Katrin Weller,
   Ramona Dornstädter,
   Raimonds Freimanis,
                                                             ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Social Software in Academia - Three Studies on Users' Acceptance of Web 2.0 Services

1,288 views

Published on

Presented at Web Science Conference (WebSci10), Raleigh, NC, USA. April 2010.

Published in: Education
2 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Many thanks to my co-authors who did much of the work! If you speak German, you may also have a look at the following publications (the three studies summed up in the poster):

    Klein, R.N., Beutelspacher, L., Hauk, K., Terp, C., Anuschewski, D., Zensen, C., Trkulja, V., & Weller, K. (2009). Informationskompetenz in Zeiten des Web 2.0. - Chancen und Herausforderungen im Umgang mit Social Software. Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis, 60 (3), 129-142. http://wwwalt.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/infowiss/admin/public_dateien/files/35/12414436591241012634.htm

    Freimanis, R., & Dornstädter, R. (2010). Informationskompetenz junger Information Professionals: Stand und Entwicklung. Information — Wissenschaft und Praxis, 61 (2), 123-128. http://wwwalt.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/infowiss/content/forschung/Social_Software/Freimanis_Dornstaedter_IWP_61_2_2010.htm

    Perez, M. (2010). Web 2.0 im Einsatz für die Wissenschaft. Information — Wissenschaft und Praxis, 61 (2), 129-134. http://www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/infowiss/admin/public_dateien/files/88/1268059398iwp_61_201.pdf
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • You may also look at the conference paper at: http://journal.webscience.org/360/
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,288
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
2
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Social Software in Academia - Three Studies on Users' Acceptance of Web 2.0 Services

  1. 1. Katrin Weller, Ramona Dornstädter, Raimonds Freimanis, Three Studies on Users‘ Acceptance of Web 2.0 Services Raphael N. Klein, & Maredith Perez Dept. of Information Science, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Germany Contact: weller@uni-duesseldorf.de Survey A (n=931): Do you know/use the following services? Survey A (n=931): Have you ever… Survey A (n=929) and Survey B (n=238): How much do you Facts about Selected Services …written a blog post or published a pod- or 175 712 44 trust the following services (concerning reliability, completeness, timeliness)? Introduction Wikipedia 886 40 14 vodcast? Wikipedia • Most popular social application: All participants from Survey A, B and C know Wikipedia. Google, Web Social Networking Services (e.g. StudiVZ, Survey B (Google) • Students use Wikipedia frequently for class-related search. or vodcastsWikipedia forums engines 761 152 16 2 Google, Web Internet search This poster presents selected results XING, Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace) …looked at the discussion page of a 510 403 16 search engines Survey B (other search engines) Survey A (n=931): 20.6% use Wikipedia “always”, 45.3% “often” and only 7.6% “never”. Video, audio or photo community Wikipedia article? from three distinct surveys, each portals (e.g. YouTube, Flickr) 639 278 14 0 Survey A (Google or other search engines) Survey B (n=251): 38.6% use Wikipedia “always”, 43.0% “often” and only 2.4% “never”. …looked at the version history of a Wikipedia • Survey A: For the question “You need a term’s definition, where would you look first?” (no questioning different groups of users. Social Bookmarking Services (e.g. 36 201 691 3 458 449 21 Internet predefined answers, multiple answers possible) Wikipedia received the most nominations (377). Delicious, Bibsonomy, Connotea) article? Survey B (internet forums) They were carried out as online- forums Survey A (communities/ forums) • 25% of Survey A students have already quoted a Wikipedia article in a term paper or thesis. Blogs, Pod- or Vodcasts 233 488 209 1 • Survey B students are a bit more skeptical towards Wikipedia than Survey A students: surveys (in German language), …edited a Wikipedia article? 174 757 0 Survey A (n=929): 3.2% think it is “always trustworthy”, 46.2% “mostly trustworthy”, 44.9% distributed via e-mail or mailing lists. Wikipedia Survey B “limited trustworthyness” and 5.4% “not trustworthy” (0.3% “cannot rate this”). RSS Feeds 131 267 532 1 Survey A Survey B (n=238): 0.8% think it is “always trustworthy”, 16.4% “mostly trustworthy”, 66.4% The three studies all have their origins …tagged Web documents (e.g. on Flickr, 119 648 163 Blogs, pod- Question and Answering Portals 78 381 472 0 Delicious or Youtube)? “limited trustworthyness” and 16.4% “not trustworthy”. Blogs, pod- in students‘ research projects and or vodcasts Survey B • 18.7% of Survey A have already edited a Wikipedia article, 43.3% have never looked at the discussion page of a Wikipedia article, 48.2% have never looked at the version history. should be viewed as preliminary work Second Life 10 692 222 7 …uploaded photos to Flickr or videos to 105 817 9 Survey A • 47% of Survey A have experienced that teachers prohibit the use of Wikipedia. Youtube? to identify directions for more intense 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 50% 100% • In information science and related disciplines the appropriate use of Wikipedia is discussed in classes (Survey B, n=216): 19.0% say that discussion is “very good”, 44.4% “good”. and comprehensive follow-up 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% always trustworthy mostly trustworthy limited trustworthyness • Academic staff participants of Survey C also use Wikipedia: only 6.3% of Survey C participants use it know it do not know it not specified studies in future projects. yes no do not know this feature not specified not trustworthy cannot rate this not specified said that they do not use Wikipedia at all (n=113). 78.3% of those who use Wikipedia use it “as a work of reference”, 30.2% for “checking students’ texts for plagiarism”. 22 users described Note: Answers for the questions in the themselves as “active” wiki users (in contrast to passive users who merely read articles). More surveys were not mandatory, i.e. not than 50% stated that wikis have “high” or “very high significance” for their daily routine. all participants answered every Other Wikis question. The number of received • Other wikis are also known but less used than Wikipedia. • Only 2.4% of Survey B students do not know other wikis besides Wikipedia. Among academic answers (n) is given for every staff 38.1% know only Wikipedia but no other Wikis. Survey A (n=931) and Survey B (n=221): How often do you Survey B (n=238): How much do you trust the following Survey B (n=216): How good is the discussion on appropriate question. • From those participants in Survey C who know other wikis, 44.6% also use them: for example use the following services for scientific search? services (concerning reliability, completeness, timeliness)? use of these services in students‘ classes? for “knowledge organization within working groups” (17.3%), for “personal knowledge management” (22.6%) or for “collaborative editing of publications” (4.7%). Google 5 45 151 28 9 Google 64 91 31 21 5 Social Bookmarking Google Other Web search engines 1 24 116 21 76 • 74.2% of students (Survey A, n=931) do not know social bookmarking services. 9.2% use them Survey A Wikipedia 2 39 158 39 Other Web search engines 34 74 42 44 18 and another 21.6% are aware of these tools but do not use them. • Social bookmarking services are known to 23.7% of academic staff in Survey C (n=114); 44.4% of Winter 2007/8, 1043 participants. Other Web Other wikis 112 129 41 55 Wikipedia 41 96 44 26 7 those who know them also use these tools (10.5% of overall participants in this survey). search engines Blogs, pod- or vodcasts 6 109 68 53 • But those who use social bookmarking services rate them as important for their daily work Students across disciplines (8.3% “very high”, 66.6% “high significance”) and 75% use them as “active” users. 83.3% of Internet forums 4 122 95 17 (38% humanities, 29% science, 6% Wikipedia Other wikis 16 54 60 65 18 them use these tools on their job. They use social bookmarking tools for “personal information Printed books 66 163 63 management” (50%) and “information management in working groups” (16.7%). law, 5% social sciences, 5% medical Blogs, pod- or vodcasts Online books 28 136 44 2 28 18 58 57 63 16 sciences, 3% economics, 14% other). Printed scientific journals Other Services Other wikis 64 156 12 5 • Those services which serve entertainment purposes (like social networking, YouTube or Flickr) Klein, R.N., Beutelspacher, L., Hauk, K., Terp, C., Anuschewski, D., Zensen, C., Internet forums 9 42 58 86 15 Trkulja, V., & Weller, K. (2009): Informationskompetenz in Zeiten des Web 2.0. Online scientific journals 51 148 27 11 are widely known to students. Chancen und Herausforderungen im Umgang mit Social Software. • Academic staff in Survey C furthermore had a considerable awareness for weblogs, vod- or Information – Wissenschaft und Praxis, 60 (3), 129-142. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% podcasts, and Twitter. But they mainly use these tools in their leisure time. Social tagging is not always trustworthy mostly trustworthy limited trustworthyness very good rather good rather poor known to 50% of Survey C participants. always often rarely never do not know this service not specified not trustworthy cannot rate this not specified not discussed at all cannot rate this not specified Survey B Summer 2009, 346 participants. Students in information science, library science and related Survey C (n=114): Do you know the following services? Survey C: Do you use the following services? Survey C: Are you an active or passive user? Survey C: In which context/for which purpose do you use (only for those participants who answered that they use a certain service) disciplines (from ten universities or (only for those participants who answered that they know a certain service) these services? (only for those participants who answered that they use a certain service) Social Networking Services 108 5 90 universities of applied sciences in Social Networking Services 22 51 Social Networking Services 73 35 80 78 Germany and Switzerland). Photo Community Portals 79 33 73 Photo Community Portals 33 47 Photo Community Portals 17 15 70 Freimanis, R., & Dornstädter, R. (2010). Informationskompetenz junger 62 Information Professionals: Stand und Entwicklung. Video Community Portals 110 3 60 57 Video Community Portals 7 57 number of responses Information – Wissenschaft und Praxis, 61 (2), 123-128. Video Community Portals 64 46 Weblogs 50 84 29 Weblogs 35 47 Weblogs 12 24 40 Twitter 32 31 86 27 Twitter 4 3 27 27 Twitter 7 79 30 Survey C Social Bookmarking Service 27 86 Social Bookmarking Service 12 15 Social Bookmarking Service 9 3 20 9 17 10 10 12 13 8 19 10 9 6 7 Summer 2009, 136 participants. Wikis (in general or Wikipedia in particular) 113 0 Wikis (or Wikipedia) 105 7 Wikis (or Wikipedia) 22 84 10 4 3 5 4 1 1 1 4 2 2 2 2 Academic staff (16 professors, 60 0 Pod- or Vodcasts 92 22 Pod- or Vodcasts 32 60 Pod- or Vodcasts 4 27 Pod- or Wikis (or Social Twitter Weblogs Video Photo Social scientific assistants, 15 assistant Vodcasts Wikipedia) Bookmarking Community Community Networking Service Portals Portals Services lecturers, 20 student assistants, 13 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% during leisure time/ for entertainment on the job (ease of work) PhD students, 8 others, 4 non yes no not specified yes no not specified active user passive user not specified on the job (object of research) on the job (during teaching, in classes) specified), across disciplines. Perez, M. (2010). Web 2.0 im Einsatz für die Wissenschaft. Information – Wissenschaft und Praxis, 61 (2), 128-134. Web Science Conference (WebSci 2010) April 2010, Raleigh, NC

×