what do students want from library discovery tools?

What do students want from

discovery tools?

Keren Mills, The Open University

@mirya

Presentation outline

• Distance learners as co-designers

• Discovery project overview

• Research methods used

• Key findings

#ili2014 @mirya

OU students

73% 73%

29 29 42% 42%

http://www.open.ac.uk/about/main/strategy/facts-and-figures

20,000

20,000

https://www.flickr.com/photos/31167076@N07/5471047557

Student perspectives

I think what I find very difficult or challenging about finding

information is that things are never as straightforward as you

think they are going to be. And you kind of click on one thing

and then it’s never quite what you expect it to be. It’s never full

text, it’s never…I don’t know. It’s very frustrating.”

OU student, Arts level 3

STUDENTS AS CO-DESIGNERS • In late 2012 OU Library Services set up a student panel to make it easier to contact students who

might be willing to take part in our user research.

• Students are recruited to the panel twice a year and we consistently maintain a cohort of 400-500

students.

• Response rates to participate in research activities is high, ranging between 24% to 82%

Library Futures project outline

The discovery research was a nine month project as part

of the Library Futures project. The bigger project included

2 other strands – procuring a new LMS (Alma/Primo) and

developing a “Digital Skills Passport”, which will be a

modified version of “librarygame” from Running in the

Halls.

Discovery research

• The aim of the research was to understand student

expectations of library resource search tools

• The research ran from Autumn 2013 to Summer 2014

• There was a core team of project lead, project officer,

developer with involvement from other library staff from

learning and teaching, and systems

• We had advice and support from the Institute of

Educational Technology’s Usability Labs team

• Outcomes have fed into procurement and setup of new

library systems

RESEARCH METHODS USED

Literature review

“… students do indeed want a Google like experience,

where they are taken directly to a search interface that is

easy to use and had immediately relevant results”

(Mussell, 2013)

The discovery work started with a literature review, which

gave us confidence that a single search was the approach

preferred by students around the world. Combined with a

summary of past feedback, this helped us frame what we

needed to know about the student experience of discovery.

Data analysis of search logs

One stop search (current Discovery tool)

• only 25% of searches use author or title

radio buttons

• 23% keyword search

• 19% article titles

Feedback and log files of search terms weren’t enough

to help us understand what did or didn’t work well about

discovery tools or how students interact with them.

Staff workshops

What academics want students to use

What librarians want students to use

Remote online interviews

All of the different phases of testing were conducted

through remote online interviews

• Students in own home, 1.5 hour interviews

• Researcher in lab on campus using Teamviewer

software to see student screens

• Interviews were recorded with the participants’

permission

• Comments and behaviour were analysed

Observing student searches

We started by giving 18 students a selection of tasks

to do using 2 or 3 different discovery tools each. This

way we were able to test a combination of search

tasks in 8 different discovery tools, using both our own

and search tools from other universities. The students

undertook these tasks during a remote online

interview, allowing me to observe their methods of

searching and their interaction with the search results

pages.

Successful searches

Wireframe prototyping

Having analysed student behaviour and their suggestions

for what they wanted from library search, we then

developed a series of wireframes to help us verify what

we’d learned and allow students to compare interface

designs for search boxes, facets and results page layouts.

The advantage of using the principles of paper prototyping

is that test participants don’t get distracted by commenting

on the colour or brand elements and pay more attention to

the functional features of the interface.

The wireframes were also tested through one-to-one

remote interviews.

Wireframe examples

Working prototype Finally we developed a working prototype using the EDS API and

undertook iterative testing through yet more remote online

interviews, tweaking the interface and results ranking as we went

along. At this point we included some personalisation features such

as showing students a list of resources they had previously

accessed through the library, offering a bookshelf feature, and

offering settings to allow them to customise the interface.

• Construct prototype search interfaces

• Several cycles of iterative development

• Analysis of behaviour and feedback

Working prototype examples

CHALLENGES

Tension – cable/rope, climber?

#ili2014 @mirya

KEY FINDINGS

https://www.flickr.com/photos/30925581@N02/3688091593/

What do students want from library search?

1. Students want a simple search interface and

it must be clear what is being searched

“The simpler it can be and the faster it is to

search the better.”

2. Students want the search results page to open in a new tab/window

“On the module website could you have a search box above the TMA

screens, but the search results open in another tab?”

FELS level 2 student

3. Students want a clear and uncluttered search results page

“[The prototype search tool] seems quite clear, the way it’s laid out.

It’s very easy to find if what you’re looking for is there. There’s a lot of

information, but it’s not cluttered or anything.”

MCT level 2 student


4. The search tool must cope with finding the right result from a full or

partial reference and offer best matches

26% of participants entered whole references and 44% entered partial

references (e.g. author, year and title) into the search box when

looking for an item from a reference.

5. There must be a clear indication whether the full text is available, there

must be a clear link to it and it should open in a new window

“I’d expect another window to open with the full text, but I’d still expect

the search results to stay open.”

Social Sciences level 1 student

6. Students want a library search box on Student Home, or at least a link

“On Student Home – click on a little icon, anywhere down the left

hand side where the links are… A search box is the ultimate.”

MCT level 2 student


7. Students expect an autocomplete feature for the search box

“Very much so, especially if you can’t quite remember the full title of an

item or correct spelling of an author’s name.”


8. Students want to see their previous searches and an indication if they

have viewed the item before

“That would be brilliant, especially if you’ve forgotten to note down the

details of something you’ve referred to.”


“What I like to do is find things upfront and save them somewhere so I

can come back to it. I’d like it if I could mark it as read so I know

which ones I’ve read already.”


9. Students like the idea of a personal library ‘shelf’

“That would be fantastic! I presume it means you can store articles and

e-books and come back to them.”

MCT level 2 student


10. Students expect Google-like relevance ranking

“We’re all used to Google and we just put in one, two or three words.”


“Google brings up results with most of the keywords.”

FELS level 2 student

Lessons learned

User research is definitely worth doing

• It helped us decide which supplier to go with

• The evidence gained will shape how Primo Discovery will

be implemented

What do students want from

discovery tools?

Keren Mills (@mirya)

Digital Services Development Officer

Library Services, The Open University

[email protected]

www.slideshare.net/mirya

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.slideshare.net/mirya