Search (687 results, page 3 of 35)

0.012917642 = product of:
  0.051670566 = sum of:
    0.051670566 = product of:
      0.10334113 = sum of:
        0.10334113 = weight(_text_:instruction in 2781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10334113 = score(doc=2781,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26266864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.39342776 = fieldWeight in 2781, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Using Web of Science data, portfolio analysis in terms of journal coverage can be projected onto a base map for units of analysis such as countries, cities, universities, and firms. The units of analysis under study can be compared statistically across the 10,000+ journals. The interdisciplinarity of the portfolios is measured using Rao-Stirling diversity or Zhang et?al.'s improved measure 2D3. At the country level we find regional differentiation (e.g., Latin American or Asian countries), but also a major divide between advanced and less-developed countries. Israel and Israeli cities outperform other nations and cities in terms of diversity. Universities appear to be specifically related to firms when a number of these units are exploratively compared. The instrument is relatively simple and straightforward, and one can generalize the application to any document set retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS). Further instruction is provided online at http://www.leydesdorff.net/portfolio.

0.012917642 = product of:
  0.051670566 = sum of:
    0.051670566 = product of:
      0.10334113 = sum of:
        0.10334113 = weight(_text_:instruction in 3643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10334113 = score(doc=3643,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26266864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.39342776 = fieldWeight in 3643, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3643)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Although modern search systems require minimal skill for meeting simple information needs, most systems provide weak support for gaining advanced skill; hence, the goal of designing systems that guide searchers in developing expertise. Essential to developing such systems are a description of expert search behavior and an understanding of how it may be acquired. The present study contributes a detailed analysis of the query behavior of 10 students as they completed assigned exercises during a semester-long course on expert search. Detailed query logs were coded for three dimensions of query expression: the information structure searched, the type of query term used, and intent of the query with respect to specificity. Patterns of query formulation were found to evidence a progression of instruction, suggesting that the students gained knowledge of fundamental system-independent constructs that underlie expert search, and that domain-independent search expertise may be defined as the ability to use these constructs. Implications for system design are addressed.

0.01199291 = product of:
  0.04797164 = sum of:
    0.04797164 = product of:
      0.09594328 = sum of:
        0.09594328 = weight(_text_:22 in 2851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09594328 = score(doc=2851,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2851, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2851)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.010764702 = product of:
  0.04305881 = sum of:
    0.04305881 = product of:
      0.08611762 = sum of:
        0.08611762 = weight(_text_:instruction in 4174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08611762 = score(doc=4174,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26266864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.32785648 = fieldWeight in 4174, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4174)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The paper seeks to draw on Sice's systems model, itself based on Senge's "fixes that fail" archetype, and on data from two previous research projects conducted by one of the authors. The purpose of this paper is to synthesise a new model that portrays the information-seeking behaviour of children and young people. Design/methodology/approach - The systems model provides the backbone of the new framework but additions, accommodations and revisions were made to ensure that the version featured here represents the phenomenon of information seeking by the young as appropriately as possible in terms of the data that were gathered. Findings - One of the new model's most significant characteristics is its emphasis on problems and issues that prevent information seeking from proceeding smoothly. Information seeking is also shown to be an iterative process, with the individual often revisiting previous stages, frequently in response to difficulties. Research limitations/implications - Data were collected from pupils in just seven schools. The undertaking of research further a-field would be invaluable, if the extent to which the model is applicable to other information-seekers in different environments is to be ascertained. Practical implications - The model demonstrates the importance of the information professional's educative role, in terms of both delivering formal information literacy instruction and providing assistance at the point of need. Originality/value - Although the use of ideas and frameworks from other disciplines, with the aim of increasing understanding of phenomena within LIS, is a growing trend, this paper represents one of the first attempts to apply an existing model associated with systems thinking to information behaviour.

0.010764702 = product of:
  0.04305881 = sum of:
    0.04305881 = product of:
      0.08611762 = sum of:
        0.08611762 = weight(_text_:instruction in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08611762 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26266864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.32785648 = fieldWeight in 950, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=950)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Personal information behavior has been studied within a large number of different contexts; however, individuals show different information-related competencies in their professional, academic or daily life contexts. Literature suggests that if a person is information-related competent in one context, then he or she will be competent in the rest of the contexts of action. But this is only true for a basic level of information competencies. This article reports results from 24 interviews performed to mature e-learning students and suggests that in a more advanced level of information competencies, some competencies that appear in one context are not manifested in another context. Several factors have been found to be related with information competencies transfer between contexts. Attitude is a key factor and feelings regarding Internet use is another critical factor. Specifically in learning environments, the results suggest that canned content and planned learning strategies can discourage a proactive attitude and enthusiasm for information and communication technologies, and therefore the acquisition of information-related competencies. Understanding the differences and common patterns between these contexts may be useful for designing better information systems, services and instruction.

0.010764702 = product of:
  0.04305881 = sum of:
    0.04305881 = product of:
      0.08611762 = sum of:
        0.08611762 = weight(_text_:instruction in 1532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08611762 = score(doc=1532,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26266864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.32785648 = fieldWeight in 1532, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1532)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Primary and secondary (K-12) teachers form the essential core of children's formal learning before adulthood. Even though teaching is a mainstream, information-rich profession, teachers are understudied as information users. More specifically, not much is known about teacher personal information management (PIM). Teacher PIM is critically important, as teachers navigate a complex information space complicated by the duality of digital and physical information streams and changing demands on instruction. Our research study increases understanding of teacher PIM and informs the development of tools to support educators. Some important unknowns exist about teachers as information users: What are teachers' PIM practices? What are the perceived consequences of these practices for teaching and learning? How can PIM practices be facilitated to benefit teaching and learning? This study employed a qualitative research design, with interviews from 24 primary and secondary teachers. We observed various systems for information organization, and teachers report their systems to be effective. Important sources for teachers' information in order of importance are personal collections, close colleagues, and the Internet. Key findings reveal that inheriting and sharing information play an important part in information acquisition for teachers and that information technology supporting education creates unintentional demands on information management. The findings on the nature of teacher information, teacher information finding, keeping, and organizational practices have important implications for teachers themselves, school principals, digital library developers, school librarians, curriculum developers, educational technology developers, and educational policy makers.

0.010764702 = product of:
  0.04305881 = sum of:
    0.04305881 = product of:
      0.08611762 = sum of:
        0.08611762 = weight(_text_:instruction in 3784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08611762 = score(doc=3784,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26266864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.32785648 = fieldWeight in 3784, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3784)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Over the last 25 years, cognitive load theory has become one of the world's leading theories of instructional design. It is heavily researched by many educational and psychological researchers and is familiar to most practicing instructional designers, especially designers using computer and related technologies. The theory can be divided into two aspects that closely inter-relate and influence each other: human cognitive architecture and the instructional designs and prescriptions that flow from that architecture. The cognitive architecture is based on biological evolution. The resulting description of human cognitive architecture is novel and accordingly, the instructional designs that flow from the architecture also are novel. All instructional procedures are routinely tested using randomized, controlled experiments. Roughly 1/3 of the book will be devoted to cognitive architecture and its evolutionary base with 2/3 devoted to the instructional implications that follow, including technology-based instruction. Researchers, teachers and instructional designers need the book because of the explosion of interest in cognitive load theory over the last few years. The theory is represented in countless journal articles but a detailed, modern overview presenting the theory and its implications in one location is not available.

0.010764702 = product of:
  0.04305881 = sum of:
    0.04305881 = product of:
      0.08611762 = sum of:
        0.08611762 = weight(_text_:instruction in 5078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08611762 = score(doc=5078,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26266864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.32785648 = fieldWeight in 5078, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5078)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A clear line of argument can be set out to link the (passive) intellectual freedom rights offered by Article Nineteen of the United Nations' Universal Declaration on Human Rights, to a consequent responsibility on governments, professionals and civil society activists for the (active) creation of suitable conditions for the effective exercise of intellectual freedom. Commentators on media in society and socially responsible computing are also increasingly drawing conclusions of this kind and stressing the importance of Media Literacy and Computer Literacy. This line of argument naturally directs attention towards the rationale currently offered for Information Literacy as a focus of professional activity. Whilst there are many elaborately worked-out programmes for Information Literacy instruction, these have so far been largely derived from practical perceptions of need. However, broad statements such as the Prague Declaration 'Towards an Information Literate Society' of 2003 and the Alexandria Proclamation of 2005 can be seen as beginning to point towards a rationale for Information Literacy activities rooted in human rights, Article Nineteen in particular. The contention is that starting from a human rights perspective leads towards a strong, inclusive interpretation of Information Literacy. This subsumes Media Literacy, Computer Literacy, Web Literacy and, to a considerable extent, Civic Literacy into a model that serves human needs rather than the established priorities of information professionals. The value of this approach for both practice and research is stressed.

0.010764702 = product of:
  0.04305881 = sum of:
    0.04305881 = product of:
      0.08611762 = sum of:
        0.08611762 = weight(_text_:instruction in 5313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08611762 = score(doc=5313,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26266864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.32785648 = fieldWeight in 5313, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5313)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Astronomy classification is often overlooked in classification discourse. Its rarity and obscurity, especially within UK librarianship, suggests it is an underdeveloped strand of classification research and is possibly undervalued in modern librarianship. The purpose of this research is to investigate the suitability and practicalities of the discipline of astronomy adopting a subject-specific faceted classification scheme and to provide a provi-sional outline of a special faceted astronomy classification scheme. The research demonstrates that the application of universal schemes for astronomy classification had left the interdisciplinary subject ill catered for and outdated, making accurate classification difficult for specialist astronomy collections. A faceted approach to classification development is supported by two qualitative literature-based research methods: historical research into astronomy classification and an analytico-synthetic classification case study. The subsequent classification development is influenced through a pragmatic and scholarly-scientific approach and constructed by means of instruction from faceted classification guides by Vickery (1960) and Batley (2005), and faceted classification principles from Ranaganathan (1937). This research fills a gap within classification discourse on specialist interdisciplinary subjects, specifically within astronomy and demonstrates the best means for their classification. It provides a means of assessing further the value of faceted classification within astronomy librarianship.

0.010600335 = product of:
  0.04240134 = sum of:
    0.04240134 = product of:
      0.08480268 = sum of:
        0.08480268 = weight(_text_:22 in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08480268 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 7.2004 9:42:33
22. 4.2017 11:58:05

0.010600335 = product of:
  0.04240134 = sum of:
    0.04240134 = product of:
      0.08480268 = sum of:
        0.08480268 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08480268 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

0.010600335 = product of:
  0.04240134 = sum of:
    0.04240134 = product of:
      0.08480268 = sum of:
        0.08480268 = weight(_text_:22 in 3975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08480268 = score(doc=3975,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3975, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3975)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 2.2018 12:06:44
22. 2.2018 12:13:53

0.010493796 = product of:
  0.041975185 = sum of:
    0.041975185 = product of:
      0.08395037 = sum of:
        0.08395037 = weight(_text_:22 in 8365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08395037 = score(doc=8365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 8365, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2015 16:08:38

0.010493796 = product of:
  0.041975185 = sum of:
    0.041975185 = product of:
      0.08395037 = sum of:
        0.08395037 = weight(_text_:22 in 4347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08395037 = score(doc=4347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4347, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2013 16:18:36

0.010493796 = product of:
  0.041975185 = sum of:
    0.041975185 = product of:
      0.08395037 = sum of:
        0.08395037 = weight(_text_:22 in 1601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08395037 = score(doc=1601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

27.12.2014 18:54:22

0.008994682 = product of:
  0.035978727 = sum of:
    0.035978727 = product of:
      0.071957454 = sum of:
        0.071957454 = weight(_text_:22 in 6224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071957454 = score(doc=6224,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6224, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6224)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:17:00

0.008994682 = product of:
  0.035978727 = sum of:
    0.035978727 = product of:
      0.071957454 = sum of:
        0.071957454 = weight(_text_:22 in 7297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071957454 = score(doc=7297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 7297, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26. 4.2015 19:27:22

0.008994682 = product of:
  0.035978727 = sum of:
    0.035978727 = product of:
      0.071957454 = sum of:
        0.071957454 = weight(_text_:22 in 1552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071957454 = score(doc=1552,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1552, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1552)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2018 11:04:35

0.008994682 = product of:
  0.035978727 = sum of:
    0.035978727 = product of:
      0.071957454 = sum of:
        0.071957454 = weight(_text_:22 in 1808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071957454 = score(doc=1808,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1808, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1808)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

17. 9.2018 18:19:22

0.008994682 = product of:
  0.035978727 = sum of:
    0.035978727 = product of:
      0.071957454 = sum of:
        0.071957454 = weight(_text_:22 in 4248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071957454 = score(doc=4248,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4248, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4248)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2011, H.2, S.22-29