Library Learning Spaces:

Investigating Libraries and

Investing in Student Feedback
Camille Andrews and Sara E. Wright

This paper will examine how students in academic libraries work collaboratively and individu-
ally, what they need in terms of furniture, technology and spaces, and how librarians can deter-
mine student needs. During a major library renovation in 2007, Mann Library—which serves the
Colleges of Agriculture, Life Sciences, and Human Ecology at Cornell University—responded to
students’ need for more group work spaces with the unveiling of a new collaborative center. Five
years later, it was time for an upgrade. In the spring of 2012, our library’s learning technologies
team began the next phase of space redesign by applying a variety of qualitative and quantita-
tive methods to find out what users at our research-intensive university now need to work most
effectively. Through surveys, interviews, usability tests of collaborative technologies, and par-
ticipatory design exercises, our team gathered feedback on the study behaviors and needs of
students. We then used this data to help redesign our collaborative study spaces and assessed
the results. Included in this paper are our research methods, the results and evolution of our
space design and assessment efforts, and how the library has responded to that feedback.

Introduction ize from disparate qualitative studies done at different

In addition to the theoretical literature on library as types of libraries, overall trends in the US include cre-
place, charting the changing conception of the library ating spaces that are collaborative, transformational,
from a space for collections to an information or specific to their users, and often designed for and with
learning commons to a space that supports the cre- patrons. As Watson notes,
ation of information in a variety of mediums,1 there
has been a parallel emphasis on practical approaches …In summary, learning spaces in American
libraries typically include the following features:
to discovering and meeting changing user needs for
21st century libraries, including the use of partici- highly flexible space to support a wide variety of
patory and ethnographic research methods in space activities
design.2 Besides the landmark University of Roches-
storage areas for extra chairs, smart boards, com-
ter and Ethnographic Research in Illinois Academic puters and replacement parts
Libraries studies,3 numerous participatory and user-
centered design studies have been done at libraries in modular furniture that can be readily reconfig-
ured into conference rooms, traditional class-
a variety of settings.4 Though it is difficult to general-

Camille Andrews is User Engagement Librarian, Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University, e-mail: [email protected]; Sara
E. Wright is Head of User Services & Engagement, Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University, e-mail: [email protected]

467
468 Camille Andrews and Sara E. Wright

rooms or computer laboratories, in addition to tion. The Collaborative Center was made possible by an
relaxed study and learning environments endowment which charged Mann with creating a col-
redundant telecommunications to provide access laborative, flexible, technology-rich space for students,
to local servers and the internet which they could customize by moving furniture into
different configurations and use for collaboration and
additional electrical support to provide power, for
creation of group projects. From its inception, the li-
use or recharging of student-owned devices
brary began a long term assessment process to learn
distance learning capabilities to permit linkage to what students needed and over the years, the Collab-
other learning centres orative Center and eventually other spaces in the li-
external and internal corridors that permit the use brary have been reassessed and redesigned to reflect
of learning spaces when the rest of the facility is the changes in library function detailed above as well as
closed developments in teaching and learning methods, cur-
riculum, and the study preferences of our continually
acoustical conditioning to reduce the intrusion
of conversations, lecturers, phone use, or sudden changing student base. The library staff and students
intrusive sound which distract learning have used a variety of qualitative and quantitative meth-
ods to investigate student space needs, inform several
lighting that provides a range of light intensity,
phases of renovations, and assess satisfaction with and
and enhances colours and skin tones…5
the continuing impact of space changes. This paper will
discuss our methods and the evolution of and impact
In our environmental scan of several libraries, of our design and assessment program, examine the
including those at Duke, Emory, Georgia Institute of trends we have seen in student needs for collaborative
Technology, Harvard, North Carolina State Univer- work space and tools, and look at how students influ-
sity, and University of Amherst Massachusetts in the enced renovations of the library, out of which the idea
spring of 2013, we found similar themes as well as: of the library as a learning lab has grown.
• a wide variety of comfortable furniture types
(often of varying heights, shapes, and colors) Methods
to meet varying user needs; Mann’s initial investigations started even before the
• creative service models (including collabo- 2007 opening of the Bissett Collaborative Center with
rations with and/or merging of library and assistance from students in our Design and Envi-
general student support services) and a trend ronmental Analysis department. We began our next
toward self-service; round of assessment several years later in 2012 during
• flexible and integrated technology--both low a refresh of the Bissett Collaborative Center. This con-
(whiteboards and power outlets) and high tinued in 2014 when changing space needs and a col-
(media walls and labs for visualization and laborative strategic space planning process with col-
simulation); and lege administration led us to consolidate the library’s
• a variety of space types: traditional book-filled footprint from five floors to four and rethink our
quiet space; group and individual study; fac- space usage in concert with an external architecture
ulty & graduate student commons; flex class- firm. Figure 1 shows the methods we used to guide
rooms; multimedia labs; and makerspaces). our decisions on space usage and furniture purchases.
In 2007, in response to changing space trends, Al-
bert R. Mann Library, the life and social sciences library Results
at Cornell University, created the Bissett Collaborative Though we collected a great deal of information, our
Center, a flexible study space, as part of a major renova- data did have some limitations. Since we were study-

ACRL 2015
Library Learning Spaces 469

FIGURE 1
Methods (for detailed timeline and more information see https://cornell.box.com/ACRL2015paper)
Methods Subjects (number of respondents) Years
space observations numbers of individuals and groups, activities, and furniture 2008, 2012, 2014
and technology use in Bissett Collaborative Center and the
library as a whole using Excel and SUMA space observation
tool
surveys furniture (n=29, 34, 399), furniture color, whiteboards 2008, 2012, 2014
(n=29), software and hardware (see usability tests and
surveys), signage (n=~32), and pre and post-redesign
satisfaction (n=105, 54)
interviews collaborative (n=6) and individual study preferences 2012, 2014
(n=~43), space reservation systems (n=28), furniture
(n=~43), signage (n=28)
usability tests and surveys Teamspot (usability tests: n=15; survey: n=29), Clickshare 2008, 2012, 2014
(tests: n=8), Media:scape (tests: n=8), and Crestron
Airmedia (tests: n=7) collaborative screensharing systems;
LibCal and D!Bs reservation systems (n=11); laptop docking
stations (survey: n=25)
environmental scan and visits to Duke, North Carolina State University, Georgia Tech, 2014
visits to other facilities Emory, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, University
of Massachusetts Amherst
photo diaries favorite and least favorite spaces for individual and group 2012
study, socializing, talking with professors, etc.; use of
technology for individual and group study (n=7)
ideal space design exercises drawings of and interviews on ideal collaborative space 2012
(n=~45)
work with students in our pre-and-post occupancy evaluations, space observations, 2006-2008, 2009,
Design and Environmental surveys, ergonomic evaluations of furniture, and literature 2012, 2014
Analysis department reviews
focus groups service points and signage (n=18) 2014
Note: Methods from Council on Library and Information Resources participatory design workshops, the University
of Rochester and the Ethnographic Research in Academic Libraries projects, the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative
Discovery Tool: Student Input on Learning Spaces Tool, and the Learning Space Toolkit.6

ing different and sometimes fairly specific questions tation); and data reuse and communication (e.g.
at different times using different methods, most of non-standardized analysis and reporting). However,
our data was not longitudinal, and we weren’t able to ultimately we gathered some great data at particular
draw broadly generalizable conclusions. Over time, points in time using mixed methods that helped give
we also had some general methodological issues to us quick answers to relevant questions, make deci-
address, such as consistent data collection (e.g. dif- sions, and create the types of spaces that students
ferent coders using different definitions; drop off in wanted. Though each of these studies and methods
data collection; or collection for different lengths of targeted different areas at various times, our findings,
time at different times of day and semester); data summarized below, fell into several broad categories
management and curation (e.g. data in various for- that can be summarized into technology, furniture,
mats in different places and little data documen- ambience or aesthetics, and types of spaces.

March 25–28, 2015, Portland, Oregon

470 Camille Andrews and Sara E. Wright

Technology • Planners. Whether using an app, digital cal-

Complex technology was not always necessary or want- endar, or paper planner, most of the students
ed. Often students just wanted more outlets and white- in our photo diary study had fairly elaborate,
boards.* Those two low tech features came up time and personally- specific systems for keeping track
time again in all our studies, and whiteboards were the of their commitments.
second most commonly used technology item in our • Other tools for individual and group as-
collaborative spaces. In our ideal space design exercises, signments included Gmail and other Google
only a few participants asked for higher end technolo- apps especially Docs, Blackboard, white-
gy like smart boards, document cameras or projectors, boards, Microsoft OneNote, WordPad, Sticky
embedded tablets in tables that could wirelessly project Notes, Dropbox, Doodle, Excel, and Work.
to monitors, multi-touch wall surfaces, media players, Collaborative Technologies. Overall our usability
and an iPad library. We had at least one request for no tests of and experience with products like Teamspot,
technology at all. In our other studies, we did, however, Media:scape, Clickshare, and Crestron Airmedia indi-
see a need for more administrative technologies such cate that students like collaborative technologies but,
as reservation and digital signage systems; reserveable unsurprisingly, want them to be very easy to use. If
collaborative spaces in particular are at a premium at they had to spend too time figuring it out or dealing
the university and more signage was needed to increase with technical difficulties, then it was a barrier to work
awareness of our spaces and services. (especially since they already have Google apps). For
Other popular technologies included: group projects some students were fine with e-mailing
• Computers & phones: Personal laptops work back and forth but others found it problematic for
were, far and away, the most frequently version control on large projects. Those students with
observed technology that our students used. more complicated and larger projects or specific for-
Our interviews revealed that students would matting or software requirements definitely saw its use-
often not carry them throughout the day due fulness. For specific products, we found the following:
to the weight, creating a need for library- • Google Docs worked well for many students,
owned laptops to check out. However, some despite some formatting issues when trans-
students disliked not having all their files ferring to Microsoft Office. Interestingly, one
accessible on library-owned equipment. student we interviewed saw Google apps as
Phones and other mobile devices were a a mode of communication and sharing with
substitute for laptops for quick tasks. Public her fellow students, but noted that Word was
desktop computers continue to be heavily the professional option for turning in work
used for their specialized software and hard- to her professors.
ware capabilities. • TeamSpot collaborative software had
• Large screens: Students wanted more flat very useful features, especially integrated
panel LCDs (to connect their laptops and file sharing & wireless control, for trained
see their work on a large screen), projectors, groups with longer term projects and large,
dual monitors, and TVs. complex format files, but involved a learning
• Headphones: Many students we interviewed curve for short projects and infrequent users.
carried headphones to mitigate noise. • Screen sharing products like the Clickshare
and Crestron Airmedia wireless presenta-
* Whether mobile, wall-mounted, painted walls,
chalkboards or glassboards, or used as partitions; 83% tion systems and Media:scape screenshar-
wanted more whiteboards when we first surveyed ing technology were well liked, especially the
students and even after adding them, we kept getting ability to view multiple screens at once.
additional requests for more.

ACRL 2015
Library Learning Spaces 471

Furniture in a flexible manner and low partitions between indi-

The main characteristics needed for furniture were vidual study tables for greater privacy.
variety, comfort, adjustability and mobility. Students
wanted a variety of furniture styles and heights for Ambience
different purposes. The requirements for the furniture Aesthetics and feel. Ambience was critical for stu-
they wanted for studying were different from what dents. Our photo diary studies and survey comments
they wanted for lounging, hanging out, or napping, indicated that an ambience that was depressing and
and students were often explicit about the uses or drab was displeasing, and a couple of our interview-
purposes for which they would like certain pieces of ees suggested adding plants, posters, art, and desk
furniture. We tested and added a number of different lights to make spaces more appealing. Their dislikes
types of furniture over the years, and students have included claustrophobic, dark, disorganized, loud,
given us some great input on the type of furniture to crowded, distracting and high traffic spaces with-
add as well as the qualities furniture should possess. out enough outlets or work surface. Students liked a
Comfort. Comfort was in the eye of the beholder. modern, new, open, clean ambience with a “library”
There was a split between students who wanted more feel that encouraged productivity. Stacks were seen
lounging, reclining or relaxed chairs and those who not only as a resource but also as an environmental
preferred chairs that made you sit upright, were a bit cue. In mentioning a newly renovated bookless study
harder, and had arms and back support. Several stu- space in another library, one student commented that
dents disliked our existing hard wooden chairs, prefer- it wasn’t really a library. When asked what constituted
ring soft, large armchairs; however, others mentioned a library, a few students responded desks, stacks, and
that they didn’t want their furniture too comfortable books. To them, the bookless renovated space felt like
(e.g. no recliners or chairs so comfortable that they a cafeteria, and a social space that you have to “put on
would fall asleep). Couches were popular (for nap- makeup to go to.” However, there was still a desire for
ping and as dividers or conversation nooks) as were more informal, fun areas without stacks, where they
armchairs, beanbags and ottomans to a lesser degree. had the ability to do group work and talk.
The angle of incline on chairs, texture of materials, Nature. Perhaps unsurprisingly for a library con-
mix of cushioning and support, presence of armrests, nected to the Colleges of Agriculture & Life Sciences
and availability of footrests and space for belongings and Human Ecology, there was an emphasis on nature
or laptops were also considerations in choosing furni- and bringing the outside into our design. The desire
ture. Mobility and adjustability were also key in many for windows and natural light (including skylights)
participants’ eyes. was a frequent response in our ideal space design ex-
Study tables (individual and group) and parti- ercises, with students wanting furniture positioned to
tions. Tables for two or four for quiet study in prox- make the most of the view out the windows and over
imity to each other (observed to be our most popular our central atrium. If natural light was not a possi-
furniture), small end tables, and tables in a variety of bility, then they wanted lamps, though cautioning us
shapes and heights were mentioned, especially tables to be careful about glare on screens, particularly in
at ergonomic heights and work surfaces with plenty technology-enabled rooms. Maximizing opportuni-
of room to spread out materials and belongings. Ac- ties to place plants throughout the library whether as
cording to our observations, our mobile laptop tables decoration, privacy screens/dividers, or centerpieces
were also extremely popular. In terms of partitions, was another suggestion. A surprising number of par-
a few students in our ideal space design exercises ticipants asked for water features in our ideal space
mentioned mobile or retractable walls/partitions that design exercises, including elements such as a foun-
could convert larger group spaces into smaller ones tain, pond, waterfall, in floor aquarium, or water wall

March 25–28, 2015, Portland, Oregon

472 Camille Andrews and Sara E. Wright

as a centerpiece, focal point, and noise dampener. In activity. Though studying was the most favored activ-
terms of color, nature colors like blue and green were ity in our collaborative spaces, “chilling” (e.g. watch-
popular, as well richer colors that “popped” like plum ing movies, texting, checking social media and basi-
and red. cally anything besides studying, reading, sleeping or
Basic amenities. Students needed certain ameni- talking) and socializing were fairly popular. Interest-
ties nearby, including food, drink and supplies (e.g. ingly, that social atmosphere could also contribute to
office supplies, studio materials, printers, sinks). work; some students wanted to be seen and liked the
Mann Library already has a café on the first floor in social pressure to focus on work in highly sought after
the lobby but we received some suggestions for im- spaces like the computers on our first floor, whereas
provement with a few people indicating they wanted others preferred more isolated and private space. Pa-
more self-serve options like vending (both supply and trons requested different levels of privacy for differ-
food) and coffee machines, along with the ability to ent types of spaces, and unsurprisingly, there was no
microwave food, which was crucial given our extend- real consensus except that we should have rooms and
ed nighttime hours. spaces of all types: at least some individual and group
spaces with mostly complete privacy; some individual
Types of Spaces and group spaces with partial privacy (as long as there
Zones of activity. Students had differing space needs was decent noise dampening); and both quiet and
for individual and group work, and either implicitly louder collaborative open areas for quiet productivity
or explicitly made distinctions between areas for par- in visual range of others and for social face time and
ticular needs and characteristics that would make productivity under peer pressure. As a couple of stu-
them successful. In their ideal space design plans, dents noted, partial privacy raised their awareness of
some participants drew distinct zones (for individual time passing and what was happening around them,
or collaborative study, “traditional” library vs. fun in- showed whether rooms were occupied, and reminded
formal space, private or semi-private vs. open space, them to take breaks and that the library was shared
and areas for quiet or talking) or mentioned rooms space where they needed to be respectful of one an-
with specific themes or colors. In both individual and other.
group space, students wanted to talk without worry- Individual Study. In terms of individual study
ing about their volume or other people seeing their space, our interviews indicated that the overall need
in-progress work. Overall, the characteristics students was for quiet space with plenty of outlets and large
wanted included: quiet (but not so quiet they couldn’t tables or work surfaces with chairs at the right height
have low conversations or talk without distracting (which varied depending on respondent). There was a
others); low traffic and lack of distractions while they mix of people who liked studying in the open where
were studying; spaces that weren’t overcrowded and they could see and be seen) and those who liked par-
where they had a modicum of privacy; and windows, tial privacy. What bothered people most were noise
glass walls (not only for the view but also as writing and visual distractions, lack of outlets, the comfort
surfaces) or open space for good views. In our ide- level and ergonomic qualities of furniture, not enough
al space design exercises, students sometimes drew space to work, level of privacy, temperature fluctua-
completely mobile spaces, but kept some structure tions, bad lighting, and seeing people sleeping. In
by adding walls or partitions—permanent and move- general students wanted individual spaces to be quiet,
able—and other features like booths or whiteboards personal areas and liked to study alone in natural light
that would separate space. with at least the illusion of privacy.
Privacy. Students wanted both social “face time” Group Work. Students experienced various frus-
and areas of privacy, depending on temperament and trations with finding space to work together on group

ACRL 2015
Library Learning Spaces 473

projects. There was consistently a need for more Other types of spaces. Informal zones or places
group study spaces in a variety of sizes and levels of for study breaks (with things like couches, TVs, a bed,
enclosure that included both reserveable (particularly or fireplace) showed up in a few ideal space design
for 2-4 people) as well as first come, first served space drawings. One of the most frequent requests we re-
so that they could drop in when needed. Students of- ceived was for reserveable interview rooms as most
ten mentioned the difficulty of scheduling meetings of our spaces are for first come, first served use. This
and rooms at particular times they all could meet in a makes scheduling interviews difficult, since dorm
location central to their dorm or classes and known to rooms and open spaces are prone to interruptions,
all group members. Their other issues with reserving noise, and poor reception or connectivity for cell
spaces included others reserving in advance but not phones or Skype. Our café, lobby and outdoor spac-
showing up, and group rooms being used by individu- es served as informal social spaces between classes,
als. Students suggested having some system to moni- though the acoustics in the lobby make it prohibitive
tor whether or not a space was being used by a group for sustained study. The library was less often a place
or an individual—whether it was reserved or just drop for students to talk to their professors apart from our
in—to avoid abuse of space. classrooms, though some did use our quieter, casual
The frequency and type of group work at Cor- spaces instead of their classrooms or departmental
nell depended on major and college and the nature spaces to discuss assignments with their instructors.
of the group work. Our findings showed that group
presentations and projects weren’t the only type of Impact of Assessment and Next Steps
work students were doing. For example, engineering Renovations and Changes in Space Usage
and physics students might not have official group and User Satisfaction
projects but do have problem sets that they want to All of these data have led to multiple renovations of
collaborate on or simply be around others working the study spaces in the library and allowed us to avoid
on the same material. Those doing field and lab work some of the issues that arise when renovating under
may have other collaborative needs (such as compil- the challenges of narrow purchasing decision win-
ing literature reviews). Collaborative work could in- dows and limited information. We have been able to
clude quick touchdown meetings with TAs or other add furniture, technology, amenities and services that
students, assembling individual project parts created students have tested and asked for, including:
by group members, brainstorming, practicing presen- • Greater variety of furniture, including soft
tations, working on non-academic projects, or study- seating, bean bags, ottomans, semicircular
ing in proximity. For the latter, the need for “alone to- booths with built in large tables, computer
gether” type of space that Georgia Tech identified in and LCDs, and tables (mobile and fixed) of
their studies with Herman Miller7 was something that different heights (including standing height)
we noticed as well. and shapes with large work surfaces
Though two to four people was a common group • Mobile whiteboards, screens, and partitions
size for us, there was a mix of sizes of collaborative for additional privacy for group work
space suggested: small group study rooms (quiet or • LCD screens, whether mobile or integrated
collaborative with tables, phone, and whiteboard), into the furniture, and screensharing tech-
large conference rooms (boardroom style or telecon- nologies
ference-enabled); group rooms that are enclosed to • More consistent branding as a collaborative
mitigate sound or with moveable dividers/partitions; space where talking was encouraged
and open collaborative spaces with an iPad library • More color to make spaces more inviting
and tables with inset tablet computers. • Vending machines for office supplies and

March 25–28, 2015, Portland, Oregon

474 Camille Andrews and Sara E. Wright

apples (separate machines) in the lobby outcomes. After the completion of the second floor ren-
• Addition of and updates to LibCal space res- ovations this spring, we will be investigating moving or
ervation system, recently expanded to a pilot reconfiguring our service desks and continuing work on
for our whole library system our signage and wayfinding to address student concerns.
• Extended 24/5 hours in our lobby Overall the studies over the past years have im-
• Consultation areas for our writing center proved our student engagement. Our students were
and statistical support units in basement and very appreciative that we asked for their input and see
on first floor the library as place where their opinion matters. We
These renovations have greatly increased our also gained a better understanding of our users, what
space popularity and satisfaction. In the before and they want and need, and where gaps are in what we do
after surveys on the renovated collaborative spaces, and don’t know about them. Starting long term studies
overall our user satisfaction increased from about 3.6 has also helped build a culture of assessment, making
to 4.6 out of 5 (3 being neutral and 5 being very satis- it a part of what we do and getting administrative buy
fied), which we counted as a great success. Accord- in. This has also led to Mann addressing issues with
ing to space observations, our space usage has also our assessment infrastructure in several ways, includ-
increased over time on our second floor. ing: creating a data management plan, a warehouse
of methodologies with training guides and a storage
Next Steps space for data; investigating quantitative and qualita-
Our next phase of renovation on our second floor tive analysis and visualization programs like Tableau
and the consolidation of library footprint is in process and Dedoose;† and planning future assessment, in-
during spring 2015. We are planning the following: cluding regular studies with repeated cross sectional
• Addition of 265 seats and reclamation of 169 or longitudinal design and assessment of the impact of
seats, 9 individual study rooms and 3 group our spaces and services on student learning outcomes.
study rooms Assessment is also being translated into other areas
• Addition of quiet collaborative as well as like our service point task force, a group charged with
more individual study space with more high investigating updates to our public services desk place-
backed semicircular booths as well as couch- ment, which did focus groups in 2014. What began as an
es with screens and semi-enclosed chairs and investigation into service desk placement has become a
carrels for quiet small groups larger inquiry into our signage and wayfinding in our
• Addition of individual carrels, adjustable and physical and virtual spaces. Moving assessment from
standing height stations, floor-level flip out basic questions and space satisfaction to a deeper over-
chairs (like structured beanbags) and adjust- all user-centered engagement is a key part of 21st cen-
able rocking chairs for those who prefer tury librarianship, and this approach led to the creation
different postures for individual study of the User Engagement Librarian position which is re-
• Addition of writeable glassboard along the sponsible for space, service, and technology assessment
length of one wall and mobile stools and outreach to users. In service to that larger goal, we
• Upcoming extension of our existing Bissett have also begun building and deepening partnerships
collaborative space and move of the stacks to and collaboration with: academic departments like De-
create more space, a quiet zone buffer, and sign and Environmental Analysis, Applied Economics
additional nooks for study and Management, and Communication; with student
We will be conducting pre- and post-renovation support services like Student Affairs, our writing cen-
surveys and are hoping to see positive changes not only
in satisfaction but also an impact on student learning † Tableau (http://www.tableausoftware.com/) and Dedoose
(http://www.dedoose.com/)

ACRL 2015
Library Learning Spaces 475

ter, and statistical support units; and even with others in and University of Amherst Massachusetts who kindly
the library such as our Assessment and Communication hosted and spoke with us during our environmen-
unit and our data management and curation group. tal scan. Finally this work also could not have been
Because of our partnerships with students and done without the generosity of the vendors who have
classes (particularly in our Design and Environmental loaned us products for testing, and the participation
Analysis department), the library is also increasingly and hard work of Design and Environmental Analysis
seen as a learning lab. The use of student researchers students and professors throughout the years.
gave us greater access to other students (who might
have had less inhibition talking to them than library Notes
staff) and insight into new methodologies, while we 1. Arlee Turner, Bernadette Welch, and Sue Reynolds, “Learn-
ing Spaces in Academic Libraries—A Review of the Evolving
provided them with a real world problem and guid- Trends,” Australian Academic & Research Libraries 44, no. 4
ance on research. We are exploring ways to broaden (2013): 226–34, doi:10.1080/00048623.2013.857383; Scott
Bennett, Libraries Designed for Learning (Washington, D.C.:
our engagement with students and to open up the
Council on Library and Information Resources, 2003), http://
library further as a center for real-world, authentic, www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub122abst.html; Scott Bennett.
and inquiry-based learning and projects that benefit “Libraries and Learning: A History of Paradigm Change.”
Portal-Libraries and the Academy 9, no. 2 (April 2009):
both students and the library. At a basic level, we are 181–97; Joan Lippincott, “Information Commons: Meeting
planning lightweight ways to continue to gather feed- Millennials’ Needs.” Journal of Library Administration 52, no.
back (such as weekly flipchart surveys and questions 6 (2012): 538–48. doi:10.1080/01930826.2012.707950.
2. Council on Library and Information Resources, Nancy
and feedback on our social media channels) as well Fried Foster and CLIR Seminar on Issues of Participa-
as continuing our more in-depth participatory design tory Design in Academic Libraries, Participatory Design in
and user studies. At a more ambitious level, we hope Academic Libraries Methods, Findings, and Implementations,
(Washington, D.C.: Council on Library and information
to expand beyond serving as a client in certain class Resources, 2012), http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub155.
projects to a deeper collaboration and exploration 3. Nancy Fried Foster and Susan Gibbons, Studying Students :
The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of
with faculty and students, whether that be through a
Rochester (Chicago: Association of College and Research
library design internship or scholarship for selected Libraries, 2007); Lynda M. Duke and Andrew D. Asher,
students with funding and/or credit or through a ded- College Libraries and Student Culture : What We Now Know
(Chicago: American Library Association, 2012).
icated library innovation class such as the Library Test 4. Council on Library and Information Resources, et. al.,
Kitchen at the Harvard Graduate School for Design.8 Participatory Design in Academic Libraries.
Whatever the path, the methods, best practices and 5. Matthew Simon, “US Projects and Trends,” in Better Library
and Learning Space, ed. Les Watson, (London: Facet Publishing,
trends we have seen so far in investigating our stu- 2013), http://lib.myilibrary.com/detail.asp?ID=600682, 33-34.
dents’ needs will certainly guide our way. 6. Foster and Gibbons, eds., Studying Students; Andrew Asher
and Susan Miller, So You Want to Do Anthropology in Your
Library? or A Practical Guide to Ethnographic Research in
Acknowledgements Academic Libraries, accessed February 12, 2015, http://
The authors would like to acknowledge the excellent www.erialproject.org/publications/toolkit/; “ELI Discovery
Tool: Student Input on Learning Spaces Tool,” EDUCAUSE
work of all library staff who have contributed to this
Learning Initiative, accessed February 18, 2015, http://www.
project over the years, especially Kathy Chiang, How- educause.edu/library/resources/eli-discovery-tool-student-
ard Raskin, the library’s Assessment & Communica- input-learning-spaces-tool; “Learning Space Toolkit,” ac-
cessed February 12, 2015, http://learningspacetoolkit.org/.
tion unit, and renovation and Mann Learning Tech- 7. “Clough Commons Research Study: Student Use Modes at
nologies committees past and present. Additionally the Clough Commons,” Charlie Bennett et al, last modified
we would like to thank the Bissett and van Tienhoven August 7, 2013, http://hdl.handle.net/1853/48746.
8. Anne Gray Fischer, “The Library Test Kitchen at Harvard
families for their generous support and funding, and University,” BostonGlobe.com, June 15, 2013, https://www.
the librarians at Duke, Emory, Georgia Institute of bostonglobe.com/arts/books/2013/06/15/the-library-test-
Technology, Harvard, North Carolina State University, kitchen-harvard-university/G4LsBrZUuYYJTOXEsT2QHJ/
story.html.

March 25–28, 2015, Portland, Oregon