Jeff's e-portfolio

It was with some interest that I noted the term immersion being applied in this module in a way that did not suggest a trip to Quebec. (Not sure what the situation is here in BC, but in Ontario, kids would go off on French immersion programs there if their grades were good enough.) According to the blurb on the AACRL website, the immersion program it offers “will provide your instruction librarian with the intellectual tools and practical techniques to help your institution build or enhance its instruction program.” It seems like an interesting program; I am particularly curious about the ‘intentional teacher track’ mentioned. But I find it odd that they would call it immersive; it sounds more like the usual workshop approach to skill development to me. The program is in an F2F format, not in any virtual world, so it doesn’t appear to relate to immersion- or even simulation- as I know it. It also doesn’t jibe with most language immersion programs which are basically built around the ‘sink or swim’ (using your language skills in an environment where they are necessary) model. In my mind, immersion whould mean real chances to perform in an authentic setting where performance matters.

In language education, there are a number of certificate programs wherein you teach in a real classroom as you learn. While instructor training is not something foreign to library science (I believe we have one course devoted to the topic here at SLAIS), I am not sure it gets enough attention. Does it not seem like these skills are mostly left to develop in on-the-job training?  Of course, in courses like this one, we are often called upon to ‘teach’ our peers through presentations. There, we have a captive audience, and instructors seem to emphasize the content rather than the skills displayed in putting it across.

I wonder what a true immersion program for instructional librarians would look like? Training in the morning, while teaching a group of undergrads at the library in the afternoon; your instructor there to watch and give feedback. And then, off to the nearest sidewalk cafe, because you are in Quebec.

Here’s the link to my Slideshare presentation.

It has been a bit of a challenging week in this course, as I found myself having a hard time getting my head around  aggregators. Perhaps this is because I am too wedded to my ‘hunting and foraging’  style of internet usage. I am not really interested in having everything I’m interested in at my fingertips when I go online. I have enough ways to get distracted from the purpose I log on to the computer as it is.

That said, this idea of Personal Learning Environments, erm, aggregates a number of issues surrounding Web 2.0 that I find exciting. Chatti (2010) describes their affordances in a way that this even this technophobe can get excited about. The author points out that this software- like other kinds of aggregators- has the capability to help people deal with information overload. (See my previous post for a video that underlines the need to cope with that.)   In education, at least here in the west, we strive for ways to help learners to take ownership of their learning. Chatti notes that this goal is supported by PLEs, as they require learners to choose the topics and sources of information they would like to have instant access to and updates from. And, because these information sources would encompass web 2.0 platforms like blogs and youtube, the learning approach would necessarily be collaborative. Students would be able to unlock the collective intelligence of people within and without their school particular institution through social tagging and bookmarking.

One of the most exciting affordances mentioned by Chatti is that of the ‘long tail‘ in education, a concept in itself I hadn’t really considered before.  In conventional learning environments, where the teacher is in control of learning material, there are only a finite number of topics that can be covered in a given subject area. On the other hand, in their PLEs, learners would be free to focus on any aspect of a subject they find interesting, even if these might usually be thought of as on the fringes of a particular subject area. It would also afford them the ability to consume knowledge in any format they find most interesting- video, text and so on.

In my own language teaching, I have strived to move towards a content-based  approach. I think language learning is more meaningful when learners are using language to learn about something they are passionate about. Up to now, I have only really been able to take a survey of classes as a whole, and try to accommodate the dominating interests with my choice of materials. As more level-appropriate materials become freely available on the web, I can see where PLEs will take these decisions out of my grateful hands.

Of course, this will not come without its complications. I have already encountered issues where students choose topics on which there is very little accessible (linguistically and otherwise) information available, thus putting them at a disadvantage compared to other students.  As well, I think there are students who are truly passive in their learning approach. For a range of reasons, some are not as driven to take control of their learning as we would like them to be, but they do well enough as passive consumers of knowledge. Is that always ‘wrong’? (As noted on this blog, my learners do not necessarily take naturally to actice learning.) Can PLEs accommodate these learners? I will have to reflect on these issues a bit more, make myself more comfortable with the technology and consider the practical implications/ challenges in my own workplace before I am in a position to confidently help my students take advantage of PLEs.

Chatti, M.A. (2010). PLEM: a web 2.0 driven long tail aggregator and filter for e-learning. Int J Web Info Systems. 6, 15-23(19).

Just in case you were wondering about the need for information fluency. Or literacy. Or something.

I loved this presentation- so many great ideas. As ever, I can only apply the experience to being an educator, not a librarian. And I am comfronted with the question as to whether I am doing enough to encourage my students to be creators rather than just passive consumers of knowledge.  As mentioned in a previous post, there are a couple of reasons both practical (not all students have equal access to technology) and administrative (classroom rules banning technology)- not to mention the burgeoning linguistic skills of students- that make exploiting Web 2.0 platforms a bit problematic. But it seems to me that Web 2.0, or Classroom 2.0 is really just another way to facilitate something that from one school of educational philosophy has always been a goal: the preparation for our students for active citizenship. I am thinking here primarily of Paul Friere who saw in education an opportunity to empower marginalized groups by engaging them in participatory development. I’m not sure if I would describe my international students as marginalized, and teachers don’t necessarily need to engage students on Twitter to empower them (although that can be part of it). Today I had students respond to a blog that deals with netiquette issues. They were very keen to do this, and my take-away was that students want to participate; sometimes they just need to be given the chance.

Facebook and Information Literacy Instruction

in Higher Education

For many children and young adults- sometimes called the Millennial generation- online social networking has become an increasingly important sphere for both interacting with others and for exercising their creativity (Holmburg et al,  2008).  Yet, it can be argued that libraries and schools have been slow to exploit social media websites like Twitter, Youtube and Facebook for educational purposes. The aim of this paper is to explore the affordances of the popular social networking site, Facebook, as a platform for teaching information literacy (IL). Its purpose is to analyze how a number of libraries and schools have used Facebook to teach information literacy. Based on this analysis as well as a review of the literature, a number of guidelines will be proposed for introducing, maintaining, and updating a Facebook- based IL course. It is hoped that this will embody a meaningful contribution to the ongoing discussion among educators and librarians regarding the role of social media in education. The paper will begin, however, by proposing a definition for information literacy followed by a discussion of how the concept relates to other forms of literacy.

Information Literacy and other Literacies:

–          “it is difficult to separate out where media literacy ends and technology literacy begins” (Lippincott, 2007, in Godwin, 2007)

–          IL competencies as defined by the Association of College and Research Libraries:

Information literacy forms the basis for lifelong learning. It is common to all disciplines, to all learning environments, and to all levels of education. It enables learners to master content and extend their investigations, become more self-directed, and assume greater control over their own learning. An information literate individual is able to:

–          Determine the extent of information needed

–          Access the needed information effectively and efficiently

–          Evaluate information and its sources critically

–          Incorporate selected information into one’s knowledge base

–          Use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose

–          Understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information ethically and legally

http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.cfm

Social Media in Libraries (not sure if I need this, but…)

Definition and examples social media (flickr, youtube) and how they have been used in used in libraries. Applications include the following (mostly from Mitchell & Watstein, 2007):

–          providing reference services

–          providing links to resources and services

–          providing opportunities/forums for online collaboration

–          providing opportunities to raise funds

–          supporting marketing initiatives

–          gathering patron input/feedback

FB: Description; Affordances and Constraints as an IL Instructional Tool

Affordances:

–          free way to reach users where they are

–          easy to link FB with other library services

–          opportunity for discussion of ethical use of information (e.g., copyright)

–          easier interface than other common course platforms (Mitchell & Smith, 2009)

–          “Facebook’s Links and Notes features make it easy to highlight resources or to provide more in-depth coverage of resources” (Thornton, 2009, p. 114)

–          easy to post instructional resources across different media

–          emphasizes creating rather than just consuming content (7 things, 2006)

–          ideal forum to foster ongoing collaboration among students/instructor librarians as FB does not ‘die’ at the end of a term (unlike Blackboard and other courseware)

“. . . I started looking at the applications you can add to Facebook. It’s astounding – from IM to chat to profiles for your dogs, to voice/video messages, texting directly from Facebook to your cell, polling, book reviewing – it’s astounding, and that’s just barely scratching the surface.” from a reference librarian quoted in Mitchell & Watstein (2007)

Constraints:

–          ongoing privacy concerns (Rethlefsen, 2010)

–          “students’ confort levels with Facebook varies according to use: students were least comfortable using Facebook to interact with instructors and receive grades but were very comfortable with belonging to course-based groups, posting content, and engaging in discussions in those groups.” (Mitchell & Smith, 2009, p. 191).

–          risk of inappropriate use (7 things, 2006)

–          difficulty in separating academic/professional content from personal (Rethlefsen, 2010)

–          perception of FBN as a waste of time / not serious (Thornton, 2009)

Examples of Use

–          Wake Forest project replacing Blackboard with FB, discussed in Mitchell & Smith (2009)

–          http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cairo-Egypt/AUC-Main-Library/23630215857

Guidelines for using Facebook

–          avoid putting content in an uncontrolled environment (Mitchell & Smith, 2009).

–          Facebook should work in tandem with other modes of instruction delivery but

–          work to avoid fragmentation among different platforms (Mitchell & Smith, 2009).

–          demands time / effort to keep content relevant:

Image: 3-D teacher – http://www.sxc.hu/home (6 August, 2010)

References,  etcetera

Click, A., & Petit, J. (2010). Social networking and Web 2.0 in information literacy. International Information & Library Review, 42(2), 137-142. doi:10.1016/j.iilr.2010.04.007.

Godwin, P. (2007). INFORMATION LITERACY MEETS WEB 2.0: HOW THE NEW TOOLS AFFECT OUR OWN TRAINING AND OUR TEACHING. New Review of Information Networking, 13(2), 101-112. doi:10.1080/13614570801900005.

Mitchell, E., & Watstein, S. (2007, November). The places where students and scholars work, collaborate, share and plan. Reference Services Review, pp. 521-524. Retrieved from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.

Mitchell, E., & Smith, S. (2009). Bringing Information Literacy into the Social Sphere: A Case Study Using Social Software to Teach Information Literacy at WFU. Journal of Web Librarianship, 3(3), 183-197. doi:10.1080/19322900903113381.

Rethlefsen, M. (2010). facebook’s MARCH ON PRIVACY. Library Journal, 135(12), 34-35. Retrieved from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.

Thornton, L. (2009). Facebook for Libraries. Christian Librarian, 52(3), 112-115. Retrieved from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.

7 Things You Should Know About … Facebook. (2006, August). Educause Learning Initiative. Retrieved 5 August 2010,from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7017.pdf.

As I watched this video, the first thing that came to mind was, ‘Oh, geez, I’d really like to do my part of our wiki project over again.’ I assembled all these points related to planning, consultation, articulating goals etc.- that is, all the stuff that a typical public library has had to do to roll out of a new project since time began. But this video makes clear that this sort of slow plodding, planned and methodical approach is precisely what Web 2.0 has over institutions. It’s like I want to have Web 2.0 platforms to encourage collaboration, but I want to keep the coordination costs (time for planning, consultation with stakeholders..)  associated with institutions. That just seems plain dumb. But, in my defence, there it is in the literature.

That is not to say that planning is a bad thing. Marketing the new tool is a great idea. But these technologies allow (or demand) thinking on one’s feet. So, where is the value of strictly articulating the goal of a new service? Because, the goals might necessarily change because of how the service is actually being used. And, platforms like FB are well-suited to handling a number of goals, so why dismiss possible uses from the outset? The point might be to jump into the pool feet-first. Get on FB- do a bit of marketing and a bit of instruction. Be flexible and see what works.

This is one reason that, from my perspective, libraries are still making the journey, in Shirkey‘s terms, from institution as obstacle to enabler of collaboration. At least, from the standpoint of collections this still seems to be the case. Online platforms like flickr can exploit that long tail, bringing together producers of content in a way that libraries cannot yet do because libraries are stil repositories of  ‘properly published’ material, even if that material is online. Are libraries doing a good job of using social media to assemble contributions from diverse contributors within their communities (however these are defined, geographically or otherwise)? Not having any experience working in libraries, I can’t answer that. Through coursework, I have seen blogs and wikis set up by libraries to bring people together to ‘share their stories’ as was noted in our module 3 ‘limits’ discussion. But it seems to me that libraries are institutions that still seem most interested in making excessible material that has been created for and published by institutions and deemed popular by institutions. Obviously there is still a place for this model- but is it not shrinking? Shirkey points out that the metaphor of journalist does not apply to how information is being created and shared in social media. So does the metaphor of the library apply to what is happening now? If everyone comes to know that Wikipedia is just as ‘good’ as the Encyclopedia Britannica, whither the library? Just like journailsm, libraries have established communities built up over time that will ensure they survive, but they will also continue to struggle to stay relevant in the Web 2.0 world.

As I proceed through this course, I have become quite excited about the possibilities of using Web 2.0 platforms in my teaching. As I read the paper on New Media Literacies, I decided to experimentally replace each mention of ‘youth’ and ‘students’ with ESL for ‘college-prep’ students, the kind I currently teach here in Vancouver. Admittedly, the groups being referred to are quite different, as are the responsibilities of the school system and colleges like BCIT. Yet, as I do my wee bit to prepare students for their academic futures here in Canada (or in some cases, other primarily English-speaking countries), cultural issues inevitably emerge. The concept of participation is one.

Participation, as I see it anyway, is founded on our democratc ideals that encourages a robust public debate on the issues of the day. I think most ‘millenial’ students here in the west  expect that their education is going to demand the type of participation described in the article. Their civic education has encouraged them to feel that they have a voice which will be heard, if not always attended to. In their school lives, participation in student organizations has always been an option; from the post-secondary level, these groups actually have a bit of power to advocate for students.

In their learning, these ‘Canadian’ students have also been schooled in educational technologies. They expect that a certain level of technological literacy will be required to fully participate in classes.  Their electronic gadgets, if used respectfully, will likely be exploited, at least by the post-secondary level.

Contrast this with various experiences of the students I face. Many come from places where active participation is discouraged at both the classroom level (the teacher is god- you need to only listen passively and regurgitate) and at the civic level (China and Saudi Arabia, for example, are not generally celebrated for involving citizens in political processes). So, the classroom culture they are coming from is quite a bt different.

Turning to the use of internet-related technology, some students seem quite adept at using it, and social media in particular, for their own entertainment and for communication with friends in their first language. But its role in their education, as far as I can tell, appears to have been negligible. As such, it can be said that aside from purely language issues, there is a significant gap in students’ compulsion to participate productively in their classes and institutions, and they are likely wholly unfamiliar with the concept of using technology to foster this participation.

Unfortunately, it can be argued that policies at my institution sustain this gap. According to the current policy in my program, cell phones need to be on ‘silent’ and not be taken out during classtime. Few students bring laptops, and the ones that do can only bring them out during breaks. (This is different during computer lab time, of course, which is quite limited.) This in a program whose ostensible goal is to prepare student for academia in the west.

I know this is not revolutionary, and that it has been discussed on our course blackboard site.Also, it should be acknowledged that technology can be a distraction. The student who cannot construct a clear English sentence is not going to be able to hide behind ‘netspeak’ for long. But I do wonder if this stance that our students’ gadgets have no place in their language and academic education is just plain wrong. How can I, as an ESL instructor, exploit these technologies in the classroom? Will students respond positively? What about learners that do not have the resources to buy their own gadgets? Am I opening myself up to creating a rich-poor divide in the classroom when I consider the use of these technologies? The obstacles are formidable, but this class has made me realize how counter-productive some of our policies are for supporting the abilities of our students to participate fully in their education.

When I reflect on my own vague feelings of resistance to the idea of maintaining a persona on social media (which hasn’t stopped me from doing it), I wonder how much of it comes from my image of ‘ideal learning conditions’ based on experience. I went to Japan in 1994 to teach, and the common use of the internet was a few years away, at least there. Being pretty much cut off from other media by language and not even understanding much of what was said around me, getting information was like having to suck it through a narrow straw. As lonely as this was, it had its up-side: I was able to focus more deeply and and for longer on books. Alone in my rabbit hutch, I hit a few classics and a some not-so-classics. It all seems a bit pathetic now, but essentially I remember it as an intellectually fecund period.

Contrast that with living in Canada now in the digital age, taking a course like this one. Instead of the straw, I am getting blasted with fire hoses of information all day. This course, challenging me as it is to be open to a more social approach to learning, represents the polar opposite of that learning experience.  In many ways, it embodies the realization of the constructivist model of learning. The content is really student-generated in a way that I find even face-to-face courses are not (and more than other online courses I’ve taken). This has required an adjustment, but overall it has been a rewarding one.

This course has forced me to reconsider my memories. Certainly, it makes me wonder how much richer the experience could have been had I been able, say to share the highlights and my accompanying thoughts on chapters from those tomes. It would have made it more enriching, undoubtedly.

When I think of the various affordances that social media have to offer, I repeatedly return to the question- no doubt because of the techno-phobe in me-   ‘Who actually needs to do that?’ But as discussed on the wiki page, individual variables will play a crucial role in how and whether someone will take advantage of a given technology’s affordances. It is interesting to note that research has been done that links certain affordances with particular personality traits.

For example, Reid and Reid (2010) identified two very real but hidden affordances of SMS messaging. First, the lag between responses allows interlocutors to carefully craft their message “to achieve important self-presentational goals, free from the multiple distractions of real-time social interaction” (p. 5). According to various reports, this expressive control fosters a confidence that texters lack with more immediate ways of communicating. On the other hand, SMS also allows users to engage in near-synchronous interaction with one another (extended conversational involvement). A number of the very basic functions of SMS support these two affordances. According to their survey research, the young, single, and socially anxious were more likely to benefit from these affordances. As the researchers note, this study has relevance for the deeper debate about the relationship between technology (and the internet in particular) and social withdrawal. Its results contradict theories that the socially withdrawn become more so with use of the internet, while only the extroverted will see the benefits. Texters who were able to notice and exploit the expressive and interactive affordances of SMS were thereby able to increase their social interaction.

This article is intuitively appealing on a number of levels. It is certainly in accordance with my own experience with cell phones; the SMS is a valuable tool I’ve used in the past to overcome shyness, particularly when communicating with people I don’t know well. But more importantly, it clarifies for me the difference between affordances and functions, while illustrating how the former can be actually ‘constructed’ by certain users. It would seem that the concept of affordances is important for measuring the worth of new technology.

Reid, F., & Reid, D. (2010). The expressive and conversational affordances of mobile messaging. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(1), 3-22. doi:10.1080/01449290701497079.

Image

closeup sms http://www.sxc.hu/photo/649115