Post on 28-Mar-2015
Observing Student Researchers in their Native Habitat
Dan Burnstone, Publishing Director
E-books and E-content 2008
© 2007. All Right Reserved. The information contained within this presentation is proprietary to ProQuest CSA LLC. Use without citation is strictly prohibited.
Dan Burnstone. Observing Students Researchers in their Native Habitat. Ann Arbor: ProQuest, 2007.
New Realities
1. Users are now in the drivers seat– Users have choices for information access
2. Born-digital users cut their teeth on the leading open web applications
– Google, Amazon and other open-web services have set the bar for the quality of user experience
3. Users expect seamless access and continuity in work flow
– Users will flock to services that meet their needs – or perceived needs
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
Libraries face a challenge
The online library environment must keep pace with escalating user expectations
or risk becoming irrelevant to the user community
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
Objectives of research
Main objective:
to understand better the information-seeking experiences and habits of students
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
Objectives
1. To determine how and where electronic library resources fit into the students' research habits.– Which resources do they use? How do they get to
them?– Do they get or seek any guidance?
2. To discover the factors that play a significant role in the students' selection of resources– How do students evaluate resources? – How do users carry the results of their research into
their work?– Students’ perception of successful research
3. To examine the roles of open web search engines in student research
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
Methodology
• Ongoing research over multiple phases• Field studies observing users in their
native environment• Guided by a formal research plan and
study protocol
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
How the study was conducted
Study parameters
• Students actively engaged in performing research for actual class assignments
• Conducted anonymously to avoid any bias• Conducted onsite and remotely
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
How did we find students?
Screening
• Online survey
Who did we observe?
• Undergraduates
• Graduate students
• Variety of disciplines
• Mix of novice and sophisticated researchers
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
Coffee shopsThe library
Where did we go?
The libraryComputer labs
Where did we go?
Coffee shops
Where did we go?
Apartments
Where did we go?
Capturing remote sessions
The student’s view
Findings – What we learned
• How students decide which resources to use for their research
• How students use library resources • How students are really using Google• How social networking sites factor into
student research
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
How students choose resources
• Library outreach
• Course instructor
• Brand awareness
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
• And Google
How students use library resources
• 95% of participants attempted to use library resources for their research
• Once in a licensed product, most students have no serious difficulties in conducting their research
• Students often work with multiple resources and search tools at the same time
• Abstracts are essential in identifying relevant articles
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
Library resources
Chief inhibitors to success
• Lack of awareness
• Difficulty navigating library website to locate appropriate e-resources
• Misunderstanding of the role of the library catalogue
• Authentication barriers owing to limited access points
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
Library resources
How students really use Google
• Primary research tool
• Handy look-ups
• Supplement research
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
And Google?
Google as a primary research tool
• Suffices, when quality isn’t a concern
• Insufficiently aware of library e-resources
• Bad experiences with library e-resources
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
And Google?
Google as a handy look-up tool
• Locate know resources– Known sites (NGOs, museums, etc.)– Major newspapers– Library resources
• Get specific answers– General information about a topic– Definition of a term, e.g. p16 protein– Complete a citation for an article of interest
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
And Google?
End-user surveys support these findings
• ~10,000 respondents
• Invited from ProQuest search interfaces
• Invited from Facebook ads at 3 universities
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
Quantitative research
Thinking about library online databases in comparison to web search engines such as Google…
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
End-User Surveys
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ProQuest 2006
ProQuest 2007
Outside (Facebook)
Has better quality and credibility of content
Library databases Google
End-User Surveys
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ProQuest 2006
ProQuest 2007
Outside (Facebook)
Has more useful search results
Library databases Google
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
End-User Surveys
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ProQuest 2006
ProQuest 2007
Outside (Facebook)
Has an easier to use search interface
Library databases Google
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
End-User Surveys
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ProQuest 2006
ProQuest 2007
Outside (Facebook)
Is preferred for academic research and course assignments
Library databases Google
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
End-User Surveys
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ProQuest 2006
ProQuest 2007
Outside (Facebook)
Is preferred for quick look up of facts and unfamiliar terms or concepts
Library databases Google
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
End-User Surveys
In conclusion
• Google and other similar open Web search engines have a place in student research, but Google has not displaced the perception that library databases offer superior quality content and research support.
• Users are highly satisfied with the results of their Google searches but not because it excels at supporting the academic research process
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
And Google?
Social networking sites
• For the most part, they don’t
• Facebook often used as study break; MySpace rarely used
• One student mentioned using it for a group project as a means for communication within the group
• Academic librarians are setting up Facebook profiles to create relationships with students
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
How they factor into student research
Recommendations
• Make resources discoverable– Simplify e-resources web page design– Address students perception that “the online catalogue
represents all library resources”
• Authentication– Design access points for electronic resources from the students’
perspective
• Build awareness – Get into the classroom– In person– Via instructor– Via course pages
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
Formula For Academic Library Success*
Greater Awareness
+ Usable Websites
+ Flawless Authentication
= Better Results
* Courtesy Steven Bell via ACRL blog entry about these research findings [ http://acrlblog.org/2007/05/14/formula-for-academic-library-success ]
© 2007 ProQuest LLC. All Right Reserved.
Thank you
Dan Burnstonedan.burnstone@proquest.co.uk
“To be successful in today’s world, those who define and build [research solutions] must know how to fit them into the fabric of everyday life.”
Beyer & Holtzblatt