1 / 21

Getting in Synch with Screenagers: Virtual Reference and Sustaining the Relevance of Libraries

Getting in Synch with Screenagers: Virtual Reference and Sustaining the Relevance of Libraries. Lynn Silipigni Connaway Marie L. Radford Independent Reference Publishers Group ALA Annual Conference Washington, DC June 22, 2007.

lblythe
Download Presentation

Getting in Synch with Screenagers: Virtual Reference and Sustaining the Relevance of Libraries

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. Getting in Synch with Screenagers: Virtual Reference and Sustaining the Relevance of Libraries Lynn Silipigni Connaway Marie L. Radford Independent Reference Publishers Group ALA Annual Conference Washington, DC June 22, 2007

  2. Seeking Synchronicity:Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, & Librarian Perspectives Funded byInstitute of Museum & Library Services Rutgers University & OCLC (10/05-9/07) Four phases: • Focus group interviews • Analysis of 850 QuestionPoint live chat transcripts • 600 online surveys • 300 telephone interviews

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

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

  5. The Millennial Generation • May be most studied generation in history • 4x amount of toys than Boomer parents 20 yrs. earlier • Born digital, most can not remember life without computers • Confident, hopeful, goal-oriented, civic-minded, tech savvy • Younger members most likely to display Millennial characteristics

  6. The Millennial Mind(Sweeney, 2006) • Preferences & Characteristics • More Choices & Selectivity • Experiential & Exploratory Learners • Flexibility & Convenience • Personalization & Customization • Impatient • Less Attention to Spelling, Grammar • Practical, Results Oriented • Multi-taskers & Collaborators

  7. Location 13 (39%) Urban 12 (36%) Suburban 8 (24%) Rural Gender 15 (45%) Male 18 (55%) Female Age Range 12 – 18 years old Total = 30 Participants in 3 groups Ethnicity 21 (64%) Caucasian 6 (18%) African- American 6 (18%) Hispanic/Latino Grade Level 31 (94%) HS 2 (6%) JHS (Grade 7) “Screenager” Focus Group Interviews

  8. Focus Group Interviews: Major Themes • Hold Librarian Stereotypes • Prefer Independent Information Seeking • Google • Web surfing • Prefer Face-to-Face Interaction

  9. Focus Group Interviews: Major Themes • Have Privacy/Security Concerns • Librarians as “psycho killers” ? • Fear of cyber stalkers • Factors Influencing Future VRS Use • Recommendation of trusted librarian or friend • Marketing • Choice of librarian

  10. Phase II: Transcript Analysis • 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

  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 - Positive Battle of the Somme Question Type: Subject search Subject Type: History of Europe (940) Duration: 26 minutes User Location: England Librarian Location: Hawaii

  13. Transcript Example - Negative Mental Illness Question Type: Ready reference Subject Type: Medicine & health (610) Duration: 11 minutes User Location: Australia Librarian Location: Australia

  14. Facilitators – DifferencesScreenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126) • Highernumbers/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 (n=191 transcripts)

  15. Facilitators – DifferencesScreenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126) • Lower numbers/averages (per occurrence) Thanks 72 (110%) vs. 163 (130%) Self Disclosure 41 (63%) vs. 120 (95%) Seeking reassurance 39 (6%) vs. 87 (7%) Agree to suggestion 39 (6%) vs. 93 (74%) Closing Ritual 25 (38%) vs. 69 (55%) Admit lack knowledge 10 (15%) vs. 30 (24%) (n=191 transcripts)

  16. Barriers – DifferencesScreenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126) • Higher numbers/avg. (per transcript) for: Abrupt Endings 26 (4%) vs. 37 (29%) Impatience 6 (9%) vs. 2 (2%) Rude or Insulting 2 (3%) vs. 0 (n=191 transcripts)

  17. Librarian Perspective Recent telephone interviews with librarians indicate excitement regarding the ability to reach users not normally served by more traditional reference services

  18. Implications for VRS Providers VRS is a natural for screenagers (especially live chat reference) • Recommend/market VRS services • Reassure that VRS is safe • Encourage their enthusiasm • Mentor and learn from them • Try new social software applications • Introduce new reference sources • Facilitate access to online reference sources

  19. Future Directions • Continue to collect & analyze data • Online surveys • Librarian survey completed • Non-user and User surveys in progress • Telephone interviews • 100 with Librarians completed • 100 Users in progress • 100 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 Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams, Susanna Sabolsci-Boros, Patrick Confer, Julie Strange, Mary Anne Reilly, Vickie Kozo, David Dragos & Timothy Dickey. • Slides available at project web site:http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/

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

More Related