Evidence Summary
English Literature Students at
Spanish University Have Positive Perceptions Towards but Limited Understanding
of Online Resources
A Review of:
Roig-Marín, A., & Prieto, S. (2021).
English literature students' perspectives on digital resources in a Spanish
university. Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 47(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102461
Reviewed by:
Lisa Shen
Business Librarian &
Director of Public Services
Newton Gresham Library
Sam Houston State University
Huntsville, Texas, United
States of America
Email: lshen@shsu.edu
Received: 31 May 2022 Accepted: 20 July 2022
2022 Shen.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30182
Abstract
Objective – To assess students’ perception, use, and format preferences of
library resources.
Design – Online survey questionnaire.
Setting – A public university in Spain.
Subjects – 134 second-year, third-year, and fourth-year
undergraduate English language and literature students.
Methods – An anonymous survey was built using Google Forms
and shared with eligible participants during March and April 2021. Survey
participation was voluntary, although students were encouraged to respond and
were provided with class time to do so. Nonetheless, due to the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic at the time of this study, courses were taught in a hybrid
(both in-person and online) format and class attendance was not mandatory. The
survey consisted of six multiple choice and four open-ended questions, and
answers were required for all 10 questions.
Main Results – Respondents
were mostly satisfied with the available resources in supporting their studies
in English literature and culture, with the majority preferring to access
resources online (51%) or through both online and print formats (14%).
Convenience was the most commonly cited reason for favoring online access,
while improved processing and learning were mentioned by those preferring
print. A majority of respondents also indicated they have used online resources
from either their home university library (72%) or other libraries (55%). Conversely,
29% of the respondents were unable to identify any specific electronic
resources.
Conclusion – Study results
indicate that Spanish undergraduate students majoring in English literature
generally have a positive perception of library resources in supporting their
studies and prefer online access over print. However, many of these students
may also have an incorrect or limited understanding of how to differentiate
between library resources, general websites, web search engines, or computer
programs.
Commentary
Even though much research has been conducted about
students’ perception and use of academic library resources, this article
provides a timely contribution to the existing literature by focusing on the
unique perspective of non-anglophone students enrolled in an English literature
program and could be of interest to practitioners serving similar student
populations. Study findings both affirm results from similar recent research on
different student groups’ preferences for print and online resources (Mizrachi
& Salaz, 2020; Zell, 2020) and provide new insights into the challenges
faced by non-native English-speaking students in identifying and using English
literature resources.
An examination of the study using the Evidence Based
Librarianship (EBL) Critical Appraisal Checklist (Glynn, 2006) yielded an
overall validity of 71%, which is below the accepted threshold of 75%.
Nevertheless, the authors can be commended for disclosing the full survey
instrument, providing a succinct but through analysis of the results,
acknowledging potential limitations of the findings, and identifying areas for
further investigations. Despite several limitations in the study’s population
selection and data collection practices, its design and results each scored over
80% in sectional validity. The authors also provided details about the research
methodology at a level that would enable replication.
On the other hand, readers would benefit from more
details about the student population. The researchers provide sound rationale
for establishing parameters for their intended population but neglect to
provide the total number of eligible participants. Without the actual
population size and consequently the survey response rate, it is difficult to
assess whether the study results sufficiently representative the study
population. The authors do not explain whether eligible participants absent
during the in-class survey distributions were invited through other methods.
The researchers also do not explain how they controlled for duplication of
responses since links to the anonymous survey were shared in multiple classes
during the data collection period.
Moreover, inconsistencies in the survey questionnaire
suggest the instrument was unlikely to have been validated. Terms including
“online,” “electronic,” and “digital” were used interchangeably to describe
resources throughout the survey, which could have confused the non-native
English-speaking respondents. In addition, only the last three survey questions
explicitly referred to “library resources,” which may have led respondents to
conclude that “resources” in the other seven questions included both library
and non-library resources. These types of terminology inconsistencies may have
contributed to respondents naming Google or Kindle as resource examples for
supporting their studies. Finally, answer options for Q6 assumes that
respondents have either found a resource to be user-friendly or that the user
was unable to access the resource. This dichotomy of options likely reflects
the researchers’ assumptions about the user-friendliness of library resources
and fails to account for the experiences of students who did not find these
library resources to be user-friendly but were able to access them regardless.
Because of these validity concerns with the study
population, survey instrument, and data collection method, readers are advised
to consider the representativeness of findings from this article with some
reservation. Nonetheless, this article highlighted the unique perspectives of
non-anglophone academic library users of English literature resources and
provided a possible foundation for future scholars interested in further
investigating similar topics.
References
Glynn, L. (2006). A critical appraisal tool for library and information
research. Library Hi Tech, 24(3), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830610692154
Mizrachi, D., & Salaz, A. (2022). Beyond the surveys: Qualitative
analysis from the academic Reading Format International Study (ARFIS). College
& Research Libraries, 81(5), 808–821. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.81.5.808
Roig-Marín, A., & Prieto, S. (2021). English literature students'
perspectives on digital resources in a Spanish university. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(6), Article 102461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102461
Zell, H. M. (2020). Digital vs print resources at African university
institutions: A discussion document. African Research and Documentation, 138,
3–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305862X0002327X