Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.023613935 = product of:
  0.11806968 = sum of:
    0.11806968 = weight(_text_:education in 4538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11806968 = score(doc=4538,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.20288157 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.58196354 = fieldWeight in 4538, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4538)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this paper is to determine the essential features of information literacy; what role it should play in university library user education; and how programs can be best implemented. Design/methodology/approach - The researchers systemically surveyed and reviewed publications related to information literacy and library user education. Findings - It was found that a well-designed information literacy program benefits the library and its staff, faculty, and students; librarians should play a leading role in the design and operation of programs, but collaboration with faculty, IT professionals and students is essential; programs should be embedded in the curriculum, be largely cooperative, and be problem-based; evaluation and assessment are essential components; emphasis should be placed on first-year students; and, ideally, the librarians will turn into educators and the library will become a learning center combining learning, research and technology. Research limitations/implications - This paper reflects the opinions of the researchers and the authors of the reviewed literature who have insights into the issues related to information literacy and library user education. These opinions present useful guidelines for both librarian and teacher practitioners. Originality/value - This paper provides a point of view on the relationship between information literacy and library user education in the six themes described above.

0.016896758 = product of:
  0.08448379 = sum of:
    0.08448379 = weight(_text_:education in 303) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08448379 = score(doc=303,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20288157 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.4164192 = fieldWeight in 303, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=303)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.014934765 = product of:
  0.074673824 = sum of:
    0.074673824 = weight(_text_:education in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074673824 = score(doc=3631,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20288157 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.36806607 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of information literacy (IL) and digital literacy under the circumstances and challenges of the Web 2.0 environment. Design/methodology/approach - Desk research was done in order acquire a picture about the nature of the Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 in regard to their influence on literacy requirements. The hypothesis that differential literacies have to be offered to diverging groups of users, similarly to traditional library services that cater for different user needs depending on the type of the given library was tested. Findings - Professional goals characterize first of all different groups of professionals, teaching staff and researchers, as well as students. Thus, their need in information is different from that of other categories of users. Consequently, they require literacies similar to services traditionally offered by academic and special libraries. Amateur content is more compatible with the mission of public libraries and it is more suitable for Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 applications. Research limitations/implications - New principles of IL are outlined in this paper which will help practitioners in designing goal-oriented IL education. Practical implications - The practical implications need to be studied in the course of further research. Originality/value - The findings represent a small but valuable asset to the discussion about new approaches towards IL education.

0.010560473 = product of:
  0.052802365 = sum of:
    0.052802365 = weight(_text_:education in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052802365 = score(doc=3621,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20288157 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.260262 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to introduce the term Information Literacy 2.0 as a subset of information literacy, to describe its development and significance and give an outline of its underlying theoretical assumptions. Design/methodology/approach - The paper first examines the grounds for the possible re-conceptualizations in the field of information literacy and identifies the current developments in the information universe as the principal drive for perception shifts. Based on a literature review and a descriptive analysis of contrasting features of library user education, information literacy and Information literacy 2.0, the paper highlights the main foci of paradigm shifts. Findings - The paper found that the new meaning and understanding of the central conceptions in information literacy are shifting the focus of classical information literacy towards Information literacy 2.0. Many of the aspects of current information literacy practices originate from a print-based culture, which is incongruent with the transient and hybrid nature of digital environments. These radically changing environments are causing the appearance of anomalies in the information literacy paradigm, which could effectively be resolved through the introduction of a sub-concept of information literacy. Practical implications - The article specifies the possibilities for putting theoretical conceptualizations of Information literacy 2.0 into practice by determining the range of shifts in information literacy activities and identifying how new practices differ from the earlier approaches. Originality/value - The study attempts to advance the research field of information literacy by proposing a new outlook on information literacy through the integration of its underlying theoretical conceptions and practical applications.

0.010560473 = product of:
  0.052802365 = sum of:
    0.052802365 = weight(_text_:education in 370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052802365 = score(doc=370,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20288157 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.260262 = fieldWeight in 370, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=370)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Focusing on information behavior in a context where medical evidence is explicitly evolving (management of the menopause transition), this investigation explored how women interact with and make sense of uncertain health information mediated by formal and informal sources. Based on interviews with 28 information seekers and 12 health professionals (HPs), findings demonstrate that participants accessed and valued a wide range of information sources, moved fluidly between formal and informal sources, and trust was strengthened through interaction and referral between sources. Participants were motivated to seek information to prepare for formal encounters with HPs, evaluate and/or supplement information already gathered, establish that they were "normal," understand and address the physical embodiment of their experiences, and prepare for future information needs. Findings revealed four strategies used to construct sense from health information mediated by the many information sources encountered and accessed on an everyday basis: women assumed analytic and experiential "postures"; they valued social contexts for learning and knowledge construction; information consistency was used as a heuristic representing accuracy and credibility; and an important feature of sense making was source complementarity. Implications for health information literacy and patient education are discussed.

0.010560473 = product of:
  0.052802365 = sum of:
    0.052802365 = weight(_text_:education in 1640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052802365 = score(doc=1640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20288157 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.260262 = fieldWeight in 1640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1640)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

According to Leventhal's Common Sense Model of illness regulation, people approach and deal with their illnesses differently depending on their cognitive representations of them. Thus, understanding people's illness representations can be invaluable when assisting them to develop lifestyle modifications that improve their health. What role does information use play in this equation? This is the crucial question addressed by this two-part study. Part 1 hypothesizes a model of how information use at different timepoints may affect illness representations, and then tests this model. The study found that a number of information use type and time pairings (e.g., information used to consult healthcare practitioners at symptom onset) were significantly associated with present-day level of personal control. The results suggest that it is not merely type or timing of information use alone that is helpful in illness coping, but the coupling of the two; this has several implications for the design of patient education programs. Part 2 examines how information use and illness representations differ based on the way an individual participates in online health forums and social media sites. The following four different participation styles were investigated: nonuser, only reading ("lurker"), posting occasionally but largely reading ("infrequent poster"), and reading and posting ("poster"). Differences in both information use and illness perceptions were found, and the implications of these are discussed.

0.0058344766 = product of:
  0.029172383 = sum of:
    0.029172383 = product of:
      0.058344766 = sum of:
        0.058344766 = weight(_text_:22 in 3341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058344766 = score(doc=3341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 1.2017 16:45:48

0.0035006858 = product of:
  0.01750343 = sum of:
    0.01750343 = product of:
      0.03500686 = sum of:
        0.03500686 = weight(_text_:22 in 4954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03500686 = score(doc=4954,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4954, 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=4954)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

16. 3.2019 14:33:22

0.0029172383 = product of:
  0.014586192 = sum of:
    0.014586192 = product of:
      0.029172383 = sum of:
        0.029172383 = weight(_text_:22 in 3997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029172383 = score(doc=3997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3997, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3997)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to measure the efficiency of the system by which scientists worldwide communicate results to each other, providing one measure of the degree to which the system, including all media, functions well. A randomly selected and representative sample of 246 active research scientists worldwide was surveyed. The main measure was the reported rate of "late finds": scientific literature that would have been useful to scientists' projects if it had been found at the beginning of these projects. The main result was that 46% of the sample reported late finds (±6.25%, p0.05). Among respondents from European Union countries or other countries classified as "high income" by the World Bank, 42% reported late finds. Among respondents from low- and middle-income countries, 56% reported late finds. The 42% rate in high-income countries in 2009 can be compared with results of earlier surveys by Martyn (1964a, b, 1987). These earlier surveys found a rate of 22% late finds in 1963-1964 and a rate of 27% in 1985-1986. Respondents were also queried about search habits, but this study failed to support any explanations for this increase in the rate of late finds. This study also permits a crude estimate of the cost in time and money of the increase in late finds.

0.0029172383 = product of:
  0.014586192 = sum of:
    0.014586192 = product of:
      0.029172383 = sum of:
        0.029172383 = weight(_text_:22 in 667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029172383 = score(doc=667,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 667, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=667)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2013 19:41:17

0.0029172383 = product of:
  0.014586192 = sum of:
    0.014586192 = product of:
      0.029172383 = sum of:
        0.029172383 = weight(_text_:22 in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029172383 = score(doc=2638,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 1.2016 11:58:25

0.0029172383 = product of:
  0.014586192 = sum of:
    0.014586192 = product of:
      0.029172383 = sum of:
        0.029172383 = weight(_text_:22 in 2643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029172383 = score(doc=2643,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2643, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2643)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 1.2016 12:24:05

0.0029172383 = product of:
  0.014586192 = sum of:
    0.014586192 = product of:
      0.029172383 = sum of:
        0.029172383 = weight(_text_:22 in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029172383 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3340, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3340)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.22-35

0.0029172383 = product of:
  0.014586192 = sum of:
    0.014586192 = product of:
      0.029172383 = sum of:
        0.029172383 = weight(_text_:22 in 3404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029172383 = score(doc=3404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

9. 2.2017 19:22:59

0.0023337908 = product of:
  0.011668953 = sum of:
    0.011668953 = product of:
      0.023337906 = sum of:
        0.023337906 = weight(_text_:22 in 2963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023337906 = score(doc=2963,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2963, 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=2963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22