2011
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-24469-8_11
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Digital Library 2.0 for Educational Resources

Abstract: Abstract. We report on focus group feedback regarding the services provided by existing education-related Digital Libraries (DL). Participants provided insight into how they seek educational resources online, and what they perceive to be the shortcomings of existing educational DLs. Along with useful content, social interactions were viewed as important supplements for educational DLs. Such interactions lead to both an online community and new forms of content such as reviews and ratings. Based on our analysis… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
2
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Akbar et al [1] reported focus group opinions on the importance of community in digital library systems, a sentiment mirrored in the work by Shaffer et al [15] on the AlgoViz portal.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Akbar et al [1] reported focus group opinions on the importance of community in digital library systems, a sentiment mirrored in the work by Shaffer et al [15] on the AlgoViz portal.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…We do not investigate in this paper whether resources of low quality simply receive no comments rather than negative comments Ð forming a reliable metric for quality of resources is beyond the scope of this paper. For information, 41% of CAS 1 We did not encounter any such comments during classification, but this category is included to clarify this fact. …”
Section: General Question ð Comments Which Ask a General Question (Ofmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In summary, the main principles of user service in the smart library are as follows (Akbar et al, 2011;Baker and Evans, 2011;Choi and Whinston, 2000):…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%