Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Hilary Hughes.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Bob Pymm.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Jake Wallis.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Lyn Hay.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Roy Crotty.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Mary Anne Kennan.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Huan Vo-Tran.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice ALTC Fellowship Report

This ALTC Teaching Fellowship aimed to establish Guiding Principles for Library and Information Science Education 2.0. The aim was achieved by (i) identifying the current and anticipated skills and knowledge required by successful library and information science (LIS) professionals in the age of web 2.0 (and beyond), (ii) establishing the current state of LIS education in Australia in supporting the development of librarian 2.0, and in doing so, identify models of best practice. The fellowship has contributed to curriculum renewal in the LIS profession. It has helped to ensure that LIS education in Australia continues to meet the changing skills and knowledge requirements of the profession it supports. It has also provided a vehicle through which LIS professionals and LIS educators may find opportunities for greater collaboration and more open communication. This will help bridge the gap between LIS theory and practice and will foster more authentic engagement between LIS education and other parts of the LIS industry in the education of the next generation of professionals. Through this fellowship the LIS discipline has become a role model for other disciplines who will be facing similar issues in the coming years. Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups exploring the current and anticipated skills and knowledge needed by the LIS professional in the web 2.0 world and beyond. Whilst each focus group tended to draw on specific themes of interest to that particular group of people, there was a great deal of common ground. Eight key themes emerged: technology, learning and education, research or evidence-based practice, communication, collaboration and team work, user focus, business savvy and personal traits. It was acknowledged that the need for successful LIS professionals to possess transferable skills and interpersonal attributes was not new. It was noted however that the speed with which things are changing in the web 2.0 world was having a significant impact and that this faster pace is placing a new and unexpected emphasis on the transferable skills and knowledge. It was also acknowledged that all librarians need to possess these skills, knowledge and attributes and not just the one or two role models who lead the way. The most interesting finding however was that web 2.0, library 2.0 and librarian 2.0 represented a ‘watershed’ for the LIS profession. Almost all the focus groups spoke about how they are seeing and experiencing a culture change in the profession. Librarian 2.0 requires a ‘different mindset or attitude’. The Levels of Perspective model by Daniel Kim provides one lens by which to view this finding. The focus group findings suggest that we are witnessing a re-awaking of the Australian LIS profession as it begins to move towards the higher levels of Kim’s model (ie mental models, vision). Thirty-six LIS educators participated in telephone interviews aimed at exploring the current state of LIS education in supporting the development of librarian 2.0. Skills and knowledge of LIS professionals in a web 2.0 world that were identified and discussed by the LIS educators mirrored those highlighted in the focus group discussions with LIS professionals. Similarly it was noted that librarian 2.0 needed a focus less on skills and knowledge and more on attitude. However, whilst LIS professionals felt that there was a paradigm shift within the profession. LIS educators did not speak with one voice on this matter with quite a number of the educators suggesting that this might be ‘overstating it a bit’. This study provides evidence for “disparate viewpoints” (Hallam, 2007) between LIS educators and LIS professionals that can have a significant implications for the future of not just LIS professional education specifically but for the profession generally. Library and information science education 2.0: guiding principles and models of best practice 1 Inviting the LIS academics to discuss how their teaching and learning activities support the development of librarian 2.0 was a core part of the interviews conducted. The strategies used and the challenges faced by LIS educators in developing their teaching and learning approaches to support the formation of librarian 2.0 are identified and discussed. A core part of the fellowship was the identification of best practice examples on how LIS educators were developing librarian 2.0. Twelve best practice examples were identified. Each educator was recorded discussing his or her approach to teaching and learning. Videos of these interviews are available via the Fellowship blog at .The LIS educators involved in making the videos felt uncomfortable with the term ‘best practice’. Many acknowledged that there simply seeking to do the best by their students and that there was always room for improvement. For this reason these videos are offered as examples of “great practice”. The videos are a tool for other educators to use, regardless of discipline, in developing their teaching and learning approaches to supporting web 2.0 professionals. It has been argued that the main purpose of professional education is transformation (Dall’ Alba, 2009; Dall’Alba & Barnacle, 2007). As such professional education should focus not just on skills and knowledge acquisition but also on helping students to develop ways of being the professionals in question (ie LIS professionals, teachers, lawyers, engineers).The aim of this fellowship was to establish Guidelines for Library and Information Science Education 2.0 it has however become apparent that at this point in time it is not yet possible to fulfil this aim. The fellowship has clearly identified skills and knowledge needed by the LIS professional in web 2.0 world (and beyond). It has also identified examples of ‘great practice’ by LIS educators as they endeavour to develop LIS professionals who will be successful in a web 20 world. The fellowship however has also shown that the LIS profession is currently undergoing significant attitudinal and conceptual change. Consequently, before a philosophy of LIS education 2.0 can be expressed, the Australian LIS profession must first explore and articulate what it means to be an LIS professional in the 21st century (ie a world of web 2.0 and beyond). In short, the LIS profession in Australia must take stock not of “what we know and can do” but on “who we are becoming” (Dall’Alba, 2009, p 34).

Technology : new horizons in teaching law

17.1 Up until the 1990s the methods used to teach the law had evolved little since the first law schools were established in Australia. As Keyes and Johnstone observed: In the traditional model, most teachers uncritically replicate the learning experiences that they had when students, which usually means that the dominant mode of instruction is reading lecture notes to large classes in which students are largely passive. Traditional legal education has been described in the following terms: Traditionally law is taught through a series of lectures, with little or no student involvement, and a tutorial programme. Sometimes tutorials are referred to as seminars but the terminology used is often insignificant: both terms refer to probably the only form of student participation that takes place throughout these students‘ academic legal education. The tutorial consists of analysing the answers, prepared in advanced (sic), to artificial Janet and John Doe problems or esoteric essay questions. The primary focus of traditional legal education is the transmission of content knowledge, more particularly the teaching of legal rules, especially those drawn from case law. This approach has a long pedigree. Writing in 1883, Dicey proposed that nothing can be taught to students of greater value, either intellectually or for the purposes of legal practice, than the habit of looking on the law as a series of rules‘.

The aetiology, impact and management of cancer-related fatigue in patients with advanced cancer

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a distressing symptom frequently experienced by patients with advanced cancer. While there have been some advances in the understanding of the management of fatigue associated with cancer treatment, CRF associated with advanced cancer remains a phenomenon that is not well-managed. The aetiologic factors associated with CRF, the impacts of CRF and the current management of CRF are discussed in this review article in relation to patients with advanced cancer. The paper concludes that while further research is required in the area, there are several potentially effective strategies currently available that can reduce the severity of CRF in patients with advanced cancer.

Using the Precede-Proceed Model of Health Program Planning in breast cancer nursing research

Aim: In this paper we discuss the use of the Precede-Proceed model when investigating health promotion options for breast cancer survivors. Background: Adherence to recommended health behaviors can optimize well-being after cancer treatment. Guided by the Precede-Proceed approach, we studied the behaviors of breast cancer survivors in our health service area. Data sources: The interview data from the cohort of breast cancer survivors are used in this paper to illustrate the use of Precede-Proceed in this nursing research context. Interview data were collected from June to December 2009. We also searched Medline, CINAHL, PsychInfo and PsychExtra up to 2010 for relevant literature in English to interrogate the data from other theoretical perspectives. Discussion: The Precede-Proceed model is theoretically-complex. The deductive analytic process guided by the model usefully explained some of the health behaviors of cancer survivors, although it could not explicate many other findings. A complementary inductive approach to the analysis and subsequent interpretation by way of Uncertainty in Illness Theory and other psychosocial perspectives provided a comprehensive account of the qualitative data that resulted in contextually-relevant recommendations for nursing practice. Implications for nursing: Nursing researchers using Precede-Proceed should maintain theoretical flexibility when interpreting qualitative data. Perspectives not embedded in the model might need to be considered to ensure that the data are analyzed in a contextually-relevant way. Conclusion: Precede-Proceed provides a robust framework for nursing researchers investigating health promotion in cancer survivors; however additional theoretical lenses to those embedded in the model can enhance data interpretation.

Online geographic information systems for improving health planning practice : lessons learned from the case study of Logan-Beaudesert, Australia

This study examines the impact of utilising a Decision Support System (DSS) in a practical health planning study. Specifically, it presents a real-world case of a community-based initiative aiming to improve overall public health outcomes. Previous studies have emphasised that because of a lack of effective information, systems and an absence of frameworks for making informed decisions in health planning, it has become imperative to develop innovative approaches and methods in health planning practice. Online Geographical Information Systems (GIS) has been suggested as one of the innovative methods that will inform decision-makers and improve the overall health planning process. However, a number of gaps in knowledge have been identified within health planning practice: lack of methods to develop these tools in a collaborative manner; lack of capacity to use the GIS application among health decision-makers perspectives, and lack of understanding about the potential impact of such systems on users. This study addresses the abovementioned gaps and introduces an online GIS-based Health Decision Support System (HDSS), which has been developed to improve collaborative health planning in the Logan-Beaudesert region of Queensland, Australia. The study demonstrates a participatory and iterative approach undertaken to design and develop the HDSS. It then explores the perceived user satisfaction and impact of the tool on a selected group of health decision makers. Finally, it illustrates how decision-making processes have changed since its implementation. The overall findings suggest that the online GIS-based HDSS is an effective tool, which has the potential to play an important role in the future in terms of improving local community health planning practice. However, the findings also indicate that decision-making processes are not merely informed by using the HDSS tool. Instead, they seem to enhance the overall sense of collaboration in health planning practice. Thus, to support the Healthy Cities approach, communities will need to encourage decision-making based on the use of evidence, participation and consensus, which subsequently transfers into informed actions.

Advanced Computational Intelligence System for inverse aeronautical design optimisation

Abstract—Computational Intelligence Systems (CIS) is one of advanced softwares. CIS has been important position for solving single-objective / reverse / inverse and multi-objective design problems in engineering. The paper hybridise a CIS for optimisation with the concept of Nash-Equilibrium as an optimisation pre-conditioner to accelerate the optimisation process. The hybridised CIS (Hybrid Intelligence System) coupled to the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) tool and one type of Computer Aided Design(CAD) system; GiD is applied to solve an inverse engineering design problem; reconstruction of High Lift Systems (HLS). Numerical results obtained by the hybridised CIS are compared to the results obtained by the original CIS. The benefits of using the concept of Nash-Equilibrium are clearly demonstrated in terms of solution accuracy and optimisation efficiency.

Heritage refurbishment : National Trust House (Basement 3) [Architectural Practice Academy Office]

The refurbishment of The National Trust House (Basement3), undertaken in 2005, represents heritage consultation, architectural and interior design of a disused and deteriorating subbasement of a historically and culturally significant building situated in Brisbane. Research into rectification and restoration work of the existing structure and interior surfaces (inclusive of masonry work sourced from the Kangaroo Point quarry in the 1860's) formed a significant component of the project. The National Trust House sub basement 3 was refurbished to house the Architectural Practice Academy, a joint initiative of the Queensland Government and the Australian Institute of Architects.

Recovery-based practice: do we know what we mean or mean what we know?

The concept of recovery is now widely promoted as the guiding principle for the provision of mental health services in Australia and overseas. While there is increasing pressure on service providers to ensure that services are recovery oriented, the way in which recovery-based practice is operationalized at the coalface presents a number of challenges. These are discussed in the context of five key questions that address (i) the appropriateness of recovery as a focus for service delivery, (ii) the distinction between recovery as a process and an outcome, (iii) the assessment of recovery initiatives, (iv) the alignment of recovery with current service delivery models, and (v) the risks associated with recovery-based practice. It is argued that these questions provide a framework for a debate that must extend beyond patients and providers of mental health services to the broader public, whose attitudes will ultimately determine the possibilities and limits of recovery-oriented practice.