Year One Resource Center Use Changes and Questions George F. Atkinson and G. E. Toogood
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1 In 1975, we reported a survey of student responses to the Year One Resource Center operated in this department.' Five years later, a similar survey was made. This report outlines some differences and some similarities in the student responses and raises some questions about the intentions and the effects of operating such a center. The Center and the Survev
vice provided todard the end of the term, in a centrally-located room in the Chemistry Building. There is a tutor on duty, who is usually a member of the faculty but sometimes is a student volunteer. Various printed and audiovisual macenter, and lecturers refer students to it. A one-page questionnaire was distributed in the Year 1 laboratory to all students present. Thus, students who happened to he absent, or students excused from the laboratory course were not surveyed. Students marked their responses to the questions on a computer card that could be optically scanned and handed in a sheet on which thev could makp frw comments suggesting changes and improvements. Of 459 reswandine to the survev. 254 155%)said thev had used the centkr at least once. of these, 251'gave useable replies to the survev "auestions. . The Year One course is given in lecture divisions, each of which is supposed to serve students with a certain academic interest. As scheduling problems are solved, the division boundary lines are usually blurred. Table 1shows the differences in use of the center by students in the divisions; these differences reflect some compounding of the lecturer's teaching style and the students' response to the course. Only the proportion of users shows significant variation amonn divisions. Number and Duration of Visits
The number of visits made by each user compared to the number of such visits reported in the earlier survey is shown in Figure 1.The number of visitors making only one or two visits has changed little. while the number makineu lame " numbers of visits has increased. The mean length of visit reported by each visitor is shown in Figure 2. By multiplying the number of visits by the mean duration of visits for each student, an estimate of total hours present is obtained (see Fig. 3). These figures might be compared to the alternative possibility of having students meet in scheduled one-hour tutorial sessions ten times during the term. Table 2 gives some statistics related to these three figures. 0
Figure 1. Percentage of users making various numbers of visits in 1974and 1979. (Number to lower right is users as percentage of respondents.)
Table 1. Variation in Student Use of Center Division Mathematics Co-op Applied Science Science (BiologyGeology) Science (PhysicsChemistry)
Users ( % of respondents)
Median No, of Visits
Median Length (min)
34 45
4 3
30 35
62
4
30
54
4
30
Activities of Students in the Center
Students were asked to state which aspect of their course (classwork, lahs, or assignments) they most often and second most often worked on in the resource center. The responses, shown as bar graphs in Figure 4, indicate that labs are the
' Atkinson, G. F., and Toogood, G. E., J. CHEM.EDUC., 52, 108 (1975).
214
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 2.
Percentage of users reporting various mean lengths of visit.
Figure 3. Percentage of users reponing various tot?l usage. Mean visit length multipiied by reported number of visits. Numbers in sectors should be read as "UP to and including'' the stated number of hours.
Table 2.
Student Presence in Resource Center 1st
Fig. No.
1 2
3
Data
No. of visits Mean length of visit Product of above
Decile
Lower Quartile
Median
Upper Quartile
1 10 min
2 18
4 30
8 50
12 60
.I5 min
40
120
180
500
9th Decile
~ o t eEntries : represent the figure for the user who stoodatihe named point in the listing with respect to that item.
principal concern, with assignments a close second. This is confirmed bv casual comments of the tutors. Ten possible activities which might he pursued in the center were listed also, and the students were asked to choose and rank-order the three they engaged in most often. These responses are shown in Figure 5 and are compared with the earlier survey in Figure 6. "Personal" activities which could he pursued in any library or study room have increased, while general reading and waiting has decreased, leaving total use of the various resources steady at almost exactly 50% of responses. Within the resource-use sector, the most obvious change is increased use of the tutor as compared to hooks or audiovisual aids. Satisfaction with the Center
There has been little change in the reported frequency with which the center has met the needs of students, as shown in Figure 7. Write-in Comments by Students
Thirty-four comments relating to the center, and 19 relating to the course, were received. Leading the list were 14 requests for more or different hours of operation, and seven asking for more accommodation. The latter may relate to the fact that the survey was heing done as examinations approached. Six students requested more tutors and less complicated explanations from them. Seven suggested improvements in the audiovisual and print collections; this may point to an explanation for the declining use of these resources. Comments m r h ~,,8nlr chan;c< 111c.cmiet>ia t ~
