• 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?…:)

I have been struck by the differences in the conference in Shanghai; by the quantity – and quality, of my direct learning coming out of it. In short, either leading up, to, during, or immediately following the close of Learning2.008, I’ve;

• Upgraded my HS Library Blog before leaving to show that I’m moving toward Learning2.0. I added a new header photo (live kids!), found a widget (with TRC Dennis’s help) to add a “carousel” of “books of the week”, and updated our Main Library Flickr stream.
• Connected with a vibrant new group of  librarians here from as far away as Australia and Canada, and sat f2f with several to mull over web2.0 and the future of libraries. After meeting many of the same faces for years in the EARCOS region, these folks are are the heart of what I see as a vibrant new Personal Learning Network.
• Reconnected with several colleagues who’ve influenced me over the years, notably Candace Aiani, Upper School Librarian at TAS. Candace has just finished her Doctorate and is still the smartest librarian I know in SE Asia:)
• Started checking out blogs by Learning2.0 presenters, and and their links, and so through them broadening my thinking on the big questions. This Learning Network intersecting with the above.
  
• Became a Twitter convert, finally seeing how it can bring all the above together in a Personal Learning Network with a combined intellectual resource set that’s nothing short of awesome.
• Revisited the TeacherLibrarian Ning that Joyce Valenza set up last year, joined “The changing and evolving library” Group, and invited several librarians I met today to join that conversation.
• Revisited Second Life, sat in on Chris Smith’s tour of International School Island, and seen new potential for learning in virtual worlds.
  
• Read Jeff Utecht’s latest post in The Thinking Stick in which he challenges us to move beyond the idea of “technology as a tool” to technology as a “Connection Creator”. Food for future thought here.
  
• Forwarded several resources directly to my Head of School, to help keep him in touch with what’s influencing my thinking regarding the future of libraries in general, and our library in particular. The best of these might be “The Horizon Report 2008“, brought to us by presenter Alan Levine.

More as it sinks in – but this may have been the best conference I’ve attended in ten years. WOW!

]]> http://edgingahead.edublogs.org/2008/09/20/learning20-oh/feed/ 3 http://edgingahead.edublogs.org/2008/09/14/devils-advocate/ http://edgingahead.edublogs.org/2008/09/14/devils-advocate/#comments Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:52:15 +0000 rubisr http://edgingahead.edublogs.org/?p=47 …not really, but I am wary of becoming a cheerleeder for uncritical adoption of “digital literacy” as the wave of the future – if it’s at the expense of traditional reading skills and the metacognitive abiities that arise from these.  This blog has helped me to reflect on my growing ambivalence, and the small cadre of readers who’ve responded to my posts have convinced me that the issues I”m mulling over are legitimate and my concerns shared by others.

I’m relieved to know that I’m in good company when I wonder whether jumping onto the digital literacy bandwagon  has any obvious downsides. When Maryanne Wolf’s “Proust and the Squid: the Story and Science of the Reading Brain” was released on Audible.com last week, and after reading the reviews in the California Literary Review  and in the Guardian (thank you, Google!),  I couldn’t resist. Would Wolf shed some light on my ambivalence toward the latest incarnation of instant messaging and social networking? Would her conclusions about Socrates’s fears for the future of the “thinking mind” with the advent of written literature help me more unconditionally embrace the new technologies that I fear are threatening a traditional love of reading?

I bought the audio download and over the long weekend just past I listened to the full 8 hours and change once, and Chapter 1 and 9 (the introduction and conclusion) twice. Several chapters are rather tough sledding through the study of memory, reading and intellectual analysis at the molecular level, and much of the book is devoted to the study of dyslexia, a topic I find relevant and important, but not as compelling to me as the overarching issues involving the future of reading for all, dyslexic or not. Wolf’s analysis of Socrates’s fears (introduced in Chapter 1 and revisited in Chapter 9) alone, is worth the price of purchase.

To be sure, if I had tried to read this book in the traditional print format, I never would have made to the end. Having listened through, however, I’ve now dropped a copy in my Amazon shopping cart and I really do want to dig into what she says in a format where I can take the time to really absorb what she’s saying; to internalize the questions she raises and the conclusions she offers, and to incorporate these fully into my personal schema for understanding a little better what motivates my students to read.  For me, and, according to Wolf, that format is, and should continue to be, print.

PD Smith (the Guardian) says it better than I could. Until I can get my own copy of “Proust and the Squid”, I’ll close this post with Smith’s summation of what is, for me, the most compelling issues Wolf raises.

” But in the “Google universe”, with its instant over-abundance of information, how we read is being changed fundamentally. On-screen texts are not read “inferentially, analytically and critically”; they are skimmed and filleted, cherry-picked for half-grasped truths. By doing this we risk losing the “associative dimension” to reading, those precious moments when you venture beyond the words of a text and glimpse new intellectual horizons. Although not opposed to the internet, Wolf concludes on a cautionary note: we need to be “vigilant” in order to preserve “the profound generativity of the reading brain”.

And so, onward, promoting digital literacy in my library as an adjunct to, rather than a replacement for, traditional reading.

 Catechism, and diaspora: from Wikipedia, the Digital Encyclopedia

catechism (pronounced /ˈkætəkɪzəm/; Ancient Greek: κατηχισμός) is a summary or exposition of doctrine, traditionally used in Christian religious teaching …^[1] Catechisms are doctrinal manuals often in the form of questions followed by answers to be memorized.

diaspora (in Ancient Greek, διασπορά – “a scattering or sowing of seeds“) refers to any people or ethnic population forced or induced to leave their traditional homelands, the dispersal of such people, and the ensuing developments in their culture.

I’m wrestlying with what to do about VHS and DVD copy issues that keep raising their ugly heads at my school. More and more, it seems to me, the current state of copyright understanding is built on catechistic principles becoming increasingly untenable and the reality of copyright compliance is being further diluted by the rationalization of the new diaspora of “Digital Natives”.  I characterize these as a diaspora in the purest sense of the word, meaning no disrespect or criticism; the term simply recognizes their wandering from the traditional roots of information access, manipulation and delivery and the emerging strategies for the sharing of ideas that no longer lend themselves to a realia-based copyright model.

Wordplay aside, Web2.0 has rendered “Fair Use” assessments questionable at best and unworkable in practice (although they have always been almost so). A few of the new questions that arise in trying to apply traditional Fair Use guidelines to a digital piece might be;

• Character of Use – In an open-source environment, how might we assess the character of use? Once a work is posted to the web, for example, it can be viewed widely, printed, excerpted, edited and referred in many ways by different users.
• Nature of the copyrighted work – a typical digital document includes a variety of embedded file-types making it difficult to assign a simplistic “nature” to the work.
• Amount and substantiality of the portion used – how can we accurately determine what part of an attributive posting is covered by Creative Commons licence and what is considered proprietary material? How should we assess the percentage of a source being used? Should we measure the percentage of storage used (considering the disparate data-requirements of text vs. sound vs. image or video), the percentage total elapsed straigh play-time coopted or the estimated total interactive user engagement?
• When material is being freely shared over the open web, how can we intuit harm to the Market Value of a piece? Does this suggest that there is no harm, or are their other indicators of “market value” that should be evaluated? (user reviews? blog citations and comments? Hit counts?)

In my library, which is still heavy to “web1.0″ media offerings (non-interactive information delivery packages) several scenarios dominate, being;

1) The teacher who wants us to archive a favorite VHS (no longer available) onto DVD so he/she can continue to use it with his/her laptop and Smartboard.
2) The teacher who wants to create an edited version of a DVD for brevity or censorial purposes (adult content, language, etc)
3) The student who wants to use an extended video clip in a powerpoint, or a commercial music piece to back up a personal video.
4) The administrator who plans to use library videos for rain-day entertainment in the cafeteria.
5) The parent who wants to borrow library videos for what appears to be primarily entertainment purposes.

The first four situations are, in my mind, clear violations of traditional copyright (as I understand it, from an “informed layperson’s” perspective), and I’m constantly finding myself trying to explain or justify our position. But I’m beginning to wonder how much time I should be expending trying to convince people that their requests are illegal, immoral or simply inappropriate due to their questionable nature. Maybe it’s time simply throw in the digital towel and say, “Go for it.”

 If that’s not a viable option, what are some alternative suggestions? I’ve tried posting copyright guidelines, running articles in school publications on Fair Use, offering copyright update sessions on ProD days, and presenting at conferences. Of course I’ll continue to to trot out my current box of trick. But I need some new tools, some new props, perhaps a whole new approach. I’m open to suggestions. 

The situation gets even muddier as we enter the arena of new media formats and delivery systems. this post has rambled on for far too long, but Doug Johnson’s Blue Skunk Blog posting  If I can’t get it legally is it OK to steal it? raises many of the questions regarding media like game soundtracks, theme music and cellphone ringtones. 

Doug doesn’t answer most of the questions either, but perhaps if more rational people continue to talk about these issues, once they get to whatever legislative systems are invoked to deal with them the new agreements will have become part of the lexicon of shared understanding that will help to move things forward. Meanwhile, it’s the wild west revisited when using new media in the emerging virtual (and physical) realities we’re increasingly living in.

What are you doing about Library1.0 lending issues in a Web2.0 world?

Are you still trying to observe the spirit of the DMCA and/or the TEACH Act? Or have you set your sights on Web (and Library) 2.0 and are you spending less time obsessing over “Fair Use” and concentrating on “appropriate” (i.e. educational) use? What’s a morally conscientous but future-oriented teacher-librarian to do?

There’s a story in itself, in view of Ross Todd’s exhortations that we stop obsessing over collections of “stuff”, but that’s not the issue here. The question is whether we should limit, or even deny use of our replacement collection of DVDs to our school community.

Why would we deny access to our collections? To provide full access to our collections – for our primary users (students and teachers).  But if we do so, are we denying full Library2.0 access to ideas (and opportunities to create new ideas from these)?

On the other hand, is the the whole issue academic? Are DVD’s passe in a Web2.0 world anyway? Is it time to simply abandon “realia” media collections  altogether? Should we just open the gates wide and deal with access issues IF they arise?

As an international school where our students have minimal access to the public libraries,  Borders-quality bookstores and commercial video outlets that populate most neighborhoods in the developed world, we’ve always felt a responsibility to offer our collections for “community” use.  This manifests itself in regular (often daily) use of our facilities by a small cadre of unemployed parental “spouses” who live in the gated community in which our school resides, regular circulation of adult-interest print (e.g. travel and geography titles, along with adult-interest fiction) materials – and, of course, what I’ve called the “Saturday morning Video Club”. These are the parents, who stock up on video titles every Friday. the sheer number of titles they borrow and the timing of these loans suggests that they are not used in an instructional setting, but rather, as an “educational” alternative to the limited cable-tv offerings in Bangkok.

So why is this a problem? A couple of years ago, I published the following in our PTA publication, “the Touchstone”.

Recently, a number of Main Library video titles have not been available on request by teachers during the school day. Following a review of our policies, I have decided that the policies are fine but enforcement has “relaxed” over the years, so have asked Main Library staff to strictly enforce the “Overnight Loan” policy for all video material loaned to anyone other than a classroom teacher.  The policy has been in place for several years, but regular users may sometimes keep titles for several days and may have asked to borrow  items during the school day rather than at the end of the day, once the chance of a classroom request has passed.

From March 1 onward, I have asked staff to provide videos on strict overnight loan to non-teachers for parental review or student extra work on the following basis;

1. Titles may be borrowed following the regular school day between 2:05 and 3:00 (following which we have only one staff member on duty and close down the Special Collections area (including videos)
2. All titles provided on Overnight Loan should be returned between 7:00 and 7:20 the NEXT school day.
3. As we have only a single staff member on duty on Saturdays, we cannot offer video service on Saturday 

We would also like to remind patrons that while ISB’s Main Library holds an impressive video collection, each title in the collection was purchased “with instructional intent”, meaning that it is not our primary purpose to provide weekend entertainment for our students. There are many video outlets available in Bangkok providing this service.

We value the wonderful collections that ISB has built to help every one of our students achieve to his or her potential. Please help us to ensure that these materials are available at all times for their intended use.

**********************************

The American Library Association provides the following guidelines for non-instructional use of school-purchased videos.

1. Loan/Rental of Videotapes
Libraries may loan/rent videos to patrons for their personal use. This is true even if the video is labeled “For Home Use Only.” According to (ALA) “a library or school that resells, rents, or lends a copy of a copyrighted videotape, which it owns, is not infringing on the copyright owner’s rights.” Some guidelines to follow when loaning/renting a video to a patron:

·         Libraries should not obscure (i.e., cover or deface) the copyright notice as it appears on the producer’s label.

·         Libraries should not knowingly loan a video for use in public performances. If a patron inquires about a planned performance of a videotape, he or she should be informed that only private uses of it are lawful.

·         Libraries can charge a nominal fee for use of videos…”The fact that a fee is charged is irrelevant; the right to distribute a copy includes the right to rent it — for a fee or deposit or otherwise.”

Check out the ALA “Fact-Sheet” site containing this at;

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=Library_Fact_Sheets&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=24635

The question at hand – Should we continue this policy, or are we justified, given the new access to commercial media, internet sources and social networking options, in locking up our DVD collection and making it available exclusively for teacher preview, instructional use and student review (in-house). 

Over the past 30 years we first added computers and every peripheral we could get our hands on to the lineup of “must-have” technologies in the classroom and the library (the ’80’s). We then populated the ever-increasing RAM and hard-drive space with a plethora of electronic databases and data sets (the early ’90’s) that promised “anything, anywhere, anytime” access to information. When that still didn’t seem to produce the quantum-leap in learning we’d anticipated, we jumped on the “Information Highway” big-time in the late ’90’s and into the early 21st century in order to provide our students with access to “real-world” data and information. 

 And it seemed to work. Life was good. Technology had saved the day. A slew of studies in the ’90’s and early 2000’s said so. The Ohio Study by Ross Todd and Carol Kuhlthau was just one of  these. But in spite of the positive results, The School Library Journal interview with Todd in 2004 ended with;

“We see so many kids coming into the school library with a project to do. At the end, did they learn anything? And what does that learning actually look like?”

Put another way, had all of this “stuff” (Ross Todd, 2008) translate into vastly new and better, “child-centered” Learning? It seems not.   Although on the one hand, the data from landmark studies like those of Todd, Keith Curry Lance and others have assured us that there’s a confirmed link between libraries and learning, it seemed that actually, the “Nation’s Report Card” was not showing significant and consistent gains in student performance or learning as we might have hoped, given the promise of Educational Technology over the previous 20 years. Even though several subject areas have shown improvement in 2005 0ver 1990’s scores, the Executive Summary for Reading published in November, 2007 showed that;

“In 2005, the average reading score for high school seniors was 286 on a 0–500 scale. This score was lower than in 1992, although it was not significantly different from the score in 2002. With the exception of the score for students performing at the 90th percentile, declines were seen across most of the performance distribution in 2005 as compared to 1992. More…

The percentage of students performing at or above Basic decreased from 80 percent in 1992 to 73 percent in 2005, and the percentage of students performing at or above the Proficient level decreased from 40 to 35 percent”

Scary? Well, keep in mind that “everything old is new again”. Unfortunately, the Bare Naked Ladies version of the song by the same name might be a more accurate depiciton of the way it’s turned out, at least in the school libraries I’ve worked in. But, to mix in another metaphor, maybe Lenny Kravitz really got it right back in 1991. It ain’t over ’till it’s over… There IS a difference this time around, and the difference is in the technology. It’s called Web2.0.

Web 2.0 has helped us embark on yet another cycle of renewal and rebirth in our dream to take every learner to the limits of his or her personal ability; to help him achieve “to his academic potential” in the parlance of the ISB Vision and Guiding Principles.  If we’re lucky, perhaps this time, the vision and the reality will mesh more neatly than it has in the past. Perhaps the technology has matured enough in “Web2.0″ to really help us make “everything old new again” – in the best Peter Allen Tradition. I’m hopeful…

To begin with, the new AASL “Standards for the 21st-Century Learner” AASL’s New Teaching Standards offer “a vision for teaching and learning to both guide and beckon our profession as education leaders.”

The Standards describe how learners use skills, resources, and tools to

• inquire, think critically, and gain knowledge;
• draw conclusions, make informed decisions, apply knowledge to new situations, and create new knowledge;
• share knowledge and participate ethically and productively as members of our democratic society;
• pursue personal and aesthetic growth.

While the AASL has been framing its new standards, ISTE, the International Society for Technlogy in Education, has been working to the same ends. In 2007, ISTE completed updated standards for students, and these identify;

“What students should know and be able to do to learn effectively and live productively in an increasingly digital world …”

• Creativity and Innovation

• Communication and Collaboration  The new standards identify several higher-order thinking skills and digital citizenship as critical for students to learn effectively for a lifetime and live productively in our emerging global society

• Research and Information Fluency

• Technology Operations and Concepts

• Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Decision Making

• Digital Citizenship

  

At the same time, the “Partnership for 21s Century Skills” launched Route 21, an online, one-stop shop for 21st century skills-related information, resources and tools. The group is a veritable “Who’s Who” of the key players in InfoTech  today.  Their core beliefs?

“We believe schools must move beyond a focus on basic competency in core subjects to promoting understanding of academic content at much higher levels by weaving 21st century interdisciplinary themes into core subjects: “ 

• Global Awareness
• Financial, Economic and Entrepreneurial Literacy
• Civic Literacy, and
• Health Literacy

And finally, International School Bangkok’s Own own cut on 21st Century Learning  comes out of the work of Technology Resource Coordinators Justin Medved and Dennis Harter . They write:

Over the school year we … came up five essential questions that we felt addressed the core elements of a comprehensive technology and learning curriculum…        

• How do you know information is true?      
• How do you communicate effectively?      
• What does it mean to be a global citizen?      
• How do I learn best?      
• How can we be safe?

When I look at any of these systems of core values, I see, in each of them;

• Critical thinking in a 21st-century context (deep understanding, just-in-time learning, use of appropriate technology, evaluative abilities, communications skills)
• Global Awareness (the environment, and how our stewardship of the planet impacts on the future)
• Global Citizenship (human interactions and how they influence our individual and collective futures)
  • Encompasing issues of personal “safety” and “health”
• Metacognition (learners’ reflection on and engagement in their own learning)

The rather sobering thought that follows is that I’ve been seeing these core values in every “system” I’ve encountered since my Open Area days in the 1970’s. In other words, however you label them, people looking to the future of education have been zeroing in on the same fundamental skills, topics and themes for as long as we’ve been thinking about it…

Everything old is new again?…

 (planned for an upcoming post – How can we ensure that students who spend a semester, a year, a school division or a complete schooling career with us are adequately prepared for the challenges in those four overarching themes? What do we need to do to reinvent ourselves in school libraries so that we regain the relevance to a learner’s journey that we believe libraries should have? How can we make our libraries, our programs, and ourselves “new again”?

The answers may lie in the new collaborations that Ross Todd exhorted us to forge with the people who can help us best when it comes to using the power of technology to achieve our aims. At ISB we call them “Technology Faciliators” and we’re working hard to make sure that our next efforts really are the “best yet” in terms of achieving our dreams of taking learners to the places they need to go to be successful in the 21st century world they’re facing. -rjr)

Fortunately, before I invested too heavily in trying to resolve the technical problems I was encountering, my colleague and co-attendee, Kim Cofino http://mscofino.edublogs.org/ posted an absolutely crystalline analysis of the conference.

More to the point, Kim proposes a number of strategies that are absolutely seminal to the teaching and learning issues at hand. Kim absolutely nails the rationale for Edtech Facilitators and Library/Media professionals (in whatever guise we see ourselves) to work together in a new model of collaboration which will marry the innovativeness and enthusiasm of the former with the experience and traditional expertise of the latter.

This frees me up to move in new directions with this blog. In the spirit of  recent postings by Will Richardson URGENT: 21st Century Skills for Educators (and Others) First   and ISB colleague Dennis Harter Is school curriculum still meaningful? I’m going to indulge in a bit of professional self-examination to see if I can develop a bit of that “network cred” that Will talks about. The question might be, “If a blog post exists in a blogosphere vaccum, do the ideas really matter?”

Meanwhild, a last note on Ross Todd.  In addition to the Big Ideas noted in “A Side Trip…”, Ross went on to exhort School Libraries to:

• Offer effective alternatives to “cut ‘n pasting” strategies
• Move beyond the “scope & sequence”  info literacy to “information to knowledge” strategies
• Develop Additive vs Integrative knowledge construction
• Be(come) zones of intellectual conflict, intellectual discontent, intellectual activism.

To get to the nub of  the  work on Guided Enquiry by Dr. Carol C. Kuhlthau & Dr. Ross J. Todd go to; http://cissl.scils.rutgers.edu/guided_inquiry/introduction.html .

All material presented at the Guided Inquiry site is copyright protected under Creative Commons