“Screenagers” and Virtual (Chat) Reference: The Future is Now!

Presented by Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway

New Jersey Association of School Librarians October 29-31, 2006 Long Branch, New Jersey

Authors

•

Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.

–

Associate Professor,

– – –

Rutgers University, SCILS Email: [email protected]

www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford

•

Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.

–

Consulting Research Scientist

– –

Email: [email protected]

www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm

•

Grant Website (Slides will be posted): http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity

Seeking Synchronicity:

Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives

$1,103,572 project funded by:

• Institute of Museum & Library Services (IMLS) – $684,996 grant • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey & OCLC, Online Computer Library Center – $405,076 in kind contributions

Seeking Synchronicity:

Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives

Project duration: 2 Years (10/05-9/07) Four phases:

I.

Focus group interviews II. Analysis of 1,000+ QuestionPoint live chat transcripts III. 600 online surveys IV. 300 telephone interviews

“Screenagers”

• Term coined in 1996 by Rushkoff • Used here for 12-18 year olds • Affinity for electronic communication computer, phone, television (etc.) • Youngest members of

“Millennial Generation”

The Millennial Generation

• • • • • Born 1979 – 1994

AKA

Next Gen, Net Generation, Generation Y, Nexters, Nintendo Generation, Digital Generation, or Echo Boomers

12-27

year olds About

75 million

people By 2010 will outnumber Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964)

The Millennial Generation

• May be

most studied generation

in history • 4x amount of toys than Boomer parents 20 yrs. earlier • Born digital, most can’t remember life without computers • Confident, hopeful, goal-oriented, civic minded, tech savvy • Younger members

most likely

to display Millennial characteristics

The Millennial Mind

(Sweeney, 2006)

•

Preferences & Characteristics

– More Choices, More Selectivity – Experiential & Exploratory Learners – Flexibility & Convenience – Personalization & Customization – Impatience – Less Attention to Spelling, Grammar – Practical & Results Oriented – Multitaskers

More on Millennial Mind

(Sweeney, 2006)

•

Preferences & Characteristics

– Digital Natives – Gamers – Nomadic Communication Style – Media Variety – Collaboration & Intelligence – Balanced Lives – Less Reading

Millennials, “Screenagers”

• So what does all this mean… – For libraries?

– For reference services?

– For virtual reference services (VRS)?

– For the future of the above?

• Research trying to find out!

Phase I: Focus Group Interviews

• 8 Focus Group Interviews (so far) – 4 with non-users •

3 with “Screenagers” (rural, suburban, & urban)

• 1 with college students (graduate) – 2 with VRS librarians – 2 with VRS users (college students & adults) • 2 more planned (need help) – 2 more with screenager users

3 “Screenager” Focus Groups

• • •

33 Participants

– 13 (39%) Urban – 12 (36%) Suburban – 8 (24%) Rural

Gender

– 15 (45%) Male – 18 (55%) Female

Age Range

– 12 – 18 years old •

Ethnicity

– 21 (64%) Caucasian – 6 (18%) African- American – 6 (18%) Hispanic/Latino •

Grade Level

– 31 (94%) HS – 2 (6%) JHS

FG Results - Major Themes

• Librarian Stereotypes • Preference for Independent Information Seeking – Google – Web surfing • Preference for Face-to-Face Interaction

More FG Themes

• Privacy/Security Concerns – Librarians as “psycho killers” ??

– Fear of cyber stalkers • Factors Influencing Future VRS Use – Recommendation – Marketing – Choice of librarian

Phase II: Transcript Analysis

• Generated random sample – 7/04 to 11/06 (18 months) – 479, 673 QuestionPoint sessions total – Avg. 33/mo. = 600 total, 492 examined so far • 431 usable transcripts – Excluding system tests & tech problems • 191 of these highlighted today – 65 identified as “Screenagers” – 126 identified as primary/college/adult

Classification Methodology

• • •

Qualitative Analysis Development/refinement of category scheme Careful reading/analysis Identification of patterns Time intensive, but reveals complexities!

Results Interpersonal Communication Analysis

•

Relational Facilitators

–

Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation that have a positive impact on the librarian-client interaction and that enhance communication.

•

Relational Barriers

–

Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation that have a negative impact on the librarian-client interaction and that impede communication.

Transcript Examples

Negative Example

– Relational Barriers

Positive Example

– Relational Facilitators

Barriers – Differences

Screenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126) • Higher numbers/avg. (per transcript) – Abrupt Endings 26 (.4%) vs. 37 (.29%) – Impatience 6 (.09%) vs. 2 (.02%) – Rude or Insulting 2 (.03) vs. 0

Facilitators – Differences

Screenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126) • Lower numbers/averages (per occurrence) – Thanks 72 (1.11%) vs. 163 (1.29%) – Self Disclosure 41 (.63%) vs. 120 (.95%) – Seeking reassurance 39 (.6%) vs. 87 (.7%) – Agreement try suggestion 39 (.6%) vs. 93 (.74%) – Closing Ritual 25 (.38%) vs. 69 (.55%) – Admitting lack of knowledge 10 (.15%) vs. 30 (.24%)

Facilitators – Differences

Screenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126) • Higher numbers/averages (per occurrence) – Polite expressions 51 (.78%) vs. 40 (.32%) – Alternate spellings 33 (.51%) vs. 19 (.15%) – Punctuation/repeat 23 (.35%) vs. 28 (.22) – Lower case 19 (.29%) vs. 24 (.19%) – Slang 9 (.14%) vs. 3 (.02%) – Enthusiasm 8 (.12%) vs. 9 (.07%) – Self-correction 7 (.11%) vs. 6 (.05%) – Alpha-numeric shortcuts 3 (.05%) vs. 0

Implications for Practice

•

VRS is a natural for Screenagers

•

Recommend/market services (QandANJ)

•

Reassure that QandANJ is safe

•

Don’t throw a wet blanket on their enthusiasm

•

Do encourage, mentor them, & learn from them

•

Basic service excellence skills

•

See handouts for recommendations!

Future Directions

• Phases III & IV – Online Surveys (in progress) – Telephone Surveys • Building on these results • Need your help to recruit!!

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 and OCLC, Online Computer Library Center. Special thanks to Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams, Patrick Confer, Julie Strange, Vickie Kozo, & Timothy Dickey.

Slides available at project web site: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/syn chronicity/

Questions

•

Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.

–

Email: [email protected]

–

www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford

•

Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.

–

Email: [email protected]

–

www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm