Evidence Based Library and Information Practice https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP University of Alberta Learning Services en-US Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 1715-720X <p>The <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">Creative Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License 4.0 International</a> applies to all works published by <em>Evidence Based Library and Information Practice</em>. Authors will retain copyright of the work.</p> Open Data for Evidence Based Practice https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/29505 <p>No abstract.</p> Lorie A. Kloda ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 2018-09-17 2018-09-17 13 3 1 2 10.18438/eblip29505 Editorial Responsibilities https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/29501 <p>No abstract.</p> ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 2018-09-12 2018-09-12 13 3 3 3 10.18438/eblip29501 An Analysis of Academic Libraries’ Participation in 21st Century Library Trends https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/29450 <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p><strong>Objective – </strong>As academic libraries evolve to meet the changing needs of students in the digital age, the emphasis has shifted from the physical book collection to a suite of services incorporating innovations in teaching, technology, and social media, among others. Based on trends identified by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) and other sources, the authors investigated the extent to which academic libraries have adopted 21st century library trends.</p> <p><strong>Methods – </strong>The authors examined the websites of 100 Association of Research Libraries (ARL) member libraries, their branches, and 160 randomly selected academic libraries to determine whether they adopted selected 21st century library trends.</p> <p><strong>Results – </strong>Results indicated that ARL member libraries were significantly more likely to adopt these trends, quite possibly due to their larger size and larger budgets.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion – </strong>This research can assist librarians, library directors, and other stakeholders in making the case for the adoption or avoidance of particular 21st century library trends, especially where considerable outlay of funds is necessary.</p> Amy Jo Catalano Sarah Glasser Lori Caniano William Caniano Lawrence Paretta ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 2018-09-10 2018-09-10 13 3 4 16 10.18438/eblip29450 Assessment of Multilingual Collections in Public Libraries: A Case Study of the Toronto Public Library https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/29408 <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p><strong>Objective </strong>– The Toronto Public Library has been frequently identified as having an exemplary multilingual collection to serve the information needs of the most diverse population in Canada; however, there is no evidence or collection assessment information available in the literature to validate those claims. This research sought to gain an understanding of the current state of their multilingual collection and compare it to the most recent multicultural population demographics.</p> <p><strong>Methods </strong>– This was a case study of the Toronto Public Library multilingual collection using data collected from their online public access catalogue in November 2017. Data was collected about all languages available, with English, French, and the 17 most spoken mother tongues explored in more detail. Language results from the Statistics Canada 2016 Census of Population were also collected. Data was used to calculate and compare the English, French, and language collections to the population of reported mother tongues spoken in Toronto.</p> <p><strong>Results </strong>– It was found that the Toronto Public Library has items in 307 languages. While the collection comprises many languages, there is far more focus on official language items than any other language compared to the population in terms of number of items and variety of formats. All 17 non-official languages that were studied had fewer items proportionally available in the catalogue than the proportion of speakers with that mother tongue.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion </strong>– The high circulation rates of the Toronto Public Library’s multilingual collection indicate that it has had some success in meeting the needs of its community. However, as the largest library system in Canada with a highly regarded multilingual collection and with many resources for collection development, the Toronto Public Library falls short of having a language collection that is proportional to the languages spoken within the community. While it may not be possible to have a multilingual collection that is entirely representative of the community, this study shows that libraries can use census data to monitor population shifts in order to be responsive to the information needs of their changing communities.</p> Valentina Ly ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 2018-09-10 2018-09-10 13 3 17 31 10.18438/eblip29408 Information Literacy Skills of First-Year Library and Information Science Graduate Students: An Exploratory Study https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/29404 <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p><strong>Objective </strong>– This cross-sectional, descriptive study seeks to address a gap in knowledge of both information literacy (IL) self-efficacy and IL skills of students entering Louisiana State University’s Master of Library and Information Science (MLIS) program.</p> <p><strong>Methods </strong>– An online survey testing both IL self-efficacy and skills was administered through Qualtrics. The online survey instrument used items from existing instruments (Beile, 2007; Michalak &amp; Rysavy, 2016) and was distributed to two cohorts of incoming students; the first cohort entered the MLIS program in fall 2017, and the second entered in spring 2018.</p> <p><strong>Results </strong>– Data varied between cohorts and between survey instruments for both IL self-efficacy and skills; however, bivariate analysis of data indicated a moderate positive correlation between overall IL self-efficacy and demonstrated IL skill scores in both fall 2017 and spring 2018 cohorts.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion </strong>– The study indicates a need for a larger, multi-institutional study using a rigorously validated instrument to gather data and make generalizable inferences about the IL self-efficacy and skills of incoming LIS graduate students.</p> Andrea Hebert ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 2018-09-10 2018-09-10 13 3 32 52 10.18438/eblip29404 A Re-examination of Online Journal Quality and Investigation of the Possible Impact of Poor Electronic Surrogate Quality on Researchers https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/29449 <p><strong>Objective – </strong>This study re-examines the findings of a paper (Ladd, 2010) that investigated whether evidence indicated print equivalent journal collections needed to be preserved, based on the quality of their electronic surrogates. The current study investigates whether: 1) electronic surrogate articles that failed (i.e., the print equivalent article needed to be consulted to view all the content/information) in the first study had improved in quality; and 2) there was evidence that poor-quality electronic surrogates could impact on research if the print equivalent articles did not exist.</p> <p><strong>Methods – </strong>Each of the 198 PDF documents identified in the 2010 study as failing were re-examined to assess whether any change in quality had occurred. To assess the possible impact for researchers if they needed to rely solely on poor-quality electronic journal surrogates, citation data were collected for each of the failed scholarly PDFs using Web of Science and Scopus, and usage count data were collected from Web of Science.</p> <p><strong>Results – </strong>Across the electronic journal backfiles/archives examined, there were 13.6% fewer failures of electronic surrogates for all PDF documents than in the original study, while for scholarly PDF documents (e.g., research papers) there were 13.8% fewer failures. One electronic journal archive accounted for 91.7% of the improvement for scholarly PDF documents. A second archive accounted for all the observed improvement for non-scholarly PDF documents. The study found that for the failed scholarly PDF documents from the original study, 58.7% had been cited or had Web of Science usage counts from 2010 onward.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion – </strong>The study demonstrates a continued need for retaining print equivalent journal titles for the foreseeable future, while poor-quality electronic surrogates are being replaced and digitally preserved. There are still poor-quality images, poor-quality scans of text-only articles, missing pages, and even content of PDF documents that could not be explained (e.g., incorrect text for images when compared to the print). While it is known that not all researchers will consult each of the papers that they cite, although it is best practice to do so, the extent of citations of the failed scholarly PDF documents indicate that having to rely solely on electronic surrogates could pose a problem for researchers.</p> Ken Ladd ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 2018-08-24 2018-08-24 13 3 53 68 10.18438/eblip29449 Sources of Evidence to Inform Scholarly Communication Librarianship https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/29468 <p>No abstract.</p> Allyson Mower ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 2018-09-17 2018-09-17 13 3 69 73 10.18438/eblip29468 Time to Move EBLIP Forward with an Organizational Lens https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/29491 <p>No abstract.</p> Alisa Howlett ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 2018-09-17 2018-09-17 13 3 74 80 10.18438/eblip29491 A Survey of Provosts Indicates that Academic Libraries Should Connect Outcomes to University Goals https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/29484 <p><strong>A Review of:</strong></p> <p>Murray, A. &amp; Ireland, A. (2018). Provosts’ perceptions of academic library value and preferences for communication: A national study. <em>College &amp; Research Libraries, 79</em>(3), 336-365. <a href="https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.3.336">https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.3.336</a> </p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p><strong>Objective</strong> – To understand how public and private university provosts understand and interpret the value of academic libraries.</p> <p><strong>Design</strong> – Electronic survey.</p> <p><strong>Setting</strong> – Public and private colleges and universities in the United States with Carnegie classifications of master’s (small), master’s (medium), master’s (large), doctoral/research (DRU), research (RU/H), and research very high (RU/VH).</p> <p><strong>Subjects</strong> – 209 provosts and chief academic officers.</p> <p><strong>Methods</strong> – The authors distributed the survey to a pool of 935 provosts and chief academic officers in academic institutions. Questions were organized toward understanding participants’ perceptions of their libraries’ involvement with issues of institutional importance inspired by the Association of College &amp; Research Libraries’ <em>Value of Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive Research Review and Report,</em> and high impact educational practices (HIPs) based on the work of George Kuh (2008). The survey also asked participants to select their data preferences when making library funding allocation decisions and their library communication preferences when making funding decisions. The authors received 209 responses and analyzed the content using Qualtrics to determine the highest and lowest ranked responses to each question. In addition, responses for specific survey questions were cross tabulated with demographic information about the institution to identify any potential trends that conformed to or deviated from the overall set of responses. Chi squares were then calculated to determine potential significance.</p> <p><strong>Main Results</strong> – In terms of involvement with university initiatives, almost all of the 209 provosts and chief academic officers who responded to the survey had the perception that their respective libraries are either very involved or somewhat involved. The highest areas of involvement included: faculty research productivity (85.02%), accreditation (82.15%), student academic success (75%). and undergraduate retention (67.26%). Of note, only 9% of provosts indicated their libraries were very involved with enrollment. The authors found a trend that suggests that higher-enrollment institutions with a Carnegie ranking of doctoral/research, research, or research very high, increased provosts’ perceptions of their institutions’ libraries involvement in retention initiatives, student academic success, and faculty research productivity. A significant point of note: when asked why provosts did not view their institutions’ academic libraries as being involved in undergraduate retention initiatives, a significant number (76.12%) of respondents indicated that it was because the campuses overall did not recognize the role the libraries could play in retention initiatives. This position co-exists in an environment where the demographic, economic, and cultural transitions taking place in the United States are continuing to have a disruptive impact on higher education. Library directors need to make these connections much more tangible.</p> <p>Utilizing Kuh’s (2008) 10 high-impact educational practices, the authors gauged the participants’ perception of their libraries’ involvement in educationally purposeful activities. They found that 84.43% of provosts perceived their libraries as highly involved with undergraduate research, 78.39% with first-year seminars/experiences, 77.38% with collaborative assignments and projects, 75.76% with writing-intensive courses, 71.34% with common intellectual experiences, and 69.64% with capstone courses/projects. Fewer provosts indicated that their libraries were involved in diversity and global learning, learning communities, service learning/community-based learning, or internships. A significant point of note: when asked if their institution’s library had an impact on students’ decisions to continue enrollment, opinion was divided. Of the total respondents, a combined total of 91 indicated yes, based on demonstrated evidence or anecdotal or suspected evidence, while 81 respondents indicated unclear or no. This suggests further work is required for libraries in terms of investigating the potential role they might play in enrollment and how to demonstrate such.</p> <p>The authors also asked participants to indicate their opinion on the level of influence 11 different data types would have on a moderate (non-capital) funding request for the library. In terms of highest influence, 72.02% indicated they would like to see correlations linking the use of library services/resources with student success, 66.07% with undergraduate retention, and 56.55% with enrollment. Of moderate influence, 57.14% indicated they would like to see library usage data, 55.36% user satisfaction data, and 50% focus groups or other qualitative data. A total of 60% of the provosts also indicated that anecdotal evidence had a low influence on their funding allocations. Most provosts preferred the information to be communicated in a formal annual report, and indicated that the report should include information literacy student learning outcomes (SLOs) (50.9%), user satisfaction data (46.11%), correlations with faculty productivity (45.45%), correlations with student success (44.91%), correlations with undergraduate retention (43.11%), correlations with enrollment (42.51%), basic use data (40.12%), and faculty feedback (39.1%).</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong> – Most provosts have an understanding that their libraries play an important role on campus, but demonstrating a strong connection to university goals and outcomes is essential. When seeking funding, academic library administrators should focus on projects or initiatives that support the priorities of the institution as a whole, and work to communicate evidence of the value of library services and resources within this context. This is achieved through communication channels that are both timely and relevant, and include a formal annual report or a dedicated budget meeting.</p> Laura Costello ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 2018-09-17 2018-09-17 13 3 81 84 10.18438/eblip29484 Web Search Engines - Not Yet a Reliable Replacement for Bibliographic Databases https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/29378 <p><strong>A Review of:</strong></p> <p>Bates, J., Best, P., McQuilkin, J., &amp; Taylor, B. (2017) Will web search engines replace bibliographic databases in the systematic identification of research? <em>The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43</em>(1), 8-17. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.11.003">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.11.003</a></p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p><strong>Objective - </strong>To explore whether web search engines could replace bibliographic databases in retrieving research.</p> <p><strong>Design - </strong>Systematic review.</p> <p><strong>Setting - </strong>English language articles in health and social care; comparing bibliographic databases and web search engines for retrieving research published between January 2005 and August 2015, in peer-reviewed journals and available in full-text.</p> <p><strong>Subjects - </strong>Eight bibliographic databases: ASSIA (Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts), CINAHL Plus (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), LISA (Library and Information Science Abstracts), Medline, PsycInfo, Scopus, SSA (Social Services Abstracts), and SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index) and five web search engines: Ask, Bing, Google, Google Scholar, Yahoo.</p> <p><strong>Methods - </strong>A literature search via the above bibliographic databases and web search engines. The retrieved results were independently appraised by two researchers, using a combination of tools and checklists, including the PRESS checklist (McGowan et al., 2016) and took guidance on developing search strategies from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2009).</p> <p><strong>Main Results - </strong>Sixteen papers met the appraisal requirements. Each paper compared at least one bibliographic database against one web-search engine. The authors also discuss findings from their own search process. Precision and sensitivity scores from each paper were compared. The results highlighted that web search engines do not necessarily use Boolean logic and in general have limited functionality compared to bibliographic databases. There were variances in the way precision scores were calculated between papers, but when based on the first 100 results, web search engines were similar to some databases. However, their sensitivity scores were much weaker.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion - </strong>Whilst precision scores were strong for web search engines, sensitivity was lacking; therefore web search engines cannot be seen as a replacement for bibliographic databases at this time. The authors recommend improving the quality of reporting in studies regarding literature searching in academia in order for reliable comparisons to be made.</p> Emma Hughes ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 2018-09-13 2018-09-13 13 3 85 87 10.18438/eblip29378 Low Levels of Teacher Information Literacy Awareness and Collaboration Between Librarians and Teachers in Information Literacy Instruction https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/29459 <p><strong>A Review of:</strong></p> <p>McKeever, C., Bates, J., &amp; Reilly, J. (2017). School library staff perspectives on teacher information literacy and collaboration.&nbsp;<em>Journal of Information Literacy</em>,&nbsp;<em>11</em>(2), 51-68. <a href="https://doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187">https://doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187</a></p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p><strong>Objective – </strong>Researchers sought to determine school library staff perspectives on the information literacy knowledge held by secondary school teachers, and teacher relationships with the library.</p> <p><strong>Design – </strong>Interviews analyzed with thematic and axial coding.</p> <p><strong>Setting – </strong>Secondary schools in Northern Ireland.</p> <p><strong>Subjects – </strong>21 schools across Northern Ireland were selected as a sample, including urban, rural, integrated, grammar, and secondary schools. 16 schools ultimately participated.</p> <p><strong>Methods – </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with one library staff member at each selected secondary school. Interview audio and notes were transcribed and coded thematically both manually by the researchers and using NVivo. Categories were identified by open coding, then relationships identified via axial coding.</p> <p><strong>Main Results – </strong>The majority (10 of 16) of library staff members interviewed expressed that they had not been asked about information literacy by teachers, and only one library staff member described a truly collaborative instructional relationship with teaching staff. The majority of staff expressed either that teachers were familiar with concepts related to information literacy but did not know the name for them, or, that they thought information literacy was entirely unfamiliar to teachers at their school. Staff frequently cited competing priorities (for example, standardized testing) and limited class time as potential causes for teachers not focusing on information literacy concepts.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion – </strong>Both cultural and policy changes need to be made in schools to prioritize information literacy as a core competency for both students and teachers. The researchers call for greater intra-school collaboration as a means to achieve this cultural change.</p> Ruby Warren ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 2018-09-13 2018-09-13 13 3 88 90 10.18438/eblip29459 Collaborations between Libraries and Writing/Tutoring Services are Diverse and Provide Opportunities to Support Student Success and Information Literacy Outcomes https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/29452 <p><strong>A Review of:</strong></p> <p>Jackson, H. A. (2017). Collaborating for student success: An e-mail survey of U.S. libraries and writing centers. <em>The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43</em>(4), 281-296. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.04.005">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.04.005</a></p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p><strong>Objective – </strong>To collect information on the existence and characteristics of collaborative partnerships between libraries and writing centers/writing tutoring services.</p> <p><strong>Design – </strong>Email survey questionnaire.</p> <p><strong>Setting – </strong>Academic libraries, writing centers, and writing tutoring services at two-year, four-year, and graduate/professional institutions across the United States of America.</p> <p><strong>Subjects – </strong>1,460 librarians, writing center staff, and tutoring services staff.</p> <p><strong>Methods – </strong>Subjects were invited to participate based on a “. . . random sampling of 33% of each institutional “Size and Setting” group from the 2010 Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education” and the availability of contact information for the library or writing center at the randomly sampled institutions (p. 282). Respondents who identified an existing partnership between the library and writing center/tutoring services answered questions regarding collaboration methods, training, and promotion as well as open-ended questions on goals, assessment, ideal relationship qualities, strengths, and weaknesses. In the absence of a known partnership, questions focused on potential for, and ideal methods of, collaboration.</p> <p><strong>Main Results – </strong>The survey had a response rate of 13.5%, based on the 197 responses that met the criteria for inclusion in the results. Of the respondents, 117 identified as librarians, 59 as writing center staff, and 21 as tutoring services staff. Respondents were affiliated with institutions in 43 states and the District of Columbia. 65% of respondents reported that a collaborative relationship between the writing center and library existed at their institution. Of those without a known current partnership, 77% believed there was potential for collaboration. Top existing collaborations included instruction (21%), student orientations (16%), appointments (14%), classroom presentations (14%), and writing tutors embedded in the library (14%). Only 35% identified strategic goals for collaborations. Respondents engaged in partnerships highlighted shared space, referrals, a unified focus on student success, and defined roles as top ideal partnership characteristics. Key partnership strengths included teamwork/relationship, focus on student success, and shared goals/knowledge/resources. Common weaknesses included lack of communication, planning, shared space, patron awareness, funding, staff, and collaboration.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion – </strong>Diverse collaborations between libraries and writing centers/writing tutoring services exist. These collaborations may provide opportunities to support student success and information literacy outcomes. Based on survey results, the author suggested that improved communication between partners could mitigate identified weaknesses and assist in achieving partnership ideals. Additionally, increased creation and assessment of strategic partnership goals may strengthen communication and planning. Many respondents were interested in shared library and writing center space, an area which requires further research. Ultimately, the author concluded that more investigation is needed to inform best practices for partnerships.</p> Brittany Richardson ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 2018-09-13 2018-09-13 13 3 91 93 10.18438/eblip29452 Valued Academic Library Services Are Not Necessarily the Ones That Are Used Most Frequently, Students’ Service and Social Media Communication Priorities Should Also Be Considered https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/29463 <p><strong>A Review of:</strong></p> <p>Stvilia, B., &amp; Gibradze, L. (2017). Examining undergraduate students' priorities for academic library services and social media communication. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(3), 257-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.02.013</p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p><strong>Objective – </strong>To examine how undergraduate students rate the importance of different categories of library services and library social media postings.</p> <p><strong>Design –</strong> Online survey.</p> <p><strong>Setting –</strong> Large research university in the United States.</p> <p><strong>Subjects –</strong> 159 undergraduate students enrolled in 3 information technology classes.</p> <p><strong>Methods –</strong> Participants were asked to rate the importance of different library service categories on a 7-point Likert scale. The library service categories were (1) access to information and computer resources, (2) study support services, (3) support for club meetings, and (4) Q&amp;A services. Participants were also asked to rate the importance of nine different categories of library social media postings, also on a 7-point Likert scale. The categories of social media postings were (1) event, (2) resources, (3) community building, (4) operations updates, (5) study support, (6) Q&amp;A, (7) survey, (8) staff, and (9) club.&nbsp;Students were also asked to identify which library services they currently use.</p> <p><strong>Main Results –</strong> Validly submitted surveys totaled 104 (response rate 65%). Respondents rated <em>access to information and computer resources</em> (M=5.9) and <em>study support services</em> (M=5.9) as being of the highest importance, with no statistically significant difference being found between these ratings. Respondents rated <em>Q&amp;A services</em> (mean not reported) and <em>support for club meetings</em> (M=4.8) as being of significantly lower importance than the baseline (<em>access information and computer resources</em>). In terms of service usage, using the library to study (87%) and to access information and computer resources (59%), were the top two most reportedly used services.</p> <p>Respondents rated social media postings relating to <em>operations updates</em> (M=5.6), <em>study support</em> (M=5.5) and <em>events</em> (M=5.4) as being of highest importance, with no significant difference between the ratings of these three categories. Respondents rated all other categories of social media postings (<em>survey</em>, M=4.7; <em>staff</em>, M=4.4; means for remaining categories not reported) as being of significantly less importance than the baseline (<em>operations updates</em>). For just over half the social media posting categories (5/9, 56%) importance rankings found in this study agree with engagement rankings the authors found in a previous study (Stvilia &amp; Gibradze, 2014).</p> <p><strong>Conclusion –</strong> The results of this study suggested frequency of use alone cannot be used to determine the value students place on a library’s services, as students may perceive equal value in services they use at different frequencies. The authors, therefore, argued there is a strong need to inexpensively predict users’ perceptions of service value without relying on usage metrics alone. Because a level of agreement was found between social media engagement (determined in the authors’ 2014 study) and importance rankings (found in this study), the authors proposed further research be done to determine whether and how an analysis of library social media engagement can be used as an inexpensive way to predict the perceived importance and value of a library’s services. While the authors recognized it may not be appropriate to generalize the results of this study to a wider student population, they suggested the findings may be applicable to similar groups of students (i.e., undergraduate information technology students).</p> Michelle DuBroy ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 2018-09-13 2018-09-13 13 3 94 96 10.18438/eblip29463 LIS Students at a Japanese University Use Smartphones for Social Communication more often than for Educational Purposes https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/29412 <p><strong>A Review of:</strong></p> <p>Lau, K. P., Chiu, D. K. W., Ho, K. K. W., Lo, P., &amp; See-To, E. W. K. (2017). Educational usage of mobile devices: Differences between postgraduate and undergraduate students. <em>The</em> <em>Journal of Academic Librarianship</em>, <em>43</em>(3), 201-208. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.03.004">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.03.004</a></p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p><strong>Objective</strong><strong> – </strong>To discover how undergraduate (UG) and graduate (G; “postgraduate” [PG] in the original article) students of library and information science (LIS) use mobile devices and to understand preferences and perceived barriers to educational use.</p> <p><strong>Design – </strong>Survey questionnaire.</p> <p><strong>Setting – </strong>University in Japan.</p> <p><strong>Subjects – </strong>Ninety undergraduate students (30 male, 60 female) and 30 graduate students (13 male, 17 female). Nineteen additional recruits were excluded from the study due to incomplete surveys. Almost all subjects (&gt;98%) were born between 1982 and 2002.</p> <p><strong>Methods – </strong>Subjects were recruited without incentives from one LIS department. An online survey was conducted with the purpose of gathering information on how often devices were used for various activities, perceived barriers to mobile learning (m-learning), and demographic data. The survey was modeled on a 2015 study of LIS students in Hong Kong, Japan, and Taiwan (Ko, Chiu, Lo, &amp; Ho, 2015). The Mann-Whitley U test was used to investigate possible significant differences between UG and G responses.</p> <p><strong>Main Results –</strong> 94.2% of participants had smartphones with Internet access; both UG and G subjects reported weekly to daily use for social communications (email, short message service [SMS], chat, and social media) and for querying search engines. Both UG and G subjects reported using finance and banking services less than once a month. Other activities (shopping, finding locations, entertainment, sports, tools and productivity software, casual reading, academic reading, accessing reference materials, accessing libraries) for both groups fell within the range of less than once per month to weekly use. Unlike G subjects, UG subjects reported significant (p &lt; 0.05) engagement with social media and marginal (p &lt; 0.10) engagement with accessing libraries, and productivity tools.</p> <p>In terms of educational use, neither UG nor G subjects reported daily m-learning behaviors, instead reporting monthly to weekly browsing of online information and social networking sites, with far less (i.e., less than once a month) engagement with professional articles, e-books, learning management platforms, and several other activities (listening to podcasts, viewing videos, “other”). UG subjects reported significant marginal (p &lt; 0.10) engagement with “other” materials, unlike G subjects. Library catalogs and databases were less likely to be used when compared to reference sources, with UG and G subjects reporting monthly or less use for these. When asked if they would use mobile library services, respondents answered “maybe interested if available”, with UG subject reporting significant marginal (p &lt; 0.10) engagement vs. G subjects for several of these services. Regarding productivity activities, both UG and G subjects reported monthly or less use of note taking, word processing, and scheduling tools. For communication and sharing activities, subjects reported monthly or less activity for communicating with classmates, using email for study-related issues, posting to discussions on learning management platforms, posting or commenting about their studies on social networking sites, sending photos or videos to social media, moving document files, and scanning Quick Response (QR) codes. UG subjects were marginally (p &lt; 0.10) more engaged in communicating with classmates than G subjects.</p> <p>Barriers to m-learning were not considered “high” barriers, with “low” to “medium” barriers for both UG and G subjects being small screen size, non-mobile format, difficulty typing, challenges with authentication, no Wi-Fi, difficulty reading, lack of specialized apps, and slow loading times.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion – </strong>This study provides a snapshot of how participants used mobile devices at the time the survey was conducted. Both UG and G subjects used their devices for social communication more than for educational purposes.</p> Stephanie Krueger ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 2018-09-13 2018-09-13 13 3 97 99 10.18438/eblip29412 Call for Papers: EBLIP10, 15-19 June, University of Strathclyde, Scotland, UK https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/29504 <p>No abstract.</p> . . ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 2018-09-17 2018-09-17 13 3 100 101 10.18438/eblip29504 Call for Book Chapter Proposals: Visualizing the Library: A Primer on visual research methods in Library and Information Sciences https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/29506 <p>No abstract.</p> . . ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 2018-09-17 2018-09-17 13 3 102 103 10.18438/eblip29506