LAUC-B

2009I N F O R M I N G I N N O V A T I O N

Tracking Student Interest in Library Technologies

Char Booth

UC Berkeley

the questions.

* has l ib rary 2.0 and us/them th ink ing created a one-

size-fit s al l approach to technology deve lopment?

what mot ivates users to integ ra te lib ra ries in to

the ir personal learning env ironments?*

breakout session.

* generat ional assumpti ons

li brary pred isposit ion

implications for assessment & services

investigating preconceptions.

uncomfortable

old and frightened

rigidinflexible

wasting time

Game players

Unafraid/fearless

Social/impatient

Young and abrasive

immigrants natives

* generat ional assumpti ons

methodology.

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

* invest igate the actual technology and library

use pa tterns/cu l tures of Ohio Univers i ty students.

environmental scan

*age

*gender *standing

findings | demographics

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”

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

*

*

*

*

*

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 | relative technology unfamiliarity

findings | google app use

17-19 20-22 23-26 27-30 31+

Se arch 98% 97% 95% 98% 99%

Im ages 66% 61% 54% 53% 37%

Ma ps 47% 51% 62% 55% 51%

Ne ws 21% 23% 21% 20% 23%

Gm ail 17% 25% 44% 47% 34%

Sc hol ar 13% 20% 38% 40% 37%

iG oog le 9 % 9 % 11% 11% 8 %

Do cum ents 8 % 10% 15% 20% 20%

Bo oks 5 % 6 % 14% 16% 11%

Ta lk 3 % 4 % 12% 12% 8 %

Bl og Sea rch 2 % 2 % 4 % 4 % 6 %

Pi casa 2 % 5 % 13% 9 % 8 %

Re ader 1 % 2 % 3 % 6 % 3 %

findings | in-person and virtual library use

library computer use library visitslibrary web visits

findings | open-ended library assessment

findings | library vs. research skill

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 predisposition

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 librar y kind of smel ls.”

“More stab les for peop le to study at . ”

“Two words - air condi t ion ing. ”

“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 add-ons

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

* understanding local patron cul tures is essent ia l

to crea t ing used and usefu l (technology) serv ices.

envi ronmenta l scanning is a scalab le means

of invest igat ing needs and percept ions.*

the point.

invest igate local pat ron cul tur es

use data to inf orm dec is ions

promote emerging services

quest ion generat ional assumpt ions

takeaways

the point.

Q/A

* cha r booth

e-learn ing li brar ian | uc berke ley

cbooth@li brary .berke ley .edu

report : ti nyur l .com/i i-booth | blog: in fomat ional .com