If You Build it, Will They (Really) Come? Student Perceptions of Proximity and Other Factors Affecting Use of an Academic Library Curriculum Collection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective – This study investigated student perceptions of an undergraduate university library’s curriculum collection, before and after a move to a new library building. The objective was to identify how factors such as proximity to program classrooms and faculty offices, flexible seating, accessibility, and other physical improvements to the space housing the collection impacted students’ perceptions. Methods – This longitudinal study conducted between 2016 and 2017 used a combination of methods to examine whether library use of a specialized academic library collection was impacted by a significant space improvement and change in location. A cohort of education students was surveyed before and after the construction of a new building that housed both the library and their department and co-located the curriculum collection with departmental teaching spaces. The students were surveyed about their use of the space and resources. The researchers then compared the survey results to circulation data. The researchers ground this study in Lefebvre’s spatial triad theory, applying it to library design and collection use (Lefebvre, 1992). Results – Researchers identified proximity to classrooms and general convenience as the dominant factors influencing students’ use of the collection. Survey results showed an increased awareness of the collection and an increase in use of the collection for completion of assignments and practicum work. Circulation data confirmed that between 2016-2019, there was a steady increase in use of the curriculum collection. Conclusion – Students’ responses revealed that physical characteristics of the space were less important than proximity, the major factor that impacted their use of the curriculum collection. This revelation confirms Lefebvre’s idea that spatial practice, i.e., how users access and use the space, is more significant and identifiable to students than the design and physical characteristics of the space.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.351 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".