Assignment #1

The idea of research models was on my mind as I began this assignment so I began with a question, “What do I need to know more about?” My answers? Web 2.0, research models for high school students, on-line resources and references, better on-line searching, using Google, Wikipedia and other on-line tools effectively and how to improve my library. Little did I know that I would also experience significant learning from the process of finding articles, as I would from the articles themselves. Navigating the databases provided me by the UBC Library was a learning experience. I became better at narrowing my search parameters so that I could find only the most relevant articles. I also really appreciated the instructional “how to” videos and presentations that the library provides. Just watching one presentation on searching for journal articles significantly cut down the time I spent searching, but ironically also gave me some great articles from which to choose. In the end, I focused on Web 2.0 and on-line searching as I felt, after reading about eight articles, that these topics not only provided me with information for the assignment, but also gave me practical knowledge that I could put to use immediately in my school and classroom. I also chose one article that is about reinventing a library as it seemed to echo the vision I have for my transition to teacher-librarian next year.

Two quotations that I have posted in my computer lab, and remind students of often, are: “Searching on the Internet is like going into the world’s largest library, only to find all the books and periodicals heaped in a large pile, and no librarians or card catalog to guide us to the answer we seek.” (source unknown) and, “Getting information from the Internet is like drinking from a fire hose.” (source unknown) I chuckle every time I read them, but I also cringe that my students are still not understanding the significance of what these quotations are saying. I know that I want to find a better way to teach them to use this incredible source of information, and that I want to use it more effectively myself so that I can “speak their language”.

Article #1 – “Library 2.0, Meet the ‘Web Squared’ World”
Huwe, Terence K. “Library 2.0, Meet the ‘Web Squared’ World.” Computers in Libraries 31:3 (2011): 24-26. Academic Search Complete. Web. 09 May 2011.

The recent publication date of this article made it especially important to me. I was concerned with any article about Web 2.0 that was dated more than two years ago as I felt there may be significant issues with the content and its current relevance. This in itself makes learning about Web 2.0 difficult, as is learning about any technology. As I was reading I was writing things like “evolving language,” “rethinking information services,” “ubiquitous.” I found myself excited by what the author was presenting, but nervous as to how I could make this work in my small school.

This article considers information presented by Tim O’Reilly and John Battelle in their article “Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On” and then asks how this will impact our libraries and information services. Huwe writes about Library 2.0 and how it “focuses on applications we can put to work on behalf of our users.” (24) He then says that “in the larger sense of Web 2.0, we are rapidly reaching a moment when perceptions of services and feedback about what we are doing will run at real-time rates.” (24) He believes that this will then demand a rethinking of information services and cause us to ask “what else should we be thinking about?” (24) Huwe divides his article into three parts; characteristics of the web-squared world, thoughts on our physical space, and questions.

I appreciate that Huwe acknowledges the time commitment involved in learning about things like the “2.0 movement.” (24) He credits librarians with understanding Web 2.0 but that we have a hard time keeping up with the “cloud” in the “blue sky” of research. (25)
He explains that there are two key factors in the web-squared world: community and immediacy. Community is the new metaphor for the network of the web-squared world that has depth created through datastreams that we create ourselves. He argues, through the research of O’Reilly and Battelle, that we are “redefining the concept of collective intelligence.” (25) Huwe continues by saying that we are creating a “marketer’s dream come true” (25) through instant feedback and rapid opinions from billions of people at the same time. He says that this good news for marketers is also good news for our profession. He believes that “the very ‘immediacy’ of the web-squared world holds exciting potential for classroom teaching strategies, as well as for our perceptions of basic research practices.” (25) This really had me thinking about how I use Web 2.0 thinking in my everyday teaching. Can I take my class blog to another level? Can I create more opportunities for students to demonstrate their learning in a Web 2.0 way? And how can I do this within the limits our existing technology and in a way that keeps my students safe?

In the second section of the article, Huwe gives some thoughts on applying this Web 2.0 thinking in the library. He presents four key ideas and their applications: mobile applications are connected applications, real things have internet “shadows,” real time is for real, and traditional use of space and services blends well with innovation. In thinking about applications being connected, Huwe argues that we need to “harness” the datastream created by our application use “to ‘push’ services and ‘pull’ attention to our services.” (26) Should librarians be Tweeting about the library? Should we offer on-line polls and BBM updates? One of my areas of interest for my library is the marketing I can do to bring in students and staff. Huwe had me thinking about how I could make the library a physical “app” that then creates its own datastream that students would want to use.

The idea of “internet shadows” was not new to me but I did find it a little frightening when thinking about it in relation to my students. I feel a sense of responsibility to keep them safe even in the cyber-world so Huwe’s discussion of the shadows we create as we generate data has a dark “big brother” feel, a feeling that frightens many cautious teachers and administrators when we talk about students using the internet.

Huwe’s next question is “how can we put real-time data about our users to work?” (26) Keeping data on what students are using and doing, “real-time data on customer behavior,” can be a great source for planning services. As librarians we are often doing this visually in our physical space, but Huwe asks how we can take this even further.

The comments Huwe makes about using the physical space of the library as a “commons area” linked to another article I read and also appealed to my need to change the physical space of my library. He discusses using the space for meetings and conferences to get people using the space, but also inviting users to “comment on their online research while they are doing it, as well as how and what they are studying.” (26) I wondered if this would encourage new users and, like Huwe, I asked how I could make my physical space more relevant for my students.

In the final section of the article, Huwe asks several questions to encourage further thinking on the idea of Library 2.0. He wonders how our services can evolve and how librarians can become leaders “in establishing trust in this web-squared world?” (26) I also like that he argues that there is a greater need for information specialists, especially considering the recent decisions by some Ontario private schools to cut library funding completely.

Although some of the terms in the article were new to me, and the writer assumed his audience had read his previous articles about Library 2.0, I found “Library 2.0, Meet the ‘Web Squared’ World” to be an informative and interesting article. It clarified some of my questions about Web 2.0 and it inspired me to adopt some more web-squared thinking in my teaching practices.

Article #2 – “Strategies for Searching for and Finding Great Information”
Fontichiaro, Kristin. “Strategies for Searching for and Finding Great Information.” School Library Monthly 27:3 (2010): 12-13. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 May 2011.

This is a short article but it has some very practical tips and advice and is organized in an easy-to-read format. The article is from a monthly column called “Nudging” where they are discussing inquiry process. Fontichiaro’s explanation that “libraries pursuing inquiry-based instruction are building on the bedrock of information literacy, not starting from scratch” (12) interested me as this seemed to relate to our research model discussions and our questions about information literacy.

The article begins with a question about “smart searching” and asking ourselves how we help students do things like: turn their questions into search queries, make the most of their preferred search tools and sites like Google, YouTube, and Wikipedia, extend their knowledge of additional resources, recognize authority in sources, navigate within databases and resources to select the text and multi-media resources that best match their search needs, and recognize when their search journey is complete enough to move on to the next research step. All of the questions were things that I have asked myself and I think all teachers and teacher-librarians could find relevance in the list of questions. It was interesting, considering my first article was about Web 2.0, that Fontichiaro called this new kind of searching “Search 2.0” (12) which reflects how language is evolving so rapidly to reflect our new technologically rich environments. Another interesting point Fontichiaro makes in her introduction is that the information she compiled from teacher librarians indicates that most have “consciously decided to stop fighting students’ preference for Google, instead using Google tools and tips to meet their students halfway.” (12) As a high school teacher I am often faced with that “if you can’t bet ‘em, jouin ‘em” philosophy. How can I use Facebook, YouTube, and Google to my advantage so that the students are meeting learning outcomes, but feel empowered and relevant in the internet world?

Following the introduction, the article presents suggestions from working teacher librarians. The suggestions were predominantly from elementary or middle school teacher-librarians, however, as is always my thinking, I can take any great elementary school idea and adapt it to work in my high school. I firmly believe high school students still need a little of that elementary school environment. It makes them feel comfortable and sometimes a simplified lesson makes learning something new a little easier.

The first suggestion presented is to use Google’s WonderWheel. I have just started playing with some of the Google tools as I try to find ways to improve our school’s information literacy instruction and I had not looked at WonderWheel before I read this article. This is a great tool that uses both written and visual elements. I like that it narrows a topic as one of the biggest concerns I have about students’ internet searching is their failure to set parameters to narrow their search.

Another suggestion relates to teaching students about databases. The teacher includes a description of a great lesson, "After selecting a topic (elements), I show them a large stack of clippings, files, notebooks, and miscellaneous papers and tell them they belonged to some long-lost relative who was interested in chemistry and the elements. I tell them the stack represents years of my uncle’s research and collection. Then I show them a copy of an authoritative book on the topic such as Theodore Gray’s The Elements: A Visual Exploration of Every Known Atom in the Universe. Next I ask them which source they’d like to use in writing a three-page paper about the elements. When they answer “the book,” I ask them, “Why?”They invariably say things like it’s easier, it’s organized, it has an index. Every once in a while they get to the idea of authority, but if not I throw that in.
Next I tell them that the problem they are going to have when they conduct research online is that everything will look like the book. Every hit they get, every link they open will appear to be “good” information. I go back to the stack of stuff and ask if some of this is good accurate information. Yes, probably. The problem is, you can’t be sure. That’s why the most efficient way to conduct research is to use a database."

I really like how visual the lesson is and how you could also use this to encourage the use of print resources. The pile of “data” could represent the internet, and the book could be… well, a book! This suggestion also reminded me that my school does not subscribe to any on-line databases since our school board stopped paying for them for the whole district. This is definitely something I need to pursue.

The last two strategies link to teaching better search strategies and using Google Custom Search. Teaching students how to do an advanced search or creating a Custom Search where they can still feel like they are “searching” Google but their search has been narrowed to sites that the teacher feels are most relevant, can really create better quality research. I think we often get research assignments that are “cut and pasted” from the Internet because students are just overwhelmed with the amount of information presented to them after a “simple search” in Google. The ability to “Search 2.0” will create “Student Researchers 2.0.”



Article #3 – “Concord-Carlisle Transitions to a Learning Commons”
Cicchetti, Robin. “Concord-Carlisle Transitions to a Learning Commons.” Teacher Librarian 37:3 (2010): 52-58. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 May 2011.

This is a very inspiring (and a bit overwhelming) article about the conversion of Concord-Carlisle Regional High School’s Library to a Learning Commons. Before reading the article I was unfamiliar with the term “learning commons,” but after reading I realize that this is what my vision for my library looks like. Although the school described in the article has 1000 more students than my school, I can see how the general philosophy behind a learning commons can be applied to any size school. I think I most relate to the obvious passion of the teacher-librarian and her desire to make the library a usable, and used space.

The article begins by “painting a picture” of Cicchetti’s library before the transformation. She calls it a “dark and cavernous book museum” where bookcases blocked the internal and external windows. (52) I could relate to this as I recently removed the peel-and-stick “frosting” from our library’s windows. What are we hiding? What don’t we want the students to see? In or out? It baffled me as it did Cicchetti. She felt there was not enough space for class instruction, despite the fact that classes were not coming to the library for instruction, and that the only bright colours in the library were the signs telling students they would receive detention for eating in the library and that there was “No Group Work!” allowed.

The article continues to explain that the idea to change came in 2007 when she was hired as the teacher-librarian. She had the full support of her administration who felt that the library “could play a rather dynamic role as a learner commons – a center for learning and creativity for students and staff.” (52) This process began with changes in job titles and job descriptions of the library staff. The teacher-librarian became the “school library media specialist” and they added other titles like “Student Services Specialist” and “Media Production Specialist.” The idea of having a “staff” made me drool with envy but I saw how reinventing themselves helped set the stage for the physical changes that followed.

The changes in the actual physical space of the CCRH library began with an “ambitious weeding campaign.” (53) They removed over 5,000 books and threw out dusty microfiche machines, back issues of magazines and “stuff” that was just being stored in the library. They also reorganized the space to “allow students and staff to more independently navigate the collection and find material with guidance from, rather than reliance on, the teacher-librarian.” (53) The reorganized space allowed more room for students and classes. People could see both in and out of the library bringing in a literal and metaphorical “light” to the space.

Cicchetti acknowledges the importance of grants and new technology in the transformation to a Learning Commons. Like most schools, they had little to no budget for the changes they wanted to make so they wrote grant applications to community groups for reading chairs, plants and new reference materials. They then expanded their grant writing to add technology capabilities and equipment for media production. They removed outdated computers and added iMacs and a portable Macbook lab as well as mounted a large LCD screen above the circulation desk – as Cicchetti states, “this was a powerful symbol that there were new things going on in the library.” (54)

The transformation of the library was not limited to new technology. They also added graphic novels, “urban literature,” and eBooks. They also wanted to diversify to help meet the needs of their special education students and so also included technology like Kurzweil.

Professional development and staff outreach was crucial in the transformation. I laughed at Cicchetti’s declaration to “never underestimate the power of the cookie” (54) as all teachers know that food will bring out even the most resistant staff members. Cicchetti would offer a cookie of the month to departments who invited her to a department meeting. This was a great and fun way to “promote the library, explore collaborative opportunities, and investigate databases specific to their content area.” (55) I know I need to work hard to bring my staff back to our library so I appreciate Cicchetti’s suggestions to use the library as a site for professional development that can lead to requests from staff for assistance with web and database searching for course material.

Cicchetti goes on to say how important the learning commons becomes in the school community. She feels that the integration of the library staff into many areas of the students’ education has shown the students and staff that they are “engaged partners” and it makes the students feel that the learning commons belongs to them. Learning students’ names, talking to them about projects or even engaging in the “endless Edward vs. Jacob debates (Twilight, 2008)” (55) has made the library a true “learning commons.”

The changes in the library also had to include an overhaul of the academic program. Cicchetti used standards from the American association of School Librarians, the Massachusetts State and School Library Associations, and guidance from various curriculum areas. They worked on collaboration with teachers, on assignments and skills they wanted to build, and suggested new tools that could be used to “provide differentiated instruction.” (55) Teachers were often nervous about using tools and applications they did not know themselves but the new library staff was able to support them in these new resources and now the teachers are trying new things. They also teach students about Google tools, Web 2.0 tools, blogs, discussion forums and copyright. Students learn about critically evaluating sources and how to synthesize information that they find. The library even uses their database statistics and surveys of the faculty to improve their services. This reminded me of the “real time” references that Huwe discusses in the first article I read.

Cicchetti says the results of their transformation have been fantastic. Their circulation statistics are up, more classes are visiting the library and they are using tallies and surveys to evaluate where they need to focus their energies. She says “they have gone from being a warehouse of books to a busy, vibrant place for students and faculty to gather and learn in a connected and collaborative environment” and that the “cost of this transition to our district has so far been minimal. It was done with sweat equity, small grants, and cookies.” (57)

This article reflects the passion that I feel about becoming the teacher-librarian next year. I want the library to be a hub of learning and activity in my school. I know I won’t have any money so I like that Cicchetti, even in a large school, says it can be done anyway. I followed up reading this article by checking out the web site for Cicchetti’s school and library. I was excited to also find a presentation she did about her library’s transformation that included photographs. What stood out for me was that even though the library was a very large space, it was very modest. It was obvious that they had not pumped large sums of money into this transformation, but the before and after photos revealed significant changes. This added even more validity to the article and made me more determined to make changes in my library.