1. Objectives
In Japanese universities, the realization of a new type of group learning environment, based on the use of analogic and digital media, has been promoted: Learning Commons (hereinafter, "LC").
Recently, examples of LC built separately from university library have increased. In the previous report, we conducted surveys in libraries where the reading area and the LCs are integrated, aiming to clarify the seat choice behavior of individual and group users. However, it was still to define if all the users actually choose only one of those two types, or if some of them rather choose both types.
For this reason, we tried to clarify the differentiated use behavior of reading areaff and LCs, aiming to acquire a useful knowledge for future learning space planning.
2. Research method
We conducted a questionnaire survey and a behavior observation survey regarding the use status (addressed to users), and a questionnaire survey regarding the facility conditions (addressed to library staff).
The surveys were conducted in four Japanese universities: Sugiyama Jogakuen University, Ritsumeikan University, Chubu University, and Kyoto Sangyo University, which have different LC installation types. All of those institutions have more than 6,000 students and multiple departments. The different LC installation types have been identified as “integrated open type” (Sugiyama Jogakuen Univ.), “integrated separate type” (Ritsumeikan Univ.), “distributed combined type” (Chubu Univ.), “distributed independent type” (Kyoto Sangyo Univ.).
3. Results
We noted that, as for the actual conditions, LC facilities have been built outside the library building in those universities where the number of students is larger.
Our hypothesis was that most of the single users tend to chose reading areas, and that most of the group users tend to chose LC; however, the results showed that around the 50% of the plural places users tend to choose both facilities, regardless of single or group use.
The analysis of this portion of users’ behavior made clear that, between the reasons of their place choice, there are the possibility of using learning tools as PCs and copy machines, and the factor of nearness (LC facilities situated near the faculty building were largely used).
In the “distributed type”, a large number of users chose both reading areas and LC because of the quiet environment. From this, it can be thought that by separating LC from the library building, it becomes possible to create various acoustic environments inside the vast surface obtained. Also in the “integrated open type”, where there are no partitions between reading areas and LC, and where, within the same floor, there is a differentiation of quiet and lively spaces, many users’ purpose was “to find a quiet environment”. This behavior could only mean that the concept of “quietness” is not only linked to the absence of sound.
4. Conclusions
From those considerations, it seems necessary to provide a differentiation in the sound environment of the learning spaces. Even by planning spaces where there is a sort of “noisy” acoustic condition, it becomes possible to increase the place choice factors of the users.
