Edging Ahead…

…Ok, I admit it. Having mentioned that I was going to blog on the Prensky “Engage me or Enrage me: What Today’s Learners Demand” article, I find that I have little to say that hasn’t already been debated at length. Besides, this article was published in 2005. It’s “Old News”. Prensky’s on to other topics and other issues. This one seems not to have “stuck” like the digital native issue.

I should Of course admit that I’m not a rabid Prensky follower.  I’ve joined in the “digital immigrant/digital native”) discussions (being one of Prensky’s”digital immigrants”, I find more to agree with than not with the concept), and I’ve been interested in gaming as a learning tool since way back (I taught my first Summer School course using Logo – in 1981), but I’m a librarian. Prensky’s only one of the people on my radar these days, and student engagement has always been my “holy grail” (and one of the main reasons I moved from the classroom to the library, where engagement comes with the territory, at least for voluntary users) – I missed the “engage me or enrage” me discussion when it was current.

These days, I’m more taken with Prensky’s more recent thinking. I particularly like “Marc Prensky’s Essential 21st Century Skills. His stated goal “To be able to follow one‟s passion(s) as far as one‟s abilities allow” fits particularly well with our school’s first “Guiding Principle”, which is to help each studendt “achieve to his or her academic potential” (”academic” being defined in the most inclusive sense possible).  I also like that Prensky gives the nod to those on whose ideas he is building.

“Note that many of these terms and ideas come from Stephen Covey‟s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. “Tinkering‟ is from John Seeley Brown.”

It’s nice to see that not everyone is out to build a better mousetrap completely from the ground up. I’ve been a believer in (and a follower of) Covey’s 7 habits for almost 20 years ago.

Having said that, there IS one bit of the “Engage me or Enrage me” article that I need to take issue with, and it ties to the idea of still finding value in ideas from the past. It’s about the “Enrage” part of the post. I’m having a real problem with this.

Prensky kicks off this post,

“Anyone who has taught recently will recognize these three kinds of students:

1) The students who are truly self-motivated

2) The students who go through the motions, and

3) The students who “tune us out”.

So far, I have no quibble with him. Most student fall into one of those categories; always have, if you believe quotes attributed even to Socrates. But I DO challenge Prensky’s follow-on assertions, that;

• “the kids back then didn’t expect to be engaged”
• “those kids lives were a lot less rich”, and
• “most of them never knew what real engagement feels like”, followed by “But today, all kids do. All the students we teach have something in their lives that’s really engaging.”

WOW! Provocative language – but then, I suppose that’s his job. But hey, this is where I Prensky loses me. He’s suggesting that the lives we led back before computers and digital communications were unbearably boring and “unengaging” and so schools could be as well and get away with it. But by defining “engagement” as connected through some kind of digital technology, he misses the whole rich panoply of engagement that teens throughout history have had with the challenges of growing up; learning new skills, trying out new ideas and theories, and challenging prevailing (generally adult) values and morals. It’s their job – and it’s always kept them engaged with things outside of the classroom; things of their choice.

But hey, can I argue against the idea of trying to catch kids where they live? Not at all. I’m just thinking that kids have always been too engaged in the wonderful business of life to be enraged if we educators aren’t very successful at doing so. Instead of being enraged, they have always turned inward to those things that really do engage them. In Mark Twain’s day, it was probably dreaming about their next fishing expedition or how to become the school marbles champion. In my day it was passing around the latest contraband copy of National Geographic (for the articles, of course) or learning about the marvels of the new addition to every living room; the television. Today, it’s the pocket miracle that every kid carries. I don’t see that changing with the current, or the next, generation.

So “Engage me or enrage me” just doesn’t work for me. It’s just a little play on words that Prensky used to put another provocative idea out there; that if we didn’t do our jobs very effectively (and thus engage all learners)  that they would be disenfranchised and disconnected from the learning that we feel is important.

The truth is much more mundane. If we don’t engage them, they’ll continue to tune out, drop out and ultimately be marginalized in their search for success in life. The important idea, that we should still be trying to address, is that we are not, and probably never have been, successful at engaging all students. But with all the new tools at our disposal, many of which are at least an approximation of the toys they choose to spend their time with, we should be able to do better.

When approaching any one of the readings on the computer, I find myself skipping randomly around the text, glancing at keywords that pop out from the background “noise”, sampling a paragraph or two there, and dropping randomly in and out of attention as other things impinge on my consciousness. I can seldom get through a full screen of text before my attention wanders and my rogue mouse-hand clicks on a different tab. it feels almost schizophrenic.

But wait! Isn’t this what the new generation of learners does automatically? Raised as they have been in an ever-more multitasking environment, don’t they automatically, read, excerpt, view, text, compose and play – all at the same time? Is this new mind-maze  just the norm for them?

I guess so – and I wonder about that. I recently blogged about this in Wolf on Reading – Key questions

where I commented on Maryanne Wolf’s “Proust and the Squid” (available in PRINT form in ML:)) in which she raises questions about what “new media” are doing to the thinking processes of today’s learners. These are worth restating:

• “What is being lost and what is being gained for so many young people who have largely replaced books with the multidimensional “continuous partial attention” culture of the Internet?’
• “What are the implications of seemingly limitless information for the evolution of the reading brain for us and for the species?”
• “Does the rapid, almost instantaneous presentation of expansive information threaten the more time-demanding formation of in-depth knowledge?”

In this course, I hope to reflect on these, and other nagging questions about how the “New Media” of the MacArthur Report are changing the landscape of not just teaching and learning, but Living...

We’ve done our background research and the title, of course, begs the question;

• Where do we begin the real work of changing what we are into what we should be?
• Who should we involve in the process – and how should we use their input?
• After building a “state-of-the art” facility that didn’t anticipate the web, and spending years gathering “stuff”, how do we birth the creative workplace Web2.0 makes possible?

In other words, “What does a “next-gen” school library look like?

This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923.

Thanks to Michael Stephens for showing a way to start.  in his “Ten Trends” post, and before that, in his Nov,2008 post to the ALA TechSource Michael gives the nod to Dr. Carol M. Rose and Liz Wilkinson in his summary of “The Value of the Commons“, which;

• Makes connections.
• Puts students at the center
• Is built with student involvement.
• Is a welcoming, useful gathering place.
• Is a relevant, required space on campus.

Michael expands in the “What does this mean for libraries”, sections, suggesting that we, “Investigate what it means to offer a space that feels like “home” where access and information is unimpeded.”

Here’s are some of the things at ISB that help some of us feel “at home”;

• The MS Librarian and I greet first arrivals at 7:00 am each morning and one of us is usually here until closing at 4:30, by which time we’re down to a handful of patrons. Few are turned away.
• All library laptop browsers launch to our MS and HS library blogs, giving patrons “1-click” access to library tools.
• With 12 walkup and”quick-access” desktops, 24 wireless laptops at the circ desk, 24 in our Seminar Room and 24 on wheeled carts, we’re well supplied with wireless laptop access for all.
• Our desks are “on the floor” (MS in the MS teaching area, (HS) in the common “Pit” area). Although we spend time at our desks through the day, we’re easily accessible to all patrons.
• We play classical, Jazz or New Age music during quiet periods throughout the day. Although some call it “elevator music”, feedback is, on the whole, positive.
• Although stymied in replacing worn soft seating for the moment, we have consolidated remaining bits in the “Pit”, along with tables for 4 with centered reading lamps.
• We’ve retreaded HS Fiction Genres collections, with key genres (e.g. Fantastic Fiction) having stack “alcoves” for easy access and browsing/selection.
• We relocated our ‘800’s (literature) NF collection to the Library Pit, where it complements the reading tables and reinforces this area’s ambiance.
• We have a support staff of seven wonderful, approachable and very capable “ambassadors from the land of smiles” to guide and assist patrons when librarians are otherwise occupied.

Areas where we can improve;

• Post daily thoughts or updates on the library blog; something timely and relevant
• Have more student work displayed in the area, and more often. In recent times, we’ve fallen back on permanent/static displays. There’s always new work we can promote here.
• Back off a bit on the “quiet productive workplace” atmosphere. Student collaborations need space to share! Now I use a visual cue (hands spread to indicate intimate speaking distance) to show voices carrying too far. This gets smiles/apologies rather than pushback to a “Shush”.
• Find ways around the constraints of the “four chairs at rectangular table” seating model impressed on us by non-educator budget controllers.
• Change our stance on refreshments in the area?
• Add more independent task lighting to create additional personal spaces.
• Be more creative ourselves in our “office” space on the floor (more dynamic images, displays and seating arrangements, more evidence of “web2.0″ thinking. e.g. less paper ).
• Be open to any and all new ways to enhance collections, programs and spaces for maximum relevance to evolving student needs.

And once we’ve accomplished all this, what’ll we do this afternoon?…:)

Finding information online: How do we address truth and bias in the classroom? (January 31)

I’ve already posted briefly on my take on Wikipedia, and I’ve included mini-lessons on using Google Advanced with all research classes for the past two years or so.

One troubling oversight in both of Saturday’s sessions, however,  was the absence of reference to traditional (online subscription) references. Neither session really addressed “truth or bias”, and neither addressed the real issue of helping kids to evaluate this on their own.

My experience as a HS Librarian suggests that;

• Kids, being kids, will take the course of least resistance in completing assigned work.
• Most of the assignments still given kids focus on their ability to find information (Blooms Taxonomy – LOTS). Savvy kids today do not find this particularly challenging.
• Assignments need to focus more on evaluating what they’re coming up with than just finding it.. (Blooms – Understanding). The challenge is for them to find relevant/appropriate/reliable info (instead of teachers provide it) – and then to use it in a meaningful way (HOTS) ). Unless they begin with reliable data, time spent in Analyzing, Evaluating, or Creating new ideas will be largely spent going down unproductive pathways. “Back in the Day”, this was called “GIGO” – Garbage In, Garbage Out. The term has gone out of fashion, but the concept is still valid.
• To streamline the Finding and Analyzing steps, freeing time to concentrate on HOTS, we need to make students at least aware of the many layers of information available, including subscription databases – which, by implication (they have to pass an editorial review process), have greater reliability than random web sources. If we Ignore subscriptions sites because of cost or access issues, we risk leaving students ignorant of a huge segment of relevant data.
• Using only Google (or Wikipedia) is akin to patronizing only “free” sites on itunes. It suggests that the “labels” have nothing to offer. The problem is, the labels got to be the industry giants they are, at least partly by providing what the public wanted, and creating a mechanism to deliver this. They ought not be ignored out of hand now that new alternatives exist for music delivery. Instead, they need to be encouraged to change with the changing times.
• Once students graduate from school or college, they will need to be functionally literate in the lexicon of their selected field of study/work. At some point, this may need to include privately funded research, for profit research journals, and university publications, many of which are still part of the “Deep Web” (behind firewalls or in subscription services only). Until access to this body of information changes, students need to be introduced to this at some point before they arrive in the workforce.

I’ve moved strongly into the “Use Google and Wikipedia” camp over the past two years. Until all information is freely available on the web, however, we owe it to students to provide access to information and data from all possible sources. While my dependence on subscription database services is waning, it is still a strong component of my work with student researchers.

Most recently, I have been suggesting to our database providers that if they are to survive, they need to consider a new model of service. The era when large information repositories can charge high fees for subscriber access to their databases is rapidly ending. I believe that database providers should;

• provide information FREE to students or educators to help foster the transference of knowledge and the growth of ideas
• collaborate with all other information providers to create a comprehensive and ubiquitous universal “library” of information in a particular field
• make all their data Google-accessible and socially tagable (which would be inherent in an open-access model), rather than trying (largely unsuccessfully) to emulate the look and feel of Google in their own proprietary search tools (e.g. EBSCO’s “EBSCOHost Web”

Until this happens, though, I believe that we ignore the traditional information sources at our (students’) peril.

For Additional Reading: Is Google Making Us Stupid? Nicholas Carr, the Atlantic, July/August, 2008.

Several months ago, I began the post below.

• We ran a “Wired Wednesday” session last week on Wikipedia. In these weekly technology support sessions, teachers from all three divisions are invited … to learn about, consider and perhaps to debate the potential uses and relative merits of new and emerging technologies. Last week we explored … Wikipedia compared to traditional encyclopedic reference sources.

I never completed this post. Why? Two reasons. In the first place, there were few takers to this session, and so I decided that those who hadn’t attended probably wouldn’t be interested in a blog-post on the value of this rapidly evolving tool. Secondly, those who did attend were already on board with the idea that Wikipedia is a highly underrated reference tool.  They don’t need any further convincing.

So I didn’t write the post.

But then the SUNY cohort spent an hour with Chris Betcher on Saturday, and after spending some time talking about power-searching with Google, he spent some time with Wikipedia. Everyone was glued to his presentation, and the surprise for me was that his comments seemed to be new to many.

So perhaps I should have written the post after all. One of the things Chris mentioned was that librarians sometimes downplay the value of Wikipedia, or even suggest to students that it’s not a credible reference source.

For the Record, every librarian I’ve spoken with in the past year has worked on some version of the following premise;

“Wikipedia should be the FIRST place you go, but not the LAST”.

Wikipedia is an incredible resource for getting the big picture, based on a wide variety of input and subject to the powerful (and timely) editing authority of the masses. Yes, it’s possible for errors to be inadvertently or deliberately posted, but research has clearly proven that these are edited or excised much more quickly on Wikipedia than on any traditional reference source. so who wouldn’t use it?

Any researcher worth his or her salt will never rely on a single source. Using Wikipedia as a starting point is a no-brainer. It’s what follows that’s important…