April 20, 2008
I am currently finishing up final edits on my research paper on computer self-efficacy in academic library workers. It is now titled - Computer Self-Efficacy and the Academic Library Employee: An Examination of Their Relationship (and yes, titles are not my forte). Several people have asked about reading the paper and getting the results. I’m not quite ready to share the paper (but will share with those who asked to see it after the semester is over - and possibly after grades are in). However, I do want to publicly share the findings from the survey.
The following tables give the mean computer self-efficacy levels for those demographic variables that turned out to be major determinants. Some notes: SD stands for standard deviation; Total # is the total population for that category and # is the total percentage of the entire population (which is 167).
Computer Self-Efficacy Levels by Technical Support Model
| Category |
Mean |
SD |
High |
Low |
Total # |
% |
| Entire Population |
153.29 |
16.06 |
179 |
81 |
167 |
100 |
| Library Systems Support |
151.3 |
16.93 |
179 |
111 |
81 |
48.5 |
| Combined Library/IT Support |
155.08 |
11.51 |
172 |
126 |
24 |
14.37 |
| IT Support |
154.9 |
16.03 |
178 |
81 |
41 |
24.55 |
| Vendor Support |
147 |
n/a |
147 |
147 |
1 |
0.6 |
| No Formal Support |
135.67 |
34.15 |
173 |
106 |
3 |
1.8 |
| Other Means of Tech Support |
157.75 |
6.02 |
163 |
150 |
4 |
2.4 |
| Multiple Means of Support |
160.23 |
10.65 |
177 |
142 |
13 |
7.78 |
Compute Self-Efficacy Levels by Age
| Age |
Mean |
SD |
High |
Low |
Total # |
% |
| 20-29 Years of Age |
156.92 |
10.05 |
171 |
134 |
50 |
29.94 |
| 30-39 Years of Age |
153.74 |
15.18 |
179 |
111 |
68 |
40.72 |
| 40-49 Years of Age |
155.51 |
16.54 |
175 |
115 |
29 |
17.37 |
| 50-59 Years of Age |
140.07 |
28.37 |
179 |
81 |
15 |
8.98 |
| >60 Years of Age |
137.8 |
16.81 |
167 |
126 |
5 |
2.99 |
Computer Self-Efficacy Levels by Sex
| Sex |
Mean |
S.D. |
High |
Low |
Total # |
% |
| Female |
154.03 |
15.52 |
179 |
81 |
137 |
82.04 |
| Male |
149.93 |
18.27 |
171 |
123 |
30 |
17.96 |
Computer Self-Efficacy Levels by Educational Attainment
| Degree |
Mean |
S.D. |
High |
Low |
Total # |
% |
| High School Degree |
156 |
16.44 |
174 |
126 |
7 |
4.19 |
| Bachelors Degree |
156.6 |
11.93 |
177 |
141 |
25 |
14.97 |
| Masters Degree |
152.57 |
16.85 |
179 |
81 |
129 |
77.25 |
| Doctorate |
152 |
14.64 |
175 |
135 |
6 |
3.59 |
Computer Self-Efficacy Level by MLS or Equivalent
| MLS or Equivalent |
Mean |
S.D. |
High |
Low |
Total # |
% |
| Library School |
155.48 |
10.09 |
171 |
135 |
16 |
9.58 |
| No MLS |
155.57 |
14.06 |
177 |
126 |
21 |
12.57 |
| MLS or Equivalent |
152.66 |
16.96 |
179 |
81 |
130 |
77.84 |
Computer Self-Efficacy Levels by Length of Career
| Length of Career |
Mean |
S.D. |
High |
Low |
Total # |
% |
| <10 Years |
154.18 |
15.64 |
179 |
81 |
108 |
64.67 |
| 10-19 Years |
154.63 |
14.48 |
178 |
125 |
41 |
24.55 |
| 20-29 Years |
148 |
18.7 |
176 |
123 |
12 |
7.19 |
| 30-39 Years |
139 |
25.88 |
167 |
106 |
5 |
2.99 |
| >40 Years |
137 |
0 |
137 |
137 |
1 |
0.6 |
Computer Self-Efficacy Levels by Job Classification
| Job Classification |
Mean |
S.D. |
High |
Low |
Total # |
% |
| Library Assistant |
152.71 |
15.23 |
177 |
126 |
38 |
22.75 |
| Other |
156.83 |
9.5 |
168 |
147 |
6 |
3.59 |
| Professional Librarian |
153.3 |
16.63 |
179 |
81 |
123 |
73.65 |
Computer Self-Efficacy Levels by Job Satisfaction
| Job Satisfaction |
Mean |
S.D. |
High |
Low |
Total # |
% |
| Extremely Satisified |
160.44 |
11.27 |
179 |
125 |
36 |
26.28 |
| Mostly Satisfied |
152.9 |
15.98 |
179 |
81 |
98 |
58.68 |
| Neither Satisf. Nor Unsatisf. |
137.33 |
19.86 |
171 |
106 |
9 |
5.38 |
| Somewhat Unsatisfied |
151.32 |
16.53 |
175 |
111 |
22 |
13.17 |
| Unsatisfied |
137.5 |
0.71 |
138 |
137 |
2 |
1.2 |
Computer Self-Efficacy Levels by Computer Experience
| Computer Experience |
Mean |
S.D. |
High |
Low |
Total # |
% |
| Extremely Experienced |
162.7 |
11.08 |
179 |
131 |
50 |
29.94 |
| Much Experience |
152.42 |
14.03 |
177 |
115 |
96 |
57.49 |
| Some Experience |
134.9 |
18.07 |
163 |
81 |
21 |
12.57 |
| Little Experience |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| No Experience |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Computer Self-Efficacy Levels by Computer Training
| Computer Training |
Mean |
S.D. |
High |
Low |
Total # |
% |
| No Training |
154.81 |
16.71 |
179 |
106 |
36 |
21.56 |
| Training |
152.88 |
15.92 |
179 |
81 |
131 |
78.44 |
1 Comment |
ils680, library musings | Tagged: computer self-efficacy |
Permalink
Posted by Jennifer
March 18, 2008
After several years of working in library systems, I have come to the conclusion that the most challenging, difficult and frustrating part of my job comes from the fact that I am responsible for my library’s website - and assorted web-based systems. Currently, the college where I work is in the midst of both a website redesign and a migration to a content management system. Because of this, the usual love/hate relationship that I have with this part of my job responsibilities is more of a hate/hate relationship - which has created vast amounts of stress, some questioning of my career choice and eye strain from spending too much time looking at code. This is all a rather large headache that is consuming almost every waking moment of my life (except for that which is being consumed by my ILS680-Evaluation & Research project). I have been spending an exorbitant amount of time and effort on producing something that may well be inherently flawed.
After all, how can we build effective library websites when we have little understanding of what this even entails? Can we ever have effective online presences when we piece together disparate systems and fit them into existing architectures? Do we know what our goal is? I have been wrestling with these questions for a long time, and it scares me to admit that I don’t have a good idea of how to start answering them. For me, website design, creation and management seem like add-ons or secondary responsibilities. I do general maintenance on a regular basis and spend more time doing design or creation when we add new systems or services. However, it isn’t until outside forces converge in the form of a college-wide-website-redesign project that I spend any significant time on the library website. And even then, this process seems to be one where I try desperately to carve out a niche for the library website from a project that is driven by forces with vastly different needs and goals. Thus, the end result is flawed before it even comes to fruition.
So, this is where my head is at right now. I’m immersed in carving out a niche from a market-driven redesign project with templates that were not created with the library in mind. I’ve been trying to figure out where to go from here - how to figure out the right way to move forward. Fortunately, a post from Lorcan Dempsey’s weblog, An effective web presence?, offered some insight. There is a link in this post to a Library Web Consultancy document prepared by the University College Dublin Library. The library wants to get a sense of the context into which the library website should fit. This is a step they are taking in advance of even thinking about a redesign project. They are hoping to understand their entire online environment and how the library fits into it. They are also trying to figure out how they want their website to work for 2-3 years into any redesign. This seems like a very well thought out project that aims to truly figure out how to design an effective online presence. I can only hope that the people at the University College Dublin continue to post information about the process. I know that I could learn quite a bit from what they find out - and maybe, in time, come to embrace my website job responsibilities.
No Comments » |
library musings, web design |
Permalink
Posted by Jennifer
January 27, 2008
Library 2.0 - what does the term really mean? Honestly, I’ve followed the discussions in the library world for the past couple of years pretty closely, and I still have no idea. Neither do I think it is important to actually have a hard and fast definition. It is a label that I suspect means many different things to many different people - and should have different meanings. While I think that some of the discussions that have taken place around Library 2.0 have been important, I was extremely bothered by the subtle thread of hostility that often crept into the debates. There seemed to be some unspoken belief that Library 2.0 would save libraries and that if your weren’t on board, you would be contributing to the demise of the library. The 2.0 concept seemed to be one that had the ability to divide the library world into two separate camps rather than helping librarians work together to solve real problems.
To me, the recent discussions taking place about Library 2.0 are much more important. They are real, more honest - and I think they offer a better glimpse of reality in today’s library world.
Some of the posts:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Library 2.0 - from the wee librarian by Krista Godfrey on January 24, 2008
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 Comment |
library 2.0, library musings |
Permalink
Posted by Jennifer
January 16, 2008
My boss sent me a link to an article from the January 18, 2008 edition of the Chronicle of Higher Education - “Strains and Joys Color Mergers Between Libraries and Tech Units” by Andrea L. Foster (Section: Money & Management, Volume 54, Issue 19, Page A1). As a systems librarian, this is a subject that is of great interest to me. Despite the fact that I do not work in an institution with a combined IT/library department, I know that I can learn something from the successes and failures in this arena - and be prepared for any discussions that may come up at my place of work.
The article was an interesting read. The bottom line is that sometimes such mergers are succcesful, but sometimes are not. More often than not, these mergers seem to happen at smaller and less complex institutions. The mergers are not a cost-saving move. Usually, the library is absorbed into the IT organizational unit and the chief librarian position is eliminated. Librarians are often quite apprehensive about such mergers, and books seem to be the biggest loser. There is often an underlying assumption that books are becoming less important to the academic mission. Many are usually moved to make room for “information commons” areas.
The most interesting part of the article, however, was a discussion about a highly problematic merger at Gettysburg College. Foster writes:
Tensions arose when technology workers, ponytailed young men, began sharing the same office space with librarians, most of whom were older women, said Ms. Wagner. According to her account, the men brought in a huge microwave, were slobs, had messy cords dangling from equipment and said they worked much harder than the librarians who left work at 4:30 and took breaks throughout the day.
Yikes! This definitely doesn’t sound like a successful venture. The account gave me a rather comical vision of shushing-type, bun-wearing, librarians having their space invaded by food-stained microwave ovens covered in cords behind and odd young men with long hair. Sounds like a big no, no to me.
1 Comment |
library musings, technology |
Permalink
Posted by Jennifer