Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 3707–3730 | Cite as

Capitalizing on new forms of academic library’s intellectual assets: a new library mobile application proposition

  • Stavroula Sant-GeronikolouEmail author
  • Dimitris Kouis
  • Alexandros Koulouris
Article
  • 84 Downloads

Abstract

Library and information science experts around the globe are currently exploring ways of capitalizing student workflow data within library walls. Within this realm, the researchers designed and pilot-tested a user-driven lightweight application that envisions library as a crucial contributor of co-curricular data to learner profiles’ contextual integrity. The prototype usability test conducted in December 2018 with the participation of 30 students at the University of West Attica, Greece, aimed not only to record participants’ perspectives about the application but also to trace their attitudes towards this new kind of intervention. Post-test questionnaires yield a variety of positive rich-textured comments indicating students’ interest in the emerging conversation around library use data capitalization. The participants felt positive about the need to develop a culture that fosters the reconsideration of library value constituents and their new dynamic role in the educational context. The pilot-tested application could serve as a reference for the improvement of academic library use data collection practices.

Keywords

Library mobile application Academic libraries Prototyping Learning analytics Library and information science Institutional shared analytics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all research and pilot trial participants for their help and valuable contributions to developing and evaluating the CLIC Library App prototype.

Compliance with ethical standards

Applications, utilities, clipart credits

Microsoft Office Word / Excel 2010, Adobe Acrobat, Google Forms, Pixabay.com, Pnging.com, Wikipedia.

References

  1. Abbott, A., Cyranoski, D., Jones, N., Maher, B., Schiermeier, Q., & Van Noorden, R. (2010). Metrics: Do metrics matter? Nature News, 465(7300), 860–862.  https://doi.org/10.1038/465860a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, D. (2015). Measuring the academic impact of libraries. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 15(1), 29–40.  https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2015.0001.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arminio, J., Roberts, D. C., & Bonfiglio, R. (2009). The professionalization of student learning practice: An ethos of scholarship. About Campus, 14(1), 16–20.  https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asher, A, Briney K.A., Perry, M.R., Goben, A., Salo, D., Robertshaw, M.B. & Jones, K.M. (2018). Spec Kit 360: Learning Analytics. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, September 2018,  https://doi.org/10.29242/spec.360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Assila, A., De Oliveira, K.M. & Ezzedine, H. (2016). Standardized usability questionnaires: Features and quality focus. Electronic Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology: eJCIST, 6(1). http://ejcsit.uniten.edu.my/index.php/ejcsit/article/view/96. Accessed 20 Nov 2018.
  6. Bangor, A., Kortum, P., & Miller, J. (2009). Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 4(3), 114–123.Google Scholar
  7. Beagle, D. (2004). From information commons to learning commons, white paper. In: University of Southern California Leavey Library 2004 Conference on Information Commons: Learning Space Beyond the Classroom.Google Scholar
  8. Bennetot Pruvot, E., Estemann, T. & Kupriyanova, V. (2017). Public Funding Observatory Report 2017”, European University Association, Brussels, Belgium. https://www.eua.eu/downloads/publications/eua-pfo-report-december-2017.pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2018.
  9. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry, 189(194), 4–7.Google Scholar
  10. Chan, J. C., & Lam, S. F. (2010). Effects of different evaluative feedback on students’ self-efficacy in learning. Instructional Science, 38(1), 37–58.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9077-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, H., Doty, P., Mollman, C., Niu, X., Yu, J., & Zhang, T. (2015). Library assessment and data analytics in the big data era: practice and policies. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2015.14505201002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, M., De Leon, E., Edgar, L. & Perrin, J. (2012). Library Usability: Tools for Usability Testing in the Library. In: Texas Library Association Annual Conference, March 2012.Google Scholar
  13. Cormack, A. N, (2016). A data protection framework for learning analytics a data protection framework for learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(1), 91–106.  https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2016.31.6.
  14. Donham, J., & Green, C. W. (2004). Perspectives on… developing a culture of collaboration: Librarian as consultant. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(4), 314–321.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2004.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dow, R. F. (1998). Using assessment criteria to determine library quality. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 24, 277–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drucker, P.F. (1993). The post-capitalist society. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. In: De Jong, T., (2010), Linking social capital to knowledge productivity: an explorative study on the relationship between social capital and learning in knowledge-productive networks, Enschede.Google Scholar
  17. Duval, E. (2011). Attention please!: learning analytics for visualization and recommendation. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on learning analytics and knowledge, February 27–March 01, 2011, Banff, Albert, Canada [online]. ACM. pp. 9–17,  https://doi.org/10.1145/2090116.2090118.
  18. Germano, M. A., & Stretch-Stephenson, S. M. (2012). Strategic value planning for libraries. The Bottom Line, 25(2), 71–88.  https://doi.org/10.1108/08880451211256405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldhaber, M.H. (1997). The attention economy and the Net. First Monday, 2(4).  https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v2i4.519.
  20. Harrison, R., & Kessels, J. (2004). Human resource development in a knowledge economy. An organizational view. New York: Palgrave Mcmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Hellenic Quality Assurance and Accreditation Agency (2017). Higher education quality report. HQA Council. https://www.adip.gr/data/HQA_report2016.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2019.
  22. Jantti, M.H. (2014). Aspiring to excellence: Maximizing data to sustain, shift and reshape a library for the future. In: Library Assessment Conference, Association of Research Libraries, Seattle. pp. 1–9. https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1506&context=asdpapers. Accessed 12 Aug 2018.
  23. Jivet, I., Scheffel, M., Specht, M. & Drachsler, H. (2018). License to evaluate: Preparing learning analytics dashboards for educational practice. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, March 7–9, 2018. Sydney, ACM. pp. 31–40. http://hdl.handle.net/1820/9138. Accessed 10 Dec 2018.
  24. Jong, T.D. (2010). Linking social capital to knowledge productivity. PhD Thesis, Proefschrift, Universiteit Twente. https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/6082371/thesis_T_de_Jong.pdf. Accessed 23 Nov 2018.
  25. Kay, D.& Van Harmelen, M, (2015). Activity data - delivering benefits from the data deluge. [online]. JISC. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/activity-data-delivering-benefits-from-the-data-deluge. Accessed 20 Sept 2018.
  26. Kezar, A. (2003). Enhancing innovative partnerships: Creating a change model for academic and student affairs collaboration. Innovative Higher Education, 28(2), 137–156.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:IHIE.0000006289.31227.25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kroski, E. (2008). On the move with the mobile web: Libraries and mobile technologies. Library Technology Reports, 44(5), 1–48 http://hdl.handle.net/10760/12463. Accessed 15 June 2018.Google Scholar
  29. Kyrillidou, M. (1997). The use of statistics by libraries in North America. In: 6ο Panhellenic Academic Libraries Conference, November 5–7. Athens, http://hdl.handle.net/10760/9814. Accessed 12 May 2018.
  30. Kyrillidou, M., & Cook, C. (2008). The evolution of measurement and evaluation of libraries: A perspective from the Association of Research Libraries. Library Trends, 56(4), 888–909. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/9498. Accessed 12 May 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lakes, K. D. (2013). Restricted sample variance reduces generalizability. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 643–650.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lakos, A. (2007). Evidence-based library management: The leadership challenge. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 7(4), 431–450. Johns Hopkins University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2007.0049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Landøy, A., & Repanovici, A. (2010). Knowing the needs: a system for evaluating the university library. In Proceedings of the International Conference on QQML2009 (pp. 329–334).  https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814299701_0041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lessick, S. (2015). Enhancing library impact through technology. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 103(4), 222–233.  https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lewis, J. R. (1995). IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 7(1), 57–78.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10447319509526110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lim, Y.K., Pangam, A., Periyasami, S. & Aneja, S. (2006). Comparative analysis of high-and low-fidelity prototypes for more valid usability evaluations of mobile devices. [online]. In: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: changing roles, October 14–18, 2006, Oslo. ACM. pp. 291–300,  https://doi.org/10.1145/1182475.1182506.
  37. Long, D. (2016). Librarians and student affairs professionals as collaborators for student learning and success. PhD Thesis. Illinois State University,  https://doi.org/10.30707/ETD2016.Long.D.
  38. Luna Scott, C. (2015). The Futures of Learning 3: what kind of pedagogies for the 21st century? UNESCO Education Research and Foresight, Paris. ERF Working Papers Series, No. 15, https://rpinternacional.com.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ARTICULO-5.pdf. Accessed 25 Mar 2018.
  39. Murray, A.L. (2014). The Academic Library and High-Impact Practices for Student Retention: Perspectives of Library Deans. PhD Thesis. Western Kentucky University. http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/diss/57. Accessed 14 Feb 2018.
  40. Mylonas, P. (2017). Turning Greece into an education hub. [online]. National Bank of Greece Sectoral report. https://www.nbg.gr/greek/the-group/press-office/e-spot/reports/Documents/Education.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb 2019.
  41. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. xiv edn. Boston: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  42. Oakleaf, M. (2010). The value of academic libraries: A comprehensive research review and report. Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries.Google Scholar
  43. Oakleaf, M. (2018). LIILA project Report, Library Integration in Institutional Learning Analytics. https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2018/11/liila.pdf. Accessed 22 Nov 2018.
  44. Parsons, G. (2010). Information provision for HE distance learners using mobile devices. The Electronic Library, 28(2), 231–244.  https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471011033594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Red de Bibliotecas Universitarias Españolas (REBIUN) (2003). Centros de Recursos para el Aprendizaje y la Investigación: Un nuevo modelo de biblioteca universitaria, Conferencia de Rectores de las Universidades Españolas, Madrid.Google Scholar
  46. Salonen, P., Vauras, M., & Efklides, A. (2005). Social interaction-what can it tell us about metacognition and coregulation in learning?. European Psychologist, 10(3), 199-208.Google Scholar
  47. Sant-Geronikolou, S. (2018a). Greek and Spanish University Community Perspective of Challenges Affecting Library Integration in Learning Analytics Initiatives. Poster presented at 10th Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries International Conference (QQML2018), Chania (Greece), 22 - 25 May 2018. http://eprints.rclis.org/32914/. Accessed 10 Dec 2018.
  48. Sant-Geronikolou, S. (2018b). Understanding in-library use data lifecycle within Greek and Spanish higher education ecosystems. Library Hi Tech News, 35(7):13-17.  https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-10-2017-0077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sauro, J. (2018). Can you use a single item to predict SUS scores? MeasuringU [online]. 4 December 2018. https://measuringu.com/single-item-sus/. Accessed 16 Nov 2018.
  50. Showers, B., & Stone, G. (2014). Safety in numbers: Developing a shared analytics Service for Academic Libraries. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 15(1/2), 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Somerville, M.M. & Harlan, S. (2008). From information commons to learning commons and learning spaces: An evolutionary context. Learning commons: Evolution and collaborative essentials, In: Schader, B., (Ed.) (2008), Learning Commons: Evolution and Collaborative Essentials. pp. 1–36.Google Scholar
  53. Soria, K.M., Peterson, K., Fransen, J. & Nackerud, S., (2017). The Impact of Academic Library Resources on First-Year Students’ Learning Outcomes. [online]. Research Library Issues, 290(2017): 5–20. http://publications.arl.org/rli290/. Accessed 22 Sept 2018.
  54. Stone, G., & Ramsden, B. (2013). Library impact data project: looking for the link between library usage and student attainment. College and Research Libraries, 74(6), 546–559.  https://doi.org/10.5860/crl12-406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Strakantouna, V. (2005). Epexeryasia Prosopikon Dedomenon kai Prostasia tes Idiotikotetas sto Sychrono Perivallon ton Vivliothekon kai Eperesion Pleroforeses [processing of personal data and protection of privacy in the modern environment of libraries and information services]. Master's thesis, Ionian University, Department of Archives and Library Science.Google Scholar
  56. Tevaniemi, J., Poutanen, J., & Lähdemäki, R. (2015). Library as a partner in co-designing learning spaces: A case study at Tampere University of Technology, Finland. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 21(3), 304–324.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2015.1025147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Town, S. (2015). Implementing the value scorecard. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 16(3), 234–251.  https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-10-2015-0033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy, 11(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  59. Tullis, T. & Albert, W. (2008a). Tips and Tricks for Measuring the User Experience [PowerPoint presentation]. Usability and User Experience, UPA-Boston’s Seventh Annual Mini UPA Conference, 28 May 2008. https://www.bentley.edu/files/centers/duc/albert-tullis-tips-trix-2008.pdf. Accessed 16 Sept 2018.
  60. Tullis, T. & Albert, W. (2008b). Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, analyzing and Presenting Usability Metrics. 1st ed. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  61. Väätäjä, H. & Roto, V. (2010). Mobile questionnaires for user experience evaluation. In: CHI'10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, April 10–15, 2010. Atlanta. ACM. pp. 3361–3366,  https://doi.org/10.1145/1753846.1753985.
  62. Van Trigt, M. (2016). How data can improve the quality of higher education. [online]. SURF Net. https://www.surf.nl/binaries/content/assets/surf/en/knowledgebase/2016/whitepaper-learning-analytics_en-def.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2017.
  63. Wang, C. Y., Ke, H. R., & Lu, W. C. (2012). Design and performance evaluation of mobile web services in libraries: a case study of the oriental institute of technology library. The Electronic Library, 30(1), 33–50.  https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471211204051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yanosky, R. & Arroway, P. (2015). The Analytics Landscape in Higher Education, 2015. Louisville, ECAR, https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2015/5/ers1504cl.pdf. Accessed 8 July 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Librarianship and Information ScienceUniversity Carlos III of MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of Archival, Library & Information StudiesUniversity of West AtticaAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations