University of Waterloo Library Report:
Student Perspectives on Reserves

Prepared by: Wish Leonard Alex McCulloch Sharon Lamont Amy Townsend Contact: Circulation Services Assessment Group libCSAG@library.uwaterloo.ca original November 15, 2005 revised February 7, 2006

Contents: Executive Summary Specific Recommendations Introduction Background  Current Status of Library Reserves  Survey Methodology Analysis Findings and Recommendations Goal 1: Identify satisfaction level of current student users of Reserves Goal 2: Obtain a better understanding of how and why students use Reserves, and why some students do not use Reserves Goal 3: Obtain a better understanding of how students would prefer to use Reserves in the future Appendix A: The Survey Appendix B: Usage statistics Appendix C: Respondents by Faculty

Executive Summary

In 2002, the Library surveyed University of Waterloo faculty to identify their satisfaction level with the Library’s Reserves service and to develop a better understanding of the future of Reserves.  As a companion to the faculty survey, the Circulation Services Assessment Group conducted a second survey in Spring 2004 to provide the student perspective on Reserves. 

The survey goals were to

1. Identify the satisfaction level of current student users of Reserves.
2. Obtain a better understanding of how and why students use Reserves, and why some students do not use Reserves.
3. Obtain a better understanding of how students would prefer to use Reserves in the future.

A random sample of 5,000 UW undergraduates students was invited to participate in a web-based survey. The survey was available between February 24 and March 16, 2004.   The response rate was 23%.   Of the respondents, 65% indicated that they have used Reserves before and 35% have not.  The respondents represent a good cross-section of all Faculties and both lower and upper year students.  A paper version of the survey is available in Appendix A.

Specific Recommendations

Goal 1:
1.1     Explore new standards for Circulation Services staff in order to achieve even better service-orientation.

1.2     Copies in paper format should continue to be accepted, as recommended by the survey of Faculty Perspectives on Reserves.

1.3     Continue to restrict access to paper reserve materials through staff at the Circulation Desk.

1.4     Encourage professors to make more course assignments, solutions, lecture notes, and journal articles available electronically.

Goal 2:
2.1     Promote eReserves to resolve a number of problems of access to materials.

2.2     Continue to offer the two eReserves searching options (TRELLIS and the e-reserves database).

Goal 3:
3.1     Analyze the role of Reserves in the campus context and develop communications with instructors that clearly positions the Library in that role.

3.2     Continue to offer paper Reserves for books, and for other materials at least until such time as copyright issues regarding electronic resources are resolved.

3.3     Provide input to AUCC and to CARL in the context of raising awareness of and resolving issues regarding electronic resources and copyright.

3.4     Explore with other library departments the feasibility of an expanded package of electronic information to deliver to the campus course management system (UW-ACE).

While the survey of faculty provided clear support for developing the use of electronic reserves, the student survey provides overwhelming support for this development. Insights were also obtained to other questions that have been speculated upon for years: for example, it is now clear that students much prefer library staff manage their access to paper materials, rather than the materials be self-serve.

The landscape of electronic delivery of course materials is rapidly changing on campus. This evolution challenges Circulation Services to reposition the role of Reserves in the new landscape and presents opportunities for broader involvement on the part of the Library in the electronic delivery of course-specific material.

Introduction

1. Background
   
   The Circulation Services Assessment Group was charged with developing methods for measuring how well our services are meeting the needs of our clients, and then conducting activities to gather these measurements.  The Group consulted with the Library’s Community Needs Assessment Committee (CNAC) and other library staff as appropriate.  Members of the group were:
   • Sharon Lamont
   • Wish Leonard
   • Alex McCulloch
   • Al Smith
   • Amy Townsend
   • Shabiran Rahman (Librarian, Information Services and Resources) joined the group for this project
   
   In Fall 2002, Circulation Services Assessment Group conducted a faculty survey regarding the Library’s Reserves service.  A report of this study was issued on July 28, 2003 and is available at http://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca/News/UWLibDocs/reservereport.html
   
   As a companion to the faculty survey, the Assessment Group developed a survey for undergraduate students, for both users and non-users of Reserves. 
   
   
2. Current Status of Library Reserves
   
   The Library’s Reserves service is a mixture of paper and electronic materials. The majority of course reserves are paper only and a few are electronic only – the rest are a combination of the two. Currently approximately 10% of the total courses on Reserves have an electronic reserve component. Although the paper reserves constitute most of what instructors are using, students make heavy use of the electronic reserve resources. For example, usage statistics of paper reserves (409 courses) for the Winter Term 2005 totalled 16,795, and usage statistics for electronic reserves (39 courses) totalled 53,453 downloads.  Despite the fact that a direct comparison between the two usage counts cannot be made due to other variables, the usage numbers since the introduction of e-Reserves in Fall 2001 indicate the popularity of electronic reserves for students (see Appendix B).
   
   
3. Survey Methodology
   
   The Assessment Group developed a web-based survey in cooperation with Jack Cooper, formerly of UW’s Information Systems & Technology department using Easy Survey, an open source application. Jack provided invaluable assistance with the development of the survey, technical support during the collection phase, and with statistical support afterwards. Ethics clearance was obtained through the University's Office of Research Ethics.  Paper versions of the survey were pre-tested by student workers in the Library, and prototypes of the web-survey were pre-tested by the Group and all interested library staff.  Liaison librarians were informed, involved, and updated throughout the process. 
   
   A random sample of 5,000 UW undergraduate students was invited to participate via a message that was sent to email addresses provided by the Registrar’s Office.  According to numbers provided by the Registrar’s Office, the undergraduate population was 20,669 students.  The survey was announced to the university community in news @ your library (v. 4, no. 2, February 27, 2004) and the Daily Bulletin (March 3, 2004).  The survey went live on February 24, 2004 and closed on March 16, 2004.  Participation in the survey was encouraged through the opportunity to win 1 of 10 prizes (gift certificates valued at $20).
   
    A substantial number of responses were received almost immediately, such that a determination was made not to send a reminder message, originally intended for the following week.  In total, 1166 responses were received (23%).  Of the 5,000 email invitations sent, approximately 2% encountered delivery problems. Of the respondents, 50% of first/second year students had used Reserves; whereas by the upper years 80% had used Reserves. In general, the respondents represent a balanced cross-section of the Faculties on campus, with somewhat high representation from Environmental Studies and Science students, and low representation from Engineering and Mathematics students (see Appendix C).
   
   
4. Analysis
   
   The data was entered into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and frequencies obtained for multiple-choice questions.  A variety of cross-tabulations (comparisons of responses to two different questions) were also produced, to see if any new insights could be deduced. 
   
   The survey included seven different areas where respondents could customize their response or provide additional comments.  The Group analysed the responses and comments in order to categorize them and identify themes, and to determine if they provided feedback that did not apply to the stated goals of the survey.

Findings and Recommendations

Goal 1: Identify satisfaction level of current student users of Reserves

One of the overlying objectives of Circulation Services is to provide excellent customer service at the Reserves desk and the survey was an opportunity to assess if we are indeed doing so. Several questions on the survey related to satisfaction levels of customer service, as well as to the concept of self-serve.

The majority of students who have used Reserves are satisfied overall with the service they received at the Circulation / Reserve Desks.  While there were slight variations in the rankings based on the point-of-service, students rated staff an average of 4.1 out of 5 for being knowledgeable, and 4.2 out of 5 for both friendliness and helpfulness at the Desks.  Although these results reflect very favourably on the service, they do indicate there is room for improvement.

Presently paper reserve materials are accessible from staff at the circulation desk.  More than two-thirds of students who responded to the survey question 19 regarding methods to access reserve materials prefer to access paper reserve materials via the circulation desks. Many students commented that materials would be monitored better by the staff and less likely to become missing, which they feel would be the case in a self-serve scenario. Only 17% feel that everything on paper reserves should be self-serve; whereas 8.7% feel that only books on reserve should be self-serve.

When asked why Reserves users chose not to use material that was available to them, 18% said the material was signed out; 12% said the loan period was not long enough, 12% wanted to take the material out of the Library to copy it but were not allowed, and 4% said they already had 2 reserves and were not allowed a third. Nearly 18% said that an electronic version was not available.  Being able to access materials when needed is an issue for many students.  One suggestion made for paper reserves was that several copies, with a 20-minute loan period, be set aside for photocopying.  These issues of access are eliminated when material is available electronically.

Many positive comments were made in support of electronic reserves, such as, ‘Electronic is best.  It’s cheap, easily accessible, and gives us the choice if we’d like to print.  No time limits in libraries, etc.’ Another student commented, ‘I think that making more resources available online is the best move for library services.  It’s easier for everyone, as well as cheaper.  I wish everything was available online.’

Recommendations:  

1.1      Explore new standards for Circulation Services staff in order to achieve even better service-orientation.

1.2      Copies in paper format should continue to be accepted, as recommended by the survey of Faculty Perspectives on Reserves.

1.3      Continue to restrict access to paper reserve materials through staff at the Circulation Desk.

1.4      Encourage professors to make more course assignments, solutions, lecture notes, and journal articles available electronically.  

Goal 2: Obtain a better understanding of how and why students use Reserves, and why some students do not use Reserves  

In addition to the increase in electronic reserves, a considerable amount of circulation staff activity at the point-of-service continues to be the retrieval and signing out of paper reserve materials.  It was felt we needed to explore how and why students do / do not use all reserve materials to see if improvements to the service can be made.

Users

755 students responded to the survey question 5, which asked how often they used Reserves per term. Approximately 75% had used it five times or less, 15% had used it six to ten times, and 10% had used Reserves more than ten times. Of those who responded, the vast majority of students [84%], regardless of their undergraduate level, prefer to copy material rather than read it in the Library. This pattern was similar across library sites.

Those who have used Reserves before in many cases chose not to use material that was available for the following reasons (respondents were permitted to select as many reasons as applied):

• I did not think the material would be useful 49%
• The professor does not talk about the readings in class 32%
• The material was signed out to someone else at the time I went to get it 29%
• An electronic version was not available 28%
• The loan period of the material was not long enough for me 19%
• I wanted to take the material out of the library to copy it, but was not allowed 19%
• The material was at a library that I do not normally visit 7%
• The library was open, but the circulation desk was not open at the time I wanted to get the material 6%
• I already had two Reserve readings and was not allowed a third 6%
• The library was not open at the time I wanted to get the material 3%
• The electronic format is too slow for me to download from home 3%
• Other 4%

Of those who used eReserves, 38% accessed the materials via the eReserve database page, whereas 62% accessed the materials via the TRELLIS Catalogue course reserve area. 45% prefer to read e-reserve materials on-line; for those who prefer to print the e-reserve materials, 83% do so outside the Library.

The data indicates that in the end the students want to have paper copies of reserve readings.  Perhaps the best service therefore would be to ensure that there are always a few copies available for sale where copyright law is not a consideration. However, electronic reserves would also be an effective improvement here, without the inefficiency of trying to print, store, and sell paper copies; or develop complex procedures with Graphic Services. Electronic reserves can be printed on demand at home or in the Library from any computer without requiring the students to line up at the circulation desk.

Although the Library has no control over the perceived usefulness of reserve materials, nor whether the material will be discussed in class (i.e., the first two reasons that students choose not to use material), the majority of the other reasons are solved with eReserves.

The feedback provided on how students prefer to access electronic reserves has become somewhat dated since this survey was done.  Improvements have already been made to the locally-developed Reserves search interface in such a way that students have more control than before when using this option, and staff have been demonstrating this option to students more consistently.  Other enhancements include the development of a utility for instructors to facilitate linking to eReserves from within their UW-ACE courses, which may lead one day to eliminating the need for a reserves search interface outside of TRELLIS.

Non-Users

Question 26 of the survey asked those who had never used reserves their reason for not doing so. 201[47%] responded that they had chosen not to and 228 [53%] reported that their courses did not have any materials on reserve in the Library.

The Faculties of Arts and Mathematics were both significantly higher than the other Faculties in the number of courses that have never included reserves material. Additionally, students in those two Faculties also rated higher in choosing not to use materials that were on Reserves for their courses. The Faculty of Engineering varied from the other Faculties in that upper year students rated much higher than first/second year students in deciding not to use materials on Reserves. In all other Faculties, it was the first/second year students who rated much higher in deciding not to use course reserve material.

The Mathematics Faculty differed considerably from the other Faculties in that 54% of their students did not use reserves. The other Faculties ranged from 21 to 38 percent non-users. 50% of first/second year students had not used reserves; whereas by upper years only 20% had not used reserves. In all Faculties, the majority of students in the upper years have used reserves.

These results are interesting, especially the observation from Mathematics and Arts that the smaller the amount of material on Reserves the less likely students are to use even the amount that is on Reserves.  However, there is little to glean from the non-user results that offer direction to Circulation Services for making useful recommendations for change.

Survey question 15 (applicable to users) and question 28 (applicable to non-users) asked participants to select the reason(s) why they chose not to use materials on reserve for their courses. The most frequent reason for not reading reserve materials that were available electronically was that the material was considered to be not useful. Two other often stated reasons for not using reserves in any format were either ‘the material was not talked about in class,’ or that ‘the material was only available in paper format.’  On these issues one student commented: “I barely have time to go through the required text, let alone the optional texts. In summer breaks I would occasionally try to read optional texts that interest me, but I'm sometimes prevented by like-minded people who got there before me.”

Many students prefer to get their reserve materials by coursepack [49.8%] and many others prefer electronic reserves [43%]. Very few prefer paper reserves [7%]. Comparing eReserves to coursepacks, one of the comments made by a participant was, “I would much rather… be able to make a digital copy for free if the material was available for download from the net.”

The Use of Required versus Optional Reserve Readings

In spite of the overall preference for eReserves, greater than 85% of students who are assigned required readings in paper format make use of them, whereas about 78% make use of required readings in electronic format.  A significant exception to this rule is Engineering students, who are half as likely as students from other Faculties to use the required article readings in print format, but remain consistent with other Faculties if the materials are available electronically.

Generally, upper level undergraduates are more likely to use required article readings than are the 1st and 2nd year students.  In the case of required book readings results are mixed, for example, upper year students in AHS are three times less likely to use them than are the 1st and 2nd year undergraduates. The opposite is true for students in the Faculty of Science.  As a whole, though, there is very little difference in the use of required readings in terms of whether the materials were articles or books.

Approximately 60% of students make use of optional reserve readings, regardless of the format in which it is made available.

These observations do not suggest ways to improve the Reserves service but they confirm that Reserves are well-used.

Recommendations:

2.1     Promote eReserves to resolve a number of problems of access to materials.

2.2     Continue to offer the two eReserves searching options (TRELLIS and the e-reserves database).

Goal 3: Obtain a better understanding of how students would prefer to use Reserves in the future 

For some time library staff have questioned whether there is still value to paper reserves for course notes and journal articles, as web-based options have become increasingly prevalent and user-friendly.  Responses to the faculty survey indicated a significant need for the Library to continue to offer a traditional paper reserves service for all types of material (books, course notes, and copyrighted journal articles), and the number of faculty who use paper reserves for books and other materials is still significant. At the same time, students have clearly indicated a preference for electronic delivery of materials, and experience from other universities indicates that libraries that take a more pro-active approach to electronically mounting course notes and journal articles are successful in their efforts, and that the majority of faculty members are pleased with the change.   

Further, in the time between the taking of the survey and the completion of this report, the UW-ACE course content system has been introduced to campus. UW-ACE is meeting with wide success and growing extremely quickly.  In little more than one year of operation it has moved from containing a few courses to containing over 500 courses serving close to 20,000 students.  Recently, most Distance Education courses started using UW-ACE to deliver content and manage communications with students.  These developments reinforce the conclusion that electronic delivery of course content has become much more accepted since our faculty survey was undertaken in 2002, and that this trend will only increase. A watershed appears to have been passed by our faculty.

Another campus service that affects the use of Reserves is the Courseware service from Graphics. Half the respondents to the survey state that they prefer Reserves over Courseware, and of that half about 85% prefer eReserves over paper reserves.  There was no significant difference in this preference along the lines of students who use the Davis Library versus the Porter Library. The main reason given for preferring Courseware was one of convenience; for those who preferred electronic reserves the main reasons were cost and also convenience. 

Paper reserves and Courseware may not only be desirable for some students, but they will both continue to be absolutely necessary until copyright legislation is in place that is more favourable to the need for educational institutions to digitize material.  To that end, the Library has already taken a leading role within the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL), with the appointment of the University Librarian to the chair of the Copyright Committee.  The Committee works with partner organizations to promote the needs of educational institutions in the ongoing federal discussions on copyright.

In summary, the survey results lead to the conclusion that a central issue for the Library is no longer whether we should be moving pro-actively towards electronic reserves as the answer to that issue is a very clear “yes.” Instead a major theme for the Library will be to understand how Reserves fits with and complements other campus services that provide course-specific content, and then how the Library communicates that understanding to instructors.  In the digital context “Reserves” is now something of a misnomer; however the services of copyright clearance, making material available through a central and controlled interface, and locating persistent links to electronic journal articles, clearly fills a significant need, and will continue to grow with the overall growth of electronic course content.  

A natural part of the theme of understanding the Library’s role in the delivery of course-specific content is the question of whether other library services should be considered. For example, electronic subject guides and electronic reference could be made available to UW-ACE courses in a course-specific way. Discussions within the Library should consider a coherent package of library services for delivery to the course management system.

Recommendations:

3.1     Analyze the role of Reserves in the campus context and develop communications with instructors that clearly positions the Library in that role.

3.2     Continue to offer paper Reserves for books, and for other materials at least until such time as copyright issues regarding electronic resources are resolved.

3.3     Provide input to AUCC and to CARL in the context of raising awareness of and resolving issues regarding electronic resources and copyright.

3.4     Explore with other library departments the feasibility of an expanded package of electronic information to deliver to the campus course management system (UW-ACE).

---

Appendix A: The Survey 

Library Reserves Undergraduate Student Survey  

1. What Faculty are you in?
   Applied Health Sciences
   Arts
   Engineering
   Environmental Studies
   Independent Studies
   Mathematics
   Science
   
   
2. What level of study?
   1st or 2nd year Undergraduate
   Upper year Undergraduate
   
   
3. Have you ever used library Reserves?
   Yes
   No
   
   If you answered “No” to question 3, please go to question 26.  If you answered “Yes,” please continue with question 4.
   
   
4. Which location(s) have you used? (Please check all that apply)
   Electronic
   Porter
   Davis
   University Map & Design (UMD)
   Other (please specify):
   
   
5. How many reserve items (paper or electronic) do you use per term?
   1 – 5
   6 – 10
   11 or more
   
   
6. Please rate your satisfaction with the service provided by staff at the Reserves desks (where 1 is Unsatisfactory and 5 is Excellent)
   Knowledgeable  1  2  3  4  5
   Friendly              1  2  3  4  5
   Helpful                1  2  3  4  5
   
   The course syllabus often states that materials on Reserves are either required or optional.  For the next several questions, please indicate approximately how often you use …  
   
   
7. Required articles in paper format
   N/A__Never __Sometimes__Always__
   
   
8. Required articles in electronic format
   N/A__Never __Sometimes__Always__
   
   
9. Required books
   N/A__Never __Sometimes__Always__ 
   
   
10. Optional articles in paper format
    N/A__Never __Sometimes__Always__ 
    
    
11. Optional articles in electronic format
    N/A__Never __Sometimes__Always__
    
    
12. Optional books
    N/A__Never __Sometimes__Always__
    
    
13. Lecture notes/assignments/solutions in paper format
    N/A__Never__Sometimes__Always__
    
    
14. Lecture notes/assignments/solutions in electronic format
    N/A__Never__Sometimes__Always__
    
    
15. If you chose not to use material that was available, what were your reasons? (Please check all that apply)
    I did not think the material would be useful
    The professor does not talk about the readings in class
    The library was not open at the time I wanted to get the material
    The library was open, but the circulation desk was not open at the time I wanted to get the material
    The material was at a library that I do not normally visit
    The material was signed out to someone else at the time I went to get it
    The loan period of the material was not long enough for me
    I wanted to take the material out of the library to copy it, but was not allowed
    I already had two Reserve readings and was not allowed a third
    An electronic version was not available
    The electronic format is too slow for me to download from home
    Other:
    

16. Please assist us by providing some details on your answer to question 15, for example, if the library was not open at the time, what time was it?
    
    
17. When you borrow paper versions of articles/notes/solutions, do you prefer to read them in the library, or to copy them to read later?
    Read them in the library
    Copy them
    
    
18. What is your reason for this choice?
    
    
19. Presently paper Reserve materials are accessible from staff at the circulation desk.  An alternative is to make them directly accessible to all students, although the loan periods would continue to be restricted.  What would be your response to this idea?
    Access from the circulation desk is best
    Only library books on Reserves should be self-serve
    Only articles/notes/solutions should be self-serve
    Both library books and articles/notes/solutions should be self-serve
    
    
20. What is your reason for this choice?
    
    
21. If you use electronic Reserves which method of accessing them do you prefer?
    Through the Electronic Reserves web page
    Through the Course Reserve tab in TRELLIS
    Not used
    
    
22. If you use, or if you were to use, electronic Reserves, what would you prefer?
    Read on-line
    Print in library
    Print somewhere else
    
    
23. If you had to choose between buying a Coursepack from the bookstore, using library paper Reserves, or using library electronic Reserves, which would you prefer?
    Coursepack
    Library paper Reserves
    Library electronic Reserves
    
    
24. What is your reason for this choice? 
    
    
25. Please provide any additional comments about Library Reserves here. 

Thank you!  You have now completed the survey.  Go to the submit button. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

If you answered “No” to question 3 (i.e. you have never used Reserves), please continue with question 26. 

26. Check the response that applies to you.
    My courses have never included material on library Reserves (Please proceed directly to the submit button)
    I have chosen not to use the material on library Reserves
    
    
27. What kind of material was on Reserves that you chose not to use? (Please check all that apply)
    Required articles in paper format
    Required articles in electronic format
    Required books
    Optional articles in paper format
    Optional articles in electronic format
    Optional books
    Lecture notes/assignments/solutions in paper format
    Lecture notes/assignments/solutions in electronic format
    Other:
    
    
28. If you chose not to use material that was available, what were your reasons? (Please check all that apply)
    I did not think the material would be useful
    The professor does not talk about the readings in class
    The library was not open at the time I wanted to get the material
    The library was open, but the circulation desk was not open at the time I wanted to get the material
    The material was at a library that I do not normally visit
    The material was signed out to someone else at the time I went to get it
    The loan period of the material was not long enough for me
    I wanted to take the material out of the library to copy it, but was not allowed
    An electronic version was not available
    Other:
    
    
29. Please assist us by providing some details, for example, if the library was not open at the time, what time was it?
    
    
30. Please provide any additional comments about Library Reserves here. 
    

Thank you!  You have now completed the survey. 

<Submit Button>

---

Appendix B: Pattern of Use

---

Appendix C : Respondents by Faculty

Back to Library Documents

University of Waterloo Library
200 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1
519 888 4883

contact us | give us feedback | privacy statement | © 2011 University of Waterloo