Contributed paper presentation at the ACRL 2009 Conference by Char Booth and Chris Guder.

1. If You Buil d It, Will They Care?
ACRL 2009
Char Booth: UC Berkeley
Trac king Stu den t Rec eptivity to Libra ry Tech nologie s
Chris Guder: Ohio University

2. the point.
* und ersta nding local patr on cultur es is essentia l
to cr ea ting used and useful (technolog y) ser vices.
at OU, an envir onmenta l scan ning user resea rch
project help ed us get ther e.*

3. the context.
Oh ioLINK participan t
20, 00 0+ stude nts be ta-toleran t cultu re
ohio
university
libraries
heavy librar y use
large cen tr al fac ility
24/ 7 in fo com mons

4. the problem.
wikis
Meebo reference
browser toolbars
Skype reference
eme rgin g ser v ices
video kiosks
social site profiles
podcasts
blogs

5. the problem.
= normal
wikis
= benign
Meebo reference = risqué
= scary
browser toolbars
skype reference
st af f perc ept ions
video kiosks
social site profiles
text reference
podcasts
Second Life
blogs
video blogs

6. the problem.
Meebo reference
Second… Life
video kiosks?
blogs text reference
skype reference browser toolbars
social site profiles
video blogs
“wikis” …podcasts

7. the problem.
Meebo reference
Second… Life
video kiosks?
blogs text reference
skype reference browser toolbars
technolust
social site profiles
video blogs
“wikis” …podcasts

8. the solution.
* investigate the actual technolog y and libr ar y
use pa tterns of Ohio University stud ents.

9. the solution.
* investigate the actual technolog y and libr ar y
use pa tterns of Ohio University stud ents.
envir on mental scanning pr oje ct
evaluate needs
prioritize goals
challenge assumptions
understand users

10. the solution.
* investigate the actual technolog y and libr ar y
use pa tterns of Ohio University stud ents.
envir on mental scanning pr oje ct
use adoption use perceptions
technology library
skills ownership skills receptivity

11. the solution.
* investigate the actual technolog y and libr ar y
use pa tterns of Ohio University stud ents.
envir on mental scanning pr oje ct
Survey 1 Survey 2
time f ra m e Wi nt e r Q ua r t e r 2 0 0 7- 8 Sp ri n g Q u ar t er 2 0 0 8
55 o n l in e q ues t i on s , mo s tl y
22 o n l in e q ues t i on s , m ul t i pl e
desi g n clos ed - f or m ( Li ke r t s c al e , m ul t .
choi c e a nd o p en r es po ns e
choi c e )
scop e te ch n o l og y a nd l i br a r y u s e lib r ar y us e a nd p er c e pt i on s
3,648 r es po n d ent s (1 8% o f 1,651 r es po n d ent s (8 % o f
samp l e
st ude nt bo d y ) st ude n t bo d y )
ince n ti v e 3 $100 p ri zes a w ar d ed 1 $100 p ri ze aw ar de d
prom o ti o n all- s tu d en t e ma i l , l i b r ar y b l o g all- s tu d en t e ma i l , l i b r ar y b l o g
anal y si s de s c ri pt i ve s , c ro ss ta b s cod ed v er ab a ti m r es po ns e s

12. demographics | age & gender, & standing
*age
*gender *standing

13. findings | time online per week
u n d e r g ra d u a te g r a d u a te
les s t h an 5 hou r s 4% 4%
6- 1 0 22% 18%
11- 2 0 33% 26%
21- 3 0 23% 21%
31- 4 0 10% 15%
mor e t h an 4 0 7% 14%

14. findings | time online per week
u n d e r g ra d u a te g r a d u a te
les s t h an 5 hou r s 4% 4%
6- 1 0 22% 18%
11- 2 0 33% 26%
21- 3 0 23% 21%
31- 4 0 10% 15%
* mor e t h an 4 0 7% 14%

15. findings | student technology ownership

16. 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 31+
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%
blogs 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%
wikis 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%

17. 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 31+
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%
blogs 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%
*
wikis 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%

18. 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 31+
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%
blogs 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%
wikis 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%

19. 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 31+
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%
blogs 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%
wikis 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%

20. findings | in-person and virtual library use
library web visits
library computer use library visits

21. findings | awareness of library services

22. findings | library technology receptivity

23. findings | library technology receptivity
Digital Status 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
Very 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%

24. findings | library technology receptivity
Digital Status 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
* Very 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%
*
*
*

25. findings | priceless verbatim comments
“Two words - air conditioning.”
“The library kind of smells.” “The ‘stack floors’ are creepy.”
“More stables for people to study at.”
“Constan t talks to stu de nts as how to acc ess libra ry resourc es.”
“Prom ote librar y ser vic es more !!”

26. implementation | skype
Skype a librarian & video kiosk
low use/i nterest
st affing is sues
… creepy?
under ev al uat io n

27. implementation | mobile access
mobile library website
low current interest
hi gh growt h area
tech innova t ing
push servi ce?

28. implementation | texting
OPAC texting services
hi gher int eres t
ea sier to imp l ement
push to 1st years
launchi ng soo n

29. implementation | second life
Second Life
low st udent use
AD A potent ia l
ca mp us interest
surv ey hi ndsi ght

30. implementation | browser addons
Firefox library toolbars
pra cti ca l
hi ghest int eres t
new itera ti ons
st udent s unaw are

31. implementation | social networking
Facebook library page
hi gh int erest
div id ed opi nion
“conveni ence ”
ea sy to mai nta i n

32. implementation | non-tech related
facility-based changes
lat e access po li cy
com put ers & print ing
quiet spa ce & ho urs
bull eti n bo ard s, et c.

33. implementation | non-tech related
marketing/advertising
low awareness
sha re survey result s
out rea ch st rat egies
si gna ge

34. conclusion
qu estion gene rational in vestigate loc al
assu m ption s patron cultur es
takeaways
use data to
prom ote em erging
inf or m dec ision s
ser vic es

35. Q/A
* cha r booth | cboo th@libr ar y .ber k eley
e-lea rning lib r ar ia n
university of califor nia , ber k eley
* chris gud er | gud er@ ohio.edu
refe rence & instr uction lib rar ian
ohio univer sity