Behaviors and Preferences of Digital Natives: Informing a Research Agenda

ASIST Annual ConferenceOctober 18-25, 2007

Milwaukee, WI

Sponsored by Special Interest Group on Information Needs, Seeking and Use

andSpecial Interest Group on Digital Libraries

Digital Natives Born after 1989

“…think and process information fundamentally 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

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

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

Connecting in Cyberspace: The Millennial Generation &

Virtual Reference Service

Marie L. RadfordLynn Silipigni Connaway

ASIST Annual Conference October 18-25, 2007

Milwaukee, WI

Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives

Project duration: 2 ½ Years (10/05-3/08)

Four phases:I. Focus group interviews

II. Analysis of 850 QuestionPoint live chat transcripts

III. 600 online surveys

IV. 300 telephone interviews

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)

“Screenagers”

• Term coined in 1996 by Rushkoff

• Used here for 12-18 year olds

• Affinity for electronic communication

• Youngest members of “Millennial Generation”

Screenagers: Young Digital Natives

• Implications for libraries?

– For traditional & virtual reference services?

– For the future?

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)

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 Example – Relational Facilitators

“The Size of an Atom”

Question Type: Subject Search

Subject Type: Life Sciences, Biology (DDC:570)

Duration: 40 min.

Transcript Example – Relational Barriers

“Mesopotamian Government”

Question Type: Subject Search

Subject Type: History of Ancient World (DDC:930)

Duration: 27 min.

Facilitators – VRS Users Screenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226)

• Lower numbers/percentages per transcriptS O

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%)

Barriers – VRS Users Screenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226)

• Higher numbers/percentages per transcript

S O

Impatience 12 (8%) vs. 13 (6%)

Rude or Insulting 9 (6%) vs. 9 (4%)

Facilitators - Librarians Screenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226)

• Lower numbers/percentages per transcript L to S L 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%)

Facilitators - Librarians Screenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226)

• Higher numbers/percentages per transcript L to S L 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

Barriers - Librarians Screenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226)

• Higher numbers/percentages per transcript L to S L 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

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

End Notes

• This is one of the outcomes from the projectSeeking 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/

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