Abstract
AbstractThe paper presents some results of the user study, conducted in 1998, among the users of the Osijek Faculty of Education Library. The objective of the study was to determine the scope of library usage, the degree of users’ dis/satisfaction with library services, holdings and the staff. The results indicate that there are differences in library usage between two main user groups – students and teachers. They differ, among other things, in the objectives of library visits, the scope of library usage, the degree of satisfaction with the library and its services, the familiarisation and the level of usage of information technology. Differences in behaviour between these two groups indicate the necessity of a different approach by the library personnel, e.g. intensified work on students’ education. The analysis of the questionnaire leads to the following conclusions: 1. Two main user groups of the Faculty of Education Library differ in their requests and needs. 2. The degree of dis/satisfaction depends on the group the user belongs to. 3. Library users from the fields of arts and humanities, and natural sciences, use information technology to the same degree.
Reference12 articles.
1. Bancroft, A. F., Croft, V. F., Speth, R., & Phillips, D.M. (1998). A forward-looking library use survey: WSU libraries in the 21st century. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 24 (3), 216-223.
2. Coupe, J. (1993). Undergraduate library skills : two surveys at John Hopkins University. Research Strategies, 11, 188-201.
3. Erl, V. (1990). Bibliotečno-informacijski odsjek Pedagoškog fakulteta Osijek u funkciji stručnog, znanstvenog i istraživačkog rada. V Zbornik Pedagoškog fakulteta. Humanističke i društvene znanosti 2 (pp. 43-51). Osijek: Pedagoški fakultet.
4. Horvat, J. (1995). Statistika pomoću SPSS/PC+. Osijek: Ekonomski fakultet.
5. Jacobs, N. A. (1996). Student’s perceptions of the library service at the University of Sussex: practical quantitative and qualitative research in an academic library. The Journal of Documentation, 52 (2), 139-162.