Gross, M. and Latham, D. (2009). Undergraduate perceptions of information literacy: defining, attaining and self-assessing skills. College & Research Libraries 70(4), 336-350.
Cameron, L., Wise, S.L. and Lottridge, S. (2007). The development and validation of the information literacy test. College & Research Libraries 68(3), 229-236.
So I finally got around to reading the undergraduate perceptions article today, and it made me realize that I have a lot to learn about assessment, so I also read about the development of the ILT.
The one thing that really stuck out to me was that the surveyed student use people and the internet to meet their information needs in equal measure. I was surprised that the student used other people so much. When I was an undergraduate, I don't think I asked for any help regarding my information needs, not even those that I had a close relationship with. Relationships were another interesting aspect of the study. Students were more likely to seek help finding information from people they already knew and trusted, rather than going to a librarian or professor. This is really interesting, and it suggests to me that there needs to be further outreach by librarians into the class room and into the university as a whole. That is why I was intrigued by James Madison University's approach to IL. They have both a General Education class that teaches IL and study skills and a more focused IL component that is included in the course work of their major.
I have had some experience with the in-major type of IL. As an undergraduate in psychology, I took a research methods and statistics course that has been invaluable to me in my education and career. I do feel that every student, even those who are "proficient" in their information seeking behaviors, could benefit from a General IL/Education course. I was a little disappointed to read that JMU allows students to test out of their General Education class, because I feel like all new university/college students should have an opportunity to be introduced to the resources that the library has to offer both physically and digitally, and that they should be informed of and actively involved in the process of evaluating the information that they find.
I agree with Gross and Latham that over structured research assignments often do not accomplish their information literacy goals. They believe that the freedom to select a topic that is important or meaningful to the student is more likely to result in an increase information literacy. I would add that, that by specifying specific types of information or resources, it reduces the students' ability to learn about the evaluation of information resources. Freedom to explore different types of information can lead to a more developed understanding of what information meets their needs. I dislike it when professors define a certain information resources as wholly bad, and others are wholly good. This type of oversimplification does not serve the student.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
Ultimate Debate 2009: Web 2.0
I listened to the Ultimate Debate from ALA 2009 this morning. One thing that struck me right away was that this KGB company that has been advertising lately is a text reference service. I had no idea, I had been thinking how strange it is to name your company KGB and then making jokes about the people in the ads getting radiation poisoning. I had no idea what they were actually selling. And then I though, why would you pay for text reference, some libraries are providing text reference for free. Besides many of the new cell phones have internet access, so you can just look up the information on your phone. I don't expect them to be around very long.
Another issue that peaked my interest is that, librarians and libraries are spending a lot of staff time on creating content on Web 2.0, but all of this content is stored on 3rd party websites and servers, and there is no guarantee that the content will be preserved in the long term. If Flicker or Twitter goes out of business tomorrow, much content and discussion would be lost. So maybe libraries need to consider back ups for content that is shared on 2.0 media.
A big issue that was brought up several times is that you have to make time for 2.0. 2.0 demands to be updated on a regular basis. If you are using it for outreach, new events have to be added all the time, and if you are using it for reference, you have to add new content and resources on a regular basis. One librarian has a business resources blog at a university, and when there is a class with a major assignment, he will post answers to some of the most asked questions about the assignment, as well as pertinent resources.
One last thing that I really related to is that it takes awhile to really "get" or understand 2.0 technologies. Some 2.0 is pretty easy, like aggregaters, you get one and you never look back. I don't miss going to 13000 web pages everyday. But other 2.0 stuff takes time to understand. I have been using Twitter for about 4 months now and I'm just now beginning to understand all it has to offer. There is the social aspect and the informational aspect, but there is also networking, debate and discussion, networking and so much other stuff. Also, I have always been a sort of closed off person on the internet, but Twitter is changing that. These people want to be involved in discussion and debate. They welcome followers and messages and sharing, so I've been opening up and engaging in a way that I haven't before, and as a result, I have new blogs and articles and websites to visit on a daily basis. I think Twitter is an excellent way to engage in my profession and I feel a lot more connected right now, which is important as I head into a jobless period.
Another issue that peaked my interest is that, librarians and libraries are spending a lot of staff time on creating content on Web 2.0, but all of this content is stored on 3rd party websites and servers, and there is no guarantee that the content will be preserved in the long term. If Flicker or Twitter goes out of business tomorrow, much content and discussion would be lost. So maybe libraries need to consider back ups for content that is shared on 2.0 media.
A big issue that was brought up several times is that you have to make time for 2.0. 2.0 demands to be updated on a regular basis. If you are using it for outreach, new events have to be added all the time, and if you are using it for reference, you have to add new content and resources on a regular basis. One librarian has a business resources blog at a university, and when there is a class with a major assignment, he will post answers to some of the most asked questions about the assignment, as well as pertinent resources.
One last thing that I really related to is that it takes awhile to really "get" or understand 2.0 technologies. Some 2.0 is pretty easy, like aggregaters, you get one and you never look back. I don't miss going to 13000 web pages everyday. But other 2.0 stuff takes time to understand. I have been using Twitter for about 4 months now and I'm just now beginning to understand all it has to offer. There is the social aspect and the informational aspect, but there is also networking, debate and discussion, networking and so much other stuff. Also, I have always been a sort of closed off person on the internet, but Twitter is changing that. These people want to be involved in discussion and debate. They welcome followers and messages and sharing, so I've been opening up and engaging in a way that I haven't before, and as a result, I have new blogs and articles and websites to visit on a daily basis. I think Twitter is an excellent way to engage in my profession and I feel a lot more connected right now, which is important as I head into a jobless period.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
ALA Annual Part 2
Saturday
On Saturday I went to 4 programs, ACRL 101, ACRL New Members Discussion Group on Publishing, Job Hunting in a Recession, and Collection Development 2.0.
ACRL 101 was interesting and informative, but I don't know that I really needed to go to it because I am familiar with ACRL and its sections from my last conference. I did meet some fellow young librarians which was valuable. And I asked some questions about the ACRL Immersion program, which I would love to participate in soon. The one big tip I got from this program was to volunteer to do instruction. I don't know why it never occurred to me to volunteer to teach, but it seems so obvious now. So I plan on e-mailing some former co-workers to see if I can assist in their instruction classes for a time, to get experience. I also plan on volunteering for some ACRL committees next year.
The new members discussion group was next. This program had 3 mini presentations on getting published in peer-reviewed literature. A lot of what was covered had been covered in a presentation that I saw at UCR, but there were several tidbits that were useful. One was that you have to write to get ideas and to help you get used to the process of writing. Another great tip was about collaborating. Look around and find other, more experienced librarians or faculty that will co-author an article with you. This makes the whole process a bit less intimidating. So for now I have a couple of good ideas that need to be fleshed out, and I just may have the makings of an article.
Job Hunting during a recession was okay, but a lot of the tips were either common sense or things I'd heard before. I did pick up a couple of new job search sites that I had not heard of, and I discovered that there is a recruiting service for librarians, because the founder of the service was one of the presenters. I left this one a little early so I could make it all the way south to McCormick Place. Things were really spread out in Chicago. I hope they are closer together in DC, especially because DC is unbearably hot and humid in July.
Collection Development 2.0 was by far my favorite program of the conference. There were 3 presenters, one from the University of Utah, one from a public library in Georgia, I think, and one from another university (I'll fill in the details when I have my notes near by). The first speaker talked about how they had moved to a centralized collection development department, with the liaisons having only recommendation responsibilities. CD handled all of the selection. They did this in order to save money and build a more balance collection. The speaker said that in the traditional arrangement of liaisons with selection responsibilities, some liaisons were better selectors than others, so some areas of the collection would be better developed than others. With a centralized CD team, each area of the collection will receive equal attention, so the collection will become more balanced over time. The speaker did mention some difficulties with centralized selection, such as the very high work loads that the CD librarians would have to take on. Not only would they be responsible for building the entire collection, but they also must complete all the evaluation and weeding tasks.
The second speaker, from the public library, talked about making the collection more accessible to the patrons by making it more visible. If people know what is in a collection, they are more likely to use it. She suggested having walls of books set up like book stores, with some books placed cover out. This type of presentation encourages browsing and circulation. She did say that librarians and clerks had to be prepared to rearrange these shelves several times during a day because the turnover would be higher.
The final speaker, from the University of Utah, I think. Had some really interesting things to say about going out of your way to get the patron the book or journal that they want. He started off by saying that CD is all a guess, and a staggering percentage of books that are purchased are never used. We can improve that percentage by buying books that patrons will actually use. One way to go about this is to actually buy the books that people request on ILL and get them to the patrons as quickly as possible. With an ILL request, you know that at least one person wants the book, which is more than you know about many of the books that you might select for the collection. So CD and ILL should work much closer together. I don't know why I had never thought of this before, but it makes perfect sense. Also, it goes along with my interest in how CD departments interact with other departments in the library. The speaker also suggested limiting cataloging and processing on requested books, so that they could be used by the patron as quickly as possible. Full cataloging records can always be added when the book is returned after use. Finally he mentioned that they were purchasing an Expresso print-on-demand machine that they will use to fulfill patron requests even faster. They plan on either selling the book to the patron or adding it to the collection when the patron returns it. It is interesting to me that some libraries are in the enviable position of being able to purchase or lease? very expensive equipment, while other are fighting just to keep staff. But it is nifty to see a library so driven to meet patron needs. Patron driven academic libraries are exciting to me, I like it when the needs of students get as much attention as the needs of faculty, staff, and librarians.
I will probably add more to this, or make it more coherent when I have my conference notes.
On Saturday I went to 4 programs, ACRL 101, ACRL New Members Discussion Group on Publishing, Job Hunting in a Recession, and Collection Development 2.0.
ACRL 101 was interesting and informative, but I don't know that I really needed to go to it because I am familiar with ACRL and its sections from my last conference. I did meet some fellow young librarians which was valuable. And I asked some questions about the ACRL Immersion program, which I would love to participate in soon. The one big tip I got from this program was to volunteer to do instruction. I don't know why it never occurred to me to volunteer to teach, but it seems so obvious now. So I plan on e-mailing some former co-workers to see if I can assist in their instruction classes for a time, to get experience. I also plan on volunteering for some ACRL committees next year.
The new members discussion group was next. This program had 3 mini presentations on getting published in peer-reviewed literature. A lot of what was covered had been covered in a presentation that I saw at UCR, but there were several tidbits that were useful. One was that you have to write to get ideas and to help you get used to the process of writing. Another great tip was about collaborating. Look around and find other, more experienced librarians or faculty that will co-author an article with you. This makes the whole process a bit less intimidating. So for now I have a couple of good ideas that need to be fleshed out, and I just may have the makings of an article.
Job Hunting during a recession was okay, but a lot of the tips were either common sense or things I'd heard before. I did pick up a couple of new job search sites that I had not heard of, and I discovered that there is a recruiting service for librarians, because the founder of the service was one of the presenters. I left this one a little early so I could make it all the way south to McCormick Place. Things were really spread out in Chicago. I hope they are closer together in DC, especially because DC is unbearably hot and humid in July.
Collection Development 2.0 was by far my favorite program of the conference. There were 3 presenters, one from the University of Utah, one from a public library in Georgia, I think, and one from another university (I'll fill in the details when I have my notes near by). The first speaker talked about how they had moved to a centralized collection development department, with the liaisons having only recommendation responsibilities. CD handled all of the selection. They did this in order to save money and build a more balance collection. The speaker said that in the traditional arrangement of liaisons with selection responsibilities, some liaisons were better selectors than others, so some areas of the collection would be better developed than others. With a centralized CD team, each area of the collection will receive equal attention, so the collection will become more balanced over time. The speaker did mention some difficulties with centralized selection, such as the very high work loads that the CD librarians would have to take on. Not only would they be responsible for building the entire collection, but they also must complete all the evaluation and weeding tasks.
The second speaker, from the public library, talked about making the collection more accessible to the patrons by making it more visible. If people know what is in a collection, they are more likely to use it. She suggested having walls of books set up like book stores, with some books placed cover out. This type of presentation encourages browsing and circulation. She did say that librarians and clerks had to be prepared to rearrange these shelves several times during a day because the turnover would be higher.
The final speaker, from the University of Utah, I think. Had some really interesting things to say about going out of your way to get the patron the book or journal that they want. He started off by saying that CD is all a guess, and a staggering percentage of books that are purchased are never used. We can improve that percentage by buying books that patrons will actually use. One way to go about this is to actually buy the books that people request on ILL and get them to the patrons as quickly as possible. With an ILL request, you know that at least one person wants the book, which is more than you know about many of the books that you might select for the collection. So CD and ILL should work much closer together. I don't know why I had never thought of this before, but it makes perfect sense. Also, it goes along with my interest in how CD departments interact with other departments in the library. The speaker also suggested limiting cataloging and processing on requested books, so that they could be used by the patron as quickly as possible. Full cataloging records can always be added when the book is returned after use. Finally he mentioned that they were purchasing an Expresso print-on-demand machine that they will use to fulfill patron requests even faster. They plan on either selling the book to the patron or adding it to the collection when the patron returns it. It is interesting to me that some libraries are in the enviable position of being able to purchase or lease? very expensive equipment, while other are fighting just to keep staff. But it is nifty to see a library so driven to meet patron needs. Patron driven academic libraries are exciting to me, I like it when the needs of students get as much attention as the needs of faculty, staff, and librarians.
I will probably add more to this, or make it more coherent when I have my conference notes.
ALA Annual 2009 - Chicago
I got back from ALA Annual 2 days ago, and I just now have enough energy to process what when on and what I learned. I am writing this in response to a tip I got at the ACRL New Members discussion on publishing. They suggested that I write everyday about my profession until I come with an idea that is worth writing an article about. So here goes...
The first program/meeting I went to was the Preservation Administration Interest Group or PAIG. This was a long one, meeting from 1:30 to 5. PAIG is always very long, but it was pretty interesting this time around so it didn't seem as long as usual.
We started out with a presentation by some Preservation folks from the University of Illinois, I'm not sure which location. They were working on a pretty comprehensive disaster plan and they presented one part of their research. Working with the engineering department at the university, they determined some of the most likely disasters that could occur at their mass storage facility. One of the most likely disasters is accidental or fire-related release of the sprinklers. So the preservation department set out to find out what sorts of damage occur to the the collection when the sprinklers are set off. The sprinklers are heavy duty, meant to extinguish fire, rather than just keeping it contained. So a large quantity of water pours out of the sprinklers in a very short amount of time. Anyway, they set up a test to find out how the water would damage library materials on a typical shelf in the mass storage facility. After the test, they found that the boxes that they stored special collections materials failed completely, basically they turned into pulp. So that was a major concern. Newspapers, of course, acted like sponges, and several of the paperbacks near the edges of the shelves also turned in pulp. Really interesting experiment, wish I could do it justice. Perhaps they will post their handouts on ALA Connect.
Other things we talked about at PAIG were National Preservation Week, which will be in March of next year, IMLS Fellowships at NYPL and Yale, NEH news and grant information, and a program to digitize books through BRC. All interesting, but not quite as interesting at the first presentation.
The first program/meeting I went to was the Preservation Administration Interest Group or PAIG. This was a long one, meeting from 1:30 to 5. PAIG is always very long, but it was pretty interesting this time around so it didn't seem as long as usual.
We started out with a presentation by some Preservation folks from the University of Illinois, I'm not sure which location. They were working on a pretty comprehensive disaster plan and they presented one part of their research. Working with the engineering department at the university, they determined some of the most likely disasters that could occur at their mass storage facility. One of the most likely disasters is accidental or fire-related release of the sprinklers. So the preservation department set out to find out what sorts of damage occur to the the collection when the sprinklers are set off. The sprinklers are heavy duty, meant to extinguish fire, rather than just keeping it contained. So a large quantity of water pours out of the sprinklers in a very short amount of time. Anyway, they set up a test to find out how the water would damage library materials on a typical shelf in the mass storage facility. After the test, they found that the boxes that they stored special collections materials failed completely, basically they turned into pulp. So that was a major concern. Newspapers, of course, acted like sponges, and several of the paperbacks near the edges of the shelves also turned in pulp. Really interesting experiment, wish I could do it justice. Perhaps they will post their handouts on ALA Connect.
Other things we talked about at PAIG were National Preservation Week, which will be in March of next year, IMLS Fellowships at NYPL and Yale, NEH news and grant information, and a program to digitize books through BRC. All interesting, but not quite as interesting at the first presentation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)