Part 2 of a 2-part presentation at the LAUC-B 2009 conference in Berkeley, California, on October 23, 2009. I discussed findings from a research report I published in April of 2009, Informing Innovation, (tinyurl.com/ii-booth), and its implications for local user research in the academic library setting.

1. LAUC-B Char Booth
2009
INFORMING INNOVATION UC Berkeley
Tracking Student Interest in Library Technologies

2. the questions.
* ha s lib r ar y 2.0 and us/them think ing created a one-
size-fit s all app r oach to technology develop ment?
what motivates user s to integ ra te lib ra ries into
their per sonal lear ning envir onments ?*

3. breakout session.
* generat ional assump ti ons
li brary pred isposit ion
implications for assessment & services

4. investigating preconceptions.
* generat ional assump ti ons
immigrants natives
uncomfortable Game players
old and frightened Unafraid/fearless
rigidinflexible Social/impatient
wasting time Young and abrasive

5. methodology.
* investigate the actual technolog y and libr ar y
use pa tterns/cultures of Ohio University students.
env ir o nm e nt al sc a n
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

6. findings | demographics
*age
*gender *standing

7. 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%

8. 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%

9. findings | student technology ownership

10. 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%

11. 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
t e x t in g
2 9%
8 9%
2 9%
8 5%
3 5%
6 7%
3 7%
5 8%
4 1%
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%

12. 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
p o d c as t s
7 1%
2 9%
6 6%
2 9%
5 9%
3 5%
5 4%
3 7%
4 3%
4 1%
* t e x t in g
wikis
8 9%
6 5%
8 5%
7 1%
6 7%
7 4%
5 8%
7 3%
5 1%
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%

13. 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%

14. findings | relative technology unfamiliarity

15. findings | google app use
17 - 1 9 20 - 2 2 23 - 2 6 27 - 3 0 31 +
Se arc h 98% 97% 95% 98% 99%
Im age s 66% 61% 54% 53% 37%
Ma ps 47% 51% 62% 55% 51%
Ne ws 21% 23% 21% 20% 23%
Gm ai l 17% 25% 44% 47% 34%
Sc hol ar 13% 20% 38% 40% 37%
iG oog le 9% 9% 11% 11% 8%
Do cum ent s 8% 10% 15% 20% 20%
Bo ok s 5% 6% 14% 16% 11%
Ta lk 3% 4% 12% 12% 8%
Bl og S ea rc h 2% 2% 4% 4% 6%
Pi cas a 2% 5% 13% 9% 8%
Re ade r 1% 2% 3% 6% 3%

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

17. findings | open-ended library assessment

18. findings | library vs. research skill

19. findings | awareness of library services

20. findings | library technology receptivity

21. 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%

22. findings | library predisposition
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
S o m e wh a t r e c ep t iv e
23%
53%
42%
47%
23%
53%
33%
45%
* N o t r e c ep t i v e 24% 11% 24% 22%
*
*
*

23. findings | priceless verbatim comments
“Two words - air con dition ing.”
“The librar y kin d of sm ells.” “The ‘stack floors ’ are cre ep y.”
“Mor e stab le s for pe op le to stu dy 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 !!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

30. 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.

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

32. the point.
* und ersta nding local patr on cultur es is essentia l
to cr ea ting used and useful (technolog y) ser vices.
envir onmenta l scan ning is a scalab le mea ns
of investig ating need s and per ceptions.*

33. the point.
qu estion gene rational in vestigate loc al
assu m ption s patron cultur es
takeaways
promote emerging use data to
services inf or m dec ision s

34. Q/A
* cha r boot h
e-learning li brarian | uc berk eley
cboot h@li brary .berkeley .edu
report: ti nyurl.com/i i-b ooth | bl og: infomat ional.com