logo_web_blk_on_trans (1K)

2002 ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES                                      Prepared February 2003

 

2002 was an active year in assessing user needs; their library and information use patterns; and in gaining a better understanding of how online information resources and services impact their work.  During Spring Quarter, assessment information was drawn from four initiatives:

 

  • Undergraduate Survey (makeup for 2001 survey which had faulty student sample)
  • LibQUAL+ 2002 Survey
  • In-Library Use Survey
  • Faculty and Graduate Student focus groups

 

In general, results from these assessment efforts show that our community of faculty and students are moving rapidly to remote use of online information resources – indeed, it is the preferred method for finding and using information needed for work   Self-reliance and the ability to perform library-related work without library staff mediation are of high importance to users.  Undergraduates continue to use libraries as a place to do work but faculty and graduate student use of physical facilities continues to fall, most notably in those units that have large serial collections.  Libraries total circulation statistics, including in-house use, continue to show steady decline.  During the 2001-02 year, there were a million fewer items used in-house compared to 1995-96.

 

 

Survey data and focus group transcriptions are currently available in the Assessment shared-docs file on Tahoma and will soon be available on Staff Web.  Tabular data shown below is selective. 

 

 

UNDERGRADUATE SURVEY

 

The Spring 2002 Undergraduate Library Survey was a rerun of the 2001 survey due to a faulty sample used by the Office of Educational Assessment.  Several questions dealing with information literacy were changed from 2001, otherwise the survey was the same.  The 497 surveys returned represent 24.9% of the 2000 surveys distributed.  Key results are summarized below. All data shown in tables is in percent with 1998 results in parenthesis.  


Importance of Libraries

 

Libraries remain important for the work of undergraduate students.  Indeed, the importance of libraries increased between 1998 and 2002 while the importance of the World Wide Web declined.  The table below shows changes between 1998 and 2002 (1998 in parenthesis) with the percentage marking importance on a 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) scale.

 

Source of information

 5 ( % )

4  (%)

MEAN

UW Libraries

49.7 (44.0)

29.2 (29.7)

4.20 (4.06)

Other libraries

  8.2 (8.9)

13.9 (14.9)

2.44 (2.59)

World Wide Web

34.8 (41.2)

33.0 (31.8)

3.84 (3.98)

Departmental resources

24.3 (28.1)

28.8 (30.7)

3.51 (3.65)

Other students/faculty

31.2 (28.6)

32.0 (27.8)

3.68 (3.52)

 

 

Frequency and Type of Use

 

Results showed a decline in the frequency of in-person library visits from about 70% of respondents who visited at least weekly in 1998 to 60% in 2002.  However, the frequency of use from a residence computer nearly doubled from 21% at least weekly in 1998 to 40% in 2002. 

 

 

Method of using libraries

More than once per week

Weekly

Visit in person

32.8 (38.8)

27.6 (31.5)

Use campus computer (not in library)

18.1 (13.0)

17.9 (21.1)

Use residence computer

18.7 (8.8)

21.3 (12.1)

 

 

Among those who visit the Libraries at least weekly, there was a steep decline in the frequency of those looking  for journals and books.  Use of library computers rose substantially compared to 1998 (large computer lab in OUGL opened after the 1998 survey). 

 

 

Activity

More than once per week

Weekly

Look for a journal

  4.0 (6.5)

  6.2 (12.3)

Look for a book

  6.2 (8.4)

  6.6 (12.3)

Look for other material

  3.4 (4.1)

  6.2 (5.7)

Consult library staff

  1.4 (2.5)

  3.6 (5.3)

Photocopy

  6.6 (10.3)

14.1 (24.1)

Use library computers

34.8 (19.4)

22.5 (23.9)

Print from library computer

17.9

13.7

Work individually

30.4 (34.9)

25.6 (29.7)

Work in groups

11.1 (8.1)

14.1 (15.2)

 

When asked what library services were needed weekday evenings and weekends, nearly 75% needed a place to work, 67% a computer to use, while access to the collection was marked by only 15% and reference assistance by 20%.  While the frequency of in-person visits dropped, satisfaction with library hours of opening rose with 87% of respondents very satisfied with hours on weekday evenings.

 

 


Computer Use

 

OUGL Commons is the preferred campus location for student computer.  The frequency of use was highest from residences – 21% daily from campus residences and 43% from off-campus residences. 

 

SITE

Daily

Weekly

OUGL Computing Commons

19.1 (14.1)

29.4 (24.7)

Mary Gates (Suzzallo CRC)

  7.8 (9.5)

22.7 (22.1)

Microlab - Health Sciences

  0.6 (1.3)

  2.6 (3.6)

Other UW Libraries

  9.9 (4.3)

15.9 (13.2)

Department computing lab

15.1 (18.6)

12.9 (14.2)

Campus residence

20.5 (10.4)

  2.8 (1.9)

Off campus residence

43.1 (45.5)

  8.0 (11.1)

 

The ubiquity of undergraduate computing use is shown in the data below, especially in the use of email and the Web. 

 

Activity

Daily  %

Weekly %

Monthly %

Read or send email

87.3 (80.7)

  8.7 (12.7)

  1.0 (1.8)

Search UW Libraries catalog*

  4.0 (4.3)

30.6 (30.1)

46.3 (40.3)

Search lib provided bib database

  0.8

18.1

39.0

Find library full-text sources

  2.4 (1.0)

20.3 (11.8)

41.0 (29.5)

Do course assignments on Web

27.2 (14.1)

43.7 (37.1)

16.3 (26.8)

Look for information on the Web

50.1 (25.8)

34.8 (42.6)

  8.7 (22.5)

Surf the Web

47.7 (22.4)

28.4 (33.0)

12.7 (23.1)

Use application software

38.2 (34.2)

38.6 (34.3)

10.1 (14.0)

Listen to sound/view images

34.2

21.1

14.9

*1998 combined library catalog and bibliographic database into one question

 

37% of undergraduates report that they dial directly into the modem pool or use UWICK, while 28% use another Internet Service Provider.  28% also use high speed cable modem or DSL.

 

Information Literacy

Students ranked finding information needed for their work as most essential toward successful completion of course work this year.  Comparing these results to those of faculty responses to a similar question in the 2001 survey, agreement between the two groups was closest in defining research topics and finding information resources and furthest apart in the importance of evaluating and using information effectively.


 

 

Relevance to topic and usefulness for supporting their argument were most often considered when evaluating information sources for course-related work.  Availability of electronic full-text was also seen as important.  Author’s credentials and recommendations by instructors and librarians ranked lowest.

 

How often do you consider the following when

Most often

 

Least often

No Reply

 

evaluating information sources:

5

4 

3

2

1

   %

MEAN

Relevance to your topic

71.8

18.5

  4.6

  1.4

  0.6

  3.0

4.54

Author’s credentials

  9.9

22.3

33.2

20.9

10.5

  3.2

2.94

Instructor or librarian recommendations

16.9

29.0

30.2

11.7

  8.5

  3.8

3.27

Publication date of source

21.5

35.4

24.1

12.1

  3.4

  3.4

3.53

Usefulness for supporting your argument

55.1

26.6

11.9

  1.4

  1.6

  3.4

4.25

Availability of electronic full-text

31.4

29.2

21.5

  9.7

  4.6

  3.6

3.66

Source is scholarly

22.9

33.0

24.5

10.3

  5.2

  4.0

3.50

 

 

Satisfaction

 

Satisfaction with specific services increased from 1998 with the largest increase in library computer access.

 

SERVICE

High

Satisfaction

 

 

 

Not Satisfied

No Reply %

Don’t Use

Mean

 

5

4

3

2

1

 

 

Reshelving

36.7 (19.0)

35.9(34.6)

23.0(35.8)

 3.4  (8.1)

 1.0 (2.4)

22.1 (21.9)

4.04 (3.60)

Course reserves

29.6 (22.5)

42.0(36.2)

23.5(30.4)

 2.0  (7.5)

 3.0 (3.4)

18.5 (19.4)

3.93 (3.67)

Library instruction

24.0 (11.3)

40.2(27.5)

26.3(41.6)

 6.5 (12.9)

 3.0 (6.8)

32.0 (28.8)

3.76 (3.24)

Staff assist in library

27.8 (25.0)

42.0(35.2)

24.9(27.6)

 3.2  (8.8)

 2.2 (3.3)

17.5 (15.3)

3.90 (3.70)

Staff assistance remote

23.2

34.3

31.5

 7.9

 3.1

48.9

3.67

Photocopy

24.6 (17.7)

37.7(38.0)

23.9(30.0)

 8.6 (11.1)

 5.2 (7.7)

18.3 (10.2)