LIS 260 Learning Days

Time flies so fast and my first semester for 2008-09 will be over. But learnings from my LIS 260 will always be remembered.

LIS 260 hopefully would be my last cognate and course prior to taking my thesis. I just pray that I had fully submitted all the requirements of the course. My librarian friends were correct. This course is truly heavy loaded with reading assignments, reporting, midterm, and fun while learning.

Three months ago when I had the first impression that library was a boring place and librarians were very traditional to approach. In fact, I’m not the type of student who would go to library to research. I would prefer to study at Figaro or Starbucks and have Wi-Fi access just to research. But LIS 260 under Ma’am Sharon proved me I was wrong.

I was very fortunate to be enlisted to LIS class. I’m the only education technology major enrolled in the class. I even named myself mysterious Mai on our first day because I know I would be mystified and alienated with all the terms there are in the library system.

Day by day I learned. I was not after the attendance since Ma’am Sharon didn’t check our presence. I searched articles from the Internet which were related on our topic and reacted on each and its implication to my work. I learned the history of computers. I put up my own blog, explored web 2.0, librarian 2.0, my sql, and many others. I even attended forum and PLAI’s activities. Most importantly, I understood the requirements in the implementation of a library system.

With my desire to be an expert in Information, Education, and Communication (IEC), I know that I am now on the right track. Good thing that learning days from LIS 260 gave me an overview of information science and helped me a lot to appreciate what library is all about.

UPLB’s Open University: a reaction paper

University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB) is more than a university to me. It’s where I grew up and lived for more than 20 years already.

September 13, 2008, when my LIS 260 class had an educational trip in UPLB. Honestly, I was not so excited because I know the place already. What fascinated me so much was the mere fact that I will be with my LIS 260 class and my first time in UP Open University (UP OU).

I had my primary, elementary and tertiary education in UPLB. With years of exposure in LB, I thought I knew everything about it. I had been several times to the old buildings, visited different colleges, hiked in forestry, tour with my dad in IRRI, among others. But one thing I didn’t explore yet- the UP OU.

I remember when I was thinking of where to take my masters, UP Open U was my first option. Considering that I have fulltime work and some part time consultancy jobs, I thought of enrolling to OU because of the convenience in studying while working. I just explored its website, unfortunately, the course I want to take was not available so I had to leave LB and enrolled in UP Diliman instead.

Through LIS 260, I was able to explore what UP OU is all about. What’s so interesting there is its library system which is small in terms of space yet full of good references. I was fortunate enough that the librarian there is my sis in our religious organization, so without second thought she helped me access good materials and let me borrow a book to help me understand more of the requirements in the implementation of a library system.

I really appreciate going back to UPLB and studying the library best practices of UP OU.

There is still more to learn and explore in UPLB. UP OU has indeed opened my mind and heart to reminisce all the learning years I spent in LB.

Issues in Sharing an Integrated Library System

Author: Bob Bocher

Published: Wisconsin Division for Libraries, Technology and Community Learning

url: http://dpi.wi.gov/pld/sharing.html

Abstract:

The article discussed the decisions library staff confront as they consider implementing an automated system. One of which is whether sharing an automated system with other libraries is a viable option. This decision-to share or not share an automated system-is a critical decision with long-term implications.

The article also defined briefly what is a “shared system”. A shared system means having at least two libraries, linked via a telecommunications network, using the same hardware platform and library application software (i.e., online catalog, circulation system, etc.). Shared systems often include the sharing of data files or the creation of single data files for various applications.

A myriad of questions were also raised in sharing an automated system that do not arise when a library implements its own separate automated system. Such as: will the cataloging databases from all the libraries be integrated and treated as a single database or will each library maintain its own database? To what extent will the participating libraries seek commonality in loan policies, cataloging practices, and coordinated acquisitions?

To address all these concerns, the author suggested that there should be a long-term commitment to a shared library system.

Three things I learned:

At the end of the article, I learned:

1. The advantages of a shared system, such as: library’s resources are expanded; More robust, sophisticated systems are available ; Shared cataloging is more feasible; Staff need not have complete knowledge of the system’s operation; and library cooperation is enhanced

2. the disadvantages are: Local control and governance are compromised ; Different libraries serve different clienteles; Telecommunication expenses; Who will pay what? ; The features needed from the system must be defined ; and Who determines what system to purchase?

3. Shared automated systems offer many advantages to the participating libraries and the patrons they serve. This option should always be thoroughly explored as a library embarks on planning for an automated system. As with any successful group process, implementing a shared automated system is dependent on maintaining a high degree of cooperation among the partners and willingness to compromise.

Implications of things I learned in my work:

In the advent of Information age, everything seems to be connected. Library system in particular should also be connected with each other. Library system should be networked.

Last week I reported about Network as a requirement in the implementation of a library system. Thus, I know how important it is for the software and hardware of a library to share resources so that users could access any information they need.

Using Concept Hierarchies to Enhance User Queries in Web-Based Information Retrieval

Authors: Ahu Sieg, Bamshad Mobasher, Steve Lytinen, Robin Burke

Publisher:  School of Computer Science, Telecommunication and Information Systems, DePaul University, 243 South Wabash Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60604, USA

URL: http://maya.cs.depaul.edu

Abstract of the article:

The article discussed about the effectiveness of Internet search engines which is often hampered by the ambiguity of user queries and the reluctance or inability of users to build less ambiguous multi-word queries. The system, ARCH, is a client-side Web agent, which incorporates domain-specific concept hierarchies together with interactive query formulation in order to automatically produce a richer and therefore less ambiguous query. Unlike traditional relevance feedback methods, ARCH assists users in query modification prior to the search task. ARCH uses the domain knowledge inherent in Web-based classification hierarchies such as Yahoo, combined with a user’s profile information, to add just those terms likely to improve the match with the user’s intent. The goal of the system is therefore to meet the user’s information needs by closing the gap between the user’s stated query and the actual intent of the search. The authors present a detailed evaluation of the query enhancement in ARCH, comparing enhanced and non-enhanced queries over a range of topics. Their results show that concept-based query enhancement in ARCH leads to significantly higher precision for ambiguous queries without sacrificing recall.

Three things I learned from my Reading Assignment:

After reading the article, I was able to:

1. learn that the divide between the users’ intent and search queries emanates from a number of factors, such as users’ lack of knowledge about the problem domain, their reluctance or inability to formulate more sophisticated multi-word queries, and the inability of search engines to resolve query ambiguity based on the users’ search context;
2. learn that the key to improving websearch is to help users formulate queries that better reflect their search intent, and have a higher likelihood of returning good results.
3. learn a client-side Web agent, called ARCH (Adaptive Retrieval based on Concept Hierarchies), which uses domain specific concept hierarchies together with user profiles to assist users in formulating effective search queries.

Implications of the new things I learned to my work/ to me as a person:

As always, I’m online and heavily dependent on the web in searching for information. Since my work and studies require frequent researches, I always maximize my access in the web for references.

This reading assignment for instance wouldn’t be possible without web IRS. Based from my own experience, I really had a hard time looking for this semi-technical article, maybe because I lack the knowledge about the particular domain and was unable to formulate more sophisticated multi-word queries.

Shaping the Internet Age: critique on the use of online and digital media

Authors: Bill Gates

Publisher: Internet Policy Institute  

URL: http://www.microsoft.com.

Abstract of the article:

He stated that years ago, the Internet was an obscure network of large computers used only by a small community of researchers. Back then, the majority of computers were found in corporate information technology (IT) departments or research laboratories. But nowadays, the Internet is far from obscure–it’s the center of attention for businesses, governments and individuals around the world. It has spawned entirely new industries, transformed existing ones, and become a global cultural phenomenon.

He gave reasons why Internet is so useful. The reasons are as follows: from its conception in the academic community (largely as a result of government-sponsored research) to its subsequent development and commercialization by the private sector; Internet language is universal and easily grasped that’s why any business can create products and services that make use of it; and due to the creativity of the World Wide Web.

Three things I learned from my Reading Assignment:

After reading the article, I was able to:

1. know and understand why Internet as a media can break down barriers and bridge digital divide;

     2. know what’s next after Internet has already revolutionized the way we live and work;

     3. be aware that despite the opportunities offered by Internet, there are also some serious issues and threats attached.

Implications of the new things I learned to my work/ to me as a person:

This article about the use of online and digital media is very useful to me. As you may know, my major is Educational Technology. As a M.A student taking this course, I should know by heart and mind the implications of using Internet and other forms of digital media for teaching and learning.

This reminds me of my seminar conducted last March at STI, Bulacan, wherein I served as a resource speaker. I together with my classmates did a teaching demo on how to use the Internet to facilitate proper learning in different subject areas.

This article made me realize more the Internet’s full potential, but although they are challenging, they are not entirely new and definitely not insurmountable. Internet is a revolutionary technology that is transforming our world.

 

SEARCH of INFORMATION: a critique

Last July 16, 2008, The Ortigas Center Library Consortium (OCLC) Inc., in cooperation with Jose Rizal University Library conducted a forum on “Strategies in Effective Searching of Information,” held at Jose Rizal University Multimedia Section.

The forum’s objectives were: to learn the new techniques in searching information; and, to know the research tools in searching information. Unfortunately, at the end of the lecture,  I was still in search of all the above-mentioned information. The said forum wasn’t able to meet its objectives, as well as my expectations.

What happened?

Program mismanagement.

The forum started at 1:45pm and ended before 4pm. The duration is too short and didn’t follow the schedule indicated in the program. If the program could have been more substantive, then I wouldn’t mind staying until 4:30pm, following the original schedule.What bothers me is the fact that I even filed a Vacation leave so that I can be on time and leave on time. We could have maximized the afternoon in learning the so many strategies about search of information.

The program managers could have anticipated this to happen. At least to complement the insufficient information shared, forum kits or handout could have been provided for free or inclusive of our payment.

Miscommunication.

During the lecture, which turned out as one-way and very traditional, the lecturer wasn’t able to communicate the right and expected messages to us. The lecture should have been a presentation, where there’s interaction and two-way exchange of ideas.

There were instances when the lecturer asked questions. But when the participants asked queries, the answers given by the lecturer were inappropriate.

This reminds me of my background in communication system/models, that is – if the feedback given by the receiver didn’t fit the message of the source or vice versa, then there’s a problem in the effectivity of the source or to other elements of the communication process.

The lecturer could have started the program by leveling first of expectations, knowing what we know, so that we could be playing in the same language game and miscommunication wouldn’t be an issue.

Still, I am looking for the strategies in effective searching of information.

 

 

Utilizing WEB 2.0 technologies in our libraries

According to the presentation of Mr. Romero, Web 2.0 is a phrase used to describe a change in the way we use the Internet. As coined by O’Reilly Media in 2004, it refers to a perceived generation of Internet-based services and hosted services which aim to facilitate collaboration and sharing of information among users in any part of the world, online.

Compared with Web 1.0, Web 2.0 is more dynamic, decentralized, quick to change, participatory and easy to use. I am not a librarian. But I’m very much aware of Web 2.0 and its possible useful applications in the library setting. Let me name three of my favorites among the so many Web 2.0 technologies.

1.Blogs.

Blog, short for Weblog, is a Web site that contains brief entries ranging from simple personal diaries, journals to sophisticated news sites. In our libraries, librarians can use blogs to promote library’s services, resources, and events and programs online. Librarians have had to learn how to do a lot with just a little in order to promote awareness of their programs and services. Librarians could just post ebooks and other references that could help complement the existing references that could be found on their websites. Also, blogs could serve as means to facilitate feedback, suggestions and recommendations from the visitors.

2. Wikis

A wiki is a collection of web pages designed to enable anyone who accesses it to contribute or modify content, using a simplified markup language. A good example of this is, “Welcome to Library Success: A Best Practices Wiki. ” This wiki was created to be a one-stop shop for great ideas and information for all types of librarians. Librarians are developing successful programs and doing innovative things with technology that no one outside of their library knows about. If blogs are channels for sharing information about the profession, then wikis are the best mode where all of shared information are collected and organized.

3. Social Networking Sites

A social network site uses software to build online social networks for communities of people who share interests and activities or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others. Through facebook or friendster, librarians can easily reconnect with other librarians or to those people who have the same interest or field. Once updated with the profile of others, librarians could easily establish and build professional relationships with contacts leading to partnerships, collaborations and business ventures. 

 

Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and Librarian 2.0: Preparing for the 2.0 World

 Authors: Stephen Abram  

 Publisher: SirsiDynix OneSource

URL: http://www.imakenews.com

Abstract of the article: 

The article is about Web 2.0 and its newborn babies, Library 2.0 and Librarian 2.0. The author stated that Web. 2.0 conversations have the power to drive huge transformations in our media landscape and, therefore, our life, work, and play environments. As he noted on his blog, that we are entering a period of enormous change – far greater than what we’ve ever experienced in our lives to date. Both the Gartner Group and Morgan Stanley have noted that this will be transformational on a very global scale. It’ll be exciting too, although those of us who care about communities, learning, and information will be tasked with some pretty heavy strategic planning goals.

The author defined Web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, Library 2.0, and Librarian 2.0. The old World Wide Web was based on the “Web 1.0″ paradigm of Web sites, email, search engines, and surfing. Web 2.0 is about the more human aspects of interactivity. It’s about conversations, interpersonal networking, personalization, and individualism. Web 3.0 will probably be even more distributed in form. Like Web 2.0, the beauty of Library 2.0 is the level of integration and interoperability that is designed into the interface through your portal or intranet. That’s where the real power to enhance the user experience is. While, Librarian 2.0 is the guru of the information age. It understands end users deeply in terms of their goals and aspirations, workflows, social and content needs, and more.

Three things I learned from my Reading Assignment:After reading the article, I was able to: 

1. define and understand that a Web 2.0 is about the more human aspects of interactivity. It’s about conversations, interpersonal networking, personalization, and individualism;
2. define and understand the beauty of Library 2.0 which lies in the level of integration and interoperability that is designed into the interface through your portal or intranet; 
3. define and understand the services and applications of Librarian 2.0 which is the guru of the information age.

 

Implications of the new things I learned to my work/ to me as a person:

 

At first, all I knew about www is that – it stands for world wide web. Now, I learned that there’s more to that. It’s nice to know the terms like Web 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0, and for library purposes, there are Library 2.0 and Librarian 2.0. From web sites, email, search engines, blogging and surfing, I become aware of the emerging services www could offer.RSS, Wikis, Personalized Alerts, Folksonomies, tag clouds, Social bookmarking…what are these? I can’t wait to explore them all! 

Reflections on Information Retrieval Evaluation

 Authors: Mei-Mei Wu & Diane H. Sonnenwald

Publisher: Pacific Neighborhood Consortium 

 URL:http://www.pnclink.org

 

 Abstract of the article:

 

The article discussed that the Information retrieval (IR) research has primarily consisted of two paradigms: systemsoriented research and user studies. Systems-oriented research includes IR algorithm development and evaluation and, to some degree, human-system interaction. User studies include human information behavior and information seeking research. These paradigms have contributed new IR algorithms and insights into IR processes. However, problematic issues concerning IR evaluation exist in both communities. For example, research methods, measures, and metrics that can yield generalizable results are problematic for systemsoriented research and user studies. The authors proposed that establishing a dialog between these communities and synthesizing their methods may increase the effectiveness of both.  

Moreover, a brief overview of IR evaluation, including systems-oriented research and user studies, is presented and problematic issues in IR evaluation are discussed. The authors synthesized these approaches and proposed a framework for evaluation that is based on attributes that have been shown to influence adoption of innovations.

 

Three things I learned from my Reading Assignment:

 

After reading the article, I was able to:   

1. know that Information retrieval (IR) research has primarily consisted of two paradigms: systemsoriented research and user studies;
2. know the importance of Information retrieval system evaluation;
3. name some criteria and measures used for evaluation such as: goals met, effectiveness, use and usability, and utility.

 Implications of the new things I learned to my work/ to me as a person: 

 It’s indeed true that with the continued information explosion, information retrieval (IR) evaluation has increased in importance and is an active area of research and development.In our office, we relied on the Internet for some researches, especially in looking for sponsors, awardees’ work, media contacts, etc. Also, our office houses the Asian Library, which really conducts researches and investigation. Thus, IR in our workplace requires evaluation to check its effectiveness and utility.

Challenging conventional assumptions of automated information retrieval with real users: Boolean searching and batch retrieval evaluations

 Authors: William Hersh, Andrew Turpin, Susan Price, Dale Kraemer, Daniel Olson,

Publisher: Elsevier Science Ltd.

URL: http://www.medir.ohsu.edu

 Abstract of the article:

 The article discussed the two common assumptions held by information retrieval researchers. These assumptions are: that searching using Boolean operators is inferior to natural language searching; and that results from batch-style retrieval evaluations are generalizable to the real-world searching. The authors challenged these assumptions in the Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) interactive track, with real users following a consensus protocol to search for an instance recall task. Their results showed that Boolean and natural language searching achieved comparable results and that the results from batch evaluations were not comparable to those obtained in experiments with real users.

 Three things I learned from my Reading Assignment:

 After reading the article, I was able to:

1. identify the Boolean operators;
2. compare Boolean versus natural language searching;
3. know that there were some cognitive abilities associated with successful use of computer systems such as: Spatial visualization, Logical reasoning, Verbal reasoning, and Associational Fluency.

Implications of the new things I learned to my work/ to me as a person:

Now, with the use of Boolean operators, I could find what I’m looking for faster. The operators could greatly help narrow down the results, and more often than not, the information I’m looking for will be in the first two or three results. The article reminded me the tips for better Internet searches.