Kathleen McCabe Kenny
ILS 560
Term Paper – April 2012
Kathleen M. Kenny
ILS 560
Term Paper
April 15, 2012
Learning Commons & Student Learning Outcomes
1
Kathleen McCabe Kenny
ILS 560
Term Paper – April 2012
Introduction: background and definition
The development of information commons in academic libraries is a relatively new trend,
first taking shape in the early 1990s. A number of factors contributed to their inception, both
from within the academy and the world at large. These include technological changes to both
resource delivery and learning; pedagogical shifts; and pressure on libraries to be accountable
for their roles in student learning outcomes.
According to Donald Beagle, “information commons” has been used on “two parallel
levels”: On one level, it refers to a wide variety of digital resources and services able to be
accessed and searched from a single graphical user interface. On the second level, it refers to
the physical space that is designed to accommodate these digital services. In his view, the
organizational principles at the heart of libraries’ development of information commons speak
to those libraries’ needs to adapt their traditional focus on print media in the digital age.
Analyzing the emergence of information commons through the management theory of
Strategic Alignment, he states that “When the organizational and technological domains are
functionally integrated and strategically aligned, the organization can maximize its personnel,
fiscal, and technological resources” (Beagle, Conceptualizing an Information Commons, 1999).
Prior to the existence of the information commons, library services were delivered by
separate units, operating in parallel (he uses the example of UNC Charlotte’s Reference and
Media Services). Now that technology has advanced to a point where the resources offered by
each can “speak to each other” (microfiche readers and 16mm projectors of yesterday vs. CDROMs and productivity software of today, for example), the merging of the departments
responsible for delivery of those services is a logical outgrowth (Beagle, Conceptualizing an
Information Commons, 1999).
In a follow up to his 1999 article, Donald Beagle wrote another piece for The Journal of
Academic Librarianship where he revisits his prior work. He notes that the ideas put forth in
the 1999 piece have been central to the development of learning commons at a number of
2
Kathleen McCabe Kenny
ILS 560
Term Paper – April 2012
institutions, and posits that it’s because the earlier piece detailed a plan for innovation,
“viewing the IC as a mechanism to realign the library…with new learning modalities through
the functional integration of information and technology services.” He mentions a photo
featured for a cover story for The Chronicle of Higher Education, showing a vacant library and
the heading “the Deserted Library.” In the context of the questions about the viability of the
academic library in the digital age, it is Beagle’s opinion that the advent of learning
commons can help to “reshape the library’s identity.” He quotes Martin Halbert’s description
of the Infocommons at Emory University:
“Because of the extensive access to technology, many patrons now use the library
more frequently and for longer periods of time. Previously, students gathered
information at the library…and took it away to do something with it. Now they can
write papers, tabulate data, design Web pages, and collaborate in groups using
computers, all without leaving the library. This leads to a different kind of one-stopshopping mode of research and learning that has greatly boosted library usage”
(Beagle, Extending the Information Commons: From Instructional Testbed to Internet2,
2002).
During the 2004-2005 academic year, a group was convened at the University of Akron to
begin to explore the possibility of developing a learning commons at the school’s Bierce
Library. In the course of the literature review, the group found a number of common themes
to the reasons for the commons model, primary among them “the need to integrate essential
technological and informational services in a collaborative fashion within an innovative spatial
setting” (Franks & Tosko, 2007). The underlying reasons for implementing information
commons lend themselves to a number of shared components, as well: typically they include
reference services; computer support; media production; and an emphasis on collaborative
learning (Franks & Tosko, 2007).
The mid-90s saw a rise in the “library as a place” movement, where the definition of the
library began to expand to encompass a number of activities that students engage in, both
social and academic. The interiors of the libraries were redone to be more comfortable and
inviting, food and drink policies were often loosened up, and wireless networks were installed
3
Kathleen McCabe Kenny
ILS 560
Term Paper – April 2012
(Spencer, 2006). Jill McKinstry, quoted by Franks and Tosko, stated that “students seek
spatial, social, and intellectual connections that balance the need to find, to reflect, and
absorb with the need to create and produce.” Institutions began to give more consideration
to how to integrate the impact of emerging technologies with learning.
While technology began to change how libraries deliver their services, changes to
pedagogy began to take hold as well. The emphasis in liberal arts education began to move
from the traditional model of instruction to one where students are encouraged to take
responsibility for their own learning. The implication of this shift on libraries has meant less
space used for print collections, and more space used for information literacy, reading, and
writing. With smaller print collections, libraries can experiment with different ways to use
their physical space (Harloe & Williams, 2009).
In the current climate of economic uncertainty, the high cost of higher education has
come under increased scrutiny. With that scrutiny, academic libraries are under pressure to
demonstrate their value to student learning outcomes. The shift from teaching to learning
mentioned above is supported by accreditors, and comes with a clear imperative for libraries:
the library should make direct or indirect contributions to the students’ learning experiences
(Kuh & Gonyea, 2003). Librarians must adapt to their student populations and work to
connect with them “where, how, and when they need help and might learn research skills”
(Moore & Wells, 2009). In addition to offering online services such as text, chat, and mobile
reference, getting students in the door by making the environment conducive to the
expectations that students have is an important step to fulfilling these objectives.
The terms “information commons” and “learning commons” are often used
interchangeably. In a footnote to a chapter about information commons, Joan K. Lippincott
notes that in practice, she has found no direct correlation to what term an institution chooses
to use and what services are offered. Donald Beagle offers a different take on this,
characterizing the evolution from information commons to learning commons in the context
4
Kathleen McCabe Kenny
ILS 560
Term Paper – April 2012
of a matrix from the American Council on Education’s primer for change. This matrix includes
the following four points: adjustment, isolated change, far-reaching change, and
transformation. In Beagle’s view, changes made to incorporate information commons into
academic libraries would be construed as “isolated” (for example, the addition of
productivity software to library computer lab computers that also offer electronic resources);
the transformation to learning commons occurs when the changes become “far-reaching” (the
aforementioned computers plus coordination with campus entities outside the library,
integration with all campus services such as course management software) and
“transformational” (integration with campus entities and services becomes “an enriched suite
of services and toolsets” for students and faculty alike) (Beagle, From Information Commons
to Learning Commons, 2004). In 2005, EDUCAUSE ran a two-day conference focusing on
learning commons, intended for a broad audience including architects, information
technology professionals, librarians, faculty members, and university administrators. In the
course of that session, Malcolm Brown and Phillip Long described the shift from information
commons to learning commons, indicating that the hallmarks of the latter include “a focus on
student learning, information creation, integrated campus services, social learning spaces and
the integration of technology with a wide range of human activities (e.g. ‘eating, discussing,
writing, drawing, thinking, being social, being private, etc.’)” (Spencer, 2006).
Because of the nature of the examples of some current installations of learning commons
that I discovered in the literature, the term “learning commons” as Beagle, Brown and Long
describe it seems appropriate, so I will use that term for the remainder of the paper.
By 2004, the Association of Research Libraries identified three elements shared by most
learning commons: the presence of research and computing assistance; a single location for
most library services; and staffing that includes librarians, computer specialists, and other
public services staff. In 2006, learning commons had combined a wide variety of campus
services that had previously been dispersed (writing centers, career resources, tutoring, and
5
Kathleen McCabe Kenny
ILS 560
Term Paper – April 2012
computer labs, among others) into a “seamless suite of blended services” for students
(Spencer, 2006). Learning commons are very popular with students; Mary Ellen Spencer notes
that this is due to their recognition of and encouragement of students’ relationship with
technology; the flexibility of the physical space to accommodate group assignments; and the
integration with faculty use of technology and course management software.
Learning Commons: Implementations and Student Outcomes
Examples of successful and innovative learning commons installations are plentiful. In a
2009 article for The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Anne Cooper Moore and Kimberly A.
Wells did an in-depth examination of the services provided by the Learning Commons at the
W.E.B. Du Bois Library at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst (opened September
2005) and provided some insight on some of the successes that they have seen. Per the
statement provided by the Office of Information Technologies at UMASS, the Learning
Commons offers the elements that characterize the concept: it “brings together library,
technology, and other campus services in an environment that fosters informal, collaborative
work, and social interaction” (Moore & Wells, 2009). By reducing the Reference printed
collection, they were able to create space where there are close to 200 computers available
for use either by individuals or in flexible seating arrangements that can be used by up to six
people at a time. There are 17 group study rooms, with equipment that supports
collaboration and presentation practice. The increased amount of space also led to more
services being offered, with desks for the Office of Information Technologies, Academic
Advising, and Career Resources (Moore & Wells, 2009).
In the course of their examination, Moore and Wells observed that that “with a Learning
Commons, library gate counts soar.” Indeed, gate counts increased an average of 81% in 2007,
and saw 20-70% increases each month. (Indiana University’s main library saw similar effects in
their gate counts after the installation of their learning commons; their numbers almost
6
Kathleen McCabe Kenny
ILS 560
Term Paper – April 2012
doubled from the year prior to the second year of its existence (Lippincott, 2006). ) That is
far from the only measure of the success of the library’s Learning Commons installation: After
the Writing Center moved its services to the Learning Commons, the number of one-on-one
sessions increased by 33% in the first semester they were offered. While there are 26 floors in
the library, students overwhelmingly prefer to study specifically on the level with the
Learning Commons (73% of survey respondents). Bringing students into the library also makes
reference services accessible to them in the way that they prefer; Moore and Wells cite an
online survey that found that “seventy-four percent preferred face-to-face reference help to
[other] formats,” and in their own survey 82% of the respondents stated that preference.
While email, chat, and telephone reference services are essential for making reference
service available wherever students happen to be, bringing them to the place where they
would prefer to receive these services is certainly a step in the right direction. In a study
undertaken by Kuh and Gonyea to examine the value of students’ library experiences, they
found that libraries make a substantial contribution to the academic mission of institutions,
and that students who use the library more frequently display a “studious work ethic,” and
engage in “academically challenging tasks” (Kuh & Gonyea, 2003).
In 2008, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) conducted a survey of their member
libraries to learn about “innovative and noteworthy experiments” in three areas, one of them
the use of physical space. Out of the 123 member libraries, 77 responded and the ARL
organized their responses around common themes that came up. One of these common
themes was “Collaborations with Campus Partners,” and they found that many of their survey
respondents made reference to having a presence of other campus bodies in their libraries,
including information technology, tutoring, writing, and other services consistent with the
learning commons model. At the University of Pennsylvania’s Weigle Commons, their mission
is to provide services from “a group of administratively disparate services that have joined
forces to collaboratively support undergraduate education.” Their multimedia center serves
7
Kathleen McCabe Kenny
ILS 560
Term Paper – April 2012
as both a production facility and training space, offering training in new forms of multimedia
to students. Weigle Commons also provides services to faculty, in the form of technology
training to support new teaching methods, as well as the multimedia training available to
students. The ARL has deemed the installation of learning commons a “celebrated success on
most ARL campuses” (Stuart, 2009).
Today’s undergraduates (often dubbed “Millennials”) tend to combine social and
academic activities, and are comfortable multitasking in this manner. In learning commons,
this blend of activities is facilitated, as is group collaboration, an increasingly popular choice
for assignments. In line with the trend toward focusing education toward learning and away
from teaching, learning commons encourage students to “make the learning their own” as
they investigate topics and “produce a product that integrates it with the content of the
course” (Lippincott, 2006).
In developing their learning commons, the University of Akron faced a number of
challenges. As an open-enrollment institution, UA is home to a very diverse student body,
ranging from students in need of remedial education to students enrolled in advanced honors
programs. The school is primarily a commuter school, but recent efforts to improve student
housing options have led to increasing numbers of residential students. There is a high
number of adult students, as well as those enrolled in night classes. (Franks & Tosko, 2007).
At the time of Franks’ and Tosko’s writing in 2007, the learning commons had not yet
been established but the findings of the convened group and the plans that emerged from
their reflections are indicative of the benefits and aid to student success that can result from
the combination of services that a learning commons offers. The commons has since been
established, and according to the library services website, it offers a number of services,
including laptop checkout, technical support, and math, tutoring, and writing labs, all listed
under the umbrella of Library Services (The University of Akron: Library Services, 2012). The
website also features a number of computer-related frequently asked questions.
8
Kathleen McCabe Kenny
ILS 560
Term Paper – April 2012
Graduate Students and Faculty
The majority of learning commons installations focus on the needs of undergraduate
students, but graduate students and faculty have begun to voice their desire for spaces
created for their needs. Per Crit Stuart’s 2009 piece for Research Library Issues, “there is no
consensus on what [the] response should be.” He offers a general list of some efforts being
made in academic libraries to address the needs of these groups, including “subject-based
digital centers” to be used by faculty and graduate students for research, as well as
comfortably-furnished spaces for quiet study. Like undergraduates, these groups also need to
have technology services available to them, practice with new teaching styles, and an area
conducive to socialization and collaboration with peers (Stuart, 2009).
The University Libraries at Florida State University have made an effort to assess the
needs of their different constituencies and offer space and staffing geared to the needs of
these different groups. In 2006, they began by phasing out their Reference Department and
made two separate units, with one focusing on undergraduates and one for faculty and
graduate students. This followed a 2004 LibQual survey where faculty and graduate students
indicated that the Libraries were not meeting their needs; these groups noted the need for
changes and/or service improvements in terms of the collection, the need for subject
specialists, and both quiet and group study space (Colvin, 2010).
In order to facilitate these changes, the ground floor of the main library was marked for
renovation. The plans for the space included rooms for group study and research consultation,
a computer lab, media production, and spaces for conferences and instruction. As in
undergraduate learning commons, the furniture was chose to be flexible in its use—tables and
chairs are on casters for easy reconfiguration of space, for example. After gathering
feedback, the library learned that study space was preferable to technology space, and that
9
Kathleen McCabe Kenny
ILS 560
Term Paper – April 2012
most users of the space would be bringing their own laptops, so there are only 24 computers
installed in this learning commons (Colvin, 2010).
To staff the space, a group of subject specialists from the following departments:
Collection Development, Digital Media, and Faculty & Graduate Research Services combined
to form the Scholars Commons Department. There are eight librarians in this group, and each
of them are responsible for “collection development, outreach to faculty and graduate
students, research support, and instruction” (Colvin, 2010).
Since its opening in November 2008, the Scholars Commons has been very popular.
Graduate students form the majority of users, and have been vocal about their appreciation
of it. In the first year of its operation, over 1000 graduate students registered for access to
the key-accessible reading room. There a number of services tailored specifically to this
group, such as the faculty delivery service called “FedS” (for Faculty Express Delivery Service)
where books are delivered directly to faculty members’ offices, and journal articles from the
print collection can be emailed. A partnership between the library and the Statistics
Department has led to a statistics consulting service, which will assist faculty and students
with creating experiments or studies, and interpreting the results of their work. Workshops
are offered by the Graduate School on subjects such as grant writing.
Conclusion
Like all aspects of library service, learning commons will have to change and adapt over
time, likely at a more rapid pace due to their basis in technology. Innovations and changes in
hardware, software, and how faculty use these things in the course of their teaching will have
an effect on learning commons. Throughout the literature, libraries are repeatedly
encouraged to continually engage with their patrons to better understand their needs; the
creation of a mission statement at the outset of the development of a learning commons is a
helpful step so that data collected later can be measured against the goals and vision for use
10
Kathleen McCabe Kenny
ILS 560
Term Paper – April 2012
of the space (Lippincott, 2006). Attitudes toward the learning commons and the demographics
of users will change over time, and as new media are developed and become commonplace, it
is critical that libraries keep abreast of how these technologies can be incorporated into their
services (Moore & Wells, 2009).
Collaboration with faculty is important, so that libraries can align their plans with the
expectations that faculty have. In addition to working to provide students with spaces where
their information literacy skills can be developed, librarians should work to impart
“complementary skills like research methodologies, information synthesis, and multimedia
production” (Stuart, 2009). Librarians can work with faculty to create links between the
content on offer in the learning commons and course assignments, and so that the faculty can
include technology that would be helpful to their students in their course management
software.
Studies undertaken to examine the impact that learning commons have on student
success tend to reach a common conclusion: that with the combination of services that they
offer, and the attendant rise in library use that they bring about, they make a valuable
contribution to students’ experiences. With careful planning, the engagement of student and
faculty opinion, and institutional commitment to staffing and resources, learning commons
should prove to be worthwhile installations in academic libraries for a long time to come.
11
Kathleen McCabe Kenny
ILS 560
Term Paper – April 2012
Reference List
Beagle, D. (1999). Conceptualizing an Information Commons. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship , 25 (2), 82-89.
Beagle, D. (2002). Extending the Information Commons: From Instructional Testbed to
Internet2. The Journal of Academic Librarianship , 28 (5), 287-296.
Beagle, D. (2004, August). From Information Commons to Learning Commons. Retrieved April
13, 2012, from
http://www.usc.edu/libraries/locations/leavey/new_at_leavey/conference/presentat
ions/presentations_9-16/Beagle_Information_Commons_to_Learning.pdf
Colvin, G. (2010). The Scholars Commons: Spaces and Services for Faculty and Graduate
Students. Florida Libraries , 53 (1), 6-8.
Franks, J. A., & Tosko, M. P. (2007). Reference Librarians Speak for Users: A Learning
Commons Concept That meets the Needs of a Diverse Student Body. The Reference
Librarian , 47 (1), 105-118.
Harloe, B., & Williams, H. (2009). The college library in the 21st century: Reconfiguring space
for learning and engagement. College & Research Libraries News , 70 (9), 514-516.
Kuh, G. D., & Gonyea, R. M. (2003). The Role of the Academic Library in Promoting Student
Engagement in Learning. College & Research Libaries , 64 (4), 256-282.
Lippincott, J. K. (2006). Linking the Information Commons to Learning. In E. Diana G. Oblinger
(Ed.), Learning Spaces (pp. 7.1-7.18). EDUCAUSE.
Moore, A. C., & Wells, K. A. (2009). Connecting 24/5 to Millennials: Providing Academic
Support Services from a Learning Commons. The Journal of Academic Librarianship ,
35 (1), 75-85.
Spencer, M. E. (2006). Evolving a new model: the information commons. Reference Services
Review , 24 (2), 242-247.
Stuart, C. (2009). Learning and Research Spaces in ARL Libraries: Snapshots of Installations
and Experiments. Research Library Issues (264), 7-18.
The University of Akron: Library Services. (2012). Retrieved April 10, 2012, from
http://www.uakron.edu/libraries/bierce_scitech/services/index.dot
12