Communication Breakdown: Librarian and Student Approaches to Virtual Reference Differ

Stephanie Jane Hall

摘要

A review of: Walter, Virginia A. and Cindy Mediavilla. "Teens Are from Neptune, Librarians Are from Pluto: An Analysis of Online Reference Transactions.” Library Trends 54.2 (2005): 209-227. Objective – To evaluate the effectiveness of an online reference and referral service for students (primarily those in middle school and high school) seeking homework help. Design – Analysis of 114 transcripts of reference transactions. Setting – A centralized homework reference and tutor referral service provided on behalf of the California State Library by the Metropolitan Cooperative Library System. Subjects – Virtual reference librarians at a large urban library system and middle and high school students in California. Methods – One hundred fourteen virtual reference transactions recorded between October 12 and November 8, 2003 were evaluated against the Reference and User Services Association’s (RUSA) “Guidelines for Behavioral Performance of Reference and Information Service Providers.” Secondly, the transcripts were subjected to discourse analysis. Main results – Performance of virtual reference librarians vis-à-vis RUSA guidelines In the majority of cases, there was some evidence that librarians communicated clearly (110 out of 114 transactions). In 78 cases, it appeared that a librarian was available quickly, and in 92 of the transactions a friendly greeting was given. What was striking, however, was that in a clear majority of cases, some of the classic reference interview strategies were not employed. In 100 or more cases each, the following strategies were not observed: repeating or paraphrasing the question; helping to interpret the question; verifying mutual understanding; asking if the question has been answered; asking if the student needs more information. Furthermore, in 75 cases librarians did not probe for further information to clarify the question, while in 87 cases they did not check that information had been clearly understood. Possibly related to these findings, the researchers felt that the transcripts revealed “a conviction that homework questions are not the proper content for reference transactions” (222). In addition, librarians were found to be frequently too quick to refer students to a tutor, when a query might have been better answered as a reference question. Findings of discourse analysis In general, the virtual reference librarians used impersonal, formal language to “reinforce the professional’s superior position vis-à-vis the help-seeker” (217). There were repeated attempts by the students to interject a lighter or warmer tone (using humour, emoticons, informal language, introducing a personal note, etc.). These attempts were rarely reciprocated, with librarians continuing to use impersonal language, including stock messages such as: “we are experiencing a very busy time right now,” (217); or, “I am going to send you a page which will give you some help with your homework. After we disconnect this session, click on this link and follow the instructions to be connected with a tutor. Please do not click on any links on this page until after we have disconnected” (217). In several cases librarians were preoccupied with defining their roles—for example, specifying that they could give reference help but not advice. In all, the distancing mechanisms used by librarians, combined with occasional inaccurate referrals and technical problems with the software, were seen to create an enormous potential for frustration on the part of the student. Conclusions – The most important implication of the study was that librarians and students were worlds (or planets) apart in their approach to the reference interaction. While “teens attempted to create meaning by recreating the chat discourse environment in which they were most at home”, librarians “tried to create meaning in a parallel discourse environment that duplicated as much as possible the standard impersonal protocols of a face-to-face reference counter” (223). One suggested way to alleviate the disconnect between librarians and students was to involve students in the planning of the services. For now, however, the authors conclude that “teens are from Neptune, librarians are from Pluto. Better services would result if they could meet somewhere closer together” (224).

机译：评论如下：Walter，Virginia A.和Cindy Mediavilla。 “十几岁来自海王星，图书馆员来自冥王星：在线参考交易分析。”图书馆趋势54.2（2005）：209-227。目的–为寻求家庭作业帮助的学生（主要是初中和高中学生）评估在线参考和推荐服务的有效性设计–分析114笔参考交易记录。设置–由大都会合作图书馆系统代表加利福尼亚州立图书馆提供的集中式家庭参考和导师推荐服务;主题–大型城市图书馆系统中的虚拟参考图书馆员以及加利福尼亚的中高中学生;方法– 141个根据参考和用户服务协会（RUSA）的“参考和信息服务提供商的行为表现准则”对2003年10月12日至11月8日之间记录的虚拟参考交易进行了评估。其次，对笔录进行语篇分析主要结果–虚拟参考馆员相对于RUSA指南的表现在大多数情况下，有一些证据表明馆员进行了清晰的沟通（114笔交易中的110笔），在78例中，看来图书馆员很快就可以上手，在其中的92笔交易中，他们受到了友好的问候，但令人惊讶的是，在大多数情况下，没有采用一些经典的参考采访策略。在100笔交易中在每种情况下（或多次），都没有遵循以下策略：重复或解释问题;帮助解释问题;验证相互理解;询问问题是否得到回答;询问学生是否需要更多信息;此外，在75个案例中，图书馆员没有探究进一步的信息以澄清这个问题，而在87个案例中，他们没有核实对信息的理解是否清楚。研究人员发现，笔录显示“笔者认为作业问题不是参考交易的适当内容”（222）。另外，当查询作为参考问题可能会更好地被回答时，图书馆员常常无法将学生推荐给导师。话语分析的结果通常，虚拟的参考图书馆员会使用非个人形式的语言来“增强专业人员相对于寻求帮助者的优势”（217）。学生反复尝试插入淡淡或温暖的语气（使用幽默感，表情符号，非正式语言，引入个人注释等）。这些尝试很少得到回报，图书馆员继续使用非人格化的语言，包括诸如以下的消息：“我们现在正处于非常繁忙的时期，”（217）;或者，“我将向您发送一个页面，该页面会为您的作业提供一些帮助。在断开此会话的连接后，单击此链接并按照说明与导师连接。在断开连接之前，请不要单击此页面上的任何链接”（217）。在某些情况下，图书馆员专心于定义其角色，例如，指定他们可以提供参考帮助，但不能提供建议。总体而言，人们发现图书馆员使用的疏离机制，加上偶然的不正确推荐和软件的技术问题，会给学生带来极大的挫败感。结论–该研究最重要的含义是，图书馆员和学生在进行参考互动的方法上相距遥远。虽然“青少年试图通过重建他们最常在家中的聊天话语环境来创造意义”，但馆员“试图在平行话语环境中创造意义，尽可能重复面对面的标准非个人化协议参考计数器”（223）。减轻图书馆员与学生之间联系的一种建议方法是让学生参与服务的计划。然而，目前作者得出的结论是：“青少年来自海王星，图书馆员来自冥王星。如果他们可以在更近的地方相遇，将会获得更好的服务”（224）。

Communication Breakdown: Librarian and Student Approaches to Virtual Reference Differ

摘要

著录项

相似文献

相关主题

期刊订阅