Mary Kickham-Samy
Reference Renaissance Conference
Denver, CO
August 4, 2008
Community of Inquiry Model:
by Garrison, Anderson,& Archer
Literature Review
VR Librarian hesitating to instruct (Lee,
2004)
Students willing to be instructed (Desai
and Graves, 2006)
92% - receptive
8% - “unreachable”
The Theoretical Framework
 Critical Literacy Theory
 Critical Information Literacy
 Social Constructivist Theory
David Ward measured session
completeness by whether the
librarian:
1. Asked student about number of
sources,
2. Showed student a useful source,
3. Recommended search terms,
4. Checked that the student found the
needed information
Summary of the Literature
 Students are open to instruction.
 Librarians want to provide
instruction.
 Students want to become
independent learners.
 VR environments are conducive to
power-sharing relationships.
The main contribution of
this paper is to examine
the activities and behaviors of the
student and the librarian in the
negotiation of questions and
answers in a virtual reference
session.
Research Questions
in Two Parts
Examination of
Balance in Participation and
Discourse Models - where they
align, diverge and intersect
Questions One
Is there parity of participation on
the part of the librarian and the
student?
Question Two
Does the number of questions
asked during a session by the
librarian, the student, or both
parties combined affect the
length of the transaction?
Question Three
Does the intensity of the studentlibrarian engagement predict the
librarian’s assessment of the
quality of the session?
Research Design
 Data Source – 250 transcripts
 Sampling – selected based on
completeness of the transcripts
and the demographics of the
participants.
Research Design: Variables
 Length of each session,
 Librarian’s session-assessment
 “Participation” variables, i.e. turns
taken, questions asked,
emoticons used.
Research Design: Technique
 Analyses of descriptive statistics
 Scatter plots, and
 Tests for correlations and
predictions.
Question One
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for 7
variables
Participation
variables
N
Minimum
Session Length
250
1.68
Librarian turns
250
Librarian
questions
Librarian
emoticons
Student turns
Maximum
Mean
Std.
58.17
16.20
Deviation
10.87
1
124
18.06
15.69
250
0
23
4.00
3.80
250
0
14
1.28
2.10
250
1
80
12.56
11.40
Student questions
250
0
10
1.47
1.67
Student emoticons
250
0
25
1.11
2.88
Findings: Question One
Table 2. Number of Instances of
Librarian and Student
Activities.
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Librarian Activities
250
1.00
148.00
23.3440
19.63159
250
1.00
87.00
15.1400
13.63996
Student Activities
Number of
Question the
Librarian Asks
Number of
Question the
Patron Asks
Scatter
Plot
Length of Session
in Minutes and
Seconds
Question Two: More questions
shorter sessions?
Length of Session
in Minutes and
Seconds
Number of
Question the
Librarian Asks
Number of
Question the
Patron Asks
Librarian
Session
Assessment
Emoticons
the Student
Uses
Emoticons
the
Librarian
Uses
Questions
the Student
Asks
Questions
the
Librarian
Asks
Turns the
Student
Takes
Turns the
Librarian
Takes
Question Three: Parity and
Session Assessment
Turns the
Librarian
Takes
Turns the
Student
Takes
Questions
the
Librarian
Asks
Questions
the Student
Asks
Emoticons
the
Librarian
Uses
Emoticons
the Student
Uses
Librarian
Session
Assessment
What criteria do librarians
use to evaluate a virtual
reference session?
1. The amount of time spent?
2. The number of questions asked?
3. Emoticons used?
4. That perfect answer to a question?
5. Something else, not quantitative?
How do the librarian and the
student work together to
answer research questions in
virtual reference
environments?
Critical Discourse Analysis
An analysis of the way language
confers power on some members of
society and controls other members.
James Paul Gee: Critical
Discourse Analysis
Two discourses:
 our native discourse and
 our acquired discourses
Excerpt #1
Student: ty
Student: Thank you
Transcript #2
Shared Discourse Model, Shared
Vocabulary:
 “user id,”
 “password,”
 “access.”
Transcript #3-1
The librarian has an agenda. She tells
the student what search terms and
what databases to use. She also finds
articles for the student.
Transcript 3-2
After the librarian finds the answer,
a relevant article, she relinquishes
power to the student.
Transcript #4-1
A student asks which term is more
correct?
Michigander?
or Michiganian?
Transcript 4-2
Two Discourse Models:
 The discourse model of the linguist –
How do you say it?
 The discourse model of the librarian –
What do sources say that we say?
Conclusion:
Students and librarians aligning
their discourse models to create a
new dynamic Virtual Reference
Discourse Model
Bibliography
Desai, C.M. & Graves, S.J. (2006). Instruction via
instant messaging reference: What's
happening? The Electronic Library, 24(2), 174189.
Doherty, J. J. & Ketchner, K. (2005).
Empowering the intentional learner: A critical
theory for information literacy instruction.
Library Philosophy and Practice, 8(1), n.p.
Ellis, L. A. (2004). Approaches to teaching
through digital reference. Reference Services
Review, 32(2), 103-119.
Bibliography (cont.)
Gee, J.P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse
Analysis (2nd.). New York: Routledge.
Gee, J.P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies:
Ideologies in discourses (3rd.). New York:
Routledge.
Lee, I. J. (2004). Do virtual reference librarians
dream of digital reference questions?: A
qualitative and quantitative analysis of email
and chat reference. Australian Academic and
Research Libraries, 35(2), 95-110.
Bibliography (continued)
Ward, D. (2003). Measuring the completeness
of reference transactions in online chats.
Reference and User Services Quarterly, 44(1),
46-52.
Westbrook, L. Virtual reference training: The
second generation. College & Research
Libraries, 67(3), 249-59.
Woodward, B.S. (2005). One-on-one
instruction: from the reference desk to online
chat. . Reference and User Services Quarterly,
44(3), 203-209.