Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Publishing partners
  4. Facet Publishing
  5. Content Listing

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

5856 results in Facet Publishing

Page 200 of 293

  • 6 - AACR and RDA

  • Anne Welsh, Sue Batley
  • Book:
    Practical Cataloguing
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 March 2012, pp 105-130

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Unsurprisingly, one of the frequently asked questions on the RDA website is ‘Will I have to make changes to my cataloguing records?’ The official answer given is:

    The JSC agreed early on that records created by using RDA would be compatible with AACR2 records and that any instance where incompatibility might exist would be scrutinized very carefully before recommending a change. This commitment holds true today. But, there will be a few instances where headings will require modification, such as the headings for ‘Bible’. Using computers’ abilities for global updating will make these changes considerably easier than in preonline system days.

    (Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA, 2010a)

    This chapter takes as its starting point an example record from Appendix M in the draft of RDA (Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA, 2008a and b) and compares it with a record produced under AACR2.

    We are working from the text published on 31 October 2008, which the Joint Steering Committee issued as a draft and acknowledged contained typographic and other errors. We have corrected these in the light of the examples issued by the Library of Congress in 2011 (Library of Congress Cataloging and Acquisitions, 2011).

    Example: Book 1

    Taylor, Arlene G. The organization of information. 2nd ed. London: Libraries

    Unlimited, 2004.

    Table 6.1 on the following pages maps the information in Appendix M to the existing record on the Library of Congress website (Library of Congress, 2003). The information is listed in the order set by the RDA elements section of Appendix M. A blank space in the table means we could not find an equivalent.

    Let us work through the equivalency table and discuss how it exemplifies the similarities and differences between RDA and AACR2.

    Title proper

    RDA 2.2.2 deals with the ‘preferred source of information’ – the new term for AACR2's ‘chief source of information’. RDA 2.2.2.2 specifies the preferred source for ‘Resources consisting of one or more pages, leaves, sheets or cards (or images of one or more pages, leaves sheets or cards)’. As a standard book, our title meets these criteria. There is no change here from AACR2 – we are instructed to ‘use the title page, title sheet, or title card (or image thereof) as the preferred source of information’.

  • 3 - The story so far: progress in Web 2.0 and information literacy

  • from PART 1 - RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INFORMATION LITERACY AND LIBRARY 2.0
  • Edited by Peter Godwin, Jo Parker
  • Book:
    Information Literacy Beyond Library 2.0
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    09 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 March 2012, pp 27-40

  • Summary

    I have delivered many presentations suggesting that the IL and Web 2.0 connection might be overplayed (Godwin, 2009a). How much evidence is there that libraries and librarians are really viewing the information landscape as different, requiring Web 2.0 to be included and used to teach IL? How much impact is it having on student learning?

    Luo (2010) conducted a survey of IL instruction librarians who were members of the Information Literacy Instruction Discussion List sponsored by the Association of College and Research Libraries. Fifty valid responses were received, which were then followed up by eight interviews which revealed some great ideas of how librarians have employed blogs, wikis, social bookmarking sites, YouTube and Flickr. Luo separates his respondents into those who use Web 2.0 for their own purposes, those who use them for facilitating delivery of IL to students and those who use the facilities of certain Web 2.0 tools to enhance the teaching of specific aspects of IL. An example of the latter was where the respondent had used Flickr to get the students to collect some digital images and apply attribution, in order to explain Creative Commons, and then doing a similar exercise with Wikipedia. Luo concludes that ‘it is indisputable that Web 2.0 is becoming more and more prevalent and its value to facilitating IL instruction is recognized’ (Luo, 2010, 39), but more research is needed, particularly around assessing how the students react to it and how it affects learning outcomes. There is still a feeling that students regard social media as their own province and resent their use for academic purposes.

    It is possible to get some clues regarding take-up from Tripathi (2009), who surveyed university libraries: 82 in the UK, 151 in the USA, 37 in Canada and 7 in Australia. Of the 45% that had blogs, 20.53% used them for search tips and 8.53% for IL. Most of the 11% that used podcasts and the 6% that used vodcasts did so for some IL purpose. Tripathi also notes that the 300 University Grants Commission-recognized universities in India had yet to start using Web 2.0 tools. In the Philippines, Lapuz (2009) enthusiastically and successfully championed their use in library schools, but found school teacher-librarians much less receptive.

  • 5 - Web 2.0: from information literacy to transliteracy

  • from PART 1 - RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INFORMATION LITERACY AND LIBRARY 2.0
  • Edited by Peter Godwin, Jo Parker
  • Book:
    Information Literacy Beyond Library 2.0
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    09 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 March 2012, pp 53-64

  • Summary

    Introduction

    This chapter is divided into two parts. In the first part literacy is discussed in terms of its ‘functional’ nature, as it provides the basis for social interaction, be it in print or digital worlds. The second part presents the view that there is a dynamic relationship between literacy and the information environment in which it operates. This relationship, which defines the functional attributes of literacy, is mapped onto a timeline that illustrates the shift from print to web environments. As the title of this chapter suggests, transliteracy is promoted as the literacy that is needed to function in a Web 2.0 world. This is because, as current technologies offer new ‘applications of established processes of knowledge construction and sharing’ (Thomas et al., 2007), the competences underpinning these processes need to be updated. Hence the need to move from information literacy to transliteracy. For those who are not familiar with it, the term ‘transliteracy’ was coined by Professor Thomas to describe ‘the ability to read, write and interact across a range of platforms, tools and media from signing and orality through handwriting, print, TV, radio and film, to digital social networks’ (Thomas et al., 2007). The two main practices of Web 2.0, namely the reorganizing and sharing of information and knowledge that are undertaken collectively (Witteman and O'Grady, 2008), are discussed here in terms of their impact on web users, turning them from consumers into ‘produsers’ of information (Bruns, 2008a, 2). The concept of produser is analysed later on. For now, it suffices to say that this is a compound term derived by the merging of ‘producer’ and ‘user’. The exclusion of Web 3.0 from this timeline is deliberate, as we need to establish the functional literacy operating in a Web 2.0 environment before we can turn our attention to the functional literacy associated with the semantic, sentient, mobile and virtual environments that characterize a Web 3.0 world (O'Reilly and Battelle, 2009, 2).

    Functional literacy

    Whilst to be functionally literate means simply to be an ‘active participant in society’ (Ipri, 2011), it is not surprising that functional literacy means different things in different contexts. In its broad social function, literacy capitalizes on individuals’ potential to foster the collective development of local and global communities (UNESCO, 2008, 1).

  • 18 - Helping the public online: Web 2.0 in UK public libraries

  • from PART 3 - WHAT IT MEANS FOR INFORMATION PROFESSIONALS
  • Edited by Peter Godwin, Jo Parker
  • Book:
    Information Literacy Beyond Library 2.0
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    09 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 March 2012, pp 205-214

  • Summary

    Background

    As I write, public libraries in the UK are going through a period of change possibly unparalleled in their 200-year history. The economic situation is causing major cuts to public library budgets across the board. In addition to the usual wave of cuts to services, stock funds and opening hours, a growing number of authorities are passing the running of branch libraries to local community groups, commonly to parish councils. Along with the pressure to reduce budgets, another associated driver of change is about meeting the requirements of the UK government's policy initiative called the Big Society, which is encouraging local authorities to engage more with local communities in the management and delivery of services. A third driver of change is the more subtle force of customer demand: there are some indications that online use of public libraries is rising to match physical use, as more and more people use the internet to access the library services outlined below.

    All three of these factors are leading to an increasing interest in Web 2.0. Its characteristics of potential for access to and by huge user groups, opportunities to engage with communities through social networks, and user-generated content mean that it offers some useful tools for improving productivity and achieving Big Society engagement with services.

    A key dilemma that public libraries are facing, as I write, is the mismatch between what customers expect to be able to do with library services online and what local authorities – the organizations that run public libraries – allow libraries to do. The most common complaint amongst public librarians is about restrictive policies – the biggest barrier to greater engagement with the public. The majority of local authorities ban their staff from using social media and this ban severely restricts both staff's understanding of the technologies and their use of them to interact with customers. However, there are signs that these restrictions are loosening up: there has been an influential report from SOCITM (2010), and some very useful work done by the Local Government Improvement and Development agency (LGID). The LGID runs the Communities of Practice for Public Service website, ‘a community platform supporting professional social networks across the public sector’, many of which cover social media, and which many local government officers have joined.

  • Preface

    • By Anne Welsh, Lecturer in Library & Information Studies, University College London
  • Anne Welsh, Sue Batley
  • Book:
    Practical Cataloguing
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 March 2012, pp xiii-xvi

  • Summary

    This book has been three years in the making. It was commissioned to bridge the gap between John Bowman's Essential Cataloguing (last published before MARC revised its series fields from 440 and 490 to 490 alone) and Shawne Miksa's North American textbook on the new international cataloguing standard Resource Description and Access, to be published in the UK in 2013 (Miksa, n.d.).

    It aims to meet the needs of two markets:

  • • those trained in cataloguing under AngloAmerican Cataloguing Rules 2nd Edition (AACR2) in need of a refresher, especially in the light of the new Standard

  • • those being trained in the current environment, when AACR2 is being phased out and the new standard is being phased in.

    • I use the verb ‘trained’ advisedly here. In the UK, there are few library schools that teach cataloguing in any detail. At the last comprehensive survey in 2005, University College London (UCL) was found to be the last in the UK with a compulsory module on cataloguing and classification, consisting of ten weeks of practical experience using AACR2 and several classification schema, which can be followed by an optional module ‘Advanced Cataloguing & Classification’.

    This does not mean that cataloguing is completely absent from the UK's library schools. Many teach information architecture, incorporating a more theoretical knowledge. Students leave knowing what cataloguing is and how it aids information retrieval. They can recognize what a catalogue record looks like and have an understanding of the principles of knowledge organization. Practice in actual cataloguing – picking up a book (or other item), analysing it, describing it and providing access to it – is a little harder to come by.

    Recent issues of CILIP's Catalogue & Index highlight the range of experience on library and information science (LIS) courses in 2011 (Carlton, 2011; Grim, 2011; Maule, 2011). Issue 162 includes an account by a student who spent three years at library school without, he says, cataloguing anything, but who actively sought volunteer experience outside university to learn how to catalogue (Carlton, 2011). In issue 163, a UCL student mentions a more theoretical course she took in the USA, and describes her determined and deliberate approach to gaining cataloguing experience – through taking the MA LIS at UCL and obtaining volunteer and paid work during her year in London (Howard, 2011).

  • 16 - ANCIL: a new curriculum for information literacy: case study

  • from PART 2 - CASE STUDIES
  • Edited by Peter Godwin, Jo Parker
  • Book:
    Information Literacy Beyond Library 2.0
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    09 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 March 2012, pp 171-190

  • Summary

    You have learned something. That always feels at first as if you had lost something.

    (H. G. Wells)

    Introduction

    Recent research suggests that the information-seeking behaviour and needs of students are changing (CIBER/UCL, 2008; SCONUL, 2011 among others), driven largely by the changing experiences and expectations of ‘the Google generation’, who have grown up with access to the internet being the norm. While the Google generation and ‘digital native’ terms have been debated and widely criticized (Jones et al., 2010), it is clear that information literacy programmes over the next five years will need to adapt and respond to the needs of current students.

    This case study describes a short project based at Cambridge University Library and funded by the Arcadia Programme (http://arcadiaproject. lib.cam.ac.uk), a three-year initiative designed to explore the role of academic libraries in the digital age. The project ran from May until July 2011 and sought to develop a practical curriculum for information literacy that meets the needs of the undergraduate student entering higher education over the next five years.

    A new curriculum for information literacy: project overview

    Aims and objectives

    The project sought to develop a practical curriculum for information literacy that meets the needs of the undergraduate student entering higher education over the next five years. Specifically, the project aimed:

  • • to understand the information needs of future undergraduate students on entering higher education

  • • to develop a revolutionary curriculum for information literacy that could be used with undergraduate students entering UK higher education

  • • to provide practical guidance about how best to equip students with the knowledge, skills and behaviours, in terms of information use, to support their learning in the digital age

  • • to develop a flexible curriculum that could be used and adapted in the higher education community and used in face-to-face, blended and online learning provision.

    • Methodology

    The authors carried out an extensive review of the literature, which forms the theoretical background to this project. A modified Delphi study was undertaken which involved consulting widely with experts in the information and education communities. The curriculum was developed and presented to the expert group and took into account findings from the literature and from the expert consultation. It was subsequently refined and a final curriculum, with a number of supporting documents, was produced.

  • 5 - RDA: resource description and access

  • Anne Welsh, Sue Batley
  • Book:
    Practical Cataloguing
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 March 2012, pp 83-104

  • Summary

    This chapter covers the history of the new code, picks up on some of the changes indicated elsewhere in the book, and finally offers practical advice for libraries and other cataloguing agencies considering if, how and when they should make the change from AACR2 to RDA.

    Timeline to change

    Let us start with the simplest narrative – the administrative history of the new code. The history of RDA is outlined on the Joint Steering Committee (JSC) website at www.rdajsc. org/rda.html#background, and referenced in most publications on the new code, including Chris Oliver's recent book Introducing RDA: a guide to the basics (Oliver, 2010).

    RDA grew out of the process begun in 2004 to produce the next edition of the AngloAmerican Cataloguing Rules. Following the circulation of the draft of the first part of AACR3, it was decided in 2005 that a new approach was needed, and work began under the title RDA: resource description and access.

    Between 2005 and 2009 various drafts of the new code were circulated for constituency review, and members of the cataloguing community around the world offered feedback and opinions.

    A key shift between AACR2 and RDA is the new code's conception as a digital product. In June 2010, the RDA Toolkit was presented to the world, with a free trial period of just over three months. Later in 2010, a paper version of RDA was published, in response to demands from the community, and particularly from smaller institutions which could not afford the annual subscription to the online product. However, throughout the process, the JSC has stressed that RDA is not a paper product, and full understanding (and updates) is available only through the online version.

    One impact of the transparency of the processes around the creation of the new code is an awareness on the part of the worldwide cataloguing community that it has not yet been decided when the major AngloAmerican cataloguing agencies – the Library of Congress and the British Library, will adopt the code. Because the processes preparing for previous codes were more closed, the average cataloguer in the stacks did not feel the need to engage with them until the Library of Congress and the British Library were beginning to implement them.

  • Introduction

  • Edited by Peter Godwin, Jo Parker
  • Book:
    Information Literacy Beyond Library 2.0
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    09 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 March 2012, pp xvii-xx

  • Summary

    Information Literacy Meets Library 2.0 was something of a journey into the unknown. The Web 2.0 ‘characters’, as I often referred to them in my talks, were new, and to some, exciting. It was a fun time to write a book and we didn't think there'd be a sequel: despite requests from Facet Publishing, we would not emulate the Hollywood blockbusters and spawn another offering. So what changed my mind? One evening, while I was ambling home from the bus stop, reflecting gently to the strains of Telemann (or was it Siouxsie and the Banshees?) via an iPod, the possibility of a book seized me. A few days later I visited Jo Parker, my fellow editor, at the Open University and very tentatively suggested a sequel. To my great surprise she agreed to come on board – and here we have it.

    Web 2.0 has affected the delivery of information literacy (IL), and somehow seems to have also affected what it means to be information literate. There has been much IL research questioning its nature, and I suspect that most of this has not reached the majority of practitioners. Indeed, I suspect there is something of a disconnect between IL research and IL practitioners. They often produce the MEGO (my eyes glaze over) effect on me, and I suspect that I am not alone! This is on the one hand understandable, due to the complex language used in some research articles, but on the other hand regrettable, because important insights are being gained that all practitioners should know about. My selection of these is bound to be incomplete, and I apologize in advance for any MEGO effects caused by my own writing! In the first chapters of this book I shall set the scene with a detailed discussion of what has happened to information literacy and Web 2.0 in the past three years. What was Library 2.0? Was it over-hyped? How did it connect with the so-called web generation? Then we will look at how social media have become mainstream and where there have been successes and failures. We will then examine what effects Web 2.0 has had on information literacy.

  • 4 - The changing web: sites to social

  • from PART 1 - RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INFORMATION LITERACY AND LIBRARY 2.0
  • Edited by Peter Godwin, Jo Parker
  • Book:
    Information Literacy Beyond Library 2.0
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    09 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 March 2012, pp 41-52

  • Summary

    Introduction

    We would all agree that the internet is in a constant state of change. There are, however, many different types of change that we can observe. For example, there is the very crude measurement of the number of hours of YouTube video posted every minute, the number of tweets per second and the number of blogs that are created. These figures are generally quite mind boggling, but because they are available in easy, bite-sized chunks they are easy to digest and understand.

    What are rather less easy to understand, however, or indeed to know, are some of the longer-term changes in trends that influence the growth and change of the internet. We could, for example, consider the way in which the internet has become more of a medium for the creator than for the consumer; or the extent to which newspaper publishing has moved onto the net at the expense of the more traditional printed format; or the way in which various groups or indeed societies are able to change both politically and socially. What is of particular interest to the information professional, however, is the slow but sure way in which the whole process of internet search is moving away from the institutional and towards the individual. This is of course part and parcel of the increasing importance of the information creator and needs to be considered within that context.

    Issues of personalization

    Search engines have always had as their Holy Grail the ability to tailor their results directly to the individual's needs. Once they are able to do that they can also much more closely tailor the adverts that they present to individual users, and thus make more money for themselves. Until now it has been almost impossible to achieve this except in the very broadest sense. Search engines have had to rely on what sites people click on and the links to those sites. With the rising volume of individual data flooding onto the net, however, search engines can now start to become much more precise in the way in which they tailor their information. Let's assume a really basic example. Suppose that you are interested in finding out about librarians.

  • 15 - Transliteracy and teaching what they know

  • from PART 2 - CASE STUDIES
  • Edited by Peter Godwin, Jo Parker
  • Book:
    Information Literacy Beyond Library 2.0
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    09 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 March 2012, pp 163-170

  • Summary

    Introduction

    University students are surprisingly adept at finding information; only, it isn't usually the kind of information that concerns their instructors. From using Wikipedia to learn about their favourite pop-singer's time in primary school, to finding health information in Yahoo! Answers, to evaluating mobile phones based on Amazon user reviews, students appeal to a range of Web 2.0 information resources in their personal lives. Yet these same students are perplexed by library resources. Keywords? Abstracts? Boolean searching? Why does it have to be so hard? At the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, the instruction team at the Lupton Library has decided to address this disconnect head on and make students’ pre-existing search behaviours an integral part of library instruction. Rather than focus on the differences between scholarly and popular research, we focus on the similarities. Our approach draws heavily upon the concept of transliteracy.

    What is transliteracy?

    The concept of transliteracy has its roots in the Transliteracies Project, an interdisciplinary collective of scholars from the University of California-Santa Barbara dedicated to studying the myriad ways in which online reading has complicated traditional conceptions of literacy (http://transliteracies.english. ucsb.edu). Shortly after the inaugural 2005 Transliteracies Conference, Professor Sue Thomas of De Montfort University adapted the concept in a more generalized form as the core area of enquiry for the Production and Research in Transliteracy (PART) group. This working group is actively enquiring into the impact of new technologies on the broader notion of literacy as a communicative skill. The PART working definition of transliteracy is, at this point, the most commonly cited one. Accordingly, ‘transliteracy’ is defined as ‘the ability to read, write and interact across a range of platforms, tools and media from signing and orality through handwriting, print, TV, radio and film, to digital social networks’ (Thomas et al., 2007).

    In this sense, transliteracy is not simply about the canonical sense of literacy qua reading and writing. Transliteracy takes a holistic view of the increasingly proliferating means of communication at our disposal and it focuses on the cognitive abilities inherent in transferring meaning between communication systems. From the intersubjectivity of social media tools to the intertextuality of Web 2.0 mash-ups, to new frontiers in immersive storytelling, the digital environment – and especially the Web 2.0 paradigm – has led to a distribution of literacy skills across a multiplicity of media options.

  • 9 - Changing the conversation: introducing information literacy to a generation of smartphone users

  • from PART 2 - CASE STUDIES
  • Edited by Peter Godwin, Jo Parker
  • Book:
    Information Literacy Beyond Library 2.0
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    09 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 March 2012, pp 103-110

  • Summary

    Background

    Smartphones, or mobile phones with computer-like capabilities, have rapidly grown in mobile phone market share since the introduction of the Apple iPhone in 2007. To date, librarians’ responses to the growing adoption of smartphones have largely centred on providing mobile access to existing services and resources. The past few years have seen significant increases in libraries offering text messaging reference (e.g. Kohl and Keating, 2009) and building mobile websites or apps (e.g. Bridges, Rempel and Griggs, 2010; Seeholzer and Salem, 2011). Less frequently, however, have librarians considered the effects of smartphones and other mobile devices on students’ achievement of information literacy (IL). Godwin and Parker (2008) and Cvetkovic and Lackie (2009) have presented a variety of discussions about IL for the millennial generation, though none has specifically examined smartphones as an emerging technology. Godwin (2010) focused on using mobile devices to deliver IL instruction. Walsh (2011) compared competency-based models for IL to relational models, finding the relational models more adaptable to mobile information use. A wealth of research addresses mobile search (e.g. Kamvar et al., 2009) and mobile learning (e.g. Kukulska-Hulme and Traxler, 2005; Ally, 2009), though the findings are not often applied to IL instruction. Thus, while librarians acknowledge that patrons increasingly use mobile devices and strive to provide useful services for them, the profession has not yet fully investigated whether and how these new devices change the ways in which users search, find, evaluate, process and use information, particularly information external to library collections. Such research can lead to evidence-based improvements in IL instruction.

    Process

    My continuing research at the University of Scranton seeks to identify and make explicit the relationships and interactions between smartphones and student IL, with a goal of improving my approach to introductory IL instruction. I began by exploring the functionality and capabilities of the Apple iPhone and various Android smartphones, studying the culture and behaviour these devices enable and seeking to understand how smartphone users engage with information. Using the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (2000) as a framework, I mapped relationships between expected learning outcomes and smartphone functionality, pinpointing areas in which smartphone use could either help or hinder students’ achievement of IL (Yarmey, 2010).

  • 13 - Informed cyberlearning: a case study

  • from PART 2 - CASE STUDIES
  • Edited by Peter Godwin, Jo Parker
  • Book:
    Information Literacy Beyond Library 2.0
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    09 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 March 2012, pp 139-150

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Throughout, this book highlights the potential of Web 2.0 to enhance information use and learning for personal, social and professional well-being. This cyberlearning case study demonstrates the application of Web 2.0 in the mainstream higher education curriculum, whilst providing an in-practice example of informed learning, the pedagogical construct introduced in Chapter 6. The case study features the learning experiences and creative outcomes of postgraduate cyberlearning students at Queensland University of Technology in 2011. As informed learners, the students learned simultaneously about the theory and practice of cyberlearning by carrying out a virtual team project. This involved collaboratively researching a topical issue, as well as exploring and applying Web 2.0 media. To support the informed learning of their peers, they created online resources which both convey disciplinary knowledge and showcase the educational potential of Web 2.0.

    Queensland University of Technology (QUT) is based in Brisbane, Australia. It prides itself on being ‘A university for the real world’ with a commitment to ‘[p]rovide high-quality, learning-centred environments that capitalize on both physical and virtual innovations’ (QUT, 2011, 4). While many of QUT's programmes are offered on-campus, an increasing number are offered in blended or completely online modes. To varying degrees, learning is mediated via online technologies, both in ‘formal’ educational spaces such as QUT's Blackboard learning management system and subscription databases, and in the ‘informal’ domains of Web 2.0. The cyberlearning unit of study is fully online and enables students to explore, apply and evaluate multiple options for learning and teaching. Students are encouraged to move constantly between formal and informal online environments. In this way they gain nuanced understandings about informed learning for Web 2.0 and beyond.

    Overview of CLN601 Cyberlearning

    CLN601 Cyberlearning is a fully online unit of study in QUT's Master of Education (Teacher–Librarianship) degree programme. Each year the unit attracts 60–70 students, who are spread around Australia, and a few from abroad. While it is a core unit in the Teacher–Librarianship study area, CLN601 is also a popular elective across the general Master of Education and Master of TESOL programmes and it attracts some students from Master of Information Technology (Library and Information Science). Most students are practising primary or high school teachers, some are from the vocational or higher education sectors and a few are workplace educators, librarians or IT professionals.

  • 2 - The FRBRization of the catalogue

  • Anne Welsh, Sue Batley
  • Book:
    Practical Cataloguing
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 March 2012, pp 7-16

  • Summary

    Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) was first published in 1998 (IFLA, 1998) and, as the commentator William Denton has pointed out, ‘is an end point of almost 175 years of thinking about what catalogs are for and how they should work – an end point, not the end point’ (Denton, 2007).

    While carrying on the tradition of the supremacy of the user's convenience established by Cutter, FRBR is concerned with the intellectual concept of the work – the concept of the book (or video or piece of music) – and its relationship to the copies that are held by individual libraries.

    The word ‘work’ has been used throughout the history of cataloguing with more or less specificity. Panizzi, the most famous of the keepers of the British Museum Library, was concerned with the relationships between different versions of books, asserting that ‘a reader may know the work he requires; but he cannot be expected to know all the peculiarities of different editions, and this information he has a right to expect from the catalogues’ (Lubetzky and Svenonius, 2001).

    Indeed, such questions have been central to much enumerative and analytical bibliography over the years, with academics and rare books librarians documenting not only editions but also impressions and states of early printed books (Gaskell, 1995) and provenance information at the individual copy level of rare materials (Pearson, 1998).

    In making the convenience of the user its first principle, FRBR goes on to consider how the user's needs might best be served. As Barbara Tillett has put it, ‘Especially important are the efforts libraries make to help users find resources by uniquely identifying the resources through bibliographic description and by collocating or gathering together resources that share some common characteristic. These are usually resources in a library's own collections, but sometimes bibliographic descriptions or pointers are provided to resources beyond its collections’ (Tillett, 2007).

    Relationships at the heart of the catalogue

    FRBR suggests that the library catalogue should do more than enable the location of a particular item. In essence, in creating a ‘FRBRized’ catalogue record, we are describing not only the thing we have in our hands, but its relationship to other things in the bibliographic universe – not only to its creator(s) and previous editions, but, theoretically, to any other thing that may be of use to an end user.

Page 200 of 293