250 likes | 400 Views
“Screenagers” and Virtual (Chat) Reference: The Future is Now!. Presented by Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway New Jersey Association of School Librarians October 29-31, 2006 Long Branch, New Jersey. Authors. Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate Professor,
E N D
“Screenagers” and Virtual (Chat) Reference: The Future is Now! Presented by Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway New Jersey Association of School Librarians October 29-31, 2006 Long Branch, New Jersey
Authors • Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. • Associate Professor, • Rutgers University, SCILS • Email:mradford@scils.rutgers.edu • www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford • Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. • Consulting Research Scientist • Email: connawal@oclc.org • www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm • Grant Website (Slides will be posted):http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity
Seeking Synchronicity:Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives $1,103,572 project funded by: • Institute of Museum & Library Services (IMLS) • $684,996 grant • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey & OCLC, Online Computer Library Center • $405,076 in kind contributions
Seeking Synchronicity:Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives Project duration: 2 Years(10/05-9/07) Four phases: • Focus group interviews • Analysis of 1,000+ QuestionPoint live chat transcripts • 600 online surveys • 300 telephone interviews
“Screenagers” • Term coined in 1996 by Rushkoff • Used here for 12-18 year olds • Affinity for electronic communication computer, phone, television (etc.) • Youngest members of “Millennial Generation”
The Millennial Generation • Born 1979 – 1994 • AKANext Gen, Net Generation, Generation Y, Nexters, Nintendo Generation, Digital Generation, or Echo Boomers • 12-27 year olds • About 75 million people • By 2010 will outnumber Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964)
The Millennial Generation • May be most studied generation in history • 4x amount of toys than Boomer parents 20 yrs. earlier • Born digital, most can’t remember life without computers • Confident, hopeful, goal-oriented, civic-minded, tech savvy • Younger members most likelyto display Millennial characteristics
The Millennial Mind(Sweeney, 2006) • Preferences & Characteristics • More Choices, More Selectivity • Experiential & Exploratory Learners • Flexibility & Convenience • Personalization & Customization • Impatience • Less Attention to Spelling, Grammar • Practical & Results Oriented • Multitaskers
More on Millennial Mind(Sweeney, 2006) • Preferences & Characteristics • Digital Natives • Gamers • Nomadic Communication Style • Media Variety • Collaboration & Intelligence • Balanced Lives • Less Reading
Millennials, “Screenagers” • So what does all this mean… • For libraries? • For reference services? • For virtual reference services (VRS)? • For the future of the above? • Research trying to find out!
Phase I:Focus Group Interviews • 8 Focus Group Interviews (so far) • 4 with non-users • 3 with “Screenagers” (rural, suburban, & urban) • 1 with college students (graduate) • 2 with VRS librarians • 2 with VRS users (college students & adults) • 2 more planned (need help) • 2 more with screenager users
33 Participants 13 (39%) Urban 12 (36%) Suburban 8 (24%) Rural Gender 15 (45%) Male 18 (55%) Female Age Range 12 – 18 years old Ethnicity 21 (64%) Caucasian 6 (18%) African- American 6 (18%) Hispanic/Latino Grade Level 31 (94%) HS 2 (6%) JHS 3 “Screenager” Focus Groups
FG Results - Major Themes • Librarian Stereotypes • Preference for Independent Information Seeking • Google • Web surfing • Preference for Face-to-Face Interaction
More FG Themes • Privacy/Security Concerns • Librarians as “psycho killers” ?? • Fear of cyber stalkers • Factors Influencing Future VRS Use • Recommendation • Marketing • Choice of librarian
Phase II: Transcript Analysis • Generated random sample • 7/04 to 11/06 (18 months) • 479, 673 QuestionPoint sessions total • Avg. 33/mo. = 600 total, 492 examined so far • 431 usable transcripts • Excluding system tests & tech problems • 191 of these highlighted today • 65 identified as “Screenagers” • 126 identified as primary/college/adult
Classification Methodology Qualitative Analysis • Development/refinement of category scheme • Careful reading/analysis • Identification of patterns Time intensive, but reveals complexities!
Results Interpersonal Communication Analysis • Relational Facilitators • Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation that have a positive impact on the librarian-client interaction and that enhance communication. • Relational Barriers • Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation that have a negative impact on the librarian-client interaction and that impede communication.
Transcript Examples Negative Example – Relational Barriers Positive Example – Relational Facilitators
Barriers – DifferencesScreenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126) • Higher numbers/avg. (per transcript) • Abrupt Endings 26 (.4%) vs. 37 (.29%) • Impatience 6 (.09%) vs. 2 (.02%) • Rude or Insulting 2 (.03) vs. 0
Facilitators – DifferencesScreenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126) • Lower numbers/averages (per occurrence) • Thanks 72 (1.11%) vs. 163 (1.29%) • Self Disclosure 41 (.63%) vs. 120 (.95%) • Seeking reassurance 39 (.6%) vs. 87 (.7%) • Agreement try suggestion 39 (.6%) vs. 93 (.74%) • Closing Ritual 25 (.38%) vs. 69 (.55%) • Admitting lack of knowledge 10 (.15%) vs. 30 (.24%)
Facilitators – DifferencesScreenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126) • Higher numbers/averages (per occurrence) • Polite expressions 51 (.78%) vs. 40 (.32%) • Alternate spellings 33 (.51%) vs. 19 (.15%) • Punctuation/repeat 23 (.35%) vs. 28 (.22) • Lower case 19 (.29%) vs. 24 (.19%) • Slang 9 (.14%) vs. 3 (.02%) • Enthusiasm 8 (.12%) vs. 9 (.07%) • Self-correction 7 (.11%) vs. 6 (.05%) • Alpha-numeric shortcuts 3 (.05%) vs. 0
Implications for Practice • VRS is a natural for Screenagers • Recommend/market services (QandANJ) • Reassure that QandANJ is safe • Don’t throw a wet blanket on their enthusiasm • Do encourage, mentor them, & learn from them • Basic service excellence skills • See handouts for recommendations!
Future Directions • Phases III & IV • Online Surveys (in progress) • Telephone Surveys • Building on these results • Need your help to recruit!!
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 and OCLC, Online Computer Library Center. • Special thanks to Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams, Patrick Confer, Julie Strange, Vickie Kozo, & Timothy Dickey. • Slides available at project web site:http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/
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