Research Article   Exploring Library Activities, Learning Spaces, and Challenges Encountered Towards the Establishment of a Learning Commons   Maryjul T. Beneyat-Dulagan Librarian Cordillera State Institute of Technical Education (Baguio City School of Arts and Trades) Baguio City, Philippines Email: djul351@gmail.com   David A. Cabonero Faculty, School of Graduate Studies Saint Mary’s University Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines Email: bluegemini7777@yahoo.com     Received: 6 May 2022                                                                Accepted: 10 Oct. 2022      2023 Beneyat-Dulagan and Cabonero. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0 International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), 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.     DOI: 10.18438/eblip30164     Abstract   Objectives – This study was conducted to determine the library activities, preferred learning spaces, and challenges encountered by the students of Mountain Province State Polytechnic College (MPSPC) Library, Philippines. Specifically, it sought to answer the following problems: 1) What are the library activities of MPSPC students?; 2) What are the preferred learning spaces in terms of a) physical environment and b) virtual environment?; and 3) What are the challenges associated with library learning activities encountered by the MPSPC students? The study then will be used to explore the feasibility of proposing a learning commons.   Methods – This study used a descriptive research method to determine the library activities, learning spaces, and challenges encountered by MPSPC students in the Philippines. It made use of a researcher-made survey questionnaire. Problem statement number 1 dealt with the library activities of MPSPC students. Problem statement number 2 dealt with the preferred learning spaces. Data were gathered from 500 graduate and undergraduate students from a total of 3,015 enrolled during the first semester of the SY 2019-2020 using a purposive random sampling technique. Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage, and rank were used.   Results – The most frequent library learning activities performed by the MPSPC students were doing assignments, using reference books, searching/browsing printed materials, reviewing notes, and writing. Students’ least frequent library activities were surfing the web, using the computer, using e-resources, eating while reading/writing, and sleeping. The most preferred physical learning spaces were a makerspace, group study spaces, quiet study rooms, and individual study spaces (individual study carrels), while the most preferred virtual learning spaces were computer workstations, interactive learning spaces, video viewing stations, and internet cafés. The overall challenges encountered by MPSPC students were insufficient learning spaces, poor internet connection, inability to find documents or books needed, lack of reading area, lack of printing or photocopying service, lack of professional books, and lack of e-resources. The least challenges encountered by MPSPC students included very high library fees, poor ventilation, poor lighting facility in the designated area, uncomfortable furniture, and lack of staff’s kindness.   Conclusion – The MPSPC students perform various educationally purposeful library activities, which are generally engaging and support the library's mission. Students vary in their needs of physical and virtual learning environments. Both of these learning spaces are in demand among students, which are the key components of the learning commons. Also, they specified the need for adequate learning spaces to support their various library learning activities. The findings serve as the basis for crafting a project proposal to establish a learning commons tailored to MPSPC students’ library activities and preferred learning spaces, with consideration for the challenges encountered by students, to support their learning and academic success.     Introduction   A library is a place for nurturing the mind. It supports learning, information, and research needs; thus, it is vital to students' educational growth. In support of an institution's educational objectives to meet its diverse learners' needs, libraries should provide a quiet and social space for students’ various learning activities (Choy & Goh, 2016), a healthy and safe environment for learning (Barton, 2018), and offer education and relaxation (Waxman et al., 2007). Moreover, the library is a learning environment characterized by abundant and rich information sources and well-designed learning spaces. Within a library space, students identify physical and virtual environments that help them achieve their learning goals.   Twenty-first century learners are connected to digital technologies as their primary learning tools, but as global changes in information occur, students’ learning activities are affected (McLeod, 2015). The nature of tertiary education drastically changed as the 21st century evolved and has impacted the nature of academic libraries (Turner et al., 2013). Twenty-first century learning is often connected to an inquiry approach in which students actively engage in their learning, accessing material and scaffolding their knowledge to create rather than solely acquire information (Stripling, 2008). The preferences of library users in library spaces can change quickly and unpredictably (Gstalder, 2017), which affects library support of the teaching and learning process (Roberts, 2007). In relation to this, Turner et al. (2013) observed that new teaching and learning pedagogies in higher education were influenced by social constructivist learning theories and self-discovery practices. These theories supported that the most significant learning takes place when individuals participate in social learning activities (Matthews et al., 2011). As such, library users have high expectations of quality academic facilities, such as the provision of library spaces, library commons, and the like (Flaspohler, 2012).   How can a library position itself in these academic environments? How can a library be responsive to the changing nature of information access and the changing nature of users? There is a need for rethinking the information and physical needs of students. Moreover, there is a need for academic library innovation to better support the diverse learning needs of students and accommodate students’ learning styles. Lankes (2016) suggested that redesigning and conceptualizing the library is essential to the 21st century. He further stated that a move to a learning commons approach is one tactic to meet users’ expectations. Roberts (2007) believed that establishing a learning commons will support the teaching mission of an institution. It would complement new teaching and learning pedagogies in higher education which have shifted away from a teaching culture and toward a culture of learning (Bennett, 2003).   Furthermore, libraries reinvent themselves as they face new roles, such as making resources more accessible, connecting learners, and constructing knowledge. Also, students do not just need information, they need a place that encourages active involvement and motivates them. Learning commons allow various learning activities (Holland, 2015), and help both libraries and students remain current with modern demands and lifestyles.   With these paradigm shifts in libraries and education, changes gradually occur with the library’s environment and ambiance. In the Mountain Province State Polytechnic College (MPSPC) Library, not enough areas serve the different learning needs of library users. A lack of technology and facilities to help library users explore, create, and share knowledge has been observed. Moreover, poor services have reduced both the number of users and use of the library collection. Students’ needs and expectations affect all aspects of their learning, specifically in the library. Diverse reading habits and preferences of the students have been observed by the researchers as well.   The MPSPC Library has been accessible to all users because it is almost centrally located on campus, but the reading area was not enough to accommodate the students. Instead, students use the corridor as a learning area since the reading room was insufficient. Students studying in the corridor and even inside the room complained to the library staff because they were distracted by students passing by. Students found it hard to study and concentrate because of the noise. There were not enough individual study spaces or group discussion rooms because the room was just a common space for every user engaged in any activity. Based on observation by the researchers, the problem was the slow internet connection, wherein students found it hard to conduct research online, which caused some students to leave the library. Faculty and school administrators noticed complaints about the insufficient reading area and the misbehaviour of users. Hence, the plight of this academic library encouraged the researchers to conduct this study.   Problems of the Study   This study was conducted to determine the library activities, preferred learning spaces, and challenges encountered by the students of MPSPC Library. Specifically, the study sought to answer the following problems: 1) What are the library activities of MPSPC students?; 2) What are the preferred learning spaces in terms of a) physical environment and b) virtual environment?; and 3) What are the challenges associated with library learning activities encountered by the MPSPC students?   Scope and Limitations of the Study   The study was limited to one state college in the Philippines primarily to determine the learning activities and spaces in the library and the challenges encountered by the students, which served as the basis for establishing a learning commons. This was conducted during the first semester of SY 2019-2020 and focused on 500 participants who were both undergraduate and graduate students.   Literature Review   In the Philippines, some libraries are still traditional in giving services to their users, resulting in a lack of social opportunities within the library. This limits the opportunities for students to interact with each other in the library spaces (McCunn & Gifford, 2015). This can be observed through the image projected by the librarian, such as shushing students for speaking too loudly, ringing a bell to remind them of their unruly behaviour, and the like. With the new breed of library users, their diverse learning activities, habits, styles, and needs are changing and should be addressed. This could be answered by adopting a new library model such as the learning commons, which allows students to enhance their social skills while researching, reading, and learning. In establishing a model, there are imperative things to consider, such as: 1) to identify the key priorities, such as which learning activities occur in a successful learning commons (King, 2016); 2) to know the learning activities of the users better to realize their needs (Spencer, 2007); 3) to analyze the various activities, including which are most prevalent among library users (Choy & Goh, 2016); 4) to understand the various learning needs of students, such as learning activities, preferred learning spaces, and challenges faced by students (Qayyum Ch. et al., 2017); and 5) to relate the various activities of the students in the library to academic achievement (Paretta & Catalano, 2013).   Implementing a learning commons would primarily encourage students to use the library and benefit from its services. However, this idea must be supported by asking the right questions to students regarding their library activities, how they learn, and their use of library services (Suarez, 2007). These learning activities and study space preferences of library users relate to establishing a functional learning commons. Thus, surveying students' library activities and preferred learning spaces provides the evidence necessary to make effective decisions about what facilities and equipment should meet their various needs (McCrary, 2017).   The learning spaces model furthers the mission of the learning commons by providing various formal and informal flexible learning spaces that facilitate better learning (Turner et al., 2013), and these physical and virtual learning spaces can impact learning (Oblinger, 2006). It can bring people together to encourage exploration, collaboration, and discussions. These spaces should be flexible and networked, bringing together formal and informal activities in an environment that acknowledges that learning can occur anywhere, at any time, in either physical or virtual spaces. The physical and virtual environments provide students with a comfortable place to relax, learn, and create (Cicchetti, 2015). Moreover, spatial designs influence students' learning activities, and the relevance of spatial designs that encourage and support dynamic, engaged, and inspired learning is a fundamental feature of the learning spaces (Roberts, 2007). The impact of spaces becomes more prominent as higher education pedagogical practices move from the traditional to a more flexible, student-centred approach. Evolving learning spaces convey a new image of the library, marking a new direction in library and educational philosophies (Somerville & Harlan, 2008).   The development of learning spaces supports innovative pedagogical approaches and environments that promote student engagement in the learning process (Elkington & Bligh, 2019). How and why users have different preferences in learning spaces depends on their individual needs and styles. Moreover, there are advantages to student learning in providing a range of spaces. Various collaborative and independent spaces promote self-directed learning (Keating & Gabb, 2005). Non-quiet spaces in the library, such as group study and flexible learning spaces, are ideal for many library users (Freeman, 2005).   A learning commons consists of physical and virtual environments designed for learning. The centre for student learning fosters creativity, encourages patron use of space, offers new technologies, and uses space creatively to encourage inquiry-based thinking (Mihailidis & Diggs, 2010). It is a space designed for collaboration and access to information and other tools, such as electronic resources. Here, students will be empowered as they take part in the learning commons, which will lead to more learning and better preparation for their careers. Students’ involvement in the learning commons produces a better student success rate (Khan, 2020), and students learn best when they are allowed to learn in an environment that is both welcoming and supportive (Holeton, 2020).   A clear understanding of how the learning commons benefits students is also the foundation for a successful transition (Cicchetti, 2015). Libraries need to remain relevant and support learning in new ways. Libraries recognize that, because of the Internet and Web 2.0 applications, students have new powers and abilities that facilitate independent access to information (Watstein & Mitchell, 2006). Blummer and Kenton (2017) mentioned that learning commons has no standard definition. Yet, learning commons represent academic library spaces that provide computer and library resources and a range of academic services that support learners and learning. Turner et al. (2013) argued that designers of learning commons readily understand that learners are not merely information consumers. Instead, they actively participate with information to create meaningful knowledge and wisdom.   As society continues to experience a pedagogical shift in learning, students should be given more opportunities to make connections, collaborate, communicate, think critically, and be creative. Learning in a learning commons environment is purposeful, authentic, active, and student-centred (McCunn & Gifford, 2015). There have been numerous studies on learning commons, one of which performed surveys on their own users’ needs (Yebowaah & Plockey, 2017). Students’ various learning activities have to be considered in order to provide appropriate learning spaces (Brown-Sica et al., 2010). Rawal (2014) asserted that:   Like Bandura’s (1977) idea of “reciprocal determinism,” where the interactions among environmental, cognitive, and behavioral influences create the synergy to affect how one behaves in a specific context, so does the reciprocity among the physical, virtual, and socio-cultural aspects of a learning commons affect how students learn within a commons. A truly holistic learning commons is a nexus for negotiating ideas and producing new knowledge. It is that bustling bazaar where knowledge, discoveries, and innovations are born, nurtured, and set forth to impact the rest of the world. (p. 67)   Our review of the literature revealed that our study is unique as it dwells on library activities and preferred learning spaces among students in the Philippines. Hence, this study will be used to explore a learning commons as one of the new features of our library. Barton (2018) mentioned that the learning commons model is geared to understand and identify learning needs in accordance with the learning activities, preferences, and challenges of library users.   Methods   This study utilized a descriptive method of research to determine the library activities, learning spaces, and challenges encountered by MPSPC students in the Philippines. It made use of a researcher-made survey questionnaire. Problem number 1 dealt with the library activities of MPSPC students and was based on the study of Cabfilan (2012). Problem number 2 dealt with the preferred learning spaces and was adopted from the study of Peterson (2013). However, it has been modified to suit the research design by contextualizing the items in the MPSPC Library. The survey questionnaire is composed of three parts, namely: 1) the different library activities of MPSPC students, 2) the preferred learning spaces, and 3) the challenges encountered by the respondents relative to learning activities within the library. This questionnaire underwent face and content validity by three library and information science professors and one research professor at Saint Mary’s University (Philippines).   Data were gathered from 500 graduate and undergraduate students from 3,015 enrolled during the first semester of the SY 2019-2020, from August to December 2019 at MPSPC, Bontoc Campus (Table 1), using a purposive random sampling technique. In gathering the needed data, the following procedures were undertaken: 1) A permission letter was sent to the MPSPC President to seek approval for the conduct of the study for the students enrolled in the various programs; 2) The letter was addressed to the President through the Deans of undergraduate and graduate studies; 3) Upon seeking approval, a letter was submitted to the Director of MPSPC-Registrar for the number of enrollees in the various programs to identify the number of students in each program; 4) The questionnaire was administered to the students who were visiting the library voluntarily. One of the researcher’s colleagues helped administer the questionnaire; 5) An informed consent letter was attached to the questionnaire. The respondents did not receive any payment for their participation nor any reimbursements. Participants had the right to refuse to continue, with any information already provided not used in the study. It was emphasized to them the assurance of the confidentiality of their answers; 6) The questionnaires were immediately retrieved and checked if all items were answered; and 7) Questionnaires were submitted to the statistician. Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage, and rank were used.   Table 1 Respondents of the Study Course/Department No. of Enrollees No. of Respondents (n) Bachelor of Science and Criminology 1,244 206 Bachelor of Science in Nursing 213 35 Bachelor of Science and Information Technology 123 20 Bachelor of Science Office Administration 75 12 Bachelor of Arts in Political Science 41 7 Bachelor of Science in Business Administration 170 28 Bachelor of Science in Accountancy 158 26 Bachelor of Secondary Education 400 66 Bachelor of Elementary Education 233 39 Bachelor for Early Childhood Education 9 2 Bachelor of Special Needs Education 13 3 Graduate School 174 29 Bachelor of Science in Tourism Bachelor of Science in Tourism Management Bachelor of Science in Hotel and Tourism Management Bachelor of Science in Hospitality Management Associate of Arts in Hotel and Restaurant Management 162 27 Total 3,015 500   Results and Discussion   The Library Activities of Students   This study refers to the various activities performed by diverse students in the library. These learning activities are purposeful and aim to improve behaviour, information, knowledge, understanding, attitude, values, or skills (Table 2). This includes different types of learning, such as self-learning and others, and learning could be formal or informal (Eurostat, 2016).   The preferred activities done in the library were doing assignments, using reference books, searching or browsing printed materials, reviewing notes, writing research works, reading (periodical/ fiction books/ non-fiction books), studying in a group, and studying alone on my books or materials. These activities were all academic-related, supporting the fact that the library is the first place to get information as it houses universal knowledge (Bailin, 2011). This indicates that libraries significantly impact students’ academic achievements (Khan, 2020; Sriram & Rajev, 2014). It could be attributed to the availability of resources when doing their assignments. Also, students go to the library to search or browse printed materials and eventually use reference books, which suggests that materials in the library are useful and relevant.   Table 2 The Library Activities of Students Activities n % Rank Doing assignments 455 91.0 1 Using reference books 396 79.2 2 Searching/ Browsing printed materials 385 77.0 3 Reviewing notes 384 76.8 4 Writing (research works) 369 73.8 5 Reading (periodical/ fiction books/ non-fiction books) 362 72.4 6 Studying in a group 345 69.0 7 Studying alone on my own books/ materials 324 64.8 8 Sitting comfortably while reflecting 316 63.2 9 Interacting with librarians/ Getting help from staff members 314 62.8 10 Listening to music while studying/ reading/writing 290 58.0 11 Surfing the web 270 54.0 12 Using computer 265 53.0 13 Using e-resources 255 51.0 14 Eating while reading/ writing 168 33.6 15 Others: Sleeping 35 7.0 16   This coincides with Iroaganachi and Ilogho (2012), who found that students use reference materials frequently, which can be attributed to the orientation program designed for students. On the other hand, listening to music while studying, reading, or writing; using e-resources; using computers; surfing the web; and eating while reading or writing were the least common activities done in the library. Also, eating while reading or writing was ranked 15th, which means that some students do not favor the library policy that food and drink are prohibited inside. However, some MPSPC students prefer a place to study while having a snack, and this could be observed in some libraries allowing them to bring food and drinks. This finding corroborates the idea in 21st-century learning wherein libraries are innovating to meet the demands of these learners, in which food and drink are welcomed in the libraries (Roberts, 2007).   Also, it is worthwhile to mention that 35 respondents wrote sleeping as one of their library activities. This connotes that the library is not just a place to study but a place that provides relaxation to students (Waxman et al., 2007).   However, it is very surprising to note that learning activities relating to computer technology, such as surfing the web, using computers, and using e-resources were ranked 12th, 13th, and 14th, respectively. Seemingly, students do not prefer using information technology to satisfy their library information needs, thus resulting in minimal utilization of e-resources (Yebowaah & Plockey, 2017). This contradicts the findings of Martin (2008), that students use technology frequently thus changing the learning environment of higher education. This suggests that a slow internet connection would make students dissatisfied with using computers and resources and make it challenging to research online.   The Preferred Learning Spaces   According to Head (2016), there are appropriate library designs for learning spaces, and they should be different in every library since it is in accordance with the learning activities and preferences of every library user. It was further pointed out by Bieraugel and Neill (2017) that designing library spaces is imperative for the different intended needs, activities, preferences, and styles of library users. Also, Choy and Goh (2016) reiterated that the design of spaces in support of learning is far more complex as a variety of users’ activities and styles need to be considered.   Figure 1 Preferred learning spaces in physical environment.   In this study, the most preferred learning spaces in terms of physical environment were makerspace, group study spaces, quiet study rooms, and individual study spaces, respectively, as shown in Figure 1. Makerspace was the most prevalent, which infers that learning is best acquired through hands-on activities. Group study space was second, which assumes that students may feel they can learn better in groups. This indicates that noise should be welcomed and considered in the group study area within the library (Mohanty, 2002). Meanwhile, study lounge was ranked 5th as the preferred learning space, implying that there are students who prefer working while socializing as well (Waxman et al., 2007). Undeniably, some students expect the library to offer space not only for scholarly pursuits but also for socializing (Paretta & Catalano, 2013). However, some students still prefer individual study spaces/ individual study carrels and quiet study rooms. Seemingly, they prefer to learn best in silence and do not like being disturbed when they are studying (Arenson, 2013).   Figure 2 Preferred learning spaces in virtual environment.   The most preferred learning spaces in the virtual environment were computer workstations, interactive learning spaces, video viewing stations, and internet cafés, respectively (Figure 2). The computer workstation is the most preferred learning space in terms of the virtual environment. This implies that activities which demand computer are prevalent among the students. As mentioned by Singh and Wadhwa (2006), computers are an excellent learning tool. This signifies that 63% of library users prefer to work individually in a computer workstation, while others prefer working in an interactive learning space.   It is interesting to note that interactive learning space was ranked 2nd, which implies that students want spaces that encourage them to study independently through technology. This finding supports the idea that learning is engaging, and engagement is expected to increase students’ learning outcomes (Vercellotti, 2018). This preference for interactive learning space implies that students have varied learning styles, and, in this case, it requires the use of technology for them to learn better.   Also, the video viewing station was ranked 3rd, which implies that there are students who are both visual and auditory learners who prefer watching and listening in some areas of the library. As mentioned by Alawani et al. (2016), students still prefer video technologies that boost their learning experience. However, internet café ranked last, implying that few students prefer learning while having coffee or snacks. Seemingly, this idea is not yet practiced by the students and the library. Perhaps their traditional beliefs of eating inside the library are not accepted as the standard norm. As mentioned, 21st-century libraries should meet the needs of these learners, thus allowing them to eat while learning in the library (Holland, 2015).   As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the physical and virtual environments were rated as learning space preferences among students, which are the key components of a learning commons (Pressley, 2017). The findings show that students demand such spaces in accordance with their learning activities in the library.   Challenges Encountered by the MPSPC Students   McMullen (2008) described a learning commons as a “dynamic place that encourages learning through inquiry, collaboration, discussion, and consultation.” (p. 1). She further asserted that it is necessary to understand the activities engaged by students. The learning commons is not just a concept but a place for learning in the library (Roberts, 2007). These learning commons have been created to support the teaching missions of the respective parent institutions. Academic institutions support this model because faculty and administration recognize that students learn in dynamic and various ways. McCrary (2017) supported the need to develop a learning commons since the library is not just a place to store books and study but rather a place where meaning and learning emerge from access to knowledge. However, its implementation can also be hampered by challenges, which are listed in Table 3.   Table 3 Challenges Encountered by the MPSPC Students Relative to Their Library Learning Activities Areas Challenges n % Rank Physical Facilities Insufficient learning spaces for various activities 319 63.8 1 Services Poor internet connection 262 52.4 2 Services Inability to find documents/ books needed 231 46.2 3 Physical Facilities Lack of reading area/ Reading area is not enough 209 41.8 4 Services Lack of printing or photocopying services 208 41.6 5 Library Collection Lack of professional books 207 41.4 6 Library Collection Lack of e-resources 206 41.2 7 Physical Facilities Lack of toilet facilities 166 33.2 8 Physical Facilities Lack of installed security equipment 149 29.8 9 Financial Resources Lack of support /budget is not enough to sustain library projects or programs 142 28.4 10 Human Resources Lack of support staff 135 27 11 Human Resources Limited number of professional librarians 124 24.8 12 Financial Resources Very high library fee 118 23.6 13 Physical Facilities Poor ventilation 113 22.6 14 Physical Facilities Poor lighting facility in the designated reading areas 112 22.4 15 Physical Facilities Uncomfortable furniture 110 22 16 Services Lack of staff’s kindness 109 21.8 17   Among the physical facilities, insufficient learning spaces for various activities (ranked 1st, with 63.8% in agreement) and lack of reading area or reading area is not enough (ranked 4th, with 41.8% in agreement) were challenges encountered by the MPSPC students. Students have various activities, but not all spaces can accommodate these activities. Libraries should be well designed to accommodate students' learning requirements and enhance their learning outcomes and satisfaction (Li et al., 2018). Furthermore, the result corroborates with the study of Bailin (2011) that students demand ample space for reading, especially when they flock to the library. Indeed, Ranganathan’s 5th law states that the library is a growing organism (Barner, 2011). As collections continuously increase, the physical spaces also widen to accommodate more library users and eventually maximize the use of the collections, thus making the library a growing institution of learning.   The least challenges encountered on physical facilities were lack of toilet facilities, lack of installed security equipment, poor ventilation, poor lighting facility in the designated reading area, and uncomfortable furniture. In relation to the findings on preferred learning spaces, these challenges reported by the respondents might impact group study spaces, study lounges, individual study spaces/ individual study carrels, and quiet study rooms. Poor ventilation has great impact on students’ learning, and this was supported by Haverinen-Shaughnessy and Shaughnessy (2015), who found that students did not perform well in a poorly ventilated environment. Also, inadequate lighting in the library is not suitable for students and would affect students’ performance. The findings also imply that there are students seeking comfort while learning (McDonald, 2011). Hence, librarians and administrators should make libraries more comfortable for students (Mohanty, 2002). The lack of installed security equipment (ranked 9th) can also be attributed to non-return of items by borrowers and theft of library materials (Maidabino & Zainab, 2011). Thus, it is necessary to provide security equipment in the library to ensure longevity, availability, and effective provision of services to users.   Table 3 revealed that among the top five challenges encountered by the MPSPC students, three were reported that emerge from challenges encountered relative to library services, namely: 1) poor internet connection (52.4%, ranked 2nd), 2) inability to find documents or books needed (46.2%, ranked 3rd), and 3) lack of printing/ photocopying services (41.6%, ranked 5th). Poor internet connection is quite noticeable because students frankly complain about the internet connection in the library. This shows that there are MPSPC students who are internet users, and they surf the net since information is easily available (Shrestha, 2008). Thus, students prefer using the internet, as compared with printed materials, because it provides information readily at all times. The internet also gives faster access to information as well as offers a large amount of information (Kumah, 2015). As mentioned by Yebowaah (2018), the use of internet among students has a positive influence on their academic performance. Also, the MPSPC students ranked 3rd the inability to find documents or books needed (46.2%). This shows that students are not aware of how materials are organized in the library. This can be attributed either to students’ unfamiliarity with the services or how the materials are organized (Hughes, 2010). Lack of printing/photocopying services was also in the top five challenges encountered (41.6%, ranked 5th). This suggests the need for photocopying services to save time in taking down notes from books in the library. Materials in the library often copied by students are of more rare materials that tend not to be available in book shops for sale. Sriram and Rajev (2014) mentioned that libraries must provide various services such as photocopying to enable users to utilize the library collections at greater potentials. On the other hand, the lack of staff’s kindness (21.8%, ranked 17th) was ranked last among the challenges encountered by the students, which shows that librarians are approachable and accommodating.   Under human resources, lack of support staff (27%, ranked 11th) as one of the challenges encountered by students suggests the need for support staff. Students do not just deal with librarians every time they visit the library, but also paraprofessionals serving them (Guion, 2012). This implies that support staff have to undergo seminars on how to manage library patrons. The limited number of professional librarians (24.8%, ranked 12th) can be either attributed to a lack of professional librarian positions (with appropriate title, salary, and benefits) or a lack of licensed librarians. Tanhueco-Tumapon (2017) reiterated that librarians should be given an academic status (that is, like any teaching or research faculty member), wherein there is a corresponding increase in salary and therefore is due an academic rank provided they have a master’s degree. Having an academic status in higher education leads them to be motivated in doing their functions as dignified librarians, since librarians and paraprofessionals may have different service standards.   For the library collection, lack of professional books and lack of e-resources were the challenges encountered by students. This implies that the collections of both books and e-resources were perceived to be insufficient. To address this, the library should build partnerships among other academic libraries to strengthen its collection (Munro & Philps, 2008) and increase its budget to purchase more collections.   In terms of financial resources, lack of support/budget is not enough to sustain library projects or programs (28.4%, ranked 10th), and very high library fees (23.6%, ranked 13th) were the perceived challenges encountered by the students. State colleges and universities in the Philippines collect fewer library fees than in private schools. This may be why it is ranked almost at the bottom. Although these challenges were at the bottom, the budget is essential in realizing library programs and projects, such as establishing or improving a library space. It could mean that increasing library fees would make students expect that the library can satisfy their needs and demands.    Recommendations   The library should support the various learning activities of students, which include doing assignments, using reference books, searching/browsing printed materials, reviewing notes, writing, and others. It should design functional and flexible learning spaces tailored to the students’ ideal needs, such as their learning activities. Thus, the study suggests strong recommendations to provide various learning spaces such as a makerspace, group study spaces, quiet study rooms, individual study spaces, computer workstations, interactive learning spaces, video viewing stations, and an internet café within the library premises to cater to the diverse students with various learning preferences and learning activities.   To continue building literature and knowledge in this area, it is recommended to conduct further research to include: 1) other areas such as policies, budgeting, and linkages; 2) categories of users such as faculty, alumni, and visitors; and 3) statistical tools such as using correlations, factor analysis, and others.   Conclusion   A learning commons is a place to culture the mind wherein student learning encourages creativity, promotes social learning, enhances new information technology skills, and stimulates inquiry-based thinking. It is a space to nurture students’ minds for collaboration, learning, and interaction through a welcoming and supportive environment.   The MPSPC students perform various educationally purposeful library activities. The activities among the students are generally engaging and support the library's mission. Students vary in their needs of physical and virtual learning environments. Both of these types of learning spaces are in demand among students, which are the key components of the learning commons. Also, students specified the need for adequate learning spaces to support their various library learning activities. Thus, the findings serve as the basis for crafting a project proposal to establish a learning commons tailored to MPSPC students’ library activities and preferred learning spaces, with consideration for the challenges encountered by students, to support their learning and academic success.   Author Contributions   Mrs. Maryjul T. Beneyat-Dulagan: Conceptualization (equal), Data curation, Formal analysis (lead), Investigation (equal), Writing – original draft (lead), Writing – review & editing (equal) Mr. David A. Cabonero: Conceptualization (equal), Formal analysis (supporting), Investigation (equal), Visualization, Writing – original draft (supporting), Writing – review & editing (equal)   References   Alawani, A. A., Senteni, A., & Singh, A. D. (2016). An investigation about the usage and impact of digital video for learning. In J. Novotná & A. Jančařík (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on e-Learning: ECEL 2016 (pp. 1–9). Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited.   Arenson, M. (2013). The impact of a student-designed learning commons on student perceptions and use of the high school library. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/THE-IMPACT-OF-A-STUDENT-DESIGNED-LEARNING-COMMONS-Arenson/83e55c93e23d913fca7565cdb210e40411c5019e   Bailin, K. (2011). Changes in academic library space: A case study at the University of New South Wales. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 42(4), 342–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2011.10722245   Barner, K. (2011). The library is a growing organism: Ranganathan's fifth law of library science and the academic library in the digital era" (2011). Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 548. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/548   Barton, C. (2018). Transforming an academic library to a learning commons model: Strategies for success [Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University Irvine]. CUI Digital Repository. http://hdl.handle.net/11414/3385   Bennett, S. (2003). Libraries designed for learning. Council on Library and Information Resources. https://www.clir.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/pub122web.pdf   Bieraugel, M., & Neill, S. (2017). Ascending Bloom's pyramid: Fostering student creativity and innovation in academic library spaces. College & Research Libraries, 78(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.1.35   Blummer, B., & Kenton, J. M. (2017). Learning commons in academic libraries: Discussing themes in the literature from 2001 to the present. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 23(4), 329–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2017.1366925   Brown-Sica, M., Sobel, K., & Rogers, E. (2010). Participatory action research in learning commons design planning. New Library World, 111(7/8), 302–319. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074801011059939 Cabfilan, N. (2012). Customers’ satisfaction on the circulation, reference, online and instruction services at Benguet State University Main Library [Master’s thesis, Saint Mary’s University (Philippines)].   Choy, F. C., & Goh, S. N. (2016). A framework for planning academic library spaces. Library Management, 37(1/2), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-01-2016-0001   Cicchetti, R. (2015). Transitioning a high school library to a learning commons: Avoiding the tragedy of the commons [Doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University]. Northeastern University Library Digital Repository Service. https://doi.org/10.17760/D20193587   Elkington, S., & Bligh, B. (2019). Future learning spaces: Space, technology and pedagogy. Advance HE. https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02266834   Eurostat. (2016). Classification of learning activities (CLA): Manual. https://doi.org/10.2785/874604   Flaspohler, M. (2012). Engaging first-year students in meaningful library research: A practical guide for teaching faculty. Chandos.   Freeman, G. T. (2005). The library as place: Changes in learning patterns, collections, technology, and use. Council on Library and Information Resources. http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/publ129/freeman.html   Gstalder, S. H. (2017). Understanding library space planning [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania]. University of Pennsylvania Libraries ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI10289537/   Guion, D. (2012, March 14). Library staff: The paraprofessional. Reading, Writing, Research. https://www.allpurposeguru.com/2012/03/library-staff-the-paraprofessional/   Haverinen-Shaughnessy, U., & Shaughnessy, R. J. (2015). Effects of classroom ventilation rate and temperature on students’ test scores. PLoS ONE 10(8), e0136165. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136165   Head, A. J. (2016). Planning and designing academic library learning spaces: Expert perspectives of architects, librarians, and library consultants. Project Information Literacy Research Institute. https://projectinfolit.org/publications/library-space-study/   Holeton, R. (2020). Toward Inclusive Learning Spaces: Physiological, Cognitive, and Cultural Inclusion and the Learning Space Rating System. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/2/toward-inclusive-learning-spaces   Holland, B. (2015, January 14). 21st-century libraries: The learning commons. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/21st-century-libraries-learning-commons-beth-holland   Hughes, H. (2010). International students’ experiences of university libraries and librarians. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 41. https://doi:10.1080/00048623.2010.10721446   Iroaganachi, M. A., & Ilogho, J. E. (2012). Utilization of reference books by students: A case study of Covenant University, Nigeria. Chinese Librarianship: An International Electronic Journal, 34, 48–56. http://www.white-clouds.com/iclc/cliej/cl34II.pdf   Keating, S., & Gabb, R. (2005). Putting learning into the learning commons: A literature review. Post-compulsory Education Centre, Victoria University. https://vuir.vu.edu.au/id/eprint/94   Khan, S. (2020). Impact of learning spaces on student success. Retrieved from https://www.edtechreview.in/trends-insights/insights/impact-of-learning-spaces-on-student-success/   King, J. G. (2016). Extended and experimenting: Library learning commons service strategy and sustainability. Library Management, 37(4/5), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-04-2016-0028   Kumah, C. H. (2015). A comparative study of use of the library and the internet as sources of information by graduate students in the University of Ghana. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1298/   Lankes, R. D. (2016). Expect more: Demanding better libraries for today's complex world (2nd ed.). http://dx.doi.org/10.26153/tsw/13962   Li, L. H., Wu, F., & Su, B. (2018). Impacts of library space on learning satisfaction – An empirical study of university library design in Guangzhou, China. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(6), 724–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.10.003   Maidabino, A. A., & Zainab, A. N. (2011). Collection security management at university libraries: Assessment of its implementation status. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 16(1), 15–33. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/1301.5385.pdf   Martin, A. (2008). Digital literacy and the “digital society.” In C. Lankshear, & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies, and practices (pp. 151–176). Peter Lang.   Matthews, K. E., Andrews, V., & Adams, P. (2011). Social learning spaces and student engagement. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.512629   McCrary, Q. D. (2017). Small library research: Using qualitative and user-oriented research to transform a traditional library into an information commons. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 12(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8863F   McCunn, L. J., & Gifford, R. (2015). Teachers’ reactions to learning commons in secondary schools. Journal of Library Administration, 55(6), 435–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2015.1054760   McDonald, C. A. (2011). The library transformed into learning commons: A look at the library of the future [Master’s thesis, University of Central Missouri]. James C. Kirkpatrick Library Digital Repository. https://ucmo.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/delivery/01UCMO_INST/1284617640005571   McLeod, S. (2015). “It’s not just about signing out books!”: From library to library learning commons: A catalyst for change [Master’s thesis, University of Victoria]. UVicSpace. http://hdl.handle.net/1828/6315   McMullen, S. (2008). US academic libraries: Today's learning commons model (PEB Exchange 2008/04). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/40051347.pdf   Mihailidis, P., & Diggs, V. (2010). From information reserve to media literacy learning commons: Revisiting the 21st century library as the home for media literacy education. Public Library Quarterly, 29(4), 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2010.525389   Mohanty, S. (2002). Physical comfort in library study environments: Observations in three undergraduate settings [Master’s thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill]. Carolina Digital Repository. https://doi.org/10.17615/mne6-v039   Munro, B., & Philps, P. (2008). A collection of importance: The role of selection in academic libraries. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 39(3), 149–170. http://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2008.10721347   Oblinger, D. G. (Ed.). (2006). Learning spaces. EDUCAUSE. https://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications/books/learning-spaces   Paretta, L. T., & Catalano, A. (2013). What students really do in the library: An observational study. The Reference Librarian, 54(2), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2013.755033   Peterson, N. K. (2013). The developing role of the university library as a student learning center: Implications to the interior spaces within [Master’s thesis, Iowa State University]. Iowa State University Digital Repository. https://doi.org/10.31274/etd-180810-3678   Pressley, L. (2017). Charting a clear course: A state of the state of the learning commons. In D. M. Mueller (Ed.), At the helm: Leading transformation: The proceedings of the ACRL 2017 Conference, March 22–25, 2017, Baltimore, Maryland (pp. 112–119). Association of College and Research Libraries. https://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2017/ChartingaClearCourse.pdf   Qayyum Ch., A., Hina, Q. A., & Abid, U. (2017). An empirical investigation of problems and issues being faced by the students while using the libraries in University of the Punjab, Lahore. Bulletin of Education and Research, 39(2), 225–238. http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/ier/PDF-FILES/17_39_2_17.pdf   Rawal, J. (2014). Libraries of the future: Learning commons: A case study of a state university in California [Master’s thesis, Humboldt State University]. The California State University ScholarWorks. http://hdl.handle.net/10211.3/134872   Roberts, R. L. (2007). The evolving landscape of the learning commons. Library Review, 56(9), 803–810. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530710831257   Shrestha, N. (2008). A study on student’s use of library resources and self-efficacy [Master’s thesis, Tribhuvan University]. E-LIS. http://eprints.rclis.org/22623/   Singh, S., & Wadhwa, J. (2006). Impact of computer workstation design on health of the users. Journal of Human Ecology, 20(3), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2006.11905922   Somerville, M. M., & Harlan, S. (2008). From Information Commons to Learning Commons and learning spaces: An evolutionary context. In B. Schader (Ed.), Learning commons: Evolution and collaborative essentials (pp. 1–36). Chandos. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-312-7.50001-1   Spencer, M. E. (2007). The state-of-the-art: NCSU Libraries Learning Commons. Reference Services Review, 35(2), 310–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00907320710749218   Sriram, B., & Rajev, M. K. G. (2014). Impact of academic library services on user satisfaction: Case study of Sur University College, Sultanate of Oman. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 34(2), 140–146. https://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/djlit/article/view/4499   Stripling, B. (2008). Inquiry: Inquiring minds want to know. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 25(1), 50–52. https://www.teachingbooks.net/content/InquiringMindsWantToKnow-Stripling.pdf   Suarez, D. (2007). What students do when they study in the library: Using ethnographic methods to observe student behavior. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 8(3). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ejasljournal/83/   Tanhueco-Tumapon, T. (2017, August 18). 21st-century academic libraries. The Manila Times. https://www.manilatimes.net/2017/08/18/opinion/analysis/21st-century-academic-libraries/345157/   Turner, A., Welch, B., & Reynolds, S. (2013). Learning spaces in academic libraries – A review of the evolving trends. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 44(4), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2013.857383   Vercellotti, M. L. (2018). Do interactive learning spaces increase student achievement? A comparison of classroom context. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417735606   Watstein, S. B., & Mitchell, E. (2006). Do libraries matter? Reference Services Review, 34(2), 181–184. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320610669416   Waxman, L., Clemons, S., Banning, J., & McKelfresh, D. (2007). The library as place: Providing students with opportunities for socialization, relaxation, and restoration. New Library World, 108(9/10), 424–434. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074800710823953   Yebowaah, F. A., & Plockey, F. D. D. (2017). Awareness and use of electronic resources in university libraries: A case study of University for Development Studies Library. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1562/   Yebowaah, F. A. (2018).  Internet use and its effect on senior high school students in Wa Municipality of Ghana. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1817   Appendix Research Instrument   Dear Respondents,   A pleasant day!   The undersigned is presently engaged in gathering data for her research entitled “Exploring Library Activities, Learning Spaces, and Challenges Encountered Towards the Establishment of a Learning Commons” as a requirement for the Degree Master in Library and Information Science.   In line with this, the researcher earnestly requests you to be one of the respondents of the research study. The researcher assures that your answers will be dealt with utmost confidentiality.   Thank you and God bless!   Sincerely yours,   Researchers     Name (Optional): ____________________ Course/Year: _______________________     1.      The following are the library activities performed by students in the library. Put a check mark (√) to all that applies to you. Doing assignments   Eating while reading/writing   Interacting with librarians/ Getting help from staff members   Listening to music while studying/reading/writing   Reading (periodical/fiction books/non-fiction books)   Searching/ Browsing printed materials   Sitting comfortably while reflecting   Studying alone on my own books/materials   Studying in a group   Surfing the web   Using computer   Using electronic resources   Using reference books   Writing (research works)   Reviewing notes   Others (Pls. specify)         2.      Which of the following is your favorite place to study or learn at the library? [You may check (√) one or more].     2.1. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Group study space - a space where you can talk with friends while studying   Individual study space (Individual study carrels) - a cubicle, stall, enclosed area for individual to read and study   Makerspace -a space where you can create hands-on projects in groups or individually   Quiet study room - a private, very quiet workspace   Research study room -a room assigned for individual for research and other scholarly activities that requires extensive use of library materials   Study lounge - an area open for students for gathering, studying and relaxing                                   2.2 VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT Computer workstation - an area consist of computer that is connected to a network for individual use   Internet café - an area where there is convenient access to coffee that offers internet access on its own computers or desktops   Interactive learning space -a space provided for individual or group user/s for school work that needs computer technology   Video viewing station -an area that is highly equipped with computer for watching specifically for educational purposes       3.      Put a check mark (√) on the challenges you encountered in the library. [You may check one or more]. HUMAN RESOURCES Limited number of professional librarian   Lack of support staff   Others (pls. specify)     PHYSICAL FACILITIES/ RESOURCES Poor lighting facility in the designated reading areas   Poor ventilation   Lack of toilet facilities   Lack of installed security equipment   Insufficient learning spaces for various activities   Uncomfortable furniture   Lack of reading area/ Reading area is not enough   Others (pls. specify)     FINANCIAL RESOURCES Very high library fee   Lack of support /budget is not enough to sustain library projects or programs   Others (pls. specify)     LIBRARY COLLECTION Lack of professional books   Lack of e-resources   Others (pls. specify)     SERVICES Inability to find documents/ books needed   Lack of staff’s kindness   Lack of printing or photocopying services   Poor internet connection   Others (pls. specify)