Designing a Library Env

8/6/2019 Designing a Library Env

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/designing-a-library-env 1/10

174

Designing a Library EnvironmentThat Promotes Learning

Joyce Gotsch and Diane Holliday

Joyce Gotsch is Assistant Proessor/Reerence Librarian at Dowling College, email: [email protected]. Diane Holliday is Assistant Proessor/Reerence Librarian at Dowling College,email: [email protected].

Introduction

Designers o educational spaces have alwaysinstinctively known that the built environmenthas a proound eect on its occupants. Yet littleresearch has been available regarding this guteeling.1

Dowling College Library is greatly underutilized. Tetwo-story library acility is housed within the main our-storied classroom building o the college, along with thebookstore, computer lab, and caeteria. Tus hemmed in,physical restraints create constant competition or space be-tween collections and the approximately 6,400 non-tradi-tional undergraduate and graduate users. Despite attemptsto “humanize” the warehouse-appearing space by addingplants, some lounge seating, and attractive book displays,even the limited existing seating oten goes unused.

Since the student body consists primarily o a com-

muter population and ew alternative campus study ar-eas exist, one would expect the library to be requentedbetween classes. However, this is not the case. Tereore,the library sta were concerned that the library was notullling its mission.

Statement o the ProblemIn looking or ways to draw more students into the li-brary and retain those that entered or longer lengthso stay, the researchers sought environmental designinsights. Tey wished or proven design principles thatmight lead to increased student use o the library. It

was urther hoped that a correlation theory might be

identied between environmental design and studentstudy success allowing experimentation leading to u-ture planning o library renovations and maximizationo the existing space.

In this pilot study, the researchers wanted to know what environments students perceive as helping them toachieve success at studying and conducting research. Ina uture study, the researchers plan to experiment withcreating library environments using this data.

Review o the Literature Te approach to this endeavor began with a literature

search to determine i any correlations already existin any eld. Te researchers began with an examina-tion o intrinsic and extrinsic motivation or learningas discussed in museum literature and ow theory asdescribed by Mihaly Csikszentmihaly.2 Tey wanted



Designing a Library Environment Tat Promotes Learning 175

March 29–April 1, 2007, Baltimore, Maryland

to learn what museums do environmentally to entice visitors to stay and learn, with the intent o duplicat-ing such environmental characteristics in libraries. Tey reviewed learning theory and looked or documentationin library literature, architectural, and environmentaldesign writings, and psychology publications. And in a

nal attempt to pinpoint the eects o environment onoccupant behavior, the researchers consulted merchan-dising theory and the principles o Feng Shui.

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation TeoryCsikszentmihalyi and Hermanson oered reassurancethat “… natural motivation to learn can be rekindledby supportive environments, meaningul activities, by being reed o anxiety, ear, and other negative mentalstates, and when the challenges o the task meet theperson’s skills.”3 Tey explain that intrinsic motivationleads a student to learn or the sake o learning; extrin-sic motivation pertains to meeting perormance goalssuch as obtaining certain grades or a degree. Learningis assisted by a level o amiliarity or acquaintance withthe topic and an absence o distractions allowing themind to become immersed in the learning activity. o-tal spontaneous concentration and abandonment to thesubject is reerred to as reaching a state o ow wherelearning is optimized. Te question is, “What does theoptimally supportive environment look like?”

Museums and Learning Design

For the purposes o this research, it was consideredreasonable to compare academic library environmentsto museum environments, to the extent that learningmust be intrinsically rewarding and motivational—thusbringing museum patrons back or repeat visits, or, inthis case, students back or repeat studying and research.

Te researchers were curious how museums achieve thissel-rewarding experience. Wouldn’t this be a desirableattribute or a library as well? Caban echoes much o

what is known rom learning theory that “…educators who deal with learning styles [they] will tell you themost deeply eected learning, the most remembered

learning, is learning that employs the senses and par-ticularly the emotions, and that’s what design does par-ticularly well.”4 Lackney alludes to the connecting pathbetween environment and learning by stating, “Preer-ence or an environment leads to motivation to interact

with the environment, which leads to learning.”5 Onemay surmise that libraries, like museums, must engagemany senses and create a somewhat emotional responsein the user.

Learning Teory and Learning EnvironmentsPrakash Nair advocates that new learning environmentsare the single most important innovation needed toimprove education in the United States. He reassertsthat deep learning comes rom interaction with a sub-

ject, experimentation, and emotional involvement. For

classrooms, he recommends learning studios, open ar-eas instead o corridors or social interaction, rooms orproject-based learning, teacher workrooms, multi-agegroupings, and places to think. He emphasizes the im-portance o a learning model o education as the drivingprinciple o designing a space, instead o a schoolingmodel.6 For academic libraries, Nair identies threetrends or acility designers which are especially rele-

vant: emphasis on inormal learning spaces, de-empha-sis on the classroom, and imaginative urniture designto support active learning.7

Library Literature Within the last several years, a rich volume o work haserupted on the academic library design scene under theauspices o the Council on Library and InormationResources (CLIR) and Educause. Notably among thesepublications is Scott Bennett’s 2003 CLIR report, Li-braries Designed or Learning,8 Diana Oblinger’s Learn-ing Design,9 and another CLIR compilation o articlesrom Freeman, Bennett, Demas, Frischer, Peterson andOliver entitled Library as Place: Rethinking Roles, Re-thinking Space.10 Each o these works catapulted librar-

ians orward toward an understanding o the designneeds o academic libraries by understanding the learn-ing needs o library users.

Bennett introduced the radical idea o designinglibrary spaces around users’ activities rather than librar-ians’ service unctions. In order to understand students’needs, Bennett not only ocused on changing technolo-gies and shrinking spaces due to expanding collections,but he also took a good look at the changing nature o teaching and learning practices suracing in educationat all levels. He noted pedagogy’s recognition o the so-cial aspects o learning and dierent learning styles o

students. Bennett invited librarians to look at academiclibraries in much the same way as educational technolo-gists have looked at classrooms and computer labs. Hequestions how to link teaching, learning, and space re-quirements; the most obvious being the need or groupstudy/work spaces to accommodate the prolieration o group project assignments. He went urther, however,to advocate or exible learning commons spaces wherestudents could arrange the urniture to their needs,



Joyce Gotsch and Diane Holliday176

ACRL Tirteenth National Conerence

where everything would change ater a project wascompleted “an academic playground o sorts.”k

Diana Oblinger’s e-book, Learning Designs, pre-sented ascinating scenarios about compelling learn-ing spaces based on an understanding o how learnerslearn. Much o the quoted learning theory is based on

Donovan, Bransord, and Pellegrino’s 1999 classic, HowPeople Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School.12 Inaddition to the breakthroughs in understanding o how the brain learns rom association and knowledge sca-olding and how one can eectively enter knowledgeinto long-term memory, Oblinger includes insightsabout the learning styles and expectations o net gen-eration students. Similarly, the studies o Gardner andEng report that Generation Y or Net Gen studentshave high expectations o quality academic acilities,customization o technology and research, have a needor technology being integrated into learning, and usetotally new modes o communication.13 Te importanceo these new learning styles and their relevance to aca-demic libraries was urther emphasized by McDonaldand Tomas in Disconnects Between Library Culture and

Millennial Generation Values.14

O particular interest in Library as Place, was SamDemas’ chapter, “From the Ashes o Alexandria: What’sHappening in the College Library?”15 Demas remindshis readers that the earliest library in Alexandria wasboth a storehouse o writings and a stimulating cultural center. He urther reports what students at Carleton

College actually do in libraries, which includes readingand relaxing in a sae and quiet environment, brows-ing, and engaging in other non-library, academic sup-port services, meeting riends and socializing, eatingand drinking, participating in cultural events and civicdiscourse, having un, viewing exhibitions, and appre-ciating art, design and nature!16 Echoing the essentialsocial aspect o learning, Boone promoted the idea o learning caes where sophisticated technologies inter-sect sociable environments enhancing the possibilitiesor interactive learning.17

However, while all o these approaches to aca-

demic library design were groundbreaking, none truly answered the initial puzzle as to the measurable con-nection between environment and behavior—in thiscase, student study or research success. Questions stillremained. Could a space be designed which would havea predictable inuence on its occupants? Could a link between the physical environment in an academic li-brary and the user’s study habits be established? Couldthe environment be manipulated to elicit positive opin-

ions about the library and, hence, boost library use?How could that inuence be measured? Can success o a space supporting learning only be measured by usagestatistics or can deep learning be measured?

Merchandising Teory

Te researchers decided to take two more leaps outsidelibrary literature to be sure they had not overlookedclearly demonstrated connections between buildingspace and behavior by rst looking into merchandisingtheory. Certainly marketing experts have learned how to nesse space to entice customers to buy products,and they are even known to create the desire, not justmeet existing interest, by appealing to our senses. Rip-pel demonstrated valuable lessens in his “What Librar-ies Can Learn rom Bookstores: Applying BookstoreDesign to Public Libraries.”18 A clear lack o involve-ment o the senses separates libraries rom their sti competition. How do libraries compare to the smellso coee and pastries, the sounds o music, the level o awareness stimulated by bright lighting, the attractive-ness o mounded displays, comortable seating areas,power aisles, clear signage, and the invitation to par-ticipate provided by best seller and topical reading lists?

Te success o merchandising in libraries suggests thatpatrons can be aected to boost circulation, but can they be inuenced to learn more eectively?

Feng Shui

Te next step was an examination o the ancient Chi-nese art o Feng Shui. According to Hale, “...everythingin our lives aects us on a vibrational level or good orill and, in turn, we react in various yet predictable ways,depending on our individual traits.”19 According to Bar-rett, ollowing the rules o placement “…helps you toarrange your …environments so that your lie is harmo-nious and your dreams are realized to their ullest.”20 It

would appear that the Chinese have solved our prob-lem! A practice taken very seriously in China is becom-ing widely applied in the United States. Many publicand private institutions seek Feng Shui consultations

beore construction or renovation or to remedy una- vorable environmental conditions. For example, New York’s Queens Borough Public Library is using FengShui consultants in their branch redesigns.

A nal stop on the environmental design researchpath was an outstanding mélange o space theories pre-sented in Winired Gallagher’s Power o Place.21 Galla-gher successully addresses the psychological aspects o architecture and interior design rom the principles o





Feng Shui to links with Csikszentmihalyi’s ow theory!Here the researchers ound the rst explicit link be-tween space design and behavior. Te difcult messageto absorb rom her writings is that dierent people reactto the same environment in dierent ways dependingon their previous experience and personalities. For the

rst time the researchers had to consider that one size will not ft all; thus a variety o spaces will have to bedesigned into academic libraries to accommodate thediverse user preerences. It was the opinion o the re-searchers that these preerences could be mined andthe behavioral links to library space design could beurther proven with the use o user surveys and experi-mentation.

Research Methodology A 50-question22 instrument was developed or a pilotstudy to explore the Dowling College student popula-tion’s study experience and preerences. Te instrumentcontains ve sections:

•Respondent prole (six questions)—basic censusinormation,

•Studying success (ten questions)—preerred loca-tion o study; What is needed in surroundings to assuresuccess; Frequency o group assignments and inuenceon student needs,

•First oor Oakdale Library (teen questions)—overall physical conditions,

• Second oor Oakdale Library (teen ques-

tions)—overall physical conditions (identical to rstoor questions)•Environment and behavior (our questions)—to

ascertain the degree to which students are aware o environments eect on their study habits

Because the end o the spring semester was ast ap-proaching, an expedient method was sought to imple-ment the survey to obtain the greatest number o re-spondents in the shortest period o time. A sample o convenience was established by targeting courses basedon course number and designator to obtain students inall our undergraduate levels and graduate students in a

variety o course disciplines. By doing so, the researchershoped to reach a representative sample o ages, genders,and majors. Tis approach required a great deal o co-operation rom twenty-one aculty members who wereasked or time during their classes so that the research-ers could reach ten to twenty students at a time. Beoreparticipating, each student signed an inormed consentorm. Te orm indicated that the survey concernedtheir preerred study space environment. It was indicat-

ed that their anonymous participation would help thelibrary to design study and work spaces more conduciveto studying/working success and benet the entire col-lege community. Students were asked voluntarily not toparticipate i they had already done so in another class.Ater collecting the signed consent orms, the research-

ers distributed paper surveys to 279 students. Te quantitative data rom the paper surveys was

analyzed using SPSS. Qualitative data, those responseshand written by students, were collected into MicrosotExcel reports and analyzed by category to reveal emerg-ing trends.

Using a sample o convenience led to aws in thestudy. Te 279 responses represent 4 percent o the totalstudent body o 6,435; o these, 256 were undergradu-ates or 8 percent o the undergraduate population o 3,145. While this sample size gives a condence inter-

val o 5.9 points, it is elt that a reasonable balance wasachieved between the number o respondents and theresearchers’ time constraints. Furthermore, the research-ers were successul in getting a representative sample o the student population based on age, gender and majoras discussed below in the respondent prole.

Te researchers’ intent was to obtain a representa-tive sample o the entire student body. A low numbero graduate student survey responses were obtained.

Tus, the survey results primarily reect undergraduateopinions. Furthermore, the researchers had originally intended interviewing library users in the library as well

as attempting to survey non-library users, thus allowingresults to be identied by their library usage. Te sampleo convenience included both types o students, but theresearchers ailed to include this census question, so re-sponses could not be distinguished by this actor.

Respondent Profle Te majority o respondents were undergraduates. Tedistribution, ranked in order o student status, was asollows: seniors (30%), juniors (27%), reshman (19%)and sophomores (15%). Tere were only a ew gradu-ate students (8%) included in the survey results. Tese

statistics are not representative o the student body atDowling, where the majority o students are reshman(34%). Te age distribution o the respondents ormsa bell curve centered on the twenty-one to twenty-ve

year old age range (46%). Te next largest age grouping was eighteen to twenty year olds (35%). Tis statistic isaligned with the average age o a ull-time undergradu-ate student at Dowling, which is 23.6 years old. Whilemore emales (65%) than males (35%) completed the





survey, this closely reects thegender distribution o the to-tal student population at Dowl-ing (61% emale, 39% male).

Tere were thirty-one majorsrepresented by the respon-

dents. Te top three majors o the respondents mirrored thetop three majors at the college:elementary education (25%),management (17%), and psy-chology (8%).

Inormation about therespondents living arrange-ments and work hours werealso gathered. Te majority (52%) o respondents livedat home with their parents.

Te next largest group o re-spondents lived in their ownhomes (33%); the smallestgroup o respondents lived instudent housing (16%). Temajority (34%) o respondents

worked twenty-one to thirty-ve hours per week, ollowedby respondents who workedthirteen to twenty hours per

week (25%). Sixteen percent

o respondents did not work at all. Tirteen percent o re-spondents worked thirty-six or more hours per week.

Discussion of Selected Survey Results by QuestionSurvey questions 2, 8, 9, 11-40, and 44 are omitted orbrevity. Question 2 was poorly constructed resulting inno meaningul data; Questions 8 and 9 dealt with groupassignments at Dowling; and Questions 11–40 and44 dealt directly with user satisaction o the physicalconditions o the Dowling College library, which willprovide a baseline or uture comparisons but are not

germane to the hypothesis o this paper.

Question 1: In what location(s) do you most oten study/ do research? Respondents were given twenty-two possible choices,in ve broad categories o places, along with the ability to write in a response not already oered. Respondents

were asked to rank their ve top choices by how otenthey use the place to study. Most respondents did not

rank but merely checked o ve places they studied. o analyze the data, the researchers relied on a straightcount o how many times a place was checked o andranked them accordingly. O the top ve locations, ouro them were places in the respondents’ homes and one

was in the Dowling College library (see table 1). Te researchers then analyzed the data by broad

category to look or response trends. It was ound thatthe respondents preerred to study in locations in thehome, ollowed by the Dowling College library, and

the Dowling campus. Te researchers were surprisedto nd third-space locations (locations alling outsidethe home, the college, and work—coee houses, publiclibraries, bookstores, diners, etc.) with an average rank in ourth place, work spaces in th place, and “other”locations in sixth place (see table 2) .

Locations written into “other” include outdoor locations(our times), riend’s house (fve times), or a specifc item need-ed to study such as index cards or a bean bag chair (fve times).

Table 1: Locations Ranked by Response Frequency— Where do you most often study/do research?

Rank Location Studied in Most OtenResponse

Frequency Category

1 At My Desk at Home 176 Home

2 On My Bed at Home 151 Home3 At a able in the Library at Dowling 116 Library Dowling

4 On My Couch at Home 101 Home

5 At a Kitchen/Dining able at Home 86 Home

6 In My Chair at Home 55 Home

7 At a able in the Caé at Dowling 54 Dowling Campus

8 Public Library 51 3rd Space

9 On the Floor at Home 41 Home

10 At My Desk at Work 31 Work

11 In An Empty Classroom 26 Dowling Campus

12 In My Car 23 3rd Space

13 Soa or Chair in Library at Dowling 22 Library Dowling14 Other 19 Other

15 Soa in Caeteria at Dowling 17 Dowling Campus

16 Coee House 16 3rd Space

16 Bookstore 16 3rd Space

16 Student Lounge 16 Dowling Campus

19 In the Conservatory at Dowling 10 Dowling Campus

20 In a Library at Work 9 Work

21 In a Lunchroom at Work 8 Work

22 In a Conerence Room at Work 5 Work

22 Diner 5 3rd Space





Te researchers examined the data or thisquestion by both age grouping and gender andound little dierence rom the above statedresults.

Overwhelmingly, students preer to study wherethey live. Surprising to the researchers, was the ap-

parent lack o use o third spaces by Dowling stu-dents. Based on readings, the researchers predicteda much greater response here. Generally speaking,students are not using work-related spaces to study.

Question 3: Where do you most preer to study/doresearch?

Written answers were analyzed and categorizedinto the same ve categories used in Question1 o the survey (home, Dowling College library,Dowling campus, third places, and work). A totalo 303 written responses were given by the 279 re-spondents. (Some respondents indicated multipleplaces.) Locations in the home were most oten

written in, ollowed by third places, Dowling Col-lege library locations, Dowling campus locations,and work places. “Home Places” as the most writ-ten in response correlates well with the data inQuestion 1. Tere was an apparent ip in num-ber o responses or Dowling campus places andthird spaces between Question 1 and Question 3.Perhaps respondents thought o more third spacelocations here ater being prompted to consider

them in Question 1.

Question 4: I the Dowling College Library is NO included in your top ve responses in Ques-tion 1, please explain why.One hundred ty comments were analyzed andcategorized into eleven separate areas and thenranked by requency (see table 3).

Dowling College Library came in third placeor a number o responses in Question 1. Nearly two-thirds o the written responses in Question4 dealt with personal reasons or not coming to

the Dowling College Library, such as: the respon-dent’s long commute or convenience to get to thecollege, their preerence or home, their personaltime constraints, or their preerence or anotherlibrary. Only one-third o respondents cited rea-sons pertaining to the Dowling College library itsel, which included: lack o space and comort-able surroundings, too much or too little sound,and too many distractions.

Table 2: Locations Ranked by Response Frequency by Category—Where do you most often study/do research?

Location Studied in Most OftenResponseFrequency

Percentageof Total

Home Locations

At My Desk at Home 176On My Bed at Home 151

On My Couch at Home 101

At a Kitchen/Dining able atHome

86

In My Chair at Home 55

On the Floor at Home 41

Sub-total 610 57.9%

Library Dowling Locations

At a able in the Library atDowling 116

Soa or Chair in Library atDowling 22

Sub-total 138 13.1%

Dowling Campus Locations

At a able in the Caé atDowling

54

In An Empty Classroom 26

Soa in Caeteria at Dowling 17

Student Lounge 16

In the Conservatory at Dowling 10

Sub-total 123 11.7% 3rd Space Locations

Public Library 51

In My Car 23

Coee House 16

Bookstore 16

Diner 5

Sub-total 111 10.5%

Work Locations

At My Desk at Work 31In a Library at Work 9

In a Lunchroom at Work 8

In a Conerence Room at Work 5

Sub-total 53 5.0% “Other” Locations 19 1.8%

otal 1,054 100%





Question 5: What do you need to be comfortable

while studying? Check all that apply. Respondents were oered teen possible choices,in ve broad categories o sources o comort, along

with the ability to write in a response not already oered. A straight count o how many times a com-ort item was checked o determined its rank (seetable 4).

When the researchers examined the same databy age grouping, an interesting distinction wasound. Student respondents aged eighteen to thir-ty-nine ranked “computer access” as their top re-sponse or what is needed to be comortable study-

ing, while students aged 40 and over rank “quiet” astheir top response (see table 5).

However, when examining data by broad cat-egory to reveal response patterns, it was ound that“body” comort conditions are most needed, ol-lowed by “technology items,” “light,” and then “au-ditory” conditions. “Surroundings” and nally “oth-er” conditions in their surroundings were last in therespondents consideration o what is needed to be

comortable while studying. Based on their readingson intrinsic motivation in museums, the researchers

were surprised that items in the respondent’s sur-roundings came in last. Tis contradiction o theliterature may reect an unconscious recognition o

what a person can control in an environment. Te

items in the “body” category can be controlled by the respondents, while the items in other catego-ries, such as surroundings, are out o an individual’scontrol.

Question 6: What equipment do you need in order to study efectively? Tree possible choices were oered, along with theability to write in a response. o analyze the data,the researchers used a straight count o how many times an item was checked o. Te data was exam-ined by the respondent’s school or division aflia-tion within the College.

Overwhelmingly, access to a computer (92%) was needed by students in order to study. Access toa copy machine came in at a distant second place,

with “other” responses in third place, and access to ascanner in ourth place.

Analysis o the written responses to “other” re- vealed twenty-seven respondents made orty-twocomments related to the question. Most respon-dents wrote in technologic equipment that was not

Table 3: Category by Response Frequency—Explain why Dowling College Library is NOT

included in your top 5 responses.

Category Response

Frequency Percentage

of Total

Personal Reasons

Preer Home 28

Long Commute 27

Personal ime Constraints 15

Not Convenient 12

Other Library Preerred 4

Sub-total 86 57%

Dowling College Library Reasons

Lack o Space at DCL 17

Comort Lacking at DCL 11

Sound – too much/not enough 11 oo Many Distractions 9

Not Relevant 4

Sub-total 52 38%

Miscellaneous Reasons 12 8%

otal 150 100%

Table 4: Comfort Items Ranked by ResponseFrequency—What do you need to be

comfortable while studying?

Rank Comfort ItemResponseFrequency

Category

1 Computer Access 210 echnology

2 Space to Spread Out 175 Body

3 Quiet 174 Auditory

4 Physical Comort 162 Body

5 Proper Room emperature 144 Body

6 Natural Light 135 Light

7 Articial Light 118 Light

8 Food 103 Body 9 Music 67 Auditory

10 View o Nature 47 Surroundings

11 Phone Access 33 echnology

12 V 28 echnology

13 Colorul Surroundings 27 Surroundings

14 Neutral Surroundings 20 Surroundings

15 Art on Walls 17 Surroundings

16 Other 9 Other





already suggested, such as printers, internet, and phoneaccess. Te second most requent response was books,

which included textbooks, notebooks, and reerencebooks. Te third most requent response was supplies,such as highlighters, pens, and index cards. It is interest-ing to note there were three responses about the needor quiet or noise here.

Question 7: What do you nd distracting when you are studying? Respondents were oered ve possible choices and the

ability to write in a response. o analyze the data, theresearchers used a straight count o how many timesa comort item was checked o and ranked them ac-cordingly. “Others talking” was ranked rst ollowed by “interruptions,” “noise,” “hunger,” “silence,” and “other”

written-in responses. Among the responses written in

or “other,” specic noises were listed most oten, ol-lowed by responses indicating a lack o sel control (suchas boredom, insecurity, and mind wandering), and thennally, other people’s behavior.

Te data was analyzed by respondents’ gender andage range. Remarkably there was no dierence in re-sponses by gender and very little dierence by agerange. Under the “other” category, the researchers wereintrigued by responses that indicated a lack o sel-control, as these possibilities were not distractions theresearchers had considered. One wonders how many responses would have been indicated i the researchershad included it or one or more o the student’s terms onthe list rom which to select.

Question 10: I you could change anything about the Li-brary’s physical surroundings, what would it be? Respondents wrote in 250 comments. Tese were ana-lyzed and categorized into ourteen separate areas. O the 250 comments, 189 contained actionable responses.An actionable response is a constructive comment thatthe researchers can act upon.

Based on these comments, respondents would in-

crease the space o the library or make the existing spaceappear larger (24%). Second in requency was a need toincrease the number o student-use computers, printers,and plug-in places (both electrical and network access)or laptops (22%). Te third most requent response

was comort (13%). Students asked or more couches,pillows, and comortable spaces to work in. Responsesabout the aesthetics o the library ranked sixth (6%) andincluded comments such as: “it reminds me too mucho a high school library, very plain and unattractive” and“make it look nicer.” Respondents also mentioned theneed or better lighting (5%) and increased accessibility

between the rst and second oors o the library (4%).

Questions 41-43: Do you agree with the statements be-low? Please use the ollowing scale: 1=Agree Strongly,5=Disagree StronglyQuestion 41: I am afected by my surroundings. Eighty-one percent o the respondents to Question 41 agreedthat they are aected by their surroundings. In Ques-tion 5, “surroundings” ranked dead last o ve possible

Table 5: Comfort Items Ranked by ResponseFrequency within Each Category—What do you

need to be comfortable while studying

Comfort Items by Category Response

Frequency Percentage

of Total

Body Comfort ItemsSpace to Spread Out 175Physical Comort 162Proper Room emperature 144Food 103Sub-total 584 39.8%

Technology Comfort ItemsComputer Access 210Phone Access 33

V 28Sub-total 271 18.4%

Lighting Comfort ItemsNatural Light 135Articial Light 118Sub-total 253 17.2%

Auditory Comfort ItemsQuiet 174Music 67Sub-total 241 16.4%

Surrounding Comfort Items

View o Nature 47Colorul Surroundings 27Neutral Surroundings 20Art on Walls 17Sub-total 111 7.6% “Other” Comfort Items 9 0.6%

Total 1,469 100%





categories oered. While this may appear contradictory,these questions are related but separate. In Question 5,students were asked to rank multiple conditions. In thisquestion, they are simply indicating their surroundingshave some inuence on them.

Question 42: A physical environment can acilitate my

ability to study. Eighty percent o the respondents agreethat physical environment can acilitate their ability tostudy.

Question 43: A physical environment can impair myability to study. Sixty-eight percent o the respondentsagree that the physical environment can impair theirability to study in contrast to the 80 percent in Ques-tion 42 who believe a physical environment can acili-tate their ability to study. Respondents appear willingto credit the surroundings or their success but are less

willing to admit a negative inuence on their behavior.

ConclusionsIn this pilot study, the researchers wanted to know whatenvironments work or students or their perceived suc-cess at studying and conducting research.

•Respondents overwhelmingly preer to study inlocations in the home, ollowed by the college library and other locations on campus. Tere was no noticeabledierence due to age or gender.

• Contrary to the researchers’ expectations, there was a surprising lack o use o third spaces—coeehouses, public libraries, bookstores, diners, etc.

•

Nearly two-thirds o the reasons why the collegelibrary was not a priority location or studying had to do with personal reasons: length o commute, preerenceor personal space, or another library, etc.

•Only one-third o the responses or why the col-lege library was not chosen as a place to work pertainedto deciencies in the college library, such as lack o space and comortable surroundings, too much or toolittle sound, and too many distractions.

•Computer access, space to spread out, and quiet arethe most important aspect o a space necessary or com-ort while studying. However, looking at this data cate-

gorically, body comort items were most needed ollowedby technology items, and then light and auditory condi-tions, and fnally items in library users’ surroundings.

•Respondents under thirty-nine years o age picked“computer access” as their number one comort need,

while respondents orty and over picked “quiet” as theirnumber one comort need.

•Overwhelmingly, students report a need or com-puter access in order to study eectively.

•Distracters to studying in order o importance are:others talking, interruptions, noise, hunger, silence, andother distracters. Tere was no dierence in responsesby gender and very little dierence by age range.

•I respondents could change anything about theDowling College library, they would increase the space

o the library or make the existing space appear larger(24%). Ten, they would increase the number o student-use computers, printers, and plug-in places (both elec-trical and network access) or laptops (22%). Roundingout the top three responses is comort (13%); studentsasked or more couches, pillows and comortable spacesin which to work.

•Students are clearly pressed or time; 84 percento them report they are working while going to school.As a result, they may not stop and take stock o theirenvironment.

•Over eighty percent o students agree that they are aected by their surroundings and the physical en-

vironment can acilitate their ability to study. While stilla majority, only sixty-eight percent admitted that theirsurroundings can impair their study success.

Future Research Te data collected rom Dowling College studentsprovide clear suggestions as to how the library mightexperiment with the physical environment to urtherentice students to use the acility.

Te researchers would still like to identiy a clear,

predictable relationship between environment and stu-dent research/study success. Tey would like to estab-lish links between ormal classroom learning spaces/environments on campus and inormal learning spaces/environments. Te challenge remains to create spacesthat inspire as well as ulll specic activity needs andinclude accommodation o contemplation as well asconversation, computing, and reading.

But, do the survey results simply indicate that“home,” whether dorm room or personal home, is justplain superior or personalization o accommodations,privacy, and time convenience? And how does this clear

preerence align with the respondents’ reported belie that their surroundings are not important in their choiceo study space? Future experimentation will help clariy this apparent contradiction. Te question also arisesas to whether or not there are other spaces on campus

where library services could be more successully deliv-ered in inormal ways.

For urther study, the researchers will also need todevelop assessment tools or rubrics to help determine





what qualies as “student study success.” o date, suc-cess in libraries is oten simply equated to library oc-cupancy and duration o visit. Are there not more so-phisticated methods to track student study success, orlearning, with library attendance other than applyinginormation instruction outcomes theory and testing?

Notes1. William Dittoe, “Innovative Models o Learning En-

vironments.” In Nancy V. Chism and Deborah J. Bickord,

eds., “Te Importance o Physical Space in Learning Envi-

ronments,” New Directions or eaching and Learning 92, win-

ter (2002): 81.

2. Mihlay Csikszentmihalyi and Kim Hermanson, “In-

trinsic motivation in museums: What makes visitors want to

learn?” Museum News 35, no.7 (1995): 34–61.

3. Ibid, 35.

4. Georey Caban, Carol Scott, and Robert Sweieca.,

“Design Learning in Museum Settings: owards a Strategy

or Enhancing Creative Learning Among Design Students,”

(Unsavoury Histories) Open Museum Journal 2, August (2000):

1–9.

5. Jerey A. Lackney, “Learning Environments in Chil-

dren’s Museums: Aesthetics, Environmental Preerence and

Creativity,” (Paper presented at Beauty, Creativity and Sensory Delights. Interactivity 2000: Creativity in Civil Society.) (Bal-timore, Maryland: Association o Youth Museums & Instituteor Civil Society.) ERIC Document 474 530. (2000): 1.

6. Prakash Nair, “But are Tey Learning?” Education Week

21, no.29, April 3 (2002): 60.7. Prakash Nair, “Schools or the 21st Century: Are You

Ready?” (2000): 1–2. http://spacesorlearning.udayton.edu

(accessed November 25, 2006).

8. Scott Bennett, Libraries Designed or Learning , (Wash-

ington, D.C.: Council on Library and Inormation Resources,

2003).

9. Diana Oblinger, Learning Spaces, EDUCAUSE e-

book 2006. http://www.educaause.edu/learningspaces (ac-

cessed November 11, 2006).

10. Georey . Freeman, Scott Bennett, Sam Demas, Ber-

nard Frischer, Christina A. Peterson, and Kathleen B. Oliver,

Library as Place: Rethinking Roles, Rethinking Space . (Wash-

ington, D.C.: Council on Library and Inormation Resourc-

es, 2005).

11. Bennett, 38.

12. John D. Bransord, Ann L. Brown, and Rodney R.

Cocking, eds., How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience,

and School , (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press,1999).

13. Susan Gardner and Susanna Eng, “What Students

Want: Generation Y and the Changing Function o the Ac-

ademic Library,” Portal: Libraries and Academy 5, no.3, July

(2005): 405.

14. Robert H. McDonald and Chuck Tomas, “Discon-

nects between Library Culture and Millennial Generation

Values,” Educause Quarterly 29, no.4 (2006): 4–6.

15. Freeman et al., 3–13.

16. Sam Demas, “From the Ashes o Alexandria: What’s

happening in the College Library?” In Georey . Freeman,

Scott Bennett, Sam Demas, Bernard Frischer, Christina A.

Peterson, and Kathleen B. Oliver, Library as Place: Rethink-

ing Roles, Rethinking Space , (Washington, D.C.: Council on

Library and Inormation Resources, 2005): 3–13.

17. Morell D. Boone, “Te Way Ahead: Learning Caes in

the Academic Marketplace,” Library Hi ech 22, no.3 (2004):

323.

18. Chris Rippel, “What Libraries Can Learn rom

Bookstores: Applying Bookstore Design to Public Librar-

ies,” http://www.ckls.org/~crippel/marketing/bookstore.html

(Accessed July 7, 2005.)

19. Gill Hale, Te Practical Encyclopedia o Feng Shui , (Lon-don: Lorenz Books, 2003), 14.

20. Jayme Barrett, Feng Shui Your Lie , (New York: Ster-

ling, 2003), 8.

21. Winired Gallagher, Te Power o Place: How Our Sur-

roundings Shape Our Toughts, Emotions, and Actions, (New

York: Poseidon Press, 1993).

22. Joyce Gotsch and Diane Holliday, Library Environment

& Student Study Habit Survey, (Oakdale: Dowling College), 1–4. http://www.dowling.edu/library/about/dh.html and http:// www.dowling.edu/library/about/jg.html. (Accessed January 15, 2007.)

Documents

Designing a Library Env