- Email: [email protected]
Construction of a Digital Video Library: A Socio-Technical Pilot Study on College Students' Attitudes
Construction of a Digital Video Library: A Socio-Technical Pilot Study on College Students’ Attitudes by Hsin-Liang Chen and Gilok Choi Available online 19 July 2005
This study investigates socio-technical aspects of digital video libraries based on college students’ learning experiences and perspectives. Forty-one students in biology classes were studied through a survey and individual interviews. Findings are presented by the students’ knowledge of computer technology, experiences with AV materials, and expectations of online AV materials.
Hsin-Liang Chen is Assistant Professor, School of Information, The University of Texas at Austin, TX 78712, USA [email protected]; Gilok Choi is Doctoral Student, School of Information, The University of Texas at Austin, TX 78712, USA [email protected].
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 31, Number 5, pages 469–476
INTRODUCTION Many university libraries have been employing information technologies (IT) to develop digital collections or construct digital libraries to fulfill their missions, since IT presents the future direction for teaching and learning throughout the education system as a whole. King proposed that ‘‘the potential of the new technologies will alter power relationships in teacher–learner interaction, and even tensions between traditional views of the role and function of a university.’’1 Van House, Bishop, and Buttenfield point out that ‘‘a useful DL fits the needs, activities, and contexts of the people who use it, as well as those of the people who create it, operate, and contribute to its content.’’2 The essential pre-condition for the success of new technologies is building and maintaining the necessary facilities and learning materials.3 Producing IT-based learning materials requires substantial resources, including staff, infrastructures, and funds; therefore, for any educational institution, it is not easy to reach the economic break point.4 Lynch states that ‘‘control and governance, economics and sustainability, and audience are key factors that shape the digital library.’’5 There are several other key issues affecting the success of IT-based learning projects, but the most important factor involves designing students’ learning experiences.6 A careful assessment of the needs and demands of learners will help identify the specific characteristics and preferences of the student population, which will in turn shape the project to provide adequate support for learning.7 The purpose of this paper is to investigate social–technical aspects of digital video libraries based on college students’ learning experiences and perspectives. For this purpose, we examined (1) current uses of AV materials provided by library services, (2) students’ expectations regarding online AV materials, and (3) the relationship between students’ knowledge of computer technology and their perceptions of online AV materials. This project was conducted in two biology classes in which students were required to view AV materials outside the classroom. The findings of this study contribute to a detailed understanding of the context within which IT-based learning
September 2005 469
projects should be developed. They also provide insights into, and implications for, establishing efficient and accessible online video libraries.
BACKGROUND
AND
LITERATURE REVIEW
Organizational Policies and Priorities Robinson identified the main areas of concern in developing IT-based learning materials, which include resource availability, organizational issues, human resources capacity, and the use of technology.8 Universities and their libraries are facing the following challenges: First, universities and their libraries must analyze their priorities. A recent study conducted by the Educause Center points out that ‘‘the heart of information technology’s alignment within an institution is a common understanding of that institution’s priorities.’’9 Agre argues that ‘‘the design of digital libraries requires conceptual analysis because of the great complexity of a library’s relationship to its institutional context.’’10 There are many user groups in a university community: faculty, researchers, students, staff, and visitors. Many universities have several independent libraries. Thus, coordinating multiple libraries to satisfy different user groups is challenging. Second, the cost of developing digital libraries and learning materials is high, since development requires a substantial amount of a variety of resources, including staff, infrastructure, and funds. The cost of providing and maintaining necessary facilities and learning materials is one of the major issues in taking full advantage of new technologies.11 Lynch points out that ‘‘library-based digital libraries have stayed in the passive role, in part due to a political mandate for generality. . .’’12 He suggests that users may need to contribute to the funding of digital libraries to maintain what he terms ‘‘public marketplace digital library services.’’ Not only are university libraries seeking new sources of funds, but they are also looking for more economically efficient modes of development. Henry proposed that a substantial cost advantage could be obtained through cost avoidance, efficiency, and benefit.13 Third, most IT-based learning projects lack internal coordination and policies.14 Some organizations, particularly universities, proceed with a number of small projects without any mechanisms for managing or coordinating them. Teamwork within and across departments is extremely difficult to achieve due to limited communication and knowledge regarding the overall policies and practices of an entire organization.15 In many cases, policies are made without input from the institution as a whole. Agre suggests that ‘‘democracy is supposed to be a matter of rational deliberation, and a digital library ought to support the activities, reflections, and communication that rational deliberation requires.’’16 Finally, Robinson17 also found that administrative and operational practices often consist of an insufficient number of staff with improper expertise and experience. Furthermore, staff development often comes too late to cope with technical or environmental changes. Digital Video Libraries and their Users Van House, Bishop, and Buttenfield state that ‘‘To understand, use, plan for, and evaluate digital libraries, we need to attend to social practice, which we define as people’s routine activities that are learned, shaped, and performed individually
470 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
and together.’’18 Therefore, we must study relationships between digital video libraries and their users. Video is a rich and flexible medium, which contributes to education and training in many different ways.19 There are several advantages to using videos for learning. For example, using animated and adjusted techniques, video can demonstrate changes more efficiently. Video can also provide vicarious experiences, which might be too costly or dangerous in any other way.20 Online videos allow individual learners to interact with the content of the learning materials. Wild states that ‘‘information technology is revolutionary in that it puts learning into the hands and control of the learner.’’21 IT provides convenience to learners in terms of when and where they study.22 It also enables students to control their learning processes and improves the quality of the learning experience.23 However, ‘‘users often have trouble predicting how they will incorporate new capabilities into existing practices and how needs and activities may change.’’24 Marshall points out that social and technical boundaries of digital materials block users from using digital library services.25 In designing online video libraries, users’ acceptance and usability together constitute one of the most important concerns. Improved user interfaces will provide learners with more flexibility in using software, greater ease of use, and a higher level of interactivity.26 Thus, user interfaces that accommodate diverse needs and users are an essential part of realizing the potential of digital libraries. Marchionini, Plaisant, and Komlodi assert that ‘‘Digital libraries are not static entities . . . there ought to be alternative interfaces for different users and needs.’’27 This means that users interact with media technologies according to their experiences and needs, and therefore advanced interfaces will satisfy a wide range of user expectations. Students’ Skills and Knowledge of Information Technologies O’Day and Nardi argue that the importance of users’ knowledge transfer from their physical library experience to a digital setting is crucial. They ask ‘‘how can users be involved in framing digital library collections to meet their needs?’’28 Digital library users are required to have different kinds of knowledge and skills while using digital materials.29 Gay and her colleagues studied an undergraduate communication class of forty-five students using laptop computers equipped with wireless network access over a semester. They suggested that more studies should focus on new social protocols and norms for computer-mediated learning environments, and on tools that can meet users’ needs at a particular time for a specific task.30 A recent Eduacuse survey indicates that 4374 participating college students have basic skills with office suite applications and less knowledge about multimedia software. The report states that students tend to know just enough technology to accomplish their work.31 However, it becomes increasingly difficult to characterize users in the digital world.32 They vary in terms of age, motivation for study, educational background, and personal circumstances.33 They also differ in their access to computers and to network connections. A careful assessment of needs and demands is therefore indispensable for defining the range of characteristics that
should be considered in designing digital education projects.34 Borgman points out that the design of DLs ‘‘must be driven by who will use the content, how and why.’’35 A sound assessment with relevant information will improve understanding about students’ characteristics, goals, expectations, and motivations and eventually will lead to greater student satisfaction.36 Woodley and Ashby described three advantages to profiling would-be students.37 First, profiling provides a basic understanding of the students that can be used for designing future courses. Second, it permits monitoring of the relationship between students’ actions and their characteristics. Clark’s study of students’ attitudes toward teaching innovations summarizes key characteristics of students in IT-based higher education.38 This research found that students felt that self-determination of priorities or the ability to work when and where they wanted stimulated self-motivation and improved study experiences. Clark’s study also reported that students’ empowerment to guide their own study pace and materials encouraged them to master the material. This implies that ITbased learning is more likely to be effective if individual learners can exert control over their interactions with educational materials.39
RESEARCH QUESTIONS Van House, Bishop, and Buttenfiled suggest that an emphasis on users’ experiences is a top priority for design and evaluation methods and recommend the use of ‘‘ethnographically informed methods.’’40 The investigators adopted such an approach to conduct this pilot project. The nature of the research procedure of this project allowed for the investigation of the participating students’ learning experiences and needs in a real-life study. Nonetheless, there are some limits inherent in the project: ! The investigators did not have control over the number of students enrolling in the selected classes. ! The study field, biology, was chosen based on an individual instructor’s support and interest. Findings of the project may not be applicable to other classes or disciplines. ! The instructor of the two courses required the students to view videos provided by the library as course assignments. Some participants might have had experience with instructional videos from other courses as well. The investigators did not have control over the participants’ experience with instructional videos. No digital and analog videos were presented in this project for comparison. The participants answered the questions based on their own experiences and expectations. ! The study was conducted at a selective university and its students may have better than average IT knowledge and skills compared to other college students. The purpose of the project was to investigate students’ knowledge of computing technologies and their perceptions of the use of AV materials in class. More specifically, the following four points were addressed: (1) the students’ characteristics in terms of their academic backgrounds and gender;
(2) their knowledge of computing technologies; (3) their use of the AV materials provided by library services; and (4) their expectations regarding online AV materials.
METHODS Participants The participants in this study were twenty-seven undergraduate and fourteen graduate students who registered for one of the two biology courses titled ‘‘Genetics’’ and ‘‘Natural Resource Management.’’ These courses were offered by the Biology Department at the University of Texas at Austin in fall 2003 and spring 2004. Research Procedure The research procedure included a Web-based survey and individual interviews. First, a self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data on participants’ experiences with computers and analog videos, as well as their expectations for online videos. The questionnaire contained twenty-three questions and covered the following topics: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
participants’ academic backgrounds; their current use of computers; their knowledge level of computer software programs; their experiences with educational videos; and their expectations for online videos.
Second, after all participants answered the questionnaire, the investigators examined the data and conducted individual interviews to clarify answers and gain in-depth information. Investigators first asked participants to clarify those answers that were unclear. Next, participants answered four additional questions about the following three topics: (1) financial support and charging schema for online videos; (2) students’ current use of laptop computers with wireless connections; and (3) students’ intentions to view online videos with wireless connections. While conducting the interviews, the investigators took notes on the students’ oral comments and responses for later analysis. Data Analysis Participants’ answers to the Web-based survey and interviews were encoded numerically and analyzed quantitatively in order to identify relationships among participants’ characteristics, computer knowledge, experience with video materials, and expectations of online videos. Correlation and ANOVA analyses were performed using SPSS in order to test statistical significance. Open-ended questions in the survey and the participants’ oral responses to interview questions were analyzed qualitatively. The qualitative analysis focused on understanding the participants’ opinions on current library services and the use of AV materials in and outside of the classroom as well as expectations for online video libraries.
September 2005 471
RESULTS
AND
DISCUSSION
Participants’ Characteristics Table 1 shows the forty-one participating students’ characteristics based on gender, college level, major, and hours of biology courses taken. Thirteen (31.7 percent) of these were male and twenty-eight (68.3 percent) were female. Twentyseven (65.9 percent) were undergraduate students and fourteen (34.1 percent) were graduate students. The participants were classified into two groups according to their majors. One group had biology-related majors, including biology, biochemistry, and pharmacy; the other one had non-biology-related majors. Thirty-four participants (82.9 percent) had biology-related majors, whereas seven (17.1 percent) had non-biology-related majors. On average, participants had taken 12.10 hours of biology-related courses. Computer Knowledge The mean computer experience was 8.83 years, ranging from two to twenty-one years. Twelve (29.3 percent) of the participants had used a computer five years or less; fifteen (36.6 percent) had six to ten years of computer experience; and fourteen (34.1 percent) had eleven or more years. The years of computer use were not significantly different across gender, college level, and major. Thirty out of forty-one (73 percent) participants indicated use of personal computers (PC) as their primary platform, while only one indicated the use of a Mac. Seven participants reported they were comfortable with both PC and Mac. The remaining two participants were using a platform other than PC or Mac. Out of forty-one participants, thirty-one had DSL/Cable/ Wireless connections. Among the remaining ten participants, four used the on-campus network, one used the university’s off-campus dial-up service, and five used a non-university dialup service. When we examined the frequency of computer use, all of the participants answered that they used a computer on a daily basis, and also had used a computer at least once everyday at home. Eighteen out of forty students (45 percent) also responded that they used a computer every day at school, whereas seven (17.5 percent) reported that they rarely used a
Table 1 Participant Characteristics (N = 41) Characteristics Gender
Major Biology courses taken
Measurement
Number of Participants
%
Male
13
31.7
Female
28
68.3
Undergraduate
27
65.9
Graduate
14
34.1
Biology
34
82.9
Non-biology
7
17.1
5 or less
14
34.1
6–10
16
39.0
11 or more
11
26.8
472 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
Table 2 Knowledge Score About Software Applications (N = 41) Software Applications
Mean
Min
Max
SD
Word Processing
5.9
3
7
1.27
Image Processing
3.3
1
7
1.83
Internet Browser
6.2
3
7
1.06
Video Player
5.0
1
7
1.84
Audio Player
4.8
1
7
2.19
1 = Do not know it at all; 7 = Know it very well.
computer at school. There was no difference in the frequency of computer use across gender, college level, or major. Table 2 presents knowledge of software applications. Software knowledge scores were based on a seven-point Likert-type scale, from 1 (do not know it at all) to 7 (know it very well). As shown by the data in Table 2, the majority of students were able to use word processing software (with a mean score of 5.9) and Internet browsers (mean score of 6.2) fairly well. The video (mean score of 5.0) and audio (mean score of 4.8) player scores also indicate that students were already familiar with recent technologies and that there had been considerable advancement in student computer knowledge. The two-tailed Pearson correlation coefficients showed that all five types of computer programs have significant relationships, that is, each type is significantly correlated with every other type of program. The score of word processing was correlated with that of image processing (r = 0.660, P b 0.001); Internet browser (r = 0.495, P = 0.001); video player (r = 0.474, P = 0.002); and audio player (r = 0.415, P = 0.007). There was also a significant relationship between the image-processing score with that of Internet browser (r = 0.546, P b 0.001); video player (r = 0.485, P = 0.002); and audio player (r = 0.545, P b 0.001). The correlation scores between Internet browser and that of video player (r = 0.691, P b 0.001) and audio player (r = 0.612, P b 0.001) were likewise statistically significant. Finally, the relationship between audio and video player scores was significantly correlated (r = 0.867, P b 0.001). The overall computer knowledge score was calculated with the mean of the five knowledge scores. The mean of overall computer knowledge was 5.04 (SD = 1.28). The computer knowledge score was significantly correlated with years of computer use (r = 0.497, P b 0.001), but it was not related to the frequency of computer use. The score of computer use did not differ across gender, college level, or major (Fig. 1). Experience with Video Materials Twenty-seven out of forty-one (77.5 percent) participants reported that they had visited the library to use videotapes for class. Students who had visited the library were asked to rate their familiarity with video materials at the library on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (do not know it at all) to 7 (know it very well). Twenty-three participants (more than 90 percent of these students) rated between 4 and 7, confirming that the majority of those students who had used the library’s video materials were comfortable with them (Fig. 2).
Figure 1 Students’ Computer Knowledge Score (N = 40)
Figure 3 Usefulness of Video Materials
! In-class video materials clarify discussions that teachers and students have in the class. ! Video materials provide another mode of learning other than those usually encountered in class. Students who had used video materials also reported that using video materials both in and out of the classroom was helpful. The usefulness of video material was measured based on answers ranging from 1 (not helpful at all) to 7 (very helpful). Fig. 3 describes participants’ evaluations of the usefulness of video materials in and out of the classroom. The mean score (5.88, SD = 1.31) for in-class video materials was higher than that (4.70, SD = 1.37) for outside-class video material. The scores for in-class video materials ranged from 1 to 7, and those for outside-class video materials ranged from 2 to 7. The participants provided several reasons for their evaluations of video materials in and out of the classroom. A summary of students’ reactions to using videos in and out of class are as follows: ! Video materials show dynamic presentations of subject knowledge that facilitate understanding concepts.
Figure 2 Students’ Familiarity Score with Physical Video Library (N = 27)
! Video materials diversify the sources of information and present information in a different light. ! Video materials allow students to exert control over learning materials. Using video enables students to rewind, fast forward, and learn at their own speed. Several students, however, pointed out a problem in using video materials outside of the class: accessing the library is not always convenient. Pre-booking of the facilities is required for students in order to watch videos, but they claim that it is extremely difficult for all the students to share a limited number of video materials in a limited time period. Expectations of Online Videos More than 80 percent of participants responded that they would use online video materials if they had access to them. The intention scores of using online videos were based on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (definitely not) to 5 (certainly). The mean score of intentions of viewing online videos was 4.44 (SD = 0.67). The Pearson correlation coefficients indicated that the intention scores were significantly correlated with the expectations of learning enhancement (r = 0.591, P b 0.001). The expectation scores were calculated in the same way as the intention scores, and the mean was 4.20 (SD = 0.85) (Fig. 4). The reasons students identified for positive expectations for online video materials include the following: ! Students would be able to reach defined learning materials more quickly and easily with online videos. They expect online videos will solve the access problem by eliminating extra work to obtain video materials. ! Students would be able to exert better control over the videos in terms of time and place of viewing. They would also be able to manage their own learning process. ! Videos make it easier to understand the learning materials. ! Videos provide additional source of information. September 2005 473
Figure 4 Correlation Between Intention and Expectation
While most students presented the same reasons as the above for learning enhancement, some pointed out other possibilities of online videos, for example: ! Interactive learning processes such as choosing, clicking, and controlling on the Web facilitates the learning experience. ! Using online videos also promotes computer knowledge. The only problem indicated was students’ access to computers and to the high-speed connections that are required for use of online videos. Fig. 5 shows the relationship between computer knowledge and intention to use the online video library if users had access
Figure 5 Relationship Between Computer Knowledge and Intention to Use Online Video Library
474 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
to the service. Overall computer knowledge scores were evenly divided into three groups: high (top 33.3 percent), middle (middle 33.3 percent), and low (bottom 33.3 percent) computer knowledge groups. Then, one-way ANOVA was used to test the relationship between overall computer knowledge and intention to use the online video library. As can be seen in Fig. 5, students’ intentions were negatively correlated with overall computer knowledge. Even though it was not statistically significant in this study, this relation is worth noting and needs further research. Fig. 6 illustrates the relationship between overall computer knowledge and students’ expectations about learning. The students’ expectation score with a middle level of computer knowledge was higher than that of students with low- or highlevel computer knowledge. This was also not statistically significant in this study, but needs further study. Concerning digitization fees, twenty-five out of forty-one participants (60.9 percent) answered that the university should provide additional funding for digitization. The remaining sixteen participants gave college, department, library, and students as their answers regarding who should pay for digitization. Only eleven participants expressed a willingness to pay course fees charged for digitization if online videos were available. The average amount these eleven said they were willing to pay was $28.00 per semester, which ranged from a minimum of $3.00 to a maximum of $150.00. Regarding a wireless connection, eleven out of thirty-seven participants had experience using a laptop computer with a wireless connection on campus and all of these respondents answered that they would use a wireless connection to view digital videos available online. Among the remaining twentysix participants, twelve reported that they would seriously consider getting a laptop computer with a wireless connection if they could access online videos. This means that twentythree out of thirty-seven students, or 62.1 percent of all participants, were interested in using online videos with wireless connections.
Figure 6 Relationship Between Computer Knowledge and Expectation About Online Video Learning
CONCLUSION This paper reports the preliminary findings from a group of forty-one students in the fall 2003 and spring 2004 semesters. First, the participating students use a variety of software applications, such as Web browsers, word processing, and even some multimedia tools. However, the participating students are from the biology field and the level of their skills may be higher or lower than that of students from different subject areas. Second, the data also show that students prefer to access educational videos online rather than using physical library facilities. Generally, students gave a positive response to using video materials in and out of the classroom. However, they claim that accessing the physical library is not always convenient; particularly pre-booking of the facilities makes it extremely complicated to use video materials in the library. Third, concerning expectations for online video libraries, most students indicated clear intentions to use online video materials. According to students’ comments, the benefits offered by online videos can be summarized in terms of ease of access, flexibility, and students’ control over study time, space, and learning materials. Fourth, students also thought that using online videos would enhance their learning experiences. The only problem pointed out was that students vary in access to computers and to the high-speed connections that are essential to using online videos. This problem may decrease as the cost of computers continuously declines and the infrastructure for high-speed connections becomes extended.27 Future studies on different campus infrastructures and on/off campus access to digital resources are needed. Fifth, when students were asked about digitization fees, only a fourth (26.8 percent) agreed to pay additional course fees for digitization. Most (60.9 percent) claimed that the university should provide additional funding for developing online video libraries. Based on the findings of this study, we suggest that the following four subject areas should be investigated further in order to implement successful digital video libraries: (1) Information literacy and training: although digital technologies provide benefits to teaching and learning, students, IT staff, and instructors need to develop the necessary skills and competencies in order to take full advantage of these technologies. Rapid development of digital technologies requires that both instructors and students remain knowledgeable about current advancements. (2) Campus information infrastructure: the studied campus is equipped with wireless connections; and the campus network is part of Internet 2. There are over 50,000 students on the campus. Adequate storage facilities and bandwidth are needed to store and deliver large amounts of AV materials online. (3) Library and instructional services: new policies and practices need to be addressed in order to implement digital video libraries. Issues of digital video formats, ownership, copyright, needs for special students, processing time, etc., are important. Each stakeholder (instructors, students, and librarians, IT staff, etc.) needs to understand his/her position in the cycle of video digitization and use.
(4) Financial support and charging schema for digital video libraries: the costs of developing and maintaining online learning materials are not yet fully understood and universities need to work on key aspects of revenue strategies and cost control. University administrators, faculty, and students must realize that the implementation of digital video libraries comes with an expensive price tag. Sharing financial responsibility is vital and can be very controversial. Identifying financial support and establishing charging schema will provide a healthy foundation for the implementation of digital video libraries. For future studies, the investigators plan to collaborate with other educators at two different levels. First, students from different colleges/universities are needed, since different campus infrastructures and instructional/library services may impact students’ attitudes. Second, different student populations have varying socio-economic compositions, which may affect attitude and ability regarding the use of IT. Third, students in different subject areas must be recruited to study relationships between their knowledge of digital technologies and their attitudes towards the construction of digital video libraries. Acknowledgments: The authors express the greatest appreciation to Dr. Richard H. Richardson (professor in the Biology Department, University of Texas at Austin), who gave the permission for conducting class surveys, and to the participating students.
NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. Bruce King, ‘‘Making a Virtue of Necessity—A Low-Cost, Comprehensive Online Teaching and Learning Environment,’’ in Innovation in Open and Distance Learning, edited by F. Lockwood and A. Gooley (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2001). 2. Nancy Van House, Ann Bishop, and Barbara Buttenfield, ‘‘Introduction: Digital Libraries as Sociotechnical Systems,’’ in Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation, edited by A. Bishop, N. Van House, and B. Buttenfield (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003). 3. John Arfield, ‘‘Flexible Learning and the Library,’’ in Flexible Learning in Higher Education, edited by W. Wade, K. Hodgkinson, A. Smith and J. Arfield (London, Philadelphia: Kogan Page, 1994). 4. Jane Henry, ‘‘Resources and Constraints in Open and Distance Learning,’’ in Materials Production in Open and Distance Learning, edited by F. Lockwood (London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 1994). 5. Cliffford Lynch, ‘‘Colliding with the Real World: Heresies and Unexplored Questions about Audience, Economics, and Control of Digital Libraries,’’ in Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation, edited by A. Bishop, N. Van House, and B. Buttenfield (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2003). 6. Bernadette Robinson, ‘‘Innovation in Open and Distance Learning: Some Lessons from Experience and Research,’’ in Innovation in Open and Distance Learning, edited by F. Lockwood and A. Gooley (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2001). 7. Chandra Mehrotra, David Hollister, and Lawrence McGahey, Distance Learning: Principles for Effective Design, Delivery, and Evaluation (London: Sage Publications, 2001). 8. Robinson, ‘‘Innovation in Open and Distance Learning,’’ pp. 15–26. 9. Judith A. Pirani and Gail Salaway, ‘‘Information Technology Alignment in Higher Education,’’ EDUCAUSE Center for Applied
September 2005 475
Research, http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ecar _so/ers/ ERS0403/ekf0403.pdf (accessed November 2, 2004). 10. Philip Agre, ‘‘Information and Institutional Change: The Case of Digital Libraries,’’ in Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation, edited by A. Bishop, N. Van House, and B. Buttenfield (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2003). 11. Arfield, ‘‘Flexible Learning and the Library,’’ pp. 68–75. 12. Cliffford Lynch, ‘‘Colliding with the Real World’’ (2003): 191 – 216. 13. Henry, ‘‘Resources and Constraints,’’ pp. 7–17. 14. Robinson, ‘‘Innovation in Open and Distance Learning,’’ pp. 15–26. 15. Ibid., pp. 15–26. 16. Philip Agre, ‘‘Information and Institutional Change,’’ pp. 219–240. 17. Ibid., pp. 15–26. 18. Nancy Van House, Ann Bishop, and Barbara Buttenfield, ‘‘Introduction,’’ pp. 1–21. 19. Adrian Kirkwood, ‘‘Selection and Use of Media for Open and Distance Learning,’’ in Materials Production in Open and Distance Learning, edited by F. Lockwood (London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 1994). 20. Kirkwood, ‘‘Selection and Use of Media for Open and Distance Learning,’’ pp. 64–71. 21. Phil Wild, ‘‘Flexible Learning and Information Technology in Higher Education,’’ in Flexible Learning in Higher Education, edited by W. Wade, K. Hodgkinson, A. Smith, and J. Arfield (London, Philadelphia: Kogan Page, 1994). 22. Richard Clark, ‘‘Student Opinion of Flexible Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,’’ in Flexible Learning in Higher Education, edited by W. Wade, K. Hodgkinson, A. Smith, and J. Arfield (London, Philadelphia: Kogan Page, 1994). 23. Wild, ‘‘Flexile Learning and Information Technology in Higher Education,’’ pp. 33–45. 24. Nancy Van House, Ann Bishop, and Barbara Buttenfield, ‘‘Introduction,’’ pp. 1–21. 25. Catherince C. Marshall, in ‘‘Finding the Boundaries of the Library Without Walls in Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation,’’ edited by A. Bishop, N. Van House, and B. Buttenfield (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2003). 26. Kirkwood, ‘‘Selection and Use of Media for Open and Distance Learning,’’ pp. 64–71.
476 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
27. Gary Marchionini, Catherine Plaisant, and Anita Komlodi, ‘‘Interfaces and Tools for the Library of Congress National Digital Library Program,’’ Information Processing & Management 34 (1998): 535 – 555. 28. Vicki O’Day and Bonnie Nardi, ‘‘An Ecological Perspective on Digital Libraries,’’ in Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation, edited by A. Bishop, N. Van House, and B. Buttenfield (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2003). 29. Christine Borgman, ‘‘Designing Digital Libraries for Usability,’’ in Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation, edited by A. Bishop, N. Van House, and B. Buttenfield (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2003). 30. Geri Gay and Helene Hembrooke, Activity-Centered Design: An Ecological Approach to Designing Smart Tools and Usable Systems (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2004). 31. Juidth Borreson Caruso, ‘‘ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology, 2004: Convenience, Connection, and Control,’’ EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, http://www.educause. edu/ir/library/pdf/ecar _ so/ers/ers0405/Ekf0405.pdf (accessed November 2, 2004). 32. Christie Stephenson, ‘‘Recent Developments in Cultural Heritage Database: Directions for User-Centered Design,’’ Library Trends 48 (1999): 422 – 424. 33. A. Woodley and A. Ashby, ‘‘Target Audience: Assembling a Profile of Your Learners,’’ in Materials Production in Open and Distance Learning, edited by F. Lockwood (London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 1994). 34. Mehrotra, Hollister, and McGahey, Distance Learning. 35. Christine Borgman, ‘‘Designing Digital Libraries for Usability,’’ pp. 85–118. 36. Woodley and Ashby, ‘‘Target Audience: Assembling a Profile of Your Learners,’’ pp. 18–26. 37. Ibid., pp. 18–26. 38. Clark, ‘‘Student Opinion of Flexible Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,’’ pp. 135–150. 39. Kirkwood, ‘‘Selection and Use of Media for Open and Distance Learning,’’ pp. 64–71. 40. Nancy Van House, Ann Bishop, and Barbara Buttenfield, ‘‘Introduction,’’ pp. 1–21.
This study investigates socio-technical aspects of digital video libraries based on college students’ learning experiences and perspectives. Forty-one students in biology classes were studied through a survey and individual interviews. Findings are presented by the students’ knowledge of computer technology, experiences with AV materials, and expectations of online AV materials.
Hsin-Liang Chen is Assistant Professor, School of Information, The University of Texas at Austin, TX 78712, USA [email protected]; Gilok Choi is Doctoral Student, School of Information, The University of Texas at Austin, TX 78712, USA [email protected].
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 31, Number 5, pages 469–476
INTRODUCTION Many university libraries have been employing information technologies (IT) to develop digital collections or construct digital libraries to fulfill their missions, since IT presents the future direction for teaching and learning throughout the education system as a whole. King proposed that ‘‘the potential of the new technologies will alter power relationships in teacher–learner interaction, and even tensions between traditional views of the role and function of a university.’’1 Van House, Bishop, and Buttenfield point out that ‘‘a useful DL fits the needs, activities, and contexts of the people who use it, as well as those of the people who create it, operate, and contribute to its content.’’2 The essential pre-condition for the success of new technologies is building and maintaining the necessary facilities and learning materials.3 Producing IT-based learning materials requires substantial resources, including staff, infrastructures, and funds; therefore, for any educational institution, it is not easy to reach the economic break point.4 Lynch states that ‘‘control and governance, economics and sustainability, and audience are key factors that shape the digital library.’’5 There are several other key issues affecting the success of IT-based learning projects, but the most important factor involves designing students’ learning experiences.6 A careful assessment of the needs and demands of learners will help identify the specific characteristics and preferences of the student population, which will in turn shape the project to provide adequate support for learning.7 The purpose of this paper is to investigate social–technical aspects of digital video libraries based on college students’ learning experiences and perspectives. For this purpose, we examined (1) current uses of AV materials provided by library services, (2) students’ expectations regarding online AV materials, and (3) the relationship between students’ knowledge of computer technology and their perceptions of online AV materials. This project was conducted in two biology classes in which students were required to view AV materials outside the classroom. The findings of this study contribute to a detailed understanding of the context within which IT-based learning
September 2005 469
projects should be developed. They also provide insights into, and implications for, establishing efficient and accessible online video libraries.
BACKGROUND
AND
LITERATURE REVIEW
Organizational Policies and Priorities Robinson identified the main areas of concern in developing IT-based learning materials, which include resource availability, organizational issues, human resources capacity, and the use of technology.8 Universities and their libraries are facing the following challenges: First, universities and their libraries must analyze their priorities. A recent study conducted by the Educause Center points out that ‘‘the heart of information technology’s alignment within an institution is a common understanding of that institution’s priorities.’’9 Agre argues that ‘‘the design of digital libraries requires conceptual analysis because of the great complexity of a library’s relationship to its institutional context.’’10 There are many user groups in a university community: faculty, researchers, students, staff, and visitors. Many universities have several independent libraries. Thus, coordinating multiple libraries to satisfy different user groups is challenging. Second, the cost of developing digital libraries and learning materials is high, since development requires a substantial amount of a variety of resources, including staff, infrastructure, and funds. The cost of providing and maintaining necessary facilities and learning materials is one of the major issues in taking full advantage of new technologies.11 Lynch points out that ‘‘library-based digital libraries have stayed in the passive role, in part due to a political mandate for generality. . .’’12 He suggests that users may need to contribute to the funding of digital libraries to maintain what he terms ‘‘public marketplace digital library services.’’ Not only are university libraries seeking new sources of funds, but they are also looking for more economically efficient modes of development. Henry proposed that a substantial cost advantage could be obtained through cost avoidance, efficiency, and benefit.13 Third, most IT-based learning projects lack internal coordination and policies.14 Some organizations, particularly universities, proceed with a number of small projects without any mechanisms for managing or coordinating them. Teamwork within and across departments is extremely difficult to achieve due to limited communication and knowledge regarding the overall policies and practices of an entire organization.15 In many cases, policies are made without input from the institution as a whole. Agre suggests that ‘‘democracy is supposed to be a matter of rational deliberation, and a digital library ought to support the activities, reflections, and communication that rational deliberation requires.’’16 Finally, Robinson17 also found that administrative and operational practices often consist of an insufficient number of staff with improper expertise and experience. Furthermore, staff development often comes too late to cope with technical or environmental changes. Digital Video Libraries and their Users Van House, Bishop, and Buttenfield state that ‘‘To understand, use, plan for, and evaluate digital libraries, we need to attend to social practice, which we define as people’s routine activities that are learned, shaped, and performed individually
470 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
and together.’’18 Therefore, we must study relationships between digital video libraries and their users. Video is a rich and flexible medium, which contributes to education and training in many different ways.19 There are several advantages to using videos for learning. For example, using animated and adjusted techniques, video can demonstrate changes more efficiently. Video can also provide vicarious experiences, which might be too costly or dangerous in any other way.20 Online videos allow individual learners to interact with the content of the learning materials. Wild states that ‘‘information technology is revolutionary in that it puts learning into the hands and control of the learner.’’21 IT provides convenience to learners in terms of when and where they study.22 It also enables students to control their learning processes and improves the quality of the learning experience.23 However, ‘‘users often have trouble predicting how they will incorporate new capabilities into existing practices and how needs and activities may change.’’24 Marshall points out that social and technical boundaries of digital materials block users from using digital library services.25 In designing online video libraries, users’ acceptance and usability together constitute one of the most important concerns. Improved user interfaces will provide learners with more flexibility in using software, greater ease of use, and a higher level of interactivity.26 Thus, user interfaces that accommodate diverse needs and users are an essential part of realizing the potential of digital libraries. Marchionini, Plaisant, and Komlodi assert that ‘‘Digital libraries are not static entities . . . there ought to be alternative interfaces for different users and needs.’’27 This means that users interact with media technologies according to their experiences and needs, and therefore advanced interfaces will satisfy a wide range of user expectations. Students’ Skills and Knowledge of Information Technologies O’Day and Nardi argue that the importance of users’ knowledge transfer from their physical library experience to a digital setting is crucial. They ask ‘‘how can users be involved in framing digital library collections to meet their needs?’’28 Digital library users are required to have different kinds of knowledge and skills while using digital materials.29 Gay and her colleagues studied an undergraduate communication class of forty-five students using laptop computers equipped with wireless network access over a semester. They suggested that more studies should focus on new social protocols and norms for computer-mediated learning environments, and on tools that can meet users’ needs at a particular time for a specific task.30 A recent Eduacuse survey indicates that 4374 participating college students have basic skills with office suite applications and less knowledge about multimedia software. The report states that students tend to know just enough technology to accomplish their work.31 However, it becomes increasingly difficult to characterize users in the digital world.32 They vary in terms of age, motivation for study, educational background, and personal circumstances.33 They also differ in their access to computers and to network connections. A careful assessment of needs and demands is therefore indispensable for defining the range of characteristics that
should be considered in designing digital education projects.34 Borgman points out that the design of DLs ‘‘must be driven by who will use the content, how and why.’’35 A sound assessment with relevant information will improve understanding about students’ characteristics, goals, expectations, and motivations and eventually will lead to greater student satisfaction.36 Woodley and Ashby described three advantages to profiling would-be students.37 First, profiling provides a basic understanding of the students that can be used for designing future courses. Second, it permits monitoring of the relationship between students’ actions and their characteristics. Clark’s study of students’ attitudes toward teaching innovations summarizes key characteristics of students in IT-based higher education.38 This research found that students felt that self-determination of priorities or the ability to work when and where they wanted stimulated self-motivation and improved study experiences. Clark’s study also reported that students’ empowerment to guide their own study pace and materials encouraged them to master the material. This implies that ITbased learning is more likely to be effective if individual learners can exert control over their interactions with educational materials.39
RESEARCH QUESTIONS Van House, Bishop, and Buttenfiled suggest that an emphasis on users’ experiences is a top priority for design and evaluation methods and recommend the use of ‘‘ethnographically informed methods.’’40 The investigators adopted such an approach to conduct this pilot project. The nature of the research procedure of this project allowed for the investigation of the participating students’ learning experiences and needs in a real-life study. Nonetheless, there are some limits inherent in the project: ! The investigators did not have control over the number of students enrolling in the selected classes. ! The study field, biology, was chosen based on an individual instructor’s support and interest. Findings of the project may not be applicable to other classes or disciplines. ! The instructor of the two courses required the students to view videos provided by the library as course assignments. Some participants might have had experience with instructional videos from other courses as well. The investigators did not have control over the participants’ experience with instructional videos. No digital and analog videos were presented in this project for comparison. The participants answered the questions based on their own experiences and expectations. ! The study was conducted at a selective university and its students may have better than average IT knowledge and skills compared to other college students. The purpose of the project was to investigate students’ knowledge of computing technologies and their perceptions of the use of AV materials in class. More specifically, the following four points were addressed: (1) the students’ characteristics in terms of their academic backgrounds and gender;
(2) their knowledge of computing technologies; (3) their use of the AV materials provided by library services; and (4) their expectations regarding online AV materials.
METHODS Participants The participants in this study were twenty-seven undergraduate and fourteen graduate students who registered for one of the two biology courses titled ‘‘Genetics’’ and ‘‘Natural Resource Management.’’ These courses were offered by the Biology Department at the University of Texas at Austin in fall 2003 and spring 2004. Research Procedure The research procedure included a Web-based survey and individual interviews. First, a self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data on participants’ experiences with computers and analog videos, as well as their expectations for online videos. The questionnaire contained twenty-three questions and covered the following topics: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
participants’ academic backgrounds; their current use of computers; their knowledge level of computer software programs; their experiences with educational videos; and their expectations for online videos.
Second, after all participants answered the questionnaire, the investigators examined the data and conducted individual interviews to clarify answers and gain in-depth information. Investigators first asked participants to clarify those answers that were unclear. Next, participants answered four additional questions about the following three topics: (1) financial support and charging schema for online videos; (2) students’ current use of laptop computers with wireless connections; and (3) students’ intentions to view online videos with wireless connections. While conducting the interviews, the investigators took notes on the students’ oral comments and responses for later analysis. Data Analysis Participants’ answers to the Web-based survey and interviews were encoded numerically and analyzed quantitatively in order to identify relationships among participants’ characteristics, computer knowledge, experience with video materials, and expectations of online videos. Correlation and ANOVA analyses were performed using SPSS in order to test statistical significance. Open-ended questions in the survey and the participants’ oral responses to interview questions were analyzed qualitatively. The qualitative analysis focused on understanding the participants’ opinions on current library services and the use of AV materials in and outside of the classroom as well as expectations for online video libraries.
September 2005 471
RESULTS
AND
DISCUSSION
Participants’ Characteristics Table 1 shows the forty-one participating students’ characteristics based on gender, college level, major, and hours of biology courses taken. Thirteen (31.7 percent) of these were male and twenty-eight (68.3 percent) were female. Twentyseven (65.9 percent) were undergraduate students and fourteen (34.1 percent) were graduate students. The participants were classified into two groups according to their majors. One group had biology-related majors, including biology, biochemistry, and pharmacy; the other one had non-biology-related majors. Thirty-four participants (82.9 percent) had biology-related majors, whereas seven (17.1 percent) had non-biology-related majors. On average, participants had taken 12.10 hours of biology-related courses. Computer Knowledge The mean computer experience was 8.83 years, ranging from two to twenty-one years. Twelve (29.3 percent) of the participants had used a computer five years or less; fifteen (36.6 percent) had six to ten years of computer experience; and fourteen (34.1 percent) had eleven or more years. The years of computer use were not significantly different across gender, college level, and major. Thirty out of forty-one (73 percent) participants indicated use of personal computers (PC) as their primary platform, while only one indicated the use of a Mac. Seven participants reported they were comfortable with both PC and Mac. The remaining two participants were using a platform other than PC or Mac. Out of forty-one participants, thirty-one had DSL/Cable/ Wireless connections. Among the remaining ten participants, four used the on-campus network, one used the university’s off-campus dial-up service, and five used a non-university dialup service. When we examined the frequency of computer use, all of the participants answered that they used a computer on a daily basis, and also had used a computer at least once everyday at home. Eighteen out of forty students (45 percent) also responded that they used a computer every day at school, whereas seven (17.5 percent) reported that they rarely used a
Table 1 Participant Characteristics (N = 41) Characteristics Gender
Major Biology courses taken
Measurement
Number of Participants
%
Male
13
31.7
Female
28
68.3
Undergraduate
27
65.9
Graduate
14
34.1
Biology
34
82.9
Non-biology
7
17.1
5 or less
14
34.1
6–10
16
39.0
11 or more
11
26.8
472 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
Table 2 Knowledge Score About Software Applications (N = 41) Software Applications
Mean
Min
Max
SD
Word Processing
5.9
3
7
1.27
Image Processing
3.3
1
7
1.83
Internet Browser
6.2
3
7
1.06
Video Player
5.0
1
7
1.84
Audio Player
4.8
1
7
2.19
1 = Do not know it at all; 7 = Know it very well.
computer at school. There was no difference in the frequency of computer use across gender, college level, or major. Table 2 presents knowledge of software applications. Software knowledge scores were based on a seven-point Likert-type scale, from 1 (do not know it at all) to 7 (know it very well). As shown by the data in Table 2, the majority of students were able to use word processing software (with a mean score of 5.9) and Internet browsers (mean score of 6.2) fairly well. The video (mean score of 5.0) and audio (mean score of 4.8) player scores also indicate that students were already familiar with recent technologies and that there had been considerable advancement in student computer knowledge. The two-tailed Pearson correlation coefficients showed that all five types of computer programs have significant relationships, that is, each type is significantly correlated with every other type of program. The score of word processing was correlated with that of image processing (r = 0.660, P b 0.001); Internet browser (r = 0.495, P = 0.001); video player (r = 0.474, P = 0.002); and audio player (r = 0.415, P = 0.007). There was also a significant relationship between the image-processing score with that of Internet browser (r = 0.546, P b 0.001); video player (r = 0.485, P = 0.002); and audio player (r = 0.545, P b 0.001). The correlation scores between Internet browser and that of video player (r = 0.691, P b 0.001) and audio player (r = 0.612, P b 0.001) were likewise statistically significant. Finally, the relationship between audio and video player scores was significantly correlated (r = 0.867, P b 0.001). The overall computer knowledge score was calculated with the mean of the five knowledge scores. The mean of overall computer knowledge was 5.04 (SD = 1.28). The computer knowledge score was significantly correlated with years of computer use (r = 0.497, P b 0.001), but it was not related to the frequency of computer use. The score of computer use did not differ across gender, college level, or major (Fig. 1). Experience with Video Materials Twenty-seven out of forty-one (77.5 percent) participants reported that they had visited the library to use videotapes for class. Students who had visited the library were asked to rate their familiarity with video materials at the library on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (do not know it at all) to 7 (know it very well). Twenty-three participants (more than 90 percent of these students) rated between 4 and 7, confirming that the majority of those students who had used the library’s video materials were comfortable with them (Fig. 2).
Figure 1 Students’ Computer Knowledge Score (N = 40)
Figure 3 Usefulness of Video Materials
! In-class video materials clarify discussions that teachers and students have in the class. ! Video materials provide another mode of learning other than those usually encountered in class. Students who had used video materials also reported that using video materials both in and out of the classroom was helpful. The usefulness of video material was measured based on answers ranging from 1 (not helpful at all) to 7 (very helpful). Fig. 3 describes participants’ evaluations of the usefulness of video materials in and out of the classroom. The mean score (5.88, SD = 1.31) for in-class video materials was higher than that (4.70, SD = 1.37) for outside-class video material. The scores for in-class video materials ranged from 1 to 7, and those for outside-class video materials ranged from 2 to 7. The participants provided several reasons for their evaluations of video materials in and out of the classroom. A summary of students’ reactions to using videos in and out of class are as follows: ! Video materials show dynamic presentations of subject knowledge that facilitate understanding concepts.
Figure 2 Students’ Familiarity Score with Physical Video Library (N = 27)
! Video materials diversify the sources of information and present information in a different light. ! Video materials allow students to exert control over learning materials. Using video enables students to rewind, fast forward, and learn at their own speed. Several students, however, pointed out a problem in using video materials outside of the class: accessing the library is not always convenient. Pre-booking of the facilities is required for students in order to watch videos, but they claim that it is extremely difficult for all the students to share a limited number of video materials in a limited time period. Expectations of Online Videos More than 80 percent of participants responded that they would use online video materials if they had access to them. The intention scores of using online videos were based on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (definitely not) to 5 (certainly). The mean score of intentions of viewing online videos was 4.44 (SD = 0.67). The Pearson correlation coefficients indicated that the intention scores were significantly correlated with the expectations of learning enhancement (r = 0.591, P b 0.001). The expectation scores were calculated in the same way as the intention scores, and the mean was 4.20 (SD = 0.85) (Fig. 4). The reasons students identified for positive expectations for online video materials include the following: ! Students would be able to reach defined learning materials more quickly and easily with online videos. They expect online videos will solve the access problem by eliminating extra work to obtain video materials. ! Students would be able to exert better control over the videos in terms of time and place of viewing. They would also be able to manage their own learning process. ! Videos make it easier to understand the learning materials. ! Videos provide additional source of information. September 2005 473
Figure 4 Correlation Between Intention and Expectation
While most students presented the same reasons as the above for learning enhancement, some pointed out other possibilities of online videos, for example: ! Interactive learning processes such as choosing, clicking, and controlling on the Web facilitates the learning experience. ! Using online videos also promotes computer knowledge. The only problem indicated was students’ access to computers and to the high-speed connections that are required for use of online videos. Fig. 5 shows the relationship between computer knowledge and intention to use the online video library if users had access
Figure 5 Relationship Between Computer Knowledge and Intention to Use Online Video Library
474 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
to the service. Overall computer knowledge scores were evenly divided into three groups: high (top 33.3 percent), middle (middle 33.3 percent), and low (bottom 33.3 percent) computer knowledge groups. Then, one-way ANOVA was used to test the relationship between overall computer knowledge and intention to use the online video library. As can be seen in Fig. 5, students’ intentions were negatively correlated with overall computer knowledge. Even though it was not statistically significant in this study, this relation is worth noting and needs further research. Fig. 6 illustrates the relationship between overall computer knowledge and students’ expectations about learning. The students’ expectation score with a middle level of computer knowledge was higher than that of students with low- or highlevel computer knowledge. This was also not statistically significant in this study, but needs further study. Concerning digitization fees, twenty-five out of forty-one participants (60.9 percent) answered that the university should provide additional funding for digitization. The remaining sixteen participants gave college, department, library, and students as their answers regarding who should pay for digitization. Only eleven participants expressed a willingness to pay course fees charged for digitization if online videos were available. The average amount these eleven said they were willing to pay was $28.00 per semester, which ranged from a minimum of $3.00 to a maximum of $150.00. Regarding a wireless connection, eleven out of thirty-seven participants had experience using a laptop computer with a wireless connection on campus and all of these respondents answered that they would use a wireless connection to view digital videos available online. Among the remaining twentysix participants, twelve reported that they would seriously consider getting a laptop computer with a wireless connection if they could access online videos. This means that twentythree out of thirty-seven students, or 62.1 percent of all participants, were interested in using online videos with wireless connections.
Figure 6 Relationship Between Computer Knowledge and Expectation About Online Video Learning
CONCLUSION This paper reports the preliminary findings from a group of forty-one students in the fall 2003 and spring 2004 semesters. First, the participating students use a variety of software applications, such as Web browsers, word processing, and even some multimedia tools. However, the participating students are from the biology field and the level of their skills may be higher or lower than that of students from different subject areas. Second, the data also show that students prefer to access educational videos online rather than using physical library facilities. Generally, students gave a positive response to using video materials in and out of the classroom. However, they claim that accessing the physical library is not always convenient; particularly pre-booking of the facilities makes it extremely complicated to use video materials in the library. Third, concerning expectations for online video libraries, most students indicated clear intentions to use online video materials. According to students’ comments, the benefits offered by online videos can be summarized in terms of ease of access, flexibility, and students’ control over study time, space, and learning materials. Fourth, students also thought that using online videos would enhance their learning experiences. The only problem pointed out was that students vary in access to computers and to the high-speed connections that are essential to using online videos. This problem may decrease as the cost of computers continuously declines and the infrastructure for high-speed connections becomes extended.27 Future studies on different campus infrastructures and on/off campus access to digital resources are needed. Fifth, when students were asked about digitization fees, only a fourth (26.8 percent) agreed to pay additional course fees for digitization. Most (60.9 percent) claimed that the university should provide additional funding for developing online video libraries. Based on the findings of this study, we suggest that the following four subject areas should be investigated further in order to implement successful digital video libraries: (1) Information literacy and training: although digital technologies provide benefits to teaching and learning, students, IT staff, and instructors need to develop the necessary skills and competencies in order to take full advantage of these technologies. Rapid development of digital technologies requires that both instructors and students remain knowledgeable about current advancements. (2) Campus information infrastructure: the studied campus is equipped with wireless connections; and the campus network is part of Internet 2. There are over 50,000 students on the campus. Adequate storage facilities and bandwidth are needed to store and deliver large amounts of AV materials online. (3) Library and instructional services: new policies and practices need to be addressed in order to implement digital video libraries. Issues of digital video formats, ownership, copyright, needs for special students, processing time, etc., are important. Each stakeholder (instructors, students, and librarians, IT staff, etc.) needs to understand his/her position in the cycle of video digitization and use.
(4) Financial support and charging schema for digital video libraries: the costs of developing and maintaining online learning materials are not yet fully understood and universities need to work on key aspects of revenue strategies and cost control. University administrators, faculty, and students must realize that the implementation of digital video libraries comes with an expensive price tag. Sharing financial responsibility is vital and can be very controversial. Identifying financial support and establishing charging schema will provide a healthy foundation for the implementation of digital video libraries. For future studies, the investigators plan to collaborate with other educators at two different levels. First, students from different colleges/universities are needed, since different campus infrastructures and instructional/library services may impact students’ attitudes. Second, different student populations have varying socio-economic compositions, which may affect attitude and ability regarding the use of IT. Third, students in different subject areas must be recruited to study relationships between their knowledge of digital technologies and their attitudes towards the construction of digital video libraries. Acknowledgments: The authors express the greatest appreciation to Dr. Richard H. Richardson (professor in the Biology Department, University of Texas at Austin), who gave the permission for conducting class surveys, and to the participating students.
NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. Bruce King, ‘‘Making a Virtue of Necessity—A Low-Cost, Comprehensive Online Teaching and Learning Environment,’’ in Innovation in Open and Distance Learning, edited by F. Lockwood and A. Gooley (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2001). 2. Nancy Van House, Ann Bishop, and Barbara Buttenfield, ‘‘Introduction: Digital Libraries as Sociotechnical Systems,’’ in Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation, edited by A. Bishop, N. Van House, and B. Buttenfield (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003). 3. John Arfield, ‘‘Flexible Learning and the Library,’’ in Flexible Learning in Higher Education, edited by W. Wade, K. Hodgkinson, A. Smith and J. Arfield (London, Philadelphia: Kogan Page, 1994). 4. Jane Henry, ‘‘Resources and Constraints in Open and Distance Learning,’’ in Materials Production in Open and Distance Learning, edited by F. Lockwood (London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 1994). 5. Cliffford Lynch, ‘‘Colliding with the Real World: Heresies and Unexplored Questions about Audience, Economics, and Control of Digital Libraries,’’ in Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation, edited by A. Bishop, N. Van House, and B. Buttenfield (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2003). 6. Bernadette Robinson, ‘‘Innovation in Open and Distance Learning: Some Lessons from Experience and Research,’’ in Innovation in Open and Distance Learning, edited by F. Lockwood and A. Gooley (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2001). 7. Chandra Mehrotra, David Hollister, and Lawrence McGahey, Distance Learning: Principles for Effective Design, Delivery, and Evaluation (London: Sage Publications, 2001). 8. Robinson, ‘‘Innovation in Open and Distance Learning,’’ pp. 15–26. 9. Judith A. Pirani and Gail Salaway, ‘‘Information Technology Alignment in Higher Education,’’ EDUCAUSE Center for Applied
September 2005 475
Research, http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ecar _so/ers/ ERS0403/ekf0403.pdf (accessed November 2, 2004). 10. Philip Agre, ‘‘Information and Institutional Change: The Case of Digital Libraries,’’ in Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation, edited by A. Bishop, N. Van House, and B. Buttenfield (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2003). 11. Arfield, ‘‘Flexible Learning and the Library,’’ pp. 68–75. 12. Cliffford Lynch, ‘‘Colliding with the Real World’’ (2003): 191 – 216. 13. Henry, ‘‘Resources and Constraints,’’ pp. 7–17. 14. Robinson, ‘‘Innovation in Open and Distance Learning,’’ pp. 15–26. 15. Ibid., pp. 15–26. 16. Philip Agre, ‘‘Information and Institutional Change,’’ pp. 219–240. 17. Ibid., pp. 15–26. 18. Nancy Van House, Ann Bishop, and Barbara Buttenfield, ‘‘Introduction,’’ pp. 1–21. 19. Adrian Kirkwood, ‘‘Selection and Use of Media for Open and Distance Learning,’’ in Materials Production in Open and Distance Learning, edited by F. Lockwood (London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 1994). 20. Kirkwood, ‘‘Selection and Use of Media for Open and Distance Learning,’’ pp. 64–71. 21. Phil Wild, ‘‘Flexible Learning and Information Technology in Higher Education,’’ in Flexible Learning in Higher Education, edited by W. Wade, K. Hodgkinson, A. Smith, and J. Arfield (London, Philadelphia: Kogan Page, 1994). 22. Richard Clark, ‘‘Student Opinion of Flexible Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,’’ in Flexible Learning in Higher Education, edited by W. Wade, K. Hodgkinson, A. Smith, and J. Arfield (London, Philadelphia: Kogan Page, 1994). 23. Wild, ‘‘Flexile Learning and Information Technology in Higher Education,’’ pp. 33–45. 24. Nancy Van House, Ann Bishop, and Barbara Buttenfield, ‘‘Introduction,’’ pp. 1–21. 25. Catherince C. Marshall, in ‘‘Finding the Boundaries of the Library Without Walls in Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation,’’ edited by A. Bishop, N. Van House, and B. Buttenfield (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2003). 26. Kirkwood, ‘‘Selection and Use of Media for Open and Distance Learning,’’ pp. 64–71.
476 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
27. Gary Marchionini, Catherine Plaisant, and Anita Komlodi, ‘‘Interfaces and Tools for the Library of Congress National Digital Library Program,’’ Information Processing & Management 34 (1998): 535 – 555. 28. Vicki O’Day and Bonnie Nardi, ‘‘An Ecological Perspective on Digital Libraries,’’ in Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation, edited by A. Bishop, N. Van House, and B. Buttenfield (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2003). 29. Christine Borgman, ‘‘Designing Digital Libraries for Usability,’’ in Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation, edited by A. Bishop, N. Van House, and B. Buttenfield (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2003). 30. Geri Gay and Helene Hembrooke, Activity-Centered Design: An Ecological Approach to Designing Smart Tools and Usable Systems (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2004). 31. Juidth Borreson Caruso, ‘‘ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology, 2004: Convenience, Connection, and Control,’’ EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, http://www.educause. edu/ir/library/pdf/ecar _ so/ers/ers0405/Ekf0405.pdf (accessed November 2, 2004). 32. Christie Stephenson, ‘‘Recent Developments in Cultural Heritage Database: Directions for User-Centered Design,’’ Library Trends 48 (1999): 422 – 424. 33. A. Woodley and A. Ashby, ‘‘Target Audience: Assembling a Profile of Your Learners,’’ in Materials Production in Open and Distance Learning, edited by F. Lockwood (London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 1994). 34. Mehrotra, Hollister, and McGahey, Distance Learning. 35. Christine Borgman, ‘‘Designing Digital Libraries for Usability,’’ pp. 85–118. 36. Woodley and Ashby, ‘‘Target Audience: Assembling a Profile of Your Learners,’’ pp. 18–26. 37. Ibid., pp. 18–26. 38. Clark, ‘‘Student Opinion of Flexible Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,’’ pp. 135–150. 39. Kirkwood, ‘‘Selection and Use of Media for Open and Distance Learning,’’ pp. 64–71. 40. Nancy Van House, Ann Bishop, and Barbara Buttenfield, ‘‘Introduction,’’ pp. 1–21.