2002 was an active year in assessing user needs; their library and information use patterns; and in gaining a better understanding of how online information resources and services impact their work. During Spring Quarter, assessment information was drawn from four initiatives:
In general, results from these assessment efforts show that our community of faculty and students are moving rapidly to remote use of online information resources – indeed, it is the preferred method for finding and using information needed for work Self-reliance and the ability to perform library-related work without library staff mediation are of high importance to users. Undergraduates continue to use libraries as a place to do work but faculty and graduate student use of physical facilities continues to fall, most notably in those units that have large serial collections. Libraries total circulation statistics, including in-house use, continue to show steady decline. During the 2001-02 year, there were a million fewer items used in-house compared to 1995-96.
Survey data and focus group transcriptions are currently available in the Assessment shared-docs file on Tahoma and will soon be available on Staff Web. Tabular data shown below is selective.
The Spring 2002 Undergraduate Library Survey was a rerun of the 2001 survey due to a faulty sample used by the Office of Educational Assessment. Several questions dealing with information literacy were changed from 2001, otherwise the survey was the same. The 497 surveys returned represent 24.9% of the 2000 surveys distributed. Key results are summarized below. All data shown in tables is in percent with 1998 results in parenthesis.
Importance of Libraries
Libraries remain important for the work of undergraduate students. Indeed, the importance of libraries increased between 1998 and 2002 while the importance of the World Wide Web declined. The table below shows changes between 1998 and 2002 (1998 in parenthesis) with the percentage marking importance on a 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) scale.
|
Source
of information |
5 ( % ) |
4 (%) |
MEAN |
|
UW
Libraries |
49.7
(44.0) |
29.2
(29.7) |
4.20
(4.06) |
|
Other
libraries |
8.2 (8.9) |
13.9
(14.9) |
2.44
(2.59) |
|
World
Wide Web |
34.8
(41.2) |
33.0
(31.8) |
3.84
(3.98) |
|
Departmental
resources |
24.3
(28.1) |
28.8
(30.7) |
3.51
(3.65) |
|
Other
students/faculty |
31.2
(28.6) |
32.0
(27.8) |
3.68
(3.52) |
Frequency and Type of Use
Results showed a decline in the frequency of in-person library visits from about 70% of respondents who visited at least weekly in 1998 to 60% in 2002. However, the frequency of use from a residence computer nearly doubled from 21% at least weekly in 1998 to 40% in 2002.
|
Method
of using libraries |
More
than once per week |
Weekly
|
|
Visit
in person |
32.8
(38.8) |
27.6
(31.5) |
|
Use
campus computer (not in library) |
18.1
(13.0) |
17.9
(21.1) |
|
Use
residence computer |
18.7
(8.8) |
21.3
(12.1) |
Among those who visit the Libraries at least weekly, there was a steep decline in the frequency of those looking for journals and books. Use of library computers rose substantially compared to 1998 (large computer lab in OUGL opened after the 1998 survey).
|
Activity |
More
than once per week |
Weekly |
|
Look
for a journal |
4.0 (6.5) |
6.2 (12.3) |
|
Look
for a book |
6.2 (8.4) |
6.6 (12.3) |
|
Look
for other material |
3.4 (4.1) |
6.2 (5.7) |
|
Consult
library staff |
1.4 (2.5) |
3.6 (5.3) |
|
Photocopy |
6.6 (10.3) |
14.1
(24.1) |
|
Use
library computers |
34.8
(19.4) |
22.5
(23.9) |
|
Print
from library computer |
17.9 |
13.7 |
|
Work
individually |
30.4
(34.9) |
25.6
(29.7) |
|
Work
in groups |
11.1
(8.1) |
14.1
(15.2) |
When asked what library services were needed weekday evenings and weekends, nearly 75% needed a place to work, 67% a computer to use, while access to the collection was marked by only 15% and reference assistance by 20%. While the frequency of in-person visits dropped, satisfaction with library hours of opening rose with 87% of respondents very satisfied with hours on weekday evenings.
Computer Use
OUGL Commons is the preferred campus location for student computer. The frequency of use was highest from residences – 21% daily from campus residences and 43% from off-campus residences.
|
SITE |
Daily
|
Weekly
|
|
OUGL
Computing Commons |
19.1
(14.1) |
29.4
(24.7) |
|
Mary
Gates (Suzzallo CRC) |
7.8 (9.5) |
22.7
(22.1) |
|
Microlab
- Health Sciences |
0.6 (1.3) |
2.6 (3.6) |
|
Other
UW Libraries |
9.9 (4.3) |
15.9
(13.2) |
|
Department
computing lab |
15.1
(18.6) |
12.9
(14.2) |
|
Campus
residence |
20.5
(10.4) |
2.8 (1.9) |
|
Off
campus residence |
43.1
(45.5) |
8.0 (11.1) |
The ubiquity of undergraduate computing use is shown in the data below, especially in the use of email and the Web.
Activity
|
Daily % |
Weekly
% |
Monthly
% |
|
Read
or send email |
87.3
(80.7) |
8.7 (12.7) |
1.0 (1.8) |
|
Search
UW Libraries catalog* |
4.0 (4.3) |
30.6
(30.1) |
46.3
(40.3) |
|
Search
lib provided bib database |
0.8 |
18.1 |
39.0 |
|
Find
library full-text sources |
2.4 (1.0) |
20.3
(11.8) |
41.0
(29.5) |
|
Do
course assignments on Web |
27.2
(14.1) |
43.7
(37.1) |
16.3
(26.8) |
|
Look
for information on the Web |
50.1
(25.8) |
34.8
(42.6) |
8.7 (22.5) |
|
Surf
the Web |
47.7
(22.4) |
28.4
(33.0) |
12.7
(23.1) |
|
Use
application software |
38.2
(34.2) |
38.6
(34.3) |
10.1
(14.0) |
|
Listen
to sound/view images |
34.2 |
21.1 |
14.9 |
*1998 combined library
catalog and bibliographic database into one question
37% of undergraduates report that they dial directly into the modem pool or use UWICK, while 28% use another Internet Service Provider. 28% also use high speed cable modem or DSL.
Information Literacy
Students ranked finding information needed for their work as most essential toward successful completion of course work this year. Comparing these results to those of faculty responses to a similar question in the 2001 survey, agreement between the two groups was closest in defining research topics and finding information resources and furthest apart in the importance of evaluating and using information effectively.
Relevance to topic and usefulness for supporting their argument were most often considered when evaluating information sources for course-related work. Availability of electronic full-text was also seen as important. Author’s credentials and recommendations by instructors and librarians ranked lowest.
How often do you consider the following when |
Most
often |
|
Least
often |
No
Reply |
|
||
|
evaluating
information sources: |
5
|
4 |
3
|
2
|
1
|
% |
MEAN |
|
Relevance
to your topic |
71.8 |
18.5 |
4.6 |
1.4 |
0.6 |
3.0 |
4.54 |
|
Author’s
credentials |
9.9 |
22.3 |
33.2 |
20.9 |
10.5 |
3.2 |
2.94 |
|
Instructor
or librarian recommendations |
16.9 |
29.0 |
30.2 |
11.7 |
8.5 |
3.8 |
3.27 |
|
Publication
date of source |
21.5 |
35.4 |
24.1 |
12.1 |
3.4 |
3.4 |
3.53 |
|
Usefulness
for supporting your argument |
55.1 |
26.6 |
11.9 |
1.4 |
1.6 |
3.4 |
4.25 |
|
Availability
of electronic full-text |
31.4 |
29.2 |
21.5 |
9.7 |
4.6 |
3.6 |
3.66 |
|
Source
is scholarly |
22.9 |
33.0 |
24.5 |
10.3 |
5.2 |
4.0 |
3.50 |
Satisfaction with specific services increased from 1998 with the largest increase in library computer access.
|
SERVICE |
High Satisfaction
|
|
|
|
Not
Satisfied |
No
Reply % Don’t
Use |
Mean |
|
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
Reshelving |
36.7
(19.0) |
35.9(34.6) |
23.0(35.8) |
3.4
(8.1) |
1.0 (2.4) |
22.1
(21.9) |
4.04
(3.60) |
|
Course
reserves |
29.6
(22.5) |
42.0(36.2) |
23.5(30.4) |
2.0
(7.5) |
3.0 (3.4) |
18.5
(19.4) |
3.93
(3.67) |
|
Library
instruction |
24.0
(11.3) |
40.2(27.5) |
26.3(41.6) |
6.5 (12.9) |
3.0 (6.8) |
32.0
(28.8) |
3.76
(3.24) |
|
Staff
assist in library |
27.8
(25.0) |
42.0(35.2) |
24.9(27.6) |
3.2
(8.8) |
2.2 (3.3) |
17.5
(15.3) |
3.90
(3.70) |
|
Staff
assistance remote |
23.2 |
34.3 |
31.5 |
7.9 |
3.1 |
48.9 |
3.67 |
|
Photocopy |
24.6
(17.7) |
37.7(38.0) |
23.9(30.0) |
8.6 (11.1) |
5.2 (7.7) |
18.3
(10.2) |
3.68
(3.45) |
|
ILL/Article
delivery |
25.7
(16.8) |
35.1(32.8) |
29.4(38.8) |
6.4 (7.6) |
3.4 (4.1) |
46.7
(53.1) |
3.73
(3.51) |
|
Lib
computer access |
30.2
(13.9) |
40.2
29.1) |
21.0(34.4) |
6.5 (16.0) |
2.2 (6.7) |
6.8 (
8.6) |
3.90
(3.28) |
|
Libraries
Web site |
36.1 |
39.7 |
19.7 |
3.1 |
1.3 |
10.3 |
4.06 |
Overall
satisfaction with the Libraries, as well as satisfaction with specific services
and hours rose in every category compared with 1998. The mean overall satisfaction score of 4.22
moved closer to that of graduate students and faculty (4.26, 4.33
respectively).
Very Satisfied Not
Satisfied
|
|
5
(%) |
4
(%) |
3
(%) |
2
(%) |
1
(%) |
Mean |
|
Library
collections |
32.6
(26.3) |
47.4
(47.8) |
17.2
(22.7) |
2.1 (2.4) |
0.6 (0.8) |
4.09
(3.96) |
|
Library
services |
34.7
(23.1) |
52.6
(53.3) |
11.2
(21.2) |
1.3 (2.1) |
0.2 (0.3) |
4.20
(3.97) |
|
Overall |
33.3
(23.1) |
56.1
(55.4) |
10.0
(19.9) |
0.4 (1.1) |
0.2 (0.5) |
4.22
(3.99) |
Delivery of full-text to the desk-top became the top priority (similar to faculty and grad students) with electronic course reserves next. There were sharp drops in priorities dealing with training in using library and Web resources (from 48% to 18%) and in providing consultation on how to do library research (40% to 21%).
LIBRARY PRIORITIES |
% |
|
Deliver
full-text to your computer |
54.9 (34.4) |
|
Maintain
quality of Libraries print collections |
24.5 (28.8) |
|
Provide
electronic access to older journals |
40.0 |
|
Increase
library hours |
33.8 (41.9) |
|
Add
more computers in the library |
45.9 (54.5) |
|
Provide
course reserve materials electronically |
49.5 (50.8) |
|
Provide
training in using library/Web resources |
17.5 (47.5) |
|
Add
group study/seminar rooms |
33.4 (35.5) |
|
Provide
consultation on how to do library research |
20.9 (39.8) |
|
Provide
quieter study/work areas in libraries |
32.6 |
The
Libraries continued its participation in the ARL/Texas A&M
LibQUAL+ pilot. This was the 3rd
year for the survey and more than 170 libraries participated, including 43 ARL
ones. Most UW results could not be
compared with our 2001 data due to methodological and sampling problems. However, comparisons can be made with other
ARL results as well as where possible with our 2000 results.
The table below shows the “gap” (difference between perceived level of service and minimum service expectations) for the questions with highest importance ranking on the 2002 LibQUAL+ survey. The more positive the number, the more the perceived level of service exceeded the minimum expectations. UW faculty and grad student gaps were more positive than the ARL averages (except for library hours for grad students) with undergraduate scores showing less differentiation but generally higher.
|
|
Fac 2002 |
ARL 2002 |
Fac 2000 |
Grad 2002 |
ARL 2002 |
Grad 2000 |
UG 2002 |
ARL 2002 |
UG 2000 |
ACCESS TO INFORMATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Complete
journal runs |
-.17 |
-.72 |
-.13 |
.11 |
-.16 |
-.20 |
.65 |
.64 |
.35 |
|
Timely
ILL/Art delivery |
.77 |
.19 |
.43 |
.93 |
.36 |
.58 |
.85 |
.67 |
.55 |
|
Comprehensive
print collections |
.21 |
-.36 |
.32 |
.62 |
.22 |
.02 |
.68 |
.72 |
.79 |
|
Convenient
business hours |
.16 |
.29 |
.11 |
-.19 |
.12 |
-.04 |
.78 |
.34 |
.58 |
AFFECT OF SERVICE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Knowledgeable
staff |
.44 |
.13 |
.72 |
.36 |
.28 |
.50 |
.68 |
.43 |
.59 |
|
Courteous
staff |
.90 |
.59 |
1.19 |
.80 |
.69 |
.57 |
.62 |
.64 |
.63 |
|
Staff
who understand user needs |
.59 |
.29 |
.88 |
.58 |
.47 |
.55 |
.62 |
.58 |
.76 |
|
Respond
to user questions readily |
.55 |
.36 |
.82 |
.79 |
.50 |
.62 |
.68 |
.54 |
.56 |
PERSONAL CONTROL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electronic
resources to office or home |
-.08 |
-.10 |
-.48 |
.18 |
.07 |
-.06 |
.45 |
.38 |
.25 |
|
Library
website to locate info myself |
.28 |
-.06 |
|
.52 |
.33 |
|
.81 |
.63 |
|
|
Easy
to use access tools |
.19 |
-.05 |
|
.54 |
.30 |
|
.60 |
.44 |
|
|
Info
accessible for independent use |
.41 |
.09 |
|
.60 |
.36 |
|
.66 |
.55 |
|
Personal Control was the most “important” dimension for faculty and graduate students and one where both the mean perceived level of service and gap were higher than the mean for ARL libraries.
|
PERSONAL CONTROL 2002 |
UW Fac |
ARL Fac |
UW Grad |
ARL Grad |
UW UG |
ARL UG |
|
Perceived
Level of Service Mean Score (scale of 1 to 9) and gap between minimum and
per. |
N= 133 |
N= 7218 |
N =128 |
N= 8253 |
N= 139 |
N= 7985 |
|
Making
electronic resources available from my home and office |
7.07 -.08 |
6.92 -.10 |
7.10 .18 |
6.85 .07 |
.6.74 .45 |
6.79 .38 |
|
Library
website enabling me locate information on my own |
7.35 .28 |
7.05 -.06 |
7.69 .52 |
7.30 .33 |
7.04 .81 |
7.22 .63 |
|
Easy
to use access tools that allow me to find things on my own |
7.18 .19 |
6.88 -.05 |
7.31 .54 |
7.07 .30 |
6.77 .60 |
6.88 .44 |
|
Making
information easily accessible for independent use |
7.41 0.41 |
7.00 .09 |
7.36 .60 |
7.10 0.36 |
6.80 .66 |
6/96 0.55 |
LibQUAL+
scores are more difficult to analyze due to the complexity of the survey,
differences between institutions, and the smaller number of respondents. The most apparent change since 2000 is the
smaller positive gaps on the “affective” questions for faculty. Yet, upon closer examination the difference
is due to significantly higher minimum expectations – the mean scores for
perceived level of service were all higher in 2002 than 2000.
Overall
quality of services and satisfaction with treatment and scholarly support are
shown below ( a nine point scale is used) UW faculty
and graduate student scores rank significantly higher than the ARL average,
especially for satisfaction with scholarly support.
|
LibQUAL+ |
Fac 2002 |
ARL 2002 |
Fac 2000 |
Grad 2002 |
ARL 2002 |
Grad 2000 |
UG 2002 |
ARL 2002 |
UG 2000 |
|
Satisfaction
with treatment |
7.78 |
7.34 |
|
7.45 |
7.23 |
|
7.09 |
7.09 |
|
|
Satisfaction
with support |
7.29 |
6.60 |
|
7.32 |
6.83 |
|
6.98 |
6.83 |
|
|
Overall
quality of services |
7.58 |
7.00 |
7.17 |
7.39 |
7.04 |
7.13 |
6.99 |
7.05 |
6.88 |
During Spring Quarter 2002, the Libraries conducted in-library
use surveys at all UW Seattle libraries.
Surveys were distributed to those entering the library during designated
2 hour blocks on weekdays (2) and weekends (2) for a total of four sessions. During these 4 sessions, 6018 surveys were
distributed and 3878 completed surveys returned (64% return rate). Undergraduate students comprise the largest
user group.
User Groups |
Number |
Percent |
Percent
UW only |
|
Undergraduates |
2304 |
59.4% |
65.1% |
|
Graduate
Students |
986 |
25.4% |
27.8% |
|
Faculty/Staff |
251 |
6.5% |
7.1% |
|
Non-affiliated |
312 |
8.0% |
|
|
Did
not state |
25 |
0.6% |
|
Health Sciences, Odegaard Undergraduate, and Suzzallo-Allen libraries accounted for 74% of the surveys distributed and 68% of those returned. User group composition varied by library.
Unit Users – All Units by Group
(Percentage of total users in each unit from each group)
|
|
Undergrad |
Grad |
Faculty/Staff |
Other
|
Total |
|||||
|
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
|
Allen
North |
221 |
52.7% |
98 |
23.4% |
27 |
6.4% |
76 |
18.0% |
422 |
10.9% |
|
Allen
South |
199 |
68.8% |
50 |
16.8% |
27 |
9.1% |
24 |
8.0% |
300 |
7.7% |
|
Architecture |
37 |
36.6% |
50 |
49.5% |
7 |
6.9% |
7 |
6.9% |
101 |
2.6% |
|
Art |
87 |
82.1% |
13 |
12.3% |
1 |
0.9% |
5 |
4.7% |
106 |
2.7% |
|
Chemistry |
65 |
69.9% |
19 |
20.4% |
8 |
8.6% |
1 |
1.1% |
93 |
2.4% |
|
Drama |
44 |
75.9% |
7 |
12.1% |
0 |
0.0% |
9 |
15.0% |
60 |
1.5% |
|
|
30 |
54.5% |
23 |
41.3% |
2 |
3.6% |
0 |
0.0% |
55 |
1.4% |
|
Engineering |
65 |
44.8% |
44 |
30.3% |
10 |
6.9% |
27 |
18.5% |
146 |
3.8% |
|
Fish-Ocean |
23 |
46.9% |
12 |
24.5% |
12 |
24.5% |
2 |
4.1% |
49 |
1.3% |
|
|
26 |
50.0% |
20 |
38.5% |
1 |
1.9% |
5 |
9.6% |
52 |
1.3% |
|
Foster
Business |
174 |
65.2% |
73 |
27.3% |
8 |
3.0% |
12 |
4.5% |
267 |
6.9% |
|
Health
Sciences |
123 |
20.0% |
359 |
58.5% |
83 |
13.5% |
54 |
8.7% |
619 |
16.0% |
|
Math
Research |
6 |
13.0% |
20 |
43.5% |
11 |
23.9% |
9 |
19.6% |
46 |
1.2% |
|
Music
(inc ListCent) |
60 |
47.6% |
50 |
39.7% |
11 |
8.7% |
5 |
4.0% |
126 |
3.3% |
|
OUGL |
1091 |
84.9% |
95 |
7.4% |
26 |
2.0% |
84 |
6.5% |
1296 |
33.4% |
|
Physics-Astronomy |
27 |
55.1% |
14 |
28.6% |
7 |
14.3% |
1 |
2.0% |
49 |
1.3% |
|
Social
Work |
27 |
30.0% |
39 |
43.3% |
9 |
10.0% |
16 |
17.6% |
91 |
2.3% |
What Users Did During Library Visit
In-Library Survey results confirmed much of the data provided by the triennial survey on library use. Undergraduates visit primarily to study/work and use computers, while faculty generally look for material. Graduate students do all three.
|
|
Undergrads |
Grads |
Faculty/Staff |
Other |
Total |
|
Ask
for Help |
9.3% |
14.9% |
19.2% |
17.6% |
12.0% |
|
Looked
for/used library material |
21.8% |
44.4% |
59.6% |
53.5% |
32.6% |
|
Borrowed/returned
material |
11.2% |
27.5% |
23.6% |
15.4% |
15.3% |
|
Made
copies or used copy center |
18.1% |
26.3% |
25.2% |
22.4% |
21.0% |
|
Studied/worked
alone |
58.5% |
49.1% |
19.6% |
39.1% |
52.0% |
|
Studied/worked
in groups |
13.1% |
13.3% |
2.0% |
7.1% |
12.0% |
|
Used
a computer |
63.6% |
58.0% |
35.2% |
37.8% |
58.2% |
|
Used
a printer |
16.1% |
14.9% |
2.0% |
6.4% |
14.1% |
Two focus groups were held in Spring 2002, based around the topic of the impact of online library resources on faculty and student work. The faculty and graduate students groups were comprised primarily of people from health sciences and the sciences. Some of the comments that arose independently in each group included:
The
following quotations from focus groups are organized loosely by topic and
represent common discussion threads.
They tell the story of the impact of online resources and information
technology in the words of our faculty and graduate students.
I’d like to use Inspec more. I avoid it because I have problems with the
search interface. And I know there are articles there that should be coming up,
but I’m not finding them. And I’m
finding hundreds of garbage items. The
librarian keeps saying, “Well, sit down with me and I’ll show you how to do
it.” But I can’t remember how to do
complicated things from one day to the next. (Professor, Physics)
I start with a search engine and I typically use Google. I find that it’s very well designed and very effective. For the searches I’ve done it’s been very fast. Google isn’t medical but it sure comes up with a lot of convenient references. I’ve got material going through Google that I never did actually find through PubMed much to my surprise. So I tend to go to Google first, find articles and convenient MeSH terms and then I’ll come back in. Google’s just so much easier, so much more intuitive. (Professor, Pathology).
Rather than start with a search engine, I pick up a few key articles from colleagues or whatever, and then build a citation tree forwards and backwards. Using ISI Web of Science is incredibly useful there. I think I would pretty well not know how to do research without it if it were to disappear. (Faculty)
My frustration is that usually when I call my
favorite reference librarians I am feeling humiliated, like I should be able to
do this and can’t. And I’m tired of
explaining why I can’t. I just want to
get the job done. (Graduate student)
I’m not keeping up with a lot of this stuff. I’m getting old. I don’t know what the new search engines are, I don’t know what’s going on at the library in terms of how someone or something can help me find the material I’m looking for in a faster easier format. I need someone to tell me that, I don’t have time to read a 10 page document on how to do it. (Faculty)
I wish all my journals were online. It’s not so much
that I dislike trekking to different libraries, it’s just the whole process of
getting there; tracking down the journal; finding a working copy machine, especially on weekends. It’s just so time-consuming and I have so little
time, I have no time. (Graduate Student, Technical Communications)
It’s a huge luxury to be able to work at home. With our teaching and research loads that’s
where we get our good work done. Instead
of having to spend my day finding articles and getting them copied, I can go
home and just work. It’s wonderful. (Faculty)
I teach research to masters degree
students and I gravitate towards e-journals.
If the journal is in the library then I don’t tend to use it. I worry that the journals that are e-journals
will get used and the ones that aren’t won’t get used. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? (Professor, Nursing)
I have put all my lectures into PowerPoint over the last 10 years. And each year, due to the fact that I’m gathering new information, I’m changing those lectures. They do not remain static. Because slides are static you keep them in a tray and you can bring them out next year and give the same lecture. As you are putting them into PowerPoint, you begin to realize that there are some vacancies you need to fill in – got to go back and look for the information to put it into PowerPoint. . You go OK, I want an illustration of this, go to the Web, grab a picture and put it in there. (Faculty)
I can do more work from home and I can work at odd
hours. When libraries aren’t open I can still take a look at a reference. If I’m lying down to fall asleep and it dawns
on me that, “Yeah, I need to check that”, and I can get up and do it in 5
minutes and have an answer. (Graduate Student)
I find that it has changed the way I do library
research. It used to be a stage process:
Initial trip,
follow-up trip, fine-tuning trip. Now it’s a continuous
interactive thing: I can follow-up anything at any time.
While I’m writing, I can keep going back and looking up items or
verifying information. (Graduate
Student, Psychology)
If one person finds a really interesting paper we all have it within 15 minutes. And it moves like wildfire through the lab. Because the PDF file is sent all around by email and we all print and we are all reading it. It’s great. (Faculty)
So I need someone to tell me those things and to give me a quick info. That’s why Terry [Jankowski] is so blessedly useful. She’ll give me that information very quickly. Just getting those tidbits at the right time can make a very, very large difference in how quickly we can access useful information. That’s one thing to chorus loud and clear on the tape, “Thank God for librarians.” There’s no better place for human intervention in information science. (Faculty)
I am hoping that the reference librarians I know by name never disappear from the face of the earth. Nothing can quite replace the human contact when you get stuck (yes, yes from group). (Graduate Student)
Conclusion
Online
information resources and information technology have helped change the way in
which teaching, learning and research is done at the