Physical learning spaces in Kenyan academic libraries

Abstract

Libraries form an integral part of the university physical learning landscape. Advances in technology, the emergence of student-centred pedagogy and the changing campus demography have caused academic libraries across the world to reconsider the design of their spaces. This study undertook a qualitative assessment of physical library learning spaces in selected Kenyan universities with regard to their suitability for twenty-first century learning. Data collected through interviews with librarians and student library users, indicates that the spaces provided are basic and barely support student learning needs and expectations. The spaces are modelled around collections with the traditional view of libraries as information repositories taking centre stage. The study recommends a repurposing of Kenyan academic library spaces to enable support for a wider spectrum of learning needs and preferences. Specifically, academic libraries should consider managing their collections differently with a view to expand learner spaces, they should develop a good understanding of students and their needs, and work towards infusing variety in the learning spaces for increased inclusivity and sustained relevance.

Keywords

Learning spaces library space academic libraries student learning Kenya

Introduction

A university's physical landscape is expected to be supportive of scholarship and academy. Classrooms, libraries, student centers, cafeterias, atriums, halls, terraces, gardens, other facilities and open spaces provided by the university on campus shape learning experiences (Deed, 2017). These spaces, their infrastructure along with environmental conditions and atmosphere, are expected to not only meet the physical needs but also the psychological and social demands of students as they learn (Anggiani and Heryanto, 2018). Scholl and Gulwadi (2015) opine that well-designed and connected networks of indoor and outdoor spaces on campuses play an important role in catalyzing student learning. They set the stage for student engagement and academic performance by facilitating and encouraging learning through increased interaction; provision of resources for learning; facilitation of particular pedagogical methodologies; and by promoting a sense of belonging to the campus learning community.

Referring to North America, Europe and Australia, Radcliffe (2009) acknowledges the increasing body of knowledge and working examples of new ideas in the design of learning spaces driven by such factors as changing social patterns, generational change, advancing technology and added student-centered pedagogy. Keppell and Riddle (2013) observe that a major response to demands in higher education in the twenty-first century has been the recognition of the need for student-centered teaching and learning environments. Further, various publications (Adedokun et al., 2017; Ellis and Goodyear, 2016) on higher education, recognize and affirm the need to create and redesign educational environments that address the needs and expectations of today's learners. According to Beichner (2014) today's students expect to be continuously connected to information and people, thus, the need for a change in how classrooms are designed to enable active participation in learning. Indeed, classroom designs are evolving. There are institutions that serve as models for creating learning environments that foster critical thinking, knowledge creation as well as active and collaborative learning. These include the SCALE-UP project at North Carolina State University, TILE classrooms at the University of Iowa and the PAIR-up model at the University of Minnesota, among others (Harvey and Kenyon, 2013). In these classes active learning is at the core, the classrooms are flipped with modular furniture that is meant to facilitate interactions among students and discourage lecture. Amresh et al. (2013) report that compared to traditional classrooms, flipped classes enhance student motivation and performance.

Apart from classrooms, informal learning spaces have also been of interest as universities seek to bolster student learning. These campus spaces are used for both academic and social activities. They are favorite study spots for many college students even when they might not be having the best resources and facilities for their learning (Painter et al., 2013; Whiteside et al., 2010). To cater for student learning needs, campus planners and administrators have made attempts to furnish these spaces with such amenities as desks, booths, whiteboards and Wi-Fi (Painter et al., 2013). There are deliberate efforts to design informal learning spaces for students to spend time in between lectures as universities seek to improve their student experience offering (Wu et al., 2021). Social and learning hubs, student streets, information and research commons, and other physical spaces meant to stimulate both social and academic activities outside the classroom are under development (O’Neill, 2013). Besides, the impact of learning space design on student success has been demonstrated by a number of researchers (Harrop and Turpin, 2013; Crook and Mitchell, 2012; Mathews et al., 2011).

According to Saharkhiz et al. (2017), universities started to establish libraries upon the invention of printing. For a long time, they acted only as repositories to store books and had a minor role of information provision. Today, academic libraries are considered an indispensable tool in teaching, learning and research whose main objective is to contribute actively in the implementation of higher education goals. While their role remains information-oriented, the digitization of content and the pervasiveness of the Internet have brought about a lot of change. The shift from traditional print to digital technologies according to Warwick (2014), has had impacts on the structure and role of academic libraries. The libraries are having to rethink how educational materials are stored and accessed by students; and what should replace the print collections and student work spaces. On campus, Donkai et al. (2011) observe that there is a big number of students who are digital natives. These students have grown up with technology and have a distinctive learning style, a preference for visual communications and learn better through discovery. This requires active and collaborative spaces that are technology-rich. There has also emerged a constructivist learning paradigm from which learning is conceived as active and collaborative and through which knowledge is constructed by engagement with information. Sawers et al. (2016) posit that this causes the demand for learning spaces that support group work and team-based projects; spaces that encourage active and participatory learning. Consequently, the academic library's focus on developing accommodation space for print and physical collections has been diminishing. Librarians now aspire to create a place that encourages participatory learning and allows co-construction of knowledge from a variety of sources. More than ever, as explained by Barbakoff (2017), library users desire a place for quiet contemplation, active collaboration, interaction and community building.

Literature review

In the electronic age, libraries, over and above housing print collections, need to provide avenues for navigating the world of information that is beyond their walls. The emergent approaches to library design are aimed at bringing together the printed and the electronic worlds of knowledge (Latimer, 2011). Hence, a culture of renovation and refurbishing has developed to cater for the new and emerging needs (Cribb and Schimdt, 2011). Latimer (2011) and Cannell (2013) explain that changes being witnessed in library design are driven by such factors as the increasing availability of e-resources and the resulting shift in the balance between printed and online collections; technological advances, library automation, use of robots, compact shelving and RFID technology; need for social spaces; the need to market libraries; the changing pedagogical environment; shifting user expectations with regard to quality of service and space as well as new ways in which users expect to use the library.

The advancing technology seems to have had an influence on the design of library space in the twenty-first century (Blummer and Kenton, 2017). The role of technology and the increasing use of online resources form most of the discussions about the future of the academic library space (Childs et al., 2013). Cribb and Schmidt (2011) and Cunningham and Tabur (2012) posit that with the advent of ICTs and emergence of the user as a focus, new approaches to space use have been witnessed including increased numbers of computers and work stations, extensive power outlets, wireless access, quality printing, and less significance of print collections. The user as a focus approach has brought exhibition spaces, coffee shops into libraries and a variety of spaces for meetings, study and research. Thus, as noted by Fallin (2016), libraries have had to redevelop their buildings substantially or construct new buildings to accommodate technology.

However, Holley (2013) observes that technological advances may slow the need for more space in academic libraries or allow them to shrink altogether. Staley and Malenfant (2010) citing a report by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) on how libraries would have changed by the year 2025, also remark that possibilities of campuses with purely virtual libraries exist. Some libraries are already fully digital, Childs et al. (2013) observes that as a result, physical space in some libraries has reduced. A good example is the University of Strathclyde, Scotland, which felt that future library users would be Net Gens who would prefer to access resources virtually. Nonetheless, the ACRL report underscores the continued need for a physical library with a human face. Latimer (2011) maintains that contrary to predictions, the impact technology has had on library design has largely been positive.

While technological change was happening, the culture of teaching, learning and research was also drifting. Teachers moved toward a student-centered approach where learners started to play a more active role in their learning. There was increased application of such methods as case study, problem and resource-based learning, projects, group work, hybrid and blended learning, such that teaching facilities and information services had to be reconsidered (Cribb and Schmidt, 2011). Historically, libraries are intertwined with learning. Meaning that changes in education have an impact on libraries (Andrews et al., 2016). Academic libraries are rethinking their spaces or building new and innovative libraries that align to the changing needs of teaching and learning; librarians are managers of libraries which are increasingly learning and social spaces as opposed to storehouses. In the United Kingdom for example, the Information Commons at the University of Sheffield, the University of Warwick's Learning Grid, and the Saltire Centre at Glasgow Caledonian University, have been designed in a way that responds to the idea of the library as social (Childs et al., 2013).

The basis of library space design has been transformed. Throughout the world, the focus has shifted and as observed by Cribb and Schmidt (2011), the pace and extent of this transformation is varied as it is determined by differing cultural values, interpretations of user behavior and needs, views of librarianship and how pedagogy is regarded in individual institutions and regions. However, common themes emphasizing flexibility, accommodation of online and distance learning, group and individual study, as well as self-service have developed. Steiner and Holley (2009) observe that a growing number of academic libraries has created information or learning commons. Oliveira (2018) describes library spaces as having moved from an era of book boxes where space was designed to hold collections through the Information Commons era which was accelerated by the digital revolution to the current shift to learning spaces which is inspired by the need for libraries to contribute to the learning experience. Similarly, the evolution of academic library spaces is traced by Zhu (2021) who observes that the concept of the library as a study room with print collections evolved into Information Commons in the 2000s and later changed into a Commons 2.0 incorporating the freedom of wireless connections, flexible workspaces, self-help, computing and electronic resources.

As a model, the Information Commons (IC) began to appear in the United States in the 1990s. In the two decades that followed, this model advanced and became prominent with hundreds of examples in libraries around the world (Seal, 2015). Childs et al. (2013) observe that the IC has been one of the most influential ideas in academic library design since the 1990s; Karasic (2016) notes that it helped to bridge the gap between physical and virtual spaces. It is worth noting that the IC has not been static, Seal (2015) reports that it has progressed and advanced in response to improvements in technology; new pedagogies like online and blended classes, flipped classrooms and recorded lectures; social media; and changing user needs and preferences. Many new technologies, among them video walls, 3-D printers and green screens are now found in the IC.

Reviewed literature reveals that the extent of implementation of the IC across the globe is varied. Oliveira (2018) explains that the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) surveyed 74 of its members in 2004 and found that 22 of them had developed an Information Commons. The findings of Donkai et al. (2011) revealed that the development of IC was in its early stages of development in academic libraries in Japan. In Pakistan, Sheikh (2015) found that most university libraries were yet to implement the IC model in its absolute form. This closely mirrors the situation in Africa where reporting in 2010, Boakye described the Research Commons as very new in Ghana and in most of the continent. Adeyemi (2015) confirms that in Nigerian academic libraries, the IC is not in operation. Similarly, the study of Musangi et al. (2019) concluded that university libraries in Kenya have not implemented the Information Commons model in its totality. However, the case in South Africa is different, Ocholla and Ocholla (2020) revealed that public university libraries have developed non-traditional space-related services like research commons, group study areas and makerspaces.

Many academic libraries across the world are repurposing their spaces to enrich student learning experiences. Watson and Howden (2013) outlining UK case studies report that the trend in the design of academic libraries is: open plan which comes with the promise of reconfiguration; technology-rich space with a wired or wireless infrastructure enabling widespread individual and group use; and service-rich environments featuring great degrees of self-service and integration of a range of services for students. In the USA, Simon (2013) through an analysis of case studies reports that academic libraries are bringing together learning spaces and traditional instructional spaces. To support a wide variety of student activities, these spaces are very flexible with configurable furniture. They have extra storage for computers, smartboards and chairs. There is infrastructure to support access to local servers and the Internet. Acoustic conditioning is done to reduce distractions coming from conversations and lectures. Lighting is done to ensure that a range of light intensity is provided. Restroom facilities are accessible for those working into the night and service kitchens provide refreshments for meetings and teams. Video and recording devices as well as panic buttons constitute security in the spaces.

An overview of Chinese academic libraries is provided by Anderson (2013). Anderson observes that the view of the library is still traditional. Learning is viewed as instructional and the role of the library is to act as a repository supporting individual study, contemplation and reflection. Despite this, the scale of the libraries is big and could allow re-fashioning in response to future demands. Academic libraries in Hong Kong on the other hand, as presented by Fox and Sidorko (2013) are making strides to create learning spaces. They have expanded their spaces, redesigned them to accommodate a range of technologies and varied learning styles, and introduced Learning Commons.

A look around the world shows academic libraries that are merging state of the art architecture with inspiring interior spaces and functionality (ODonnell and Anderson, 2022). Indeed, from the foregoing literature it is evident that the shape of the library has greatly transformed in the twenty-first century. The view of the academic library as a store house has significantly changed and libraries no longer see their role as solely that of collecting and organizing information resources. Libraries are increasingly more about creating and supporting learning communities. While many libraries have documented this reinvention, existing literature does not reveal much about the changes taking place in libraries in the global south. This study set out to fill this gap as regards academic libraries in Kenya.

Problem statement

The problem of the study lies in the importance of academic libraries and their contribution to learning in an era that is characterized by a lot of change. In response to the growing need and demand for spaces that are more conducive to learning and the desire to make a more visible impact on student learning, many academic libraries in developed countries have successfully redesigned and repurposed their spaces to suit campus needs in the twenty-first century. Oliveira (2016) observed that library learning spaces such as non-traditional facilities like cafés and classrooms, informal spontaneous spaces, social learning spaces, computer stations, group and individual study areas, communal, flexible, collaborative, as well as areas of solitude and quietness, are found in academic libraries. Spencer and Watstein (2017) emphasize that these physical spaces are formal and informal, accommodating a variety of activities, technologies, and participants. An assessment of literature on what libraries in developing countries are doing about their spaces to make them conducive for learning today, does not yield much.

Recent studies on the African continent have concerned themselves, majorly, with the uptake of technology and web 2.0 tools in academic libraries. There is some evidence, most of it from South Africa, of repurposing and redesigning of academic library spaces. An examination of library trends by Ocholla and Ocholla (2020) revealed that public university libraries in South Africa have developed modern library spaces. Writing about the need for reinvention of academic libraries in Kenya, Makori (2009) emphasized the need for academic libraries to work towards improving the physical facility by creating group study space and incorporating technology. Musangi et al. (2019) explored the Information Commons as a service model in university libraries in Kenya and found that while librarians are familiar with the concept, no university an Information Commons in place. The shifts being experienced in the higher education environment and within the information landscape make it necessary to examine how library spaces are supporting student learning in Kenyan universities.

Background to the study

Formal higher education in Kenya can be traced to the early twentieth century when the British colonial powers established Makerere College in Uganda to replace the traditional non-formal forms of education that were the norm in East Africa. Rising demand led to the establishment of the Royal Technical College in Nairobi in 1956, which later became the University of Nairobi in 1970. The decades that followed witnessed rising demand and continuous growth such that in 2022 the Commission of University Education (CUE) recorded that the total number of public and private universities in Kenya stood at 53 with 12 constituent university colleges; and 12 institutions operating with letters of interim authority (CUE, 2022). Equally, enrollment has been on the rise. Charo et al. (2019) reported that the net enrollment rate in higher education institutions in Kenya increased to 7.5% (percent) in 2014 from 4 percent in 2009. Mukhwana et al. (2016) attribute this growth to the liberalisation of the sector, free primary and secondary education, increased demand for higher education brought about by population growth, rising literacy levels and the fact that national development requires advanced skills.

This rapid expansion has not been without challenges. A number of scholars (Odhiambo, 2011; Kramon and Posner, 2016; Makokha and Mutisya, 2016) identify the challenges facing the Kenyan higher education system as including: massification; overcrowding; increasing demand; insufficient/declining public funding; curricula that are not responsive to labor market needs; declining quality; lack of basic supplies and equipment for teaching and learning; crumbling insufficient infrastructure; poorly equipped/stocked libraries; poor governance, political interference and negative ethnicity as well as poor technological resources and skills. The financial situation in Kenyan public universities is desperate. The Government of Kenya has made special and deliberate efforts to grow the higher education budgetary allocation but has not been able to keep pace. An increase in the number of students seems to have greatly compromised quality (Charo et al., 2019). These challenges have not spared libraries. When the universities struggle, the libraries suffer. Kavulya (2006) noted that funds to support libraries in Kenyan public universities were on the decline. Ngetich et al. (2016) agree that funding of libraries is not a priority in public universities since the funds provided by government to these universities are deficient. As such the quality of services has been negatively affected.

Kenyan universities are affected by changes in higher education as regards new and changing pedagogy, advancing technology and the variety and diversity of learner needs and expectations. These changes call for supportive physical environments including libraries. On the premise of Henri Lefebvre's theory, the Production of Space, which argues that space is socially produced, it is important to establish the extent to which existing library spaces, whether built in the twenty-first century or before, are supportive of the changing campus demography, new learning styles, new pedagogy and shifting technology.

Methodology

This study assessed the status of physical learning spaces in selected academic libraries in Kenya. Given the changing higher education landscape, the evolving technologies which continue to influence the mechanics of teaching and learning as well as the variety of learning needs on campus; the aim of the study was to assess the extent to which these learning spaces are supportive of student learning today and propose adjustments that can make the spaces more twenty-first century compliant. Specifically, the study explored these three objectives:

To establish the types of spaces provided for learning in academic libraries in Kenya.

To explore the extent to which collaborative and social learning is supported in the library spaces.

To find out which library space features are considered supportive of student learning.

This study was interested in understanding a social reality; libraries exist in a social-economic setup or context, their activities and services are influenced by this context and it was important to study them within this context; thus, an interpretivist philosophical stance was adopted (Saunders et al., 2016). The study applied a qualitative case study since it sought to explore, capture and describe the lived experience of students in the library learning spaces. A multi-case study design was applied. Yin (2009) describes a case study as an empirical enquiry that is used when a researcher wants to gain an in-depth understanding of a real-life phenomenon including the context pertinent to that phenomenon in this case intricacies and the specific nature of the case libraries. The interrelatedness of different features - the physical learning spaces, the learners and their activities within the space together with the support available to them while in the spaces was of emphasis (Bazeley, 2013). According to Mills et al. (2010) this involves an extensive study of a number of carefully selected cases so as to develop an enhanced understanding of an issue. The researcher chose both negative and positive cases with an aim to examine variations and differences between the cases. This allowed the researchers to probe processes and outcomes across the mix of cases and to identify how individual libraries might be affected by different environments.

Purposive sampling is described as a form of sampling whose goal is to sample cases in a strategic manner so that the sampled are relevant or highlight the stated research questions (Bryman, 2012; Yin, 2014). The idea behind purposive sampling is to select instances that are information-rich with an aim to answer research questions (Flick, 2014). As such, guided by stated criteria, the researchers purposively selected four case university libraries. These are university libraries that have the potential to stay up-to-date, and have a variety of scenarios since they run both graduate and undergraduate programs. The study was keen to include libraries from private and public institutions and those with new and old library buildings. Out of the four case libraries studied, two belong to public institutions, with library buildings established more than 30 years ago. The other two are within private universities with library buildings that are fairly new, having replaced older ones, and established after the year 2005. This was meant to provide an understanding of how libraries with old buildings are changing their spaces to accommodate learner needs in the new century and what space features exist in the newly built libraries to support student learning.

To obtain in-depth information, the units of analysis were the librarians working in these libraries, student library users and the physical library spaces. An information-rich case approach was used to identify the librarians. These were four head librarians since they are key decision makers in the design of library spaces; 13 librarians in charge user services or reference and/or instruction were also selected as they are involved in designing spaces as well as in their day-to-day management. Qualitative interviewing assumes that the view of others is meaningful, knowable and can be made explicit (Patton, 2015). To get the perspectives of librarians, two different sets of interview schedules guided the face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with head librarians and librarians in charge of user services and instruction. The study also targeted students working within the library spaces at the time of the study. These are the key users of the spaces and as such their opinions and experiences were valuable. Sampling was iterative and proceeded to a point of theoretical saturation. At the end of the data collection, 74 students, from across the case libraries were interviewed.

Observational data is meant to describe in depth and detail the setting, the activities, the people and the meanings of what was observed from the viewpoints of those observed. Saunders et al. (2016) explain that observation involves viewing, recording, describing, analyzing and interpreting people's lives. To achieve this, a space observation checklist guided the observation of the physical library spaces over the four-day period spent in each of the libraries. The data collected was organized and documented then analyzed thematically. To ensure that ethical principles are applied, the researchers sought permission to conduct research in the identified institutions. Once this permission was obtained, further consent was sought from the libraries and the individual study participants before undertaking interviews. Notices were put up to let library users know that space observations were underway. The researchers were careful not to observe any behavior or activity that was out of the scope of the study. They stayed confidential and ensured anonymity throughout the research and reporting process.

Results and discussion

Data collected through interviews and space observations is presented and discussed according to the spaces and space features found in the academic libraries studied. Peng et al. (2022) summarizes research on the design of informal learning spaces into four key points: comfort of the indoor environment, flexibility and diversity of the spatial layout, such as configurable of furniture; a positive spatial atmosphere, such as a good accessibility, and fourth is supportive technological facilities, such as interactive whiteboards. These points are variously covered in the ensuing discussion under the topics: library atmosphere, types of spaces, supportive space features, as well as support for interaction and socialization.

Nature of library atmosphere

This study investigated whether students regard their libraries as welcoming and conducive for their learning. Students variously described their libraries as “peaceful and quiet”, “spacious”, “not crowded”, devoid of disturbance or distractions, making it easy to focus and concentrate for long. Students in one of the case libraries explained that in their library the Internet connection was good, books were available, chairs and tables were comfortable, and that zoning availed the options of open and individual spaces where privacy could be achieved. Features like natural light, good air circulation, orderliness and cleanliness were also used to explain why the libraries were generally regarded as welcoming and conducive for learning.

Differing opinions were also recorded. Two of the case libraries were described as “small compared to the number of students” which is true of libraries built many years back when university enrolment was still small. Some of the comments from the students studied include:

“This library does not cater for everyone” STU014

“Very few of us come to the library often, we only come during exams, my classmates’ attitude is that it is not a nice chill spot” STU009

In one of the case libraries, one of the librarians felt that the library needed to be modernized. His comment was:

“More needs to be done to modernize the building, integrate technology, provide a sufficient number of computers and current books” LIB004

Observation data indicated that while each of the libraries had a different look and feel, they all maintained a quiet, studious atmosphere. Expected behavior was clearly spelt out in rules prohibiting noise, eating or drinking, sleeping and even spelling out a dress code. The nature of spaces for learning varied greatly fitting within the descriptions of well-lit, dark, open, enclosed, private, silent, quiet, high traffic areas, near the stacks, next to librarian desks, corners with no traffic or along the windows with lots of light and an outside view. The libraries were found to be welcoming and mainly supportive of quiet individual study. This implies that the library is largely seen as a place of storing collections and quiet study. The concept of the library as a place for people is yet to take root.

Types of spaces provided

Variety witnessed in student learning styles, needs and behaviors is best supported through variety in space provisions and features. Data collected from interviews with librarians and through observation pointed to individual reading or study space and computer areas as the dominant learning spaces provided across the libraries.

Individual study space - Observation of the spaces established that quiet reading space is the largest and main type of learning space provided across the case libraries. It is either open or enclosed in the form of study carrels. In carrels students can enjoy privacy, ownership and comfort. It is notable that only two of the case libraries had functioning study carrels. While one library did not have any carrels, the other had not kept them in a usable state as confirmed by one of the librarians interviewed, “we do not have a place to store old computers and broken chairs, we have kept them in the carrels”. One of the libraries had an impressive 120 carrels, that are not locked, and can be reserved by postgraduate students for long term use.

Open study areas were spread throughout the buildings, some located in between or adjacent to the stacks for those wanting to read near the books they wished to use. They were furnished with big tables that can seat up to eight people and straight back chairs. In two of the case libraries, tables are partitioned to create privacy and to reduce opportunities for interaction. One library had sofas positioned within the open reading areas for students wanting to take a break and relax.

Students interviewed appreciate that the study spaces are quiet and without distractions. These spaces can be regarded as traditional since libraries have always been perceived as temples of knowledge, where quiet or deep silence is supposed to encourage concentration, focus, contemplation and reflection. For this reason, noise and any forms of distraction are discouraged, and even policed by guards and librarians. However, within these spaces some students were observed working in small (3–5 students) and large (8–10) groups, keeping away from guards and librarians and keeping the conversation low; an indication that students undertake collaborative learning activities and that it is important to have spaces for group work and discussion in libraries.

Whether open or enclosed, individual study areas support students seeking privacy, quiet, silence and seclusion as well as those wanting to study alone but alongside others. There are also those without options or opportunities for study space on campus or elsewhere. This is in tandem with the findings of other scholars (Tavaniemi et al., 2015; Thomas et al., 2015) indicating that students value quiet individual study spaces in libraries. Harrop and Turpin (2013) found that students prefer spaces where they are not likely to be disturbed but observed that not all students working individually wish to be in a quiet environment. This is confirmed by Kinsley et al. (2015) who found that while some students needed a silent space to study, many favored ambient noise though in moderation. This points to the variety of need among students and the reason why libraries cannot afford to provide only one type of space as is the case in the libraries studied.

Computer spaces – Findings revealed that computer areas in the libraries are variously labelled as “computer lab”, “resource center” and “e-resource center”. These were regarded by students and librarians as very important since “some students do not have personal computers or smart phones”. However, in all the cases studied, it was observed that the computers provided were few in number and students had to queue; also, they were old, not serviced or furnished with up-to-date software and hardware, therefore, “not exciting to use” as explained by one student respondent.

As technology advances, more information and learning resources are in electronic and online formats. Libraries have found it necessary to provide access points making computer access and use one of the primary reasons students visit libraries. These spaces are especially supportive to students who do not own smartphones or laptops. However, the sufficiency and efficiency of computers in the case libraries seems to be wanting. Students and librarians stated that they would be more satisfied if there were more and better computers available for student learning. Indeed, access to computers in the libraries is deficient, the number of computers is small and their maintenance is poor. On the other hand, scholars argue that computers have been part of standard practice in libraries for more than thirty years (Thompson, 2012), now 40 years; from the mid-1990s they have been part of the Information Commons (Turner et al., 2013), a service model which is yet to be realized in Kenyan academic libraries (Musangi et al., 2019). Watson and Howden (2013) reported that the trend in academic libraries has been a technology-rich space which supports unrestricted use of computers and mobile devices. Thompson (2012) observed that the original focus of computers which was to provide access to e-resources has expanded to general-use computers supporting student research, from original resource discovery to the preparation of the final research paper.

Kenyan academic libraries appear to be lagging behind with regard to being technology-rich as students also complained about the small number of power outlets and poor Internet connectivity. Possibly, the perception of library use among librarians is yet to migrate from purely providing spaces for studying to include other learning activities; computers are yet to be regarded as central to learning in libraries and given the right level of emphasis. Libraries are also experiencing financial struggles as noted by Ngetich et al. (2016), that have not allowed them to grow the number of computers available to students. A mind shift might be necessary so that a balance is achieved between investment in information resources and information access resources like computers.

Discussion/Group work spaces - Three out of the four case libraries did not provide discussion or group work spaces. Additionally, discussion and group work were identified by this study as the two main academic activities that were not supported in the libraries. Students reported that they had to find other campus locations to discuss class work or undertake team projects. This is not supportive of the current approaches to teaching and learning which emphasize project-based learning and collaborative work. Cunningham and Tabur (2012) observed that a major trend in libraries at the beginning of the century was to increase the amount of space for group study. This trend has not ceased since Head (2016) found that many stakeholders, in library space projects completed between 2011 and 2016 in the US and Canada, highly valued the creation of collaborative learning spaces. This is confirmed by Kim et al. (2021) and Qazza (2021) that many universities have redesigned their libraries to include spaces for collaboration that learners actually regard as very important.

The case in Kenyan academic libraries seems to be quite different. Perhaps the notion of the library as a quiet or silent place is yet to evolve. Librarians indicated that they would be more satisfied if they had spaces designated for discussion and group study in their libraries implying that together with other stakeholders, they appreciate the need to accommodate team activities in the libraries but are likely constrained by space, funds or the existing designs. However, one of the libraries had six discussion rooms. While this number is small compared to the number of students the library is meant to serve, it is a demonstration that libraries in Kenya are starting to acknowledge the need to uphold collaborative learning.

Non-library spaces - Other spaces available in the libraries as ascertained through observation, although not across all the libraries surveyed include: instruction rooms, conference rooms, innovation hub, presentation space, Persons With Disabilities space, leisure reading area, and exhibition area. Other non-library facilities like snack bars, art galleries, writing labs, education technology centers, classrooms and multimedia centers are yet to be included in the libraries as per the observation data.

These disparate spaces, though mainly observed in only one of the libraries studied, are not unexpected in libraries. There are reports that the trend in academic libraries is to become a Learning Commons where technology and people are brought together to create knowledge collaboratively in a social environment (Thomas et al., 2015). These spaces can be described as non-library since they were not traditionally located in libraries and may not be regarded as directly impacting student learning as their activities are outside ‘quiet study’ or ‘access to information materials’. They are run by librarians or non-library partners like Student Affairs, and serve to provide an array of services. They can be useful in hosting workshops, meetings, hands-on training and for practicing presentations. They provide opportunities for co-curricular learning, fostering creativity and innovation.

One library already has well laid out architectural plans that include these spaces. Clearly, academic libraries in Kenya, while not at the same level or pace, are making strides towards becoming learning hubs. It is possible that their achievement is hindered by such factors as being seen as peripheral to student learning, the high financial investment required and the limitations of the existing space. Where these spaces are already part of the library it was notable that they are yet to welcome and include student learning activities. For example, the exhibition space found in one of the libraries is only used to display new books, the innovation hub is meant for a few select students, and the conference rooms are for campus-wide meetings which are mostly exclusive of students. These spaces are yet to be treated as go-to spaces for students. An analysis of these spaces and the value they bring to student learning would help librarians and other stakeholders to design, service and position them better.

Interaction and socialization spaces

Collaborative and social approaches to teaching and learning, which are now common in institutions of higher education call for supportive learning spaces. None of the case libraries provided space for socialization and interaction. This is inconsistent with reports by such scholars as Bryant et al. (2009), Crook and Mitchell (2012) as well as Wu et al. (2021) who observed that the campus physical infrastructure including libraries is being redesigned to enrich the formal learning experience by accommodating a more socially-interactive notion of study, social exchange, unplanned social encounters and to catalyze socializing.

Students interviewed stated that they would like to see spaces for interaction and socialization brought into the library. Most expressed their desire for discussion rooms, a café or snack bar for food and drink and recreational space where they can meet and chat with friends. Below are some of their comments:

“The whole library is kind of solemn. I would like to come with my friends, they sit next and do their work and we can talk if we want to” STU005

“Drinking water and snacks would help me stay longer. When you go outside the mood goes” STU054

The expressed desire by students and librarians for social or recreational spaces aligns with the finding of Mathews et al. (2011) where students were drawn into social learning spaces by the comfortable furniture, regulated temperature, openness, food facilities and large tables. Possibly, students in Kenyan universities do not have socializing as an objective when going to the library but they appreciate a place where they can take a break from their studies, relax, catch up with friends and news, and also re-energize. This is particularly important for those who wish to sit for long hours and where the library is located away from other social amenities. Students and librarians suggested that to enhance interaction and socialization, these spaces will need to have big and small tables; tea, coffee, snacks and food; water dispensers; microwaves; easy and soft seating; novels, magazines and newspapers; games; as well as televisions, big screens and smart boards. Indeed, as per the observation data, none of the libraries studied provides a relaxing zone, with food and/or drink, fewer rules and less control; where students can interact, socialize or work collaboratively. Students and librarians proposed that these spaces can be located within the library building or just outside, so long as they are easily accessible and the noise coming from there does not disturb those who are seeking silence.

Supportive space features

Apart from providing space for learning, attention has to be paid to what goes into that space to make it usable and useful. This study examined space features through interviews and observations. From observation, newer buildings exhibit large spaces and students interviewed referred to them as “spacious” “not crowded”, allowing free movement, access and interaction. Further, they have ramps and lifts that increase access especially for Persons With Disabilities (PWDs). Librarians interviewed complained of insufficient space in the older libraries, crowding especially during exams and limited movement or access and facilities for students. However, students from across the libraries stated that they value “silent”, “quiet”, “no noise” and “secluded” as features that support their learning. This concurs with the findings of Oliveira (2016) which established that students valued silence to a high degree and the Head (2016) observation that in designing libraries, architects and librarians struggled with reducing noise in response to users’ complaints. It is possible that among the informal learning spaces across the campuses, the library is chosen for its ‘no noise’ policy. Equally, students in this study observed that the other informal learning spaces can be ‘too noisy’.

Natural light and good air circulation are other space features mentioned frequently by the students interviewed. The researchers observed that some of the library buildings are green, using natural light throughout the day, with skylight through their atriums; well ventilated to allow air circulation and fitted with big windows that allow a view of the outside. It was also observed that some of the libraries under study cannot function without artificial lighting in some of their spaces. One student participant observed that “books are covering the windows” making the place dark and devoid of natural light. Low ceilings that compromise natural light were observed in some of the libraries. Dark spots with no lighting were also notable.

Most of the libraries make efforts to stay clean and tidy. Students described the spaces as “very clean”, “well organized” and “orderly” although in some cases students complained that sometimes washrooms were not cleaned and could smell. Chairs were described as “uncomfortable” and “cold”. In one of the libraries students were seen with their own small pillows for cushioning the wooden and metallic chairs. Where the chairs are cushioned, they were described as “just right” for long hours of sitting. Tables within the learning spaces, as observed, vary in size, some are large and wide, others are partitioned to reduce openness and create individualized space. Some libraries had soft seating within the reading spaces. No library provided flexible or configurable furniture.

Students’ desire for better chairs, more natural light, flowing air, and clean spaces including restrooms is an indication that they would like to learn in a space that provides physical comfort and where their physiological needs are met. This is somehow in agreement with findings from a survey conducted by Cha and Kim (2015) where amount of space, level of noise, crowdedness, comfort of furnishing and cleanliness were identified as the main attributes that influence the choice of a learning space. Although students in this study did not seem to worry about the amount of space, librarians wished for more space especially during intensive use periods and so as to be able to provide more options of study space.

Furniture comfort was described by students as soft chairs and not the hard or cold wooden or metallic chairs provided in most of the libraries. Other desirable furniture characteristics like variety, mobility and adjustability as identified by Andrews et al. (2016) did not emerge. Clearly, students in this study desire basic comfort with regards to furniture. This is unlike students in Andrews et al. (2016) who wanted lounging, reclining or relaxed chairs, straight back chairs and tables in a variety of sizes, shapes and heights; or in Twait (2009) whose needs and desires included longer couches where they could take power naps. It is possible that the view of the library as a learning space among Kenyan students is still conservative and that such variety in furniture provision is yet to be seen as necessary or viable.

Various tools, equipment and facilities are provided in the spaces to enable and support learning. Student interviews indicated that the availability of the Internet, cabled and Wi-Fi, in the spaces was a major reason why students chose a space for their learning. They reported that they use the Internet to access academic databases, stream educative videos and for social media although it was “not strong” and “unstable”. One student confirmed the high demand for the Internet saying that “I honestly have no idea what I would come to do in the library if there was no Internet” (STU041). Computers, printers and power outlets within the spaces, though generally described as insufficient, were also regarded as supportive of student learning. Smart boards and white boards are provided in discussion, presentation and instruction rooms though not across the libraries. In agreement, other scholars (Cha and Kim, 2015; May and Swabey, 2015), report that availability of computers and low-tech features are among the generally-accepted space attributes that affect space choice and user satisfaction. However, Andrews et al. (2016) found that over and above low-tech features, students desired higher end technology like smartboards, tablets embedded in tables, document cameras, multi-touch wall surfaces, media players and an iPad library. Comparable to this study, Head (2016) found that sufficiency of power outlets for students to charge their IT devices was a common challenge discussed by librarians.

Observation data showed that across the case libraries color has not been used to enhance ambience. Any one library has one color all through its walls and floors although one library has a different color of furniture in its leisure reading space. Wall art was only seen in one of the libraries that has murals. Carpets and soft furnishings were either not there or used minimally. Both librarians and students suggested variety in color and art on the walls as features that would make the learning spaces more appealing.

There was a noted emphasis by some study participants on nature and the need to bring the outside in or a view of the outside. In the newly built libraries, students appreciated the big windows and the presence of plants in the spaces. Where these have not been achieved, students and librarians expressed their desire and even proposed rearranging the stacks to allow more natural light and reduce the shadows. Water features like fountains, ponds and aquariums are the other features that study participants wished could be included in the learning spaces. There is no doubt that students would like to learn in a space that is functional, comfortable and relaxing. Besides, these are features that have been achieved in several libraries across the world and found to influence space-choice, overall satisfaction with learning spaces and even reduce library anxiety (Cha and Kim, 2015; Harrop and Turpin, 2013; Nieves-Whitmore, 2021).

Conclusion and recommendations

In view of the findings of this study, it can be concluded that academic libraries in Kenya provide spaces that are basic and partly supportive of student learning needs. They are set within the traditional storehouse view of libraries where services revolve around the collections as opposed to the users. Spaces in these libraries are yet to be redesigned to suit the support needed for learning today, although a slow, disparate but sure reframing is ongoing as evidenced by some attributes of twenty-first century learning spaces found in the libraries studied.

Henri Lefebvre in his theory, Production of Space, maintains that cultures produce spaces and that the priorities of a given culture direct what is considered as normal activity within a space and how that space is to be managed. While this theory was initially applied in urban spaces, it provides a springboard for understanding the production of library space This means that library spaces cannot afford to be static, it is imperative that they are reimagined. To elevate their value and evolve into popular campus destinations that are supportive of student learning, this study recommends that academic libraries in Kenya should:

Seek a good understanding of student needs and expectations - Existing and new library space should be allowed to evolve according to student needs, desires and activities. While it may be easy to copy what has been achieved by other libraries, especially in the Global North, or to simply add tables and chairs, there is a risk of having spaces that are not in tandem with the unique needs of an institution. Librarians should move beyond the usual satisfaction surveys and spend time observing and talking to students, users and non-users, using a variety of mechanisms, to understand what they really want. Librarians should be willing to let go of some of the long-held practices such as the view of libraries as entirely quiet spaces and allow a real evolution to take place.

Consider a change in collection development and management - Libraries should be deliberate about creating learning spaces by managing collections differently. This would mean, first, accepting that their worth is not necessarily expressed by the number of volumes and then conduct a proper analysis of physical collections with regard to their use and value to student learning. Without fear of being regarded as ‘empty’, decisions should then be made about the storage of inactive and redundant collections as well as the expansion of learner spaces and digital collections.

Infuse variety in the learning spaces - Given that today's teaching and learning approaches focus more on collaboration and group work, librarians in Kenya could consider including spaces that foster social learning in the libraries. Bennett (2015) notes that knowledge is created through collaborative learning in the library spaces and Kim et al. (2021) argue that the modern academic library has evolved into spaces where active and social learning take place as students interact. Therefore, while individual and quiet study spaces are required and necessary for learning in libraries, their dominance excludes other students, and disempowers some learning activities and styles. Variety in space provisions would ensure that a majority of student needs and preferences is included and accommodated.

This research established the status of physical library learning spaces in selected universities. The findings, when applied to a wider variety of academic libraries in Kenya, should provide a better understanding of how physical features of the library space influence use and satisfaction which would assist those involved in the design and development of academic library learning spaces in Kenya's universities. Acknowledging that redesign projects are often very expensive and that Kenyan universities are struggling financially (Ngetich et al. 2016), this study suggests five ways in which libraries can re-shape their spaces on a zero or minimal budget. These include:

Zoning to increase variety. The libraries can designate certain floors as quiet, noisy, or social. Redundant collections can be used to create book walls to separate different zones.

Furniture re-arrangements can be considered when trying to achieve zones. Also, it is possible that libraries are holding on to furniture that is hardly used, moving it around or out of the library can lead to space that is more collaborative, not crowded, airy and better-looking with a view of the outside.

Technology related challenges can be addressed through simple but deliberate efforts like making charging cables available for checkout. Also, internal expertise can be sought to keep the library provided computers in good form. Where software is outdated, these experts can explore open-source options.

Inactive and redundant collections can be identified and moved off-site or to basements and other areas within the building that are not popular among users. This is likely to free-up the spaces for learner activities and to make the spaces less crowded, therefore, more ambient.

Student works can be displayed on library walls for ambience and as a celebration of the successes of members of the learning community.

Indeed, repurposing and implementing modern learning spaces would help Kenyan academic libraries to: achieve increased and sustained relevance in the twenty-first century; provide an enriching and student-friendly environment that caters for a wider continuum of learning needs; become a one-stop-shop that goes beyond traditional library services; and to further their community building role by being a physical center of gravity that motivates and energizes its members.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Azenath Ateka

About the authors

Azenath Ateka is principal librarian at the United States International University – Africa and a PhD candidate at Moi University, Department of Library, Records Management and Information Studies.

Emily Bosire is a senior lecturer at Moi University, Department of Library, Records Management and Information Studies.

Elsebah Maseh is a senior lecturer at Moi University and currently chairs the department of Library, Records Management and Information Studies.

References

Adedokun

Parker

Henke

, et al. (2017) Student perceptions of a 21st century learning space. Journal of Learning Spaces 6(1). https://libjournal.uncg.edu/jls/article/view/1339/1029

Adeyemi BM (2015) Implementing information commons: The challenges and prospects for Nigerian academic libraries. Journal of Library, Educational Media and Information Studies 7: 1–11.

Amresh

Carberry

Femiani

(2013) Evaluating the effectiveness of flipped classrooms for teaching CS1. In: 2013 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE), Oklahoma City, USA, 23–26 October 2013, pp.733–735. https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/FIE.2013.6684923.

Anderson

(2013) China Projects and trends. In: Watson

(eds) Better Library and Learning Space: Projects, Trends and Ideas. London: Facet Publishing, pp.37–48.

Andrews

Wright

Raskin

(2016) Library learning spaces: Investigating libraries and investing in student feedback. Journal of Library Administration 56(6): 647–672.

Anggiani

Heryanto

(2018) A study of informal space on campus by looking at student preferences. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, International conference on design, engineering and computer sciences 20189, Jakarta, Indonesia, August 2018, p. 012029. IOP Publishing.

Barbakoff

(2017) Balancing collections and connections. Library Journal 142(15): 32–35.

Bazeley

(2013) Qualitative Data Analysis: Practical Strategies. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Beichner

(2014) History and evolution of active learning space. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 137: 9–16.

10.

Bennett S (2015) Putting learning into library planning. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 15(2): 215-231.

11.

Blummer

Kenton

(2017) Access and accessibility of academic libraries’ electronic resources and services: Identifying themes in the literature from 2000 to the present. In: Alphin Jr

Lavine

Chan

(eds) Disability and Equity in Higher Education Accessibility. Pennsylvania: IGI Global, pp.242–267.

12.

Bryant

Matthews

Walton

(2009) Academic libraries and social and learning space: A case study of Loughborough University Library, UK. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 41(1): 7–18.

13.

Bryman

(2012) Social Research Methods. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

14.

Cannell

(2013) A great opportunity: Redeveloping library space. In: Matthews

Walton

(eds) University Libraries and Space in the Digital World. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 121–138.

15.

Cha

Kim

(2015) What matters for students’ use of physical library space? The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41(3): 274–279.

16.

Charo

Bassett

Weaver

, et al. (2019) Improving higher education performance in Kenya: A policy report. 21 August.

17.

Childs

Matthews

Walton

(2013) Space, use and university libraries – the future? In: Matthews

Walton G

(eds) University Libraries and Space in the Digital World. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, pp.201–213.

18.

Commission for University Education (2022) Status of universities. Available at: https://www.cue.or.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21&Itemid=475 (accessed 25 August 2022).

19.

Cribb

Schmidt

(2011) Accommodating shifting user expectations. In WLIC, 77th IFLA General Conference and Assembly. Available at: http://eresearch.ozyegin.edu.tr/handle/10679/160 (accessed 8 June 2023).

20.

Crook

Mitchell

(2012) Ambience in social learning: Student engagement with new designs for learning spaces. Cambridge Journal of Education 42(2): 121–139.

21.

Cunningham

Tabur

(2012) Learning space attributes: Reflections on academic library design and its use. Journal of Learning Spaces 1(2): 2.

22.

Deed

(2017) Adapting to the virtual campus and transitions in ‘school-less’ teacher education. In: Clandinin

Husu

(eds) Sage International Handbook of Research in Teacher Education. London: Sage Publications, pp.1085–1100.

23.

Donkai

Toshimori

Mizoue

(2011) Academic libraries as learning spaces in Japan: Toward the development of learning commons. The International Information & Library Review 43(4): 215–220.

24.

Ellis

Goodyear

(2016) Models of learning space: Integrating research on space, place and learning in higher education. Review of Education 4(2): 149–191.

25.

Fallin

(2016) Beyond books: The concept of the academic library as learning space. New Library World 117(5-6): 308–320.

26.

Flick

(2014) An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

27.

Fox

Sidorko

(2013) Hong Kong Projects and trends. In: Watson

(eds) Better Library and Learning Spaces: Projects, Trends and Ideas. London: Facet Publishing, pp.49–60.

28.

Harrop

Turpin

(2013) A study exploring learners’ informal learning space behaviors, attitudes, and preferences. New Review of Academic Librarianship 19(1): 58–77.

29.

Harvey

Kenyon

(2013) Classroom seating considerations for 21st century students and faculty. Journal of Learning Spaces 2(1). https://libjournal.uncg.edu/jls/article/view/578/454

30.

Head

(2016) Planning and designing academic library learning spaces: Expert perspectives of architects, librarians and library consultants. A Project Information Literacy Research Report. 6 December 2016. The Practitioner Series.

31.

Holley

(2013) Library space and technology. University libraries and space in the digital world, 51–69.

32.

Karasic

(2016) From commons to classroom: The evolution of learning spaces in academic libraries. Journal of Learning Spaces 5(2): 53–60.

33.

Kavulya

(2006) Trends in funding of university libraries in Kenya: A survey. The Bottom Line 19(1): 22–30.

34.

Keppell

Riddle

(2013) Principles for design and evaluation of learning spaces. In: Luckin

Puntambekar

Goodyear

Grabowski

Underwood

Winters

(eds) Handbook of Design in Educational Technology. Oxfordshire: Routledge, pp.20–32.

35.

Kim

Hong

Yang

(2021) Perceived productivity in open-plan design library: Exploring students’ behaviors and perceptions. Journal of Learning Spaces 10(3): 28–42.

36.

Kinsley

Besara

Scheel

, et al. (2015) Graduate conversations: Assessing the space needs of graduate students. College & Research Libraries 76(6): 756–770.

37.

Kramon

Posner

(2016) Ethnic favoritism in education in Kenya. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 11(1): 1–58.

38.

Latimer

(2011) Collections to connections: Changing spaces and new challenges in academic library buildings. Library Trends 60(1): 112–133.

39.

Makokha

Mutisya

(2016) Status of e-learning in public universities in Kenya. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 17(3): 341–359.

40.

Makori

(2009) Reinventing academic libraries in Kenya. Library Hi Tech News 26(5/6): 10–13.

41.

Matthews

Andrews

Adams

(2011) Social learning spaces and student engagement. Higher Education Research & Development 30(2): 105–120.

42.

May

Swabey

(2015) Using and experiencing the academic library: A multisite observational study of space and place. College & Research Libraries 76(6): 771–795.

43.

Mills AJ, Durepos J and Wiebe E (eds.) (2010) Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

44.

Mukhwana E, Oure S, Kiptoo S, et al. (2016) State of university education in Kenya. Commission for University Education, Discussion Paper 4(3).

45.

Musangi

Odero

Kwanya

(2019) Information commons: A service model for academic libraries in Kenya. In: Kwanya

Kiplang’at

Wamukoya

Njiraine

(eds) Digital Technologies for Information and Knowledge Management. Nairobi: The Technical University of Kenya, pp.206–213.

46.

Ngetich

Rotich

Otike

(2016) Fundraising as a source of funding for public university libraries in Kenya. Mousaion: South African Journal of Information Studies 34(1): 123–148.

47.

Nieves-Whitmore

(2021) The relationship between academic library design and library anxiety in students. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 21(3): 485–510.

48.

Ocholla

(2020) Readiness of academic libraries in South Africa to research, teaching and learning support in the fourth industrial revolution. Library Management 41(6/7): 355–368.

49.

Odhiambo

(2011) Higher education quality in Kenya: A critical reflection of key challenges. Quality in Higher Education 17(3): 299–315.

50.

ODonnell

Anderson

(2022) The university library: Places for possibility. New Review of Academic Librarianship 28(3): 232–255.

51.

Oliveira

(2016) Space preference at James White Library: What students really want. Journal of Academic Librarianship 42(4): 355–367.

52.

Oliveira

(2018) Trends in academic library space: From book boxes to learning commons. Open Information Science 2: 59–74.

53.

O'Neill

(2013) Limitless learning: Creating adaptable environments to support a changing campus. Planning for Higher Education 42(1): 11.

54.

Painter

Fournier

Grape

, et al. (2013) Research on learning space design: Present state, future directions. Report from the Recipients of the 2012 Perry Chapman Prize. Michigan: Society of College and University.

55.

Patton

(2015) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. 4th ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

56.

Peng

Jin

Deng

, et al. (2022) Students’ perceptions of active learning classrooms from an informal learning perspective: Building a full-time sustainable learning environment in higher education. Sustainability 14(14): 8578.

57.

Qazza

(2021) A framework for the design of informal learning spaces (ILS) to facilitate informal learning in Jordan universities. PhD Dissertation, University of the West of England, UK.

58.

Radcliffe D (2009) A pedagogy-space-technology (PST) framework for designing and evaluating learning places. In: Radcliffe D, Wilson H, Powell D and Tibbetts B (eds.), Learning Spaces in Higher Education: Positive Outcomes by Design, 11–16. Proceedings of the Next Generation Learning Spaces 2008 Colloquium. Brisbane: University of Queensland.

59.

Saharkhiz

Valizadeh

Salamat

(2017) The evolution of academic libraries in the age of technology. Journal of History Culture and Art Research 5(4): 402–415.

60.

Saunders

Lewis

Thornhill

(2016) Research Methods for Business Students. 7th ed. Pearson.

61.

Sawers

Wicks

Mvududu

, et al. (2016) What drives student engagement: Is it learning space, instructor behavior, or teaching philosophy? Journal of Learning Spaces 5(2): 26–38.

62.

Scholl

Gulwadi

(2015) Recognizing campus landscapes as learning spaces. Journal of Learning Spaces 4(1): 53–60.

63.

Seal

(2015) Library spaces in the 21st century: Meeting the challenges of user needs for information technology, and expertise. Library Management 36(8/9): 558–569.

64.

Sheikh

(2015) Development of information commons in university libraries of Pakistan: The current scenario. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41(2): 130–139.

65.

Simon

(2013) US Projects and trends. In: Watson

(eds) Better Library and Learning Space: Projects, Trends and Ideas. London: Facet Publishing, pp.22–36.

66.

Spencer

Watstein

(2017) Academic library spaces: Advancing student success and helping students thrive. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 17(2): 389–402.

67.

Staley

Malenfant

(2010) Futures thinking for academic librarians: Higher education in 2025. Information Services & Use 30(1–2): 57–90.

68.

Steiner

Holley

(2009) The past, present, and possibilities of commons in the academic library. The Reference Librarian 50(4): 309–332.

69.

Tavaniemi

Poutanen

Lahdemaki

(2015) Library as partner in co-designing learning spaces: A case study at Tampere University of Technology, Finland. New Review of Academic Librarianship 21(3): 304–324.

70.

Thomas

Van Horne

Jacobson

, et al. (2015) The design and assessment of the learning commons at the University of Iowa. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41(6): 804–813.

71.

Thompson

(2012) Student use of library computers: Are desktop computers still relevant in today's libraries? Information Technology and Libraries 31(4): 20–33.

72.

Turner

Welch

Reynolds

(2013) Learning spaces in academic libraries: A review of the evolving trends. Australian Academic & Research Libraries 44(4): 226–234.

73.

Twait

(2009) If they build it, they will come: A student-designed library. College & Research Libraries News 70(1): 21–24.

74.

Warwick

(2014) The evolving academic library and its role in delivering flexible learning. Journal of Library and Information Sciences 2(1): 57–71.

75.

Watson

Howden

(2013) UK Projects and trends. In: Watson

(eds) Better Library and Learning Space: Projects, Trends and Ideas. London: Facet Publishing, 5–20.

76.

Whiteside

Brooks

Walker

(2010) Making the case for space: Three years of empirical research on learning environments. Educause Quarterly 33(3): 11.

77.

Kou

Oldfield

, et al. (2021) Informal learning spaces in higher education: Student preferences and activities. Buildings 11: 252.

78.

Yin RK (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods 4th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

79.

Yin

(2014) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

80.

Zhu

(2021) Reflection on the center for digital scholarship in China: A case study on space redesign. Reference Services Review 49(2): 211–226.