In the Undergraduate Research Project, we used a variety of methodologies--some with different students and some with the same students

Knowing Our Students: Undergraduates in Context

by Judi Briden, Vicki Burns and Ann Marshall

University of Rochester, River Campus Libraries

Presented at the Association of College and Research Libraries

13th National Conference, March 29th-April 1, 2007, Baltimore Maryland.

Who are our students? Joan Lippincott, with the Coalition for Networked Information,

suggests that there is a disconnect between libraries and the culture of our undergraduates, the

"Net Generation."

At the University of Rochester, River Campus Libraries, we conducted a two-

year ethnographic study (2004-2006) of how undergraduates do their work, including students'

use of technology and their involvement in campus life. We were particularly interested in how

they use library resources, staff, and facilities in the process of writing research papers and

completing research-based assignments for their college classes. In this paper, we report on the

methods, findings, and programming outcomes of our Undergraduate Research Project. The

project has had a significant impact on our attitudes about our students, our understanding of the

ways that students engage in academic work, and the programs of the River Campus Libraries.

Methodology

The Undergraduate Research Project was directed by Lead Anthropologist Nancy Fried

Foster and a twelve-member project team. Project subteams for reference, facilities, and digital

initiatives focused on specific questions and outcomes for these areas. During the project, the

teams used a variety of ethnographic methods, including interviews, field observations, surveys,

work-practice study, cultural probes, and design workshops.

Our research was conducted with informed consent under the University of Rochester’s

Research Subject Review Board guidelines. We paid students a small amount for their

participation and/or handed out snacks. Interviews were video- or audio-recorded and

transcribed. As we collected data, the project team and subteams invited interested library staff to

co-view videos, examine artifacts, and read transcripts. This exposure to the data engaged more

staff in the project and created widespread support within the Libraries. During the two years of

the project, thirty percent of library staff volunteered to participate in some way. As a result, we

had a shared understanding of the data on which to base subsequent discussions, analysis,

additional research, and planning for outcomes.

Before starting our research, we engaged in project planning and conducted pre-project

interviews with faculty about their expectations for student writing assignments. We began the

actual research with “retrospective interviews,” in which students told us how they had completed

recent paper assignments.

During each interview, we asked the student to tell us, step-by-step,

what he or she did when working on the assignment and then to draw each step on a poster. By

the end of the interview, we had a description and a drawing of the process that the student had

used for that paper. Here is an example of a drawing by one student:

[insert - Figure A: Retrospective Interview Drawing]

The drawing is a product of the interview, but incomplete by itself. The same is true of the

recorded interview. By capturing them together, we ended up with a much better understanding of

the choices that student made as she worked through the assignment. Much of our data shared

this strength—multiple channels of input gave us a more complete picture.

Cultural probes

helped us to investigate environments that were difficult to observe

directly. For an investigation we called a “photo survey,” we gave students disposable cameras

with a list of photographs to take, such as "your favorite place to study," “a picture of your dorm

room showing your computer,” and "the things you always carry with you."

In developing the list,

we wanted to allow for broad interpretation by each student as to what to photograph. This was a

common technique in our research—asking open-ended questions that did not imply specific

responses. In the photo survey, we made sure there were fewer questions than exposures and

told students to use the rest to take pictures of anything they'd like. When each camera was

returned, we had it processed and transferred to CD. Then Dr. Foster, the Libraries’

anthropologist, would meet with the student to discuss what was in the images. The benefits of

this strategy were two-fold. We could see student environments through student eyes, and the

rich detail in their images and explanations led to questions that we wouldn’t have asked

otherwise.

We also used a campus map as a cultural probe. We asked students to record on the

map everywhere they went for one day, noting the time, from morning until night. We called these

“mapping diaries.” When students returned the maps, we interviewed them about the details of

that day. An example is in Figure B. A second protocol with the map focused more on feelings.

We asked students to mark three campus locations where they felt comfortable, three where they

felt uncomfortable, and three places where they went a lot.

The facilities subteam observed students in different library locations, including how they

used the facilities and interacted with library staff. They collected data on the flow (or lack thereof)

in printing out articles, coming to reference and circulation desks for help, and other interactions

in library spaces. Some of these observations led to immediate improvements in our library

environment. The subteam also held walk-in design workshops, asking students to “design a

space in the library that would be exactly what you wanted.”

The digital subteam held design workshops, as well, that asked students to design other

things, including “a new library website that would include everything you would want to help you

do your schoolwork and make your life as a student better” and “a portable electronic device that

would do everything you’d want it to do.” All of the workshops produced student designs as

artifacts that were—and continue to be—rich sources of detail about what our students want and

need.

The reference subteam developed a protocol to interview students in the student union

who were currently working on paper assignments. By going to the student union at night, we

hoped to encounter students who did not regularly use the library. Participants were solicited on-

the-spot by an undergraduate who worked in the library. The interviews were conducted by a

recent graduate of the University of Rochester with a major in anthropology, who was close in

age to the students being interviewed. She asked them about their assignments, including what

they'd done so far, when they’d work on their paper next, how important the assignment was, and

whether they felt rushed. She also asked about their experiences with the library and with

librarians.

In the spring semester of 2006, our anthropologist and another team member made two

late-night visits with a video camera to talk with students in their dorm rooms. One visit was to a

floor in a freshman dorm and the other to a dorm with upper-level undergraduates. The videos

and transcripts from these visits provided us with a view of the part of students’ lives virtually

unknown to library staff. These visits were significant in helping us understand our students in a

broader context outside of the library and classroom.

Each of the investigations we conducted during the project contributed details that

gradually shaped our current understanding of who our students are and how they work and live

on campus. When starting the project, we had no idea that we would undertake so many different

kinds of research. In the end, it was the enthusiasm of all involved that made it happen.

Findings

This project generated an enormous amount of data, much more than we can possibly

cover here. One central finding was the importance of viewing our students' lives in their entirety:

to see students, not just in terms of the library, but with a greater appreciation of students' full

range of experiences. This includes their daily tasks from morning to night (and more often at

night than in the morning!), from dorm room to class, from class to extracurricular activities, and

so on. From this perspective, our view of undergraduates has become richer, more expansive,

and more nuanced. Learning about students' routines helped us develop realistic views about

how the library intersects with students' complicated lives. In this section, we focus on findings

which demonstrate, 1) how this expansive and contextualized view of students is important and 2)

how our varied methods helped us develop a well-rounded picture of student life.

One important finding was that many students have extraordinarily busy schedules. This

became most clear through the mapping diaries, but is also related to what we learned from the

retrospective interviews, dorm visits, photo surveys, and design workshops. While there was no

typical student schedule, the mapping diary of a senior biomedical engineering student, shown in

Figure B, is characteristic of many of these maps. On this particular day, the student left his dorm

at 8:30 a.m. and, during the day, he returned to his dorm briefly three times, for food mid-

afternoon and before and after visiting the gym. His day does not end until 12:30 a.m. the

following morning and, in addition to three classes, his schedule included: office hours with a

professor, a job-related meeting with a professor, an hour of group-study in the morning,

afternoon work on lab-related homework, working out at the gym, and studying at the science

library at 9:00 p.m. In total, he walked about 2 ½ miles, and ate meals only at 3:00 p.m. and at the

end of his day at 12:30 a.m.

[insert - Figure B: Mapping Diary]

This map is illustrative of a number of important themes seen in many students' lives:

they're very mobile, highly scheduled and work in many locations, sometimes briefly and

sometimes for long stretches of time. Students often need to carry their belongings with them and

have days with a wide variety of activities. The photo surveys and retrospective interviews helped

enrich this view of a typical day. In students' photographs of what they carry with them, we

observed that laptops were noticeably absent. Given the mapping diaries, this makes sense; it's

simply not feasible to carry a laptop to so many locations, for such a long day. We learned in the

retrospective interviews that students often work on their research papers in intensive spurts.

Again, given what we observed in the mapping diaries, this makes sense: students' lives are so

scheduled, that many chase deadlines with little hope of completing tasks ahead of schedule.

It is probably not surprising to most of us that many students work late at night and in

their dorm rooms. However, the photo surveys and the video-recorded dorm visits gave us a

more developed view of what this environment is like. For example, the photo surveys provided a

literal picture of how students' dorm rooms differed from each other: some are extraordinarily

organized, others seem sparse, and others are a dizzying jumble of paper, gadgets, books, food,

trash, and clothes. It is clear from these pictures that the dorm room is rarely if ever

a place for

just

studying. In the background, partying, relaxing with friends, planning one's day, listening to

music, catching up with friends and family from “home,” and pursuing meaningful personal

interests are always nearby. The video-recorded dorm visits reinforced this view, depicting the

dorm room as a highly stimulating environment where multi-tasking, whether by intention or as a

distraction, seems ubiquitous.

Given what was learned from these dorm visits and the photo surveys, the findings from

the design workshops were hardly surprising. In one of these workshops, students created a

portable electronic device, able to do anything that the students could imagine. Included were:

writing implements, an online thesaurus, music and DVD libraries, a foldout bed and coffee

maker, a Palm Pilot

™

and self-help books. From such findings, we can observe how the Libraries’

website is structured around the library and not around students' far-reaching needs. In these

design workshops, the library often appeared as a tool, but within the context of many needs and

many tools. As was the case with the other findings already discussed, students' lives include not

just the library but a broad multiplicity of needs.

So, how did students talk about the library and librarians, from this broader, more

inclusive perspective? There was no single answer to this question; students' use and approach

to the library varied in terms of their own academic development, their aspirations for success,

and even by the priority that they placed upon any single assignment. Our results from the

interviews of library non-users were somewhat sobering. We observed that the professor, not the

librarian, is typically seen as the expert, and that in the eyes of many students, librarians are still

associated only with books. These students, without ever consulting librarians, were very

confident in their abilities to find resources for their assignments.

On other dimensions, however, the findings about the library were more positive. In the

retrospective interviews, students might not remember individual librarians, but the vast majority

of them had used the library or library services. In addition, many students were savvy users of

the Internet, with an awareness of the shortcomings of Google for finding scholarly articles. Some

students were very adept library users, either because of time spent with librarians or from

experimenting with online library tools. We learned from our retrospective interviews that these

proficient students were frequently the best ambassadors for the library. In addition, from the

video-recorded dorm visits, we learned that the role of the library as a physical space is not

inconsequential. Given the extraordinary distractions that undergraduates face, the library has

become a focal point for students: one of the best places to get work done and an important

destination for a variety of their needs.

Outcomes

The Undergraduate Research Project was launched with hope and excitement as well as

uncertainty about how well it would proceed. After the initial interviews, we could see that this

project would yield significant results that we would be anxious to incorporate into the Libraries’

programs and facilities. One surprise was the willingness, almost eagerness, of students to

participate in the project. The enthusiasm of the original research team attracted additional staff

to co-viewing sessions and subteam activities. At the end of the formal project, we held a public

services retreat to set program priorities based on what we had learned. At this time we realized

that our organizational culture had changed significantly during the project. Our staff is now more

open to experimenting with new programs without detailed plans that anticipate every possible

contingency. Some successful implementations described below began as an idea that we just

wanted to try out.

One of the first changes was a redesign of printing in a large reference area. After team

members observed that users had to traipse from point A to point B to point C to successfully

print and assemble documents, we rearranged components to make them available at one

counter.

Student drawings, collected in a series of design workshops, are integral to planning a

major library renovation scheduled for completion in fall 2007. Students were loud and clear in

asking for a study environment filled with natural light and varied seating so the space could be

used for both collaborative and quiet study. From the initial meeting, these sketches have been

consulted by the designers and architects. Plans to place upholstered seating near large windows

were questioned because students definitely preferred study tables in that natural light. The latest

plans put tables near the windows.

Our current static web site does not match the students’ vision for flexible web space and

their need to connect quickly to all of the sites they regularly visit. The direct links that they want

include management and finding tools, personal academic information, e-reserves and audio

streaming of lectures, access to subject librarians and professors, and 24-hour food finding

capability. Finding a way to deliver such a web site became a top priority of the Libraries, and one

is on the way. The Libraries, in partnership with the University’s Information Technology Services,

is currently developing a student portal to deliver the individualized options that students seek.

Our research shows that a typical student schedule is tilted toward late evening-early

morning. As a result, “Night Owl” librarians now work at the reference desk to 11 p.m. during the

busiest weeks of the semester. So far none of the reference staff has volunteered to work until

the library closes at 3 a.m., but we plan to evaluate the need by extending our virtual “Ask a

Librarian Service” to later hours.

When we learned from retrospective interviews and photo surveys that students consult

with parents about their assignments, we decided that making parents aware of our programs

might be another way to reach students. This fall, the Libraries hosted the University’s parent

breakfast during First Year Orientation where we highlighted our subject librarians with the theme

of “every class has a librarian.” The breakfast was a great success. And the Director of

Orientation was delighted to hand the responsibility to us.

[insert – Figure C: Poster for First Year Orientation]

One sobering result of our research was a lack of student understanding about the role of

reference librarians. We are exploring different ways to change perceptions throughout our user

community and have undertaken some initial steps. Our collaboration with the College Writing

Program expanded to include several librarian-tutors in the Writing Center. Just as the writing

instructors do, these librarians have individual advising sessions with students writing research

papers.

Before the research project, we developed course pages with direct links to e-reserves

that included information about the subject librarian and selected library resources appropriate for

the class assignments.

Many students request appointments directly from these course pages. A

similar display will be part of the Blackboard course management system that the University is

now adopting.

Students see their professors as the “experts” and look to them for research advice. In

turn, professors often refer students to one or two good articles but are unable to counsel them

about databases and other bibliographic tools. Strengthening the connection between faculty and

subject librarians is crucial to reaching students. In some departments, professors routinely refer

students to subject librarians. Our history specialists know just about all the graduating history

majors by name because of their extensive consultation with them. We want to increase the

number of faculty making such referrals. Our goal is to ensure that students have the benefit of

the subject and research expertise of reference librarians.

Another impetus for stressing the faculty-librarian connection is our finding that few

students come to the reference desk “cold.” Most of them have met a librarian in class, were

referred to the desk by a faculty member or teaching assistant, or had previous experience

consulting with a reference librarian.

Throughout the data, students tell us that it is difficult to successfully navigate a research

library. They must learn to deal with the rigid interface of our OPAC, a vast array of databases,

and the vagaries of finding their way through book stacks. They do not differentiate among

catalog, database, and e-journal for searching. We hear: “I used the library search engine.” At the

University of Rochester Libraries we are committed to simplifying the process of finding articles

and books. From our federated search interface with direct links to articles, to the development of

the eXtensible Catalog incorporating FRBR principles, library staff are improving technologies to

create flexible and responsive systems.

For the millennial students who are accustomed to quick

Internet search results, our goal is to deliver library programs and products that enhance their

education and ensure that they understand scholarly discourse in their academic fields.

In assessing the Undergraduate Research Project, we consider the greatest benefit has

been the comprehensive understanding we now have of the daily lives of our undergraduates.

We learned to ask probing questions, to enlist the cooperation of students, and to develop our

expertise in an array of research tools. We are pleased to document the success of the project

and the ways it is influencing our libraries. This experience will serve the River Campus Libraries

well as we begin an IMLS grant-funded study of graduate students.

Joan K. Lippincott, "Net Generation Students and Libraries," in

Educating the Net Generation

ed. Diana G. Oblinger and James L. Oblinger (Boulder, Colo.: Educause, 2005),

http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/ (accessed January 10, 2007).

We’d like to thank Merrilee Proffitt of RLG for sharing some of her interviewing techniques with

us.

Bill Gaver and others, “Design: Cultural Probes,” Interactions 6, no. 1 (1999): 21-29,

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=291224.291235 (accessed January 10, 2007).

The complete list of questions and other information about the University of Rochester project

are available at Undergraduate Research Project: Shared Results http://tinyurl.com/f63dj

(accessed January 10, 2007).

An example of a River Campus Libraries course page is available at

http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=11&searchtype=rcl&TheClass=12629 (accessed

January 10, 2007).

University of Rochester, River Campus Libraries. “Find Articles,”

http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=articles (accessed January 10, 2007). ”eXtensible

Catalog Project,” http://www.extensiblecatalog.info/ (accessed January 10, 2007).

Figure A: Retrospective Interview Drawing

Figure B: Mapping Diary

Figure C: Poster for First Year Orientation