Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.014864365 = product of:
  0.044593092 = sum of:
    0.044593092 = weight(_text_:im in 2478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044593092 = score(doc=2478,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.30917975 = fieldWeight in 2478, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2478)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Im Jahr 2012 forderte die Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK) in ihren Empfehlungen "Hochschule im digitalen Zeitalter" dazu auf, Informationskompetenz neu zu begreifen und die Praxis der Vermittlung von Informationskompetenz an den Hochschulen auf den gesamten Prozess von Lehre und Forschung auszuweiten. Die Rektoren und Präsidenten der deutschen Hochschulen setzten damit das Thema ganz oben auf ihre Agenda. Der vorliegende Beitrag stellt anhand ausgewählter Praxisbeispiele dar, wie die Bibliotheken bisher auf diese Anforderungen reagiert haben und welche praktischen Konzepte und konkreten Ansätze der Umsetzung dieses erweiterten Verständnisses von Informationskompetenz in der Praxis erkennbar sind. Ferner werden Perspektiven und Potenziale für die zukünftige Entwicklung in diesem Bereich aufgezeigt.

0.012740883 = product of:
  0.03822265 = sum of:
    0.03822265 = weight(_text_:im in 5685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03822265 = score(doc=5685,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.26501122 = fieldWeight in 5685, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5685)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

1. Was ist Informationskompetenz? Was macht Informationskompetenz im Kern aus? Wie weit greift sie, wo endet sie? Inwiefern spielt Informationskompetenz mit weiteren Kompetenzen zusammen? 2. Wie soll man Informationskompetenz vermitteln? Wie soll Informationskompetenz am besten vermittelt werden? Wie werden Menschen am besten zu informationskompetentem Verhalten motiviert und geführt? 3. Welches sind die zentralen Entwicklungen im Bereich der Informationskompetenz und Informationskompetenzvermittlung? Wie entwickelt sich Informationskompetenz? Welche Bereiche werden künftig wichtiger? 4. Weitere Aspekte des Themas - Welche? Warum sind diese wichtig? Was folgert daraus?

0.010510692 = product of:
  0.031532075 = sum of:
    0.031532075 = weight(_text_:im in 3729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031532075 = score(doc=3729,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.2186231 = fieldWeight in 3729, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3729)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Der Beitrag stellt zunächst die Ergebnisse einer Auswertung von Stellenanzeigen aus der Mailingliste InetBib vor, die zeigt, dass die Nachfrage nach Absolventinnen und Absolventen bibliothekarischer Studiengänge mit einer Qualifikation für den Aufgabenbereich der Vermittlung von Informationskompetenz seit dem Jahr 2000 signifikant gestiegen ist. Ergänzend hierzu präsentieren die Autorinnen die Ergebnisse einer Befragung unter Vertreterinnen und Vertretern der bibliothekarischen Berufspraxis zu im Bereich der Vermittlung von Informationskompetenz geforderten Kompetenzen und deren Gewichtung innerhalb der verschiedenen Qualifikationsstufen.

0.0046085827 = product of:
  0.013825747 = sum of:
    0.013825747 = product of:
      0.04147724 = sum of:
        0.04147724 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04147724 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3069, 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=3069)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

28. 7.2016 16:22:54

0.002307678 = product of:
  0.006923034 = sum of:
    0.006923034 = product of:
      0.0207691 = sum of:
        0.0207691 = weight(_text_:online in 1200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0207691 = score(doc=1200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.13412495 = fieldWeight in 1200, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1200)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.