Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.057573766 = product of:
  0.11514753 = sum of:
    0.11514753 = product of:
      0.23029506 = sum of:
        0.23029506 = weight(_text_:literacy in 4744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23029506 = score(doc=4744,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.29616246 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8650045 = idf(docFreq=340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05049654 = queryNorm
            0.77759707 = fieldWeight in 4744, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.8650045 = idf(docFreq=340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4744)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - To give a comparative analysis of the validity of the concepts of eLiteracy (eL) and Information Literacy (IL). Design/methodology/approach - A purely abstract, conceptual discussion. Findings - That eLiteracy and Information Literacy are different but mutually compatible concepts with validity within specific contexts. Research limitations/implications - An entirely abstract discussion of theoretical descriptions. Practical implications - By defining concepts clearly, this paper attempts to inform and clarify the framework for practical LIS research. Originality/value - In contrast to other discussions (which tend to focus either on eLiteracy, or on Information Literacy) this editorial squarely addresses criticism of the eL concept in comparison to IL. It sets out the difference with IL and recognises the strength of both ideas, as long as they are each applied within their appropriate frame of reference.

0.04155029 = product of:
  0.08310058 = sum of:
    0.08310058 = product of:
      0.16620116 = sum of:
        0.16620116 = weight(_text_:literacy in 4742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16620116 = score(doc=4742,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.29616246 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8650045 = idf(docFreq=340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05049654 = queryNorm
            0.5611824 = fieldWeight in 4742, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.8650045 = idf(docFreq=340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper takes forward strands from "Evaluating the quality of library portals" by the author and places them in the context of different approaches to teaching students about information use. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece which examines the impact on user behaviour of traditional mechanical library skills training (such as "library orientation", "bibliographic instruction", or "information skills training" rather than true information literacy-based teaching). The paper points out the similarity in the effects of such teaching to the effects of offering users a more powerful mechanical information retrieval tool (such as a library portal or internet search engine) without effective support on how the information retrieved should be used for significant educational outcomes. Findings - For librarians to be custodians of the highest standards of intelligent information use, they must demonstrate a meaningful, rather than a mechanical understanding and application of information literacy in their everyday practice. Without this, information users will rightly turn to new, non-mediated forms of information use such as internet search engines, which can deal with purely technical challenges of information retrieval superficially well. Both the users and the profession itself will be the poorer as a result. Research limitations/implications - An expression of opinion about the dangers of pedagogically underdeveloped user education on user behaviour. Practical implications - This opinion piece gives some clear and practical insights for the application of information literacy principles to library practice. Originality/value - This piece points out the ironic similarities in the effect of a mechanistic or tool-based approach to user education and unmediated user access to internet search engines or Library portals: above all, a "more is better" approach in the information user, marked by citing too much poorly digested, poorly evaluated data.

0.028786883 = product of:
  0.057573766 = sum of:
    0.057573766 = product of:
      0.11514753 = sum of:
        0.11514753 = weight(_text_:literacy in 618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11514753 = score(doc=618,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29616246 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8650045 = idf(docFreq=340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05049654 = queryNorm
            0.38879853 = fieldWeight in 618, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.8650045 = idf(docFreq=340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=618)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - To argue that theoretical models from non-LIS disciplines can be of practical benefit to practitioner LIS research. In the area of digitisation collection development policy, such models highlight the importance of digital library preservation issues. Design/methodology/approach - An application of formal models from cultural theories derived from structuralism and semiotics to LIS problems. Findings - Theoretical models from non-LIS disciplines help illustrate and understand problems such as developing information literacy in the digital library environment or creating a balance between the need to develop new digital collections and the preservation of the digital collections which have already been created. Research limitations/implications - This is a theoretical argument that could be tested by practical case study investigation. Practical implications - The paper suggests that resourcing should be applied to digital preservation activity rather than a fresh round of digitisation of print originals, the preservation implications of which are uncertain. Originality/value - This paper gives some original perspectives on practical LIS challenges by applying abstract ideas from the area of cultural theory and applied linguistics.

0.023989068 = product of:
  0.047978137 = sum of:
    0.047978137 = product of:
      0.09595627 = sum of:
        0.09595627 = weight(_text_:literacy in 4727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09595627 = score(doc=4727,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29616246 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8650045 = idf(docFreq=340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05049654 = queryNorm
            0.32399878 = fieldWeight in 4727, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.8650045 = idf(docFreq=340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4727)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - Argues that the internet has an important contribution to make to the improvement of the democratic process, but that this contribution can only be effective with advocacy and support from information professionals and educators; the cultivation of eLiteracy by such information professionals and educators is vital in delivering the democratic potential of the internet. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece based on current and recent trends in thinking about digital citizenship, the internet and democracy. Findings - Hopeful initial visions of the impact of internet technologies on democracy have been shown to be in some ways too optimistic. Many of the most notable social impacts of the internet on our collective well-being have been harmful. The cultivation of eLiteracy as a democratic attribute of citizenship should enable us to make the most of the social beneficent potential of the networks. Research limitations/implications - Purely an expression of belief about what may prove to be the likely social and political benefits of promoting eLiteracy as an aspect of enhanced citizenship. Offers potential for exploration via more in-depth research. Practical implications - Opens up an optimistic social and political purpose to the cultivation of eLiteracy in a broad mass of citizens. Originality/value - Affirms an optimistic view of the democratic potential of the internet, but makes it clear that this potential will not emerge of its own accord. Citizens must engage intelligently with the social and political issues raised by the internet, in particular with the issue of how the new media enable the electorate to conduct dialogue with government. Information professionals have a particular civic duty to be aware of the democratic significance of their promotion of information literacy and, more specifically, of eLiteracy.

0.019191254 = product of:
  0.038382508 = sum of:
    0.038382508 = product of:
      0.076765016 = sum of:
        0.076765016 = weight(_text_:literacy in 303) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076765016 = score(doc=303,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29616246 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8650045 = idf(docFreq=340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05049654 = queryNorm
            0.25919902 = fieldWeight in 303, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.8650045 = idf(docFreq=340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=303)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.006841584 = product of:
  0.013683168 = sum of:
    0.013683168 = product of:
      0.027366336 = sum of:
        0.027366336 = weight(_text_:22 in 4202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027366336 = score(doc=4202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17683028 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05049654 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4202, 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=4202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2011 17:54:04