It's somewhat ironic that such an isolated school district should be the one to have the flexibility and initiative to create such a seemingly good educational model as the Fusion program outlined by Semadini. I love the idea of people getting paid to get better at what they do in general, but especially in teaching. For most education systems, this idea is contrary to culture, and I will personally be pretty surprised if I am ever given contract hours (or even stipends!!) to become a better librarian. While I think self-education should be expected of and compensated for people in teaching professions, I will obviously point out that learning how to educate is always only as effective as the models and techniques taught. When I was teaching English in Japan I did actually get some mandatory paid training time throughout the year, but it was neither here nor there and often had little or even negative effects on my classes. I do like the idea that the Fusion model seems to be flexible, with a "menu" of techniques that can be chosen by teachers. It would be interesting to know just how much principles "point" teachers towards certain goals.
I think educating librarians on basic technology competency actually is rather urgent, at least in my experience, and like the inviting sense of "play" that it uses, rather than making things like a chore. There are many...non-digital natives I've seen working at libraries across the state who actively choose not to educate themselves on basic computer troubleshooting and software that they constantly get asked about. While it's there right to do so to an extent, at some point it does become a professional requirement. I cringe when I see someone at a reference desk get a question about how to print something, betray a terrified look, and then say "I can't help you with that." Or, as the article mentions, put an out of order sign on a computer or piece of equipment without doing any troubleshooting at all.There's a bit of a strange dichotomy in librarianship where on one hand a lot of people talk about the importance of technology literacy and an awareness that people want access to and help with computers. On the other hand, I've noticed at least personally that when it comes to helping patrons at least, the idea is "we're not here to teach people to use microsoft word. There's a class for that." I think not only do staff need to know how to use the technology they provide in a basic sense--and making it seem fun is important since if someone doesn't already know, they probably really don't want to. I think (and predict we'll see) that library staff, even librarians, need to become more open to helping patrons out with the little silly things that seem so obvious. I teach someone how to adjust the volume on public library computers just about every week, and it doesn't bother me. Yes, I know it doesn't require a graduate degree. But neither does a willingness to help people with immediate needs.
Kristin's article is so succinct! It nicely communicates the importance of technical training being about "playing around" and "experimenting" with others rather than "drilling." It's perhaps somewhat counter-intuitive, but I think it's really true that learning how to use machines and technology isn't really best done going through a manual or an extremely strict workshop. I've learned how to use Photoshop and Illustrator this year, and quickly found that following manuals and tutorials was not terribly effective or motivating--I really just had to take the time to play around. Having a professor sit next to me might have been nice, but I've found professional advice isn't always retained as well as discovery on one's own. As with all things, I think there is a balance though, and the success of Kristin's program is a bit surprising if only because it does seem to stray slightly closer to the area of "self-teaching" than one would imagine might be optimal, particularly for learning how to use technology. But again, I think we under-appreciate the usefulness of "play" in making machines work.
The webinars were another fun hands-on learning & teaching experience, and overall I liked how mine went. Carmen and I had good visuals, which we were complimented on, and really used the visuals to drive our discussion. My part of the presentation was very scripted, much more so than the screencast, but I found this wasn't too much of a problem as I had Carmen to help answer chat questions and give feedback while I said my piece. Practice was very important. If I had this to do over again, I would have somehow anticipated that the trial I had been using was some sort of 3-person only room, though I guess I would have thought to have more than one person join the room to test it to find this out. Whoops. I also--and this goes for the webinars I attended to--would have tried to make the webinar even more interactive throughout. That's what the idea of a "live" webinar is all about, having an actual discussion and contributing and sharing ideas. I had polls and invited feedback, but what was received was kind of drowned out since we didn't have time to just chat as we had to constantly move along with the slides and presentation to finish in time. I also would have liked to have decided to do the "web tour" whereas I ended up settling for screenshots, mainly to save time. Overall I think the webinars were fun and successful, though I did constantly wonder, "how can I add value to this, and how can I make use of the fact that there are live people here." It's surprisingly easy when doing a webinar to lapse into a mere lecture with a token survey, where a screencast or a podcast would do the same.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Paul Courant, Twitter
I very much enjoyed last week's talk with Paul Courant, who was surprisingly affable and seemingly very forthright considering the tricky nature of some of the topics we were discussing. It's always nice to be reminded that we're really at the center of a lot of major library action here, where organizations like Google are getting sued and such via projects the University is a major participant in. His reaction to Joanna's incisive question was especially interesting though I wasn't surprised to hear his view that issues libraries like Michigan are facing are basically due to problems with forces outside of academia rather than within academia itself. I do imagine corporations like Sony and so forth do have bigger fish to fry than folks in academia and/or library land. However I do think it's important that an academic library be very cognizant of academic culture and interests affecting thought processes behind certain systems and actions, rather than just painting themselves as bystanders in a world shaped by powers far bigger than themselves.
I'm glad this week's assignment regarding signing on to twitter as I am reluctant to participate more than absolutely necessary is "social media" and this obviously needs to change. To use an SI 500 obsession I guess one reason is just the problem of information overload--I don't use things like google reader or twitter often because I feel I am already bombarded with more than enough information, and I like to think if something is important enough, I will take the time and energy to find it myself. But it not using things like twitter I miss out on a lot of opportunities, and for better or worse I really just need to be tuned into all the major ways people find and share information.
For my tweets, I retweeted blog posts of a librarian I happen to be following who basically does focus on social media like facebook and twitter. Aaron Tay, at musingsaboutlibrarianship.blogspot.com. Of his posts, I found the one listing the most influential libraries on twitter to be very interesting because it was dominated by large public rather than academic libraries. One might imagine academic rather than public libraries should be the most present on twitter or facebook (another post I tweeted had to do with the fact the NY Public was the biggest library on facebook) because of the clientele: college kids should theoretically be the most active on twitter, right? I wonder if it's due to the fact that public libraries often have to scramble the hardest for funding, and so are more active and have been quicker to get onto the web 2.0 social scene? I don't seem to be personally acquainted enough with academic libraries and their digital incarnations to have a very strong opinion on the matter and would appreciate those of others. Aaron has hypotheses, including that public libraries have a larger audience and so are followed more (I don't think this accounts for the discrepancy. There are plenty of academic libraries with huge user bases) or that public libraries are more aggressive in following users. This is really interesting because when thinking about things like Twitter, I always initially think of it as a way for libraries to market themselves and get users' attentions, rather than a way to follow them and get information on them, which is also very important. If nothing else, I'm going to use twitter from that perspective, as I have harped on how public libraries especially need to be extremely and innovatively in touch with the communities they serve.
I'm glad this week's assignment regarding signing on to twitter as I am reluctant to participate more than absolutely necessary is "social media" and this obviously needs to change. To use an SI 500 obsession I guess one reason is just the problem of information overload--I don't use things like google reader or twitter often because I feel I am already bombarded with more than enough information, and I like to think if something is important enough, I will take the time and energy to find it myself. But it not using things like twitter I miss out on a lot of opportunities, and for better or worse I really just need to be tuned into all the major ways people find and share information.
For my tweets, I retweeted blog posts of a librarian I happen to be following who basically does focus on social media like facebook and twitter. Aaron Tay, at musingsaboutlibrarianship.blogspot.com. Of his posts, I found the one listing the most influential libraries on twitter to be very interesting because it was dominated by large public rather than academic libraries. One might imagine academic rather than public libraries should be the most present on twitter or facebook (another post I tweeted had to do with the fact the NY Public was the biggest library on facebook) because of the clientele: college kids should theoretically be the most active on twitter, right? I wonder if it's due to the fact that public libraries often have to scramble the hardest for funding, and so are more active and have been quicker to get onto the web 2.0 social scene? I don't seem to be personally acquainted enough with academic libraries and their digital incarnations to have a very strong opinion on the matter and would appreciate those of others. Aaron has hypotheses, including that public libraries have a larger audience and so are followed more (I don't think this accounts for the discrepancy. There are plenty of academic libraries with huge user bases) or that public libraries are more aggressive in following users. This is really interesting because when thinking about things like Twitter, I always initially think of it as a way for libraries to market themselves and get users' attentions, rather than a way to follow them and get information on them, which is also very important. If nothing else, I'm going to use twitter from that perspective, as I have harped on how public libraries especially need to be extremely and innovatively in touch with the communities they serve.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
I'm Embedded in What, Now?
The Montgomery essay was nice because it actually made me feel rather young, which doesn't happen these days. College undergraduates use the internet? Even facebook?! I wholeheartedly agree that students are online and can and should be engaged there. Seriously, I did very much like two points from the article:
-" Instruction on library resources, such as databases, has to relate to a class assignment or project so that students recognize the value in understanding their usefulness (Matthew & Schroeder, 2006)." I absolutely agree. I never had library instruction growing up that quite did this convincingly. It did not promote transfer, and it would have been more engaging if I had a class (that wasn't painfully obviously set up to be a library class for library's sake) which had an assignment explicitly requiring information literacy instruction.
-"[One-shot sessions]give librarians the opportunity to create a connection with students but also give the perception that the librarian is a guest presenter."
Also agreed. I understand time and budgets enforce the traditional set up where librarians are gust presenters rather than seemingly "secondary instructors" and I hope we can advocate interactions which are structured as to come off as long-term relationships.
Also it's very interesting to think about how this more directly applies to a public library setting...
The Matos et al article was very interesting in how it considered the phenomenon of librarians being assigned to a department or group without actually having a physical base to work form as a strength rather than a weakness or sign of lack of funding, saying "it is the extension of the library across the wider organization that brings richer rewards over time." I like this positive framing of an issue, and do very much agree that in such a situation "faculty-students have to support the concept of the librarian in their building for it to have a chance to succeed." As always, librarians do need support, and there is a point to which all they can do is put the people who might support them in the best possible position to.
While the examples of librarians making things happen in a super mobile way was interesting and did evoke the "entrepreneurship" spirit some call us to have, I must admit as positive as I feel about programming, etc. I would not really want to be a totally baseless librarian...at least not until I became extremely confident in my abilities. I like change and being on the go, which is part of what draws me to librarianship, but to be completely a mobile lecturer is a bit much. I love having face to face interactions and as much as I embrace the online solutions the article mentions, I want them to be just part of my professional life, not the main thing.
From chapter 7, I must say all the examples seemed impressive and encompassed a sort of gold standard that I'm not sure I have the wherewithal to match. At least I can learn by example. I agree that teachers need to have a thorough understanding of their subject and teaching methods, and I think any teachers that have such a thorough understanding as to be able to adapt to the various unpredictable directions the some of teaching styles laid out in the examples deserve to be paid handsomely. In general, the idea seems to be to start with what students are truly interested in, and then use that to get at not standardized tests and drills but really an understanding of the principles behind things, which is what will serve students in the long term. I'm unabashedly enthusiastic about such an approach, and also cognizant that there are AP exams and standardized tests to be worked with: as I said before regarding summative vs formative feedback and the like, we need to help facilitate a cultural and social change to help facilitate learning like this. We can do it...! I'll be very interested to hear the lecture on this piece and others' responses as to the viability and the main points we can take away from the chapter.
-" Instruction on library resources, such as databases, has to relate to a class assignment or project so that students recognize the value in understanding their usefulness (Matthew & Schroeder, 2006)." I absolutely agree. I never had library instruction growing up that quite did this convincingly. It did not promote transfer, and it would have been more engaging if I had a class (that wasn't painfully obviously set up to be a library class for library's sake) which had an assignment explicitly requiring information literacy instruction.
-"[One-shot sessions]give librarians the opportunity to create a connection with students but also give the perception that the librarian is a guest presenter."
Also agreed. I understand time and budgets enforce the traditional set up where librarians are gust presenters rather than seemingly "secondary instructors" and I hope we can advocate interactions which are structured as to come off as long-term relationships.
Also it's very interesting to think about how this more directly applies to a public library setting...
The Matos et al article was very interesting in how it considered the phenomenon of librarians being assigned to a department or group without actually having a physical base to work form as a strength rather than a weakness or sign of lack of funding, saying "it is the extension of the library across the wider organization that brings richer rewards over time." I like this positive framing of an issue, and do very much agree that in such a situation "faculty-students have to support the concept of the librarian in their building for it to have a chance to succeed." As always, librarians do need support, and there is a point to which all they can do is put the people who might support them in the best possible position to.
While the examples of librarians making things happen in a super mobile way was interesting and did evoke the "entrepreneurship" spirit some call us to have, I must admit as positive as I feel about programming, etc. I would not really want to be a totally baseless librarian...at least not until I became extremely confident in my abilities. I like change and being on the go, which is part of what draws me to librarianship, but to be completely a mobile lecturer is a bit much. I love having face to face interactions and as much as I embrace the online solutions the article mentions, I want them to be just part of my professional life, not the main thing.
From chapter 7, I must say all the examples seemed impressive and encompassed a sort of gold standard that I'm not sure I have the wherewithal to match. At least I can learn by example. I agree that teachers need to have a thorough understanding of their subject and teaching methods, and I think any teachers that have such a thorough understanding as to be able to adapt to the various unpredictable directions the some of teaching styles laid out in the examples deserve to be paid handsomely. In general, the idea seems to be to start with what students are truly interested in, and then use that to get at not standardized tests and drills but really an understanding of the principles behind things, which is what will serve students in the long term. I'm unabashedly enthusiastic about such an approach, and also cognizant that there are AP exams and standardized tests to be worked with: as I said before regarding summative vs formative feedback and the like, we need to help facilitate a cultural and social change to help facilitate learning like this. We can do it...! I'll be very interested to hear the lecture on this piece and others' responses as to the viability and the main points we can take away from the chapter.
20 Minute Workshops: The New Vogue?
Once again I very much enjoyed actively performing and participating for a class! I was most amazed by how much groups managed to cover in 20 minutes or so, as I came in feeling that this would likely be a big problem, and that I wouldn't take as much as I liked from the experience as the workshops were so much shorter than most I tend to see and be exposed to. However, forcing us to concentrate on the essentials really seemed to bring out the best in everyone, and while no one got terribly deep or detailed, I think I have retained most of what I learned, at least a week later. I wonder if the "20 minute workshop" might become the new vogue, in the way that having short snippets for screen casts seems to be very effective.
It was interesting to see the very wide arrange of approaches we took, especially in the participatory sections. I think my group was skewed way towards the side of open-ended discussion, where the thinking and discussing with group members was core and while we didn't come up with hard and final answers there were some very creative answers. Other groups tended more towards working with a problem that did have a correct solution which added to our knowledge, and others were in between. Overall the approach to the participation sections seemed to reflect the topics well. I guess before I get to giddy about how much fun the projects are in this class I need to keep reminding myself that we're all very polite participants and real life isn't always so devoid of lemons. Maybe we should haul in a group of disgruntled grouchy people or something to serve as audience for next time to ratchet up the discomfort level and get some practice? Because I don't have it in me to be grouchy.
It was interesting to see the very wide arrange of approaches we took, especially in the participatory sections. I think my group was skewed way towards the side of open-ended discussion, where the thinking and discussing with group members was core and while we didn't come up with hard and final answers there were some very creative answers. Other groups tended more towards working with a problem that did have a correct solution which added to our knowledge, and others were in between. Overall the approach to the participation sections seemed to reflect the topics well. I guess before I get to giddy about how much fun the projects are in this class I need to keep reminding myself that we're all very polite participants and real life isn't always so devoid of lemons. Maybe we should haul in a group of disgruntled grouchy people or something to serve as audience for next time to ratchet up the discomfort level and get some practice? Because I don't have it in me to be grouchy.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Webinar: A conference call with a chatroom?
While the webinar last week was fun and insightful (I believe it was my first one!) I would have liked us to have used a bit more of the options and functionality of elluminate. I certainly understand that our intrepid presenter might not have wanted to appear on screen, and I can relate. But not having really used the whiteboard, and not having the ability to see each other or speak to the presenter, the experience was reduced to a sort of conference call where one side couldn't speak but had to communicate through a chat box. In other words, a real conference call could theoretically have been just as fruitful, if not more. I do suppose the webinar saves on phone bills, and having our input in text form forced a sort of orderly manner and made it more possible to look back on previous comments.
Therefore, I think it will be interesting to see what folks do make use of when we do our own webinars. I think the voting functions especially could be very useful, and the whiteboard can be used to place helpful images that lend context to the discussion. I also hope most of us choose to be visible via web cam as I think it does add to the experience, and happy, confused, and slapping icons that pop up next to your name on a long list aren't ideal for emoting. Again, I don't mean to lay our fairly vanilla experience at the presenter's feet as it was very gracious of her to talk to us at all, and it was helpful to hear a real live blogger/librarian's outlook on Harper Collins. Actually, I wish I would have thought about the webinar a bit more in advance and come up with more interesting questions.
Planning for this week's workshops has been pleasant enough, though much more uncertain than planning for book clubs. When I think "workshop" I don't tend to think "ethical issues" but rather explicit skill building or project demos. Those "workshops" that do cover ethical issues are often, in my experience, thinly veiled opportunities for the group holding the workshop to push their own ideas or agendas. This is something I hope to avoid in our workshop, and something that libraries obviously need to be able to avoid, especially if workshops are led by library staff. And while obviously the goal is to teach, it's challenging to wrap my head around the idea that I'm not teaching someone how to do something per se, but rather exposing a very complex question which has no one best solution. I suspect these workshops, as far as they're interactive, are going to be very dependent on the enthusiasm and willingness of participants to express ideas. So the goal for me seems to be to put people in as good a position as possible to do so.
Therefore, I think it will be interesting to see what folks do make use of when we do our own webinars. I think the voting functions especially could be very useful, and the whiteboard can be used to place helpful images that lend context to the discussion. I also hope most of us choose to be visible via web cam as I think it does add to the experience, and happy, confused, and slapping icons that pop up next to your name on a long list aren't ideal for emoting. Again, I don't mean to lay our fairly vanilla experience at the presenter's feet as it was very gracious of her to talk to us at all, and it was helpful to hear a real live blogger/librarian's outlook on Harper Collins. Actually, I wish I would have thought about the webinar a bit more in advance and come up with more interesting questions.
Planning for this week's workshops has been pleasant enough, though much more uncertain than planning for book clubs. When I think "workshop" I don't tend to think "ethical issues" but rather explicit skill building or project demos. Those "workshops" that do cover ethical issues are often, in my experience, thinly veiled opportunities for the group holding the workshop to push their own ideas or agendas. This is something I hope to avoid in our workshop, and something that libraries obviously need to be able to avoid, especially if workshops are led by library staff. And while obviously the goal is to teach, it's challenging to wrap my head around the idea that I'm not teaching someone how to do something per se, but rather exposing a very complex question which has no one best solution. I suspect these workshops, as far as they're interactive, are going to be very dependent on the enthusiasm and willingness of participants to express ideas. So the goal for me seems to be to put people in as good a position as possible to do so.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Club of Hearts
I thought the book discussions in the hearts group were a lot of fun and vote we do stuff like that every class. That all of our groups went for the max time and still had stuff to talk about spoke to everyone's generous participation and earnest engagement, and I hope at least a little bit to our hard work in setting up the discussions. In general, and this holds true for book clubs I've been around besides in this class, people very much enjoy bringing prior knowledge and experience to texts and quickly abstracting ideas into underlying issues. This is somewhat at odds from the idea that questions must be "firmly rooted in the text" as I thought questions that required extensively close reading, especially for my group's discussion, were not picked up on as much as application questions like "what would you do differently" or "how can we deal with this issue in real life." I think this trend is magnified tremendously when working with larger texts, as a "book club" would tend to do, as at most a scene or event comes into focus, not precisely how something was written in a certain way and why. So while at first I understood "firmly rooted in the text" to mean questions that really necessitated one to have a certain page in front of them, and probably to have read and formed an opinion of said page, I wonder if we can tweak it to a more flexible, "just don't completely lose sight of the text." I will say at the least that a book discussion versus an English class is by nature more flexible and will cater more to following paths discussants are interested in, which are almost invariably to do with application and large, easily debatable issues. This may come at the expense of imparting close-reading or analytical skills. It really is impressive if one can foster both.
I think my group chose some rather challenging stuff, and while it wasn't a slam dunk, we did try to both allow for open assessment and interpretation while prompting some close analysis. Potential was there. It takes a tremendous amount of effort on both discussants and moderators parts to do both. I think a main challenge in discussing stuff such as our poems is not to lead too much based on the analysis you've already done, and to be patient enough to let everyone do work on their own.
I think my group chose some rather challenging stuff, and while it wasn't a slam dunk, we did try to both allow for open assessment and interpretation while prompting some close analysis. Potential was there. It takes a tremendous amount of effort on both discussants and moderators parts to do both. I think a main challenge in discussing stuff such as our poems is not to lead too much based on the analysis you've already done, and to be patient enough to let everyone do work on their own.
Workshop, Code, and HC Readings
I thought the workshop reading was doubly relevant. It provides an example of the rationale and consideration behind creating a particular workshop, each of which may not have been particularly surprising, but which I'm sure takes practice to master. It's also important in that it talked about creating "library assignments" specifically, something I'm sure many of us we'll be tasked with, especially if we work at school or academic libraries. I remember my "library assignments" and I believe they were always scavenger hunts, and I agree that scavenger hunts are NOT a very good way to become a very good library user, or at least to become "information literate." The over-specific facts in scavenger hunts do not very well reflect the sort of research one tends to need a library for (i.e. not for fact checking) and crucially lack the "relevancy judgment" skills that really are important. It's one thing for a user to be able to guess some librarian's favorite reference book for some tidbit, but its more important to be able to judge and locate sources that are relevant to a topic. This is what libraries and librarians aim to facilitate. So unsurprisingly, out of the things to watch out for, I especially liked the need to find a happy medium between over-specified vs. under-specified challenges or assignments, important both as a library worker teaching people how to use a library, and an educator in general. I don't want to overstate myself, a scavenger hunt could still be OK for making sure users can search a catalog for a title they already know, but I don't think they're ideal for more than the basics.
To transition to the HC readings, the item on the ALA code of conduct I found relevant to this situation was IV: to advocate balance between interests of information users and rights holders. This is a fair, worthy goal and I am all for it. However I wonder if we are finally in a world where we can no longer do this alone, at least not directly, in the case of situations like the battle of HC. I am very much loathe to go to the "shouldn't the GOVERNMENT do that?" excuse that public librarians often seem to evoke, especially when it comes to providing services like computer access. But when it comes down to a case like this, legislators really are the ones who can ultimately truly "balance" the interests of rights holders and info users, and its only massive public pressure (not just library pressure) that can bring that about. So libraries' job, to me, is not to directly get publishers to be fair to library users by boycotting or complaining to them, through their own private channels. It's to help the public to realize the issues, so that they can pressure legislators to create a fair playing field, if they are inclined to.
So, as I'm always more interested in hearing about ideas regarding what to do rather than what's wrong, the first HC link I followed was the boycottharpercollins website. I find the phrase that content "self-destructs" after 26 uses to be funny.
It's actually used in the CBC report on the subject as well. I'm pretty sure the files actually just go inert. Well, "explosive" language being used anyway. The website to me was once again harmless enough to me, and a bit misdirected. Yes libraries should be vocal with publishers regarding their and their users' interests. No, I don't think HC is lacking in letters, as the website basically asks one to send, and even has a template set up for a librarian, not a user. Instead, I think libraries need to be sending open letters to their users, as it's the public that must be behind any major political or legal shifts that are going to result in real, lasting change. Again, I hope we don't let that number "26" distract us too much. The practice of limiting downloads per copy at all is a legitimate issue--arguing about the number of times allowed concedes the issue.
Speaking of the CBC, and the other major reports for that matter, I think these do just as much for our cause as raising an in-industry outcry to HC, in that they get the word out to the public. That being said, the CBC report at least really didn't get into the issue in a way that made it seem urgent.
Finally I read the Potash Overdrive letter to see what actions they were taking, and found it to be more or less a mea culpa as to be expected. Putting the HC material (actually "26 check-out limit material") in a separate catalog is a nice gesture, and helps libraries not buy such material ever-so-slightly I guess. It's an act of neutrality, and probably not quite worth the rather positive comments it seems to have generated. I admit I don't know quite enough about them and their owning interests to expect or not expect them to do anything but appease as many parties as possible.
To transition to the HC readings, the item on the ALA code of conduct I found relevant to this situation was IV: to advocate balance between interests of information users and rights holders. This is a fair, worthy goal and I am all for it. However I wonder if we are finally in a world where we can no longer do this alone, at least not directly, in the case of situations like the battle of HC. I am very much loathe to go to the "shouldn't the GOVERNMENT do that?" excuse that public librarians often seem to evoke, especially when it comes to providing services like computer access. But when it comes down to a case like this, legislators really are the ones who can ultimately truly "balance" the interests of rights holders and info users, and its only massive public pressure (not just library pressure) that can bring that about. So libraries' job, to me, is not to directly get publishers to be fair to library users by boycotting or complaining to them, through their own private channels. It's to help the public to realize the issues, so that they can pressure legislators to create a fair playing field, if they are inclined to.
So, as I'm always more interested in hearing about ideas regarding what to do rather than what's wrong, the first HC link I followed was the boycottharpercollins website. I find the phrase that content "self-destructs" after 26 uses to be funny.
It's actually used in the CBC report on the subject as well. I'm pretty sure the files actually just go inert. Well, "explosive" language being used anyway. The website to me was once again harmless enough to me, and a bit misdirected. Yes libraries should be vocal with publishers regarding their and their users' interests. No, I don't think HC is lacking in letters, as the website basically asks one to send, and even has a template set up for a librarian, not a user. Instead, I think libraries need to be sending open letters to their users, as it's the public that must be behind any major political or legal shifts that are going to result in real, lasting change. Again, I hope we don't let that number "26" distract us too much. The practice of limiting downloads per copy at all is a legitimate issue--arguing about the number of times allowed concedes the issue.
Speaking of the CBC, and the other major reports for that matter, I think these do just as much for our cause as raising an in-industry outcry to HC, in that they get the word out to the public. That being said, the CBC report at least really didn't get into the issue in a way that made it seem urgent.
Finally I read the Potash Overdrive letter to see what actions they were taking, and found it to be more or less a mea culpa as to be expected. Putting the HC material (actually "26 check-out limit material") in a separate catalog is a nice gesture, and helps libraries not buy such material ever-so-slightly I guess. It's an act of neutrality, and probably not quite worth the rather positive comments it seems to have generated. I admit I don't know quite enough about them and their owning interests to expect or not expect them to do anything but appease as many parties as possible.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Harper Collins' Open Letter
In my most recent sweep through the cohort I didn't see any posts specifically on the whole Harper Collins limiting digital downloads thing, which has been on some of the professional librarian's blogs including Librarian in Black. Here is Harper Collins' response if you haven't read it: http://harperlibrary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/03/open-letter-to-librarians.html
My initial reaction is that it's interesting how a lot of the comments to the letter seem to focus on the idea that libraries help publishers sell books, so squeezing out libraries will hurt the publisher. Is that some sort of threat? With sellers like Borders going out of business left and right, it's true that libraries may more and more become a unique showplace for media. But I really, really don't think this is something to hang our hat on. I'm sorry but the camaraderie suggested by the HC letter between publishers and libraries, and comments from librarians like "if publishers kill us they're killing themselves!" are both rather dubious to me. The former is a lie, the latter is fatalistic and not constructive.
Also, all the discussion on how silly it is for HC to determine their checkout limit as it might reflect physical materials wearing out is valid but frankly neither here nor there. Digital materials do not wear out. Let's not dignify the publisher's rationalizations, or let that shift the focus of the argument by conceding that one arbitrary limit on downloads makes more sense than another.
My initial reaction is that it's interesting how a lot of the comments to the letter seem to focus on the idea that libraries help publishers sell books, so squeezing out libraries will hurt the publisher. Is that some sort of threat? With sellers like Borders going out of business left and right, it's true that libraries may more and more become a unique showplace for media. But I really, really don't think this is something to hang our hat on. I'm sorry but the camaraderie suggested by the HC letter between publishers and libraries, and comments from librarians like "if publishers kill us they're killing themselves!" are both rather dubious to me. The former is a lie, the latter is fatalistic and not constructive.
Also, all the discussion on how silly it is for HC to determine their checkout limit as it might reflect physical materials wearing out is valid but frankly neither here nor there. Digital materials do not wear out. Let's not dignify the publisher's rationalizations, or let that shift the focus of the argument by conceding that one arbitrary limit on downloads makes more sense than another.
On Book Clubs, Vicki's Advice
Hope everyone had a lovely break! As we discussed the readings for last class pretty thoroughly and my thoughts on them didn't stray too far from what I posted earlier, I have thoughts on Book Clubs, mostly as Vicki from the AADL advised on them.
I think the main thing I gleaned was good ideas regarding logistics. For example, its a great idea to provide readalikes for participants in a discussion--it ensures that they get some new knowledge by participating even if the discussion isn't terribly enlightening, and prompts ongoing thought on a topic (maybe even transfer?)
I also personally like the use of note cards with a question on it for the participant, and found this worked very well in a group of about 15 adults in a book club I helped out with. We made sure to note that the questions on the cards were very much optional and that original questions were more than welcome. We happened to have a thoughtful, respectful group to begin with so its likely that everyone would have gotten a chance to speak that wanted to and discussion would stay on track regardless, but I really don't think it hurts to have open-ended, thoughtful questions for participants to fall back on. It also gives them a chance to formulate ideas before speaking--I know I'm the sort of person that will eventually have something good to say about a text, but am not exactly the sort to think on my feet and be eloquent.
I'm a little bit skeptical about the playlist idea especially as Vicki didn't seem to have much experience with it. I've found when sharing or talking about music with strangers it can be very difficult to communicate because music is a hard thing to describe if all parties aren't already extremely familiar with it.
The concept of partnering with schools or organizations that work with your audience in the community (like 826michigan) is of course a wonderful idea and an example of community networking and marketing that I've been harping about on and off throughout the semester. Knowing what people are reading or concerned about in school or in community groups gives the library a chance to host forums and discussions that are timely and relevant. Find out what the schools' summer reading lists are and think about gearing book discussions towards them! Etc.!
And I think Joanna's question regarding whether or not a discussion on a book like Twilight is great at getting at the fine line a librarian walks between giving people what they already know and want, and turning them onto new things, expanding horizons in meaningful ways. I agree that a discussion on Twilight or Harry Potter might not be ideal, but it might not hurt to have one in a series that goes on to follow other works in a similar theme (like the book club themes we were reading about). Or maybe a work is posed in to compare or contrast with a well known book, like Stoker's Dracula vs the Meyer novels.
Well everyone's readings for the discussion in my group (Hearts) was very interesting and I'm looking forward to the discussions!
I think the main thing I gleaned was good ideas regarding logistics. For example, its a great idea to provide readalikes for participants in a discussion--it ensures that they get some new knowledge by participating even if the discussion isn't terribly enlightening, and prompts ongoing thought on a topic (maybe even transfer?)
I also personally like the use of note cards with a question on it for the participant, and found this worked very well in a group of about 15 adults in a book club I helped out with. We made sure to note that the questions on the cards were very much optional and that original questions were more than welcome. We happened to have a thoughtful, respectful group to begin with so its likely that everyone would have gotten a chance to speak that wanted to and discussion would stay on track regardless, but I really don't think it hurts to have open-ended, thoughtful questions for participants to fall back on. It also gives them a chance to formulate ideas before speaking--I know I'm the sort of person that will eventually have something good to say about a text, but am not exactly the sort to think on my feet and be eloquent.
I'm a little bit skeptical about the playlist idea especially as Vicki didn't seem to have much experience with it. I've found when sharing or talking about music with strangers it can be very difficult to communicate because music is a hard thing to describe if all parties aren't already extremely familiar with it.
The concept of partnering with schools or organizations that work with your audience in the community (like 826michigan) is of course a wonderful idea and an example of community networking and marketing that I've been harping about on and off throughout the semester. Knowing what people are reading or concerned about in school or in community groups gives the library a chance to host forums and discussions that are timely and relevant. Find out what the schools' summer reading lists are and think about gearing book discussions towards them! Etc.!
And I think Joanna's question regarding whether or not a discussion on a book like Twilight is great at getting at the fine line a librarian walks between giving people what they already know and want, and turning them onto new things, expanding horizons in meaningful ways. I agree that a discussion on Twilight or Harry Potter might not be ideal, but it might not hurt to have one in a series that goes on to follow other works in a similar theme (like the book club themes we were reading about). Or maybe a work is posed in to compare or contrast with a well known book, like Stoker's Dracula vs the Meyer novels.
Well everyone's readings for the discussion in my group (Hearts) was very interesting and I'm looking forward to the discussions!
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Socratic Method
I always thought the Socratic Method was just what lawyers do where they keep challenging every one of a speakers' premises until one is found to be wrong. Here's my take on the articles:
I very much agree with Metzger's assertion that fast reading doesn't necessarily mean good reading, but that students are kind of made to feel that it's a good indicator, or required. This is why it's vaguely frustrating when classes at SI stipulate the 9 hour per week quota of work...as if that number necessarily has something to do with how long each of us are going to take to get what we need or deserve out of a class. Which should be the focus. Anyway. Metzger was obviously teaching from the experience of working in a somewhat feisty school with some unmotivated students, which perhaps slightly distanced it from how I might imagine things working in a typical library setting...at least libraries I am most used to and discussions I've helped lead. I'm a little bit skeptical that the socratic method makes discussions more "non-competitive" especially in a class setting as there are still grades to be had, along with the satisfaction of saying something really great and compelling before anyone else. In fact, from my limited experience of participating in these kinds of discussions, being in the "inner circle" and having an audience explicitly told to monitor and break down your every move in a rather personal way is a bit nerve-wracking, and certainly can come off as a popularity contest.
I do very much like how it facilitates a teacher "standing back" and allowing discussion to progress naturally, showing in a more natural and organic way the problems and issues students have with a text. And I agree that getting students to abstractly name or "label" their understanding processes is very tricky...I was always one of the more confident English students in high school and I didn't like to and probably couldn't really describe the processes I was going through...part of the beauty of English is that to some degree different perspectives or paths can be taken to get to the meaning of a text. And while the idea that Romeo and Juliet has nothing to do with broccoli farming in Idaho is well taken and true especially in a high school classroom setting...the creative in me really wants to write on how Romeo and Juliet absolutely has something to do with broccoli farming in Idaho. Part of mastering a great text sort of has to do with making those sorts of connections. Maybe I'm just insane.
Finally, the breaking down and airing of group dynamics seems good in a class setting, especially one where folks aren't being as respectful or productive as they could...but I reeeally don't see that as a stage I'd want to go to as a Public Librarian leading a discussion. People (I'm thinking adults mostly) come to discuss, and are generally motivated to discuss, not to be told how they present themselves. In most library discussions, participants will be relative strangers, so there's little background or ongoing usefulness of that aspect. Then again, if the discussion was framed as a sort of "learn how to be a rhetorician" sort of workshop, feedback on group dynamics could be very useful.
I very much agree with Metzger's assertion that fast reading doesn't necessarily mean good reading, but that students are kind of made to feel that it's a good indicator, or required. This is why it's vaguely frustrating when classes at SI stipulate the 9 hour per week quota of work...as if that number necessarily has something to do with how long each of us are going to take to get what we need or deserve out of a class. Which should be the focus. Anyway. Metzger was obviously teaching from the experience of working in a somewhat feisty school with some unmotivated students, which perhaps slightly distanced it from how I might imagine things working in a typical library setting...at least libraries I am most used to and discussions I've helped lead. I'm a little bit skeptical that the socratic method makes discussions more "non-competitive" especially in a class setting as there are still grades to be had, along with the satisfaction of saying something really great and compelling before anyone else. In fact, from my limited experience of participating in these kinds of discussions, being in the "inner circle" and having an audience explicitly told to monitor and break down your every move in a rather personal way is a bit nerve-wracking, and certainly can come off as a popularity contest.
I do very much like how it facilitates a teacher "standing back" and allowing discussion to progress naturally, showing in a more natural and organic way the problems and issues students have with a text. And I agree that getting students to abstractly name or "label" their understanding processes is very tricky...I was always one of the more confident English students in high school and I didn't like to and probably couldn't really describe the processes I was going through...part of the beauty of English is that to some degree different perspectives or paths can be taken to get to the meaning of a text. And while the idea that Romeo and Juliet has nothing to do with broccoli farming in Idaho is well taken and true especially in a high school classroom setting...the creative in me really wants to write on how Romeo and Juliet absolutely has something to do with broccoli farming in Idaho. Part of mastering a great text sort of has to do with making those sorts of connections. Maybe I'm just insane.
Finally, the breaking down and airing of group dynamics seems good in a class setting, especially one where folks aren't being as respectful or productive as they could...but I reeeally don't see that as a stage I'd want to go to as a Public Librarian leading a discussion. People (I'm thinking adults mostly) come to discuss, and are generally motivated to discuss, not to be told how they present themselves. In most library discussions, participants will be relative strangers, so there's little background or ongoing usefulness of that aspect. Then again, if the discussion was framed as a sort of "learn how to be a rhetorician" sort of workshop, feedback on group dynamics could be very useful.
Book Clubs, Last Week's class
I thought the Hoffert article was pretty much a slam dunk in that I didn't disagree with anything and felt enthusiastically about it. I love book groups and hope that leading them will be a big part of my work in the future--imagine, getting to discuss literature (including non-fiction) without even having had to get a tenure track job in the cutthroat world of English! And no grading! I think the idea of having book clubs be thematic, with a wide range of possible items to discuss is a cool idea, and has the potential for great conversations. I would also say restricting things to a particular book of interest to the community also has its merits though--I'd look at "thematic book discussions" as an option, not a revolution. It's also great where institutions have limited copies of something--spreading things out means the library can provide something for everyone to read. Expanding things to media like movies or non-traditional discussions like poetry or graphic novels is another slam dunk, and I for one plan to propose some sort of weekly or monthly film discussion at whatever library I work at.
I guess the one thing I must say "meh" to is teleconferencing. I think it's an awesome idea in the sense that it's a way for authors to be involved when they otherwise couldn't be. But I'm not personally geeked about the idea of having all discussers do so remotely...but that may just be because I've never had a terribly positive teleconference experience, at least compared to face-to-face. Still, something to think about for the digital library world.
Oh and last week's class. I loved the animated visuals and old time valentine cards (they're so edgy and so relatively product placement free!) My mostly positive thoughts on the idea of transfer as something libraries can and should do can be found in my earlier posts. I will say, it might have been better to have had these readings on book clubs and Socratic seminars before being prompted to think about something to discuss for the assignment. I happened to do much of my thinking before doing the readings and after having done them I think I would have looked at things differently and been a bit more efficient with my time? But still it's been fun looking through things. I'm glad my group make Karmen and I anticipated the idea of book clubs becoming more "multimedia" a bit by suggesting poems or graphic novels. I'll be interested to see the sorts of things different groups choose and how discussions go.
I guess the one thing I must say "meh" to is teleconferencing. I think it's an awesome idea in the sense that it's a way for authors to be involved when they otherwise couldn't be. But I'm not personally geeked about the idea of having all discussers do so remotely...but that may just be because I've never had a terribly positive teleconference experience, at least compared to face-to-face. Still, something to think about for the digital library world.
Oh and last week's class. I loved the animated visuals and old time valentine cards (they're so edgy and so relatively product placement free!) My mostly positive thoughts on the idea of transfer as something libraries can and should do can be found in my earlier posts. I will say, it might have been better to have had these readings on book clubs and Socratic seminars before being prompted to think about something to discuss for the assignment. I happened to do much of my thinking before doing the readings and after having done them I think I would have looked at things differently and been a bit more efficient with my time? But still it's been fun looking through things. I'm glad my group make Karmen and I anticipated the idea of book clubs becoming more "multimedia" a bit by suggesting poems or graphic novels. I'll be interested to see the sorts of things different groups choose and how discussions go.
The DPLA
I was actually recently asked to give ideas about what the DPLA should be, or what should be understood about it by the public, and has utterly no idea what to say about it because any literature I could find was extremely vague. So this article, as an advertisement for it, was very enlightening. First, I balked at the statement that even Harvard was being hit by tough times. Really? Really??
Well. Anyway.
That more book titles are being published than ever before is really something to think about, and supports the argument that the "death of books" is a bit of an overstatement. Meanwhile, the assertion that professors don't know (I would assert that they don't feel they need to know) about the serials crisis and what their libraries have to deal with is well taken, and initiatives/petitions to support open-access journals seem like a good idea. I certainly hope that universities like Harvard are vocal about their willingness to hold up their end of the bargain by rewarding people who are published in less-prestigious open access journals with grants, jobs, promotions, etc. I also want to mention (sorry I think I better not cite) a conversation I heard recently with a high ranking U of M faculty member on the serials crisis. It's a problem, he said, sure. It's also a "drop in the bucket" for an institution like U of M or certainly Harvard. When I look at my tuition bills this sort of statement really hits home. So while I think it's awesome that institutions like Harvard and U of M are coming up with ways to get around the serials crisis, I would warn that there is a lot in play, things are complicated, and everyone has obscure interests at stake. I'll be very interested to see how the DPLA thing unfolds.
Well. Anyway.
That more book titles are being published than ever before is really something to think about, and supports the argument that the "death of books" is a bit of an overstatement. Meanwhile, the assertion that professors don't know (I would assert that they don't feel they need to know) about the serials crisis and what their libraries have to deal with is well taken, and initiatives/petitions to support open-access journals seem like a good idea. I certainly hope that universities like Harvard are vocal about their willingness to hold up their end of the bargain by rewarding people who are published in less-prestigious open access journals with grants, jobs, promotions, etc. I also want to mention (sorry I think I better not cite) a conversation I heard recently with a high ranking U of M faculty member on the serials crisis. It's a problem, he said, sure. It's also a "drop in the bucket" for an institution like U of M or certainly Harvard. When I look at my tuition bills this sort of statement really hits home. So while I think it's awesome that institutions like Harvard and U of M are coming up with ways to get around the serials crisis, I would warn that there is a lot in play, things are complicated, and everyone has obscure interests at stake. I'll be very interested to see how the DPLA thing unfolds.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Transfer
Sorry for the belated post, though I'm glad I can comment on the trends Karen noticed. I'm shocked that so many people felt transfer was something that didn't have to do with libraries! I guess I'm one of those people that, in a time when libraries seem to be scrambling to figure out exactly what they bring to the table these days, I tend to say "libraries can do that!!" to just about anything. Maybe TOO much. Assuming schools aren't going to massively change the way they do things to promote transfer in the super short-term, libraries are a great place to offer affordances to knowledge transfer, even if they aren't doing the initial teaching. And libraries CAN and SHOULD know what schools are teaching, even if they're not literally in the same building, which is the case with most public libraries. Aren't we places of "lifelong learning"? And shouldn't knowing about how learning works be key to all of us? Sheesh.
One dichotomy used in the chapter was on "learning" versus "performance" focused learners, and I thought this was a good way of thinking about two different kinds of student. As much as I am consciously a "learning" based learner, I think subconsciously I am performance based, because I do end up being stressed when I make mistakes during learning processes. I think it all links back to formative versus summative assessment too...growing up in a summative dominated educational system, we all come to see education as a sort of vetting process, and look at what we learn in terms of whether we can perform to some standard.
I also think the section on motivation and learning provides a huge opportunity for libraries to offer and facilitate transfer. One thing the chapter pointed out was that students are more likely to be motivated when they see their knowledge can be used to do something immidiately useful, and another was that students are motivated when they are learning something to help others, or do something that is socially significant. Libraries (should) do a great job of planning and executing programs that do these things, creating activities where people put what they've learned into some tangible product or project, and bringing people together to discuss and work on issues facing the community. As long as they are in the know about what's being taught, and how it can be used or what the community could stand to gain from it, they can put themselves in a position to offer motivating learning environments.
One dichotomy used in the chapter was on "learning" versus "performance" focused learners, and I thought this was a good way of thinking about two different kinds of student. As much as I am consciously a "learning" based learner, I think subconsciously I am performance based, because I do end up being stressed when I make mistakes during learning processes. I think it all links back to formative versus summative assessment too...growing up in a summative dominated educational system, we all come to see education as a sort of vetting process, and look at what we learn in terms of whether we can perform to some standard.
I also think the section on motivation and learning provides a huge opportunity for libraries to offer and facilitate transfer. One thing the chapter pointed out was that students are more likely to be motivated when they see their knowledge can be used to do something immidiately useful, and another was that students are motivated when they are learning something to help others, or do something that is socially significant. Libraries (should) do a great job of planning and executing programs that do these things, creating activities where people put what they've learned into some tangible product or project, and bringing people together to discuss and work on issues facing the community. As long as they are in the know about what's being taught, and how it can be used or what the community could stand to gain from it, they can put themselves in a position to offer motivating learning environments.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Learning for Understanding and it's Obstacles/Last week's class
I'm at least going to break posts into two for this week, so expect another one on the How People Learn chapter soon.
Before I start going "not so fast!", I want to say that the Wiggins Mctighe article was a great restating of the problem of American education favoring covering content for its own sake versus educating for understanding (and, as the article could have put it yet more frequently and explicitly "for application"). It also gave a great outline of what such education should actually look like as it takes place over a class or term. I especially like bookending things with a "hook question" and then revisiting the question later to emphasize how far the class has come as a productive group of people. Now, I think we'll more or less all agree that the aim of this article was worthy and applicable, so let me attempt to wonder about what could stand in the way.
I seem to have found myself harping on the idea that, while its not right--in fact because its not right, we have to be cognizant of the fact that in a very big way, American education (at least as I know it and people in high school and college I personally know now do) is grading and ranking of students. Parents (including mine) do not ask "can you apply your knowledge of mathematics?" but "what [grade] did you get in math?"
This doesn’t mean its right, it’s not. But it’s slightly alarming when articles are based on a premise that “The mission of high school is not to cover content, but rather to help learners become thoughtful about, and productive with, content” as this article says. If this were completely and unequivocally true, the article would likely not exist in the first place. Beyond high school, even the GRE has sections based on recall. The point is, it might be slightly misguided to say "education is about giving learners knowledge in a way thats actually going to make them productive" when--and I repeat that articles like this one are all the more important because of it--that's not quite true. Usually.
As educators are typically very bright people with nothing but the best intentions for their students, and many of them are (I'm pretty confident) at least dimly aware that learning processes like the one outlined in this article help students apply knowledge and be productive rather than content for content's sake, there must be something in the way of learning processes like this being adopted in a widespread way.
To make curriculums geared towards learning for application really viable and sustainable nation-wide (I keep using application rathe than understanding...I think I'm compelled to because it seems to emphasize that application is a requisite for true understanding) the incentives and culture of schooling has to change in a big way. Beyond any political shifts (and these are needed to change the way schools get funded) parents need to accept that their children may not be getting drilled on facts and figures like they did.
Last week's class:
I'll make one specific point (the better to comment on). I liked how we talked about the fact that on a five point survey scale (5 being 'completely agree' 3 being 'neutral' and 1 being 'strongly disagree'), many kind hearts will never go lower than a 'neutral', thus skewing results so as not to highlight rough aspects of an event as much as they need to be. I believe it was also mentioned that having a four point scale, without a 'neutral', might give people an incentive to admit they "disagree" with an item, perhaps because they might be nice enough to tell a little fib and put 'neutral' for an item they felt was lacking, rather than outright lie and say it was satisfactory. I might caution that having only a four point scale could be even more damaging or skewing where kind hearts are involved, as I bet many will be so kind as to answer with an "agree" or "satisfactory" on an item where they feel the opposite. From personal experience, I might also caution that a 4 point scale can make a survey taker more likely not to answer a question at all, perhaps because they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, or perhaps because, as I find myself, they truly feel neutrally about a question and none of the responses provided apply to them. So, as I think we assumed anyway, there are pros and cons to both a 4 and 5 point scale.
Before I start going "not so fast!", I want to say that the Wiggins Mctighe article was a great restating of the problem of American education favoring covering content for its own sake versus educating for understanding (and, as the article could have put it yet more frequently and explicitly "for application"). It also gave a great outline of what such education should actually look like as it takes place over a class or term. I especially like bookending things with a "hook question" and then revisiting the question later to emphasize how far the class has come as a productive group of people. Now, I think we'll more or less all agree that the aim of this article was worthy and applicable, so let me attempt to wonder about what could stand in the way.
I seem to have found myself harping on the idea that, while its not right--in fact because its not right, we have to be cognizant of the fact that in a very big way, American education (at least as I know it and people in high school and college I personally know now do) is grading and ranking of students. Parents (including mine) do not ask "can you apply your knowledge of mathematics?" but "what [grade] did you get in math?"
This doesn’t mean its right, it’s not. But it’s slightly alarming when articles are based on a premise that “The mission of high school is not to cover content, but rather to help learners become thoughtful about, and productive with, content” as this article says. If this were completely and unequivocally true, the article would likely not exist in the first place. Beyond high school, even the GRE has sections based on recall. The point is, it might be slightly misguided to say "education is about giving learners knowledge in a way thats actually going to make them productive" when--and I repeat that articles like this one are all the more important because of it--that's not quite true. Usually.
As educators are typically very bright people with nothing but the best intentions for their students, and many of them are (I'm pretty confident) at least dimly aware that learning processes like the one outlined in this article help students apply knowledge and be productive rather than content for content's sake, there must be something in the way of learning processes like this being adopted in a widespread way.
To make curriculums geared towards learning for application really viable and sustainable nation-wide (I keep using application rathe than understanding...I think I'm compelled to because it seems to emphasize that application is a requisite for true understanding) the incentives and culture of schooling has to change in a big way. Beyond any political shifts (and these are needed to change the way schools get funded) parents need to accept that their children may not be getting drilled on facts and figures like they did.
Last week's class:
I'll make one specific point (the better to comment on). I liked how we talked about the fact that on a five point survey scale (5 being 'completely agree' 3 being 'neutral' and 1 being 'strongly disagree'), many kind hearts will never go lower than a 'neutral', thus skewing results so as not to highlight rough aspects of an event as much as they need to be. I believe it was also mentioned that having a four point scale, without a 'neutral', might give people an incentive to admit they "disagree" with an item, perhaps because they might be nice enough to tell a little fib and put 'neutral' for an item they felt was lacking, rather than outright lie and say it was satisfactory. I might caution that having only a four point scale could be even more damaging or skewing where kind hearts are involved, as I bet many will be so kind as to answer with an "agree" or "satisfactory" on an item where they feel the opposite. From personal experience, I might also caution that a 4 point scale can make a survey taker more likely not to answer a question at all, perhaps because they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, or perhaps because, as I find myself, they truly feel neutrally about a question and none of the responses provided apply to them. So, as I think we assumed anyway, there are pros and cons to both a 4 and 5 point scale.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Learning Environments, and last week on Info Literacy
Hey! I'm going to condense my posts into one for this week due to time crunch. Sorry, I know smaller bite-sized posts are easier to scan and comment on.
First of all, I just want to remark how refreshing it is to read concise, straightforward literature like this which obviously affects my future directly. I spend so much time reading stuff by academics on academia, sometimes I forget that I'm not training to become an academic (thank goodness.)
Breaking down learning environments into four areas was very helpful. It did take me a moment to realize that the chapter was implying that learning environments should be learner, knowledge, assessment, AND community centered. That's quite a challenge. Here's how I felt about each:
(Oh, first I agree that standards for education are through the roof. This is the price we pay for progress I suppose! I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts on how or if standards should be reeled in.)
Learner-centered:
Clearly, learning environments must take into account the culture and personality of students. To link to what we've been talking about, this is where using "prior knowledge" comes is; that is, teachers need to frame classes so as to work with rather than against what students already know or have been cultured to assume. By that I don't mean that teachers shouldn't challenge bad assumptions (they should) but rather that they need to be keenly aware of them.
Knowledge-centered: I agree that education is set up to be too broad, and not deep enough. I even must challenege our own U of M somewhat, particularly LSA. It's well and good to pride oneself on being an extremely "liberal" program, forcing students to take classes in a wide range of areas, and there are clearly benefits. However, while being well-rounded is important, employers want expertise. It seems that you get your foot in the door by having an obsession with a certain thing, getting references and connections, getting one's foot in the door, and THEN being a well-rounded, well-adjusted person helps you on your way. It kind of gets back to standards....what is demanded is both breadth and depth. A lot of places do well on breadth, but how can we get depth as well?
I like the notion of realizing that young kids are capable of doing more than we once assumed, and that realizing this may be to their benefit. However, I would also caution that any statement about "what students can do" is very tricky, as age doesn't go too far in determing "what students can do." Still, good notion in general.
I also like the idea of attempting to make curriculum more natural, allowing motives or providing needs for students to actually use skills and knowledge, rather than just having fractured chapters and units. This is somewhere information literacy could possibly fit in, as it focuses on not just finding but being able to apply knowledge. I can see it working particularly in humanities classes, as kids are asked to challenege or corroborate their ideas with information in the world.
Assessment-Centered:
I agree that formative assessment is lacking at all levels of education, even here at SI. One has to make a real effort and make time to get a lot of personalized feedback from professors beyond a few major assignments often, so I'm glad KF seems to be periodically checking and commenting on our blogs, for one thing. One does also have to realize that a large part of education is to rank and judge aptitude of students, rather than actually educate! It's going to take a massive political and cultural shift for this to change significantly and quickly. I think when this does change, Information Literacy will find its way into curriculums more systematically. I was remarking with my group in class that one reason its tough to get info lit classes is beacuse there is no AP Information Literacy, and its not explicitly addressed on standardized tests. It's easy to explain "when am I going to use this?!" to students inthe case of info lit, but more difficult to say "this is going to get you a high score on the SATs." Colleges should make a point of judging information literacy in applications, and then maybe schools will have to do a good job of teaching it.
On a personal note, I have to disagree very much with the assertion that Japanese culture makes students feel OK about making mistakes in class. I taught English in Japan and this couldn't have been further from the truth. It was like pulling teeth to get students to speak in class for fear of making a mistake, and this was particularly grevious in English because learning a language isnt something you can just study at home for and then ace. It actually requires active use, and is very much a trial and error proccess. So I dont really know what that study was getting at.
Cultural-centered:
Part of this seemed very much to overlap with user-centered in that it talked about taking culture and background into account. More interesting was the idea that the world outside of school is very important to successful education. This is where libraries come in! Libraries need to strive to be a place where education happens outside of school, as they always have, and work to promote themselves as legitimate and crucial places of learning. This probably means working with current education systems, flawed as they are, while trying to steer it in a better direction. Info lit is one thing, but we also have to facilitate more mainstream subjects to be sustainable.
Information Literacy in class:
Normally I despise talking a lot about definitions for vacuous terms, like information literacy. I very much believe that language is reflexive, not referrential, so I tend to look at definitions as arguing semantics. However, when looked at as a way of talking about what students need to learn, and how libraries are specifically suited to the task, I found the discussion to be extremely helpful. So in general: I don't care what the definition of information literacy is. I don't think it will ever be well defined. That's fine. What's important is all the myriad assumptions, problems, and trends that come out in the discussion. So.
First of all, I just want to remark how refreshing it is to read concise, straightforward literature like this which obviously affects my future directly. I spend so much time reading stuff by academics on academia, sometimes I forget that I'm not training to become an academic (thank goodness.)
Breaking down learning environments into four areas was very helpful. It did take me a moment to realize that the chapter was implying that learning environments should be learner, knowledge, assessment, AND community centered. That's quite a challenge. Here's how I felt about each:
(Oh, first I agree that standards for education are through the roof. This is the price we pay for progress I suppose! I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts on how or if standards should be reeled in.)
Learner-centered:
Clearly, learning environments must take into account the culture and personality of students. To link to what we've been talking about, this is where using "prior knowledge" comes is; that is, teachers need to frame classes so as to work with rather than against what students already know or have been cultured to assume. By that I don't mean that teachers shouldn't challenge bad assumptions (they should) but rather that they need to be keenly aware of them.
Knowledge-centered: I agree that education is set up to be too broad, and not deep enough. I even must challenege our own U of M somewhat, particularly LSA. It's well and good to pride oneself on being an extremely "liberal" program, forcing students to take classes in a wide range of areas, and there are clearly benefits. However, while being well-rounded is important, employers want expertise. It seems that you get your foot in the door by having an obsession with a certain thing, getting references and connections, getting one's foot in the door, and THEN being a well-rounded, well-adjusted person helps you on your way. It kind of gets back to standards....what is demanded is both breadth and depth. A lot of places do well on breadth, but how can we get depth as well?
I like the notion of realizing that young kids are capable of doing more than we once assumed, and that realizing this may be to their benefit. However, I would also caution that any statement about "what students can do" is very tricky, as age doesn't go too far in determing "what students can do." Still, good notion in general.
I also like the idea of attempting to make curriculum more natural, allowing motives or providing needs for students to actually use skills and knowledge, rather than just having fractured chapters and units. This is somewhere information literacy could possibly fit in, as it focuses on not just finding but being able to apply knowledge. I can see it working particularly in humanities classes, as kids are asked to challenege or corroborate their ideas with information in the world.
Assessment-Centered:
I agree that formative assessment is lacking at all levels of education, even here at SI. One has to make a real effort and make time to get a lot of personalized feedback from professors beyond a few major assignments often, so I'm glad KF seems to be periodically checking and commenting on our blogs, for one thing. One does also have to realize that a large part of education is to rank and judge aptitude of students, rather than actually educate! It's going to take a massive political and cultural shift for this to change significantly and quickly. I think when this does change, Information Literacy will find its way into curriculums more systematically. I was remarking with my group in class that one reason its tough to get info lit classes is beacuse there is no AP Information Literacy, and its not explicitly addressed on standardized tests. It's easy to explain "when am I going to use this?!" to students inthe case of info lit, but more difficult to say "this is going to get you a high score on the SATs." Colleges should make a point of judging information literacy in applications, and then maybe schools will have to do a good job of teaching it.
On a personal note, I have to disagree very much with the assertion that Japanese culture makes students feel OK about making mistakes in class. I taught English in Japan and this couldn't have been further from the truth. It was like pulling teeth to get students to speak in class for fear of making a mistake, and this was particularly grevious in English because learning a language isnt something you can just study at home for and then ace. It actually requires active use, and is very much a trial and error proccess. So I dont really know what that study was getting at.
Cultural-centered:
Part of this seemed very much to overlap with user-centered in that it talked about taking culture and background into account. More interesting was the idea that the world outside of school is very important to successful education. This is where libraries come in! Libraries need to strive to be a place where education happens outside of school, as they always have, and work to promote themselves as legitimate and crucial places of learning. This probably means working with current education systems, flawed as they are, while trying to steer it in a better direction. Info lit is one thing, but we also have to facilitate more mainstream subjects to be sustainable.
Information Literacy in class:
Normally I despise talking a lot about definitions for vacuous terms, like information literacy. I very much believe that language is reflexive, not referrential, so I tend to look at definitions as arguing semantics. However, when looked at as a way of talking about what students need to learn, and how libraries are specifically suited to the task, I found the discussion to be extremely helpful. So in general: I don't care what the definition of information literacy is. I don't think it will ever be well defined. That's fine. What's important is all the myriad assumptions, problems, and trends that come out in the discussion. So.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Media, ICT, and Information Literacy
I found another article that connected some of my earlier readings surprisingly explicitly. In this article, again written by William Badke, some of the interesting info literacy categories from the end of the summit report from my earlier post were explored, namely "media literacy" and ICT (information and communication technology) literacy are explored. He explores each concept, media literacy being an ability to find, process, and vet info from media sources, and ICT literacy being an aptitude in using info technology like computers or, more and more importantly, hand-held internet capable devices. In doing so he suggests something interesting, that since these two are so obviously important and ubiquitous in our lives, each might be a good sort of "envelope" for pushing info literacy education in school and/or university curriculums. While the concept of "information literacy" itself is somewhat vague and not strongly a part of the national lexicon, the sub categories of media and ICT literacy are easy to understand, easy to see the use in, and something we all are forced to work on daily. Badke doesn't feel that either media or ICT literacy alone can constitute a good envelope to push "info literacy" since each is a bit too narrow to include or clearly connect to information literacy in a broader sense. However, he suggests that a combination of the two is a good start or focus to design and advertise information literacy education. I tend to agree, and in general feel its a good idea to break down the concept of "information literacy" into smaller, more discreet and explicit chunks to make it more viable and attractive as something to be systematically taught.
Article Citation:
William Badke, "Media, ICT, and Information Literacy" TecTrends September 20, 2009
Article Citation:
William Badke, "Media, ICT, and Information Literacy" TecTrends September 20, 2009
Saturday, January 29, 2011
"Information Overload? Maybe Not."
The contrarian title of this article caught me. As did this opening paragraph:
"Here's a common observance, popular with librarians and in the mainstream media: We're drowning in information. The biggest problem we have is silting through all that data flying at us. I wondered if it's just information professionals who worry about this, so I polled 13 undergraduate students to get their views. Their response? Blank stares. They simply did not know what I was talking about."
The author, an associate librarian at Trinity Western University, looks at the information literacy/overload problem from the (I feel rather accurate) perspective that our youth doesn't really see a pressing problem, and have developed their own habits (how good these habits are is up for debate) of dealing with it.
To summarize, he gives three options. The first is to give up on teaching information literacy. It's been minimally effective, expensive, and there's reason to believe that interfaces for search will become better, smarter, and simpler, and "recommendation" services like netflix and amazon will get better and better. Of course, there will still never be a good "star rating" for most info, so we can't really do this, he says. I agree.
Another option is to "cover the basics," something libraries and schools are doing now, because they don't have the resources to do more. This covers "one-shot" programs and talks, like the kind I was exposed to growing up. But, he argues, info literacy is like learning a language, and takes years to master. One-shot classes just aren't enough. I would agree that they aren't enough. On the other hand, if we take such a long and broad view of info literacy (and saying it takes years to learn definitely is broad, I would also suggest its a lifelong process) almost puts it in the realm of a sort of professional degree! I think it should be stressed during other classes--every basic class at least from a middle school level has a strong use for info literacy--but it will be a challenge to keep a distinct focus apart from the aims of any given course (teaching kids science, for example is hard enough.)
The last and ultimate option, of course, is to "make it foundational." Establish it as a new foundational subject, and start them young. The strongest case for this goes back to the old complaint of students, "when am I ever going to use this?" Well, you would think info literacy would be an easy sell to add to curriculum as its exceedingly easy to answer that question, and its undoubtedly useful. I would argue that the reason it will be difficult to establish (aside from the fact that it is a painful subject to learn--breaking bad habits and all) is that there is no AP info literacy test, it isn't explicitly on achievement tests, it isn't a well-known college major: it's not part of the academic system. And the academic system isn't really set up to teach people what they need in many ways, its set up to judge "achievement" and sort people out. I may be being a bit cyncial, but until "info literacy" can gain traction as one of the subjects Universities and standardized tests can or do measure, it may be difficult to get it as foundational as it really needs to be. What do you think?
Article citation:
Badke, William. "Information overload? Maybe not." Online 34.5 (2010): 52+. General Reference Center Gold. Web. 30 Jan. 2011.
"Here's a common observance, popular with librarians and in the mainstream media: We're drowning in information. The biggest problem we have is silting through all that data flying at us. I wondered if it's just information professionals who worry about this, so I polled 13 undergraduate students to get their views. Their response? Blank stares. They simply did not know what I was talking about."
The author, an associate librarian at Trinity Western University, looks at the information literacy/overload problem from the (I feel rather accurate) perspective that our youth doesn't really see a pressing problem, and have developed their own habits (how good these habits are is up for debate) of dealing with it.
To summarize, he gives three options. The first is to give up on teaching information literacy. It's been minimally effective, expensive, and there's reason to believe that interfaces for search will become better, smarter, and simpler, and "recommendation" services like netflix and amazon will get better and better. Of course, there will still never be a good "star rating" for most info, so we can't really do this, he says. I agree.
Another option is to "cover the basics," something libraries and schools are doing now, because they don't have the resources to do more. This covers "one-shot" programs and talks, like the kind I was exposed to growing up. But, he argues, info literacy is like learning a language, and takes years to master. One-shot classes just aren't enough. I would agree that they aren't enough. On the other hand, if we take such a long and broad view of info literacy (and saying it takes years to learn definitely is broad, I would also suggest its a lifelong process) almost puts it in the realm of a sort of professional degree! I think it should be stressed during other classes--every basic class at least from a middle school level has a strong use for info literacy--but it will be a challenge to keep a distinct focus apart from the aims of any given course (teaching kids science, for example is hard enough.)
The last and ultimate option, of course, is to "make it foundational." Establish it as a new foundational subject, and start them young. The strongest case for this goes back to the old complaint of students, "when am I ever going to use this?" Well, you would think info literacy would be an easy sell to add to curriculum as its exceedingly easy to answer that question, and its undoubtedly useful. I would argue that the reason it will be difficult to establish (aside from the fact that it is a painful subject to learn--breaking bad habits and all) is that there is no AP info literacy test, it isn't explicitly on achievement tests, it isn't a well-known college major: it's not part of the academic system. And the academic system isn't really set up to teach people what they need in many ways, its set up to judge "achievement" and sort people out. I may be being a bit cyncial, but until "info literacy" can gain traction as one of the subjects Universities and standardized tests can or do measure, it may be difficult to get it as foundational as it really needs to be. What do you think?
Article citation:
Badke, William. "Information overload? Maybe not." Online 34.5 (2010): 52+. General Reference Center Gold. Web. 30 Jan. 2011.
NATIONAL INFORMATION LITERACY SUMMIT: AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS IN THE INFORMATION AGE, 2007
I won't talk too much about this report from the "National Information Literacy Summit" in late 2006, largely because, like many such summit reports, the bulk is spent advocating the topic of discussion in relatively vague terms, rather than drawing specific conclusions or recommendations that I find really urgent. Two of the key points for example are that "information literacy is crucial to the competitive advantage of individuals, enterprises, regions, and nations (surprise!) and that "a team of experts should develop national standards for information literacy". Following the fact that information literacy is important, schools and hopefully the business community should take steps to promote it.
True as this all is, I'm always slightly disappointed when reports such as this conclude with a lot of not-so-surprising "that" realizations, and maybe some "why"s, but not so many "hows". When it comes to one of the summit's stated goals, to "raise awareness among policy makers and the media about the importance of an information-literary society in the 21st schedules, I'm personally drawn more by media mentions like President Obama's in 2009. But rather than poo-poo the article, I did find one extremely interesting outcome from the end of the report. That is, a definition of what precisely is meant by information literacy, with surprising and interesting aspects.
If you look at the end of the report, info literacy is broken into categories, including some obvious ones like good-old-fashioned literacy and technology literacy. Some more interesting ones that I don't always think about and could probably brush up on myself include "economic and financial" literacy, "health" literacy, and "multicultural" literacy. Doing things specifically to help people become more knowledge about finances, health concerns, and multiculturalism are all exciting things that I'd love to do in my career, that don't quite seem to show up explicitly in everyday library service as I know it at work. I'd be interested to hear in the future of library programs and themes, especially in public libraries, promoting info literacy in those areas.
True as this all is, I'm always slightly disappointed when reports such as this conclude with a lot of not-so-surprising "that" realizations, and maybe some "why"s, but not so many "hows". When it comes to one of the summit's stated goals, to "raise awareness among policy makers and the media about the importance of an information-literary society in the 21st schedules, I'm personally drawn more by media mentions like President Obama's in 2009. But rather than poo-poo the article, I did find one extremely interesting outcome from the end of the report. That is, a definition of what precisely is meant by information literacy, with surprising and interesting aspects.
If you look at the end of the report, info literacy is broken into categories, including some obvious ones like good-old-fashioned literacy and technology literacy. Some more interesting ones that I don't always think about and could probably brush up on myself include "economic and financial" literacy, "health" literacy, and "multicultural" literacy. Doing things specifically to help people become more knowledge about finances, health concerns, and multiculturalism are all exciting things that I'd love to do in my career, that don't quite seem to show up explicitly in everyday library service as I know it at work. I'd be interested to hear in the future of library programs and themes, especially in public libraries, promoting info literacy in those areas.
OCLC's "Pereception of Libraries 2010" Report
OCLC released it's annual "Perception of Libraries" report recently. I love these because they give all sorts of insightful graphics about public perceptions of libraries in easy to absorb graphics. I wish more academic literature was more like this! As with any publication or article about "the state of libraries" the trends and percentages all have to be taken with a grain of salt--lost are nuances like what type of libraries exhibit which trends more or less strongly, and how regions affect perception. Still, I thought there were some interesting take-aways. Some highlights are:
-7 out of 10 public libraries report that they are the only source of free internet for their communities.
I know traditionally we all like to think of libraries as necessary for literacy in the traditional sense--giving people access to things to read--but this is astounding and highlights how libraries are crucial to promoting internet literacy (through access) in addition to "computer literacy." This is interesting for someone like me who works at a public library because, at least at my library, we aren't encouraged to sit down with patrons who don't know what they're doing on the internet to walk them through everything they need to know. Obviously this isn't part of the job description, and I definitely like that. Still it highlights how important web classes are, and how librarians might be asked to provide more and more one on one or small group web-use education services in the future.
-In total about 33% of Americans have ever used their library's web site, compared to 68% who have a library card.
It's astounding to me that less than half of people with library cards have ever used their library's website, though I suppose I'm used to libraries that have pretty robust ones. Not all do. This definitely needs to/will increase, and motivates me even more to graduate with technical skills to help build and design sites and think about what communities need to be put in touch with online. I guess taking graphic design was a good idea! Too bad I missed out on design of complex websites.
-7 out of 10 public libraries report that they are the only source of free internet for their communities.
I know traditionally we all like to think of libraries as necessary for literacy in the traditional sense--giving people access to things to read--but this is astounding and highlights how libraries are crucial to promoting internet literacy (through access) in addition to "computer literacy." This is interesting for someone like me who works at a public library because, at least at my library, we aren't encouraged to sit down with patrons who don't know what they're doing on the internet to walk them through everything they need to know. Obviously this isn't part of the job description, and I definitely like that. Still it highlights how important web classes are, and how librarians might be asked to provide more and more one on one or small group web-use education services in the future.
-In total about 33% of Americans have ever used their library's web site, compared to 68% who have a library card.
It's astounding to me that less than half of people with library cards have ever used their library's website, though I suppose I'm used to libraries that have pretty robust ones. Not all do. This definitely needs to/will increase, and motivates me even more to graduate with technical skills to help build and design sites and think about what communities need to be put in touch with online. I guess taking graphic design was a good idea! Too bad I missed out on design of complex websites.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Veldof and "Creating the Workshop"
Starting out this article was a bit funny for me, as it seems to speak to experienced librarians who have been doing workshops--somewhat wrongly--for years and need to get out of old bad habits to create new ones. As an LIS student in a rather cutting edge SI school, it's always odd to read literature that seems to be intended for an audience with old conceptions, rather than a fairly blank slate such as myself. On the other hand, it's relevant to me as someone who as been exposed to and works with a library that offers a lot of 1 hour or so workshops, which I always felt were in some ways designed to teach people just enough of what students need for a foundation, allowing them to pursue more advanced questions with the knowledge they got from the workshop and to get in contact with the instructor on further questions.
In a nutshell, the introduction stresses the importance of planning, with a lovable acronym for the process suggested by this book. It's actually very simple in a way--perhaps in part because I've been cultured to follow similar processes throughout my education regarding all sorts of projects beyond educational projects, and in part because any overview like ADDIE doesn't necessarily betray the complexities and hard work that go into each step. But the fact that one should analyze (conduct some sort of user study to figure out what should be done) design (formalize the objectives and perameters of the workshop) develop (create the content) implement (do the workshop) and evaluate (consider the project and how it can be made better with help from user input) is on some level extremely intuitive and simple.
Of the reasons given to go through planning like an ADDIE process, I think "plug and play" and "consistency" are most important and interesting. Having a structured process saves a lot of time in allowing one to take out one piece of a workshop and replace it with another, or follow a basic layout for different topics. Design should make future workshops quicker and easier, it should allow us not to need to reinvent the wheel for every lesson. Related to that is consistency, which is important for teachers with lots of different classes and things to teach, and difficult to achieve.
With regard to the mixes suggested for building teams for workshop creation, I'm very much in agreement with all of the considerations, but tempered on needing a "mix of personality types." Especially in small groups of say 4 or less, conflicting pesonalities can be good to make sure things are well rounded and balanced, but they can also restrict progress in a given direction that may be very fruitful. In general I think that in group work balance is great, but compromise is not necessarily great, since in education creativity and innovation can be extremely effective, and conflicting personalities can stifle that in favor of compromise. Not to say conflicting personalities are bad, just that in some groups, especially small ones, one might not always need to go so far as make sure vastly different personalities are present, and might even consider in what way a group of like-behaving individuals could work with more synergy.
As I know this course will cover a great deal of group work on creating educational tools and teaching plans, I think it will be interesting to try the guidelines set out in the remainder of the introduction to see what is most effective and what might be a bit more formal than needed.
In a nutshell, the introduction stresses the importance of planning, with a lovable acronym for the process suggested by this book. It's actually very simple in a way--perhaps in part because I've been cultured to follow similar processes throughout my education regarding all sorts of projects beyond educational projects, and in part because any overview like ADDIE doesn't necessarily betray the complexities and hard work that go into each step. But the fact that one should analyze (conduct some sort of user study to figure out what should be done) design (formalize the objectives and perameters of the workshop) develop (create the content) implement (do the workshop) and evaluate (consider the project and how it can be made better with help from user input) is on some level extremely intuitive and simple.
Of the reasons given to go through planning like an ADDIE process, I think "plug and play" and "consistency" are most important and interesting. Having a structured process saves a lot of time in allowing one to take out one piece of a workshop and replace it with another, or follow a basic layout for different topics. Design should make future workshops quicker and easier, it should allow us not to need to reinvent the wheel for every lesson. Related to that is consistency, which is important for teachers with lots of different classes and things to teach, and difficult to achieve.
With regard to the mixes suggested for building teams for workshop creation, I'm very much in agreement with all of the considerations, but tempered on needing a "mix of personality types." Especially in small groups of say 4 or less, conflicting pesonalities can be good to make sure things are well rounded and balanced, but they can also restrict progress in a given direction that may be very fruitful. In general I think that in group work balance is great, but compromise is not necessarily great, since in education creativity and innovation can be extremely effective, and conflicting personalities can stifle that in favor of compromise. Not to say conflicting personalities are bad, just that in some groups, especially small ones, one might not always need to go so far as make sure vastly different personalities are present, and might even consider in what way a group of like-behaving individuals could work with more synergy.
As I know this course will cover a great deal of group work on creating educational tools and teaching plans, I think it will be interesting to try the guidelines set out in the remainder of the introduction to see what is most effective and what might be a bit more formal than needed.
Johnston and Information Literacy
This article was the toughest of this week for me to appreciate since I never felt very aware of what exactly the module used consisted of and how exactly it was used. Obviously the study's aim is to explore broader questions like the strengths and weaknesses of online vs in-person training and the importance and possiblity of teaching information literacy, but because the conclusions drawn were from this one specific module, it was difficult for me to feel very strongly about any given finding. The beginning of the article is something of an overview of the research field this article falls in, almost a bit of meta-research. Not being in this field as an academic per se (that is, not doing research or expecting to do research not directly impacting post-academic professional skills I hope to acquire) I was a bit lost with the specific references, essentially coming away with the idea that two main dichotomies being researched are generic vs specfic education and online vs in person, with the jury being out on whether face to face or online educational resources might be better.
On that note, the article suggests near the end that as some students seemed to prefer face-to-face and others preferred online learning environments, ideally both should be used. Theoretically, this would allow everyone to get what they want, with the weaknesses of each approach cancelled out by the strengths of the other. However, it isn't so clear how implementable this would actually be--dedicating resources to both approaches and making each work together compatibly is undoubtedly not a simple thing to do. Also, logistics dictate that certain groups, like the distance learners, would not be able to make use of face-to-face instruction anyway, meaning that not all students in the same course would get the same opportunity. It's interesting to think about: many online degree programs or courses seem to be expressly that, not "online optional." I wonder if this reflects the challenges of supporting and melding both face-to-face and online teaching options.
Regarding the surveys, I felt the sample size (25) was a bit small to be terribly compelling. I would also like to know more about the options of "strongly agree, somewhat agree, neutral..." and so on tend to be so popular in surveys like this, including most UM course surveys. I for one think the concept of "strongly agreeing" is highly subjective at best, and often have an extremely difficult time deciding whether I strongly or somewhat agree with various items. Often, even though I definitely agree, I am somewhat less than fervent about my opinion, so I opt for "somewhat agree" just because the question is about an item or aspect I find less than fascinating. I also wonder for the question "is info literacy important" how clear a concept of "information literacy" students had. "Information literacy" is a somewhat recently popularized term by information scientists and people who study it and have a clear conception of what precisely it means. Depending on how strong survey respondents' conception of the term is, and even more importantly whether they have a similar conception is important. If people don't know or agree on exactly what "information literacy" means, its difficult to take anything concrete away from their opinion about it.
On that note, the article suggests near the end that as some students seemed to prefer face-to-face and others preferred online learning environments, ideally both should be used. Theoretically, this would allow everyone to get what they want, with the weaknesses of each approach cancelled out by the strengths of the other. However, it isn't so clear how implementable this would actually be--dedicating resources to both approaches and making each work together compatibly is undoubtedly not a simple thing to do. Also, logistics dictate that certain groups, like the distance learners, would not be able to make use of face-to-face instruction anyway, meaning that not all students in the same course would get the same opportunity. It's interesting to think about: many online degree programs or courses seem to be expressly that, not "online optional." I wonder if this reflects the challenges of supporting and melding both face-to-face and online teaching options.
Regarding the surveys, I felt the sample size (25) was a bit small to be terribly compelling. I would also like to know more about the options of "strongly agree, somewhat agree, neutral..." and so on tend to be so popular in surveys like this, including most UM course surveys. I for one think the concept of "strongly agreeing" is highly subjective at best, and often have an extremely difficult time deciding whether I strongly or somewhat agree with various items. Often, even though I definitely agree, I am somewhat less than fervent about my opinion, so I opt for "somewhat agree" just because the question is about an item or aspect I find less than fascinating. I also wonder for the question "is info literacy important" how clear a concept of "information literacy" students had. "Information literacy" is a somewhat recently popularized term by information scientists and people who study it and have a clear conception of what precisely it means. Depending on how strong survey respondents' conception of the term is, and even more importantly whether they have a similar conception is important. If people don't know or agree on exactly what "information literacy" means, its difficult to take anything concrete away from their opinion about it.
Captivate Menubuilder
The report on using Captivate and Menubuilder to create a tutorial for use of SCCS was interesting because it resembled the result of assignments I can very much see as being common to this class. Aside from being an example of a pretty good explanation and summary of the creation of an online teaching tool for a graduate course (I assume this may have been a sort of HCI or Education program?) I had a few takeaways.
When conducting early user surveys to determine user needs, it was interesting that parents as well as students were taken into account. Obviously, as it turned out parents did a lot to help with their students' use of SCCS and would want to know how to navigate it themselves to check on their kids' work, it made sense to consider both groups. However, both groups will clearly have different perspectives and assumptions, due to having slightly different motivations for using the site (directly doing work vs. facilitating or reviewing work) and an obvious age gap. The reflects a huge challenge in creating educational tools like this: it's impossible to be all things to all people, but one still has to try and determine what the largest group needs and wants are in order to find some sort of balance. For some extremely specialized topics or resources with very narrow user communities, this might not be so bad. But trying to design a tutorial for, say, a web catalog that's used by ages 4 to 104 for myriad different reasons should undoubtedly be trickier.
Something that wasn't mentioned in the article was the possibility that the tutorial created would need to be changed or replaced as SCCS layout and functionalities evolve. A challenge to creating learning materials is that they can be extremely time-intensive as they need to be updated or completely replaced as what they teach about changes. This highlights the extreme importance of having good, sustainable design from the get-go for online resources, where basic services are not likely to change, though add-ons or enhancements are possible.
I also found it rang very true that the group found module time needs to be kept short, even shorter than expected. I personally find myself being very frustrated when listening to video/audio tutorials and needing to wait to get the info I need. This is one drawback when compared to text: text tutorials are generally easy to scan and skip to get exactly what you need. I wonder if in the future screen casts will come with some sort of timestamped transcript or table of contents, making them more or less as skimmable as text. I'd be interested to see if this is the direction things go.
When conducting early user surveys to determine user needs, it was interesting that parents as well as students were taken into account. Obviously, as it turned out parents did a lot to help with their students' use of SCCS and would want to know how to navigate it themselves to check on their kids' work, it made sense to consider both groups. However, both groups will clearly have different perspectives and assumptions, due to having slightly different motivations for using the site (directly doing work vs. facilitating or reviewing work) and an obvious age gap. The reflects a huge challenge in creating educational tools like this: it's impossible to be all things to all people, but one still has to try and determine what the largest group needs and wants are in order to find some sort of balance. For some extremely specialized topics or resources with very narrow user communities, this might not be so bad. But trying to design a tutorial for, say, a web catalog that's used by ages 4 to 104 for myriad different reasons should undoubtedly be trickier.
Something that wasn't mentioned in the article was the possibility that the tutorial created would need to be changed or replaced as SCCS layout and functionalities evolve. A challenge to creating learning materials is that they can be extremely time-intensive as they need to be updated or completely replaced as what they teach about changes. This highlights the extreme importance of having good, sustainable design from the get-go for online resources, where basic services are not likely to change, though add-ons or enhancements are possible.
I also found it rang very true that the group found module time needs to be kept short, even shorter than expected. I personally find myself being very frustrated when listening to video/audio tutorials and needing to wait to get the info I need. This is one drawback when compared to text: text tutorials are generally easy to scan and skip to get exactly what you need. I wonder if in the future screen casts will come with some sort of timestamped transcript or table of contents, making them more or less as skimmable as text. I'd be interested to see if this is the direction things go.
Open Source Resources
In a meeting with the IT director at the library I'm interning with, he stressed the importance of knowing about and staying abreast of open-source options for various library needs. I always try to take notice when coming across or hearing about new opensource educational or database resources, so articles like the Griffis article are always a great help.
What's frustrating sometimes about open source software is finding resourrces that are stable; that is, that stand to be supported by some community if not the original developer. It's always great to find an open source solution for technology and educational needs, but if one is constantly jumping from one resource to the next as old ones become obsolete or fall out of favor, it can be difficult to provide services with the software in a smooth, simple way. Even resources like Trailfire, mentioned in the article, can suddenly be superseded by something better, or become unavialable (when I went to the trailfire.com website on 1/23/11 at about 2:00pm, the site was either down or unresponsive.) The other frustrating thing about open source solutions is simply part of the nature of getting things for free: lots of free resources do one of a set of things you need, but not all. Even though each component might be possible using a set of different resources, due to copyright or lack of motivation its somewhat rare to find free software that can do everything you want at the same time (say, take screencasts and record/playback audio at the same time.) For this reason, I'm very convinced that its important to build strong technical skills, and be aware as possible of software resources and options, so as to make the most out of whats out there, and to be able to forsee and solve problems created by resources' limitations.
What's frustrating sometimes about open source software is finding resourrces that are stable; that is, that stand to be supported by some community if not the original developer. It's always great to find an open source solution for technology and educational needs, but if one is constantly jumping from one resource to the next as old ones become obsolete or fall out of favor, it can be difficult to provide services with the software in a smooth, simple way. Even resources like Trailfire, mentioned in the article, can suddenly be superseded by something better, or become unavialable (when I went to the trailfire.com website on 1/23/11 at about 2:00pm, the site was either down or unresponsive.) The other frustrating thing about open source solutions is simply part of the nature of getting things for free: lots of free resources do one of a set of things you need, but not all. Even though each component might be possible using a set of different resources, due to copyright or lack of motivation its somewhat rare to find free software that can do everything you want at the same time (say, take screencasts and record/playback audio at the same time.) For this reason, I'm very convinced that its important to build strong technical skills, and be aware as possible of software resources and options, so as to make the most out of whats out there, and to be able to forsee and solve problems created by resources' limitations.
Monday, January 10, 2011
ALA Competencies
I'll give an overview of my reaction from three sections from front to start for the ALA core competencies.
1) Foundations of the Profession
This is perhaps the most interesting section as it somewhat flies in the face of the addage that libraries are a fundamentally shifting field; that old ways (reference, cataloging, physical materials) are dying; that the old ways and old guard must be left behind if libraries are to be sustainable. On the other hand, it's not clear that the "ethics, values, and foundational principles" are what is changing. This seems to be the central issue at the heart of much library literature covered at SI! I would say that the skills of the "foundation of the profession": communication, analyzing complex problems, etc are as or more important than ever. Knowing the history of libraries and history of human communication is perhaps useful as far as it informs TODAY's library issues. Knowing current trends and issues, having a context to place any one library within is more important.
4) Technological Knowledge and Skills
Absolutely! While an item like 4C, "The methods of assessing and evaluating the specifications, efficacy, and cost efficiency of technology-based products and services." may well fall under the jurisdiction of an IT department (I know this is somewhat rare in many public libraries), technology is one of the things I am asked about most at the library, by both patrons and colleagues. While tech experts as we now know them are a somewhat new thing in society and seem to be seen as an isolated bunch, librarians can be a huge public help in offering education on technical skills, even basic computer literacy. This seems to be the most demanded educational content at AADL, my place of work.
8) Administration and Management
This is extremely interesting to me especially with respect to this course as there do seem to be administrative job openings out there, and all require experience, not just competency in this area. It's possible to take courses on items like "human resources development", "budgeting (outside of collections" or "developing partnerships" but perhaps this is something that truly needs to be hashed out on the job (you can't quite do a project for a client where you truly have responsibility for these things.) Gaining these competencies is something I'm interested in and is perhaps best gotten in high-demand, (relatively) demanding situations.
1) Foundations of the Profession
This is perhaps the most interesting section as it somewhat flies in the face of the addage that libraries are a fundamentally shifting field; that old ways (reference, cataloging, physical materials) are dying; that the old ways and old guard must be left behind if libraries are to be sustainable. On the other hand, it's not clear that the "ethics, values, and foundational principles" are what is changing. This seems to be the central issue at the heart of much library literature covered at SI! I would say that the skills of the "foundation of the profession": communication, analyzing complex problems, etc are as or more important than ever. Knowing the history of libraries and history of human communication is perhaps useful as far as it informs TODAY's library issues. Knowing current trends and issues, having a context to place any one library within is more important.
4) Technological Knowledge and Skills
Absolutely! While an item like 4C, "The methods of assessing and evaluating the specifications, efficacy, and cost efficiency of technology-based products and services." may well fall under the jurisdiction of an IT department (I know this is somewhat rare in many public libraries), technology is one of the things I am asked about most at the library, by both patrons and colleagues. While tech experts as we now know them are a somewhat new thing in society and seem to be seen as an isolated bunch, librarians can be a huge public help in offering education on technical skills, even basic computer literacy. This seems to be the most demanded educational content at AADL, my place of work.
8) Administration and Management
This is extremely interesting to me especially with respect to this course as there do seem to be administrative job openings out there, and all require experience, not just competency in this area. It's possible to take courses on items like "human resources development", "budgeting (outside of collections" or "developing partnerships" but perhaps this is something that truly needs to be hashed out on the job (you can't quite do a project for a client where you truly have responsibility for these things.) Gaining these competencies is something I'm interested in and is perhaps best gotten in high-demand, (relatively) demanding situations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)