Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 34(1):1–16, 2015 Published with license by Taylor & Francis ISSN: 0276-3869 print=1540-9597 online DOI: 10.1080/02763869.2015.986708
Building Technology Services That Address Student Needs JEANNE M. LE BER, NANCY T. LOMBARDO, and ERIN WIMMER Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
A 16-question technology use survey was conducted to assess incoming health sciences students’ knowledge of and interest in current technologies, and to identify student device and tool preferences. Survey questions were developed by colleagues at a peer institution and then edited to match this library’s student population. Two years of student responses have been compiled, compared, and reviewed as a means for informing library decisions related to technology and resource purchases. Instruction and event programming have been revised to meet student preferences. Based on the number of students using Apple products, librarians are addressing the need to become more proficient with this platform. KEYWORDS Academic health sciences libraries, device preferences, health sciences students, library services, technology assessment
INTRODUCTION Based on observation and survey results, it is clear that in-coming health sciences students are technology users. Most arrive on campus with a variety of devices including laptop computers, tablets, and smartphones loaded with a plethora of software, tools, and apps. In order to proactively identify and address the technology needs of students, librarians conducted a 16-question survey to assess incoming students’ knowledge of and interest in tools and devices, library services, and social media. Survey questions were initially # Jeanne M. Le Ber, Nancy T. Lombardo, and Erin Wimmer Received: August 29, 2014; Revised: October 2, 2014; Accepted: October 25, 2014. Address correspondence to Jeanne M. Le Ber, Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library, University of Utah, 10 North 1900 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-5890. E-mail: jeanne.leber@ utah.edu Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www. tandfonline.com/wmrs. 1
2
J. M. Le Ber et al.
developed by librarians at the University of Southern California, Norris Medical Library (USC-N), who invited peer institutions to participate in a multi-institutional study. The survey was slightly edited to match the Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library’s (EHSL) student population. In some cases, results were consolidated in order to simplify the presentation and interpretation of data. The three Likert scale questions (questions 8, 9, 10) were summarized as generally positive or negative, rather than enumerating the five or six options. All sixteen survey questions, four of which collected demographics, are interpreted in this paper. Survey results are representative of the first-year students in graduate programs across the health sciences. Tabulated results have been compiled, compared, and reviewed to determine optimal EHSL response to student technology practices and needs. Based on the survey results, instruction and event programming has been adjusted, use of social media re-evaluated, and app and device purchases have become more responsive to studentexpressed needs. In addition, survey results are informing EHSL decisions related to the purchase and acquisition of academic resources and technology tools.
SETTING The EHSL serves as the primary resource for the University of Utah health sciences, which currently includes the Schools of Dentistry and Medicine, and the Colleges of Health, Nursing, and Pharmacy. The overall university student enrollment for autumn 2013 was 32,080,1 including undergraduate and graduate students. In addition, as the major academic health sciences library in the state, the EHSL supports the health information requests of faculty, staff, and students from 14 academic institutions, health care providers, and citizens of the region. The EHSL has a reputation for being on the leading edge of technology use in education. The EHSL supports innovative information programs including advanced digital media services, comprehensive digital collections, and a dynamic and curriculum-integrated educational program. EHSL staff have created multiple information subject portals and educational web-based instructional programs. The EHSL collaborates with the Center for Medical Innovation,2 the Entertainment Arts and Engineering (EAE)3 graduate program, and supports and houses the therapeutic games and apps division of the EAE, The GApp Lab. The EHSL also supports the student-driven innovation programs including Bench-2-Bedside and Games4Health. Students in these programs develop solutions to health-related problems through new technology and digital therapeutic applications.
Technology Services for Student Needs
3
METHODS The EHSL participated in a multi-institution assessment of student technology needs and preferences. The sixteen questions provided by USC, Norris Medical Library, were edited to represent the University’s student populations. Questions were entered into SurveyMonkey, reviewed and tested by EHSL staff, and then finalized for distribution. An e-mail request was sent to administrative assistants from dentistry, medicine, health, nursing, and pharmacy requesting their help in sending the survey link to all incoming graduate students. Librarians followed up with an additional e-mail request in order to increase respondent numbers. Two years’ worth of survey results were downloaded into an Excel spreadsheet for analysis. Data and comments were examined to identify technology use trends. In addition, questions asked students about their preferences for tools, devices, operating systems, e-book readers, accessing library services, cell phone use, web tools, and social media sites.
SURVEY RESULTS While USC-N collected and reported on all survey data from multiple institutions,4 permission was given to each institution to publish their unique results. The survey results presented here represent only the responses received at EHSL.
Demographics The survey link was sent to approximately 300 health sciences students in 2012 and 340 health sciences students in 2013. The survey asked respondents to identify the school or college in which they were enrolled, as well as asking their age and sex. A total of 87 students responded to the 2012 fall survey, while a total of 101 responded to the 2013 fall survey. All units were represented except the School of Dentistry. It is unclear why the dental students did not respond. As would be expected in a university population, the bulk of the respondents were between the ages of 20 and 30. No more than 15% of respondents fell outside of that range. The male=female respondent ratio changed from 2012 to 2013, with more females responding (see Figure 1).
Use of Instant Messaging Tools Students were asked, ‘‘Which of the following instant messenger tools do you currently use? Check all that apply.’’ Respondents to the survey identified Facebook as the instant messaging (IM) tool of choice, with Google Talk a
4
J. M. Le Ber et al.
FIGURE 1 Demographics of respondents.
distant second (see Figure 2). Based on the percentage and number of survey respondents who use Facebook (question 10 in the survey), it made sense that the Facebook IM tool would be most popular. IM tools less commonly used by respondents included iMessage, Gmail Chat, Lync, and Babbir (tools listed in survey comments). About 26% of survey respondents stated that they did not use an instant messaging tool. Facebook messaging is not an effective way for the EHSL to communicate with students because they do not want to ‘‘like’’ or follow the library. However, students seemed willing to utilize the library’s web-based chat service for reference questions. The EHSL has used a number of instant messaging tools over the years, most recently Pigeon, Meebo, and now Kayako. In 2012 and 2013, library staff answered 198 and 103 references questions, respectively, via instant messaging. E-mail reference is preferred, and in 2012 and 2013, library staff answered 2,224 and 1,955 reference questions, respectively, via e-mail.
FIGURE 2 Preferred instant messaging tools by number.
Technology Services for Student Needs
5
It may be that IM is not appropriate for all kinds of reference inquiries. IM works if the question is ephemeral and requires an immediate response. E-mail is more asynchronous, and easier to organize, manage, and retrieve for extensive and detailed information exchange.
Devices Used Students were asked, ‘‘Which of the following devices do you use? Check all that apply.’’ Survey results indicated that students used a variety of devices (see Figure 3). Every student owned a laptop computer, with the Mac being slightly more prevalent than the PC. Smartphone usage rose from 70% to 79% of survey respondents between 2012 and 2013, supporting the need for students to be connected to each other and to information. Tablets were somewhat popular, with about one-third of the respondents using such a device. Fewer respondents used an e-book reader, and this number may be declining as tablet use increases. All respondents indicated that they used at least one of these technologies, and a small number of students used both Mac and PC laptops. All responding students owned a laptop, and almost 80% of students owned and used a smartphone at the time of the survey. As tablets gain functionality, they will become more popular. The older e-reader devices were limited in function and provided cumbersome access to the Internet. Because the Nook and Kindle provide apps for phones, tablets, and laptops, students
FIGURE 3 Devices used by survey respondent number.
6
J. M. Le Ber et al.
may prefer not to carry an additional device. At the time of this survey, laptops were the most universally owned device.
Operating System for Smartphones Students were asked, ‘‘Which operating system (OS) do you have on your smartphone?’’ The iOS and Google=Android operating systems were the preferred mobile platforms according to survey responses, with iOS having a slight edge (see Figure 4). Among smartphone users, iOS had 55% and Android had 30% of the health sciences student market share. Of those respondents who did not already own a smartphone, more were hoping to purchase a smartphone than not. There is a clear indication from survey respondents that the Blackberry and Windows Mobile OS were not of interest. Fewer than 10% of respondents indicated that they were not interested in owning a smartphone.
Operating System of Tablets Students were asked, ‘‘Which operating system (OS) do you have on your tablet?’’ A large number of survey respondents indicated that they were not interested in any tablet. Of those who owned a tablet, respondents were most likely to use iOS, indicating a preference for iPads (see Figure 5). Although the Google=Android OS was a distant second, ownership increased slightly in
FIGURE 4 Preferred operating system for smartphone.
Technology Services for Student Needs
7
FIGURE 5 Preferred operating system for tablet.
2013. Interestingly, from 2012 to 2013, the same number of students planned to get a tablet. In the real world, ‘‘Android mobile operating system has a 78% share of all users globally. Apple iOS had 18%.’’5 Despite this, EHSL survey results show that the Apple iOS was more commonly used by students than any other operating system. Of the 35% of students surveyed who did own tablets, 28% were iOS and 7% were Android.
E-Book Readers The next question was, ‘‘Which brand of e-book reader do you use?’’ Survey respondents indicated that the Kindle e-book reader was preferred, while a smaller percentage of respondents used their tablet as their e-book reader (see Figure 6). More than half of the respondents said that they were not interested in an e-book reader, which may have been due to a preference for print (see next question) or a disinterest in having multiple devices.
Preference for Reading Print or E-Books Students were asked, ‘‘Do you prefer reading e-books or print books? Check all that apply.’’ One-half to three-quarters of survey respondents preferred print books to e-books, and this number grew nearly 25% between 2012 and 2013 (see Figure 7). The preference for e-books dropped by a small percentage in the second survey year. While print was preferred, about 9%
8
J. M. Le Ber et al.
FIGURE 6 Preferred e-book reader.
of respondents indicated that they did not have a preference, and about 15% indicated they intended to use e-books more in the future. It is clear that reading print was preferred over e-books, while a small percentage of students did not have a reading preference. It is interesting that
FIGURE 7 Preference for e-book versus print book.
Technology Services for Student Needs
9
as access to print resources diminished, students continued to prefer print. However, when the library offered free access to online textbooks, students utilized those resources. The EHSL has a limited print collection, so for students wanting to use print textbooks, the only available option was to purchase their own copies.
Library Services From a Smartphone or Tablet Students were asked, ‘‘If you own a smartphone=tablet, how likely would you be to use the following library services?’’ In general, survey respondents seemed willing to use EHSL services on their smartphone and=or tablet. Using the library catalog, electronic resources, medical apps, and checking library hours ranked high in potential usage. In contrast, it was clear that survey respondents did not want to ‘‘like’’ the library on Facebook or follow the library on Twitter. The numbers willing to follow on Facebook and Twitter went up slightly in 2013 (see Figure 8). Even though many survey respondents were interested in engaging in social media, as discussed later in this article, the students were not interested in following the EHSL on Facebook or Twitter. Students were willing to check library hours and use other library services such as read e-books, medical apps, electronic resources, and the library catalog on their smartphone or tablet. Electronic resources were not defined in the survey; therefore, it is hard to know how students interpreted this choice.
FIGURE 8 Likelihood of using library services with smartphone or tablet.
10
J. M. Le Ber et al.
Library Services via Text Messaging Students were asked, ‘‘If you own a cell phone, how likely would you be to use the following text=SMS library services?’’ Survey respondents were slightly more likely to send a text message to a librarian to ask a question than not; and they were slightly more likely to want to receive a call number from the catalog than not. They were more receptive to receiving an overdue notice via text messaging and to renew library materials via text messaging (see Figure 9). While students indicated willingness to renew materials, receive overdue notices, and get call numbers from the catalog via text messaging, in reality these services were not all that relevant for the EHSL. The bulk of the library’s resources are digital, and there are few circulating materials except for a small equipment collection that includes tablets and laptops. Students were interested in sending questions to a librarian via text; the EHSL has not implemented that service but is considering it.
Use of Web Tools and Social Media The next question asked about use of web tools and social media. Not surprisingly, the most popular social media site was Facebook. Greater than 85% of survey respondents indicated that they used Facebook; nevertheless, the majority did not want to friend=‘‘like’’ the library, as noted earlier. Googleþ was a distant second with slightly over a quarter of respondents using this
FIGURE 9 Likelihood of text messaging library for services.
Technology Services for Student Needs
11
social media site. Other social media sites such as Twitter and LinkedIn were less popular, and survey respondents did not use FourSquare, MySpace, or Second Life. While the web tools were not well used by survey respondents, Pinterest, Google Reader, and Quick Response (QR) Codes saw some use. The bookmarking service, Delicious=Diigo was not used. In addition, web-based bibliographic management tools (Zotero and Mendeley) were not used. Skype was relatively popular, with an average of 57% use (see Figure 10). For first-year health sciences students, the use of bibliographic management tools was not necessary, as they have not been required to manage large numbers of citations. It is not surprising that Zotero, Mendeley, and Delicious=Diigo were underutilized at this point in their academic career. Students did not report using QR Codes, but it was not clear that they recognized the terminology.
Interest in Workshops Students were asked, ‘‘If the library offered monthly lunch time workshops on technology topics, would you come to a workshop that focuses on any of the follow? Check all that apply.’’ Survey respondents indicated an interest in attending workshops or classes on technology topics. The most popular topics were Google tools, mobile device apps, and presentation tools. In addition, photo=video editing was of some interest. Topics such as RSS readers,
FIGURE 10 Use of web tools and social media (selected tools).
12
J. M. Le Ber et al.
Web 2.0 applications, blogs, and social networking tools were of less interest (see Figure 11). Even though students indicated an interest in EHSL workshops on a variety of topics, attendance in open classes was near zero. The library has moved to the consultation model of providing training and assistance with tools, software, and resources. Consultations scheduled with individual librarians and staff are increasing. In response to student input, librarians are considering developing and presenting workshops on topics identified in the survey. For example, online tutorials are being created in Canvas , the campus learning management system, on using mobile devices and apps. This publicly accessible course has been well received by academic faculty, staff, and students. The course is available on-demand for students to view at their convenience.
Technology Adoption Students were asked, ‘‘Which of the following best describes you?’’ In describing their own use of technology, survey respondents placed themselves in a bell curve (see Figure 12). Only 2% avoided using new technology, while a small percentage saw themselves as technology pioneers. Most respondents viewed themselves as using new technologies at the same time as other people. The bulk of survey respondents were not early technology adopters. In contrast, EHSL faculty and staff are recognized for being early adopters. An important role of librarians is to facilitate the use of relevant new technologies
FIGURE 11 Interest in library-sponsored workshops.
Technology Services for Student Needs
13
FIGURE 12 Which of the following best describes you?
within the health sciences community. By being ahead of the bell curve, librarians have positioned themselves as experts, and patrons seek them out with their technology questions. Sometimes training is offered too early and patrons are not ready to adopt new technologies. In general, users come to technology on their own terms when they have a need or there is a clear advantage. As an example of being ahead of the bell curve, in 2002 librarians worked with the third-year pediatric clerkship students, training them to use handheld devices in the clinics. During the initial year, no students owned their own handheld device. The technology was entirely new to the students. Within three years, students began arriving in class with their personal devices. Now, personal devices are ubiquitous.
DISCUSSION The aggregate survey data will help the EHSL determine whether it has been successful in meeting student needs and how it can continue to build technology and information services in the future. Librarians have re-evaluated the purchase and provision of tablets and other mobile devices and apps. Survey result data are being used to develop the library’s communication plan. Based on the number of students using Mac products, librarians are addressing the need to become more proficient with the iOS platform. Students indicated an interest in instruction, but workshops were not well attended. As an alternative, librarians are creating online tutorials on a variety of topics, including Introduction to the iPad, Canvas app (LMS), library
14
J. M. Le Ber et al.
resources, uCentral, PubMed, and Evernote. The list of tutorials is being expanded to include presentation tools, Google tools, measuring impact factors, and productivity apps. In addition, instruction sessions on social networking tools are under development. One of these sessions is a monthly ‘‘Appy Hour’’ event highlighting mobile apps and digital therapeutics for health development. As noted above, most students used Facebook but did not want to follow the library. At this point, the EHSL cannot rely on social media for marketing services and resources to students. Perhaps if more time was committed to cultivating the library’s Facebook presence, it would attract more students. More of the library’s effort has been focused on Twitter. Librarians are assigned to live-tweet events, announcements are made, services are advertised, and re-tweeting is done to build Twitter relationships. While metrics exist for tracking tweets, re-tweets, and favorites, measuring the actual impact of this service is challenging, and librarians are concerned with the return on investment. As technology leaders, librarians are responsive to student requests for alternative information delivery methods. Based on student interest in receiving library services (e.g., renewals, hold notices, library hours) via texting, the EHSL will be investigating how to implement this channel of communication. Advantages of texting include time and paper savings, and quick and easy communication with students. The EHSL has been using QR Codes to link to registration forms, digital collections, and event information, yet metrics show that these codes are not used. Taking a cue from successful online ticket sales in private industry, library QR Code use needs to be evaluated for efficiency, convenience, and linking to meaningful information. Recently, librarians upgraded the existing pool of circulating devices by purchasing ten new iPad Minis, four Google Nexus, and four Kindle Fire HD. Starting this year (2014), first- and second-year medical students are being issued iPads by the School of Medicine (SOM) for the purpose of taking attendance and testing. Librarians capitalized on this development by positioning themselves as the technology experts. This included making recommendations for apps and programs, and providing a formal orientation to the students using online modules created by librarians. Informally, librarians hosted a technology assistance table outside the SOM classroom over the lunch hour for the first two weeks of classes. Staffing the table provided the opportunity for librarians to assist students in installing essentials apps, setting up their e-mail, and directing general device configuration. Some of the designated apps were overly complicated to install, and librarians were able to demonstrate the necessary steps. By the end of the week, students, faculty, and administrators recognized the benefits of collaborating with librarians. An added benefit for the librarians was cultivating relationships with the medical students.
Technology Services for Student Needs
15
CONCLUSION In the time period since this survey was conducted, the technology has evolved and changed. Some of the tools and devices that were relevant in 2012 are no longer popular. For example, the Motorola Xoom tablet was perceived to be the strongest competitor to the iPad when it was first released in 20116,7 but was quickly overtaken by the Google Nexus and Samsung Galaxy tablets. My Space has evolved into a music sharing site (a LinkedIn for bands), while Second Life8 has stagnated. Google Reader was abandoned and discontinued in July 2013.9 Googleþ came on strong when it was first launched but has not gained the anticipated following. The nature of technology is that it is constantly changing. As a result, the survey questions may benefit from updating for the next iteration. The survey has informed collection development decisions. Even though the students prefer print, librarians will continue to provide electronic resources. However, it is clear that unlimited access is essential for e-book collections and electronic resources, and that the limited simultaneous user model is no longer acceptable. Unlimited simultaneous use has become an important criterion in the selection policy. Major resource licenses have been negotiated with this criterion in mind. To satisfy their preference for print, students can print the content from the electronic resources for reading at their convenience. Gathering this survey data provided value insight into student technology preferences and needs, allowing the EHSL to customize services and resources accordingly. Librarians look forward to conducting the survey again in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank the former Education Librarian, Amy Honisett, who managed the 2012 Technology Survey at the Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library.
REFERENCES 1. Utah System of Higher Education. 2014. News Release: Enrollment at Utah’s Colleges and Universities Stronger than Expected. 2013. http://higheredutah.org/ wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013-10-10_FallEnrollment_NR.pdf. 2. University of Utah. ‘‘Center for Medical Innovaton Home Page.’’ Accessed August 20, 2014. http://healthsciences.utah.edu/center-for-medical-innovation/ index.php. 3. University of Utah. ‘‘Entertainment Arts and Engineering Home Page.’’ Accessed August 20, 2014. http://eae.utah.edu/.
16
J. M. Le Ber et al.
4. Wu, Jin, Amy J. Chatfield, Angie M. Hughes, Lynn Kysh, and Megan C. Rosenbloom. ‘‘Measuring Patrons’ Technology Habits: An Evidence-based Approach to Tailoring Library Services.’’ Journal of the Medical Library Association 102, no. 2 (April 2014): 125–129. doi:10.3163=1536-5050.102.2.014. 5. Edwards, Jim. ‘‘The iPhone 6 Had Better Be Amazing and Cheap, Because Apple Is Losing the War to Android.’’ Business Insider. May 31 2014. http://www. businessinsider.com/iphone-v-android-market-share-2014-5#ixzz3Arwe5rZe. 6. Brandon, John, and TechRadar. ‘‘Motorola Xoom Review: The First Android 3.0 Tablet Arrives to Challenge the iPad 2.’’ March 3, 2011. http://www.techradar.com/ us/reviews/pc-mac/tablets/motorola-xoom-987073/review. 7. Berger, Sandy. ‘‘Motorola Xoom Tablet Review.’’ Last updated April 27, 2011. http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Motorola-Xoom-Tablet-Review/1257. 8. Levy, Karyne. ‘‘Second Life Has Developed into a Post-Apocalyptic Virtual World, and the Weirdest Thing Is How Many People Still Use It.’’ Business Insider. August 1, 2014. http://www.businessinsider.com/second-life-today-2014-7. 9. Ho¨lzle, Urs. ‘‘A Second Spring of Cleaning.’’ Google Official Blog. March 13, 2013. http://googleblog.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/a-second-spring-of-cleaning.html.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jeanne M. Le Ber, MLIS, AHIP ([email protected]) is Associate Director for Education and Research, Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library, University of Utah, 10 North 1900 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-5890. Nancy T. Lombardo, MLS, AHIP ([email protected]) is Associate Director for Information Technology, Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library, University of Utah, 10 North 1900 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-5890. Erin Wimmer, MLIS, MA, AHIP ([email protected]) is Teaching and Learning Librarian, Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library, University of Utah, 10 North 1900 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-5890.
Copyright of Medical Reference Services Quarterly is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Building Technology Services That Address Student Needs JEANNE M. LE BER, NANCY T. LOMBARDO, and ERIN WIMMER Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
A 16-question technology use survey was conducted to assess incoming health sciences students’ knowledge of and interest in current technologies, and to identify student device and tool preferences. Survey questions were developed by colleagues at a peer institution and then edited to match this library’s student population. Two years of student responses have been compiled, compared, and reviewed as a means for informing library decisions related to technology and resource purchases. Instruction and event programming have been revised to meet student preferences. Based on the number of students using Apple products, librarians are addressing the need to become more proficient with this platform. KEYWORDS Academic health sciences libraries, device preferences, health sciences students, library services, technology assessment
INTRODUCTION Based on observation and survey results, it is clear that in-coming health sciences students are technology users. Most arrive on campus with a variety of devices including laptop computers, tablets, and smartphones loaded with a plethora of software, tools, and apps. In order to proactively identify and address the technology needs of students, librarians conducted a 16-question survey to assess incoming students’ knowledge of and interest in tools and devices, library services, and social media. Survey questions were initially # Jeanne M. Le Ber, Nancy T. Lombardo, and Erin Wimmer Received: August 29, 2014; Revised: October 2, 2014; Accepted: October 25, 2014. Address correspondence to Jeanne M. Le Ber, Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library, University of Utah, 10 North 1900 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-5890. E-mail: jeanne.leber@ utah.edu Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www. tandfonline.com/wmrs. 1
2
J. M. Le Ber et al.
developed by librarians at the University of Southern California, Norris Medical Library (USC-N), who invited peer institutions to participate in a multi-institutional study. The survey was slightly edited to match the Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library’s (EHSL) student population. In some cases, results were consolidated in order to simplify the presentation and interpretation of data. The three Likert scale questions (questions 8, 9, 10) were summarized as generally positive or negative, rather than enumerating the five or six options. All sixteen survey questions, four of which collected demographics, are interpreted in this paper. Survey results are representative of the first-year students in graduate programs across the health sciences. Tabulated results have been compiled, compared, and reviewed to determine optimal EHSL response to student technology practices and needs. Based on the survey results, instruction and event programming has been adjusted, use of social media re-evaluated, and app and device purchases have become more responsive to studentexpressed needs. In addition, survey results are informing EHSL decisions related to the purchase and acquisition of academic resources and technology tools.
SETTING The EHSL serves as the primary resource for the University of Utah health sciences, which currently includes the Schools of Dentistry and Medicine, and the Colleges of Health, Nursing, and Pharmacy. The overall university student enrollment for autumn 2013 was 32,080,1 including undergraduate and graduate students. In addition, as the major academic health sciences library in the state, the EHSL supports the health information requests of faculty, staff, and students from 14 academic institutions, health care providers, and citizens of the region. The EHSL has a reputation for being on the leading edge of technology use in education. The EHSL supports innovative information programs including advanced digital media services, comprehensive digital collections, and a dynamic and curriculum-integrated educational program. EHSL staff have created multiple information subject portals and educational web-based instructional programs. The EHSL collaborates with the Center for Medical Innovation,2 the Entertainment Arts and Engineering (EAE)3 graduate program, and supports and houses the therapeutic games and apps division of the EAE, The GApp Lab. The EHSL also supports the student-driven innovation programs including Bench-2-Bedside and Games4Health. Students in these programs develop solutions to health-related problems through new technology and digital therapeutic applications.
Technology Services for Student Needs
3
METHODS The EHSL participated in a multi-institution assessment of student technology needs and preferences. The sixteen questions provided by USC, Norris Medical Library, were edited to represent the University’s student populations. Questions were entered into SurveyMonkey, reviewed and tested by EHSL staff, and then finalized for distribution. An e-mail request was sent to administrative assistants from dentistry, medicine, health, nursing, and pharmacy requesting their help in sending the survey link to all incoming graduate students. Librarians followed up with an additional e-mail request in order to increase respondent numbers. Two years’ worth of survey results were downloaded into an Excel spreadsheet for analysis. Data and comments were examined to identify technology use trends. In addition, questions asked students about their preferences for tools, devices, operating systems, e-book readers, accessing library services, cell phone use, web tools, and social media sites.
SURVEY RESULTS While USC-N collected and reported on all survey data from multiple institutions,4 permission was given to each institution to publish their unique results. The survey results presented here represent only the responses received at EHSL.
Demographics The survey link was sent to approximately 300 health sciences students in 2012 and 340 health sciences students in 2013. The survey asked respondents to identify the school or college in which they were enrolled, as well as asking their age and sex. A total of 87 students responded to the 2012 fall survey, while a total of 101 responded to the 2013 fall survey. All units were represented except the School of Dentistry. It is unclear why the dental students did not respond. As would be expected in a university population, the bulk of the respondents were between the ages of 20 and 30. No more than 15% of respondents fell outside of that range. The male=female respondent ratio changed from 2012 to 2013, with more females responding (see Figure 1).
Use of Instant Messaging Tools Students were asked, ‘‘Which of the following instant messenger tools do you currently use? Check all that apply.’’ Respondents to the survey identified Facebook as the instant messaging (IM) tool of choice, with Google Talk a
4
J. M. Le Ber et al.
FIGURE 1 Demographics of respondents.
distant second (see Figure 2). Based on the percentage and number of survey respondents who use Facebook (question 10 in the survey), it made sense that the Facebook IM tool would be most popular. IM tools less commonly used by respondents included iMessage, Gmail Chat, Lync, and Babbir (tools listed in survey comments). About 26% of survey respondents stated that they did not use an instant messaging tool. Facebook messaging is not an effective way for the EHSL to communicate with students because they do not want to ‘‘like’’ or follow the library. However, students seemed willing to utilize the library’s web-based chat service for reference questions. The EHSL has used a number of instant messaging tools over the years, most recently Pigeon, Meebo, and now Kayako. In 2012 and 2013, library staff answered 198 and 103 references questions, respectively, via instant messaging. E-mail reference is preferred, and in 2012 and 2013, library staff answered 2,224 and 1,955 reference questions, respectively, via e-mail.
FIGURE 2 Preferred instant messaging tools by number.
Technology Services for Student Needs
5
It may be that IM is not appropriate for all kinds of reference inquiries. IM works if the question is ephemeral and requires an immediate response. E-mail is more asynchronous, and easier to organize, manage, and retrieve for extensive and detailed information exchange.
Devices Used Students were asked, ‘‘Which of the following devices do you use? Check all that apply.’’ Survey results indicated that students used a variety of devices (see Figure 3). Every student owned a laptop computer, with the Mac being slightly more prevalent than the PC. Smartphone usage rose from 70% to 79% of survey respondents between 2012 and 2013, supporting the need for students to be connected to each other and to information. Tablets were somewhat popular, with about one-third of the respondents using such a device. Fewer respondents used an e-book reader, and this number may be declining as tablet use increases. All respondents indicated that they used at least one of these technologies, and a small number of students used both Mac and PC laptops. All responding students owned a laptop, and almost 80% of students owned and used a smartphone at the time of the survey. As tablets gain functionality, they will become more popular. The older e-reader devices were limited in function and provided cumbersome access to the Internet. Because the Nook and Kindle provide apps for phones, tablets, and laptops, students
FIGURE 3 Devices used by survey respondent number.
6
J. M. Le Ber et al.
may prefer not to carry an additional device. At the time of this survey, laptops were the most universally owned device.
Operating System for Smartphones Students were asked, ‘‘Which operating system (OS) do you have on your smartphone?’’ The iOS and Google=Android operating systems were the preferred mobile platforms according to survey responses, with iOS having a slight edge (see Figure 4). Among smartphone users, iOS had 55% and Android had 30% of the health sciences student market share. Of those respondents who did not already own a smartphone, more were hoping to purchase a smartphone than not. There is a clear indication from survey respondents that the Blackberry and Windows Mobile OS were not of interest. Fewer than 10% of respondents indicated that they were not interested in owning a smartphone.
Operating System of Tablets Students were asked, ‘‘Which operating system (OS) do you have on your tablet?’’ A large number of survey respondents indicated that they were not interested in any tablet. Of those who owned a tablet, respondents were most likely to use iOS, indicating a preference for iPads (see Figure 5). Although the Google=Android OS was a distant second, ownership increased slightly in
FIGURE 4 Preferred operating system for smartphone.
Technology Services for Student Needs
7
FIGURE 5 Preferred operating system for tablet.
2013. Interestingly, from 2012 to 2013, the same number of students planned to get a tablet. In the real world, ‘‘Android mobile operating system has a 78% share of all users globally. Apple iOS had 18%.’’5 Despite this, EHSL survey results show that the Apple iOS was more commonly used by students than any other operating system. Of the 35% of students surveyed who did own tablets, 28% were iOS and 7% were Android.
E-Book Readers The next question was, ‘‘Which brand of e-book reader do you use?’’ Survey respondents indicated that the Kindle e-book reader was preferred, while a smaller percentage of respondents used their tablet as their e-book reader (see Figure 6). More than half of the respondents said that they were not interested in an e-book reader, which may have been due to a preference for print (see next question) or a disinterest in having multiple devices.
Preference for Reading Print or E-Books Students were asked, ‘‘Do you prefer reading e-books or print books? Check all that apply.’’ One-half to three-quarters of survey respondents preferred print books to e-books, and this number grew nearly 25% between 2012 and 2013 (see Figure 7). The preference for e-books dropped by a small percentage in the second survey year. While print was preferred, about 9%
8
J. M. Le Ber et al.
FIGURE 6 Preferred e-book reader.
of respondents indicated that they did not have a preference, and about 15% indicated they intended to use e-books more in the future. It is clear that reading print was preferred over e-books, while a small percentage of students did not have a reading preference. It is interesting that
FIGURE 7 Preference for e-book versus print book.
Technology Services for Student Needs
9
as access to print resources diminished, students continued to prefer print. However, when the library offered free access to online textbooks, students utilized those resources. The EHSL has a limited print collection, so for students wanting to use print textbooks, the only available option was to purchase their own copies.
Library Services From a Smartphone or Tablet Students were asked, ‘‘If you own a smartphone=tablet, how likely would you be to use the following library services?’’ In general, survey respondents seemed willing to use EHSL services on their smartphone and=or tablet. Using the library catalog, electronic resources, medical apps, and checking library hours ranked high in potential usage. In contrast, it was clear that survey respondents did not want to ‘‘like’’ the library on Facebook or follow the library on Twitter. The numbers willing to follow on Facebook and Twitter went up slightly in 2013 (see Figure 8). Even though many survey respondents were interested in engaging in social media, as discussed later in this article, the students were not interested in following the EHSL on Facebook or Twitter. Students were willing to check library hours and use other library services such as read e-books, medical apps, electronic resources, and the library catalog on their smartphone or tablet. Electronic resources were not defined in the survey; therefore, it is hard to know how students interpreted this choice.
FIGURE 8 Likelihood of using library services with smartphone or tablet.
10
J. M. Le Ber et al.
Library Services via Text Messaging Students were asked, ‘‘If you own a cell phone, how likely would you be to use the following text=SMS library services?’’ Survey respondents were slightly more likely to send a text message to a librarian to ask a question than not; and they were slightly more likely to want to receive a call number from the catalog than not. They were more receptive to receiving an overdue notice via text messaging and to renew library materials via text messaging (see Figure 9). While students indicated willingness to renew materials, receive overdue notices, and get call numbers from the catalog via text messaging, in reality these services were not all that relevant for the EHSL. The bulk of the library’s resources are digital, and there are few circulating materials except for a small equipment collection that includes tablets and laptops. Students were interested in sending questions to a librarian via text; the EHSL has not implemented that service but is considering it.
Use of Web Tools and Social Media The next question asked about use of web tools and social media. Not surprisingly, the most popular social media site was Facebook. Greater than 85% of survey respondents indicated that they used Facebook; nevertheless, the majority did not want to friend=‘‘like’’ the library, as noted earlier. Googleþ was a distant second with slightly over a quarter of respondents using this
FIGURE 9 Likelihood of text messaging library for services.
Technology Services for Student Needs
11
social media site. Other social media sites such as Twitter and LinkedIn were less popular, and survey respondents did not use FourSquare, MySpace, or Second Life. While the web tools were not well used by survey respondents, Pinterest, Google Reader, and Quick Response (QR) Codes saw some use. The bookmarking service, Delicious=Diigo was not used. In addition, web-based bibliographic management tools (Zotero and Mendeley) were not used. Skype was relatively popular, with an average of 57% use (see Figure 10). For first-year health sciences students, the use of bibliographic management tools was not necessary, as they have not been required to manage large numbers of citations. It is not surprising that Zotero, Mendeley, and Delicious=Diigo were underutilized at this point in their academic career. Students did not report using QR Codes, but it was not clear that they recognized the terminology.
Interest in Workshops Students were asked, ‘‘If the library offered monthly lunch time workshops on technology topics, would you come to a workshop that focuses on any of the follow? Check all that apply.’’ Survey respondents indicated an interest in attending workshops or classes on technology topics. The most popular topics were Google tools, mobile device apps, and presentation tools. In addition, photo=video editing was of some interest. Topics such as RSS readers,
FIGURE 10 Use of web tools and social media (selected tools).
12
J. M. Le Ber et al.
Web 2.0 applications, blogs, and social networking tools were of less interest (see Figure 11). Even though students indicated an interest in EHSL workshops on a variety of topics, attendance in open classes was near zero. The library has moved to the consultation model of providing training and assistance with tools, software, and resources. Consultations scheduled with individual librarians and staff are increasing. In response to student input, librarians are considering developing and presenting workshops on topics identified in the survey. For example, online tutorials are being created in Canvas , the campus learning management system, on using mobile devices and apps. This publicly accessible course has been well received by academic faculty, staff, and students. The course is available on-demand for students to view at their convenience.
Technology Adoption Students were asked, ‘‘Which of the following best describes you?’’ In describing their own use of technology, survey respondents placed themselves in a bell curve (see Figure 12). Only 2% avoided using new technology, while a small percentage saw themselves as technology pioneers. Most respondents viewed themselves as using new technologies at the same time as other people. The bulk of survey respondents were not early technology adopters. In contrast, EHSL faculty and staff are recognized for being early adopters. An important role of librarians is to facilitate the use of relevant new technologies
FIGURE 11 Interest in library-sponsored workshops.
Technology Services for Student Needs
13
FIGURE 12 Which of the following best describes you?
within the health sciences community. By being ahead of the bell curve, librarians have positioned themselves as experts, and patrons seek them out with their technology questions. Sometimes training is offered too early and patrons are not ready to adopt new technologies. In general, users come to technology on their own terms when they have a need or there is a clear advantage. As an example of being ahead of the bell curve, in 2002 librarians worked with the third-year pediatric clerkship students, training them to use handheld devices in the clinics. During the initial year, no students owned their own handheld device. The technology was entirely new to the students. Within three years, students began arriving in class with their personal devices. Now, personal devices are ubiquitous.
DISCUSSION The aggregate survey data will help the EHSL determine whether it has been successful in meeting student needs and how it can continue to build technology and information services in the future. Librarians have re-evaluated the purchase and provision of tablets and other mobile devices and apps. Survey result data are being used to develop the library’s communication plan. Based on the number of students using Mac products, librarians are addressing the need to become more proficient with the iOS platform. Students indicated an interest in instruction, but workshops were not well attended. As an alternative, librarians are creating online tutorials on a variety of topics, including Introduction to the iPad, Canvas app (LMS), library
14
J. M. Le Ber et al.
resources, uCentral, PubMed, and Evernote. The list of tutorials is being expanded to include presentation tools, Google tools, measuring impact factors, and productivity apps. In addition, instruction sessions on social networking tools are under development. One of these sessions is a monthly ‘‘Appy Hour’’ event highlighting mobile apps and digital therapeutics for health development. As noted above, most students used Facebook but did not want to follow the library. At this point, the EHSL cannot rely on social media for marketing services and resources to students. Perhaps if more time was committed to cultivating the library’s Facebook presence, it would attract more students. More of the library’s effort has been focused on Twitter. Librarians are assigned to live-tweet events, announcements are made, services are advertised, and re-tweeting is done to build Twitter relationships. While metrics exist for tracking tweets, re-tweets, and favorites, measuring the actual impact of this service is challenging, and librarians are concerned with the return on investment. As technology leaders, librarians are responsive to student requests for alternative information delivery methods. Based on student interest in receiving library services (e.g., renewals, hold notices, library hours) via texting, the EHSL will be investigating how to implement this channel of communication. Advantages of texting include time and paper savings, and quick and easy communication with students. The EHSL has been using QR Codes to link to registration forms, digital collections, and event information, yet metrics show that these codes are not used. Taking a cue from successful online ticket sales in private industry, library QR Code use needs to be evaluated for efficiency, convenience, and linking to meaningful information. Recently, librarians upgraded the existing pool of circulating devices by purchasing ten new iPad Minis, four Google Nexus, and four Kindle Fire HD. Starting this year (2014), first- and second-year medical students are being issued iPads by the School of Medicine (SOM) for the purpose of taking attendance and testing. Librarians capitalized on this development by positioning themselves as the technology experts. This included making recommendations for apps and programs, and providing a formal orientation to the students using online modules created by librarians. Informally, librarians hosted a technology assistance table outside the SOM classroom over the lunch hour for the first two weeks of classes. Staffing the table provided the opportunity for librarians to assist students in installing essentials apps, setting up their e-mail, and directing general device configuration. Some of the designated apps were overly complicated to install, and librarians were able to demonstrate the necessary steps. By the end of the week, students, faculty, and administrators recognized the benefits of collaborating with librarians. An added benefit for the librarians was cultivating relationships with the medical students.
Technology Services for Student Needs
15
CONCLUSION In the time period since this survey was conducted, the technology has evolved and changed. Some of the tools and devices that were relevant in 2012 are no longer popular. For example, the Motorola Xoom tablet was perceived to be the strongest competitor to the iPad when it was first released in 20116,7 but was quickly overtaken by the Google Nexus and Samsung Galaxy tablets. My Space has evolved into a music sharing site (a LinkedIn for bands), while Second Life8 has stagnated. Google Reader was abandoned and discontinued in July 2013.9 Googleþ came on strong when it was first launched but has not gained the anticipated following. The nature of technology is that it is constantly changing. As a result, the survey questions may benefit from updating for the next iteration. The survey has informed collection development decisions. Even though the students prefer print, librarians will continue to provide electronic resources. However, it is clear that unlimited access is essential for e-book collections and electronic resources, and that the limited simultaneous user model is no longer acceptable. Unlimited simultaneous use has become an important criterion in the selection policy. Major resource licenses have been negotiated with this criterion in mind. To satisfy their preference for print, students can print the content from the electronic resources for reading at their convenience. Gathering this survey data provided value insight into student technology preferences and needs, allowing the EHSL to customize services and resources accordingly. Librarians look forward to conducting the survey again in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank the former Education Librarian, Amy Honisett, who managed the 2012 Technology Survey at the Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library.
REFERENCES 1. Utah System of Higher Education. 2014. News Release: Enrollment at Utah’s Colleges and Universities Stronger than Expected. 2013. http://higheredutah.org/ wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013-10-10_FallEnrollment_NR.pdf. 2. University of Utah. ‘‘Center for Medical Innovaton Home Page.’’ Accessed August 20, 2014. http://healthsciences.utah.edu/center-for-medical-innovation/ index.php. 3. University of Utah. ‘‘Entertainment Arts and Engineering Home Page.’’ Accessed August 20, 2014. http://eae.utah.edu/.
16
J. M. Le Ber et al.
4. Wu, Jin, Amy J. Chatfield, Angie M. Hughes, Lynn Kysh, and Megan C. Rosenbloom. ‘‘Measuring Patrons’ Technology Habits: An Evidence-based Approach to Tailoring Library Services.’’ Journal of the Medical Library Association 102, no. 2 (April 2014): 125–129. doi:10.3163=1536-5050.102.2.014. 5. Edwards, Jim. ‘‘The iPhone 6 Had Better Be Amazing and Cheap, Because Apple Is Losing the War to Android.’’ Business Insider. May 31 2014. http://www. businessinsider.com/iphone-v-android-market-share-2014-5#ixzz3Arwe5rZe. 6. Brandon, John, and TechRadar. ‘‘Motorola Xoom Review: The First Android 3.0 Tablet Arrives to Challenge the iPad 2.’’ March 3, 2011. http://www.techradar.com/ us/reviews/pc-mac/tablets/motorola-xoom-987073/review. 7. Berger, Sandy. ‘‘Motorola Xoom Tablet Review.’’ Last updated April 27, 2011. http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Motorola-Xoom-Tablet-Review/1257. 8. Levy, Karyne. ‘‘Second Life Has Developed into a Post-Apocalyptic Virtual World, and the Weirdest Thing Is How Many People Still Use It.’’ Business Insider. August 1, 2014. http://www.businessinsider.com/second-life-today-2014-7. 9. Ho¨lzle, Urs. ‘‘A Second Spring of Cleaning.’’ Google Official Blog. March 13, 2013. http://googleblog.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/a-second-spring-of-cleaning.html.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jeanne M. Le Ber, MLIS, AHIP ([email protected]) is Associate Director for Education and Research, Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library, University of Utah, 10 North 1900 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-5890. Nancy T. Lombardo, MLS, AHIP ([email protected]) is Associate Director for Information Technology, Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library, University of Utah, 10 North 1900 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-5890. Erin Wimmer, MLIS, MA, AHIP ([email protected]) is Teaching and Learning Librarian, Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library, University of Utah, 10 North 1900 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-5890.
Copyright of Medical Reference Services Quarterly is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
