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 | guder@ohio.edu

refe rence & instruct ion lib rar ian

oh io un ivers ity