Academic library use and student retention: A quantitative analysis

Library & Information Science Research 35 (2013) 127–136

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Library & Information Science Research

Academic library use and student retention: A quantitative analysis Gaby Haddow Department of Information Studies, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, 6845 Western Australia, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Available online 29 January 2013

a b s t r a c t A key component of Vincent Tinto's model of retention is the importance of student integration in the academic institution. Library use can be regarded as a form of integration within such institutions. A quantitative approach was applied to demonstrate how institutional data can be combined to examine library use and retention at a single institution. Undergraduate student and library use data were analyzed to identify results that suggested associations between library use and student retention. Library use was measured by log-ins to electronic resources, as well as borrowing from the library. The undergraduate students enrolled for the first time in 2010 comprised the population, Sub-group student characteristics, age and socioeconomic status, underwent further analysis. The findings show retained students log-in to authenticated resources and borrow from the library at higher rates than withdrawn students. Mature age students withdraw from the university at higher rates than younger students. Log-ins to authenticated resources increase as students progress over time through their university programs. No notable associations were found among socioeconomic background, library use, and retention. For the institution, these findings can inform the development of library services to target specific student groups on the basis that higher library use may lead to improved integration and retention. In addition, the study describes a research design that is replicable in other institutions and contributes to library use and retention literature. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Within the extensive body of literature that considers how to measure the impact of academic libraries, the contribution to student engagement, retention, and persistence is a subset. These three terms are used to describe related and overlapping concepts. Engagement “represents both the time and energy students invest in educationally purposeful activities” (Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, & Kinzie, 2008, p. 542) and is an aspect of Tinto's (1993) notion of integration. Retention is used to indicate student progression, which is determined by ongoing enrolment (Mezick, 2007). In the United Kingdom, retention “refers to students remaining with one HE [higher education] institution and completing their program of study within a specific timeframe” (The Higher Education Academy, 2011, para 1). Persistence, like retention, can refer to continuing enrolment, but the term is also used to describe course completion (Emmons & Wilkinson, 2011). The relationship between the terms engagement and persistence is outlined by Kuh et al. (2008) as: “student engagement … is positively related to academic outcomes as represented by first-year student grades and by persistence between the first and second year at college” (p. 555). To reflect the terminology used in Australia, retention will be used to denote continuing enrolment, whether throughout a semester or to the following academic year (van Stolk, Tiessen, Clift, & Levitt, 2007).

E-mail address: [email protected]. 0740-8188/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2012.12.002

Student engagement and retention are influenced by factors relating to the institution and the individual, including social support, experience in the institution, academic goals, and socioeconomic status (Crosling, Thomas & Heagney, 2008; Lotkowski, Robbins, & Noeth, 2004; Tinto, 1993). Among the “institutional systems relevant to improving student engagement” (Paul Hamlyn Foundation, 2010, p. 9) is the library (Emmons & Wilkinson, 2011; Kuh & Gonyea, 2003; Mezick, 2007). Yet, the role of the academic library receives scant attention in large national surveys of students, such as the National Student Survey (NSS) (Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2010), the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (2012), and Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE) (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2009). Academic libraries recognize the importance of student engagement and retention, as well as the opportunity to demonstrate their contribution to institutional objectives. One of the earliest studies examined library borrowing data against grades and retention of new students. Positive correlations were found between borrowing and higher grades, as well as borrowing and retention (Kramer & Kramer, 1968). In recent times, much of the research has used large national datasets to arrive at measures of library impact across the higher education sector (Emmons & Wilkinson, 2011; Gratch-Lindauer, 2007; Kuh & Gonyea, 2003; Kuh et al., 2008; Mezick, 2007). Although single institutions have been the subject of a number of studies, the research has generally focused on library use and academic performance determined by grades rather than retention (Goodall & Pattern, 2011; Hiscock, 1986; Wong & Webb, 2011). Given the diverse student populations at

128

G. Haddow / Library & Information Science Research 35 (2013) 127–136

different institutions, as well as varying institutional characteristics, research that focuses on a specific institution can produce findings that may contribute directly to institutional goals. Such an approach is encouraged by Tinto (1993), who states “institutional assessment … is a critical prerequisite for the establishment of institutional retention policy” (p. 154). 2. Problem statement Engagement and retention of students in higher education institutions are increasingly important criteria for measuring the success of universities. Success affects influential university rankings and carries funding implications. Tracking student progress (e.g., engagement and retention) can be observed quantitatively and qualitatively. With respect to engagement, grades and continued enrolment are the primary quantitative methods, and are usually the responsibility of teaching areas and enrolment offices. As qualitative measures of student progress, large national surveys, which include questions about institutional support services and resources, implicitly involve the academic library. In addition, academic libraries administer their own student surveys, such as LibQUAL+™ (Cook, 2002), to gather data about service quality. Libraries also generate quantitative library use reports for a wide range of activities and services, such as borrowing (e.g., library loans), access to electronic resources, attendance at workshops, and visits. While these library data might indicate trends and patterns of use over several years, they offer little in the way of measuring impact and value to student progress. However, in combination with enrolment data, they can point to possible associations among library use, student engagement and retention. The results of such measures can demonstrate the library's contribution to institutional objectives. Vincent Tinto's model (1993) of student integration is used as the theoretical framework for this study. As one of the institutional systems that can contribute to student integration, the library's role as a repository of study resources is important to understand. The library is the link between use of these resources and student persistence that underlies the research question of this study: Are students who engage in higher levels of library use more likely to be retained by the institution? In particular, the study explored two factors, age and socioeconomic status, which have been shown to influence student retention (Yorke, 2003). To explore these factors, the study also asks: Is there an association among library use and retention, as well as a student's age or socioeconomic status? The research findings are important to the institution and to the academic library community. For the institution, resource allocation can be targeted to improving services to specific student groups if it is found that certain factors influence library use. Within the framework of Tinto's model, an increase in library use may then influence student retention, which contributes to the institution's broader goals. By taking a quantitative approach to examining library use and retention at a single institution, the study illustrates how different sources of institutional data can be combined. In addition, the study demonstrates a willingness by the library to investigate issues that contribute to institutional objectives. Taking a broader view, the research explores student retention using a study design with few precedents; it also extends the research literature in library and information science that is concerned with measuring library impact and value in higher education institutions. 3. Literature review 3.1. Student retention and withdrawal Vincent Tinto's work (1993) about student progress is held by many as both pioneering and enduring (Emmons & Wilkinson, 2011; Foster, 2002a; Mezick, 2007). His model identifies student integration or involvement as a critical factor in students continuing with their studies. Integration takes two forms within the academic system: academic integration and social integration. These forms are influenced

by an individual's background, attributes and previous educational experience, as well as the academic system itself. Tinto (1993) describes these influences as a “complex interplay of forces” (p. 3), which means developing initiatives aimed at improving student retention are similarly complex. It also means that a great deal of retention research limits the investigation to either a single institution or focuses on a few aspects related to student integration. A compounding factor in arriving at general findings from retention research is the lack of consistent and agreed terminology. As noted above, various definitions are used to describe retention, persistence, and withdrawal. In addition, the methods of gathering student progress data differ across and within national education systems (Crosling, Thomas, & Heagney, 2008; Tinto, 1993). However, there is general consensus that student withdrawal is multifaceted and “there is rarely a single reason why students leave” (Jones, Thomas, & May, 2009, p. 18), as well as agreement that understanding and tackling student retention is important for students and for institutions (Crosling, Thomas & Heagney, 2008; Tinto, 1993). When the data for retention rates in the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States are considered, albeit using different terminology, the importance of addressing retention is evident: “continuation rates” in the UK in 2004–2005 were between 85% to 96% (National Audit Office, 2007, p. 9); the rates were 80% for the same period in Australia (van Stolk et al., 2007); and only an estimated 58% of American students enrolled in universities from 1995 to 1996 completed their four year degree within six years (Kuh et al., 2008, p. 540). Among the many reasons students withdraw from their studies are factors relating to student expectations of their course and its degree of difficulty, as well as the goals and intentions of individual students, student skills and experience on entering a course, and external factors, such as financial security and family circumstances (McGivney, 1996; Tinto, 1993). Mezick (2007) refers to academic performance as “a major, if not the most significant, cause of student withdrawal” (p. 562). In addition, the literature shows that the first year of enrolment is the period of highest risk for students to withdraw (Lau, 2003). Yorke (2003) observed: “Retention correlates inversely with social class and mature entry” (para. 10). A report commissioned by the United Kingdom National Audit Office, which compared retention rates of five countries confirmed Yorke's statement, noting older students and students with lower family incomes in the United States are more likely to withdraw from their studies. Similar results were found in the United Kingdom and Australia (van Stolk et al., 2007). McGivney (1996) also discusses the challenges for mature students, suggesting they may be “more susceptible than others” (p. 110), possibly stemming from financial issues. The influence of social class and retention in a university course of study is recognized in retention research and by governments. For example, a recent Australian government initiative will financially penalize universities if they fail to retain students, while at the same time introducing a policy that funds and opens up university enrolments to more students from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2010). The United Kingdom has also launched initiatives that increase funding to higher education institutions and extend participation of students from disadvantaged backgrounds (Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2011a), as well as establish benchmarks for funding retention programs (Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2011b). In relation to students from “disadvantaged and/or minority origins,” Tinto (1993, p. 49) argues that academic preparedness and social experience are important factors to consider when attempting to understand why these students are more likely to withdraw from their studies. Heagney (2008) adds the need to “work long hours in paid employment” (p.21) as a specific issue for students from lowincome backgrounds. Attempts to address academic preparedness for non-traditional students, including those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, have been the focus of a number of initiatives and studies. Some of these studies have noted the use of library resources as a component (Kirk, 2008; Whitmire, 2001).

G. Haddow / Library & Information Science Research 35 (2013) 127–136

3.2. Student retention and academic libraries The academic library's role in student retention is highlighted by Mezick (2007), who refers to research that found library use, based on physical space and resources, is a factor in student integration. This link has been tested in single institutions and across many institutions. A number of studies, including Mezick's, have examined the results of large national student surveys against factors related to libraries and library use. The national surveys are administered each year to assess student satisfaction and engagement with their institution and include the United Kingdom's NSS, the NSSE in the United States and Canada, as well as the Australian and New Zealand AUSSE. While touching on a wide range of learning and campus activities, the academic library's role in student experience is given little or no attention. The NSS includes one item: “The library resources and services are good enough for my needs” (Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2010, p. 23). The AUSSE asks students to rate how often they “used library resources on campus or online” (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2009, p. 58). The NSSE has no library-related item in the survey, although the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ, 2007) introduced library-related items in its fourth edition (Gonyea, Kish, Kuh, Muthiah, & Thomas, 2003). In the 2009 report of the AUSSE results (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2009, p. 19), 74.1% of the sample reported they had used library resources often or very often. The role of the library was also recognized in an Australian educational enhancement guide, which states “students tend to be more engaged with learning on the whole if they engage with library resources, interact with library staff, and spend time using libraries” (Australian Council for Educational Research, n.d., p. 1). The research that used student survey results to examine the role of libraries on student progress has frequently taken a broad approach by including many institutions' library-related data (Emmons & Wilkinson, 2011; Gratch-Lindauer, 2007; Kuh & Gonyea, 2003; Mark & BoruffJones, 2003; Mezick, 2007; Webb, Schaller, & Hunley, 2008). Library staffing was explored in two studies, and each study found that higher staff numbers were positively associated with student retention (Emmons & Wilkinson, 2011; Mezick, 2007). Kuh and Gonyea's (2003) paper about library experience, which was drawn from the CSEQ, and student engagement, commented that more than 50% of freshmen and sophomore students were using “indexes and databases,” (p. 263), which demonstrated increased usage of library resources. Yet, more importantly, the authors noted: “library experiences are not directly related to information literacy, overall gains in college, or satisfaction with the college experience” (Kuh & Gonyea, 2003, p. 266). Information literacy and NSSE scores were the focus of two studies that explored how some survey items could reflect information literacy development (Gratch-Lindauer, 2007; Mark & Boruff-Jones, 2003). Mark and Boruff-Jones (2003) reported their results “do not unequivocally demonstrate that the rankings [NSSE scores] were necessarily enhanced by library instruction” (p. 490). NSSE scores for a single institution were also used by Webb et al. (2008), who examined use of library space. When a narrower focus is taken, there are relatively few studies that combined institutional datasets to investigate library use and student progress or retention. Two studies found positive correlations between higher borrowing and higher grades after examining library use and student grades (Kramer & Kramer, 1968; Wong & Webb, 2011). At Glasgow Caledonian University, a longitudinal study has examined the use of electronic information services (EIS) and student characteristics that may influence EIS use (Crawford, 2005; Crawford, de Vincente, & Clink, 2004; Crawford & Irving, 2005). Crawford et al. (2004) noted: “many students have a high confusion over what constitutes a database” (p. 108) and found that off-campus students, in particular, used EIS at low levels. The researchers found that EIS use was associated with student retention, which was demonstrated in student cohorts with higher EIS use and higher retention rates (Crawford, 2005; Crawford et al., 2004).

129

Hiscock's (1986) research about library use by college students at an Australian institution, included factors such as: asking library staff for help, use of the catalog and reference materials, as well as use of library facilities. Use was analyzed against academic performance; catalog use was one of the few positive correlations in the results. In addition, Hiscock investigated the role of student age and library use on academic performance, reporting that usage and age was not associated with how well a student performed academically. In the United Kingdom, the Teesside University library examined students' library experience as a factor in retention and focused on students undertaking off-campus courses (Foster, 2002b). The study found no direct links between library experience and retention, but the author remarked on students' lack of confidence and skills when using the library (Foster, 2002b, part 8, para. 1). The most recent study (Goodall & Pattern, 2011) explored honors level awards and no or low use of the academic library, defining non or low use as “less than five visits to the library or borrowing less than five books, or logging in to … electronic resources collection less than five times” (p. 163). Although the findings indicated positive correlations between higher library use and a higher honors grade, the authors remark “some students are doing extremely well while hardly ever … engaging with library services and resources” (Goodall & Pattern, 2011, p. 166). Accessing electronic resources and borrowing are commonly used indicators of library use. A concerning result in Goodall and Pattern's (2011) research is the number of students not borrowing from the library (47%) and not accessing electronic resources (nearly 39%). Low or no use of the library has also been discussed by: (a) Whitmire (2001), who noted “undergraduates engaged in library experiences only occasionally” (p. 532); (b) Van Scoyoc and Cason (2006), who found that up to 71.7% of undergraduates were not using electronic resources to undertake research; (c) and Toner (2008), whose results indicated that the highest number of non-users were more than 40 years old. In his discussion about library use at Harvard University libraries, Martell (2008) described increased electronic resource use in the years up to 2006, concluding that “today's users have substituted virtual use for in-person use” (p. 406). Martell (2008) also refers to gate counts increasing by 17% between 1996 and 2004. As demonstrated in the discussion above, various definitions and methods applied to measure library use and student retention remains somewhat scattered in study design, which reduces the potential to compare results. The range of different social and educational environments at higher education institutions contribute to this problem. Thus, focusing on a single institution to explore an academic library's contribution to student retention may be more effective in generating results that can contribute to that institution's processes. This study was conducted with that aim; its design, based on readily available data, provides a framework for similar research to be undertaken elsewhere. 4. Procedures 4.1. Background Curtin University is a large teaching and research institution with over 44,000 students, enrolled in non-award courses through to research doctorates, located at several campuses in Western Australia, Sydney, Malaysia and Singapore. One of the guiding principles in the University's retention plan is: “Student retention is a responsibility of the whole University community” (Curtin University, 2008, p. 3). The main Robertson Library on the Bentley Western Australia campus provides a centralized service in acquiring and coordinating access to electronic resources. All students enrolled in the Bentley courses can borrow from its large physical collection. Visits to the library increased by just more than 1% between June 2010 and June 2011. Building on an earlier article (Haddow & Joseph, 2010), this quantitative study focused on undergraduate students' library use and retention in their first 18 months at the university between April 2010 and

130

G. Haddow / Library & Information Science Research 35 (2013) 127–136

June 2011. Further analysis examined age and socioeconomic status of students, their library use, and retention. While library use can include many different activities, only two activities, for which reliable data were available, were applied in this study: (a) log-ins to authenticated electronic resources and (b) library loans of physical items (Powell, 1992).

• Socioeconomic status, log-ins, and retention for undergraduate students with a permanent Australian address; • Metropolitan students' library loans and retention; and • Mature age and under 21-year-old metropolitan students' library loans and retention. 4.3. Undergraduate student population

4.2. Data collected The study data collected were generated by two sources: the university's student enrolment system (student data set) and the library's management system (library use data set). The primary student data set included all students enrolled for the first time at Curtin University in April 2010. The data listed student identification numbers (IDs) against information recorded in applications for entry documentation, such as: gender, age (less than 21 years old or mature-age), postcode for Australian residents, permanent country of residence, and course type (e.g., undergraduate and postgraduate). The ‘mature age’ classification for students 21 years or older is applied by the university for the purpose of internal procedures; disaggregation of these data were not possible. The first student data set was generated after the census date (before this date students can withdraw without penalty) in semester one 2010. A semester is 16 weeks, including study and exam weeks. Three subsequent reports generated by the university's enrolment system identified students: (a) retained at the end of semester one 2010; (b) re-enrolled in semester one 2011 (i.e., retained in the second year of university); and (c) retained at the end of semester one 2011. The reports enabled the identification of retained and withdrawn students at three stages of the enrolment progress. Coding of socioeconomic status (SES) was implemented using the 2006 Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), a postcode-based method for assigning socioeconomic status by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. While recognized as imperfect, it was the sole method available to code students with a permanent Australian address as low, medium, or high SES (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009). In addition, students in the data set were coded for metropolitan or non-metropolitan residence to analyze library loans and retention. The metropolitan area is defined by postcodes by the library. Students who reside in these postcode areas are expected to visit the Bentley campus to borrow materials. The library management system generated use data (e.g., log-ins to authenticated resources and library loans), for all IDs in the student data set. Access to authenticated resources requires a student to enter their ID and password. As a result, a link is provided to databases, e-journals, e-books, course readings, exam papers, and services, such as a virtual reference chat system, registration to workshops, as well as renewal and recall of borrowed items. Use data were collected at three points in the first semester of 2010 and 2011 at April 1, May 15, and June 26. These dates coincide with just after the census date, mid-semester, and after the exam period at the end of the semester. Log-ins and library loans were reported as numeric values from which means, medians, and modes for each type of use was calculated for the different collection dates. 4.2.1. Analysis The software program SPSS Statistics 19 was used to perform data analysis. Frequency distributions related to mean, median, mode, range, and skew were generated. Cross-tabulations were applied to compare library use between sub-groups, such as withdrawn and retained students, within the population studied. The analysis explored: • Undergraduate students' log-ins to authenticated resources and retention; • Mature age and under 21-year-old students' log-ins to authenticated resources and retention;

Of the 8526 students who were enrolled for the first time at Curtin University, 6330 were undergraduates. The largest withdrawal rate (22.9%) occurred in the first year, and by the end of semester one 2011 (18 months after first enrolling) 26% of the undergraduate cohort had withdrawn from their studies. At the end of semester one 2010, 96.4% of the student cohort were retained. In the following enrolment year, 77.1% of the original student cohort had re-enrolled, and by the end of semester one 2011, 73.9% were retained. With a population of 6330, the analysis was based on the three stages noted above: • Retained in June 2010: 6102 students remained enrolled for their first semester; • Retained in April 2011: 4883 students re-enrolled for the following academic year; and, • Retained in June 2011: 4684 students remained enrolled for their third semester. 5. Findings The extent of library use through log-ins to authenticated resources was analyzed at three stages of student progress: retention in June 2010, retention in April 2011, and retention in June 2011. Means, range, and skew for log-ins data were calculated for all students enrolled in April 2010, and the three stages of student progress. Table 1 presents these data based on log-ins in June 2010 and June 2011. Table 1 data show a slight decrease in mean log-ins in the second year of enrolment, which reverses the slightly higher mean log-ins in 2010 for students who have re-enrolled in 2011. The much lower medians and modes for all log-ins' calculations demonstrate the negatively skewed data and suggest large numbers of students are either not logging in at all or at low levels. Analysis of log-ins data for all students over the first semester found that 21.1% of the cohort had not logged into authenticated resources by June 2010 and 46.3% had logged in between one and 28 times. In practice, the second finding means that students are logging in to the resources twice a week on average. The data in Table 1 provided a benchmark from which ranges of log-ins were created for presenting the data in Figs. 1 to 4. The categories one to 28 log-ins, and 29+ log-ins, are based on the mean log-ins calculated for all students enrolled in April 2010; the categories 1 to 25 and 26+ log-ins are based on the mean log-ins calculated in June 2011. The decision to group log-ins in ranges was taken so that the results could be presented in an easy to read manner while remaining aligned Table 1 Log-ins to authenticated resources by undergraduate students. Log-ins at June 2010⁎

Log-ins at June 2011⁎⁎

Students

Mean

Median

Mode

Mean

Median

Mode

Enrolled April 2010a Retained June 2010b Enrolled April 2011c Retained June 2011d

28.06 28.77 30.8

12 13 15

0 0 0

24.7 25.5

9 10

0 0

Note. ⁎ Range = 0–509. ⁎⁎ Range = 0–840. a n = 6330. b n = 6102. c n= 4883. d n = 4684.

G. Haddow / Library & Information Science Research 35 (2013) 127–136

with the general findings for mean and median log-ins by the student cohort. To explore whether students who engage in higher levels of library use are more likely to be retained by the institution, the log-ins by retained students were compared with those for students who withdrew from their studies. Two cross-tabulations were conducted; first, to analyze log-ins in June 2010, and retention or withdrawal at June 2010, and second, to analyze log-ins in June 2011 by students who had re-enrolled at April 2011. The analysis tested the difference for retained and withdrawn students over each semester. While a higher proportion of the withdrawn students logged into authenticated resources between one and 28 times over the semester, a much higher proportion of the retained students logged in more than 28 times. At the other end of the scale, withdrawn students had zero log-ins at nearly twice the proportion of retained students over the semester. Further analysis of log-in data was conducted to investigate whether log-ins in the first half of a semester in April and May suggested alternative findings to those based on June log-ins. That is, if withdrawn students had engaged in library use early in the semester, then any attempt to draw associations between library use and retention would be unfounded. Using the means calculated for the April (one to eight log-ins) and May (one to 20 log-ins) data, the analysis found higher proportions of withdrawn students than retained students, who had zero log-ins to authenticated resources at both points in the semester (i.e., 51.3% compared with 31.9% in April and 39.9% compared with 24.5% in May). In addition, higher proportions of retained students logged into authenticated resources more often than withdrawn students at both points in the semester (i.e., 32.2% compared with 22.8% in April and 33.2% compared with 16.7% in May). For the lower ranges of log-ins, there is less contrast in the findings. More retained students had logged in between one to eight times in April (36% compared with 25.9%) and a slightly higher proportion of withdrawn students had logged in between 1 and 20 times in May (43.4% compared with 42.2%). Fig. 2 presents the findings for log-ins data at June 2011 for students who re-enrolled in April 2011 and retention or withdrawal at the end of the semester. The difference between log-ins by retained and withdrawn students is marked, especially at the 26+ log-ins range and for zero log-ins. While larger proportions of retained students are logging in to authenticated resources, the actual number of log-ins by many students is low. More than half the retained students logged in, at most, 25 times over the 16 week semester, and a sizeable proportion (17.6%) did not log-in to these resources at all. To test whether the results for June 2011 were preceded by similar trends earlier in the semester, further analysis for log-ins in April and May 2011 were conducted. More than half the withdrawn student cohorts had zero

log-ins to authenticated resources in April and May 2011 (61.3% and 58.8% respectively). This compares with 33.2% and 19.7% at the same points for retained students. However, it is notable that more than 40% of withdrawn students by June 2011 had logged into authenticated resources in May 2011. The results show that students who remained enrolled logged into authenticated resources in much higher proportions than the students who withdrew (82.4% compared with 37.2%). Logically, this is the only possible finding; when a student withdraws from their studies they cease to have access to the library's resources. However, the results suggest that regardless of the timing of their withdrawal from the university, withdrawn students' log-ins are lower than log-ins by retained students throughout the semester. During the first semesters of 2010 and 2011, more than half of the withdrawn students had not logged into authenticated resources by April, and almost 40% and 60%, respectively, had zero log-ins for May of each year. To explore whether an association could be observed among library use, students' age and retention, the data for mature age students (21 years old and older) and students under 21 years old were analyzed. Mature age students make up a sizeable proportion of enrolments at the university, with a cohort in April 2010 that comprised 31.4% (1986 students) of the undergraduate group. Of the mature age student group first enrolled in April 2010, 94%, 64%, and 59.4% were retained in June 2010, April 2011 and June 2011, respectively. This compares with retention rates of those in the under 21-year-old cohort at the same time points of 97.5%, 83.2%, and 80.7%. When the log-ins to authenticated resources were analyzed by age, a higher proportion of mature age students had zero log-ins in June 2010 and June 2011, although by the later date there was little difference between the two age groups' log-ins. In June 2010, a larger proportion of the under 21-year-old students were logging in at higher levels (29 times or more) than mature age students. By June 2011, these differences were reversed; the mature age students were logging into authenticated resources at higher levels (26 times or more) than those under 21 years old. These findings are presented in Fig. 3. The three stages in student progress were used to examine the different age groups' log-ins against retention or withdrawal from their studies. Cross-tabulations were performed for: (a) retained in June 2010 and retention or withdrawal in April 2011; and (b) retained in April 2011 and retention or withdrawal in June 2011. Log-ins in June 2010 were used for the first analysis and log-ins in June 2011 for the second. The analysis focuses on log-ins from two perspectives, one retrospective and the other concurrent. The first examined log-ins in the first semester at the university and re-enrolment the following year. The second analysis examined mature age and under 21-yearold students retained in their second year at the university as well as their log-ins and retention or withdrawal at the end of the semester.

9.2

29+ logins

33.4

51.8

1-28 logins

46.1

Withdrawn Retained

39

Zero logins

20.4 0

10

20

30

131

40

50

60

70

Percentage of students in withdrawn/retained cohorts Fig. 1. Log-ins to authenticated resources and retention or withdrawal at June 2010 by students enrolled at April 2010 (n = 6330).

132

G. Haddow / Library & Information Science Research 35 (2013) 127–136

5

26+ logins

29.3

36.7

1-25 logins

53.1

Withdrawn Retained

58.3

Zero logins

17.6 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percentage of students in withdrawn/retained cohorts Fig. 2. Log-ins to authenticated resources and retention or withdrawal at June 2011 by students enrolled at April 2011 (n = 4883).

Notable differences were found for log-ins in June 2010 by the two age cohorts and retention or withdrawal in April 2011. The analysis indicated that higher than expected numbers of mature age students who withdrew from their studies had zero log-ins. In addition, fewer than expected numbers of mature age students had logged in at higher rates (29 times or more) in the withdrawn group. There were no notable differences between the age cohorts in the retained students over this period. For the cohort of undergraduates retained in April 2011, log-ins in June 2011 and retention in June 2011, more retained mature age students than expected were logging into authenticated resources at higher levels (26 or more times) when compared with the younger student group. Socioeconomic status (SES) has been identified as a factor that influences retention. This study sought to answer the question: Is there an association between library use and retention and the socioeconomic status of students? The subset of undergraduates who had been coded with an SES level comprised 5125 students in April 2010, of which 9.8% were coded as low, 52.8% as medium, and 37.4% as high SES. Cross-tabulations were conducted to test whether SES level in this group of undergraduates was associated with retention or withdrawal. There were no observed differences between the SES groups and retention or withdrawal in June 2010, April 2011, and June 2011. Log-ins data for the SES coded students were analyzed using cross-tabulations to determine if SES level is associated with log-ins for students retained in June 2010 (n= 5125), April 2011 (n= 3998), and June 2011 (n= 3819). The differences between SES level and

log-ins were minor, as seen in Fig. 4. However, the results show that smaller proportions of students coded as low SES log-in to authenticated resources at the higher rates (29+ and 26+ times) and higher proportions of students coded as low SES had zero log-ins at each stage. To determine whether SES and log-ins were associated with retention, further cross-tabulations were conducted for: (a) students retained in June 2010, log-ins in June 2010 and retention or withdrawal in April 2011, and (b) students retained in April 2011, log-ins in June 2011 and retention or withdrawal in June 2011. Again, no notable differences were found for SES level, log-ins and retention at both stages in student progress. In this study, library use was defined as log-ins into authenticated resources and library loans of physical items from the library. A subset of undergraduates, those residing in the Perth metropolitan area (4681 in April 2010) and who are expected to visit the main campus to borrow, were examined to determine whether library loans were associated with retention. Library loans by metropolitan students were calculated as means at the different stages of student progress, which are presented in Table 2. These findings indicate the low level of library loans at all stages and a slight decrease in borrowing by students retained in their second year at the university. The large number of students in this cohort who are not borrowing at all from the library are also indicated by the medians and modes presented in Table 2. More than half (59.4%) of the metropolitan students had zero library loans by the end of their first semester. Of the metropolitan students re-enrolled by April 2011, 63.9% had not

Retained June 2011: 26+ logins 1-25 logins Zero logins Retained April 2011: 29+ logins 1-28 logins

<21 years

Zero logins

Mature age

Retained June 2010: 29+ logins 1-28 logins Zero logins 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percentage of students in age cohorts Fig. 3. Log-ins to authenticated resources by mature age and under 21-year-old students.

G. Haddow / Library & Information Science Research 35 (2013) 127–136

133

Retained June 2011: 26+ logins 1-25 logins Zero logins Retained April 2011: 29+ logins

High SES

1-28 logins

Medium SES

Zero logins

Low SES Retained June 2010: 29+ logins 1-28 logins Zero logins 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percentage of students in SES cohorts Fig. 4. Log-ins to authenticated resources by student socioeconomic status (SES).

borrowed from the library by June 2011. Retention by metropolitan undergraduates and their library loans by the end of semester were analyzed for students enrolled at April 2010 and April 2011. These data, presented in Table 3, indicate there is only a slight difference between the library loans of students who were retained and withdrawn after their first year. However, marked differences can be seen in the library loans by retained and withdrawn students in their third semester in June 2011 at the university. The library loans ranges are based on the means displayed in Table 2. Cross-tabulations were performed to examine library loans at different points in the first semester: April, May and June 2010. Retention or withdrawal was also assessed in April 2011. Reflecting the findings presented in Table 3, no notable differences were found in the first semester until June, when retained students had borrowed at higher rates. By April, May, and June of 2011, the differences between library loans by retained and withdrawn students in June 2011 are marked at all stages, suggesting that retention in the second year is coupled with library loans. However, the extremely high number of retained students who did not borrow from the library at all during this period reduces the potential for making a case that these factors are associated. A related study by Haddow and Joseph (2010) found that mature age students tend to borrow more items than students under 21 years old in their first semester at the university. Cross-tabulations were performed to test whether the differences seen in the previous study were true for the undergraduate metropolitan students as they progressed through the university. The mean library loans for all metropolitan students in April, May and June of 2010 and 2011 were used to

Table 2 Library loans by metropolitan undergraduate students.

Students a

Enrolled April 2010 Retained June 2010b Enrolled April 2011c Retained June 2011d Note. ⁎ Range = 0–146. ⁎⁎ Range = 0–114. a n = 4681. b n= 4488. c n= 3648. d n = 3493.

Items borrowed at June 2010⁎

Items borrowed at June 2011⁎⁎

Mean

Median

Mode

Mean

3.13 3.22 3.09

0 0 0

0 0 0

2.22 2.29

Median

0 0

group library loans data (see Table 2). There were notable differences in borrowing between the two age cohorts. During the first semester in 2010, a higher proportion of mature age students were borrowing at higher rates than the under 21-year-olds. This trend continued into their second year at university, although both students in both age groups were borrowing less from the library. These findings are presented in Fig. 5 using the library loans data from June in each year. These results also show that a larger proportion of under 21-yearolds did not borrow at all from the library in both years. Yet, the proportion of students borrowing at the higher rates (more than three library loans) decreases in the second year for each age group. 6. Discussion This study found that more than a quarter of newly enrolled undergraduate students had withdrawn from their university studies within 18 months, with mature age students withdrawing at much higher rates than the under 21-year-old cohort. Socioeconomic status did not appear to be coupled with retention. Although retained students in the study tended to engage in higher levels of library use, these findings need to be tempered with the overall results for library use, which is low and decreases as students progress through their studies. While these statements are true in the context of the data gathered and analyzed, there are some important limitations to the study that should be acknowledged before discussing the findings in more detail. First, a number of factors can influence whether a student remains enrolled at the university. As Tinto (1993) states, this is a “complex interplay of forces” (p. 3), and in this study many of these forces are unknown. For example, the family and financial situation of students is not Table 3 Library loans by metropolitan undergraduate students and retention or withdrawal. Percentage of students

Mode

0 0 Retained April 2011 Withdrawn April 2011 Retained June 2011 Withdrawn June 2011

Items borrowed at June 2010⁎

Items borrowed at June 2011⁎⁎

Zero

1–3

4+

Zero

1–2

3+

57.6 65.8

18.6 13.8

23.8 20.3 62.7 89.7

17.9 5.8

19.4 4.5

Note. ⁎ enrolled April 2010 (n = 4681). ⁎⁎ enrolled April 2011 (n = 3648).

134

G. Haddow / Library & Information Science Research 35 (2013) 127–136

16.8 24.4

Re-enrolled April 2011: 3+ library loans

17.4 17.2

1-2 library loans

65.7 58.4

Zero library loans

<21 years 19.7

Enrolled April 2010: 4+ library loans

Mature age

31

18.2 15.9

1-3 library loans Zero library loans

53.1 0

10

20

30

40

50

62.1

60

70

Percentage of students in age cohorts Fig. 5. Library loans of metropolitan of mature age and under 21-year-old students.

known, nor is their motivation to undertake the enrolled course, or their skills and experience on entering the course (McGivney, 1996, p. 86; Tinto, 1993, p. 38). Supplementing the quantitative data with qualitative data drawn through other sources, such as a survey of undergraduates, might shed light on some of the reasons the students in this study withdrew from the university. There are also inherent problems relating to the sub-groups of students examined in this study. Students' socioeconomic status was coded based on the postcodes of their permanent residence, which is a method used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This method is flawed and recognized as so by the Australian government (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009). The implication is that some students were coded with SES levels that did not reflect their background. In addition, the classification of mature age as 21 years or older is an imposed (for reporting purposes), rather than a meaningful, category of age. Coding students into the two age cohorts means that a 20-year old and 21-year old are separated in the analysis. If the data were available, age ranges would most likely provide more useful results. Library use was defined as log-ins into authenticated electronic resources and borrowing items from the library. The former includes connecting with a number of services, including a chat reference service, databases, and workshop registrations. It also includes accessing e-books. The notion of library loans as physical borrowing from the library is complicated by the increasing availability of electronic resources. Where once there may have seemed a clear delineation between borrowable physical items and accessible electronic items, the boundaries are now blurred. In addition to the issues discussed above, the focus on one institution limits the extent to which the results can inform other institutions or be generalized across the higher education sector. There are good reasons for examining a single institution, as Tinto (1993) notes, and in doing so the study was able to explore library use and retention for the full population of undergraduate students over their first three semesters at the university. Students in their first year of enrolment are a high risk for withdrawing (Lau, 2003) and this study confirmed previous findings with the highest withdrawal rate (22.9%) seen between April 2010 and April 2011. The literature has also noted that mature age students and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are likely to withdraw at higher rates (Kuh et al., 2008; McGivney, 1996; van Stolk et al., 2007; Yorke, 2003). While this study supported the earlier findings for mature

age students, the socioeconomic background of students did not appear to be associated with higher withdrawal rates. Tinto (1993, p. 49) has commented on the importance of academic preparedness as a factor that may influence outcomes for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, but cautions that academic preparedness, or the lack of it, can apply to students from all backgrounds. McGivney (1996) discussed the need for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds to undertake paid work for financial reasons. While it is possible that the method of coding socioeconomic levels in this study affected the results, it may also be the case that poor academic preparedness and the need to work while studying are increasingly issues that impact all students, regardless of their socioeconomic background (Chait & Venezia, 2009; Devlin, James, & Grigg, 2008). Library use, which is demonstrated by log-ins to authenticated resources and borrowing physical items, was examined as a proxy for engagement using Tinto's (1993) model of integration. This approach aligns with the view that the library is among the “institutional systems relevant to improving student engagement” (Paul Hamlyn Foundation, 2010, p. 9), as well as a view also presented by Emmons and Wilkinson (2011), Kuh and Gonyea (2003), and Mezick (2007). The study findings suggest that higher levels of library use are coupled with retention and mirror those found by Crawford and Irving (2005), who reported that student cohorts with higher use of electronic information sources had higher retention rates (Crawford, 2005). A higher proportion of the students who were retained into their second year of university were logging into authenticated resources more often than the students who had withdrawn after their first semester. This may reflect a growing awareness of library resources as students progress through their course, in which case it is logical that withdrawn students who have not had time to develop their knowledge of the resources available will access authenticated resources at lower levels. For students in the second year of enrolment, the association between log-ins and retention was even more pronounced, with nearly 60% of withdrawn students not logging into authenticated resources at all. The link between library use and retention is not clear, however, as over 17% of the retained students had not logged in during the same period. These results confirm those of earlier researchers (Goodall & Pattern, 2011; Toner, 2008; Van Scoyoc & Cason, 2006; Whitmire, 2001), who reported on the substantial number of students who do not engage in a variety of library use activities. More than half the

G. Haddow / Library & Information Science Research 35 (2013) 127–136

retained students in this study were logging in to authenticated resources less than twice a week on average, and 20% of the retained students did not log-in at all in their first semester. Two questions arise from the findings, which would be useful to test in future research. First, are these students going to alternative sources of information for their studies? Van Scoyoc and Cason's study (2006), reported that more than 75% of students used “other web resources” (p. 52). Second, based on the proportion of retained students who did not log-in to authenticated resources in the two semesters examined (20% and 17%), does a student's library use behavior, once established in the first semester of enrolment, continue in the same manner for the remaining period of their course of study? It would appear that that is not the case for mature age students, who emerged as the stars of the study in relation to library use. Not only do they access authenticated resources in their second year of enrolment at higher rates than the younger students, they also borrow at higher rates. While encouraging for an institution that enrolls a sizeable proportion of mature age students, the results need to be considered alongside the high risk of withdrawal associated with mature age students in their first year. The finding that many of the mature age students had not logged into authenticated resources in their first semester at the university suggests that targeted library services may impact positively on their progress. On average, undergraduate metropolitan students borrowed three items over their first 16 week semester. In their second year at the university, students borrow fewer items from the library and in lower proportions. It would be tempting to speculate that use of the library's electronic resources is a substitution for lower library loans, but a parallel decline in the proportion of retained students' log-ins into authenticated resources suggests that is not occurring. These are concerning trends, which are reported in earlier research (Crawford et al., 2004; Goodall & Pattern, 2011; Van Scoyoc & Cason, 2006; Whitmire, 2001), and merit further attention. The SES of students and log-in analysis indicated that low SES students were logging into authenticated resources at slightly lower levels than students from the medium and high SES groups. These results might indicate lack of academic preparedness in the low SES group. Yet, as noted above, the findings need to be considered within the context of the coding method for socioeconomic background and the possibility that the data are not reliable. 7. Conclusion Both library use and retention are multifaceted, comprising factors external and internal to the student, of which only a handful were examined in this research. As a result, regardless of the apparent associations between retention and library use, the study cannot hope to draw unequivocal conclusions as to whether engaging with the library will positively influence a student's retention at the university. However, the results point to some potentially useful issues to pursue in future research. Mature age students' library use data suggest interesting trends over the first three semesters of enrolment. On the other hand, it is concerning that substantial numbers of students are missing out on scholarly and quality resources through the library. Such resources may have made their progress at the university easier. Focusing on the data from one institution has its advantages. Findings can be related as closely as possible to activities and specific services within the institution, such as informing retention programs and library management. However, the findings cannot be generalized to other institutions because of the myriad differences between universities and their student populations. On a positive note, while the results may be limited in application, the methods applied in this research are not. The methods can be replicated in future research. A study of this kind has the potential to demonstrate both a willingness to contribute to institutional issues and the value of the library.

135

To gain a deep understanding of any relationship between students' library use and their reasons for withdrawing or staying at the university requires additional information from the students themselves. It is doubtful that the whole population could be included, as it was in this research. Yet, a large survey would provide the opportunity to gain a richer appreciation of the “interplay of forces” (Tinto, 1993, p. 3) operating. Also in the broader context, researchers need to consider how library use is defined and counted to develop a consistent approach, which will facilitate comparative studies. Finally, on the issue of library use data, it is important that the data collected by academic libraries are put to the best possible purpose. As Brooks-Kieffer (2010) remarks, library data, sometimes incorrectly referred to as statistics, are often reported in such a way that they reveal little about the impact or role of the library in an institutional context. Certainly, library use data alone says nothing about student progress. By analyzing these data in combination with other institutional data, an academic library has the capacity to do more than identify trends of use. Such analysis can detect aspects of the library service to improve, monitor, and evaluate, and as a consequence, contribute to institutional objectives with a greater understanding of the library's role. Acknowledgments The support from Curtin University Library is most gratefully acknowledged. References Australian Council for Educational Research (2009). Engaging students for success: Australasian student engagement report: Australasian survey of student engagement. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/aussereports/AUSSE_2008_Australasian_Student_ Engagement_Report.pdf Australian Council for Educational Research (n.d.). Enhancement guide for librarians and libraries. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/aussereports/AUSSE_EG_Librarians.pdf Brooks-Kieffer, J. (2010). Yielding to persuasion: Library data's hazardous surfaces. In D. Orcutt (Ed.), Library data: Empowering practice and persuasion (pp. 3–16). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited. Chait, R., & Venezia, A. (2009). Improving academic preparation for college: What we know and how state and federal policy can help. Retrieved from http://www. americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2009/01/pdf/academic_prep. pdf Cook, C. (2002). The maturation of assessment in academic libraries: The role of LibQUAL+™. Performance Measurement & Metrics, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www. emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1467-8047&volume=3&issue=2&articleid= 1491221&show=html&PHPSESSID=1ld6kr1rnd9q52istgrnn6blq2 Crawford, J. (2005). Glasgow Caledonian University: Impact of developing students' information literacy. Library & Information Research, 29(91). Retrieved from http:// www.lirgjournal.org.uk/lir/ojs/index.php/lir/article/view/178/223 Crawford, J., de Vincente, A., & Clink, S. (2004). Use and awareness of electronic information services by students at Glasgow Caledonian University: A longitudinal study. Journal of Librarianship & Information Science, 36(3), 101–117. Crawford, J., & Irving, C. (2005). The research agenda. Library & Information Update, 4(1–2), 48–49. Crosling, G., Thomas, L., & Heagney, M. (2008). Student success and retention. In G. Crosling, L. Thomas, & M. Heagney (Eds.), Improving student retention in higher education: The role of teaching and learning (pp. 1–13). London, UK: Taylor & Francis. CSEQ (2007). College Student Experiences Questionnaire Assessment Program. CSEQ: General info. Retrieved from http://cseq.iub.edu/cseq_generalinfo.cfm Curtin University (2008). Student retention implementation plan. Retrieved from http:// unilife.curtin.edu.au/staff/about_retention_project.htm Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2009). Measuring the socio-economic status of higher education students: A discussion paper. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Retrieved from http:// www.innovation.gov.au/HigherEducation/Policy/Pages/Measuring TheSocioEconomicStatusOfHigherEducationStudents.aspx Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2010). Regional participation: The role of socioeconomic status and access. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/ HigherEducation/Programs/Equity/Pages/RegionalParticipation.aspx Devlin, M., James, R., & Grigg, G. (2008). Studying and working: A national study of student finances and student engagement. Tertiary Education & Management, 14(2), 111–122. Emmons, M., & Wilkinson, F. C. (2011). The academic library impact on student persistence. College & Research Libraries, 72, 128–149. Foster, K. (2002a). Libraries and student retention: Some thoughts about the issues and an approach to evaluation. SCONUL Newsletter, 27, 12–16.

136

G. Haddow / Library & Information Science Research 35 (2013) 127–136

Foster, K. (2002b). Libraries and student retention: Report of the services and learning evaluation project. Middlesbrough, UK: Teesside University. Retrieved from http://lis.tees.ac.uk/research/researchkf.cfm Gonyea, R. M., Kish, K. A., Kuh, G. D., Muthiah, R. N., & Thomas, A. D. (2003). College Student Experiences Questionnaire: Norms for the fourth edition. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Center for Postsecondary Research, Policy, and Planning. Retrieved from http://cseq.iub.edu/pdf/intro_CSEQ_4th_Ed_Norms.pdf Goodall, D., & Pattern, D. (2011). Academic library non/low use and undergraduate student achievement. Library Management, 32(3), 159–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ 01435121111112871 Gratch-Lindauer, B. (2007). Information literacy-related student behaviors: Results from the NSSE items. College & Research Libraries News, 68, 432–436. Haddow, G., & Joseph, J. (2010). Loans, logins and lasting the course: Academic library use and student retention. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 41, 233–244. Heagney, M. (2008). Student success and student diversity. In G. Crosling, L. Thomas, & M. Heagney (Eds.), Improving student retention in higher education: The role of teaching and learning (pp. 17–28). London, UK: Taylor & Francis. The Higher Education Academy (2011). Retention and success. London, UK: The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/retention-andsuccess Higher Education Funding Council for England (2010). National student survey: Findings and trends: 2006–2009. London, UK: Higher Education Funding Council for England. Retrieved from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2010/10_18/ Higher Education Funding Council for England (2011a). How we fund widening participation. London, UK: Higher Education Funding Council for England. Retrieved from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/wp/currentworktowidenparticipation/ howwefundwideningparticipation/ Higher Education Funding Council for England (2011b). Widening participation. London, UK: Higher Education Funding Council for England. Retrieved from http://www. hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/wp/ Hiscock, J. E. (1986). Does library usage affect academic performance. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 17, 207–214. Jones, R., Thomas, L., & May, H. (2009). A research-informed approach to improving institutional retention. In Paul Hamlyn Foundation (Ed.), Retention grants programme: Briefing no. 2 (pp. 18–27). London, UK: Paul Hamlyn Foundation. Retrieved from http:// www.phf.org.uk/page.asp?id=1051 Kirk, K. (2008). Diversity and achievement: Developing the learning of non-traditional HE students. In G. Crosling, L. Thomas, & M. Heagney (Eds.), Improving student retention in higher education: The role of teaching and learning (pp. 150–159). London, UK: Taylor & Francis. Kramer, L. A., & Kramer, M. B. (1968). The college library and the drop-out. College & Research Libraries, 29, 310–312. Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., & Kinzie, J. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540–563. Kuh, G. D., & Gonyea, R. M. (2003). The role of the academic library in promoting student engagement in learning. College & Research Libraries, 64, 256–282. Lau, L. K. (2003). Institutional factors affecting student retention. Education, 124(1), 126–136. Lotkowski, V. A., Robbins, S. B., & Noeth, R. J. (2004). The role of academic and non-academic factors in improving college retention. ACT Policy Report. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/college_retention.pdf Mark, A. E., & Boruff-Jones, P. D. (2003). Information literacy and student engagement: What the National Survey of Student Engagement reveals about your campus. College & Research Libraries, 64(6), 480–493.

Martell, C. (2008). The absent user: Physical use of academic library collections and services continues to decline: 1995–2006. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34, 400–407. McGivney, V. (1996). Staying or leaving the course: Non-completion and retention of mature students in further and higher education. Leicester, UK: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education. Mezick, E. M. (2007). Return on investment: Libraries and student retention. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33, 561–566. National Audit Office (2007). Staying the course: The retention of students in higher education. London, UK: National Audit Office. Retrieved from http://www.nao.org.uk/ publications/0607/retention_of_students_in_he.aspx?alreadysearchfor=yes National Survey of Student Engagement [NSSE] (2012). The college student report. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/html/about.cfm Paul Hamlyn Foundation (2010). Retention grants program: Briefing no. 3. London, UK: Paul Hamlyn Foundation [Retrieved from http://www.phf.org.uk/page.asp? id=1051] Powell, R. R. (1992). Impact assessment of university libraries: A consideration of issues and research methodologies. Library & Information Science Research, 14, 245–257. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Toner, L. (2008). Non-use of library services by students in a UK academic library. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, 3(2), 18–29. Van Scoyoc, A. M., & Cason, C. (2006). The electronic academic library: Undergraduate research behavior in a library without books. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6, 47–58. van Stolk, C., Tiessen, J., Clift, J., & Levitt, R. (2007). Student retention in higher education courses: International comparison. : Santa Monica, CA. Retrieved from http://www. rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2007/RAND_TR482.pdf Webb, K. M., Schaller, M. A., & Hunley, S. A. (2008). Measuring library space use and preferences: Charting a path toward increased engagement. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 8, 407–422. Whitmire, E. (2001). The relationship between undergraduates' background characteristics and college experiences and their academic library use. College & Research Libraries, 62, 528–540. Wong, S. H. R., & Webb, T. D. (2011). Uncovering meaningful correlation between student academic performance and library material usage. College & Research Libraries, 72, 361–370. Yorke, M. (2003). Student retention in open and distance learning: Why students leave early in higher education in the UK. Paper presented at the Retention Symposium, 27–28 May 2003, Cambridge, England. Retrieved from http://kn.open.ac.uk/ public/workspace.cfm?wpid=1889

Gaby Haddow is a senior lecturer in the Department of Information Studies, Curtin University, Perth, Australia, teaching in the areas of research methods and information literacy. Her PhD on the communication of research to practice was awarded in 2002 by the University of Western Australia, and her current research interests include the communication of research to practice and research evaluation in the humanities and social sciences. Her previous position with Curtin Library has led to an ongoing collaborative project on student retention and library use, and she is currently engaged in an international study investigating information literacy skills of undergraduate LIS students. She chairs the Australian Library and Information Association's Research Committee and is a co-editor of Australian Academic & Research Libraries.