• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Journal of librarianship and information science 2009-aharony-227-42
 

Journal of librarianship and information science 2009-aharony-227-42

on

  • 789 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
789
Views on SlideShare
789
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Journal of librarianship and information science 2009-aharony-227-42 Journal of librarianship and information science 2009-aharony-227-42 Document Transcript

    • Journal of Librarianship and Information Science http://lis.sagepub.com/The influence of LIS students personality characteristics on their perceptions towards Web 2.0 use Noa Aharony Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 2009 41: 227 DOI: 10.1177/0961000609345088 The online version of this article can be found at: http://lis.sagepub.com/content/41/4/227 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for Journal of Librarianship and Information Science can be found at: Email Alerts: http://lis.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://lis.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://lis.sagepub.com/content/41/4/227.refs.html >> Version of Record - Nov 20, 2009 What is This? Downloaded from lis.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
    • Noa Aharony received her PhD in 2003 fromthe School of Education at Bar-Ilan University,Israel. Her research interests are in education The influence of LISfor library and information science, schoollibrarianship, knowledge economy, marketing,educational technology and Web 2.0. students’ personalityDr Aharony has published in refereed IS andeducation journals and teaches courses ininformation literacy, distance learning, school characteristics on theirlibrarianship, knowledge management andsocial science resources at the School of perceptions towards Web 2.0 useInformation Science at Bar-Ilan Universityand at the School of Information Science atBeit Berl Academic College. NOA AHARONY The information world in which library and information science (LIS) stu- dents study and are being educated is in a state of constant change. As Web 2.0 is becoming an important and central topic in our information world, the research reported here explores whether LIS students are familiar with tech- nological changes and innovations, and whether they make use of the dif- ferent Web 2.0 applications. The research examined whether personality characteristics (learning strategies, resistance to change and cognitive appraisal), as well as learning facilitators such as motivation, capacity and importance of studying and integrating different applications of Web 2.0 in the future, influenced LIS students’ perceptions towards Web 2.0 use. Different questionnaires were distributed to 160 randomly selected Israeli students from three different LIS programmes. The research revealed a moderate tendency of LIS students to use Web 2.0 applications. It was found that personality characteristics as well as learning facilitators influenced LIS students’ perceptions towards Web 2.0 use. KEYWORDS: cognitive appraisal; learning strategies; LIS students; resistance to change; Web 2.0 INTRODUCTION The term Web 2.0 was first coined and conceptualized by Tim O’Reilly and Dale Dougherty in 2004 to describe the terms and business models that survived the technology sector market crash in the 1990s (O’Reilly, 2005). Many people asso- ciate Web 2.0 with terms such as blogs, wikis, podcasts, RSS feeds and social web. Tim Berners-Lee (2006), the inventor of the Web, claims that Web 2.0 is no different from Web 1.0. According to Berners-Lee, the goal of Web 1.0 was to connect people, and Web 2.0 is only jargon – nobody really knows what it means. Web 2.0 emphasizes the value of user-generated content. It is aboutAddress: Department of Information Science sharing and about communication and it opens the long tail which allows smallBar-Ilan University groups of individuals to benefit from key pieces of the platform while fulfillingRamat Gan, their own needs (Miller, 2006). As Web 2.0 is becoming an important and centralIsrael 52900 topic in our information world, the current research explores whether LIS stu-Tel: +972 3 6352173 dents are familiar with the technological changes and innovations, and whetherFax: +972 3 5354325 they make use of the different Web 2.0 applications. Do they understand theE-mail: aharonn1@mail.biu.ac.il power of Web 2.0 applications that can improve libraries’ services and image? Will they be ready to use in the future non-traditional tools such as wikis orCopyright © The Author(s), 2009.Reprints and permissions:http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navVol 41 (4): 227–242[DOI: 10.1177/0961000609345088] JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 41 (4) DECEMBER 2009 227 Downloaded from lis.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
    • The influence of LIS students’ personality characteristics on their perceptions towards Web 2.0 useblogs in the library? Will they enable patrons to con- and librarians as patrons ask questions and other users ortribute comments, add tags, rate library items and get librarians answer them. The wiki can contain referencethem involved in interactive and collaborative activities? materials as well as various patrons’ and librarians’ rec- Personality is ‘a pattern of characteristics thoughts, ommendations and it may also serve as a group studyfeelings and behavior that distinguishes one person from room (Maness, 2006). In addition, librarians can use wikisanother’ (Phares, 1991). As personality is an influential for the purpose of library instruction or as a platform forvariable on information behaviour and is the most impor- book recommendations, cataloguing and tagging, alltant psychological mechanism that guides behaviour created by library users (Aharony, 2008).(Heinstrom, 2006), the current research focused on per- Regarding wiki use in an academic setting, Ramansonality characteristics. The research explored whether et al. (2005) have suggested that wikis can support collab-personality characteristics (learning strategies, resistance orative knowledge creation and sharing in an academicto change and cognitive appraisal), as well as learning environment. However, success depends on certainfacilitators such as motivation, capacity, and importance variables – familiarity with wiki technology, careful plan-given to studying and integrating different applications ning for implementation and use, appropriate class size,of Web 2.0 in the future, influence LIS students’ perceptions and motivation of students to engage in discovery learning.towards Web 2.0 use. Furthermore, Aharony (2009b) found in her study that the wiki platform enables students in an academic setting LITERATURE REVIEW to use profound levels of discussion and interaction. The third application considered is tagging. A tag is Key Web 2.0 services and their a keyword that is added to a digital object in order to applications to the library describe it, but not as a part of a formal classification and education worlds system. The tagging is done in a social environmentThere are a number of web services or applications which (Vandar Wal, 2005) and allows users to change not onlyare considered to be key concepts in Web 2.0. First among the content, but also the metadata. Libraries can allowthem is the blog. The web log, which John Berger called users to add tags to their catalogues, as on the Libraryblog in 1997, refers to a webpage that contains posts – Thing site (http://www.librarything.com/) which enablesopinions, information, personal diary entries or links. users to ‘tag’ their books, catalogue their books and toThese posts appear in chronological order of their being recommend books.entered, with the most recent first, and in many ways, a Social bookmarking is another Web 2.0 applicationblog is an online journal (Doctorow et al., 2002). Most of interest. It allows users to create common lists ofblogs allow visitors to add a comment below the entry. ‘favourites’ and to store them on a remote server, so thatThe blog allows a ‘weighted conversation’ (Benkler, 2006) the list can be shared with other users of the system.between the primary author and his comment contribu- Libraries can use social networks like Del.icio.us in ordertors. Each post is ‘tagged’ with a keyword or two, and to enable users to share Web resources.contains several links which deepen the conversational An additional application is the podcast, an audionature of the blogosphere (Anderson, 2007), the ‘world’ recording which can be played on a desktop computer orof bloggers who operate in their own environment. on a wide range of MP3 devices. A podcast is made byLibraries can use blogs as a form of publication (Maness, creating an MP3 format audio file, uploading it to a host2006) or as tools for marketing their resources and events server, and then publicizing it through the use of RSS(Stephens, 2007). Moreover, Bar Ilan (2007) proposed that (Patterson, 2006). Academic libraries may use podcastslibrary blogs are ideal for disseminating, commenting for conveying different instructions such as informationand expressing opinions. literacy instruction, to highlight new resources or to offer Concerning the educational environment, several tours of the library. Furthermore, public libraries mayresearchers have proclaimed that teachers use blogs to offer podcasts in order to promote recordings about thepromote conversations about topics and experiences in library’s services and programmes and different activi-school (Oatman, 2005; West et al., 2006). Moreover, other ties which take place in the library (Stephens, 2007).researchers have noted that blogging enhances compre- With regard to the educational perspective ofhension, communication and literacy among students podcasts, Meng (2005) describes different educational(Huffaker, 2004; Poling, 2005), and that it may serve as a applications of podcasting, such as recordings of lecturesplatform that motivates students to reflect on their learning for those students unable to attend the lecture or audioprocess (Clyde, 2005). recordings of textbooks allowing students to review texts The second application considered here is the wiki. while walking or driving to class.A wiki is a webpage that can be easily edited by anyone RSS is a format that allows users to find out aboutwho is allowed access (Edersbach et al., 2006). It is a collab- updates without actually visiting a website. Informationorative tool that facilitates the production of group work. from the Web is collected within a feed, and ‘piped’ to theA library wiki can enable social interaction among users user in a process called syndication (Anderson, 2007). In228 JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 41 (4) DECEMBER 2009 Downloaded from lis.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
    • NOA AHARONYorder to use a feed, the user must install a software tool Various studies have dealt with the relation betweencalled an aggregator or feed reader onto the computer learning strategies and personality dimensions. Heinstromdesktop. Libraries may create RSS feeds that include (2006, 2006–7), in her studies of students’ information-updates on new items or new collections, available for seeking behaviour, examined whether there was a relationthe patrons (Stephens, 2007). Furthermore, the RSS aggre- between personality traits and learning approachesgator may enable users to have a single library page that and based her studies on the five personality dimensionsyndicates all library content that interests them. (Costa and McCrae’s model, 1992). She found that surface The final application considered is social net- learning was connected to low levels of conscientiousness,working sites such as MySpace or Facebook. These sites to a conservative character with low openness to experience;enable libraries to reach young patrons. Using these while deep learning was associated with deep divingsites, librarians may interact with students, answer ques- which was linked to openness to experience. In contrasttions and provide information about library services to these findings, Aharony (2002) in her dissertation which(Stephens, 2007). Even OCLC has recently created a focused on learning English as a second language in anWorldCat application in Facebook where the user can Internet environment, showed that learning strategiessearch WorldCat databases without entering the OCLC (deep or surface) were not associated with personalitysite (Aharony, 2008). dimensions (field dependence or independence). The following sections focus on personality charac-teristics which may influence LIS students’ perceptions Resistance to changetowards use of some of these Web 2.0 applications. The next personality variable that this research concen- trated on was resistance to change. The earliest work on Learning strategies: Deep and surface this topic dealt with resistance in terms of behaviourFor the purpose of this paper, consideration of learning (Lewin, 1952). From observed instances of successfulprocesses is based on Biggs’ (1993) teaching–learning change, Lewin (1951) concluded that there are threemodel. Biggs suggested that a student’s approach toward phases: unfreezing, moving and refreezing. Lewinthe learning process is a combination of the motivation believed that the stability of human behaviour is basedand the strategy that he or she adopts during the learning on an equilibrium between driving and restrainingprocess. In the present research, the author distinguishes forces. The equilibrium needs to be unfrozen, disrupted,between ‘deep’ learning approaches and ‘surface’ learning before the old behaviour can be discarded (unlearnt) andapproaches, terms first coined by Marton and Saljo new behaviour successfully adopted. Research on resis-(1976a, b), and based on qualitative analysis aimed at tance to change is examined on the individual level anddefining the differences in the students’ approaches on the organizational one. In the past 20 years researchtoward written texts. began to focus more on the psychological perspective Deep learning strategy is characterized by the ability and on the individual.to relate new information to previously acquired knowl- Changes in organizations are often perceived asedge; to study different aspects of the material in order to stressors by the workers (Judge et al., 1999). Workers tendobtain the entire picture; to search for a relevant meaning to resist change because of difficulties that may arise whileand a connecting point between the learning material, coping with it. Individuals may feel uncertain about theirdaily life and personal experiences. Additional character- future in the organization; they may be worried aboutistics of this approach include the student’s tendency to reduced status, job loss and new tasks and may be stresseduse meta-cognitive skills, to develop learning materials because of potential conflicts at work as well as by threatsthat create a basis for new ideas, to offer other solutions to their psychological well-being (Ashford, 1988; Schweigerfrom an inquisitive-critical perspective, and from there, and DeNisi, 1991).to search and discover his/her ‘inner self’ (Beishuizen Over the past few years, research has adopted aand Stoutjesdijk, 1999; Biggs, 1993; Entwistle, 1977). psychological perspective in investigating organizational Surface learning is characterized by a student’s ten- change. Wanberg and Banas (2000) noted five variablesdency to choose the quickest way to accomplish the task; as likely to affect employees’ openness toward change:to acquire the learning material without asking in- receipt of information about the change, participation indepth questions and to study the material in a linear the change process, change-specific self-efficacy, availablemanner; to relate to minimal aspects of material or to a social support and the impact of the change upon theproblem without showing interest or needing to under- individual. Judge et al. (1999) asserted that coping withstand it in its entirety; to learn by rote by relying on mem- organizational change was related to extrinsic career out-ory and not on comprehension; and to be concerned with comes (salary, job level, plateauing, job performance) andthe time needed to fulfil the learning task (Biggs, 1993). to intrinsic career outcomes (organizational commitment,This learning approach, which focuses on memorizing job satisfaction). Oreg (2003) designed a resistance to changethe main elements, has almost no use for or expression scale, based on individual differences, and identified fourof meta-cognitive skills. factors related to the individual’s personality which can JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 41 (4) DECEMBER 2009 229 Downloaded from lis.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
    • The influence of LIS students’ personality characteristics on their perceptions towards Web 2.0 usecause resistance to change: (1) routine seeking – a preference RESEARCH HYPOTHESESfor routine over changes in life; (2) emotional reaction toimposed change; (3) short-term focus – the immediate 1. A deep learning strategy will be associated with highinconveniencing effects of a change; and (4) decisiveness – scores of students’ Web 2.0 use.the ease and frequency with which individuals change 2. A high degree of resistance to change will be associatedtheir minds. with low scores of students’ Web 2.0 use. 3. High scores of challenge will be associated with high scores of students’ Web 2.0 use, while high scores inCognitive appraisal: Threat versus challenge threat will be associated with low scores of Web 2.0 use.The Lazarus stress theory portrays two central processes 4. High scores of students’ computer use, motivation,which are very important to the person–environment importance and capacity will be associated with highrelationship – cognitive appraisal and coping (Lazarus and scores of students’ Web 2.0 use.Folkman, 1986). Cognitive appraisal refers to the individ- 5. There will be a significant difference between universityual’s evaluation of the significance of what is happening students and professional academic school studentsfor his or her well-being, and coping with the individ- in Web 2.0 use.ual’s efforts in thought and action to manage specificdemands (Lazarus, 1993). The appraisal concept may PROCEDURESexplain individual differences in coping with emotions inenvironments which are objectively similar. In addition, The research was conducted in the second semester of thethese appraisals are determined by personal and situa- 2007 academic year. In Israel there are about 900 LIS stu-tional factors. The most important factors on the personal dents and questionnaires were distributed to 160 ran-side are motivational dispositions such as goals, values domly selected students; 148 questionnaires were fullyand expectations, and the most important situational fac- answered. The students belonged to three different LIStors are predictability, controllability and imminence of a programmes – two taught at two universities, in which 89potentially stressful event (Krone, 2002). students (67 percent) were enrolled, and one in a profes- Threat and challenge are part of stressful appraisals: sional academic school for information science, in whichthreat refers to potential future harm and is accompanied 49 students (33 percent) were enrolled. The professionalby fear (Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), and academic school is part of an academic college in Israelchallenge pertains to situations in which there is potential and it provides professional librarian or informationfor gain or benefit. The emotions associated with chal- specialist certificates. Of the participants, 134 were female,lenge are excitement, eagerness, happiness or joy 14 male; 35 percent were 20–30 years of age, 23 percent(Lazarus, 1991). Several researchers (Blascovich et al., were 30–40, 25 percent were 40–50, 10 percent age 50–60,2000) have alleged that threat takes place when, following and 7 percent over 60.the individual’s evaluations, resources do not meet situa- The research tools used for the present studytional demands. Challenge occurs when as a result of the included a personal details questionnaire, learningindividual’s evaluations resources meet situational strategies questionnaire (Part A), a resistance to changedemands. Examining the literature reviews reveals that questionnaire (Part B), a cognitive appraisal question-threat suggests potential danger to one’s well-being or naire, threat versus challenge (Part C), Web 2.0 use ques-self-esteem (Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; tionnaire (Part D), and learning facilitators questionnairesRapee and Heimberg, 1997; Sarason and Sarason, 1990). which included the following questionnaires: computerThose who experience anxiety in stressful or social situa- use questionnaire (Part E), importance of studying andtions, in tests and sports, anticipate failure and negative integrating different applications of Web 2.0 in futureevaluation which cause threats to self-identity and self- (Part F), motivation questionnaire (Part G), capacityesteem (Beck et al., 1985; Rapee and Heimberg, 1997; questionnaire (Part H).Schlenker and Leary, 1982; Wilson and Eklund, 1998). The learning strategies questionnaire (Part A) con-Conversely, a challenge appraisal portrays confidence sists of 14 statements rated on a 5-point scale (1 – disagree;that the demands of a stressful situation can be overcome 5 – agree). This questionnaire, which was previously vali-(Lazarus et al., 1980; Park and Folkman, 1997). Those indi- dated (Aharony, 2002, 2006), consists of two factors –viduals focus on opportunities for success, social rewards deep and surface learning strategies with seven itemsand personal growth (Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus and each (alpha Cronbach was 0.76 for both factors).Folkman, 1984; Lazarus et al., 1980). According to social The resistance to change questionnaire (Part B) con-psychologists, challenge and threat are context bound and sists of 12 statements rated on a 6-point scale (1 – disagree;occur only in motivated performance situations which are 6 – agree). This questionnaire was previously validatedgoal relevant to the performer, require instrumental cog- (Aharony, 2009a; Oreg, 2003). The alpha Cronbach coeffi-nitive responses, and are active (Blascovich et al., 2000). cient for this questionnaire was 0.87 which indicates230 JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 41 (4) DECEMBER 2009 Downloaded from lis.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
    • NOA AHARONYgood internal reliability. The respondents’ scores wereaggregated into one measure according to the mean of 90.00the item scores. Higher scores indicated higher resistance 80.00 70.00 percentageto change. 60.00 The threat versus challenge questionnaire (Part C) 50.00consists of 10 statements rated on a 6-point scale (1 – dis- 40.00 30.00agree; 6 – agree). This questionnaire was previously vali- 20.00dated (Yekutiel, 1990), and consists of two factors – threat 10.00(six items) and challenge (four items). Alpha Cronbach 0.00 blogs wikis flicker rss socialwas 0.90 and 0.72 respectively. Web 2.0 use question- networknaire (Part D) consists of five yes/no questions focusing applicationson Web 2.0 applications use. The respondents had toanswer if they used the applications listed. Scores were Figure 1. Frequency of Web 2.0 applications useaggregated into one measure according to the number ofapplications the respondents used. The higher therespondents’ score, the more they used Web 2.0. To test whether there is a difference between uni- With regard to learning facilitator questionnaires versity students and those who study at a professional(computer use questionnaire, importance given to studying academic school for information science in learningand integrating different applications of Web 2.0 in strategies, resistance to change, cognitive appraisal,future, motivation questionnaire and capacity question- learning facilitators and Web 2.0 use, a one-waynaire), the respondents’ scores were aggregated into one MANOVA was performed. In this analysis, a significantmeasure according to the mean of the item scores. Higher difference was found, F (9,137) = 4.22, p < .001, eta² = .22.scores indicated higher computer use, importance, moti- Table 1 presents the means and standard deviationvation and capacity. of the different measures and the results of a univari- The computer use questionnaire (Part E) consists of ate ANOVA for each measure separately. Table 1 alsofour statements relating to Office software (Word, shows significant differences between the two groupsPowerPoint, Excel and Access). The respondents’ scores regarding learning strategies, challenge, motivation andwere rated on a 2-point scale (1 – low; 2 – high). Web 2.0 use. The students who study at the professional The importance questionnaire (Part F) included nine academic school are more deep learners, less surfacestatements which reflected the importance toward learners, more challenged, more motivated and usestudying and integrating different applications of Web more Web 2.0.2.0 in the future. The respondents’ scores were rated on a In order to examine the correlation between personal5-point scale (1 – not important at all; 5 – very important). characteristics, computer use, personality characteristicsThe alpha Cronbach coefficient for the importance was (cognitive appraisal (threat versus challenge), learning0.86, which indicates good internal reliability. strategies, resistance to change), learning facilitators The motivation questionnaire (Part G) consists of six (importance, motivation, and capacity) and Web 2.0 use,statements pointing to the level of motivation toward Pearson correlations were performed and are presentedlearning Web 2.0 applications. The respondents’ scores in Table 2.were rated on a 5-point scale (1 – disagree; 5 – agree). The Table 2 shows that significant positive correlationalpha Cronbach coefficient for the motivation was 0.95, was found between age, education and motivationwhich indicates good internal reliability. toward learning Web 2.0. The older and more educated The capacity questionnaire (Part H) consists of six the students are, the higher their motivation to learn Webstatements aimed at examining the respondents’ capacity 2.0. Significant positive correlation was also foundto master the different applications of Web 2.0. The respon- between education and Web 2.0 use. The more educateddents’ scores were rated on a 5-point scale (1 – disagree; the students are, the higher their Web 2.0 use. With5 – agree). The alpha Cronbach coefficient for the capacity regard to students’ computer use, significant positive cor-was .91, which also indicates good internal reliability. relations were found between computer use importance, RESULTS capacity and Web 2.0 use. It seems that the more the stu- dents use the computer, the higher the importance theyAn examination of the results of Web 2.0 use question- attribute to Web 2.0 applications, the higher their capacitynaire demonstrates that 45.3 percent of the participants and the more they use Web 2.0. Referring to personalityuse blogs, 89.2 percent use wikis, 20.3 percent use Flicker, characteristics and concentrating first on learning strate-18.9 percent use RSS and 37.2 percent use social net- gies, significant positive correlations were found betweenworks. Web 2.0 applications use is presented in Figure 1. deep strategy and importance and motivation and JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 41 (4) DECEMBER 2009 231 Downloaded from lis.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
    • The influence of LIS students’ personality characteristics on their perceptions towards Web 2.0 use Table 1. Means and standard deviation of different measures among university and professional school students Measures Type of educational institution University Professional school M SD M SD F (1,145) eta² Learning strategies Deep 3.28 .62 3.70 .69 14.03*** .09 Surface 2.41 .73 2.03 .66 9.26** .06 Change 3.09 .70 2.91 .70 2.15 .02 Cognitive appraisal Threat 2.06 1.09 2.15 .99 .22 .00 Challenge 4.01 1.05 4.46 .95 6.67* .04 Learning facilitators Importance 3.92 .61 4.06 .70 1.50 .01 Motivation 4.03 .80 4.40 .83 6.74* .04 Capacity 3.39 .97 3.18 1.10 1.10 .01 Web 2.0 use 1.89 1.09 2.53 1.40 9.32** .06 *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 Table 2. Pearson correlations between personal characteristics, computer use, personality characteristics, learning facilitators and Web 2.0 use (N = 148) Measures Importance Motivation Capacity Web 2.0 use Personal characteristics Age .05 .23** −.00 .11 Education .10 .20* −.08 .24*** Computer use .15* .14 .41*** .26*** Personality characteristics Cognitive appraisal Threat −.20* −.32*** −.35*** −.22*** Challenge .25** .38*** .23** .19* Learning strategies Deep .18* .42*** .13 .29*** Surface −.10 −.32*** −.05 −.06 Resistance to change −.13 −.23** −.18* −.18* *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001Web 2.0 use. The more deep learners the students are, the resistance to change and motivation, capacity and Webhigher the importance they attribute to Web 2.0 applica- 2.0. The more resistant to change the students are, the lesstions, the higher their motivation toward learning Web they are motivated to learn Web 2.0; the lower their2.0 and the higher their Web 2.0 use. A significant nega- capacity, the less they use Web 2.0. Table 2 shows that sig-tive correlation was found between surface strategy and nificant correlations were found between cognitivemotivation. The more surface learners the students are, appraisal (threat versus challenge) and importance, moti-the lower their motivation toward learning Web 2.0. vation, capacity and Web 2.0 use. The correlations withSignificant negative correlations were found between challenge were positive while the correlations with threat232 JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 41 (4) DECEMBER 2009 Downloaded from lis.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
    • NOA AHARONY Table 3. Hierarchical regression coefficients of Web 2.0 use, on personal characteristics, personality characteristics, cognitive appraisal and learning facilitators Beta Steps Predictors 1 2 3 4 Personal characteristics Age .02 −.03 −.05 −.04 University/Professional .32*** .30** .32*** .28** Computer use .31*** .27** .12 .15* Learning strategies Deep .13 .14 .09 Surface .10 .11 .08 Change −.11 −.05 −.03 Cognitive appraisal Threat −.12 −.09 Challenge .01 .05 Learning facilitators Importance .13 .12 Motivation −.09 −.05 Capacity .29** .28** University–professional X Challenge .18* R² .17*** .19*** .31*** .33*** DR² .17*** .03* .10*** .03*were negative. The more the students feel threatened, the This regression explained 33 percent of Web 2.0 use. Table 3lower the importance they attribute to Web 2.0 applica- presents the hierarchical regression of Web 2.0 use.tions, the lower their motivation, capacity and Web 2.0 An examination of the first step (personal character-use. In contrast to this, the more challenged they are, the istics) reveals that the university–professional variablehigher the importance they attribute to Web 2.0 applica- and the computer use variable contributed significantlytions, the higher their motivation, capacity and Web 2.0 and added 17 percent to the explained variance. As seenuse. In addition, Pearson correlations were performed in Table 1, students who study in the professional schoolbetween importance, motivation, capacity and Web 2.0 make more use of Web 2.0 than university students. Thisuse. Significant positive correlations were found between first step also shows that the more the students use com-motivation, r = .23, p < .01, capacity, r = .38, p < .001 and puters, the more they use Web 2.0. The second step, whichWeb 2.0 use. The more motivated the students are, the included the personality characteristics (learning strategies,higher their capacity and the higher their Web 2.0 use. resistance to change), did not contribute significantly to A hierarchical regression analysis, in which the the explained variance. This finding is in contrast to a pre-dependant variable was Web 2.0 use, was conducted. The vious one which showed a significant positive correlationpredictors were entered in four steps. In the first step per- between deep learning strategy and Web 2.0 use. Perhapssonal characteristics and computer use were entered and because personal characteristics were already entered init allows us to examine the contribution of the other vari- the first step, the contribution of the deep strategy to theables after partialling out the explained variance caused explained variance was low and insignificant. The thirdby personal characteristics. The second step included the step included the two variables of cognitive appraisal andpersonality characteristics which are general (learning the learning facilitators. Regarding the learning facilitators,strategies, resistance to change) variables. The third step only the capacity variable contributed significantly andadded the more specific variables: cognitive appraisal added 10 percent to the explained variance. The more(threat versus challenge) and the learning facilitators the students feel capable of using Web 2.0 applications,(importance, motivation and capacity). In the fourth step the more they use Web 2.0. At the fourth step the inter-interactions between the research variables were entered. action university–professional × challenge contributed JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 41 (4) DECEMBER 2009 233 Downloaded from lis.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
    • The influence of LIS students’ personality characteristics on their perceptions towards Web 2.0 usesignificantly and explained 3 percent of the explained demonstrated that deep learners had high attitudes towardvariance. In order to understand this interaction, the broadening the curricula and including the subject ofstudents’ group was divided into two sub-groups according information economics in it. Furthermore, deep learnersto their place of learning (university or professional have a personal commitment to the learning process asschool), and in each group the correlation between chal- well as a desire to search for self-fulfillment, which Biggslenge and Web 2.0 use was examined. A low and not sig- (1993) calls deep motivation. In the present research, thenificant correlation was found among students who surface learners presented low motivation to learn thestudy at the university, r = –.01, p > .05. A significant cor- subject of Web 2.0 and this echoes their surface motivationrelation was found among those students who study at toward the whole process of learning.the professional school, r = .44, p < .01. Among these, the H2 was also confirmed and indicated that the moremore challenged they are, the more they use Web 2.0. resistant to change the students are, the less they are motivated to learn Web 2.0, the lower their capacity and DISCUSSION the less they use Web 2.0. The present finding is not sur- prising and echoes the professional literature that claimsThe present research aimed to explore whether LIS students that people resist change because of the difficulties inher-are familiar with technological changes and innovations ent in coping with it. Individuals may feel uncertainand whether personality characteristics influence their about what the future holds; they may be worried aboutperceptions towards Web 2.0 use. job loss, new tasks, or about their psychological well-being Focusing on Web 2.0 use shows that the most common (Ashford, 1988; Schweiger and DeNisi, 1991). The researchuse among LIS students is that of wikis, the next one is finding confirms another study concerning resistance toblogs, followed by social networks and ending with change (Aharony, 2009a) that found that the more openFlicker and RSS. It seems that about 90 percent use wikis, to change librarians are, the more they reveal positiveand less than half (45 percent) use blogs. These findings attitudes toward marketing libraries. In the current researchindicate that the students are quite familiar with some these students who resist change express low motivationWeb 2.0 applications and make use of them. However, to learn a new discipline, which they probably view asthey should be exposed to additional applications. This threatening, unknown, and perhaps too demanding.finding may be associated with a previous one (Aharony, Their low use of Web 2.0 compared to other students may2008), which indicated that LIS schools in the United mirror their difficulties in getting used to change, specif-States are not adequately prepared for the rapid changes ically new technological applications.in web technology and use, and do not offer full courses The results pertaining to H3 demonstrate that thisthat focus on the new concept of Web 2.0. The present hypothesis was also accepted. The more challenged theresearch examined Israeli LIS students and not American students are, the higher the importance they attribute toones, but one can infer that the situation in Israeli LIS Web 2.0 applications, the higher their motivation, capacityschools is not very different from that in the United States. and Web 2.0 use. In contrast to this, the more the studentsOne can assume that if Israeli LIS schools offered more feel threatened, the lower the importance they attributecourses on Web 2.0 concepts, the students would better to Web 2.0 applications, the lower their motivation,know, use and appreciate the benefits and advantages of capacity and Web 2.0 use. This result is commensuratethis platform. with research on threat and challenge that portrays that We will now turn to a discussion about the research those people who experience challenge are characterizedhypotheses. H1 was confirmed. The current research results by higher coping expectancies, lower subjective stressshow that the more deep learners the students are, the and higher perceptions (Blascovich and Tomaka, 1996;higher the importance they attribute to Web 2.0 applica- Blascovich et al., 2000; Tomaka et al., 1997). Conversely,tions, the higher their motivation toward learning Web those people who experience threat assume that there is2.0 and the higher their Web 2.0 use. In addition, it was potential danger to their well-being or self-esteemfound that the more surface learners the students are, the (Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Rapee andlower their motivation toward learning Web 2.0. These Heimberg, 1997; Sarason and Sarason, 1990). In the pre-findings are not surprising and reflect the basic charac- sent study, those students who are challenged are readyteristics of deep learners who would like to reach a and willing to learn about Web 2.0. They would like tocomplete understanding of the subject matter, to study practise the different applications it offers and theydifferent aspects of the material in order to obtain the full believe that they are capable of working and applying itpicture, to relate new information to previously acquired to their present and future professional careers.knowledge, and to search for relevant meaning and a The fourth hypothesis discussed in this researchconnecting point between the learning material and daily was whether computer use, motivation, importance andlife and personal experiences (Beishuizen and Stoutjesdijk, capacity would be associated with high scores of students’1999; Biggs, 1993; Entwistle, 1977). The present findings Web 2.0 use. Results indicate that H4 was accepted. Thesupport another study (Aharony and Raban, 2008) which more the students use the computer, the more they feel234 JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 41 (4) DECEMBER 2009 Downloaded from lis.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
    • NOA AHARONYcapable of using Web 2.0, the higher the importance they understand that in order to survive and to succeed in thisattribute to Web 2.0 applications, the higher their motiva- profession they should be familiar with a variety of newtion to study and master this subject – and the more they technological applications.use Web 2.0. These findings are encouraging, as they sug-gest that those students who are technology oriented will SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONnot have problems in working with it, experiencing inte-grating new and modern technologies into their future jobs, The present research revealed a moderate tendency ofand this ability, may, in turn, change and upgrade their LIS students to use Web 2.0. It turned out that the per-individual position as well as their profession of choice. sonality characteristics as well as the learning facilitators The last hypothesis was also confirmed and revealed played a major role in LIS students’ perceptions towardsthat there is a difference between students who study at Web 2.0 use. One should also bear in mind the differencethe university and students who study at the professional between the two groups of students, and try to facilitateacademic school. Those who study at the professional university LIS students to become deep learners who areacademic school are more deep learners, less surface more motivated to study. Finally, the researcher suggestslearners, more challenged, more motivated and use more that further studies include students from other disci-Web 2.0 than their counterparts at the university. This plines as well as from other countries, in order to have aresult may be associated with Aharony’s (2006) previous broader perspective of students’ perceptions towardsresearch that found differences between LIS university Web 2.0 use.students and professional academic LIS school studentsregarding the image of the librarian and of the information REFERENCESscientist. The current result may be explained in thefollowing way: students at the professional academic Aharony, N. (2002) The Correlation between the Pupil’sschool are usually university graduates (with first, second Cognitive Style (Field Dependence and Independence)and sometimes even third degrees). They come to the and the Learning Approaches: Deep and Surface andprofessional academic institute in order to obtain a pro- its Effect on English Achievement in an Internetfessional diploma which they expect will be of practical Environment and on School Satisfaction. PhD disserta-use to them in their present or future careers. They are tion. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University.mature and motivated, and this research indicates that Aharony, N. (2006) ‘The Librarian and the Informationthey are deep learners who would like to practise and Scientist: Different Perceptions among Israeliexperience new things. Their counterparts at the univer- Information Science Students’, Library andsity, who were found to be less deep learners and less Information Science Research 28 (2): 235–49.motivated to learn Web 2.0, study in order to achievetheir academic degree and not a practical diploma. Aharony, N. (2008) ‘Web 2.0 in Schools of Library andPerhaps the university students perceive their study as Information Science in the USA: Are we Missing themore theoretical and therefore they do not consider the Boat?’, Ariadne, 54, URL (consulted July 2009):subject of Web 2.0 as very important, in contrast to their http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue54/aharony/colleagues at the professional academic school who liketo experience and practise new applications. The results Aharony, N. (2009a). ‘Librarians’ Attitudes towardsalso indicate that among those students who study at the Marketing Library Services’, Journal of Librarianshipprofessional academic school, the more challenged they and Information Science 41 (1): 39–50.are, the more they use Web 2.0. These participants are not Aharony, N. (2009b) ‘The Use of Wiki as an Instructionalthreatened by new technological surroundings. Quite the Tool: A Qualitative Investigation’, Journal of Webopposite, they are challenged and motivated to experience Librarianship 3 (1): 35–53.these surroundings and as a result they use them more oftenthan their counterparts. Aharony, N. and Raban, D.R. (2008) ‘Economics of Turning to the personal characteristics of age and Information Goods: An Interdisciplinary Subject foreducation, results indicate that the older and more edu- Israeli LIS and MBA Curricula’, Library andcated the students are, the higher their motivation to Information Science Research 30 (2): 102–7.learn about Web 2.0, and that the more educated the stu- Anderson, P. (2007) ‘What is Web 2.0? Ideas, Technologiesdents are, the higher their Web 2.0 use. It seems that older and Implications for Education’, JISCTechWatchstudents are more motivated to learn about Web 2.0. This Report2–64, URL (consulted July 2009): http://www.finding may reflect a situation where older students jisc.ac.uk/publications/documents/twweb2.aspxwould like to be deep learners and to understand thenew technological environment that surrounds them. Ashford, S.J. (1988) ‘Individual Strategies for CopingFurthermore, the more educated the students are, the with Stress during Organizational Transitions’,higher their motivation and Web 2.0 use. Possibly, they Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 24: 19–36. JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 41 (4) DECEMBER 2009 235 Downloaded from lis.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
    • The influence of LIS students’ personality characteristics on their perceptions towards Web 2.0 useBar-Ilan, J. (2007) ‘The Use of Weblogs (blogs) by Heinstrom, J.H. (2006–7) ‘Fast Surfing, Broad Scanning Librarians and Libraries to Disseminate and Deep Diving: The Influence of Personality Information’, Information Research 12 (4): 323, URL and Study Approach on Students’ Information- (consulted July 2008): http://InformationR.net/ Seeking Behaviour’, Managing Information 13 (10): ir/12-4/paper323.html 32–8.Beck, A.T., Emery, G. and Greenberg, R. (1985) Anxiety Huffaker, D. (2004) ‘The Educated Blogger: Using Disorders and Phobias: A Cognitive Perspective. New Weblogs to Promote Literacy in the Classroom’, First York: Basic Books. Monday, URL (consulted July 2008): http://www. firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_6/huffaker/Beishuizen, J.J. and Stoutjesdijk, E.T. (1999) ‘Study Strategies #author in a Computer Assisted Study Environment’, Learning and Instruction 9 (3): 281–301. Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.K., Pucik, V. and Welbourne, T.M. (1999) ‘Managerial Coping with OrganizationalBenkler, Y. (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Change: A Dispositional Perspective’, Journal of Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Applied Psychology 84: 107–22. Haven, London: Yale University Press. Krone, H.W. (2002) ‘Stress and Coping Theories’, URLBerners-Lee, T. (2006) Developer Works Interviews: Tim (consulted April 2007): berlin.de/~schuez/folien/ Berners-Lee, URL (consulted April 2007): http:// Krohne_Stress.pdf www.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/ cm-int082206txt.html Lazarus, R.S. (1991) Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.Biggs, J. (1993) ‘What do Inventories of Students’ Learning Process Really Measure? A Theoretical Review and Lazarus, R.S. (1993) ‘Coping Theory and Research: Past, Clarification’, British Journal of Educational Psychology Present and Future’, Psychosomatic Medicine 55: 234– 63: 3–19. 47.Blascovich, J. and Tomaka, J. (1996) ‘The Biopsychosocial Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984) Stress, Appraisal and Model of Arousal Regulation’, in M.P. Zanna (ed.) Coping. New York: Springer. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 28, pp. 1–51. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1986) ‘Cognitive Theories of Stress and the Issue of Circularity’, in M.H.Blascovich, J., Mendes, W.B., Hunter, S.B. and Lickel, B. Appley and R. Trumbull (eds) Dynamics of Stress: (2000) ‘Stigma, Threat and Social Interactions’, in Physiological, Psychological and Social Perspectives, T. Heatherton, R. Kleck and J.G. Hull (eds) The Social pp. 63–80. New York: Plenum. Psychology of Stigma, pp. 307–33. New York, London: Guilford Press. Lazarus, R.S., Kanner, A.D. and Folkman, S. (1980) ‘Emotions: A Cognitive-Phenomenological Analysis’,Clyde, L.A. (2005) ‘Educational Blogging’, Teacher Librarians in R. Plutchik and H. Kellerman (eds) Emotion: 32 (3): 43–5. Theory, Research and Experience, pp. 189–217. New York: Faculty Press.Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1992) NEOPI-R Professional Manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Resources, Inc. Harper.Doctorow, C., Dornfest, F., Johnson, J. and Powers, S. Lewin, K. (1952) Readings in Social Psychology. New York: (2002) Essential Blogging. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly. Holt.Edersbach, A., Glaser, M. and Heigl, R. (2006) Wiki: Web Maness, J.M. (2006). ‘Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and its Collaboration. Berlin, New York: Springer. Implications for Libraries’. Webology, 3 (2): URL (consulted July 2008): http://www.webology.ir/Entwistle, N.J. (1977) ‘Strategies of Learning and 2006/v3n2/a25.html Studying: Recent Research Findings’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 25 (3): 225–37. Marton, F. and Salijo, R. (1976a) ‘On Qualitative Differences in Learning: 1-Outcome and Process’,Heinstrom, J.H. (2006) ‘Fast Surfing, Broad Scanning and British Journal of Educational Psychology 46: 4–11. Deep Diving: The Influence of Personality and Study Approach on Students’ Information-Seeking Marton, F. and Salijo, R. (1976b) ‘On Qualitative Behaviour’, Managing Information 13 (9): 49–54. Differences in Learning: 2-Outcome as a Function of236 JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 41 (4) DECEMBER 2009 Downloaded from lis.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
    • NOA AHARONY the Learner’s Conception of the Task’, British Journal Stephens, M. (2007) ‘Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and the of Educational Psychology 46: 115–27. Hyperlinked Library’, Serials Review 33 (1): 253–6.Meng, P. (2005) ‘Podcasting and Vodcasting: A White Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kibler, J. and Ernst, J.M. (1997) Paper ’, URL (consulted July 2008): http:// ‘Cognitive and Physiological Antecedents of Threat edmarketing.apple.com/adcinstitute/wp-content/ and Challenge Appraisal’, Journal of Personality and Missouri_Podcasting_White_Paper.pdf Social Psychology 73: 63–72.Miller, P. (2006) ‘Web. 2: Building the New Library Gang. Vandar Wal, T. (2005) ‘Folksonomy Definition and Recorded Telephone Conference’, URL (consulted Wikipedia’, URL (consulted April 2007): http:// April 2007): http://talk.talis.com/archives/2006/ www.vanderwal.net/random/entrysel.php? 02/introducing_the.html blog=1750Oatman, E. (2005) ‘Blogomania!’, School Library Journal Wanberg, C.R. and Banas. J.T. (2000) ‘Predictors and 51: 36–9. Outcomes of Openness to Changes in a Reorganizing Workplace’, Journal of AppliedOreg, S. (2003) ‘Resistance to Change: Developing an Psychology 85: 132–42. Individual Differences Measure’, Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (4): 680–93. West, E.R., Wright, G., Gabbitas, B. and Graham, C.H. (2006) ‘Reflections from the Introduction of BlogsO’Reilly, T. (2005) ‘What is Web. 2?’, URL (consulted April and RSS Feeds into a Preservice Instructional 2007): http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/ Technology Course’, TechTrends 50 (4): 54–60. tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html Wilson, P. and Eklund, R.C. (1998) ‘The RelationshipPark, C.L. and Folkman, S. (1997) ‘The Role of Meaning in between Competitive Anxiety and Self-Presentational the Context of Stress and Coping’, General Review of Concerns’, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology Psychology 2: 115–44. 20: 81–97.Patterson, L. (2006) ‘The Technology Underlines Yekutiel, S. (1990) Fathers’ and Mothers’ Confrontation with Podcasts’, Computer 39 (10): 103–5. the Transition of Parenthood. Masters thesis. Ramat-Phares, E.J. (1991) Introduction to Psychology, 3rd edn. Gan: Bar-Ilan University. New York: Harper Collins.Poling, C. (2005) ‘Blog On: Building Communication and APPENDIX A Collaboration among Staff and Students’, Learning Personal Details: and Leading with Technology 32 (6): 12–15. Male / FemaleRaman, M., Ryan, T. and Olfman, L. (2005). ‘Designing Knowledge Management Systems for Teaching Age: 20–30; 31–40; 41–50; 51–60; over 60 and Learning with Wiki Technology’, Journal of Level of education: Information Systems Education 16: 311–21.Rapee, R.M. and Heimberg, R.G. (1997) ‘A Cognitive- Behavioral Model of Anxiety in Social Phobia’, Bachelor’s Master’s Doctorate Behaviour Research and Therapy 35 (8): 741–56. degree degreeSarason, I.G. and Sarason, B.R. (1990) ‘Test Anxiety’, in 1st year H. Leitenberg (ed.) Handbook of Social-Evaluative 2nd year Anxiety, pp. 475–95. New York: Plenum. 3rd yearSchlenker, B.R. and Leary, M.R. (1982) ‘Social Anxiety and Self-Presentation: A Conceptualization and Model’, Previous education: Psychological Bulletin 92: 641–69. Bachelor’s degree in: information science/otherSchweiger, D. and DeNisi, A. (1991) ‘Communication Master’s degree in: information science/other with Employees Following a Merger: A Longitude’, Academy of Management Journal 34 (1): 110–35. Doctorate: information science/other JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 41 (4) DECEMBER 2009 237 Downloaded from lis.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
    • The influence of LIS students’ personality characteristics on their perceptions towards Web 2.0 use LEARNING STRATEGIESListed below are several statements regarding one’s general beliefs and attitudes towards the learning process.Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement by marking X the appropriate column ofthe scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Inclined to Agree Strongly disagree agree agree 1. I find that the learning process causes me great satisfaction 2. I would like to pass the course with minimum effort 3. I find that most of the learning subjects are interesting and I am ready to devote a lot of time outside class to enrich my knowledge 4. I do not find any course as interesting; therefore I do not make many efforts to study 5. I compare the learning process to listening to a good concert or to enjoying a good film 6. I find it easier to learn by rote and not to try to understand the whole issue 7. I devote a lot of time to learning because I find it very interesting 8. I think it’s enough to have minimal basic understandings in the material 9. In my leisure time I look for further information in reference books 10. I think lecturers should understand that students will not learn material which is not going to be included in tests 11. I read all the additional material which the professor suggests 12. I usually limit my learning process to certain items, which are going to appear in the final test 13. I usually come to class with some questions, and I expect they will be answered at the end of the lecture 14. I learn things by heart, even if I do not understand them238 JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 41 (4) DECEMBER 2009 Downloaded from lis.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
    • NOA AHARONY CHANGE SCALEListed below are several statements regarding one’s general beliefs and attitudes towards change.Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement by marking X the appropriate column ofthe scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Disagree Inclined to Inclined to Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree agree 1. I generally consider changes to be a negative thing 2. I’ll take a routine day over a day full of unexpected events any time 3. I like to do the same old things rather than try new and different ones 4. Whenever my life forms a stable routine, I look for ways to change 5. I’d rather be bored than surprised 6. If I were to be informed that there’s going to be a significant change regarding the way things are done at school, I would probably feel stressed 7. When I am informed of a change of plans, I tense up a bit 8. When things don’t go according to plans, it stresses me out 9. If my boss changed the criteria for evaluating employees, it would probably make me feel uncomfortable even if I thought I’d do just as well without having to do any extra work 10. Changing plans seems like a real hassle to me 11. Often, I feel a bit uncomfortable even about changes that may potentially improve my life 12. When someone pressures me to change something, I tend to resist it even if I think the change may ultimately benefit me JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 41 (4) DECEMBER 2009 239 Downloaded from lis.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
    • The influence of LIS students’ personality characteristics on their perceptions towards Web 2.0 use COGNITIVE APPRAISAL QUESTIONNAIRE: THREAT VERSUS CHALLENGEBelow are statements concerning your attitudes towards new situations. Please mark with X the column whichdescribes your accordance with the following statements (1 = not at all; 6 = at a very high level) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not at all Very Slightly Average More than At a very Slightly level average high level 1. The situation stresses me 2. The situation seems difficult to me 3. The situation threatens me 4. The situation challenges me 5. The situation will harm me 6. You think you can benefit from this situation 7. The situation makes me angry 8. This situation causes anxiety 9. This situation causes certainty 10. The situation enables me to show my capacity WEB 2.0 USE QUESTIONNAIRE COMPUTER EXPERTISE QUESTIONNAIRE Read the following questions and mark X at the Yes No appropriate column. 1. Do you read blogs? Level of control Low Average High 2. Do you add posts to blogs? 3. Do you read entries in Wikipedia? Word 4. Do you add entries to Wikipedia? Power point 5. Do you edit entries in Wikipedia? Excel 6. Do you take pictures from Flicker? Access 7. Do you add pictures to Flicker? 8. Do you use RSS? 9. Do you participate in a social network? 10. Do you think that in the future you will use web 2.0 applications?240 JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 41 (4) DECEMBER 2009 Downloaded from lis.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
    • NOA AHARONY IMPORTANCE OF STUDYING AND INTEGRATING DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS OF WEB 2.0 IN FUTURE QUESTIONNAIREBelow you will find statements regarding importance of studying and integrating different applications of Web 2.0 infuture. Please mark with X the column which describes your attitude (5 = very important; 1 = not important at all). 1 2 3 4 5 Not important Not Quite Important Very at all important important important Web 2.0 Library 2.0 Content sharing Blogs Wikis RSS Social networks Tagging Instant messages MOTIVATION QUESTIONNAIREBelow are statements concerning Web 2.0. Please mark with X the column which describes your attitude (5 = stronglyagree; 1 = disagree). 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Inclined Agree Strongly disagree to agree agree 1. I’m ready to study new subjects relating to Web 2.0 2. I’m ready to devote a lot of time in order to master Web 2.0 principles 3. Web 2.0 interests me a lot 4. I’m ready to make many efforts in order to master this subject 5. Understanding of Web 2.0 is very important to me 6. I’ll be very happy to know this subject in depth JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 41 (4) DECEMBER 2009 241 Downloaded from lis.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
    • The influence of LIS students’ personality characteristics on their perceptions towards Web 2.0 use CAPACITY QUESTIONNAIREBelow are statements concerning Web 2.0 applications. Please mark with X the column which you think, describes yourcapacity to master each application (1 = very low; 5 = very high). 1 2 3 4 5 Very low Low Moderate High Very high Blogs Wikis Flicker RSS Social networks Youtube242 JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 41 (4) DECEMBER 2009 Downloaded from lis.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012