- SocialLearn: Bridging the Gap Between Web 2.0 and Higher Education
(source: e-Literate, 16/06/08)
Higher education faces a challenge. It may not now it yet, but it does. And the challenge is this – when learners have been accustomed to very facilitative, usable, personalisable and adaptive tools both for learning and socialising, why will they accept standardised, unintuitive, clumsy and out of date tools in formal education they are paying for? It won’t be a dramatic revolution (students accept lower physical accommodation standards when they leave home for university after all), but instead there will be a quiet migration. The monolithic LMSs will be deserted, digital tumbleweed blowing down their forums. Students will abandon these in favour of their tools, the back channel will grow and it will be constituted from content and communication technologies that don’t require a training course to understand and that come with a ready made community.

- High Self-efficacy and High Use of Electronic Information may Predict Improved Academic Performance
(source: EBLIP, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, vol. 3, N° 2, 2008)
Main Results – Self-efficacy and use of electronic information together contributed to 9% (reported as 0.9% in the article) of the variance in academic performance, and each variable statistically significantly contributed to predicting academic performance (p<0.05). Use of electronic information contributed more than did self-efficacy to the prediction of academic performance. The correlations of use of electronic information to high self-efficacy and academic performance to high self-efficacy were very slightly stronger than these variables to low self-efficacy. Use of electronic info and self-efficacy were both statistically significantly correlated to academic performance (r = 0.2779 and r = 0.1559, respectively), though these correlations were modest. When asked what information source the students used most often, a little more than a third (35.42%) noted the Internet, followed by CD-ROM databases (20.43%), electronic journals (18.71%), and e-mail (18.29%). Electronic books and bulletin boards were used least often (3.71% and 3.43%, respectively).

- The quality of open scholarship: what follows from open?
(source: Revues.org, 26/06/08)
Compte-rendu de la conférence d'ouverture ELPUB.
[Voir aussi, en anglais]

- Making Digital Scholarship Count: [ un ] [ deux ] [ trois ]
(source: edwired / via D. Cohen's Digital Humanities Blog, 27/06/08)