Academic databases in humanities and social sciences setting: the case of students at University of Osijek

Sanjica Faletar Tanackovic
{"title":"Academic databases in humanities and social sciences setting: the case of students at University of Osijek","authors":"Sanjica Faletar Tanackovic","doi":"10.55741/knj.62.1-2.13818","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The study investigated perceptions and experiences of students at Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Osijek, Croatia with academic databases.Methodology: The mixed-method study (self-administered print survey and semi-structured interviews) was conducted from October 2016 through February 2017. Quantitative analysis was conducted on 381 correctly completed questionnaires using the SPSS statistical package. Besides descriptive statistics, Chi-Square tests, T-tests, ANOVA, Mann-Whitney and Kruskal Wallis tests were used to test possible differences between the groups in the sample. Statistical difference was tested at the level of 95%.Results: Although 82.2% of respondents think that information literacy (IL) skills are important for their academic success, only 63% reported that they received some formal IL training at university level. The respondents self-assessed their Google searching skills with higher grades (Mean 4.31) than their academic database searching skills (Mean 3.69), and they reported a more frequent use of Google (53.8%) than databases (25.1%) for academic purposes. When asked about problems related to database searching, students reported several challenges: their systematic habit of using Google (48%), limited access to databases from home (42.3%), the (foreign) language of scholarly articles (35.2%) and their lack of searching skills (35.2%). In general, the findings suggest that humanities students receive less IL formal training at university level, they are to a lesser degree motivated (both externally and internally) to use academic databases and are more often inclined to use Google for academic purposes than social sciences students. In addition, findings suggest that there is a disciplinary difference regarding the perception of databases.Research limitation: Geographical limitations and small sample size.Originality/Practical implication: The results can influence the design of information literacy programs and library reference services.","PeriodicalId":387656,"journal":{"name":"Knjižnica: revija za področje bibliotekarstva in informacijske znanosti","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knjižnica: revija za področje bibliotekarstva in informacijske znanosti","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55741/knj.62.1-2.13818","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The study investigated perceptions and experiences of students at Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Osijek, Croatia with academic databases.Methodology: The mixed-method study (self-administered print survey and semi-structured interviews) was conducted from October 2016 through February 2017. Quantitative analysis was conducted on 381 correctly completed questionnaires using the SPSS statistical package. Besides descriptive statistics, Chi-Square tests, T-tests, ANOVA, Mann-Whitney and Kruskal Wallis tests were used to test possible differences between the groups in the sample. Statistical difference was tested at the level of 95%.Results: Although 82.2% of respondents think that information literacy (IL) skills are important for their academic success, only 63% reported that they received some formal IL training at university level. The respondents self-assessed their Google searching skills with higher grades (Mean 4.31) than their academic database searching skills (Mean 3.69), and they reported a more frequent use of Google (53.8%) than databases (25.1%) for academic purposes. When asked about problems related to database searching, students reported several challenges: their systematic habit of using Google (48%), limited access to databases from home (42.3%), the (foreign) language of scholarly articles (35.2%) and their lack of searching skills (35.2%). In general, the findings suggest that humanities students receive less IL formal training at university level, they are to a lesser degree motivated (both externally and internally) to use academic databases and are more often inclined to use Google for academic purposes than social sciences students. In addition, findings suggest that there is a disciplinary difference regarding the perception of databases.Research limitation: Geographical limitations and small sample size.Originality/Practical implication: The results can influence the design of information literacy programs and library reference services.
人文和社会科学设置的学术数据库:奥西耶克大学学生的案例
目的:本研究利用学术数据库调查了克罗地亚奥西耶克人文社会科学学院学生的看法和经历。方法:混合方法研究(自我管理的印刷调查和半结构化访谈)于2016年10月至2017年2月进行。使用SPSS统计软件包对正确填写的381份问卷进行定量分析。除描述性统计外,还使用卡方检验、t检验、方差分析、Mann-Whitney检验和Kruskal Wallis检验来检验样本中组间可能存在的差异。统计学差异在95%水平进行检验。结果:尽管82.2%的受访者认为信息素养(IL)技能对他们的学业成功很重要,但只有63%的受访者表示他们在大学阶段接受了一些正式的IL培训。受访者自我评估谷歌搜索技能的分数(平均4.31分)高于学术数据库搜索技能(平均3.69分),并且他们报告为学术目的使用谷歌的频率(53.8%)高于数据库(25.1%)。当被问及与数据库搜索相关的问题时,学生们报告了几个挑战:他们使用谷歌的系统习惯(48%),从家里访问数据库的限制(42.3%),学术文章的(外语)语言(35.2%)和他们缺乏搜索技能(35.2%)。总体而言,研究结果表明,人文学科学生在大学阶段接受的正规培训较少,与社会科学学生相比,他们使用学术数据库的积极性(无论是外部还是内部)较低,并且更倾向于将谷歌用于学术目的。此外,研究结果表明,在对数据库的感知方面存在学科差异。研究局限:地域局限,样本量小。原创性/实践意义:研究结果可影响信息素养课程设计和图书馆参考咨询服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信