Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.002548521 = product of:
  0.010194084 = sum of:
    0.010194084 = product of:
      0.040776335 = sum of:
        0.040776335 = weight(_text_:based in 704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040776335 = score(doc=704,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.28829288 = fieldWeight in 704, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=704)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Changing the teaching media from chalkboard to computer-based does not only develop IT-awareness among teaching staff but also enhance their readiness to teach and quality of teaching. As a result, the students pay more attention to the lectures and in the long run students get better knowledge and understanding about the course. In the developing countries reading habit is still a practice done by quite a few people. The changing of teaching media as well as the shift from teacher-centered learning to student-centered learning has changed the way students acquire knowledge and make use of the library and multimedia facilities. Gadjah Mada University has been working hard to change the method of teaching by helping the teaching staff develop IT-based teaching materials and put them on the intranet; making teaching material databases available through the digital library; and providing easier access to the library users. In addition, IM text messaging, blogs and mailinglist have been the media to discuss and share ideas and knowledge among lecturers and students too.

0.0023542228 = product of:
  0.009416891 = sum of:
    0.009416891 = product of:
      0.037667565 = sum of:
        0.037667565 = weight(_text_:based in 944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037667565 = score(doc=944,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 944, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=944)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Many libraries manage Web sites intended to provide their users with online resources suitable for answering reference questions. Most of these sites can be analyzed in terms of their depth, and their organizing and searching features. Composing a typology based on these factors sheds light on the critical design decisions that influence whether users of these sites succees or fail to find information easily, rapidly and accurately. The same analysis highlights some larger design issues, both for Web sites and for information management at large

0.0011771114 = product of:
  0.0047084456 = sum of:
    0.0047084456 = product of:
      0.018833783 = sum of:
        0.018833783 = weight(_text_:based in 1200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018833783 = score(doc=1200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.13315678 = fieldWeight in 1200, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1200)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In April 2002, the dominant Internet search engine, GoogleT, introduced a beta version of its expert service, Google Answers, with little fanfare. Almost immediately the buzz within the information community focused on implications for reference librarians. Google had already been lauded as the cheaper and faster alternative for finding information, and declining reference statistics and Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC) use in academic libraries had been attributed in part to its popularity. One estimate suggests that the Google search engine handles more questions in a day and a half than all the libraries in the country provide in a year. Indeed, Craig Silverstein, Google's Director of Technology, indicated that the raison d'être for the search engine was to "seem as smart as a reference librarian," even as he acknowledged that this goal was "hundreds of years away". Bill Arms had reached a similar conclusion regarding the more nuanced reference functions in a thought-provoking article in this journal on automating digital libraries. But with the launch of Google Answers, the power of "brute force computing" and simple algorithms could be combined with human intelligence to represent a market-driven alternative to library reference services. Google Answers is part of a much larger trend to provide networked reference assistance. Expert services have sprung up in both the commercial and non-profit sector. Libraries too have responded to the Web, providing a suite of services through the virtual reference desk (VRD) movement, from email reference to chat reference to collaborative services that span the globe. As the Internet's content continues to grow and deepen - encompassing over 40 million web sites - it has been met by a groundswell of services to find and filter information. These services include an extensive range from free to fee-based, cost-recovery to for-profit, and library providers to other information providers - both new and traditional. As academic libraries look towards the future in a dynamic and competitive information landscape, what implications do these services have for their programs, and what can be learned from them to improve library offerings? This paper presents the results of a modest study conducted by Cornell University Library (CUL) to compare and contrast its digital reference services with those of Google Answers. The study provided an opportunity for librarians to shift their focus from fearing the impact of Google, as usurper of the library's role and diluter of the academic experience, to gaining insights into how Google's approach to service development and delivery has made it so attractive.

8.8283356E-4 = product of:
  0.0035313342 = sum of:
    0.0035313342 = product of:
      0.014125337 = sum of:
        0.014125337 = weight(_text_:based in 1175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014125337 = score(doc=1175,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.09986758 = fieldWeight in 1175, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1175)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Libraries have not been idle in the face of the changes re-shaping their environments: in fact, much work is underway and major advances have already been achieved. But these efforts lack a unifying framework, a means for libraries, as a community, to gather the strands of individual projects and weave them into a cohesive whole. A framework of this kind would help in articulating collective expectations, assessing progress, and identifying critical gaps. As the information landscape continually shifts and changes, a framework would promote the design and implementation of flexible, interoperable library systems that can respond more quickly to the needs of libraries in serving their constituents. It will provide a port of entry for organizations outside the library domain, and help them understand the critical points of contact between their services and those of libraries. Perhaps most importantly, a framework would assist libraries in strategic planning. It would provide a tool to help them establish priorities, guide investment, and anticipate future needs in uncertain environments. It was in this context, and in recognition of efforts already underway to align library services with emerging information environments, that the Digital Library Federation (DLF) in 2005 sponsored the formation of the Service Framework Group (SFG) [1] to consider a more systematic, community-based approach to aligning the functions of libraries with increasing automation in fulfilling the needs of information environments. The SFG seeks to understand and model the research library in today's environment, by developing a framework within which the services offered by libraries, represented both as business logic and computer processes, can be understood in relation to other parts of the institutional and external information landscape. This framework will help research institutions plan wisely for providing the services needed to meet the current and emerging information needs of their constituents. A service framework is a tool for documenting a shared view of library services in changing environments; communicating it among libraries and others, and applying it to best advantage in meeting library goals. It is a means of focusing attention and organizing discussion. It is not, however, a substitute for innovation and creativity. It does not supply the answers, but facilitates the process by which answers are sought, found, and applied. This paper discusses the SFG's vision of a service framework for libraries, its approach to developing the framework, and the group's work agenda going forward.