Tagging the Academic LibraryExploring student awareness use and perceptions at Anglia Ruskin University<br />Jo Harcus<br ...
What is social tagging?<br />Social bookmarking: online version of favourites<br />Social tagging: multiple keywords inste...
http://tags.library.upenn.edu/<br />
http://www.franklin.library.upenn.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?bbid=221634<br />
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/library/eresources/ecollections/freeresources.aspx<br />
http://www.delicious.com/LSELibrary/newspapers<br />
Methods<br />Online student survey<br /><ul><li>to generate indicative profile of current users and non-users of social ta...
to determine current familiarity with social tagging sites and how and why they are / are not used</li></ul>Student focus ...
Key findings <br />Familiarity and use<br />Usage largely confined to popular websites Facebook, Twitter and YouTube<br />...
Key findings<br />LSE Subject Guide<br />Favoured for facilitating access to authoritative, subject-specific resources the...
Key findings<br />PennTags and the Franklin Catalog<br />Unhelpful and unreliable, like Amazon, Google and Wikipedia<br />...
Conclusions<br />Concentrate on developing applications which focus on facilitating access to quality online resources rat...
Thank you for listening!<br />
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Tagging the academic library

508 views
462 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
508
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Tagging the academic library

  1. 1. Tagging the Academic LibraryExploring student awareness use and perceptions at Anglia Ruskin University<br />Jo Harcus<br />jo.harcus@anglia.ac.uk<br />
  2. 2. What is social tagging?<br />Social bookmarking: online version of favourites<br />Social tagging: multiple keywords instead of single hierarchical folders to organise bookmarks<br />Social benefits are a byproduct of personal information management<br />
  3. 3. http://tags.library.upenn.edu/<br />
  4. 4. http://www.franklin.library.upenn.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?bbid=221634<br />
  5. 5. http://www2.lse.ac.uk/library/eresources/ecollections/freeresources.aspx<br />
  6. 6. http://www.delicious.com/LSELibrary/newspapers<br />
  7. 7. Methods<br />Online student survey<br /><ul><li>to generate indicative profile of current users and non-users of social tagging sites
  8. 8. to determine current familiarity with social tagging sites and how and why they are / are not used</li></ul>Student focus groups<br /><ul><li>to assess benefits and barriers of existing tagging applications at other academic libraries (University of Pennsylvania and LSE)</li></li></ul><li>Key findings <br />User profile<br />Just under half of survey respondents use social tagging sites<br />No users aged over 40 or amongst research postgraduates<br />Highest percentage within Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences<br />
  9. 9. Key findings <br />Familiarity and use<br />Usage largely confined to popular websites Facebook, Twitter and YouTube<br />Used daily for personal rather than work or study purposes<br />Used to manage own resources, communicate and share links with known others rather than to actively collaborate and network with other users<br />Lack of familiarity biggest barrier to uptake rather than concerns too difficult or time consuming to use<br />
  10. 10. Key findings<br />LSE Subject Guide<br />Favoured for facilitating access to authoritative, subject-specific resources thereby saving users time and effort<br />Preferred to Google: ‘It’s like finding the handsome prince without having to kiss all the toads’<br />Signposting or spoon feeding?<br />
  11. 11. Key findings<br />PennTags and the Franklin Catalog<br />Unhelpful and unreliable, like Amazon, Google and Wikipedia<br />Barriers to contribution: <br />time and effort<br />fear of criticism/ridicule from other users<br />others gaining from contributions without contributing themselves<br />fear of accusations of collusion and plagiarism <br />Resistant to mixing subjective user contributions with authoritative content in the library catalogue<br />
  12. 12. Conclusions<br />Concentrate on developing applications which focus on facilitating access to quality online resources rather than user participation and collaboration<br />User education to promote benefits, rationalise concerns and manage expectations<br />Findings are not generalisable to all student populations<br />
  13. 13. Thank you for listening!<br />

×