Building Task Force
Trends Subgroup Report
Table of Contents
Building Task Force Trends in Higher Education Subgroup Report ....................................................... 1
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Sources ................................................................................................................................................. 4
ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee. (2014). Top trends in academic libraries: A
review of the trends and issues affecting academic libraries in higher education. College &
Research Libraries News. 75(6), 294-302. Retrieved from
http://crln.acrl.org/content/75/6/294 ............................................................................................ 4
Almanac of higher education 2013-14. (2011). Washington, D.C: Chronicle of Higher Education.5
Anderson, R. (2013, August 1). Can't buy us love: The declining importance of library books
and the rising importance of special collections. Retrieved
http://www.sr.ithaka.org/sites/default/files/files/SR_BriefingPaper_Anderson.pdf ................. 8
Dechert, R. R., Richards, S. S., Zawacki, C. C., & Giraud, G. G. (2014). Exploring the learning
commons: Tutoring moves into Hinckley Library. College and Research Libraries News, 75(3),
125-127. Retrieved from http://crln.acrl.org/content/75/3/125 ................................................ 8
Felix, Elliot (2015, May 28) Rethink the Staff Workplace: Library by Design, Library Journal,
Spring 2015. ......................................................................................................................................... 9
Figueroa, Miguel. (2015, March/April). Forecasting the future of libraries. American Libraries,
28-31..................................................................................................................................................... 9
Foster, N. (2014, February 14). Designing a new academic library from scratch. Retrieved from
http://sr.ithaka.org/blog-individual/designing-new-academic-library-scratch ........................ 10
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014
Library Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from
http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2014-nmc-horizon-report-library-EN.pdf ....................................... 11
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015
Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from
http://www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2015-higher-education-edition/ ....... 13
Konnikova, M. (2014, January 7). The open office trap. The New Yorker...................................... 16
Landgraf, Greg. (2015, March/April). Forecasting the future of libraries: Making room for
informal learning. American Libraries, 32-34.................................................................................. 17
Lankes, R. (2011). The atlas of new librarianship. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ......... 19
Cavaggnero, L. (September 2014). Seven themes on spaces, creativity and design thinking.
Transforming, Sandboxing, Repurposing Learning Spaces for Nurturing Creative Learning,
Creative Learners: Lessons Learned from the LSC Experience [Webinar] Retrieved from
https://learningspaces.webex.com/learningspaces/lsr.php?RCID=3097db6190bac7bcfa1afda
263e5c54f .......................................................................................................................................... 20
Lippincott, Joan. (2015, March/April). Forecasting the future of libraries: The future for
teaching and learning. American Libraries, 34-37. ......................................................................... 21
Lynn, V. (2011). A knowledge commons needs assessment: Building for the future at Penn
State. College & Research Libraries News. 72(8), 464-467. Retrieved from
http://crln.acrl.org/content/72/8/464 .......................................................................................... 23
Mathews, B. (2014). Librarian as futurist: Changing the way libraries think about the Future.
Libraries and the Academy, 14(3), 453-462. Retrieved from
https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_a
cademy/v014/14.3.mathews. .......................................................................................................... 23
Mathews, B. (2015). Learning commons as symbol: The new heart of our communities? The
Ubiquitous Library. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/blognetwork/theubiquitouslibrarian/2015/01/27/learning-commonsas-symbol-the-new-heart-of-our-communities/ ............................................................................ 24
Moore, D. (2014). Reshaping campus libraries: A road map to 21st Century spaces. College
Planning & Management. Retrieved from http://webcpm.com/Articles/2014/07/01/CampusLibrary.aspx ....................................................................................................................................... 25
Morehart, Phil (2015, February 16). The Future, Today. American Libraries Magazine,
retrieved from http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2015/02/26/the-future-today/ .......... 25
Seal, R. (2014, July 11). Library spaces in the 21st Century—Meeting the challenges of user
needs for information, technology, and expertise. Paper presented at the 7th Shanghai
International Library Forum, Shanghai, China. Retrieved from
http://ecommons.luc.edu/lib_facpubs/27/.................................................................................... 26
Selingo, J.J. (2013). Attitudes on innovation: How college leaders and faculty see key issues facing
higher education. The Chronicle of Higher Education: Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.cnm.edu/depts/marketing/academe/documents/attitudes-on-innovation......... 27
Shank, J. & Bell, S. (2011). Blended librarianship [re]envisioning the role of the librarian as
educator in the digital information age. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 51(2), 105-110.
Retrieved from http://journals.ala.org/rusq/article/view/4025/4568 ..................................... 28
Sinclair, B. (2007). Commons 2.0: Library Spaces Designed for Collaborative Learning.
EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30(4), 4–6. Retrieved from
https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0740.pdf ............................................................... 29
Stewart, C. (2015, January 1). Building with purpose: A quantitative overview and analysis of
new U.S. academic library construction, 2000-2014. Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/whitepapers/stewart_b
uilding.pdf .......................................................................................................................................... 29
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 2 of 31
Introduction
Following is an annotated bibliography of readings that focus on trends in academic libraries and
higher education. Over the course of the 2014/2015 academic year a sub-group of the JMU Library
Building Task Force created this in-depth bibliography to inform the work of the larger committee
in making recommendations in renovating and expanding Carrier Library, with an eye toward
evolving scholarship needs. Throughout the year the sub-group updated the larger committee on
findings through regular presentations and recommended readings. Key trends have been pulled
into the summary section of this document.
Summary
There is a growing call in higher education for academic libraries to be campus leaders, not just
collaborators, or facilitators, as they have traditionally marketed themselves. To do this, the
academic libraries of tomorrow seek to participate in new knowledge building with the
communities that they serve. They work to be at the forefront of advancing cultures of change and
innovation to meet rapidly evolving scholarly communication practices throughout disciplines
(Lankes, Mathews). From partners in data management and digital humanities projects, to
advocates in open access publications, and connectors in multi-disciplinary, and cross-institutional
research, the work of the libraries is not confined within the walls of a specific building.
There is a strong recognition that to meet the diversity of needs on today’s campus will necessitate
engaged and ongoing conversations with specific user communities, and a refocus on library
alignment with the larger university’s values and missions. Additionally, there is an increasing
acknowledgement that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach for the academic library of the 21st
century. Mathews and Lankes both note that to meet the ever-expanding needs of scholars, libraries
must become active, rather than passive, participants in the shaping their future. The university
libraries that do this best constantly query themselves and their communities, as to how it could be
better, while remaining open and agile enough to hear and act upon the answers they receive. On
campuses where these conversations are happening, libraries are shifting traditional spaces from
repositories of books and siloed quiet study spaces, towards dynamic community hubs, that
encourage experimentation, media-centric activities, and group work as well as solitary work.
These spaces focus on local community driven, faculty and student led, programming, as well as
providing easy access to both human experts and scholarly resources.
The role of the librarian in the academy has become increasingly complex within this context. As
observed in the 2014 ACRL top trends report digital creation tools, and data-related services in
particular are already having an impact on libraries, having major implications for technology
infrastructure, support, and staff training. Multidisciplinary research and makerspaces are bringing
researchers from across disciplines together with expert library personnel to partner in research
and knowledge creation. As Lippincott and the 2014 NMC Horizon report both observe, active and
collaborative multi-disciplinary learning models require library spaces and resources that facilitate
group work, this includes personnel and infrastructure to support students and faculty
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 3 of 31
communication in any medium. The addition of new areas of study, and the collection preservation
and access required by faculty and student researchers, including campus data and institutional
repository and publishing services, have major implications for technology infrastructure, support,
and staff training. As libraries retool their organizations to offer these team based service models,
with single access points, rather than solo traditional subject based bibliographers, is one potential
way forward to meet evolving campus needs.
Twenty first-century library collections, like other 21st century library services, demand multiple
strategies for ensuring broad access. With an ever-expanding universe of information, rising prices
and inflation, a multi-institutional shared resource approach is the only one that makes sense.
Deepening traditional collaborations across consortia and regional partnerships will allow for
greater and more pointed growth in collections specific to local need and university areas of
strength. The value for users comes not from the artifacts libraries house, but from a community’s
ability to engage with, and ultimately improve, grow, and contribute back to a conversation about
who they are in relationship to their history, their world, and their future. Materials are not, as
Lankes writes, “the true collection of a library – the community is.”
The academic spaces that meet these needs should be thought of as living ecosystems that evolve
over time, not spaces that are constructed and finished. These library spaces must be shaped, like
the collections and services, by the “engagement and creativity” of their inhabitants. One-way
libraries are doing this is through ongoing participatory design and ethnographic research. Nancy
Fried Foster, in several compelling pieces, observes that too often our libraries are “designed by
experts” (administrators and architects) rather than the community that they serve. Participatory
design as an alternative to a top-down approach is a way to incorporate information related to both
sides of what a community needs, “the practical and the transcendent”. The library is designed for
“efficiency and productivity, as well as for thinking, dreaming, and imagining” and should be
“guided by the community’s mores and ideals.” Participatory design includes both the experts and
the expert users (think library staff, students, faculty, architects, and administrators). Allowing
decisions to be based on evidence and stakeholder input, rather than assumptions, and authority is
shared, because no individual or group possesses all the necessary expertise. Foster points to the
University of Maryland and Purdue University as groups that have integrated participatory design
components into their process. “When a university experiences a major shift in pedagogy along
with dramatic changes in the form and use of scholarly information, either its library can be
dragged along or it can join the vanguard.”
Sources
ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee. (2014). Top trends in academic
libraries: A review of the trends and issues affecting academic libraries in higher
education. College & Research Libraries News. 75(6), 294-302. Retrieved from
http://crln.acrl.org/content/75/6/294
The ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee releases a list of trends in academic
libraries every other year. The unifying theme of trends for the 2014 list was deeper
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 4 of 31
collaboration. The group identified trends in the following domains: data; device neutral
digital services; evolving openness in higher education; student success initiatives;
competency-based learning; altmetrics; and digital humanities.
Data-related services “deploy new initiatives, service units, and resources to meet scholarly
needs at various stages of the research process.” As a result, data services have
implications for public and private spaces of libraries. These services often require more
collaboration and work space with people or groups who are outside of the library (e.g. IT,
research administration, and grant support groups). Personnel and researchers may have
special needs for space, equipment and software to store, share, analyze and reuse data.
The Open Educational Resources (OER) movement also has space, equipment and
personnel implications for our libraries if we choose to support faculty in creating open
press textbook initiatives. A major theme in higher education is student success with a
focus on outcomes and educational accountability. Libraries are uniquely positioned to
contribute to student success, persistence, and retention initiatives. What kind of spaces
and services does a library need in order to contribute to the well-being of students? Such
initiatives have implications for personnel and public spaces. Kristen Shuyler, JMU
Libraries’ Assistant Director for Library Services is developing new programs that connect
with this theme that has implications for building spaces. The final theme, digital
humanities, also has implications for building spaces and technology in public and private
areas for staff, services, expertise and technology. As JMU increases student access to
authentic research experiences, the library is positioned to partner with humanities faculty
and offer services and technology infrastructure to teach digital humanities research skills.
Almanac of higher education 2013-14. (2011). Washington, D.C: Chronicle of Higher
Education.
The Chronicle of Higher Education publishes the Almanac of Higher Education annually.
The almanac presents data about broad trends in higher education.
Finances:
State-supported schools were hard hit by the recession and do not appear to be recovering
quickly. The almanac notes that “The state contributes only about 7 percent of the money
going to well-known institutions like the Universities of Colorado, Michigan, and Virginia.”
Data Tables:
The following are a selection of tables from the almanac. Some data clearly connects to
building planning (e.g. time spent studying or students with disabilities) while others relate
in more abstract ways. For instance, small increases in the numbers of minorities
graduating public-high-schools is an important trend to consider when planning a building.
What can a new building do to welcome minority students while also educating the campus
about diversity? Provisions for art and exhibition spaces could be focused on diversity
issues. Performance spaces could also showcase diversity-themed programs and
performances. Exhibition spaces for library collections is another building space that could
be provisioned to highlight concepts of diversity.
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 5 of 31
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 6 of 31
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 7 of 31
Anderson, R. (2013, August 1). Can't buy us love: The declining importance of library
books and the rising importance of special collections. Retrieved
http://www.sr.ithaka.org/sites/default/files/files/SR_BriefingPaper_Anderson.pdf
Rick Anderson’s piece “Can’t Buy Us Love: The Declining Importance of Library Books and
the Rising Importance of Special Collections” argues that our future lies in the curation of
unique and special materials. According to Anderson, libraries need to shift their focus
from commodity materials (defined as within the commercial marketplace) to noncommodity materials (defined as rare and unique materials not accessible in the traditional
marketplace). The growing significance of special collections, and the declining use of
traditional collections, is not a new concept. Similar ideas were posited in the provocative
Taiga Statements in 2009 and more recently in the 2012 ARL Issues Brief on 21st Century
Collections. However Anderson’s proposition for why libraries should change course is
novel. He argues that focus on the implications of “format shift” has left libraries
unprepared for an increasingly efficient online and digital market that is moving libraries
to the “margins of the research experience.” Citing the decline in use of print collections,
Anderson suggests that it no longer makes sense for libraries to continue in an arena where
companies like Amazon and Google have so dramatically changed the landscape. Instead,
he points to the rare and unique materials held by special collections as the space where
libraries will remain a vital and necessary part of the research cycle, better serving both
local constituencies and broader scholarship.
Curation of these non-commodity documents would necessitate a resource shift in staffing
and financing. He also suggests that if libraries focus on making non-commercial
documents more accessible through digitization, description, and dissemination, they can
be added to the scholarly communication ecosystem. Although Anderson sees the focus on
non-commodity documents as a crucial choice for research libraries, he does not suggest
that libraries abruptly shift the majority of their collecting budget or completely abdicate
from buying and managing commodity documents. Rather, he argues for institutional
realignment, clear conversations regarding the future of collections, and a reallocation of
resources coupled with a “steady, realistic, and wholly transparent” implementation that
supports its institution’s specific goals.
Dechert, R. R., Richards, S. S., Zawacki, C. C., & Giraud, G. G. (2014). Exploring the
learning commons: Tutoring moves into Hinckley Library. College and Research
Libraries News, 75(3), 125-127. Retrieved from
http://crln.acrl.org/content/75/3/125
Hinckley Library is drawing more students into their spaces by first drawing more experts
in to provide services. The article talks about inviting student support services to the
library – the peer tutoring and writing center services. This group needed office, reception
and study spaces. Their future plans consisted of:

Creating spaces for faculty to hold office hours,


Train library tutors to help students with projects (we already have a peer reference
service)
Create more teaching/learning space in the library.
Felix, Elliot (2015, May 28) Rethink the Staff Workplace: Library by Design, Library
Journal, Spring 2015.
This article details the importance of ensuring that staff, as well as users, have creativity-enhancing
spaces of their own along with the work processes, tools, and training they need to be effective. The
piece argues that libraries have done an amazing job putting users first, and that they should
continue to, but that too often staff spaces are forgotten, or an afterthought. Ultimately the article
argues that staff satisfaction=user satisfaction and that the way to get there is by using humancentered design tools such as participatory design methods. Space needs to be thought of a means
not an end, which means starting with the work, both collaborative and individual, that staff
performs, rather than from the staff, to design a series of “workstyles”. The piece goes on to call for
organizational training on new models, and ways of working within these spaces.
Figueroa, Miguel. (2015, March/April). Forecasting the future of libraries. American
Libraries, 28-31.
The American Library Association formed The Center for the Future of Libraries in 2013. The
center hosts a trends library on their website at ala.org/transforminglibraries/future/trends. Five
trends highlighted in this article: anonymity; collective impact; fast casual; resilience; robots.



Concepts of anonymity and privacy that have long dominated the Internet have
changed with the prevalence of mobile apps that often connect accounts to personal
information and/or tracking user location. Figueroa notes that, “even if anonymity
flourishes, people will still need places to formalize relationships, engage in open
dialogue, and seek reputable information—spaces and services that libraries and
librarians can provide.”
The author also notes, the collective impact model, introduced in the Stanford
Social Innovation Review by John Kania and Mark Kramer. Kania and Kramer define
the model as, “the commitment of a group of important actors from different sectors
to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem.” Libraries and librarians
are ideal partners in initiatives to address community issues or problems. Library
“services and priorities” could be planned in conjunction with “community-wide
responses” in mind.
Fast casual is a concept from the food service industry characterized speed and
quality with a dash of technology in the form of customer loyalty apps, mobile
ordering and payments. The author notes the approach, “appeals to millennials who
are more influenced by digital engagement, convenience, authenticity, and emphasis
on quality . . .” Other areas of hospitality have also picked up this theme making
public spaces feel like tasteful living rooms equipped with ample power outlets and
ample space for work and socializing.
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 9 of 31


Resilience is an emergent strategy in city, state and federal government planning
defined as “preparation for and rapid recovering from physical, social, and economic
disasters.” Responsibility for such community engagement isn’t only the
responsibility of public libraries. During the Hurricane Sandy (2012) New York
University’s Bobst Library became a community space for accessing the Internet and
powering devices.
Robots will become more common in our everyday lives in the years to come.
Collaborative Robots, called CoBots, will be used to perform mundane, repetitive
tasks. The author notes they could be used beyond traditional roles of retrieval and
sorting to perform courier or messenger services. Such technology may eventually
be loaned out by libraries for users to experience or experiment with.
Foster, N. (2014, February 14). Designing a new academic library from scratch.
Retrieved from http://sr.ithaka.org/blog-individual/designing-new-academiclibrary-scratch
In this piece Foster looks at what it would take to design an academic library from scratch,
not based in anyway on precedent, but on what we can learn today about the people that
use academic libraries, and the ideals and purposes of higher education. She argues that
too often our libraries are designed by “experts” – these include senior university
administrators, architects, and sometimes the university librarian. She states that the
“community” is often only allowed in, in a limited and controlled basis (asking library staff
and faculty to identify research and teaching areas for collections, or functions that must be
accommodated). For the design, she argues they are often only let in to comment on
already nearly complete plans. This is arguably more about buy in than true collaboration.
The alternative she offers is participatory design, as a way to incorporate the information
related to both sides of what a community needs, “the practical and the transcendent.
Designing for efficiency and productivity, as well as for thinking, dreaming, and imagining.
The building should be guided by the community’s mores and ideals.” Participatory design
includes both the experts and the expert users (think computer designer, computer user,
and computer teacher). This allows decisions to be based on evidence rather than
assumptions, and authority is shared, because no individual or group possess all the
necessary expertise. Foster points to the University of Maryland and Purdue University as
groups that have integrated participatory design components into their process, and she
details how this was done. Using these examples Foster warns that “when a university
experiences a major shift in pedagogy along with dramatic changes in the form and use of
scholarly information, either its library can be dragged along or it can join the vanguard”.
At Purdue this meant engaging a practicing anthropologist to organize and facilitate a
participatory design process that included students, staff, and faculty members, and the
data was used to develop a qualitative program that could be shared with planners and
architects. Foster concludes, “We can design libraries and other educational and cultural
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 10 of 31
institutions for the future by engaging the community, paying attention to the work to be
done in them and aligning library spaces with guiding ideals and aspirations.”
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon
Report: 2014 Library Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved
from http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2014-nmc-horizon-report-library-EN.pdf
The NMC is an association for technology experts. Their membership comes from higher
education, research centers, museums, and technology companies. Each year, they produce
a suite of reports about technology trends, challenges and developments—one of those
reports focuses on libraries. The report identifies “six emerging technologies or practices
that are likely to enter the mainstream in the next five years.” The 2014 library report was
created by an international panel of, “47 library and technology experts from 16 countries .
. .”
Technology trends in higher education can be crucial guideposts for planning spaces,
visioning new services and designing infrastructure needs.
This report offers a glimpse at the library technology landscape in the following areas:



Trends Accelerating Technology Adoption in Academic and Research Libraries
Challenges Impeding Technology Adoption in Academic and Research Libraries
Important Developments in Technology for Academic and Research Libraries
Additionally, the trends, challenges and developments are sorted into order: fast trends (12 years); mid-range trends (3-5 years); long-range trends (5 or more years).
Trend
Increasing Focus on
Research Data
Management for
Publications
Time Frame
Fast Trend
Implications for library spaces
 Libraries can play a role in managing
and curating research data.
o Personnel expertise
o Public space / teaching space
o Personnel space
o Equipment space: workstations,
servers, connectivity
 Need for services in copyright and
intellectual property law and research
ethics
o Public space / teaching space
o Personnel space
 Library catalog changes for the
semantic web / linked data which also
impacts search and discovery
o Personnel space / special software
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 11 of 31
Prioritization of Mobile
Content and Delivery
Fast Trend



Evolving Nature of the
Scholarly Record
Mid-Range
Trend

Increasing Accessibility
of Research Content
Mid-Range
Trend




Continual Progress in
Technology, Standards,
and Infrastructure
Long-Range
Trend

and equipment
Designating phone (voice call) use
zones
Delivery not only of research resources
but also of services on mobile devices
Not noted in this report – use of cell
phones in way finding and locating
resources within a building
Scholarship has evolved beyond
printed or web-based text. (e.g.
datasets, interactive programs,
visualizations, etc.) This has
implications for cataloging, search and
discovery, and preservation.
o Personnel expertise
o Personnel space/ special software
and equipment
o Public space / teaching space
Libraries can help their faculty and
students meet NSF requirements for
disseminating research.
o Personnel space/ special software
and equipment
o Public space / teaching space
Open access publishing commitments
emerge in this area. Tools like JMU
Scholarly Commons address this need.
o Personnel space/ special software
and equipment
o Public space / teaching space
o Special software and servers
Connects with JMU’s 2014-20 strategic
plan in the area of engagement by
openly sharing research of the
university.
Calls for:
o Personnel expertise
o Public space / teaching space
o Personnel space
o Special equipment and
workstations
As the importance of building print
collections continues to decline,
libraries have an opportunity to
reconsider their space use and
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 12 of 31



Rise of New Forms of
Multidisciplinary
Research
Long-Range
Trend



services.
Noted that libraries are “updating their
facilities to be configured around users
instead of collections.”
o Robotic retrieval systems
o Makerspaces
o Production studios
Noted upgrades to “technology
offerings through facility renovation
and reconstruction.”
Calls for:
o Personnel expertise
o Public space / teaching space
o Personnel space
o Special equipment and
workstations
Makerspaces brings together
researchers from a range of disciplines
Research spaces can foster
collaborations with equipment and
personnel expertise
o 3-D printing
o Prototyping anything with software
o Leads to dissemination of such
output
o Leads to research symposia
Calls for:
o Personnel expertise
o Public space / teaching space
o Personnel space
o Special equipment and
workstations
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon
Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2015-highereducation-edition/
The NMC is an association for technology experts. Their membership comes from higher
education, research centers, museums, and technology companies. Each year, they produce
a suite of reports about technology in three areas: trends, challenges and developments.
The 2015 higher education reports on the work of 56 experts’ research and discussions. It
identifies “significant challenges, and important technological developments that are very
likely to impact changes in higher education across the world over the next five years.”
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 13 of 31
Technology trends in higher education can be crucial guideposts for planning spaces,
visioning new services and designing infrastructure needs.
This report offers a glimpse to the future of technology in higher education in the following
areas:



Key Trends Accelerating Technology Adoption in Higher Education
Significant Challenges Impeding Technology Adoption in Higher Education
Important Developments in Educational Technology for Higher Education
Additionally, the trends are sorted into order: short term (1 year or less); mid-term (2-3
years); far term (4-5 years). Challenges are ordered from solvable, difficult to wicked.
Trend
Advancing Cultures of
Change and Innovation
Time Frame
Near-Term
(1 year or
less)
Increasing CrossInstitution
Collaboration
Near-Term
(1 year or
less)
Growing Focus on
Measuring Learning
Findings
 There is a call on higher education to
re-structure in terms of policy and
other ways, that will allow flexibility
and cultivate creativity and
entrepreneurial thinking.
 The European Commission’s
“Modernizing Universities” agenda
places importance on hosting “. . . a
more open research environment . . .”
 Emphasis is also placed on
encouraging risk-taking and
collaboration in order to more
accurately reflect workplaces students
will ultimately experience.
 Colleges and universities are joining
forces to innovate by sharing
information resources, computing
infrastructure, and opening their
degree programs to online learners.
Mid-Term (2-  Data-driven learning and assessment
3 years)
is becoming more important as
schools must demonstrate evidence of
student achievement to accrediting
and governing bodies.
 Some schools are implementing
learning analytics tools that show
students data on their library use,
attendance and grades.
 Some projects also identify struggling
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 14 of 31
Proliferation of Open
Educational Resources
Mid-Term (2- 
3 years)


Increasing Use of
Blended Learning
Far-Term (45 years)





Redesigning Learning
Spaces
Far-Term (45 years)




students, retention rates and progress.
“OER represents a broad variety of
digital content, including full courses,
course materials, modules, textbooks,
videos, tests, software, and any other
means of conveying knowledge.”
One study indicates that about 65% of
students do not purchase textbooks
because of their cost.
The European initiative, “Opening Up
Education” notes that “[OER is an]
essential framework to develop
integrated economies of access and
unimpeded exchange of knowledge
across borders in order for Europe to
remain competitive.”
Blending learning draws on the best
practices of face-to-face and online
learning.
Use of blended learning is increasing in
higher education in the U.S.
A study found that the success of
blended learning in that student felt
professors were more accessible where
materials were online and that
communication was more persistent.
Another study noted that professors
must find ways to stimulate social
interaction in classes and critical
thinking and accommodate different
learning styles.
Access to online resources is critical to
the above as well as accommodating
group work.
Many schools are changing learning
spaces for the flipped classroom model
in which active learning is key.
Hallmarks of active learning is group,
project-based work that is mobile,
flexible and accessible on any device.
Ubiquitous Internet connectivity is
required.
Large displays, web-based
conferencing and other forms of
collaborative communication are
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 15 of 31





necessary.
As professors move away from lecturebased education, class spaces will allow
for hands-on work.
Spaces will need to be more like realworld “. . . work and social
environments.” Hallways, lobbies and
atriums can be reconfigured to
accommodate more social interaction
and learning.
Need for comfortable, movable
furniture, flipcharts, food, group space,
makerspaces stocked with nontraditional materials and tools.
Example: The DeLaMare Science and
Engineering Library at the University
of Nevada was renovated to have
functional space for self-directed
learning using new visualization
hardware and software.
This area is a great opportunity for
instructional technologists to create “. .
. technology ecosystems that are
compatible, secure, and easy to
update.”
Konnikova, M. (2014, January 7). The open office trap. The New Yorker.
This article details the impetus behind the movement towards the open office. Originally
conceived by a team from Hamburg, Germany in the fifties, it was meant to facilitate
communication and idea flow”. The article looks at the work of a group of psychologists
from the University of Calgary who monitored workers transitioning from a traditional
office arrangement to an open one. The assessed the following: satisfaction with
surroundings; stress level; job performance; and interpersonal relationships. They did this
assessment before the transition, four weeks after, and six months after. They found that
the employees suffered according to every measure. The article then talks about the 2011
work of organizational psychologist Mathew Davis who reviewed more than a hundred
studies about office environments. He found, similarly, that although “open offices often
fostered a symbolic sense of organization mission, making employees feel like part of a
more laid-back, innovative enterprise, they were damaging to the workers’ attention spans,
productivity, creative thinking, and satisfaction.” David Craig found the same when he
surveyed 38,000 workers. The article goes one to cite several other studies, including a
2005 study, and a more recent study from Denmark, both finding adverse impacts of the
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 16 of 31
open office. The greatest problem, the author finds, is noise, which has been repeatedly tied
to negative cognitive performance.
Open offices may be better for younger workers, who in a 2012 Finish study, had the same
adverse impacts as older workers, but believed that the trade-offs were worth it because of
the resulting sense of camaraderie. The article then cites a 2005 study that shows that the
more a person multitasks (which you do more in an open office environment) the worse
you become at blocking out distractions. Regardless of age, the article states, when “we’re
exposed to too many inputs at once – a computer screen, music, a colleague’s conversation,
the ping of an instant message – our senses become overloaded, and it requires more work
to achieve a given result”. It ends that although millennials may be more open to distraction
as a workplace norm, and the sense of camaraderie and innovation, the wholehearted
embrace of open offices may be “ingraining a cycle of underperformance”.
Landgraf, Greg. (2015, March/April). Forecasting the future of libraries: Making
room for informal learning. American Libraries, 32-34.
Landgraf consulted librarians on the future of makerspaces from three public library
makerspaces.

How each identified and branded their spaces:
o Tampa PL: Building style - one library façade is covered with recycled pipes
in a hexagonal shape thus the Hive was born.
o Free Library of Philadelphia: Local culture - Maker Jawn (in Philadelphia) is
branded with “a context-dependent substitute noun that comes from the
Philadelphia Hip Hop scene that can basically replace any noun.”
o Innisfil PL’s ideaLAB (Ontario) ideaLAB and logo are on the building. They
didn’t call it a library at first. They gave their lab staffing and equal status to
collections to merge the library with the maker space.

Are your spaces changing people’s perceptions of the library?
o There’s a lot of entrepreneurial activity in Tampa. Local inventors and
businesses are asking to use their facilities. Most customers are surprised
the service is in a library.
o Innisfil PL’s The ideaLAB (Ontario): The space has changed the library’s
energy. It’s moved the library away from “the transactional model of library
service . . .” It’s become a “community kitchen” where people create and
discuss together.

Are you using community volunteers to help facilitate making? Any surprises about
working with them?
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 17 of 31
o Tampa PL: They have informal volunteers who help out new-comers. They
are working on a badging system for everyone as they reach proficiency with
each piece of equipment.
o Innisfil PL’s The ideaLAB (Ontario): User’s naturally become “. . . go-to person
for her niche . . .” in both the hackerspace and digital media lab. These people
naturally hang out in the space and help others. They also didn’t want to
over-formalize it or post lots of rules or position descriptions.

Have your spaces allowed you to reach out to potential partners? Challenges
working with them?
o Tampa PL gives a venue to the local robotics community through their
robotics lab and gives them a place to work and create. The community
drives the programming in these spaces. The library doesn’t direct the
spaces with formal programming. Allow anyone to book space.
o Local kids organizations in Philadelphia and national groups like the Maker
Education Initiative.

How do you determine what programs and technologies to introduce?
o Tampa is still getting feet wet with their offerings: recording lab; digital
studio; adobe software; and 3D printer. Always asking for feedback to tailor
services.
o Free Library of Philadelphia uses several methods: polling maker mentors;
collecting ideas from staff, local and national partners as well as learning
about local government and school initiatives. (They expanded their
program into 6 neighborhoods with an IMLS grant.)
o At the ideaLab in Innisfil, Ontario PL, the hacker lab covers 4 categories in
which they find out what people are interested in. Currently these areas
cover:

3D Design


vector projects


laser cutting and etching; vinyl cutting
electronics and coding


3D printers; design software; and eventually computer
numerical control (CNC) manufacturing equipment
programming; web design; Arduino; and Raspberry Pi
arts, crafts and performance
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 18 of 31


knitting; quilting; performance
What is the next technology they are looking forward to introducing?
o Free Library of Philadelphia recently got an IMLS grant for intergenerational
work. They will use this money to explore involving more ages (including
families) in the makerspace.
o At the ideaLab in Innisfil, Ontario PL, they are exciting about electronics and
coding. They are planning to work with organizations in their area to host
coding workshops.

What is next in the maker movement for libraries?
o At Tampa, these services are something communities expect from the library.
They are writing them into their future plans.
o At the ideaLab in Innisfil, Ontario PL, they started with “critical making” and
emphasized STEM (or STEAM) programs. “We think that creating an
environment for community to engage in is the next big thing. Formal
buildings can lead to formal behaviors which can inhibit learning. We’ve
changed some job titles and job descriptions because they can be limiting –
we now have resident tinkerers and artists-in-residence, and we let them try
new things that come with those new titles.”
Lankes, R. (2011). The atlas of new librarianship. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT
Press.
In this book, and companion website, Lankes lays out an approach to librarianship that is
centered around how to facilitate knowledge creation in communities, and by drilling down
to what he believes are the core concepts competencies of librarianship The book frames
knowledge creation as built through “conversation” and librarians as “facilitators that
enrich, capture, store, and disseminate the conversations of their communities.” The book
is structured like a map and it includes: Agreements, which are statements about
librarianship that range from relevant theories to examples of practice; and Threads,
arrangements of Agreements to explain key ideas, covering such topics as conceptual
foundations and skills and values. Agreement Supplements, at the end of the book offer
expanded discussions and the website includes additional materials to supplement what is
found in the book, including online videos, links, and activities. There is also a participatory
space to contribute to the Atlas, which is not meant to be static, but evolving. This book,
and other writing by Lankes, is helpful to libraries trying to situate and determine their
core values with the communities they serve.
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 19 of 31
Cavaggnero, L. (September 2014). Seven themes on spaces, creativity and design
thinking. Transforming, Sandboxing, Repurposing Learning Spaces for Nurturing
Creative Learning, Creative Learners: Lessons Learned from the LSC Experience
[Webinar] Retrieved from
https://learningspaces.webex.com/learningspaces/lsr.php?RCID=3097db6190bac7bcfa1afda263e5c54f
In her talk, (starting at 25:27) Leticia Britos Cavagnaro, Lecturer at Hasso Plattner Institute
of Design at Stanford University, discusses her work with teaching creativity and design
thinking.
Physical space has tangible effects in how students act and the learning outcomes she
achieves with her students. She designs and implements learning experiences—using
space as a learning tool.
She focuses on 7 themes:






Making activity / process visible and allow students to take ownership of their
space. Visibility places the shared goals and work front and center for team
members in portable, pop-up project rooms. All teams are also stimulated by the
ideas and work of other groups in the space.
She also thinks of the 4th dimension: dynamic space with a purpose. Rooms can
have many states in terms of furniture and furniture arrangement. Spaces tell us
how to behave and facilitate different kinds of engagement. Seating arranged like a
theater convey who will be doing most of the talking.
We need to go beyond placing everything on wheels. We should think about how
space connects with desired learning outcomes. She poses this simple model:
Outcomes -> behaviors -> space. Begin at the end, by asking what your desired
outcomes are, then think about the behaviors are proxies for those outcomes, then
set up a space that will help facilitate those behaviors to achieve those learning
outcomes. Tables can be anchors for groups. Lack of tables can make a large group
focus on a problem together. Furniture like tables can be a barrier to action and
crosspollination of ideas.
She also believes avoiding preciousness is important to keep a space malleable.
Spaces should have lives and evolutions. If spaces are too polished and refined, it
“discourages engagement and creativity.” Refinement also discourages evolution of
a space that can only come from its users—IF they are welcomed think about what
works and doesn’t work in a space.
Makerspaces with materials that move at the speed of thought are filled with
materials that can be easily manipulated. A physical prototyping room should be
filled with things that stimulate lower-level, building-thinking with one’s hands.
Next to that space is a digital prototyping area with computers, camera equipment
to create images or video. The space also has costumes to stimulate role-playing or
acting with the video or image creation.
What story is the space telling? Spaces communicate messages with or without
text. She shows classroom walls covered with images of students. Their majors are
on noted on each of their pictures, highlighting that “this is a place where disciplines
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 20 of 31

converge.” The other message is that “students are the protagonists here” the space
is for them. She also displays a sign over a work area in their building that reads
“Nothing is a mistake. There’s no win and no fail. There’s only MAKE.”
Create small engagement touch points that bring the space to life. Signage and
other space elements can create conversation—an action. “A space comes to life
when users engage or interact with a space.”
She also discusses space as an ecosystem which is a helpful metaphor when thinking about
people and their activities in spaces.
Lippincott, Joan. (2015, March/April). Forecasting the future of libraries: The future
for teaching and learning. American Libraries, 34-37.
Lippincott believes, “the greatest opportunities for libraries lie in deeper connections to the
curriculum, adapting to new modes of pedagogy, linking technology-rich spaces in libraries
to learning, and ensuring that individuals who enrich the library’s role in teaching and
learning are on staff. Over all, the trajectory is for the increasing integration of librarians
and libraries into the teaching and learning program of the college or university.”
A consistent trend is active and collaborative learning. Spaces need to support group work
but personnel and infrastructure also need to support effective communication in any
media.
Development of technology and information skills will likely be on the rise in curricula.
Course work will continue to evolve challenging students to deeply engage with course
materials with specialized/individualized assignments and work in various kinds of nontextual media.
The author notes the idea of proficiency in using various kinds of communication media is
are a part of The Degree Qualifications Profile (DQP) released by the National Institute for
Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) in 2014.
Changes in curricula lead to faculty and librarians collaborating on new assignments that
require different kinds of materials (cross disciplinary) as well as new media. The library
can be the place that offers experts with technical skills to create student scholarship. She
notes the University of Pennsylvania’s Weigle Information Commons media center has
partnered with a number of faculty from various fields to create new assignments. The
projects center on students locating various kinds of relevant information, weaving it
together in an innovative presentation and creating video that blends that information
together.
The author also suggests that librarians working with students in upper level classes may
have more impact than a traditional focus on “the mechanics of searching for information.”
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 21 of 31
The author lists the following table as her hope for library involvement in teaching and
learning can be in the future:
What
From
To
When instruction
takes place
“One shot” class often
in freshman year
Multi-stage through the
curriculum
Types of course for
instruction
Freshman
composition
Focus on upper level courses
in major and capstone classes
What students learn
Set of skills
Knowledge practices and
dispositions
Types of student
projects
Term paper
All types – papers, videos,
websites, data visualizations,
3-D printed objects, etc.
How learning is
accomplished
Classes with
lecture/demonstratio
n
Problem-based active learning
experiences
Lippincott notes that librarians can carve a solid place for themselves in higher education
by becoming more involve in pedagogy. “For libraries to become more deeply involved
with learning, they need people who are willing to be involved in innovative instructional
development and who have the requisite skills.”
“In new types of library spaces, students may be creating a website or a video, working
with other students on a group project, collecting, analyzing, and presenting data, solving
problems, incorporating special collections materials into a media product, conducting an
interview with someone in a remote location, or making a physical object.” Traditionally
the above services were once reserved for faculty. These kinds of services are now ideal
for students in their final years of course work. Additionally, Libraries can be the places
that host special equipment that departments cannot host or afford.
New libraries often involve: collaborative work areas; new technologies; and professionals
fluent in the use of those technologies. Lippincott adds the above isn’t enough, “. . . when
describing newly remodeled library spaces, advocates seldom cite particular ways in which
the new library space supports key teaching objectives or how it helps faculty offer
innovative assignments.” She calls on libraries to develop service plans that connect their
facilities to the curricula they support. Libraries should also better promote the expertise
they offer to students with digital signage and exhibitions of student work.
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 22 of 31
Lynn, V. (2011). A knowledge commons needs assessment: Building for the future at
Penn State. College & Research Libraries News. 72(8), 464-467. Retrieved from
http://crln.acrl.org/content/72/8/464
JMU already offers knowledge commons services as defined in this 2011 article about them.
“A knowledge commons brings together sustainable partnerships among academic
disciplines to share resources for the purpose of educating students and enhancing
scholarly research.”
Their plans for the future of their knowledge commons are below:
During phase one, the most urgent student needs will be addressed:





An instruction lab with additional computers for student use
Quiet individual study areas
Group study spaces
A group study sound proof room
A group presentation practice room
Phase two comprises considerable infrastructure upgrades to enhance studentcenteredness. Phase two includes:



creation of a self-serve café
Writing center outpost
IT outpost
Phase three continues the infrastructure improvements from phase two and
includes:


an expanded media commons
upgrades to the circulation/Reference Desk and library staff workspaces
Finally, phase four completes the transformation of the Hazleton Library into a
knowledge commons with the creation of an honors room and an alumni room.
Mathews, B. (2014). Librarian as futurist: Changing the way libraries think about the
Future. Libraries and the Academy, 14(3), 453-462. Retrieved from
https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/portal_libraries
_and_the_academy/v014/14.3.mathews.
In this article Mathew’s asks about how we think about the future, not necessarily what it
will become. Instead, the essay’s stated goal is “to anticipate several outcomes to give full
consideration to the opportunities and challenges they present.” This is an essay that
attempts to prod library leaders to incorporate some of the tools of how futurists think.
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 23 of 31
The author states that we are warned by “futurism” to avoid tunnel vision, and keep an
agile and open mind in order to help our organizations thrive.
Some insights he believes can be anticipated, in particular the author points to
demographic information, and how populations are changing in terms of quantity and
composition. Changing campus demographics will impact library spaces, licensing, and
materials – by tapping into what we know is coming, libraries can make preparations
before they arrive (example is graduate expansion). Others that seem extreme “eventually
become absorbed by the middle”. Mathew’s points to book formats as a good example of
this in libraries. One extreme clinging to print, and another pushing for a bookless library,
the futurist, he argues, lets go of personal bias and see the value in both, knowing elements
from each will persist in the mainstream.
We need to balance thinking local while thinking of the larger issues that could impact our
communities. One way to do this may be to embrace change literacy. In the change literacy
section Mathew’s states that librarians have long been invested in literacy, from reading to
data, visual, digital, health and financial literacy. However the motivation has remained
consistent: “a desire to help prepare people to be active and effective participants in a
rapidly evolving society.” Quoting Toffler, the article states, “The illiterate of the 21st
century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn,
and relearn” Our fluency, Mathews argues, should be change literacy. Stating that
librarians’ legacy identity is as “keepers of information and their emerging role is as
“collaborators” in knowledge production, perhaps the future will be as “facilitators of
change”. In conclusion, Mathews calls for librarians to be active participants in the shaping
of what their future becomes by constantly querying how it could be better. While
everything may change, and continue to change, he finishes that our goal is constant: “to
spread the application of knowledge.”
Mathews, B. (2015). Learning commons as symbol: The new heart of our
communities? The Ubiquitous Library. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/blognetwork/theubiquitouslibrarian/2015/01/27/learningcommons-as-symbol-the-new-heart-of-our-communities/
Mathew’s states libraries are “. . . the connective tissue that entwines intellectual and social
endeavors. We bring people together to share, discover, explore, build, and reflect
throughout campus, not just in our buildings.” The author notes that libraries have a
history of constantly improving spaces for diverse users and their needs. Over the years,
academic libraries have evolved to provide more spaces where people “ . . . can talk and
work on things together.” Mathews suggests that libraries are now places that “stage”
conversations.
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 24 of 31
Moore, D. (2014). Reshaping campus libraries: A road map to 21st Century spaces.
College Planning & Management. Retrieved from
http://webcpm.com/Articles/2014/07/01/Campus-Library.aspx
Libraries are now places for collaboration and creation. Space for collections is giving way
to other uses by way of weeding and creating off-site storage services. Information,
Learning and Research Commons were developed to serve “divergent and concurrent
needs of students and faculty.” Space can be, “combined with new technology assets,
changing pedagogy and new service models to transform academic library environments.”
The author notes that “. . . renovations require the trained eye of an architect experienced
in library operations to recapture, consolidate and logically repurpose underutilized space,
or the process will merely shift inefficiencies from one point to another.” More suggests
using the road map method rather than a master plan. The method provides pathways to
goals with “inherent flexibility, prioritized milestones and enumerated phased
implementation steps . . .”
Morehart, Phil (2015, February 16). The Future, Today. American Libraries
Magazine, retrieved from http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2015/02/26/thefuture-today/

Odegaard key points: Envisioned as ‘the students office on campus’. It should
provide anything necessary for them to complete their work, and suggests a
stronger relationship between student learning outcomes and the library. Work
with the university to identify a series of behaviors and learning experiences that
global citizens should have as part of their educations. As more and more demands
are made on people’s time, library services must be delivered in ways that are
digitally based or conveniently located in public places for people on the go.

Midland (Tex.) Centennial Library, Schaumburg Township (Ill.) Main Library Teen
Center key points: Libraries of the future see the need for both open spaces and
materials. Collections are being carefully considered so as not to occupy too much
square footage, leaving plenty of open room for tech and social spaces, making
libraries a community center for multiple actives. Midland Centennial (Tex.) Library
and Schaumburg Township (Ill.) Main Library both do this, with Midland housing a
large genealogy department, as well as multiple banks of public computers, and a
media room for recording audio and video and the teen center housing a greenscreen motion picture recording capabilities and audio and video recording
facilities.

New York Public Library Hamilton Grange Teen Center key takeaways: “Libraries
are becoming more open and light-filled and, in turn, becoming a less formal place
for groups to come together and meet”
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 25 of 31

Chinatown Public Library, Chicago key takeaways: Libraries in the future will
continue to change and respond to the ways we seek knowledge. There will be more
flexible spaces for evolving services and forms of information offering. These spaces,
in the end, must be good architecture–human scaled; full of natural light; built with
materials that are engaging and durable; and connected to the outdoor context, both
through how the building is shaped in relationship to its surroundings, as well as
through how it responds to the climate. Library staff in the future will be organized
on the floor to be more effective ‘information guides’ to help patrons. Developing a
plan and section that allows good sightlines and easy circulation is essential.

University of Pennsylvania Education Commons key takeaways: Libraries are no
longer single-purpose repositories of books dedicated to quiet study. They have
become dynamic community hubs that function now more than ever as IT centers
for students, adults, and underserved communities, including seniors and
immigrants. Libraries have morphed from formal compartmentalized facilities into
casual multipurpose destinations that allow a diverse range of people, alone or in
groups, to engage in a variety of media-centric activities, both day and night.
Seal, R. (2014, July 11). Library spaces in the 21st Century—Meeting the challenges
of user needs for information, technology, and expertise. Paper presented at the 7th
Shanghai International Library Forum, Shanghai, China. Retrieved from
http://ecommons.luc.edu/lib_facpubs/27/
This paper sketches out the history of the Information Commons (IC) at Loyola, a building
and suite of services launched in January 2008. At the beginning the IC had three goals:



Focus on undergraduate library and technology needs
Create a one-stop information shopping experience and
Provide tools for the creation of knowledge.
Seal notes that as the Loyola IC has given students more of what they want—they simply
want more of it. Ubiquitous wireless cultivated an expectation for even faster internet.
Food service is resulting in a demand for better food selections. The equipment loan
program has grown the expectation of having even more equipment for checkout. Students
expect to have access to the latest computers and software in the IC. They also expect a
variety of seating options for solitary and group work.
The author also discusses the service philosophy for the Loyola IC as the four C’s:
Connectivity; Collaboration; Creation of knowledge; and Community. Connectivity is
defined not only by ubiquitous Internet access, but about what they do with it. Students
desire to easily connect to information, friends, family and professors using the Internet.
Collaboration involves formal group work and informal study group gatherings thus
making furnishings, technology and software for groups very important. Creation of
knowledge is supported by things like printing services, software (standard and unusual),
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 26 of 31
media services, equipment loan and services offered by information professionals. For
Loyola, the IC has become another student center that builds Community. It becomes
another destination during the day, the space sociologists define as the third place between
home and where people work or go to school.
In the fall of 2013, the library charged a committee to recommend changes to the IC in
programming, furnishings, and technology. They hope to bring their building up-to-date to
respond to future and current needs. Areas the group will study:
“1) services offered by both the libraries and IT; 2) role and use of service desks; 3)
staffing needs and patterns; 4) new technologies in support of learning, in open
areas, group studies, classrooms, and other spaces; 5) better support for
collaborative study and learning; 6) improvement of programming and presentation
spaces and technology; 7) infrastructure upgrades, e.g. power outlets, wireless
capacity, and Internet speed; 8) software upgrades and additions; 9) furniture needs
for study, computing, and collaborative work; 10) redesign of the library instruction
classroom; and more.”
Selingo, J.J. (2013). Attitudes on innovation: How college leaders and faculty see key
issues facing higher education. The Chronicle of Higher Education: Washington, DC.
Retrieved from http://www.cnm.edu/depts/marketing/academe/documents/attitudeson-innovation
Jeffrey Selingo, editor at large at The Chronicle of Higher Education led this study, which
was underwritten by Adobe Systems, Inc. and Pearson. This survey found that college and
university presidents (n=78) and faculty members (n=1,199) agree on a number of issues
facing higher education. Responses to this survey were collected in July 2013.



Half of both groups believe that “American colleges and universities foster
innovation.” (Fig 5)
A majority of both groups believe that higher education needs to change in the next
10 years. (Fig 6)
o 10% of college and university presidents believe higher education needs
“massive change” and 53% believe “a moderate amount of disruption is
needed” in the next 10 years.
o 13% of faculty members believe higher education needs “massive change”
and 53% believe “a moderate amount of disruption is needed” in the next 10
years.
Regarding the pace of change in American higher education, majorities of both
groups agree that change is coming too slowly to higher education or far too slowly.
(Fig 7)
o 11% of college and university presidents believe higher education changes
“far too slowly” and 43% believe higher education changes “too slowly.”
o 47% of faculty members believe higher education changes “far too slowly”
and 10% believe higher education changes “too slowly.”
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 27 of 31







A third of both groups feel that “ten years from now, higher education will not be
much different from the way it is today.” (Fig 8)
Both groups feel that faculty should drive change around innovation but
administrators don’t believe professors are taking on this responsibility. (Fig 9-10)
Both groups also agree that initiatives on innovation should center “around changes
to the teaching and learning model but current discussions are instead focused [too
much] on technology and cost cutting.” (Fig 11)
Majorities of both groups believe the following innovations will have the most
positive impact: (Fig 12)
o hybrid courses that have both face-to-face and online components
 (Faculty 60% and Presidents 79%)
o adaptive learning to personalize education
 (Faculty 49% and Presidents 64%)
o technology that increases interactions among students
 (Faculty 44% and Presidents 56%)
Both groups believe that MOOCs will have a negative impact on higher education in
the U.S. (Faculty 65% and Presidents 59%) (Fig 12)
51% of faculty and 46% of presidents believe that colleges and universities should
award degrees based on competency tests rather than on credit hours (time spent in
a seat.) (Fig 12)
Both groups also agree that hybrid learning (a mix of online and in person
instruction) is superior to online-only classes but they disagree on its educational
value. Faculty believe the educational value is not equal between hybrid and onlineonly classes while administrators believe both approaches are of equal educational
value. (Fig 15)
Shank, J. & Bell, S. (2011). Blended librarianship [re]envisioning the role of the
librarian as educator in the digital information age. Reference & User Services
Quarterly, 51(2), 105-110. Retrieved from
http://journals.ala.org/rusq/article/view/4025/4568
“The principle that librarians can and should be integral, educational partners as well as a
catalyst for students’ knowledge enrichment and intellectual inquiry guides blended
librarianship.”
In 2004, Shank and Bell proposed that librarianship needed to change in our age of
disruptive technology. They developed blended librarianship, a combination of old and new
service models, to stay ahead of exponentially developing technology. The authors hold
that improving existing services, isn’t enough. To stay relevant, libraries must create
disruptive innovations with new systems and services.
Blended librarianship isn’t focused on physical collections or even buildings, it focuses on
librarian’s skills, knowledge and the relationships they foster. Buildings and collections
have often defined library professionals but Shank and Bell hope library professionals can
be defined by their services and products (e.g. instruction and information).
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 28 of 31
What changes teaching and learning processes is also changing the role of libraries and
librarians. We are in a unique time, where we can deeply integrate with these new
processes. Easy access to an abundance of information of varying quality in many formats
is a tremendous opportunity for library professionals, “to be facilitators, navigators, and
teachers.”
So why should a concept that is specifically not about library buildings be on a building task
force bibliography? The notion that an organization should not be defined by its building
but rather by its people and what they offer in terms of services, knowledge and
relationships is an important one. An entire design program could be based off of this
concept.
Sinclair, B. (2007). Commons 2.0: Library Spaces Designed for Collaborative
Learning. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30(4), 4–6. Retrieved from
https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0740.pdf
“The “Commons 2.0” brings together a wide range of elements to foster student learning in
new and creative ways. It’s not a static computer lab; rather it incorporates the freedom of
wireless communication, flexible work-space clusters that promote interaction and
collaboration, and comfortable furnishings, art, and design to make users feel relaxed,
encourage creativity, and support peer-learning. To this add self-help graphics services,
color imaging, audio and video editing, and other production and presentation software
and it becomes a one-stop collaboratory for out-of-class assignments, writing, research,
and group projects.
Stewart, C. (2015, January 1). Building with purpose: A quantitative overview and
analysis of new U.S. academic library construction, 2000-2014. Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/whitepapers
/stewart_building.pdf
This white paper examines new library construction, as broken down by institutional
characteristics, in order to identify patterns of where we are investing in new spaces. It
includes data on, and analysis of, new construction of US academic library buildings
between 2000-2014 by developing an inventory of new library building projects across this
time period, and then setting specific examples of those within the context of general
themes expressed during this time period in papers, essays, book chapters, reports,
presentations, studies, and other materials. Not explored in this white paper are academic
library renovations, which will be covered in a forthcoming second report.
The general themes explored (bolded) include the psychological impact and importance
of library space, including as both a public and private space. Studies found that students
preferred both traditional library spaces (think grand reading rooms, not stacks), and
collaborative spaces, but that the preference for these spaces did not come at the expense
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 29 of 31
of technology. There is very little evidence to suggest in the “partial print era” that
academic library buildings are getting smaller.
Library space is also discussed within the context of shifting modes of scholarly
communication; in particular how different these expectations are between students and
faculty, with faculty favoring electronic access to materials (with a print archive) and
students favoring communal spaces, with cutting edge digital library services. New
academic library spaces will be user-centered, hybrid spaces that provide digital and print
access to the scholarly record. They will also be collaborative, communal spaces for
learning and learning activities.
Learning spaces are a huge focus of current library design thinking, and librarians need to
be able to articulate links between the library and institutional outcomes. Lippincott is
cited often, and she offers a framework for the nature of space that supports the wide
spectrum of activities/programming in which the library should be involved. Examples
include (but are not limited to) opening up special collections with space and programming
to engage students at all levels; active learning spaces (e.g. labs); content and media
production spaces; makerspaces; and spaces programmed to support student success, all
aligned with the learning priorities of the parent institution.
The student experience, particularly the undergraduate experience is another theme. In
all the studies that were examined it was determined that faculty, undergraduate, and
graduate groups all had very different user needs.
A theme, or lack of a theme, found by the author is the lack of attention given to staff
spaces in the research and literature on space planning for new academic libraries.
Potentially trends in academic library staffing play a part in this, with a continuing trend
towards reduction in support staff, flexible work schedules for professional staff, and user
focused spaces requiring more public facing services, often with librarians meeting users
directly or roaming. However, an argument has been made that academic librarians are
increasingly assuming new and more complex roles in the academy, requiring more
defined, separate spaces.
Space assessment is another important theme captured here, both in preparation for
design, and in post construction. This paper calls for a more comprehensive research
agenda in this arena.
Sustainability is another theme, and includes everything from building materials to public
transportation. Also a theme noted, was the closing and consolidation of academic libraries,
in particular branch and departmental library closures as they connect to new construction
and renovations of existing facilities.
Between 2000 and 2014, there were 232 new academic library building completed. More
projects were completed in 2008 than in any other year, and 2014 has had the fewest new
library buildings completed. The overall trend has been downward in academic institutions
building new libraries, however that is not true across all types of institutions. Patterns
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 30 of 31
that emerged in this study included the relatively robust library construction at public
institutions with sizable undergraduate enrollments when juxtaposed with the steep drop
at community colleges, and the even steeper drop at special focus institutions. For example,
only one tribal college saw construction of a new library building between 2000-2014. The
size of the undergraduate population appears to be a driving factor in the decision to build
a new library.
This study provides a foundation for further inquiry, on the patterns that lead to
investment in library space, and specific institutional characteristics – these include cost,
enrollment, demographics served, library leadership, and institutional success. The author
concludes that we are in a time of incredibly innovative academic library design.
Annotated Bibliography, Trends in Higher Education Subgroup of the JMU Libraries Building Task Force 2014—2015
Page 31 of 31