ACRL Insider "Member of the Week"

This is mostly tangential to the purpose of this blog and to the course, but here it is anyway...

I subscribe to the ACRL Insider via Google Reader, and recently I have been paying more attention to their "Member of the Week" feature... perhaps partially due to our discussions in SI643 and grappling with what it means to be a "professionally practicing" librarian in the 21st century (see, there is a connection!).  I find it really interesting to read a little bit about each person, their background, and their views on academic librarianship.  Also, they have recently profiled some librarians with whom I share many values, goals, and ideas related to academic librarianship.  Of course, as humans we're naturally inclined to seek and believe information that is congruent with our own opinions and mental models (isn't social psychology fun?), but I also find it genuinely reassuring that there are current professionals whose views jive with my own.  As in, sometimes when I start questioning why on earth I am inflicting grad school on myself, I need that jolt of "Oh ya, that's why!"  And I've found these little snippets of real librarians, actually doing what I want to do and saying what I want to say, to be very motivating.

Oh, and the librarian featured this week is an instructional librarian... which makes two connections to SI643! 

Finished my screencast!

Check out my completed screencast - Using U of M's Interlibrary Loan

This exercise turned out to be much more frustrating than I had anticipated.  It seemed like with each recording attempt there was a problem - something technical that went wrong, I flubbed up the lines, or I forgot to include some information.  Eventually, I just decided to stick with the "best" take and move on because it never seemed to be "just right."  I used Jing to record and share the tutorial, which was much easier than I anticipated.  I only wish that it had some editing capabilities, so I could patch together the best of each take.

I am looking forward to seeing what the rest of my classmates have created!

Week 3: Screencast Reflections and Information Literacy

Reflections on Week 2 Class and Screencasting

A few ideas and issues that are still in on my mind after Monday's class:

• As I was scrolling through my Google Reader Monday night, I saw this posting on ALA Job List for an Assistant Librarian at LSU, which lists "experience in creating interactive tutorials" as a preferred candidate qualification. While I will not be job hunting until this time next year, I find it reassuring that the skills I am learning now can give me an edge in the academic library job market.
• I am stuck on the idea that there really is no such thing as a "perfect" screencast, and the decisions we must make to design the "best" tutorial we can. During class discussion, I noticed that some disagreement amongst my classmates about features they like to see in a screencast (eg. to close caption, or not to close caption?). Additionally, with regards to subject material for the screencast, we have to consider balance a balance in the type, amount, and depth of information provided.
• Trying to find this balance has my head spinning, and I think the ADDIE model could be helpful for addressing this problem.  For instance, in assessing a need, one might decide that hearing impaired people are likely to use the tutorial, and therefore closed captioning would be a nice feature in design.  Then, through evaluation, such features can be reconsidered and retooled to continually meet evolving user needs.  This speaks to the importance of planning as an iterative process.
• Or, some of these issues may be addressed using the model in this article from Library Journal, "Screen Casting for an Audience of One" (as sent by our fearless instructor).

Information Literacy Literature

This week, we were asked to choose three articles on "information literacy" in our field of interest. Broadly, I am interested in academic libraries and lean more towards undergraduate-level or community colleges focusing on learning and instruction (rather than research), and I tried to target my readings to that purpose.

• "Information Literacy Learning Outcomes and Student Success" - S. Samson (2010). The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(3); 202-210  

The purpose of this article was to compare student learning outcomes with the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. The study examined the final projects from two groups of college students - first-year and "capstone" students - and analyzed the projects with respect to the ACRL's five standards and performance indicators (see list in page linked above for specific guidelines).  Interesting results included: 

- First-year students cited more newspapers and web-based resources, while capstone students cited more primary source materials

- First-year students were more likely to use more "general" databases and capstone students were more likely to use subject-specific databases

- Capstone students were more likely to identify bias in information

- Of the capstone students who presented copyrighted material, 43.8% did not include permission granted notices (note: first year students did not report using copyrighted material)

The several significant differences in these population is a good demonstration the importance of assessment and planning.  It also demonstrates the importance of understanding the context and background of your learners; even within the "undergraduate" population, it is important to consider how the needs of first-year students differ from more advanced students. Additionally, the article proposed this type of study as a method to identify areas in which students need more IL instruction. For instance, since students struggled with the legal aspects of information use, the library should incorporate this more readily into their instruction. I think this is an interesting framework for evaluation, but I also think it's dangerous if this is the only evaluative criteria.  Maybe students understood that they were supposed to cite a copyrighted work, but were confused about how to do the citation, or simply did not want to take the time to do it. There still needs to be more direct interaction with students and faculty to address issues of causal ambiguity.

• "Information-seeking Habits and Information Literacy of Community and Junior College Students A Review of Literature" - H. Groce (2008). Community & Junior College Libraries, 14(3); 191-199

This article is interesting because it covers several aspects of information literacy from the perspective of community and junior colleges, and includes a review of literature published 1996 - 2006. The major issues identified are: the internet and the digital age; required information-seeking classes; technology overload; legitimacy, reliability, and authority of resources; use of scholarly/peer-reviewed articles; and subject content of assigned research projects.  

With respect to instruction, the article suggests that IL analysis and assessment projects "need to stress that information literacy needs to be based on the students' needs."  This is great because it addresses both the importance of planning and analyzing the needs of the user before implementing a program, and it also implies that understanding the student (not their project or their faculty member) is crucial in designing instruction.  Both of these ideas have been important items for discussion in the first few weeks of class.

• "New Tools for Online Information Literacy Instruction" - S. Williams (2010).  The Reference Librarian, 51(2); 148-162

The final article I chose for the week discussed various web-based tools for online literacy instruction. Since we discussed tutorials and screencasts this week, I thought it would be interesting to read how different online methods have been used for IL instruction.  The basic premise of the article is that since students are increasingly turning to web-based resources for information, it may be important for IL instruction to also begin migrating to the web. The methods covered in this article include: course management software; academic organizations' websites; blogs; podcasts; screencasts; web-based board games; and Second Life. Of course there are pros and cons to each method, but overall the assessment was that online tools can be a valuable addition to an academic library's IL instruction.  I was, however, left wondering - does anyone ever actually use Second Life?

The article also spends a bit of time comparing face-to-face and online IL instruction, which I think is an important topic.  While it would be nice to have IL instruction online (and therefore meet students at their point of need), if is not shown to be an effective method of instruction, then what's the point.  One study found that a "hybrid" of both face-to-face and online IL instruction was more effective than either method alone.  This point has been made several times in our class and blog discussions already, and it was interesting to read some empirical data to back-up our assumptions.

Conclusions

So what does this all mean?  While there was much more information in each article than I could ever cover here (even given this lengthy post), the three points I took away were:

1) It is important to understand who your users are when designing information literacy instruction, particularly with respect to the aspects of information literacy with which they need the most help

2) Studying how students are interacting with information can be a tool in assessing user needs and evaluate existing IL instruction programs

3) As predicted, hybrid IL instruction can be more effective than either face-to-face or online-only modes of instruction because students can enjoy the benefits of both learning environments

 

Week 2: Workshop Considerations and Self-paced Tutorials

Application of the "ADDIE" Model 

The ADDIE (assess, design, develop, implement, and evaluate) model for workshop planning, as laid out by Veldof, was particularly identifiable in the Yelinek, et al. article in which a tutorial was created to help students navigate the school's online curriculum.  

 - Assess: Background information collected regarding the needs of the client (the school to be implementing the tutorial), the needs of the students who will be using tutorial, and what type of tutorial would be best for the given situation

 - Design: Design tutorial to best address client and student needs, while considering Gagne's nine-step model of instruction theory

 - Develop: Create the tutorial following their design, using their software of choice

 - Implement: Allow students to use the tutorial

 - Evaluate: Soliciting student feedback

The Johnston article about an information literacy tutorial followed a similar pattern: "assessment" was covered in the literature review, as well as an explanation of what "graduate attributes" are and why they are important; "design," "development," and "implementation" explained through the project outline and method section; and "evaluation" consisting largely of the results and discussion sections.  

In both articles, I was somewhat disappointed that the "evaluation" focused largely on the students' perception of the tools themselves, rather than how well the tutorials actually taught the students what they needed to learn.  While favorable student feedback is important - if users do not like a tool they are less likely to use it - I interpreted the "evaluation" phase of the ADDIE model to also include considerations of actual learning outcomes.  Since the authors' purpose in these articles was not to specifically demonstrate the ADDIE model, I can understand why this part of evaluation was undervalued.  However, since both articles were concerned with addressing the overall effectiveness of the tutorials, I still would have expected more emphasis on what the students actually learned, versus how well they liked the tutorials.  

Also, while improving and evaluating students' feelings of self-efficacy is important (e.g. whether students feel they improved their own understanding of information literacy), equally important is giving them feedback regarding their actual performance.  Yelinek, et. al. at least acknowledge that providing feedback and assessing performance are important parts of instruction, but they (nor Johnston) explicitly describe whether their tutorials provide this feedback.  Humans have a tendency to exaggerate our skills and attributes, therefore I think it is important to provide unbiased feedback to learners regarding how well they are actually performing on tasks and what they can improve on in the future.

When Can Online Tutorials Be Effective?

 According to Yelinek, et. al. teaching "procedural" skills (such as using software) can easily be accomplished through online tutorials, because it involves merely explaining the necessary vocabulary and then providing step-by-step instructions to complete a task.  To this, we may add some library-specific skills such as how to find a database or how to place an interlibrary loan request - procedural skills which I notice frequently appear in virtual reference interactions and therefore could be useful to online users.  More broadly, as noted by Johnston, online tutorials may also be a good alternative for teaching skills which cannot be covered in the classroom due to time restrictions, or when students are learning from a distance.

Online tutorials do not seem to support more abstract skills, for instance learning to construct an effective search or other types of general research-skills related activities.  Since these skills rarely have one right answer, I imagine they are more difficult to turn into purely step-by-step directions.  These types of skills require more time for development and refinement, as well as more human involvement in feedback and evaluation.  For example, it's one thing to have a tutorial explaining Boolean logic, but it's another to teach someone how to effectively apply it in their everyday searching.  Also, tasks which take a user away from the computer are likely difficult to incorporate into an online tutorial.  A tutorial to navigate the library stacks would be of little help to a student who must get up and leave the computer in order to find their book.  

Unless, of course, someone develops a mobile app to address this problem... in which case, I know several students would love to find their way out of the Hatcher stacks!

Week 1: How People Learn - Chapters 1 and 2

I had intended to incorporate my reading reflection into my previous post, however it was growing too long and I decided to break them into two entries.  Here are my thoughts on the first two chapters of How People Learn.

 
 Ch 1 - "Learning: From Speculation to Science" 

The first chapter establishes a need to shift education away from merely factual knowledge (that is, only focusing on being able to remember and repeat information) towards focusing more on the "process of knowing" and a new emphasis on "learning through understanding."  The idea is for education to go beyond focusing on concretely what they think students should know, to also incorporate our knowledge of how students learn to provide a richer learning environment with more depth and surface.  They propose this can be done through a new frame work for learning and teaching.  This new framework consists of: addressing and engaging students' preconceptions of the world; helping students develop factual knowledge, while organizing and understanding this knowledge within a broader conceptual framework; and employing a "metacognitive" approach to help students set and monitor their own learning goals.

Reflecting on my own academic experience, I certainly encountered a wide spectrum of teaching and learning techniques, largely depending on the subject, teacher/professor, grade or level of advancement, etc.  Focusing specifically on my K-12 public school education, the vast majority of classes focused more on imparting factual knowledge.  I attribute this largely to two factors - standardized testing and large, mixed-academic-level classes.  The exception to this always seemed to be the Advanced Placement courses, which were exempt from standardized tests (at least at that time) and had a more homogeneous group of students.  The framework proposed in How People Learn seems difficult to implement with full force without a large restructuring and rethinking of how public schools currently work.  Teachers cannot focus on addressing students' preconceptions, providing depth of knowledge, and focusing on "metacognition" when their performance evaluations depend on State-mandated factual knowledge their students must demonstrate at the end of the term.  Additionally, teachers often must deal with large classes of students who may have academic skill level anywhere from remedial to advance, therefore I am sure it is sometimes necessary to focus on more one-size-fits-all, concrete, fact-based knowledge.  While I agree that a classroom built around this H.P.L's framework could make for a more interesting and engaging learning environment, it is hard for me to imagine implementing it in throughout most of my primary and secondary education.  

What I would like to know is: how can this framework be put in place in the majority of real-world classrooms?  And, perhaps for the purpose of this course, what would this looking like on a day-to-day basis in libraries?

Chapter 2 - How Experts Differ From Novices
 One of the questions that stuck with me throughout the chapter was: should we always be striving for expert-level growth?  It is impractical and unnecessary for each of us to be true experts in all subjects and areas of life, but is it beneficial for educators to promote expert-level growth even if true "expert" status will never be achieved?

My last technology course was SI502, which was certainly focused on novice-level growth.  Since 502 is a course required for all incoming SI students, each of whom have varying levels of technical expertise, I think it was appropriate for the course to be based this way because the majority of us were novices.  I do believe, however, the course also attempted to lay a foundation for expanding to expert-level growth in the future.  We were provided with overviews of topics to be explored in more depth in other courses, and I do believe there was an attempt to provide us with some sort of conceptual framework around which all the components fit together.  The purpose of the course was not to provide expert-level knowledge in any of the topics presented, but rather to lay a foundation for later expansion and growth.

I think that libraries and librarians can perhaps follow a similar model in their own instruction.  For instance, in a one-time instructional period or a single reference interaction, there is not an opportunity for in-depth expert growth.  However, by incorporating small ideas from the "Six Principles of Expertise" into each of our interactions with users, we can help them lay a foundation for expert level growth.  One example of this might be taking the opportunity to explain not only the nuts-and-bolts of how a database works, but also explaining the concepts and logic behind constructing an effective search that can apply across platforms and will eventually become more automatic in all searches a user performs.  The ultimate goal is not that we need to teach students how to solve every problem or answer every question, but that students must learn how to teach themselves (pg 50).  Therefore, while we cannot address ever aspect of expert growth in every single instructional opportunity, we may be able to look at it as more of a puzzle to be put together over time, or a building to be built on a solid foundation of basic concepts, with the end result being students/users learning how to continue to learn.

With regards to SI501 and "Adaptive Expertise," I believe the goal of the course leans more towards emphasizing "Virtuoso"-type skills.  Once again, we were rarely given hard-and-fast rules or guidelines about how to perform a task - we were not to become "merely skilled" Artisans of applying concepts of contextual inquiry.  Rather, we were given tools to look creatively at any type of information process, identify strengths and weaknesses of the process, and generate ideas for improvement.  These are rather flexible, general skills that can be applied across a wide range of problems we may encounter in our day-to-day work.  While I do not now claim to be an expert in project management or method of contextual inquiry, I do believe the course helped lay a foundation for applying those types of skills to new challenges.  Only through repetition and practice will any of us ever become "experts" or "Virtuosos" in the sense describe in the "Six Principles of Expertise."

Overall, I think it is alright to start with novice-level growth.  Everyone has to start somewhere, and we cannot become experts immediately.  However, it is helpful to understand how experts think about problems, their skill set and ways of adapting to new situation, and how educators (librarians included) can begin to lay the foundation for future expert-level growth.

Week 1: Blogging and Professional Competencies

The Beginnings of a Blog

Hello, and welcome to my blog!  The purpose of this site will be to reflect and comment on the material covered during my time in SI 643 - Professional Practices in Library and Information Centers.  Although I am a frequent reader of blogs, I have never maintained my own blog, so I embark on this journey with a mixture of excitement and concern about generating constant ideas and opinions to share with my fellow library students and colleagues.  Since there's no time like the present, let's begin!

Professional Competencies
This week, I began by reading over the ALA's Core Competencies of Librarianship, which details the areas in which graduates of ALA-accredited masters programs in library and information students should be knowledgeable.  That is, it roughly defines what library students, such as myself, should be learning throughout the course of our studies.  Before beginning graduate school, I had relatively little professional experience in libraries, and considering I have been a "member" of the profession for a little over four months, I had a hard time evaluating the list of competencies.  I therefore decided to compare the University of Michigan School of Information's curriculum with what ALA says I should know at the end of two years.  Since UofM is a well-respected educator of future librarians and is a leader in information science, I assume our curriculum is more-or-less a reflection of some trends in library education. 

During this comparison I noticed two priorities that seemed particularly urgent.  The first is understanding the "legal framework within which libraries and information agencies operate" (item 1G in the ALA Professional Competencies).  The legalities and legal frame work surrounding information science is certainly an area in which my personal knowledge and understanding is sorely lacking.  As librarians, we must balance our core professional beliefs and ethics (such as open access to information and intellectual freedom) with the laws that govern our society (like copyright, privacy, and intellectual property).  While we are not required to be legal experts, we are on the "front-lines" actively navigating many of these issues with our users.  Of course increase in our reliance on electronic or online information has led to additional complexities (e.g. who exactly owns an electronic book?), and therefore it is increasingly important for librarians to at least understand basic legal concepts and where to find more specific information.  SI's Information Policy offerings appear to fill this need.

The other "urgent" area is, more generally, "Technical Knowledge and Skills" (item 4).  SI's focus on "connection people, information, and technology in more valuable ways" reflects the School's commitment to providing students with a solid technical background.  One could go on at length about challenges and changes that technology has brought to libraries, but for the purpose of this post I will limit myself to simply saying "it's important."  In general, we must strive stay -up-to-date with emerging technology in order to remain relevant, identify our continuing value and strengths, and connect to new generations of users.  A strong focus on technology can be found throughout SI's curriculum.  In addition to popular course offerings like networked computing, database applications, and website design (to name just a few), LIS students are exposed to technology in some otherwise "non-technical" courses - a good example is this blog requirement for class!  I feel confident that as an SI student I am given the resources and opportunities to flex my technical muscles in a meaningful way.

Identifying "outdated" aspects of the competencies was more difficult; "outdated" has a rather harsh connotation, therefore I chose to focus on what can be considered "lower priorities" instead.  I noticed that while the first section of the ALA competencies list understanding fundamental principles of library science as a field, such as "the history of libraries and librarianship" and "the history of human communication and its impact on libraries," the SI curriculum is relatively light in this area.  There do not appear to be courses specifically in these areas.  I assume this is because there are so many areas of professional education that need to occur over the next two years, and a topic like "the history of libraries" is less likely to be required for a job than, say, "cataloging."  It's dangerous to say these topics are "outdated," but rather they are more easily pushed aside to make way for other more tangible skills necessary for future employment.

 

It should be noted that one of the competencies not listed above, that of "Learning theories, instructional methods, and achievement measures; and their application in libraries and other information agencies," is at the core of what we seem to be embarking on in this course.  I see a librarian's opportunity to work with students, helping them understand more about the process of finding information and synthesizing it to make more sense of a given problem, as one of the most appealing parts of the job.  I am therefore looking forward to learning more about helping others learn.