Training to run a marathon of 26.2 miles begins with having the courage to take the first steps. Here I begin my first venture into blogging, with the belief that I'll one day reach an understanding of the world of 2.0.
In this final blog topic, I have decided to revisit my nemesis - the podcast. I've decided that if you want convince others to make change and step out of their comfort zone, you have to "walk the walk" yourself. Harris (Learning & Leading with Technology, Part Two, March/April 2008) writes about individualized learning and mentions that "unassisted independent exploration of educational technology tools, resources and techniques" is an approach towards personal professional development which teachers may take. So here goes...
Make a cup of tea, and relax for a 15 minute-long chat about my thoughts on professional development programs in general, in my district, and my concerns for the design of professional development targeted for teacher librarians.
Has the use and integration of educational technology improved teaching and learning? An interesting question indeed! One would certainly hope that educational technology improves both teaching and learning, especially in light of the billions of educational dollars spent on purchasing technology, and the programs to introduce technology use to educators and students (Think 1:1 Laptops), not to mention the testimonials to its effectiveness, and the continued passionate cries for the key involvement of technology in the 21st century learning environment.
However, after perusing the articles provided by our instructor, and the Point/Counterpoint articles presented by Chris and Kat, I viewed the integration of technology from a few different angles. It would appear the idea that ‘technology = improvements in education’ is not quite so clearly a done deal.
After reading Chris’ blogs on this issue, I would tend to agree with Larry Cuban’s (2001) comments that evidence might be questionable based upon the ways some schools are currently integrating technology, in less than ideal terms. Cuban observed, “…the overwhelming majority of teachers employed the technology to sustain existing patterns of teaching, rather than to innovate” (p. 134). I have sadly observed this practice firsthand: lecture + chalk = lecture + overhead = lecture + in-focus camera. In our class exploration of the digital divide, it became clear that simply ensuring access to technology does not level the digital playing field. Knowledge in the application of technology is a stronger influence in successfully bridging the true discrepancies between the technology haves and have not’s. In concrete terms, you can put the computer on the teacher’s desk, get the teacher to turn it on and use it as a word processer, but until the day when the computer is actually used to extend the students’ learning in ways that go beyond the paper and pencil domain, why bother with all the expense and make all the hoopla about supposedly improving student learning? Which indicators describe the true integration of technology? And once integrated, how do we know for certain that teaching and student learning is bettered? In these days of accountability, comparison of data, and widespread standardized testing, has a means been derived for measuring the influence of technology integration on learning? Are we relying on these testimonials and the influences of the technology industry? Gee, I've got questions!
Kat’s counterpoint discussion presents a strong case for the effective use of technology in enhancing student learning outcomes, when it is seamlessly connected to curriculum goals, citing ISTE research going back 20 years. It's actually achieving this degree of connection that's the rub. I agree with the literature supporting teachers’ need for time to explore a new technology, become comfortable with its use, and become apprised of its possible educational applications before they are able to merge this technology into their instructional practices to benefit student learning. It leads one to wonder, in this day of “intensification” of teacher’s roles and responsibilities, how and where this time can be found? Can we expect teachers to find successful ways to integrate technology to capitalize on student learning, if they have not been given a chance to become aware of the range of educational possibilities? Workshops, release time, incentive programs and other innovative ideas are necessary to make these opportunities a reality for today’s teachers. I would suggest that for true integration of technologies to occur this is a priority. Teacher librarians are well situation to provide this leadership and attempt to fill this educational niche through side-by-side collaboration with teachers, introducing them to current technologies and demonstrated their application to teaching. However, we can only accomplish so much, given our own reduced numbers, increased workload and limited opportunities for true collaborative practice. A true dilemma indeed.
Of course, that being said, then along comes the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow project with Robertson (2001) reporting that even in ideal conditions with full access to the most current technology and a full system of support in place, “evidence of [student learning] improvement was still lacking”. And then there are positive research findings to the contrary supported by technology interests. See why I’m confused and left unsure about how obvious a conclusion it really is that more technology integration translates into more learning? Even the research is conflicting. Is there a possibility that it is the student engagement by Web 2.0 technologies introduced by tech savvy teachers adds to this illusion of learning improvement?
But to refocus on the idea of implementation, I studied McAnear’s model for School-wide Technology Integration. I can appreciate her comment, “that it is not enough to have general technological knowledge, and that staff development focused only on technology will not accomplish much.” It would appear that working in the zone with overlapping content and technology knowledge is the recommended best approach towards integration and achieving an encouraging educational impact. This makes sense. Summerville & Reid-Griffin’s teacher pre-service is another model designed to introduce ways to integrate technology, but it primarily serves to educate the beginning teacher to the possibilities that exist through improving both awareness, attitudes and practical technology skills. I do believe that pre-service instruction is another avenue worth exploring. As Chris summarizes, “We do tend to teach as we were taught.”
To further reduce the question to a personal level I would have to say that the use of technology has greatly improved my own learning and teaching. The easy access to the wide variety of resources through the University of Alberta’s databases has gained me a much wider perspective on teacher librarian issues and encouraged new insights which otherwise would have been difficult. I share ideas, lesson plans and professional development with other teachers via email, which leads to improving my knowledge of effective teaching practices. On the Internet I have obtained the answers to questions, ordered new books, or explored unique or motivating ways to refresh my lessons. I look forward to authentic and more engaging learning experiences for my students by incorporating Web 2.0 technologies into library instruction. Whether or not this makes me a more effective teacher and my students brighter learners, remains to be seen. Hmm...I sense an action research project here. Although I suspect that technology holds many opportunities to promote learning, I think that we should always question our motives in its use and ensure that the “tail is not wagging the dog”. Our decisions to incorporate technology should always be based upon sound educational practice. Then student achievement will ‘likely’ and possibly be 'genuinely' enhanced.
References:
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused: computers in the classroom. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Robertson, H.-J.. (2001). But it’s only a tool! Deconstructing the defense. In But it’s only a tool! The politics of technology and education reform (pp.13-42). Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Summerville, J. & Reid-Griffin, A. (2008). Technoology integration and instructional design. TechTrends, 52(5), 45-51.
The privacy and dignity of our citizens are being whittled away by sometimes imperceptible steps. Taken individually, each step may be of little consequence. But when viewed as a whole, there begins to emerge a society quite unlike any we have seen. Justice William O. Douglas
Policy statements from IFLA, ALA, and CLA all strongly support the intellectual freedoms of patrons of full access to information and protection of patron privacy. For the teacher librarian, these directives can present dilemmas when it comes to protecting student rights and privacy because of the two facets of our professional role – that of a teacher and a librarian.
It is clear from an exploration of the research that the teacher librarian needs to gather knowledge that extends beyond the rhetoric of library policy statements into the realities of daily practice. She needs to become aware of Canadian privacy laws, refer to her District's privacy policies and perhaps even explore the strength of her stand on library privacy with regards to her union's support. The teacher librarian should also discuss her unique position as a supporter of student privacy with the building's school’s administrator. Starting with general beliefs and moving towards specific scenarios, the administrator and teacher librarian should work together to establish a common protocol for privacy in the school library – hopefully one which helps her to reconcile her beliefs. It is important to develop these critical understandings about confidentiality and to communicate them to all library staff so that routines be established to respect and safeguard student privacy. For example, what actions are taken when:
A student accesses an inappropriate site? A parent calls and wants to know the titles of Johnny’s lost books? A staff member wants to access patron records to see which books their students are reading? An administrator asks for the books Susan has checked out because she is transferring schools? The School Board Office asks for a patron’s computer records to confirm the sender of a threatening message on a social networking site? The Maintenance Department arrives to install a security camera near the circulation desk? A student helper offers to print and distribute the overdue lists?
Despite establishing the need for privacy within the secondary school library setting, it is likely that the teacher librarian will still continue to wrestle with ethics and her own conscience, and sometimes demonstrate true determination as she steps in to protect student privacy rights. This commitment can be shared with the students who may not be aware of their library rights. In The Age of the Patron: Privacy for Middle and High School Students , Adams (2007) states that “when we allow middle and high school students to read, research, and check out materials on a wide range of topics without comment as well as share that information with others, we are honoring the twin precepts of privacy and confidentiality in libraries. It is important that teacher librarians provide an atmosphere where students feel comfortable to make inquiries about sensitive subjects, knowing that the library staff will respect and guard their privacy." Although I had a good understanding of intellectual freedom, I had not recognized the need for instructing students about their rights until I explored a number of articles on the subject (see the reading list below). I now strongly echo Adam’s stance that, “in addition to protecting minors' rights to privacy in a library setting, the library media specialist should teach students how to guard their own privacy in their physical daily lives as well as online. This instruction may be a part of the information and technology literacy curriculum.”
Whether sharing cautions about social networking sites such as Facebook, (insert link here) the dangers of sharing personal information online through chat rooms, MSN or blogs, teaching Internet safety, or encouraging the reading of privacy policies and terms of use, teacher librarians are ideally situated to help students become more informed about privacy issues heightened by today's commonplace use of technology. Students need to learn how information is digitally tracked, to learn about cookies, IP address logs, and how their digital footprint may be used by third party access. They need to become aware of their personal rights, learn how to respect the rights of others, know the actions to take to safeguard their personal privacy, and how to address any privacy concerns they may encounter. Teacher librarians can become the face of intellectual freedom in the school and demonstrate the importance of privacy issues by incorporating them into library information technology lessons, offering presentations to staff, students and parents, and by modelling a respect for privacy themselves.
As my classmate Chris so eloquently pointed out in the Web CT discussion of this topic, the paradox exists that as teacher librarians champion for student privacy rights, the same students may be sharing highly personal aspects of their lives with virtual strangers via social networking sites. However, this is not a reason for us to disregard the importance of privacy, and abdicate this tenet of our professional library responsibilities, especially in this electronic age when it seems little remains private. Those who don’t believe me regarding the erosion of privacy, can try Googling their own names and see what information is revealed. If education's goal is to assist the development of our students into responsible democratic citizens, then teacher librarians need to ensure they have opportunities to learn about and advocate for their rights to privacy and confidentiality.
Additonal Recommended Readings about Privacy. (Note that authorized database access may be required for access.)
Balas, J. (2007, June). I'm a librarian, not a lawyer! Computers in Libraries, 27(6), 34-36. Retrieved March 14, 2009, from ProQuest Education Journals database. (Document ID: 1287362971).
Bernstein, J. (2007, June). Train employees and official to be ready for privacy challenges. Computers in Libraries, 27(6), 6-8+. Retrieved March 14, 2009, from ProQuest Education Journals database. (Document ID: 1287362911)
Carefoot, L. (2003, April). Student access to the school library. Teacher Librarian, 30(4), 69- 71.
Coombs, K. A. (2005, June). Protecting user privacy in the age of digital libraries. Computers in Libraries, 25(6), 16-20.
Lamb, A. & Johnson, L. (2006, October). Want to be my "friend"? What you need to know about social technologies. Teacher Librarian. 34(1), 55-58.
Riehl, D. (2007). Students’ privacy rights in school libraries: Balancing principles, ethics and practices. School Libraries in Canada, 25(3). Retrieved online March 13, 2009, from http://www.cla.ca/casl/slic/262studentsprivacyrights.html.
This has been the week to examine differences – differences between those with computers and those without, those possessing technology skills and those with little knowledge, those with unrestricted access and those with impediments to usage. In preparation for my upcoming wiki assignment on the gender divide, I have been reading about other aspects of the digital divide – age, ethnic, economic status, geographic situation, etc. Who knew that there were so many differences or digital divides, all different reflections of a fluctuating gap between the digital haves and have not’s. The one major point that comes through in every article I have read on the subject of the digital divide, is that there is no single cause for this disparity and no easy solution to eliminating this gap. Simply purchasing more computers for schools does not deal with the related underlying social issues. The digital divide is part of a much bigger picture of social inequities and complex influences.
The digital disparities which exist were clearly illustrated a few days ago when I discovered a YouTube video entitled Bridging the Divides that described the impact of a new telecommunication centre upon a rural village in Uganda. At the time I was curled up in bed, surfing through videos about the digital divide on my iPod touch. My first thought was that the video was a propaganda-style charity piece but as I watched I realized that it was simply demonstrating what an profound, far-reaching effect access to the simplest of technologies can have. As for the villagers, a man who sold bicycles was now able to improve his business because he was able to telephone to order necessary parts and a farmer was able to produce more food after learning more productive agricultural techniques. This really brought home, in highly visual terms, the disparity between technology access on a broader scale and how it influences global economies. But it also made me realize that even small changes towards closing the digital gap can produce positive results.
()
Bridging the Divides
The pattern of technology access explained in The Digital Divide in Canada Stats Canada article was heavily based on statistical analysis. I've suffered from math anxiety - my Print Generation's version of computer anxiety - and have always shied away from anything involving numbers. However, I made myself read through the article and was quite amazed how the author George Sciadas used numbers to explain that the divide is usually most pronounced when new technology is introduced and then closes as it becomes more mainstream. However, even statistics do not fully explain why there continues to be a persistent divide with computer technology, one not explained by affordability.
The digital divide which perhaps holds the most immediate implication for educators is the growing gap between the information technology knowledge of those who teach and their students. The four levels of this divide are explained in the AASL article Our Digital Divides are Showing. This article forced me to consider what actions I have taken to promote the use technology in my school and to help my staff develop their knowledge of technology. I even went so far as to assign myself progress letter grades for each level: Access(B), Professional Development (A), Policy (C-) and Motivation (C+). Definitely room for improvement.
The technology knowledge divide between the staff and students is evident in my school. We have teachers who are capable of designing software programs and others who don't even know where the on button is on the computer. We have students who do all their work on laptops and can't walk down the hall between classes without texting messages, or reorganizing their playlists. Other students have to ask me how to log in on the library computers. I can see that opportunities exist to offer instruction and guidance. I can share information and initiate discussions with the administration, become part of the Technology Committee, lobby for open access for students, continue my own self-directed technology learning, and formulate a library vision to introduce the new literacies to both students and staff. I can teach
One practical idea to begin to “scatter the seeds of Schools 2.0” is offering technology lessons to our teaching assistants when I return in September. I can teach them how to search effectively, use databases, create wikis and VoiceThreads. I know the TAs will share this knowledge with their students and perhaps even the teachers they work with. They will become my ambassadors for integrating technology practices into teaching and the beginnings of grassroots change. I also forwarded the Digital Divide video to my administrator with a note saying I’d love to sit down and chat with him sometime about how we can effectively integrate technology in our school. I loved this video because it clearly delivers the message that purchasing computers and new technology doesn't bridge gaps. Traditional teaching practices must also change to truly accommodate the needs of today's Net Generation.
I am quite looking forward to actually apply my new insights about technology in education in a practical way. It's time to take some of the ideas I've read about and try them out. My first step will be to get myself on the Technology Committee so I can identify what I can help positively change about the four levels of influence that create digital divides in schools. I also want to share my knowledge about Web 2.0 tools by finding ways to incorporate technology into library lessons. I’ve got quite a challenge ahead of me but hopefully I will be able to make progress at leveling the playing field in our school for both teachers and students. After all, this is all part of the 21st Century Librarian Manifesto!
I was first introduced to Internet filtering during my Intellectual Freedom coursework last summer. However, classmate Rhonda’s presentation on whether the Ministry of Education should create levels of standard web filtering, and our course readings this week gave me a chance to re-examine this issue.
The issue of filtering is not so black and white. I appreciated the articles which discussed the concern for student safety through using a degree of filtering. I agree wholeheartedly that students need to be afforded opportunities to critically evaluate online information. Even though the Ministry of Education may have the best of intentions, such filters actually deny our students opportunities to internalize their own filtering criteria and tend to develop complacency about Internet use in educators and parents. Then there is the issue of restricted access to the very technology educators should be using with students to instruct in the "new literacies".
While the salient points about filtering were addressed, I realized there was little emphasis on the aspect of intellectual freedom. During my coursework in area, instructors Toni Samek and Dianne Oberg encouraged examining all library issues through the lens of intellectual freedom and made constant reference to library position statements. This week I decided it was an opportune time to revisit my intellectual freedom binder full of course notes, reflections and articles. I began by rereading the Canadian Library Association’s (CLA) Code of Ethics which directs members to “support and implement the principles and practices embodied in the current CLA’s Position Statement on Intellectual Freedom.” This emphasis places the issue of intellectual freedom front and centre in librarianship and demonstrates the depth of the CLA’s commitment to intellectual freedom. The CLA’s Position Statement on Intellectual Freedom sets further high expectations with regards to full access to information, including materials considered by some to be “unconventional, unpopular or unacceptable”. Filtering of the Internet is recognized as limiting access. Removing library services warrants the involvement of teacher librarians to speak on the behalf of patrons – the students and staff. Although based upon the principles outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the CLA’s Intellectual Freedom document is a recommendation without basis in law. Although we may be passionate about intellectual freedom, and argue against the limiting use of software filters, realistically teacher librarians are school employees and must also adhere to the School Board and Ministry directives. We may passionately believe in these underlying library principles, but lack the base of power to take matters into our own hands. It was encouraging to read that respected technology leaders such as Mary Ann Bell and Nancy Willard are carrying the torch for filtering freedom by addressing this issue with those who make the filtering decisions.
Teacher librarians can encourage change in attitudes towards filtering and work towards achieving broader digital access for our patrons. We are nicely placed to provide knowledge about using the Internet responsibly with students, staff and parents. We can initiate conversations to help others understand how filters work and to appreciate their implications beyond censoring bad words and inappropriate images. A starting point would be to become more aware of how filters are used in our own backyard. I realized that I did not know about the level of filtering in my school district and contacted our IT department to learn more. The answers I received helped me gain new perspectives and have encouraged me to further investigate District filtering decisions. This dialogue was this teacher librarian's first small step towards "walking the walk" and accepting my role as an promoter of intellectual freedom. I also appreciated Doug Johnson's comments in his article Change from the Radical Center of Education about being open-minded, listening to all points of view and knowing your own values.
Technology and the Politics of Choice might be an oldie but it is an excellent commentary on filtering by the University of Alberta’s own Alvin Schrader. Rereading it helped me to recall issues about the realibility of filters. I pulled out a few of Schrader's key points which I can potentially work into discussions – a sound byte with punch – perfect for making a point about the ineffectiveness of filters.
“Filtering products rely almost exclusively on automation – not on human eyes and brains.”
“Internet filters fail to block as promised, but they also “overblock” – preventing access to thousands of site that have no “objectionable” content even by the most conservative standards.”
“Students detest [filters], are frustrated by them, feel insulted by them, have the technology skills to subvert them, and consequently get around them anyway.”
“Censorproofing the Internet…is doomed to failure for many reasons [new sites, new terms, new jargon, use of other languages, etc.]”
“Another price of the filtering solution…is the loud and clear message to young people that the right response to bad ideas is censorship, not debate – not that bad ideas should be examined and driver out by better ideas, but that they should be silenced, that there is only one view, one truth, one choice.”
Rereading Schrader’s article, reviewing Canadian library documents, and participating in our group's discussion topic combined for another serious look at filtering. Each of the articles in our course reading helped to clarify my thoughts about filtering. An improved understanding of technology, combined with insights about the new learnings needed for this Net Generation has enhanced my perspective of how filtering fits into the big picture of Learning 2.0. I can’t control the level of filtering dictated by the Ministry of Education, but I can now speak with greater confidence and insight when discussing filtering issues with my administrators, technology support, staff, parents and students. I have waded into the fray, and am determined to do my best to ensure that my students are provided with as full digital access as possible.
Every subject has its own jargon. In running, this one always makes people smile. It was during the Web 2.0 coursework that I first heard the jargon “digital native”. I had no idea what this strange phrase meant and remember doing quick online search so I didn’t feel quite so ignorant. This led me to a great article written by Michelle Gorman(2006) in School Library Journal called “Do You Speak Digital?” which made me feel even more inadequate as I bombed the article’s 10-point quiz.
Gorman explains “today's teens speak a whole new language--the digital dialect of computers, video games, and the Internet. These digital natives have never once lived in a world that doesn't include the Internet, digital photos, social networking sites, MP3 playlists, and streaming video. They're a plugged-in generation for whom the World Wide Web is not an alternative reality--it's a 24/7 extension of their lives. Not surprisingly, their childhood experiences are a lot different than ours (at least those of us who are over 27 years old).” Gorman encourages teacher librarians to immerse ourselves in this digital culture, to explore technology, play with it, and to check out its implications for teaching and learning. After all, how are we going to be able to truly interact with these digital natives if we can’t even speak their lingo?
So here I am a few months later, after “playing” with Web 2.0 Tools, reading and thinking about technology. Since it is a proven fact that we menopausal woman can’t remember anything unless it is written down, I figured it was authentic assessment to retake Gorman’s quiz. This time I scored an unbelievable 8 out of 10 and I only had to think about a few questions! Perhaps one measure that I am on my way to bridging the digital divide between my generation (which I read is the last to have been raised entirely using print resources) and this new Net Generation of learners! However, I know it will take more than dropping a few phrases for educators to really make the vital connections necessary to effectively teach these students.
I’ve been contemplating this week’s topic about whether these new learners, with their cultural immersion base in technology, require a whole new set of teaching strategies. To ensure their success, the “what” direction is provided by various models for the “new literacies” (Asselin & Doiran). Which specific strategies are essential to fulfilling the “how” of merging technology and learning? In the well-presented Point/Counterpoint discussion presented this week by classmates Danielle and Jessica, it became clear that a definitive answer might not exist.
Brain research shows that technology affects brain function both positively and negatively (On Digital Learners/Digital Native, Small & Vorgan). A point well worth keeping in mind. As I read Christopher’s discussion summary of Small & Vorgan’s findings, it seemed an obvious conclusion that “Digital natives tend to have greater multi-tasking skills, improved peripheral vision and higher efficiency using technology ”and that “Digital immigrants appear to have more advanced people skills - better face to face contact, more ability to solve problems, work in groups, and express empathy". But then I had to agree with Jess’ point that “multi-tasking is nothing new for people”. (Well, at least most people, as I watch my husband climb the stairs yet again and not carry up the laundry!) I would content that today’s digital learners are also extremely social and display incredible empathy through their inclusion of marginalized student. My generation took a long time to show acceptance towards handicapped and gay students. Today’s students collaborate online and seem very adept at working in group situations. Just because we are seeing multi-tasking and social interaction expressed through new mediums doesn’t mean that the attributes are exclusive to one particular group.
With this in mind, it is important to caution ourselves from tossing out existing successful teaching practices in our “moral panic” to begin afresh with a whole new repertoire of teaching strategies designed especially to capture the attention of the digital learner. Throughout my teaching career I have seen many new approaches come and go. Whole Language instruction was supposed to transform the generation hooked on video and television into becoming skilled and discerning readers. If there is one thing I know for certain it is that the best teaching program is one that is created by incorporating the “new bits that work” into the mix of one’s existing personal teaching bag of tricks. I took key aspects from Whole Language and incorporated these into my lessons with absolutely amazing results. My students began to love reading, and adored using the classroom and school library, they produced quality writing, their abilities soared and a whole literary climate was created where we conversed in the language of our common interest – Roald Dahl, edit conferences, writer’s mumbles, COPS and inventive spelling.
I understand that keeping pace with our digital natives necessitates transforming our way of teaching and exploring new strategies. This only makes sense. However, this does not mean that educators have to completely abandon those strategies which have their place in effective teaching practices. Making whole scale change is difficult not only for teachers but students as well. Many students have developed the traits of “learned helplessness” and resist change. Lecture, group discussion, mastery teaching, cooperative teaching methods, independent research and seatwork all offer opportunities for students to explore their individual learning styles, enhance their knowledge and work to their creative potential. When you begin to incorporate inquiry-based learning, critical thinking, and differentiated learning into the mix, teach students about how they learn and connect this with relevant technology– well, then learning can get very interesting and exciting!
My personal approach will be to continue exploring the issue of technology and learning, incorporate technology into my lessons in meaningful ways and explore new strategies in my own library teaching which shift the impetus for learning to the students. The transformation will not be seamless and will probably be messy. With the vision of School Libraries 2.0 to guide me, my goal will be to connect with the digital natives in my classes and work together to promote the “new literacies”. I am mindful of Asselin & Doiran’s caution about “layer[ing] the new onto deeply embedded educational structures and practices thus appearing to be innovative while perpetuating old ways of learning and teaching (13)”. I will need to revisit the vision often to ensure that genuine change is occurring. I will also need to find ways to encourage colleagues to join this Learning 2.0 environment. Soon we will all be speaking the new language of a community of learners.
P.S. By the way, my own little digital native, son Max, also scored 8 out of 10 on the quiz. Go, Mom!
...the last part with your heart." Mike Fanelli, coach
The first readings for this Information Technologies for Learning course have effectively introduced me to the new vision of School Libraries 2.0. Authentic inquiry-based instruction "emphasizes the affective as well as cognitive aspects of the process" (Kuhlthau, 1993 as cited in Oberg, 2004). Since class began I have experienced the tumult of new acquiring new information on both an emotional and educational level. As a teacher librarian I agonized over the concerns, frustration and anxieties which grew from the realization that it would be my responsibility to introduce major changes to current school library program. However, with reflection and the additional insight of additional articles, I began to recognize that I was already making fine progress towards the goal of creating a School Library 2.0 in my secondary school and that I am not alone in this endeavor.
You know you’re a 21st century librarian if…
A Modest Manifesto(Valenza, 2008) suggests an impressive list of prerequisite skills for an effective 21st century librarian, and this was definitely the article that caused me the most angst and rumination. Highlighter in hand, I read through the list (as did several of my classmates), acknowledging my current understandings and noting areas of which I knew little. While it was evident that I supported Web 2.0 technology in the school library, I still have numerous Manifesto competencies to explore before this teacher librarian may be considered (Valenza's description) my school’s “info-technology scout” and “creative force”.
Last term, as outlined in my previous blog entries, I completed an intense exploration of a variety of Web 2.0 tools. These technologies were the same ones revisited and explained in “Towards School Library 2.0: An Introduction to Social Software tools for Teacher Librarians” (Naslund & Giustini, 2008). After reading Valenza’s Manifesto, I felt extremely overwhelmed by her extensive expectations and discouraged that, despite all this groundwork, my personal metamorphosis into a 21st century librarian was still so far from complete. Perhaps I am too hard on myself, by seeking this level of competency and I need to recognize that the journey is just as valuable as the end result.
A Framework for Tomorrow
Towards A Tranformative Pedagogy for School Libraries 2.0 (Asselin & Doiron, 2008), came to my rescue by providing the underlying framework of why schools must change traditional pedagogy to address the new literacies of the Net Generation. As the ideas of “new learners”, “new literacies” and “new concepts of knowledge” were introduced, and the potential model for the future of School Libraries 2.0 unfolded, I began to see the relevance of Valenza’s list and how it supported the new direction for school libraries. Of special interest was Asselin & Doiron’s description of the ten major characteristics of these new learners. I realized that last term's Web 2.0 course had subtly transformed my own approach to learning, enabling me to operate at a baseline within these characteristic models - as a new digital immigrant. As an illustration, this week I independently mastered Skype, incorporated this technology into my daily life, shared it with friends, and used this tool to connect socially and as a way to facilitate planning a wiki project with a classmate.
The Literacies for the Information Generation diagram shown at the top of this post (Asselin & Doiron, 2008, p. 8) illustrates “five comprehensive areas which reflect the multi-modal, multiple literacies that will enable full literacy development for today’s learners (p. 7)”. When I studied this diagram and read the detailed descriptions of each component, I had the epiphany that I am presently following this same learning path and expanding my literacy knowledge through the University of Alberta Teacher-Librarianship coursework.
To further clarify, I recognized that all five areas of this model are being addressed in the current course offerings. Inquiry-Directed Learning, Intellectual Freedom and Social Responsibility, Critical Literacy (in part through School Library Information Materials), and Technological Literacy match the components with Creativity and Representation and Basic Literacy incorporated throughout. When my program of studies is complete I will have been introduced to the very literacies that are recommended as the underpinnings of School Libraries 2.0. I am hoping that this firsthand experience will offer me further insights so that I can be a common bridge for both “new learners” and teachers.
Beginning the Process of Change
With an enhanced understanding of the “big picture” of School Libraries 2.0 swirling about my head, I revisited the Manifesto, in podcast form for the third time. The passion and the energy in Valenza’s voice sparked my enthusiasm to work towards mastering the 21st century competencies and to advocate for students in my school district. Time to "digest" the Manifesto combined with a perusal of the supporting articles from the online issue of School Libraries Worldwide, helped to restore my confidence and determine that I was already on the path to becoming the ideal of the 21st century school librarian and possessed knowledge worthy of sharing with others.
I was inspired to telephone a new School Board Trustee asking for the opportunity to chat with her about how Langley's teacher librarians can help students prepare for success in this new information age. My classmates offered me support, made suggestions and urged me forward when I shared my plans in the discussion forum. Several other teacher librarians and myself plan to meet trustees to share information about current conditions and discuss our vision for Langley libraries in the near future.
I am truly encouraged by the prospect of initiating this dialogue with our administration. With each new article in the July 2008 issue of School Libraries Worldwide, I come across quotes, informative videos and issues worthy of inclusion in an advocacy plan or as discussion topics with colleagues. Traditional views need to be re-examined against the values, identity and world of the Net Generation. Investigating the inclusion of popular culture, video games, social networking sites and iPods as features of the new library landscape are also worthy of dialogue as well as retooling learning approaches with greater appeal to the multi-modal nature of today’s learners. Fitting the different pieces together will help to achieve the library's future goals. Developing the knowledge, sharing with the people who will create this Learning 2.0 community and igniting the passion for change are the next challenges.
Joanie is working towards her Master of Education and the Web 2.0 course is part of her training program. She is an avid runner, a run leader coach and has completed 15 marathons. While Joanie is not exceptionally fast, she is consistent and determined to one day qualify for the Boston Marathon. "Running is the greatest metaphor for life because you get out of it what you put into it." -Oprah Winfrey.
