Foster-Gibbons.indb

Studying Students

The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester

edited by

Nancy Fried Foster and Susan Gibbons

Association of College and Research Libraries

A division of the American Library Association

Chicago 2007

Edited by

Nancy Fried Foster

Susan Gibbons

Studying Students:

The Undergraduate Research Project

at the University of Rochester

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National

Standard for Information Sciences–Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI

Z39.48-1992. ∞

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Studying students : the Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester / edited by

Nancy Fried Foster and Susan Gibbons.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-8389-8437-6 (pbk. : alk. paper)

1. University of Rochester. River Campus Libraries--Case studies. 2. University of Rochester-

-Students--Case studies. 3. Academic libraries--Use studies. 4. Report writing. 5. Research. 6.

Study skills. I. Foster, Nancy Fried. II. Gibbons, Susan (Susan L.), 1970-

Z733.U868S78 2007

025.5’877--dc22

2007028559

Printed in the United States of America.

11 10 09 08 07

5 4 3 2 1

Contents

Introduction to the Undergraduate Research Project

Nancy Fried Foster and Susan Gibbons

one. Faculty Expectations of Student Research

Barbara Alvarez and Nora Dimmock

two. Asking Students about Their Research

Vicki Burns and Kenn Harper

three. Night Owl Librarians: Shifting the Reference Clock

Suzanne Bell and Alan Unsworth

four. Library Design and Ethnography

Susan Gibbons and Nancy Fried Foster

five. Dream Catcher: Capturing Student-Inspired Ideas for the Libraries’ Web site

Jane McCleneghan Smith and Katie Clark

six. Photo Surveys: Eliciting More Than You Knew to Ask For

Judi Briden

seven. Mapping Diaries, or Where Do They Go All Day?

Katie Clark

eight. What an Experience: Library Staff Participation in Ethnographic Research

Helen Anderson and Ann Marshall

nine. Then and Now: How Today’s Students Differ

Sarada George

ten. The Mommy Model of Service

Nancy Fried Foster

eleven. Conclusion: Creating Student-Centered Academic Libraries

Susan Gibbons and Nancy Fried Foster

References

Author bios

In the very early stages of the Undergraduate

Research Project it became evident that we

would learn a great deal about the interplay

of environments and physical facilities in the

research and writing processes of students. Spe-

cifically, we saw an opportunity to learn more

about where students like to study and why, with

whom, and when. Consequently, three members

of the project team formed a facilities subteam,

which included other librarians and library staff

whenever time and their schedules allowed. Ini

tially, the subteam met weekly to coview student

interviews, jointly analyze photographs, maps,

and other artifacts, and share insights about the

ways student research and writing are supported

or constrained by libraries and other campus

facilities. Our findings ranged from the expected

to the surprising.

Impact of Library Facilities

We knew that a student’s typical day started and

ended later than the library staff ’s, but we were

surprised to learn that there was almost a full

twelve-hour difference between the beginning of

a librarian’s workday and when students gener-

ally begin their academic work.The main library

opens at 8 A.M. and closes at 3 A.M.; the reference

desk is open from 9

A.M. to 9 P.M. on weekdays,

closing earlier on weekends. The students, how-

ever, settle into their research, writing, studying,

and homework at around 10 P.M. and work very

late into the night. This “night owl” schedule

results from a combination of constraints and

choices. After attending classes, working one

or more part-time jobs, and engaging in such

extracurricular activities as the Debate Club and

the Medieval Society, students have literally run

out of daylight hours. Between the demands

of their schedules and the tendency for young

adults to stay up at night, students adopt flexible

schedules that change on a daily basis, getting

up early one day, getting up late the next, sleep-

ing on weekends, and working until one or two

in the morning most nights. How can a library

fully support the learning and research needs of

students if it closes its reference desk precisely

when students finally approach it? This is a di-

lemma that all academic libraries must face in

the coming years.

We also learned about the different “zones” in

our libraries. In some rooms, such as our Mes-

senger Periodical Reading Room, you can hear

the proverbial pin drop, even when full to ca-

pacity with 144 students. Te reference area, in

contrast, has a constant buzz and murmur. Level

500m in the stacks is quiet, but Level 300 is

quite the party floor. Level A, to the left of the

elevators, is for quiet, individual study, but group

study can always be found nearby, to the right

of the elevators. Tese zones are neither deter-

mined nor enforced by the library staff. Rather,

the students develop and enforce them. Oldtim-

four. Library Design and Ethnography

Susan Gibbons is Associate Dean of Public Services and Collection Development at the River Campus Libraries,

University of Rochester; e-mail: sgibbons@library.rochester.edu. Nancy Fried Foster is Lead Anthropologist at the

River Campus Libraries, University of Rochester; e-mail: nfoster@library.rochester.edu.

Susan Gibbons and Nancy Fried Foster

Library Design and Ethnography

ers teach newcomers the established protocols

through an occasional verbal warning, but most

students tell us that they learned the rules as

freshmen when upperclassmen gave them “the

stare,” a scowl or glare that communicates “be

quiet!” Scores of signs reminding students to be

quiet are not nearly as effective as one disap-

proving stare from a fellow student.

Trough a variety of information-gathering

techniques, we confirmed many of our hunches

about student use of library space. For example,

we put flipcharts out in public areas of the li-

braries with the following questions written on

top: “Why do you like to come here? What is

missing?”Te thirty-eight responses students

scrawled on the flipchart paper reiterated the

need for additional power outlets throughout

the building and better lighting in certain areas.

Te atmosphere, people, and quiet study areas

were the most common answers to why the

students liked to come to the libraries.

On the basis of these early insights, we made

some changes and tried out some new ideas.

For example, the Night Owl service, described

in Chapter 3, is an attempt to address the time

differences between the students’ activity and

the libraries’ reference service hours. In addi-

tion, we created a new webpage that indicates

the location of good study spaces within the

main library.

Te spaces are arranged by the

“zones” that we discovered in the building:

“Quiet,” “Collaborative,” and “Comfy.”Te

webpage also identifies the locations of electri-

cal outlets. Student comments on the flipchart

suggested the need for stand-up, quick-use

computers, where students could easily check

their e-mail or look up a call number in the

catalog. Consequently, we added three stand-

up workstations near the main entrance of the

stack tower.

Te greatest impact of the Undergraduate

Research Project on library facilities came in

the second year of the project, which coincided

with the initiation of a $5 million renovation of

the east wing of Rush Rhees Library, the main

humanities and social sciences library. Gener

ously funded by the Gleason Foundation, the

renovation project had two core objectives: to

convert approximately 23,000 square feet of

backroom library staff space into a collaborative

study space for students; and to build a grand

staircase to link the university’s main student

computer center, located on the ground floor of

Rush Rhees Library, with the new collaborative

study space to be built on the first floor.

Design Workshops

Although we had known for several years that the

campus lacked appropriate spaces for group study

and project collaboration,we had not known how

to construct and outfit such a place. Now that

our undergraduate project was learning so much

about students and their work practices,the facili-

ties subteam saw an opportunity to assist in the

design of the space by bringing student perspec-

tives and a student voice into the process. When

we brought this idea to the dean of the libraries,

he not only granted our wish but also upped the

ante,charging us with finding ways to ensure that

the space would meet the real, rather than the

perceived,needs of students.Consequently,unlike

a typical renovation project, we did not provide

the architects with a formal space program that

defined how the space was to be used, the num-

bers and types of seating, and so on. Instead, we

asked the architects to work with us in finding

ways to let the students drive the design.

We shied away from forming an official

student renovation committee for fear that the

formality might cause students to be narrow

and too constrained in their thinking. Instead

we crafted a more creative way to bring stu-

dents into the design process, by inviting them

to attend charrette-style workshops. A char-

rette is a technique in which stakeholders help

to draft solutions to a design problem. In our

Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester

case, the students designed ideal library spaces.

Specifically, they were given a large poster-

board, markers, pencils, sticky notes, and other

supplies and asked to respond to the following

scenario:

Imagine that the library has a big, new,

empty space—about the size of Douglass

Dining Center—and they ask YOU to

design it. You can put up walls or not have

walls. You can buy furniture, hire staff,

have the amenities and comforts that you

want. It will be part of the library and it

will be your place to use the library.

So you design the space and overnight it

is built. It is exactly the way you wanted it

to be and you love it and want to go there

a lot. Show us what it looks like.

We e-mailed several of the students involved

in the Undergraduate Research Project to ask

for twenty minutes of their time in exchange

for some food, beverages, and $5. A few stu-

dents showed up as a result of the e-mail, but

we were far more successful in soliciting volun-

teers by simply putting up signs that read “$5

and Free Food for 20 Minutes of Your Time,

Tis Way

.” By the end of the two-hour pe-

riod, we had nineteen fascinating designs by an

unexpectedly diverse cross section of our stu-

dent body (Figs. 4.1a and 4.1b).

Many of the designs had “creative” elements,

including massage tables, fountains, gardens,

and game tables, which was evidence to us that

the students felt comfortable enough with the

exercise to have fun with it and be imagina-

tive. Still, in spite of the individual quirks,

several common elements quickly surfaced.

Nearly three-quarters of the drawings included

“comfy” areas with such elements as fireplaces,

sofas, beanbags, and ottomans. Fourteen draw-

ings had group study areas that incorporated

whiteboards, conference tables, and partitions

or other structures to provide some level of

privacy or sound dampening. Students sought

support for their computer-based work, varying

from actual computer workstations to strong

wireless signals and

lots

of power outlets for

their laptops. We could also see many windows,

food sources, and even traditional library ma-

terials such as books and magazines scattered

throughout the designs.

When all of the designs were distilled into

a composite, we came away with five top find-

ings. Te first was the need for

flexibility

. Stu-

dents like spaces that meet a variety of needs,

and they want to move easily among these

spaces. Most important among these spaces are

group study areas, spaces to relax, individual

study spaces, a café, a computer area, and media

viewing areas.

Second, students want spaces that provide

comfort

and have a family room kind of feel.

Te Rush Rhees Library has an abundance

of formal, straight-back chairs and massive

wooden tables but a paucity of places to curl

up with a good book. For our students, comfort

includes easy access to coffee and food, natural

light, and an environment with soothing tex-

tures, sounds, and great warmth. Moreover, the

ideal space should support sitting, slouching,

putting one’s feet up, and lying down.

Te third finding is the importance of

tech-

nology and tools

and their intuitive integration

into the space. Tis includes high-end technol-

ogy such as media players, Smart Boards, and

plasma screens as well as low-tech items in-

cluding staplers, power outlets, and a three-hole

punch.

A fourth element students put into the space

staff support

. Tough only a few students

drew a reference or information desk in their

designs, a staff presence is commonly associated

with food services and to “check things out,”

ranging from books to study rooms to staplers.

Library Design and Ethnography

Figure 4.1a. Student design of ideal library space

Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester

Figure 4.1b. Student design of ideal library space

Library Design and Ethnography

1. Integrated tools (seamless integration of

high- and low-tech tools into the space)

2. Intellectually stimulating

3. Intuitive

4. Comfortable

5. Hub (a social and academic crossroads on

campus)

6. Zones (clearly defined spaces within the

larger space)

7. Rebootable (students can take temporary

ownership of the space and personalize

it, but when finished it can easily be “re-

booted” to support the needs of the next

group of students)

8. Great lighting

9. Experimental (space is meant to undergo

frequent iterations as our understanding

of the students’ needs change)

10. Open outward (visually open space, with

easy, visual access to the external environ-

ment)

11. Open inward (open and intimate, wel-

coming to individuals as well as groups)

12. Great acoustics

13. Memorable

14. Democratic (versus hierarchical. All are

equally welcomed into the space)

14. Timeless

16. Unique

Furniture Design

Using the initial student findings and the results

of the Future Pull workshop, the architects began

designing our space. We quickly came to realize

that what we were creating was just a shell, an

open space of some 23,000 square feet. It was

the flexibility of the space, the sound level, the

lighting, and the furniture that we were going

to put into the space that would make this a

successful project.

Once we determined the placement of the

staircase and the flow of traffic through the

space, the architects asked the libraries’ renova-

Students rarely make distinctions between the

types of staff needed in the library. Instead,

they include a generic staff person who is ex-

pected to provide reference assistance, check

out materials, answer IT questions, and brew a

great latte.

Te fifth and final part of the composite is

resources,

and it is here that we are able to see

some elements of a traditional academic library.

Students included library materials in their

designs, ranging from academic and reference

books to leisure magazines and DVDs.

Armed with these findings, Susan Gibbons,

a member of the facilities subteam, sat in on

the interviews of potential architectural firms.

Te firm of Ayers/Saint/Gross of Baltimore was

selected in part because it not only appreciated

our desire for a student-centered process but,

through a subcontract with furniture company

Herman Miller, brought a new methodology

to the process, called Future Pull. Tis is a way

to poll customer representatives to identify the

preeminent values driving the design of the

space. Unfortunately, the Future Pull workshop

could not be done with students because of tim-

ing. However, both Susan Gibbons and Nancy

Fried Foster, the project’s lead anthropologist,

were able to represent student viewpoints in the

exercise through the information gleaned from

the initial student design charrette.

Led by Lori Gee of Herman Miller, the

library’s renovation team, architects from Ay-

ers/Saint/Gross, and key university personnel

envisaged a future several years after the com-

pletion of the renovation. We were asked to

imagine that the library renovation was a great

success and to articulate some of the elements

that contributed to that success. After we de-

veloped a list of sixteen design elements—in

cluding comfort, intellectual stimulation, and

great acoustics—we used personal response

devices to rank each of the sixteen elements, as

follows:

Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester

tion team to do a simple “paper doll” exercise.

Te floor plan of the space was reproduced on

large posterboards, and paper cutouts of dif-

ferent seating types, produced to scale, were

provided. In groups of two or three people, we

laid out the furniture in the space. Across the

four designs, there was a great deal of similar-

ity. However, cognizant that we needed student

input, we asked the architects to hold off on

any further furniture planning until we could

gather student input.

We quickly geared up for a second design

charrette with students. Tis time, we had two

of our student workers recruit students ran-

domly near the coffee cart in the Rush Rhees

Library and in the student union. We invited

students into the actual space and encouraged

them to walk around and familiarize them-

selves with it. Ten we gave them a plan of the

space and a wide selection of furniture cutouts

made to scale, along with markers, sticky notes,

scissors, and glue. We told students that we

Figure 4.2a. Example of a student’s furniture layout

Library Design and Ethnography

wanted them to help us design and furnish the

space to meet their needs. We created some

excitement by pointing out that they would

be able to use this space—and see the fruits of

their contributions—the following academic

year. Once again, we provided snacks and paid

$5 to each participant. In return, students gave

serious thought and effort to the task of past-

ing the furniture cutouts onto the floor plans

and annotating and enhancing the plans with

additional ideas. Tese artifacts enabled us to

learn more about the students’ expected work

practices in the space.

As we looked at the twenty-one resulting

drawings, we found a vast amount of similarity

(Fig. 4.2a, 4.2b, and 4.2c). What was striking,

though, was how different the students’ furni-

ture layouts were to those done by the libraries’

renovation team. If the furniture had been laid

out as the renovation team proposed, we would

Figure 4.2b. Example of a student’s furniture layout

Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester

have simply gotten it all wrong! For example,

four large, floor-to-ceiling windows will be

added to the space, which currently has very

little natural lighting. Te renovation team had

placed comfy armchairs and couches in front of

those windows, imagining students curling up

in the sunlight, reading their texts. Te students,

however, uniformly placed eight-seater tables in

front of those windows. When we asked them

about this placement, we learned that those

large tables were desirable study locations be-

cause they provided plenty of space to spread

out with one’s laptop, textbooks, notebooks,

beverages, and so on and be joined by one or

two friends who are doing the same. Because

students imagined that they would spend most

of their time writing, researching, and studying

at these tables, they wanted them in the prime

location—in front of the large windows. We

also learned that students did not view these

eight-seater tables as seating for eight students.

Rather, they expected that no more than four

or five students would be at any table, and this

would allow for plenty of working space.

We would have made a second mistake had

we gone with the renovation team’s design by

excluding quiet, individual study areas from

the space. Te Rush Rhees Library has literally

hundreds of seats designed for quiet, individual

study, and we assumed that they were more

than enough; consequently we had focused on

supporting group study in the renovated space.

However, the student designs made it clear

that in addition to group study spaces they felt

the library needed additional quiet study areas.

Tese were represented in the student designs

Figure 4.2c. Example of a student’s furniture layout

Library Design and Ethnography

with comfy seating and wall partitions. Just to

ensure that we got the message, the students

added notions to the designs including “really

quiet study room,” “area w/least lighting, most

conducive to individual study & quietest area,”

and “comfortable, quiet area.” Using everything

this exercise taught us about student work

practices and space use, we created a composite

to share with the architects, and it became the

starting point for floor plan.

Conclusion

The design charrettes taught us two important

lessons. One is that gathering student input need

not be a burdensome, time-consuming process.

Each design workshop lasted for two hours and

required approximately two hours of prep work

and another four hours for analysis. The cost

for each, beyond staff time, was around $100

in student payments and approximately $50 in

supplies and snacks. Recruiting participants took

little more than a few signs and an hour of student

worker time. Going forward, we have learned

that the logistics of gathering student input is

far easier than we imagined and should never be

an impediment.

Te second lesson reinforced what we have

learned throughout the Undergraduate Re-

search Project, which is that we, as librarians,

cannot assume we know how our students do

their academic work or what they need. Over

and over again, our assumptions have been

proven wrong; these design workshops provide

just another example. Had we based the design

of the space on our assumptions about students,

we would now be building a $5 million space

which, though aesthetically pleasing, would not

be nearly so useful to students as the one they

have helped us design. Instead, our students—

and our generous donors—can look forward to

the realization of plans crafted through a cre-

ative and collaborative process.

Note

1.http://www.library.rochester.edu/index.cfm?PAGE=3469.

Abbott, Andrew. 2006.

Te University library:

Report of the task force on the university li-

brary

. http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/staff-

web/groups/space/abbott-report.html.

Albanese, Andrew Richard. 2005. Te best thing

a library can be is open.

Library Journal

130

(15): 42–44.

Alch, Mark L. 2000. Te echo-boom genera-

tion: A growing force in American society.

Futurist

34 (5): 42.

Alvarez, Barbara. 2007.

A new perspective on ref-

erence: Crossing the line between research and

writing

. Paper presented at the 5th “Ref-

erence in the 21st-Century” Symposium

at Columbia University. https://www1.

columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/bts/img/as-

sets/9337/Columbia%20paper.pdf.

Barnes & Noble Booksellers. n.d

. Barnes & No-

ble history

. http://www.barnesandnobleinc.

com/our_company/history/bn_history.html.

Barry, Christine A. 1997. Information skills

for an electronic world: Training doctoral

research students.

Journal of Information Sci-

ence

23( 3): 225–38.

Becker, Howard Saul, Blanche Geer, and Ever-

ett C. Hughes. 1968.

Making the grade: Te

academic side of college life

. New York: John

Wiley and Sons.

Bell, Suzanne S. 2006.

Librarian’s guide to online

searching

. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlim-

ited.

Beloit College. 2006. Mindset Lists. http://

www.beloit.edu/~pubaff/mindset/.

Borders Group. n.d.

Our history.

http://www.

bordersgroupinc.com/about/history.htm.

Briden, Judi, Vicki Burns, and Ann Marshall.

2007. Knowing our students: Undergradu-

ates in context. In

Proceedings of the 2007

ACRL National Conference

, Baltimore, MD.

http://docushare.lib.rochester.edu/docush-

are/dsweb/Get/Document-25072/Know-

ing_our_students_URochester.pdf.

Brun-Cottan, Francoise, and Patricia Wall.

1995. Using video to re-present the user.

Communications of the ACM

(Association for

Computing Machinery) 38 (5): 61–72.

Carlson, Jake. 2006. An examination of under-

graduate student citation behavior.

Journal

of Academic Librarianship

32 (1): 14–22.

Carlson, Scott. 2005. Net generation goes to

college.

Chronicle of Higher Education

52 (7):

A34.

Davis, Philip M. 2003. Effect of the Web on

undergraduate citation behavior: Guiding

student scholarship in a networked age.

Por-

tal: Libraries and the Academy

3 (1): 41–51.

References

References

DeRosa, Cathy. 2006.

College students’ perceptions

of libraries and information resources.

Dublin,

OH: OCLC Online Computer Library

Center, http://www.oclc.org/reports/per-

ceptionscollege.htm.

Foley, James A., and Robert K. Foley. 1969.

college scene: Students tell it like it is

. New

York: Cowles Book Company.

Foster, Nancy Fried, and Susan Gibbons.

2005. Understanding faculty to improve

content recruitment for institutional

repositories,

D-Lib Magazine

11 (1).

http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january05/

foster/01foster.html. See also Grey Lit-

erature/DSpace Project: Shared Results

http://tinyurl.com/jufm2.

Gardner, Ralph Jr. 2006. In college, you can go

home again and again.

New York Times,

De-

cember 14, G9.

Gaver, Bill, Tony Dunne, and Elena Pacenti.

1999. Design: Cultural probes.

Interactions

(1): 21–29.

Gee, James Paul. 2003.

What video games have

to teach us about learning and literacy

. New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Greenfield, Mark A. 2006.

Born to be wired:

Technology, communication, and the mil-

lennial generation

. Paper presented to the

Laboratory for Laser Energetics, University

of Rochester. http://wings.buffalo.edu/pro-

vost/webserveces/presentations/highedweb-

dev2005/highedweb2006public.ppt.

Gross, Daniel R. 1984. Time allocation: A tool

for the study of cultural behavior.

Annual

Review of Anthropology

13:519–58.

Harper, Douglas. 1984. Meaning and work:

A study in photo elicitation.

International

Journal of Visual Sociology

2 (1): 20–43.

———. 2001.

Changing works: Visions of a lost

agriculture

. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

———. 2006.

Good company: A tramp life.

Boul-

der: Paradigm Publishers.

Howe, Neil, and William Strauss. 2003.

Millen-

nials go to college: Strategies for a new genera-

tion on campus: Recruiting and admissions,

campus life, and the classroom

. Washington,

DC: American Association of College Reg-

istrars and Admissions.

Kaplan, Isabel. 2006.

Mapping diaries and design

workshops.

Paper presented at Internet Li-

brarian 2006, Monterey, CA.

Kvavik, Robert B. 2005. Convenience, com-

munications, and control: How students

use technology. In

Educating the net gen-

eration,

ed. Diana G. Oblinger and James

L. Oblinger. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.

http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/

PUB7101G.pdf.

Lenhart, Amanda, and Mary Madden. 2007.

Social networking websites and teens: An over-

view.

Washington, DC: Pew Internet and

American Life Project. http://www.pewin-