Behaviors and Preferences
of Digital Natives:
Informing a Research Agenda
ASIST Annual Conference
October 18-25, 2007
Milwaukee, WI
Sponsored by
Special Interest Group on Information Needs, Seeking and Use
and
Special Interest Group on Digital Libraries
Digital Natives
 Born after 1989
 “…think and process information fundamentally
differently from their predecessors” (Prensky, 2001)
 Need for research to identify information-seeking
behaviors

Develop library services & systems they will use
 Proposed Research Agenda
 Virtual reference services
 Selection of digital library resources
 Collaborative information behavior in online
environments
Presenters
 Linda Z. Cooper

Overarching Issues in Children’s and Youth
Information Behavior Research: Moving
the Research Agenda beyond Systems
Design
 Marie L. Radford & Lynn Silipigni
Connaway (Organizers)

Connecting in Cyberspace: The Millennial
Generation and Virtual Reference Service
Presenters
 Kara Reuter

Migrating from Print to Digital: Children’s
Selection of Books in a Public Library and
a Digital Library
 Nan Zhou & Denise E. Agosto

The Collaborative Information Behavior of
Middle School Students in Online Learning
Environments: An Exploratory Study
Connecting in Cyberspace:
The Millennial Generation &
Virtual Reference Service
Marie L. Radford
Lynn Silipigni Connaway
ASIST Annual Conference
October 18-25, 2007
Milwaukee, WI
Seeking Synchronicity:
Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User,
Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives
Project duration: 2 ½ Years (10/05-3/08)
Four phases:
I.
II.
Focus group interviews
Analysis of 850 QuestionPoint live chat
transcripts
III. 600 online surveys
IV. 300 telephone interviews
The Millennial Generation
• Born 1979 – 1994
• AKA Net Generation, Generation Y, Digital
Generation, or Echo Boomers
• 13-28 year olds
• About 75 million people
• By 2010 will outnumber Baby Boomers (born
1946-1964)
“Screenagers”
•
•
•
•
Term coined in 1996 by Rushkoff
Used here for 12-18 year olds
Affinity for electronic communication
Youngest members of “Millennial
Generation”
Screenagers:
Young Digital Natives
• Implications for libraries?
– For traditional & virtual reference
services?
– For the future?
Phase II: Transcript
Analysis
• Random sample
 7/04 to 11/06 (18 months)
 500,000+ pool of transcripts
 30-50 per month = 850 total sample
• 746 usable transcripts
 Excluding system tests & technical problems
• 372 classified by age/educational level
 146 “Screenagers” (Middle & High School)
 226 “Others” (College/Adult)
Interpersonal
Communication Analysis
• Relational Facilitators
– Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation
that have a positive impact on the librarianclient interaction and that enhance
communication.
• Relational Barriers
– Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation
that have a negative impact on the librarianclient interaction and that impede
communication.
Transcript Example –
Relational Facilitators
“The Size of an Atom”
Question Type: Subject Search
Subject Type: Life Sciences, Biology (DDC:570)
Duration: 40 min.
Transcript Example –
Relational Barriers
“Mesopotamian Government”
Question Type: Subject Search
Subject Type: History of Ancient World (DDC:930)
Duration: 27 min.
Facilitators – VRS Users
Screenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226)
• Lower numbers/percentages per transcript
Thanks
Agreement to try what
is suggested
Closing Ritual
Self Disclosure
Seeking Reassurance
Admit lack knowledge
S
O
75 (21%) vs. 175 (77%)
46 (32%) vs. 116 (51%)
47 (32%) vs. 111 (49%)
61 (42%) vs. 125 (55%)
57 (39%) vs. 111 (49%)
13 (19%) vs. 47 (21%)
Barriers – VRS Users
Screenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226)
• Higher numbers/percentages per transcript
S
O
Impatience
12 (8%) vs. 13 (6%)
Rude or Insulting
9 (6%) vs. 9 (4%)
Facilitators - Librarians
Screenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226)
• Lower numbers/percentages per transcript
L to S
L to O
Offering Opinion/Advice 43 (29%) vs. 83 (37%)
Explaining Search Strategy 9 (6%) vs. 31 (14%)
All Lower Case
63 (11%) vs. 43 (18%)
Encouraging Remarks
18 (12%) vs. 39 (17%)
Facilitators - Librarians
Screenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226)
• Higher numbers/percentages per transcript
Seeking Reassurance
Greeting Ritual
Asking for Patience
Explaining Signing off
Abruptly
L to S
L to O
89 (61%) vs. 115 (51%)
76 (52%) vs. 108 (48%)
57 (39%) vs. 80 (35%)
8 (5%) vs. 2 (1%)
Barriers - Librarians
Screenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226)
• Higher numbers/percentages per transcript
Abrupt Endings
Limits Time
Sends to Google
Reprimanding
Failure/Refusal to
Provide Information
L to S
L to O
23 (16%) vs. 20 (9%)
9 (6%) vs. 1 (0%)
8 (5%) vs. 0 (0%)
6 (4%) vs. 1 (0%)
7 (5%) vs. 5 (2%)
Future Directions
• Continue to collect & analyze data
– Online surveys
• Librarians and Non-users completed
• Users in progress
– Telephone interviews
• Librarians completed
• Users and Non-users in progress
End Notes
• This is one of the outcomes from the project
Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services
from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives
• Funded by IMLS, Rutgers University, & OCLC Online Computer
Library Center, Inc.
• Special thanks to Patrick Confer, Timothy Dickey, Jocelyn
DeAngelis Williams, Julie Strange, & Janet Torsney.
• Slides available at project web site:
http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/
Questions
• Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.
– Email: mradford@scils.rutgers.edu
– www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford
• Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.
– Email: connawal@oclc.org
– www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm