09 - Chapter 4

Chapter 4
CHAPTER 4
DATA PRESENTATION AND COMPARISON

(LIBRARY USERS)
4.0 Introduction
In this chapter, the researcher has drawn all the collected data in table form with their
comparison amongst the selected universities and interpretation derived from the
SPSS software. The researcher has collected data in two sets of the questionnaire, in
one set from library users and in the second set from library professionals from the
selected six universities for the fieldwork. The target was to collect the data of 600
respondents, but at the end of the data collection, the researcher got the response from
647 against the distribution of 1000 print forms along with more than 3000 online
google forms. Out of 647 forms, 70 responses were online, whereas 577 responses on
the print form. In all the receipt responses, only 623 forms were complete, whereas 24
forms were incomplete. In total researcher got 623 responses in which 128 responses
from AUD, 104 from DU, 101 from JMI, 100 from GGSIPU, 99 from JNU and 91
responses from IGDTUW. The first set of questionnaire was mainly divided into four
sections as given (Annexure I)-
1. General Information
2. Socioeconomic Background
3. Language and Communication
4. Digital Literacy/Digital competence
The second set of questionnaire was prepared for librarians and divided into two parts
(Annexure-II)
1. Academic qualification with experience
2. Library profile and what kind of services provided to library users.
4.2 Characteristics of Sample
In this section, the researcher has evaluated the characteristics of library users of all
the six universities like age, sex, current educational status, family educational
64
Chapter 4
background, and so far. The total 623 respondents participated in the survey from all
the selected six universities as shown in the Table-4.1.
Library Users (Table 4.1)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
AUD 128 20.5 20.5 20.5
IGDTUW 91 14.6 14.6 35.2
GGSIPU 100 16.1 16.1 51.2
JMI 101 16.2 16.2 67.4
JNU 99 15.9 15.9 83.3
DU 104 16.7 16.7 100.0
Total 623 100.0 100.0
4.2.1 Gender
Out 0f 623 respondents from all the six universities total 332 (53.3 % ) respondents
were female and 291 (46.7 %) male respondents as shown in Table-4.2a
Chart 4.1:Segrigated data of total library users
Male, 291
Female, 332
Male Female
Gender of Library Users (Table-4.2a)

Male 291 46.7 46.7 46.7
Female 332 53.3 53.3 100.0
Total 623 100.0 100.0
65
Chapter 4
If we see the university wise respondents the maximum female respondents are from
IGDTUW because it is a women university, but if we calculate the gender ration
AUD is far ahead as out of 128 respondents, 75 were women, which means 22.6 per
cent of total women (332) participants. The lesser number of women participation is
from GGSIPU only 10.8 per cent of total women participation (Table-4.2b)
Chart 4.2:Segrigated university library users

100
90
90
80 75
Number of Students
70 64
61 61
60 53 51 53
50
40 38
40 36
30
20
10
1
0
AUD IGDTUW GGSIPU JMI JNU DU
Male Female
Gender Wise Segregation of the University Library Users (Table-4.2b)

Gender
Total
Male Female
Count 53 75 128
AUD
% within Gender 18.2% 22.6% 20.5%
Count 1 90 91
IGDTUW
% within Gender .3% 27.1% 14.6%
Count 64 36 100
GGSIPU
% within Gender 22.0% 10.8% 16.1%
University
Count 61 40 101
JMI
% within Gender 21.0% 12.0% 16.2%
Count 61 38 99
JNU
% within Gender 21.0% 11.4% 15.9%
Count 51 53 104
DU
% within Gender 17.5% 16.0% 16.7%
Count 291 332 623
Total
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
66
Chapter 4
4.2.2 Age Group

Keeping in mind, the users from higher education researcher have divided the age
group into two categories only; up to 25 years and 26 years and above. As shown in
table 4 the total 77.2 per cent (481/623) of respondents come under 25 years age
whereas only 22.8 per cent (142/623) participants of 26 years and above categories
(Table-4.3a).
Age Group of Library Users (Table-4.3a)
Up to 25 years 481 77.2 77.2 77.2
Valid 26 years & above 142 22.8 22.8 100.0
Total 623 100.0 100.0
The researcher did the cross-tabulation for sex with age group and find that72.2 per
cent male (210/291) participants, and 81.6 per cent (271/332) women come under 25
years age group. On the other side, only 27.8 per cent (81/291) male and 18.4 per cent
(61/332) women belong to 26 years and above group (Table-4.3b).
Age Group (all adults) and Gender Cross-tabulation (Table-4.3b)
Gender
Total
Male Female
Count 210 271 481

Upto 25 years
% within
72.2% 81.6% 77.2%
Gender
Age Group (all adults)
Count 81 61 142
26 years & above
% within
27.8% 18.4% 22.8%
Gender
Count 291 332 623

Total
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Gender
67
Chapter 4
4.2.3 Educational Status
Chart 4.3:Current Educational Status of Library Users
PhD, 86
Mphil, 33
UG, 253
PG, 251
UG PG Mphil PhD
The current educational status of all the participants from all the six universities as;
80.9 per cent (504/623) of total participants is an undergraduate (40.6%) and
postgraduate (40.3%) students and rest 19.1 per cent (119/623) respondents are MPhil
(5.3 %) and PhD (13.8%) scholars (Table.4.4a).
Current Educational Status of Library Users (Table-4.4a)
Undergraduate 253 40.6 40.6 40.6
Post Graduate 251 40.3 40.3 80.9
MPhil Scholar 33 5.3 5.3 86.2
PhD Scholar 86 13.8 13.8 100.0
Total 623 100.0 100.0
The educational status of the participant within Gender given in Table-4.4b and data
show that out of 332 women participants 39.8 per cent (132/332) are undergraduate
students, 46.1 per cent (153/332) are postgraduate, 3.3 per cent (11/332) MPhil and
10.8 per cent (36/332) are PhD scholars.
68
Chapter 4
Educational Status of Library users by Gender (Table-4.4b)
Gender
Total
Percentage within
Male Female
Gender
Count 121 132 253

Undergraduate
% within Gender 41.6% 39.8% 40.6%
Count 98 153 251

Post Graduate
% within Gender 33.7% 46.1% 40.3%
Count 22 11 33
MPhil Scholar
% within Gender 7.6% 3.3% 5.3%
Count 50 36 86
PhD Scholar
% within Gender 17.2% 10.8% 13.8%
Count 291 332 623

Total
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
4.3 Socioeconomic Background
In this segment, the researcher has tried to present the data of the economic status of
the users, social background along with family education and occupation. It is also
essential to know about the states from where users belong and the type of school they
attended before coming to Delhi to attain higher education.
4.3.1 State Representation
In the present study, the sample representation from all over the country as 623
respondents belong to 25 states, and three countries Iran, Nepal and Tibet. The
maximum no of students is from Delhi state 44.9 per cent (280/623) (Table.5), this
may be because of all the selected universities are based in Delhi. The second-highest
state is neighbouring state Uttar Pradesh (17%) and then Bihar (8.8%).
69
Chapter 4
Library Users and State (Table-4.5)

Arunachal Pradesh 2 .3 .3 .3
Assam 14 2.2 2.2 2.6
Bihar 55 8.8 8.8 11.4
Chandigarh 1 .2 .2 11.6
Chattisgarh 1 .2 .2 11.7
Delhi 280 44.9 44.9 56.7
Gujarat 1 .2 .2 56.8
Haryana 25 4.0 4.0 60.8
Himachal Pradesh 5 .8 .8 61.6
Iran 1 .2 .2 61.8
Jammu & Kashmir 5 .8 .8 62.6
Jharkhand 7 1.1 1.1 63.7
Kerala 10 1.6 1.6 65.3
Madhya Pradesh 11 1.8 1.8 67.1
Maharashtra 6 1.0 1.0 68.1
Manipur 9 1.4 1.4 69.5
Nagaland 5 .8 .8 70.5
Nepal 2 .3 .3 70.9
NR 19 3.1 3.1 74.0
Odisha 6 1.0 1.0 75.0
Punjab 8 1.3 1.3 76.3
Rajasthan 22 3.5 3.5 79.8
Tamil Nadu 2 .3 .3 80.1
Telangana 1 .2 .2 80.3
Tibet 1 .2 .2 80.5
Tripura 1 .2 .2 80.7
Uttar Pradesh 106 17.0 17.0 97.7
Uttarakhand 9 1.4 1.4 98.7
West Bengal 8 1.3 1.3 100.0
Total 623 100.0 100.0
70
Chapter 4
4.3.2 Household Income
The highest percentage of respondents belongs to 4-8 Lakhs per annum income group,
with 26.4 per cent (161/623) very close to the lowest income group, 0-2 Lakhs per
annum 24.4 per cent (149/623. The 13 respondents have not given the income details
of their family; however, only 77 students belong to the highest income group, which
is more than 12 Lakhs per annum as shown in Table-4.6
Household Income of Library Users (Table-4.6)

Income Group Frequency Per cent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
0-2 lakhs 149 23.9 24.4 24.4
2-4 lakhs 106 17.0 17.4 41.8
4-8 lakhs 161 25.8 26.4 68.2
8-12 lakhs 117 18.8 19.2 87.4
More than 12 lakhs 77 12.4 12.6 100.0
Total 610 97.9 100.0
No Response 13 2.1
Total 623 100.0
4.3.3 Earning Members in the Family
The 61.2 per cent (381/623) users have only one earning member in their family,
whereas 27.6 per cent (172/624) have two earning members. However, 22 (3.5%)
respondents have more than three earning members in their family, and 6.4 per cent
(40/623) have two earning members in their family.
Number of Earning Members in the Family (Table-4.7a)

One Member 381 61.2 62.0 62.0
Two Members 172 27.6 28.0 89.9
Three Members 40 6.4 6.5 96.4
More than 3 Members 22 3.5 3.6 100.0
Total 615 98.7 100.0
No Response 8 1.3
Total 623 100.0
71
Chapter 4
On the overall, out of 623 participants, father appeared as earning member in 547
cases; the mother in 163 cases; one sibling in 141; two siblings in 33; more than two
siblings in 9; husband in 6; self in 2; and father in law in two cases. These figures
include multiple responses.
Rest of the 98 cases (above tables 4.7a and 4.7b) included father and two siblings in
16 cases; father and more than two siblings in 2 cases; both parents and one sibling
among 26; both parents and two siblings in 12; mother and one sibling in 14; one
sibling in 8; two siblings in 7 cases; and 13 other cases involving husband, father in
law, and self (Table.4.7b).
Earning Members in the Household (Multiple Response )( Table-4.7b)
Member Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Father 342 54.9 55.6 55.6
Mother 26 4.2 4.2 59.8
Both Parents 85 13.6 13.8 73.7
Father & 1 sibling 64 10.3 10.4 84.1
Rest of the Cases 98 15.7 15.9 100.0
Total 615 98.7 100.0
No Response 8 1.3
Total 623 100.0
4.3.4 Occupation of Primary Earners
In this section, the researcher has divided the primary earners into different categories
like father mother, siblings, spouse and self. Out of 550 respondents, 265 (48.2%)
primary earners work in the public sector, 22.9 per cent (126/623) are in the private
sector (Table-4.8). Total 73/623 users (11.7%) have not responded to this question,
and 28.9 per cent (159/550) are self-employed.
72
Chapter 4
Primary Earner's Occupation (total) (Table-4.8)
Cumulative
Occupation Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent
Public Sector 265 42.5 48.2 48.2
Private Sector 126 20.2 22.9 71.1
Self Employed 159 25.5 28.9 100.0
Total 550 88.3 100.0
No Response 73 11.7
Total 623 100.0
4.3.5 Nature of Employment of Family’s Head
The nature of employment is permanent in a maximum of the cases 429/623 (68.9 %)

whereas 20.4 per cent (127/623) household heads are in temporary jobs. Nine other
cases below include six self-employed; two in social work; and one in the
autonomous body; however, 38/623 (6.1%) household heads are a casual worker.
Nature of Employment (Table-4.9)
Employment Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Casual 38 6.1 6.1 6.1
No Response 20 3.2 3.2 9.3
Other 9 1.4 1.4 10.8
Permanent 429 68.9 68.9 79.6
Temporary 127 20.4 20.4 100.0
Total 623 100.0 100.0
4.3.6 The Religion of the Users
The Majority of library users 71.9 per cent (448/623) belong to the Hindu religion;
out of 448 (71.9%) 201 are male participants, and 247 are female Hindu participants.
The 102 participants are Muslim by religion which is 16.4 per cent of the total
population, and male-female is 60 and 42 participants respectively.
73
Chapter 4
The Religion of Library Users (Table-4.10)
Religion Male Female Total

Hindu Count 201 247 448
% within Gender 69.1% 74.4% 71.9%
Count 60 42 102
Muslim
% within Gender 20.6% 12.7% 16.4%
Count 3 8 11
Sikh
Count 10 14 24
Christian
Count 0 4 4
Jain
% within Gender .0% 1.2% .6%
Count 4 6 10
Buddhist
Count 9 7 16
Other
Count 4 4 8
No Response
Count 291 332 623

Total
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
4.3.7 Social Category
Social categories of users also cover all the categories, but the majority of participants
54.6 per cent (340/623) are from general categories; 27.1 per cent (169/623) OBC and
16.9 per cent (105/623) are SC/ST category however nine users have not responded to
this question.
74
Chapter 4
Social Category of Library Users (Table-4.11a)
Category Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
General 340 54.6 54.6 54.6
SC/ST 105 16.9 16.9 71.4
OBC 169 27.1 27.1 98.6
No Response 9 1.4 1.4 100.0
Total 623 100.0 100.0
The collected data shows that GGSIPU has maximum general categories of students
(77%) followed by AUD (64.8%) and IGDTUW (63.7%). The lowest percentage is
with JNU 30.3 per cent whereas DU has 38 per cent general category students. JNU
has the highest (45%) of OBC users followed by DU (40%) and JMI(39%)
respectively (Table-4.11b).
Social Categories of Library Users, Cross Tabulation University (Table-4.11b)

Categories AUD IGDTUW GGSIPU JMI JNU DU Total
83 58 77 54 30 38 340
General
64.8% 63.7% 77.0% 53.5% 30.3% 36.5% 54.6%
27 14 10 8 22 24 105
SC/ST
21.1% 15.4% 10.0% 7.9% 22.2% 23.1% 16.9%
15 18 12 39 45 40 169
OBC
11.7% 19.8% 12.0% 38.6% 45.5% 38.5% 27.1%
No 3 1 1 0 2 2 9
Response 2.3% 1.1% 1.0% .0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.4%
128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Out of 340 general categories participants, 196 (59.6 % of the total of 332 women
participants) participants are female, and 144/340 are male respondents. Out of 291
male users, 49.5 per cent general;17.6 per cent SC/ST and 30.9 per cent are OBC
75
Chapter 4
whereas in women case 23.8 per cent (79/332) are OBC, and 16.0 per cent (53/332)
are SC/ST categories library, users (Table-4.11c).
Social Category and Gender, Cross-Tabulation (Table 4.11-c)

Categories Count Male Female Total
Count 144 196 340
General
% within Gender 49.5% 59.0% 54.6%
Count 52 53 105
SC/ST
% within Gender 17.9% 16.0% 16.9%
Count 90 79 169
OBC
% within Gender 30.9% 23.8% 27.1%
Count 5 4 9
No Response
Count 291 332 623
Total
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
4.3.8 Highest Educational Degree of Female Members in Family
The out of 623 participants 262 have female members in their family who has
postgraduate degree as highest educational qualification, 192 (30.8%) graduate; 29
(4.7%) doctorate; 65(10.4%) high school and 58 (9.3 % ) have an intermediate degree
as highest educational degree however 14 participants have not responded to this
question (Table-4.12a).
Highest Educational Degree of Female Members in Family (Table-4.12a)

Degree Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Doctorate 29 4.7 4.7 4.7
Graduate 192 30.8 30.8 35.5
High School 65 10.4 10.4 45.9
Intermediate 58 9.3 9.3 55.2
MPhil 1 .2 .2 55.4
NR 14 2.2 2.2 57.6
Postgraduate 262 42.1 42.1 99.7
Primary 2 .3 .3 100.0
Total 623 100.0 100.0
76
Chapter 4
In gender-wise result out 262 response for a postgraduate degree, 161 respondents are
female and 101 male whereas in case of graduate qualification of the female member out
of 192 responses 104 from female participants and 88 from male users.(Table-4.12b)
Highest Educational Degree of Female Members (within the family) Gender Cross-Tabulation
(Table-4.12b)
Degree Count Male Female Total

Doctorate Count 14 15 29
Count 88 104 192

Graduate
% within Gender 30.2% 31.3% 30.8%
Count 38 27 65
High School
% within Gender 13.1% 8.1% 10.4%
Count 41 17 58
Intermediate
% within Gender 14.1% 5.1% 9.3%
Count 0 1 1
MPhil
% within Gender .0% .3% .2%
Count 7 7 14
NR
Count 101 161 262

Postgraduate
% within Gender 34.7% 48.5% 42.1%
Count 2 0 2
Primary
Count 291 332 623

Total
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
In university wise cross-tabulation it is interesting to note that most of the doctorate

female family members belong to AUD users 12/29 however 5/29 each in DU and
JNU, 3/29 each in JMI and GGSIPU and 1 in IGDTUW. (Table-4.12c)
77
Chapter 4
Highest Educational Degree of Female Members (within the family) University Cross-Tabulation
(Table-4.12c)
Degree AUD IGDTUW GGSIPU JMI JNU DU Total

12 1 3 3 5 5 29
Doctorate
9.4% 1.1% 3.0% 3.0% 5.1% 4.8% 4.7%
31 41 31 35 24 30 192
Graduate
24.2% 45.1% 31.0% 34.7% 24.2% 28.8% 30.8%
9 7 12 10 16 11 65
High School
7.0% 7.7% 12.0% 9.9% 16.2% 10.6% 10.4%
6 3 7 29 8 5 58
Intermediate
4.7% 3.3% 7.0% 28.7% 8.1% 4.8% 9.3%
1 0 0 0 0 0 1
MPhil
.8% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .2%
3 1 4 0 3 3 14
NR
2.3% 1.1% 4.0% .0% 3.0% 2.9% 2.2%
64 38 43 24 43 50 262
Postgraduate
50.0% 41.8% 43.0% 23.8% 43.4% 48.1% 42.1%
2 0 0 0 0 0 2
Primary
1.6% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .3%
128 91 100 101 99 104 623

Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
4.3.9 Highest Educational Degree of Male Members in Family
Overall 228 participants (36.6%) have responded for postgraduate option as the
highest educational degree for the male members in their family; 200 (32.1%) for
graduate, 59 (9.5%) for the doctorate; 64 (10.3%) for intermediate and 51(8.2%) for
high school. (Table-4.13a)
78
Chapter 4
Highest Educational Degree of Male Members (within the family)(Table-4.13a)

Degree Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Doctorate 59 9.5 9.5 9.5
Graduate 200 32.1 32.1 41.6
High School 51 8.2 8.2 49.8
Intermediate 64 10.3 10.3 60.0
MPhil 2 .3 .3 60.4
None 2 .3 .3 60.7
NR 16 2.6 2.6 63.2
Postgraduate 228 36.6 36.6 99.8
Primary 1 .2 .2 100.0
Total 623 100.0 100.0
Highest Educational Degree of Male Members (within the family) Gender Cross-Tabulation
(Table-4.13b)
Degree Count Male Female Total
Count 29 30 59
Doctorate
% within Gender 10.0% 9.0% 9.5%
Count 91 109 200
Graduate
% within Gender 31.3% 32.8% 32.1%
Count 22 29 51
High School
Count 38 26 64
Intermediate
% within Gender 13.1% 7.8% 10.3%
Count 2 0 2
MPhil
Count 7 9 16
NR
Count 1 1 2
None
Count 101 127 228
Postgraduate
% within Gender 34.7% 38.3% 36.6%
Count 0 1 1
Primary
Count 291 332 623
Total
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
79
Chapter 4
To check the gender-wise tabulation of male family member 38.3 per cent (127/332)
women users of total women participant have male in their family who possesses
postgraduate as highest degree however 34.7 per cent (101/291) male participant has
postgraduate male members in their family. The highest qualification is PhD, both
male and female users have male doctorate members 10.0 per cent (29/291) and 9.0
per cent (30/332) respectively (Table-4.13b).
Highest Educational Degree of Male Members (within family) and University Cross-Tabulation
(Table-4.13c)
Degree Count AUD IGDTUW GGSIPU JMI JNU DU Total
Doctorate Count 21 7 10 1 11 9 59
% within 16.4% 7.7% 10.0% 1.0% 11.1% 8.7% 9.5%
University
Graduate Count 39 36 36 34 18 37 200
% within 30.5% 39.6% 36.0% 33.7% 18.2% 35.6% 32.1%
University
High School Count 9 6 6 12 7 11 51
% within 7.0% 6.6% 6.0% 11.9% 7.1% 10.6% 8.2%
University
Intermediate Count 4 3 5 32 7 13 64
% within 3.1% 3.3% 5.0% 31.7% 7.1% 12.5% 10.3%
University
MPhil Count 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
% within .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.0% 1.0% .3%
University
NR Count 3 1 2 2 4 4 16
% within 2.3% 1.1% 2.0% 2.0% 4.0% 3.8% 2.6%
University
None Count 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
% within .0% .0% .0% 2.0% .0% .0% .3%
University
Postgraduate Count 52 38 41 18 51 28 228
% within 40.6% 41.8% 41.0% 17.8% 51.5% 26.9% 36.6%
University
Primary Count 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
% within .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.0% .2%
University
128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
80
Chapter 4
The university wise data shows JNU has highest percentage of Postgraduate male
members in library users family (51.5%) followed by IGDTUW (41.8%), GGSIPU
(41.0%), AUD (40.6%), DU (26.9%) ad least in JMI (17.8%) of total participants
within the university. In case of the PhD holder, a male member in family AUD is
leading with 16.4 % followed by JNU (11.1%), GGSIPU (10.0%), DU (8.7%),
IGDTUW (7.0%) and minimum in JMI (1%) of total participant within the university
(Table-4.13c).
4.3.10 Attended Pre-School
Attended Pre-School (Table-4.14a)

Yes 385 61.8 61.8 61.8
No 238 38.2 38.2 100.0
Total 623 100.0 100.0
The total 61.8 per cent ( 385/623) users have attended pre-school before starting the
formal schooling (Table-14a) and 66.6 per cent women users have attended pre-
school attended (221/332 ) whereas 56.4 per cent male (164/291) participants have
attended any pre-school before joining to the formal educational system (Table-4.14b)
Attended Pre-School and Gender Cross-Tabulation (Table-4.14b)

Gender
Total
Male Female
Count 164 221 385
Yes
% within Gender 56.4% 66.6% 61.8%
Count 127 111 238
No
% within Gender 43.6% 33.4% 38.2%
Count 291 332 623
Total
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
In the university wise data, JMI is leading as 78.2 per cent (79/101) users have
attended pre-school however JNU has a minimum number of participant (38.4%) who
have ever gone to any pre-school before entering in school system
81
Chapter 4
Attended Pre-School and University Cross-Tabulation (Table-4.14c)

AUD IGDTUW GGSIPU JMI JNU DU Total
Count 74 66 68 79 38 60 385
Yes % within
57.8% 72.5% 68.0% 78.2% 38.4% 57.7% 61.8%
University
Count 54 25 32 22 61 44 238
No % within
42.2% 27.5% 32.0% 21.8% 61.6% 42.3% 38.2%
University
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
4.3.11 Type of Secondary School Attended
A total 252/623 (40.6%) students have attended government secondary school against to
356/623 (57.1%) students who came from private schools (Table-4.15a) whereas 11 other
cases include three students in open schools; and eight students in Madarasa, Sanskrit
Board. If we see the percentage within the sex almost half of male participants (48.5%)
141/291 have attended government school however most of the women participant 65.1
per cent 216/332 have private school background (Table-4.15b)
Type of Secondary School Attended (Table-4.15a)

Type Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Government School 253 40.6 40.6 40.6
No Response 3 .5 .5 41.1
Other 11 1.8 1.8 42.9
Private School 356 57.1 57.1 100.0
Total 623 100.0 100.0
Type of Secondary School Attended and Gender Cross-Tabulation (Table-4.15b)

Type Count Male Female Total
Count 141 112 253
Government School
% within Gender 48.5% 33.7% 40.6%
Count 2 1 3
No Response
Count 8 3 11
Other
% within Gender 2.7% .9% 1.8%
Count 140 216 356
Private School
% within Gender 48.1% 65.1% 57.1%
Count 291 332 623
Total
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
82
Chapter 4
In university wise tabulation DU and JMI have maximum 63.5 per cent (66/104) and
63.4 per cent (64/101) students who are government school product. JNU has 48.5 %,
AUD 25.0%, IGDTUW 24.2 % and GGSIPU has 21.0 % students came from
government school (Table-4.15c).
Type of Secondary School Attended and University Cross-Tabulation (Table-4.15c)

Type Count AUD IGDTUW GGSIPU JMI JNU DU Total
Count 32 22 21 64 48 66 253
Governme
nt School % within 63.4
25.0% 24.2% 21.0% 48.5% 63.5% 40.6%
University %
Count 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
No
Response % within
2.3% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .5%
University
Count 2 0 0 4 3 2 11
Other % within
1.6% .0% .0% 4.0% 3.0% 1.9% 1.8%
University
Count 91 69 79 33 48 36 356
Private
School % within 32.7
71.1% 75.8% 79.0% 48.5% 34.6% 57.1%
University %
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total % within 100.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University %
4.3.12 Rural vs Urban School
The out of 623 students, 458 (73.5 %) came from urban school whereas 98 students
(15.7 %) from rural schools and 59 (9.5%) are from semi-urban background however
3 (0.5%) from tribal schools in all the universities (Table-4.16).
Rural Vs Urban Secondary School (Table-4.16)

No Response 5 .8 .8 .8
Rural 98 15.7 15.7 16.5
Semi-Urban 59 9.5 9.5 26.0
Tribal 3 .5 .5 26.5
Urban 458 73.5 73.5 100.0
Total 623 100.0 100.0
83
Chapter 4
4.4 Language and Communication
In this section, the researcher tried to find out about the mother tongue, preferred
language to communicate, the language of instruction in a previous academic
institution as well as what should be the medium of instruction in higher education.
4.4.1 Mother Tounge
Total 486 (78 %) students have opted Hindi as their mother tongue; 19 (3.0%) for
English; 15 (2.4%) for Punjabi. Total 23 (3.7%) students speak Urdu as their mother
tongue, and 80 users (12.8%) speak other regional as well as vernacular languages
(Table.4.17).
Mother Tounge (Table-4.17)

Language Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
English 19 3.0 3.0 3.0
Hindi 486 78.0 78.0 81.1
Punjabi 15 2.4 2.4 83.5
Urdu 23 3.7 3.7 87.2
Other 80 12.8 12.8 100.0
Total 623 100.0 100.0
4.4.2 Preferred Language for Communication
Though the 78 per cent (486/623) users are from Hindi background; 68.7(428/623)
per cent users preferred to communicate in English language and 88.1 per cent
(549/623) preferred to communicate in Hindi language (Table-4.18).
Preferred Language for Communication (multiple response) (Table-4.18)

Language Frequency Per cent
English 428 68.7
Hindi 549 88.1
Punjabi 21 3.4
Urdu 56 9.0
Other 72 11.6
84
Chapter 4
4.4.3 Languages Known by Students
Almost all the students (97.1 %) knows the Hindi language similarly little gap
between Hindi and English (92.3%), the third-highest language is Urdu known by the
students. (Table-4.19).
Languages Known by Students (multiple responses) (Table-4.19)

Language Frequency Per cent
English 575 92.3
Hindi 605 97.1
Punjabi 66 10.6
Urdu 84 13.5
Other 152 24.4
4.4.4 Medium of Instruction at Last Institution
Most of the students came from English medium institute; they are 546 out of 623
(87.6%), and only 77 students (12.4%) are from Hindi medium institution (Table-4.20a).
The medium of Instruction at Last Institution (Table-4.20 a)

Language Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
English 546 87.6 87.6 87.6
Hindi 77 12.4 12.4 100.0
Total 623 100.0 100.0
The 53.5 per cent (333/623) students prefer to read academic books in another
language than English available, and 46.5 per cent (290/623) do not want to read
academic books in any other language, they only want to read all academic books in
English language (Table-4.20b)
Preference to read academic books in another language (if available)

than English (Table-4.20b)
Yes 333 53.5 53.5 53.5
No 290 46.5 46.5 100.0
Total 623 100.0 100.0
85
Chapter 4
4.5 Ownership of ICT Tools and Digital Literacy
This section is the most crucial part of this study in which researcher focused to know
about the ownership of ICT tools along with ICT access and if users have access to
ICT tools how they are using digital services in their day to day life and compare the
data within the selected universities. In higher education, online /digital resources are
an essential part of the research and development, so the researcher has tried to know
what kind of resources, infrastructure and services are getting provided by the
selected universities and how these users are using them in their studies.
4.5.1 Personal Computer
Most of the library users from all the universities have personal computer 525/623
(84.3%); however, 98 users (15.7 %) do not have personal computers. In university
wise report highest percentage is in IGDTUW (89.0%) followed by the GGSIPU
which 86.0 per cent; 84.8 per cent in JNU; 83.2 per cent JMI; 82.8 per cent AUD and
80.8 per cent in DU (Table-4.21)
Have Personal Computer (Table-4.21)

Total
106 81 86 84 84 84 525
Yes
82.8% 89.0% 86.0% 83.2% 84.8% 80.8% 84.3%
22 10 14 17 15 20 98
No
17.2% 11.0% 14.0% 16.8% 15.2% 19.2% 15.7%
128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
4.5.2 Mobile Phone
Type of Mobile Phone (Table-4.22)

103 83 83 93 90 91 543
Android
80.5% 91.2% 83.0% 92.1% 90.9% 87.5% 87.2%
21 4 11 4 3 5 48
iOS
16.4% 4.4% 11.0% 4.0% 3.0% 4.8% 7.7%
Ordinary / 2 2 1 1 5 7 18
Basic 1.6% 2.2% 1.0% 1.0% 5.1% 6.7% 2.9%
2 2 5 3 1 1 14
No Mobile
1.6% 2.2% 5.0% 3.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2.2%
128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
86
Chapter 4
Only 2.2 per cent (14/623) people have not any mobile phone rest 97.8 per cent
(609/623) have their mobile phone. The maximum number of users have an android
(87.2 %); 7.7 per cent (48/623) users have iOS, and 18 users (2.2%) have ordinary
phones where they cannot use digital services (Table-4.22).
4.5.3 Internet Connection at Home
Across the universities, total 90.5per cent (564/623) people have an internet
connection at home, and 9.5 per cent (59/623) users have not internet connection at
their houses (Table-4.23). As per table 22a, 93.9 per cent of users have a smartphone
(android+iOS) where they can use the internet. In university wise data GGSIPU is the
highest number (96.0%) followed by JMI(95.0%), IGDTUW (93.4%), AUD (90.6%),
DU (86.5%) and the lowest is JNU with 81.8 per cent.
Internet Connection at Home (Table-4.23)

116 85 96 96 81 90 564
Yes
90.6% 93.4% 96.0% 95.0% 81.8% 86.5% 90.5%
12 6 4 5 18 14 59
No
9.4% 6.6% 4.0% 5.0% 18.2% 13.5% 9.5%
128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
4.5.4 Frequency of Using the Internet
The total 78.1 per cent users responded that they use the internet all the time in which
the highest percentage is AUD (88.3%) 113/128 and the lowest percentage is DU
which is 68/102 (66.7%). On the other hand only 3.4 per cent respondent has
mentioned they are using internet rarely. DU is highest in number where 9.8 per cent
(10/102) users are using internet rarely. Second highest is IGDTUW (5.5%) whereas
AUD has not a single user who is rarely using internet (Table.4.24a).
However, on the response of the question daily hours spent by users over the internet,
the highest percentage is within more than four hours option, i.e. 244/608 (40.1%) and
lowest within the less than one hour option 59/608 (9.7%). In table-4.24a, 78 per cent
87
Chapter 4
users said they are using the internet all the time, but in table-24b only 40.1 per cent
users responded they spent more than 4 hours daily over the internet.
Frequency of Using the Internet (Table-4.24a)

Frequency AUD IGDTUW GGSIPU JMI JNU DU Total
113 73 76 83 66 68 479
All the time
88.3% 80.2% 78.4% 83.0% 69.5% 66.7% 78.1%
Once in a 12 12 16 15 20 21 96
Day 9.4% 13.2% 16.5% 15.0% 21.1% 20.6% 15.7%
0 5 1 2 3 10 21
Rarely
.0% 5.5% 1.0% 2.0% 3.2% 9.8% 3.4%
3 1 4 0 6 3 17
Other
2.3% 1.1% 4.1% .0% 6.3% 2.9% 2.8%
128 91 97 100 95 102 613
Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Average hours spent on the internet in a day (Table-4.24b)

Time AUD IGDTUW GGSIPU JMI JNU DU Total
Less Count 4 7 6 6 16 20 59
than 1 % within
hour 3.1% 8.0% 6.2% 6.1% 16.3% 19.6% 9.7%
University
Count 44 21 28 19 25 32 169
1-3
hours % within
34.6% 24.1% 29.2% 19.4% 25.5% 31.4% 27.8%
University
Count 28 21 20 35 14 18 136
3-4
hours % within
22.0% 24.1% 20.8% 35.7% 14.3% 17.6% 22.4%
University
More Count 51 38 42 38 43 32 244

than 4 % within
hours 40.2% 43.7% 43.8% 38.8% 43.9% 31.4% 40.1%
University
Count 127 87 96 98 98 102 608
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
4.5.5 Online Services and Digital Competence
In today‘s digital world there are numerous digital services and facilities and
everybody is knowing its importance but the challenge is that users are either unaware
or do not have the skill to utilised these services for their day to day life to improve
88
Chapter 4
the living as well as reduce the living cost. The participants of this study are living in
the Delhi and studying in the topmost universities of India, so researcher has asked
various questions about their awareness along with the use of digital services related
to financial, educational, health, social and entertainment.
4.5.5.1 Digital Literacy Level
On the question of self-assessment of digital competency level, 33.7 per cent

(210/623) said they are digital literate; however, 62.8 per cent declared proficient in
digital competency level. Only 22 users said they are digitally illiterate. (Table.4.25).
Self-Assessment of Digital Competency Level (Table-4.25)
Count 29 28 42 25 32 54 210
Digital
Literate % within
22.7% 30.8% 42.0% 24.8% 32.3% 51.9% 33.7%
University
Count 92 60 57 75 61 46 391
Proficient % within
71.9% 65.9% 57.0% 74.3% 61.6% 44.2% 62.8%
University
Count 7 3 1 1 6 4 22
Digital
Illiterate % within
5.5% 3.3% 1.0% 1.0% 6.1% 3.8% 3.5%
University
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
Some questions had asked if they (users) declared themselves as digital

literate/proficient, whether they are using or aware of the following services or not as
given below-
4.5.5.1.1 Using e-Wallet
On the question of using e-wallet total of 62.3 per cent respondents are using e-wallet
however the least percentage is in IGDTUW (50.5%), it is also important to note that
IGDTUW is a women university. The second-lowest is AUD with 54.7 per cent,
followed by JNU 57.6 per cent. JMI is the topmost where 77 per cent users are using
e-wallet, also essential to note JMI is a minority university where most of the students
89
Chapter 4
are Muslim. This data got collected after the demonetisation where government has
more emphasised on cashless transaction (Table.4.26).
Using e-Wallet (Table-4.26)

Count 70 46 68 77 57 70 388
Yes % within
54.7% 50.5% 68.0% 76.2% 57.6% 67.3% 62.3%
University
Count 58 45 32 24 42 34 235
No % within
45.3% 49.5% 32.0% 23.8% 42.4% 32.7% 37.7%
University
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
4.5.5.1.2 Awareness and Access of Net Banking
Most of the library users 563/623 (90.4%) are aware of internet banking (Table-
4.27a), but 17.4 per cent (98/563) of total aware users have never used the net-
banking facility. However, 32.3 per cent (182/563) are using this facility very
frequently, and 24.5 per cent are rarely using this service (Table-4.27b). JMI is the top
with
Awareness of Net Banking (Table-4.27a)

Count 112 82 84 97 94 94 563
Yes % within
87.5% 90.1% 84.0% 96.0% 94.9% 90.4% 90.4%
University
Count 16 9 16 4 5 10 60
No % within
12.5% 9.9% 16.0% 4.0% 5.1% 9.6% 9.6%
University
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623

Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
90
Chapter 4
Frequency of Using Net Banking (Table-4.27b)

Count 19 13 19 49 43 39 182
More
Frequently % within
17.0% 15.9% 22.6% 50.5% 45.7% 41.5% 32.3%
University
Count 31 31 25 25 12 21 145
Less
Frequently % within
27.7% 37.8% 29.8% 25.8% 12.8% 22.3% 25.8%
University
Count 32 21 22 15 26 22 138
Rarely % within
28.6% 25.6% 26.2% 15.5% 27.7% 23.4% 24.5%
University
Count 30 17 18 8 13 12 98
Never
Used % within
26.8% 20.7% 21.4% 8.2% 13.8% 12.8% 17.4%
University
Count 112 82 84 97 94 94 563
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
4.5.5.1.3 Maps/Navigator
On the question of using maps or navigator 16.0 per cent (96/601) participants said
they never used this service; however, 50.7 per cent (305/601) are using very
frequently. The 11.3per cent people said they rarely using maps/navigator whenever
22.0 per cent (132/601) always use maps/or navigator (Table.4.28).
Maps/Navigator (Table-4.28)
Count 10 16 18 29 10 13 96
Never % within
8.3% 18.2% 18.2% 29.0% 10.8% 13.0% 16.0%
University
Count 11 5 6 12 17 17 68
Rarely % within
9.1% 5.7% 6.1% 12.0% 18.3% 17.0% 11.3%
University
Count 74 44 52 43 38 54 305
Frequently % within
61.2% 50.0% 52.5% 43.0% 40.9% 54.0% 50.7%
University
Count 26 23 23 16 28 16 132
Always % within
21.5% 26.1% 23.2% 16.0% 30.1% 16.0% 22.0%
University
Count 121 88 99 100 93 100 601
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
91
Chapter 4
4.5.5.1.4 Using Ola/Uber/Radio Taxi
The out of 601 of digital literate or proficient user‘s total 108 (18%) participants have
never used Ola/Uber or any other radio taxi, and 142 users are rarely using this
facility (Table.4.29). The majority of participants 281/601 (46.8%) are frequent users
of online taxi services, and 11.6 per cent (70/601) are always using this online facility.
Ola/Uber/Radio Taxi (Table-4.29)

Count 12 23 21 23 8 21 108
Never % within
9.9% 26.1% 21.2% 23.0% 8.6% 21.0% 18.0%
University
Count 24 24 20 22 22 30 142
Rarely % within
19.8% 27.3% 20.2% 22.0% 23.7% 30.0% 23.6%
University
Count 66 36 46 51 44 38 281
Frequently % within
54.5% 40.9% 46.5% 51.0% 47.3% 38.0% 46.8%
University
Count 19 5 12 4 19 11 70
Always % within
15.7% 5.7% 12.1% 4.0% 20.4% 11.0% 11.6%
University
Count 121 88 99 100 93 100 601
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
4.5.5.1.5 Online Shopping
Online shopping is one of the most popular facilities available in digital world.
However, in city like Delhi the 15.8 per cent (95.601) students of top six universities
of Delhi have never used the facility of online shopping even they claimed themselves
as digital literate/proficient. Total 45.4 per cent are frequently using this service in
comparison to 120 (20.0 %) are rarely doing online shopping (Table-4.30) there are
18.8 per cent participants (113/601) those always prefer to do online shopping.
92
Chapter 4
Online Shopping(Table-4.30)
Count 9 20 15 29 12 10 95
Never % within
7.4% 22.7% 15.2% 29.0% 12.9% 10.0% 15.8%
University
Count 29 14 18 10 23 26 120
Rarely % within
24.0% 15.9% 18.2% 10.0% 24.7% 26.0% 20.0%
University
Count 61 34 46 49 37 46 273
Frequently % within
50.4% 38.6% 46.5% 49.0% 39.8% 46.0% 45.4%
University
Count 22 20 20 12 21 18 113
Always % within
18.2% 22.7% 20.2% 12.0% 22.6% 18.0% 18.8%
University
Count 121 88 99 100 93 100 601
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
4.5.5.1.6 Online Reading
Almost all the universities are spending more than 50 per cent of their annual budget
over online resources, but 17.5 per cent of total digital literate users( 105/601) have
never done online reading it means they are entirely dependent on print resources. The
total 50.5 per cent users claimed they are frequently reading online contents in
comparison to 20.0 per cent users (120/601) those always prefer to read online
contents (Table-4.31). It is also important to note that the reading speed of the screen
is 25 per cent lower than the print reading.
Online Reading (Table-4.31)

Count 11 19 24 28 12 11 105
Never % within
9.1% 21.6% 24.2% 28.0% 12.9% 11.0% 17.5%
University
Count 19 13 11 3 13 14 73
Rarely % within
15.7% 14.8% 11.1% 3.0% 14.0% 14.0% 12.1%
University
Count 60 36 47 56 51 53 303
Frequently % within
49.6% 40.9% 47.5% 56.0% 54.8% 53.0% 50.4%
University
Count 31 20 17 13 17 22 120
Always % within
25.6% 22.7% 17.2% 13.0% 18.3% 22.0% 20.0%
University
Count 121 88 99 100 93 100 601
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
93
Chapter 4
4.5.5.1.7 Online Bill Payment
In digital revolution era, everything is online, and especially the online payment of
various services like utility bills, institution fee, job portals, services bills become
online after the demonetisation in November 2017, but 30.4 per cent digitally literate
participants (183/601) of universities in Delhi have never made any online bill
payment. JMI is the leading university where 60.0 per cent users have never used this
service, AUD (25.6%) and GGSIPU(25.3%) are almost same however IGDTUW has
30.7 per cent, library users; DU has 23 per cent; and JNU has 18.3 per cent digital
literate users those have never made any online bill payment (Table-3.32).
Online Bill Payments (Table-4.32)

Count 31 27 25 60 17 23 183
Never % within
25.6% 30.7% 25.3% 60.0% 18.3% 23.0% 30.4%
University
Count 24 11 15 9 19 23 101
Rarely % within
19.8% 12.5% 15.2% 9.0% 20.4% 23.0% 16.8%
University
Count 43 27 44 26 37 37 214
Frequently % within
35.5% 30.7% 44.4% 26.0% 39.8% 37.0% 35.6%
University
Count 23 23 15 5 20 17 103
Always % within
19.0% 26.1% 15.2% 5.0% 21.5% 17.0% 17.1%
University
Count 121 88 99 100 93 100 601
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
4.5.5.1.8 Online Appointments
The online appointments facilities with doctor, teachers, librarian, service sectors like
passport office, driving license, visa, bank, etc. available but as Table-33 shows there
are 46.1 per cent (277/601) digital literate/proficient participants, who never took any
online appointments for these services. JMI has largest number (78.0%) followed by
DU (52.0%) GGSIPU (44.4%) and IGDTUW (40.9%) users respectively, who never
availed these service online. JNU (30.1%) and AUD (32.2%) have comparatively
moderate number of users lacking the online appointments (Table-4.33).
94
Chapter 4
Online Appointments (Table-4.33)

Count 39 36 44 78 28 52 277
Never % within
32.2% 40.9% 44.4% 78.0% 30.1% 52.0% 46.1%
University
Count 34 23 23 7 18 25 130
Rarely % within
28.1% 26.1% 23.2% 7.0% 19.4% 25.0% 21.6%
University
Count 28 22 24 13 33 14 134
Frequently % within
23.1% 25.0% 24.2% 13.0% 35.5% 14.0% 22.3%
University
Count 20 7 8 2 14 9 60
Always % within
16.5% 8.0% 8.1% 2.0% 15.1% 9.0% 10.0%
University
Count 121 88 99 100 93 100 601
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
4.5.5.1.9 Cloud Storage
The cloud storage is a crucial virtual space, which is being offered free by web service
providers ( Google, Yahoo, dropbox) to its users. When everything is getting digital
there are high chances to lose data due to storage crunch in device, theft, data/device
crash and many other reasons. It is interesting to learn that 42.6 per cent (256/601)
digital literate/ proficient students of higher education institutes in Delhi have never
tried to save their data in cloud storage. In JMI, 74.0 per cent students deprived of this
unique facility. AUD has the least percentage 18.2 per cent students, GGSIPU 33.3
per cent, JNU 38.7 per cent, IGDTUW 43.2percent and in DU 53.0 per cent students,
do not use any cloud storage to save their data (Table-4.34).
Cloud Storage (Table-4.34)

Count 22 38 33 74 36 53 256
Never % within
18.2% 43.2% 33.3% 74.0% 38.7% 53.0% 42.6%
University
Count 27 8 13 6 20 15 89
Rarely % within
22.3% 9.1% 13.1% 6.0% 21.5% 15.0% 14.8%
University
Count 40 25 37 15 22 20 159
Frequently % within
33.1% 28.4% 37.4% 15.0% 23.7% 20.0% 26.5%
University
Count 32 17 16 5 15 12 97
Always % within
26.4% 19.3% 16.2% 5.0% 16.1% 12.0% 16.1%
University
Count 121 88 99 100 93 100 601
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
95
Chapter 4
4.5.5.2 Awareness of Online Library Services and Their Uses
All the universities in India are allocating a moderate chunk of an annual budget to the
library because the library is the backbone of any institute for research and academic
development. The libraries are using more than 50 per cent of total library budgets for the
subscription of online/digital e-resources because library resources play a vital role in the
quality of research and development. It is essential to know whether library users are
aware of and utilising these services efficiently in their academic work or not when
libraries are spending a tremendous amount of money on electronic resources.
Awareness of Online Resources in the Institute (Table-4.35a)

Count 115 68 93 97 91 92 556
Yes % within
89.8% 74.7% 93.0% 96.0% 91.9% 88.5% 89.2%
University
Count 13 23 7 4 8 12 67
No % within
10.2% 25.3% 7.0% 4.0% 8.1% 11.5% 10.8%
University
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
The Table-4.35a clearly indicates that 89.2 per cent (556/623) library users are aware
of the available online resources of their institutes, however only 41.7 per cent aware
users (232/556) are using more frequently; 39.7 percent (221/556) less frequently;
13.3 per cent (74/556) rarely and 5.2 per cent (29/556) have never used available e-
resources of their institutes (Table-4.35b)
Frequency of Using E-Resources (if Yes) (Table-4.35b)

Count 46 19 23 52 51 41 232
More
% within
Frequently 40.0% 27.9% 24.7% 53.6% 56.0% 44.6% 41.7%
University
Count 47 41 39 32 29 33 221
Less
% within
Frequently 40.9% 60.3% 41.9% 33.0% 31.9% 35.9% 39.7%
University
Count 16 7 22 9 9 11 74
Rarely % within
13.9% 10.3% 23.7% 9.3% 9.9% 12.0% 13.3%
University
Never Count 6 1 9 4 2 7 29
Used (but % within
5.2% 1.5% 9.7% 4.1% 2.2% 7.6% 5.2%
aware) University
Count 115 68 93 97 91 92 556
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
96
Chapter 4
4.5.5.2.1 Preferred Reading Format
The total of 105 students out of 128 (82.0%) in AUD preferred to read in print
format; however, in JMI, 59.4 per cent (60/101) preferred electronic contents. In total
only 31.0 per cent users (193/623) preferred to read in electronic form and 69.0 per
cent ( 430/623) in print format(Table.4.36a)
Preferred Reading Format (Table-4.36a)

Count 23 28 22 60 28 32 193
Electronic % within
18.0% 30.8% 22.0% 59.4% 28.3% 30.8% 31.0%
University
Count 105 63 78 41 71 72 430
Print % within
82.0% 69.2% 78.0% 40.6% 71.7% 69.2% 69.0%
University
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
Though only 31.0 per cent prefer to read electronic contents, 88.4 per cent (551/623)
have read an e-book and e-journal articles however 11.6 per cent (72/623) have not
read any e-contents yet (Table-4.36b)
Reading e-Book or e-Journal Article (Table-4.36b)

Count 123 78 80 88 91 91 551
Yes % within
96.1% 85.7% 80.0% 87.1% 91.9% 87.5% 88.4%
University
Count 5 13 20 13 8 13 72
No % within
3.9% 14.3% 20.0% 12.9% 8.1% 12.5% 11.6%
University
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
4.5.5.2.2 Access to Library Resources on Mobile
Though the 97.8 per cent (609/623) participants who have their mobile phone but 16.5
per cent (103/623) have never accessed library resources on their mobile phone and 24.9
per cent (155/623) are using library resources occasionally on their mobile phone.
97
Chapter 4
Access of library resources on mobile (Table-4.37)
Count 24 12 22 59 33 36 186
Many times
a day % within
18.8% 13.2% 22.0% 58.4% 33.3% 34.6% 29.9%
University
Count 10 13 11 10 8 13 65
Once a day
% within
7.8% 14.3% 11.0% 9.9% 8.1% 12.5% 10.4%
University
Count 16 14 13 7 22 19 91
Few times in
a week % within
12.5% 15.4% 13.0% 6.9% 22.2% 18.3% 14.6%
University
Count 8 5 3 3 1 3 23
Once in a
week % within
6.2% 5.5% 3.0% 3.0% 1.0% 2.9% 3.7%
University
Count 43 24 31 11 22 24 155
Occasionally
% within
33.6% 26.4% 31.0% 10.9% 22.2% 23.1% 24.9%
University
Count 27 23 20 11 13 9 103
Never
% within
21.1% 25.3% 20.0% 10.9% 13.1% 8.7% 16.5%
University
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623

Total
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
4.5.5.2.3 Search of Library Resources
Though this was multiple response questions, 37.6 per cent (234/623) users said they
search library resources by using OPAC and 24.2 per cent (151/623) search with the
help of library staff. In JMI, 72.3 per cent but GSSIPU, only 17.0 per cent users
access OPAC to search library contents (Table-4.38).
98
Chapter 4
How Search Library Resources (Multiple Response) (Table-4.38)
Count 43 19 17 73 48 34 234
OPAC
% within
33.6% 20.9% 17.0% 72.3% 48.5% 32.7% 37.6%
University
Count 15 4 13 6 7 3 48
Web
OPAC % within
11.7% 4.4% 13.0% 5.9% 7.1% 2.9% 7.7%
University
Count 34 36 37 6 12 26 151
Library
Staff
% within
Help 26.6% 39.6% 37.0% 5.9% 12.1% 25.0% 24.2%
University
Count 7 27 25 6 3 4 72
Others
% within
5.5% 29.7% 25.0% 5.9% 3.0% 3.8% 11.6%
University
Count 1 1 0 0 0 1 3
OPAC &
Others % within
.8% 1.1% .0% .0% .0% 1.0% .5%
University
Count 16 0 4 4 18 26 68
OPAC &
Web
% within
OPAC 12.5% .0% 4.0% 4.0% 18.2% 25.0% 10.9%
University
OPAC & Count 9 0 2 6 9 9 35

Library
Staff % within
7.0% .0% 2.0% 5.9% 9.1% 8.7% 5.6%
Help University
Web Count 1 1 1 0 1 0 4
OPAC &
Library
% within
Staff .8% 1.1% 1.0% .0% 1.0% .0% .6%
University
Help
Library Count 2 3 1 0 1 1 8
Staff
Help & % within
1.6% 3.3% 1.0% .0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.3%
Others University
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623

Total
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
99
Chapter 4
4.5.5.2.4 Online Library Catalogue
The total 23.4 per cent (146/623) students responded that they never heard about
online library catalogue and 23.1 per cent (144/623) said they use online catalogue
minimum once in a week. 24.2 per cent (151/623) participants use online catalogue
many times in a day. (Table-4.39a)
Online Library Catalogue (Table-4.39a)
Count 24 57 36 6 4 19 146
Never
Heard % within
18.8% 62.6% 36.0% 5.9% 4.0% 18.3% 23.4%
University
Count 39 19 24 13 25 24 144
Occasionally
% within
30.5% 20.9% 24.0% 12.9% 25.3% 23.1% 23.1%
University
Count 12 2 5 4 9 6 38
Once a week
% within
9.4% 2.2% 5.0% 4.0% 9.1% 5.8% 6.1%
University
Count 26 4 13 8 23 17 91
Few times a
week % within
20.3% 4.4% 13.0% 7.9% 23.2% 16.3% 14.6%
University
Count 11 4 8 10 9 11 53
Once a day % within
8.6% 4.4% 8.0% 9.9% 9.1% 10.6% 8.5%
University
Count 16 5 14 60 29 27 151
Many times
a day % within
12.5% 5.5% 14.0% 59.4% 29.3% 26.0% 24.2%
University
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623

Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
On the question of accessing web OPAC with own devices 48.3 per cent (301/623)
said they do not use their device like mobile, laptop, PC to access web OPAC
however 51.7 per cent indicates, accessing web OPAC with the own devices. (Table-
4.39b)
100
Chapter 4
Using web OPAC with Mobile, Laptop or PC (Table-4.39b)

Count 74 27 34 67 68 52 322
Yes % within
57.8% 29.7% 34.0% 66.3% 68.7% 50.0% 51.7%
University
Count 54 64 66 34 31 52 301
No % within
42.2% 70.3% 66.0% 33.7% 31.3% 50.0% 48.3%
University
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
4.5.5.2.5 Remote Access
In IGDTUW 69.2 per cent (63/91); and in GGSIPU, 57 per cent (57/100) users have
never heard about the remote access facility offered by their institute, however,
overall 38.7 per cent (241/623) participants covered under this research sample do not
know about the remote access of their institute. The most aware users are in JNU &
DU. In DU and in JNU both the institutes, 40.4 per cent (42/104 DU) and (40/99
JNU) students have the awareness on the remote access of the resources. (Table-4.40).
Remote Access (Table-4.40)

Count 41 63 57 26 17 37 241
Never
Heard % within
32.0% 69.2% 57.0% 25.7% 17.2% 35.6% 38.7%
University
Count 36 17 23 11 40 42 169
Occasionally % within
28.1% 18.7% 23.0% 10.9% 40.4% 40.4% 27.1%
University
Count 11 4 6 13 9 7 50
Once a week % within
8.6% 4.4% 6.0% 12.9% 9.1% 6.7% 8.0%
University
Count 22 3 8 22 11 8 74
Few times a
week % within
17.2% 3.3% 8.0% 21.8% 11.1% 7.7% 11.9%
University
Count 10 2 3 23 3 4 45
Once a day % within
7.8% 2.2% 3.0% 22.8% 3.0% 3.8% 7.2%
University
Count 8 2 3 6 19 6 44
Many times
a day % within
6.2% 2.2% 3.0% 5.9% 19.2% 5.8% 7.1%
University
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
101
Chapter 4
4.5.5.2.6 Referencing Tool
On the use of referencing tool for academic work total 41.1 per cent users (256/623)
have said that they never heard about the referencing tools. IGDTUW is leading in
this with 67.0 per cent unawareness, next is GGSIPU with 65.0 per cent users have
never heard about any referencing tools. JNU has the highest number of users (79.8
%) using referencing tools, whereas JMI is the second highest (75.2 %) users are
using referencing tools with various periodicities (Table-4.41).
Referencing Tools(Table-4.41)
Count 51 61 65 25 19 35 256
Never Heard % within
39.8% 67.0% 65.0% 24.8% 19.2% 33.7% 41.1%
University
Count 29 21 16 21 48 34 169
22.7% 23.1% 16.0% 20.8% 48.5% 32.7% 27.1%
University
Count 9 1 4 15 6 6 41
7.0% 1.1% 4.0% 14.9% 6.1% 5.8% 6.6%
University
Count 21 5 8 18 10 13 75
Few times a
week % within
16.4% 5.5% 8.0% 17.8% 10.1% 12.5% 12.0%
University
Count 7 0 3 15 4 4 33
Once a day % within
5.5% .0% 3.0% 14.9% 4.0% 3.8% 5.3%
University
Count 11 3 4 7 12 12 49
Many times
a day % within
8.6% 3.3% 4.0% 6.9% 12.1% 11.5% 7.9%
University
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
4.5.5.2.7 Anti-Plagiarism Tool
Like referencing tool anti-plagiarism tool is also an essential tool for research in
higher education. As per UGC guideline, each researcher has to give originality report
before submitting their thesis. On asking this question, 67.0 per cent users from
IGDTUW and GGSIPU said they never heard about this tool (Table-4.42). On the
other hand 79.8 per cent users from JNU; 69.3 Per cent from JMI; 68.8 per cent from
102
Chapter 4
AUD and 58.7 per cent from DU are regularly or irregularly using anti-plagiarism tool
against to 42.1 per cent (262/623) total unaware users (Table-4.42).
Anti-Plagiarism Tool (Table-4.42)

Total
Count 40 61 67 31 20 43 262
Never
Heard % within
31.2% 67.0% 67.0% 30.7% 20.2% 41.3% 42.1%
University
Count 47 21 15 20 65 45 213
36.7% 23.1% 15.0% 19.8% 65.7% 43.3% 34.2%
University
Count 6 2 5 15 5 5 38
4.7% 2.2% 5.0% 14.9% 5.1% 4.8% 6.1%
University
Count 18 4 8 17 6 5 58
Few times a
week % within
14.1% 4.4% 8.0% 16.8% 6.1% 4.8% 9.3%
University
Count 5 2 2 11 1 2 23
Once a day % within
3.9% 2.2% 2.0% 10.9% 1.0% 1.9% 3.7%
University
Count 12 1 3 7 2 4 29
Many times
a day % within
9.4% 1.1% 3.0% 6.9% 2.0% 3.8% 4.7%
University
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623

Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
4.5.5.2.8 Contacting the Librarian
In this digital era 62.3 per cent (388/623) users from all universities still contact their
librarian in-person in which IGDTUW has highest percentage 94.5 per cent, GGSIPU,
77.0 per cent; AUD 68.8 per cent; JNU with 62.6 per cent; DU 44.2 per cent and JMI
is the least with 28.7 per cent users who contact their librarian in-person instead of via
email or phone (Table-4.43)
103
Chapter 4
How to contact with Librarian (multiple responses) (Table-4.43)

Count 11 0 3 19 9 20 62
By email % within
8.6% .0% 3.0% 18.8% 9.1% 19.2% 10.0%
University
Count 1 1 6 3 1 4 16
By phone % within
.8% 1.1% 6.0% 3.0% 1.0% 3.8% 2.6%
University
Count 88 86 77 29 62 46 388
In person % within
68.8% 94.5% 77.0% 28.7% 62.6% 44.2% 62.3%
University
Count 9 2 3 38 7 17 76
All three
modes % within
7.0% 2.2% 3.0% 37.6% 7.1% 16.3% 12.2%
University
Count 0 0 1 0 0 8 9
Email &
Phone % within
.0% .0% 1.0% .0% .0% 7.7% 1.4%
University
Count 16 0 1 6 15 4 42
Email &
Personally % within
12.5% .0% 1.0% 5.9% 15.2% 3.8% 6.7%
University
Count 0 1 0 4 1 0 6
Phone &
Personally % within
.0% 1.1% .0% 4.0% 1.0% .0% 1.0%
University
Count 3 1 9 2 4 5 24
Never
Contacted % within
2.3% 1.1% 9.0% 2.0% 4.0% 4.8% 3.9%
University
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
4.5.5.3 User’s Awareness
In this segment some questions related to user‘s awareness about different services
like article downloading, alerting services, ERP was asked to know how much the
users are mindful about these services which are crucial in higher education.
4.5.5.3.1 Article Downloading
The total of 90.2 per cent (562/623) users know to download articles related to their
research. JNU has highest number (96.0%) , 94.1 per cent in JMI, 92.3 per cent in DU
104
Chapter 4
and 89.8 per cent users in AUD aware how to download articles whereas in IGDTUW
has 17.6 per cent users and GGSIPU has 14.0 per cent users those don‘t know to
download the articles for their academic work (Table-4.44).
How to download articles (Table-4.44)

Count 115 75 86 95 95 96 562
Yes % within
89.8% 82.4% 86.0% 94.1% 96.0% 92.3% 90.2%
University
Count 13 16 14 6 4 8 61
No % within
10.2% 17.6% 14.0% 5.9% 4.0% 7.7% 9.8%
University
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
4.5.5.3.2 Alerting Service
The overall data reveals that, 380 users (61.0%) out of 623 are aware of the alert
services, and 39.0 per cent (243/623) are unaware of this service. Within university,
AUD‘s, 57.0 percent (73/128) users do not know about the alerting service; whereas
in JMI, 85.1 per cent users are aware (86/101) of alerting service. In DU, 75.0 per
cent and JNU 57.6 per cent of their users know about the alerting service (Table-
4.45).
Awareness of Alerting Services (Table-4.45)

Count 55 46 58 86 57 78 380
Yes % within
43.0% 50.5% 58.0% 85.1% 57.6% 75.0% 61.0%
University
Count 73 45 42 15 42 26 243
No % within
57.0% 49.5% 42.0% 14.9% 42.4% 25.0% 39.0%
University
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
105
Chapter 4
4.5.5.3.3 ERP Service
The JNU has the maximum number of users (82.8%) 82/99 those who do not know
about ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) whereas AUD has a maximum number of
users (67.2%) knowing about ERP stalked by JMI with 63.4 per cent users know
ERP. In totality only 36.8 per cent (229/623) respondents know about ERP, and 63.2
per cent users (394/623) do not know about the ERP(Table-4.46a)
Knowledge about ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) (Table-4.46a)

Count 86 24 15 64 17 23 229
Yes % within
67.2% 26.4% 15.0% 63.4% 17.2% 22.1% 36.8%
University
Count 42 67 85 37 82 81 394
No % within
32.8% 73.6% 85.0% 36.6% 82.8% 77.9% 63.2%
University
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
Out of 36.8 per cent users (229/623) who know about ERP, 79.0 per cent (169/229)
can upload their assignment on ERP. 21.0 per cent aware people have neither
uploaded any assignment on ERP nor uploaded with the help of others (Table.46b).
Ability to upload assignments on ERP (Table-4.46 b)

Count 45 17 12 60 14 21 169
Yes % within
80.4% 70.8% 92.3% 92.3% 66.7% 60.0% 79.0%
University
With Count 11 7 1 5 7 14 45
help of % within
others 19.6% 29.2% 7.7% 7.7% 33.3% 40.0% 21.0%
University
Count 56 24 13 65 21 35 229
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
106
Chapter 4
4.5.5.3.4 Searching Ability
On the question of searching the contents related to assignments, 88.1 per cent
participants (549/623) responded that they could search the desired content, however,
11.9 per cent (74/623) respondents say, they do not have the ability to search contents.
(Table-4.47a)
Ability to search contents for assignments (Table-4.47a)

Count 116 81 73 93 90 96 549
Yes % within
91.6% 91.0 % 73.0% 92.1% 90.9% 92.3 % 88.1%
University
Count 12 10 27 8 9 8 74
No % within
9.4% 11.0% 27.0% 7.9% 9.1% 7.7% 11.9%
University
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
Out of 549 users, those who know how to search a scholarly article, 45.4 per cent
users search contents using keywords. Respondents do 26.0 per cent search with name
of an author and title of the book/paper. Only 2.6 per cent search, consists name of the
publisher (Table-4.47b)
Online Search (Table-4.47b)

Count 52 45 33 21 54 44 249
By
Keywords % within
44.8% 55.6% 45.2% 22.6% 60.0% 45.8% 45.4%
University
Count 27 15 14 42 13 32 143
By
Author % within
23.3% 18.5% 19.2% 45.2% 14.4% 33.3% 26.0%
University
Count 36 16 25 26 21 19 143
By Title % within
31.0% 19.8% 34.2% 28.0% 23.3% 19.8% 26.0%
University
Count 1 5 1 4 2 1 14
By
Publishers % within
.9% 6.2% 1.4% 4.3% 2.2% 1.0% 2.6%
University
Count 116 81 73 93 90 96 549
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
107
Chapter 4
4.5.5.4 Information Literacy Programme (ILP)
When libraries are investing more than 50 per cent of their annual budget into online
resources, it is the responsibility of the librarians to inform the users about the
available resources through information literacy/ user‘s awareness programme. While
responding the question on the awareness of information literacy programme in the
university, 52.3 per cent (326/623) users say, they know about the ILP, however 47.7
per cent respondents do not know about information literacy programme in of their
university (Table-4.48). IGDTUW has 81.3 per cent participants, who do not have an
awareness of the information literacy programme. In GGSIPU, 62.0 per cent users are
unaware of the information literacy programme of the university.
Awareness on Information Literacy Programme (Table-4.48)

Count 77 17 38 76 61 57 326
Yes % within
60.2% 18.7% 38.0% 75.2% 61.6% 54.8% 52.3%
University
Count 51 74 62 25 38 47 297
No % within
39.8% 81.3% 62.0% 24.8% 38.4% 45.2% 47.7%
University
Count 128 91 100 101 99 104 623
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
4.5.5.4.1 Frequency of User Orientation Programme
Out of 52.3 per cent (326) of total aware users, 67.2 per cent (219/326) said that the
information literacy programme happens once in a semester, while 23.9 per
cent(78/326) said it is conducted often by the university (Table-4.49a)
Frequency of Information Literacy Programme (Table-4.49a)

Count 49 5 32 58 40 35 219
Once in a
% within
semester 63.6% 29.4% 84.2% 76.3% 65.6% 61.4% 67.2%
University
Count 10 5 2 2 5 5 29
Twice % within
13.0% 29.4% 5.3% 2.6% 8.2% 8.8% 8.9%
University
Count 18 7 4 16 16 17 78
Very Often % within
23.4% 41.2% 10.5% 21.1% 26.2% 29.8% 23.9%
University
Count 77 17 38 76 61 57 326
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
108
Chapter 4
Out of 326, 230 participants have attended the orientation programme, whereas 96
users (29.4%) have not attended any library orientation programme (Table-4.49b)
Whether attended Library Orientation / Information Literacy programme (Table-4.49b)

Count 40 7 28 65 39 51 230
Yes % within
51.9% 41.2% 73.7% 85.5% 63.9% 89.5% 70.6%
University
Count 37 10 10 11 22 6 96
No % within
48.1% 58.8% 26.3% 14.5% 36.1% 10.5% 29.4%
University
Count 77 17 38 76 61 57 326
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
4.5.5.4.2 Library Orientation / Information Literacy programme (ILP) Usefulness
On the question of the usefulness of ILP, out of 230 users, who have attended the
orientation session, 219 participants said the orientation session was useful, but 11
participants did not find it helpful. (Table-4.50a)
Library Orientation / Information Literacy programme useful (Table-5.50a)

Count 36 6 26 65 36 50 219
Yes % within
90.0% 85.7% 96.0% 100% 94.6% 98.0% 94. 5%
University
Count 4 1 2 0 3 1 11
No % within
10% 14.3% 4.0% .0% 5.4% 2.0% 5.5%
University
Count 40 07 28 65 39 51 230
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
Out of 230, 203 respondents who have attended orientation programme believe that
Information Literacy programme can maximise the use of library resources. However
11 participants are not sure about the usefulness of ILP. The 5 participants (out of
230) think that ILP did not help in maximising the use of library resources. The 11
participant‘s did not find the attended ILP session useful. (Table-4.50 b)
109
Chapter 4
ILP and usage of library resources (for those who attended and found useful) (Table-4.50b)
Count 33 5 23 63 33 46 203
Yes % within
42.9% 29.4% 60.5% 82.9% 54.1% 80.7% 62.3%
University
Count 2 1 0 1 0 1 5
No % within
2.6% 5.9% .0% 1.3% .0% 1.8% 1.5%
University
Count 1 0 3 1 3 3 11
Don't Know % within
1.3% .0% 7.9% 1.3% 4.9% 5.3% 3.4%
University
Count 4 1 2 0 3 1 11
Not found useful
when attended % within
5.2% 5.9% 5.3% .0% 4.9% 1.8% 3.4%
University
Count 37 10 10 11 22 6 96
Not Attended % within
48.1% 58.8% 26.3% 14.5% 36.1% 10.5% 29.4%
University
Count 77 17 38 76 61 57 326
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
Librarian's role in Information Literacy (for those who attended and found useful) (Table-4.50c)
Count 36 6 18 61 36 47 204
Yes % within
46.8% 35.3% 47.4% 80.3% 59.0% 82.5% 62.6%
University
Count 0 0 4 0 0 3 7
No % within
.0% .0% 10.5% .0% .0% 5.3% 2.1%
University
Count 0 0 4 4 0 0 8
Don't Know % within
.0% .0% 10.5% 5.3% .0% .0% 2.5%
University
Count 4 1 2 0 3 1 11
Not found useful
when attended % within
5.2% 5.9% 5.3% .0% 4.9% 1.8% 3.4%
University
Count 37 10 10 11 22 6 96
Not Attended % within
48.1% 58.8% 26.3% 14.5% 36.1% 10.5% 29.4%
University
Count 77 17 38 76 61 57 326
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
University
Out of 230 students those attended Information Literacy Program 204 (62%) found
librarian‘s role is very important in information literacy program which is essential in
bridging the gap of digital divide in higher education.
110

09 - Chapter 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

09 - Chapter 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 4

DATA PRESENTATION AND COMPARISON

3. Language and Communication

4. Digital Literacy/Digital competence

1. Academic qualification with experience

2. Library profile and what kind of services provided to library users.

4.2 Characteristics of Sample

Library Users (Table 4.1)

Chart 4.1:Segrigated data of total library users

Gender of Library Users (Table-4.2a)

Chart 4.2:Segrigated university library users

Gender Wise Segregation of the University Library Users (Table-4.2b)

4.2.2 Age Group

Age Group of Library Users (Table-4.3a)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Up to 25 years 481 77.2 77.2 77.2

Valid 26 years & above 142 22.8 22.8 100.0

Total 623 100.0 100.0

Age Group (all adults) and Gender Cross-tabulation (Table-4.3b)

Count 210 271 481

Count 291 332 623

4.2.3 Educational Status

Chart 4.3:Current Educational Status of Library Users

Current Educational Status of Library Users (Table-4.4a)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Undergraduate 253 40.6 40.6 40.6

Post Graduate 251 40.3 40.3 80.9

MPhil Scholar 33 5.3 5.3 86.2

PhD Scholar 86 13.8 13.8 100.0

Total 623 100.0 100.0

Educational Status of Library users by Gender (Table-4.4b)

Count 121 132 253

Count 98 153 251

Count 291 332 623

4.3 Socioeconomic Background

4.3.1 State Representation

Library Users and State (Table-4.5)

4.3.2 Household Income

Household Income of Library Users (Table-4.6)

4.3.3 Earning Members in the Family

Number of Earning Members in the Family (Table-4.7a)

Earning Members in the Household (Multiple Response )( Table-4.7b)

Member Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Father 342 54.9 55.6 55.6

Mother 26 4.2 4.2 59.8

Both Parents 85 13.6 13.8 73.7

Father & 1 sibling 64 10.3 10.4 84.1

Rest of the Cases 98 15.7 15.9 100.0

Total 615 98.7 100.0

Total 623 100.0

4.3.4 Occupation of Primary Earners

Primary Earner's Occupation (total) (Table-4.8)

4.3.5 Nature of Employment of Family’s Head

The nature of employment is permanent in a maximum of the cases 429/623 (68.9 %)

Nature of Employment (Table-4.9)

Employment Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

4.3.6 The Religion of the Users

The Religion of Library Users (Table-4.10)

Religion Male Female Total

% within Gender 69.1% 74.4% 71.9%

Count 291 332 623

4.3.7 Social Category

Social Category of Library Users (Table-4.11a)