In early 2014, Michigan State University Libraries’ User Experience Work Group set out to determine why patrons value the Main Library facilities. Seating sweeps and surveys were conducted to gather quantitative and qualitative data, which was combined with existing data such as gate counts, chat transcripts, and computer logins, to learn about patrons’ interaction with library spaces. Join three members of the UXWG to discuss design, implementation, and analysis of a space study in a library that supports social, academic, and community activities. Attendees will be encouraged to share and reflect upon the “space value” of their library facilities.
1. Taking It At Space Value:
Tools for Assessing the Library as An
Engaging Space
Christine Tobias – Head of User Experience
Ebony Magnus – User Experience Librarian
Hui Hua Chua – Collections & User Support Librarian
MSU Libraries
Michigan Library Association Annual Conference
October 15, 2014
2. Agenda
• About Us
• Paradigms of Library Space
• Purpose of Space Study
• Seating Sweeps: Methodology and Results
• Survey/Open House: Methodology and Results
• Recommendations
• Challenges/Lessons Learned
• Next Steps
• Q & A
3. User Experience
at the MSU Libraries
http://lib.msu.edu/ux
• To develop and sustain a culture of
assessment and evaluation
• and to provide data-influenced, user-centric
recommendations
• for planning, design, implementation,
and enhancement of library services, spaces,
and collections.
4. User Experience
at the MSU Libraries
http://lib.msu.edu/ux
UNIT GOAL:
• Assess and evaluate the MSU Libraries'
spaces, services, and collections
• measuring impact and value,
• appraising for optimal usability, and
• providing data-influenced
recommendations to stakeholders for
enhancement and/or improvement.
6. Paradigms of Library Space:
Reader-Centered
Library as space for reflection: Connection between book and reader!
Photo: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19415/19415-h/images/img44.jpg
7. Not So Long Ago:
Book-Centered
Library as warehouse: Storage and display of large print collections!
Photo: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Bookshelves_on_the_top_floor_of_the_Chifley_Library.JPG
8. Now:
Learner- Centered
Library as informal learning space: Independent and autonomous learning!
9. Paradigms of Library Space
Reader-Centered
Book-Centered
Learner-Centered
Things to think about:
• Changes in relationship between
space and learner
• Impact or value of space on
learning
• Assessment: Outputs vs.
Outcomes
11. Purpose of Space Study
• How does the Main Library serve as an
informal learning space on campus?
• Who is using the Main Library?
• What, if any, improvements should be
recommended to enhance the space in the
Main Library for learners?
13. Seating Sweeps: Methodology
Possessions
Books
Notebooks
Laptop
Cellphone
Food/drink
Activities
Sitting in group
Reading/writing
Using laptop
Using phone
Using library computer
Using headphones
Sleeping
Browsing (in stacks)
Talking to another patron
Eating/drinking
30. Space Survey: Methodology
Rationale: more qualitative information from library users
5 questions:
Why did you visit the Main Library today? (check
all that apply)
Why did you choose to come to the Main Library
for this activity?
If you had to leave the Main Library, where would
you go? (select one)
Status and department (for MSU affiliates)
32. Respondent Demographics
5% 6%
9%
7%
1%
7%
1% 2%
9%
15%
23%
5%
9%
Visitors by College
2 4 8
22
5 2
108
Respondents by Status
33. 35%
13% 12%
9% 8%
13%
9%
2%
To study alone To study in a
group
To print, scan, or
copy something
Other To meet a
colleague or peer
To use a library
computer
To get a book or
journal
To meet with a
librarian
Reasons for Visit
Findings
Reasons For Selecting the Main Library
7%
Traditional library “hardware”
Quiet, convenience and environment
12%
2% 2%
16%
39%
8% 7%
9%
Collections Environment Food Hours Location Quiet Services Space Technology
34. Findings
Alternatives to the Main Library
33%
51%
15%
1%
Home Somewhere else
on campus
Somewhere off-campus
(blank)
12
9
10
2
7
14
15
Academic
Building
Branch
Library
Café Computer
Lab
Office Residence
Hall
Union
On and Off-campus Alternatives
Off-campus alternative On campus alternative
35. Open House
Rationale:
Opportunistic,
quick and dirty
way to get both
general and
specific input
37. Open House: Methodology
Rationale: quick and dirty guerilla feedback,
more specific input on specific question
38. Hack the Library
Better technology
(11)
Faster wifi (3)
Faster logon for computers (4)
More and working power outlets (4)
Furniture (6) More comfort & privacy
• Nap beds in between studying time would be great in
improving student productivity.
• More booth-like seating
• Computer workstations with wall behind you (2 east)
Study Space (4) More (reserveable) study rooms & a reading room
• A real reading room (w/ puppies) x 2
• Maybe more study rooms or sign up for students to reserve
study spaces
Other (4) • Open all the fire exits. It creates better psycho-geography.
• Monthly visit with puppies
• Cell signal is BAD!
• More colors!
39. Conclusions
• Flexible and multi-use space
• Continued value of the library as a quiet place
to focus
• Importance of the intangible combination of
proximity to others similarly engaged in either
study or socializing and a relaxed, pleasant
atmosphere
• Specifics: booths, more outlets, reading room?
40. Recommendations
• Mix It Up
• Smaller, Movable Tables
• Quiet Study/Reading Rooms
• Group Study/Technology in Open Areas
• Enhanced Technology Support
• NO more lounge furniture
41. Challenges/Lessons Learned
• Scope creep!
• Time!
– Seating sweeps
– Data entry and analysis
• Be prepared! Your findings may surprise you!
• Share targeted, actionable recommendations!
42. Next Steps
• Future projects/phases
– Computer log –in by location
– Collaborative Technology Labs usage study
– CTL reservation (usability) study – wayfinding?
– Annual study?
– Printing by location
– Circulation by Call Number
• EDUCAUSE Learning Space Rating System?
http://www.educause.edu/eli/initiatives/learning-space-rating-system
GOAL: Continual improvement!
43. Resources
Bennett, S. (2009). Libraries and learning: A history of paradigm
change. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 9, 181-197
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pla.0.0049)
May, F. (2011). Methods for studying the use of public spaces in
libraries. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 35, 354-
366. (dx.doi.org/10.1353/ils.2011.0027)
Montgomery, S.E. (2013).Library space assessment: User learning
behaviors in the library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.11.003
Nitecki, D.A. (2011). Space assessment as a venue for defining the
academic library. Library Quarterly, 81, 27-59
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/657446)
44. Thank You!
Christine Tobias
Head of User Experience
tobiasc@msu.edu
Ebony Magnus
User Experience Librarian
emagnus@msu.edu
Hui Hua Chua
Collections & User Support Librarian
chua@msu.edu
Editor's Notes
UXWG/User Experience at MSU Libraries – Hui Hua and Ebony (3/4 of our team is here today).
Officially became a unit under Public Services in June 2014.
Goals of User Experience at MSU Libraries – assess, evaluate spaces and services and make data-influenced recommendations for enhancing and optimizing the user experience;
http://www.lib.msu.edu/ux/
Library space has history: according to Bennett’s article, Libraries and learning: A history of paradigm change, library space and its relationship to learning has shifted through 3 paradigms: Reader-Centered, Book-Centered, and Learner-Centered. Some things to think about as we peruse these paradigm shifts: With each paradigm shift, the relationship between the space and the learner changes, thus changing the impact or value of the library space on learning.
Reader-Centered (Books few and precious; space designed for primarily for reading and reflection; connection between reader and print materials)
Book-Centered (Shelving of large collections)
Learner-Centered (connections between space and intentional, autonomous learning)
Academic library’s purpose and ambitions. How does library space impact informal learning?
Information technology has changed the focus of collections from print to electronic, and thus, the library is no longer simply a warehouse to store and display books. While the role of the library is still to support learning, users now use the physical space as a place to engage in intentional, autonomous learning.
Library space has history: according to Bennett’s article, Libraries and learning: A history of paradigm change, library space and its relationship to learning has shifted through 3 paradigms: Reader-Centered, Book-Centered, and Learner-Centered. Some things to think about as we peruse these paradigm shifts: With each paradigm shift, the relationship between the space and the learner changes, thus changing the impact or value of the library space on learning. Assessment of library spaces is not a new phenomenon, but it is newer. At recent library conferences, space studies have been a hot topic and as the paradigms of library spaces have shifted to be more learner-focused, libraries are joining the movement to conduct meaningful inquiries about the relationship(s) between spaces and learning. The shift between paradigms also shifts the focus of assessment from measuring outputs to measuring outcomes.
For example, assessment in the first two paradigms, reader-centered and book-centered, are output-focused: number of readers using the library; number of books housed in the library; number of books circulating in the collection. Today’s paradigm, Learner-Centered, is more outcome-focused: In what ways does the library support learning and academic achievement? What ways can the space be improved or enhanced to support learning and academic achievement?
Reader-Centered (Books few and precious; space designed for primarily for reading and reflection; connection between reader and print materials)
Book-Centered (Shelving of large collections)
Learner-Centered (connections between space and intentional, autonomous learning)
Academic library’s purpose and ambitions. How does library space impact informal learning?
Assessment of library spaces is not a new phenomenon, but it is newer. At recent library conferences, space studies have been a hot topic and as the paradigms of library spaces have shifted to be more learner-focused, libraries are joining the movement to conduct meaningful inquiries about the relationship(s) between spaces and learning. The shift between paradigms also shifts the focus of assessment from measuring outputs to measuring outcomes.
For example, assessment in the first two paradigms, reader-centered and book-centered, are output-focused: number of readers using the library; number of books housed in the library; number of books circulating in the collection. Today’s paradigm, Learner-Centered, is more outcome-focused: In what ways does the library support learning and academic achievement? What ways can the space be improved or enhanced to support learning and academic achievement?
Fast Facts: MSU = 48,000 students, 5000(?) faculty/staff on a park-like campus; Big Ten University;
Main Library centrally located on campus; 5 floors on 2 wings connected in Basement and on 1st floor;
Brief history: Once had libraries on campus, including the Main Library. Many of these were department-funded. Tough economic times have closed all but 4 branches (3 on campus, 1 off campus)…meaning all of their collections of closed libraries have moved to be housed in the Main Library reducing seat count by 1,000 (?) since the 1990’s. And with an increase in freshman and international student enrollment over the past few years, the Main Library has become the center for informal learning on campus. (There aren’t many other libraries to go to any longer.)
Main Library:
24/5 service;
10 floors, 2 wings; connected on Basement and 1st floors
East Wing = quiet; West Wing = not quiet/group study
***computer workstations
***Group Study Rooms (first-come; first served)
Introduce evidence-based planning of space and facilities: enhance users’ experiences
The Main Library is an informal learning space on campus: who is using it? How is it being used as a learning space? And how can it be improved/enhanced?
Purpose of space study - “meaningful inquiry about the relationship of space to an academic library’s purpose and ambitions;” so we derived 3 basic questions to answer through observation and user feedback: (3 questions…)
Now, Ebony will share the methodology and results of the seating sweeps.
Our library building has 2 wings – east and west – and each wing has 5 floors including the basement. We decided to limit our sweeps to the east and west wings of the first and second floor because these areas offer the most public study space, the majority of our computer workstations, and they are generally the busiest.
Over the course of a four-week period, we conducted seating sweeps – usually every second day – in the morning (10 am), afternoon (4 pm), or the evening (10 pm). Our library is open 24/5, so from Sunday morning to Friday night, our doors do not close. We scheduled our sweeps in such a way that we have data recorded for every day of the week, and we have multiple data sets for each morning, afternoon, and evening.
All of our sweeps took place between March 18 and April 11. This is mid to late semester for us. We did not want to conduct the sweeps during finals because, although it’s our busiest time, the activity during that time is atypical.
For context, the stacks and public spaces on these floors make up almost 100,000 sq. ft. and there are about 1500 available seats. During the busiest times, it took us 2 hours to do a sweep. We had a lot of ground to cover and we collected a lot of information.
We used a paper grid to record our seating sweeps data. It was based on a grid used by Toronto Public Library when they did seating sweeps a few years ago [insert citation].
We had codes for different furniture and equipment types, so we’d mark down what furniture or equipment each patron was using. We also marked gender - or absent if they left belongings unattended. And, to the best of our ability, we made note of possessions they had with them and activities they were engaged in.
Given how much data we collected, I can tell you a lot of things….
I can tell you how many patrons on each floor had: books, notebooks, cellphones, laptops, and food or drink with them.
I can also tell you how many patrons each day were talking to another patron while wearing headphones.
But in the grand scheme of things, these data didn’t prove entirely useful for our purposes. Christine will talk about it a little more when she addresses the challenges of this study, but I’ll mention here that less is more and don’t count for the sake of counting!
So what did we find useful?
The number of patrons observed during sweeps periods ranged from 53 people (Saturday, March 29) to over 600 (Wednesday, March 26 and Tuesday, April 1). Confirming our anecdotal knowledge, evenings prove to be the "busiest" times, in terms of people using the library's physical space. Typical weekday traffic tends to decline as the weekend nears - as evidenced by relatively low counts on Thursdays and Fridays, regardless of time of day.
I mentioned before that there are about 1500 available seats where we did the sweeps.
So, in context, on our busiest days we were 35-40% full. This rate is calculated on the number of available seats at tables, carrels, computer workstations, and lounge furniture.
Because we kept track of location during our sweeps, we’re able to breakdown the data and see which floors are most popular. 2W has the most seating, but overall it’s slightly less popular than 1W and 1E. We can’t know for sure why 1W and 1E are more popular, but we might infer that it has to do with the proximity to entrances and services (we have a café on 1W) and the general environment (1E is “quiet” study but it’s a very open space with sightlines and lots of natural light).
In addition to location, we recorded the type of furniture or equipment patrons were using in the library. Based on count alone, tables appear to be used most frequently, followed by carrels and then windows computers. However, there are more seats at tables than any other type of furniture in the areas we surveyed.
If we look at the rate of occupancy for each furniture type, they seem to be used at more similar rates than it seems when we just look at the count.
In fact, windows computers actually have the highest rate of usage – higher than tables and carrels – which might suggest that Windows computers are actually the most popular seating option.
And if we look more closely at tables and carrels, they appear to be used at almost the same rate. Though, interestingly, tables are used slightly more frequently at the beginning of the sweeps (earlier in the semester) and carrels are used the same or slightly more at the end of the sweeps (later in the semester), suggesting perhaps that patrons have different furniture preferences at different times during the semester.
We also recorded whether or not people were sitting in a group. This doesn’t necessarily mean they are working on a group project, just that they are sitting in close enough proximity to one another that it appears to be an intentional decision. We also recorded whether or not people in the groups were talking to one another – which I haven’t reported here.
Overall, we observed more than two-thirds of patrons studying alone. But that doesn’t mean they were choosing furniture designed for solo study. The bar chart in the middle shows on each day how many of the patrons sitting at tables were doing so alone (green) or in groups (purple). It’s clear that more of the patrons at tables are sitting in groups but, as the bar below demonstrates, about one-third of the patrons sitting at tables were sitting there alone.
This was important for us to consider because we also observed that when patrons chose to sit alone at tables, most of the time, no one else joined them. So one person sitting at a table makes the table “functionally full”. In essence, one person can “occupy” 4 or 6 seats. We point to this as one possible explanation for the fact that on days when the library seemed incredibly full, we were actually only looking at 40% capacity.
Another area we focused on was the use of technology. So here we have two graphs. In both of them, the blue indicates the total number of patrons we counted on that day. In the top one, the red line is the number of patrons that day who were using library computers. And the pink line in the lower graph is the number of patrons with laptops.
From this we learned the (a) that a lot of patrons want or need tech when at the library and (b) the number of patrons who bring a laptop to the library far exceeds the usage of library computers. During the 4-week sweeps period, the rate of patrons with laptops fell below 50% only four times (3/18, 3/28, 3/29, 4/5) and at its lowest, it was 40%. We also counted cellphones – when we could see them – and they came in at lower numbers than laptops – probably because we couldn’t see many of them – but knowing how many of our patrons use personal, wifi-enabled, electronic devices indicates to us the need for outlets and wireless access points.
In our observation, technology was a major – maybe the most significant – component of patrons’ use of space.
Now, I’ve talked about patrons sitting in groups, and I’ve talked about patrons using technology. But one of the most valuable stories we found in our data combines these two topics.
In this chart, the blue line measures the total number of patrons we counted on a single day. The green bar is the combined total of patrons with laptops or at library computers.
In this chart, I’ve taken that green bar – representing people with laptops or library computers – and colour-coded it to show how many of these patrons were sittinig alone (light green) and how many were sitting in groups (purple).
And here I’ve taken away the patrons sitting alone, so we’re just looking at the number of patrons sitting in groups with laptops or library computers. The scale of this isn’t great, so I’m going to adjust it so it’s easier for us to look at.
Same graph – groups, laptops or library computers. I should mention, this isn’t accounting for any patrons without their own laptop who might be sitting with these groups. So if patron A brought a laptop and is sitting with patron B, who didn’t bring a laptop, we’re only counting patron A here.
Regardless, we saw about 225 patrons with laptops or library computers, in groups, on April 7. So we’re dealing with a sizable population at times.
This is, again, the same numbers – patrons in groups with laptops or computers – but now it’s colour-coded based on where they are sitting. The grey portion of the bar accounts for patrons who are sitting in group study rooms and the yellow are patrons – in groups with laptops or computers – sitting anywhere else in the library.
Our group study rooms are first-come, first-serve. And while it’s possible – and on some days likely – that the rooms were full, there are some days (like march 18, March 20, or April 5) where the number of people in group study rooms is so low that it’s unlikely they were all taken. Sooo, it might be fair to say that some patrons who choose to study in groups and use technology prefer to do so outside of group study rooms, in more open spaces.
Now, I’m going to complicate this – or enhance it depending on how you look at it.
We have the first-come, first-serve group study rooms. These rooms have a table, some chairs, and a chalkboard. We also have 9 Collaborative Technology Labs (CTLs). These are reservable group study rooms, and the distinguishing factor is that the CTLs are designed to meet different technological needs. Some have Smartboards, others have DVD players and VCRs, and others are setting up for recording presentations or having teleconferences.
This heatmap shows the number of CTLs reserved at a given time during our sweeps period. The lightest green is 1 room reserved, darkest is 3; light yellow is 4, and darkest yellow is 6. There are 9 rooms, but as you can see, most of the time there are less than 3 rooms reserved.
We don’t think this means people don’t need or want our tech-enabled study rooms. Rather, it could mean that our reservation system is a barrier. Or that, because patrons are bringing their own technology or finding other tech to use in the library, they don’t necessarily want to gather in a room in a corner on the 4th floor of the building.
It’s also worth mentioning that of all the patrons we observed in study rooms – not CTLs and regardless of laptops and computers – almost a quarter of the patrons in first-come, first-serve study rooms were sitting alone.
One of the most actionable findings from our sweeps data (plus that CTL reservation data) suggests that we need to offer a variety of options to support tech-enabled group study in both closed and open spaces, and that groups are not the only ones who might want a closed or contained place to do their work.
Print survey distributed in same areas and during same 3-week time span as seating sweeps.
Logistics: used coloured paper to indicate which floor and area were distributed;
Distributed 699 and got 151 responses. Mainly undergraduates but decent selection of grad students and faculty. Good representation from most Colleges (except Medical) including Business and Engineering which have own branch libraries.
Multi-purpose building. 47% of respondents list two reasons for visiting; 27% list three reasons for visiting. 17 people said both study alone and study in groups. Implications: spaces need to support multiplicity of purposes and needs. People still need and value library as place to study.
Methodology: assigned standard codes for this question based on free text responses. Best practice: 2 coders for same data.
Quiet, convenience (location & hours) and environment (define), what we classified as “soft” intangible factors are more important in selecting library than “hardware” of what we associate with a library ie collections, food, services, space, technology.
Off-campus locations mainly a café.
Logistics: Part of library-wide open house. Users had passport and collected 10 stamps from stations around the library. Prize was iPad Mini. UZ had table with 3 activities. Stamp and small giveaway (lanyard, pencil, post-its). Could do all, one or none to get stamp. Reasons for success: Location. Quick and easy activities. Fun.
Seeded the board with
Mix It Up
While the Main Library has had a significant decrease in seating in the past decade due to the closing of branch libraries and the transfer of these collections into the Main Library, seating occupancy reached only 40% during the busiest sweep times. Instead of increasing the amount of seating available, different seating configurations offering a mixture of furniture types would better meet the needs of library users.
Smaller, Movable Tables
Seating sweeps showed that 1/3 of people seated at tables were sitting alone and studying quietly. These tables have the capacity to seat 4-6 people, so if one person is studying alone at a table, the table is functionally full (the person is occupying all of the seats). The functional seating capacity could be increased by providing smaller, moveable tables (seating 1-2 people).
Quiet Study/Reading Rooms
Observation of group study room use during the seating sweeps indicated that 22% of occupancy was by individuals rather than groups, possibly indicating a need for quiet study/reading rooms. Space survey comments also highlighted the continued importance to users of quiet space.
Group Study and Technology
Seating sweeps show that 43% of users were using technology (i.e. laptops) and working in groups outside of Group Study Rooms and Collaborative Technology Labs (CTLs). It has been surmised that Group Study Rooms and CTLs are in high demand, but given this observation and the CTL reservation data , the creation of group space with technological capabilities in open areas would be more effective in meeting the collaborative needs of users.
Mobile Technology Support (Power Outlets/Charging Stations)
The seating sweeps indicated use of computer workstations were at 48% during the busiest sweep times. Furthermore, it was observed that the majority of visitors bring their own technology (i.e. – laptops, cell phones, tablets, etc.) for use in the library. This observation implies a need for general and mobile technology support such as additional power outlets or charging stations and robust bandwidth, over additional computer workstations.
Furniture
Since lounge furniture (i.e. couches, oversized chairs) received the least amount of use, the purchase of additional lounge furniture is discouraged.
SO MUCH (too much) data collected
Scope creep
Using social media to PR survey
Seating sweeps – more time than planned
Data entry – LOTS of time and grunt work
What to share? And making it shareable and understandable to those who have the authority to implement recommendations.
Targeted recommendations based on data (and understanding that these are recommendations…not up to us to implement)
Analysis of data/findings may surprise you.
For those interested in assessment of learning spaces, you will want to download version 1 of the newly released Learning Space Rating System (LSRS) available on the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI) website at http://www.educause.edu/eli/initiatives/learning-space-rating-systemFrom the Introduction:"The Learning Space Rating System (LSRS) project provides a set of measurable criteria to assess how well the design of classrooms support and enable active learning activities. Noting the success of several architectural programs to promote sustainable building design, the LSRS provides a scoring system to serve as an indicator of how well a classroom’s design serves the goal of active learning. The LSRS criteria form the basis for a rating system that will allow institutions to benchmark their environments against best practices within the higher education community."While this version focused on formal learning spaces, primarily classrooms, future versions will informal spaces (such as library and computer center spaces) and specialized spaces.