Custom Search
How Information and Learning Commons Meet
the Learning and Social Style of NextGen Students
________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Over the past twenty years, the Internet and access to the World Wide Web (hereafter referred to as ‘the web’) has had a dramatic and transformative effect on academic librarianship. Donald Beagle (2008) cites figures on gate counts and reference transactions released in the Executive Summary of ARL SPEC Kit 268 Reference Service Statistics & Assessment stating "...in recent years...many academic libraries have experienced a sharp reduction in the number of transactions recorded," and more specifically, “…77% of responding libraries reported that the number of reference transactions has decreased in the past three years”. These figures correlate with a 41% reduction in gate counts registered at Washington State University between the years of 1998 – 2003 (Martell 2008). With the advent and increased use of Google (and other online search engines), students clearly had not been accessing traditional library services in the years leading up to the Executive Summary. Although there are no definitive studies linking the decline in the 1990s of print circulation, gate counts, and reference transactions to the increasing availability of information on the Internet, Donald Beagle (2008) doesn’t believe this is merely coincidence. It seems many colleges and universities would agree.
Information and the Learning Commons Model
As early as 1995, colleges and universities were beginning to look at ways to integrate the burgeoning field of technology with their current library structure. The University of Iowa and the University of Southern California along with a handful of others were the first to transform their libraries from traditional repository models to what is commonly referred to today as Information Commons (IC) or Learning Commons (LC) (Beagle 2008). Laurie MacWhinnie (2003) cites Wood and Walther when describing an IC as “a portal through which students and faculty will access the vast amount of information resources in the world and less a place where information is kept”. Many of these new Commons were designed to address the need to merge traditional “high touch” library services with “high tech” digital information and the current move toward collaborative learning within higher education.
These early Commons were named for the physical configuration of clustered multifunctional workstations located near a reference desk. As libraries moved to include information that was available in digital format, they began to expand the hardware needed to access these aggregated databases. What began simply as computer labs adjacent to the library soon evolved into more integrated systems. Not only did students need to access information on the web, it quickly became apparent that they also needed the programs and facilities to produce and present their results. This shift in focus required libraries to view the services they offered on a continuum that would support student work from the beginning of their request for information through the process of creation and presentation of the final product (Beagle 2008).
Bailey and Tierny (2008) differentiate these early Information Commons from Learning Commons based on their philosophical underpinnings. Level 1 Information Commons primarily differ from a traditional library in that their focused design might include a computer lab with access to library resources and basic productivity software. A level 2 IC would incorporate all of the Level 1 traits in addition to a wider range of multimedia software and formats, increased resources and staff and differing service patterns. A Learning Commons on the other hand “reflects a shift in learning theory from primarily a transmission of knowledge to patrons toward a greater emphasis on creation of knowledge by commons staff and patrons and patrons’ self-direction in learning (Bailey and Tierny 2008)”. The LC promotes a collaborative learning environment that embraces the institutions’ mission and frequently houses the faculty and staff of departments as varied as writing skills, technology, media design, etc. that ultimately comprise a holistic approach of learning.
Scott Bennett (2005), Yale Librarian Emeritus paraphrases Barr and Tagg when he likens the model of knowledge transmission to saying “the purpose of colleges is to provide instruction is like saying that General Motors’ business is to operate assembly lines or that the purpose of medical care is to fill hospital beds. We now see that our mission is not instruction but rather that of producing learning with every student by whatever means work best”. Whether colleges or universities have an IC, one that is organized around service delivery, or an LC, one organized around the fundamental “shift in learning theory from primarily transmission of knowledge to patrons toward a greater emphasis on creation of knowledge by commons staff and patrons and patrons self-direction in learning (Bennett 2005)”, the resulting product has been a resounding success. This shift away from library centric delivery of services to one that supports the collaborative nature of today’s higher education and the unique learning and behavior styles of today’s college students has revitalized the relationship many of today’s college students have with their academic libraries. Students are returning to their reconfigured libraries in unprecedented numbers. The University of Massachusetts at Amherst reported a 202% increase in its gate count after its LC opened at the W.E.B. Du Bois Library in October 2005 (Fitzpatrick et al. 2008). Geoffrey Freeman, AIA (2005), asserts that “Contrary to the predictions of diminishing use and eventual obsolescence of libraries, usage has expanded dramatically – sometimes doubling or even tripling.
NextGen Behaviors and Traits
And this exodus back is a good thing for universities and students alike. Alternately called NextGen or millennials, this demographic numbers 81 million strong. Second only in numbers to the Boomers, these NextGens are the what Bailey and Tierney (2008) describe as the first true “digital natives”, born to multitask and comfortable integrating the social and scholarly aspects of learning. Because NextGens see themselves as “customers of the academic library and will demand high-quality facilities, resources, and services attuned to their needs and concerns” (ACRL Environmental Scan 2008), their unique behavioral and learning styles need to be taken into consideration if their learning and information needs are to be met. Simply stated, they are a force to be reckoned with.
So how are NextGen students shaping the course of academic librarianship? Abram and Luther (2004) have found that the expectations and behaviors of this generation of students are fundamentally different from previous generations. It is this basic difference in the way that NexGens relate to, think about, and interact with information that is at the heart of a mismatch with traditional library services and policies and why Commons are uniquely suited to accommodate these differences. Abram and Luther (2004), have identified nine behavioral trademarks that set this demographic apart from prior generations. By paying close attention to the learning and social styles of this population that are identified by these behaviors, colleges and universities will be able to adapt not only their services to meet these needs, they will also be able to adapt the library as place, making it a destination of choice.
Why is it so important to meet the needs of NextGens? Previously, students had to come to the library to access information they needed for their courses. Materials were organized, cataloged and shelved according to strict procedures. Library science is an exacting and complex field, requiring attention to detail and a single mindedness toward organization. This complexity ensured that librarians were an integral step in the process. Add to this complexity the fact that many institutions held onto a closed stack system on some level, and students had to rely on staff to find and possibly retrieve the information they needed. But all this changed with the advent of the Internet and the ability of anyone with access to a computer and an Internet connection to find information. Not only can information be accessed by anyone at anytime, information can also be created and disseminated by anyone at anytime. There is an abundance of information on the Web, but much of it is lacking verified authority. This is not to say that misinformation did not exist prior to this time or that the authority of everything published was verified. But, librarians ensured that materials were added to college and university collections following strict adherence to collection policies and organizational procedures.
Now, NextGens can access information remotely on the web or through their library or Commons’ web site. However, access to information has turned out to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, free and open access to information can level the intellectual playing field. As long as a person has access to a computer and the internet, there is no longer a gatekeeper granting or denying entry based on situational factors; are we a student, a member, do we belong, can we pay? As long as a person is on the right side of the digital divide, these questions are meaningless and access is freely granted to open source information simply by logging on. However, on the other hand, the gatekeeper is no longer checking to make sure the information we access is accurate. And much of scholarly information is not available through open source journals.
Figures from the OCLC Perceptions survey (2006) show that 84% of students report using a general internet search engine when beginning to research any given topic while only 2% begin from their library’s website. As a result, articles written by school age children reside on the same results page with scholarly articles written by experts in the field. For the majority of people there is no way to ensure that only the most current and correct information on any given subject is accessed aside from evaluating each source independently. Unfortunately most NextGens don’t have the skills required for this task. John Lubans’ (1998) research on freshmen internet use found of the students who responded to the survey, only 7% rank their ability to use the web as “best” while 29% see their use as “good” and 23% as “better” Clearly these Duke University students see room for improvement in their use of the web. It is for this very reason that colleges and universities need to understand what it is that students want and at least try to meet those needs and provide the skills they need to be competent information consumers.
Expectations for Learning
Of the nine behavioral traits of NextGens that Abram and Luther (2004) identified through proprietary and unpublished research as well as studies by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, the OCLC, and Digital Library Federation among others, the first three can be grouped under the heading of ‘expectations for information’. These three traits are: format agnostic, nomadic, and multitasking. A closer look at each trait and its impact will aid in developing services and facilities that meet these needs.
NextGens are ‘Format Agnostic’ – roughly translated, NextGens see little to no difference in print and media formats. They attribute equal validity to journals, books, websites, blogs, music, cable network programs, etc. On an academic level, this translates to NextGens seeing little purpose in limiting their search options based on information format. For them, they see no problem with encyclopedias, blogs, retail outlets, pdf’s and documents all comingling on the results page from a Google search. This is the antithesis of the process previous generations used to conduct research. Current library and information professionals, referred to by Bailey and Tierney (2008) as “digital immigrants” are in a unique position to help NextGens bridge the divide between digital and print information. Because anyone, anywhere, and for any reason can cheaply and easily publish information on the web, this generation is in need of information literacy skills if they are to evaluate the information they find.
Not only are these skills necessary to conduct scholarly research, Abram and Luther (2004) cite “manipulation of Google rankings in the U.S. Democratic primary race for President – especially in Howard Dean’s campaign’s use of blogs” as an example of Google results that require NextGens to carefully scrutinize their origin or authority. Due to the collaborative nature of Commons, especially Learning Commons, information literacy can be offered in conjunction with research projects. By teaching and reinforcing information and media literacy skills, colleges and universities will prepare NextGens to be able to properly evaluate sources and information when making decisions. Commons are in a unique position to make these programs a priority either through collaboration with faculty or literacy specific classes offered electively or as a core requirement unit for incoming freshmen and transfer students.
NextGens are Nomadic – the generation ‘born with the chip’ is accustomed to accessing information 24/7 as a result of Wi-fi. digital phones, and wireless PDAs. No longer do they see the need to go to a specific location (i.e. the library) to access the information they need. This generation abhors being tied to a location. University services have recognized and responded to this fact right down to the most mundane of chores - doing laundry. At many colleges and universities today, your washer and dryer will send a text message when your laundry is done. If students expect this from their appliances, and get this service from their academic institution, one can understand their high expectations from their information services.
The impact of this attitude on Commons is simple; librarians need to broaden their expertise in the specific devices and formats that NextGens use. Web 2.0 tools such as chat reference and IM reference need to be evaluated to ascertain their effectiveness.
The Perceptions survey found that 45% of students surveyed answered yes when asked if their library offered online librarian question service, 13% said no, and a striking 42% were not certain. As important as it is to advertise the services you offer, it is more important to find out what services your NextGens use. It is fruitless to do chat reference on Meebo if your patrons have no idea how to access it. Steven Bell (2008) clarified this issue in American Libraries: Whether it is owing to a lack of time, a desire to quickly implement new technologies, or allowing bandwagon mentality to rule, rarely do most of us allow sufficient time to carefully design a strategy for technology innovation. Not only do we likely fail to conduct an analysis to first determine the feasibility of a new technology application, but we rarely take the time to adequately determine if our users would value the new service. In a nutshell, our approach is to identify a solution before we fully understand the problem.An additional factor that needs to be considered by Commons is how to reformat information so it will display properly on smaller devices such as phones and PDAs . Abrahm and Luther (2004) liken not having this service to the invisibility that comes when a library does not have a web site. In order to maintain relevancy, library services need to be available on the devices NextGens use most frequently.
NextGens Multitask – this ability, which seems so foreign and confusing to prior generations, is as natural as breathing to NextGens. One look at their desktop while they work and you will frequently see several IM windows open, an MP3 connected, a browser opened for surfing the web, one for information they have accessed as well as several presentation applications such as PowerPoint, MS Word or Photoshop. One can see how the library of yesterday, one that functioned in a ‘high touch’ model mainly as a repository for books, fails to meet the expectations of today’s NextGen students. And one expectation they have is that all the devices they use, computers, Mobile phones and PDAs will support seamless multitasking. Previously, thin clients were a viable option to boost the number of available computers. Now, however, Commons run the risk of alienating NextGens with computers that don’t support the software platforms they need to take a task from beginning to end. As MacWhinnie (2003) points out, “thin client workstations… may be suitable for basic access, but supporting a full range of software and / or multimedia tools for preparing projects from beginning to end is beyond the capacities of “dumb terminals” and requires more robust equipment.”
The Collaborative Nature of Commons
In the preface to "The Library as Place," Geoffry Freeman states his belief that in direct opposition to the isolating nature of the internet, libraries have the ability to bring faculty, students and scholars together with emerging technology and traditional resources for the purpose of supporting “today’s social and educational patterns of learning, teaching, and research (2005)”. Today’s use of electronic databases and presentation formats has “fostered a shift from the dominance of independent study to more collaborative and interactive learning” In addition to providing places of solitude, today Commons are providing group study spaces, rooms for project development, as well as spaces with advanced state of the art presentation technology. As early as 2002, William Miller found “students prefer to study and interact with each other in libraries, more than in any other setting.” In fact his students at Florida Atlantic University lobbied him for longer study hours and contributed a “donation of $1,010,000 in student funds for an all-night study floor in our forthcoming library addition (Miller 2002)”. In addition to the collaborative nature of today’s learning model, Commons support study spaces that meet the needs of the academic and social facets of learning.
The National Survey of Student Engagement (2008) found that two benchmarks of active learning were a supportive campus environment and the discussion of class content outside the classroom. Bennett (2005) found much of this conversation takes place in domestic spaces such as dorms and frequently involves food and as a result of these findings, believes that food service combined with spaces that allow for social interaction as a standard feature of library design adds to the ability of students to claim a learning space as their own. One can see how the collaborative and relaxed features of Commons meet these unique learning behavioral traits of NextGens, which Abram and Luther identified as experiential, collaborative, and integrated.
NextGens are Experiential – NextGens are accustomed to interacting with their computers. Many NextGens grew up playing video games that engaged them on an experiential level. They have come to expect this gaming environment when they access web pages, preferring content-rich as opposed to high-text web pages. This generation has “high-level questioning and thinking skills and lower-level prima facie knowledge (such as facts, timelines, vocabulary, and regurgitation skills.) … For example, when asked to debate a political issue in class they might map both sides of the issue, pro and con, list interested parties or figures, … and more (Abram and Luther 2004)”. All of these skills fit seamlessly with the more experiential format of many courses offered on campuses today.
NextGens are Collaborative – Statistics show that NextGens “collaborates as a core ethos – e.g., in multiplayer games, with IM, in collaboratories, virtual classrooms, and chat rooms (Abram and Luther 2004)”. This collaborative spirit carries over into the classroom and beyond. In addition to the virtual reference applications this collaborative trait meshes with, they are also uniquely positioned to respond to the collaborative nature of “the Learning Commons model [which] not only has revitalized and reinvigorated the academic library, but in effect repositioned it to become a more active agent of collaboration in support of learning outcomes (Beagle 1999)”.
NextGens are Integrated – NextGens are truly integrated as they see content and technology as a cohesive unit. In previous generations, librarians used the reference interview to match an information need with a source or sources to locate the answer. Today, however, many librarians find that this generation with their integrated approach, prefer ‘self-service’ and frequently turn to the Internet for answers to their questions. The “three Fs” requirement are what MacWhinney (2003) found NextGens are satisfied with in their Internet searches; first, fastest, and full text. Abram and Luther (2004) feel that “The magic of librarianship is the interpersonal, professional competencies that we apply in relating our users’ information needs and experiences to organized (and disorganized) content and or services.” This means not only do NextGens integrate the social and scholarly aspects of their educational experience; librarians also need to “be integrated with the virtual environment as coach, mentor, and information advisor.”
The unique learning behaviors and traits of NextGens make for an ideal fit with the collaborative aspect of today’s Commons approach to integrating the “high touch” aspect of traditional library services with the ‘high tech’ environment that most information services encompass. Whether it is to access to information through the OPAC or ILL services or using Commons’ website portals to access electronic databases and digital information, this generation of students will need our help. As “digital immigrants” we are in a unique position to help them develop the information literacy skills they need to navigate their way through the sea of information that is available on the web. In addition to providing media and information literacy skills, today’s Information and Learning Commons can also provide NextGens with the place that becomes “an extension of the classroom, … a place in which students engage in a collaborative learning process, a place where they will, it is hoped, develop or refine their critical thinking … we must never lose sight of the dedicated, contemplative spaces that will remain an important aspect of any place of scholarship (Bennett 2008).”
Works Cited
Abram, S., & Luther, J. (2004). Born with the chip:The next generation will profoundly impact both library service and the culture within the profession. Library Journal, 129(8), 34.
ACRL Environmental Scan 2007 (published January 2008). http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/whitepapers/Environmental_Scan_2.pdf
Bailey, D. R., & Tierney, B. (2008). Transforming library service through information commons : Case studies for the digital age. Chicago: American Library Association.
Beagle, D. (March 1999). Conceptualizing an information commons. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship. 25(2), 82-9.
Beagle, D. (2008). The learning commons in historical context. Retrieved April 18, 2009, from http://tinyurl.com/qb9j5a.
Bell, S. J., & Shank, J. D. (2007). Academic librarianship by design: A blended librarian's guide to the tools and techniques. Chicago: American Library Association.
Bell, S. J., (2008). Design Thinking. American Libraries. Retrieved April 18, from http://stevenbell.info/pdfs/ALdesignarticle.pdf.
Bennett, S. (May 2008). The Information or the Learning Commons: Which Will We Have? The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 34(3), 183-5. Retrieved April 12, 2009 from Wilson Direct
Bennett, S. (2005). Righting the balance. Library as place : Rethinking roles, rethinking
space. Washington, D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources. "College Students’ Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources," OCLC, 2006.
http://www.oclc.org/reports/pdfs/studentperceptions_conclusion.pdf
Fitzpatrick, Elizabeth B, Anne C Moore, and Beth W Lang. "Reference Librarians at the Reference Desk in a Learning Commons: A Mixed Methods Evaluation." Journal of Academic Librarianship. 34.3 (2008): 231. Retrieved through Project Muse. 21 March 2009.
Freeman, G. T., & Council on Library and Information Resources. (2005). Library as place : Rethinking roles, rethinking space. Washington, D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources.
Lubans, J. (1998, April). How first-year university students use and regard Internet resources. How First-Year University Students Use and Regard Internet Resources. Retrieved March 22, 2009, from http://www.lubans.org/docs/1styear/firstyear.html
MacWhinnie, L. A. (2003). The information commons: The academic library of the future. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(2), 241-257.
Martell, C. (2008). The absent user: Physical use of academic library collections and services continues to decline 1995“2006. JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP, 34(5), 400-407.
Miller, W. (2002). "The Library as Place; Tradition and Evolution," Library Issues http://www.libraryissues.com/pub/LI220003.asp
Information and the Learning Commons Model
As early as 1995, colleges and universities were beginning to look at ways to integrate the burgeoning field of technology with their current library structure. The University of Iowa and the University of Southern California along with a handful of others were the first to transform their libraries from traditional repository models to what is commonly referred to today as Information Commons (IC) or Learning Commons (LC) (Beagle 2008). Laurie MacWhinnie (2003) cites Wood and Walther when describing an IC as “a portal through which students and faculty will access the vast amount of information resources in the world and less a place where information is kept”. Many of these new Commons were designed to address the need to merge traditional “high touch” library services with “high tech” digital information and the current move toward collaborative learning within higher education.
These early Commons were named for the physical configuration of clustered multifunctional workstations located near a reference desk. As libraries moved to include information that was available in digital format, they began to expand the hardware needed to access these aggregated databases. What began simply as computer labs adjacent to the library soon evolved into more integrated systems. Not only did students need to access information on the web, it quickly became apparent that they also needed the programs and facilities to produce and present their results. This shift in focus required libraries to view the services they offered on a continuum that would support student work from the beginning of their request for information through the process of creation and presentation of the final product (Beagle 2008).
Bailey and Tierny (2008) differentiate these early Information Commons from Learning Commons based on their philosophical underpinnings. Level 1 Information Commons primarily differ from a traditional library in that their focused design might include a computer lab with access to library resources and basic productivity software. A level 2 IC would incorporate all of the Level 1 traits in addition to a wider range of multimedia software and formats, increased resources and staff and differing service patterns. A Learning Commons on the other hand “reflects a shift in learning theory from primarily a transmission of knowledge to patrons toward a greater emphasis on creation of knowledge by commons staff and patrons and patrons’ self-direction in learning (Bailey and Tierny 2008)”. The LC promotes a collaborative learning environment that embraces the institutions’ mission and frequently houses the faculty and staff of departments as varied as writing skills, technology, media design, etc. that ultimately comprise a holistic approach of learning.
Scott Bennett (2005), Yale Librarian Emeritus paraphrases Barr and Tagg when he likens the model of knowledge transmission to saying “the purpose of colleges is to provide instruction is like saying that General Motors’ business is to operate assembly lines or that the purpose of medical care is to fill hospital beds. We now see that our mission is not instruction but rather that of producing learning with every student by whatever means work best”. Whether colleges or universities have an IC, one that is organized around service delivery, or an LC, one organized around the fundamental “shift in learning theory from primarily transmission of knowledge to patrons toward a greater emphasis on creation of knowledge by commons staff and patrons and patrons self-direction in learning (Bennett 2005)”, the resulting product has been a resounding success. This shift away from library centric delivery of services to one that supports the collaborative nature of today’s higher education and the unique learning and behavior styles of today’s college students has revitalized the relationship many of today’s college students have with their academic libraries. Students are returning to their reconfigured libraries in unprecedented numbers. The University of Massachusetts at Amherst reported a 202% increase in its gate count after its LC opened at the W.E.B. Du Bois Library in October 2005 (Fitzpatrick et al. 2008). Geoffrey Freeman, AIA (2005), asserts that “Contrary to the predictions of diminishing use and eventual obsolescence of libraries, usage has expanded dramatically – sometimes doubling or even tripling.
NextGen Behaviors and Traits
And this exodus back is a good thing for universities and students alike. Alternately called NextGen or millennials, this demographic numbers 81 million strong. Second only in numbers to the Boomers, these NextGens are the what Bailey and Tierney (2008) describe as the first true “digital natives”, born to multitask and comfortable integrating the social and scholarly aspects of learning. Because NextGens see themselves as “customers of the academic library and will demand high-quality facilities, resources, and services attuned to their needs and concerns” (ACRL Environmental Scan 2008), their unique behavioral and learning styles need to be taken into consideration if their learning and information needs are to be met. Simply stated, they are a force to be reckoned with.
So how are NextGen students shaping the course of academic librarianship? Abram and Luther (2004) have found that the expectations and behaviors of this generation of students are fundamentally different from previous generations. It is this basic difference in the way that NexGens relate to, think about, and interact with information that is at the heart of a mismatch with traditional library services and policies and why Commons are uniquely suited to accommodate these differences. Abram and Luther (2004), have identified nine behavioral trademarks that set this demographic apart from prior generations. By paying close attention to the learning and social styles of this population that are identified by these behaviors, colleges and universities will be able to adapt not only their services to meet these needs, they will also be able to adapt the library as place, making it a destination of choice.
Why is it so important to meet the needs of NextGens? Previously, students had to come to the library to access information they needed for their courses. Materials were organized, cataloged and shelved according to strict procedures. Library science is an exacting and complex field, requiring attention to detail and a single mindedness toward organization. This complexity ensured that librarians were an integral step in the process. Add to this complexity the fact that many institutions held onto a closed stack system on some level, and students had to rely on staff to find and possibly retrieve the information they needed. But all this changed with the advent of the Internet and the ability of anyone with access to a computer and an Internet connection to find information. Not only can information be accessed by anyone at anytime, information can also be created and disseminated by anyone at anytime. There is an abundance of information on the Web, but much of it is lacking verified authority. This is not to say that misinformation did not exist prior to this time or that the authority of everything published was verified. But, librarians ensured that materials were added to college and university collections following strict adherence to collection policies and organizational procedures.
Now, NextGens can access information remotely on the web or through their library or Commons’ web site. However, access to information has turned out to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, free and open access to information can level the intellectual playing field. As long as a person has access to a computer and the internet, there is no longer a gatekeeper granting or denying entry based on situational factors; are we a student, a member, do we belong, can we pay? As long as a person is on the right side of the digital divide, these questions are meaningless and access is freely granted to open source information simply by logging on. However, on the other hand, the gatekeeper is no longer checking to make sure the information we access is accurate. And much of scholarly information is not available through open source journals.
Figures from the OCLC Perceptions survey (2006) show that 84% of students report using a general internet search engine when beginning to research any given topic while only 2% begin from their library’s website. As a result, articles written by school age children reside on the same results page with scholarly articles written by experts in the field. For the majority of people there is no way to ensure that only the most current and correct information on any given subject is accessed aside from evaluating each source independently. Unfortunately most NextGens don’t have the skills required for this task. John Lubans’ (1998) research on freshmen internet use found of the students who responded to the survey, only 7% rank their ability to use the web as “best” while 29% see their use as “good” and 23% as “better” Clearly these Duke University students see room for improvement in their use of the web. It is for this very reason that colleges and universities need to understand what it is that students want and at least try to meet those needs and provide the skills they need to be competent information consumers.
Expectations for Learning
Of the nine behavioral traits of NextGens that Abram and Luther (2004) identified through proprietary and unpublished research as well as studies by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, the OCLC, and Digital Library Federation among others, the first three can be grouped under the heading of ‘expectations for information’. These three traits are: format agnostic, nomadic, and multitasking. A closer look at each trait and its impact will aid in developing services and facilities that meet these needs.
NextGens are ‘Format Agnostic’ – roughly translated, NextGens see little to no difference in print and media formats. They attribute equal validity to journals, books, websites, blogs, music, cable network programs, etc. On an academic level, this translates to NextGens seeing little purpose in limiting their search options based on information format. For them, they see no problem with encyclopedias, blogs, retail outlets, pdf’s and documents all comingling on the results page from a Google search. This is the antithesis of the process previous generations used to conduct research. Current library and information professionals, referred to by Bailey and Tierney (2008) as “digital immigrants” are in a unique position to help NextGens bridge the divide between digital and print information. Because anyone, anywhere, and for any reason can cheaply and easily publish information on the web, this generation is in need of information literacy skills if they are to evaluate the information they find.
Not only are these skills necessary to conduct scholarly research, Abram and Luther (2004) cite “manipulation of Google rankings in the U.S. Democratic primary race for President – especially in Howard Dean’s campaign’s use of blogs” as an example of Google results that require NextGens to carefully scrutinize their origin or authority. Due to the collaborative nature of Commons, especially Learning Commons, information literacy can be offered in conjunction with research projects. By teaching and reinforcing information and media literacy skills, colleges and universities will prepare NextGens to be able to properly evaluate sources and information when making decisions. Commons are in a unique position to make these programs a priority either through collaboration with faculty or literacy specific classes offered electively or as a core requirement unit for incoming freshmen and transfer students.
NextGens are Nomadic – the generation ‘born with the chip’ is accustomed to accessing information 24/7 as a result of Wi-fi. digital phones, and wireless PDAs. No longer do they see the need to go to a specific location (i.e. the library) to access the information they need. This generation abhors being tied to a location. University services have recognized and responded to this fact right down to the most mundane of chores - doing laundry. At many colleges and universities today, your washer and dryer will send a text message when your laundry is done. If students expect this from their appliances, and get this service from their academic institution, one can understand their high expectations from their information services.
The impact of this attitude on Commons is simple; librarians need to broaden their expertise in the specific devices and formats that NextGens use. Web 2.0 tools such as chat reference and IM reference need to be evaluated to ascertain their effectiveness.
The Perceptions survey found that 45% of students surveyed answered yes when asked if their library offered online librarian question service, 13% said no, and a striking 42% were not certain. As important as it is to advertise the services you offer, it is more important to find out what services your NextGens use. It is fruitless to do chat reference on Meebo if your patrons have no idea how to access it. Steven Bell (2008) clarified this issue in American Libraries: Whether it is owing to a lack of time, a desire to quickly implement new technologies, or allowing bandwagon mentality to rule, rarely do most of us allow sufficient time to carefully design a strategy for technology innovation. Not only do we likely fail to conduct an analysis to first determine the feasibility of a new technology application, but we rarely take the time to adequately determine if our users would value the new service. In a nutshell, our approach is to identify a solution before we fully understand the problem.An additional factor that needs to be considered by Commons is how to reformat information so it will display properly on smaller devices such as phones and PDAs . Abrahm and Luther (2004) liken not having this service to the invisibility that comes when a library does not have a web site. In order to maintain relevancy, library services need to be available on the devices NextGens use most frequently.
NextGens Multitask – this ability, which seems so foreign and confusing to prior generations, is as natural as breathing to NextGens. One look at their desktop while they work and you will frequently see several IM windows open, an MP3 connected, a browser opened for surfing the web, one for information they have accessed as well as several presentation applications such as PowerPoint, MS Word or Photoshop. One can see how the library of yesterday, one that functioned in a ‘high touch’ model mainly as a repository for books, fails to meet the expectations of today’s NextGen students. And one expectation they have is that all the devices they use, computers, Mobile phones and PDAs will support seamless multitasking. Previously, thin clients were a viable option to boost the number of available computers. Now, however, Commons run the risk of alienating NextGens with computers that don’t support the software platforms they need to take a task from beginning to end. As MacWhinnie (2003) points out, “thin client workstations… may be suitable for basic access, but supporting a full range of software and / or multimedia tools for preparing projects from beginning to end is beyond the capacities of “dumb terminals” and requires more robust equipment.”
The Collaborative Nature of Commons
In the preface to "The Library as Place," Geoffry Freeman states his belief that in direct opposition to the isolating nature of the internet, libraries have the ability to bring faculty, students and scholars together with emerging technology and traditional resources for the purpose of supporting “today’s social and educational patterns of learning, teaching, and research (2005)”. Today’s use of electronic databases and presentation formats has “fostered a shift from the dominance of independent study to more collaborative and interactive learning” In addition to providing places of solitude, today Commons are providing group study spaces, rooms for project development, as well as spaces with advanced state of the art presentation technology. As early as 2002, William Miller found “students prefer to study and interact with each other in libraries, more than in any other setting.” In fact his students at Florida Atlantic University lobbied him for longer study hours and contributed a “donation of $1,010,000 in student funds for an all-night study floor in our forthcoming library addition (Miller 2002)”. In addition to the collaborative nature of today’s learning model, Commons support study spaces that meet the needs of the academic and social facets of learning.
The National Survey of Student Engagement (2008) found that two benchmarks of active learning were a supportive campus environment and the discussion of class content outside the classroom. Bennett (2005) found much of this conversation takes place in domestic spaces such as dorms and frequently involves food and as a result of these findings, believes that food service combined with spaces that allow for social interaction as a standard feature of library design adds to the ability of students to claim a learning space as their own. One can see how the collaborative and relaxed features of Commons meet these unique learning behavioral traits of NextGens, which Abram and Luther identified as experiential, collaborative, and integrated.
NextGens are Experiential – NextGens are accustomed to interacting with their computers. Many NextGens grew up playing video games that engaged them on an experiential level. They have come to expect this gaming environment when they access web pages, preferring content-rich as opposed to high-text web pages. This generation has “high-level questioning and thinking skills and lower-level prima facie knowledge (such as facts, timelines, vocabulary, and regurgitation skills.) … For example, when asked to debate a political issue in class they might map both sides of the issue, pro and con, list interested parties or figures, … and more (Abram and Luther 2004)”. All of these skills fit seamlessly with the more experiential format of many courses offered on campuses today.
NextGens are Collaborative – Statistics show that NextGens “collaborates as a core ethos – e.g., in multiplayer games, with IM, in collaboratories, virtual classrooms, and chat rooms (Abram and Luther 2004)”. This collaborative spirit carries over into the classroom and beyond. In addition to the virtual reference applications this collaborative trait meshes with, they are also uniquely positioned to respond to the collaborative nature of “the Learning Commons model [which] not only has revitalized and reinvigorated the academic library, but in effect repositioned it to become a more active agent of collaboration in support of learning outcomes (Beagle 1999)”.
NextGens are Integrated – NextGens are truly integrated as they see content and technology as a cohesive unit. In previous generations, librarians used the reference interview to match an information need with a source or sources to locate the answer. Today, however, many librarians find that this generation with their integrated approach, prefer ‘self-service’ and frequently turn to the Internet for answers to their questions. The “three Fs” requirement are what MacWhinney (2003) found NextGens are satisfied with in their Internet searches; first, fastest, and full text. Abram and Luther (2004) feel that “The magic of librarianship is the interpersonal, professional competencies that we apply in relating our users’ information needs and experiences to organized (and disorganized) content and or services.” This means not only do NextGens integrate the social and scholarly aspects of their educational experience; librarians also need to “be integrated with the virtual environment as coach, mentor, and information advisor.”
Conclusion
The unique learning behaviors and traits of NextGens make for an ideal fit with the collaborative aspect of today’s Commons approach to integrating the “high touch” aspect of traditional library services with the ‘high tech’ environment that most information services encompass. Whether it is to access to information through the OPAC or ILL services or using Commons’ website portals to access electronic databases and digital information, this generation of students will need our help. As “digital immigrants” we are in a unique position to help them develop the information literacy skills they need to navigate their way through the sea of information that is available on the web. In addition to providing media and information literacy skills, today’s Information and Learning Commons can also provide NextGens with the place that becomes “an extension of the classroom, … a place in which students engage in a collaborative learning process, a place where they will, it is hoped, develop or refine their critical thinking … we must never lose sight of the dedicated, contemplative spaces that will remain an important aspect of any place of scholarship (Bennett 2008).”
______________________________________________________________________
Works Cited
Abram, S., & Luther, J. (2004). Born with the chip:The next generation will profoundly impact both library service and the culture within the profession. Library Journal, 129(8), 34.
ACRL Environmental Scan 2007 (published January 2008). http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/whitepapers/Environmental_Scan_2.pdf
Bailey, D. R., & Tierney, B. (2008). Transforming library service through information commons : Case studies for the digital age. Chicago: American Library Association.
Beagle, D. (March 1999). Conceptualizing an information commons. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship. 25(2), 82-9.
Beagle, D. (2008). The learning commons in historical context. Retrieved April 18, 2009, from http://tinyurl.com/qb9j5a.
Bell, S. J., & Shank, J. D. (2007). Academic librarianship by design: A blended librarian's guide to the tools and techniques. Chicago: American Library Association.
Bell, S. J., (2008). Design Thinking. American Libraries. Retrieved April 18, from http://stevenbell.info/pdfs/ALdesignarticle.pdf.
Bennett, S. (May 2008). The Information or the Learning Commons: Which Will We Have? The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 34(3), 183-5. Retrieved April 12, 2009 from Wilson Direct
Bennett, S. (2005). Righting the balance. Library as place : Rethinking roles, rethinking
space. Washington, D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources. "College Students’ Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources," OCLC, 2006.
http://www.oclc.org/reports/pdfs/studentperceptions_conclusion.pdf
Fitzpatrick, Elizabeth B, Anne C Moore, and Beth W Lang. "Reference Librarians at the Reference Desk in a Learning Commons: A Mixed Methods Evaluation." Journal of Academic Librarianship. 34.3 (2008): 231. Retrieved through Project Muse. 21 March 2009.
Freeman, G. T., & Council on Library and Information Resources. (2005). Library as place : Rethinking roles, rethinking space. Washington, D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources.
Lubans, J. (1998, April). How first-year university students use and regard Internet resources. How First-Year University Students Use and Regard Internet Resources. Retrieved March 22, 2009, from http://www.lubans.org/docs/1styear/firstyear.html
MacWhinnie, L. A. (2003). The information commons: The academic library of the future. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(2), 241-257.
Martell, C. (2008). The absent user: Physical use of academic library collections and services continues to decline 1995“2006. JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP, 34(5), 400-407.
Miller, W. (2002). "The Library as Place; Tradition and Evolution," Library Issues http://www.libraryissues.com/pub/LI220003.asp