New information and learning landscapes - challenges to bridge the information 'gaps'

BOWDEN, Russell (2013) New information and learning landscapes - challenges to bridge the information 'gaps'. Paper presented at: IFLA WLIC 2013 - Singapore - Future Libraries: Infinite Possibilities in Session 180 - Literacy and Reading with Information Literacy.

Bookmark or cite this item:
Language: English (Original)
Available under licence Creative Commons Attribution.


New information and learning landscapes - challenges to bridge the information 'gaps'

Intro: Theoretical approach: none the worse for that; standing back from details. Intro: ‘text to techno’ ? Is the ‘new’ LIS ‘scene’ that simple? No: don’t believe it to be so. Reasons why! What constitutes the new ‘landscape’? Like all landscapes – centres for attention need clarifying; horizons are indeterminate; visions misty and clouded; detailing incomplete; positions of observers dominating factors. Both Sections’ ‘Call for Proposals’ refers to ‘this gap’ in one place: in another ‘all sorts of information gaps’ – in the plural. With the pluralism we agree: consequently our position & starting point. ----------------- Identify what are these ‘Gaps’?? These Questions [with attempts at answers] provide central ‘core’ of presentation. 1. First gap – between those taught and those learning – generational & attitudinal [‘X’ to ‘Net’!] 2. Technology take-up – social media & tools & apps, smartphones, tablets, laptops, e-readers etc 3. Learning habits [advanced in student-users ]/ practices versus traditional teaching practices [‘X’ or ‘Y’ generations’ delivered] 4. Effects on environment - buildings layouts & designs; services’ provisions; providers’ expertise > users’ expectations 5. Information [formerly] ‘famine’ > now ‘flood’ – how - for users - to select = providers’ qualitive / expertly - informed judgments 6. Early Information Literacy concepts [Zurkovsky, Eisenberg & Berkowitz, ALA, Prague & Alexandria Declarations ] > changed practices = considerations for new concepts & changes to definitions / ‘models [‘Big 6’ + ‘Empowering 8’] - to be grounded in current usage and for future continuing relevance. 7. LIS curricula to cope – what was taught > what now needs to be taught and ‘how’ and by whom? 8. No convergence > ‘traditional’ librarianship enhanced > to much developed ‘information science’ analyses, knowledge, competencies and skills [firmly founded in academic and scholarly-acceptable theories and practices – as in the past] 9. Gap within service providers: ‘traditional’ librarianship [‘text’ ??] versus innovative information / knowledge advisors [‘techno’ = ‘Cybrarians’] 10. ‘Library services’ providers [‘text’] only? Not now adequate? – for much larger ‘landscape’ [ = the ‘gap’] hence need to ‘think out of the box’ ‘cos this alone too narrow & restrictive! ‘Technos’ = ‘Cybrarians’. 11. Increasing division of profession - between ‘Librarians’ and ’Cybrarians’ Change [to ‘bridge’ gaps] requires ‘change agents’ to achieve. Where / Who are they – teachers / educators? LIS teachers? Users - Net Generation? Programmers? Library staffs? Commercial suppliers / Publishers? Choices: ‘Close / bridge the gap’? Alternatively – let it be: instead ‘start afresh on the other side’? Summary: ‘gaps’ can be perceived as problems: also as ‘challenges to be met’. Preference - for the last: but how? Question: Will the ‘new’ Profession cope? !!

FOR IFLA HQ (login required)

Edit item Edit item