Positively Perplexing E-Books: Digital Natives’ Perceptions of Electronic Information Resources

Cataldo, Tara Tobin; Buhler, Amy

doi:10.5703/1288284315106

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Discussion1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2016

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When we presented the preliminary survey results, the following question arose: "Is it really wrong to call any of these resources a website?" 17 By definition, this is correct. These resources could all fall under the technical description for a website or webpage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Identifying E-Resources: An Exploratory Study of University Students

Buhler¹,

Cataldo²

2016

LRTS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This preliminary study assesses university students' ability to identify document types or information containers (journal, article, book, etc.) and different types of search tools (database, search engine) in the online environment. It is imperative to understand students' behaviors due to the pervasiveness of online resources and their impact on information literacy. A survey administered at the University of Florida sought to investigate this phenomenon and queried respondents about their age, higher education level, exposure to bibliographic instruction, and time devoted to school-related online searching. Analyses of 765 responses show that many students cannot consistently correctly identify these containers and behavioral characteristics have no influence on this process. This has implications for the online information seeking process and judging credibility and is of importance to the library, education, and publishing communities. Recommendations for these various communities are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%