Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.13370769 = product of:
  0.23398845 = sum of:
    0.025380958 = weight(_text_:libraries in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025380958 = score(doc=44,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13985899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042574327 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 44, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=44)
    0.019314762 = weight(_text_:with in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019314762 = score(doc=44,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.102594376 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042574327 = queryNorm
        0.18826336 = fieldWeight in 44, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=44)
    0.13650897 = weight(_text_:faculty in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13650897 = score(doc=44,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.24645443 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.788804 = idf(docFreq=367, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042574327 = queryNorm
        0.5538913 = fieldWeight in 44, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.788804 = idf(docFreq=367, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=44)
    0.052783757 = product of:
      0.105567515 = sum of:
        0.105567515 = weight(_text_:curriculum in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.105567515 = score(doc=44,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28523415 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.699675 = idf(docFreq=147, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042574327 = queryNorm
            0.37010825 = fieldWeight in 44, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.699675 = idf(docFreq=147, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=44)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5714286 = coord(4/7)

Abstract

The virtual university environment provides librarians with new opportunities to contribute to the educational process. Building on the success of team-teaching a traditional liberal arts core course with composition and communications faculty, librarians and a communications professor worked together to integrate the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (2000) into the online environment. The resulting graduate-level course in multimedia literacy assembled faculty and curriculum resources normally untapped in traditional classrooms. All five information literacy standards covering need, access, evaluation, use and the social, economic, legal, and ethical issues surrounding information use were addressed. Readings and threaded discussions about intellectual property, fair use of copyrighted materials, the evaluation of free and fee-based Web information and Web page design and construction prepared students to work in groups to design and construct Web sites. Students also completed a capstone project in the form of individual Web portfolios, which demonstrated the information and multimedia principles they learned in the class. Assessment of information literacy skills occurred through the analysis of student discussion, evaluative annotations, Web site assignments, perception surveys, and a master's level comprehensive exam question. What was learned in this course will serve as a model for future collaborative partnerships in which faculty and librarians work together to ensure that students who learn from a distance truly master information literacy competencies.

0.08799549 = product of:
  0.20532282 = sum of:
    0.015451809 = weight(_text_:with in 2963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015451809 = score(doc=2963,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.102594376 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042574327 = queryNorm
        0.15061069 = fieldWeight in 2963, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2963)
    0.17833455 = weight(_text_:faculty in 2963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17833455 = score(doc=2963,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.24645443 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.788804 = idf(docFreq=367, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042574327 = queryNorm
        0.7236005 = fieldWeight in 2963, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          5.788804 = idf(docFreq=367, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2963)
    0.011536467 = product of:
      0.023072934 = sum of:
        0.023072934 = weight(_text_:22 in 2963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023072934 = score(doc=2963,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14908804 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042574327 = 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)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

Purpose - Uncovering faculty members' conceptions of Information Literacy (IL), as well as exploring their perceptions with regard to the importance given to a previously defined set of core IL competences grouped into four categories: searching, evaluation, processing and communication and dissemination. Ascertaining the possible differences among the five knowledge branches (arts and humanities, sciences, social and legal sciences, health sciences, and technical disciplines); and understanding the importance granted to a set of learning improvement initiatives by the faculty. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The survey was completed by a set of faculty members from the University of Granada (Spain). Data were collected using the IL-HUMASS survey. The research is based on subjective data, first approached from a descriptive point of view. Later, data correlation, analysis and non-parametric tests were used with the goal of finding significant differences of faculty perceptions among the relevant academic areas. Findings - Results suggest that more than half of the surveyed faculty have what the authors define as an Academic Concept of IL. The IL categories of communica\tion and dissemination and searching were graded in significance by the staff as being "very important," while those of evaluation and processing were assigned a slightly lesser rating of "important." Results suggest that IL awareness falls into two broad groups differentiated by subject discipline: those from health sciences, social and legal sciences and arts and humanities representing the first group, and sciences and technical disciplines the other. Research limitations/implications - This approach address the subjective status of faculty concepts in a single university, but also in all knowledge branches. Future research is needed. Originality/value - This is one of the few papers regarding faculty perceptions of IL.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.07624305 = product of:
  0.17790045 = sum of:
    0.013657599 = weight(_text_:with in 4538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013657599 = score(doc=4538,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.102594376 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042574327 = queryNorm
        0.1331223 = fieldWeight in 4538, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4538)
    0.11145909 = weight(_text_:faculty in 4538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11145909 = score(doc=4538,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24645443 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.788804 = idf(docFreq=367, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042574327 = queryNorm
        0.4522503 = fieldWeight in 4538, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.788804 = idf(docFreq=367, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4538)
    0.052783757 = product of:
      0.105567515 = sum of:
        0.105567515 = weight(_text_:curriculum in 4538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.105567515 = score(doc=4538,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28523415 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.699675 = idf(docFreq=147, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042574327 = queryNorm
            0.37010825 = fieldWeight in 4538, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.699675 = idf(docFreq=147, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4538)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

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.

0.064676575 = product of:
  0.150912 = sum of:
    0.019314762 = weight(_text_:with in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019314762 = score(doc=829,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.102594376 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042574327 = queryNorm
        0.18826336 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
    0.078813486 = weight(_text_:faculty in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.078813486 = score(doc=829,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24645443 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.788804 = idf(docFreq=367, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042574327 = queryNorm
        0.3197893 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.788804 = idf(docFreq=367, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
    0.052783757 = product of:
      0.105567515 = sum of:
        0.105567515 = weight(_text_:curriculum in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.105567515 = score(doc=829,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28523415 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.699675 = idf(docFreq=147, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042574327 = queryNorm
            0.37010825 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.699675 = idf(docFreq=147, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this research is to identify UK English academics' conceptions of information literacy and compare those conceptions with current information literacy standards and frameworks. Design/methodology/approach - Three year AHRB-funded study involving 80 academics interviewed throughout the UK and using the phenomenographic research method to discover variation in experience leading towards identification of qualitatively different conceptions of information literacy. Conceptions are then reviewed in light of previous research and current librarian-generated frameworks and standards. Findings - The findings identify UK English academics' conceptions of information literacy and show them to be both similar to and significantly different from conceptions described in previous research and librarian-generated frameworks and standards. Research limitations/implications - The research focuses on creating a conceptual snapshot-in-time for the 20 English academics taking part. The research implies that disciplinary differences in conception of information literacy are significant and suggests further research to assess disciplinary conceptual differences. Practical implications - Librarians working with English faculty on information literacy need to be aware of differences in conception between themselves and academics to work effectively. The paper also highlights the significance of information literacy in English faculty's teaching and research practices and this relevance suggests that information literacy should be integrated into course and curriculum design. Originality/value - The paper fills a major gap in literature on information literacy by focussing on conceptions of lecturers, thereby counterbalancing the abundance of work produced by librarians. The paper illustrates the complexity of English academics' conceptions of information literacy and informs academics' use and understanding of information literacy.

0.061002016 = product of:
  0.14233804 = sum of:
    0.030457148 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030457148 = score(doc=3049,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13985899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042574327 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 3049, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3049)
    0.09457618 = weight(_text_:faculty in 3049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09457618 = score(doc=3049,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24645443 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.788804 = idf(docFreq=367, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042574327 = queryNorm
        0.38374713 = fieldWeight in 3049, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.788804 = idf(docFreq=367, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3049)
    0.0173047 = product of:
      0.0346094 = sum of:
        0.0346094 = weight(_text_:22 in 3049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0346094 = score(doc=3049,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14908804 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042574327 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3049, 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=3049)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

The authors are students of librarianship in the faculty of philosophy at Ljubljana University, Slovenia. Users were asked to describe their library visits and summarise what was most helpful and least helpful about the service received. In the list of best practices, the most frequent feature was that the staff member really listened (58,9%). Other aspects of most helpful behaviour (e.g. using different body language, showing genuine interest, willingness to investigate further) occured in less than 40% of the interviews. 3 features of least helpful behaviour were listed in more than 30% of the cases; not asking the user anything about the question and making no effort to determine the specific need, not telling the user what he/she was doing, making no effort to determine whether the user had found the relevant information

Date

22. 2.1999 19:29:43

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: The influence of the librarian's behaviour on the effectiveness of reference services in Slovene public libraries

0.045810714 = product of:
  0.10689167 = sum of:
    0.013657599 = weight(_text_:with in 1894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013657599 = score(doc=1894,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.102594376 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042574327 = queryNorm
        0.1331223 = fieldWeight in 1894, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1894)
    0.078813486 = weight(_text_:faculty in 1894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.078813486 = score(doc=1894,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24645443 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.788804 = idf(docFreq=367, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042574327 = queryNorm
        0.3197893 = fieldWeight in 1894, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.788804 = idf(docFreq=367, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1894)
    0.014420584 = product of:
      0.028841168 = sum of:
        0.028841168 = weight(_text_:22 in 1894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028841168 = score(doc=1894,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14908804 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042574327 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1894, 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=1894)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the literature on the information behavior of practicing visual artists to determine if a consistent model emerges and what further research is necessary. Design/methodology/approach - Works dealing with the information needs and uses relevant to the creative activities of visual artists are discussed in the paper. These works are assessed for their contributions toward understanding of the specific information behaviors of practicing artists. Findings - The results show that a consistent model of artists' information behavior emerges. However, nearly all of the literature focuses on art students, academic art faculty, or librarians, and so any claim that practicing artists fit the model is largely unsupported by research. There have been no published studies of communities of practicing visual artists. The implications of defining artists as communities of practice are discussed. Research limitations/implications - Research is proposed that studies the information behavior of communities of practicing visual artists in order to confirm or amend the existing model. Practical implications - Practitioners will have their attention drawn to an underserved user population whose information needs and behaviors have not been directly targeted for research. They will recognize the need for study of their own artist communities and the development of services for them. Originality/value - This paper directs the discussion of artists' information behavior away from the art-library-specific literature, where it has largely resided, as a means of adjusting the focus of research onto the largely unstudied and underserved communities of practicing artists.

Date

7. 6.2008 12:22:23