KCL, reference services operate from librarian offices during the week and a reference desk staffed by students evenings and weekends. The Pew Library does not have a reference desk and has research consultants and writing center staff handle most questions. Both libraries provide training to student employees but are still evaluating how the learning commons have affected reference services.

1. Reference in the Commons
A Comparison of Reference Services at Kalamazoo College
and Grand Valley State University
Jonathan Kirkwood
LIS 6010
Dr. Maatta Smith
3 – 29 – 2015

2. 1
Learning commons exist in academic libraries to foster student scholarship. John K.
Lippincott noted that the development of the learning commons has preceded the attendance of
millennials to colleges and universities as attendance rates in libraries have plummeted.
Reference services, in his opinion, need to expand their promotion to counter this trend, which
they should as reference transactions have decreased as much as thirty-five percent (Lippincott,
2010; Arndt, 2010). But therein lays a dilemma for libraries. Learning commons offer them the
opportunity to draw in more student patrons, but more students mean more reference questions.
This paper will compare and contrast reference services provided by Kalamazoo College Library
(KCL) and the Mary Idema Pew Library of Grand Valley State University and will involve
information collected from interviews with Robin Rank, reference and instruction librarian at
KCL, and Julie Garrison, associate dean for research and instruction at the Pew Library.
Contrasts are evident enough as KCL is part of a small private liberal arts college and GVSU is a
growing publicly-funded university. But learning commons at both are less than two years old
and reference services are still evolving in new environments. Both libraries strive toward
offering the best possible reference services to students, each with methods specific to it.
Necessary to this are trained librarians and student staff to assist student patrons. Furthermore,
attempts at evaluative methods to gauge effectiveness of service affect how both operate. Lastly,
both librarians interviewed for this paper want to effect further changes to better services.
Contrasts between KCL and the Pew Library are most evident despite their similarities.
The learning commons at the Pew Library was designed from the start to involve all spaces of
the library to the point that all spaces are considered “noisy spaces” according to Julie, though
students have decided which areas will be noisy and which will not. KCL, on the other hand,
underwent a renovation in 2006 that gave it expanded space, which was quickly filled by the

3. 2
academic resource centers, bodies dedicated to assisting student scholarship, though largely
because KCL was the only building on campus with space to hold them. These, with other
services, were folded into the current learning commons in the fall of 2014. The commons at
KCL is therefore an incidental development, but one the reference librarians are pleased with,
and like the Pew Library, students have largely decided where noisy and quiet spaces will be
located. The commons at KCL has therefore gradually permeated throughout the entire library
even though it is technically limited to the first floor. Another notable similarity is that students
at both libraries consider the upper floors quiet study areas and the lower floors noisy spaces.
One might also think that the introduction of a learning commons would radically alter
reference services at each library, but no extensive changes have occurred as of yet. This may
largely be due to both libraries still collecting data to interpret and exploit. A learning commons
is a major investment not just for an academic library, but for a university as a whole. But KCL
and the Pew Library have managed to fit in reference services with the learning commons
successfully in their own ways. This, however, has not involved any cross-training of librarians,
as recommended by Jennifer Church, to allow reference librarians to redefine themselves and
their jobs and create a “fluidity of ideas” to better serve patrons (Church, 2005). Yet both
libraries appear cognizant of how students may sometimes see librarians and student employees
as one in the same when in actuality they are not (Sult and Evangeliste, 2009).
The Pew Library has refrained from altering reference services largely due to alterations
made years previous to the new library and its commons. One surprising change involved the
removal of the reference desk. Not a single one is located anywhere in the Pew Library, much
like Dickinson College did for lack of use (Arndt, 2010). But lack of use was not the motivating
factor. The library decided that reference librarians were better off hosting students by

4. 3
appointment in their offices. Students maintain an information desk where directional and
informational questions are handled, thereby shielding reference librarians from those questions.
Most reference questions, however, are handled by trained students called “research
consultants.” They work evenings while the reference librarians are present during the day. Each
consultant may handle research questions lasting up to thirty to fifty minutes. Additionally, the
writing center has come to handle many reference tasks as well since students who have research
questions also tend to have writing questions. Student employees there are also trained to handle
reference questions, but operate by appointment only to avoid crowding. Julie refused to call this
a tiered reference model where only the most difficult questions are handled by the reference
librarians, describing it only as a model that is “workable” at the Pew Library and further
cautioning that other academic libraries find different models.
For her part, Robin also described reference services at KCL as remaining largely
unchanged at the core. There is a reference desk that is staffed by students during evenings and
weekends who are supposed to answer only reference questions. The problem there is that the
reference desk sits much closer to the doors than the information desk. This is not unheard of.
Regent University purposely moved its reference desk closer to the main doors and claimed to
have received an uptick in reference statistics (Lee, Ritterbush, & Sivigny, 2010). The reference
librarians operate from their offices during weekdays and mostly by appointment, what Robin
calls “Research Rescue.” Much as at the Pew Library, reference librarians are shielded from
directional and informational questions, but through a four-tier reference model that draws
inspiration from an article written by Debra Warner approximately fifteen years ago. Level I
questions are directional and informational and handled by the Help Desk. Level II are service-
oriented, such as accessing databases or requesting books. Level III deals with reference

5. 4
questions that student employees answer, what Robin described as generally tracking down
answers in a database, for example. Level IV is where the reference librarians come into play as
questions here tend to be in depth and require extensive time to assist students approaching a
research topic, such as one dependent on primary sources. Additionally, the writing center is
located next to the reference offices and has enjoyed close collaboration with reference services,
though much of it usually involves ascertaining whether a student has a writing question or a
research question, much as at the Pew Library. Reference services will, however, handle the
research end and the writing center will assist with turning the research into a paper or a project.
Robin noted that students often went from reference services to the writing center or vice versa.
The different methods of reference services selected respectively by KCL and the Pew
Library works for each library. Librarians at both institutions have spent years refining
techniques to better serve student patrons. Yet reference services at each are still detached from
circulation and information desks. Michael Whitchurch argued that libraries could, within their
learning commons, consolidate circulation, reserves, reference services, and media and
technology services into what he described as a “meta-service,” a model that is adaptable to the
needs of all student patrons (Whitchurch, 2010). The University of Arizona Library operates
reference and technology services from a single desk. Mary Couts Burnett Library at Texas
Christian University operates reference and technology services and computer lab assistance
from a single desk. Other libraries, like at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, have gone
the opposite direction and separated the reference and technology desks (Sult and Evangeliste,
2010; Fitzpatrick, Moore, & Lang, 2010). But, as Gabrielle Wong argued, it is not a matter of
right or wrong, it is a matter of what suits the library and its patrons best (Wong, 2010).

6. 5
The ability for KCL and the Pew Library to provide these services is dependent on
effective training regimens, which both have, but focus more on student employee training, not
what Sult and Evangeliste pushed for in having a staff capable to handling multiple disciplines
(Sult & Evangeliste, 2010). The Pew Library is not nearly as stringent, but any student employee
at the Pew Library who has been hired to perform reference services must attend a mandatory, in
depth two day workshop. In addition, the library mandates monthly ongoing training. Much of
the training deals with providing good customer service. Julie feels that the regimen has been
effective, but also says that it is growing more robust as the Pew Library gets a better feel for
student patron needs. But even librarians must undergo training, though it is considerably
different from student training. Librarians may attend monthly workshops that may involve
topics related to reference services. The workshops are geared toward professional development
in general and creating connections across the university. Reference services may be a topic or
part of one. Student employees may attend if they wish.
KCL, given its smaller size, pursues a different path. Students assigned to reference
services undergo training at the beginning of the academic year under the personal direction of
Robin. Rules and expectations are explained in detail. Conducting a proper reference interview is
strongly emphasized. Following training, Robin will test reference students with once a week
trainings that steadily grow more complicated as the semester passes. There is also occasional
snap training to keep reference students in shape. The training has remained unchanged since the
inception of the learning commons, but this may be changing. Prior to the Fall 2014 semester, a
seven-day, comprehensive training session was held for any student employees involved with the
learning commons in any capacity. While comprehensive and emphasizing collaboration, it was
voluntary due to student commitments elsewhere on campus and according to Robin, organizers

7. 6
were pressed to find things for students to do. The best part of the training for Robin was a
survey at the end that relied heavily on comments from the students, which were then taken into
account for setting the tone and vision of the learning commons.
Each training regimen has not yet undergone significant revision. This may be due to
both libraries still evaluating policies and how the learning commons have affected them.
Regardless, it may be advisable that training regimens be revisited and revised with regularity to
adapt to changing patron needs and also what Whitchurch described as “almost annual
expansion” of reference areas because of new technologies (Sult & Evangeliste, 2010;
Whitchurch, 2010).
Yet training alone is not enough to ensure the effectiveness of reference services. The
ability and willingness to employ evaluative measures to gauge quality of service is as important
as training of librarians and students. Literature on evaluating reference services states that
collecting sufficient data is necessary to better understand how effective or ineffective reference
services are. Much as with the structure of services and with training, libraries settle on what fits
them and their patrons best. Regent University based its evaluative measures primarily on gate
counts and reference questions, which I find problematic when used alone instead of in
conjunction with other statistics as this presents an incomplete picture (Lee, Ritterbush, Sivigny,
2010). Wong based one part of evaluating services not on how many reference questions are
asked but on the difficulty, or time spent researching, each question. Libraries have
“accumulated decades of experience in handling reference questions,” but also appear to have
not established methods for evaluating the difficulty of reference questions. The number and type
of questions asked are not enough for her (Wong, 2010). The Pew Library employs multiple
measures. The most obvious is a three question survey that students are asked to fill out to

8. 7
measure the effectiveness of the research consultant who assisted him or her. This allows the
library to ascertain which consultants are performing well and which are not. Other measures
involved are a LibQUAL committee to assess quality of overall service in the library, usage of
information resources, and deciding whether certain projects had good or bad outcomes and
SAILS (Standardized Assessment of Information Literacy Skills), an information literacy test
that can allow the Pew Library to better understand student information needs. Additionally,
reference statistics are tracked as well as how often students visit with librarians, how often
furniture is moved, and how students make use of the building at different times of night and
day. Unfortunately, none of these methods is geared specifically toward the learning commons.
They examine individual services or the library as a whole.
Obviously a library the size of and with the resources of the Pew Library can afford to be
that comprehensive. KCL is lacking sorely in the area of evaluation. Fewer resources plays a
role, but a large one is by the library not having deliberately developed a learning commons.
Some programming remains as it always has or is in flux as circumstances change. Reference
statistics are collected and disseminated, but Robin was forced to speculate on how other
evaluative measures might be applied in the future. She is wary about survey fatigue as the
students are surveyed frequently throughout the year and therefore does not see surveys as an
effective means of evaluation. They will not produce a sample of data to exploit. She suggested
that a MISO (Measuring Information Service Outcomes) survey conducted by the college some
years back might still be an effective means of surveying students. Until then, KCL is left with a
gaping hole in evaluating the effectiveness of its reference services.
Other problems exist that Julie and Robin want to see resolved. Fortunately for the Pew
Library, Julie saw fewer issues than Robin did. Both did, however, mention concerns about

9. 8
funding. For Julie, she wants to see an area known as the learning alcove removed entirely.
Students are not using it much at all and digital equipment there can be of better use elsewhere,
such as in a data visualization lab she has been pushing for. Robin sees several minor problems
at KCL. She wants more movable furniture; the lack of it is a continuing complaint among
students. More electrical outlets are needed to better cope with the electronics students bring
with them. The most important to her is switching locations of the collaborative computer
terminals on the second floor—a quiet zone—with the single computer terminals on the first
floor—a noisy zone and where the commons is. Students frequently pull up multiple chairs to the
single computer terminals, crowding the space and those at the collaborative terminals must keep
their voices down.
Yet despite the obvious differences between Kalamazoo College Library and the Mary
Idema Pew Library, looking past the surface reveals much to compare beyond the learning
commons at both being less than two years old. Both libraries strive in their own unique ways to
provide quality reference services within their learning commons to the students they serve. The
learning commons exists to foster student learning in a collaborative environment, but it must
have reference services to do this. The more reference services and learning commons are
reconciled the more academic libraries and their patrons can prosper.

10. 9
Bibliography
Arndt, Theresa S, (2010). “Reference Service without the Desk.” Reference Services Review, v.
38, issue 1, pp. 71 – 80. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00907321011020734.
Church, Jennfer. (2005). “The Evolving Information Commons.” Library Hi-Tech, v. 23, issue 1,
pp. 75 – 81. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07378830510586711.
Fitzpatrick, Elizabeth B., Moore, Anne C., & Lang, Beth W. (2008). “Reference Librarians at the
Reference Desk in a Learning Commons: A Mixed Methods Evaluation.” The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, v. 34, issue 3, pp. 231 – 238. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2008.03.006.
Koelker, June, Bouchard, Kerry, & Lutz, James. (2010). “Development of the Information
Commons at TCU: A Case Study.” Journal of Library Administration, v. 50, issue 2, pp.
95 – 115. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930820903455032.
Lee, Martha, Ritterbush, John, & Sivigny, Robert. (2010). “Reference at the Commons: A Case
Study.” Reference Services Review, v. 38, issue 2, pp. 81 – 89. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00907321011020743.
Lippincott, John K. (2010). “Information Commons: Meeting Millennials’ Needs.” Journal of
Library Administration, v. 50, issue 1, pp. 27 – 37. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930820903422156.
Sult, Leslie & Evangeliste, Mary. (2009). “We Are All Librarians: Training at the Ever Evolving
Information Commons.” v. 50, issue 3, pp. 248 – 258. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763870902947141.

11. 10
Whitchurch, Michael J. (2010). “Planning an Information Commons.” Journal of Library
Administration, v. 50, issue 1, pp. 39 – 50. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930820903422370.
Wong, Gabrielle, K.W. (2010). “Information Commons Help Desk Transactions Study.” Journal
of Academic Librarianship, v. 36, issue 3, pp. 235 – 241. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2010.03.006.