The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
“I still like Google”: University student perceptions of searching OPACs and the web
Open accessAbstract
This paper reports on an exploratory study of how university students perceive and interact with Web search engines compared to Web‐based OPACs. A qualitative study was conducted involving sixteen students, eight of whom were first‐year undergraduates and eight of whom were graduate students in Library and Information Science. The participants performed searches on Google and on a university OPAC. The interviews and think‐afters revealed that while students were aware of the problems inherent in Web searching and of the many ways in which OPACS are more organized, they generally preferred Web searching. The coding of the data suggests that the reason for this preference lies in psychological factors associated with the comparative ease with which search engines can be used, and system and interface factors which made searching the Web much easier and less confusing. As a result of these factors, students were able to approach even the drawbacks of the Web—its clutter of irrelevant pages and the dubious authority of the results—in an enthusiastic and proactive manner, very different from the passive and ineffectual admiration they expressed for the OPAC. The findings suggest that requirements of good OPAC interface design must be aggressively redefined in the face of new, Web‐based standards of usability.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Students in particular utilize Google as a main source in information seeking.52, 83, 84”
From Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources (2020) · cites this paper as [84]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1993) · Cited by 9,879
The Usability Engineering Lifecycle
NIELSEN, J. (1993) · Usability Engineering · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-052029-2.50007-3 · Cited by 2,657
Real life, real users, and real needs: a study and analysis of user queries on the web
Jansen, B. J. J., Spink, A. H., & Saračević, T. (2000) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/s0306-4573(99)00056-4 · Cited by 1,318
Don't Make Me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability
Krug, S., & Black, R. L. (2009) · Cited by 1,054
A visit to the information mall: Web searching behavior of high school students
Fidel, R., Davies, R. K., Douglass, M. H., Holder, J. K., Hopkins, C. J., Kushner, E. J., Miyagishima, B., & Toney, C. D. (1999) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(1999)50:1 · Cited by 405
Investigating the Information-Seeking Processes of Adolescents
Branch, J. (2000) · Library & Information Science Research · doi:10.1016/s0740-8188(00)00051-7 · Cited by 124
Vox populi: The public searching of the web
Wolfram, D., Spink, A. H., Jansen, B. J. J., & Saračević, T. (2001) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.1157 · Cited by 113
Shedroff, N. (2001) · Cited by 82
Borgman, C. L., Hirsh, S. G., & Hiller, J. B. (1996) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199607)47:7 · Cited by 61
Large, A., & Beheshti, J. (1997) · Library & Information Science Research · doi:10.1016/s0740-8188(97)90039-6 · Cited by 58
Online Catalogs from the Users’ Perspective: The Use of Focus Group Interviews
Connaway, L. S., Johnson, D. W., & Searing, S. E. (1997) · College & Research Libraries · doi:10.5860/crl.58.5.403 · Cited by 41
Encounters with the OPAC: On-line searching in public libraries
Slone, D. J. (2000) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(2000)51:8 · Cited by 30
Web-based OPACs: Between Tradition and Innovation.
Ortiz‐Repiso, V., & Moscoso, P. (1999) · Information Technology and Libraries · Cited by 29
An Examination of Library World Wide Web Sites at Medium-Sized Universities
Tolppanen, B. P., Miller, J., & Wooden, M. H. (2000) · Internet Reference Services Quarterly · doi:10.1300/j136v05n02_02 · Cited by 21
A Query-Level Examination of End User Searching Behaviour on the Excite Search Engine
Wolfram, D. (2013) · Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSI · doi:10.29173/cais30 · Cited by 13
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Google. (2000 July 13).Google's Success Story Continues: Google Ranked No. 1 in NPD Search & Portal Scorecard Measuring Loyalty and Satisfaction. Available: <http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/pressrelease29.html>.
- Pearrow M., 2000, Web site usability handook
- Rubin J., 1994, Handbook of usability testing
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1378 · Cited by 2,379
“Students in particular utilize Google as a main source in information seeking.(52,83,84) The requirements for evidence synthesis are not always obvious to reviewers as they are used to navigational or exploratory searching that comes intuitively.”
BackgroundThe dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies
Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2008) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/0165551508095781 · Cited by 1,622
Connaway, L. S., Dickey, T. J., & Radford, M. L. (2011) · Library & Information Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2010.12.002 · Cited by 434
Reading Into the Future: Competence for the 21st Century
Alexander, P. A., & Learnin, T. D. R. A. (2012) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.722511 · Cited by 281
Analysis of multiple query reformulations on the web: The interactive information retrieval context
Rieh, S. Y., & Xie, H. (2005) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2005.05.005 · Cited by 219
Metadata
- Authors
- Fast, K. V., & Campbell, D. G.
- Affiliations
- Western University (CA)
- ORCID
- Campbell, D. Grant
- Venue
- Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-01
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 138-146
- ISSN
- 0044-7870 (ISSN-L)
- 1550-8390
- OpenAlex
- W2062551457
- Cited by
- 126
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 18.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Web and Library Services
- Keywords
- university students, search engines, OPAC, student perceptions, Google, usability, interface design, information seeking, library catalog searching, think-aloud
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
