Get documents about "2007 Exit Survey Charts
Document Sample
The Ohio State University Libraries
Exit Survey Report for 2007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2007 survey of library users exiting Ohio State library locations revealed some interesting
facts and notable trends. This survey was essentially a repeat of surveys performed in 2001 and 2006.
Visits
The interim Ackerman Library facility had fewer visits than many other smaller OSU Libraries
locations, namely Architecture, Archives, Cartoon Graphics, Fine Arts, Journalism, Theatre Research, and
Veterinary Medicine. The busiest libraries were the Science and Engineering Library, Sullivant Library,
and the Business Library. Approximately 70% of all in-person users of the Libraries are undergraduate
students, and the peak hours of operation are 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. There has been a gradual trend
since 2001 for visitors to stay longer when they use a library.
Tasks Performed
The percentage of individuals who indicated that they entered a library location to perform
research dropped across all groups of users since 2001. Undergraduate and graduate students still indicate
that individual study is the primary reason they use a library facility. The majority of undergraduates
reported little or no returning or borrowing of materials of any kind (OSU, OhioLINK, or ILL) during their
visits to the Libraries. The data shows that there has been a definite decline in library on-site visitors’ use of
the library catalog and online databases since 2001. Group study in the libraries is increasing, but is still a
small percentage of the reported activities.
The primary reason faculty came to visit a library location in 2007 was to conduct research. This
activity was performed by about 30% of the faculty visitors. In the 2007 data there was a significant
increase in faculty visits to a library to confer with a librarian. Faculty also browse the shelves, use
photocopiers, and read periodicals more than other groups of library users, but less than 20% of faculty
visitors reported activities in each of these areas. As time goes on, the types of activities that faculty
members perform in a library facility and the activities that students perform are increasingly different.
Other
Library-owned computers were the machines of choice for the visitors who used computers in the
survey. The category of “Meeting a friend/colleague” was a very popular reason to visit a library, as was
“Used a restroom.”
1
The Ohio State University Libraries
Exit Survey Report for 2007
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction 2
Methodology 2
Results
Library Locations Where the Survey Was Completed 3
Status 5
Age 6
Gender and Age 7
Time of Arrival 8
Length of Stay by All Statuses 9
Length of Stay by Faculty, Graduate/Professional, Undergraduates 10
Length of Stay by Undergraduates 11
Research and Study by Faculty, Graduate/Professional, Undergraduates 13
Research and Study by Undergraduates 14
Borrowed/Returned Materials by Faculty, Graduate/Professional, Undergraduates 15
Borrowed/Returned Materials by Undergraduates 16
Computer Use by Faculty, Graduate/Professional, Undergraduates 17
Computer Use by Undergraduates 18
Computers Used by Faculty, Graduate/Professional, Undergraduates 20
Computers Used by Undergraduates 20
Met Friend/Attended a Functions by Faculty, Graduate/Professional, Undergraduates 22
Met Friends/Attended a Function by Undergraduates 22
Other Activities by Faculty, Graduate/Professional, Undergraduates 24
Other Activities by Undergraduates 24
Use of Thompson/Ackerman Collections 25
Library Visits vs College Enrollments 25
Discussions 29
Conclusions 29
Submitted by Penny Pearson
On behalf of the Assessment Committee
Ohio State University Libraries
January 2008
2
Spring 2007 University Libraries Exit Survey Report
INTRODUCTION
In Spring 2007 an exit survey was conducted to gauge usage of University Libraries after the closing of
Thompson Library for a three-year renovation. Previous exit surveys were conducted in Spring 2001 and
2006
A comparison of collection size statistics for 2001, 2006 and 2007 illustrates the growth of the OSU
Libraries’ collections and prevalence of electronic resources in the years since the first exit survey was
conducted in Spring 2001.
2001 2006 2007
Volumes 5.5 million 6,208,901 6,244,095
Journal subscriptions 30,000+ 24,061 67,059 *
Online databases 280+ 378 406
Electronic journals thousands 39,446 54,145 **
* Have access to 67,059 journal titles
** In aggregated databases and through individual subscriptions or publisher packages
In 2001 the Libraries’ Assessment Committee was charged with the task of document how OSU library
facilities are being used and by whom. The specific questions to be asked were:
• Are there a significant number of users who enter the libraries daily?
• Are those people entering the libraries representative of the student, staff or faculty populations?
• When do they come?
• How long do they stay?
• What kinds of library resources and services are they using?
• Are the libraries as physical entities on campuses still viable at The Ohio State University?
The Spring 2007 exit survey focused on the same issues and included a question about the use of Ackerman
Library service points and collections.
METHODOLOGY
The Spring 2007 exit survey was conducted in all University Libraries’ Columbus locations (excluding
Law and Health Sciences) plus two Regional Campuses Libraries (Mansfield, Newark) the week of April
23-29, 2007, which was the 4th week of Spring term.
The committee wanted to collect data from those who visit the libraries’ physical facilities and determine
which services and resources were used during those visits. As in previous exit surveys the committee
chose the mall interception sampling technique of person existing the building. Minor changes were made
to the 2006 survey form: added a Weekday section and made revisions in the Affiliation and Status
sections, the list of libraries (to include Mansfield and Newark), the list of Ackerman Library Collections,
the list of colleges (OSU colleges and technical colleges on the Mansfield and Newark campuses).
For this survey the Assessment Committee choose to use a form which could be optically scanned. This
service was contracted with the University’s Center on Education and Training for Employment which
printed 13,500 survey forms, scanned the completed surveys and provided a spreadsheet with the raw data.
This method was much more efficient than the methodology used in past years and the raw data was in a
format that was much easier to analyze. In the past the survey was printed on different colored paper (one
for each day of the week). Using one colored form with a section where the user marked the weekday
3
meant that library staff did not have to remember to change the color of the forms distributed each day.
However some users marked several days because they did not understand that the survey was to reflect
their use of library services and facilities on that day. Library staff reviewed each da’ys forms and corrected
the weekday section if it was obvious which day the survey had been completed.
RESULTS
Survey Distribution, Response Rate and Library Gate Counts
As in 2006 the 2007 survey was distributed to every 5th user as they exited. The 2001 survey was
distributed to every 3rd user as they exited. Many users declined to complete the form. Committee
members and library staff in the libraries where the survey was conducted have a sense of user fatigue with
library surveys.
The Assessment Committee discussed other options for distributing the survey and rejected these ideas:
• Distribute the form on entry and ask that the completed form be returned on exit; the Assessment
Committee decided that there was no way to determine who had received a form and there was
concern that many users would forget or discard the form, negatively affecting the response rate.
• Ask users to complete the form when they enter the library; however the purpose of the survey is
to determine what the user did on that visit.
The committee also discussed giving a reward (small candy bar) as an incentive to complete the survey.
While response rate has been high (see first chart below) the number of surveys distributed and the number
tallied has declined each year. The percentage of library visitors who completed a survey (see second chart
below) has dropped dramatically.
Another factor which may have affected the 2007 exit survey rate may be the number of surveys the
Libraries conducted in 2007. LibQUAL was conducted in February 2007 and emailed to a random
sampling of students, faculty and staff. A transportation survey was conducted February 2007 to all
visitors to the Ackerman Library.
Exit Surveys Response Rate
2001 2006 2007
Surveys distributed 8319 5333 4303
Surveys tallied 6532 3660 2700
Response rate 78.50% 68.60% 62.74%
Gate Counts vs Completed Surveys
2001 2006 2007
Gate count 8216 * 11,629
Number of surveys 3647 2700
completed
% of visitors completing Not calculated due to 23.20%
survey problems with the gate
count.
* 2006 gate count was low because Thompson Library gate counter was not working several days
of the survey week.
4
2007 Surveys
The All Statuses charts reflect the responses of only those who answered each question. The number of
“no responses” is provided for each question.
In the Faculty, Graduate/Professional, Undergraduates charts 2365 surveys were counted. The break
down by status is:
Faculty: 83
Professor – 30; Assoc Prof – 16; Assist Prof – 16; Instructor – 20,
Tech college faculty who did not specify rank – 1
Graduate/Professional Students: 466
Undergraduates: 1825 (includes 8 tech college students who did not specify rank)
In the Undergraduates charts 1817 surveys from Freshmen, Sophomores, Juniors, and Seniors were
counted, excluding the 8 tech college students who did not specify rank are excluded.
• Freshmen: 227
• Sophomores: 340
• Juniors: 517
• Seniors: 733
Library Locations Where the Survey Was Completed
The most frequently visited library during the week of the Spring 2007 Exit Survey was the
Science/Engineering Library (SEL), which is not surprising given the closing of Thompson Library and the
central campus location of SEL.
The number of Ackerman Library (ACK) visits was lower than eight other libraries: ARC, ARV, CGA,
FIN, JOU, TRI and VET. This is undoubtedly due to the distance ACK is from the central campus.
Library Locations Where the Survey Was Completed
All Statuses
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
2006
15.00%
2007
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
AR
L
S
L
S
A
ES
S
S
T
O
N
EO
C
U
I
K
TR
BP
SE
VE
EH
BU
AN
G
U
W
FI
AR
JO
TH
FA
R
M
C
G
N
L/
M
V/
K/
SU
AR
AC
5
Status
As in the two previous exit surveys Undergraduates are the most frequent library visitors as represented by
survey responses although the 2007 number declined slightly from the 2006 level. The drop in
Graduate/Professional library visits seen in the 2006 survey continued in 2007. Faculty visits in 2007 were
slightly higher than in the previous two survey years, but there is no clear data to explain that.
The Status section choices were confusing for the Mansfield, Newark and Other respondents since all of the
faculty and undergraduate ranks were preceded with “OSU,” e,g, OSU Professor, OSU Freshmen. Some of
the technical college users marked “Other” and wrote in some identifying text, i.e. faculty, COTC faculty,
NCSC freshmen, COTC student) or wrote nothing. Some non-OSU respondents marked status Other but
then also marked an OSU faculty or undergraduate rank. The “OSU” that preceded the faculty and
undergraduate statuses should not be used in future surveys.
2007: no responses: 43
Respondents by Status
2657 surveys from All Statuses
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
2001
40.00% 2006
2007
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
lty
n
nt
s
f
er
60
12
af
te
tio
de
th
cu
St
K-
ua
m
a
O
tu
Fa
uc
ra
ad
lS
og
Ed
gr
na
Pr
er
ng
io
nd
ui
ss
U
tin
fe
on
ro
/P
C
e
at
du
ra
G
6
Age
The age distribution closely matched previous surveys with a slight drop in both Under 22 and 22-29
categories and increases in the other age groups over the 2006 results.
2006: no responses 94
2007: no responses 75
Respondents by Age
2625 surveys from All Statuses
50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
2001
25.0% 2006
2007
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Under 22 22-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and older
7
Gender and Age
This chart is based on 6617 surveys from respondents of all statuses who answered both the gender and age
questions.
In 2007 more males visited the library in all age groups except the Under 22 group.
Respondents by Gender and Age
2617 surveys from All Statuses
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00% Female 2006
Male 2006
Female 2007
30.00% Male 2007
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Under 22 22-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over
Ethnicity
The ethnicity question was dropped from the 2007 survey because the question offended many 2006
respondents and the responses were so confusing as to be unusable.
8
Time of Arrival
The time of arrival continues to be highest between 10am-4pm. In 2007 there were more visitors Before
10am than in the previous surveys. Library visits, as represented by those who completed the survey,
continue to drop dramatically after 6pm. In 2007 there was a significant drop in visits in the 4-6pm and
After 10pm slots from the 2006 survey.
2007: 115 no responses
Respondents by Time of Arrival
2585 surveys from All Statuses
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
2001
2006
2007
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Before 10am 10am-Noon Noon-2pm 2-m-4pm 4pm-6pm 6pm-8pm 8pm-10pm After 10pm
9
Length of Stay
The 2007 surveys show a marked difference in the length of stay from previous exit surveys. In 2007
respondents of all statuses stayed “more than 2hrs” than any other duration. The “Less than 15min” and “1-
2hrs” categories declined from 2006 and the “15-30min” and “30min-1hr” categories were up slightly from
2006. During the survey week SEL was the most frequently visited library with 517 visits. Visits to SEL
are almost evenly divided between those who stayed less than 1 hr. (46.62%) and those how stayed 1 hour
or longer (45.65).
2007: no responses: 258 surveys
Respondents by Length of Stay
2442 surveys from All Statuses
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
2001
15.00% 2006
2007
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Less than 15 minutes 15-30 minutes 30 minutes to 1 hour 1-2 hours More than 2 hours
10
The most noticeable change in length of stay behavior by Faculty, Graduate/Professional and
Undergraduates is the dramatic increase in the number of 2007 Faculty visits of 15-30min. from under 15%
in 2006 to over 25% in 2007. There are no consistent patterns of change in Graduate/Professional and
Undergraduates behaviors in 2007.
Length of Stay Faculty, Graduate/Professional, Undergraduates
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
Faculty 2001
25.0% Faculty 2006
Faculty 2007
Grad/Prof 2001
20.0% Grad/Prof 2006
Grad/Prof 2007
Undergraduates 2001
15.0% Undergraduates 2006
Undergraduates 2007
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
less than 15 min 15-30 min 30 min-1 hour 1-2 hours 2 or more hours
11
Length of Stay by Undergraduates
For ease of reading separate charts are used for the 2001, 2006 and 2007 Undergraduate data.
• Less than 15 minutes: drop among Freshmen and Seniors and up among Sophomores and up
slightly among Juniors.
• 15-30 min: up in all ranks, more among Juniors than other ranks.
• 30 min-1 hour: up in all ranks, more among Freshmen and Juniors than other ranks.
• 1-2 hours: down in all ranks, most noticeably in Sophomores and Juniors.
• 2 or more hours: up among Seniors, down in all other ranks with the largest drop among Juniors
Length of Stay Undergraduates 2001
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0% Freshmen 2001
Sophomore 2001
Junior 2001
15.0% Senior 2001
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
less than 15 min 15-30 min 30 min-1 hour 1-2 hours 2 or more hours
12
Length of Stay Undergraduates 2006
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
Freshmen 2006
Sophomore 2006
15.0%
Junior 2006
Senior 2006
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
less than 15 min 15-30 min 30 min-1 hour 1-2 hours 2 or more hours
Length of Stay Undergraduates 2007
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
Freshmen 2007
Sophmore 2007
15.0%
Junior 2007
Senior 2007
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
less than 15 min 15-30 min 30 min-1 hour 1-2 hours 2 or more hours
13
Research and Study
The surveys results reflect only library research done in a library. Since much library research can be done
from home or office the low responses are not surprising.
The notable 2007 survey findings are:
• Did research: dropped in all groups
• Individual study: remains high among Undergraduates
• Conferred with Librarian: up significantly among Faculty
Among the four undergraduate ranks (second chart below) the most notable item is that
Individual Research remains very high while Group Study and use of a Photocopier remain higher than all
other research choices listed.
Research & Study by Faculty, Graduate/Professional, Undergraduates
60.00%
50.00%
Faculty 2001
40.00% Faculty 2006
Faculty 2007
Grad/Prof 2001
30.00% Grad/Prof 2006
Grad/Prof 2007
Undergrad 2001
20.00% Undergrad 2006
Undergrads 2007
10.00%
0.00%
dy
y
s
c.
n
n
h
er
n
n
s
ud
ve
io
ria
rc
rm
tio
io
et
nn
tu
st
ct
ea
el
St
es
ra
fo
lS
l,
ca
ue
lle
sh
na
es
lib
ro
qu
up
ua
r/ s
co
lq
ic
ur
R
e
a
ro
ch
id
m
ie
th
na
jo
K
id
ith
G
v
op
ar
C
d
d
D
io
di
e,
w
se
-A
se
se
oc
ct
In
in
d
O
U
ow
re
az
re
ot
rre
TH
di
ph
ag
Br
a
fe
a
d
m
c
on
a
ke
d
ifi
d
ke
d
C
ec
As
se
ea
As
sp
U
R
d
se
U
14
D D
id id
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
R R
es es
ea ea
rc rc
In h In h
di di
vi vi
du du
al al
St St
ud ud
y y
G G
ro ro
up up
Br St Br St
ow ud ow ud
se y se y
As d As d
th th
ke
d e ke
d e
a sh a sh
di el di el
re ve re ve
ct s ct s
io io
As na As na
ke lq ke lq
d ue d ue
a st a st
re io re io
se n se n
ar ar
ch ch
C qu C qu
on on
fe es fe es
rre tio rre tio
d n d n
U w U w
se ith se ith
d a d a
a lib
ra a lib
ra
ph ph
15
ot ria ot ria
oc n oc n
op op
ie ie
r/s r/s
ca ca
nn nn
U er U er
se se
R d R d
ea m ea m
d ic d ic
m ro m ro
ag fo ag fo
U az rm U az rm
se in s se in s
d e, d e,
sp jo sp jo
ec ur ec ur
ifi na ifi na
cT l, cT l,
H H
Research & Study Undergraduates 2001
O et O et
Research and Study Undergraduates 2006
-A c. -A c.
C C
K K
co co
lle lle
ct ct
io io
n n
For ease of reading separate charts are used for the 2001, 2006 and 2007 Undergraduate data.
Junior 2006
Junior 2001
Senior 2006
Senior 2001
Freshmen 2006
Freshmen 2001
Sophomore 2006
Sophomore 2001
Research and Study Undergraduates 2007
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
Freshmen 2007
Sophomore 2007
30.00%
Junior 2007
Senior 2007
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
y
y
n
s
c.
n
er
n
h
n
s
ud
ud
ve
ria
io
rm
io
tio
rc
et
nn
st
ct
ea
el
St
St
es
ra
fo
l,
ca
ue
lle
sh
na
es
lib
ro
qu
al
up
r/s
co
lq
ic
ur
du
R
e
a
ro
ch
ie
m
th
na
jo
K
id
ith
vi
G
op
C
ar
d
d
D
io
di
e,
w
-A
se
se
se
oc
ct
In
in
d
O
U
ow
re
az
re
ot
rre
H
di
ph
ag
Br
a
cT
fe
a
d
m
on
a
ifi
ke
d
d
ec
ke
d
C
As
se
ea
sp
As
U
R
d
se
U
Borrowed / Returned Materials
The 2001 survey data is not included because that survey had different categories (borrowed books,
borrowed AV, returned books, returned AV) and we do not have the original data to calculate percentages.
The Borrowed / Returned Materials data was not included in the 2006 survey and is presented here for the
first tine. Reserves use was included in the 2006 survey but not the 2007 survey. It is not included in these
charts.
Faculty and Graduate/Professional students’ use of OSU and OhioLINK materials varied little between
2006 and 2007. Faculty made no ILL requests the week of the 2006 survey. Graduate/Professional
students’ ILL requests were significantly higher in 2006 than 2007. The 2006 survey was conducted late in
Spring term and this difference may be due to a high return rate of ILL materials at the end of the term.
Undergraduate data for 2006 is not presented because of problems with the sophomores’ and seniors’ data,
but in 2007 most undergraduates reported that they did not borrow or return materials during the survey
week.
16
Borrowed/Returned Faculty, Graduate/Professional, Undergraduates
(no 2006 Undergraduate data)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
No Book Use
ILL Items
50%
OhioLINK Items
OSU Items
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Faculty 2006 Faculty 2007 Grad/Prof 2006 Grad/Prof 2007 Undergraduate Undergraduate
2006 2007
When the four Undergraduate ranks are examined all four ranks reported little borrow or return of OSU or
OhioLINK materials and almost no ILL activity. The overwhelming majority of all undergraduate ranks
report no borrow or return of materials during the survey week.
Borrowed/Returned by Undergraduates
(no 2006 sophomore or senior data)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
No Book Use
ILL Items
50%
OhioLINK Items
OSU Items
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Freshmen Freshmen Sophomores Sophomores Juniors 2006 Juniors 2007 Seniors 2006 Seniors 2007
2006 2007 2006 2007
17
Computer Use
This question tracks what users did on a computer during their library visit.
The 2001 survey did not include these choices: Worked on a class assignment, Used Carmen, Other. The
2006 survey did not include Other.
Computer Use by Faculty, Graduate/Professionals and Undergraduates findings:
• Searched OSCAR; dropped among all three ranks
• Searched a database: up slightly among Graduate/Professionals,
• Searched the Web: down among all three ranks
• Read/Write email: lower than in all previous surveys but still popular activity
• Used Carmen: up slightly among Graduate/Professionals and Undergraduates.
Since all of these activities can be done via the Internet it is not surprising that the survey results are low in
these charts.
Computer Use Faculty, Graduate/Professional, Undergraduates
60.00%
50.00%
Faculty 2001
40.00% Faculty 2006
Faculty 2007
Grad/Prof 2001
30.00% Grad/Prof 2006
Graduate 2007
Undergraduates 2001
20.00% Undergraduates 2006
Undergrads 2007
10.00%
0.00%
t
se
l
g
er
e
eb
e)
t
ai
ex
en
lo
ar
th
ar
em
ba
W
llt
ta
tw
m
O
ew
fu
ta
ca
gn
e
of
te
th
da
rs
d
rs
si
AR
ro
de
ou
ed
as
e
w
he
oa
SC
lin
(c
d/
ch
s
ot
on
nl
ea
as
en
ar
O
or
w
R
cl
Se
m
an
ed
do
ce
a
ar
ch
d/
ed
ffi
on
C
ea
ar
O
ch
d
d
Se
R
se
S
ke
ar
M
U
Se
or
d
W
se
U
18
Computer Use by Undergraduates
For ease of reading separate charts are used for the 2001, 2006 and 2007 Undergraduate data.
• Searched OSCAR: significantly lower in all ranks from 2006
• Searched a database: up slightly among Freshmen & Sophomores, down among Juniors & Seniors
• Searched the Web: Continues to be a primary activity but down in all ranks.
• Read/Write email: Continues to be a primary activity but down in all ranks, particularly among
Seniors
• Used Carmen: up significantly among Freshmen, up slightly among Sophomores and Seniors,
down among Juniors. This question was not included in the 2001 survey.
It’s noticeable that in 2007 there are major drops among Freshmen in catalog searching, Web searching and
email from 2001 and 2006, but not surprising since these activities can be done via the Internet.
Computer Use by Undergraduates 2001
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
Freshmen 2001
Sophomore 2001
20.00%
Junior 2001
Senior 2001
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Searched OSCAR Searched an Searched the Web Read/downloaded Used MS Office or Read/wrote email
catalog online database fulltext other software
19
Se Se
ar ar
ch ch
ed ed
O O
SC SC
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
Se AR AR
ar Se
ch ca ar ca
ed ta ch ta
lo lo
an g ed g
on an
lin on
e lin
da e
ta da
ba ta
Se se ba
se
ar
ch Se
ed ar
th ch
R e ed
ea
d/ W th
do eb
R e
w W
U nl ea eb
se oa d/
d do
M de
d w
S nl
O fu U oa
ffi llt se de
ce ex d d
t M fu
or S llt
ot
h O ex
er ffi
ce t
so or
ftw ot
ar h
R e er
ea so
W d/ ftw
or w ar
e
20
ke ro
d te
on em R
ea
a ai
l d/
cl W w
as ro
s or
ke te
as d
U si
em
se gn on ai
d m a l
C en cl
ar
m t as
s
en as
(c si
ou U gn
rs se
d m
ew en
ar C t
ar
Computer Use by Undergradutes 2006
e) Computer Use by Undergraduates 2007 m
en
(c
ou
rs
ew
O ar
th e)
er
Junior 2007
Junior 2006
Senior 2007
Senior 2006
Freshmen 2007
Freshmen 2006
Sophomore 2007
Sophomore 2006
Computers Used
This question was not asked in the 2001 survey.
Most Faculty did not use a computer during their library visit. Graduate/Professional and Undergraduates
use of library computers was up over 2006 and many fewer reported not using a computer during their
library visit. Clearly students still want to use a computer during their library visit. Future surveys should
ask if students prefer desktops or laptops and wired or wireless access.
Among all three groups use of their own computer or a both a library computer and their own computer is
extremely low.
Computers Used by Faculty, Graduate/Professional, Undergraduates
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
Faculty 2006
40.00% Faculty 2007
Grad/Prof 2006
Grad/Prof 2007
30.00% Undergraduates 2006
Undegraduates 2007
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Used library computer Used own computer Used both own & library Did not use computer
Computers Used by Undergraduates
For ease of reading separate charts are used for the 2006 and 2007 Undergraduate data.
Among the four Undergraduate ranks use of library computers is high (over 50% of respondents) and up
over 2006. In all four ranks fewer respondents reported not using a computer, which is lower than 2006.
Use of their own computer or both their own computer and a library computer is very low and little
changed from 2006.
21
Computers Used by Undergraduates 2006
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00% Freshmen 2006
Sophomore 2006
Junior 2006
30.00% Senior 2006
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Used library computer Used own computer Used both own & library Did not use computer
Computers Used by Undergradates 2007
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00% Freshmen 2007
Sophomore 2007
Junior 2007
30.00% Senior 2007
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Used library computer Used own computer Used both own & library Did not use computer
22
Met Friend/Attended a Function charts
The 2001 survey did not include the “Met a Prof/GA” choice. The 2006 data is available.
More Faculty reported attending a meeting or function than in 2001. All other categories are little changed
by all statuses.
Met Friend by Faculty, Graduate/Professional, Undergraduates
no 2006 data
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
Faculty 2001
Faculty 2007
50.00%
Grad/Prof 2001
Grad/Prof 2007
40.00% Undergraduates 2001
Undergraduates 2007
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Met a friend/colleague Met a Prof/GA Attended a class Attended a
meeting/function
Among the Undergraduate ranks Met a friend/colleague is overwhelmingly the most frequent response.
The 2006 data is not available. In 2007 it was down among Freshmen and up slightly among Juniors and
Seniors. Attended a class was significantly higher among Freshmen in 2007.
For ease of reading separate charts are used for the 2001,and 2007 Undergraduate data.
23
Met Friend by Undergraduates 2001
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
Freshmen 2001
Sophomore 2001
50.00%
Junior 2001
Senior 2001
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Met a friend/colleague Met a Prof/GA Attended a class Attended a meeting/function
Met Friend by Undergraduates 2007
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00% Freshmen 2007
Sophomore 2007
Junior 2007
40.00% Senior 2007
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Met a friend/colleague Met a Prof/GA Attended a class Attended a meeting/function
24
Other Activities charts
We do not have the 2001 data to analyze and the 2006 data was not tallied.
Among all ranks in both charts the most frequently marked item is Used a restroom or Worked as an
employee. The first may reflect the central location of libraries on Main campus.
Other Activites by Faculty, Graduate/Professional, Undergraduates
2007
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
Faculty 2007
Grad/Prof 2007
Undergraduates 2007
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Applied Took a Donated Got Paid a fine Used a Used a Viewed an Worked Other
for a job shortcut books change for public restroom exhibit as an
currency telephone employee
Other Activities by Undergraduates 2007
50.00%
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
Freshmen 2007
Sophomore 2007
25.00%
Junior 2007
Senior 2007
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Applied for Took a Donated Got Paid a fine Used a Used a Viewed an Worked as Other
a job shortcut books change for public restroom exhibit an
currency telephone employee
25
Use of Thompson/Ackerman Collections
Only responses from surveys completed at Thompson/Ackerman Library were counted in the 2006 and
2007 surveys. However responses from All Statuses were counted since many of the International Studies
collections are used by non-OSU users. Many library visitors to other libraries answered this question and
those responses were not counted.
The actual number of users who used these collections is shown rather than percentages. The drop in usage
since these collections moved from Thompson Library on Main campus to Ackerman Library is significant
and not surprising.
ACK-THO Collections Use
Actual counts, all statuses
30
25
20
2006
15
2007
10
5
0
ic
s
se
s
s
ar
se
er
s
ce
m
s
ie
ie
ie
oc
rm
av
oo
nd
th
ne
ne
en
ud
ud
ud
tD
fo
Sl
O
R
ila
hi
pa
er
St
St
St
ro
en
n
C
ap
H
ef
Ja
ic
ea
st
h
an
R
an
nm
M
is
M
Ea
op
an
ic
w
si
er
er
Je
ur
si
A
e
ov
Am
dl
A
E
st
id
G
st
Ea
st
M
tin
Ea
Ea
La
Library Visits vs. College Enrollment (Grad/Professional & Undergraduates)
The college enrollment data is taken from Table 3 “Enrollment by College and School Columbus Campus,
Spring Quarter 2007” of the Highlights of Fifteenth Day Enrollment report on the Registrar's Web site
http://www.ureg.ohio-state.edu/ourweb/srs/srscontent/intadobe.html
The chart below includes responses from 2,338 2007 surveys completed by Graduate/Professional and
Undergraduates. In 2007 69.2% of Graduate/Professionals and Undergraduate respondents did not
answer the question regarding the college of their major.
Those who answered this question may have been confused by the wording since some marked as many as
3 or more colleges. The intent was to identify the college(s) of each respondent’s major(s). Because of the
26
interdisciplinary nature of some majors some students may truly be enrolled in multiple colleges. If
multiple colleges were marked the first one alphabetically was counted. However some users who marked
3 or more colleges may have replied in terms of the colleges of the courses they were enrolled in for Spring
term.
Many responses from the Mansfield and Newark campuses’ technical college users were corrected before
being tallied. The common error was that the user marked an OSU college rather than the name of the
technical college. These could be identified because the respondent marked the Affiliation section as
OhioLINK Institution, Other College/University or Technical College selected either Mansfield Library or
Newark Library. In the Status section these users sometimes marked the OSU undergraduate rank or
marked Other and wrote in the name of their technical college, but did not identify their specific class rank.
In future exit surveys this question should be reworded to emphasize that the respondent is to mark the
college(s) of their major(s).
There were numerous problems with this question on the 2006 since some colleges were not listed and no
reliable conclusions can be drawn by comparing the 2006 and 2007 data.
The following chart is based on OSU enrollment data and does not include data for Central Ohio Technical
College (at Newark), North Central State College or MedCentral College of Nursing (both at Mansfield).
Library Visits vs College Enrollments
OSU enrollments only
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
Library Visits 2006
20.00%
Enrollment 2006
Library Visits 2007
15.00% Enrollment 2007
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
od E Eco e
or l C hn de ine
es s
N ns
ar l W s
uc ge
ric nee y
n
So cie th
e
ng o g
ie s
en us s
r g
Pu a tc
Be P Pha etry
o d
irs
ci w
om g
al He y
Af s
ic St ts
um H ss
e k
of ce
Ag ngi log
rin cia nce
Sc ie
io D B nce
n
vi lic ac
ic ie
io
ul rin
C tral of lleg
ui teC in
C lleg l C de
pt in
M or
ic l S La
of Hum e, e
og al Ar
S al
o
H tal ine
an ygie
fa
Ed lle
al ud
tra ec Un dic
at
bl nit
tin ta urs
O s
Pr en
ha ub rm
si
th o ica ci
ur
on S N
tu
y
ol er
ed ca
en e
or
Bi en
al
M si
d hy
G
te
at &
ol
&
en T
pl d P
es
Ve
uc try
ho
Fo
C io
n
nc
Ap an
ed Oh
Ed ntis
Sc
d
ie
ie
an
& h
Sc
nn
M l
e
e at
tra
N
D
al
in M
le
&
en
ci
G
ts
So
C
Ar
hn
Jo
ic
ed
M
27
DISCUSSION
The optical scanned form was a significant improvement in the method of conducting the survey and
resulted in a data format that was much easier to analyze and was done at a reasonable cost. The committee
should consider using optical scanned forms for future surveys.
The committee should consider carefully if and when exit surveys should be conducted. The increasing
number of library visitors who refused to complete a survey is one sign of growing user frustration with
library surveys. In both the 2006 and 2007 exit surveys the committee heard that SEL users were rude to
library student employees who distributed the survey to the point in 2007 that many of those SEL student
workers called in sick late in the survey week.
The length of the survey and the questions asked should be reviewed to minimize respondent frustration
while still collecting useful data for the Libraries.
Some respondents did not understand that we wanted information about that specific library visit and not
about their library use in general. This was obvious on surveys where the user marked several days of the
week and those forms were corrected by location staff when possible. We also saw this in the 2006 exit
survey responses.
In the Status section the “OSU” should be removed from all the ranks to avoid confusion by Regional
Campuses’ technical college and by non-OSU respondents. An alternative is to develop a separate survey
to be completed at the Regional Campus libraries.
The College of Enrollment section should be reworded to specify that the user respondent should mark the
college(s) of their major. Some confusion completing the form might be reduced if the Affiliation, Status
and College of Major sections were together on the form.
CONCLUSIONS
The committee should consider carefully when and if this type of survey should be conducted in the future
given what we perceive as survey fatigue.
The fourth week of the term seems to be a good time to do this type of survey.
In future surveys the committee should consider using separate forms for the Columbus and Regional
campuses. This will minimize some confusion respondents had with some sections of the survey. A
separate form could be tailored to the specific needs and interests of the Regional Campuses. Likewise a
form tailored for the Columbus campus libraries would allow for better comparison of data and
identification of trends in the University Libraries’ Columbus campus libraries.
As noted in the Discussion section the Status and College major sections should be rephrased to minimize
confusion.
In none of the three exit surveys have responses by non-OSU users been analyzed. We have the raw data
for 2006 and 2007 and analyzing this data should be considered.
28
