A Media Specialist’s Role in the Research Process :: Librarians Library Media Specialist Role Essays

A Media Specialist’s Role in the Research Process When settlers from the East planned to â€Å"go West,† they faced many challenges. Becoming hopelessly lost was likely. Starvation was a possibility. Floods threatened total destruction. Settlers needed an experienced guide to lead them to their destination. When students begin research projects, they face similar challenges—although the challenges are intellectual rather than physical. They can become hopelessly lost as they try to follow Internet links from one site to another. They can be starved for good information. They can be flooded with note cards that contain bland and useless facts. Students need a guide. They need a school librarian who can lead them along the trail of solid, meaningful research. The librarian must understand the student’s assignment, assist with locating helpful resources, and know the basic processes for writing a research paper. Understanding the student’s research project assignment requires conducting a reference interview. In the Online Dictionary of Library and Information Science by Joan M. Reitz, a reference interview is defined as â€Å"the interpersonal communication that occurs between a reference librarian and a library user to determine the person’s specific information need(s), which may turn out to be different than the reference question as initially posed.† The key to this interview is good communication initiated by the librarian. Before any exchange of information takes place, an â€Å"attitude† exists. â€Å"How the student perceives his or her question will be received† (Riedling) contributes to the overall tone of the interview. The librarian must provide an atmosphere that is comfortable for the student to seek information. In addition to the physical surroundings, the librarian must use both verbal and nonverbal skills to encourage the student. According to Riedling, nonverbal strategies include â€Å"physical gestures, posture, facial expressions, tone of voice, and eye contact.† The media specialist must ask open questions and practice active listening, while utilizing other verbal skills including â€Å"remembering, restating, paraphrasing, closure, and inclusion.†(Underdown) The librarian must determine just what sort of information is needed and the depth that is required. The process is accurately summed up by Riedling’s statement â€Å"that a successful reference interview is one in which the student feels satisfied that you have given personal attention and accurate information.

Basic Law (Tort)

Building law and contract admin Assignment no 2 Tort Volenti non fit injuria Latin / voluntary assumption of risk. A defence in tort that means where a person engages in an event accepting and aware of the risks inherent in that event, then they can not later complain of, or seek compensation for an injury suffered during the event. This is used most often to defend against tort actions as a result of a sports injury Smith v Charles baker & son 1891 Dulieu v White and son 1901 Herd v Weardale Steel and Coal 1914 Doctrine From the Latin word doctrina meaning â€Å"teachings. Something taught as a the principle or creed especially in religion. A rule or principle of law established through its repeated use. Doctrine of alternative danger The plaintiff is supposed to be careful in spite of the defendant's negligence, there may be certain circumstances when the plaintiff is justified in taking some risk where some dangerous situation has been created by the defendant. The plaintiff migh t become perplexed or nervous by the dangerous situation and to save his person and property, or sometimes to save a third party from such danger, he may take an alternative risk.The law, therefore, permits the plaintiff to encounter an alternative danger to save himself from the danger created by the defendant. If the course adopted by him results in some harm to himself, his action against the defendant will not fail. The judgment of the plaintiff should not, however, be rash. The plaintiff is not only justified in taking risk for himself, he may take risks for others as well. Jones v Boyce 1816 Thin Skull Rule An additional exposure in tort liability towards persons who are particularly vulnerable or more fragile than the norm, who may have inherent weaknesses or a pre-existing vulnerability or condition.The tort-feasor takes his victim as he finds them he compensates for all damages he caused, even if damages are elevated compared to a norm because the plaintiff was thin skulled . The principle appears to have emanated from a 1901 English case, Dulieu v White and Sons, where it was stated â€Å"If a man is negligently run over or otherwise negligently injured in his body, it is no answer to the sufferer’s claim for damage that he would have suffered less injury, or no injury at all, if he had not had an unusually thin skull or an unusually weak heart. For example, if a person who has physical or psychological infirmities which extend, beyond a the norm, his/her recovery from injuries resulting from another’s tort, the defendant’s damages are not discounted accordingly but, instead, are adjusted upwards to fit the â€Å"thin skulled† victim Dulieu v White and Sons 1901 Contributory Negligence The negligence of a person which, while not being the primary cause of a tort, nevertheless combined with the act or omission of the primary defendant to cause the tort, and without which the tort would not have occurred.Contributory neglige nce applies solely to the conduct of the claimant. It means that there has been some act or omission on the claimant's part which has materially contributed to the damage caused and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as negligence. Froom v Butcher 1976 Nance v BC Electric Railway Co. 1951 Stinton v Stinton 1993 Res Ipsa Loquitur Latin / the thing speaks for itself Generally, in tort, the mere fact of an accident is not proof of negligence. But in some cases, negligence is presumed on the defendant since the object causing injury was in or under his or her control.This is the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. Res ipsa loquitur is a rebuttable presumption rebutted by showing that the event was an inevitable accident and had nothing to do with the defendant’s responsibility of control or supervision. Examples of res ipsa loquitur, not all of which can be assumed to apply today which illustrate the doctrine. Getting hit by a rock which flies off a passing dump truck. A ship in motion collides with an anchored ship. Damages occasioned by the collision of two trains of a same railway. Devine v Colville’s ltd 1969Royal bank of Scotland v Etridge 2001 Donohue v Stevenson 1931 Question 2 i. Which parties may be liable for the injury and losses suffered Introduction To deal with the liabilities of this case I feel it would be poignant to break the case down and investigate each individual parties involvement and therefore liability. List of parties possibly involved West Kent collage Buildright Ltd Kentcrete Ltd Driver 1 ( using the designated entrance) Driver 2 (using the staff and student entrance) Driver 3 (driver of the car)Student 1 (the driver of the car) Student 2 (student that was hit by the car) Student 3 (who was sick due to the accident) Air ambulance service Hospital West Kent collage West Kent collage had appointed a competent contractor to legally carry out the construction of the new building and would not seam to be directly in volved in the accident, Although they do have a reasonability of care to there students. The students involved were in areas that were designated for there use, and therefore not acting illegally or with negligence.The fact that student 1 was in the driver seat in the car would imply that the car was, just stationary, and not parked illegally. Due to the collage being â€Å" to far away† or â€Å"not directly involved† the collage in my opinion would not be liable in any way Buildright Ltd As with the West Kent collages involvement build right Ltd would be considered to have a duty of care for the overall running of the construction process and all parties therefore involved, however again it can be reasonably expected that Kentcrete the local supplier would carry out there task of delivering the concrete in a legal and competent manor.Therefore no liability for the accident would be upheld. Kentcrete Ltd Kentcrete would be considered to have a direct or primary reason ability for the actions of its employees under the law of vicarious liability. Employers are vicariously liable for the torts of their employees that are committed during the course of employment. they could therefore be held responsible for driver 1 and driver 2’s actions. Driver 1 using the correct entrance, and having no problems can be exonerated from any responsibility.Driver 2’s action of using the wrong entrance and then crashing into the car would therefore make kentcrete liable under the rules of vicarious liability. Driver no 1 (using the designated entrance) Although the driver may have been â€Å"keen to deliver†, he/she used the correct entrance, had no accident, and would therefore not be held reasonable in any way. Driver no 2 ( using the student and staff entrance) This driver would be considered to have committed a tort or â€Å"wrong† by intentionally using the wrong entrance, or at least being negligent by not using the designated one.H e/ she would be considered to be liable of negligence as it would be reasonable to expect the driver to use the correct entrance. He / She could also be held reasonable for the injuries to student no 2 as being a direct cause by hitting the car. Student no 1 (the driver of the car) Student no 1 could not be held responsible for the injuries to student no 2 He/She had not committed a tort, and was not a employee of the companies involved, it would not be reasonable to expect student no1 to be able to foresee the actions of Driver no 2.Therefore no liability would be upheld for the injuries caused to student no 2. He / She would not be guilty of trespass to the person as there was no attempt or offer to apply unlawful force nor was there any intention to bring a an object, the car, into contact with a person. Student no 2 / Student no 3 Both theses students would not be held responsible as no tort, negligence, or trespass to the person has been committed and neither would be liable. A ir ambulance services and the hospitalNeither could be held responsible for the events that took place before they arrived, however there may be a case for negligence due to the delay that took place in treating the arrival of Student no 2. The 20 minute delay due to an admissive mistake may have been considered a breech in duty of care and therefore negligent. We would then need to approach the subject of whether the death of student no 2 was a direct result of the delay. Ii . What defences may be available to those potentially liable to avoid or reduce liabilityKentcrete Ltd could argue that the main contractor Buildright Ltd hade not made them aware of the conditions of site and that there was a specific entrance that was to be used, If this were the case it may be that build right could be held partially reasonable as The negligence of the claimant which, while not being the primary cause of a tort, nevertheless combined with the act or omission of the defendant to cause the tor t, and without which the tort would not have occurred IE if build right had told kentcrete that there was a specific entrance then the driver would have used it, therefore they contributed to the tort and could be held responsible under contributory negligence.Driver no 2 could argue the same, He / She could also argue that there were no signs to the front of the building and the entrance was unmarked, Was student no 1 under the influence of drugs or alcohol, Was it a dark day and did the stationary car have lights on, was the stationary car illegally parked at the time and causing a public nuisance or obstruction to the highway, these may not all be defences but would be considered at least mitigating circumstances. The hospital could argue that the time delay was reasonable under the circumstances, were they particularly busy. Did the time delay contribute to the deterioration of student no 2’s health or was it inevitable. Iii / iv which parties may entitled to remedies for injury and losses suffered ? Student no 2, ho is now unfortunately dead, would be unable to claim at all, but his parents, family or legal guardian would be able to claim or sue for damages, who they sued would be dependant on the findings of the hospital inquiry or the report from the corinor as to the cause of death.It may also be true that the lorry driver could be sued for manslaughter through the criminal courts. Student no 3 the driver of the stationary car could sue and claim damages for the whiplash they have suffered, loss of earnings due to the whiplash, these could be claimed through physical injury and economic loss respectively, sighting Donahue v Stevenson 1932 and Carroll v Fearon 1988. The repair to the car would be recoverable through the motor insurance of the lorry. Question 3 What is and is not recoverable through the courts ? The client may be able to recover damages from the main contractor, for all and any damage caused as a direct result of the fire.Sighting Mcardale v Admac roofing 1967 when the main contractor was found to be responsible when a roof was constructed incorrectly. Or sighting Scottish Special Housing Association v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd 1986 The main contractor in turn may be able to recover there loss from the sub contractor for negligence if the air conditioning installed was found to be at fault. Sighting Tyco fire & integrated solutions v Rolls Royce motor cars Ltd ( 2007) The neighbour who tried to extinguish the fire would not be able to recover damages for smoke inhalation or for losses through earnings, It may be the case that he could be sued himself for trespass, sighting Manchester airport v Dutton (1999) S A Mercer HNC year 1

Who Invented Touch Screen Technology

According to PC Magazine, a touch screen is, a display screen that is sensitive to the touch of a finger or stylus. Widely used on ATM machines, retail point-of-sale terminals, car navigation systems, medical monitors and industrial control panels, the touch screen became wildly popular on handhelds after Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007. The touch screen is one of the easiest to use and most intuitive of all computer interfaces, a touch screen allows users to navigate a computer system by touching icons or links on the screen. How Touch Screen Technology Works There are three components used in touch screen technology: The touch sensor is a panel with a touch responsive surface. Systems are built based on different types of sensors: resistive (most common), surface acoustic wave, and capacitive (most smartphones). However, in general, sensors have an electrical current running through them and touching the screen causes a voltage change. The voltage change signals the location of the touching.The controller is the hardware that converts the voltage changes on the sensor into signals the computer or another device can receive.Software tells the computer, smartphone, game device, etc, whats happening on the sensor and the information coming from the controller. Whos touching what where; and allows the computer or smartphone to react accordingly. Of course, the technology works in combination with a computer, smartphone, or another type of device. Resistive and Capacitive Explained According to Malik Sharrieff, an eHow Contributor, the resistive system is comprised of five components, including the CRT (cathode ray tube) or screen base, the glass panel, the resistive coating, a separator dot, a conductive cover sheet and a durable top coating. When a finger or stylus presses down on the top surface, the two metallic layers become connected (they touch), the surface acts as a pair of voltage dividers with connected outputs. This causes a change in the electrical current. The pressure from your finger causes conductive and resistive layers of circuitry to touch each other, changing the circuits resistance, which registers as a touch screen event that is sent to the computer controller for processing. Capacitive touch screens use a layer of capacitive material to hold an electrical charge; touching the screen changes the amount of charge at a specific point of contact. History of Touch Screen Technology 1960s Historians consider the first touch screen to be a capacitive touch screen invented by E.A. Johnson at the Royal Radar Establishment, Malvern, UK, around 1965 - 1967. The inventor published a full description of touch screen technology for air traffic control in an article published in 1968. 1970s In 1971, a touch sensor was developed by Doctor Sam Hurst (founder of Elographics) while he was an instructor at the University of Kentucky. This sensor called the Elograph was patented by The University of Kentucky Research Foundation. The Elograph was not transparent like modern touch screens, however, it was a significant milestone in touch screen technology. The Elograph was selected by Industrial Research as one of the 100 Most Significant New Technical Products of the Year 1973. In 1974, the first true touch screen incorporating a transparent surface came on the scene developed by Sam Hurst and Elographics. In 1977, Elographics developed and patented a resistive touch screen technology, the most popular touch screen technology in use today. In 1977, Siemens Corporation financed an effort by Elographics to produce the first curved glass touch sensor interface, which became the first device to have the name touch screen attached to it. On February 24, 1994, the company officially changed its name from Elographics to Elo TouchSystems. Elographics Patents US3662105: Electrical Sensor Of Plane CoordinatesInventor(s)Hurst; George S., Lexington, KY - Parks; James E., Lexington, KYIssued/Filed Dates:May 9, 1972 / May 21, 1970US3798370: Electrographic Sensor For Determining Planar CoordinatesInventor(s)Hurst; George S., Oak Ridge, TNIssued/Filed Dates:March 19, 1974 / April 17, 1972 1980s In 1983, the computer manufacturing company, Hewlett-Packard introduced the HP-150, a home computer with touch screen technology. The HP-150 had a built-in a grid of infrared beams across the front of the monitor which detected finger movements. However, the infrared sensors would collect dust and require frequent cleanings. 1990s The nineties introduced smartphones and handhelds with touch screen technology. In 1993, Apple released the Newton PDA, equipped with handwriting recognition; and IBM released the first smartphone called Simon, which featured a calendar, notepad, and fax function, and a touch screen interface that allowed users to dial phone numbers. In 1996, Palm entered the PDA market and advanced touch screen technology with its Pilot series. 2000s In 2002, Microsoft introduced the Windows XP Tablet edition and started its entry into touch technology. However, you could say that the increase in the popularity of touch screen smart phones defined the 2000s. In 2007, Apple introduced the king of smartphones, the iPhone, with nothing but touch screen technology.