Academic Success and Campus Engagement: Insights from Library Usage at Two Universities

Jung Mi Scoulas, Sandra L. De Groote, Kimberly Shotick, Ian Christensen, and Yishan Yu*

This paper presents the findings from a survey distributed at two academic institutions, exploring undergraduates’ campus engagement, self-regulated learning, and definitions of academic success. The library was the most frequently visited campus service, and students used it for both academic and nonacademic activities. Students identified obtaining good grades as their top definition of academic success. Participation in library and campus activities, use of online library resources, social learning, and improved concentration were positively associated. These findings highlight the crucial role of academic libraries and their potential for collaboration with other campus units to support student success.

Introduction

Student success is central to the mission of higher education, though understanding what success is and how to help students achieve it is an ongoing challenge. While institutions typically look at success metrics such as grade point average (GPA) and retention, these data lack sufficient detail to tell the story of students’ experiences, goals, and hurdles. To better understand students’ experiences on campus and their relationship with student success, this study seeks to identify students’ own definitions of success and how academic engagement—including library use, correlates with their success. Additionally, this study looks at the challenges students face in meeting their academic goals to inform interventions aimed at reducing barriers to success. Academic libraries are well-positioned to investigate these questions, as libraries are not only centers of information, but providers of services, spaces, and resources designed to foster students’ academic growth and development across disciplines.

To get a fuller understanding of students’ experiences, the research team developed two assessment tools with the support of federal funding (Institute of Museum and Library Services, 2022). One of the assessment tools is a one-time Student Academic Engagement and Success (SAES) survey that examined students’ campus engagement activities; reasons for using or not using the library building and online resources; perceptions of their own abilities in goal management, information literacy, and social learning; and views on their academic success. Additionally, an eight-week online weekly journal allowed students to track their campus engagement, to identify factors affecting their academic work, and to capture and evaluate their academic success. After validating and pilot-testing the assessment tools at a public research university (see Scoulas et al., 2024), the team revised and implemented the updated versions at both the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) and Northern Illinois University (NIU) in spring 2024.

This paper presents the findings from the SAES survey conducted at both institutions, exploring how undergraduate students engage in campus activities. As the student demographics at both institutions were similar, similar and differing undergraduate student academic experiences will provide further valuable insights into students’ academic success. Ultimately, this project aims to make assessment tools accessible to other academic libraries that seek to better understand their students’ academic engagement and success. By utilizing these tools, libraries will be equipped with evidence-based data that empowers them to understand their institution’s unique needs and lead conversations on student success. These insights will also enable academic libraries to gain a comprehensive understanding of students’ academic experiences at their institution and will aid in developing programs that are integral to campus initiatives and contribute to enhancing student outcomes.

Literature Review

Engagement Across Campus

Student campus engagement has been explored in relation to student success, both at the campus level and specific to academic libraries. Student engagement is multifaceted but focuses on outcomes-related activities (Appleton, 2020). The activities can include teaching and learning, extra-curricular activities, and/or how students interact with the library—or other support services—to seek assistance with outcomes. Ferrari et al. (2009) explored goal orientations focused on performance avoidance, performance approach, and mastery and the relationship with campus engagement. Their study revealed that students with increased engagement in campus activities were likelier to report goal orientations focused on performance and mastery. A study exploring academic engagement and student success used the Latent Profile Analysis to classify student variables related to engagement in studies, study exhaustion, disinterest, indifference to self-regulation, and uncertainty of career choice (Ketonen et al., 2016). From this, four types of students were identified: alienated, undecided, disengaged, and engaged. Students in the engaged group received the highest grades, while those in the disengaged or undecided groups tended to earn the lowest grades.

Studies have also explored engagement with specific academic campus services—including the library—and extracurricular activities. At one institution, students’ engagement with the University Career Center, the University Center for Academic Excellence, the Writing Resources Center, the University Speaking Center, Greek organizations, and sports clubs were positively associated with student success and graduation (Croxton & Moore, 2020). Further, students who accessed the library’s online resources, booked study rooms, attended library instruction, and checked out library books had higher GPAs than those who did not. Students have also reported that academic library spaces influenced their academic and social engagement; students could study independently and interact on group projects and assignments, depending on the space used (Deville & Sughrue, 2023). Another study explored students’ campus engagement, including their use of the physical library building and online library; the academic library was the top academic support service visited by students (Scoulas et al., 2024b). The physical library was visited by 55% of the students at least once a month, and the online library was accessed by 54% at least once a month. Students with lower GPAs were likelier to visit the library, while those with higher GPAs were less frequent visitors. In contrast, students with lower GPAs were less likely to use the online library, while those with higher GPAs were more frequent visitors. Attending student organization events was the next highest campus activity, where 41% of the students reported engagement at least once a month.

Self-Regulation and Information Literacy

College students face multiple responsibilities, including academic work, internships, employment, as well as social and family commitments. Given these responsibilities, success in college depends on students’ capacity to regulate their learning by setting goals, maintaining focus, and sustaining effort to manage both academic and personal demands effectively. Self-regulation refers to “self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal goals” (Zimmerman, 2000, p.14). Extensive research indicates that students’ self-regulated skills are key factors in their academic achievement. For example, a systematic review by Broadbent and Poon (2015) indicates that students’ use of self-regulatory strategies, metacognition (monitoring and control of one’s thinking and behaviors), time management (planning and organizing study time and tasks), and effort regulation (persisting through academic challenges), were strongly associated with online academic achievement in higher education. Similarly, Tao and colleagues (2025) reported that self-regulated learning strategies, particularly monitoring and planning, were positively associated with academic success among college students. In addition to these positive associations, lower levels of self-regulation are associated with negative academic and personal outcomes. For example, students with low levels of self-regulation are more likely to experience behavioral (e.g., aggression) and health-related (e.g., binge eating) issues (Zimmerman, 2000), as well as higher levels of academic procrastination (Tao et al., 2025).

Social forms of learning can also be understood through the lens of self-regulatory strategies. In this context, library spaces serve as hubs for self-directed, collaborative, and peer learning, where students can engage in independent study or group discussions that reinforce their knowledge (Yip et al., 2019). While the use of online library resources continues to increase, physical library buildings remain indispensable for fostering social and collaborative interactions essential to student success. These spaces cannot be fully replaced by virtual libraries (Yip et al., 2019). Social learning spaces, in particular, promote student engagement in their education by fostering social interactions (Matthews et al., 2011). Lotfy et al. (2022) showed that being able to socialize and interact with students in the library was the most important factor for using the library space.

In an era of information abundance, the information-seeking process poses significant challenges for all scholars, who often struggle to navigate the overwhelming volume of available information. In one study, faculty and graduate students expressed concerns about their competency regarding the accuracy, reliability, and quality of the electronic information sources they use (Ge, 2010). This challenge is particularly pronounced for college students, especially undergraduates, who must not only locate reliable sources but also critically evaluate the quality and relevance of the information they encounter. Research indicates that many students enter college without adequate information literacy skills, and those with lower proficiency often overestimate their abilities in this area (Gross & Latham, 2012). Conversely, another study found that most college students possess a moderate level of information literacy skills upon entering, regardless of whether they are first-generation college students (Lemire et al., 2021). Komissarov and Murray (2016) conducted a survey examining undergraduate students on their information seeking behavior. Using regression analysis to predict what factors influence students’ information seeking behavior, the results showed that students who receive encouragement from instructors are more likely to use library databases, articles, and books. Also, library staff’s classroom visits end to increase students’ engagement with library resources and an appreciation for peer-reviewed sources.

Academic Success

Definition of academic success remains complex and varies across studies. In their analytical literature review focused on definition of academic success in higher education, York et al. (2015) proposed a revised multidimensional conceptualization of academic success. They expanded the definition of academic success as “inclusive of academic achievement, attainment of learning objectives, acquisition of desired skills and competencies, satisfaction, persistence, and post-college performance” (p. 5). Other researchers have also explored the definition of academic success in higher education, and research suggests that students’ own definitions of success are more varied. For example, in a mixed methods study of 119 undergraduate students, the most-cited factors for student success were process oriented (e.g., personal goal achievement, time management, happiness, applying class knowledge to real life), and academic performance (e.g., passing classes and avoiding probation) (Arellanes et al., 2022). While graduating on time and obtaining a high GPA were reported, there were notably fewer responses that included these more traditional outcomes to success. Additional research on student definitions has found that their definitions encompass the ability to manage their personal and academic life (Arellanes et al., 2022; Jennings et al., 2013). Regarding learning, research shows that students associate success with managing their own learning, setting goals, staying motivated, and utilizing external supports (e.g., tutors and family) (Cachia et al., 2018; Jennings et al., 2013). Additionally, research on first-in-family students demonstrated that these students define success in varied ways, including as a sense of validation and resiliency (O’Shea & Delahunty, 2018).

However, when it comes to measuring academic success, traditional outcome indicators—such as GPA (e.g., Atuahene, 2021; Choi, 2005; Mahdavi et al., 2021; Wibrowski et al., 2017), as well as graduation rates, retention, and course completion (e.g., Larson et al., 2022)—continue to be widely used in higher education. Similarly, in library studies, academic success is tied to outcomes such as student performance, retention, persistence, career preparedness, and graduation rates (Brown & Malenfant, 2015). Several library studies have explored library use in relation to these outcomes to demonstrate the library’s impact and value. Selicean and Ilea (2024) reviewed many of these studies and summarized the findings: students’ borrowing practices, use of interlibrary loan, attendance at instructional sessions, computer logins, library visits, database logins, and general use of library services and resources were found to correlate with measures related to student success, such as GPA, retention, and grades. Libraries often use these definitions to demonstrate their impact and value.

Fewer studies have explored the importance of libraries in relation to students’ own definition of success. One study found most students view success as having “made their best possible effort,” and that the “gained knowledge or learned something new” regardless of the grade they received (Mayer et al., 2020). They also discussed how the library contributed to their academic success; many students viewed the physical library as a crucial space that supports their academic success by offering a focused, distraction-free environment. It fosters a sense of belonging among peers and provides access to essential resources and technology that might otherwise be unavailable to them. Another study found that when students were asked how the library supported their success, they highlighted both the value of its resources and the physical space in helping them stay focused and achieve their goals (De Groote & Scoulas, 2022). Their responses also offered insight into how they define success including passing tests and improving their grades.

Earlier findings from the pilot phase of this research project indicated that students’ top definition of academic success was related to outcomes such as grades and graduating on time (Scoulas et al., 2025). Additionally, results from the pilot program align with previous research by Scoulas and De Groote (2022), which found that students also defined success in terms of the process of learning and application of skills (Scoulas et al., 2025). These more nuanced definitions can impact the interventions that libraries develop to support students—as well as the way they communicate their value to students—appealing to the students’ own sense of accomplishment and success.

The literature above was foundational to guide the current research. Most research has focused on college students’ use of library services, such as library instructions and consultations and logging into resources (e.g., Croxton & Moore, 2020; Mayer et al., 2020; Soria et al., 2013). However, few studies have explored how students’ abilities to regulate their behaviors, concentrate, and engage in information-seeking are interconnected with their library usage and their reasons behind it. This paper explores how undergraduate students at two institutions engage in campus activities—including their use of library buildings and websites—and their reasons for doing so. It also investigates how their goal setting, concentration, and information-seeking abilities relate to one another. The findings will highlight commonalities and differences between the two institutions, offering a deeper understanding of students’ overall campus engagement, perceptions of their abilities, and academic success. These insights will help campus partners, including academic libraries, enhance support for student success.

Methods

Study Sites

The study was conducted at the University of Illinois Chicago and Northern Illinois University. UIC, a large public research university in Chicago, serves a diverse student body with more than 33,000 students consisting of 65% undergraduates, and with no single racial or ethnic group dominating the population. NIU, a public research university in suburban DeKalb with about 17,000 students, also has a predominantly undergraduate population (about 70%) and shares a commitment to serving racially diverse students, many of whom are Pell Grant recipients and first-generation students. Both institutions are ideal for studying diverse undergraduate populations, which will enable the researchers to refine the assessment tools and expand their applicability to other academic libraries, benefiting both traditional and nontraditional students. Both serve as a strong peer institution to each other for comparison and tool testing.

Design

The Student Academic Engagement and Success (SAES) Survey is a one-time online survey originally designed to assess how undergraduate students engage with campus activities, including their use of the library. Prior to conducting the survey, both institutions obtained approval from their respective Institutional Review Boards (IRB) and collected student dem­ographic data from their Institutional Research offices. The demographics included class standing, college affiliation, GPA, first-generation status, and other variables.

Survey Instrument Revision and Measurement

The SAES explores campus engagement; the reasons students visit the physical library building or use the library website; their ability to self-regulate their behavior; and their perceptions of their academic success. The pilot SAES survey was initially developed by the research team and validated by several content experts (e.g., educational psychologists, psychometricians, a library practitioner) and students (Scoulas et al., 2024). After conducting a pilot test at UIC during spring 2023, the survey data (Scoulas et al., 2024b) were further analyzed using factor analysis to determine how many distinct factors emerged, which would inform decisions about grouping or separating items into different constructs. Additionally, the research team analyzed the open-ended responses on academic success collected during the pilot phase and identified the most frequently cited definitions (Scoulas et al., 2025).

A subset of content experts involved in the pilot phase were re-engaged to review the pilot results (Scoulas et al., 2024b; 2025), including findings from the factor analysis, and to provide input for further revisions. Their feedback contributed to content validation and informed further revisions of the instrument. As a result, the original 12 self-regulation items were regrouped into three constructs: goal setting and management (8 items), social learning (3 items), and concentration (3 items). In addition, information literacy (5 items) was developed as a new construct to capture students’ library-related information skills. During this process, the research team’s coded list of academic success definitions was also reviewed by the content experts (Scoulas et al., 2025), and the final list of definitions was converted into multiple-choice items.

The revised survey instrument consists of all multiple choice questions about campus engagement (e.g., frequency of visiting campus centers including the physical library building and online library website); physical library building activities—both academic-related (e.g., participating in online courses) and nonacademic related reasons (e.g., taking a nap); online library activities (e.g., accessing a research guide); and the reasons why they do not use the library (e.g., “I could not find a space easily”). Additionally, the survey asked for students’ perceptions of their abilities in various areas and asked them to select their top three definitions of academic success. All self-regulation and information literacy items use a five-point Likert scale (15 strongly disagree to 55 strongly agree). Goal setting and management assesses students’ ability to set and manage goals; social learning captures their tendency to work with others and be inspired by their peers; concentration measures their ability to remain focused and productive in various environments, such as at home, in noisy surroundings, or while interacting with family; and information literacy examines their ability to locate and evaluate information, seek help, and apply the information effectively. To view the full survey instrument that was used at UIC, please refer to Appendix A. For academic libraries wishing to adapt and use a generic version of the survey, please refer to Scoulas et al. (2024a).

Demographics

While most of the students’ demographic information was obtained from the Institutional Research office at each institution and linked to the survey responses for those who answered the survey, some demographic questions were included directly in the survey. For example, Pell Grant status was not available from Institutional Research, so this question was incorporated into the survey.

Data Set Up

In January 2024, demographic data from UIC and NIU Institutional Research was obtained from each institution. This data included class level, race/ethnicity, gender, GPA, and more. Before importing the demographic data into Qualtrics, institutional data was carefully reviewed and matched as needed between the institutions to facilitate institutional comparisons. For example, UIC recorded age as a numerical value, while NIU used age ranges. UIC’s age data was grouped to match NIU’s format to ensure consistency. After matching the demographic data labels, the dataset—originally including email addresses—was imported into Qualtrics as embedded data. A setting was applied to exclude identifiable information, such as email addresses, from being recorded during the import process to ensure students’ anonymity once data collection began. Each survey for the respective institution was set up separately in UIC’s Qualtrics system. After the demographics data were uploaded to Qualtrics, they were destroyed. For more information on how the survey responses were matched with demographic data on Qualtrics, please refer to the studies by Scoulas and De Groote (2019) or Scoulas et al. (2024b).

Data Collection

All undergraduate students aged 18 and older enrolled at UIC and NIU were invited to participate in the SAES survey in January and February 2024. During this time, reminder emails were sent to students who did not respond to the survey on January 31 and February 8, 2024. The email invitation informed the students that participation in the survey was entirely voluntary and that students might opt out at any moment. Additionally, the email invitation contained information on how the research team set up, used their demographics, and protected their anonymity. No demographics data was recorded from students who did not agree to participate in the survey.

Compensation

All survey respondents were automatically enrolled in a lottery to win a $100 e-gift card. A total of 10 survey lottery winners per institution were randomly selected by the research team, and each lottery winner received a $100 e-gift card. Winners were notified through their university email. Due to university regulations regarding incentivization via random drawing at NIU, the winners were required to pick up and sign for their e-gift card code as proof of receipt. Once all the winners were announced, the list of respondents was destroyed.

Data Analysis

Given that data was collected in separate surveys for each institution, the data from each institution had to be downloaded separately. After downloading the data from each survey on Qualtrics, a new variable was created in each dataset to indicate the institution, and the datasets were then merged into a single dataset in SPSS 28, a statistical software tool. SPSS 28 was predominantly used for the overall quantitative analysis, which included descriptive statistics (i.e., frequency and percentages), and inferential statistical analysis (i.e., examining the relationships among variables, and statistical differences between institutions).

Results

Participants

In spring 2024, both institutions conducted the SAES survey concurrently. Out of a total student undergraduate population of 19,371 at UIC, 1,899 students participated, resulting in a response rate of 10%. During the same period, 577 NIU undergraduate students participated in the survey, representing a response rate of 7% out of their total undergraduate population of 8,423.

While some demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, class, and college) are similar between both institutions, disparities exist in their first-generation status, transfer status, and race/ethnicity. Respondents from both institutions exhibited a nearly identical distribution across class levels, with the majority being seniors. Additionally, most respondents from both institutions were enrolled in liberal arts and sciences programs. Notable differences emerged between both institutions for the second-largest category of programs. At UIC, engineering was the second-largest program, whereas at NIU, health sciences held that position.

Respondents from both institutions were predominantly noninternational students, although the proportion of noninternational students was higher at NIU (99%) compared to UIC (90%). Additionally, respondents from UIC (50%) tended to have a slightly higher Pell Grant status compared to those from NIU (46%). Significant differences were observed in first-generation and transfer status. At NIU, respondents were evenly split between first-generation and non-first-generation status, whereas at UIC, there were more respondents with non-first-generation status than first-generation status. Regarding race/ethnicity, most respondents at UIC identify as Hispanic, followed by White, while at NIU, the majority identify as White, followed by Black/African American.

Campus Engagement

Library visits were the most frequently reported campus engagement activity at both institutions, but the second most frequent type of activity differed. At UIC, students accessed the library website as often as they visited the library, followed by student organizations. At NIU, student organizations ranked second, followed by visits to the library website.

Upon examining the frequencies, it becomes evident that UIC students are more inclined to visit campus centers overall than those from NIU. Also, there are notable disparities in campus engagement between both institutions, particularly concerning the writing center and campus services dedicated to academic support. At UIC, 64% of students reported never visiting the writing center, while this percentage was higher at NIU, with 80% of students indicating no visits. Similarly, for campus services focused on academic support, 30% of UIC students never visited, compared to 44% of NIU students, and the mean academic support score for UIC (M 5 1.27) was higher than that of NIU (M 5 0.99). It is noteworthy that respondents from NIU indicated the highest level of unawareness regarding commuter centers.

Library Visits in Person

Those who stated that they visited the library in person were subsequently asked to specify their reasons for doing so and their frequency. Notably, students from NIU reported slightly higher frequencies across all activities related to visiting the library compared to students from UIC. The primary reasons visiting the library in person at both institutions were for individual study purposes, followed by computer use and taking breaks. The least common reasons for visiting the library were to obtain physical library materials and to attend instruction and consultations.

Reasons for Not Visiting the Library

Those who stated they never visited the library were asked to elaborate on their reasons for not doing so. While two main reasons (i.e., studying at home or in their dorm and not requiring materials for their classes), were consistent for both groups, the primary reason differed notably between UIC and NIU. At UIC, online access was ranked as the third most common reason for not visiting the library, whereas for NIU respondents, the top reason was the distance from their residence.

Online Library Use

Those who indicated that they utilized the library website were further questioned about their reasons and the frequency of their usage. Overall, respondents from UIC were slightly more inclined to use the website for specific purposes compared to those from NIU. In both institutions, the primary reasons for using the library website included searching databases for articles, followed by searching for books. However, the third rank differed at UIC and NIU. For UIC, accessing research guides was ranked third, whereas checking library hours was the third-ranked reason for ranked NIU. The least common reasons for using the library website were to engage in one-on-one library consultations and to request materials. More than 80% of respondents from both institutions indicated that they had never used library consultations via the library website.

Reasons for Not Using Library Website

Those who indicated they never used the library website were asked about their reasons for abstaining. The rank order of the primary reasons for not using the library website was consistent for both institutions, with respondents from NIU showing a higher percentage than those from UIC. In both cases, the top reason cited was the lack of necessity for library materials and resources for their coursework, followed by difficulties in navigating the library website.

Number of Courses Required Information Seeking and Evaluation

In general, both UIC and NIU students exhibited similar trends regarding their coursework requirements concerning information seeking and evaluation. Over 90% of respondents from both institutions reported receiving guidance in more than one course on where and how to locate necessary information for assignments. Additionally, more than 80% of students from both UIC and NIU needed to access resources, including those in the library, for multiple courses. However, it’s noteworthy that over 80% of respondents from both universities also indicated that more than one course did not mandate any additional information evaluation beyond what was provided within the class materials.

Students’ Perceptions of Their Goal Management, Social Learning, Concentration, and Information Literacy

The findings from UIC and NIU reveal both commonalities and differences in students’ responses to statements about goal management, learning support, concentration abilities, and information seeking. There were similar challenges UIC and NIU students face regarding distraction and concentration, as well as their confidence in information seeking. Both UIC and NIU students showed high levels of agreement with the statements “I have personal standards and I try to live up to them” (UIC: M 5 4.25, NIU: M 5 4.28), “I can usually plan how to reach a goal” (UIC: M 5 3.91), and “I am able to accomplish goals I set for myself” (NIU: M 5 3.90). Both groups were less likely to agree with the statement “I do not get easily distracted from my plans” (UIC: M 5 2.95, NIU: M 5 2.76). Regarding information seeking behaviors, students at both institutions expressed overall confidence in their ability to read and apply information they find (UIC: M 5 4.09, NIU: M 5 4.10). Generally, students agreed that they could find the information needed to complete their coursework without assistance. With respect to the concentration abilities, students at both UIC and NIU indicated that they could stay focused at home or in the library, but struggled with concentration when noise, friends, or family were present.

However, there are differences in how each group perceived learning support and their concentration abilities, suggesting areas for targeted support interventions at each institution. UIC students leaned toward agreeing that they were inspired by others to complete their coursework and were willing to seek support, while NIU students showed less conclusive agreement on these points (UIC: generally positive mean scores, NIU: M 5 3.45 and M 5 3.41 with higher standard deviations indicating more variability). While both groups showed some uncertainty, NIU students had a slightly more positive response toward their concentration abilities compared to UIC students, who were less conclusive in their responses.

Student’s Own Definition of Academic Success

The top ranked definition of academic success, as reported by UIC students, was getting good grades/doing well in class. The second most prevalent description of academic success was also obtaining good grades, followed by two closely related definitions: working hard, and balancing school, life, and other responsibilities. The third most common description of academic success was balancing school, life, and other responsibilities. Taken together, the order of best descriptions of academic success, from first to third, were obtaining good grades; balancing school, life, and other responsibilities; and working hard. For NIU students, the top definition of academic success was obtaining good grades, which aligns with the responses from UIC students. The second most common definition also involved achieving good grades; however, when excluding this, students most frequently mentioned working hard, achieving personal fulfillment, and feeling satisfied. The third most common definition was balancing school, life, and other responsibilities. Taken together, for both UIC and NIU students, the top definition of academic success was obtaining good grades. When excluding this, the second most common descriptions were working hard and achieving personal fulfillment and satisfaction. Finally, balancing school, life, and other responsibilities ranked third for both groups.

Relationships Among Students’ Academic Achievement and Various Factors

Further analysis was conducted to explore relationships between students’ academic achievement (i.e., GPA) and various factors including their level of campus engagement, goal management, and information literacy. At both institutions, students’ GPA was positively but weakly associated with their perceived information literacy competencies (UIC: r 5.119, p ,.01; NIU: r 5 .096, p ,.05). However, there were discrepancies between the two institutions. For UIC students, their GPA was found to be associated with their physical library activities—both academic related (r 5 -.102, p , .01) and nonacademic related (r 5 -.081, p , .01)—and goal management (r 5 .134, p , .01). Interestingly, the directions of these relationships varied; there were negative relationships between GPA and their physical library activities, suggesting that students with higher GPAs tended to engage less in physical library activities. Conversely, positive relationships were observed between GPA and both goal management and information literacy, indicating that students with higher GPAs exhibited greater confidence in their goal management and were more active in seeking out information.

The analysis of relationships among NIU students revealed significant associations between GPA and campus engagement (r 5 .164, p , .01), and GPA, and online library website activities (r 5 -.130 p , .05). Interestingly, the directions of these relationships varied; students’ GPA was negatively associated with online library website activities, indicating that those with higher GPAs tended to engage less with online library resources. Conversely, their GPA was positively associated with campus engagement and information literacy, suggesting that students with higher GPAs were more likely to be actively involved on campus, and actively seek out information to support their academic endeavors.

When examining the connections between physical library activities (both academic related and nonacademic related) and other variables, both UIC and NIU findings suggest a positive association between academic related library activities (e.g., taking online class) and nonacademic related library activities (e.g., taking a nap) (UIC: r 5 .774, p , .01, NIU: r 5 .761, p , .01); participation in campus activities (UIC: r 5 .325, p , .01, NIU: r 5 .149, p , .01); use of online library resources (UIC: r 5 .378, p , .01, NIU: r 5 .207, p , .01); social learning (UIC: r 5 .168, p , .01, NIU: r 5 .268, p , .01); and improved concentration (UIC: r 5 .116, p , .01, NIU: r 5 .133, p , .05). Regarding the differences between the two institutions, for UIC, it was observed that students who engaged in physical library activities, both academic and nonacademic, showed a positive correlation with perceived effectiveness in goal management (both academic related (r 5 .056, p , .05) and nonacademic related (r 5 .071, p , .05), and information literacy (both academic related (r 5 .068, p , .05) and nonacademic related (r 5 .088, p , .01) physical library activities. This suggests that students who actively use the library for academic purposes are also more engaged in nonacademic activities and campus events, and that they make greater use of online library resources, while demonstrating stronger perceived confidences in goal management and information literacy. Among NIU students, a correlation was found between nonacademic related physical library activities and goal management (r 5 .137, p , .05), but no significant correlations were found between academic related physical library activities and goal management (r 5 .100, p 5 .069). There were no significant relationships between information-literacy and physical library activities [both academic related (r 5 -.024, p 5 .658) and nonacademic related (r 5 .028, p 5 .612) physical library activities].

Another significant finding revealed by Pearson correlations is the existence of relationships between students’ preposition abilities, observed in both UIC and NIU undergraduates. Specifically, students who demonstrate greater confidence in their goal setting and progress management are more likely to report higher levels of social learning, focus, and information literacy. It is also important to highlight that, among students at both institutions, all four areas—goal management, social learning, concentration, and information literacy—were positively interrelated, indicating that students who believed that they had strengths or challenges could influence their peers.

Statistical Differences in Students’ Academic Engagement, Ability, and GPA Between UIC and NIU

An independent sample t-test was conducted to examine whether there are statistically significant differences, between UIC and NIU, in students’ levels of campus engagement, their ability to set goals, maintain focus, their tendency to seek information, and their GPAs. Interestingly, there were no statistically significant differences in students’ perceptions of goal management [t (1,905) 5 0.30, p 5.766], ability to focus [t (1,895) 5 -0.69, p 5.491], and information-seeking ability [t (1,902) 5 -1.62, p 5.106] between UIC and NIU. However, their involvement in campus activities, use of physical and online library resources, socializing ability, and academic outcomes differed significantly. UIC undergraduates exhibited higher mean scores than NIU in campus engagement (UIC: M 5 9.30, SD 5.24, NIU: M 5 7.76, SD 5 5.36); online library usage (UIC: M 5 7.47, SD 5 5.35, NIU: M 5 6.35, SD 5 5.06); social learning (UIC: M 5 10.51, SD 5 2.55, NIU: M 5 10.14, SD 5 2.70); and GPA (UIC: M 5 3.34, SD 5 0.69, NIU: M 5 3.00, SD 5 1.17). Conversely, NIU students had higher mean scores in utilizing physical library spaces (M 5 19.54, SD 5 10.30) than UIC students (M 5 18.24, SD 5 9.88).

Discussion

Campus Engagement, Including Library Use

While studies have explored engagement with campus academic services (e.g., library and writing center) and extracurricular activities (e.g., students’ organizations), this study’s findings highlight that students’ campus engagement includes both academic and nonacademic purposes, and it underscores the library’s importance in student campus engagement for both purposes. Physical library visits were students’ most frequently reported campus engagement activities at UIC and NIU. Engagement with student organizations and the online library were the next most reported, although their order differed between the two institutions. These top campus engagement activities reflect engagement most likely for academic purposes (i.e., library, both physical and online) and extracurricular nonacademic engagement (i.e., student organizations).

Other academic services were widely underutilized at both institutions (e.g., writing center, academic support services), although the degree to which varied. While this finding aligns with the earlier study by Scoulas et al. (2024b), which focused on a single institution, these results reveal that, across both institutions, students view both physical and online library activities as among the most important campus activities. This suggests that libraries—whether in-person or digital—play a central role in student engagement and are considered essential for both academic and nonacademic aspects of campus life.

The findings further revealed that at both institutions, students visited the physical library for both academic reasons (e.g., studying and using computers) and nonacademic reasons (e.g., taking a break and socializing). This finding provides the evidence that the library serves a dual role for students. While its primary function is to support academic activities like studying, it also provides a space for relaxation and nonacademic purposes.

The least common reasons for visiting the library were to obtain physical library materials and to attend instruction and consultations. While attending an instructional session was one of the reported reasons for using the physical library, the survey did not ask more broadly about library instruction across formats (e.g., in-library, classroom, or online), which may have resulted in underreporting. To get a better sense of how library instruction may play a role in student success, an additional question in future iterations of the SAES survey could ask students to quantify their participation in library instruction sessions across modalities and time.

For students who did not visit the library, their reasons were mostly related to not needing library materials for their courses, utilizing alternative study spaces, and the ability to access resources online. At NIU, the distance from the library was also a barrier, suggesting that location plays a significant role in library usage, indicating a potential need for more decentralized resources or services. While students’ main reasons for using the online library website were related to database searches for journal articles and books, the main reason for not using the online library website and resources was not needing library materials for their coursework. Taken together, these findings suggest that libraries have room for improvement and need to take a more strategic approach to engage students effectively. Access to online resources has decreased the need for physical library visits, suggesting that libraries should prioritize and promote their digital offerings to align with students’ preferences. The main reason for not using the library’s website is the lack of perceived need for its materials, indicating a potential gap in students’ awareness of the full range of online resources available.

Relationships Among Variables

Initially, we hypothesized that students who could concentrate in any environment would be less likely to use the physical library, as they could study in other locations (e.g., dorms and houses). However, the results from both institutions indicate that concentration confidences are positively related to library use but in an unexpected direction. Students with stronger concentration ability are actually more inclined to use the physical library. Alternatively, those who frequently visit the library, whether for academic or nonacademic purposes, tend to report higher concentration abilities. This suggests that students who are better at concentrating may prefer the library environment for studying or relaxing, as research has shown that students use the library for both quiet and collaborative spaces (Giffen, 2020; Scoulas & De Groote, 2019), perceive it as social environment (Mayer et al., 2020) and feel inspired to stay focused by observing others (Scoulas & De Groote, 2022).

How engagement correlated, including by GPA, differed by institution. At UIC, there was no significant correlation between GPA and campus engagement, unlike NIU, where a weak positive correlation was observed. At UIC and NIU, both academic and nonacademic library activities were negatively correlated with GPA, although this was only significant for UIC. At UIC, online library use did not correlate with GPA, although it did positively correlate with campus activity engagement, as well as with academic and nonacademic library activities. At NIU, online library use correlated negatively with GPA and positively correlated with campus engagement and academic-related library use only. These findings also contradict previous studies at UIC, where physical library use was negatively correlated with GPA and online library use was positively correlated with GPA (Scoulas et al., 2024b; Scoulas & De Groote, 2022). Thus, while student use of the academic library and campus engagement are crucial in the lives of students, the relationship between GPA and library use is less clear.

It is noteworthy that their perceived abilities in goal management, social learning, concentration, and information literacy are interconnected. This suggests that strengths in one area can positively influence the others. In the context of library use, students who use the library are more likely to effectively manage their goals, maintain focus, feel inspired to learn by observing and collaborating with their peers, and successfully find resources or seek help when needed. Interestingly, the results regarding the relationships between students’ GPA and their abilities in these areas revealed both similarities and differences across the two institutions. At both institutions, students demonstrated that higher information literacy confidences were associated with higher GPAs, meaning that students with stronger information literacy confidences tend to achieve better academic performance. However, only students at UIC showed a relationship between GPA and goal management, with higher GPAs linked to stronger perceived goal management confidences.

These findings are crucial for academic libraries and librarians because it highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to skill development. Understanding the connection between information literacy, goal management, social learning, and concentration allows librarians to design more effective programs, collaborate with faculty, and allocate resources to better support student success. It also enables them to assess and improve their initiatives, fostering not just academic achievement but lifelong learning. By addressing these interconnected confidences, libraries can play a key role in enhancing students’ overall academic performance.

Student Success

Students’ top definition of academic success at both institutions matches the indicators often used as a primary metric by institutions (e.g., getting a higher GPA). This is unsurprising, given the traditional definition of success and the link between GPA and persistence (Brown & Malenfant, 2015). However, when looking at the second and third top definitions at each institution, there are some notable differences from this traditional conceptualization. When looked at together, students at UIC and NIU described success as balancing school, life, and other responsibilities; achieving personal fulfillment and feeling satisfied; and working hard. Given that both institutions have high concentrations of first-generation students, the findings are in line with previous research that demonstrated first-in-family students to define success in terms of validation and hard work (O’Shea & Delahunty, 2018). The findings provide valuable insights into how we can support students’ personal definitions of academic success, particularly from the perspectives of both institutions. To better understand how students’ definitions of academic success related to other variables, such as campus engagement and library use, further analysis using students’ demographic data will be conducted.

Limitations

All undergraduate students who were age 18 or older at each institution were eligible and invited to participate in the survey; participation was entirely voluntary. As a result, the final sample consisted of students who choose to respond, which is a common approach in voluntary online surveys. This can lead to self-selection bias, especially if the likelihood of responding is related to the survey topic, resulting in data that may not fully represent the target population (Lavrakas, 2008). Despite this, the sample largely reflects the undergraduate population at both institutions, apart from a slightly lower representation of seniors and more of freshmen at UIC, and a higher proportion of female respondents at both institutions. In relation to this, the survey generated a 9.8% response rate at UIC and 6.9% at NIU. It is possible that survey fatigue may have contributed to the low response rate at UIC and NIU, where multiple ongoing surveys have been a topic of concern across campus. Additionally, NIU may have faced an additional challenge, as library surveys had not previously targeted the entire undergraduate population. This lack of familiarity may have affected their willingness to participate. While these may be considered low, such response rate are not uncommon for voluntary online surveys. Research shows that web-based surveys yield lower response rates than paper surveys among college students (Sax et al., 2003).

The strengths of the relationships among variables were weak (most rs , |.20|) based on Cohen’s (1988) criteria, except for variables related to participants’ perceptions of their abilities in goal setting, information processing, concentration, and social learning, which showed small to moderate effects. It is possible that potential confounding variables may have influenced the observed relationships. Further research is needed to understand these variables and their effects. Given these results, we recommend interpreting these findings with caution. Nonetheless, the findings provide valuable insights into patterns of campus engagement, library activities within both physical building and online, and student’s own definitions of academic success at both institutions.

Conclusion and Recommendations

According to O’Shea & Delahunty (2018), higher education “has a valuable role in assisting individuals to operationalise their own desires, thereby facilitating achievement of their preferred human flourishings” (p. 1072). This perspective resonates with how students in this study defined academic success, not only getting good grades, but also balancing school, life and other responsibilities, achieving personal fulfillment, and working hard. Our findings highlight how the library is positioned to support these diverse forms of success. The library was the most frequently visited campus service at both institutions, underscoring its role as a central hub for student engagement. Students reported using the library not only for academic purposes but also for personal well-being, such as resting or socializing. Additionally, students who use the library are more likely to manage goals, stay focused, collaborate effectively, and seek help when needed. Across both institutions, higher information literacy confidence was consistently linked to higher GPAs. These insights can inform library instruction design and space planning. For example, libraries can incorporate messaging that aligns with student experiences to promote workshops and usage, create spaces that support concentration and productivity, and ensure both physical spaces and librarian interactions validate students’ academic and personal needs.

Additionally, these findings present an opportunity for academic libraries to initiate communication and to collaborate with other campus units that have experience in supporting student challenges in certain areas, such as concentration and time management, that are crucial for student success. This notion has been supported by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) (2016) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, which emphasizes the importance of working with academic departments and other support units. For example, partnering with academic departments allows libraries to enhance curriculum integration through the development of research guides, lectures, workshops, and joint assignments.

Engagement with student affairs and academic success programs is another critical avenue for libraries to foster student engagement. As the library is a central hub for students to study and socialize, there are opportunities for campus units to engage students in library spaces to enhance students’ awareness of—and access to—programs and services that support their success and sustain their motivation. Further, libraries can collaborate externally with partners to increase awareness of and access to library services, resources, and spaces. For example, by participating in orientation and other welcoming activities, libraries can develop early relationships with new students who may not yet have the need to play a vital role in enhancing the overall student experience. Libraries should also establish assessment and feedback mechanisms, actively participate in university committees, and facilitate avenues for students and faculty to provide input on library services. In addition, engaging in joint events and collaborations with diversity and inclusion offices, technology services, wellness centers, and integrated tutoring programs demonstrates the library’s commitment to supporting diverse student populations. Collectively, these initiatives illustrate the pivotal role of academic libraries in fostering student success and enriching educational experience.

Funding

This research project was made possible through funding from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (LG-252338-OLS-22).

References

Appleton, L. (2020). Academic libraries and student engagement: A literature review. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 26(2–4), 189–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2020.1784762

Arellanes, J., Noël-Elkins, A., & Friberg, J. (2022). Is student success an outcome or process?: A student-led definition and description. College Student Journal, 56(4), 411–421. https://research.ebsco.com/c/7xnk7b/viewer/pdf/j54p7imc5j?route5details

Association of College and Research Libraries. (2016). Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. https://www.ala.org/sites/default/files/acrl/content/issues/infolit/Framework_ILHE.pdf

Atuahene, F. (2021). Predicting the academic success of minority male students in a public 4-year institution in the USA. Journal of African American Studies, 25(1), 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12111-020-09512-4

Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007

Brown, K., & Malenfant, K. (2015). Academic library contributions to student success: Documented practices from the field. https://alair.ala.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/cf8d29e4-877a-46a3-9955-918d6374e418/content

Cachia, M., Lynam, S., & Stock, R. (2018). Academic success: Is it just about the grades? Higher Education Pedagogies, 3(1), 434–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2018.1462096

Choi, N. (2005). Self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of college students’ academic performance. Psychology in the schools, 42(2), 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20048

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Croxton, R. A., & Moore, A. C. (2020). Quantifying library engagement: Aligning library, institutional, and student success data. College and Research Libraries, 81(3), 399–434. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.81.3.399

De Groote, S. L., & Scoulas, J. M. (2022). The impact of the academic library on students’ success, in their own words. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 22(2), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2022.0021

DeVille, S. D., & Sughrue, J. A. (2023). Linking library use to student engagement. Journal of Library Administration, 63(2), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2022.2159240

Ferrari, J. R., McCarthy, B. J., & Milner, L. A. (2009). Involved and focused? Students’ perceptions of institutional identity, personal goal orientation and levels of campus engagement. College Student Journal, 43(3), 886–897. https://research.ebsco.com/c/7xnk7b/viewer/html/jp7pmxkcvb

Ge, X. (2010). Information-seeking behavior in the digital age: A multidisciplinary study of academic researchers. College & Research Libraries, 71(5), 435–455. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-34r2

Giffen, F. C. (2020). A space to belong: Space and a sense of belonging among teen and young adult patrons in the Fresno County public library system (Doctoral dissertation, California State University, Fresno). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. https://proxy.cc.uic.edu/login?url5https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/space-belong-sense-belonging-among-teen-young/docview/2432909882/se-2

Gross, M., & Latham, D. (2012). What’s skill got to do with it?: Information literacy skills and self-views of ability among first-year college students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 574–583. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21681

Institute of Museum and Library Services. (2022). Developing and testing assessment tools for measuring library impact on student academic success (Grant No. LG-252338-OLS-22). https://www.imls.gov/grants/awarded/lg-252338-ols-22

Jennings, N., Lovett, S., Cuba, L., Swingle, J., & Lindkvist, H. (2013). “What would make this a successful year for you?”: How students define success in college. Liberal Education, 99(2) 1–11. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217019546.pdf

Ketonen, E. E., Haarala-Muhonen, A., Hirsto, L., Hänninen, J. J., Wähälä, K., & Lonka, K. (2016). Am I in the right place? Academic engagement and study success during the first years at university. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.017

Komissarov, S., & Murray, J. (2016). Factors that influence undergraduate information-seeking behavior and opportunities for student success. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(4), 423–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.04.007

Larson, K. C., Downing, M. S., Nolan, J., & Neikirk, M. (2022). High impact practices through experiential student philanthropy: A case study of the Mayerson student philanthropy project and academic success at Northern Kentucky University. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 24(3), 832–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025120952083

Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. SAGE Publications.

Lemire, S., Xu, Z., Balester, V., Dorsey, L. G., & Hahn, D. (2021). Assessing the information literacy skills of first-generation college students. College and Research Libraries, 82(5), 730–754. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.82.5.730

Lotfy, M. W., Kamel, S., Hassan, D. K., & Ezzeldin, M. (2022). Academic libraries as informal learning spaces in architectural educational environment. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 13(6), 101781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2022.101781

Mahdavi, P., Valibeygi, A., Moradi, M., & Sadeghi, S. (2021). Relationship between achievement motivation, mental health and academic success in university students. International Quarterly of Community Health Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272684X211025932

Matthews, K. E., Andrews, V., & Adams, P. (2011). Social learning spaces and student engagement. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.512629

Mayer, J., Dineen, R., Rockwell, A., & Blodgett, J. (2020). Undergraduate student success and library use: A multimethod approach. College and Research Libraries, 81(3), 378–398. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.81.3.378

O’Shea, S., & Delahunty, J. (2018). Getting through the day and still having a smile on my face! How do students define success in the university learning environment? Higher Education Research & Development, 37(5), 1062–1075. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1463973

Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., & Bryant, A. N. (2003). Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 409–432. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024232915870

Scoulas, J. M., & De Groote, S. L. (2019). The library’s impact on university students’ academic success and learning. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 14(3), 2–27. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29547

Scoulas, J. M., & De Groote, S. (2022). Impact of undergraduate students’ library use on their learning beyond GPA: Mixed-methods approach. College & Research Libraries, 83(3). https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.83.3.452

Scoulas, J. M., De Groote, S. L., Shotick, K., & Osorio, N. (2024a). Student Academic Engagement and Success (SAES) survey. University of Illinois at Chicago. https://doi.org/10.25417/uic.26828848

Scoulas, J. M., De Groote, S. L., Shotick, K., & Osorio, N. L. (2024b). A holistic approach to understanding undergraduates: Campus engagement, library use and psychological factors. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 50(5), 102936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102936

Scoulas, J.M., Shotick, K., De Groote, S.L., & Osorio, N.L. (2024). Developing and validating assessment tools for measuring undergraduate students’ academic engagement and academic achievement: Lessons learned from a pilot research project. Journal of Library Administration, 64(2), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2024.2305075

Scoulas, J. M., Shotick, K., De Groote, S. L., & Osorio, N. (2025). From grades to growth: Understanding undergraduate perceptions of academic success. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 51(1), 102982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102982

Selicean, C.F., & Ilea, M. (2024). Current trends in research on the role of university libraries in students’ academic success: A review. Bulletin of the University of Agricultural Sciences & Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca. Horticulture, 81(1). https://doi.org/10.15835/buasvmcn-hort:2023.0031

Soria, K. M., Fransen, J., & Nackerud, S. (2013). Library use and undergraduate student outcomes: New evidence for students’ retention and academic success. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 13(2), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826153630.0011

Tao, X., Hanif, H., & Lieqin, W. (2025). The effects of self-regulated learning strategies on academic procrastination and academic success among college EFL students in China. Frontiers in psychology, 16, 1562980. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1562980

Wibrowski, C. R., Matthews, W. K., & Kitsantas, A. (2017). The role of a skills learning support program on first-generation college students’ self-regulation, motivation, and academic achievement: A longitudinal study. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 19(3), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025116629152

Yip, T., Chiu, D. K. W., Cho, A., & Lo, P. (2019). Behavior and informal learning at night in a 24-hour space: A case study of the Hong Kong Design Institute Library. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(1), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617726120

York, T. T., Gibson, C., & Rankin, S. (2015). Defining and measuring academic success. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 20(5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.7275/hz5x-tx03

Zimmerman, B. J (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeider (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). Academic Press.

Appendix A

Note: For academic libraries wishing to adapt and use a generic version of the survey, please access it here: https://doi.org/10.25417/uic.26828848

UIC Student Academic Engagement and Success Survey

Start of Block: Block 1

Q1 I have read the “Agreement to Participate” document and agree to participate in this research.

• Yes
• No

End of Block: Block 1

Start of Block: Default Question Block

Q2 Category 1: Demographics

Q3 Which of the following best describes your racial/ethnic background?

• American Indian or Alaska Native
• Asian or Asian American
• Black or African American
• Hispanic or Latinx
• Middle Eastern or North African
• Multi-racial (two or more races)
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
• White
• I do not identify with any of these categories. Please specify.

_______________________________________________________

• I prefer not to respond

Q4 Are you an international student?

• Yes
• No

Q5 What is your gender identity?

• Female
• Gender non-conforming
• Male
• Prefer not to say
• Another gender identity. Please specify.

_______________________________________________________

Q6 Did you receive a Federal Pell grant or Illinois MAP grant as part of your financial aid package? (This does not include private student loans)

• Yes
• No
• Unsure

Q7 Category 2: Academic engagement activities

Q8 During the past semester (fall 2023), how often have you visited the following?

	Never	Seldom (once or twice a semester)	Sometimes (about once a month)	Often (2-3 times a month)	Weekly (once or more times a week)	Unaware of this
A university library at UIC
Campus service to support academics (e.g., peer coaching, tutoring, advising, etc.)
Campus service to support well-being (e.g., counseling, disability, health center, wellness center, etc.)
Cultural Center (e.g., African American, Asian American, etc.)
Student Organization meeting or event
UIC’s online library website
UIC Commuters center
Writing center

Display this question:

If During the past semester (Fall 2023), how often have you visited the following? 5 A university library at UIC [ Seldom (once or twice a semester) ]

Or During the past semester (Fall 2023), how often have you visited the following? 5 A university library at UIC [ Sometimes (about once a month) ]

Or During the past semester (Fall 2023), how often have you visited the following? 5 A university library at UIC [ Often (2-3 times a month) ]

Or During the past semester (Fall 2023), how often have you visited the following? 5 A university library at UIC [ Weekly (once or more times a week) ]

Q9 During the past semester (fall 2023), how often did you do the following in the library?

	Never	Seldom (once or twice a semester)	Sometimes (about once a month)	Often (2-3 times a month)	Weekly (once or more times a week)
Attended library instructional sessions One-on-one consultation/meeting with a librarian
Attended online classes
Met with friends
Obtained physical library materials (e.g., books, course reserves)
Prayed or meditated
Studied and/or worked on homework or research projects on my own (Individual)
Studied and/or worked on homework or research project with other students (Group)
Engaged in nonschool activities (e.g., job interviews, confidential conversations)
Took a break (e.g., took a nap, watched videos, played games)
Used a computer
Used a printer
Other (please specify)

Display this question:

If During the past semester (fall 2023), how often have you visited the following? 5 A university library at UIC [ Never ]

Q10 Please select the reasons you never visited the university library. Select all that apply.

• I could not find a space easily
• I did not like the library environment (e.g., too loud or too dark)
• I did not need library materials/resources for my coursework
• I used study space at home/residence hall
• I used other study space ,strong.on,/strong. campus
• I used other study space ,strong.off,/strong. campus
• I was concerned for personal safety (e.g., crime near campus)
• I was concerned about COVID-related health issues
• I was unsure where the library was
• I was able to access what I needed online
• It was too far from where I live
• The library hours were not convenient to me
• Other (Please specify) __________________________________________________

Display this question:

If During the past semester (fall 2023), how often have you visited the following? 5 UIC’s online library website [ Seldom (once or twice a semester) ]

Or During the past semester (fall 2023), how often have you visited the following? 5 UIC’s online library website [ Sometimes (about once a month) ]

Or During the past semester (fall 2023), how often have you visited the following? 5 UIC’s online library website [ Often (2-3 times a month) ]

Or During the past semester (fall 2023), how often have you visited the following? 5 UIC’s online library website [ Weekly (once or more times a week) ]

Q11 During the past semester (fall 2023), how often did you do the following from the online library website (any location)?

	Never	Seldom (once or twice a semester)	Sometimes (about once a month)	Often (2-3 times a month)	Weekly (once or more times a week)	Unaware of this
Accessed research guides
Chatted with or emailed a librarian
Checked library hours
One-on-one consultation/meeting with a librarian
Requested material from another library
Searched library databases for journal articles
Searched library databases or catalogs for books or other online materials
Other (Please specify)

Display this question:

If During the past semester (fall 2023), how often have you visited the following? 5 UIC’s online library website [ Never ]

Q12 Please select the reasons you never used a library website. Select all that apply.

• I did not need library materials/resources for my coursework
• I could find what I needed on Google
• It was difficult to navigate the library website
• I was not familiar with online library resources or how to search them
• Other (please specify) __________________________________________________

Q13 In your program, how many courses last semester match the following statements?

	More than 5 courses	3-5 courses	1-2 courses	None
My assignments require me to seek out information from resources (such as online or in the library) in order to complete them
I am provided guidance in my classes on how and/or where to find the information I need to complete my assignments.
I am mostly evaluated in my classes for coursework that does NOT require me to seek additional information beyond what I am provided in my course(s).

Q14 Category 3: Goal setting/attainment, social learning, self-directed learning, information seeking behaviors

Q15 Please rate the level of agreement on the following statements.

	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Uncertain or unsure	Agree	Strongly agree
I do not have a hard time setting goals for myself
I usually keep track of my progress toward my goals
I am able to accomplish goals I set for myself
I have personal standards, and try to live up to them
Once I have a goal, I can usually plan how to reach it
I do not get easily distracted from my plans
I can stick to a plan that’s working well
I am able to resist temptation when working to accomplish my goals

Q16 Please rate the level of agreement on the following statements.

	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Uncertain or unsure	Agree	Strongly agree
I am inspired to study or complete my coursework by observing how others study
I interact with and/get support from other students to enhance my learning
I enhance my learning by working with my TAs and instructors’ support

Q17 Please rate the level of agreement on the following statements.

	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Uncertain or unsure	Agree	Strongly agree
I can stay focused and productive whether I’m at home, in a library, or even on the go.
I can stay focused in noisy environments.
I can concentrate on my studies despite being around friends or family.

Q18 Please rate the level of agreement on the following statements.

	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Uncertain or unsure	Agree	Strongly agree
I can easily find information I need to complete my coursework without assistance.
Whether it’s online or in a library, I can confidently find information to complete my course work.
I am confident that I can evaluate information I find to determine whether or not it is reliable to use for my coursework.
I am confident in my ability to read and apply the information I find.
I am comfortable asking for assistance if I need help seeking information.

Q19 Category 4: Students’ own definition of academic success

Q20 Please select the best description that matches how you think academic success looks and feels to you.

• getting good grades/doing well in class
• passing classes
• achieving goals or staying on track
• being able to stay organized
• working hard, personal fulfillment and satisfaction
• being proud/exceeding expectations or earning recognition
• balancing school, life, and other responsibilities
• learning and applying skills and knowledge
• improving social skills with peers, professors, instructors, or TAs
• getting a job
• getting a degree/graduating
• being able to help others
• others. Please specify: __________________________________________________

Q21 Please select the second-best description that matches how you think academic success looks and feels to you.

• getting good grades/doing well in class
• passing classes
• achieving goals or staying on track
• being able to stay organized
• working hard, personal fulfillment and satisfaction
• being proud/exceeding expectations or earning recognition
• balancing school, life, and other responsibilities
• learning and applying skills and knowledge
• improving social skills with peers, professors, instructors, or TAs
• getting a job
• getting a degree/graduating
• being able to help others
• others. Please specify: __________________________________________________

Q22 Please select the third best description that matches how you think academic success looks and feels to you.

• getting good grades/doing well in class
• passing classes
• achieving goals or staying on track
• being able to stay organized
• working hard, personal fulfillment and satisfaction
• being proud/exceeding expectations or earning recognition
• balancing school, life, and other responsibilities
• learning and applying skills and knowledge
• improving social skills with peers, professors, instructors, or TAs
• getting a job
• getting a degree/graduating
• being able to help others
• others. Please specify: __________________________________________________

Q23 Thank you for your time. The following is the final question of the survey. By clicking your answer below, your response to this survey will be submitted. Are you willing to participate in an eight-week online journal to report your weekly academic engagement activities between March 4 and May 3, 2024? If you choose to participate, you will receive up to $80. If your response is yes, you will be directed to a separate survey to enter your contact information. Your contact information will not be linked with your survey responses.

• Yes
• No

End of Block: Default Question Block