(n / %) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
Business |
1 |
2 |
4 |
5 |
7 |
19 |
 |
5.3 |
10.5 |
21.1 |
26.3 |
36.8 |
100.0 |
Education |
1 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
12 |
19 |
 |
5.3 |
.0 |
10.5 |
21.1 |
63.2 |
100.0 |
Engineering |
2 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
9 |
18 |
 |
11.1 |
5.6 |
11.1 |
22.2 |
50.0 |
100.0 |
Fine Arts |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
14 |
16 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
6.3 |
6.3 |
87.5 |
100.0 |
Health Sci. |
0 |
0 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
16 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
37.5 |
31.3 |
31.3 |
100.0 |
Humanities |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
17 |
20 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
.0 |
15.0 |
85.0 |
100.0 |
Sciences |
1 |
1 |
4 |
8 |
17 |
31 |
 |
3.2 |
3.2 |
12.9 |
25.8 |
54.8 |
100.0 |
Social Sci. |
0 |
0 |
2 |
8 |
21 |
31 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
6.5 |
25.8 |
67.7 |
100.0 |
Library |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
5 |
8 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
.0 |
37.5 |
62.5 |
100.0 |
Other |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
 |
.0 |
50.0 |
50.0 |
.0 |
.0 |
100.0 |
Total |
5 |
5 |
22 |
41 |
107 |
180 |
 |
2.8 |
2.8 |
12.2 |
22.8 |
59.4 |
100.0 |
|
1 = (lowest) 5 = (highest) |
| |
|
Overall, a relatively high percentage rated the importance of print books as a 4 or 5 – 82% of the faculty respondents. Humanities was at the higher end of the spectrum with 100% of the faculty rating print books as a 4 or 5. Fine Arts and Social Sciences were close with 94% of the faculty giving print books the highest ratings. It is interesting to note the “lowest” percentage of high ratings – from Business and Health Sciences faculty at 64% -- is still a relatively high percentage. Support for print collections appears to have strong overall support from faculty.
|
Faculty by Subject Division
-- Electronic Books
|
(n / %) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
Business |
4 |
2 |
6 |
3 |
4 |
19 |
 |
21.1 |
10.5 |
31.6 |
15.8 |
21.1 |
100.0 |
Education |
1 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
19 |
 |
5.3 |
26.3 |
26.3 |
15.8 |
26.3 |
100.0 |
Engineering |
7 |
6 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
18 |
 |
38.9 |
33.3 |
11.1 |
11.1 |
5.6 |
100.0 |
Fine Arts |
9 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
16 |
 |
56.3 |
12.5 |
6.3 |
12.5 |
12.5 |
100.0 |
Health Sci. |
3 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
16 |
 |
18.8 |
31.3 |
12.5 |
18.8 |
18.8 |
100.0 |
Humanities |
7 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
20 |
 |
35.0 |
20.0 |
25.0 |
15.0 |
5.0 |
100.0 |
Sciences |
11 |
1 |
8 |
5 |
6 |
31 |
 |
35.5 |
3.2 |
25.8 |
16.1 |
19.4 |
100.0 |
Social Sci. |
14 |
6 |
7 |
2 |
2 |
31 |
 |
45.2 |
19.4 |
22.6 |
6.5 |
6.5 |
100.0 |
Library |
3 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
8 |
 |
37.5 |
37.5 |
12.5 |
.0 |
12.5 |
100.0 |
Other |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
50.0 |
.0 |
50.0 |
100.0 |
Total |
59 |
34 |
38 |
23 |
26 |
180 |
 |
32.8 |
18.9 |
21.1 |
12.8 |
14.4 |
100.0 |
|
1 = (lowest) 5 = (highest) |
|
 |
|
Electronic books rated the least important among faculty of the material categories surveyed. Only 14% of the faculty rated e-books as of the highest importance while 33% gave them the lowest ratings possible. Among the subject division, Education, Business, and Health Sciences faculty generally rated e-books more highly than other divisions. Fine Arts, Social Sciences, Engineering, and Humanities faculty gave relatively low ratings to e-books. It would be interesting to explore the reasons why the ratings were low or high, e.g. lack of awareness of e-book holdings, not enough holdings in particular areas, interface problems, etc.
|
Graduate Students by Subject Division
-- Print Books
|
(n / %) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Total |
Business |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
5 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
60.0 |
.0 |
40.0 |
100.0 |
Education |
1 |
4 |
2 |
10 |
8 |
25 |
 |
4.0 |
16.0 |
8.0 |
40.0 |
32.0 |
100.0 |
Engineering |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
11 |
17 |
 |
5.9 |
5.9 |
5.9 |
17.6 |
64.7 |
100.0 |
Fine Arts |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
.0 |
33.3 |
66.7 |
100.0 |
Health Sci. |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
.0 |
50.0 |
50.0 |
100.0 |
Humanities |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
10 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
.0 |
50.0 |
50.0 |
100.0 |
Sciences |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
9 |
13 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
7.7 |
23.1 |
69.2 |
100.0 |
Social Sci. |
0 |
0 |
2 |
8 |
17 |
27 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
7.4 |
29.6 |
63.0 |
100.0 |
Total |
2 |
5 |
9 |
32 |
57 |
105 |
 |
1.9 |
4.8 |
8.6 |
30.5 |
54.3 |
100.0 |
|
1 = (lowest) 5 = (highest) |
|
 |
|
Overall, nearly 84% of the graduate student respondents gave a high rating (4 or 5) to importance of print books. Graduate students in the Fine Arts, Health Sciences, Humanities, and Social Sciences rated print books with a 4 or 5 while there was more a mix in ratings among the students in Education and Engineering. Business had the smallest percentage of ratings of over 4 among the disciplines.
|
Graduate Students by Subject Division
-- Electronic Books
|
(n / %) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Total |
Business |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
 |
.0 |
20.0 |
20.0 |
40.0 |
20.0 |
100.0 |
Education |
5 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
7 |
25 |
 |
20.0 |
20.0 |
12.0 |
20.0 |
28.0 |
100.0 |
Engineering |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
8 |
17 |
 |
5.9 |
17.6 |
11.8 |
17.6 |
47.1 |
100.0 |
Fine Arts |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
6 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
50.0 |
.0 |
50.0 |
100.0 |
Health Sci. |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
50.0 |
.0 |
50.0 |
100.0 |
Humanities |
1 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
10 |
 |
10.0 |
30.0 |
30.0 |
10.0 |
20.0 |
100.0 |
Sciences |
4 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
6 |
13 |
 |
30.8 |
.0 |
.0 |
23.1 |
46.2 |
100.0 |
Social Sci. |
9 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
27 |
 |
33.3 |
18.5 |
14.8 |
18.5 |
14.8 |
100.0 |
Total |
20 |
17 |
17 |
19 |
32 |
105 |
 |
19.0 |
16.2 |
16.2 |
18.1 |
30.5 |
100.0 |
|
1 = (lowest) 5 = (highest) |
|
 |
|
A much smaller percentage of graduate student respondents gave a high rating of over 4 to the importance of electronic books compared to print books – 48%. A greater percentage of students in the sciences and engineering considered books highly important while the lowest ratings came from students in the Social Sciences and Humanities.
|
Undergraduate Students by Subject Division
-- Print Books
|
(n / %) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Total |
Business |
0 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
11 |
 |
.0 |
27.3 |
9.1 |
.0 |
63.6 |
100.0 |
Education |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
100.0 |
.0 |
.0 |
100.0 |
Engineering |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
 |
33.3 |
.0 |
.0 |
.0 |
66.7 |
100.0 |
Fine Arts |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
5 |
 |
.0 |
20.0 |
.0 |
20.0 |
60.0 |
100.0 |
Health Sci. |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
 |
.0 |
33.3 |
.0 |
.0 |
66.7 |
100.0 |
Humanities |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
.0 |
.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Sciences |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
6 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
.0 |
.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Social Sci. |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
15 |
17 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
5.9 |
5.9 |
88.2 |
100.0 |
Other |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
.0 |
.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Total |
1 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
39 |
51 |
 |
2.0 |
9.8 |
7.8 |
3.9 |
76.5 |
100.0 |
|
1 = (lowest)
5 = (highest) |
|
 |
|
Just over 80% of undergraduate student respondents gave either a 4 or 5 rating to print books. The relatively low number of respondents makes it hard to see any trends across subject areas.
|
Undergraduate Students by Subject Division -- Electronic Books
|
(n / %) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Total |
Business |
2 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
11 |
 |
18.2 |
18.2 |
.0 |
27.3 |
36.4 |
100.0 |
Education |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
.0 |
.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Engineering |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
.0 |
.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Fine Arts |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
 |
.0 |
20.0 |
.0 |
60.0 |
20.0 |
100.0 |
Health Sci. |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
33.3 |
33.3 |
33.3 |
100.0 |
Humanities |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
 |
33.3 |
33.3 |
.0 |
33.3 |
.0 |
100.0 |
Sciences |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
 |
50.0 |
.0 |
16.7 |
.0 |
33.3 |
100.0 |
Social Sci. |
4 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
6 |
17 |
 |
23.5 |
11.8 |
23.5 |
5.9 |
35.3 |
100.0 |
Other |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
 |
.0 |
.0 |
.0 |
.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Total |
10 |
6 |
6 |
9 |
20 |
51 |
 |
19.6 |
11.8 |
11.8 |
17.6 |
39.2 |
100.0 |
|
1 = (lowest)
5 = (highest) |
|
 |
|
Electronic books were generally rated less important than other formats. Only 57% of undergraduate student respondents gave higher ratings to electronic books while 20% of all students gave e-books the lowest rating possible (1). The lower ratings were especially prevalent in the Humanities, Sciences, and Social Sciences.
|