1 / 21

Behaviors and Preferences of Digital Natives: Informing a Research Agenda

Behaviors and Preferences of Digital Natives: Informing a Research Agenda. ASIST Annual Conference October 18-25, 2007 Milwaukee, WI Sponsored by Special Interest Group on Information Needs, Seeking and Use and Special Interest Group on Digital Libraries. Digital Natives.

Jims
Download Presentation

Behaviors and Preferences of Digital Natives: Informing a Research Agenda

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Behaviors and Preferences of Digital Natives:Informing a Research Agenda ASIST Annual Conference October 18-25, 2007 Milwaukee, WI Sponsored by Special Interest Group on Information Needs, Seeking and Use and Special Interest Group on Digital Libraries

  2. Digital Natives • Born after 1989 • “…think and process informationfundamentally differently from their predecessors” (Prensky, 2001) • Need for research to identify information-seeking behaviors • Develop library services & systems they will use • Proposed Research Agenda • Virtual reference services • Selection of digital library resources • Collaborative information behavior in online environments

  3. Presenters • Linda Z. Cooper • Overarching Issues in Children’s and Youth Information Behavior Research: Moving the Research Agenda beyond Systems Design • Marie L. Radford & Lynn Silipigni Connaway (Organizers) • Connecting in Cyberspace: The Millennial Generation and Virtual Reference Service

  4. Presenters • Kara Reuter • Migrating from Print to Digital: Children’s Selection of Books in a Public Library and a Digital Library • Nan Zhou & Denise E. Agosto • The Collaborative Information Behavior of Middle School Students in Online Learning Environments: An Exploratory Study

  5. Connecting in Cyberspace: The Millennial Generation & Virtual Reference Service Marie L. Radford Lynn Silipigni Connaway ASIST Annual Conference October 18-25, 2007 Milwaukee, WI

  6. Seeking Synchronicity:Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives Project duration: 2 ½ Years(10/05-3/08) Four phases: • Focus group interviews • Analysis of 850 QuestionPoint live chat transcripts • 600 online surveys • 300 telephone interviews

  7. The Millennial Generation • Born 1979 – 1994 • AKA Net Generation, Generation Y, Digital Generation, or Echo Boomers • 13-28 year olds • About 75 million people • By 2010 will outnumber Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964)

  8. “Screenagers” • Term coined in 1996 by Rushkoff • Used here for 12-18 year olds • Affinity for electronic communication • Youngest members of “Millennial Generation”

  9. Screenagers: Young Digital Natives • Implications for libraries? • For traditional & virtual reference services? • For the future?

  10. Phase II: Transcript Analysis • Random sample • 7/04 to 11/06 (18 months) • 500,000+ pool of transcripts • 30-50 per month = 850 total sample • 746 usable transcripts • Excluding system tests & technical problems • 372 classified by age/educational level • 146 “Screenagers” (Middle & High School) • 226 “Others” (College/Adult)

  11. Interpersonal Communication Analysis • Relational Facilitators • Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation that have a positive impact on the librarian-client interaction and that enhancecommunication. • Relational Barriers • Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation that have a negative impact on the librarian-client interaction and that impede communication.

  12. Transcript Example – Relational Facilitators “The Size of an Atom” Question Type: Subject Search Subject Type: Life Sciences, Biology (DDC:570) Duration: 40 min.

  13. Transcript Example – Relational Barriers “Mesopotamian Government” Question Type: Subject Search Subject Type: History of Ancient World (DDC:930) Duration: 27 min.

  14. Facilitators – VRS UsersScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) • Lower numbers/percentages per transcript SO Thanks 75 (21%) vs. 175 (77%) Agreement to try what 46 (32%) vs. 116 (51%) is suggested Closing Ritual 47 (32%) vs. 111 (49%) Self Disclosure 61 (42%) vs. 125 (55%) Seeking Reassurance 57 (39%) vs. 111 (49%) Admit lack knowledge 13 (19%) vs. 47 (21%)

  15. Barriers – VRS UsersScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) • Higher numbers/percentages per transcript SO Impatience12 (8%) vs. 13 (6%) Rude or Insulting 9 (6%) vs. 9 (4%)

  16. Facilitators - LibrariansScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) • Lower numbers/percentages per transcript L to SL to O Offering Opinion/Advice 43 (29%) vs. 83 (37%) Explaining Search Strategy 9 (6%) vs. 31 (14%) All Lower Case 63 (11%) vs. 43 (18%) Encouraging Remarks 18 (12%) vs. 39 (17%)

  17. Facilitators - LibrariansScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) • Highernumbers/percentages per transcript L to SL to O Seeking Reassurance 89 (61%) vs. 115 (51%) Greeting Ritual 76 (52%) vs. 108 (48%) Asking for Patience 57 (39%) vs. 80 (35%) Explaining Signing off 8 (5%) vs. 2 (1%) Abruptly

  18. Barriers - LibrariansScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) • Higher numbers/percentages per transcript L to SL to O Abrupt Endings 23 (16%) vs. 20 (9%) Limits Time 9 (6%) vs. 1 (0%) Sends to Google 8 (5%) vs. 0 (0%) Reprimanding 6 (4%) vs. 1 (0%) Failure/Refusal to 7 (5%) vs. 5 (2%) Provide Information

  19. Future Directions • Continue to collect & analyze data • Online surveys • Librarians and Non-users completed • Users in progress • Telephone interviews • Librarians completed • Users and Non-users in progress

  20. End Notes • This is one of the outcomes from the project Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives • Funded by IMLS, Rutgers University, & OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. • Special thanks to Patrick Confer, Timothy Dickey, Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams, Julie Strange, & Janet Torsney. • Slides available at project web site: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/

  21. Questions • Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. • Email:mradford@scils.rutgers.edu • www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford • Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. • Email: connawal@oclc.org • www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm

More Related