In this round of analysis, we had some new metrics of library usage which weren’t available to researchers in the first round of the project. I’ve already blogged about one of them – overnight usage – and there’s more on that later in this post, but first I’d like to talk about the other three. These are – the number of e-resources accessed (as distinct from the hours spent logged into e-resources); the number of e-resources accessed 5 or more times, and the number of e-resources accessed 25 or more times. These metrics show how many of Huddersfield’s 240-odd e-resources, which range from large journal platforms and databases down to individual journal subscriptions, a student has logged into during the year, once, at least five times or at least 25 times.
You’ll already have seen these three dimensions in the posts on our demographic and subject-based analysis. But now I’m going to see whether there’s a relationship between use on these dimensions and final degree outcome, using the same methodology as Phase 1 of the project. Figure 1 shows the results.
Figure 1: Usage and final degree outcome
As you can see, there are quite a few statistically significant differences for the e-resource dimensions. Most of these are small effects, but the difference between a first and a third is medium sized for the number of e-resources accessed, and the number accessed five or more times. This is a really interesting finding. It suggests that breadth of reading – indicated by using a number of different e-resources – might be a particularly important factor in degree success, and leads to all kinds of questions about how the library might support students in reading widely.
You can see that we’ve found a difference for the percentage of overnight usage as well! Weirdly, this only pops up in relation to the difference between 2.i and 2.ii degrees, and it’s a miniscule effect. I’m inclined to dismiss this as a blip and go with our previous finding that there isn’t a significant difference between grades in terms of their overnight usage: with the same caveat that our model is different from the one used by Manchester Met, and thus perhaps not as able to identify nuanced differences.