Article 2: Using rubrics to assess information literacy
In January 2000, the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) established a set of standards for information literacy along with performance indicators and outcomes by which to measure attainment of the standards. This article’s thesis is stated in the proposal that there are several advantages of using a grading rubric to assess information literacy; 1. The learning objectives of library instruction are easily adapted to the literacy standards, 2. The rubric fits the library environment and is flexible to meet changes in that environment, 3. It provides clear measures of learning and states them at the outset of learning. The article reports the results of a study of the impact of using grading rubrics to assess a written learning outcome of information competency in a specific course for college freshman. The establishment of the course learning objectives and the grading rubrics was based on the literacy standards of the ACRL. The study results confirm a positive impact on outcomes by using grading rubrics based on literacy standards. Additionally, some aspects of the instruction were shown to be deficient in this study, and by reviewing this evaluative tool in this manner some improvements in the course were implemented later.
Using rubrics also leads to a more objective measure of students’ success in achieving the goals of the literacy standards. Instructors are also able to determine if the learning environment has any impact on the students’ learning. Further, the grading rubric can measure a specific outcome, such as happened in this study. It was desired to know if students valued scholarly sources over web sites, and that outcome was measured and assessed as a result of the rubric being used. It is seen that very specific goals can be achieved by use of rubrics to assess literacy.
The article emphasizes the need to formulate course objectives properly and inform students at the outset of those learning objectives. Another key finding was that it is very important to use authentic methods of evaluation, rather than episodic or self-reported methods. Authentic evaluations give real measures and are not subject to bias, wishful thinking or the students reporting what they might think is a desired evaluation.
The author uses the results of this study to encourage librarians to engage faculty in acceptance of the ACRL’s literacy standards. The results definitely reveal value in using rubrics to measure literacy outcomes in library instruction courses.
Article Citation: Knight, Lorrie A.. “Using rubrics to assess information literacy.” Reference Services Review 31.1 (2006): 43-55.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Self-Directed Reading Post
Article 1: How to know what you want them to know. Rediscovering objectives by reviewing evaluative materials
Evaluation of teaching measurement tools, student performance and comparing results to learning objectives identifies strengths and weaknesses that can be addressed and adjusted as needed. The author uses personal experiences as a bibliographic instructor to develop a framework for revising a course’s objectives based on reviewing the results of current evaluative tools.
The author’s experiences show how to use the results of quizzes as one method to identify how well course objectives are defined and whether or not they are being met. There are, of course, other evaluative tools, which can get to the same results. Reflective writing exercises such as this one is another example. Offering a practical experience of executing on a skill being taught in a course is a third example. In each case, student performance is measured. Reviewing the results of those measurements is obviously an excellent way to determine any necessary adjustments in the defined learning objectives of the course. Further, this article surfaced in my mind the additional concept that review of such evaluative tools can identify any needed adjustments in pedagogy and can lead to the best formulations of the evaluative tools themselves. While the author didn’t specifically state this idea, the concept is apparent in the article. Another very helpful insight was the author’s quoting Brookhart’s point that instructors who focus on content rather than learning have difficulty with assessment. This statement highlights for me the need to remain focused on desired outcomes not only when writing objectives, but also when developing the teaching methods and evaluative tools. Maintaining focus on learning outcomes will produce the best results of any instruction opportunity.
Article Citation: Fagan, Jody Condit. “How to know what you want them to know. Rediscovering objectives by reviewing evaluative materials.” Research Strategies 18 (2001): 75-83.
Other works cited: Brookhart, S. M. The art and science of classroom assessment: the missing part of pedagogy. Washington DC (1999). George Washington University.
Evaluation of teaching measurement tools, student performance and comparing results to learning objectives identifies strengths and weaknesses that can be addressed and adjusted as needed. The author uses personal experiences as a bibliographic instructor to develop a framework for revising a course’s objectives based on reviewing the results of current evaluative tools.
The author’s experiences show how to use the results of quizzes as one method to identify how well course objectives are defined and whether or not they are being met. There are, of course, other evaluative tools, which can get to the same results. Reflective writing exercises such as this one is another example. Offering a practical experience of executing on a skill being taught in a course is a third example. In each case, student performance is measured. Reviewing the results of those measurements is obviously an excellent way to determine any necessary adjustments in the defined learning objectives of the course. Further, this article surfaced in my mind the additional concept that review of such evaluative tools can identify any needed adjustments in pedagogy and can lead to the best formulations of the evaluative tools themselves. While the author didn’t specifically state this idea, the concept is apparent in the article. Another very helpful insight was the author’s quoting Brookhart’s point that instructors who focus on content rather than learning have difficulty with assessment. This statement highlights for me the need to remain focused on desired outcomes not only when writing objectives, but also when developing the teaching methods and evaluative tools. Maintaining focus on learning outcomes will produce the best results of any instruction opportunity.
Article Citation: Fagan, Jody Condit. “How to know what you want them to know. Rediscovering objectives by reviewing evaluative materials.” Research Strategies 18 (2001): 75-83.
Other works cited: Brookhart, S. M. The art and science of classroom assessment: the missing part of pedagogy. Washington DC (1999). George Washington University.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Self-Directed Reading Post
Article 2: Student psychosocial and cognitive development: theory to practice in academic libraries
By placing the psychosocial and cognitive development theories in the context of Carol Kuhltau’s Information Seeking Process (ISP) model and the Information Literacy (IL) Standards model of the Association of College and Research Libraries, Gatten’s objective is to encourage designers of library instruction to draft their learning process interventions to support and enhance students’ information research skills as they develop. Representative of this intention is his statement that “educational theory has value only to the extent that it is known and that it informs practice.” The author does acknowledge certain challenges and limitations in this approach, but encourages a gradual introduction to library resources as needed and as the student is prepared to receive the instruction or resource exposure (as measured along the development theory continuums, not necessarily linear in nature).
Since the development theories do not apply to each individual in exactly the same way or in the same time frames, it becomes difficult to apply a single interaction, or a few interactions, that will meet all of the needs of all of the students all at once. The interactions must come in shorter pieces of time, and offer smaller segments of knowledge, and at multiple times (frequently) to span the development process. This approach allows for interactions to come at the time when students are prepared for them, or in other words, when they are in the proper developmental vector, stage or phase to appreciate and receive the instruction. Gatten provides an interesting mapping diagram comparing the stages or vectors of two development theories to the stages of the ISP and the standards of IL by aligning them on a comparative progression line. The intent of this new model is to allow instruction designers to match programs to audiences in their anticipated developmental phase, their information seeking skill level and while in the perceived stage of the search process. It is an interesting approach, fraught with difficulty since instructors and designers are not psychologists or experts at determining development progress and skill levels. For that matter, who could possibly do that analysis in one interaction? However, with some care and understanding, use of the model has the potential to assist designers and instructors to provide more effective and successful library instruction interventions.
Article Citation: Gatten, Jeffrey N.. “Student psychosocial and cognitive development: theory to practice in academic libraries.” Reference Services Review 32.2 (2004): 157-163.
By placing the psychosocial and cognitive development theories in the context of Carol Kuhltau’s Information Seeking Process (ISP) model and the Information Literacy (IL) Standards model of the Association of College and Research Libraries, Gatten’s objective is to encourage designers of library instruction to draft their learning process interventions to support and enhance students’ information research skills as they develop. Representative of this intention is his statement that “educational theory has value only to the extent that it is known and that it informs practice.” The author does acknowledge certain challenges and limitations in this approach, but encourages a gradual introduction to library resources as needed and as the student is prepared to receive the instruction or resource exposure (as measured along the development theory continuums, not necessarily linear in nature).
Since the development theories do not apply to each individual in exactly the same way or in the same time frames, it becomes difficult to apply a single interaction, or a few interactions, that will meet all of the needs of all of the students all at once. The interactions must come in shorter pieces of time, and offer smaller segments of knowledge, and at multiple times (frequently) to span the development process. This approach allows for interactions to come at the time when students are prepared for them, or in other words, when they are in the proper developmental vector, stage or phase to appreciate and receive the instruction. Gatten provides an interesting mapping diagram comparing the stages or vectors of two development theories to the stages of the ISP and the standards of IL by aligning them on a comparative progression line. The intent of this new model is to allow instruction designers to match programs to audiences in their anticipated developmental phase, their information seeking skill level and while in the perceived stage of the search process. It is an interesting approach, fraught with difficulty since instructors and designers are not psychologists or experts at determining development progress and skill levels. For that matter, who could possibly do that analysis in one interaction? However, with some care and understanding, use of the model has the potential to assist designers and instructors to provide more effective and successful library instruction interventions.
Article Citation: Gatten, Jeffrey N.. “Student psychosocial and cognitive development: theory to practice in academic libraries.” Reference Services Review 32.2 (2004): 157-163.
Self-Directed Reading Post
Article 1: A mixed-methods investigation of the relationship between critical thinking and library anxiety among undergraduate students in their information search process
This article reports results of a study of the nature of the associations between critical thinking and library anxiety among undergraduate students. A standardized survey was administered to 137 students to acquire quantitative data for analysis. The same students were asked to write an essay about their library use experiences, which formed the basis for a qualitative analysis. These two methods of analysis revealed connections in the data that helped investigators identify qualitative support for the quantitative results. By consolidating the two investigative methods, an interactive model emerged which contrasts critical thinking skills with library anxiety. This model shows a direct link between critical thinking skills and library anxiety. Students with strong critical thinking skills overcame library anxiety during their library use experiences; whereas students possessing weak critical thinking skills experienced more anxiety and had more trouble overcoming it.
Of significance, was the finding that three key critical thinking dimensions (see Facione) were more frequently observed than others, namely self-confidence, systematicity, and inquisitiveness. These dimensions helped students build on their information literacy skills and overcome anxiety while in the midst of their experience. Possessing these critical thinking dimensions caused students, who weren’t sure how to begin, to develop strategies for their searches and to overcome failures. As information was found, confidence and determination increased, leading to successful outcomes. Students who did not exhibit these dimensions experienced failure. This investigation confirms that librarianship must include “assisting students in the process of learning and using information they have located” (see Kuhltau). Kwon suggests three key objectives that will make library literacy instruction more effective. Instruction librarians should lead students to feelings of confidence about their own cognitive abilities, create a learning environment that encourages intellectual curiosity and persistence, and encourage students to employ focused and systematic approaches when solving research problems.
Article Citation: Kwon, Nahyun. “A Mixed-Methods Investigation of the Relationship between Critical Thinking and Library Anxiety among Undergraduate Students in their Information Search Process.” College and Research Libraries 69.2 (March 2004): 117-31.
Other works cited: Facione, Peter A., et al. “The Disposition toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill.” Informal Logic 20.1 (2000): 22Kuhltau, Carol C. Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services, 2nd ed. (Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2004).
This article reports results of a study of the nature of the associations between critical thinking and library anxiety among undergraduate students. A standardized survey was administered to 137 students to acquire quantitative data for analysis. The same students were asked to write an essay about their library use experiences, which formed the basis for a qualitative analysis. These two methods of analysis revealed connections in the data that helped investigators identify qualitative support for the quantitative results. By consolidating the two investigative methods, an interactive model emerged which contrasts critical thinking skills with library anxiety. This model shows a direct link between critical thinking skills and library anxiety. Students with strong critical thinking skills overcame library anxiety during their library use experiences; whereas students possessing weak critical thinking skills experienced more anxiety and had more trouble overcoming it.
Of significance, was the finding that three key critical thinking dimensions (see Facione) were more frequently observed than others, namely self-confidence, systematicity, and inquisitiveness. These dimensions helped students build on their information literacy skills and overcome anxiety while in the midst of their experience. Possessing these critical thinking dimensions caused students, who weren’t sure how to begin, to develop strategies for their searches and to overcome failures. As information was found, confidence and determination increased, leading to successful outcomes. Students who did not exhibit these dimensions experienced failure. This investigation confirms that librarianship must include “assisting students in the process of learning and using information they have located” (see Kuhltau). Kwon suggests three key objectives that will make library literacy instruction more effective. Instruction librarians should lead students to feelings of confidence about their own cognitive abilities, create a learning environment that encourages intellectual curiosity and persistence, and encourage students to employ focused and systematic approaches when solving research problems.
Article Citation: Kwon, Nahyun. “A Mixed-Methods Investigation of the Relationship between Critical Thinking and Library Anxiety among Undergraduate Students in their Information Search Process.” College and Research Libraries 69.2 (March 2004): 117-31.
Other works cited: Facione, Peter A., et al. “The Disposition toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill.” Informal Logic 20.1 (2000): 22Kuhltau, Carol C. Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services, 2nd ed. (Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2004).
Friday, February 12, 2010
Article 2: Beyond active learning: a constructivist approach to learning
This article discusses the basic elements of constructivist learning and more deeply reveals specific learning activities that can be implemented in the classroom. The authors suggest four guiding principles that support this learning theory, learners construct their own meaning, new knowledge builds on a foundation, social interaction enhances learning, and learning comes from encountering real-life activities. The authors employ an interesting simile by addressing the adage, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” Instructors are equated with facilitators and follow the steps of leading the learner along the path of learning to content (water) that has been prepared. The facilitator must keep the path smooth, void of briers and impediments, until ultimately the learner has arrived at and tasted deeply the content (or new knowledge). A number of learning activities are included in an appendix of the article. These are related to specific areas of library instruction.
Two key truths about constructivist theory are emphasized in this article, which, while presented, are not as obvious in the other readings. These truths address and refute two complaints about constructivist theory. Opponents suggest that constructivist theory is too open and without form, allowing learners to meander without ever actually learning and without being required to demonstrate their learning. The second complaint is that the theory is ineffective for certain learners, who may not have a solid foundation of basic knowledge upon which to build. The first truth as stated in the article is that constructivist learning “moves from experience to learning, and not the other way around.” In other words, some experience is required, or learning cannot happen. Opponents are wrong to assume that constructivists believe learning can happen without some foundation of knowledge. The constructivist endeavors to lead the learner to and through experiences to enable learning, and uses a scaffold of learning steps to build the foundation and more. The second truth is that “without structure there would be no guarantee of specific skill and concept learning.” The acknowledgement that structure is required and that a foundation of knowledge is necessary, goes a long way in eliminating the arguments purporting the ineffectiveness of constructivist learning theory.
Article Citation: Cooperstein, Susan E. and Elizabeth Kocevar-Weidinger. “Beyond Active Learning: A Constructivist Approach to Learning.” Reference Services Review 32 (2004): 141-8.
This article discusses the basic elements of constructivist learning and more deeply reveals specific learning activities that can be implemented in the classroom. The authors suggest four guiding principles that support this learning theory, learners construct their own meaning, new knowledge builds on a foundation, social interaction enhances learning, and learning comes from encountering real-life activities. The authors employ an interesting simile by addressing the adage, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” Instructors are equated with facilitators and follow the steps of leading the learner along the path of learning to content (water) that has been prepared. The facilitator must keep the path smooth, void of briers and impediments, until ultimately the learner has arrived at and tasted deeply the content (or new knowledge). A number of learning activities are included in an appendix of the article. These are related to specific areas of library instruction.
Two key truths about constructivist theory are emphasized in this article, which, while presented, are not as obvious in the other readings. These truths address and refute two complaints about constructivist theory. Opponents suggest that constructivist theory is too open and without form, allowing learners to meander without ever actually learning and without being required to demonstrate their learning. The second complaint is that the theory is ineffective for certain learners, who may not have a solid foundation of basic knowledge upon which to build. The first truth as stated in the article is that constructivist learning “moves from experience to learning, and not the other way around.” In other words, some experience is required, or learning cannot happen. Opponents are wrong to assume that constructivists believe learning can happen without some foundation of knowledge. The constructivist endeavors to lead the learner to and through experiences to enable learning, and uses a scaffold of learning steps to build the foundation and more. The second truth is that “without structure there would be no guarantee of specific skill and concept learning.” The acknowledgement that structure is required and that a foundation of knowledge is necessary, goes a long way in eliminating the arguments purporting the ineffectiveness of constructivist learning theory.
Article Citation: Cooperstein, Susan E. and Elizabeth Kocevar-Weidinger. “Beyond Active Learning: A Constructivist Approach to Learning.” Reference Services Review 32 (2004): 141-8.
Article 1: Elicit, engage, experience, explore: discovery learning in library instruction
This article discusses a teaching strategy called Discovery Learning. This strategy is intended to heighten student involvement in the learning process and also helps the student recognize the relevance of the particular instruction. Five basic learning architectures are presented under the headings of Case-based learning, Incidental learning, Learning by exploring, Learning by reflection, and Simulation-based learning. Several specific examples of classroom exercises representing each of these architectures are outlined. The authors use Aristotle’s adage, “What we have to learn to do, we learn by doing”, to presuppose the need for discovery learning. Later, they offer solutions to some anticipated barriers to discovery learning and encourage librarians/instructors to gradually implement this strategy into existing library instruction.
Discovery learning is suggested as a synonym for active learning and likewise, each can be a synonym for constructivist learning. The authors’ description of constructivist learning theory enhances the information presented by Svinicki. Several key attributes of this learning theory are given as: (1) using Problem-solving and exploration, (2) learner interest-based control of sequence and frequency, and (3) the integration of new knowledge with the existing base. In fact, it follows that any pedagogy must contain some aspect of these attributes to be considered constructivist. The key is engagement of the learner to the point of immersion into the process. The learner is made to be in control of learning. The basic precept is that people learn better and retain the knowledge longer when intimately engaged in the learning process. All of the specific strategies or exercises within the architectures discussed in the article encompass these attributes in at least some degree. It is easy to understand how they can be implemented and to recognize their positive impact in achieving the objectives of the constructivist learning theory. It is also impressive how simple activities support powerful learning outcomes by engaging the learners in the process and maintaining their attention, sometimes for what may be short spans of time.
Article Citation: Bicknell-Holmes, Tracy and Paul Seth Hoffman. “Elicit, engage, experience, explore: discovery learning in library instruction.” Reference Services Review 28 (2000): 313-22.
Additional Work Cited: Svinicki, Marilla. Learning and Motivation in the Postsecondary Classroom. (Anker, 2004). Chapter 2.
This article discusses a teaching strategy called Discovery Learning. This strategy is intended to heighten student involvement in the learning process and also helps the student recognize the relevance of the particular instruction. Five basic learning architectures are presented under the headings of Case-based learning, Incidental learning, Learning by exploring, Learning by reflection, and Simulation-based learning. Several specific examples of classroom exercises representing each of these architectures are outlined. The authors use Aristotle’s adage, “What we have to learn to do, we learn by doing”, to presuppose the need for discovery learning. Later, they offer solutions to some anticipated barriers to discovery learning and encourage librarians/instructors to gradually implement this strategy into existing library instruction.
Discovery learning is suggested as a synonym for active learning and likewise, each can be a synonym for constructivist learning. The authors’ description of constructivist learning theory enhances the information presented by Svinicki. Several key attributes of this learning theory are given as: (1) using Problem-solving and exploration, (2) learner interest-based control of sequence and frequency, and (3) the integration of new knowledge with the existing base. In fact, it follows that any pedagogy must contain some aspect of these attributes to be considered constructivist. The key is engagement of the learner to the point of immersion into the process. The learner is made to be in control of learning. The basic precept is that people learn better and retain the knowledge longer when intimately engaged in the learning process. All of the specific strategies or exercises within the architectures discussed in the article encompass these attributes in at least some degree. It is easy to understand how they can be implemented and to recognize their positive impact in achieving the objectives of the constructivist learning theory. It is also impressive how simple activities support powerful learning outcomes by engaging the learners in the process and maintaining their attention, sometimes for what may be short spans of time.
Article Citation: Bicknell-Holmes, Tracy and Paul Seth Hoffman. “Elicit, engage, experience, explore: discovery learning in library instruction.” Reference Services Review 28 (2000): 313-22.
Additional Work Cited: Svinicki, Marilla. Learning and Motivation in the Postsecondary Classroom. (Anker, 2004). Chapter 2.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Archival Theory & Diplomatics
Archival science encompasses the theory, methods, practice and analysis of the safe storage, cataloging and accession of materials. Its history has been primarily concerned with preservation and safe handling of documents as well as measuring and reporting the provenance of documents to assure their reliability and authenticity. With the advent of digital documents the science has taken on an expansion of each of its process parts. Duranti[i] and Gilliland-Swetland[ii] refer to an archival paradigm. Interestingly, the former suggests that the science has experienced a paradigm shift, where as the latter presents a strong case that the paradigm remains intact and has only taken on new opportunities. In this paper a few of their key thoughts will be discussed leading to a conclusion that semantics aside, the science has undergone significant evolution leading to the ultimate adoption of principles from multiple disciplines of information science to emerge as an all-encompassing system to support the proper archiving of documents, electronic and otherwise.
In Duranti’s description of archival science as a system, she proposes that all the system parts must function together (theory, methodology, practice, and scholarship) to achieve a clear objective. When one part of the system is changed, then the whole system can be considered changed. Galliland-Swetland identifies the newest iteration of the science’s functional requirements to be an amalgamation of process requirements from various disciplines (librarians, archivists, curators, preservationists, technical information specialists, and information systems and museum professionals) encouraging each community to be conversant with the practices and principles of each of the other communities. In the articles, each author in her own way is supporting the concept that archival science is dealing with more than mere information. It is a discipline and a profession that deals with knowledge. It is further posited that archivists should be engaged at the original development of knowledge and that engagement should carry on right through the long-range preservation of knowledge for future users. Archival science is preserving the story of knowledge development in order to save the context. Awareness and understanding of that context help to fully appreciate the knowledge and how it was created, and perhaps even its future uses. With that in mind, the sooner the archivist is brought into the process of knowledge creation and information handling, the better the preservation of that knowledge, since its ultimate storage and uses can be anticipated from the start.
The articles cite a number of studies and projects which have tackled the issues of collaboration between disciplines, specifically in confronting new challenges in dealing with electronic documents and their preservation. Several of those projects, such as the Preservation of the Integrity of Electronic Records research project at the University of British Columbia (UBC Project) and its follow-on project InterPARES (International Research on Permanent Authentic Records in Electronic Systems), set out to address the archivists’ challenges with records created or stored in electronic systems. These and other international committees and project teams, formulated in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, studied specific digital document problems and made recommendations on how the archival science community should deal with and solve these new challenges. Duranti was a part of the two projects specifically mentioned here and edited the final reports and recommendations. The InterPARES project[iii] is important for many reasons, not the least being its decidedly international flavor and thus the encouragement of archivists around the world to adopt strategies and methodologies that will best preserve the world’s knowledge and the future knowledge that will be developed in new formats and environments. Galliland-Swetland reviews the experiences and contributions of these projects and many other contributors from the archival community. Their findings and recommendations for preserving the documentary heritage of records, regardless of their format, are presented and analyzed.
Further, it is suggested that projects undertaking the development of future electronic systems should acquire and maintain a vision of this integration of multiple disciplinary theories and methodologies. It is deemed important for the future of archival science to become a part of such development efforts. For example, on pages 24 and 25 of Galliland-Swetland’s report, the author poses several questions about metadata after stating the need for identifying the “tensions between the rich and complex metadata sets that individual communities have developed”. With more and more non-specialists using digital archives the need for simpler metadata sets seems apparent. An example or two of real case implementations as a response to this need are described by the author. The first cited case is the use of a new archival descriptive standard in the United States called Encoded Archival Description (EAD), which can be a more flexible metadata infrastructure, and which is capable of supporting information retrieval and display without compromising any archival objectives. The second example given is SPIRT, a recordkeeping metadata standards project conducted in Australia. SPIRT has had success in integrating standardized metadata schemes into record keeping systems and retaining support of archival uses as well.
Based on the evidence of such cases and the findings of the reports in general, the authors suggest that archival science must become more collaborative now and in the future than it has been in the past in order to more fully inculcate the theories and practices of archival science into the process of knowledge creation and long-range handling of knowledge documents and document storage. Some questions to consider for class discussion are:
1) Why hasn’t there been more collaboration in the past? What is it about electronic documents or the current environment that suddenly caused awareness of this need, or at least willingness to address it?
2) How best can archivists approach this challenge and garner the invitation to be involved in the knowledge creation process at the outset, instead of when it may be too late? How can a more holistic view be instilled in all knowledge and information workers to enable adoption of the collaboration principles espoused by the Galiland-Swetland and Duranti articles and reports?
3) Who will be best positioned to bring the various disciplines together, especially those outside the realm of information science (i.e. computer science)? Will it be archival scientists, computer scientists, or some other group?
Taken together, these articles provide an outline of a number of steps that, to some extent at least, have already been implemented and that should be widely adopted in order to continue the evolving process of establishing guidelines and rules for the work of archivists when dealing with all types of documents, including the newest formats and those yet to be developed.
The goals of the projects and committees cited in the articles include a refinement of the archival rules and models so as to eliminate duplication and to bring into the field many good practices, theories and models from other disciplines that strengthen the archival process. The system of archival science needs the adoption of outside models and theories to enrich and modernize its own processes. The other disciplines are also enhanced when their theories and methodologies adopt a keen awareness of the principles of archival science. In this way, the archival principles of reliability, authenticity, provenance and transparency are maintained in a changing environment that continually introduces new knowledge creation technologies and also produces new document formats.
Notes:
[i] Duranti, Luciana (2001). "The Impact of Digital Technology on Archival Science" in Archival Science 1(1), pp. 39-55.
[ii] Gilliland-Swetland, Anne J. (Feb. 2000). “Enduring Paradigm, New Opportunities: The Value of the Archival Perspective in the Digital Environment”. Council on Library & Information Resources, Washington D.C. http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub89/pub89.pdf
[iii] The InterPARES Project (2001). The Long-term Preservation of Authentic Electronic Records: Findings of the InterPARES Project. http://www.interpares.org/book/index.cfm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)