1

Assignment 3 Undergraduate Library Use and Technology: Trends, Themes, and Ideas
for Future Research

Submitted by Kyra Cardella, Marianne Colgrove, Lisa Foster and Tiffany Hays
LIS 570 Prof. Sarah Evans
December 2, 2012
I. Introduction
In 2012 top ten trends in academic libraries, the Association of College and Research
Libraries (ACRL, 2012) identifies a number of issues related to usage patterns in academic
libraries. Two such issues are:
Academic libraries must do a better job communicating their value, including the positive
correlation between library usage and student achievement; and
Mobile devices, along with a desire for convenience, are driving user demand for
information resources anytime and anywhere.
These interconnected issues led us to consider how undergraduate students use
technology for academic work and whether access to mobile technology increases their use of
library resources, and ultimately affects their academic success. In exploring these trends, we
identified three research questions:
1 How do undergraduate students use the library or online library resources?
2 Does student use of personal technology devices facilitate their use of library resources?
3 Should libraries invest in providing services and resources optimized for mobile devices?
In order to explore these questions, we reviewed existing studies and conducted interviews of
eight undergraduate students regarding their technology and library use.
II. Literature Review
We began this project by reviewing existing literature regarding undergraduate library
use and technology. Prior studies demonstrate: 1) low and non-use of libraries by undergraduates
2
is an ongoing issue; 2) low and non-use of libraries by undergraduates has been associated in
some cases with lower achievement; and 3) undergraduates prefer research methods that are
quick, easy and convenient, and often begin their research by using the Internet. However, there
does not appear to be a consensus in the literature about the use of new technologies in the
academic library, and whether these technologies improve student library use.
1. Low and Non-Use of Libraries by Undergraduates
Low and non-use of academic libraries was identified as one of the top ten trends in
academic libraries for 2012 by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL, 2012).
Prior studies have revealed that undergraduates engaged in library experiences only occasionally,
rather than often or very often (Whitmire, 2001); and 73% of college students used the Internet
more than libraries for their research (Jones et al., 2002). A 2006 study of Oregon State
University undergraduates found that 25% reported using the library infrequently (Vondracek,
2007); and a 2008 study of undergraduates at the St. Martins College in Lancaster, U.K. found
that first-year students were the largest group of library non-users (Toner, 2008).
2. Correlation Between Undergraduate Library Use and Achievement
Some studies have found a correlation between low and non-library use and lower
student competency and achievement. In a study of UCLA undergraduates in 2001, the
researchers found that students who visited the library more frequently scored higher on
information competence tests (Caravello, Herschman & Mitchell, 2001). A 2002 study found a
positive correlation between students who borrowed more library materials and academic
performance (de Jager, 2002). More recently, researchers at the University of Huddersfield, U.K.
made preliminary findings of a relationship between library use and better grades (Goodall &
Pattern, 2011).
3
3. Undergraduates Preferred Methods of Conducting Research
Convenience is a leading factor in students choice of research tools. Undergraduates
tend to look for the easiest, least painful way to do research, and they prefer electronic
reference sources for obtaining information quickly (Valentine, 1993). Gardner and Eng found
that the students preferred to conduct research online from home or from their dormitories (2005).
A 2006 survey of Oregon State University undergraduates revealed that 64% prefer studying at
home, and the students identified the Internet as their research method of choice twice as often as
journals, databases and the library (Vondracek, 2007). More recently, interviews with UCLA
undergraduates revealed that the majority begins a research project using a public search engine
or Internet site, usually Google or Wikipedia (Mizrachi, 2010).
4. New Technology and Undergraduate Library Use
Because of students preference for the Internet as a research tool, some experts propose
that web-based tools could be used to more effectively deliver scholarly information and teach
information literacy (Carpan, 2010). Recent studies have examined the use of specific
technology tools to increase student library usage such as discovery tools (tools that aggregate
search results from across the librarys databases and catalog) (Arnett & Forrestal, 2012);
Facebook and other social networking sites (Wan, 2011; Park, 2010; Dickson & Holley, 2010;
Sachs, Eckel & Langan, 2011); electronic readers (Berg, Hoffman & Dawson, 2010); smart
phones (Paterson & Low, 2011); and multiple technology tools (electronic readers, mobile
phones, Twitter, instant messaging) (Cassidy et al., 2011). Some of these studies have made
positive findings about the potential use of these tools for effectively delivering academic library
services (Arnett & Forrestal, 2012; Wan, 2011; Cassidy et al., 2011; Dickson & Holley, 2010;
Paterson & Low, 2011).
4
Other studies, however, such as the Project Information Literacy (PIL) study based at
the University of Washington, have concluded that students find research more difficult in the
digital age than it was before, because of the proliferation of tools at their disposal (Head &
Eisenberg, 2009). A later phase of the PIL study concluded that undergraduates are light
technology users (Head & Eisenberg, 2011).
More research is needed to determine if new technology tools are effective for enhancing
the delivery of library services to undergraduates. To explore this subject further, we conducted
our own exploratory research by interviewing undergraduates about their library and technology
use.
III. Research Study
1. Method
Eight undergraduates in California, Montana, Oregon, and Washington were interviewed.
Four participants were female and four were male. One student was a 36-year-old non-traditional
student while the others were traditional students between the ages of 18-22. Four students were
seniors, two were juniors, one was a sophomore and one was a freshman. A variety of majors
were represented, including biology, accounting, mathematics, classics, theater, and journalism.
Four interviews were conducted in person, three over the telephone, and one via Skype video.
All participants were asked the same set of questions and the interview was designed to take
approximately 15 minutes. All interviews were recorded and transcribed, and the transcripts were
analyzed using coding to identify common themes.
2. Results
a. Technology Ownership and Use
Our participants overwhelmingly relied on laptop computers for day-to-day studying and
5
every participant owned at least one laptop. One participant also had a desktop computer. Three
owned smartphones, one owned an iPod Touch and no one owned a tablet or e-reader. Those
who owned smartphones used them only occasionally for school-related work. The chart below
shows technology adoption rates for the students in our group (LIS 570) compared to the results
from the Pew study of College Students and Technology (Smith 2011), the ECAR Study of
Undergraduate Students and Information Technology (Dahlstrom 2012), and Cassidy et al.
(2011). The chart is not complete, since Cassidy et al. did not ask students whether they owned a
smartphone, but only about the brands of their phones.

Use of social media was divided. Half of the participants were active users of social
media (primarily Facebook), while the other half had either stopped using or never used social
media. Those who used social media mostly viewed it as a means for staying in contact with
friends; only one indicated that it was important to him for professional development.

*Cassidy et al. did not measure smartphone adoption rates.
6
b. Patterns of Library Use
Most of the participants visited the library on a regular basis (7 out of 8). Reasons for
using the library in person included conducting research, studying, writing, using meeting rooms,
using physical books, using computers with particular software, printing, and seeking in-person
assistance. The library was frequently depicted as a desirable study space for avoiding
distractions.
Remote use of library resources was also common (7 out of 8 participants). A variety of
online library resources were used, including the library website and catalog, electronic journals,
and databases. No participant used e-books, but one participant mentioned online materials that
accompany a textbook.
The students tended to be selective and strategic, choosing to use either in-person or
online library resources based on what was needed for their course work. Even students who
preferred to work at home visit the library to get materials or use other services. For example,
one participant stated:
I felt as though if I physically went to the library and sat down in one of the study rooms
and I studies [sic], if I need a book I can just grab a book in the library and bring it to the
study room and study. And if I want to access the schools library website I can either use
the cell phone that I have or the computer that Im using to write a paper or create a study
guide (LK, LAF1).

c. Use of Technology to Facilitate Library Use
In designing this study, we were most interested in how technology facilitates library use.
Participants were asked a series of questions about their use of technology for library purposes.
Laptop computers were the primary tools used to access the library. Students with mobile
devices chose to use them when they needed quick access to information, but not for prolonged
coursework. The following descriptions exemplify how two of our study participants use
7
technology for research.
Maggie is a 20-year old female attending Oregon State University. Maggie is a sophomore and is
studying biology. She lives with two roommates in an apartment close to campus. On a typical day, she
attends classes, studies and works at her part-time job at a pizza parlor.
Maggie owns a laptop computer and a cell phone (not a smartphone). She is comfortable using
the library and often chooses to study there when she is on campus. She considers the library to be a quiet
place where she can focus her attention. She also uses subject specific drop-in tutoring services provided
in the library.
Maggie accesses the library remotely via a link on the school website using her laptop. She finds
the remote access convenient when she is at home. However, she did indicate that she would be more
likely to go to the library for assistance than to use a library chat function. Maggie feels confident in her
ability to conduct research and utilize library materials, both remotely and in person. She was taught
research skills in high school and also had instruction in her first quarter of classes in college.
Maggie uses Facebook and views it primarily as a social venue. She did not indicate any interest
in utilizing library resources presented through Facebook or other social media.
Of the options presented to her, Maggie thought that she would find an enhanced library search
engine to be the most pertinent to her.

Linus is a 22-year-old male and is a senior at San Diego State University. He is majoring in
journalism with an emphasis in media studies. Linus owns two laptops (one Macintosh, one PC) and a
Galaxy S3 smartphone.
Linus uses the library frequently. He studies in the library, using one of his laptops in the study
cubicles or study rooms. He also likes the convenience of using library computers to work on reports,
group projects and PowerPoint presentations. Linus uses both physical materials and online databases as
sources for his schoolwork and values the ability to find physical materials as he is working in the library.
Linus is quite comfortable with technology and uses websites, Google Drive and online databases
when working on school projects. He is also comfortable using the library remotely. He accesses the
library website both with his laptop and smartphone. He prefers to use a laptop to access the library, but
will choose to use his smartphone when he is short on time.
Linus is an avid user of social media, naming such platforms as Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus,
LinkedIn, WordPress and Pinterest. He uses these platforms to stay in contact with friends and as a
collaboration tool for school projects involving group work. He also views social media as an important
tool as he begins to look for a job.
When presented with a list of ideas for improving library services, Linus was interested in seeing
an increased library presence in social media and in a search engine capable of searching multiple
resources (e.g. both catalog and electronic databases). Linus indicated he would also be interested in
tutoring services and space provided by the library.

8
3. Discussion
Our initial research problem was based on studies reporting low and non-use of academic
libraries. Our findings did not match those of the studies we reviewed. At the beginning of our
research, we were interested in evaluating the effect of new technologies on mobile usage of
library resources. However, only 3 out of 8 (37.5%) of our students owned a smartphone and
none of the participants owned a tablet or e-reader. Although our sample size was small, this
percentage differs considerably from the ECAR study findings that 62% of undergraduate
students own a smartphone (Dahlstrom, 2012), and the Pew Internet Study of Smartphone
Adoption and Usage, which reported that 49% of Americans between 18 and 24 own a
smartphone (Smith 2011). Also in the Pew study, 25% of smartphone owners said they accessed
the Internet mostly with a smartphone. In our small study, 25% reported using their smartphones
for course-related work.
The participants in our study were also more likely to visit and use the library than
students in the previous studies. These patterns of library usage are not consistent with other
research that characterizes student use of library resources as infrequent or even non-existent
(Whitmire, 2001; Vondracek 2007; Mizrachi 2010). However, this pattern is consistent with the
2009 PIL report (Head & Eisenberg), in which most students used library databases and course
readings for research, rather than Google. The same report shows that many students develop a
tried and true information seeking strategy and are slow to develop new patterns of behavior.
Similar results were reported in 2010 (Head & Eisenberg). This could be expanded on in future
studies investigating how students select information resources.

9
4. Implications for Academic Libraries
While studies such as Cassidy et al. (2010) and Patterson & Low (2011) indicate that
students are enthusiastic about using mobile technology for library access, our participants did
not see mobile technology as a solution to their research needs. Our results were similar to those
found in the 2011 PIL study that characterized undergraduates as light technology users who
adopt a less is more strategy to all the technology and resources available to them (Head &
Eisenberg). Similarly, although many libraries are looking to increase their presence in social
media (Carpan, 2010; Dickson & Holley, 2010), only one of our participants indicated a
preference for social media delivery of library services.
Clearly, mobile technology ownership is on the rise and this could potentially aid in the
accessibility and convenience of academic libraries. However, based on our findings and those of
the PIL studies (Head & Eisenberg 2009, 2010), many undergraduates are not ready to utilize
such services.
IV. Conclusion
Our study did not reveal a groundswell of student interest in library services optimized
for mobile devices or social networking platforms. While some students had used mobile devices
for library access, this was not associated with increased library use. When asked what possible
library services they would prefer, they chose services which facilitate finding information,
including unified searching technology, assistance in locating resources, and online training on
using the library for research. Technology could play a role in these services but, for our students,
technology was not a cause of transformative change in their library usage.
These results point to a number of questions for future research. Given our small sample,
we would first need to explore whether our somewhat anomalous patterns of technology
10
adoption would hold true with a larger, randomly selected group. Further study on mobile device
adoption by college students should consider what factors facilitate or hinder mobile device
adoption. Given that undergraduates generally find laptops critical to their academic work, is the
additional cost of a smartphone or tablet prohibitive? If so, how important is it for libraries to
provide equipment for checkout or otherwise facilitate student purchasing of devices?
Additional research could also explore how technology and library usage evolves over
the course of students academic careers. One theme throughout the PIL studies is that many
students stick to a tried and true method of locating resources (Head and Eisenberg 2009, 2010,
2011). Does that mean they tend to imprint on a particular technology, rather than developing
new skills for seeking information? In a rapidly changing technology environment, a flexible
approach to tools and services could prove to be the most fruitful.
Finally, as we have seen throughout the literature, many libraries recognize that mobile
devices - especially cell phones - are well on their way to becoming ubiquitous. It is a missed
opportunity if libraries do not explore potential ways to exploit mobile technology. However, an
if we build it, they will come approach may be too simplistic. The students in our study have a
sense that they could be better at locating resources, but they are not sure how to improve. PIL
studies show that students struggle with starting a research project (Head and Eisenberg, 2010)
and finding a context in which to frame their research topic and subsequent information seeking
(Head and Eisenberg, 2009). Mobile technology may lower barriers to access and increase
student use of the library, but more research is needed to identify the best services and support
for helping students use technology to solve their larger research problems.

11
References
ACRL Research Planning and Review. (2012). 2012 top ten trends in academic libraries: a
review of the trends and issues affecting academic libraries in higher education. College
& Research Libraries News, 73(6), 311320.
Arnett, B., & Forrestal, V. (2012). Bridging the Gap from Wikipedia to Scholarly Sources: A
Simple Discovery Tool. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 19(2-4), 176188.
doi:10.1080/10691316.2012.693361
Berg, S. A., Hoffmann, K., & Dawson, D. (2010). Not on the same page: undergraduates
information retrieval in electronic and print books. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 36(6), 518525.
Caravello, P. S., Borah, E. G., Herschman, J., & Mitchell, E. (2001). Information competence at
UCLA: Report of a survey project. Retrieved from
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4v06j4z5.pdf
Carpan, C. (2010). Introducing Information Literacy 2.0. College & Undergraduate Libraries,
17(1), 106113. doi:10.1080/10691310903584627
Cassidy, E. D., Britsch, J., Griffin, G., Manolovitz, T., Shen, L., & Turney, L. (2011). Higher
education and emerging technologies. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 50(4), 380
391.
Dahlstrom, E. (2012). ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology.
Educause Center for Applied Research. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/ecar-study-undergraduate-students-and-information-
technology-2012
De Jager, K. (2002). Impacts & outcomes: searching for the most elusive indicators of academic
library performance. In Proceedings of the 4th Northumbria International. Conference on
12
Performance Measurement in Libraries and Information Services Meaningful Measures
for Emerging Realities (pp. 291297). Retrieved from
http://old.libqual.org/documents/admin/dejager.pdf
Dickson, A., & Holley, R. P. (2010). Social networking in academic libraries: the possibilities
and the concerns. New Library World, 111(11-12), 468479.
Gardner, S., & Eng, S. (2005). What Students Want: Generation Y and the Changing Function of
the Academic Library. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5(3), 405420.
doi:10.1353/pla.2005.0034
Goodall, D., & Pattern, D. (2011). Academic library non/low use and undergraduate student
achievement: A preliminary report of research in progress. Library Management, 32(3),
159170. doi:10.1108/01435121111112871
Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2009). What todays college students say about conducting
research in the digital age. Project Information Literacy Progress Report, 4. Retrieved
from http://www.libraryng.com/sites/libraryng.com/files/PIL_ProgressReport_2_2009.pdf
Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2010). How college students evaluate and use information in
the digital age. Project Information Literacy Progress Report. Retrieved from
http://projectinfolit.org/publications/
Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2011). How college students manage technology while in the
library during crunch time. Project Information Literacy Progress Report. Retrieved from
http://projectinfolit.org/publications/
Jones, S. (2002). The Internet goes to college: how students are living in the future with todays
technology. Pew Internet & American Life. USDLA Journal, 16(10).
13
Mizrachi, D. (2010). Undergraduates academic information and library behaviors: preliminary
results. Reference Services Review, 38(4), 571580. doi:10.1108/00907321011090737
Park, J.-H. (2010). Differences among university students and faculties in social networking site
perception and use: Implications for academic library services. The Electronic Library,
28(3), 417431. doi:10.1108/02640471011051990
Paterson, L., & Low, B. (2011). Student attitudes towards mobile library services for
smartphones. Library Hi Tech, 29(3), 412423. doi:10.1108/07378831111174387
Sachs, D. E., Eckel, E. J., & Langan, K. A. (2011). Striking a Balance: Effective Use of
Facebook in an Academic Library. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 16(1-2), 3554.
doi:10.1080/10875301.2011.572457
Smith, J. (2011). Smartphone Adoption and Usage. Pew Internet. Retrieved from
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Smartphones/Summary.aspx
Toner, L. J. (2008). Non-use of library services by students in a UK academic library. Evidence
Based Library and Information Practice, 3(2), 1831.
Valentine, B. (1993). Undergraduate research behavior: Using focus groups to generate theory.
The journal of academic librarianship, 19(5), 300304.
Vondracek, R. (2007). Comfort and Convenience? Why Students Choose Alternatives to the
Library. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 7(3), 277293. doi:10.1353/pla.2007.0039
Wan, G. (2011). How Academic Libraries Reach Users on Facebook. College & Undergraduate
Libraries, 18(4), 307318. doi:10.1080/10691316.2011.624944
Whitmire, E. (2001). The relationship between undergraduates background characteristics and
college experiences and their academic library use. College & Research Libraries, 62(6),
528540.