Professional Development

Before I begin my discussion of this weeks readings, I must disclose that I hold a somewhat jaded association with professional development based on my years as a classroom teacher.  Professional development was time intensive, and regularly did not address topics I cared about.  Though always an over-achiever as a student, during professional development I felt like an apathetic student sitting in the back of the classroom leaning my chair against the wall.  It was not always this way.  When I first started teaching, I sat at the front of the room, pen and notebook open and eager to be filled.  Let this serve as a precautionary tale.

This week, one of our readings was Semandeni's artile about teacher-driven professional development (2010).  In this model, teachers were able to select and help lead professional development topics to target their own personal areas for growth.  This is an excellent idea in practice; with the rising emphasis on differentiation in the classroom, it only makes sense that professionals should be offered the same specialized opportunities for growth.  But there are a few caveats that should be minded:

1. Professional development should be a tool for growing, not assessment.
At my school, we were empowered to pick strands to work on (I hope you sense the scarcasm...), but with the administration it sometimes felt that we were filing our own warrants.  With at-will contracts and frequently patronistic leaders, if I admitted weakness, I felt that it could be used agaist me, and I saw more than one teacher chased out mid-year for what frankly seemed like administrative bullying.

This is why I loved the atmosphere described in Kristin's article about professional development in new technologies.  Because Kristin was not an administrator, she was able to create a relaxed environment that allowed for play in addition to growth.  She understood what teachers needed to excell, and provided it to them in a way that was non-threatening.

It should be kept in mind, however that not all teacher-led instruction was without pressure.  At one point, my team teacher and I were identified as meeting the standards of the administration in terms of assessment and lesson planning.  We were then asked to lead professional development in a thinly veiled attempt to pressure other teachers to work the way we were.  Not only did teachers still feel the "big brother" behind our professional development, it created discomfort in our professional community.  The difference is clear; my colleague and I were not allowed to lead professional development that we were passionate about, but rather on what the administration wanted to see others doing. 

2. Choice should be balanced with observation and guided growth.
Selecting and independent plan also felt less personal.  We had full time "master teachers" who observed us and led professional development.  As a new teacher, I wanted someone with more experience to observe my teaching and tell me the things that I didn't notice I was messing up on.  I was a teacher who would pick at myself and make constant adjustments improvements and needed feedback ouside of monthly professional development meeting.

3. In giving options, allow for depth, as well as breadth. 
My training program optioned 'menu items,' at our monthly professional development days, but we were rarely offered materials "at level" because they worked to develop bredth, not depth.  I often found myself going to sessions I was interested in, but being disappointed because it didn't add anything to my knowledge base, but just patted me on the back for what I was already doing.  Development cannot be fulfilled in a single session.  Items should not only be differentiatied, but also scaffolded to meet teachers where they are.

Whew.  I didn't mean to be so negative in my final post for SI 643.  Let me leave you with one story of professional development gone-right.  At a friend's school, teachers were allowed to guide their own professional development without administration.  At the beginning of the year, they selected cohorts based on similar goals.  They met monthly and had their own bookclubs for professional development materials where they shared readings, ideas, and best practices.  Not only did my friend feel she had improved, she also felt like she was part of a learning community and had a lot of on-site support on campus when she had questions.

Chatter

This week we planned and began to engage in webinars.  So far, I have attended one Webinar (archived) and participated in our webinar on Creative Commons & Fair Use.  (To check out the archived webinar, go here).  Both were definite learning experiences for me!  As someone who has participated in a lot of professional development sessions in the past, it was great to see an alternative for online development.  I like the idea that I can opt-in to the sessions I find most interesting, and it's a great forum for individuals to share their expertise. 

Today I listened to Sherry, Chris, and Janeane's session on providing services for patrons recently released from prison, and I learned so much.  This is definitely an area that I have no experience in, and I walked away feeling a lot more confident about my ability to serve the community. 

One feature I am not so sure about is chat.  On the one hand, the chat box is a great way to check for understanding, to take questions, and to engage audience members.  On the other hand, it can be a major distraction.  In our in-person one shot workshops we had very different norms for sharing the floor, but on chat, participants can talk the whole time.  Having a chat monitor assigned in our team was really helpful in minimizing the distraction, but it still got off topic at times.  Even as a participant I was sometimes distracted by other people's chatter and couldn't focus on the presentation.

What do you guys think about the chat feature?  Love it?  Hate it?  A necessary evil?

Twitter

I really want to like Twitter.  I tend to be annoyed by people who complain about technology for the sake of having that funny I'm-young-and-crotchety-like-Janeane-Garofalo-get-it? thing.  But I feel crotchety when I look at Twitter.  Maybe I'm doing it wrong?  It's just a little overwhelming to me.  There is a lot of "inspeak" with hashtags, RTs, and personal dialogs made public. 

To me, Twitter does seem like a good forum to share interesting news articles or to promote personal projects, and I'm all for following interesting people to share ideas with me!  This week is the first time I have actively used a #hashtag to follow a group conversation, and I definitely got more out of being part of a group in sharing ideas.  It was great to see classmates sharing articles over the course of last week.  For the first time I felt like an "insider!"  I guess what I really need to work on is honing in on the right people to follow and the right things to share.

The Twitter-er(?) I was most impressed with this week was Archives Info.  Her tweets were really interesting and relevant to the field; she shared articles about digital humanities and new interesting heritage sites.  I plan on continuing to follow her feed.  The Tweeter (?) I was least impressed with was the Librarian in Black.  This was disappointing because I really liked the content on her blog; it was engaging and I learned a lot.  I learned from her Twitter account all sorts of useless information about her personal life.  Definitely not someone I plan to follow after this week.

I think my feelings towards the Librarian in Black connected to the discussion we had in class last week.  I think librarians can be clique-y.  Reading the LIBs posts made me feel like I just didn't get it.  Archives Info, on the other hand, made me feel like I was being brought into the discussion.  I think this has something to do with why we as library students feel uncomfortable asking questions.  It pushes us out of the clique and into the group of users.  This is important to keep in mind in terms of how we treat non-info professionals.  Respect and humility, my friends, respect and humility. 

Revenge of the Teacher-Librarians

Maybe revenge is a strong word, but I have been waiting to talk more about librarian-academic integration all semester.  Matos and his team brought forward the idea of the "embedded librarian in their article, "The Embedded Librarian Online or Face-to Face."  In this article, two librarians shared their first-hand experience as librarians embedded within academic departments, to varying degrees of success and using various methods to reach the communities.  The article also referenced an embedded history librarian who ultimately did not succeed in becoming effectively embedded in the community.  The article emphasized the need for good relationships in the department; the music librarian had an excellent rapport with faculty and staff, and was able to build collaborative relationships and host successful office hours and presentations.  The history librarian's failure was attributed to an inability to effectively build collaborative relationships or reach out to the student community.

While this article nicely illustrated anecdotal evidence that embedded librarians can be effective, I was disappointed that it didn't push back more on the story of the history librarian.  What could they have done differently?  How can librarians facing a "tough crowd" overcome the obstacles and build a place for themselves in the community?  Certainly history students need embedded librarians as much as music students do, even if they don't realize the full advantages one will bring to them. 

This reminds me of the struggle many school librarians have faced building collaborative relationships with teachers.  I see a parallel in a lot of non "classroom teachers"-- one of my best friends is an absolutely fantastic special education teacher who struggles to lure her colleagues to collaborate with her to help students.  It's why many school librarians have worked relentlessly to emphasize the fact that they are credentialed teachers.

What can "classroom-less" teacher/academic-librarians do to represent their collaborative relationship as a foundational need?

Online representation can help, especially when there isn't enough space in the department (or the teaching schedule).  But I think it's essential to use that online space effectively.  Professors might feel more comfortable assigning interactive webinars as supplemental course material rather than having a library session during class time, or planning a full class themselves.  And when librarians have that opportunity, I think they have an obligation to sell their services as much as possible.

Many librarians may feel uncomfortable as salespeople, but if we are really serious about fighting for relevancy, making our services as comfortable as possible for users is important.  It is a huge obstacle for many users, teachers and professors included, to ask for help.  To open themselves up to not being in control.  To trust another person to do a good job helping them represent themselves.  Academia in general makes everyone feel vulnerable.  Librarians have great opportunities to truly serve and invite people into a world of information.

This is why I want to become a librarian, and why I had such a fun time last week co-leading our one-shot workshop.  I really enjoyed being able to bring new information to participants, to hopefully build on their professional skills to help them represent themselves with a wide set of skills.

I was a little disappointed with the webinar I viewed; the librarians weren't selling it.  They used the technology ineffectively, grew uncomfortable with the interactive elements, and ultimately didn't tell me much. 

I know this is a little preachy and one-sided, and that people are bringing a lot of different skill sets to libraries, and certainly we shouldn't make the library seem like a used car lot.   But I do think that public engagement is one of the things that is going to cement librarian's role in the future.  We could do well to learn from people who are able to catch people's attention.  In a non comb-over, sleazy way.  Unless you're into that kind of thing. 

Ethics

At the School of Information, most of my classes have flirted with the idea of talking about ethics, though none have really taken it head on.  It is such an important consideration in our profession, and one that is essential to confront, but also quite challenging.

I appreciated so much the opportunity to talk about ethics in class, but also to attend the "Is this App Racist" event sponsored by MIX.  In this discussion, professors at SI met with students to discuss the NPR coverage about the smartphone app that alerts users of "unsafe" neighborhoods, according to crime statistics, as well as the fervid discussion the app spawned on Si.All.Open

Here's what this rich discussion left me with:

• Technology/Information may be "neutral," but the data these things are based off may be collected in non-neutral ways.
• Even if the intent of the app is positive, it is unethical to ignore the biased foundations of data
• As information professionals, to claim true ethical behaviors, we must actively challenge and question our sources and our own hidden biases, as well as those who we work with

Professor King also made an interesting comment that reflected Kristin's discussion of the ALA Code of Ethics.  King supported the idea that the difference between professionals and employees is this ethical line.  Professionals identify problems, or gaps in ethics, an do something about it.  Therefore, professionalism cannot be neutral.

What do you guys think?

News-related

This is an aside from class postings, but I just came across this article about the Ridgefield Public Library in Ridgefield, Connecticut.  Apparently they're in the planning stages of a building a new library, and have some angry opposition. Some community members don't understand why new facilities are being built when the day of the book is over.

“Give everybody a tablet, and get rid of the stacks. You’re done,” he said. “...It’s ADA compliant.”

Virtual libraries are already being set up, and are the future, Mr. Miller said.

“The classics, anything that’s over 100 years old, you can get from Google for free,” he said. “Anything written in the last 25 years, people have digitized it and are selling digital copies.”

While it's an interesting perspective in what the role of a library is in a community, it's frustrating that people continue to make large political statements without understanding the dynamic day-to-day realities, here an understanding of the dynamic between e-book publishers and  libraries would be greatly beneficial to this discussion.  I know this level of selective awareness is not new in our world, but it gets me every time.

Ethics and Bookclub Reflections

When first reading the ALA Code of Ethics, I felt really confident and excited to uphold these standards.  I particularly perked at the following passage:

We significantly influence or control the selection, organization, preservation, and dissemination of information. In a political system grounded in an informed citizenry, we are members of a profession explicitly committed to intellectual freedom and the freedom of access to information. We have a special obligation to ensure the free flow of information and ideas to present and future generations.

It is essential for information professionals to work to become aware of the many ways that their own personal preferences, motivations, and biases subtly influence their decision-making and relationships in the field.  This is not a social awareness that comes naturally to everyone, and so I believe it will be a process to gain perspective on their own partiality.  I think this is important in a (generally) liberal-bent profession.  This is an over-generalization and an over-simplification, but in my observations of growing up in a pretty far left community, and then burying myself in the notoriously left-leaning institutions of Berkeley, Teach For America, and Michigan, I have seen many liberal-minded individuals presume themselves free of bigotry and biases.  For these individuals, it is sometimes harder to perceive their personal prejudices because they are often not looking for them.

For this reason, I really appreciated the complexity Mark Lenker brought to the Code of Ethics with his article on "dangerous questions."  Of course, there is no easy answer or quick fix when a patron approaches with a morally questionable topic - but Lenker does provide a good discussion and a possible framework to process troubling encounters.

I think one of the biggest struggles when these situations arise is the urgency and pace of the reference desk.  When I am providing reference services in Hatcher, by brain is always running a mile a minute because I am pooling through my brain for the best resources and search methods to help users; it's hard for me to process moral dilemmas at the same time.

That said, in an academic library I think determining intent with say, a book about marijuana cultivation or bomb how-tos, because I pretty much always ask what the purpose of the research is.  My partner worked for the Emma Goldman Papers in Berkeley and he had to conduct pretty extensive research on home-made bombs to determine the relevancy of testimony in the Tom Mooney trial.  Throughout his research on the chemistry of dynamite, etc, he was never questioned of his intentions.  Though if he had, he would have had an easy explanation.  It's an expected and comfortable question in a university library where everyone is conducting research towards similar purposes.  In public libraries this sort of questioning may feel to some an invasion of privacy.

I feel that if the library provides the material, there should be reference services.  But I can't say that I would be completely comfortable pointing a patron to material I thought they might use to hurt themselves or others.  So much of this information can be found online, or independently in the library, if a patron is coming to a person or chat service, I do feel that there is a level of wanting someone to know.  I know that some libraries are able to offer or host social services through the library, and those materials are good to have available.  I feel that asking more about requests in a respectful way, with a sense of humility, can't hurt.  The worst that can happen is that a patron can decline to engage in the conversation.

image from http://www.booksdistilled.com

Now to the book clubs we participated in last week.  Overall  I really enjoyed the opportunity to discuss literature and to lead a book club discussion with my peers.  I am currently in 3 book clubs, on and off, but in my opinion, there are never enough opportunities to talk about books.  The discussion leaders in our group led in very different ways, and it was great to learn from everyone.

I struggled with some of the things I expected to struggle with; some voices were louder than others, and in a "voluntary" setting I found it a lot more challenging to find a diplomatic way to support a shared floor.  This is easier in a classroom, where I had the authority to call on students or ask students who weren't sharing more pointed and specific questions.  In a casual book club setting I struggled with how to do this respectfully.  I'd love any feedback others had or experience with similar issues!

Book clubs

This week we talked about book clubs, which might be one of the most exciting library prospects. My favorite teaching days for me were when all of my students pulled their desks into circles for Socratic seminars. Students who weren't able or willing to put reading responses on paper regularly shone when discussing characters out loud. I would prepare some questions, but students were responsible for preparing "high quality" questions the night before, and I rarely had to say anything for the full hour.  The greatest challenge was ensuring students shared the floor.

Book clubs in the library setting will certainly be different, a lot of the lessons I learned as a teacher will certainly be helpful.  The most important thing is to make participants feel safe in order for then to risk participating.  Its good to keep in mind that having a college background we have more experience discussing and sharing these kinds of ideas than others. I could see it being a challenge for a fresh librarian to release a little control of discussion to let the participants guide the experience- I know it was a challenge for me at first.

I have thought a lot on our discussion of male focused book blurbs as well.  I think the Socratic style would be more appealing to typical male audiences. It seems that the Socratic seminar is more "goal oriented." By that I mean that there is a mission beyond sitting around and sharing. It seems more like the online forum posts we talked about in class. I know my dad looks to his online car buddies to expand and share his knowledge and interests. I think libraries could work to foster that same idea.

After reading our bookclub texts I look forward to discussing the mix of fiction and nonfiction. I think any of then would serve as good model texts for the first book club meetings we hold.

Games and Seminars

Last week we debated the merits of applying gaming mentalities and practices to the learning environment.  I really enjoyed McGonigal's Ted Talk on gaming and transfer.  A lot of the skills she attributed to gamers are skills that I desperately tried to build in my classroom, to varying amounts of success.  A lot of the skills are things I didn't know how to develop, but are the most essential life skills a person can acquire; collaboration and perseverance come to mind.  I like that in games you can fail but feel free to try again.  There is no shame, and each time you play you work on honing your skills.  This is definitely not something that happens in the classroom very often.

One of the most appealing things to gamers as discussed by McGonigal, is the immediate feedback and leveling up.  In thinking about the barriers, the only worry I have is the ability for teachers to give feedback on higher-order, critical thinking.  The feedback I receive on papers definitely improve my writing and presentation, but professors obviously take time providing feed back for me and my fellow students.  If we become too dependent on "gaming" feedback, we will continue to emphasize lower skills.  It's standardized testing using a hip, flashy mask.

The readings this week focused on reading groups and socratic seminars.  This is one of my favorite opportunities in education, and something libraries can definitely work with.

Thinking about libraries separately from classrooms, reading groups are a great application of outreach.  Dempsey and Hoffert both show how book clubs can engage patrons to see the library as a central place for community. When I first moved to Chicago, I didn't know anyone and I really wanted to join a library sponsored book club.  I found book club listings online but going to a random book club seemed a little sketchy-- having the location and presence of the library mediates those discomforts.  Dempsey raises some interesting ideas with online book clubs.  It's nice to have both pieces and flexibility.  I have participated in one online book club, and it was fun but with a small group it was sometimes frustrating to get conversation started.  With one or two librarians there to stir the pot, engagement and involvement will be a lot more dynamic.

In looking at socratic seminars in the classroom, I think I saw the most engagement, and growth by using this frequently in my practice.  After we finished a novel we would dedicate a full day to class discussion.  Students who struggled expressing themselves on tests and through writing regularly shone in class discussions.  It was also a great tool for social studies.  I saw a lot of higher order thinking skills.  My grade level partner, who taught math and science, also said he saw significant changes in our classes after we had discussions-- even though he didn't plan discussions, students would initiate them by asking excellent questions and critically analyzing science and math concepts.  It just shows you that talking about a book will go a long way!

Learning for Understanding and Transfer

Our readings this week focused on the idea of transfer, that is, students/patrons being able to apply information in new context.Wiggins & McTighe offered us a simple educational framework to see the progress of "education:"

1. Acquire information
2. Make meaning
3. Transfer understanding to new contexts

The problematic they set forth is that schools seem to be focusing only on the first part.  Students are seen as empty vessels that can be filled with information.  Teachers are held accountable using tests that only assess the first part.  So how can we expect students to transfer these ideas to new contexts?

In How People Learn, Bransford emphasizes how these higher learning modalities take time, a resource library teachers can't seem to get enough of.   Students need to see information in a variety of contexts, see how it shifts and changes to adapt to different scenarios, to be able to take that information beyond to apply to new situations.

I feel like a broken record, but this again seems like a great time to bring up collaboration.  Teachers can still introduce students to new information, much in the traditional way they are used to, and then work with information professionals to design a variety of tasks in the classroom, the library, and beyond, so that students see the application taking place.  They will then be more able to transfer their learning beyond these two areas.  So how can we better facilitate this collaboration?  If teaching schools promote this (and they do), and library schools promote this (at least in this class), what else can we do to see this happen?

Class Reflection - Assessment

In class last week we talked a lot about assessment.  How do librarians assess?  We talked about many informal methods, including reading the room, working with patrons one-on-one while they work (through reference interviews and walking the room through sessions and giving immediate feedback).  This form of assessment is mostly formative, there isn't a point where librarians give summative feedback.

As a classroom teacher, I could see that formative feedback was more useful for students, but summative feedback really serves the teacher.  I was taught to treat "final exams" as assessment of MY teaching as much as their learning.  So where can librarians go for that same feedback?

In class we talked about the development of surveys to assess learning and instruction, and it does seem that this is a librarian's best tool.  Of course, just like with any assessment, the results are only so good as the survey itself.  We need to be thoughtful of WHAT we are assessing for surveys to be effective at all.  Reading the room is a good sense in the moment of where people are, but as we discussed this takes highly developed social skills and awareness, and can't always be accurate.

On another note, I really enjoyed the Jane McGonigal Ted Talk.  There's some food for thought!

Collaboration and Reform

Last week, we expanded our shared understanding of Information literacy in the different fields we all hope to explore.  Despite the fact that so much has been written about the topic, it is hard to find concrete, broad ways that this is being carried out.

Our conversation only made me think more about the great need for collaboration to carry this out.  Andrew made a comment on my last post that really made me think.  He asked how recipients of advanced degrees teaching at highly distinguished universities could be convinced to collaborate with someone outside their field and outside their expertise.  It's sad, but it also seems true, that a big block to collaboration is personal ego.  How can this intellectual hierarchy be broken down to serve students?

In a school setting, I think it would greatly benefit teachers to be in school with librarians and to require them to collaborate through the training.  I don't know how this would work for professors.  I know that every time I see a distinguished research professor speak, or write a book, they always go on and on about how amazing librarians and archivists were in their research.  So how can we get them to collaborate for students?


This week in Bransford's How People Learn, we read about creating an effective learning environment.  I found many intriguing passages in this chapter that made me reflect on my past experience in the classroom and think about how I will apply these lessons moving forward.

The first note Bransford made was that the sense that "schools are getting worse" was actually inaccurate.  The truth is that schools are doing more or less the same, which is the problem.  The world has changed dramatically in the last century, but schools have not changed along with them.  Schools need to reevaluate what their goals are for where students will be and adjust their practices to the world as it exists today.  The movie Waiting For Superman echoed this sentiment- it illustrated the fact that public schools were largely developed in the world of the assembly line.  In this model, students are the product, and Bransford argued that teachers are the managers.  I would say that teachers are actually treated in society like factory workers- no one is winning in this equation.  Students are not prepared for the world they enter into, and teachers are often the scapegoats of these failures. 

Bransford advocated a system built on four centers; learner centered, knowledge centered, assessment centered, and community centered.  Taking the best of these four models would provide students with experience and feedback to function in a world that demands critical thinking and ingenuity.  It will also motivate students by building on what they already know (learner centered), give them information to engage in specific fields (knowledge centered), provide them with feedback and ways to improve (assessment centered), and give them opportunities to learn from each other (community centered).

Sadler builds on Bransford's ideas with his discussion of formative assessment (including self-monitoring) in his article, "Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems."  He discusses how having only external feedback creates "achievement ceilings."  I thought that this was a very interesting concept, and have definitely seen it played out in my own life.  Because I always received A's in school, I had little incentive to push myself farther than I needed to.  It wasn't until I started teaching and reflecting on my own practice, knowing that I could always do better, that I realized how little I had been pushing myself.  Teaching students how to self monitor to build expertise is an incredibly difficult task.  Many teachers have tried to do it by offering opportunities for students to "grade themselves" without guiding them on how to do it.  I remember reading in one class that this practice lead to students scoring themselves lower than the teacher would have.

One way I built in self-assessment in my classroom was leaving the A+ column blank on the rubric.  I clearly defined my base line expectations, but after I explained the assignment to them, they would had time to plan and decide what an exceptional job to them would be.  This could be anything from creating a presentation, or doing extra research, or getting feedback from their peers or family.  On the assignments where I gave students this option, I always got the most amazing results.  I only really did this in social studies though, a class that wasn't held accountable by standardized tests.

This seems like such a perfect pitch- and it mirrors everything I read in my teaching program; so why isn't it being done?  Class size is the big reason that came to me.  It's not only schools that need to change their priorities, it is our larger society.  Amazing teachers can do a lot in the current circumstances, and there are some teachers out there kicking but with 32+ students in a classroom (and I've had the privilege of working with some of them!).  But if we really want to change the school system to provide more authentic learning and opportunities to grow, we simply need to focus on creating time for intimate communities of learners to work together with excellent teachers.  And librarians.

ADDIE & Information Literacy

Last week in class we went more in depth with the ADDIE framework of lesson planning and we also talked about formative assessment.  It let me to wonder how instructional librarians are assessed.  What are the specific outcomes they are looking for?  A friend of mine, also a former classroom teacher, described an encounter he had with a group of instructional librarians at the college level who were complaining about the students they were working with; no matter what library tools they were introduced to, they went back to Google.  The librarians were quick to blame their high school teachers and librarians, but ultimately, where does the buck stop?  I've heard high school teachers blame middle school teachers, and middle school teachers blame elementary teachers.  Ultimately it can all come back to parents and we give ourselves permission to not take responsibility for students' learning NOW.

The value of formative assessments goes beyond understanding where students are in moving forward with assessment an giving constructive feedback; it also does a great deal in informing a teacher's mindset.      With formative assessment, the teacher becomes responsible for the continuing growth of the student.  Not just did they reach mark "x" but how far did they come to get there.  I would be interested in seeing more outcome-based instruction from librarians, in the ADDIE model.

To that end, I was interested in seeking out materials on collaboration with librarians and instructors when determining my readings for this week.  I am interested in becoming an outreach librarian in an archive or special collection, specifically working with teachers to bring students in contact with special materials.

The first article I read, "Information Literacy: A Collaborative Endeavor," discussed a program at SUNY Albany that offered undergraduate students a one or two unit course taught in collaboration between a professor and a librarian.  Although collaborative relationships are welcomed in most universities, it is understandable that both professors and librarians become so overwhelmed with their separate arenas that they don't seek each other out unless it is absolutely necessary.  Unfortunately, this is a great disservice to students.  I love the idea of collaborative classes planned and implemented by teachers and librarians.

The next article I read, "Information Literacy: The Changing Library," explored the necessity of Information Literacy in the next generation.  The author described how the tools of the "Information Age" are already breaking down walls between teaching and librarianship, and encourages both groups to work together to make sure students are prepared for the world that awaits them.

Finally, I read "Information Literacy for Primary Sources."  Yakel explores how new methods for primary source research instruction need to be explored.  Where traditionally researchers using primary source material interacted with a reference librarian at an archive, now they are without that mediation using digital archives.  The exciting part of this for me is to ability to adapt these new introductory materials, whether they be videos or podcasts, for younger users; to differentiate and make archive materials open to a wide variety of audiences without that much extra work.


Works Cited

Kapitzke, Cushla (2001): Information Literacy: The Changing Library, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59-69.

Mackey, Thomas P. & Trudi E. Jacobson (2005): Information Literacy: A Collaborative   Endeavor, College Teaching, 53:4, 140-144, http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.4.140-144

Yakel, Elizabeth (2004): Archives and Manuscripts: Information Literacy for Primary Resources: Creating a New Paradigm for Archival Researcher Education, International Digital Library Perspectives, 20:3, 61-64

Reading, Week 2: One Shot Workshops and Online Teaching Tools

This week we read Jerilyn Veldof's introduction to one-shot workshop development, as well as three papers describing efforts to develop on-line teaching tools for self-directed information literacy skill building.  Veldof addressed something that I have been thinking a lot about in my developing understanding of what instruction means in the library setting.  In most settings, librarians are very restricted in the sense that they may only have one 50-minute block to impart all of their information to patrons.  There is little opportunity for that dynamic of assessment and feedback, or targeting specific holes in patron knowledge.  The ADDIE method (which I learned in Ed School as "backwards design") will definitely serve librarians in using that time the best they can, thinking thoughtfully about where they want patrons to be at the end of their lesson.  This level of planning will allow for librarians to have a concrete idea of what they need to accomplish so that they can plan to meet those goals.

In thinking about the variety of online tools developers are creating for independent learning, I see a great potential cor synthesizing the two methods.  My fear with relying on online tutorials, like the ones described in Yilenek (2008), Johnston (2010), and Griffis (2009) is that they are successful only in lower-level thinking skills.  They can encourage users to remember processes, but not to analyze, evaluate, or create.  I love the image I found, linking the different layers of Blooms Taxonomy to online skills.  It's apt that Wikipedia is on the upper level-- sure, you could have an online tutorial teaching users about Wikipedia, and even mention evaluating skills, but unless they are able to do that first hand, with feedback, I don't feel safe as an information professional "releasing them into the wild."

What if we were able to combine these skills- all basic skills were taught on online tutorials as described by the authors- where users could go at their own pace and target skills that they want to work with, and librarians focus on the higher order thinking skills that need in person feedback?  I have a great fear that in the age of No Child Left Behind we are only focusing on these lower level skills, leaving little ability to evaluate or create.  Let's use librarians for those purposes! 

Lecture 1 Reflection

In our first lecture we discussed the growing importance of instruction in the field of librarianship. As ready reference questions become less frequent in the age of Google, and research becomes more i dependent, it is ever more important that patrons learn how to find and evaluate sources for their information needs.

This discussion made me think of the instruction provided to me during my undergraduate and graduate studies. Though I completed an independent honors thesis in history, I never consulted a librarian at my undergraduate institution. Why? Looking back I know I only brushed the surface of true, authentic research. I clearly respect librarians, as I am following their path in my own professional choices. I knew where librarians were posted in all of the libraries I worked in.  And still, I had little interaction with them.

I see this as a great disappointment.  Several of my research classes had information sessions with librarians, but they were repetitive, and only barely brushed the surface of materials.  I can't remember anything remarkable that I learned beyond how to put an asterisk after a search term to broaden it.  I worked only with general librarians, none that specialized in history.  They only showed me collections Berkeley had; they didn't show me how to access the world of libraries they were connected with.

I feel really fortunate that I have a background in education and so can work to improve the field of librarian instruction.  I am eager to see more effective practices that librarians put in place this semester.

Reflection 1: The Science of Learning

In chapter one of How People Learn, the authors explained traditional misconceptions about how students learn best.  New trends in education have taken the emphasis away from the student as an empty vessel, ready to be filled with knowledge by a lecturing authority, or teacher.  Instead, studies have shown that students learn and retain more knowledge by experiencing learning at a deeper level- through learning concepts and then putting these concepts in practice.

This is one thing in a classroom where a teacher has time to get to know the students and plan group inquiry learning experiences that last beyond a single class period, but implementing these ideas in single library programming sessions seems close to impossible.  The basis of the idea in How People Learn is that instructors need to base their plans on their knowledge of students' prior knowledge.  It will be more challenging for librarians who either (1) work in a public library and can't be quite certain which students will come, and for how many consecutive weeks they will be participating or (2) work in a school library where they likely have very limited time with students and have the task of working with all of the students in the school.  I am very interested to see how librarians incorporate these new education concepts with the restrictions described above.

The second chapter of How People Learn focused on comparing 'experts' in fields with 'novices,' and the types of tasks the two groups perform and are best situated for success in.

The last technology class that I participated in focused on promoting us more to the 'expert level.'  The instructor accomplished this by explaining tools instead of merely following repetitive tasks.  On all of our assignments we were supported by encouraging us to work together and to use tools to figure out problems on our own.

This will take a great role in the reference interview; in using the reference interview as an opportunity to show users tools to help them become experts at the search tools we use.  Of course, we still share the same challenges I described earlier, however with this new knowledge we can better focus on the goals we have for instructing patrons to make them experts.