Taking It At Space Value:Tools for Assessing the Library as An Engaging

Space

Christine Tobias – Head of User ExperienceEbony Magnus – User Experience Librarian

Hui Hua Chua – Collections & User Support Librarian

MSU Libraries

Michigan Library Association Annual ConferenceOctober 15, 2014

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

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.

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.

Paradigms of Library Space

Reader-Centered

Book-Centered

Learner-Centered

Paradigms of Library Space:Reader-Centered

Photo: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19415/19415-h/images/img44.jpg

Library as space for reflection: Connection between book and reader!

Not So Long Ago:Book-Centered

Photo: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Bookshelves_on_the_top_floor_of_the_Chifley_Library.JPG

Library as warehouse: Storage and display of large print collections!

Now:Learner- Centered

Library as informal learning space: Independent and autonomous learning!

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

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?

Seating Sweeps: Methodology

Seating Sweeps: MethodologyPossessionsBooksNotebooksLaptopCellphoneFood/drink

ActivitiesSitting in groupReading/writingUsing laptopUsing phoneUsing library computerUsing headphonesSleepingBrowsing (in stacks)Talking to another patronEating/drinking

Tue,3/18

Thu,3/20

Mon,3/24

Wed,3/26

Fri,3/28

Sat,3/29

Sun,3/30

Tue,4/01

Thu,4/03

Sat,4/05

Sun,4/06

Mon,4/07

Wed,4/09

Fri,4/11

0

200

400

600

Overall patron countTime of day

Morning

Afternoon

Evening

Tue,3/18

Thu,3/20

Mon,3/24

Wed,3/26

Fri,3/28

Sat,3/29

Sun,3/30

Tue,4/01

Thu,4/03

Sat,4/05

Sun,4/06

Mon,4/07

Wed,4/09

Fri,4/11

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

10%14%

25%

37%

27%

18%

10%13%

39% 40%35%

6%3% 5%

Overall occupancy rateTime of day

Morning

Afternoon

Evening

3/20 3/26 3/29 4/01 4/05 4/07 4/11

2W

1W

0%

50%

100%

0%

50%

100%

Occupancy rate, 1W & 2W

3/20 3/26 3/29 4/01 4/05 4/07 4/11

2E

1E

0%

50%

100%

0%

50%

100%

Occupancy rate, 1E & 2E

3/18 3/20 3/22 3/24 3/26 3/28 3/30 4/1 4/3 4/5 4/7 4/9 4/11

0

100

200

300

Patron count by furniture typeCarrels

Lounge furniture

Mac computers

Tables

Windows computers

3/18 3/20 3/22 3/24 3/26 3/28 3/30 4/1 4/3 4/5 4/7 4/9 4/11

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Occupancy rate by furniture typeCarrels

Lounge furniture

Mac computers

Tables

Windows computers

3/18 3/20 3/22 3/24 3/26 3/28 3/30 4/1 4/3 4/5 4/7 4/9 4/11

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Occupancy rate by furniture typeCarrels

Lounge furniture

Mac computers

Tables

Windows computers

3/18 3/20 3/22 3/24 3/26 3/28 3/30 4/1 4/3 4/5 4/7 4/9 4/11

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Occupancy rate by furniture typeCarrels

Lounge furniture

Mac computers

Tables

Windows computers

31%69%

Overall rate of patrons sitting alone v. in groups

3/18 3/20 3/24 3/26 3/28 3/29 3/30 4/1 4/3 4/5 4/6 4/7 4/9 4/11

0

100

200

300

Table use: Patrons sitting alone v. in groups

Alone

In a group

68%32%

Table use: Overall rate of patrons sitting alone v. in groups

3/18 3/20 3/22 3/24 3/26 3/28 3/30 4/1 4/3 4/5 4/7 4/9 4/11

0

200

400

600

Patrons using Library workstations

Using lib. computers

Total patron count

3/18 3/20 3/22 3/24 3/26 3/28 3/30 4/1 4/3 4/5 4/7 4/9 4/11

0

200

400

600

Laptops v. total patron count

Patrons with laptops

Total patron count

3/21 3/26 3/31 4/5 4/10

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Patrons using technologyLib. computer or laptop

Total patron count

3/21 3/26 3/31 4/5 4/10

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Patrons using technology, alone v. in groupsAlone

In a group

3/21 3/26 3/31 4/5 4/10

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Patrons sitting in groups and using technology

3/21 3/26 3/31 4/5 4/10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Groups using technology

3/18 3/20 3/22 3/24 3/26 3/28 3/30 4/1 4/3 4/5 4/7 4/9 4/11

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Groups using technology, by location

In group study rooms

Elsewhere in the library

3/16 3/18 3/20 3/22 3/24 3/26 3/28 3/30 4/1 4/3 4/5 4/7 4/9 4/11 4/13

10 AM

4 PM

10 PM

CTL reservations

Rooms reserved1

2

3

4

5

6

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

22%

78%

Patrons sitting alone in GSR

Space Survey: MethodologyRationale: 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)

Respondent Demographics

ANR

Business

Educati

on

Engin

eerin

g

Human M

edicin

e

James

Madiso

n

Lyman

Briggs

Music

Natural

Scien

ce

Socia

l Scie

nce

(blank)

Communication

Arts &

Letters

5% 6%

9%7%

1%

7%

1% 2%

9%

15%

23%

5%

9%

Visitors by CollegeAcadem

ic Pro

fessio

nal

Community m

ember

Facu

lty

Graduate

studen

tOther

staff

Undergrad

uate st

udent

2 4 822

5 2

108

Respondents by Status

35%

13% 12% 9% 8%13% 9%

2%

Reasons for Visit

Findings

Collections Environment Food Hours Location Quiet Services Space Technology

7%

12%

2% 2%

16%

39%

8% 7%9%

Reasons For Selecting the Main Library

Quiet, convenience and environment

Traditional library “hardware”

Findings

Home

Somew

here el

se on ca

mpus

Somew

here off-ca

mpus

(blank)

33%51%

15%1%

Alternatives to the Main Library

Academic Building

Branch Library

Café Computer Lab

Office Residence Hall

Union

12

910

2

7

1415

On and Off-campus Alternatives

Off-campus alternative On campus alternative

Open House

Rationale: Opportunistic, quick and dirty way to get both general and specific input

Booth

Wooden carrel

Plastic carrel

Chair with tablet desk

Table

Stools

44

30

30

26

17

9

Furniture Poll Results

Open House: Methodology

Rationale: quick and dirty guerilla feedback, more specific input on specific question

Hack the LibraryBetter 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 spacesOther (4) • Open all the fire exits. It creates better psycho-geography.

• Monthly visit with puppies• Cell signal is BAD!• More colors!

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?

Recommendations

• Mix It Up• Smaller, Movable Tables• Quiet Study/Reading Rooms• Group Study/Technology in Open Areas• Enhanced Technology Support• NO more lounge furniture

Challenges/Lessons Learned

• Scope creep!• Time!

– Seating sweeps– Data entry and analysis

• Be prepared! Your findings may surprise you!• Share targeted, actionable recommendations!

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!

ResourcesBennett, 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)

Thank You!

Christine TobiasHead of User Experience

tobiasc@msu.edu

Ebony MagnusUser Experience Librarian

emagnus@msu.edu

Hui Hua ChuaCollections & User Support Librarian

chua@msu.edu