Assignment 3: Evaluation Plan to Improve Reference Services

Posted on December 2, 2018 by kapoho17 under LIBE courses, Uncategorized

My home library is unique in that it is an Education branch in a large post-secondary Library System. I will refer to it here as an”Education Library” or my “Home Library” without referring to the specific location or name. Please note that the comments made in this blog post are not intended as a criticism of the individual library, library system or the capable and hard working librarians and staff of my ‘home’ library.

“In light of (these) technological advances, is a reference collection still justified in a library or is it merely a relic of the past?” (Epp & Hochheim, 2014, p.59)

The above question is not new or unique. I found multiple older articles asking similar questions with respect to post-secondary academic and curriculum libraries and while Epp & Hochheim’s 2014 paper, “Increasing Access to the Reference Collection”, is related specifically to medical libraries, it draws conclusions relevant to other library contexts including, perhaps, my ‘home library’, an Education Library in the Faculty of Education at a Canadian post-secondary institution. This library, like the medical libraries noted in the study, has integrated the reference collection throughout the stacks on both floors of the library rather than housing it in a physically separate reference section. According to the study, this is a more effective arrangement and, in the medical library context where “Healthcare professionals rely heavily on point-of-care tools, which are typically available as downloadable mobile apps” (p. 60) is valid. In such contexts, it seems there is little doubt that a physical reference collection is becoming or has become redundant. I believe that while there are some similarities, the context of a library in a Faculty of Education serving educators (including pre-service and in-service teachers) has unique needs.

In the FoE context, a large part of the mandate of the library is to serve the needs of the 750+ students (annually) in the Bachelor of Education Program (BEd). These students are Teacher Candidates (TCs) who will be embarking on practicums during their 11-month intensive program come from varied academic backgrounds and have needs that are vastly different from typical university students. TCs benefit from developing an understanding of the library not only in terms of how they use it as students but also in terms of how they will use it as teachers with their own students.

In my discussion with the reference librarians, I understand that the decision to redistribute the reference collection was made several years ago in response to the same perceived declining use of the materials and the time and resources needed to effectively manage this section as noted in Epp and Hochheim (2015). The intent was to allow for student borrowing of these items as part of the circulating stacks. An error made at the time of integration was the lack of weeding. Francis (2012), notes that “As the use of the reference collection changes, it is important for the collection to match that use. A bloated reference collection focused on the needs of patrons from 20 years ago offers little service to the current patrons.” In my ‘home library’, this bloat has resulted in a large number of dated resources taking up considerable space in their respective content and subject areas of the stacks leading to less effective access and use. In addition, little time or funds have been spent to purchase new physical reference materials – in part because there is no visible section highlighting the need for newer resources. I question the value of having any of these resources integrated if they are not being regularly evaluated and weeded.

Note: As part of an informal survey of a set of reference resources for a previous assignment, I selected 10 dictionaries and thesauri with my only criteria being that some were newer looking and some were older looking. At the circulation desk I found that of the ten items I’d selected, none had been borrowed in the past five years. Given these books are located in the basement in an unidentified section and given the proliferation of effective and up to date online dictionaries and thesauri, I am not surprised by this discovery. Still, were there to be a very carefully curated set of up to date materials (with all others weeded in keeping with Riedling’s 2013 assertions), perhaps these would find wider in-library use and even some limited circulation.

“Exploring a new subject? Starting a research project? We recommend reference resources as the first place to start when you are learning about a topic.” (SFU library home page)

If the above holds true, then easy access to such materials needs to be a priority in a library. In my experience, students (and even teachers) typically do not know how to differentiate between reference and other sources unless such reference materials are clearly identified and/or held in a designated area of the library. Given that most elementary and secondary school libraries have a physical reference collection, and given that part of the purpose of a library in a Faculty of Education is to model for our teacher candidates how they might interact with school library resources and collaborate with a teacher librarian, it is reasonable to model the organization of the library, or at least a section of the library, after that which might be found in a K-12 school.

Stewart Middle Magnet School Library showing interactive, flex learning space, wall-shelf of reference resources. Retrieved from http://renovatedlearning.com/2015/01/28/rethinking-our-library-space/

While I understand the initial decision to put reference materials into circulation, I question whether this required such materials to be integrated physically within the stacks. Could not the foundational idea of a reference collection be reviewed and revised to allow for circulation, while still physically existing in an easily accessible and highlighted space – one that is integrated into a learning commons? Teacher Candidates would benefit from the opportunity to have classes in a ‘school library-like’ setting facilitated by a librarian acting as ‘teacher librarian’.

I envision a space where students can experience what they might encounter in a school library that is embedded in an instructional approach supportive of modeling current pedagogies. Already, in my ‘Home Library’, a young learners and makerspace corner have been initiated. Utilizing an adjacent study area as an “Information Commons” (Pierard & Bordeianu, 2016) with ready access to a carefully selected and curated set of reference materials, digital devices (ideally portable) and flexible seating that invites collaboration, would further bring the library in-line with suggestions in Leading the Learning (Canadian School Libraries, 2018) and other current literature.

A number of studies suggest that the reference collection, rather than encompassing all reference resources, should be curated such that it contains the reference resources most relevant to the library patrons (Francis, 2012, Nolan, 1991, Pierard & Bordeianu, 2016). The Doucette Library at the University of Calgary (Brydges, 2009) deliberately refined its purpose and became a Teaching Resource Library to better meet the needs of pre-service and in-service teachers in recognition that other branches of the University Library system could better meet research needs. This allowed more effective focus and arrangement so that the library houses materials to support students as they design cross-curricular learning experiences and unit plans. It is during this planning that students in our BEd program frequently come to the library looking for help. As mentioned earlier, these resources should be available on limited loan and, further, be organized to support effective selection by teacher candidates who are often unfamiliar with appropriate ‘leveling’ of resources for use with their practicum grade level.

Key Resources for the section based on consultation with an Education Reference Librarian and former Teacher Librarian:

A selection of current textbooks at various grade levels selected carefully and in consultation with local school districts and faculty/experts in the field.
A small selection of dictionaries and thesaurus appropriate for primary, intermediate and secondary students.
A small collection of current and visually appealing Atlas’
A highly visual Encyclopedia set or two to support young learners and those for whom online reference is less accessible.
Cross-curricular project handbooks & collections including STEM & Makerspace (ideally, the tools and materials needed could also be housed close by in this flexible learning space)

Putting a Plan in Place (approximately 2 year plan):

Appendix 4 of Leading the Learning (Canadian School Libraries, 2018) can be followed while referencing Appendix 5 during the planning phase to support the effective development and organization of a new and radically different “Reference Resource” section of the library. A summary of key steps drawn from these documents applied to this project:

Preparation Phase: Free up space by reviewing what is not being used, remove from the facility and utilize wall space where possible. Systematically weed, weed, weed (as echoed in Riedling, 2013 p. 23. (12 months)
Consultation phase: Highlight the newly available space, use inviting signage to engage and invite feedback from students and faculty on a physical graffiti wall and a virtual wall: “What do you want to see here? What do you need?” (3 months)
Planning and Funding: Draw plans, seek and find funding (always a struggle but worth the time – there are facilities improvement funds available through the University to improve student-forward learning spaces). (6 – 12 months)
Carry out plans. (3 months in summer term to avoid disruption)

In Conclusion:

For the purposes of this paper, I reviewed several libraries in Faculties of Education across Canada and believe that the physical layout and collections arrangement at the Education Library at Queen’s University is supportive of better meeting the needs of BEd students.

Let’s imagine a whiteboard next to a low shelf of reference resources…(Queen’s University Library Teaching Corner Retrieved from: https://library.queensu.ca/sites/default/files/styles/location_slider_full/public/images/locations/education-teaching-corner.jpg?itok=7WWHHbQO

Further, the direction taken by the Doucette Library at the University of Calgary (Brydges, 2009) to refine its purpose and become a teaching resource library supports my assertion that changes are needed in my ‘Home Library’ including the development of a small, focused and well-curated selection of reference materials. These materials should be available for limited loan periods and be housed in a space conducive to collaboration and instruction to support pre-service and in-service teachers in finding and utilizing these resources and, in turn, provide modeling as to how they might use such a section with students in their own school library.

My ‘Home Library’ may be trying to meet the needs of too varied an audience. Students might be better served by other libraries in the wider University Library system with the Education Library focusing on pre-service and in-service teachers for their BEd program, Masters studies and professional development as a Teaching Resource Library. While there are space limitations in my ‘Home Library’, I see the potential to create a more efficient Learning Commons and Teaching Resource library. Such a transformation would require a longer term, well-resourced and carefully conceived plan of action than suggested in this proposal. It would involve a large investment of time to develop and carry out a comprehensive weeding strategy and input from the wider community of students, academics and the public. Who knows, such a plan may even be in the works!

References:

Brydges, B. (2009). A century of library support for Teacher Education in Calgary, Education Libraries, 32 (1). Retrieved from: https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/1880/108903/266-556-1-SM.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Canadian School Libraries (CSL), (2018). “Leading learning: Standards of practice for school library learning commons in Canada.” Retrieved from: http://llsop.canadianschoollibraries.ca

Epp, C., & Hochheim, L. (2015). Restricted: Increasing access to the reference collection. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 36 (2). Retrieved from: https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/jchla/index.php/jchla/article/view/24394/18722

Francis, M. (2012). Weeding the reference collection: A case study of collection management, The Reference Librarian, 53(2), 219-234, DOI: 10.1080/02763877.2011.619458

Nolan, C. W. (1999). Managing the reference collection, Chicago: American Library Association.

Pierard, C., Bordeianu, S. (2016). “Learning commons reference collections in ARL libraries”, Reference Services Review, 44 (3), 411-430. Retrieved from: https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1108/RSR-02-2016-0014

Riedling, A., Shake, L, Houston, C. (2013). Reference skills for the school librarian: Tools and tips, (Third Edition). Santa Barbara California: Linworth.

Simon Fraser University Home Page, Retrieved from https://www.lib.sfu.ca/find/other-materials/reference-sources/what-are-reference-books on Nov. 25, 2018

Assignment 2: Collaborate with a teacher and evolve their practice

Posted on November 4, 2018 by kapoho17 under LIBE courses, Uncategorized

Two ‘Case Studies’

A fictitious instructor who is an amalgam of various colleagues working on a real project to illustrate the Concerns-based Adoption Model (CBAM) with respect to supporting a teacher in effectively introducing digital reference resources to students. Specifically, this example is concerned with the adoption of Open Educational Resources and Repositories (OERs).
An anonymous but real-life, real-work situation where I share the narrative of my work with an individual instructor as she moves through several stages of adoption of educational technologies. I relate this to the CBAM, SAMR, TPACK and TECH models of digital tech integration.

In both cases, I use CBAM Stages of Concern and Levels of Use as described by Po-Sen Huang and Alex Oris. By using two different examples, I hope to illustrate the flexibility of the CBAM model across contexts.

CBAM and Digital Reference Resources: Open Educational Resources

Instructor X has been teaching at the post-secondary level for over 25 years. He has expertise in accessing reference resources in the library – both in the stacks and online. He recognizes the value of his students accessing online reference resources but had previously not considered that his students, once they leave the rarified world of the University, would no longer have access to the wealth of resources to continue their learning. X was at the Awareness stage of concern and was, typically, taking no action at the time (Non-use level).

I was meeting with X to discuss some potential course collaborations and, coincidentally, had just returned from a seminar put on by the campus library about Open Education. I was excited to share what I’d learned about OER’s (Open Ed Resources and Open Ed Repositories). Like most of my initial coaching and co-planning sessions, I began by learning more about his teaching and course objectives. I learned that X was interested in increasing student engagement in a large lecture course.

As our conversation progressed, I learned that his students were required to revise an existing lesson plan to incorporate assistive technologies in order to support varied learners – including ELL’s – as an assignment in the course. I suggested that this assignment might provide the perfect opportunity to open his student’s eyes to the world of OERs by having them prepare their lesson plans as ‘open’ resources to be shared in an Open Educational Repository. In the process of preparing for and presenting this seminar, I would be meeting my own goal of “Leading the Learning” by empowering the students as life-long learners and fostering literacies (in X and in his students!). Through a series of activities where students would need to learn about, select and apply a creative commons license (of their choosing) to their work and research, evaluate and select a repository where they might share their work, they would be developing both information literacy and digital citizenship.

X was somewhat skeptical but open to discussing this new approach. He was rapidly shifting from Non-use to the Orientation level of Use and, at the same time, was openly asking how this was different and if it was worth all the trouble? Given that my own stage of concern with respect to OER’s was somewhere between Management and Consequence, I was thinking about the impact on students. Applying a ‘real-world’ reason for revising the lesson plan, I suggested this new approach might increase engagement and quality and also support students in moving into the emerging area of OERs. Seeing that X had entered the Personal stage of concern, I quickly reasoned that it was time to call in some support and expertise to reinforce the value of the approach I was suggesting.

When we met for a second time, X had already taken the initiative to access the resources I’d suggested. I had contacted the Center for Teaching and Learning Technology (CTLT) on campus to ask for more information about their Open Ed projects and to request assistance. A very capable expert from CTLT joined us for our next meeting. Together, we developed resources to support the students in learning about Open Ed as they created an Open Educational Resource. We are now at the Preparation stage of action. From here, I need to ensure I provide some appropriate modeling of the use and creation of open educational resources to both X and his students so that, when our collaboration is completed, he will have something upon which to build. To that end, I consolidated resources into a comprehensive blog post so that X and his students would have ongoing access to the resources we had developed.

*Here is a link to the resources we developed for the assignment.

CBAM, SAMR and more Models for Digital Tech Integration:

It was August 27, 2013, my first day as an Adjunct Teaching Professor at UBC. I had been asked to present at the Teacher Education Program Faculty Orientation at the University Golf Club. As a recent graduate of the Master of Educational Technology Program, an experienced teacher and a technology integration mentor coming from a progressive school district, I knew I could share my excitement about the possibilities of digital technology integration to help support students and even transform teaching. Still, as a brand-new faculty member, freshly seconded from my grade one/two classroom in Surrey, the risk of imposter syndrome loomed large. When I arrived at the golf course, I was lucky to see a friendly face almost immediately. The education librarian whom I’d known when I was a student in 1990 as a helpful, friendly resource person, greeted me and we connected right away. She proceeded to introduce me to faculty members around the room during morning coffee. I could feel my unease slipping away until shortly before my presentation.

“So, you’re the one who wants to make me start using technology!” came the greeting from one of the attendees, a seasoned professor of teaching. “Well, it’s not going to work. I like books. They work and they will always work. ”

My heart leapt into my throat, my palms felt clammy as I walked up to the podium to present!

While it might be easy to dismiss such an individual as a luddite or unreachable. I didn’t. I had a ‘gut feeling’ that there was an opportunity here. Today, after reading more about Hall et al’s Concerns-based Adoption Model (CBAM), I can see that her defensive stance likely meant she might actually be finding her way through the ‘Awareness’ stage of concern and was ready to make a decision as to whether she should move forward with adoption of educational technologies and, more specifically, digital reference resources (into the informational stage) or decline to adopt altogether. In my experience, there is a crucial step between non-use and orientation in the CBAM action model that acts almost as a decision tree and the well-placed mentor or supportive colleague can be the change agent who helps the individual on the early path to adoption take the road towards thoughtful adoption.

Skip ahead a year…

In our discussions about the use of digital technologies, we had walked together through the informational stage to the personal stage. I had provide her with resources and one on one coaching. She was finding reasons to consider integrating digital tech into her life and had started to contemplate how it might benefit her professional life.

We were moving from the personal stage of concern into the management and consequence stage. While a digital technology neophyte, I found that this highly experienced academic was able to recognize quickly the benefits and potential pitfalls of various ways of integrating technology. It was time to help bring her technological knowledge in line with her highly sophisticated pedagogical and content knowledge and so I introduced her to TPACK.

In so doing, I was able to leverage her Vygotskian understandings that knowledge is socially co-constructed and it was at this stage that I learned the most from my mentee. At the time, I held a great deal of practical knowledge and theoretical knowledge about digital technology integration but my subject area knowledge was less academic. For our students, pre-service teachers only just learning to apply pedagogical understandings to their content area knowledge, the TPACK model was a bit too complex. I needed to find a different approach to help them learn where they might put their energies when it came to digital tech integration in the earliest stages of their teaching careers.

I introduced them to Ruben Puentedura’s SAMR model (2006) and, rather than sharing it as a ladder, I shared it as a swimming pool (Hooker, 2013); one that we swim through at different depths depending on our needs and the needs of our students. (NB: hover over the ‘targets’ on the image below created in Thinglink)

cc image courtesy of Kathy Shrock & based on the work of Jen Roberts, 2013

Together, we went from the shallow end to the deep end and back as we used technologies for teacher-directed presentation and then began to introduce more collaborative pedagogies and assignments to support the students’ knowledge and product co-creation. I was able, at this point, to share the TECH model (Roberts, 2013) to reinforce my colleague’s use of Bloom’s Taxonomy and as a model of digital technology adoption favouring student creation as the goal. The benefit of the simplicity of this model was felt most keenly by our students, pre-service teachers only just developing their content knowledge and pedagogical understandings… for these students, the TPACK model was too complex.

… two years…

“I really liked that thing you did with my class last year, but I can’t remember what it was called… you know, it’s where they all posted ideas online at the same time for a brainstorm. I’d like to use it in my class this month. Can you help me set it up?”

…Three…

“Guess what, I used that Padlet wall again this spring with my class. Do you want to see it? I was wondering how I can help them see different ways to use it effectively with their own students.”

HURRAH! I am so glad I’d paid attention to my colleague, her need for “information, assistance, and moral support” during the three years it took for her “early concerns to be resolved and later ones to emerge” (from: http://www.nationalacademies.org/rise/backg4a.htm)

These question and comments came from the same individual whom I’d met that first day. I’d made it a bit of a mission to get to know this highly respected faculty member and learned a great deal from her. Initially, she agreed to meet for coffee to help me learn more about the course she coordinated. I spent a great deal of time listening and learning. She invited me to a class where I observed her teach and was able to see the great wealth of resources she shared with our students. She expressed some frustration over the use of digital technologies by students in the class and I was able to share a few strategies I’ve used to engage students ‘with’ their devices. Our discussion turned to the need for our teacher candidates to learn these strategies since they too would soon be faced with issues of technology use by their own students. It was at that point that she invited me to do a workshop with her students and she was able to observe me teach. From that point on we began to work together through a gradual release model and an “I do, we do, you do” approach.

Closing Remarks:

I have often felt the need to balance my own excitement and interest in an innovation with the objectives, wishes and interests of the teachers with whom I’m working. Applying the CBAM model not only helps me recognize the Stages of Concern and Levels of Use of my mentee, but it also helps me recognize where I am at in my own adoption of innovations. By ensuring I listen and acknowledge the expertise that each of us brings to a collaboration, I am able to honour the work and wisdom of my mentee while, at the same time, helping to enrich their practice with innovative approaches thus providing a learning environment in keeping with the needs of the 21st Century Learners referred to in Leading the Learning.

References:

Canadian School Libraries (CSL). 2018. “Leading Learning: Standards of Practice for School Library Learning Commons in Canada.” Available: http://llsop.canadianschoollibraries.ca

Hall, G. E., Dirksen, D & George, A., (2006). Measuring Implementation in Schools: Levels of Use. Retrieved from: http://www.sedl.org/cbam/lou_manual_201410.pdf ISBN: 978-0-9777208-1-1.

Hooker, C. (2013). Taking a Dip in the SAMR Swimming Pool. Retrieved from https://hookedoninnovation.com/2013/12/10/taking-a-dip-in-the-samr-swimming-pool/

Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, Technology, and Education. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/

Roberts, J. (2013). Turning SAMR into TECH. Retrieved from http://www.litandtech.com/2013/11/turning-samr-into-tech-what-models-are.html

Schrock, K. (2014). Resources to Support the SAMR Model. Retrieved from http://www.schrockguide.net/samr.html

Evaluation of a Reference Resource

Posted on October 7, 2018 by kapoho17 under LIBE courses, Uncategorized

Introduction

For the purposes of Assignment One, the Evaluation of a Reference Resource, I paid a visit to my ‘local’ library: the Neville Scarfe Education Library at UBC. Prior to this course, I hadn’t considered ‘reference resources’ as unique from other resources and so paid a visit to the Reference desk in the library. The reference librarian was out, so I asked the library technician to point me to the Reference Section. She informed me that, while many libraries house such a section, our library is not organized in that way. She wasn’t sure quite how we would search for references in the catalogue other than by specific type so that is what we did. On my journey through the library, I came across many dusty tombs in the stacks including multiple thesauri and more than a dozen shelves full of dictionaries, including slang dictionaries that Riedling (2013) suggests may have value depending on the school and community context (p. 66). Many of these would not meet the “MUSTIE” test (Crew, 2008, p. 46) With the library closing soon, I selected a few of the lighter volumes to bring home for review.

While Riedling (2013) responds “You bet!” (p. 61) to her own question “Do dictionaries and encyclopedias still matter today?”, I wonder. As one who subscribes to a descriptive philosophy in that I believe language is ever evolving and that dictionaries need to reflect these changes, I think such ready reference resources are best housed in an environment that allows for such change to occur as needed. Simply adding to the many volumes on multiple shelves in a library is not the most effective or efficient way to ‘update’. Instead, access to online resources is a better option as they can be updated as needed, provide access to rich media to increase engagement and learning value and, finally, are a more environmentally responsible option given the need to replace volumes periodically. While needing less frequent replacement than encyclopedia (Riedling, 2013), they do become worn and dated when they lack words commonly appearing in news reports (Crew, 2008).

A thesaurus, “a specialized dictionary that deals solely with word synonyms and antonyms” (Riedling, 2013, p. 66) holds appeal to me as a lover of language. I have my own copy of Roget’s Thesaurus and, while I have never felt it was out of date, I realize I rarely use it. Instead, I’ve come to prefer the thesaurus function in my word processor and, for teaching purposes, a much more visually appealing, rapid search tool available online: ThinkMap.

Original Library Resource: Print Thesaurus

In Other Words: An Introductory Thesaurus

Vera Dobson Gould & Patricia J. Hughes

Rubicon Publishing, Toronto Canada 1991

ISBN0-921156-11-1

The original resource is a print Thesaurus developed specifically for a middle school to high school audience. While located on the bottom shelf in a basement section of the library stacks with multiple dictionaries and thesaurus, it stands out due to the colourful binding with block lettered title. Being a soft cover resource, it is lighter in weight than other dictionaries, still, circulation records indicate it has not been checked out in the past year. Dictionaries and thesaurus account for more than a dozen shelves in the education library stacks (over a hundred volumes). Extensive weeding is needed. Circulation records indicate “In other Words” has not been checked out in the past three years, making it a candidate for weeding by Crew’s (2008) standards. A brief discussion with the reference librarian and a library technician indicated that encyclopedias, dictionaries and thesaurus are rarely borrowed and, while records do not exist for their use as reference inside the bricks and mortar library, the library technician indicated she rarely finds them in the book bins for re-shelving.

Potential Replacement: A Digital Thesaurus

ThinkMap Visual Thesaurus

Multiple vetted and credentialed authors (editors, educators, academics)

Copyright ThinkMap, Inc. 1998-2018 (formerly WordNet 1.7 Copyright 1996 Princeton University)

LINK: http://www.thinkmap.com/

There are many online thesauri including ones published by such reputable and known companies as Mirriam Webster and Collins. Collins has a free subscription geared to students with a ‘primary’ and a ‘secondary’ version that contain some education related advertisements that do not interfere with usability. It is unfortunate that there does not seem to be a paid option that removes all advertisements. If such a version were available, I would recommend Collins given the responsive user interface over Mirriam Webster. While the Collins thesaurus is not as interactive and attractive as the ThinkMap Visual Thesaurus, it is quite usable, includes language translation and a word game. ThinkMap is a highly interactive, responsive and accessible visual thesaurus (see features in the evaluation rubric below).

Evaluation Rubrics

Below are two completed Single Point Rubrics with evaluative comments in italics. The rubric formatting is adapted from #singlepointrubric on Twitter for more on these more flexible, open rubrics, visit A Cult of Pedagogy.

Thesaurus rubric

Thinkmap rubric

Recommendations

I strongly recommend the purchase of an online thesaurus. Given the large amount of space taken up by both print thesaurus and dictionaries, their lack of use and their lack of value relative (as seen in the rubrics above) to a rich media enabled online source that includes fully functional accessibility features including multiple languages, font size adjustments, customization, a digital option is preferable.

I think one unique way to access a thesaurus in our library that would likely increase use and awareness of the value of a thesaurus, would be to install several wall-mounted touch screens including one near the reference desk and near the student work tables. On these screens, students could access the dictionary and thesaurus without the need to sit down at a work station or login. Such a resource launched and accessible would support students utilizing a thesaurus in order to improve their vocabulary and written work and would likely lead to richer vocabulary being used by library patrons in their work (and, perhaps, everyday communication!).

Given the budget available in a large academic library and the potential impact of a resource as valuable as an interactive thesaurus, I would recommend the purchase of a subscription to ThinkMap should it be possible to either negotiate a single or multi-station access license to support a digital display as mentioned above or, perhaps, university-wide option available with campus-wide login. Such access would not be unusual given the fact that UBC has licensing agreements with many proprietary cloud and computer based softwares for use by faculty, staff and students. (I am awaiting a response from the sales department to confirm exact pricing and potential plans)

References

Commonsense Media: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/about-us/who-we-are

Riedling, A. M., Houston, C., & Shake, L. (2013). Reference skills for the school librarian tools and tips. Santa Barbara, California: Linworth.

Welcome LIBE 467!

Posted on September 28, 2018 by kapoho17 under LIBE courses, Uncategorized

Welcome to my ‘resurrected’ blog – Rather than setting up a new blog for the LIBE program at UBC and, specifically LIBE 467, I decided to use an old blog created as a course assignment in the Master of EducationalTechnology Program and then abandoned.

While I’ve kept sharing online in many ways including class and cohort blogs, Twitter, a Masters e-portfolio, the Scarfe Digital Sandbox Resource blog for my work in the Faculty of Ed at UBC, I don’t really post my own personal or professional reflections anywhere (though I admire and sometimes follow people who do so – Chris Kennedy, Jennifer Gonazales to name only two) and feel like I could or even should…

lighthouse reflections_YD

So, in order to share my reflections and assignments in LIBE 467 (to start) and to engage with my team, here we go… There’s a lot of pre-existing content on this site you can ignore (or not) but the latest posts during this course will be related to this course and the assignments!

Thanks for joining me.

~ Yvonne Dawydiak

Web Design Woes

Posted on April 18, 2010 by kapoho17 under MET courses, Uncategorized

I’m still not there… still not there. I really had hoped to be there by now… but I’m not. Luckily, just as I was getting morose about my situation, I came across some sage words from a professional web designer – “Web design is not a merit badge to be added to your uniform in scouts, it is a career choice that demands continual growth and serious dedication.” So I guess it’s understandable that after dabbling for a couple of months, that I’m not there. Seriously though, I’m not planning on a career in web design but am looking forward to the day when i can pass for someone who has some level of literacy!

reflections on learning @UBC

@yvonnedtechtalk

Category Archives: Uncategorized