Conference Paper
Longitudinal Assessment of “User-Driven” Library
Commons Spaces
Robert Fox
Dean, University Libraries
University of Louisville
Louisville, Kentucky, United
States of America
Email: bob.fox@louisville.edu
Ameet Doshi
Head, User Experience
Department
Georgia Institute of
Technology Library
Atlanta, Georgia, United
States of America
Email: ameet.doshi@gatech.edu
2013 Fox and Doshi. This is an
Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objective – To conduct a longitudinal assessment of
library spaces at the Georgia Tech Library and to determine the satisfaction of
students with the most recent commons renovation. The library has completed
three commons area renovations. The Library West Commons (LWC) opened in 2002
with an individual productivity lab, multimedia studio, and presentation rehearsal
studio, while the Library East Commons (LEC) and the 2nd floor West
Commons (2 West) opened in 2006 and 2009, respectively, with flexible,
user-centered environments designed to promote collaborative activities. This
analysis focuses on the renovated collaborative spaces, while also
investigating and commenting on how renovation impacts usage of other spaces in
the library.
Methods
– Usage
of all library spaces was measured during one-week periods in Fall 2008 and
Spring 2010. Observations were made of each student floor in the library at
four times during the day; measures included space utilization by groups, group
sizes, and laptop utilization. In addition, a qualitative instrument was
administered during Spring 2010 to 103 students using the 2 West Commons space
to confirm whether the renovation met their needs.
Results
– Overall,
there was a 64.5% increase in group utilization of the library from 2008 to
2010, driven primarily by the 2 West renovation. The
greatest concentration of group usage was in the LEC and 2 West, though the
number of groups using the LEC declined. Laptop use in the 2 West commons more
than doubled (33.6% to 70.5%), and laptop use in the entire library increased
from 40.5% to 49.0%. In the qualitative survey, scores ranged between 4.0 and
5.0 on a 5-point scale for items regarding four design themes for the 2 West
renovation: power/data, lighting, aesthetics, and the creation of a “defined
yet open” space.
Conclusion
–
Findings suggest that the 2 West Commons is attracting
more students and groups following its renovation, that it is attracting
students and groups away from the previously renovated LEC, and that overall
usage of the library increased subsequent to the 2 West renovation.
Introduction
The Georgia Tech Library
serves over 26,000 students, staff, and faculty. The main physical facility
consists of two separate libraries (East and West) joined by a bridge. This
facility is open 135 hours during the week closing only Friday and Saturday
nights. Georgia Tech’s most recent LibQUAL+® survey administration, conducted
in 2010, demonstrated heavy use of the facility by both undergraduate and
graduate students with 88% of undergraduates and 86% of graduate students
indicating at least monthly use (Cook et al., 2010; see Figure 1). Furthermore,
over 60% of undergraduates indicated daily or weekly use of the facility. The
fact that over 80% of graduate students indicate regular use of the library
facility was particularly surprising, leading us to conclude that “Library as
Place” remains a vibrant part of student life across user groups.
The Georgia Tech
Library has completed three commons area renovations. The first, the Library
West Commons (LWC) opened in 2002 with a large individual productivity lab, a
multimedia studio, and a presentation rehearsal studio. Building on the success
of the LWC, the library embarked on planning for the Library East Commons (LEC)
which opened in 2006. Designed to promote collaborative activities in a
flexible, user-centered environment, this renovation was particularly
successful due to the depth of user feedback gathered throughout the design
process. The third and most recent renovation, the 2nd floor West Commons (“2
West”), was completed in Fall 2009. The 2 West project
continued and increased the level of user design input to the extent that it is
often described as a “student designed” library space. Fox and Stuart (2009)
provide more comprehensive information on the planning and design of these
spaces.
Figure 1
Georgia Tech Library
facility use among students (LibQUAL+® 2010)
While the 2 West project shares a design component with the LEC, namely
that of providing user-informed collaborative spaces, it differs in two significant
ways. First, 2 West
provides more open spaces for collaborative activities than the LEC, promoting
greater adaptability for group size variations and, in general, a sense of more
flexibility. Second, other than four quick-use walk-up terminals, 2 West does
not provide library-owned desktop computers. In 2007, Georgia Tech updated its
student computer ownership policy to require that all incoming first-year
students own a personal laptop computer. This requirement is significant
because it helped drive the decision not to include desktop computing spaces in
2 West; but instead make the space more amenable to personal laptop use through
abundant power outlets and wired data ports, an enhanced wireless network,
wireless printing capability, and 42-inch monitors that can attach to multiple
laptops simultaneously. Rather than continuing to create expensive, financially
unsustainable and less flexible “computer lab” commons with stand-alone
computer terminals, the 2 West renovation embraces the laptop and mobile-device
oriented culture of the larger institution.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this
study was to conduct a longitudinal assessment of library spaces at the Georgia
Tech Library and to determine the satisfaction of students with the most recent
commons renovation. Our analysis focuses on the renovated collaborative spaces,
while also investigating and commenting on how renovation impacts usage of
other spaces in the library. By assessing the impact of this most recent
renovation over time, we hope to provide justification for future renovations
and inform these projects with the most appropriate user-sensitive design.
This longitudinal
study seeks to answer the following key questions: To what degree does
renovation impact utilization of the renovated space? How does usage of
renovated spaces change over time, particularly in light of subsequent
renovations to library spaces with similar functions? And, what effect did
these renovations have on overall utilization of library spaces? Based on
previous observations and gate count data, we anticipated that the creation of
the new 2 West commons would substantially increase utilization of that
particular space, while also leading to an overall increase in library usage.
We also expected to find that the increased utilization of 2 West would come at
some expense to usage of the LEC. Both of these commons areas provide
collaborative spaces; but the LEC was often very crowded prior to 2 West
construction, and we expected that the renovated 2 West would provide a “relief
valve” for the student pressure to increase collaborative space within the
library. As the final part of our study, we also seek to determine how
satisfied students are with the renovation of the 2 West commons based on the
original user-centered design criteria for that space.
Although there have
been numerous commentaries and research articles written about “library as
place” and commons spaces, no published work examines the effect of renovation
on library space utilization over time. In a landmark study, Whitmire (2001)
examined the library-use patterns of over 1,000 undergraduate students over
their first three years in college. Although Whitmire’s research is very useful
in providing a holistic understanding of how and why undergraduates use
academic library resources, services and facilities, it does not specifically
investigate the impact that renovation has on facilities usage. Scott Bennett,
writing in the 2005 Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR) report,
Library as Place: Rethinking Roles,
Rethinking Space, notes the importance of fostering social components of
learning by creating a sense of community among students. We have found at
Georgia Tech that creating a sense of community ownership empowers users to
modify and govern the space based on their evolving needs. A major
consideration for the 2 West renovation was to create a space where students
felt comfortable moving furniture around to meet their needs and expectations.
The success of this user participation dimension was assessed using a
qualitative questionnaire, which supplements the space utilization data.
Potthoff, Weis, Montanelli, and Murbach (2000) illustrate a behavioral sciences
approach to evaluating library spaces called the Role Repertory Grid Procedure.
While there is some overlap between our qualitative instrument and the
comprehensive approach adopted by Potthoff et al., our instrument focuses on
evaluating four specific themes that emerged from student focus groups involved
with the initial co-design phase for 2 West. However, the Role Repertory Grid
Procedure may be useful for future iterations of the qualitative part of this
study. Somerville and Collins (2008) write about the importance of
collaborative, user-centered design principles in the planning process for the
renovation of library learning spaces. Though they discuss important components
of user-driven library commons renovation, their work does not fill the
research gap regarding longitudinal assessment of these spaces. Furthermore,
there have not been any formal studies to investigate the internal impact that
renovation has on other spaces within the library.
Methodology
The methodology for
this longitudinal study involves both quantitative and qualitative components.
Initial observations were first performed during Fall 2008 by measuring usage
of all library spaces for one week. Observations included counts of patrons
using each space or zone at four times during the day. The number of groups in
each space was recorded. Some, but not all, of the 2008 observations also noted
group sizes. One of the 2008 observations collected data on laptop utilization.
A second set of
comparative observational data was collected during Spring 2010 to more
definitively determine the longitudinal impact of opening a new space on
overall building usage, group usage versus individual usage by zone, and laptop
utilization, after the opening of the 2 West commons. As in 2008, observations
were made of each student floor in the library at four times during the day.
These times were labeled as morning, afternoon, evening, and night and were
taken at approximately the same time each day Monday through Thursday. The
observations for Fridays included only three data points as the library closes
at 6:00 p.m. on Fridays during most of the semester. For each count, the
observer noted the number of individuals and groups in the zone, the sizes of
each group, and the number of laptops being used. The 2010 observations were
timed to coincide with the same period of the semester as when the 2008
observations were conducted.
Additionally, feedback
gathered from students during the initial design phase for 2 West identified
specific areas for improvement. These areas included a desire for improved
power and data access, improved lighting and aesthetics, and flexible spaces
that could be “student-owned.” A qualitative instrument was administered during
Spring 2010 to students using the 2 West commons space to confirm if the
renovation met their needs. This survey included the following questions:
On a scale of 1-5, how well does the power in
this space meet your needs? Why?
On a scale of 1-5, how well does the lighting of
this space meet your needs? Why?
On a scale of 1-5, how well do the aesthetics,
furniture and ambience of this space meet your needs? Why?
During the initial planning for the design of
this space, students noted a desire for a “defined yet open” space. They
described a space that included well-defined areas for group study, while
not limiting the option to move furniture around for their individual
needs. On a scale of 1-5, how successful is this space in striking this
balance of “defined yet open”? Why?
In addition to the
questions outlined above, the survey also included an open-ended question
asking for additional comments or suggestions for the library. These
qualitative comments are useful to describe the “lived experience” of the
students within the 2 West space. They also provided context for the
quantitative statistics and provided a better overall picture of how and why
our users interact with the newly renovated areas in the library.
Findings and Observations
Table 1 shows the
percentage change in the numbers of individuals using the LEC and 2 West, and
the change in the total usage of all zones (floors 1 through 6), from the 2008
and 2010 observational data. The 2 West space saw higher usage for each 2010
data collection when compared with the same period in the 2008 observation.
Total usage of 2 West increased 94.0% between the 2008 and 2010 observations.
For the LEC, some 2010
observations revealed higher usage while others declined when compared to 2008.
Overall usage of the LEC during the observations increased only 2.7% thus
lagging considerably behind the increase of 2 West. The data suggests that on
the busiest days (Monday through Thursday), 2 West is attracting students away
from the LEC space. Total usage of library spaces on all floors during the
observations increased 25.1%, considerably higher than the increase in Georgia
Tech student population between 2008 and 2010.
Space Utilization by
Groups
Table 2 provides the
total number of groups observed in each space and the percentage change for
group utilization of each area between 2008 and 2010.
By far, the greatest concentration
of group usage is in the LEC and 2 West, as these are
the only areas of the library that have been renovated specifically to provide
collaborative space. These spaces are also located on the “talking allowed”
floors rather than floors dedicated for quiet study. The increase of
collaborative use of 2 West both in terms of raw numbers and percentage change
is quite high, reflecting the popularity of this freshly renovated space. While
still high, the number of groups using the LEC declined. Interestingly, the LEC
was the only space to experience a decline in number of groups from 2008 to
2010, though it should be noted that the percentage change in other areas is
based on smaller counts as these spaces are primarily dedicated to quiet study.
Overall, the data illustrates that the 65.4% increase in group utilization of
the library from 2008 to 2010 is driven primarily by the 2 West renovation.
Group Sizes
While the 2008
observations recorded the number of groups using each zone, only eight of the
2008 observations noted the sizes of each group. These eight observations were
the evening and night observations, Monday through Thursday. Group sizes were
noted during each of the 2010 observations, but we can only make a direct
comparison between the 2008 and 2010 data for the evening and weekend
observations conducted Monday through Thursday. The number of group members in
2 West increased 67.4%; but as the total number of groups more than doubled,
the average group size decreased from 3.4 to 2.8 members. The number of group
members in the LEC declined 1.8% with group size declining slightly from 2.7 to
2.5 members. With the exception of the LEC and one other zone, all observed
spaces recorded increases in the total number of group members between the 2008
and 2010 observations, while average group sizes fluctuated with some zones
experiencing increases and some decreases.
When reviewing all 19
observations made during 2010, including the morning and afternoon times
excluded from the comparisons in the discussion above, variations in group
sizes by zone seem to be minimal. Average group sizes by zone ranged from 2.2
to 2.9 with no apparent pattern by size of the space, floor level (i.e., floors
closer or further away from the main entrance), whether a quiet or talking
space, or whether the space had been renovated. One variable that may have
provided some impact on group size is the availability in certain zones of
tables somewhat larger than in others, or specifically in the renovated 2 West
area, of small tables that can easily be moved together to form larger groups.
Table 1
LEC, 2 West and Total Attendance % Change 2008-2010
MONDAY
1st Floor
East Commons (LEC)
2nd floor West Commons (2 West)
TOTAL All Library Zones % Change (2008-2010)
Morning
-18.1%
+11.5%
-9.8%
Afternoon
+13.2%
+134.5%
+66.1%
Evening
-5.9%
+55.6%
+25.8%
Night
-17.6%
+46.2%
+12.8%
TUESDAY
LEC
2 West
TOTAL LIBRARY
Morning
-16.7%
+29.7%
+10.1%
Afternoon
-24.5%
+87.7%
+18.4%
Evening
+10.6%
+43.6%
+38.2%
Night
+17.5%
+57.3%
+65.0%
WEDNESDAY
LEC
2 West
TOTAL LIBRARY
Morning
+24.4%
+79.3%
+9.3%
Afternoon
-10.6%
+103.7%
+7.9%
Evening
+16.1%
+52.6%
+28.7%
Night
-5.4%
+72.4%
+41.7%
THURSDAY
LEC
2 West
TOTAL LIBRARY
Morning
-20.0%
+260.0%
+31.7%
Afternoon
-4.0%
+130.9%
+45.9%
Evening
-35.1%
+25.3%
-1.4%
Night
-45.7%
+15.7%
-12.1%
FRIDAY
LEC
2 West
TOTAL LIBRARY
Morning
+107.1%
+246.2%
+44.5%
Afternoon
+22.2%
+45.5%
+18.0%
Evening
+42.9%
+286.7%
+35.6%
OVERALL USAGE
% CHANGE (2008-2010)
+2.7%
+94.0%
+25.1%
Laptop Utilization
Table 3 illustrates
how laptop utilization has changed since the 2 West renovation. The number of
students utilizing laptop computers was noted during each observation in 2010.
Table 2
Space Utilization by Groups (% Change 2008-2010)
FLOOR
Total # of Groups
(2008)
Total # of Groups (2010)
% Change
(2008-2010)
1 West (LWC)
49
74
+51.0%
1 East (LEC)
237
218
-8.7%
2 West
207
450
+117.4%
2 East
36
46
+27.8%
3 West
8
23
+187.5%
3 East
36
37
+2.8%
4 West
30
63
+110.0%
4 East
16
22
+37.5%
5
18
31
+72.2%
6
16
25
+56.2%
GROUP UTILIZATION TOTAL % CHANGE, 2008-2010
+65.4%
Table 3
Laptop % Utilization (2008-2010)
FLOOR
2008
2010
% Change
(2008-2010)
1 West (LWC)
0.0%
6.9%
+6.9%
1 East (LEC)
27.0%
35.6%
+8.6%
2 West
33.6%
70.5%
+36.9%
2 East
68.2%
52.2%
-16%
3 West
80.0%
62.0%
-18%
3 East
21.4%
68.2%
+46.8%
4 West
100.0%
68.9%
-31.1%
4 East
75.0%
62.4%
-12.6%
5
88.0%
65.7%
-22.3%
6
93.3%
72.6%
-20.7%
TOTAL LAPTOP % UTILIZATION
40.5%
49.0%
+8.5%
In 2010, laptop
utilization varied significantly based on zone, but the lowest rates were
observed in the LWC and LEC with rates of 6.9% and 35.6% respectively. This
result was expected for these areas since most seating areas in the LWC and
about half those in the LEC are outfitted with desktop computers. Other spaces
in the library saw laptop utilization rates from just over 50% to just over 70%
in the 2 West commons, which is specifically designed to support laptops. Total
laptop utilization for all library spaces during the study was 49.0%. As there
was only one observation in 2008 that noted laptop usage, it is not possible to
fully report trends in this area. Still, it can be noted that from the 2008
observation to those in 2010, laptop use in the 2 West commons more than doubled
(33.6% to 70.5%) and that laptop use in the entire library increased from 40.5%
to 49.0%. Both of these results would be expected given the laptop-friendly
renovation to 2 West and the a new freshman class subject to the institutional
laptop requirement.
2 West Qualitative
Survey
Also significant are
the results of the survey regarding the four core design themes for the 2 West renovation: power/data, lighting, aesthetics, and the
creation of a “defined yet open” space. For this survey, the scale was centered
so that a response of “3” indicated satisfaction with the renovation efforts
for that theme. A “4” indicated that the renovation more than met the desired
outcome for that space while a “5” indicated that the student felt the
renovation effort had been great. As noted in Table 4 below, over 100 students
using the 2 West commons space participated in the survey. With all theme
scores ranging between 4.0 and 5.0, it appears that students are quite
satisfied with each aspect of the renovation.
Convenient and ample
power and data access was a primary concern because the 2 West renovation would
not include desktop computers, but rather be marketed as a “laptop friendly”
commons space. Specific comments from the qualitative survey reflect student
satisfaction with regards to power and data access:
“It’s real easy to plug in almost
anywhere.”
“Not having to search/fight for outlets
makes the library much easier to study in.”
“Plenty of power outlets scattered
throughout.”
“Points are well placed.”
Table 4
Qualitative Survey Results
THEMES
AVERAGE SCORE (n=103)
Power/Data
4.28
Lighting
4.49
Aesthetics, Furniture, and Ambience
4.44
"Defined Yet Open"
4.43
TOTAL AVERAGE
4.41
SCALE:
5 = Great
4 = More than adequate
3 = Meets needs
2 = Not very well
1= Totally inadequate
Prior to the
renovation, lighting levels in 2 West were described
as unbalanced and generally harsh.
The survey results show that students reacted positively to the refreshed
lighting for the space:
“Perfect for computers and work.”
“Outside
light and inside light work well together to create an aesthetically
pleasing environment.”
“Love the
bright lights! Doesn't feel like a prison like before.”
“I feel like the lighting is great for reading,
studying, etc. Lighting is subtle as to not distract from work but
sufficient enough to function. It almost seems that there is a lot more of
natural lighting.”
We asked students how
well the “aesthetics, furniture, and ambience” of this space met their needs.
Their scores and comments reflect an enthusiasm for the comfortable furniture,
contemporary look and feel, and practical aesthetics
for enhancing collaborative activities:
“Oh my god, it is the perfect studying chair
ever.”
“Effective for both group studying and studying
alone.”
“Good comfortable chairs, nice tables, good group
work atmosphere.”
“Furniture is nicer; doesn't have the feel of a
dungeon.”
“Comfortable yet can focus.”
“Love the new set up, especially white boards.
Booths are comfortable.”
“The modern and minimalist style helps me to
concentrate on my work in a relaxed environment.”
“Very nice contemporary feel.”
“Simply much more appealing than before.”
The final theme we
assessed was the flexibility of the space. During the co-design phase, students
described a space that included well-defined areas for group study, while not
limiting the option to move furniture around for their individual needs. The comments
from the 2010 survey demonstrate that the space allows for such flexibility and
openness:
“Good, can easily move furniture to meet
group needs.”
“The present environment is one of the
best places to study on campus due to how easily it can adapt to a
student's needs.”
“The objective is well met. The central
space and other long tables are good for group studies, and the corners
are quiet enough for individual studiers.”
“You have your own space, but can still
not be isolated from the rest of the library.”
“This really is the perfect place to do
group work, because there is so much freedom to move around and use
various resources.”
“The white board areas are great for
group study, but the option remains open to rearrange furniture to an
extent to accommodate larger groups of people.”
“The white boards are a wonderful feature
and it helps that most of the furniture is lightweight and moveable. It
strikes a great balance.”
“The spaces are less cubicle-like and are
open. The rolling chairs make it easy to add more people to a group.”
Finally, the survey provided an
opportunity to gather feedback about improving services overall, and included
an open-ended question about how to improve the library, generally. Many
students indicated a shortage of dry erase markers and erasers. This
information was communicated to the Commons coordinator who increased supplies
during final exams. Other students asked for improved power access in other
library spaces. A power audit was conducted by the library facilities manager,
and though it is not currently feasible to overhaul the entire electrical grid
for the building, broken or non-functioning outlets can be repaired. A very
common request was to “keep renovating up to the next floors.” Although the
present budget climate will not allow for an immediate comprehensive
renovation, the quantitative and qualitative data suggests that adopting a
user-driven approach for future facilities refreshments correlates well with
student satisfaction.
Conclusions
Analysis of the longitudinal
data collected suggests the following:
The 2 West
commons is attracting more students and groups subsequent to its
renovation.
The 2 West
commons is attracting students and groups away from the previously
renovated LEC.
Overall usage of
the library increased subsequent to the 2 West renovation.
The need for
collaborative spaces in the library continues to grow. Even with the most
recent renovation of 2 West, the number of groups and group members
continues to increase in other areas of the library including those
designated as quiet space.
Laptop
utilization is up somewhat for the whole library and significantly for 2
West.
Data on student usage
indicates that the most recently renovated spaces (2 West) are successful. It
appears that the most recent renovation increased use of that commons space, as
well as overall usage of the library. Results of the qualitative survey
regarding the 2 West renovation indicate a very high degree of satisfaction
with the project results across each of the core design themes. This level of
satisfaction is most likely attributable to the intensive user engagement
process undertaken prior to renovation. The high scores on the survey
corroborate the large increase observed in usage data for the 2 West commons
space. The 2010 data also support the concept that students will embrace a
laptop-friendly commons renovation and that all commons renovations do not
require library-supplied desktop computers.
Future iterations of this
longitudinal study should prove illuminating and practical for space planning
and budgeting. In order to conduct a successful inquiry, we have found it
useful to adopt the following practices to help ensure smooth data collection
and analysis. As with all longitudinal research, using a consistent survey
instrument and communicating data gathering guidelines is important to maintain
integrity and consistency of results. In addition, it is vital to recognize the
need to have knowledge transfer mechanisms in place to deal with changes in
personnel. Finally, a method for archiving raw data and results, preferably in
an institutional repository or other centralized digital warehouse, can make
the data analysis process more efficient and robust.
This study is unique
because it assesses how renovating spaces impacts overall usage of the library
over time. Based on our literature review, this type of longitudinal study of
library space utilization has not yet been published. This research also
illustrates how renovating one space has the potential to attract users away
from other library spaces. The data suggests that user-centered refreshment or
renovation of library commons spaces can have a profound impact on utilization,
and that this utilization can increase with the addition of financially
sustainable laptop friendly spaces and not just the addition of commons spaces
providing desktop computers. Results from this study will be used to guide and
inform future renovations at the Georgia Tech Library. Additionally, future
observations may be able to more fully assess changes in the utilization of
laptop computers. Although this study concerns the Georgia Tech Library, our
experience may provide a useful roadmap for other institutions as they seek to
transform spaces or assess existing ones.
References
Bennett, S. (2005). Righting the balance. In Library as Place: Rethinking Roles, Rethinking Space (pp. 10-24). Washington, DC: Council
on Library and Information Resources.
Cook, C., Heath, F., Thompson, B.,
Green, D., Kyrillidou, M., & Roebuck, G. (2010). LibQUAL+® 2010 Survey: Georgia Institute of Technology. Washington, DC: Association of
Research Libraries.
Fox, R. E. & Stuart, C.
C. (2009). Creating learning
spaces through collaboration: How one library refined its approach. Educause Quarterly, 32(1). Retrieved 16
May 2013 from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/creating-learning-spaces-through-collaboration-how-one-library-refined-its-approach
Potthoff,
J. K., Weis, D. L., Montanelli, D. S., & Murbach, M. M. (2000). An evaluation of patron perceptions of library space
using the Role Repertory Grid Procedure. College
& Research Libraries, 61(3), 191-202. Retrieved 16 May 2013 from http://crl.acrl.org/content/61/3/191.full.pdf+html
Somerville, M. M. & Collins, L. (2008). Collaborative design: A learner-centered
library planning approach. The Electronic
Library, 26(6), 803-820. doi:10.1108/02640470810921592
Whitmire,
E. (2001). A
longitudinal study of undergraduates’ academic library experiences. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(5),
379-385. doi:10.1016/S0099-1333(01)00223-3