User:Shanitah kanyesigye
Factors Affecting the Utilization of e-resources in Uganda.
There are different reasons why students may or may not choose to utilize e-resources. This section looks at advantages and disadvantages of e-resources as reported in several research conducted in different parts of the world. Literature in the field shows that students and academic staff use e-resources in different ways and for different reasons.
Studies conducted by Staiger (2012), Plessis (2014) and Czecholowski (2011), indicate that most academic users search e-resources for discrete bits of information than reading entire material. They prefer to use, rather than reading the whole information in the material. In this analysis, the reasons that may compel students to utilize e-resources are outlined as advantages while those reasons which may hinder or make students to decide on not utilizing e-resources are outlined as disadvantages of e-resources.
Advantages of e-resources Upton (2008) points out that e-resources have many advantages over traditional resources. Using e-books as an example, not only can a single e-book reader replace many books, but e-books online distribution, has a lessened environmental impact over the distribution system for paper books. Upton (2008) shows that over a lifetime, users could greatly reduce their carbon footprint by reading electronic books instead of paper. Another advantage of e-resources is that they can reach the market much more quickly and cheaply than print materials.
Disadvantages of e-resources McLure (2012), indicated that some individuals in a focus group which was involved in the study, expressed concerns that e-resources are internet-based sources and may not be available when conducting research in remote areas where internet is non-existent. In other parts of the world, especially African continent, internet connectivity is not well developed which may be a big deciding factor for e-resource access and utilization. Connectivity may strongly affect student’s ability to access and utilize e-resources in remote areas where they live
. In another research conducted by Miltenoff (2012) it is reported that in a study conducted by the e-resource vendor, in 2008 from 6492 students from colleges and universities from around the world, the students who never used e-resources gave the following reasons for their not using e-resources. E-resources have not been required by my professors as part of my program. I have not had a need for e-resources. I cannot print, annotate, highlight, or underline text in e-resources. E-resources are not portable. I primarily use journals as a main source of information. I do not know how to use e-resources.
REFERENCES
[edit]Chun-Hua, H. Kay-Yu, T & Chien-Hung, L. (2015). Exploring college student’s intention to adopt e-textbooks: A modified technology acceptance model. Libri 65(2): 119-128.
Collie S.L. & Rine, P.J. (2009). Survey design: Getting the results you need. Office of process simplification.
Concise Oxford English dictionary. 2008. Eleventh edition. Edited by Catherine Soanes, Angus Stevenson & Sara Hawker. Sv `book`. Oxford: Oxford press.
Connaway, L.S. & Wicht H.L. 2007. What happened to the e-book revolution? The gradual integration of e-books into academic libraries. Journal of electronic publishing 10(3):
Creef, M. (2011). Information collection: Interviewing, in Research at grass roots: for the social sciences and human service professions. Fourth edition. Edited by Devos, A.S. Strydom, H. Fouche, and C.B. & Delport. Pretoria: van Schaik.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Second edition. London: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approach. Fourth edition. Los Angeles: Sage.
Davis F.D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly: 319-340.
Feffery, K & Dworak, E. (2010). Who moved my intranet? The human side of introducing collaborative technologies to library staff. Journal of web librarianship 4(2-3): 177-186.