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.