Library and Information Service >
Web 2.0 Technologies Application in the US Academic Libraries
Received date: 2014-04-08
Revised date: 2014-06-05
Online published: 2014-06-20
By exploring Web 2.0 technologies' usage and trends in the top U.S. academic libraries as exemplified through the University & College Library websites, findings indicated that each of the 100 academic libraries had made SNS the most widely applied Web 2.0 tool. Blog was the second most popular tool with 99% participation rate, followed by RSS and IM/Chat with 97% and 91% respectively. The Vodcasts and Podcasts had 47% and 46% participation rates respectively. Social bookmarking/tagging was also used by 39% of the academic libraries. The Wiki was the least applied Web 2.0 technology with 34% participation rate. The library website usage and technical structure model reflected the development of the top U.S. academic libraries to a certain extent in terms of digitalization, interaction and personalization, mapping the changes of the world digital library services.
Key words： Web 2.0; academic libraries; digital libraries; USA
Bai Lina , Wang Yingchun , Yan Quan . Web 2.0 Technologies Application in the US Academic Libraries[J]. Library and Information Service, 2014 , 58(12) : 6 -11 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2014.12.001
[1] 宋丽荣,李平,李健,等.Web 2.0技术在图书馆网站建设与服务中的应用研究[J].图书馆工作与研究,2013(2): 48-51.
[2] Cromity J. Web 2.0 tools for social and professional use[J].Online, 2008,32(5): 30-33.
[3] Xu Chen, Ouyang Fenfei, Chu Heting. The academic library meets Web 2.0: Applications and implications[J].Journal of Academic Librarianship, 2009,35(4):324-331.
[4] Linh N C. A survey of the application of Web 2.0 in Australasian university libraries[J].Library Hi Tech, 2008,26(4): 630-653.
[5] Liu Shu. Engaging users: The future of academic library web sites[J].College & Research Libraries, 2008,69(1): 6-27.
[6] Han Zhipingf, Yan Quan Liu.Web 2.0 applications in top Chinese university libraries[J].Library Hi Tech, 2010, 28(1): 41-62.
[7] Mahmood K. Richardson J. Adoption of Web 2.0 in US academic libraries: A survey of ARL library websites[J]. Program, 2010, 45(4):365-375.
[8] Bierman J. Valentino M L. Podcasting initiatives in American research libraries[J].Library Hi Tech, 2011,29(2):349-358.
[9] Rudman R. Incremental risks in web 2.0 applications[J].Electronic Library, 2010,28 (2): 210-230.
[10] Neal J G,Jaggars D E. Web 2.0: Redefining and extending the service commitment of academic library[C]//McKnight S. Envisioning Future Library Services: Initiatives, Ideas and Challenges. London: Facet Publishing:2010.
[11] Morville P. Rosenfeld L. Information architecture for the World Wide Web[M]. California:CMI,2006.
[12] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Academic Libraries Survey (ALS)[EB/OL].[2013-02-03].http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012365.pdf.
[13] Sweitzer K,Volkwein F. Prestige among graduate and professional schools: Comparing the U.S. News' graduate school reputation ratings between disciplines[J].Research in Higher Education, 2009,50(8):812-836.
[14] U.S. News & World Report. Best colleges ranking[EB/OL].[2013-02-15] http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges.
[15] Tripathi M. Kumar S. Use of Web 2.0 tools in academic libraries: A reconnaissance of the international landscape[J].The International Information & Library Review, 2010,42(2): 195-207.
[16] Alves L, Maciel M, Ponciano L, et al. Assessing the impact of the social network on marking photos as favorites in Flicker[EB/OL].[2013-05-15]http://www.lsd.ufcg.edu.br/relatorios_tecnicos/TR-2012-01.pdf.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
