Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.021159828 = sum of:
  0.008975235 = product of:
    0.03590094 = sum of:
      0.03590094 = weight(_text_:authors in 3380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03590094 = score(doc=3380,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.15110476 = fieldWeight in 3380, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3380)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.012184594 = product of:
    0.024369188 = sum of:
      0.024369188 = weight(_text_:g in 3380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024369188 = score(doc=3380,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.12449324 = fieldWeight in 3380, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3380)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Philosophy "done informationally" has been around a long time, but PI as a discipline is quite new. PI takes age-old philosophical debates and engages them with up-to-the minute conceptual issues generated by our ever-changing, information-laden world. This alters the philosophical debates, and makes them interesting to many more people - including many philosophically-minded people who aren't subscribing philosophers. We, the authors, are young researchers who think of our work as part of PI, taking this engaged approach. We're excited by it and want to teach it. Students are excited by it and want to study it. Writing a traditional textbook takes a while, and PI is moving quickly. A traditional textbook doesn't seem like the right approach for the philosophy of the information age. So we got together to take a new approach, team-writing this electronic text to make it available more rapidly and openly.

0.016246125 = product of:
  0.03249225 = sum of:
    0.03249225 = product of:
      0.0649845 = sum of:
        0.0649845 = weight(_text_:g in 111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0649845 = score(doc=111,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052116565 = queryNorm
            0.331982 = fieldWeight in 111, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=111)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This chapter maps the Association of College and Research Libraries' Information Competency Standards for Higher Education to the cognitive development levels developed by William G. Perry and Patricia King and Karen Kitchener to suggest which competencies are appropriate for which level of cognitive development.

0.012184594 = product of:
  0.024369188 = sum of:
    0.024369188 = product of:
      0.048738375 = sum of:
        0.048738375 = weight(_text_:g in 4245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048738375 = score(doc=4245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052116565 = queryNorm
            0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 4245, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.010591612 = product of:
  0.021183224 = sum of:
    0.021183224 = product of:
      0.04236645 = sum of:
        0.04236645 = weight(_text_:22 in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04236645 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18250333 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052116565 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

23. 1.2022 10:22:18

0.010471107 = product of:
  0.020942215 = sum of:
    0.020942215 = product of:
      0.08376886 = sum of:
        0.08376886 = weight(_text_:authors in 3289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08376886 = score(doc=3289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052116565 = queryNorm
            0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 3289, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3289)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Hypermedia and multimedia have been placed rather uncritically at the centre of current developments in learning technology. This paper seeks to ask some fundamental questions about how learning is best supported by hypermedia, and concludes that the most successful aspects are not those normally emphasized. A striking observation is that the best learning experience is enjoyed by hypermedia courseware authors rather that students. This is understandable from a constructivist view of learning, in which the key aim is to engage the learner in carrying out a task which leads to better comprehension. Deep learning is a by-product of comprehension. The paper discusses some approaches to designing software - cognitive tools for learning - which illustrate the constructivist approach

0.0050769146 = product of:
  0.010153829 = sum of:
    0.010153829 = product of:
      0.020307658 = sum of:
        0.020307658 = weight(_text_:g in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020307658 = score(doc=1182,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052116565 = queryNorm
            0.10374437 = fieldWeight in 1182, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1182)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)