JISC/CNI 08: Student Experience

The Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future:
Ian Rowlands, University College London

Google Generation defined as those born after 1993 - the press portrays this generation as being different somehow.

UCL's project was to acquire qualitative data on usage (Longitudinal study from Univ Tennessee)

OCLC report – search associated with Google/Yahoo branding only; library associated with legacy print – how do we put our search tools in their environment

Google are easy & predictable, but not seen as a gateway to expensive publisher-created content.

Go for easy option – need clear mental map of premium content

GG not unique

Mental map – did we only have this mental map because the library was static – what now?

People have no idea what an electronic book is?

Get much closer to our users – well beyond satisfaction surveys

Deep log analysis of 9 digital library platforms challenges assumptions on how people read – jump around spend little time on actual content. through ‘metadata broth’ viewing rather than reading

Differences in number of keywords by different nationalities = Germans most structured, Italians power browsers; males prefer HTML, females PDF

Are people using these to check facts, to avoid reading, or rejecting resources, or unable to find relevant resources.

Continuity – differences lessen as older generations catch up & even overtake.

Are our mental maps based on our models of learning?


Listening to Students: Innovative Responses:
Betsy Wilson, Dean of University Libraries, University of Washington

CIBER report (2005) – no library had a department devoted to assessment of the user – a few have now developed expertise in assessment.

ARL Library Assessment Conference among those sponsoring many activities

Based on user behaviour, use & non-use, and related to outcomes.

Commitment to continual assessment & evaluation for positive outcomes

Dialogue with users for new services & discontinued services

Qualitative & quantitative methods; they have had a series of surveys since 1992

Most have moved to remote use – preferred method

Self-reliance is of high importance

Desktop top priority

Library as place to work, other visits drop

UWash. has a focus on bioscience; 70% of faculty & students have some interaction with bioscientists but there is no actual faculty of Bioscience

Print really dead

Library provides ejournal with big chequebook – what happens with OA

Need help with personal information

Fulfilment – library costs from transaction to delivery too high

Integrate discovery & delivery

Integrate collection development budgets

Get librarians out of the library

Can we generalise?

Disparity between faculty & UG usage greater than assumed

Move to desktop – faculty use of collections drop, but UG relatively static. Their activities in library also static. UG remote access increase not as steep as Faculty & Research


Survey that students agreed libraries make them more productive researchers

UG – space

Res – how to save time

Fac – collections

Extend hours

Diversify space

Discovery & delivery

Collection resource reallocation

Worldcat local

20% local

60 regional ILL

114% international ILL

Maintain relevancy & centrality – increase since 1995 – refocus on student needs rather than faculty

Lib.washington.edu/assessment

Do students rate value with how difficult resource is to obtain

Use consumer mindset to judge materials also services

Print rather reading use

Log analysis based on the browser use