International Journal on Digital Libraries

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 65–79 | Cite as

The use of online digital resources and educational digital libraries in higher education

  • Flora McMartin
  • Ellen Iverson
  • Alan Wolf
  • Joshua Morrill
  • Glenda Morgan
  • Cathryn Manduca
Regular Paper

Abstract

This paper summarizes results from a national survey of 4,678 respondents, representing 119 institutions of higher education in the United States regarding their use of digital resources for scholarly purposes. This paper presents the following results: (1) demographics commonly used in higher education to categorize populations such as institution type or level of teaching experience could not reliably predict use of online digital resources, (2) valuing online digital resources corresponds with only higher levels of use for certain types of digital resources, (3) lack of time was a significant barrier to use of materials while, paradoxically, respondents indicated that they used them because they save time, (4) respondents did not tend to intentionally look to the Internet as a trusted resource for learning about teaching.

Keywords

Digital library Education User study 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    American Association of University Professors: Background facts on contingent faculty. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/issues/contingent/contingentfacts.htm (2007)
  2. 2.
    Bargozzi R., Davis R. and Warsha P. (1992). Development and test of a theory of technological learning and usage. Hum. Relations 45(7): 660–686 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bates, M.S., Loddington, S.P., et al.: Rights and rewards project academic survey, final report. http://rightsandrewards.lboro.ac.uk/files/resourcesmodule/@random43cbae8b0d0ad/1150709518_Final_Report_of_Survey.pdf (2006)
  4. 4.
    Bates M.S. and Loddington S.P. (2006). Rights and rewards in blended institutional repositories project. ALISS Q. 1(2): 47–51 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bartolo, L., Diekema, A., Khoo, M., McMartin, F.: Survey of Evaluation Projects in the National Science Digital Library, final report. NSDL PI Meeting, Washington D.C., October (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bayard, J.P., Ehrmann, S., et al.: Learning through technology: LT2. http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/cl1/ilt/default.asp (2000)
  7. 7.
    Bell, V., Rothery, A.: E-Sharing: Developing Use of E-repositories and E-libraries for Learning and Teaching. West Midlands Share Project: University of Worcester (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bishop A., Van House N. and Buttenfield B. (2003). Digital Library Use: Social Practices in Design and Evaluation. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Borgman, C.L., Leazer, G.H. et al.: How geography professors select materials for classroom lectures: implications for the design of digital libraries. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital libraries, ACM Press, Tuscon, Arizona (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Perez-Quinones M.A. and Capra R.G. (2005). Using web search engines to find and refind information. Computer 38(10): 36–42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carson S.: 2005 program evaluation findings report. MITOpenCourseWare. http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/about/stats/index.htm (2007)
  12. 12.
    Chang, A., Matyas, M. et al.: I came, I found it, I used it, and it made a difference. Washington, D.C., American Society for Microbiology: 8 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chism N. (2004). Using a framework to engage faculty in instructional technologies. Educause Q. 27(2): 39–45 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cohen J. (1992). A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 112(1): 155–159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davis F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3): 319–340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duval, E.: The technology of open education. Presentation at Open Education 2006: Community, Culture, and Content, Logan Utah (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gibbs E.J. and Major C.H. (2004). Faculty perception of the costs and benefits of instructional technology: implications for faculty work. J. Faculty Dev. 19(2): 77–88 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Giersch, S., Klotz, E.A., et al.: If you build it, will they come? Participant involvement in digital libraries. D-Lib Magazine 10(7/8) (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gilbert, S.: The Beauty of Low Threshold Applications. Syllabus Magazine. http://campustechnology.com/articles/38981/ (2002)
  20. 20.
    Glaser B. and Strauss A. (1967). Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago, IL Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Green, D.: Using digital images in teaching and learning: perspectives from liberal arts institutions. http://www.academiccommons.org/imagereport (2006)
  22. 22.
    Hagner P. (2000). Faculty engagement and support in the new learning environment. Educause Rev. 35(5): 27–37 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Harley D. (2004). The Use of Digital Resources in Humanities and Social Science Undergraduate Education. Center for Studies in Higher Education, Berkeley, CA Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harley, D.: Why understanding the use and users of OERs matters. In: Iiuoshi, T., Kumar, V. (eds.) Opening Up Education: The Collective Advancement of Education Through Open Technology, Open Content and Open Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008, Forthcoming)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    IES National Center for Education Statistics: Digest of Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d06/tables/dt06_237.asp (2003)
  26. 26.
    Khoo, M., Donahue, R.: Evaluating digital libraries with Webmetrics. In: Proceedings from the ACM IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, Vancouver, BC (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Koppi T. and Bogle L. (2004). Institutional use of learning objects: lessons learned and future directions. J Educ Multimed Hypermedia 13(4): 449–463 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lean J. and Moizer J. (2006). Simulations and games: use and barriers in higher education. Active Learn Higher Educ. 7(3): 227–242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lerman, S., Miyagawa, S., et al.: OpenCourseWare: Building a culture of sharing. In: Iiuoshi, T., Kumar, V. (eds.) Opening Up Education: The Collective Advancement of Education Through Open Technology, Open Content and Open Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008, forthcoming)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lossau, N.: Search engine technology and digital libraries: libraries need to discover the academic internet. D-Lib Magazine 10(6) (2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lynch, C., Garcia-Molina, H.: Interoperability, scaling, and the digital libraries research agenda. http://www.hpcc.gov/reports/reports-nco-iita-dlw/main.html (1995)
  32. 32.
    Macdonald R.H. and Manduca C.A. (2005). Teaching methods in undergraduate geoscience courses: results of the 2004 On the Cutting Edge survey of US faculty. J. Geosci. Educ. 53(3): 237 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Manduca, C.A., Iverson, E.R., et al.: Influencing user behavior through digital library design: an example from the geosciences. D-Lib 11(5) (2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Manduca, C.A., Fox, S., et al.: Digital library as network and community center. D-Lib 12(12) (2006)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Marchioni G. (2006). Exploratory search: from finding to understanding. Communications 49(4): 41–46 Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mason B. (2006). Omniture and other evaluation tools for ComPADRE. NSDL 2006 Annual PI Meeting, Washington DC Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Matkin G. (2002). Learning Object Repositories: Problems and Promise. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Menlo Park, CA Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    McMartin, F., Iverson, E., et al.: Factors motivating use of digital libraries. Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, ACM Press, Tuscon (2006) NSDL: About NSDL. http://nsdl.org/about/ (2007)
  39. 39.
    Russell, D.M.: What are they thinking? Searching for the mind of the searcher. Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, Vancouver, BC (2007)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Smith, M., Barton, M., Bass, M., Branschofsky, M., McClellan, G., Stuve, D., Tansley, R., Walker, J.H.: DSPACE: an open source dynamic digital repository. D-Lib Magazine 9(1) (2003)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Spotts T. and Bowman M. (1995). Faculty use of instructional technologies in higher education. Educ. Technol. 35(2): 56–64 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Teevan, J., Alvarado, C., et al.: The Perfect search engine is not enough: a study of orienteering behavior in directed search. In: Proceedings, SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vienna, Austria, ACM Press, Tuscon (2004)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Thomas, A., Rothery, A.: Online repositories for learning materials. Ariadne 45 (2005)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Thong J.Y.L. and Hong W.Y. (2002). Understanding user acceptance of digital libraries: what are the roles of interface characteristics, organizational context and individual differences?. International J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 57(3): 215–242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Uijtdehaage S.H.J. and Contini J. (2003). Sharing digital teaching resources: breaking down barriers by addressing the concerns of the faculty members. Acad. Med. 78(3): 286–294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Van House, N.A., Butler, M.H., et al.: User-centered iterative design for digital libraries: the cypress experience. D-Lib Magazine 2(2) (1996)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wolcott L. and Betts K. (1999). What’s in it for me? incentives for faculty participation in distance education. J. Dist. Educ. 14(2): 34–49 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Flora McMartin
    • 1
  • Ellen Iverson
    • 2
  • Alan Wolf
    • 3
  • Joshua Morrill
    • 4
  • Glenda Morgan
    • 5
  • Cathryn Manduca
    • 2
  1. 1.Broad-based KnowledgeRichmondUSA
  2. 2.Carleton CollegeNorthfieldUSA
  3. 3.University of Wisconsin—MadisonMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Morrill SolutionsMadisonUSA
  5. 5.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations