Loans, Logins, and Lasting the

Loans, Logins, And Lasting the Course: Academic Library Use and Student Retention Library article review: Haddow, G. & Joseph, J. (2010). Loans, logins, and lasting the course: Academic library use and student retention. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 41 (4): 233-244. Retrieved: http://archive2013.alia.org.au/publishing/aarl/41/AARL_2010_41_4.pdf This study examines the correlation between student engagement and retention and use of the university library. Previous literature indicated that university students who made use of the academic library in a constructive manner were more likely to be academically successful.

"The specific aims of the study were: to explore if an association between library use and student retention is evident, and to investigate whether socio-economic status (SES) and age at entry are influencing factors in library use and retention" (Haddow & Joseph 2010: 224). The authors added an additional hypothesis that perceived student comfort in the library was based upon socio-economic characteristics and could explain to some degree why students from disadvantaged backgrounds struggle and have poorer retention rates during their freshman year.

Although the article focuses specifically on an Australian context, the study authors noted its applicability for a wide range of contexts, including America and other nations with pronounced socio-economic and racial divides like Australia. Demographic and student library use were logged over the course of a semester at a single Australian university. The findings raised some questions about the initial hypothesis -- of all students, both those whom remained at university and did not, very few actually took out a physical book from the library.

There was a higher rate of student library usage by retained students, but that may partially have been due to the fact that once students dropped out, they no longer had access to (or a need to) use the library. What the authors found significant were "the significant differences found for use of library workstations and other electronic resources and retention early in the semester [which] may be the most useful results to emerge from the study" (Haddow & Joseph 2010: 240).

There was little difference in terms of library use and retention between SES groups, although, "overall, the differences in library use between the SES groups were not statistically significant over the semester; however, PC logins at 1 April were significantly higher for students from low SES backgrounds than their colleagues from medium and high SES backgrounds" (Haddow & Joseph 2010: 240-241).

The study design and approach seems flawed from the beginning, given its emphasis on using the physical location of the library, which the authors admit is relatively outdated, given the number of students who access the library virtually, either at workstations or remotely, versus the relative paucity that use its physical resources.

Even giving undue emphasis to the use of workstations as proof of student engagement with the library seems questionable and unwise, since less affluent students will invariably have a greater need to use the physical location of the library if they lack ready computer access. The most committed of the least affluent students, logic would dictate, would use the workstations; more affluent students would use home computers and less committed students would eschew the library entirely. Instead of determining.