Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.022297796 = product of:
  0.04459559 = sum of:
    0.027942104 = weight(_text_:services in 303) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027942104 = score(doc=303,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.1622532 = fieldWeight in 303, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=303)
    0.016653487 = product of:
      0.033306975 = sum of:
        0.033306975 = weight(_text_:management in 303) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033306975 = score(doc=303,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.21066327 = fieldWeight in 303, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=303)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the question of whether modern digital information technologies damage their users' cognitive capacities in some way, and to speculate on how librarians should adapt their services as a consequence of the controversy surrounding this question. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reviews some recent literature on this subject, combined with an examination of the role played by technology, librarians and government in determining the nature of our society's response to problematic aspects of the use of digital, internet-based applications in education. Findings - The paper finds that highly differentiated and highly polemical attitudes to this subject mean that librarians have to acknowledge the existence of important challenges to the apparent consensus about the way information technologies should be used in education in Western societies. This has important consequences for the approach to collection building (the balance between digital versus print provision), for library building design, and for the value which should be placed on systematic information literacy teaching. The existence of such an important debate should also embolden information professionals to make their own insights into these issues more widely known. Research limitations/implications - Some of the findings in this paper are amenable to further development through practitioner-oriented research; however, the bulk of the content used for this paper is derived from the literature on this topic, so there is no original research data presented to back up the assertions made by the author. It is simply an account of a debate which has to be acknowledged by librarians. Practical implications - The implications of the issues under discussion in the paper are presented in clear practical terms, and the consequences for library management made explicit. Social implications - The clash between two different theories of learning and information provision is debated and the links with issues of government policy are explored. The social connections between education and wealth generation are brought into this debate. Originality/value - The paper provides a useful, up-to-date briefing on recent controversial issues in education, information management and socio-economic policy making.

0.008731907 = product of:
  0.03492763 = sum of:
    0.03492763 = weight(_text_:services in 4201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492763 = score(doc=4201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 4201, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4201)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to form one of a series which will give an overview of so-called "transformational" areas of digital library technology. The aim will be to assess how much real transformation these applications are bringing about, in terms of creating genuine user benefit and also changing everyday library practice. Design/methodology/approach - An overview of the present state of development of the one-stop shop library search engine, with particular reference to its relationship with the underlying bibliographic databases to which it provides a simplified single interface. Findings - The paper finds that the success of federated searching has proved valuable but limited to date in creating a one-stop shop search engine to rival Google Scholar; but the persistent value of the bibliographic databases sitting underneath a federated search system means that a harvesting search engine could well answer the need for a true one-stop search engine for academic and scholarly information. Research limitations/implications - This paper is based on the hypothesis that Google's success in providing such an apparently high degree of access to electronic journal services is not what it seems, and that it does not render library discovery tools obsolete. It argues that Google has not diminished the pre-eminent role of library bibliographic databases in mediating access to e-journal text, although this hypothesis needs further research to validate or disprove it. Practical implications - The paper affirms the value of bibliographic databases to practitioner librarians and the potential of single interface discovery tools in library practice. Originality/value - The paper uses statistics from US LIS sources to shed light on UK discovery tool issues.

0.0031776251 = product of:
  0.0127105005 = sum of:
    0.0127105005 = product of:
      0.025421001 = sum of:
        0.025421001 = weight(_text_:22 in 4202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025421001 = score(doc=4202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2011 17:54:04