California Community College Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey: 2011 Pilot, Final Report

P r e s en t ed t o th e C o u n c i l o f C h i ef L i b r a r i an s o f C a l if o r n i a C o m m u ni t y C o l le g e s E x e c u t iv e B o a r d

By C h a r Bo o th & th e L i b r a r y & T e c h n o l o g y S u r v e y W o r k i n g G r o up 1 4 J u l y 2 0 1 1

R e v i s ed R ec o m m e n d at i o n s S u b m i tt ed 1 7 J u ly 2 0 1 1 , F i n a l R e p o r t 2 5 S e p te m b e r 2 0 1 1

Introduction 1

Executive Summary 2

1 - Methodology 6

2 - Demographics 12

3 – Library Engagement 16

4 - Technology Engagement 24

5 - Library Technology Receptivity 34

Recommendations for Statewide Implementation 38

Conclusion 41

Appendix A: Common Promotional Language 42

Appendix B: LTES Pilot Questionnaire 43

Appendix C: LTES Revised Questionnaire 54

Contact, Citation, & Copyright Information 65

About the Author/Principal Researcher 65

Table 1 – Matrix of Sampling Strategies by Campus ...................................................... 7
Figure 1 - What community college do you attend? ........................................................ 8
Table 2 - Response and Returns ..................................................... ............................. 8
Figure 2 - How did you find out about this survey? Check all that apply. .......................... 9
Figure 3 - How old are you? ....................................................................................... 12
Table 3 - Statewide Enrollment by Age, Fall 2010 ........................................................ 12
Figure 4 - What best represents your ethnicity? Choose all that apply. ........................... 13
Table 4 - Statewide Enrollment by Ethnicity, Fall 2010 ............................................. .... 13
Figure 5 - What is your gender? ................................................................................ 13
Figure 6 - What best describes your enrollment status? Check all that apply. ................. 14
Figure 7 - Which of the following best describes your reasons/goals for attending community
college? Check all that apply. .................................................................................... 15
Figure 8 - When classes are in session, about how often do you.................................... 16
Figure 9 - Cross-tabulation of “How did you learn about this survey?” with Library Use ... 18
Figure 10 - Check all of the ways you have accessed class readings, textbooks, and other
school-related materials in the past year. .................................................................... 19
Figure 11 - For each of the following statements, choose the best answer. .................... 21
Figure 12 - Have you ever attended a workshop or presentation from a community college
librarian... ................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 13 - Impact of Library Instruction on Library Use and Awareness ......................... 22
Figure 14 - Impact of Library Instruction on Library Perceptions .................................... 23
Figure 15 - Which of the following statements is most accurate? ................................... 24
Figure 16 - Do you own the following items, and, if so, how old is the most recent
purchase? ................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 17 - About how many hours do you spend USING THE WEB in a typical week for the
following purposes? .................................................................................................. 26
Figure 18 - How often do you do the following (for school, work, or recreation? .............. 27
Figure 19 - Percentage of participants who “Haven’t heard of it” .................................... 28
Figure 20 - For each of the following web tools and social sites, select the best option. ... 29
Figure 21 - Do you currently own a web-enabled mobile phone, smartphone, or handheld
device such as an iPad? ........................................................................................... 29

Figure 22 - How often do you use your web-enabled mobile phone, smartphone, or handheld
device to do the following? ........................................................................................ 30
Figure 23 - When classes are in session, about how often do you.................................. 31
Figure 24 - For the following statements, choose the best answer. ................................ 31
Figure 25 - What is your skill level with the following items (1 = very low, 5 = very
high)? ...................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 26 - For each web tool and social site, would you "friend," "follow," or "add" your
campus library? ........................................................................................................ 34
Figure 27 - Figure 27 - If your mobile device supported the following library services, how
likely would you be to use them? ............................................................................... 36

CCLCCC Library & Technology Engagement Survey Pilot, 2011

In 2010, the Executive Board of the Council of Chief Librarians of California Community
Colleges (CCLCCC) initiated the California Community College Student Library &
Technology Engagement Survey, a five-campus pilot research project intended to provide
actionable insight into the library, information, and learning technology ecologies of student
populations across California. This effort arose from an acknowledgement that, at a time of
widespread transition and resource scarcity in higher education, robust inquiry is needed at
the campus level to understand the diversity of user needs and characteristics. If known,
these factors can facilitate a streamlined library and academic technology framework that
supports student learning through evidence-based practice.

The Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey was designed to address the
following goals:

• Understand local users. Examine the library, information, communication, and
academic technology characteristics of California community college (CCC) students.
• Track technology trends. Chart the use of emerging media platforms and
communication tools by CCC students.
• Support learning needs. Determine the library’s role in the personal learning
environments of CCC students, and identify how to respond more strategically to
academic/information needs.
• Prioritize and refine services. Evaluate and adapt traditional and tech-based library
services based on user insight.
• Foster cohesion. Provide a common user research strategy for CCC libraries.

In coordination with the CCL Executive Board, principal researcher Char Booth and a
Working Group of pilot participant library directors, including Tim Karas of Mission College
(Chair), John Koetzner of Mendocino College, Kenley Neufeld of Santa Barbara City
College, Choonhee Rhim of East Los Angeles Community College, and Susan Walsh of
Merced College, developed and administered the study between Fall of 2010 and Spring of
2011. This report describes the design process and initial findings of this pilot, concluding
with recommendations for scaling a similar research strategy to the statewide level.

Char Booth
September 2011

1


In response to pervasive resource insecurity and technology change throughout academia,
the California Community College Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey pilot
was developed to provide campus-specific and comprehensive insight into two areas of
inquiry: student library engagement (use, perceptions, awareness, receptivity) and
technology engagement (adoption, ownership, use, perceptions) in personal and educational
contexts.

Scope
This research project was conceived in early fall 2010, developed through winter 2011, and
administered on a trial basis between February 7 and March 7 of 2011. Five colleges
comprised the initial group of Library & Technology Engagement Survey (LTES) participants:
East Los Angeles College, Mendocino Community College, Merced College, Mission
College, and Santa Barbara City College. These campuses reflect the diversity of enrollment
sizes, socio-economic/cultural contexts, and urban/suburban/rural environments
characteristic of California community colleges (CCCs).

Purpose
In its pilot phase, this initiative was not intended to produce a set of findings generalizable
to community college students across the state of California or beyond. Rather, it was
created to test the practical feasibility of three outcomes within the research contexts of
CCC campuses:

1. To create a centrally administered, longitudinal, and pragmatic student survey
strategy that could be joined with minimal resource outlay by any CCC campus.
2. To produce a centralized data set as well as filtered, campus-specific findings that
could be easily communicated to participating institutions.
3. To deliver recommendations for questionnaire revisions and campus-level sampling
strategies for broader survey implementation in 2011-12.

Iteratively designed, researcher reviewed, and field-tested to ensure reliability and validity,
the survey instrument should nonetheless be subjected to additional testing if revised and
adopted for statewide use by CCLCCC.

2


Research Design
The LTES instrument (Appendix B) consisted of 28 multiple-choice and open-ended
questions (some required and others optional) and was deployed primarily online with
selective print administration. In recognition of the myriad institutional conditions that would
confront a research initiative involving up to 110 colleges in 72 districts, pilot campuses
employed distinct sampling strategies based on contextual factors and feasibility of
coordination with local offices of institutional research or other academic support units.
These strategies included:

• All-student email promotion at East Los Angeles College.
• On-campus flyering, faculty outreach, library workshop administration, library/college
website linking, and librarian word-of-mouth promotion at Mendocino College.
• All-student email promotion, library website and Facebook linking at Merced College.
• Selective in-class multimodal (paper and online) sampling at Mission College.
• Social media (Twitter, Facebook) posting, library website and student portal linking,
and word-of-mouth promotion at Santa Barbara City College.

Delivered exclusively online at four campuses, in-class participants at Mission College
completed an identical print version of the questionnaire (distance learners completed the
web survey form). A $100 cash prize was offered to a randomly selected student at each
campus, incentivization contained in common survey promotional language (Appendix A).

Returns
A total of 3,168 students from five pilot campuses attempted the LTES survey at an 80%
rate of completion and a 12% average rate of return based on estimated full time enrollment
(FTE) at the time of the survey (N = 25,625). Campus participation as a percentage of
aggregate responses varied according to sampling method and FTE, with a sizeable majority
representing two all-student email administration and medium-to-large enrollment colleges,
East LA and Merced (74% of total responses).

Generalizability
This report provides a combined snapshot of student library and technology attitudes and
behaviors captured through different sampling methods at five CCC campuses. Findings
described herein should not be interpreted as representative of all CCC students, and
generalizability of institutional data varies based on promotional strategies and rates of
return. Although detailed findings specific to their campuses have been communicated to

3


pilot institutions, this report is not intended to (nor do disparate promotional methods
permit) close comparison of library and technology engagement between campuses. Rather,
it is a study in the implications and feasibility of coordinated, library-sponsored research
among California community colleges, and indicative of the types of insight that could be
gained at the local and systemwide level by a broader implementation in subsequent years.

Limitations
In the context of this pilot, findings are comprised of a mixture of convenience and
probability sampling for which accurate confidence intervals cannot be determined, and are
skewed toward campuses with the highest rates of return and/or FTE. Furthermore, they are
the product of a survey instrument designed to provide a practical, action-oriented research
strategy and achieve operational improvement among CCC campus libraries, as opposed to
more formal research intended for complex statistical analysis.

Campus Cultures and Demographic Difference
It should be noted that findings reveal significant distinctions among campus populations,
influenced by demographic and contextual factors as well as the robustness of each
campus’ sampling strategy. Despite previously described limitations, distinct “library
cultures” and technology access are evident at the campus level, validating the utility of a
research strategy that provides local data that can be benchmarked among peers and
interpreted against aggregate findings (provided that they are representatively drawn).
Cross-tabulations within age, enrollment rationale, ethnicity, and gender also reveal
significant divergences in variables such as social media engagement, skill self-perception,
and library use; while exploring these differences in-depth is not the focus of this report,
cross-tabulated findings of significance are described in the context of other variables.

Key Findings
Survey results provide insight into the connections between library and technology
perceptions, use, and receptivity to emerging library platforms at each pilot campus. These
findings are communicated in three broad categories: library engagement, technology
engagement, and library technology receptivity.

L ib ra ry E n g a g e m e n t
• Student populations interacted frequently with their physical and digital campus libraries
(though significantly more so with brick-and-mortar facilities), and tended to access

4


information resources for research purposes at varied points during the semester based
on assignment-related information need.
• “Library as place” was a central theme among participants, who consistently expressed
the desire for longer hours, larger facilities, and more resources.
• Respondents frequently cited the quiet, clean atmosphere of campus library facilities as
conducive to academic productivity, often in contrast to their home environments.
• Participants rated their information search abilities in an open web context significantly
higher than their library research abilities.
• Students who had participated in library instruction reported more positive library
perceptions and higher levels of library use and awareness than those who had not.
• Students accessed course readings using an array of web, commercial, library-provided,
and informal methods.
• Open-ended comments conveyed a widespread perception of library value as well as a
positive reaction to the survey project itself, which can be interpreted as creating
ancillary outreach/awareness effects for participating campuses.

T e c h n o lo g y E n g a g e m e n t
• Participants owned and used a wide variety of technology devices, web tools, and social
media sites, but also expressed a lack of awareness and/or interest in some technology
platforms relative to others.
• Participants reflected an ongoing trend toward reliance on mobile devices such as
smartphones, which they applied to diverse academic and personal uses.
• Students valued their technology skill development at community college.
• Information technology use was perceived as a positive factor in learning, academic
productivity, and collaboration.
• Social and multimedia platforms were often used in the context of coursework.
• Many participants reported challenges affording necessary academic technologies.

L ib ra ry T e c h n o lo g y R e c e p tiv ity
• Participants demonstrated interest in library services delivered via social media
platforms. Among the available options, respondents were most receptive to services
offered via Facebook and YouTube.
• Respondents indicated high levels of interest in library services delivered via mobile
platforms, but expressed greater receptivity to some types of mobile library functionality
over others (e.g., hours, overdue notices, and renewal features rated higher than “ask a
librarian” options).

5


The Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey pilot was constructed to investigate
how CCC students view, use, understand, and critique campus library services and
information technology in the context of their academic experience. Designed and managed
through a centralized CCLCCC SurveyMonkey account, the survey featured 28 total items
representing a range of question types (rating scales, short answer, and multiple-choice).

Questionnaire Design
The pilot questionnaire was loosely based on a template student library and technology
survey instrument originally published in Informing Innovation (ACRL, 2009), itself inspired
by large-scale student survey initiatives such as the annual ECAR Study of Undergraduate
Students and Information Technology, and OCLC’s College students' perceptions of libraries
1
and information resources study. This Creative Commons-licensed survey, developed for
use at a doctoral-granting institution, was adapted for the community college environment
2
by Austin Community College in 2010. Building on this adaptation, Booth and the Working
Group revised, and refined the questionnaire to address the following research questions:

1) What are the library and technology engagement characteristics of CCC students?
2) Is there a relationship between library engagement, academic/information
technology engagement, and self-perceived research skill?
3) How willing are students to integrate social and mobile library tools into their
personal learning environments?
4) Do demographic factors such as age, location, and enrollment motivation impact
library and technology engagement?

To ensure instrument reliability and validity, between November 2010 and January 2011
iterative survey drafts were reviewed and revised by the Working Group, the Director of
Research and Planning at Mission College, two external researchers representing the
Coalition for Networked Information (Joan Lippincott) and Austin Community College (Ellie

1
Booth, C. (2009). Informing innovation: Tracking student interest in emerging library technologies at Ohio University.
Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, American Library Association.; Salaway, Gail and Caruso, Judith B.,
with Mark R. Nelson. The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, (2008). (Research Study,
Vol. 8). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2008, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.; De, R.
C., & OCLC. (2006). College students' perceptions of libraries and information resources: A report to the OCLC membership.
Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online Computer Library Center.
2
Collier, E. & A. Whatley. (2010). Take the template and run: Austin Community College’s Student Library and Technology
Use Study. In the Library with the Lead Pipe, http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org.

6


Collier), and field-tested by two student focus groups. The pilot survey is reproduced in full
in Appendix B.

Sampling and Promotional Strategies
To explore sample quality and rates of return in the diverse research contexts likely to exist
within a statewide administration of this project, the LTES pilot was constructed so that
each of its five participating campus used a common instrument but defined its survey
population through distinct sampling methods and research modes (Table 1):

Table 1 – Matrix of Sampling Strategies by Campus
Secondary
Primary Sample Mode Method
Promotion

East Los Angeles CC all-student email n/a online blanket probability

classes, faculty
convenience/
campus site, library outreach, fliers at
Mendocino CC online elective non-
site main campus and two
probability
campus centers

blanket probability &
library site, flyering, convenience/
Merced CC all-student email online
Facebook elective non-
probability

representative set of
paper &
Mission College classes (in-person n/a cluster probability
online
and distance)

convenience/
campus portal, social media, word-of-
Santa Barbara CC online elective non-
library website mouth
probability

• East Los Angeles Community College worked with its internal office of institutional
research to distribute a promotional email to all enrolled students (see Appendix B)
with no additional sampling strategy.
• Mendocino College linked to the survey from its library website and the main college
website, conducted on-campus flyering and direct outreach to faculty, and
administered the online survey in computer classrooms during several library
instruction sessions.
• Merced College distributed an all-student email, publicized a survey link on its library
website, posted flyers, and promoted the survey through Facebook.

7


• Mission College selected a probability sample of distance learning and in-person
courses and administered either the online survey or a paper duplicate in-class.
• Santa Barbara City College posted survey-related messages to its campus student
portal, posted the survey URL through Facebook and Twitter, linked from the library
website, and promoted via word-of-mouth in library instruction sessions

All included a common, optional incentive to increase participation: a $100 cash prize was
offered to a randomly selected respondent at each campus.

Returns
Between February 7 and March 7 of 2011, a total of 3,168 CCC students participated in the
LTES pilot at an 80% rate of completion. Rates of return varied widely by institution, with a
large majority of participants representing all-student email campuses (East Los Angeles
Community College and Merced College, see Figure 1). East Los Angeles and Merced
comprised 51% and 23% of total participants respectively, while Mendocino accounted for
only 4% of total returns.

Figure 1 - What community college do you attend?

Santa Barbara Mendocino
City College College
11% 4%

Merced College
23%
East Los
Angeles College
51%

Mission College
11%

Response Response Estimated Rate of
Table 2 - Response and Returns
Percent Count FTE Return
Mendocino College 4% 116 1516 8%
East Los Angeles College 51% 1607 8853 18%
Mission College 11% 359 3219 11%
Merced College 23% 725 4853 15%
Santa Barbara City College 11% 361 7184 5%
Total: 100% Total: 3168 Total: 25625 Avg: 12%

8


Best-estimate FTE at the time of the survey was 8,853 at East Los Angeles, 1,516 at
Mendocino, 4,853 at Merced, 3,451 at Mission, and 7,170 at Santa Barbara, based on Fall
2010 enrollment figures for East LA, Merced, and Mendocino, and Spring 2011 enrollment
estimates for Mission and Santa Barbara (Table 2).3 Rates of return expressed as a
percentage of campus enrollment ranged from a high of 18% at East LA to a low of 5% at
Santa Barbara. The mean rate of return was 12% of combined FTE.

As anticipated, disparate promotional and sampling strategies significantly impacted the
size and character of the returns at each pilot campus, consequently influencing the
representativeness of local as well as aggregate data. Findings should be understood to
reflect a non-probability sample and therefore not generalizable with confidence to
community college students statewide or, in two of the five pilot campuses (Mendocino and
Santa Barbara), locally.

Survey Discovery
Promotional and sampling differences among campuses produced a broad distribution of
survey discovery methods (Figure 2). Sixty-six percent of respondents learned about the
questionnaire by email, 15% from a librarian or instructor (largely in-class administration at
Mission College), and 14% from their community college student portal or website.
Discovery through a course management system drew 6% of respondents. Library website
linking accounted for less than 4%, while via social media, campus flyering, and word-of-
mouth promotion each netted 2% or less of the total sample.

Figure 2 - How did you find out about this survey? Check all that apply.

Email
66%

Instructor/Librarian
15%

Community
college
website
or
student
portal
14%

In
class
(online)
6%

Course
management
system
(Moodle,
etc.)
6%

Library
website
4%

In
class
(paper)
3%

Flyer
2%

Facebook
or
TwiCer
2%

Friend/Classmate
2%

Other
(please
specify)
1%

3
Personal correspondence with Kenley Neufeld and Tim Karas, June 2011. Also, Chancellor’s Data Mart,
http://www.cccco.edu/SystemOffice/Divisions/TechResearchInfo/MIS/DataMartandReports/tabid/282/Default.aspx

9


Based on this discovery pattern, the most robust sample in a broader survey administration
would be generated (in order of generalizability) by a) randomized email sampling, b) class-
based administration through cluster probability sampling, c) a campus-wide student email,
or d) survey promotion at the campus website or student portal level. The most cost-
effective and scalable sampling method in a statewide context is likely to be all-campus
email or randomized email sampling, provided that collaboration with a research office,
registrar, or other campus unit can provide an accurate contact list.

Convenience sampling methods such as survey distribution by library website or flyering
capture a survey population considerably more likely to be heavy library users than in-class
or email participants (see section 3 – Library Engagement), thus providing few insights
generalizable to an overall campus population. If randomized or blanket email sampling
methods are not feasible, survey distribution solely by elective or self-selected methods
(e.g., library website link, Facebook, flyering) should be understood to produce findings that
cannot be interpreted as representative of the student body, and furthermore that carry
implications for the quality of the statewide dataset.

Demographic Benchmarking
In response to the non-probability sampling limitation that will likely confront some CCC
libraries in a wider survey administration, the LTES instrument was designed to aid in
benchmark survey population to local FTE through common demographic data points (e.g.,
age, ethnicity, gender) collected by all California community colleges and publicly
discoverable through the CCC Chancellor’s Data Mart (see section 2 - Demographics for
4
examples of demographic alignment and divergence).

Additional Limitations
In addition to stratified non-probability sampling methods, the following factors should be
considered as additional limitations to the current study. Due to its primarily web-based
administration, participants are likely to be modestly skewed towards higher technology
competency. Data is based on participant self-perceptions and self-assessments rather than
objective evaluation or observation. Although the survey was anonymous, social desirability
bias may have motivated some participants to intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent
information relating to technology and library use. While the majority of responses
originated from library-neutral space (email, as opposed to a library website link), each
campus library was clearly identified as survey sponsor in all sampling scenarios. Some

4
Chancellor’s Data Mart,

10


degree of self-selection bias in the population can therefore be assumed: those motivated to
participate may have been influenced by established library relationship.

Human Subjects Research Exemption
By virtue of evaluating the public/operational benefit of campus library services and
protecting the anonymity of its participants, human subjects research (HSR) exemption
under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45 – Public Welfare, Department of Health and
Human Services reasonably applies but was not formally sought through offices of
5
institutional research in this pilot survey phase. That said, library directors at each campus
requested questionnaire review and formal approval to conduct the pilot survey through the
following institutional officers:

• East Los Angeles Community College - Reviewed by the Dean of Institutional
Effectiveness and approved by the Vice-President of Student Services
• Mendocino College - Reviewed and approved by the Dean of Instruction and Vice
President of Education and Student Services
• Merced College - Reviewed and approved by the Technology Master Planning
Committee
• Mission College - Reviewed and approved by the Director of Research and Planning
• Santa Barbara Community College - Reviewed and approved by the Executive Vice
President of Educational Programs

In the event of broader administration, formal HRS review and/or exemption should be
pursued on a statewide basis in coordination with research-focused units in the California
Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, or through campus offices of institutional research
in the event that blanket approval or exemption is infeasible.
5
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS - §46.101...
(b) Unless otherwise required by department or agency heads, research activities in which the only involvement of human
subjects will be in one or more of the following categories are exempt from this policy:
(2) Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures,
interview procedures or observation of public behavior, unless:
(i) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers
linked to the subjects; and (ii) any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could reasonably place
the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation.
(5) Research and demonstration projects which are conducted by or subject to the approval of department or agency heads,
and which are designed to study, evaluate, or otherwise examine:
(i) Public benefit or service programs; (ii) procedures for obtaining benefits or services under those programs; (iii) possible
changes in or alternatives to those programs or procedures; or (iv) possible changes in methods or levels of payment for
benefits or services under those programs.

US Department of Health and Human Services, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html#46.101

11


Among the survey population (N = 3,168), 25% of respondents were 19 years old or
younger, 38% were aged between 20 and 24, 14% were 25 through 29, 8% were 30 to 34,
and the remaining 15% represented the 36 and older student demographic (Figure 3).

Figure 3 - How old are you?

40
to
49
50
+

35
to
39
6%
4%

19
or
Less

5%
25%

30
to
34

8%

25
to
29

14%

20
to
24

38%

This distribution is roughly comparable for statewide figures from Fall of 2010 (Table 3): the
19 or less, 25 to 29, 30 to 34, and 35 to 39 categories match closely with the present study,
6
but divergences of several percentage points are seen in the 20 to 24 and 50+ ranges.

Table 3 – Statewide CCC Enrollment by Age, Fall 2010 Percent

19 or Less 25%
20 to 24 30%
25 to 29 13%
30 to 34 8%
35 to 39 5%
40 to 49 9%
50 + 10%

By ethnicity, survey participants (Figure 4) diverge significantly from the statewide
community college population, a result of the unique composition of the 5-campus sample.
Although Hispanic students are the majority in both categories, statewide enrollment by
ethnicity in Fall 2010 (Table 4) shows differences from the pilot population among white,
African-American, and other groups (response choices differed slightly from statewide data;
correcting this discrepancy is among our instrument revision suggestions). Among pilot
survey participants, sharp distinctions in ethnicity are apparent at the campus level. For
6
Statewide Student Demographics for Age by Fall 2010 Term, Chancellor’s Data Mart.

12


example, whereas almost 60% of the survey populations of Santa Barbara City College and
Mendocino Colleges identified as white, only 4% of East Lost Angeles College and 20% of
Mission college participants did so.

Figure 4 - What best represents your ethnicity? Choose all that apply.

Prefer
not
to
say
African-‐
White
4%
American

21%
3%

American

Indian/Alaskan

NaSve

3%

Paciﬁc
Islander
Asian

1%
19%

Filipino

Hispanic
4%

45%

Table 4 - Statewide Enrollment by Ethnicity, Fall 2010 Percent

African-American 7%
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1%
Asian 11%
Filipino 3%
Hispanic 34%
Multi-Ethnicity 2%
Pacific Islander 1%
Unknown 9%
White Non-Hispanic 32%

Considerably more respondents in the Figure 5 - What is your gender?

survey population were female than male, Female
Male
Transgendered

66% versus 34%, with.2% reporting
0.2%

transgender status (Figure 5). This differs
from the state CCC population; according to
the Chancellor’s Data Mart, in 2010 34%

statewide students represent a gender
distribution of 54% female, 45% male, and 66%

1% unknown.

13


It should be noted that gender imbalance in survey results is not uncommon. A number of
studies in the past decade have shown that female-gendered individuals participate at
significantly higher rates in web-based surveys, particularly in the higher education
7
environment.

Figure 6 - What best describes your enrollment status? Check all that apply.

69%

28%

16%
15%

8%

3%
2%

Student enrollment status indicated a survey population heavily weighted toward full-time
onsite students; only 8% of participants reported attending virtually (Figure 6). Enrollment
status in the present study cannot be compared to statewide figures due to divergence in
response choices from that commonly tracked statistic; aligning these options comprises
another questionnaire revision suggestion.

An item that invited participants to specify one or more rationales for attending community
college (Figure 7) indicated that a majority were engaged in coursework in order to transfer
to a 4-year institution (68%) or obtain an Associate’s degree (42%). Other responses
included self-improvement/personal enjoyment (31%), certificate program completion (15%),
career change (13%), and updating job-related skills (12%).

7
Sax, L, S. Gilmartin, & A. Bryan. (2003). Assessing Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Web and Paper Surveys.
Research in Higher Education, (44), 4, 409-432. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024232915870. Also, Underwood, D., H. Kimand, & M.
Matier. (2000). To mail or to Web: Comparisons of survey response rates and respondent characteristics. Paper presented at
the 40th Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Cincinnati, OH, May 21–24, 2000. Also, Hunt-White, T.
(2007). The Influence of Selected Factors on Student Survey Participation and Mode of Completion, Center for National
Education Statistics, http://www.fcsm.gov/07papers/Hunt-White.III-C.pdf.

14


Figure 7 - Which of the following best describes your reasons/goals for attending
community college? Check all that apply.

To
complete
a
cerSﬁcate
program
15%

To
obtain
or
update
job-‐related
(vocaSonal)
skills
12%

To
obtain
an
Associate's
degree
42%

To
transfer
to
a
4-‐year
college
or
university
68%

To
change
careers
13%

Self-‐improvement/personal
enjoyment
31%

Other
(please
specify)
3%

Cross-tabulated by age, younger students were more likely to be pursuing transfer or
Associates degree plans, while older respondents were significantly more likely to be
motivated by vocational training and career change aspirations. Enrollment for personal
enjoyment was the most consistently shared rationale across all demographics and
locations, with a common representation of +/-30%.

15


The Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey pilot sought to portray the library
engagement levels of CCC students, including their attitudes, perceptions, needs, and
expectations in respect to digital and physical library facilities and information resources.
Findings are presented in three sections: Use, Perceptions, and Awareness.

Use
Respondents were consistently engaged with their community college libraries when classes
were in session, although somewhat more so with their physical than digital facilities (Figure
8). In the overall survey population, 34% percent of respondents visited their campus library
frequently or very frequently, while 23% used the library website frequently or very
frequently. Twenty-seven percent talked with a librarian at least occasionally, while 33%
searched for items in the library catalog at least occasionally. Among the options listed,

Figure 8 - When classes are in session, about how often do you...

Very
frequently
Frequently
Occasionally
Rarely
Very
rarely
Never
Didn't
know
I
could

Visit
the
library
in
person?
14%
20%
26%
11%
14%
13%
2%

Use
the
library
website
to
research
for
an

10%
17%
23%
15%
13%
18%
4%

assignment?

Use
library
databases
(EBSCO,
Proquest,

8%
12%
19%
14%
12%
26%
8%

etc.)?

Visit
the
library
website?
8%
15%
24%
17%
16%
18%
3%

Check
library
hours
or
contact
informaSon

6%
9%
20%
14%
16%
32%
4%

online?

Search
for
items
in
the
library
catalog?
5%
9%
19%
15%
15%
33%
5%

Talk
with
a
librarian
in
person?
3%
6%
18%
15%
20%
34%
3%

Talk
with
a
librarian
via
IM
or
chat?
4%
7%
9%
58%
21%

Talk
with
a
librarian
on
the
phone?
4%
7%
11%
65%
12%

Email
a
librarian?
3%
6%
8%
67%
15%

Text
message
a
librarian?
2%
6%

4%
66%
21%

16


web-based and phone librarian contact points were the least used and least known, although
in-person library contact was more common. Only eight percent of participants indicated that
they were not aware that they could use library subscription databases; 65% reported using
them to some extent. Low engagement with remote ask a librarian options can be attributed
to actual participant use/awareness as well as uneven service availability (creating
representative yet comprehensive response arrays is one of acknowledged challenges of
this cross-institutional survey design; in this case, not all pilot libraries offered a text
messaging service). Thirteen percent of participants reported never using a library facility
when classes were in session, while 18% never accessed a library website.

An optional open-ended item that asked students to describe what influences the frequency
of their library use elicited a variety of responses (N = 1,457), most frequently invoking
current level of research need, as well as “conditions at home,” “hours of operation,” and
“how crowded/noisy it is, how much space there is, etc.” The number of students that
reported rarely or never using online library resources relative to physical facilities indicates
that many likely conduct course-related research exclusively on the open web, which may at
times direct them unknowingly to library-sponsored content.

L ib ra ry U s e b y C a m p u s a n d S u rv e y D is c o v e ry M e th o d
Campus-level cross-tabulation reveals distinctions in library use and perceptions that could
be attributed as much to disparate sampling as to actual differences in use. In order to
explore sampling effects on library use, Figure 9 compares use frequency of four brick-and-
mortar library tasks (checking out books, studying alone, using library computers for
research, and doing independent research for an assignment) by survey discovery method
(library website, email, Instructor/librarian, community college website/student portal, or
course management system).

Respondents who learned of the survey through a link posted to a library website or social
media platform were far more likely to be frequent users of library facilities, services, and
resources than those who discovered the survey through library-neutral interfaces and
methods (e.g., email, course management systems, instructors). Survey takers funneled
through library websites in particular engaged in library use tasks more frequently than
those in other discovery categories (e.g., they were on average four to five times less likely
to indicate “never” using the library in any specified category), and therefore represent a
cohort of library “superusers” that can be valuable sources of information but not
generalizable to the CCC population. A more accurate portrayal of campus-wide use is
evident through email, in-class, college website, or learning management system discovery.

17


Figure 9 - Cross-tabulation of “How did you learn about this survey?” with Frequency
of Library Use

Library
website
Main
community
college
website
or
student
portal

Email
Course
management
system
(Blackboard,
Moodle,
etc.)

Instructor/Librarian

66%

Frequently

19%

Study
alone

Occasionally

11%

Rarely

4%

Never

30%

Check
out
books
or
journals

Frequently

32%

Occasionally

27%

Rarely

7%

Never

57%

Do
research
for
an
assignment

Frequently

28%

Occasionally

12%

Rarely

2%

Never

46%

Frequently

Use
library
computers
for

32%

schoolwork

Occasionally

19%

Rarely

3%

Never

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%

18


Figure 9 should provide additional evidence that email or randomized email sampling should
be pursued whenever possible. Campuses that promote their survey solely (or even in a
supplementary capacity) via a library website link should understand that their results will
present a skewed perspective of student library awareness and use.

C o u r s e M a te r ia ls A c c e s s
Participants were asked to indicate the ways they accessed course-related readings
(textbooks, articles, etc.) in the past year (Figure 10). Participants selected on average four
different methods of course materials access, and relied heavily on reading items from the
open web (68%) or downloaded and printed (62%). Fifty-nine percent purchased textbooks,
while 47% reported checking items from their campus library and an additional 44% used in-
library course reserves (the same number borrowed items from a friend or classmate). Thirty
percent purchased course packs, and 24% used online library e-reserves. Thirty-one percent
rented online or printed textbooks, while the most common verbatim choice among “other”
submissions was photocopying materials.

Figure 10 - Check all of the ways you have accessed class readings, textbooks, and
other school-related materials in the past year.

Read
items
on
the
web
68%

Download
and
print
out
62%

Buy
printed
textbook(s)
59%

Check
items
out
from
the
library
47%

Borrow
from
a
friend
or
classmate
44%

Use
"reserve"
books
in
the
library
44%

Buy
paper
course
pack(s)
30%

Use
online
library
"e-‐reserves"
24%

Rent
printed
textbook(s)
20%

Rent
online
textbooks(s)
11%

Other
(please
specify)
5%

Whereas cross-tabulation revealed few age-related trends in course materials access,
respondents between 20-24 indicated using the greatest number of formats during the past

19


year, and were by extension the heaviest users of library course materials. Participants
between 19-24 years were more likely to borrow course readings from friends or classmates.

Perceptions
Participants responded to three optional items that invited them to provide open-ended
positive and negative feedback about their campus libraries, as well as to describe the
academic environment in which they were most productive (N1 = 2,424, N2 = 2,363, N2 =
2,338). Students expressed a wide range of opinions and suggestions regarding library
facilities, services, staff, resources, and technologies, and the context in which they find
themselves most academically productive. These comments tended provide the most pointed
location-based insights, and, if systematically coded and analyzed by participant
institutions, carry considerable potential to directly evaluate and affect specific operations.

W h a t d o y o u a p p re c ia te a b o u t y o u r c a m p u s lib ra ry ?
In open-ended commentary students were highly appreciative of a wide range of library
services, providing positive assessments of staff (“helpful librarians are always there when
you need them”), technology tools (“Easy access to computers”), collections (“able to
borrow the books that we couldn't afford"), and learning activities (“I am thankful for it's [sic]
helpful staff and the workshops that they offer for our ELAC community”). Students often
cited the library’s quiet ambiance as positive (“They supply students with a safe and quiet
environment to work and study in, plus have lots of access to books, computers, and etc.”).
Comments such as this one, which offered a combined appreciation of library staff,
collections, quiet space, and/or technology, were offered frequently.

W h a t w o u ld y o u c h a n g e a b o u t y o u r c a m p u s lib ra ry ?
When asked to specify aspects of their campus library that they would change, trends
concerned expansion and updating of physical, computing, and collection resources.
Students across all demographic groups requested seating, technology availability (“More
tables and outlets for laptops”), extended hours, increased staffing (“Have more people to
help the students”), better website design (“I don't have any problems with the library, but
the website gets confusing”), building enhancements, and enforcement of quiet areas and
use policies (actual or imagined: “kick out the youngsters there that aren't there to really
use its resources”). Requests for increased and updated collections were also common (“We
need to get updated books and have many MANY more online journals and scholarly texts!”)
East Los Angeles’ library was under construction at the time of the survey, leading to a
number of comments such as “have it built faster” and “Is the new library open yet?” Finally,

20


the following quote summarizes a sizeable proportion of responses: “No need to fix
something that isn't broken.”

Awareness
Figure 11 shows that a majority of students either agreed or strongly agreed with the
following library-related statements, “I am aware of the services my campus library offers
(60%),” “My campus library supports my community college experience (65%),” and “My
campus library has materials that are useful to me in my classes (72%).” A consistent
quarter of students evaluated these statements neutrally, while only a small percentage
disagreed or strongly disagreed with the latter two statements (6% and 5%). The first
statement concerning library awareness had the highest level of disagreement or strong
disagreement, 11% and 4%, respectively, indicating that augmented marketing and
educational measures could raise student awareness.

Figure 11 - For each of the following statements, choose the best answer.

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

46%
44% 43%

26% 26% 26%
25%
24%

16%

11%

4% 4%
2% 3%
2%

I am aware of the services my My campus library supports my My campus library has materials
campus library offers. community college experience. that are useful to me in my classes.

21


Figure 12 - Have you ever attended a workshop Library instruction (Figure 12) reached
or presentation from a community college
40% of respondents in-library, 35% in-
librarian...
class, and 13% online, and had a clear
100%

impact on awareness and use of library
80%

resources and services. Figure 13
60%
demonstrates four categories of library

40%
contact (from left to right: in-person
visits, website use, database use, and
20%

an average of librarian contact through
0%

In
the
In
your
IM/chat/in-person/via phone) and use
Online?

library?
classroom?

frequency/awareness among those who
No
54%
56%
80%

have or have not attended an
Yes
40%
35%
13%

instruction session within the library.
Not
sure
6%
8%
8%

Figure 13 - Impact of Library Instruction on Library Use and Awareness

Has
NOT
aCended
in-‐library
instrucSon
Has
aCended
in-‐library
instrucSon

38%

10%

9%

28%
52%

6%
29%

12%

11%
24%
16%

36%
20%

10%

11%
15%
24%
15%

18%
25%
21%
13%

24%
13%
15%

14%

19%
18%
17%
20%

16%
17%
13%
5%
15%
14%

12%
11%

2%
13%
14%
14%

1%
10%
10%
8%
9%
8%
6%
4%

4%
5%
6%

2%
3%
1%

Didn't
know
I
could

Never

Very
rarely

Didn't
know
I
could

Didn't
know
I
could

Frequently

Never

Very
rarely

Very
rarely

Didn't
know
I
could

Very
rarely

Frequently

Never

Frequently

Never

Frequently

Occasionally

Occasionally

Occasionally

Occasionally

Very
frequently

Very
frequently

Very
frequently

Very
frequently

Rarely

Rarely

Rarely

Rarely

Visit
the
library
in
person?
Visit
the
library
website?
Use
library
databases
(EBSCO,
Talk
with
a
librarian
in
person
or

etc.)
via
IM/chat?

22

California Community College Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey: 2011 Pilot, Final Report

California Community College Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey: 2011 Pilot, Final Report

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Destaque (11)

Semelhante a California Community College Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey: 2011 Pilot, Final Report

Semelhante a California Community College Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey: 2011 Pilot, Final Report (20)

Mais de char booth

Mais de char booth (20)

Último

Último (20)

California Community College Student Library & Technology Engagement Survey: 2011 Pilot, Final Report