Seventy-one graduate students expressed their opinions about EMU Library resources
and services through an online survey offered during March and April 2005. With
approximately 5000 graduate students enrolled in EMU programs, the number responding
to our survey is disappointing and obviously not large enough to do any meaningful
statistical analysis. However, we greatly appreciate the efforts of
those who did complete the survey, many of whom provided additional insightful
comments. While it may be impossible to generalize based on the responses
of 71 students, we can get some perspective of graduate students’ attitudes
about our collections, services, staff, and facilities. The survey was
a follow up to our 2003 participation in LibQUAL, a national library survey
that measured users’ perceptions and expectations of 24 items pertaining
to the quality of library resources and services. Many of the questions
in the national survey were too general or ambiguous to draw any useful conclusions
so we decided to design our own survey that would specifically target the concerns
and needs of each of our user groups. Because LibQUAL revealed that
graduate students were the most dissatisfied group, it was only appropriate
to survey them first.
Approximately 85% of the survey respondents are working on master’s
degrees and 9% are in doctoral programs. Of those students enrolled
in courses on campus, 51% are full-time and 39% are part-time. 10% identified
themselves as distance education students. 24% of the respondents obtained
their undergraduate degree from EMU.
When conducting surveys, libraries should also reach out to nonusers to determine
why these individuals do not utilize the plethora of resources and services,
many of which can be accessed remotely as well as on-site. Seven out
of our 71 respondents report that they do not use our resources and services,
primarily because the building’s location and hours are not convenient
for them and because they use the Internet (other than the Library’s
Web site) to find information. These seven students are either taking
evening classes only or are enrolled in the distance education program. Even
though parking problems or job and family constraints may be legitimate obstacles
preventing evening students from coming to the building, we can reach them
through course-integrated library instruction. These students should
be using the Library’s Web site as their primary gateway to information
rather than relying on Internet search engines to locate the scholarly resources
necessary for graduate level course work. While it may not be feasible
for distance education students to come to campus, we do have a librarian who
devotes approximately 65 to 70% of her time to helping these students obtain
the resources they need. In fact, several distance education respondents
single out that librarian for the quality of her service to them.
The survey respondents who do use our resources and services (Chart 1) typically
do so at least once a week – 27% in person and the others remotely (37%
from elsewhere on campus and 51% from off-campus). When asked to indicate
all the reasons they come to the Library in person (Chart 2), 70% report that
their primary purpose is to find/use books and/or journals. Approximately
40% come to the library to study or to use the computer labs for class work. 35%
report that they interact/consult with a librarian when in the building. Graduate
students were asked how often they use specific resources to identify the books
or journals needed for their course work and/or research projects (Chart 3). The
Library’s online databases are used very frequently or frequently by
92% of the respondents. The second most heavily accessed resource is
the Library’s online catalog used by 72% of the respondents followed
by Internet search engines used by 66%. Of the three choices (faculty, fellow
students and friends, librarians) listed for personal assistance, librarians
are the least used resource with 3% of graduate students consulting them very
frequently, 14% frequently, 28% occasionally, 33% seldom, and 22% never. Although
low, these figures probably reflect positively on the quality, accessibility,
and ease of use of our electronic databases and online catalog rather than
negatively on the responsiveness and knowledgeableness of our librarians. It
might also be surmised that by the time they reach the graduate level, students
have become more comfortable navigating these resources and using them effectively
without librarian mediation.
The 2003 LibQUAL survey questions about library collections did not adequately
distinguish between books and journals or between paper and electronic resources. Our
new survey has separate sections for books and journals, with additional breakdowns
by format, making it easier to determine what graduate students think about
the quality of our various resources and the ease of finding, accessing/locating
and using them. With a declining acquisitions budget and escalating
serial costs, we need to be more cognizant of the collection usage preferences
of our patrons in order to achieve the maximum cost/benefit ratio when allocating
monies. 23% of the 64 respondents consider books to be more important
than other types of resources in their subject areas. 42% report that
books are very important, 30% somewhat important, and 5% not very important. In
their evaluation of the breadth and depth of the Library’s book collections,
20% report that our monographs meet their study/research needs to a great extent,
47% to a moderate extent, 25% to a limited extent and 5% not at all. 33%
find it very easy to search for books in the online catalog and 62% find it
somewhat easy. The survey also sought feedback on specific service issues
relating to our book collections in paper format, including layout and organization,
reshelving, ARC retrieval, loan periods, and searches for missing books. The
majority of respondents are satisfied or very satisfied in every category except
the handling of search requests for missing books. Of the 26 students
who have used this service, 16 (61%) report being either dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied. We are now in the process of implementing changes to improve
this situation. Currently the Library provides access to over 20,000
electronic books primarily through NetLibrary; slightly more that 20% of respondents
have used our ebooks and the majority report being satisfied with the ease
of accessing them from on- and off-campus, printing capabilities, and viewer
display quality. However 8 (42%) of the 19 respondents who have checked
out ebooks are dissatisfied with the six hour loan period. When asked
to indicate their format preference for books, 56% of respondents prefer paper,
25% prefer electronic, and 19% express no preference. Criticisms of
the book collections range from the specific – the library has inadequate
collections in construction management, historic preservation, and music education
to the general – the library should purchase current editions of textbooks
and additional copies of frequently checked out books; our books are too old;
our books are “not up to par with most doctoral granting institutions,
and “lost books have been a problem.”
The survey included a similar set of questions about journal importance, quality,
and usage. Over 65% of respondents believe that journals are the most
important resource in their field and 22% consider journals to be very important. In
their evaluation of our journal collections, the students’ responses
concerning quality mirrored their opinions about the book collections. 42%
of the respondents find it very easy to search for journals in WebVoyager;
43% find it somewhat easy; and 15% find it difficult. While only 58%
of respondents have used journals in paper, 91% have used electronic journals. Approximately
34% have used the microform journal collections. 72% prefer electronic
journals, 12% prefer paper, and 16% have no preference. Most of the
comments about our journal collections reflected this preference for electronic
journals with the consensus being “the more electronic full-text journals
the better!” The layout and organization, reshelving, and ARC
retrieval for the paper journal collection all received satisfactory ratings
as did the service issues (ease of access, printing, and display) relating
to electronic journals. However, 65% of the respondents are very dissatisfied
or dissatisfied with the handling of search requests for missing journals.
While our LibQUAL results had given us the impression that most of our patrons
did not utilize interlibrary loan/document delivery services, the new survey
indicates that slightly over half of the graduate student respondents have
used the service. Approximately 66% report being very satisfied or satisfied,
while the 34% who are dissatisfied complain primarily about slow delivery times
and short borrowing periods. Interestingly, several respondents praise
the delivery speed, but one of them does point out that it had “improved
dramatically in recent weeks.” Other students suggest increasing
the five item limit for requests and providing the option to renew materials. There
also appears to be some confusion among distance education students on whether
to contact the interlibrary loan department or the distance education librarian
to receive service.
Graduate students were also asked about their use of and satisfaction with
other types of print and/or electronic resources. 73% of the respondents
have used reference materials in paper format with 89% being very satisfied
or satisfied; 87% have used such resources in electronic format with an 87%
approval rating. In a previous survey question, the overwhelming majority
of respondents report that they rely on electronic indexes and databases to
identify books and journals for their studies, so we would expect usage of
such resources to be much higher than their print counterparts. In fact,
only 6 students out of 63 report that they do not use electronic indexes/databases
compared to 25 students who do not use the paper versions of these resources. However,
while 92% of those students using the paper indexes are very satisfied or satisfied,
only 77% of those using the electronic versions are similarly satisfied. Electronic
course reserves have been accessed by slightly over 53% of the respondents
(compared to 37% using paper course reserves) with 97% being satisfied or very
satisfied with the collection. Other collections, including theses and
dissertations, government documents, maps, archives, and audiovisual materials,
are seldom used by the graduate students who responded to this survey. Typically
somewhere between 60 to 70% of the respondents report not using or being unaware
of these collections.
The next group of survey questions dealt with the responsiveness, courtesy,
and knowledge of library staff at our various service points. We received
disappointing customer service ratings from graduate students who participated
in the 2003 LibQUAL survey, but the general nature of the questions made it
impossible to identify where problems were occurring. In addition, our
facility shares space with several heavily used student-centered operations
which the Library does not manage, such as Multimedia Services and the ground
floor computer lab. However, we did realize that customer service quality
was uneven among Library departments and that we needed to be more cognizant
of the skills needed by our front line employees. In the last two years,
some staffing changes were made and more customer service training has been
provided for both staff and student assistants. These improvement efforts
have been recognized by the graduate students who responded to the new survey. More
than 80% of them have received assistance at the main Information Services/Reference
desk and 92% are impressed with the responsiveness of this staff, 94% with
their courtesy, and 90% with their knowledge. The same number of respondents
received help at the Circulation/Reserves desk and these students report being
very satisfied or satisfied with responsiveness (90%), courtesy (86%) and knowledge
(78%) of the staff. 75% of the respondents have had interactions with
Client Services; 83% of them are very satisfied or satisfied with staff responsiveness
and courtesy and 81% with the knowledge displayed by staff. Approximately
40% of the respondents have sought help at the Periodicals/Government Documents
desk and that staff receives positive ratings from 95% of those students. The
same numbers of students have used University Archives and 88% are very satisfied
or satisfied with their treatment. 15% of the respondents have asked
for assistance from Map Library staff with a 100% satisfaction rating. However,
at all service points, there is room for improvement as most students report
being satisfied rather than very satisfied with customer service quality, usually
by more than a two to one margin. The exception is the service provided
at the Information Services/Reference desk where the number of very satisfied
customers nearly equals the number of satisfied customers. In comments
about their experiences with Library staff, several respondents also single
out the reference librarians for praise. Unfortunately, some students
have had negative interactions, with one complaining that “the employees
are often rude and start with the attitude that something can’t be done
and the patron is bothering them for asking.” The survey also
asked whether the number and hours of the service desks are adequate for graduate
student needs, which is pertinent because we have been exploring how to expand
reference service to the third floor. 92% of the respondents feel that
the Library has enough service points and 89% are satisfied with the hours
of service provided by the desks.
The next section of the survey sought feedback on the use of and satisfaction
with facilities and equipment. Approximately 80% of the respondents
use computer workstations in the Library and 70% use our printers; nearly one-third
of them are very dissatisfied or dissatisfied with this equipment. Public
photocopiers and noise levels in the building are both considered less than
satisfactory by 26% of the respondents. Students report the most satisfaction
with building signage, lighting, and temperature and air quality, although
again the number of those who are very satisfied is significantly less than
the numbers who are satisfied. The majority of written comments reflect
the dissatisfaction with Library’s computers and lack of quiet areas.
In the final section on library instruction, 62% of the respondents report
that they have attended at least one instruction session on how to use our
resources and services. When asked what types of instruction they find
to be the most useful (Chart 4), 56% of the students selected assistance from
librarians at the reference desk. Course-integrated instruction given
by librarians during class time, remote access to a librarian, and online help/tutorials
were each selected by approximately 40% of the respondents. Printed
guides/information sheets are judged to be the least useful among the nine
choices offered.
Although it is impossible to draw conclusions based on the small number of
respondents, the survey does seem to corroborate much of what we had learned
or suspected about the needs and preferences of graduate students based on
LibQUAL results, focus group feedback, and suggestion box comments. Graduate
students want the power to function independently when accessing our resources
and services. Consequently, the importance of the work done by Library
technical services and network/systems staff to ensure and improve upon the
accuracy, availability, and ease of use of our online catalog and databases
cannot be overemphasized. Journals appear to be more heavily used than
books by graduate students, but of course, a statistically significant number
of respondents in each academic program would be needed to determine whether
this holds true across all disciplines. Full-text electronic journals
are definitely preferred over their paper counterparts. Although relevance
will vary by academic discipline, our specialized collections – government
documents, maps/atlases, archives – are a source of diverse and often
unique information that, judging from our survey results, are severely underutilized. We
have made progress in our efforts to provide better customer service; we now
need to ensure that our users perceive that all their interactions with library
staff are very satisfactory.
Chart 1
Chart 2
Chart 3
Chart 4
|
