Research Articles (Information Studies)
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Browsing Research Articles (Information Studies) by Author "Underwood, Peter Graham."
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item A contextual study of information literacy of aspirant barristers in Nigeria.(LIASA, 2012) Lawal, Victoria Ladi.; Stilwell, Christine.; Kuhn, Rosemary Jean.; Underwood, Peter Graham.The study upon which the article is based investigated the information literacy of aspirant barristers in Nigeria and examined the efforts undertaken to restructure the legal education system in Nigeria. It explored the connection between contextual influences and professional development, particularly with respect to the concept of legal information literacy and the value of acquired educational skills in the context of legal practice in Nigeria. Data were obtained using quantitative and qualitative approaches. Key findings from the study were supportive of the importance of information literacy as central to the development of professional competence of the aspirant barristers which can be achieved through re-structuring the teaching methods and curricula of the Nigerian Law School (NLS). The study makes recommendations for the adoption and integration of information literacy as a conceptual framework by which skills training can be developed into the curriculum of the Nigerian Law School.Item Information literacy for higher education institutions in Nigeria and Tanzania: efforts and prospects for educational reform in teaching and learning.(University of KwaZulu-Natal., 2010) Lawal, Victoria Ladi.; Lwehabura, Mugyabuso J. F.; Underwood, Peter Graham.; Stilwell, Christine.This article reviews efforts made by higher education institutions in Nigeria and Tanzania in transforming student learning through information literacy (IL). It examines the need for higher education institutions in the two countries to create the necessary foundations for strengthening information literacy programmes as a strategy for ensuring viable transformation in teaching and learning. The paper is based on a review of related literature and observations drawn from working experiences in higher education institutions in both countries. It examines some of the meaningful educational transformations taking place in higher education institutions in Nigeria and Tanzania and makes recommendations for better standards to be developed in terms of curriculum structure and design, teaching methods, outcome assessment and a review of institutional policies and goals in order to encourage active teaching and learning.Item Intelligent libraries and apomediators: distinguishing between Library 3.0 and Library 2.0.(SAGE, 2013) Stilwell, Christine.; Underwood, Peter Graham.; Kwanya, Tom Joseph Mboya.Many terms and concepts have appeared in and disappeared from the history of librarianship. Currently, the use of “point oh” naming system to label developments in librarianship is prevalent. Debate on the appropriateness, basis and syntax of this naming system is ongoing. Specifically, the profession has been lately engrossed in discourses in various contexts to unravel the real meaning and potential of Library 2.0. But even before this debate is settled, a new term, Library 3.0, is seeking space in the core librarianship lexicon. This development is causing confusion among librarianship scholars, practitioners and students especially on whether there is any significant difference between the two models. Through documentary analysis, the authors explored the true meanings of these terms and have concluded that Library 2.0 and Library 3.0 are indeed different. The authors have also concluded that whereas Library 2.0 could be seen as attempting to weaken the role of librarians in the emerging information environment, Library 3.0 projects librarians as prominent apomediaries standing by and guiding the library users on how best to locate, access and use credible information in myriad formats from diverse sources, at the point of need. The authors therefore note that the prospect of the Library 3.0 model has revived hope amongst the librarians who were uncomfortable with the crowd intelligence architecture on which the Library 2.0 model was founded. Similarly, the authors have concluded that Library 3.0 provides the tools and framework to organize the infosphere that the Library 2.0 threw into disarray. Thus Library 3.0 is generally understood to be an improvement of Library 2.0 tools and techniques. The authors propose that a 3.0 library be perceived as a personalizable, intelligent, sensitive and living institution created and sustained by a seamless engagement of library users, librarians and subject experts on a federated network of information pathways.Item Library 2.0 principles and Ranganathan's fifth law.(UNISA, 2010) Kwanya, Tom Joseph Mboya.; Stilwell, Christine.; Underwood, Peter Graham.Ranganathan’s five laws of library science were first published in 1931. Although initially devised for the Indian context, these laws have been adapted – in form and spirit – by libraries all over the world. With the emergence of new librarianship models such as Library 2.0, most practitioners wonder whether the laws still hold. This study used critical documentary analysis to investigate the relationship between the Library 2.0 principles and Ranganathan’s fifth law. The authors conclude that this law, like the other four, remains applicable in most instances. However, some scenarios require careful consideration and adjustment of the fifth law.Item Library 2.0: revolution or evolution?(2009) Kwanya, Tom Joseph Mboya.; Stilwell, Christine.; Underwood, Peter Graham.Library 2.0 is a controversial concept that stirs debate on many fronts. As the concept continues to arrest the attention of most library users and practitioners, a number of issues relating to its real nature emerge. One of these is the character of change it represents. While many library scholars and practitioners agree that Library 2.0 represents a change, they disagree on the nature of this change. Using a critical review of documentation and arguments on this subject, the authors identify three points of view on this change. Whereas some feel that the change is revolutionary and may drastically transform the profession – including renaming – others see it as an evolution of the current best practices to mould a better, user-centred service using modern technology. Still others see Library 2.0 as neither revolutionary nor evolutionary. This paper seeks to clarify these three points of view on the character of Library 2.0 change in libraries, as institutions, and in librarianship as a profession. It also recommends that while Library 2.0 should be seen as the latest instance in the development of the library and the services it offers, its role in facilitating participatory user-centric services should not be ignored.