EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 202 (2020) E3S Web Conf., 202 (2020) 15018 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 202, 2020
The 5th International Conference on Energy, Environmental and Information System (ICENIS 2020)
Article Number 15018
Number of page(s) 6
Section Smart Information System
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202020215018
Published online 10 November 2020
  1. I. Bruce, C., Davis, K., Hughes, H., Partridge, H., & Stoodley, “Information experience: Contemporary perspective,” in Library and Information Science, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, (2014), pp. 3–15. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. E. Kuiper, M. Volman, and J. Terwel, “Integrating Critical Web Skills and Content Knowledge: Development and Evaaluation of 5th Grade Educational Program,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 666–692, (2008). [Google Scholar]
  3. A. N. Çoklar, N. D. Yaman, and I. K. Yurdakul, “Information literacy and digital nativity as determinants of online information search strategies,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 70, pp. 1–9, (2017). [Google Scholar]
  4. F. Miller, “Knowledge Ecosystems of Early Career Academics : A Grounded Theory of Experiencing Information Use for Learning in Developmental Networks.” [Google Scholar]
  5. I. Huvila, K. Holmberg, M. Kronqvist-Berg, O. Nivakoski, and G. Widén, “What is Librarian 2.0 - New competencies or interactive relations? A library professional viewpoint,” J. Librariansh. Inf. Sci., vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 198–205, (2013). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Heriyanto, “Understanding How Australian Researchers Experience Open Access As Part of Their Information Literacy,” Queensland University of Technology, (2018). [Google Scholar]
  7. C. Bruce, Seven Faces of Information Literacy. Adelaide: AUSLIBPress, (1997). [Google Scholar]
  8. M. do C. A. Alvarez et al., “Information literacy: Perceptions of Brazilian HIV/AIDS researchers,” Health Info. Libr. J., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 64–74, (2014). [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. K. Williamson, V. Bernath, S. Wright, and J. Sullivan, “Research Students in the Electronic Age: Impacts of Changing Information Behavior on Information Literacy Needs,” Comminfolit, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 47, (2008). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. S. Brinkmann and S. Kvale, “Doing Interviews,” in The SAGE Qualitative Research Kit, London: SAGE Publications, (2017). [Google Scholar]
  11. H. Heriyanto, “Thematic Analysis sebagai Metode Menganalisa Data untuk Penelitian Kualitatif,” Anuva, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 317, Nov. (2018). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Demonstrating Rigor in Thematic Analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development,” Int. J. Qual. Methods, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 80–92, (2006). [Google Scholar]
  13. A. Lloyd, “Information literacy: Different contexts, different concepts, different truths?,” J. Librariansh. Inf. Sci., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 82–88, (2005). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. M. Hughes, H., Hall, N., & Pozzi, “Library experience and information literacy learning of first year international students: An australian case study,” Commun. Inf. Lit., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 302–323, (2017). [Google Scholar]
  15. C. Yates, “Exploring variation in the ways of experiencing health information literacy: A phenomenographic study,” Libr. Inf. Sci. Res., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 220–227, (2015). [Google Scholar]
  16. C. Hodges, S. Moore, B. Lockee, T. Trust, and A. Bond, “The Difference Between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning,” Educause Review, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning?fbclid=IwAR1rCWQM0uAIryOPyGCgQSsiuNbKf-RNbvImAZZbvlzWok3EVIFs5m2irSg. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.