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.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)