Students’ Patterns of Library Use and Their Learning Outcomes

Haruki Nagata (Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University ofTsukuba, Japan)
Akira Toda (Bunkyo University Shonan Library, Japan)
Päivi Kytömäki (Oulu University Library, Finland)

Abstract
This study examines students’ use of academic libraries and tries to clarify what
educational outcomes are achieved in relation to their patterns of library use. The authors
conducted three focus group interviews and three surveys in Japanese and Finnish universities
from 2004 to 2006 and obtained findings which may contribute to the research on libraryoutcomes assessment.
Three patterns of common user groups ('learners group', 'extended use group', and 'place
and PC use group') are identified by cluster analysis of the survey data. Using the library for
its material or for research purposes, as the learners group does, is the use that is most likely tohave a direct connection to students’ educational outcomes. However, another use pattern,
strolling among the bookshelves, is notable because this study shows strong links between it,
and educational outcomes and motivation for students’ learning.

Introduction
With the universalization of higher education, universities and colleges are expanding
their educational fields to appeal to students with a greater variety of interests and are tryingout various innovations in their educational programs, including the incorporation of newteaching methods. Accompanying these changes is the demand for accountability on thepart of institutions as to their educational quality and effectiveness. Academic libraries, inthis context, are assessed on how well they are aligned with the roles their parent institutions
undertake. The results of assessment of such institutions and their libraries are pertinent asevidence in support of accountability.
Since what is being investigated is their quality and effectiveness, the assessment should
focus on, whether students perceive them to be valuable; whether the study environment iswell established; what educational outcomes students attain; and to what degree academic
libraries contribute to student outcome achievements. So outcomes assessment does notlook at the output performance of the library. Instead, using a term from systems
methodology, it examines the activity from ‘an upper-level perspective’ (Peter Checkland,1981). The development of methods for outcomes assessment has been challenging. As
views from various stakeholders are involved in the assessment from an upper-level
perspective, the stance from which to assess, the targets to be assessed, and the measures to be
used, all involve difficult issues.
The difficulty, however, does not diminish the necessity. There has been considerable
effort made in the field of library and information services towards this end, and various
methods have been proposed. This study follows on from such efforts.
11.

Students’ library use and their educational outcomes (earlier studies)

It is generally agreed that library use is indeed beneficial (or even indispensable) for
students to achieve their educational outcomes. But to prove that it really does so, or to what
degree it contributes to students’ attainment of educational outcomes is not at all easy.
Ethelene Whitmire (2002), for example, examined the relation between library resources andservices and students’ educational outcomes through multiple regression analysis, utilizing thedata collected by the CSEQ (College Student Experience Questionnaire) and the NCES
(National Center for Education Statistics). Two assumptions underlie her study: “(1)undergraduates attending institutions with large amounts of academic library resources andservices would participate in more academic library activities and (2) undergraduates
attending institutions with large amounts of academic library resources and services would
report greater gains in critical thinking”. Three sets of independent variables were defined as1) background characteristic variables, (gender; race; age), 2) college experience variables(grade-point averages; class year; enrollment status; student-faculty interactions; engagement
writing activities; active learning activities; number of term papers written; hours spent
studying per week), and 3) academic library variables (resources; services). The dependent
variables were defined as 1) library use (usage as a place; use of indexes to journal articles;developing a bibliography for term papers; use card catalog or computer; ask a librarians for
help; reading in the reserve or reference section; check out books; checked citations inmaterial read; reading a basic reference; found materials in browsing stacks), and 2)
self-reported gains in critical thinking skills (ability to think analytically and logically; ability
to put ideas together, see relationships, similarities and differences between ideas; ability tolearn on your own, pursue ideas, and find information you need).
The analyses showed, however, that library resources and services had almost no
influence over undergraduates’ use of library or their self-reported gains in critical thinking
skills. Although this was a study that hinted at a way to measure the contribution ofacademic libraries to undergraduates’ educational outcomes, it fell short of proving a positive
relationship. In order to investigate this connection further, Toda and Nagata (2007)
conducted a paper survey in 2003 mailed to the former students of Bunkyo University
Koshigaya campus (no. of respondents: 340; return rate: 33.7%), focusing on the relations
between their library usage and learning outcomes while they were students.
The hypotheses that framed this research were:(1) there would be a positive correlation between “library use” (questionnaire items: useof study-related materials; use as a place to study; use in groups; use of library catalog; use of
periodical articles database; consulting librarians to search materials; browsing throughstacks; reading materials unrelated to classes) and “benefits of library use” (finding
information and knowledge looked for; new perspectives and thoughts; encounter with books
that would not have happened elsewhere; sense of fulfillment in reading interesting books;
place to study; intellectually stimulating ambience; information systems unavailable toindividuals; knowledge and skills to search materials and information),(2) there would be a positive correlation between “benefits of library use” and “learning
outcomes” (questionnaire items: general knowledge; specialized knowledge; skills to searchand utilize needed information; skills for investigation and reflection; other particularqualifications/experiences/skills intended to be acquired during undergraduate years), and(3) those who evaluated favorably the “benefits of library use” with respect to thevariables indicated in hypothesis (2) would also highly evaluate the “degree of library
contribution” (questionnaire items correspond with those for “learning outcomes”)
Concerning the relationship between “library use” and “benefits of library use,” the2analyses indicated positive correlations between 23 of 64 combinations of variables.
Correlations between some of these were quite positive. As for the hypothesis (2), positive
correlations were found between 16 of 40 combinations. A clear difference was confirmedin the examination of the hypothesis (3). In the positive correlative combinations of “libraryuse” and “benefits of library use,” the respondents who marked high the “benefits of libraryuse” also evaluated the “degree of library contribution” higher than those who did not.
Thereby, it was affirmed that “library use,” “benefits of library use” and “learning outcomes”
are related and that the library contributes to this relationship. In other words, the grounds
for the assessment of academic library usage in its contribution to students’ learning outcomesare prepared. The results obtained from this study put the research a step forward from
Whitmire.

2.

Purposes and overview of this study

As could be surmised from the study by Toda and Nagata (2007), there is no uniformity
in students’ use of the library. The study also showed that the “benefits of library use” and“learning outcomes” attained are somehow related to the ways in which students use thelibrary. Focusing on this point, the current study attempts to understand students’ use ofacademic libraries and clarify what educational outcomes are achieved in relation to theirpatterns of library use. Student expectations and demands of the library are reflected in theirlibrary usage, and if these are related to certain educational outcomes, the results of this study
may be useful to promote certain types of library use that are more efficient in attaining
desired outcomes. Also, if it is possible to predict the level of outcomes affected by theidentified types of library use, this process can be examined further to develop into a methodof outcomes assessment.
First, focus group interviews were conducted in Mie University as a preliminary
investigation to understand students’ library use. The transcripts were analyzed anddeveloped into questionnaire items that would measure their use of the library. The first
paper survey followed. But since we were not able to conduct the paper survey in Mie
University, but in Keio University, we compensated for this change by incorporating datafrom a set of focus group interviews conducted afterwards with students who had participatedin the paper survey into our interpretation of the results. Thus, this study conducted bothfocus group interviews and a paper survey, and the analyses are based on the combination ofthese.
At the outset we expected our research survey would conclude with Mie and Keio
Universities. The survey at Keio University, however, brought some interesting findings,
and we conducted extra surveys at Oulu University in Finland and Nagoya University inJapan to investigate these findings further. Though all our surveys took place at universities,
the first paper survey dealt with the students majoring in new academic fields who used abranch library. In choosing the 2nd and 3rd survey sites we made sure they were the main
libraries. Nagoya University is a mainstream university in Japan, and Oulu University is asite where quite standard results were acquired when two of the authors conducted a libraryservice quality survey in the past (Nagata, 2004). The focus group interviews at Oulu
Universities were conducted before the survey. Although this did not bring about
corrections in the uniform basic part of questionnaire items, the focus group results at Oulu
were also referred to in the analyses of the paper survey. Table 1 shows the surveys
conducted for this study.
The authors and a collaborator at Oulu University interviewed students in groups of 4 to 8
3

for the focus group interviews. Questions and issues concerning the students’ library use
were prepared in advance, and the interviewees voiced their opinions and discussed the issues
put to them. The interviews and surveys were conducted in Japanese in Japan, and Finnish
in Finland.
Table 1 List of FGIs and surveys conducted
FGI

paper survey
no. of respondents (return rate)

Mie University
2
1
Keio University
2 (afterward)
450 (20.0%)
2
Oulu University
2 (beforehand)
320*
3
Nagoya University489(21.6％)
4* At Oulu University, the survey was conducted both on paper and on the web.

month/year
conducted
2004.122005.7-9
2005.12-2006.2
2006.6

The number indicates the sum of

respondents through both media.

The structure of paper survey items are outlined below. Except for the part that was
web-based, all surveys were paper-based and administered to students visiting the library.

3.

The context of library use

The focus group interviews revealed various types of students’ library use. Somethought the library was indispensable for their study, and others used it as a place where they
could rest, chat with friends or just to kill time. As for the library resources, some utilized
them only for class assignments and others also for their own pleasure, their reading guided
by their own whims. There were some who never checked out library materials, and others
whose sole purpose in visiting library was to use the computers.
Though each of the libraries included offers various kinds of services, mostly students
make choice according to their own convenience or need. Joan C. Durrance and Karen E.
Fischer (2005) pointed out the contextual approach to library outcomes. User’s activities are
surely defined by the context s/he is in, but if that is the case, what kinds of contexts surroundthe students using academic libraries? Durrance and Fischer specified the contextual
elements associated with the user, such as needs, attitudes, perceptions and so on, but why andhow these elements influence the user’s activities still waits further clarification.
On the other hand, according to the Bettman model (1979), based on recent information
processing theory of consumer choice, the consumer has a certain goal, and in order to attainthis goal s/he utilizes stored memory to evaluate and synthesize the information, and thenselect certain behavior. That is to say, in this model, the consumer perceives external
information through his/her sensory register, pays attention and tries to understand it, while atthe same time combining it with the long-term memory, to evaluate, determine andre-structure, and finally to link it to his/her own behavior.
Although the focus group interviews identified varied student behavior concerning libraryuse, their transcripts would remain merely a description of various phenomena without ananalysis of the elements that drive these behaviors. Referring to the above mentioned two
studies, the current study established three elements of usage context: a) user’s motive, b)
user’s library skills as her/his long-term memory, and c) other related elements. Also, basedon our assumption that students’ learning outcomes and their library usage are related, thepaper survey was structured based on the model shown in Figure 1. Though the arrows
point one-way in the figure, the outcomes are fed back to the contexts.
4

Usage contexta) user’s motive, b) user’s library skills, c) other related elements

Types of use/users (grouping of students, usage factors)
Outcomes attained by the user

Figure 1

Model of students’ library use and outcomes

The questionnaire for the three sets of the paper survey was composed of six basic sets ofquestions with some optional ones added depending on the survey site. The basic sets arecomposed of (1) characteristics of the respondents, (2) frequency of library use, (3) attendanceat library use education, (4) motivations for library use, (5) types of library use, and (6)outcomes of library use. The optional additions were students’ understanding level ofcoursework, class grades, degree of satisfaction with library services, and a free comment
field. The number of the sets of questions was ten at the most. Each element in usage
context corresponds to one or more questions respectively. The element a) corresponds to thequestion (4), the element b) to the questions (2) and (3), and the element c), though notnecessarily specific, to the question (1). To the element c), however, environmental factors
need to be included as will be explained in the next section. There was a little improvementadministered in the questionnaire after the first survey, but it remained basically the same.

4.

Grouping of students according to their types of library use

The first paper survey was conducted at Keio University Shonan Fujisawa Campus
Library. The students’ responses concerning their library use, varying from chatting to using
PCs, were put through cluster analyses, and four groups showed up—1) a learners group, 2) astrollers group, 3) an extended use group, and 4) a place and PC user group. Figure 2 shows
the library usage patterns of these groups. On the horizontal axis are the indicators for usage
patterns. The topmost group utilized library resources for learning tasks, and they accounted
for 66.2 % of all respondents. The next group came to the library from time to time to lookfor (browse) interesting books and occupied 7.6 % of the total. The third group, 6.4 %,showed the highest rate in using the library as a place to chat with friends. With this group,
the library was a place to use in groups or to use PCs rather than for its resources. The
fourth group tended to come to the library to use it as a place and to use PCs. This group,
the second largest, made up 15.6 % of all respondents.
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
chat

magazine

strolluse as a
spaceresourceuse

learners group(n=298)

0.76

0.97

1.06

1.68

1.62

1.33

1.04

1.54

strollers group(n=34)

0.26

0.82

1.56

0.94

0.85

0.68

0.41

0.21

extended use group(n=29)

1.83

1.17

0.9

1.07

0.79

0.28

1.24

1.1

place & PC use group(n=70)

0.33

0.83

0.4

1.27

0.39

0.37

0.66

1.27

Figure 2

researchgroup use
use

User groups at Keio University
5

PC use

The first group (learners), the third (extended use group, in other words, socializers) andthe fourth group (place and PC users) are easily identified in everyday library settings andthus they were easy to understand. The second group, the strollers group, however, took us
by surprise, although we found the concept was conceivable as a possibility. One such
student commented in the focus group interview, “I come to the library, check the new arrivals,
go to the third floor, and then come down each floor browsing books. I don’t come to thelibrary with a specific purpose. Rather, it’s more random, just looking for some good books.
That’s how I use the library.” It should be mentioned here that the students included in thisgroup, as stated later, generally indicated high educational outcomes.
In order to examine this group further, two subsequent surveys were conducted. The
results at Oulu University and Nagoya University are shown in Figures 3 and 4. Incomparison with the results acquired from these two universities, the strollers group found in
Keio University was not perceived as something universal. Oulu University, furthermore,
showed another group, separate from the learners group, who showed high interest in theoverall resources offered by the library. This group is labeled resource users.
5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

resource use group (n=174)
learners group(n=118)
place & PC use (n=25)

chatmagazine

strolluse as a
spaceresouce
use

1.3
0.6
2.7

3.9
1.5
2.9

3.0
2.2
1.4

3.4
2.3
2.2

4.1
4.4
1.6

Figure 3

researchgroup use
use
3.3
3.6
1.7

PC use

2.2
1.5
3.7

1.7
0.7
1.1

group
use

PC use0.5

User groups at Oulu University

5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
chat

magazine

strolluse as a
spaceresouce researchuse
use

learners group(n=188)

0.5

1.3

2.7

3.8

4.3

3.5

0.6

space use group(n=72)

1.2

0.8

1.2

3.6

1.9

1.1

0.3

0.5

space & PC use
group(n=207)

1.2

1.8

1.9

3.8

3.6

2.9

1.1

3.8

Figure 4 User groups at Nagoya University
The cluster analyses showed some groups common to all three universities. The
learners group appeared everywhere showing high scores in their use of the library formaterials, for research and as a place. There were some differences within this group.
Usage as a place was somewhat lower at Oulu University and PC usage was high at Keio
University. The second common group was the extended use group (socializers group) whoscored high on usage of the library as a place to chat and gather but low on the usage formaterials and for research. Nagoya University did not have this group. There was a wide
6

gap in the use of PCs between Oulu University and Keio University.
The other common group was the place and PC users. Oulu University lacked thisgroup, and there was a slight difference between Nagoya University and Keio University inthe usage of the library for materials and for research.
Also, among the eight indicators established under the question for students’ types oflibrary use, the PC use and the group use were greatly affected by environmental factors.
Their usage of PCs depended heavily on the facilities offered by the library, and the group use
depended on how group assignments were dealt with at each university. These, as c) otherrelated elements of the user’s context, greatly influenced the results.

5.

Patterns of library use and student outcomes

The results obtained were put through correlation analyses to determine the relationshipbetween the type of library use and outcomes. Table 2 shows the result of it, grouped by theuniversity.
Table 2

Correlations between type of use and outcomesoutcomes
technical/
specialist
knowledge

generalknowledge

newperspectives

emotional
fulfillment

criticalthinkingskill tofind
information

fun ofstudy/
learning

habit oflearning by
yourself.197**.097*.233**.120*.166**.176**.205**.317**

type of use

Keio University
Oulu University
Nagoya University

chatmagazines
strolluse as aplaceresource use
research use
group use
PC usechatmagazines
strolluse as aplaceresource use
research use
group use
PC usechatmagazines
strolluse as aplaceresource use
research use
group use

.121*
.162**.282**.316**.325**.222**.105*.406**.276**.236**.210**.305**.355**.254**.332**.247**.258**.129**.283**.282**.210**.113*.136**.098*.128**.153**.214**.327**.302**.149**.143*-.133*.204**.202**.479**.423**.229**.123*.439**.357**.270**.525**.373**.371**.270**.331**.188**.253**.458**.352**.315**.255**.384**.139*.210**.130*.123*-.117*.162**.157**.096*.188**

.098*

.096*

.182**.103*.398**.438**.361**.306**.161**.316**.105*.134**

.111*

.115*

.487**.295**.334**.135**.305**.387**.322**.158**.411*).249**.351**.161**.290**.373**.314**.204**.169**.149**

.103*

.113*

PC use

.108*

7

.110*

**. Two-tailed P values < 0.01 were considered statistically significant*. Two-tailed P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant

The items in the figure corresponds with the measures placed under the question, “Whatdo you think you have gained by using the library?”: 1) Technical or specialist knowledge inyour main subject, 2) General knowledge, 3) New aspects or new perspectives, 4)
Emotional fulfillment, 5) Critical thinking, 6) Information Literacy (know how to findinformation), 7) Fun of study/learning, 8) Developed the habit of learning by yourself.
Table 2 shows the correlation coefficients of over 0.4 between uses for resource and researchand the acquisition of technical or specialist knowledge at almost all universities,
demonstrating high correlativity between them. Strolling among stacks also highly
correlated to the acquisition of 2) General knowledge, 3) New perspectives and 4) Emotionalfulfillment.
To view this result more concisely we tried to explore its constructive concepts. Factor
analyses brought out three concepts (factors): 1) extended use factor (use for chat, groupusage, PC use; Keio University had the use of general magazines in place of the group usage),2) study use factor (material use, research use; Keio University also had the use as a place), 3)
stroll use factor (strolling among stacks and use of magazines; Keio University lacked thelatter). We found the stroller group only in Keio University, but stroll use as a factor (i.e.
constructive concept) is explored in all universities.
Next, correlation analyses were done with the factor scores of these usage patterns andthose of student outcomes. Table 3 shows the result of these.
Table 3

Keio
Univ.

use factors
extendeduse
study use
stroll use

Oulu
Univ.

extendeduse
study use
stroll use

NagoyaUniv.

extendeduse
study use
stroll use

Correlation coefficients between library usage patterns and outcomes
technical/
specialist
knowledge

generalknowledge

newperspec
tives

emotional
fulfillment

criticalthinking.189**.403**.294**.269**.346**.346**.352**.251**

skill tofind
information.518**.244**

habit oflearningbyyourself.122*.231**.345**.387**.323**.199**.183**.280**.123*-.118*.543**

fun ofstudy/
learning.142*.456**.444**.139*.333**.397**.221**.290**.317**.219**.312**.206**.161**.227**.278**.133**.107*.343**.366**.425**.245**.361**.327**.187**.324**.429**.385**.433**.165**.321****. Two-tailed P values < 0.01 were considered statistically significant*. Two-tailed P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant

Though the patterns of use vary greatly depending on the university, the study use factor
and the stroll use factor showed high correlation between 1) Technical or specialist knowledge,
2) General knowledge, 3) New perspectives, and 6) Information Literacy (know how to findinformation). Other than these, a certain degree of correlativity was confirmed in 5) Criticalthinking, 7) Fun of study/learning 8) Developed the habit of learning by yourself.

6.

Discussion
8

Just because using the library as a place, for instance, does not involve resource
utilization, sometimes it is not considered a proper use. The focus group interviews,
however, clarified students’ reasons for such use (e.g. “it gives more motivation to study thanat home”) and the Table 2 shows that students perceive this type of library use somewhat
positively as an act that led to “Fun of studying/learning” and “Developed the habit oflearning by yourself.”
Using the library for its materials or research purposes is the most likely usage that has adirect connection to students’ achievement of educational outcomes. Thus there is a clear
need for libraries to promote this kind of usage. The types of library use that is immediately
beneficial for students to achieve relevant educational outcomes, however, is not necessarily
predictable, as seen in the example of using the library merely as a place. The most notableof such unpredicted usage is probably that of students routinely strolling among the stacks.
This particular group was found in Keio University library and could not be identified in othersites, but as shown in Table 3 stroll use are found in all university and this usage patternpoints to the strong correlations between this activity and students’ achievement ofeducational outcomes in other universities, too. Students are aware that the library iscontributive to them when they use it in this manner.
The act of strolling among stacks is also noteworthy in its voluntary attitude. Seen in
the light of student motives as a contextual element, the correlation coefficients of students’stroll use of library show strong links to some motives: ‘acquire general knowledge’, ‘readinteresting books’ and ‘refresh the mind’. On the contrary, using library for searching
information (research use), for example, remained weakly co-related with a students’ motives.
What is more, the correlation coefficients of research use are about the same strength as aquite non-voluntary motive, e.g. 'assigned by teacher'.1 This would seem to indicate thatvoluntary attitude plays a large role in positive type of use and then the achievement ofeducational outcomes. Be that as it may, it is crucial for the development of outcomes
assessment to understand students’ types of library use in detail, including not only naturally
envisaged uses like study and research purposes, but also unpredictable ones like strolling.
In this study, the third context of usage, “c) other related elements,” remained somewhat
ambiguous. This element covered a wide range area, starting with student’s majors, otherbackground characteristics, conditions at each library, and educational methods practiced ateach university. Also, the use of PCs and the group usage varied greatly in this study
depending on the library. The availability of computers within the library seems to havegreatly influenced the survey results. Group use also seems to have been affected bywhether group studies were encouraged in the university and whether students could easily
engage in this kind of study activity in the library.
In the future, as academic libraries further develops their services, especially as the
supplier of place, as information commons or learning commons, this may bring considerable
changes in the patterns of students’ library use.

7.

Conclusion

Although outcomes assessment might be used for the fulfillment of accountability, its
original purpose is to explore how the academic library functions in order to better contributeto students’ educational outcomes. In this study, premised on this purpose, three research
surveys were conducted.
The first half of this attempt was focused on understanding students’ usage. This trial of9capturing proper way of library use was quite straight forward, given the general acceptanceof the roles of the academic library. But the results were not completely free of ambiguity, andneed to be examined further for clarification. Also, securing greater objectivity in measuring
student outcomes remains a task to be addressed. In this study the assessment of outcomes
depended on students’ self-evaluation, but more objective assessments, possibly including
assessments by the teachers, need to be incorporated in the future. The appraisal of libraryservices, however, needs to be done by its service receivers. The difficult task before us is tofind out how to connect the educational outcomes and the assessment of the library services.
It is hoped that this study has moved the research of outcomes measures a step forward.
At the closure of this paper, we would like to express our heart-felt thanks to all the
respondents of our surveys, the staff at Media Center at Keio University Shonan Fujisawa
Campus, Oulu University Library, and Nagoya University Library, all of whom contributed
greatly to this study.

Notes
1

In relation to another context, the user’s library skills, more Keio University students
grouped as “learners” participated in some form of library use education activity (e.g. a seriesof lecture classes on database use), but more strollers group students at the same university
followed “teachers’ in-class tips for library use.”

References
Bettman, J. R. (1979). An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Pub. (Advances in Marketing Series)
Checkland, P. (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. New York: J. Wiley.
Durrance, J. C., & Fisher, K. E. (2005). How Libraries and Librarians Help. Chicago: ALA.
Nagata, H., Sato, Y., Gerrard, S. & Kytömäki, P. (2004). The dimensions that construct theevaluation of service quality in academic libraries. Performance Measurement andMetrics, 5(2), 53-65.
Toda, A., & Nagata, H. (2007). Gakusei no toshokan riyo to gakushu seika : daigaku toshokan
ni okeru autokamu hyouka no kenkyu. [Students’ library use and their learning
outcomes: A study on outcomes assessment in college and university library.]. Journalof the Japan Society of Library and Information Science, 53(1), 17-34.
Whitmaire, E. (2002). Academic library performance measures and undergraduates’ library
use and educational outcomes. Library & Information Science Research, 24, 107-28.

10