whitmire.p65 528 College & Research Libraries November 2001 The Relationship between Undergraduates’ Background Characteristics and College Experiences and Their Academic Library Use Ethelene Whitmire This study examines factors that influence undergraduates’ academic library use during the first three years of college. Undergraduates’ high school library use, student–faculty interactions, and active learning and engaged writing activities predicted library use for all three years of the study. There was an interesting relationship between undergraduate li­ brary use and self-reported and objective critical thinking scores. These findings are useful for the redesign of current academic library services and future research studies on information-seeking behavior. n order to provide adequate resources and to design effec­ tive services for undergradu­ ates, academic librarians must understand the factors that influence un­ dergraduate library use. A number of studies have been done to determine those factors. In their study, Paul W. Grimes and Marybeth F. Charters exam­ ined several aspects of the college envi­ ronment that contribute to the amount of time that undergraduates spend in the academic library. 1 These aspects in­ cluded: • demographic characteristics (gen­ der, race, age, alcohol consumption); • academic aptitude (American Col­ lege Test [ACT[ score and grade point average [GPA]); • instruction experiences (study skills or bibliographic instruction); • college experiences related to their access to the library (jobs, living on cam­ pus, member of sorority/fraternity, re­ mote access to library); • library activities (catalog, periodi­ cal, full-text, Internet, books, reserve, in­ terlibrary loan, photocopies, reference, government documents, study hall/so­ cial, computer lab). The authors found that women and African American and other minority undergraduates spent more time in the library, as did undergraduates with lower ACT scores and those who lived on-cam­ pus. Undergraduates who worked full- time and attended a bibliographic instruc­ tion session spent less time in the library. It is hoped that these undergraduates now know how to use the library more effi­ ciently. Three library activities appeared to influence the amount of time that un- Ethelene Whitmire is Assistant Professor in the School of Library and Information Studies at the Univer­ sity of Wisconsin-Madison; e-mail: ewhitmire@facstaff.wisc.edu. 528 mailto:ewhitmire@facstaff.wisc.edu Undergraduates’ Background Characteristics and College Experiences 529 dergraduates spent in the library: using it as a place to study, using it as a place to socialize, and using it for its reference ser­ vices. A study by Qun G. Jiao and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie investigated the reasons that undergraduates used the library. One aspect of this study specifically examined the relationship between reasons for li­ brary use and frequency of library visits.2 The authors found that older under­ graduates, male undergraduates, nonna­ tive English speakers, undergraduates who lived near the library, undergradu­ ates who preferred to study alone, and undergraduates who had lower levels of library anxiety reported more frequent library use. Five reasons affected fre­ quency of library use: to study for a test, to read current newspapers, to read own textbook, to use computerized indexes and online facilities, and to meet friends. In his study at a Canadian university, A Paul Williams also examined the fac­ tors that influence undergraduate library use, including: • student characteristics (e.g., gender, first language, prior education, age); • program characteristics (e.g., pro­ gram type, field of study, library use re­ quired of course, library orientation, li­ brary discussed in class); • perceptions of library services (e.g., inadequate collections, limited weekend access, library hours, lack of staff, did not know how to use the library, did not know how to get the card).3 Williams defined library use as using study areas, using photocopiers, borrow­ ing books, reading periodicals, asking for staff assistance, and using reserve collec­ tions. The results of the regression analy­ sis indicated that the most important fac­ tor contributing to library use was pro­ gram characteristics (33% of the variance in total library use), followed by percep­ tions of the library (11% of the variance). Student characteristics accounted for five percent of the variance. Finally, in his 1988 dissertation, Charles B. Harrell evaluated the relation­ ship between various student character­ istics and undergraduate academic li­ brary use.4 This study defined library use as number of books borrowed. The per­ sonal and academic characteristics of un­ dergraduates included: gender, age, sec­ ondary school attended, parents’ occupa­ tion or education, standardized test scores, class standing, academic major, credit hour enrollment, grade point aver­ age, extracurricular activities, distance of residence from the library, and hours of employment. Five variables influenced library use: hours spent on campus, credit hour enrollment, gender, grade point av­ erage, and academic major. Purpose of This Study Although a few studies examined the fac­ tors that influence undergraduate library use, no study examined these factors lon­ gitudinally. The purpose of this study is to answer two key research questions: • What factors influence under­ graduate academic library use? • Do the factors influencing under­ graduate academic library use change during college? Methods Mete oource This study is a secondary analysis of data obtained from the National Study of Stu­ dent Learning (NSSL). The NSSL sought to “expand knowledge about college im­ pact by examining the influence of aca­ demic and nonacademic experiences on (a) student learning, (b) student attitudes about learning, (c) student cognitive de­ velopment, and (d) student persistence.”5 The NSSL consisted of several survey in­ struments. The College Student Experi­ ences Questionnaire (CSEQ) supplied in­ formation about undergraduate college activities and learning outcomes (e.g., self-reported critical thinking). Another instrument, the National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (NCTLA), provided addi­ tional information about undergraduate college experiences and background char­ acteristics. The Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP), a thirty­ 530 College & Research Libraries TABLE 1 The Gender Distribution of the Sample Gender Number Percentage Female Male 682 364 65% 35% Total 1,046 100% two-item instrument designed by the American College Test (ACT) program, measured undergraduate critical thinking ability (e.g., the ability to clarify, analyze, evaluate, and extend arguments). Subjects The 1,046 participants in this study were selected from the original sample of 3,840 undergraduates. These students partici­ pated in all stages of the data collection process during the 1992–1995 academic school years. These undergraduates at­ tended eighteen different four-year insti­ tutions throughout the United States. The majority of the undergraduates were fe­ male, traditional aged (e.g., nineteen years old), and white/Caucasian, al­ though there were a large number of un­ dergraduates of color in the sample. Other background characteristics included in­ formation about the undergraduates’ high school library use and their initial critical thinking scores upon college en­ try. The majority of the undergraduates in the sample did not spend much time studying in the high school library (see tables 1–4 for additional information). Undergraduates’ initial critical thinking scores during the fall 1992 term ranged TABLE 3 The RaciaV Ethnic Distribution of the SampVe Race Number Percentage White/Caucasian 624 59.7% Students of color 422 40.3% Total 1,046 100.0% November 2001 TABLE 2 The Age of the Sample during Freshman Year Age Number Percentage 21 years old or less 1,003 96% Older than 21 43 4% Total 1,046 100% from a low of forty-nine to a high of sev­ enty-three (the range was forty to eighty). The mean critical thinking score of the sample was sixty-four. The strongest relationship was between undergraduates’ engaged writing activities and their academic library use. Measures Two sets of variables were examined to determine the factors that influence under­ graduate academic library use: (1) back­ ground characteristics, and (2) college ex­ periences. Figure 1 displays the variables representing these independent variables. Scales were created for the following college experiences by adding the items in each category together to create one construct to represent a particular college experience: student–faculty and peer in­ teractions, engaged writing and active learning activities, self-reported critical thinking, and academic library use. Fig­ ure 2 provides more details about the items comprising each construct. Table 5 presents the alpha reliabilities of the scales for each year of the study to TABLE 4 Time Spent Studying in the High School Library High School Library Use Number Percent Never 257 24.6% Occasionally 562 53.7% Often 169 16.2% Very often 58 5.5% Total 1,046 100.0% Undergraduates’ Background Characteristics and College Experiences 531 FIGURE 1 The Conceptual Framework Background Characteristics: Gender Race Age Initial critical thinking score High school library use College Experiences: Grade-point average Technical/preprofessional courses Arts and humanities courses Social sciences courses Mathematics courses Natural sciences courses Student-faculty interactions Peer interaction outcomes Engaged writing Active learning Number of term papers written Hours spent studying per week College residence Critical thinking ability On-campus employment Off-campus employment Full-time versus part-time status Academic library activities determine how well each scale measures the construct it purports to represent. The alpha reliability coefficients range from .79 to .91. This range indicates that these scales are valid measures of the constructs in this study. Table 6 displays the means, standard deviations, and definitions of all of the measures in the study. Analyses Data analysis was conducted in several stages. First, the means and standard de­ viations of all the variables in the study were calculated. Second, Pearson’s prod­ uct moment correlations were calculated to determine the relationship among un­ dergraduates’ background characteristics, college experiences, and academic library use. Finally, multiple regressions were run for each year of the study to deter­ mine which background characteristics and college experiences influenced un­ dergraduate academic library use. Results An examination of the means and stan­ dard deviations in table 6 reveals that throughout the three years of the study, undergraduates engaged in library expe­ 532 College & Research Libraries riences only occasionally. Although li­ brary use increased each year from 2.07 to 2.10 to 2.14, the mean of the academic library experiences variable never rose to the level of undergraduates engaging in library activities often or very often. Table 7 shows the results of the corre­ lation analyses determining the strength of the relationship among undergradu­ ates’ background characteristics, college November 2001 experiences, and academic library use during their first three years of college. A number of variables correlated to under­ graduate academic library use during the freshman year. The strongest relationship was between undergraduates’ active learning and engaged writing activities (tied) and their academic library use. The weakest relationship was between gen­ der and library use. Female undergradu- FIGURE 2 Factor Scales Student-faculty interactions: Talked with faculty member; asked for information related to a course; visited informally after class; made office appointment with faculty; discussed term paper/ project with faculty; discussed career plans with faculty; asked for comments/criticism about work; had coffee, cokes, snacks with faculty; worked with faculty on research project; discussed personal problems with faculty Peer interaction outcomes: Peers affect intellectual growth, peers affect ability to analyze, peers affect ability to write, peers affect understanding numerical concepts, peers affect reading ability, peers affect expressing ideas orally, peers affect pursuing ideas from class, peers affect understanding scientific concepts, peers affect interests in new things, peers affect ability to work with others, peers affect success in college Engaged writing: Used dictionary or thesaurus; thought about grammar, etc. while writing; wrote rough draft and revised it; spent five or more hours writing a paper; asked others to read something you wrote; referred to style book or grammar manual; revised paper two or more times; asked instructor for advice on writing; made appointment to talk about criticism; submitted writing for publication Active learning: Took detailed notes in class, participated in class discussions, underlined major points in readings, saw how facts and ideas fit together, thought about practical applications, integrated ideas from various sources, summarized major points and information, explained material to another student, made outlines from notes or readings, did additional readings CSEQ critical thinking: Gains in the ability to put ideas together, gains in the ability to think analytically, gains in the ability to learn on one's own Academic library use: Used computers for library searches, used indexes to journal articles, developed a bibliography, used card catalog or computer, asked librarian for help, read in reserve or reference section, checked out books, checked citations in things read, read basic references or documents, found material by browsing in stacks Undergraduates’ Background Characteristics and College Experiences 533 TABLE 5 Internal Consistency (Alpha Reliabilities) for All Scales Factor # of tems 1993 1994 1995 Student-faculty interactions Peer interaction outcomes Engaged writers Active learners CSEQ critical thinking self-reports Academic library experiences 10 11 10 10 3 11 .89 .90 .85 .84 .80 .86 .90 .90 .87 .84 .79 .86 .91 .91 .88 .86 .82 .86 ates used the library more often. Other variables correlated with freshman-year academic library use were (in descend­ ing order of importance): student–faculty interactions, self-reported critical think­ ing, peer interactions, high school library use, lower initial critical thinking scores, undergraduates of color, hours spent on schoolwork, number of term papers writ­ ten, lower critical thinking scores, and fewer social sciences courses. Enrollment in natural sciences, mathematics, and technical and professional courses did not impact library use. Many variables correlated with under­ graduate academic library use during the sophomore year. Again, the strongest re­ lationship was between undergraduates’ engaged writing activities and their aca­ demic library use. The weakest relation­ ship was between enrollment in social sciences courses and library use. Other variables correlated with sophomore-year academic library use were (in descend­ ing order of importance): active learning activities, student-faculty interactions, high school library use, peer interactions, self-reported critical thinking, number of term papers written, lower critical think­ ing scores, arts and humanities courses, undergraduates of color, hours spent on schoolwork, and gender (female). Several variables correlated with un­ dergraduates’ academic library use dur­ ing the junior year. For the third year in a row, the strongest relationship was be­ tween undergraduates’ engaged writing activities and their academic library use. The weakest relationship was between working off-campus and library use. The more hours that undergraduates worked off-campus, the less likely they were to engage in academic library use. Other variables correlated with junior-year aca­ demic library use were (in descending order of importance): active learning ac­ tivities, student–faculty interactions, self- reported critical thinking, peer interac­ tions, number of term papers written, high school library use, arts and humani­ ties courses, hours spent on schoolwork, social sciences courses, lower critical thinking scores, and living on-campus. Table 8 reports the results of the regres­ sion analyses for all three years of the study. The background characteristics and the college experiences entered the regres­ sion equations in one block in order to determine which factors predicted under­ graduate academic library use. Several factors predicted freshman-year academic library use (in descending order of im­ portance): active learning activities, en­ gaged writing activities, student–faculty interactions, high school library use, and race (students of color). A number of fac­ tors predicted sophomore-year academic library use (in descending order of im­ portance): engaged writing activities, ac­ tive learning activities, high school library use, and student–faculty interactions. Many factors predicted junior-year aca­ demic library use (in descending order of importance): engaged writing activities, student–faculty interactions, active learn­ ing activities and high school library use (tied), off-campus employment (negative TABLE 6 Means and Standard Deviations of the Measures in the Study Variable Fall 1992 Mean Fall 1992 S.D. Variable Definition Age Gender Race!ethnicity High school library use 1" CAAP critical thinking scores 18.74 .65 .61 2.03 63.61 3.57 .48 .49 .79 5.23 Range 17-87 1 = female, 0 = male 1 = white!caucasian, 0 = student of color 1 = never, 2 = occasionally, 3 = often, 4 = very often Range = 40-80 Spring 1993 Mean Spring 1993 S.D. Spring 1994 Mean Spring 1994 S.D. Spring Spring 1995 1995 Mean S.D. Self-reported grade-point average Student-faculty interactions Engaged writing Peer interaction outcomes Number of term papers written Active learning Full-time versus part-time enrollment Campus housing 3.27 1.97 2.61 2.33 3.12 2.78 .98 .65 1.11 .54 .60 .66 1.02 .54 .12 .48 3.30 2.06 2.54 2.54 2.92 2.81 .97 .65 1.04 .58 .63 .65 1.04 .54 .17 .48 3.35 2.17 2.48 2.58 2.98 2.84 .96 .68 1.03 1 = C or lower; 2 = B-,C+; 3 = B; 4 = A-, B+; 5 = A .62 1 = never, 2 = occasionally, 3 = often, 4 = very often .65 1 = never, 2 = occasionally, 3 = often, 4 = very often .66 1 = never, 2 = occasionally, 3 = often, 4 = very often 1.08 1 = none; 2 = fewer than 5; 3 = between 5 and 10; 4 = between 10 and 20; 5 = more than 20 .55 1 = never, 2 = occasionally, 3 = often, 4 = very often .20 1 = full-time; 0 = part-time .47 0 = no, 1 = yes 534 C ollege & R esearch L ib raries N ovem b er 2001 TABLE 6 (CONT.) Means and Standard Deviations of the Measures in the Study Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Variable Definition 1993 Mean 1993 S.D. 1994 Mean 1994 S.D. 1995 Mean 1995 S.D. Natural sciences courses (Astronomy, botany, biology, chemistry, physics, geology, zoology, microbiology) 1.50 1.59 1.83 2.16 1.60 2.35 Number of courses taken during the academic year Social sciences courses (Anthropology, economics, geography, political science, psychology, sociology) 1.63 1.33 1.94 1.74 1.78 2.01 Number of courses taken during the academic year Technical/preprofessional courses (Drawing, drafting, architectural design, criminology, education, agriculture, business, physical therapy, pharmacy, physical education, nursing, engineering, computer programming, audiology/speech pathology, child and family studies, communications, or social work) 1.43 1.56 2.26 2.59 2.96 2.61 Number of courses taken during the academic year Mathematics courses (Pre-algebra, algebra, calculus, statistics, computer science, geometry, matrix algebra, accounting, or business math) 1.32 1.20 1.34 1.63 1.18 1.92 Number of courses taken during the academic year U n d ergrad u ates’ B ack grou n d C h aracteristics an d C ollege E xp erien ces 535 536 College & Research Libraries November 2001 relationship), social sciences courses, self-reported critical thinking, and gender (male). An examination of the R2s in table 8 indicates that the variables predicting library use account for 32 to 36 per­ cent of the reasons that un­ dergraduates use the library. Table 9 provides a sum­ mary of the factors influenc­ ing students’ academic li­ brary experiences through­ out their first three years of college. Discussion This section describes the implications for the aca­ demic library based on the findings. A review of the cor­ relations for all three years of the study reveals several patterns. Although back­ ground characteristics such as gender, race, and initial critical thinking scores ini­ tially correlated with library use during the freshman and sophomore years, they were no longer statistically significant by the junior year. However, high school library use continued to have a strong relationship with undergraduate aca­ demic library use during all three years of the study. The finding that high school li­ brary use remained a predic­ tor of undergraduate aca­ demic library use after three years in college indicates the importance of assisting un­ dergraduates to develop their library skills during secondary school. Undergraduates with lower critical thinking scores on the CAAP tests during all three years of the study used the library more often than Undergraduates’ Background Characteristics and College Experiences 537 TABLE 7 Correlations between Background Characteristics, College Experiences, and Academic Library Activities by Academic Year 1993 1994 1995 Academic Academic Academic Library Library Library Activities Activities Activities Background Characteristics Gender .072* .086** .046 Age .029 .018 .005 Race -.143** -.099** -.051 Initial critical thinking -.148** -.129** -.057 High school library use .274** .266** .209** College Experiences On-campus employment -.008 .038 .021 Off-campus employment -.004 -.011 -.074* Full-time versus part-time status .019 .039 .025 CAAP critical thinking score -.108** N/A -.079* Grade-point average .041 -.027 .034 Number of term papers written .109** .174** .217** Active learning .414** .416** .421** Engaged writing .414** .454** .463** Student-faculty interactions .373** .312** .409** Peer interactions .284** .260** .270** Natural science courses -.029 .003 .019 Mathematics courses .041 -.011 -.038 Social sciences courses -.074* .085** .129** Technical/preprofessional courses .060 .044 -.007 Arts and humanities courses .027 .127** .172** Hours spent on schoolwork .122** .088** .167** Campus housing -.026 .021 .075* CSEQ self-reported critical thinking .307** .232** .333** *p < .05; **p < .001 did undergraduates who scored higher on the standardized test. However, there was a positive relationship between un­ dergraduates’ self-reported critical think­ ing (e.g., the ability to put ideas together, to think analytically, and to learn inde­ pendently) and their academic library use. Students with higher self-reported critical thinking used the library more fre­ quently. Enrollment in arts and humanities during the sophomore and junior years and social sciences courses during all three years of the study impacted under­ graduate academic library use. Enroll­ ment in natural sciences, mathematics, and technical and professional courses did not impact library use. Not surprisingly, undergraduates who spent more hours on their schoolwork also engaged in more academic library activities. The more students studied, the more they used the library. The variables having the strongest re­ lationship with undergraduate academic library use involved their academic activi­ ties. Student–faculty and peer interac­ tions, active learning and engaged writ­ 538 College & Research Libraries ing activities, and being assigned term papers impacted library use for all three years of the study. A review of the regression analyses for all three years of the study reveals that four measures predicted academic library use (e.g., used computers for library searches, used indexes to journal articles, developed a bibliography, used card catalog or com­ puter, asked librarian for help, read in re­ serve or reference section, checked out November 2001 books, checked citations in things read, read basic references or documents, found material by browsing in stacks). Active learners (e.g., took detailed notes in class, participated in class discussions, under­ lined major points in readings, saw how facts and ideas fit together, thought about practical applications, integrated ideas from various sources, summarized major points and information, explained mate­ rial to another student, made outlines from TABLE 8 Academic Library Activities Regressed on Background Characteristics, College Experiences, and Academic Library Activities by Academic Year The variable definitions are located in table 6 1993 Academic Library Activities 1994 Academic Library Activities 1995 Academic Library Activities Background Characteristics Gender Age Race Initial critical thinking High school library use -.049 .013 -.100** -.078 .143*** -.050 .017 -.060 -.016 .156*** -.081** -.008 -.042 .013 .118*** College Experiences On-campus employment Off-campus employment Full-time versus part-time status CAAP critical thinking score Grade-point average Number of term papers written Active learning Engaged writing Student-faculty interactions Peer interactions Natural science courses Mathematics courses Social sciences courses Technical/preprofessional courses Arts and humanities courses Hours spent on schoolwork Campus housing CSEQ self-reported critical thinking -.011 -.033 -.013 .051 -.001 .035 .189*** .185*** .174*** .038 -.039 .042 -.014 .026 -.002 .007 -.024 .065 .002 .002 .026 N/A -.071 .071 .203*** .249*** .101** .053 .022 -.014 .057 .010 .051 .006 .028 -.012 -.052 -.105*** -.040 -.032 -.062 .069 .118*** .262*** .172*** .052 -.001 -.039 .097*** -.001 .046 .060 .014 .088** R2 .321 .319 .363 *** p < .001; **p< .05 Undergraduates’ Background Characteristics and College Experiences 539 TABLE 9 Summary of Factors Influencing Academic Library Experiences by Year and in Order of Importance 1993 1994 1995 Active learning Engaged writing Engaged writing Engaged writing Active learning Student-faculty interactions Student-faculty interactions High school library use Active learning (tie) High school library use Student-faculty interactions High school library use (tie) Race (students of color) Off-campus ob (negative) Social sciences courses Self-reported critical thinking Gender (male) notes or readings, and did additional read­ ings) engaged in more academic library ac­ tivities during all three years of the study. Engaged writers (e.g., used dictionary or thesaurus; thought about grammar, etc., while writing; wrote a rough draft and revised it; spent five or more hours writing a paper; asked others to read something you wrote; referred to style­ book or grammar manual; revised paper two or more times, asked instructor for advice on writing; made appointment to talk about criticism; submitted writing for publication) also engaged in more aca­ demic library activities during all three years of the study. In addition, students who interacted with faculty (e.g., talked with faculty member; asked for information related to a course; visited informally after class; made office appointment with faculty; discussed term paper/project with fac­ ulty; discussed career plans with faculty: asked for comments/criticism about work; had coffee, cokes, snacks with fac­ ulty; worked with faculty on research project; discussed personal problems with faculty) also engaged in more academic library activities during all three years of the study. Finally, high school library use predicted subsequent college library use for all three years of the study. Implications Off-campus work had a negative impact on students’ library use during the jun­ ior year. This finding is similar to the study in the literature review where stu­ dents whose full-time employment had a negative impact on the amount of time spent in the academic library. This study only examined library use in the academic library building. Academic libraries can assist undergraduates who do not have time to visit the academic library because of off-campus work obligations by offer­ ing electronic access to parts of the col­ lection and digital reference services. Two findings, the relationships between peer interactions and library use and writ­ ing term papers and library use, have im­ plications for the design of academic li­ brary services. Academic libraries should consider developing more programs such as the University of Michigan’s Peer In­ formation Counselor (PIC) program.6 This program and others like it are designed to have undergraduates work the reference desk and assist their peers with informa­ tion searches. Some programs also include assistance with term papers. Future research should explore the nature of the relationship between criti­ cal thinking and academic library use. This study found a positive relationship between self-reported critical thinking and library use and a negative relation­ ship between objective measures of criti­ cal thinking and library use. Moreover, junior-year self-reported critical thinking predicted junior-year academic library use. One question to investigate is, Do 540 College & Research Libraries November 2001 students with different levels of critical thinking exhibit different library use pat­ terns or information-seeking behavior? Finally, and most important, a review of the means revealed that the under­ graduates in this study collectively en­ gaged in academic library activities only occasionally. An examination of the find­ ings from this study is useful for under­ standing the factors that influence under­ graduates’ library activities, but addi­ tional research is needed to determine how to increase students’ library activi­ ties. In addition, the background charac­ teristics and college experiences identi­ fied in this study explained only approxi­ mately one-third of the reasons that stu­ dents use the academic library. Future research is needed to determine what other factors influence undergraduates to use the academic library’s services and resources. Notes 1. Paul W. Grimes and Marybeth F. Charters, “Library Use and the Undergraduate Econom­ ics Student,” College Student Journal 34 (Dec. 2000): 557–70. 2. Qun G. Jiao and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, “Prevalence and Reasons for University Li­ brary Usage,” Library Review 46, no. 6 (1997): 411–20. 3. A. Paul Williams, “Conceptualizing Academic Library Use: Results of a Survey of Con­ tinuing Education Undergraduates in a Small Canadian Undergraduate University,” Canadian Journal of Higher Education 25, no. 3 (1995): 31–48. 4. Charles B. Harrell, “The Use of an Academic Library by University Undergraduates” (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of North Texas, 1988). 5. Ernest T. Pascarella, Elizabeth J. Whitt, Amaury Nora, Marcia I. Edison, Linda S. Hagedorn, and Patrick T. Terenzini, “What Have We Learned from the First Year of the National Study of Student Learning?” Journal of College Student Development 37 (Mar. 1996): 182–92. 6. Karen E. Downing, Barbara MacAdam, and Darlene P. Nichols, Reaching a Multicultural Student Community: A Handbook for Academic Librarians (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Pr., 1993).