Mary Kickham-Samy Reference Renaissance Conference Denver, CO August 4, 2008.

Mary Kickham-SamyReference Renaissance ConferenceDenver, COAugust 4, 2008

Community of Inquiry Model: by Garrison, Anderson,& Archer

Literature Review

VR Librarian hesitating to instruct (Lee, 2004)

Students willing to be instructed (Desai and Graves, 2006)

92% - receptive8% - “unreachable”

The Theoretical Framework

Critical Literacy Theory Critical Information Literacy

Social Constructivist Theory

David Ward measured session completeness by whether the librarian:

1. Asked student about number of sources,

2. Showed student a useful source,3. Recommended search terms,4. Checked that the student found

the needed information

Summary of the Literature Students are open to

instruction. Librarians want to provide

instruction. Students want to become

independent learners. VR environments are conducive

to power-sharing relationships.

The main contribution of this paper is to examine

the activities and behaviors of the student and the librarian in the negotiation of questions and answers in a virtual reference session.

Research Questions in Two Parts

Examination of Balance in Participation and

Discourse Models - where they align, diverge and intersect

Questions One

Is there parity of participation on the part of the librarian and the student?

Question Two

Does the number of questions asked during a session by the librarian, the student, or both parties combined affect the length of the transaction?

Question Three

Does the intensity of the student- librarian engagement predict the librarian’s assessment of the quality of the session?

Research Design

Data Source – 250 transcripts

Sampling – selected based on completeness of the transcripts and the demographics of the participants.

Research Design: Variables Length of each session, Librarian’s session-

assessment “Participation” variables,

i.e. turns taken, questions asked, emoticons used.

Research Design: Technique

Analyses of descriptive statistics

Scatter plots, and Tests for correlations and

predictions.

Question OneTable 1. Descriptive Statistics for 7 variables

Participation variables

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.

DeviationSession Length 250 1.68 58.17 16.20 10.87

Librarian turns 250 1 124 18.06 15.69

Librarian questions

250 0 23 4.00 3.80

Librarian emoticons

250 0 14 1.28 2.10

Student turns 250 1 80 12.56 11.40

Student questions 250 0 10 1.47 1.67

Student emoticons 250 0 25 1.11 2.88

Findings: Question OneTable 2. Number of Instances of Librarian and Student Activities.

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Librarian Activities

250 1.00 148.00 23.3440 19.63159

Student Activities

250 1.00 87.00 15.1400 13.63996

Question Two: More questions shorter sessions?

Number of Question the Patron Asks

Number of Question the Librarian Asks

Length of Session in Minutes and

Seconds

Num

ber

of

Ques

tion the

Pat

ron A

sks

Num

ber

of

Ques

tion the

Lib

rari

an A

sks

Len

gth

of Ses

sion

in M

inute

s an

d

Sec

onds

Scatter Plot

Question Three: Parity and Session Assessment

Librarian Session

Assessment

Emoticons the Student

Uses

Emoticons the

Librarian Uses

Questions the Student

Asks

Questions the

Librarian Asks

Turns the Student Takes

Turns the Librarian

Takes

Lib

rari

an

Ses

sion

Ass

essm

ent

Em

otico

ns

the

Stu

den

t U

ses

Em

otico

ns

the

Lib

rari

an

Use

s

Ques

tions

the

Stu

den

t A

sks

Ques

tions

the

Lib

rari

an

Ask

s

Turn

s th

e S

tuden

t Tak

es

Turn

s th

e Lib

rari

an

Tak

es

What criteria do librarians use to evaluate a virtual reference session?1. The amount of time spent?2. The number of questions asked? 3. Emoticons used?4. That perfect answer to a question?5. Something else, not quantitative?

How do the librarian and the student work together to answer research questions in virtual reference environments?

Critical Discourse Analysis

An analysis of the way language confers power on some members of society and controls other members.

James Paul Gee: Critical Discourse Analysis

Two discourses: our native discourse and our acquired discourses

Excerpt #1

Student: tyStudent: Thank you

Transcript #2

Shared Discourse Model, Shared Vocabulary: “user id,” “password,” “access.”

Transcript #3-1

The librarian has an agenda. She tells the student what search terms and what databases to use. She also finds articles for the student.

Transcript 3-2

After the librarian finds the answer, a relevant article, she relinquishes power to the student.

Transcript #4-1

A student asks which term is more correct? Michigander? or Michiganian?

Transcript 4-2

Two Discourse Models:

The discourse model of the linguist – How do you say it?

The discourse model of the librarian – What do sources say that we say?

Conclusion:

Students and librarians aligning their discourse models to create a new dynamic Virtual Reference Discourse Model

BibliographyDesai, C.M. & Graves, S.J. (2006).

Instruction via instant messaging reference: What's happening? The Electronic Library, 24(2), 174-189.

Doherty, J. J. & Ketchner, K. (2005). Empowering the intentional learner: A critical theory for information literacy instruction. Library Philosophy and Practice, 8(1), n.p.

Ellis, L. A. (2004). Approaches to teaching through digital reference. Reference Services Review, 32(2), 103-119.

Bibliography (cont.)

Gee, J.P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis (2nd.). New York: Routledge.

Gee, J.P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideologies in discourses (3rd.). New York: Routledge.

Lee, I. J. (2004). Do virtual reference librarians dream of digital reference questions?: A qualitative and quantitative analysis of email and chat reference. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 35(2), 95-110.

Bibliography (continued)Ward, D. (2003). Measuring the

completeness of reference transactions in online chats. Reference and User Services Quarterly, 44(1), 46-52.

Westbrook, L. Virtual reference training: The second generation. College & Research Libraries, 67(3), 249-59.

Woodward, B.S. (2005). One-on-one instruction: from the reference desk to online chat. . Reference and User Services Quarterly, 44(3), 203-209.