PLACE Events 2016-2017

This document describes PLACE events at Linfield College for 2016-2017

Service sea change: clicking with screenagers through virtual reference

Web-based reference services such as synchronous, (chat reference or \u27Ask-a-Librarian\u27 services) and asynchronous (email) virtual reference services (VRS) have become common features of academic library home pages. In the current economic and technological environment, evaluation to determine the sustainability of VRS is crucial. An international research project, funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, and OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., investigates factors that influence the selection and use of synchronous VRS. This study, one of the first large-scale VRS studies to include both users and non-users of the Millennial Generation, innovatively addresses issues concerning the evaluation, sustainability, and relevance of VRS for academic libraries by soliciting screenagers\u27 perceptions. Three focus group interviews were conducted with "screenagers" - twelve to eighteen year-old non-users of VRS. These potential future academic library users are comfortable in a virtual environment, use instant messaging (IM) for socializing and collaborative homework yet perceive VRS differently than these other virtual encounters. The results of these focus group interviews provide new insights to why screenagers choose not to use VRS and what would make them try VRS. The study identifies ways to increase the visibility and use of VRS, and to improve service, which could help secure funding allocations, and the growth and improvement of services. These results can influence the development of academic library services and systems for the Millennial Generation

Problematic technology use during adolescence: why don’t teenagers seek treatment?

In recent issues of Education and Health, I have briefly reviewed the empirical evidence relating to problematic use of technology by adolescents including online video gaming (Griffiths, 2014), social networking (Griffiths, 2013a; Kuss & Griffiths, 2011), and mobile phone use (Griffiths, 2013b). Most of the research studies that have examined ‘technological addictions’ during adolescence have indicated that a small but significant minority experience severe problems resulting in detriments to education, physical fitness, psychological wellbeing, and family and personal relationships (Griffiths, 2010; Kuss, Griffiths, Karila & Billieux, 2014). Given these findings, why is it that so few teenagers seek treatment? This article briefly outlines a number of reasons why this might be the case by examining other literature on adolescent drug use and adolescent gambling (e.g., Chevalier & Griffiths, 2005; 2005; Griffiths, 2001). Three different types of explanation are discussed: (i) treatment-specific explanations, (ii) research-related explanations, and (iii) developmental and peer group explanations

Pratiques des écrans des jeunes Français. Déterminants sociaux et pratiques culturelles associées (Les)

Cet article est extrait du premier numéro de la revue en ligne RESET (Recherche en sciences sociales sur internet) intitulée "Des classes sociales 2.0". Partant des données de l\u27enquête "Pratiques culturelles des Français" de 2008, les auteurs montrent la diversité des pratiques des écrans chez les 15-34 ans

DISCUSSION

Any application of information and communication technology in education (ICTE) sits, at times uncomfortably, at the intersection of three key disciplines: technology, education and sociology (including reflexivity). To confuse matters, any specific study may need to take account of specific knowledge within subdisciplines, such as organisational management and technology transfer, and of knowledge within the domain of application (e.g. nursing, social work, fashion, etc.). Researchers must build a consistent model of knowledge that can integrate disparate methodologies, research goals and even conflicting interpretations of the same terminology. Without this, the ICTE research field will be dominated by what is simply novel, irrespective of the relevance of particular changes to educational practice. If existing models in this field are as limited as suggested by Moule, when should lecturers and teachers, with no motivation to use technology for its own sake and no additional financial support, review progress in this field for effective examples of innovative practice, let alone wide-scale change? On most of the criteria that could be introduced to compare two papers, the views of Moule and Salmon appear almost diametrically opposed and a detailed comparison would seem of limited value. Instead, this paper asks a more fundamental question: what could be the basis within this research community for establishing coherence within the field and ensuring that research can justify actual changes in educational practice