LibQual Survey

The CUC Group Resp.% Calvin College & Theological Seminary1, % Cedarville University Centennial Library % Geneva College % Howard Payne University Library881.52% Messiah College % Mississippi College % Taylor Univ., Zondervan Library % Union University %

Nationally, the web-based LibQUAL+ survey consisted of 22 items which were rated on a scale of 1 to 9, classified under “Affect of Service, “Information Control,” and “Library as Place” 3 demographic questions 3 general satisfaction questions 5 literacy outcomes questions 5 additional items added by Calvin and the other members of the CUC. Opportunity for comments.

Survey Participants: Survey invitations were ed to the total population of the Calvin community as follows: undergraduate students (4004) graduate students (384) faculty (324), and staff (total surveyed not reported, but about 600). A total of 1536 completed the survey for roughly a 30% response rate. This is an exceptional rate of participation for this type of survey!

Overall respondents by user group: Undergraduates: 1,175 (29% response rate) Graduates: 86 (22% response rate) Faculty: 173 (53% response rate) Staff: 96 (16% response rate) Library Staff: 6 (27% response rate)

Participation by Discipline By customized discipline, which cannot be compared with CUC averages, our highest participation came from Education and Econ. & Bus—our two largest departments. However, both were “under- represented” in terms of their size within the Calvin community. In other words, there was a significant gap in participation and actual representation on campus. This was true for both faculty and students.

Participation by Discipline

Questions Why the low participation rates? Why the high participation rates? What can we learn from this? How do we target the low participating disciplines?

What was measured? Three dimensions of service: Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place General Satisfaction Information Literacy Outcomes The survey instrument gauges library users' perceptions of services and measures their satisfaction with services and resources so that libraries can identify areas for improvement.

Results Minimum Mean Desired Mean Perceived Mean Adequacy Mean Superior Mean Affect of Service Calvin CUC Total 2005 Survey Information Control Calvin CUC Total 2005 Survey Library as Place Calvin CUC Total 2005 Survey Overall Calvin CUC Total 2005 Survey Zone of Tolerance Adequacy Mean = Perceived – Minimum Superiority Mean = Perceived – Desire The Higher the number, the better it is is better than -0.5

Results: General Satisfaction Means Calvin Mean CUC Mean In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or teaching needs How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library?

Areas Needing Attention Students Top Five Gaps for undergraduate students `between minimum level required and perceived level of performance, ranked from highest gap to lowest Employees who instill confidence in users1.39 Quiet space for individual activities1.31 Giving users individual attention1.28 A getaway for study, learning and research1.25 Employee who deal with users in a caring fashion1.22 Willingness to help users1.22

Our results are similar to the CUC group with a few notable differences Our “means” for minimum acceptable performance and for desired levels of performance were largely lower than the average CUC means. Does this mean our community expects less of us than the other CUC communities expect of their libraries? Why? Is this a branding question?

Results: Calvin & CUC Our “superiority” means were significantly better than the average CUC means. In other words, we have less of a gap, in general, between perceived performance and “desired” performance than the other participating libraries. Wow! Are we that good?

Results: Calvin & CUC For the general satisfaction questions and information literacy outcome questions, all but one of our means are higher than they are for the other participating institutions.

Results – Cavin & CUC Our standard deviations tended to be tighter across the board. In other words, there was considerable consistency in evaluations from our responders compared to responders from the other institutions. Could this mean that librarians and staff have a well- shared vision of what we want to be and therefore deliver consistent service? What else might this mean?

Faculty Expectations Our faculty have lower expectations of us than the CUC average AND perceive they are getting more than they even desired in Library as Place and Affect of Service. We might assume that faculty think our “place” is better than they even desire. However, STUDENTS DO NOT!

Differences: Students, Faculty & Staff Calvin Participants OnlyMinimum Mean Desired Mean Perceived Mean Adeq. Mean Super. Mean Affect of Service Students Faculty Staff Information Control Students Faculty Staff Library as Place Students Faculty Staff Overall Students Faculty Staff Zone of Tolerance = Adequacy Mean = Perceived – Minimum Superiority Mean = Perceived – Desire The Higher the number, the better it is is better than -0.5

Questions Is the fact that faculty receive even more than they desire indicative that we are indeed giving them too much? Or is this an opportunity to inform faculty about how students perceive the library and to ask their further support? Or is this just a reflection of “age” – students are more used to current ways of finding information and therefore are justified in having higher expections? Is it a threat to library support that faculty hold these views? Are we neglecting staff? Why might we want to target them?

Zones of Tolerance Faculty CUC n=561Faculty Calvin n=172 All in 2005

Comments 580, or 38%, of all responders (n=1536) offered comments At least 30% of those comments asked for increased hours Over 100, or 17%, of those comments were pure “kudos,” using words like “love,” “excellent,” “best”

Other comments organized by type and prioritized by counts Library as Place Appreciate library as a quiet place to study and/or needs more of that (perhaps w/computer) (35) Need more group study spaces (19) Need more seating options: comfortable, ergonomic, different heights (10) Need more computers, esp. on floors 3-5 (7) and Macs (2) Finds library intimidating (6) Library is too cold (6) Needs more inviting, “today” look (“more visual interest”) (6) More lighting on 3 rd and 4 th floor (4) Wants café (4)

Affect of Service Student workers are rude, inattentive, unable to help (23) (3 of these from faculty) – All staff helpful (11) Research Assistance great (21) – Need more (5) – Unsatisfactory (5, 2 from faculty) ILL great (5) – Needs improvement (2) Loves the Privy (5) Dislikes print policy (5) ENGL101 participation is positive (4) Appreciates remote access to databases (3) Cayvan: Can’t access from remote computer (3), materials need updating (2) Other comments organized by type and prioritized by counts

Information Control Desire more open hours and Sunday hours (about 173) – Object to Sunday hours (about 5) More electronic journals/resources (27) Electronic resources (including WebCat) are difficult to use (17) Organization of materials is confusing (10) Need more fiction/rec reading (5) Missing books and journals (4) Need freshman orientation (3) Specific resources requested: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Icarus, Martin Heidegger’s Collected Works in German, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps online, more materials in Asian philosophy and religion

Observations If we trust the data, we are doing better than our peer group and much, much better than the larger universe of colleges and universities taking the LibQual survey. Studies indicate that ARL libraries—large research libraries—have worse scores largely because students and faculty have such very high and rigorous expectations of these institutions.

How are we responding so far? Slight increase in hours open, but definitely no Sundays Committee working on a more rigorous student worker orientation for the fall, with another committee working on a social event for student workers with library staff Significant increase in e-journals – at least 1000 titles added during the 2006 Winter term

Opportunities for Improvement? Engage and educate faculty and staff Increase hours that the library is open for students Make as many improvements to the “library as place” as possible within the building’s inherent constraints: – Create a true café? – Redesign some of the carrel spaces so they are conducive to collaborative learning? – Create small working technology clusters? Other?