Quiet in the Library: An Evidence-Based Approach to Improving the Student Experience

Objective -In this case study, librarians at the William H. Hannon Library at Loyola Marymount University explored user behaviour in the Information Commons, user preferences for furniture style and configuration, and how users engaged with a mix of technology, resources, and activities inside the space.Methods -The researchers used a mixed-methods case study consisting of 2,443 "direct observations," 646 environmental scans, 248 patron surveys, and 46 whiteboard poll questions. They created visualizations of results in Tableau, with filters for zone and variable. They then carried out a follow-up furniture preferences survey with 190 respondents.Results -Independent study dominated the space usage. Users valued spaciousness, quiet, privacy, and a clean environment. Users frequently multi-tasked with additional devices as they Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2017, 12.4 14 simultaneously used the library computers, including cell phones, headphones, and laptops. The majority of students self-reported using a library computer for email and to access the campus online learning platform. They also reported reading/studying and printing as frequent activities, although these were less frequently observed. Unattended belongings were observed along with broken electrical outlets. Temperature and noise levels were highly variable.Conclusions -This methodology allowed for the exploration of space use and satisfaction and uncovered implications for the redesign of the library space. The library has already taken steps toward making improvements based on this assessment project including: removing some reference stacks in favor of additional seating space, an inventory of all electrical outlets, and the exploration of new furniture and noise control strategies.

Section: Discussion and Outcomessupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Student Use of the Information Commons: An Exploration through Mixed Methods

Archambault

Justice

2017

“…However, along with these newly purposed spaces comes growing noise and lack of a quiet environment. According to the authors, the literature on noise management in libraries has grown in recent years but mostly consists of opinion-style articles with only a small number of articles that include evidence based research (McCaffrey & Breen, 2016). The lack of research studies, along with the small number of published studies focusing longitudinally on a single LibQUAL question, prompted the authors to conduct this study, which analyzes data across a seven-year period, and examines the impact of noise interventions on library users.…”

Section: Commentarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Seven Years of Noise Reduction Strategies in an Academic Library Improve Students’ Perceptions of Quiet Space, Especially Among Graduate Students

Sullo¹

2019

A Review of: McCaffrey, C. & Breen, M. (2016). Quiet in the library: An evidence-based approach to improving the student experience. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 16(4), 775-791. http://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2016.0052 Abstract Objective – To examine the interventions implemented by an academic library for noise management, and their impact on library users, over a seven-year period. Design – Retrospective data analysis. Setting – University library in Ireland. Subjects – LibQUAL data from 2007, 2009, 2012, and 2014. Methods – The researchers analyzed data from the 22 core LibQUAL questions and the three dimensions of library as place, information control, and effect of service. The study focused specifically on LibQUAL question LP2 in the library as place dimension: quiet space for individual work. Qualitative free text comments in the surveys related to noise or quiet issues were also analyzed. The adequacy mean was used to determine improvement in scores; this metric is calculated by subtracting the minimum mean score from the perceived mean score. Main Results – LibQUAL scores related to the quiet space question steadily improved over the seven-year period studied. The adequacy mean went from -1.2 to -0.13, representing a 1.07 degree of improvement. For all 22 questions, the adequacy mean increased from 0.02 to 0.38, showing overall improvement of 0.36. Researchers reviewed the data for all individual questions to measure the degree of change over the seven years; the quiet space question had the highest level of improvement of all of the questions. Considering user groups’ perceptions, there was a 2.03 degree of improvement for graduate students, while there was a 0.82 degree of improvement for undergraduates. The researchers wanted to know if the noise interventions had a specific impact on the quiet space question compared to a more general impact on the “library as place” dimension. None of the other “library as place” questions improved to the degree of the quiet space question. Of the “library as place” questions, question LP5, the group space question, was the only one where the adequacy mean dropped, with an adequacy mean difference of -0.23. External benchmarking conducted by the researchers put these results in an international context, using consortium data from ARL in North America and the Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL) in the United Kingdom (U.K.). Conclusion – Based on the study findings, the long-term noise management program implemented from 2007 to 2014 at the University library had a measurable impact, and users’ perceptions of the quiet space in the library improved. Because perceptions improved most among graduate students, researchers concluded that future efforts for noise management strategies should consider focusing on this group.

“…Concern over noise in academic libraries is not new (e.g., Luyben et al, 1981). Yet, new types of collaborative, technology-enhanced learning spaces can often make libraries seem noisier (McCaffrey & Breen, 2016;Yelinek & Bressler, 2013). Varied solutions have been attempted (McCaffrey & Breen, 2016;Yelinek & Bressler, 2013), but this study appears to be the first published investigation into using devices like NoiseSign to combat the issue.…”

Section: Commentarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Installing Noise Activated Warning Signs in Library Quiet Spaces Does Not Appear to Reduce Actual or Perceived Noise Levels

DuBroy

2019

A Review of: Lange, J., Miller-Nesbitt, A., & Severson, S. (2016). Reducing noise in the academic library: The effectiveness of installing noise meters. Library Hi Tech, 34(1), 45-63. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-04-2015-0034 Abstract Objective – To explore if installing noise activated warning signs (NoiseSigns) in library quiet spaces decreases perceived and actual noise levels. Design – Noise monitoring and user surveys (print and online). Setting – A large university in Canada. Subjects – Users of library quiet spaces where NoiseSigns have, and have not, been installed. Methods – NoiseSigns provide a visual cue informing those present when noise levels exceed a pre-determined level. In this study, researchers installed two NoiseSigns in quiet study spaces previously identified as having the “biggest noise issues” (p. 51), and set the devices to illuminate when noise levels exceeded 65 dB. User surveys investigated respondents’ perceived and desired noise levels via Likert scales before and after NoiseSigns were installed. Actual noise level measurements (via an iPad app) and headcounts were taken manually twice daily for 60 seconds during the same study phases. Additionally, the NoiseSigns recorded noise levels after they were installed. In order to account for variation in library usage over time, control data was also collected in other spaces, where NoiseSigns had not been installed. Main results – A total of 96 surveys were completed and analyzed across all study locations and time periods. One-way ANOVA tests showed there to be no significant difference in perceived noise levels after installing NoiseSigns in any of the intervention areas, in neither the short- or long-term. Respondents’ comments suggested much of the undesired noise originated from social areas adjacent to the quiet study zones or was of a type which would not set off the NoiseSigns (e.g., “people chew[ing] too loud[ly]” (p. 54)). One-way ANOVA tests also found there to be no significant difference in actual noise levels in any of the intervention areas after device installation. Data logging from the NoiseSigns themselves showed the “majority” (p. 56) of noise measurements were in the vicinity of 45-50 dB and “very rarely” (p. 56) did noise levels exceed the 65 dB threshold. Despite this, survey respondents appeared to be unhappy with noise, with mean desired noise levels being lower than those perceived. Conclusion – As a result of the study, the library now strives to have greater delineation between quiet and social spaces. They also seek to ensure doors between these areas are kept closed where possible. Additionally, the authors suggest libraries install noise activated warning signs in social spaces adjacent to quiet study zones in order to keep these spaces from becoming noisy enough to affect nearby quiet zones. Future research could look at the effect of different monitoring options (e.g., security guards, student self-monitoring) and various furniture arrangements on noise levels in the library.