1. 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

2. Authors Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. –Associate Professor, –Rutgers University, SCILS –Email: mradford@scils.rutgers.edumradford@scils.rutgers.edu –www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradfordwww.scils.rutgers.edu/ Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. –Consulting Research Scientist –Email: connawal@oclc.org –www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htmwww.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm Grant Website (Slides will be posted): http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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)

7. The Millennial Generation May be most studied generation in history 4x amount of toys than Boomer parents 20 yrs. earlier Born digital, most cant remember life without computers Confident, hopeful, goal-oriented, civic- minded, tech savvy Younger members most likely to display Millennial characteristics

8. 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

9. More on Millennial Mind (Sweeney, 2006) Preferences & Characteristics –Digital Natives –Gamers –Nomadic Communication Style –Media Variety –Collaboration & Intelligence –Balanced Lives –Less Reading

10. 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!

11. 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

12. 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

13. FG Results - Major Themes Librarian Stereotypes Preference for Independent Information Seeking –Google –Web surfing Preference for Face-to-Face Interaction

14. More FG Themes Privacy/Security Concerns –Librarians as psycho killers ?? –Fear of cyber stalkers Factors Influencing Future VRS Use –Recommendation –Marketing –Choice of librarian

15. 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

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

17. 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.

18. Transcript Examples Negative Example – Relational Barriers Positive Example – Relational Facilitators

19. 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

20. 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%)

21. 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

22. Implications for Practice VRS is a natural for Screenagers Recommend/market services (QandANJ) Reassure that QandANJ is safe Dont throw a wet blanket on their enthusiasm Do encourage, mentor them, & learn from them Basic service excellence skills See handouts for recommendations!

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

24. 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/ http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/syn chronicity/

25. Questions Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. –Email: mradford@scils.rutgers.edumradford@scils.rutgers.edu –www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradfordwww.scils.rutgers.edu/ Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. –Email: connawal@oclc.org –www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.ht m