Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Contributed paper presentation at the ACRL 2009 Conference by Char Booth and Chris Guder.
Citation preview
If You Build It, Wil l They Care?
Char Booth: UC Berkeley
Chris Guder: Ohio University
ACRL 2009
Tracking Studen t Recept iv i ty to Libra ry Technolog ies
the point.
* understanding local patron cul tures is essent ia l
to crea t ing used and usefu l (technology) serv ices.
at OU, an envi ronmenta l scanning user resea rch
project helped us get there.*
the context.
20,000+ students
large cen tr al fac i l it y
be ta-to leran t cul tu re
24/7 in fo commons
Oh ioLINK part icipan t
heavy librar y use
ohio
university
libraries
wikis
video kiosks
Skype reference
Meebo reference
blogs
social site profiles
browser toolbars
podcasts
the problem.
eme rging serv ices
wikis
Meebo reference
blogs
social site profiles
browser toolbars
podcasts
the problem.
= normal
= benign
= risqué
= scary
skype reference
video kiosks
text reference
video blogs
Second Life
st af f percept ions
“wikis”
video kiosks?
skype reference
Meebo reference
blogs
social site profiles
browser toolbars
…podcasts
the problem.
text reference
video blogs
Second… Life
“wikis”
video kiosks?
skype reference
Meebo reference
blogs
social site profiles
browser toolbars
…podcasts
the problem.
text reference
video blogs
Second… Life
technolust
the solution.
* invest igate the actual technology and library
use pa tterns of Ohio Univers i ty students.
the solution.
understand users
challenge assumptions
prioritize goals
evaluate needs
environmenta l scanning project
* invest igate the actual technology and library
use pa tterns of Ohio Univers i ty students.
environmenta l scanning project
technology
adoption
ownershipskills
use
library
perceptions
receptivityskills
use
* invest igate the actual technology and library
use pa tterns of Ohio Univers i ty students.
the solution.
the solution.
S u r v e y 1 Survey 2
timeframe Winte r Quarte r 200 7-8 Sp rin g Qu ar t er 2008
design
55 on l ine q uest i ons , mos tl y closed-f or m ( Liker t scale , mul t . choice)
22 on l ine q uest i ons , mul t iple choice a nd o p en response
scope te chnology and l i bra ry us e lib rary use a nd p erce pt i ons
sample 3,648 r es pondents (1 8% o f st ude nt body)
1,651 r es pondents (8 % of st udent body)
incentive 3 $100 p ri zes aw ar d ed 1 $100 p ri ze awar de d
promotion all-s tu d en t e mai l , l ib rary b log all-s tu d en t e mai l , l ib rary b log
analysis descri pt i ves , c rosstab s cod ed veraba ti m response s
environmenta l scanning project
* invest igate the actual technology and library
use pa tterns of Ohio Univers i ty students.
demographics | age & gender, & standing
*age
*gender *standing
findings | time online per week
u nd e r g rad u a te g ra d u a te
less th an 5 hours 4 % 4 %
6-10 22% 18%
11-2 0 33% 26%
21-3 0 23% 21%
31-40 10% 15%
more th an 40 7 % 14%
u nd e r g rad u a te g ra d u a te
less th an 5 hours 4 % 4 %
6-10 22% 18%
11-2 0 33% 26%
21-3 0 23% 21%
31-40 10% 15%
more th an 40 7 % 14%
findings | time online per week
*
findings | student technology ownership
Digital“immigrant”
Digital“native”
findings | use of emerging technologies by age
age of respondent
1 7- 1 9 2 0- 2 2 2 3- 2 6 2 7- 3 0 3 1 +
w e b c a l li n g 1 6% 1 8% 3 1% 4 0% 3 3%
s e c o nd l i f e 5% 8% 1 2% 1 0% 1 0%
b l o g s 1 5% 1 6% 2 3% 2 7% 2 0%
w e b - b a s ed i m 7 1% 6 6% 5 9% 5 4% 4 3%
p o d c as t s 2 9% 2 9% 3 5% 3 7% 4 1%
t e x t in g 8 9% 8 5% 6 7% 5 8% 5 1%
w i k i s 6 5% 7 1% 7 4% 7 3% 7 8%
f a c e bo o k 9 4% 9 2% 7 6% 5 6% 3 5%
m y s p ac e 4 0% 3 6% 3 6% 3 4% 1 9%
f l i c kr 3% 4% 5% 1 4% 8%
y o u t ub e 6 7% 6 3% 4 8% 3 4% 2 5%
t w i t te r .3% .2% .7% 0% .5%
d e l i ci o us .6% .8% 2% 2% 3%
age of respondent
1 7- 1 9 2 0- 2 2 2 3- 2 6 2 7- 3 0 3 1 +
w e b c a l li n g 1 6% 1 8% 3 1% 4 0% 3 3%
s e c o nd l i f e 5% 8% 1 2% 1 0% 1 0%
b l o g s 1 5% 1 6% 2 3% 2 7% 2 0%
w e b - b a s ed i m 7 1% 6 6% 5 9% 5 4% 4 3%
p o d c as t s 2 9% 2 9% 3 5% 3 7% 4 1%
t e x t in g 8 9% 8 5% 6 7% 5 8% 5 1%
w i k i s 6 5% 7 1% 7 4% 7 3% 7 8%
f a c e bo o k 9 4% 9 2% 7 6% 5 6% 3 5%
m y s p ac e 4 0% 3 6% 3 6% 3 4% 1 9%
f l i c kr 3% 4% 5% 1 4% 8%
y o u t ub e 6 7% 6 3% 4 8% 3 4% 2 5%
t w i t te r .3% .2% .7% 0% .5%
d e l i ci o us .6% .8% 2% 2% 3%
findings | use of emerging technologies by age
*
*
*
*
*
age of respondent
1 7- 1 9 2 0- 2 2 2 3- 2 6 2 7- 3 0 3 1 +
w e b c a l li n g 1 6% 1 8% 3 1% 4 0% 3 3%
s e c o nd l i f e 5% 8% 1 2% 1 0% 1 0%
b l o g s 1 5% 1 6% 2 3% 2 7% 2 0%
w e b - b a s ed i m 7 1% 6 6% 5 9% 5 4% 4 3%
p o d c as t s 2 9% 2 9% 3 5% 3 7% 4 1%
t e x t in g 8 9% 8 5% 6 7% 5 8% 5 1%
w i k i s 6 5% 7 1% 7 4% 7 3% 7 8%
f a c e bo o k 9 4% 9 2% 7 6% 5 6% 3 5%
m y s p ac e 4 0% 3 6% 3 6% 3 4% 1 9%
f l i c kr 3% 4% 5% 1 4% 8%
y o u t ub e 6 7% 6 3% 4 8% 3 4% 2 5%
t w i t te r .3% .2% .7% 0% .5%
d e l i ci o us .6% .8% 2% 2% 3%
findings | use of emerging technologies by age
*
*
*
*
findings | use of emerging technologies by age
age of respondent
1 7- 1 9 2 0- 2 2 2 3- 2 6 2 7- 3 0 3 1 +
w e b c a l li n g 1 6% 1 8% 3 1% 4 0% 3 3%
s e c o nd l i f e 5% 8% 1 2% 1 0% 1 0%
b l o g s 1 5% 1 6% 2 3% 2 7% 2 0%
w e b - b a s ed i m 7 1% 6 6% 5 9% 5 4% 4 3%
p o d c as t s 2 9% 2 9% 3 5% 3 7% 4 1%
t e x t in g 8 9% 8 5% 6 7% 5 8% 5 1%
w i k i s 6 5% 7 1% 7 4% 7 3% 7 8%
f a c e bo o k 9 4% 9 2% 7 6% 5 6% 3 5%
m y s p ac e 4 0% 3 6% 3 6% 3 4% 1 9%
f l i c kr 3% 4% 5% 1 4% 8%
y o u t ub e 6 7% 6 3% 4 8% 3 4% 2 5%
t w i t te r .3% .2% .7% 0% .5%
d e l i ci o us .6% .8% 2% 2% 3%
*
findings | in-person and virtual library use
library computer use library visitslibrary web visits
findings | awareness of library services
findings | library technology receptivity
(% of total respondents using each technology)
36%
16%
6%
80%
86%
17%
findings | library technology receptivity
Digital St a t u s Academic Status
n a t i ve i m m i gr a nt u n d e rg r ad u a t e g r a d ua t e
V e r y r e ce p t i ve 23% 42% 23% 33%
S o m e wh a t r e c ep t iv e 53% 47% 53% 45%
N o t r e c ep t i v e 24% 11% 24% 22%
findings | library technology receptivity
Digital St a t u s Academic Status
n a t i ve i m m i gr a nt u n d e rg r ad u a t e g r a d ua t e
V e r y r e ce p t i ve 23% 42% 23% 33%
S o m e wh a t r e c ep t iv e 53% 47% 53% 45%
N o t r e c ep t i v e 24% 11% 24% 22%
**
**
*
findings | priceless verbatim comments
“The library kind of smells.”
“More stables for people to study at.”
“Two words - air conditioning.”
“The ‘stack floors’ are creepy.”
“Promote librar y ser v ices more ! !”
“Constan t talks to students as how to access libra ry resources.”
implementation | skype
Skype a librarian & video kiosk
low use/interest
staffing is sues
… creepy?
under evaluat ion
implementation | mobile access
mobile library website
low current interest
high growth area
tech innova t ing
push service?
implementation | texting
OPAC texting services
higher interes t
easier to imp lement
push to 1st years
launching soon
implementation | second life
Second Life
low student use
ADA potent ia l
campus interest
survey hindsight
implementation | browser addons
Firefox library toolbars
practica l
highest interes t
new itera tions
students unaware
implementation | social networking
Facebook library page
high interest
div ided opin ion
“convenience ”
easy to mainta in
implementation | non-tech related
facility-based changes
late access po licy
computers & pr int ing
quiet space & hours
bulletin boards, etc.
implementation | non-tech related
marketing/advertising
low awareness
share survey result s
out reach st rategies
signage
invest igate local pat ron cul tur es
use data to inf orm dec is ions
promote emerg ing ser v ices
quest ion generat ional assumpt ions
conclusion
takeaways
Q/A
* cha r booth | cboo th@l ibrary .berkeley
e- lea rn ing lib rar ian
un ivers i ty of cal i forn ia , berkeley
* chris guder | [email protected]
refe rence & instruct ion lib rar ian
oh io un ivers ity
