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 Childrens 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: Childrens 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.Focus group interviews II.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 year olds About 75 million people By 2010 will outnumber Baby Boomers (born )

The Millennial Generation May be most studied generation in history 4x amount of toys than Boomer parents Born digital –Most can not 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 & selectivity –Flexibility & convenience –Personalization & customization –Experiential & exploratory learners –Impatient –Less attention to spelling & grammar –Practical, results Oriented –Multi-taskers & collaborators

Screenagers Term coined in 1996 by Rushkoff Used here for 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 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 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 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 SO Thanks 75 (21%) vs. 175 (77%) Agreement to try what 46 (32%) vs. 116 (51%) is suggested Closing Ritual 47 (32%) vs. 111 (49%) Self Disclosure 61 (42%) vs. 125 (55%) Seeking Reassurance57 (39%) vs. 111 (49%) Admit lack knowledge 13 (19%) vs. 47 (21%)

Barriers – VRS Users Screenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) Higher numbers/percentages per transcript SO 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 L to S L to O Seeking Reassurance 89 (61%) vs. 115 (51%) Greeting Ritual76 (52%) vs. 108 (48%) Asking for Patience57 (39%) vs. 80 (35%) Explaining Signing off 8 (5%) vs. 2 (1%) Abruptly

Barriers - Librarians Screenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) Higher numbers/percentages per transcript L to S L to O Abrupt Endings 23 (16%) vs. 20 (9%) Limits Time 9 (6%) vs. 1 (0%) Sends to Google 8 (5%) vs. 0 (0%) Reprimanding 6 (4%) vs. 1 (0%) Failure/Refusal to 7 (5%) vs. 5 (2%) Provide Information

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:

Questions Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. – – Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. – –