Please feel free to read this blog at any time and subscribe using email notification (in the left hand menu).
I have made every attempt to create my blog posts in a way that reflects my learning and respects the integrity of the information provided by Charles Sturt University. I am happy to receive constructive comments, opportunities for improvement and willingly participate in discussions. To do so, simply select the blog post you wish to discuss and the comment function will appear below it.
The content in this blog is protected by Copyright. Some blog posts were formal assessment tasks and due to my respect for academic integrity, are password protected and cannot be made public.
To assist with navigating, the category drop down feature or tag cloud are available in the left hand menu bar. To return to the home page, click on the blog title at any time.
There’s a plethora of research around the creation of a teaching and learning environment that will assist a school or teacher in delivering their strategic plan goals and learning intentions or outcomes. Many teachers will remember being taught about desk placement and room design at university. I have a Bachelor of Education Early Childhood from 2007 and recognising the ‘environment as the third teacher’ was a key aspect of that degree.
It must be said, any time one discusses the teaching and learning environment, that in more recent times, teachers have begun to share their teaching and learning environments on social media. This has resulted in the creation of the term being a ‘Pinterest teacher,’ sometimes referred to in terms of a teacher who focuses on making the teaching and learning environment ‘pretty’ instead of or at the cost of focusing on key teaching and learning objectives. (Full disclosure: follow me on Pinterest here).
Rather than thinking of the teaching and learning environment as a dichotomy of either being someone who doesn’t consider their environment at all (often having cluttered ‘noisy’ classrooms) versus being a ‘Pinterest teacher’ (often having very pretty classrooms but minimal quality lesson programming) we should rather consider a third option of simply being in favour of planning for the teaching and learning environment as a key component in delivering the key teaching and learning objectives, as a part of being a ‘Reflective teacher.’
Most teachers can agree that if a class is not functioning well when the desks are arranged a particular way, then we change the seating arrangement, or we make modifications and adjustments to suit the needs of our students. Along those same lines, the ‘environment as the third teacher’ approach is based on the learning environment needs of young children. This is part of everyday programming for preschool teachers and has been adapted by ACECQA (2018) quality teaching aims for students to learn through play and ‘real world’ experiences – which is accredited originally to a group of educators in Italy known as ‘Reggio Emilia’ (sometimes abbreviated to ‘Reggio’).
This video by Schmidt-Jones (2020) explains the ‘environment as the third teacher’ approach really well and is worth considering in terms of how primary school teachers view their classrooms and resources. e.g. We should also utilise the research and evidence based practices in the design and layout and functionality of our teaching and learning spaces. There is a lot of recent research available about classroom design. However, in the interest of brevity, the research by Barrett, P., Davies, Zhang & Barrett, L. (2015, p.131), indicates the following types of considerations and changes to the primary school learning environment will be most likely to have a positive impact on student outcomes:
To begin a reflection and evaluation of YOUR teaching and learning environment,
Take a moment to look around your classroom or office space and ask yourself, ‘if spaces speak, what is my room saying? Are there ways to improve the natural light in the room? What is the temperature and air quality like? How flexible is the seating? What is stimulating the students visually and what might be creating a vibe of clutter or noise? What is the main colour of the room or is the room full of many colours? Who has ownership here – What percentage of the space is ‘teacher’ driven versus ‘student driven?’ – Where is the teacher’s desk/teaching spot/small group area/storage area(s) and how important does their placement seem when you walk in? What values are being communicated to the students? What values are communicated to parents and families? What values are being communicated to colleagues?’ (For example, I value nature, sunlight and muted colours, so I prefer to use woven baskets, clean windows and natural elements in my teaching and learning environment).
Liaise with all stakeholders on their thoughts and desires for the learning environment. I once had a whole wall that I covered in beautiful floral material, but a parent of a student with additional needs asked me to remove it because the patterns made her feel uncomfortable (and possibly her child also.) Consider carefully how students with additional needs may need the room adjusted. Bright colours may have an impact on students with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Metal pencil tins may make the room too noisy for students with sensitive ears or hearing impairments. Some students are sensitive to smells or textures. Some may find it difficult to focus in a room full of flexible seating. Also, consider that anything that has been on the wall for a while has become ‘noise’ that is not contributing to student learning. Consider if there is a way to display student work or learning goals without having it flapping overhead. Consider if there is a way of utilising online cloud resources rather than paper for student work and for teacher programming.
Be prepared to spend time in your space, making modifications and adjustments that suit the answers to these questions and your teaching philosophy.
Ask for help! Spend some time in the rooms of your colleagues. Beg. Borrow. Steal good ideas (always giving credit where credit is due).
Revisit these questions and points regularly to ensure the space is continually improving.
In conclusion, I hope this information regarding the ‘environment as the third teacher’ has helped explain the concept and approach and may help deliver strategic plan goals and learning intentions or outcomes – and if you see me rearranging things or pulling posters off of windows…you can rest easy knowing there is a method to my madness!
Here are some other key quotes and research from the early childhood sector that are in support of thinking of the environment as the third teacher (emphasisadded):
Environment as the 3rd teacher (Fraser & Gestwicki, 2002): “The spaces that teachers create for children seem to hold enduring memories for them that have a powerful influence on what they will value later in life” (p.99). “Space does indeed speak” (p.100). “Respect for the image of the child as rich, strong, and powerful is fundamental to preparing an environment that allows the child to be actively engaged in the process of learning. … The value placed on relationships is translated into the sense of ‘we’ in the documentation, the care in communications and welcoming in the entry spaces, the tiers of seating in classrooms for children to come together to chat and plan project work, and the careful creation of spaces for small group to work together” (p.101). “The space in the classrooms is designed to encourage children to work with others, sometimes in a large group but more often in small groups of 4 or 5 children. There are low platforms built above the floor where a small group of children can work separately with area and construction materials. … The thought that goes into creating beautiful spaces for children reflects the belief that children deserve the very best and that their aesthetic sense needs to be nurtured in the early years” (p.102). “Creating an environment that acts as a 3rd teacher supports the perspective that knowledge is constructed not in isolation but within the social group. … In order to mirror ideas of people within, space and environment cannot be fixed and set, but (is instead) seen as a process of change and growth. The space must change in relation to children who live within that space” (p.103). “The first step in planning the environment is to identify the values that are at the core of our work with young children and those families, and the wider community surrounding the school. This means that teachers, in the early stage of planning, arrange meetings with all the people involved in their programs to clarify the values that are important to the group” (p.104). This should entail asking questions like, “How well does the room reflect the values we have identified as important to us? What overall messages will the room convey to children, parents and other visitors to the classroom? How will the environment mirror an image of the child that is rich, powerful and competent? How well does the arrangement of the room reflect our respect for children, families, and the community?” (p.106). “The next step is to plan the physical layout of the space” (p.122). “The principle of active learning requires that the classroom have a stimulating environment that offers children many choices, provokes them to engage in many activities, and encourages them to explore a wide variety of materials” (p.107). “An environment that stimulates learning and is responsive to the children’s input is essential to creating an environment that acts as a 3rd teacher” (p.112). “Collaboration is one of the strongest messages that the environment in its role as the 3rd teacher communicates. An environment planned to act as a 3rd teacher is particularly effective in helping children learn skills for working with others in a group” (p.113). “It is essential that in creating an environment that acts as a 3rd teacher, children are given the opportunity to work with others in the co-construction of knowledge. The room also should communicate respect for the families, as well as for the cultural background of the people involved in the program and the community served by the school. … Light is used as an art medium. … Transparency is also a metaphor for communication, especially in the documentation that informs … visitors of what is happening in the program” (p.114-115). “Another principle in creating an environment that acts as a 3rd teacher, bringing the outdoors in, heightens children’s awareness of the natural, physical, and social environments in which they live. This awareness helps to strengthen the children’s sense of belonging in their world. This principle has 2 levels of meaning. On the surface, the use of natural materials is seen in the decoration of the room and in materials available for investigation and creativity. On a deeper level, it connects children to their roots, and gives them a sense of value and respect for their community and culture” (p.118). “The outside world comes into (a) classroom influenced by Reggio ideas to connect children naturally with ideas of value and respect. … Being flexible with space, time, and materials, and in the way people relate to one another and their work, is essential to making beneficial changes happen” (p.119). “The notion of the environment acting as a 3rd teacher gives the classroom the qualities of a living being.”
Literacy / Environment (Neuman, Copple & Bredekamp, 2000): “In environments rich with print, children incorporate literacy into their dramatic play (Morrow 1990, Vukelich 1994, Neuman & Roskos 1997)” (in Neuman, Copple, & Bredekamp, 2000 p.7). “Classrooms filled with print, language and literacy play, storybook reading, and writing allow children to experience the joy and power associated with reading and writing while mastering basic concepts about print that research has shown are strong predictors of achievement” (p.9). “In classrooms built around a wide variety of print activities and in talking, reading, writing, playing, and listening to one another, children will want to read and write and feel capable that they can do so” (p.11).
Mathematical environment / Yin and Yang (Worthington & Carruthers, 2003): “In the open classroom there will be a balance between adult-directed activities and child-initiated activities. Both will be valued and, at times, come together to provide a strong connection to support the child in her learning. There is a state of energy balance within this understanding. Energy is known by the Chinese as “Tao’. Chiazzarie (1998) observes that Tao is manifest in all things through the dynamic interaction of the two polar energy forces, yin and yang. When these are in perfect balance, then total harmony exists. The balance is not necessarily an equal balance but one that promotes the health and well-being of the whole child” (p.129). Yin and Yang ‘Features of Adult-led and Child-initiated Learning’ table (p.131):
Mathematics / Number recognition / Literacy (Copley, 2000): Recognising and writing numerals should be in accordance with learning the ABC’s. “There is a parallel to literacy” (p. 64). “Researchers (Payne & Huinker, 1993) propose that the number symbol be accompanied by some representation of quantity whenever possible… The particular representation is not important, the fact that there is a representation is the critical part” (p. 65) (e.g. 4 shown with: …. alongside it). “Just as print should be prominent in children’s environments, so should numbers. It is particularly important to display mathematical terms and symbols in meaningful situations… Teachers should place labels and advertisements with prominent numerals in the creative dramatics centre and change them often. In addition to familiarizing children with numbers and their everyday uses, such real-life items can also be used in presenting children with simple mathematics problems” (p. 66).
Planning (Feldman, 1997): “Planning is simply the way we manage and provide for our caring interactions and the education of young children. We plan for our daily timetable, supervision of children, our learning environment, our routines and transitions, interactions, the experiences we present to children and their individual group needs and challenges” (p.18). The six steps for planning to meet the needs of children are: (1) Collect observations of the child; (2) Interpret your observations; (3) Decide on an objective; (4) Decide on activities; (5) Decide on teaching strategies; (6) Evaluate the process (then return to step 1 and repeat the process) (p.18).
See also:
Curtis, D., & Carter, M. (2003). Designs for living and learning – Transforming early childhood environments. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.
Greenman, J. (2005). Caring spaces, learning places – Children’s environments that work. Redmond, WA: Exchange Press Inc.
Kennedy, A., & Stonehouse, A. (2004). Shared visions for Outside School Hours Care. Melbourne: Department of Human Services.
Stonehouse, A. (2004). Dimensions – Excellence in many ways. Gosford, NSW: National Family Day Care Council of Australia.
Copley, J.V. (2000). The Young Child and Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Feldman, S. (ed). (1997). More Than One Way to Plan: a Practical Approach to Planning and Programming in Early Childhood. Sydney: Lady Gowrie Child Centre.
Fraser, S. & Gestwicki, C. (2002). Environment as the Third Teacher. Authentic Childhood: Exploring Reggio Emilia in the Classroom. Canada: Delmar Thomson Learning.
Neuman, S., Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2000). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for children. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
This post, #7 of 8 will be a short post, given that the other posts are soooo long. (I can hear you cheering!)
What is the potential for the future of an organisation with which you are familiar?
I have learned a lot from this course, more than I thought and I’d say that it should be a required course, rather than an elective, as it definitely nutted out the finer details required for having a safer online presence both personally and professionally. While the ‘digital footprint’ was covered in ETL523 (Digital Citizenship), the how to’s and wheretofor’s where not as clear as they were in INF506 (Social Networking for Information Professionals). I can also see how I am now much better equipped to safely navigate social media and utilise it as a tool to improve the learning experiences of my students, build a community of practice with staff and improve connections with local and global societies.
What impact might the future have on us as information professionals?
Certainly, I now can clearly see the value of building social capital for my students, the school staff and the community and having social media and communication plans and policies in terms of saving the world from complete destruction and violence in such a way that I hadn’t seen it before.
It is my hope that the value of having a teacher librarian in schools will be increased, given the global need for information literacy in our society at present, not just digitally but in all social media.
Moreover, as an information professional, my immediate future entails a 2000 word assessment. Ciao!
I’ve just finished reading Isoifidis & Nicoli (2019), Johnson (2018), Xu & Saxton (2018) and Rampersad & Althiyabi (2020) and let me tell you, I am shook!
Firstly, there’s this idea rolling around in my mind that:
the cycle of becoming more open and more progressive as a society has
spurned the creation of and an increase in our social media use and platforms which have been
subverted by deliberate misinformation, ‘deep fake’ propaganda and advertising, scams and attempts to steal identities and fraud, which in turn has
created or strengthened a ‘populist culture‘ who are disconnected from real-life human connections in their personal lives and who
find connections in and devotedly follow misinformation groups like ‘QAnon‘ (or perhaps the ‘MAGA‘ supporters) and who then
do wildly subversive things like commit domestic terrorist acts of violence and insurrection at the American capital and similar acts all over the world,
followed by claims that the ‘Black Lives Matter’ or ‘Antifa‘ groups were responsible for actions from what were clearly ‘QAnon’ or ‘MAGA’ supporters. (And why am I using the word ‘supporters’ rather than ‘fanatics?’ I want to be impartial. Yet, we are not discussing sporting teams, but more the socially de-railed and disenfranchised).
In fact, just typing the misinformation groups into this post sends shivers up my spine and I am at a loss at how to help solve what has become a terrible global situation. The Iosifidis & Nicoli (2019) research was particularly prophetic, pointing out that social media platforms would not be able to do the culling of misinformation and violent / violence promoting groups or individuals and that governments will need to step in to legislate means to protect the majority from these sorts of acts of the minority. Yet, if governments step in, they will try to control the information to suit their own ends. They will try to propagate their own power and profit, we know enough about history to know this to be true.
It’s a sticky situation! And just like I was glad that I was taking Digital Citizenship during the COVID outbreak, so too am I glad that I am taking INF506 in the social media outbreak of 2021! I am definitely going to include discussions on building relationships offline, how to build information literacy skills and how to use social media in a healthy way into my library lessons in the future.
References
Iosifidis, P., & Nicoli, N. (2019). The battle to end fake news: A qualitative content analysis of Facebook announcements on how it combats disinformation. International Communication Gazette, 82(1), 60-81. doi: 10.1177/1748048519880729
Johnson, B. (2018). Archiving Al Qaeda- The role of libraries in protecting free speech and open systems. Computers in Libraries, 38(7), 22-25.
Rampersad, G., & Althiyabi, T. (2020). Fake news- Acceptance by demographics and culture on social media. Journal of Information Technology & Politics,17(1), 1-11. doi: https-//doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2019.1686676
Xu, W., & Saxton, G. D. (2018). Does stakeholder engagement pay off on social media? A social capital perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(1), 28-49. doi:10.1177/0899764018791267
OLJ Task 12: Social media strategy / Policy development
There are indisputable benefits of social media (bringing communities and organisations closer together, creating more opportunities for engagement). Having previously discussed how it is no longer a question of if we should embrace social media, but how, when deciding to take the plunge into social media as an organisation, research from Di Gangi, Johnston, Worrell & Thompson (2018) points out that we must consider hiring practices and internal and external risks from all stakeholders perspectives – mitigating any possible negative circumstances.
In particular, Di Gangi, et al. (2018) recommend organisations consider writing social media policies to prepare for ALL internal and external legal, social and technical risks, such as:
Legal: Classified/confidential/private information sharing; and Inappropriate/unethical/illegal content use; ;
Social:Misrepresentation of the organisation’s views, values or mission by individuals which diminishes the organisation’s reputation both internally and/or externally; Misinformation or errors in content by users or staff (including ‘fake news‘ aka propaganda, deception, manipulation, fabrication, news satire and news parody used to spread mis-information with potential to cause social, corporate and political unrest and instability (Rampersad & Althiyabi, 2020)); [This makes me think of how, when books first started being published, humans believed them to be the absolute truth – simply because of the belief that if it were written down than it must be true. Similarly, the evolution of news radio and then televisions had similar effects, humans believed everything they saw on television as true (and in some cases, advertising to children has had considerable back lash and regulation because their brains are not fully developed enough to determine fact from fiction). Is the evolution of fake news and the need to determine the validity of information on social media – eg. the determination between fake news and real news, any different then than the ability say, to determine war propaganda as false? Just because the means – social media vs newspapers for example – has changed, should the consequences for negative behaviours not be the same?… Food for thought.]
Detrimental distortions of market perceptions by providing a coordinating platform or disproportionate voice/visibility to minority opinions with questionable basis in fact; Misperception that the organisation is not adept at social media platforms or that what is offered is less than what is available face-to-face; Accidental or unauthorised third party searches or sharing of information or resources over an unlimited period of time (possibly for economic gain or with intent to cause harm) that is beyond the organisation’s control; Reduced staff efficiency or increased distraction;
Technical: Third party unauthorised use of the platform account(s) to cause harm; Increased server/band-with/technology resource requirements; Temporary outages or updates required; Malware (malicious software)/false profiles/false posts/false content uploads that cause damage to the organisation, staff or resources.
LOVE THIS VIDEO! I’ve shared it with everyone I know on Facebook:
Communication Plan
Bunker (2017) discusses the purposes of choosing a social media platform and directs us to the American Library Association (ALA) for their recommendations on creating a communication plan. Bunker (2017) also recommends that organisations prepare for a successful leap into social media platforms by frequently reviewing, surveying and knowing our context and patrons’ information needs, knowing what communication methods they prefer, aiming to match and connect the face-to-face attitude and environment with the online environment and to not be afraid to take some risks – trialling several platforms to find what works best. Bunker (2017) also suggests we clearly determine our goals for pursuing social media platforms (eg. increased awareness of our values, connections and partnerships with community, increased traffic and outreach in our library and online, strengthened loyalty and trust, real-time news and update delivery, awareness of our resources and programs, modelling digital citizenship, teaching and demonstrating information literacy or research skills, and building links to other media networks.
Moreover, the research by Humphries (2019), supported by King (2015), states that if we decide to partake in organisational social media, we must be prepared to not only plan strategically but also we must monitor engagement if we want to reach social media optimisation.
King (2015) even goes so far as to say that we must have a pre-emptive understanding of social media analytics to help set and reach goals for growth, engagement, interactions, visits, or even larger goals like building connections or partnerships, improving information literacy, or other strategic plan goals. And I just realised that I’ve been running a Facebook (FB) teachers group (Teachers Who Know Me) with about 160 members for 5 years and I did not know about the ‘Insight’ section as the group admin. I immediately had a look and my analytics are pretty woeful, (basically, no interaction from my teacher friends who all seem to use FB socially rather than professionally) but the graphs and information available are pretty amazing. (They’ve also just updated the tagging system to include hashtags so that is helpful and I can find something I’ve posted much easier now).
In looking at the different analytics discussed in King (2015) I am curious about how fast these platforms are changing. Google+ was replaced with GoogleCurrents (neither faring very well) and Flickr is just not on my radar for images as I prefer to get them from Creative Commons (CC). Which leads me to the question, do CC provide analytics for those uploading images? I looked at their site and they do collect ‘Cookies’ for CC use but what about those who are uploading? Perhaps it is something they might consider?
Content creation
Bunker (2017), supported by Peacemaker, Robinson & Hurst (2016), and Xu & Saxton (2018) recommend we attempt to improve the social media algorithms and increase our target audience’s ‘social capital‘ by linking our content to popular topics, utilising # (hashtags), hyperlinks, images, videos, global and local network links (a variety of diverse ‘community ques’), gradually increasing our viewer rates over time.
Bunker (2017) also provides a framework for creation of content that links to the organisation’s mission, vision, values or strategic plan – recommending a few strategies, but having read her lists, I’ve created my own template for this social media (strategy) plan which I will include in my final assessment.
It also occurs to me that an organisation would need to have a central location for all of the social media account information, given the constant flux of staff in most education settings. Thus, I’ve created another page on my GoogleSheet (also to be included in the final assessment).
Bunker, L. (2017). Picking a platform and finding a voice. In S. W. H. Young & D. Rossmann (Eds.), Using SocialMedia toBuild Library Communities : A LITA Guide. Blue Ridge Summit, UNITED STATES: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Di Gangi, P. M., Johnston, A. C., Worrell, J. L., & Thompson, S. C. (2018). What could possibly go wrong? A multi-panel Delphi study of organizational social media risk. Information Systems Frontiers,20(5), 1097-1116. doi: 10.1007/s10796-016-9714-2
Humphreys, S. (2019). Tweeting into the void?: Creating a UK library twitter list and analyzing best practice – successes and myths. Insights, 32, 1-23.
Christy’s laptop screenshot of the research behind this module reflection – I’m calling this image: ‘400 words.’
OLJTask 10: Defining librarian 2.0
I don’t have an ‘organisation’…but I have the goods!
While I did read the module, I simply did not have time to read everything thoroughly and then complete this post before I submitted my first assessment. Thus, this reflection is written in support of that assessment and how I could have improved it having now read the module in detail. (As I write, I have received my assessment back and I have passed so that is a relief!)
I am not currently working in a library so that aspect of my reflection below will be based on my past experiences. It is also the reason a lot of my approaches seem too broad – I haven’t yet accomplished the level of practical experience required to narrow the roles and responsibilities of TLs down to the nitty gritty. That said, however, I recently attempted a job interview as a librarian in a local public library and they asked what I bring to the role. I floundered a little, but I said something like, I am focused on the library users, I have a positive attitude and I am flexible – very similar to the ‘customer service focus, strategic viewpoint and ability to be adaptable and resilient’ presented by Burton (2019, p.44).
So too do I have an open approach to programs that I will attempt and a modern take on what it means to be a teacher librarian in the 21st century. Chun (2018) lists some great attributes of TLs, which I believe I possess: user-driven focus – particularly for students, passionate, collaborative, innovative, risk-takers, leaders, evaluative – readily seeking and accepting feedback for growth, ever increasing their knowledge scope, and a consistent willingness to try new things. King (2018) adds ‘trend watcher’ to this list (in terms of the digital age) which I believe is most easily monitored via social media and applications like Diigo (mentioned in my assessment).
Did you thoroughly discuss web 2.0 or library 2.0?
I think the design process recommended by Bell (2018) is simple but beautiful: what’s the need, why is it a need, how can we fulfil the need? Change is necessary and the simpler the approach, the better.
In particular, the in assessment 1, I did not cover enough (or anything?) about the importance of having a change to web 2.0 minimum approach to social media in an organisation. Miller (2005) was writing about it 15 years ago, ergo, it isn’t new, by any stretch in technology terms, much less the term ‘library 2.0’, reimagining the library in a user-centred model for 21st century library services (Casey & Savistinuk, 2006). Here are three quotes that struck me particularly:
“The heart of Library 2.0 is user-centered change. It is a model for library service that encourages constant and purposeful change, inviting user participation in the creation of both the physical and the virtual services they want, supported by consistently evaluating services. It also attempts to reach new users and better serve current ones through improved customer-driven offerings” (Casey & Savistinuk, 2010, p.40).
“If we are not responding to the experiences our members are receiving in other cultural, learning, and retail industries, then we risk being irrelevant for our communities’ immediate and future needs” (Jane Cowell in Hoenke, 2018, p.7).
“What makes a service Library 2.0? Any service, physical or virtual that successfully reaches users, is evaluated frequently, and makes use of customer input is a Library 2.0 service” (Casey & Savistinuk, 2010, p. 42).
(Note: This user-centred or user-focussed approach has been mentioned in my blog previously and also in my second assessment on the positives and negatives for library resource genrefication, written for ETL505 Describing and Analysing Educational Resources).
Yet, despite social media’s ‘coming of age,’ I have encountered quite a bit of resistance to interactive social media in the workplace. One principal (no longer in the same role) explicitly forbade it on school grounds. Indeed, teachers were not allowed to even have their phones out at school at any time and she was very clear that we would be terminated if we were caught. The lady who ran the canteen (a seasoned local, much respected) had a Facebook (FB) page for the school canteen and kitchen garden at the school. One year, I added photos to her FB page that I’d taken while teaching in the school kitchen garden (in my role as the kitchen garden teacher, being careful to only upload those images without people in them) and one of the principal’s friends (the librarian no less, also no longer at the school) ‘reported’ it.
I remember had to sit in the principal’s office and show her what I had uploaded and who was running the FB page, proving it wasn’t myself and that I had not dared to cross her (as if I would!). It was a ridiculous situation that was only helped that the images were (and still are) lovely representations and promoted what was one of the most important programs at the school. To this day, the school and surrounding schools in the town have a very reserved approach to social media which I find ‘safe’ but at the same time quite sad.
After reading Casey & Savistinuk (2010) libraries or schools who prohibit social media (or worse, get rid of the library all together, such as a local high school recently did in my area, refusing to reimagine the space as a Library 2.0) have lost the opportunity to ‘harness collective intelligence’ of the community and limited their ability to ‘tap into users via the long tail’ – i.e. they simply provide the same services to the same groups, fearing and avoiding change, without considering that they could allow users to anonymously comment or offer feedback on the collection or services and grow.
Did you mention privilege?
School administrators who refuse to partake in social media, omit a ‘tech savvy’ portion of society (Williams, 2018) who use social media as their primary method of communicating with the library or school – generally speaking, those who simply find it easier to use (not to mention those who are from lower socio-economic status (SES) who are traumatised or marginalised, or who have limited access to academia or literacy levels). This is supported by Admon, Kaul, Cribbs, Guzman, Jimenez, & Richards (2020, p.500) who point out that social media creates “an open forum by disrupting the boundaries of geography, position, institution, and hierarchy.” (And, although I’m not sure that I’m ready to run a ‘Twitter chat’ session for an organisation myself, as recommended by Admon et al. (2020), I appreciate their recommendations and will refer to them should a Twitter chat be warranted in future).
Certainly, having lived in Broken Hill for 6 years, I can attest that Facebook (linked to Instagram) was the primary source of advertising used by local businesses and community services – simply for the fact that everyone was on it and it was basically free (omitting the cost of the technology and internet).
Perhaps it is well and truly time for librarians and school administrators to consider our perceptions of privilege in our user-centred approaches to the library and in our communications with society. ie. Are we avoiding social media because we want to push our academic forms of communication onto a society who will only suffer from our position of power over information?
Did you consider access in terms of ability?
Enis (2018) points out that we cannot just have the latest most whiz-bang applications and software but we also require facilitators (e.g. teacher librarians) to help our patrons utilise and access them as required. Furthermore, something else I note about my assessment was that my proof reader had recently completed an access related course where she said that I needed to change how I mentioned the image in my assessment so that I described it for those who might be colourblind. This links to the TEDtalk mentioned in Module 4: ‘If we consider our library a user-focused library, we need to tailor access for everyone, including those who rely on social media for connections to the library or school.’
Did you point out not just ‘doing’ social media but doing it well?
While I particularly covered aligning the social media recommendations with the broader school plan. I like the ideas from Rathore (2017), as well as those from Rossmann (2019) to align the social media project with the ‘broader communication plan‘ and am curious how many school libraries and schools in general actually have a communication plan…?
I did mention doing social media ‘well’ in my assessment, but I don’t feel I supported my comments aptly, having not mentioned Rossmann’s (2019) article which goes into ‘social media optimisation’ in depth. In addition, the argument for not just ‘doing’ Library 2.0, but doing it well is made very clear in the below TED talk:
Did you mention networking between librarians?
Another item that I did not mention in my assessment are the networking links between schools (lead by the teacher librarians). Just as the networking that prohibited social media in my previous setting, so too could networking help support tentative schools in taking the plunge into library 2.0 concepts and web 2.0 social media connections (and even web 3.0 interactive applications), as recommended in Cole (2016, p.9) challenging the library’s role as a “fixed community asset…(making its scope) unfettered by static definitions.” (What was obviously lacking in that scenario was simply leadership).
Did you discuss project management and the various means of evaluation?
I did touch on project management / change leadership in terms of the timeline and involvement of a digital learning environment leadership team in my project proposal assessment. However, I would have liked to have more formally included the ideas recommended by Allen (2017) also, including: identifying and researching user needs, identifying and researching the project’s aim(s) based on the context’s vision/mission/strategic plan and the potential impact of the project on those needs, having clear measures for success – while still accepting a margin of trial and error, consideration for the context and norms within it, discussing the types of stakeholders/project groups and the required levels of communication/input, assessing the risks, and providing a basis for future professional development and growth of the context. Furthermore, of particular interest, is the project management table by Allen (2017, p.54) that I could have used (among other great tables by Allen). I also liked the ideas from Bell (2018) which recommends the Design Thinking Toolkit for Libraries (with free downloadable toolkit) and the ‘Its Broken’ video by Seth Godin.
When it comes to the evaluation stage of the project, again, I don’t think I fully discussed the scope required for evaluation of the recommendations in my assessment. All services, new and old, require a schedule and means for evaluation across the whole context and beyond – current staff, users, community members and those we are trying to gain via outreach (Casey & Savastinuk, 2010).
Recent events have caused a major cultural shift in how we view ‘news’ and the media responsible for ‘reporting’ the ‘news.’ Yet, it is not actually all that recent. I myself (born in the 1970’s) can remember turning off the television or radio when the news came on, because it was just a report of everything that went bad in the world on that day, not to mention the fact that the glossiness and gleaming smiles of the presenters did not match my reality and provided me no social capital. My sister in law prefers Instagram to Facebook for exactly that reason: she finds Facebook brings her down, where Instagram less so. Many of my colleagues refuse to engage in a professional Facebook page because they claim ‘we don’t use it for that.’ This concept of being lost in the quagmire of negative ‘news’ (or the ‘negativity bias’ of humans) is not new as seen in publications such as this BBC news article (Stafford, 2014).
In any discussion around society (online or otherwise) it is important to recognise that human societal narratives are a result of their environment, not the cause. While face-to-face interactions have had a series of ‘rules’ and guidelines for civility, online interactions by comparison are merely at their infancy stage and so too are the devices which regulate them.
When looking at the following online news media sites: reddit,Digg, Newsvine,Hacker News, and Nuzzel I look hesitantly. I suppose I am old school? I like my news to be newsworthy? I dislike having to sift through advertising (often made to look like news) – its exhausting! Reddit pages that I follow or that they’ve selected for me based on what I’ve put in as my ‘interests’ tell me ‘lurkers are welcome.’ Digg has a better layout, more professional…Newsvine is run by NBC which I know to be a local network out to make a profit. HackerNews – no thanks, hacking is illegal and I don’t want to be a party to it even remotely. Apparently ‘top influencers’ use Nuzzel…is this what we’ve come to? Aspiring to be a ‘top influencer?’
Social media tools and platforms – Reflection on INF506 Module 3
First of all, how cool is the website “Internet Live Stats?” My mind boggles at the amount of background work required to obtain this information and I wonder at its reliability…? But, it certainly offers a clear view at how daunting it would be to keep up with all of those platforms in a small company!
Continuing on from my previous blog post, individual contexts (eg. schools) need to identify the platforms, websites, blogs and social media that would best engage their users or prospective users and develop a digital (learning) environment (DLE) framework. To paraphrase Stoddart, Chan & Liu (2016, p.143):
“(While) an excellently considered and employed facilitation framework in no way guarantees a successful outcome… a non-existent framework or poorly facilitated project will certainly limit the chances of a successful project.”
2. In order to determine which platforms to use or how to use them in your context, consider the most populated social media platforms, who is using them (eg. according to Komljenovic (2018) more high-income earners might use LinkedIn, XING, ResearchGate or Academia.edu) and how often they are using them. As of October, 2020, Statista have identified the following social media platforms as the most popular, based on ‘active users’:
(Image hyperlinks to Statista Global Social Networks October 2020)
3. While digital environments have the capacity to improve our lives, we need to plan for maintaining a safe, professional and healthy work-life balance on social media and online overall. Specifically, in terms of social media, we need to be mindful of possible negative impacts for ourselves as professionals as well as for our users, particularly with regards to physical health, mental health, life satisfaction and body mass index (Shakya & Christakis, 2017). Shakya & Christakis (2017) recommend we plan how we will attempt to exponentially increase face-to-face interactions in order to counteract the negative impact of online interactions, and to maintain a policy of quality social media interaction rather than quantity of social media interaction. (NOTE: I have also discussed in previous blog posts how, as teacher librarians, we need to work to assist our colleagues and students to manage the information overload issues of ‘filter failure’ and ‘filter bubble.’)
4. I like the idea of using a ‘web log’ a.k.a. blog or wiki (using something like GoogleSites) as a library hub, helping teachers and students with information literacy and other relevant topics, as discussed by Maxwell (2019), and would seek to include this in the website of my future school / library context(s). I could also then share my blog posts or other library information via social media. Alfonzo (2019, p.33) suggests that libraries could use social media for communication and knowledge sharing, particularly reaching members of the community who might not know about the information sources otherwise.
5. I also feel that student blogging is a great idea, having done it for myself for two years as part of this degree, I am so glad, looking back that I’ve maintained my learning and have a way of reminding myself or others about key information science issues and learning. Maxwell (2019) suggests that student blogging, when monitored and done safely and effectively, can improve student literacy skills, global connections, sharing perspectives and links for families to view their children’s progress. I also like the idea of student wikis using GoogleSites, suggested as offering better understanding of the writing process for students (Stoddart, Chan & Liu, 2016).
Bitmoji Do It!
[I also like the idea of having a staff wiki. Currently, staff communicate via Sentral but have their own teaching programs and classroom strategies. These would be much better coordinated by a wiki or maybe GoogleSites?]
6. Promoting and advocating the library blog (&/or wiki) and the libraryon the context’s selected social media and intra-net platforms (i.e. using ‘micro blogs‘ / tweets) is a whole new concept for me. [Personally, I dislike Twitter, and indeed, the whole concept of word limits – if I’m honest! 280 characters or less? No thanks! I prefer the motto ‘why use 1 word when 20 will do!’] However, I like the idea of Mentionapp as an analytic tool for hashtags (although I had to set up a professional twitter account to use it and that turned out to be a bit of a hassle). I can also see the benefit of having live updates via a Twitter feed in times of hardship, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, as proven by Alajmi & Albudaiwi (2020). I am just not sure if I want to be the one responsible for it… Alfonzo (2019, p.35) recommends these things to ensure ‘search engine optimisation’ (SEO) and that is to use a business profile, use the same @handle across all accounts and link the accounts wherever possible (eg. Instagram links to Facebook), have an engaging profile picture (and for situations where teachers don’t want to use their own pictures they can use a Bitmoji), using the whole library name (in my case, ‘Teachers Who Know Me’ as I don’t work in a library yet) as the account names, @symbols and #hashtags, having a library mission statement and contact details in the description or bio, add categories and story highlights wherever the application allows, and use the free analytics some social media networks offer.
7. Roadblocks and concerns abound! Not only am I concerned about the physical, financial and well-being cyber safety of young or naive social media users, I am also concerned about which members of the community social media does NOT reach or whose views are being privileged (based on the user demographics). I have concerns as well about the increased workload (and budgetary expense) of maintaining a digital learning environment – including social media platforms. Furthermore, the fears and issues around change leadership that may arise when introducing innovation in a workplace (which may or may not have a community of practice work culture). I myself am reluctant to use Twitter with any level of skill or benefit to the context and I consider myself fairly tech savvy (so, I can only imagine how someone less tech savvy might feel at being forced to use these platforms) and training and development will surely be required if the platforms are to be of any success… Thus, I read Vanscoy, Hicks & Cavanagh (2018) with the hopes that they would offer some insight into how to manage these roadblocks.
Komljenovic, J.(2019).Linkedin, platforming labour, and the new employability mandate for universities. Globalisation, Societies and Education.17:1,28-43. doi: 10.1080/14767724.2018.1500275
Shakya, H.B., Christakis, N.A. (2017). Association of Facebook use with compromised well-being: a longitudinal study. American Journal of Epidemiology.185(3). 203–211. doi: https://doi-org.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/10.1093/aje/kww189
Stoddart, A., Chan, J. Y-Y., & Liu, G-Z.(2016).Enhancing successful outcomes of wiki-based collaborative writing: a state-of-the-art review of facilitation frameworks.Interactive Learning Environments.24:1,142-157. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2013.825810
Vanscoy, A., Hicks, D., & Cavanagh, M. (2018). Understanding public libraries’ conversations: Promises and challenges of microblogging data. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS/Actes du congrès annuel de l’ACSI.
OLJ Task 2: The influence of technology on society or OLJ Task 3: Reflections on the impact of change
To be or not to be (active on social media) is no longer the question
If we want ‘customer-driven, socially rich, and collaborative model of service and content delivery’ (module 2) then we must stop asking ‘why’ or ‘when’ and start asking ‘how.’
Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robison & Weigel (2006, p.3) define a participatory culture as: “a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations, and some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novice. A participatory culture is also one in which members believe their contributions matter and feel some degree of social connection with one another (at least they care what other people thing about what they have created).”
According to Jenkins (et al., 2006), forms of participatory culture could include affiliations, expressions, collaborative problem-solving and circulations [“Affiliations – memberships, formal and informal, in online communities centred around various forms of media, such as Friendster, Facebook, message boards, meta-gaming , came clans or MySpace); Expressions – producing new creative forms, such as digital sampling, skinning and modding, fan video-making, fan fiction writing, zines, mash-ups); Collaborative Problem-solving – working together in teams, formal and informal, to complete tasks and develop new knowledge (such as through Wikipedia, alternative reality gamine, spoiling); or Circulations – shaping the flow of media (such as podcasting, blogging).”]
Artega (2012, p.72) writes, “social media extends the social milieu to the digital sphere where opportunities for global social participatory learning are plentiful.” Thus, to be viable in today’s globally connected society, particularly in western civilisation where a participatory culture has become the ‘norm,’ an educational facility’s social media presence is not only something that is necessary, but is something that must be done effectively.
“For library managers, questions are moving beyond how to initiate and launch social media to the more challenging problem of how to do social media well— how to better integrate social media into the life of the library, how to more fully engage the library’s staff and users in social media; how to make the library’s social media more effective in outreach and delivery of services, and how to measure the library’s presence and activities within social media in ways that truly matter. The next wave of trends in social media use are also always looming on the horizon— what will be the next big social site where users will be going next within the social media landscape, and should the library follow?” (Mon, 2014, p.51).
Some purposes for social media have been suggested by Mon (2014, p.24) as supported by the research of AlAwadhi (2019) to include: increased avenues for feedback from users, promotion and advocacy of the school &/or library, improved information access through outreach programs, deliverable educational or support hubs, improved collections and stronger or more frequent global collaborations. Notably, Kwon’s (2020) research places building trust ahead of information motivation as a reason for use of community social media platforms.
Roadblocks to consider
While reading Adner & Kapoor (2016) it occurred to me that, like all change processes, there will be roadblocks. This includes access to technology (either because of infrastructure, financial or intellectual constraints), as well as resistance to change from staff or families who are either change fatigued or stuck in the web1.0 mentalities. Perhaps there are issues around work-life balance, either for adults (addicted to screens and social media or overwhelmed by the need to take work home or have work cross over into the social sphere) or children (similarly addicted to screen time). These will all need to be considered in the 4 phases of creating a group digital presence or organisation’s digital learning environment (discussed at length in previous blog posts).
There is also the issue of needing to be innovative in the types of platforms that we promote as educators (as supported by the research of Manca (2020). Which brings up another roadblock to implementing social media for schools is the fact that there is an age limit for access – most students in K-6 Australian educational settings are below the age of 13 and cannot be encouraged by educators to look at nor participate in most social media applications. This means we have to tailor our content to an older demographic and seek out other (less public) social media platforms for younger students.
Some additional roadblocks or things to consider have been provided by Business.gov.au (2019) and they are to have a clear social media strategy, be mindful that additional staff or resources may be required for daily monitoring of all online platforms, be prepared for inappropriate behaviour (bullying, harassment, negative feedback, misleading or false claims, copyright infringement, information leaks or hacking) and have an action plan ready within your policy documents detailing specifically how to deal with these instances prior to launch date(s).
Hicks, Cavanagh & VanScoy (2020) recommend monitoring a library’s online presence via a ‘social network analysis (SNA).’ The SNA is a ‘theoretical framework and quantitatively oriented methodology’ for libraries to understand their ‘big data stories’ or connections with their community identifying relevant patterns and relationships among individuals, groups, or organisations over a specified period of time.
All of these issues need to be incorporated into the digital learning environment creation plan, a four phase process that I’ve detailed in a previous blog post from Digital Citizenship, but that can best be summarised in this infographic:
Digital citizenship implementation phases (Infographic) by Christy Roe
How to design a platform and design it well, improving engagement (web 2.0)
This leads to the next issue – how to have a website (web 1.0), that is interactive (web 2.0) and makes the step towards linking the online world to the offline world (web 3.0). We need to be thinking beyond web 1.0 in terms of having a simple ‘face’ website that offers little to no interaction and does not enable, encourage (nor monitor) engagement but a platform, website and social media presence that actively engages our users. The web 2.0 model of ‘likes’ is also becoming an outdated model and with web 3.0 we must begin to think of our digital presence as fully interactive, including building meaningful ongoing connections (Barnhart, 2020).
But each context must first ask “what does it mean to have ‘engaged users?” and “what platforms / website / social media should we use to engage them?”
(‘How marketers define engagement when measuring social success’ images hyperlinked; Barnhart, 2020).
After my practical work-placement in a local public library, where I completed two weeks of ‘virtual’ research on website design (offering several recommendations for website development for the library), I realise that there are almost infinite resources, research and opinions on how to design effective websites. I don’t believe that my understanding of moving from the web presence currently (as web 1.0) to web 2.0 (more interactivity) to even web 3.0 (content creation by the users) was fully developed, until I watched the video provided in module 2 of INF506 (Schwerdtfeger, 2013). I wish I had been able to communicate this idea previously.
Yet, one key article that I did find, in the interest of brevity, was Garett, Chiu, Zhang & Young’s (2016, p.1) literature review on website design in terms of user engagement. Their 4 notable findings were:
“Websites have become the most important connection to the public and using social media links on websites may increase user engagement;
Proper website design is critical for user engagement, because poorly designed websites result in a higher user ‘bounce’ rate (users do not proceed past the home page) whereas, well designed websites encourage user exploration and revisit rates;
The International Standardised Organisation (ISO) (in Garett, et al., 2016, p.1) defines website ‘usability’ as: “the extent to which users can achieve desired tasks (e.g., access desired information or place a purchase) with effectiveness (completeness and accuracy of the task), efficiency (time spent on the task), and satisfaction (user experience) within a system”;
Out of the 20 identified design elements that impact user engagement, 7 key design elements(in order of importance) are navigation, graphical representation, organisation, content utility, purpose, simplicity and readability.” Garett et al. expand these design element definitions, but the key words are:
Engaging graphical presentation: images, size and resolution, multimedia, font, font colour and size, logos, visual layout, colour schemes, and effective use of white space.
Optimal organisation: logical, understandable, and hierarchical / architectural structure, arrangement / categorisation, and meaningful labels/headings/titles/keywords.
Content utility: information is sufficient, of ongoing quality and relevant
Clear purpose: 1) establishes a unique and visible brand/identity, 2) addresses visitors’ intended purpose and expectations for visiting the site, and 3) provides information about the organisation and/or services.
Arteaga, S. (2012). Self-Directed and transforming outlier classroom teachers as global connectors in experiential learning. (Ph.D.), Walden University. http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/1267825419/BD063751849440E5PQ/1?accountid=10344
Garett, R., Chiu, J., Zhang, L., & Young, S. D. (2016). A literature review: website design and user engagement. Online journal of communication and media technologies, 6(3), 1.
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture. https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF
Mon, L. (2014). Social Media and Library Services. Morgan & Claypool Publishers. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csuau/detail.action?docID=2010483.
OLJ task 1: Social Media and Society – Journal Article Analysis
Self Esteem and Social Media, a Reflection:
I’ve selected the article by Lavrence & Cambre (2020) because it (and a few other of the articles provided) brings up another issue (in addition to those I mentioned in my previous post – not part of this assessment) with social media use: self esteem. The world of online interaction is a reflection of our 3 dimensional ‘real’ world, but it isn’t itself particularly ‘real.’ There has been a lot of research behind the use of magazines and their impact on the self esteems of various people. Men, young men, women, and just people in general. It makes sense therefore for the content to remain influential, despite the mode of delivery changing from printed magazines to electronic forms and social media.
Just as history has been written by the winners and images have been photoshopped and filtered, so too should we expect social media to be rife with filters and propaganda style imagery. To pretend that social media is responsible for the concepts of “raced, gendered, classed, aged, abled” information belies the historical examples of these issues in our society. The only thing that has changed is the mode of delivery and as educators we must help our students be aware of these issues so that they can identify them and discredit or stand up to them where necessary.
I particularly liked the phrase: “(we must) recast validation for appearance as a primary source of female empowerment through ideologies of online visibility” (Lavrence & Cambre, 2020, p.3). In terms of editing ‘selfies,’ I personally find them empowering. I occasionally play with the filters and then take a ‘real’ (unfiltered) photo in order to ground myself. I can generally tell when I need to get more sleep or apply creams to my skin or frizz gel to my hair from these experiences but don’t particularly notice my esteem changing. Nor do I notice my esteem changing when I see digitally enhanced images on the internet. Celeste Barber is a great master at this as well on Instagram – often copying ‘fake’ videos and images with more realistic versions. We still need validation for our appearance, we still need empowerment and we need to recognise different ideologies of online visibility, and we can still do these things with ‘selfies.’
I had not heard of ‘rinsta’ and ‘finsta’ but the concepts are interesting. I like to change photos sometimes because the normal camera filter does not represent the true beauty that I felt in that moment. Sometimes it is a selfie and sometimes it is a sunset. I consider these slightly edited images real, even though I also use the #nofilter on those occasions were the original represented near perfect reality. I think it is important to help our students develop their ‘digital forensic gaze’ (Lavrence & Cambre, 2020, p.11) to help them maintain a more stable self-esteem, particularly those who identify as cis-women, but as we’ve seen in the magazine era, not limited to cis-women.
Introduction to Social Media – Reflection on INF506 Module 1
Is social media good for us, or do we perceive it to be bad based on (possibly) outdated perceptions of healthy interaction?
I’m no stranger to social media. I have accounts on all of the top platforms, although I find Twitter a more boring version of Facebook and rarely check it) and even have my own Facebook group (#teacherswhoknowme). I am, in fact, questioning the benefits given the amount of time I spend on it instead of doing other, more traditionally ‘productive’ activities.
Yet, growing up, I was addicted to reading. I thought nothing of spending entire days in bed reading a stack of books that I checked out from the library, or later in my teens, books I’d bought in used bookstores. I even had a best friend who shared my love of reading and we’d chill in her room for entire weekends reading or going to bookstores and libraries. It seems a weird thing to do now but at the time, it never occurred to us. It probably saved us from the pursuits of boredom that impact teen behaviour today. (e.g. We weren’t hanging out at the shopping mall, smoking cigarettes or creating graffiti, etc).
Furthermore, my brother and I grew up playing outside a lot, as typical in the childhoods of the 1980’s and prior, but I remember when we moved in to live with my dad that my step mother lamented that we spent too much time on the sofa watching TV. What they did not take into account was our ‘social capital’ (Lampe, 2015) had changed. We no longer felt confident to roam outside freely and we preferred to stick together in our new environment. Similarly, the social capital of today’s youth has changed.
Nothing remains static in this world, why should socialising methods? Apart from the need for our society to increase their levels of physical activity to negate the health impacts of a sedentary lifestyle, why shouldn’t we be able to socialise primarily via diverse social media platforms, spending‘time and effort’ building friendships in this environment, particularly if ‘communication of all forms builds relationships’ (Lampe, 2015).
This reminds me of the readings on ‘participatory culture’ / 21st century learning skills.
Another change to society is that social media allows us to have more ‘weak ties’ (Lampe, 2015) with a larger amount of people, building the amount of information to which we have access makes collaboration easier, and improves access to information for those who may have limited access in their physical environments.
Yes, I probably spend ‘too much’ time on Facebook. And I can definitely say that this is related to the stress I feel on particular days, living in a new house that needs renovating in a new town with my children increasingly occupied in their own pursuits and my husband having to commute and spending more time at work. I need the connection and I need it to be familiar. I just need to remember to have a healthy work – life balance!
(Note: Some colleagues don’t like to use Facebook / social media for work purposes as it has the potential to cross over their work – life balance)
Social Media and Education
Akcaoglu & Bowman (2016, 2.1) are spot on when they say that the use of Facebook by educators creates “more interest in and perceive(d) more value in course content, (with students feeling) closer to the course and perceive(d) their instructors as more involved.” [However it is important to note that if I try to utilise Facebook in a primary school setting, it will not be for the use of my students as they are all ‘under age’ by the terms and conditions created by Facebook (and Instagram, etc) and I will therefore have to be creative in enabling global connections for my students.]
Personally, I am glad to not have to use the discussion forums anymore as the students waffle on. With Facebook, we are all used to ‘soundbites’ or snippets of information, scrolling on when we see long posts so I’m hopeful the waffling will be minimal with this course. (Save the waffling for your blog, I say!)
I am also reminded of the readings from Digital Citizenship, where we need to use 21st Century Learning devices for 21st Century learners…
Social media influence and misinformation
Gruzd, Wellman & Mai (2017) offer important points regarding social media, in terms of its influence and misinformation. Advertising (influence) is difficult to spot – in fact, individual people advertise on social media often just as well as corporations – and do so without cost to themselves. YouTube and Instagram have become renown for their social media ‘influencers’ (people who make a living using their personal social media platforms as advertising on behalf of larger corporations and even governments or those with political agendas). ‘Alternative facts’ or misinformation (lies – as I prefer to call them) are now as rife as hidden advertisements on TV, junk mail in the post and spam emails once were. As educators, we must help our students recognise these traits and use social media responsibly!
Lavrence, C., & Cambre, C. (2020). “Do I Look Like My Selfie?”: Filters and the Digital-Forensic Gaze. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120955182
The manner of locating resources by (A) natural language subject headings, (B) controlled vocabulary subject headings within libraries, or (C) standardised classification numbering systems such as ‘Dewey Decimal Classification’ (DDC), or the Library of Congress Classification (LCC,) (or in the form of genrefication of a collection) shows that the vocabulary for describing the ‘subject’ of a resource are all paramount to FRBR element of ‘location’ of a resource.
According to Hider (2018) subject headers, thesauri, classifications are all deceptively subjective, laborious, costly and difficult to maintain, while natural language can be too relative, varied and ambiguous (Hider & Harvey, 2008). So, how do we describe the subject of an item in a (universal) way that our patrons can locate what they need?
An ABC of important terms and their definitions from the modules and readings:
(A) Natural Language / Uncontrolled Vocabularies
Uncontrolled vocabulary: subject headings &/or descriptors created from natural language, derived from the information resources/authors which are often more up to date, common terms that are more familiar for users; Natural language / uncontrolled vocabularies better enable the tasks of keyword searching, records enhancement and automatic indexing (Hider & Harvey, 2008, p.154-155).
Key word searching: the method by which a user searches the library collection on the information retrieval system, usually via the title, author, subject, series or a mixture of these (Hider & Harvey, 2008, p. 155).
Boolean operations: search terms that improve the chance of a match as they include word proximity and word adjacency (Hider & Harvey, 2008, p.155); (See also below “Boolean logic: different terms are combined in a single search using ‘AND’, ‘OR’ and ‘NOT’ (Hider, 2018, p.178).”
Truncation: the abbreviation of search terms using the # symbol; improving the chance of successful searching because the number of results increases (Hider & Harvey, 2008, p. 155).
Bibliographic records enhancement: utilising natural vocabulary search functions to include the subject indicative key words within resource abstracts, contents and summaries (Hider & Harvey, 2008, p.156-157).
Abstracts: A brief, accurate, unambiguous, objective representation of the contents of a document or presentation, usually found in research journal databases; They are usually written after an article has been created and research finalised, and can be indicative / descriptive (indicating specific information found in the article), informative (summarising the data in the article), or critical (making a judgement about the quality of the article contents) (Hider & Harvey, 2008, p.159-160).
Social tagging: Social tagging is indexing performed by controllers and end users; Similar to truncation, particular key words can be given a # or ‘tag’, rather than being added by a controller, the tag is assigned by a multitude of users, which is then searchable, particularly in social media; Social tagging is not regulated and can be inconsistent (Hider, 2018, p.85-86).
Folksonomies: a natural vocabulary wordplay opposing controlled taxonomy, folksonomies are indexing vocabularies created by end-users, recommended to be used to complement professional indexing (Hider, 2018, p.86-87).
Objectivism: The view that one may need to discover knowledge, but that all knowledge is ‘set’ and universal (Hider, 2018, p. 189).
Subjectivism: The view that knowledge is (and is therefore organised) based on various perspectives within culture and societies (see also warrant, below) (Hider, 2018, p.189).
Controlled vocabularies: Standardised / prescribed sets of metadata values to help index, identify or display a collection (or both); Sometimes referred to as knowledge organisation systems (Hider, 2018, p.175).
Subject / subject header: a particular knowledge domain which is not always easily identified and not objective, and is, in fact a matter of individual subjective judgement (Hider, 2018, p.175-176); in which (according to LCSH) the knowledge domain / subject is covered by at least 20% of the resource content (Hider, 2018, p.183).
Subject description: careful analysis of the content of a resource (Hider, 2018, p. 177).
LCSH: Library of Congress Subject Headings; A standardised (but continually growing and cross-referenced) list of subject headings used to index the content of all english pubic/academic library collections; The initial term heading (followed by a string of sub-divisions) are created as ‘MARC’ fields that can be searched within ‘OPAC’ (Hider, 2018, p.179-180).
LCGFT:Library of Congress Genre / Form Terms for Library and Archival Materials which “covers ‘artistic and visual works, cartographic materials, “general” materials (e.g. dictionaries, encyclopaedias), law materials, literature, moving images (films and television programs), music, non-musical sound recordings (primarily radio programs), and religious materials’ (Library of Congress, 2018, in Hider, 2018, p.183).
ScOT: Schools OnlineThesaurus, descriptors used in support of the SCISshl (headings) (Hider, 2018, p188). Schools Online Thesaurus (ScOT) provides controlled vocabulary subject access to online curriculum content relevant to Australian and New Zealand schools and has also been provided by Education Services Australia.
Subject thesaurus: a structured, post-coordinated, automated, retrieval, indexing (rather than classifying) compilation tool which uses cross-referenced descriptors in support of the subject headings (Hider, 2018, p.185;190); The standard for the creation of subject thesauri is set by the ISO Standard Thesauri for Information Retrieval (Hider, 2018, p.188); See also ScOT(above), ERIC Thesaurus, STW Thesaurus for Economics, NASA Thesaurus, National Agricultural Library Thesaurus, Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Thesaurus, Australian Health Thesaurus, Australian Thesaurus of Education Descriptors, British Education Thesaurus, Art and Architecture Thesaurus, & the Thesaurus for Graphic Materials (Hider, 2018, p.187-188).
Warrant: a subjective (see subjectivism above) way to specify the most likely thesaurus terms that will be used as descriptors for the subject headings, eg. literary warrant or user warrant (Hider, 2018, p.185).
Facet analysis: the method for studying how the facets (and sub-facets) of particular field of knowledge are structured in concept or labelled in terminology (Hider, 2018, p.185-186).
Index term: a subject heading’s ‘descriptor’ used for cross referencing purposes (Hider, 2018, p.176).
Cross-referencing: identified by codes like: UF (use for); BT (broader term); NT (narrower term); and RT (related term) (Hider, 2018, p.181).
Derived indexing: takes/derives words ‘naturally’ from the document (Hider, 2018, p.176).
Assigned indexing: takes words from somewhere else, typically from a controlled/standardised indexing vocabulary, and assigns them to represent the document’s content.
Summary level indexing: main topics are described to represent the resource as a whole (Hider, 2018, p.176).
Standardised classification scheme: vocabulary used for placing items in a specific location or area on a shelf so that it may be easily located (Hider, 2018, p. 175).
Controlled vocabulary / controlled subject vocabulary: subject headings lists, subject thesauri, or subject classification schemes that can be qualitative or quantitative (Hider, 2018, p.175).
Pre-coordination: the strings of terms representing the sub-concepts are coordinated prior to indexing and searching, e.g. Birds-Australia; This method is less restrictive (Hider, 2018, p.177-178).
Post-coordination: the strings of terms representing the sub-concepts stand alone and are then individually searched, e.g. Australia. Birds; This method is more precise (Hider, 2018, p.177-178).
Boolean logic: different terms are combined in a single search using ‘AND’, ‘OR’ and ‘NOT’ (Hider, 2018, p.178).
(C) Subject Classification Schemes
“Dewey Decimal System Poster” by Eigappleton is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
Subject classification schemes: careful arrangement of the subject headings into groups/classes using (numerical) notations rather than descriptors (Hider, 2018, p.189-190). Subject classification schemes (using subject division – see ‘100 divisions of DDC’ and ‘LCC scheme overview’ charts below) and subdivision disciplines are a good for classification bibliographically, but if used unilaterally for placing resources on shelves, can result in resources being scattered across the space (Hider, 2018, p.193-195); Furthermore, no other numbers than those provided in the DDC ‘Schedules’ or the 6 ‘Tables’ (see ‘6 Tables of DDC’ image below) may be used; While subject classification is usually for labelling and shelving purposes, they can also be vitally important for searching digital collections, digital museums, musical or audio collections (however, not archival collections as these must be organised by date) (Hider, 2018, p.200-201).
LCC, ADDC15 & DDC23, UDC: These are subject classification schemes (note above) used in the call number element; They are the Library of Congress Classification, the Abridged Dewey Decimal Classification, currently edition 15 (ADDC15) and Dewey Decimal Classification, edition 23 (DDC23) and the Universal Decimal Classification(UDC) (Hider, 2018, 192-193; 196; 198).
Call number: The entire notation sequence of numbers &/or letters uniquely identifying a resource, making it easier to locate or find on the shelves (Hider, 2018, p.197).
Disciplines of subject classification schemes: The synthetic means by which the subject classification scheme (such as DDC, UDC, or LCC – used by Trove) is organised, similar to subject headings, but is more aligned with the resource’s purpose, rather than what the resource is about or how it will be used; (Hider, 2018, p.193)
DDC: Dewey Decimal Classification;
LCC: Library of Congress Classification using disciplines and a hierarchical notation system, similar to the DDC, except the LCC uses letters and numbers; the LCC and subject headings were created in 1897 based on the ‘Cutter Expansive Classification’/’Cutter numbers’ which create a specific position for each item within a class (see the ‘Summary of LCC’ image below) further expanding using ‘auxiliary tables’ (Hider, 2018, p.196-197).
UDC: Universal Decimal Classification; a French first attempt at universal bibliographic control across all recorded knowledge (not just American based knowledge) particularly science and technology converted to English in 1980 but still not widely used in English speaking countries; (Hider 2018, p. 198).
(Hider 2018, p.194). The ‘hundred divisions’ of Dewey Decimal Classification (2011). [Image](Hider, 2018 p.195). The 6 Tables of DDC.(Hider, 2018, p.196)
Thoughts and musings before and after completing the final assessment:
In modules 4 & 5, while reading Hider (2018) p. 201-205, I tried to understand how a taxonomy is different from a classification system versus an ontology system, but sorry, my brain would not absorb it and I feared I had reached max capacity for Hider.
Throughout this session, I could not manage the multitude of forum posts for this subject. It was far more than any other subject (and I’ve completed all but 1 elective at this point) and was very minimal in actual ‘discussion’ – more used as a place for students to post their answers to the tasks. I recommend the powers that be consider using a series of (perhaps unmarked but compulsory) ‘quizzes’ or something for the tasks other than forum discussions, particularly if the cohort is medium to large in future.
When I started this degree I expected to do this class first. I think I am glad that I didn’t. I can see the relevance, but the content is very academic and I’m glad I did it (almost) last. In the beginning of this class I felt like I was filling my brain with things that would be taking up what is very valuable and limited realestate, and I only just changed my mind after completing the second assessment. (This may be compounded by the fact that I am not presently, nor have I ever, worked full time as a teacher librarian and everything I am trying to learn from copious amounts of reading is not yet applicable to my real world context.)
As I read (and read) the first assessment feedback, the main thing that I learned was that the lecturer and the text book author for the course were both very very much smarter than I. (This is certainly, without question, definitely true. Yet, I think it is a reflection on the course that I feel this way. Is it far too academic, far too wordy, far too heavy in reading, and, although I got a credit in the first assessment, far too thorough in the marking? Or am I too arrogant? Food for thought.)
My issue with Research in Practice was exactly the same issue that I had with Describing and Analysing Education Resources and that was: I have spent most of the course trying to dig myself out of the (growth mindset) learning pit and felt out of my comfort zone the entire duration. I was reading and reading and reading. I was reading the texts, the modules and the forum posts (although, as previously stated, found very little with which to engage). I was posting blog posts with my reading notes. I was doing the exercises and checking my answers (generally way off!). I took two weeks off work (on either side of my 2 week prac) to ensure I completed the final assessment, meaning I had a month off work (and financially suffered with my family). And in the end, I learned a fair bit and would consider what I learnt, worth the struggle.
On my way Bitmoji
Finally, now that I’ve done the course and basically finished the degree, I pleased to say that I feel like I understand the concepts and could manage cataloguing. (Enjoying cataloguing, however, might be a fair way into the distance)…Also, I still think Hider (and a few times in the learning modules) need to correct all of the many end of sentence prepositions in the next edition of the textbook. Please. Thank you.
References
Hider, P. (2018). Information Resource Description : Creating and Managing Metadata: Vol. Second edition. Facet Publishing.
Hider, P., & Harvey, R. (2008). Organising knowledge in a global society : Principles and practice in libraries and information centres. ProQuest Ebook Central https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
“Metadata specialists need to know their users, their collections and resources, and the information organisation systems they are working with (sic). They also need to develop an eye for detail, a very clear, succinct form of expression and a systematic and thorough approach. Faced with choices about what and how to describe, they need to apply principles as well as standards” (Hider, 2018, p.103).
Quality metadata: effective, functional, comprehensive, accurate and consistent
If metadata is of the highest quality, that is: effective, functional, comprehensive, accurate and consistent, then users, even with their complex information seeking needs (which they themselves may not even know) are commonly more satisfied (Hider, 2018, p.93-94). The best way to ensure the highest quality, including effectiveness, functionality, comprehension, accuracy, and consistency is through metadata standards and / or use of standards in terms of setting’s community of practice (Hider, 2018, p.123).
Functionality:
Knowing the user information needs (rather than assuming their needs, basing cataloguing on the cataloguer ideas or opinions of librarians) leads to better database quality (Hider, p. 94);
Standardised indexing aids in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) finding (Hider, 2018, p.94);
Standardised displays aid FRBR selecting (Hider, 2018, p. 94).
Comprehensiveness:
Comprehensive metadata requires a choice: more resources with less detailed metadata descriptions, or less resources with more metadata detail. Full descriptions cost more to create and thus, how comprehensive the data is must be weighed against the cost (Hider, 2018, p. 95);
Brief descriptions aid FRBR discovering (but not selecting) (Hider, 2018, p.95).
Accuracy:
Metadata must be accurate and consistently evaluated and corrected, because small errors can result in a failure for the user to find, identify, select, obtain or explore the information (Hider, 2018, p.95).
Clarity
Metadata descriptive words are chosen carefully to enable clarity. Without clarity, accuracy is moot – including language choice, jargon, abbreviations, codes, homonyms, or even changes in word popularity / common use (e.g. what is commonly called a title = ‘title proper’ to cataloguers; subtitle = ‘other title information’; or a title in a different language = ‘parallel title’) (Hider, 2018, p.96); Here is a screen shot of some common abbreviations used:
Rowe, 2019, Module 3.2 Screen shot of abbreviations
Quality metadata also has clarity, in that it is succinct – brief indexes may improve search results as the fewer the terms, the fewer irrelevant search results occur (Hider, 2018, p.97).
Consistency:
Being consistent, using the same elements and values aids FRBR retrieval across multiple systems (aka interoperability) (Hider, 2018, p.97);
Consistency (in descriptions, lengths, structures and terminologies used in indexes) aids in all FRBR functions (find, identify, select, obtain or explore) (Hider, 2018, p.97);
Consistency of understanding between the cataloguer/indexer and the user / searcher is also important and this is achieved by standardisation (Hider, 2018, p.98);
Vocabulary control, an aspect of consistency, is where the cataloguer/indexer use the same, standardised language, utilising cross referencing tools such as ‘see also’ (Hider, 2018, p.99-100);
Authority control, also an aspect of consistency, is where the names of people, nicknames/pseudonyms/varied bibliographic identities/people with the same name, organisations or corporate bodies, or titles and series are standardised in a list (such as this list by the Library of Congress or this list of standards by the National Libraries of Australia) or written to include birth years (Hider, 2018, p.101-102);
Evaluation systems such as quality control (QC) processes, audits, quality assurance (QA) processes including quality measures and benchmarks, checklists or scorecards ensure metadata consistency based on user needs (Hider, 2018, p.104).
A range of standards for a range of environments
“A range of standards have been developed for all aspects of metadata, including its values, elements, format and transmission” (Hider, 2018, p.123).
These metadata standards relate to ‘key information domains’, such as:
Book publishing – Copy editors refer to ‘style manuals’ such as: the Chicago Manual of Style, Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, MLA Handbook, and AMA Manual of Style; Electronic text publishers adhere to online standards such as the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) or the Online Information Exchange (ONIX) (Hider, 2018, p.163);
Research – data repositories such as: UK Data Archives, Australian National Data Service (ANDS), Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (CSDGM), Australia and New Zealand Spatial Information Council (ANZLIC) Metadata Profile, Darwin Core (DwC), earth sciences Directory Interchange Format, space science Space Physics Archive Search and Extract (SPACE) Data Model, and the social science Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) (Hider, 2018, p.165-166).
Education – The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Learning Object Metadata standard (IEEE-LOM), the Gateway to Educational Materials schema (in USA), Education Network Australia (EdNA) schema, and, more recently, the Australia and New Zealand Learning Object Metadata standard (ANZ-LOM) by Education Services Australia (Hider, 2018, p. 167).
Web publishing – Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), Extensible Markup Language (XML) [with namespaces including Universal Resource Identifier (URI/URL)], and Resource Description Framework (RDF) as specified by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C); (Rowe, 2019, Module 3.3; Hider, 2018, p.124-127);
Digital Libraries – Dublin Core (DC), Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) and Metadata Authority Description Schema (MADS), Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS), Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) and OpenURL (providing access to journal content within subscribed databases); (Rowe, 2018, Module 3.3; Hider, 2018, p. 150, 153-154);
Archives – General International Standard Archival Description (ISAD(G) similar to ISBD below) and Encoded Archival Description (EAD); (Rowe, 2018, Module 3.3; Hider, 2018, p. 155-156, 158);
Museums – Standard Procedures for Collections Recording Used in Museums (SPECTRUM), International Committee for Documentation (CIDOC) International Guidelines for Museum Object Information: the CIDOC information categories (1995) and CRM; (Rowe, 2018, Module 3.3; Hider, 2018, p. 160-161);
Libraries – The Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (Published by the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) in 2009 updated in 2016), Anglo American Cataloguing Rules (AACR/AACR2), International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD), Machine Readable Cataloguing (MARC/MARC21) (a format for the automatic electronic sharing of library catalogue data – including the description, main entry/entries, subject heading(s) and Dewey Decimal ‘call number’ – that may be updated to the Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative (BIBFRAME) in the future); Z39.50 (client server information retrieval protocol for large searches); and finally, Resource Description Access (RDA) which is based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), (Rowe, 2019, Module 3.3; Hider, 2018, p.132-133, 136, 142-143, 147, 149; Furrie, 2009).
Registries of standards – To keep track of all of the standards as they grow and change over time and to select the appropriate standard or crosswalks between various standards for their tasks, metadata specialists use registries of standards such as: “the Open Metadata Registry, the Dublin Core Metadata Registry, the Basel Register of Thesauri, Ontologies and Classifications (BARTOC) and Schema.org, the last of which encourages individuals from across domains to join its community of schema developers” (Hider, 2018, p.168).
What is RDA and the RDA toolkit?
RDA (the main current standard for descriptive cataloguing) was built on the foundational basis of how effective catalogues operate, namely, FRBR & FRAD and is conceptualised by certain things which have inter-relationships to other things, thereby ensuring that users can search for and access information successfully (Hider, 2018, p.136; Oliver, 2010, p.14-15).
Find: “…(T)o bring together information about one or more resources of interest by searching on any relevant criteria” IFLA, 2017, p. 15 in Hider, 2018, p.29; Oliver, 2010, p.15) “The most precise attribute for this purpose is an identifier, which frequently takes the form of a number, uniquely assigned to a particular resource. Another attribute that often serves to identify a resource is its name. This can be more descriptive than an identifier, but may not be totally unique. Nevertheless, it often does the job and is more likely to be remembered than an ‘artificial’ identifier” (Hider, 2018, p.31). “A prime example of a systematic identifier at this level is the ISBN (ISSN, ISTC or ISAN)” (Hider, 2018, p.34);
Identify: “(To identify is) to clearly understand the nature of resources found and to distinguish between similar resources” (IFLA, 2017, p. 15 in Hider, 2018, p.29; Oliver, 2010, p.15); “A manifestation of a work, such as a particular printing of a book, is also unlikely to be named, except in very generic terms, such as ‘third printing’ or ‘2003 release’. This sort of metadata may be used in the identification or selection process, but it is seldom used to find the resource. A user may choose between a PC and a Mac version, or prefer an earlier printing if they are a literary scholar” (Hider, 2018, p.31); “To this end, users need sufficient and accurate description” (Hider, 2018, p.34); “Similarly, if a particular manifestation is required and there is no systematic identifier such as an ISBN to check, the user will typically start by identifying the work and then look at attributes pertaining to the carrier, especially publication and format. At the item level, users may consider attributes such as provenance, i.e. the item’s custodial history, to identify, for example, a piece of art or an archival file” (Hider, 2018, p.35).
Select: “(To select is) to determine the suitability of the resources found, and to be enabled to either accept or reject specific resources” (IFLA, 2017, p. 15 in Hider, 2018, p.29; Oliver, 2010, p.15); “…the selection process essentially occurs inside the user’s head” (Hider, 2018, p.39); “On reading the resource descriptions, the user may be influenced by other elements that they then realise are relevant to the selection process” (Hider, 2018, p.36); “In the field of information retrieval, the attributes used to select resources are referred to as relevance criteria” (Hider, 2018, p.36); “The kind of resource people want, when they do not have a specific resource in mind, often relates to the subject of its content” (Hider, 2018, p.36); “Other aspects of a resource’s content may also be of interest to selectors. For example, users may well be interested in its quality, in which case comments, reviews and ratings can be helpful. The currency of content may also be a factor to consider, so the user may look for a creation date or copyright year, for example. Likewise, the amount of content (e.g. the number of words) may have a bearing. The form of a work could also be relevant. It may be ‘about’ Japan, but it may be a map, website or film documentary. It turns out, then, that information content can be described in many different, and sometimes unanticipated, ways” (Hider, 2018, p.36).
Obtain: “To access the content of the resource” (IFLA, 2017, p. 15 in Hider, 2018, p.29); “To acquire or obtain access to the entity described (ie. to acquire an entity through purchase, loan, etc., or to access an entity electronically through an online connection to a remote computer” (Oliver, 2010, p.15). “In today’s online world, users often need very little by way of metadata in order to obtain, or gain access to, an information resource – just a label on a hyperlink…information about how to obtain it…is the resource’s location” (Hider, 2018, p.39).
Explore: “To discover resources using the relationships between them and thus place the resources in a context” (IFLA, 2017, p. 15 in Hider, 2018, p.29); “In today’s networked world, these linkages are underpinned by the hyperlink mechanism, whereby the linked record is only a mouse-click away. In the analogue world, one might have to look up a cross-reference” (Hider, 2018, p.39); “(T)his process allows the user…to get a feel for a network of resources through their surrogate records. … Relationships between resources, their commonalities and their differences are the heart of what organisation is about (sic)” (Hider, 2018, p.40).
FRBR vs FRAD (Rowe, 2019, Module 3.3) See also, Oliver, 2010, p. 16.
Creating bibliographic records for selected information resource using RDA
SCIS have excellent information resource standards for cataloguing and data entry, based on FRBR/FRAD/RDA. Rowe (2019, module 3.5) has shared an amazing video to help navigate the RDA toolkit, as well as a table to help create a bibliographic record using RDA, which I’ve uploaded to GoogleSheets, including notes from Rowe (2019, Module 3.5). Furthermore, Rowe (2019) writes:
“When using the RDA Toolkit you should note the following…Instructions within RDA move from the general to the specific. … The appendices of RDA contain supplementary information including, among other things, guidelines for capitalisation and abbreviations and symbols, and in Appendices I through to M you will find the controlled lists of relationship designators. There is a glossary which is particularly useful if you are unfamiliar with terminology. RDA also contains a Tools Tab where you will find mappings from RDA to MARC and MARC to RDA; workflows contributed by RDA users; an index to the RDA Toolkit; and examples of records encoded in MARC format. The Resources Tab includes the full text of AACR2; and policy statements from agencies including the National Library of Australia and the Library of Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging, as well as a link to the MARC Standards” (Rowe, 2019, Module 3.5).
Screen Shot of the RDA Toolkit taken by Christy Roe August 2020
Welsh, A., & Batley, S. (2012). Bibliographic elements. In Practical cataloguing: AACR, RDA and MARC 21 (pp.17-48). London: Facet. Available from eBook Library.
Resources must be NAVIGATED, Discovered, Identified, Selected, Obtained
In order for an information seeker or library user to effectively navigate a library collection, they must be taught how to use the organisational tools for that setting, such as: catalogues, databases (periodical / citation / image / etc), bibliographies, subject guides / gateways, directories or search engines, to name a few (Rowe, 2019, Module 2.1) this includes staff, parents, students, the general public, etc.
“The arrangement of resources by Dewey Decimal Classification, alphabetical order and, on occasion, by other attributes such as type of material, level of difficulty, and genre, along with the use of indexes and databases, such as the library catalogue, are key tools of information retrieval used in school libraries” (Rowe, 2019, Module 2.1).
Tools and systems
To truely be considered an effective information retrieval organisational system, systems must not simply be based on content (i.e. Google or #tags) but must also be based on the elements of metadata – such as is found in library catalogues and archival finding aids, and must be 1. arranged, 2. labelled and/or 3. indexed (Hider, 2018, p.43).
Arrangements: by author or by genre? Either way, a standardised protocol (e.g. The Dewey Decimal Classification or DDC) is the first step (Hider, 2018, p.44).
Labels are also key, either individual resource labels or labelled in groups, using either words or numerical notations for words/subject matter (Hider, 2018, p.44-45).
Indexing, is a basic information organisational tool for collections or single resources which uses compact, descriptive, efficient and effective metadata which, in turn, allows multiple access points (e.g. title, author, institution, series, numerical identifiers, etc) for end-users/information seekers (and the more points of access = the greater the chance of success) (Hider, 2018, p.46). Indexes can be closed (once-off & static), open (growing & flexible), card (outdated in today’s libraries), or computer ‘bibliographic’ databases (e.g. SCIS) (Hider, 2018, p.47-49). Indexes form the basis for information retrieval organisation systems such as catalogues, bibliographic databases (e.g. library catalogue) / citation databases, museum registers, archival finding aids, content management systems and search engines (Hider, 2018, p.46; 50).
Library catalogues
Around 1970’s-1980’s, OPAC (online public access catalogue) was the first database to take over paper card catalogues, and was a huge international human data entry task using MARC (machine readable cataloging in a standard format) (Hider, 2018, p.52). OPAC/MARC allowed more access points and has continually grown over time to include things like Boolean searching, truncation, and multiple &/or remote access (Hider, 2018, p.52-53). However, it is important to note that more work is needed to make library catalogues designed in the MARC format competitive with Google:
“Perhaps an even greater issue, however, is the scope of library catalogues. Nowadays they represent only a certain proportion of information resources provided by the library, and only a tiny proportion of resources available in the online environment as a whole. As Ruschoff (2010, 62) argues, ‘more lipstick on our catalogs is not going to make our OPACs the search engine of tomorrow’. Since it is clearly impossible for libraries to catalogue all the useful resources now available on the internet, the way forward appears to be for libraries to ensure that their metadata is out there in the wider online environment: if they can’t beat the likes of Google, they need to join them” (Hider, 2018, p.57).
Sharing library catalogues / metadata
Metadata that has been created using agreed standardised protocols such as MARC / RDA, as well as containing the agreed set of elements, it can be used in different information retrieval systems at different institutions, creating ‘bibliographic networks’ and even ‘bibliographic utilities,’ and ‘union catalogues’ offering the benefit of it only having to be created once, saving a great deal of time and expense (Hider, 2018, p111-112; 115).
One such ‘bibliographic utility’ is the SCIS catalogue. Chadwick (2015, p.12) points out that by purchasing their catalogue, schools can save hundreds of data entry hours (and money paying employees) and can obtain a more narrow, school-focussed catalogue (as opposed to the more broad catalogues available from places like the National Library).
However, it is one thing to offer a catalogue to share, and another for that catalogue to be able to transmit over to a setting’s computer system. In order to ‘transmit,’ a setting must have particular protocols, such as Z39.50. “Z39.50 is an ‘application layer network protocol’ covered by the ANSI/NISO Z39.50 and ISO 23950 standards and maintained by the Library of Congress. Application layer protocols provide computer programs with a common language when sharing data across networks. Some well-known application layer protocols include Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and File Transfer Protocol (FTP). Z39.50 allows a system – usually a LMS – to search and retrieve information from bibliographic databases across the world” (Chadwick, 2015b, paragraph 2).
As well as sharing amongst library databases, various databases and even repositories, archives and museums now share their catalogues with search engines and social media applications, improving their catalogue accessibility (Hider, 2018, p.116). “Libraries, museums, archives, universities and publishers are all coming to realise that their websites are not necessarily the first port of call for information seekers. The reality is that, far more often, search engines such as Google are” (Hider, 2018, p.117).
Which brings to the fore the issue of ‘interoperability’ or the ability of metadata created using MARC’s ability to work in a variety of systems, where, if the metadata is not using the same standardised protocols as MARC, it must be converted into a transmittable format using ‘maps’ and ‘crosswalks’ such as ‘Dublin Core’ or DC (Hider, 2018, p.117-118) and Michael Day has provided a great list of maps and crosswalks for a variety of system conversions.
Library databases as a school hub / Learning commons
Combes (2012, p.6-7) makes a great point: schools should be fully utilising their library catalogue / database / information management system to include all resources, even those not housed in the library, including: “class sets; ‘old’ technology resources such as video recorders and TVs; and ‘newer’ technology such as laptops, e-book readers, interactive whiteboards, USB sticks and digital cameras as catalogued items.”
Furthermore, she also makes the point that the catalogues / databases / information management systems should be exemplary teaching models of web design, utilising the most efficient layout, colours, disability access, displays, navigation, interconnectivity and access points (Coombes, 2012, p.7).
Federated search systems
Hider (2018, p.58-59) pushes this concept of libraries as information hubs a bit further through the use of federated search systems, creating ‘service convergence.’ Federated search systems allow users to search multiple databases simultaneously – much like the CSU library ‘Primo’ or the National Library of Australia’s ‘Trove’ function. However, these rely on 1. access globally (rather than simply to those who pay the registration fee) 2. the various databases to all speak the same ‘language’ in terms of language, syntax and semantics, and 3. the various databases must also use similar ‘standardised’ cataloguing protocols as those used by the library setting(s) (Hider, 2018, p.58-59).
Content management and repository systems: Intranet
The large amounts of digital content organisations are producing is managed via different content management systems, intranet and software or ‘institutional repositories’ of various natures and sizes, which have been amalgamated by staff or peer groups They vary enormously in nature and size and may be new or ‘old’ resources being converted digitally (Hider, 2018, p.64-65). These institutional repositories may have textual content (e.g. academic papers, theses, old newspapers, recipes), audiovisual content (images, videos, sound recordings) or multimedia content (e.g. websites). (Hider, 2018, p.64-65).
Combes, B. (2012). Practical curriculum opportunities and the library catalogue. Connections, 2012(82), 5-7. (On the SCIS home page, click on ‘Connections’ Issue 82, Term 3 2012 & download issue).
Hider, P. (2018). Information resource description: Creating and managing metadata (2nd ed.). London: Facet.
Witten, I. H., Bainbridge, D., & Nichols, D. M. (2010). How to build a digital library (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann. Available from CSU eBooks. (‘The scope of digital libraries’, p. 6-9 and ‘Metadata: Elements of organisation’ p. 285-286)
Before the 4 day study visit (SV) or (10 day) workplace placement (WPL)
Enrol in ETL507 Session 2 & Session 3 2020; Read all modules; Read suggested list in references; Attend all webinars; Take SV pre-quiz by 3 August 2020; and take WPL pre-placement quiz by 17 August 2020; (COMPLETE).
Read ‘Foundation knowledge skills & attributes’ PDF by ALIA, ASA & RIMPA; Join LinkedIn; (COMPLETE).
Watch CSU WPL webinar and read presentation slides for how to write goals and CV; (COMPLETE).
Attend 4 study visits (see schedule) and reflect on the experiences; (COMPLETE)
Create a draft portfolio outline during the week of 7 September 2020.
Submit a SV report by 18 -20 September 2020. (COMPLETE).
Create SMAER goals for prac experience: 1. To observe and gain an understanding how the library prioritises meeting the expectations of a variety of stakeholders including the council and broader local community; 2. To learn how the library identifies and investigates and satisfies the needs and information behaviours of its users (including individuals, communities, organisations and businesses) through creation, collaboration and partnerships; and 3. To learn how the library evaluates information sources, services and products to determine their relevance to the needs of their users (ALIA goals). (COMPLETE).
Draft a CV using the strategies recommended in the webinar; Prepare an up-to-date 2020 CV (to upload later on InPlace – remember to name the file: RoeETL507CV); (COMPLETE).
Consider timing for WPL (must be 4 weeks after proposal submitted but 2 weeks before end of ETL507); (Thoughts: so long as COVID-19 doesn’t require me to look after my children again, I should be able to do the placement any time. I’d prefer to do it during school holidays as I am a casual teacher and would lose income by doing it during the term, but will be open to the host’s needs). (COMPLETE).
Select host and 2 back-up hosts; Check do not call list & review contact guidelines; (e.g. Bega Valley Public Library; 2 other ‘virtual’ placements from Canberra libraries which I missed out on due to COVID-19?). (COMPLETE).
Contact host(s) – remember to ask if they have 10 min to talk, and if so, explain “I’m a student with the SIS, CSU, doing the MaEd. TL course and I’d like to ask about possibly doing a professional placement of 10 days with a qualified information professional supervisor for my workplace learning.” If they agree, then explain my interests / goals. If they are still in agreement, propose a timeframe for completing the placement (e.g. any 10 days between 19 Sept 2020 – 15 Jan 2021). (COMPLETE).
Understand the host requirements and discuss with the host if they can: a. provide a supervisor that is a professionally recognised information professional with an information/librarian qualification (as well as the job title), b. that they agree to design, develop and support an appropriate program to meet my goals and c. that their collection and services reflect the size, nature and needs of the community; (COMPLETE)
Obtain the ‘agency’ contact details, suggested roster and supervisor contact details for the placement proposal; (COMPLETE)
Write and submit placement proposal & CV (including my SMART goals) to InPlace using the guide provided, registering for WPL; this must be submitted 4 weeks prior to WPL or no later than Mon. week 14 of ETL507’s 1st session, which for me is 12 October 2020; (COMPLETE – although I only have 1 week before the agency want me to do the placement).
Once the WPL team have contacted the host and approved the placement, make arrangements with host regarding a program for what I could do for them during the placement, supervisor details & organise my work or other commitments. (COMPLETE)
During
WPL to be completed by 15 Jan 2021 or 2 weeks following the end of the placement. (COMPLETE)
Eat, sleep, & be prepared; Be on time; Dress appropriately; Be curious-figure out the best way to learn from an unfamiliar setting; Ask questions with good timing and respect with the position that I’m a novice/student; Be open minded to different ideas that might challenge my self confidence and ‘sense of self’; Follow workplace protocols and WH&S requirements; Be a team player; Be receptive to feedback; Always use personal devices appropriately; Consider CSU values and be: insightful, inclusive, impactful, inspiring; Be aware of and behave according to ‘ALIA Employer Roles & Responsibilities in Ed. & P.D.’ policy and CSU’s policies on: ‘Make a good first impression,‘ ‘Student Charter,’ ‘Student misconduct rule 2020‘; ‘Harassment & Bullying Prevention policy‘; ‘Anti-racism policy‘; and ‘Academic Integrity policy‘ (being honest, fair & responsible). (COMPLETE)
During the placement tasks, keep in the forefront the outcomes for ETL507: Learning with the head (cog.), hands (skills), heart (affective) & body (phys.); Understand the wider library community and its practices; Evaluate the role/functions of libraries; Apply theory into practice reflectively; (COMPLETE)
Report emergencies to the CSU WPL team and my course contact: Liz Derouet (including accidents, hazards, criminality, fires, harassment, abuse or events of nature/’acts of god’); (COMPLETE)
Continually reflect on the experience, using the ‘what, so what, now what’ model recommended in Brown (2017); See also Hampe, N. (2013) and Hull, B., Churkovich, M., Outred, C. & Turner, D. (2011); Describe, discuss & reflect on issues, such as: how the library interacts with users, who are the users, how easy is it to locate information about the library; how different is it in fact vs from my assumptions; what information is imparted by the library; and what services do they offer? (COMPLETE)
Think about my blog; Consider digital portfolio applications; Develop a portfolio for submission by 18 Jan 2021;
Ensure paperwork and assessments are complete, including a study visit report (COMPLETE), placement proposal (COMPLETE); C.V. (COMPLETE); a professional placement report (assessment) & signed placement review meeting record (no more than 2 weeks after placement and/or no later than 1 Feb 2021 = 23 Oct 2020 for me) (COMPLETE); and my completed portfolio by 18 Jan 2021;
It is recommended that I join (yearly): ALIA ($95), ASA ($75), RIMPA ($106) as well as maintain my NESA accreditation ($100), and pay back my HECS. Thoughts: $375 a year plus HECS repayments might be a bit much to ask as I’m working part time as a casual…maybe there is a job out there for me…
Bolton, G. (2010). Reflective practice: Writing and professional development. Los Angeles: Sage.
Brown, N. (2017). Reflective model according to Rolfe et al.http://www.nicole-brown.co.uk/reflective-model-according-to-rolfe/ (Rolfe, G., Freshwater, D. and Jasper, M. (2001). Critical reflection in nursing and the helping professions: a user’s guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
Chancellor, R. L. (2018). Crossing the globe: Why studying abroad is essential to the future of LIS education. 6, 59 (3), 41-52.
Hull, B., Churkovich, M., Outred, C. & Turner, D. (2011). Librarians as reflective practitioners. In Hull, B., Churkovich, M., Outred, C. & Turner, D., Understandiing Librarians: Communication is the issue (pp.105-113),Oxford: Chandos Publishing. doi: 10.1016/B978-1-84334-615-9.50012-8
Reynolds, S., Carroll, M. & Welch, B. (2016) Engaging with our future: the role of educators, practitioners, professional associations and employing organisations in the co-creation of information professionals. Australian Library Journal65 (4), 317-327. doi: 10.1080/00049670.2016.1235529
Schon, D. (2008). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
I think a key to mention that ETL505 is different to ETL503 (Resourcing the curriculum) in that ETL503 is about providing quality resources but ETL505 is about “organising resources to facilitate effective access” (Hider, 2018, p.xv). Organising is the key word! So, now I’m thinking, as per Hider (2018, p. 17), should the name of this class be changed to Information Organisation? (Just kidding). However, more seriously, by chapter 2 I was starting to get very annoyed by the amount of end of sentence prepositions used by Hider (e.g. ‘looking for’ should read simply as ‘looking’ or ‘for which they are looking.’ It is a minor detail I know, but compounded by at least 8 instances in chapter 2, I began to wonder about the quality of the editor).
What follows are my notes about the readings of Hider (2018) from the introductions and Chapters 1, 2 & 4:
FRBR
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records or (FRBR) is “a conceptual model of the ‘bibliographic universe’ involving 4 different ‘levels’ of information resource, originally set out in a report published by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA)” in 1998 and revised in 2017 in IFLA’s Library Reference Model: a conceptual model for bibliographic information (Hider, 2018, p.25).
FRBR has 4 ‘entities,’ called: ‘works, expressions, manifestations and items,’ which are abbreviated ‘WEMI,’ which is shown by Hider in this Figure 2.1:
(Hider, 2018, p.26)
As well as in this circle chart by Lorenz (2012):
Lorenz, A. (2012). [Screen Shot]
“The point is that different characteristics or attributes of items, manifestations, expressions and works are likely to be important when people think about them for thepurposesoffinding, identifying, selecting, obtaining and exploring them” (Hider, 2018, p.27).
The 5 user tasks of FRBR (IFLA, 2017, p.15 in Hider, 2018, p.29).
It is a good point in Hider (2018, p.xiii) that, when trying to find, identify, select, obtain, (or access) resources (the FRBR), users can be lost, overwhelmed by choices and simply unable to choose. The resulting poor access to information, (see also my previous blog posts regarding filter failure and filter bubble) and being completely in the dark about quality information are problems that can all be solved by effective resource curation and description / access.
Interestingly, ‘bibliographic’ is defined as ‘book description.’ but as the definition of ‘book’ has widened, so too has the term ‘bibliographic’ (Hider, 2018, p.16). This is also important to note when using the term ‘bibliography.’
Information Resource Descriptions
Descriptions should different aspects of things that they are describing in either elements of: content, carrier, or both content and carrier (Hider, 2018, p.4). ‘Cataloguing’ or ‘indexing’ are often referred to as information, intellectual or knowledge organisation of resources (Hider, 2018, p.13). These are represented by their physical location, but also through their description and the comparison between various resources. In fact, the core of organisation lies in the relationships, commonalities and differences between resources (Hider, 2018, p.40).
The more resources a setting has, the more difficult it is to locate a resource based on its location, so an adequate and ‘representative’ (p.33) resource description (such as an catalogues, indexes, search engines, etc), and effective resource labels (a form of metadata) are key to locating the resource. Particularly, indexes are a vital tool for organising resources, as they are representations of the resources arranged in a user-friendly way (Hider, 2018, p.14-15).
NOTE: Search engines, linked data, data mining and granularity are considered ‘indexing content’ rather than ‘indexing of metadata’ and are part of a seperate field from information science called ‘information retrieval’ (Hider, 2018, p.18) because, in Hider’s view, search engines do not help with the formulation of search queries. However, the modern Web2.0 search engine(s) do have some artificial intelligence or ‘semantic web’ (Hider, 2018, p.19) capabilities, such as the ability to use individual online footprints to narrow (and possibly limit) search results.
“Information resource description is inevitably biased: it is influenced by the motives, situation, limitations and world-view of its creator” (Hider, 2018, p.23).
In terms of FRBR, and resource descriptions, and the resource seeking process that occurs inside the users’ heads, users may also check the ‘relevance criteria’ of the resource based on its content summary, provenance, quality, currency/date, quantity of text, or format and the ‘relevance rankings’ of information retrieval systems, such as those used by the semantic web 2.0, which play a large part in the selection of resources by users (Hider, 2018, p.35-38).
Metadata
Metadata, according to Hider (2018) is an “information ecology” (p.12) “providing an overview of both the process and the product” of organising resources (p.xv) and “information resource description” (p.4) including both the “carrier” (format) and the “content” (information) of the resource (p.5). I interpret that to mean that metadata is an overview of how a resource was created, is delivered and information describing its content.
There are 4 areas of importance with metadata: elements, values, format and transmission (Hider, 2018, p.6-10).
1. Elements or data ‘fields,’ provide the structure of the metadata and are infinite, however it is important to narrow them down to what will be of value to the user, e.g. a resource’s title. The elements are the ‘building blocks’ of metadata and each element describes an ‘attribute’ of the resource, such as its identifier/number, name/title, creator/author/corporation, subject, etc. (Hider, 2018, p.23, 30, 32, 33).
NOTE: Systematic (numerical) identifiers are most commonly known as ISBN’s (international standard book numbers), ISSN (international standard serial numbers), ISMN (international standard music numbers) and DOI’s (digital object identifiers), and the lesser known ISTC (international standard text code), and ISAN (international standard audiovisual number) to name a few (Hider, 2018, p.34).
2. Values, or fundamental content of the metadata are also infinite but often have the greatest impact on the quality of the metadata and are key to a user utilising the description in order to locate a resource (Hider, 2018, p.28). (See more information in Hider, 2018 chapter 5).
3. The method by which the values are encoded or recorded is known as the format, which needs to be compatible with the information retrieval system being used by a setting (note below); and
4. The transmission of the metadata is the protocol used to input the metadata into the information retrieval system, so that the metadata is accessible to the users.
This image found in Hider (2018, p. 7) helps explain the 4 areas of metadata:
Figure 1.1 An analogy by Hider 2018 p.7 (adapted from Elings and Waibel, 2007)
There are also the 6 purposes of metadata provided by Hayes’ ‘6 point model’ (in Hider, 2018, p.5): 1. resource identifying and describing, 2. information retrieving, 3. information resource managing, 4. intellectual property right managing, 5. e-commerce/e-government support, and 6. information governing. If we take into account that there are 3 types of metadata: administrative, structural and accessible information resource descriptions, accessible descriptions link to 1. and 2. in Hayes’ model (in Hider, 2018, p.5) and these best correlate with finding, identifying, selecting, obtaining and exploring resources.
Finally, metadata must be continually evaluated for quality control and ongoing growth purposes. We must ask ourselves: 1. Is the metadata from an external source in the right format for our information retrieval system? 2. Does it need improving or editing based on our context (users, systems, costs, or search contexts)? 3. Will it withstand constant technology advances? 4. Is it standardised enough that it might be shared in a (global) network? (Hider, 2018, p10-11). 5. Who are our users, both end-users and intermediary and what are their information needs, knowledge and behaviours? 6. What metadata should be selected to help users to access the information they are seeking? (Hider, 2018, p.24). 7. What methods are we using to analyse our users’ search queries? (Hider, 2018, p.33).
This concept of metadata is interesting to me as a teacher as I have read recently that making students aware of the complex process of writing is key to their success as writers – rather than the actual content of the writing (including punctuation, grammar, spelling or handwriting) itself. Cataloguing / describing resources effectively is not only a means for users to access the resource but also to understand the resource itself at a deeper level. [In fact, one could say that the metadata itself is an information resource!]
Information Retrieval Systems / SCIS / Oliver / RDA
Information retrieval systems are designed to improve access to collections of information resources and may influence the nature and structure of the metadata (Hider, 2018, p.6).
Information retrieval systems are a means of ‘cataloguing,’ providing ‘bibliographic data,’ ‘indexing,’ ‘tagging,’ ‘archival description,’ and in some cases, ‘museum documentation’ (Hider, 2018, p.6).
Commonly used in Australia are the cataloguing information retrieval systems: SCIS and Oliver, and here is an image showing how SCIS use various standards in the process of creating their cataloging metadata:
Chadwick, B. (2017). Flowchart showing the SCIS protocols for creating metadata.
However, our first assessment in ‘Describing and Analysing Educational Resources’ requires us to use the library cataloguingcode: Resource Description and Access (RDA) mentioned by Hider (2018, p.xv).
Who is responsible?
Publishers, authors, creators, information retrieval system operators, teacher librarians/information specialists/metadata librarians, archivists, records managers, museum curators, information architects and the general public ‘end users’ can all be responsible (however uncontrolled, inaccurate, informal and inconsistent) for creating and disseminating metadata through the use of publishing standards, the requirement for authors to write abstracts and keywords for their resources, as well as through desktop publishing computers, social media applications and the internet which have made it far easier for end users to create (tag, meta-tag, label, #tag, hyperlink or embed) and disseminate metadata and information resources (Hider, 2018, p.74-86). The relative benefits of formal vs informal knowledge organisation is best represented by this Table 4.3 by Hider (2018, p. 87):
(in Hider, 2018, p.87).
Information specialists / teacher librarians need to establish ‘communities of practice’ (Hider, 2018, p.77; See also my previous blog posts on this topic). They must be able to understand the foundations of metadata in order to fulfil the roles and responsibilities of directing and guiding students / users towards quality information resources and to best be able to access the resource though effective cataloging and to access the content within the resource through effective information literacy skills (Hider, 2018, p.75-77; See also my other posts on TL roles and responsibilities).
Note: Computers/semantic web/applications can also do indexing and metadata of sorts, and this is improving rapidly, however computer programs still require human input and regulation in order to present metadata effectively (Hider, 2018, p.88-89).
Genrefication – Do fiction books inform?
I like it that Hider (2018, p.1-2) points out that, although they will always have a primary purpose, resources can have different purposes. I have been sorting my personal library after our house move and found it challenging whether to put self-help style fiction children’s books in the fiction picture book section or in the teaching key learning area (KLA) ‘genre’ section of my library. For example, the picture book ‘I like myself’ is used in stage 1 PDHPE (health) lessons. Do I put it in that genre or do I keep it with straight fiction picture books, organised by author name? I chose genre–after all, it isn’t by a well known author and I need to be able to access it quickly. It’s primary purpose is to inform, rather than entertain, yet I fully support the argument that a good number of children’s fictional picture books have the primary purpose of informing their readers. (Genrefication…see the link for an idea for further reading).
Schools Catalogue Information Service (2020). SCIS subject headings. https://my.scisdata.com/standards (accessible once you have logged in to SCISData)
Soooo….INF447 Research Methods in Practice…that was nearly a disaster! Here are 4 reflective reasons why I nearly failed the class:
I was well out of my comfort zone from the very beginning. Other students enrolled in the course were asking questions that either 1. did not occur to me or 2. were questions that were worded in such a way that I did not understand what they were even asking, or 3. were so over my head that I had no idea what was happening. It was like trying to speak English in France…you can get by but it isn’t easy and you spend a lot of time simply trying to understand, a far cry from being able to be a productive member of the community. I was so overwhelmed and in the growth mindset learning pit, that I only managed to write one blog entry (and I wrote 3 for a different class that I dropped before the census date, so that is saying something!)
I was also filled with anxiety about the math test. If I’m honest, I will admit that I only passed because it was multiple choice and I looked at my notes on the formulas needed and used scratch paper algorithms in order to answer the questions. But as to whether it was a true representation of my maths knowledge, well…I’d say I got lucky.
I worked very hard on both assessments. The first was comparing two research papers. I picked two very different papers to compare and, to my surprise, received a credit. I was naively harsh towards one particular researcher, but to be fair, if a novice such as myself could see the errors then surely harshness was warranted? (Regardless, I was about to have a rude awakening for the final assessment).
The final assessment required me to write a research proposal and for the first time in my life I found myself seriously under the word count. I genuinely could not see the point in writing a research proposal for researching whether a makerspace would be beneficial to my (fictional) school. Without actually researching what makerspaces entail, it was impossible to determine the research questions and the terms of the research…Basically, it was a situation of researching makerspaces in order to write the research proposal in order to then research their effectiveness? Confusing. Not practical in the real world? Having taken a week off work to complete the assessment, sending my family away to my mother in law’s and limiting our home restoration to tradesmen who did not require my input, I was shocked to see my results and feedback as a ‘fail.’ Perhaps the premise of the assessment was flawed and perhaps my lack of experience in writing research proposals were to blame? No idea. It was not ideal. I am left relieved it is behind me and curious what makerspaces are and whether they are effective.
Where to from here?
Well, suffice to say, I can promise that I won’t be writing any actual research proposals any time soon! I have never been so glad to have passed a class in all my days. If the point of the class was to encourage and enable teacher librarians to be researchers, in my case, the class has failed to reach its objective. I believe I am wiser about research methods for having taken the course, but would like to be part of a team or an assistant on a team of researchers first, so as to improve my skills in the future.
(Reflecting on my learning in ETL523 Modules 4, 5 & 6)
“Digital leaders understand that we must put real-world tools in the hands of students and allow them to create artefacts of learning that demonstrate conceptual mastery. This is an important pedagogical shift as it focuses on enhancing essential skill sets—communication, collaboration, creativity, media literacy, global connectedness, critical thinking, and problem solving – that society demands….Leaders need to be the catalysts for change…..Digital leadership begins with identifying obstacles to change and specific solutions to overcome them in order to transform schools in the digital age” (Sheninger, 2017).
Notably, in terms of creating a productive digital learning environment, Sheninger (2017) identifies ‘7 pillars for digital leadership in education’ as: communication, public relations, branding, student engagement/learning, professional growth/development, re-envisioning learning spaces and environments, and opportunity.
Rather than avoid global connections and social media, and rather than limit our students (forcing them to go ‘underground’ with a secret world of digital environments of their own making) we need need to learn how to embrace it safely and productively as global digital citizens (Ohler, 2011). We also need our school principals and supervisors to help promote a community of practice and positive learning environments by being “willing to listen, delegate, distribute, empower, and step out of the way of the learning” (Lindsay, 2016, p.110).
Digital citizenship implementation phases (Infographic) by Christy Roe
Utilising the readings for modules 4, 5 and 6, as well as a few of my own, following the 6 month multi-phase structure suggested by Chen & Orth (2013), Cofino (2012) and Common Sense Media (n.d.) which begins prior to the start of the school year, we can complete the following 4 phases:
Prior to the school year beginning, school contexts need to begin phase 1 by clarifying our unique vision, goals, roles and responsibilities:
Create and deliver an environmental scan utilising this template for a ‘Situational Analysis’ by Christy Roe (based on suggestions from) the resources provided by Hague & Payton (2010), and/or Pashiardis (1996), particularly as shown in the hexagon images below:
Digital Literacy Planning Tool ‘Reflect & Progress’ image by Hague & Payton, 2010, p.47
Facilitate the formulation of policies, procedures or guidelines such as an acceptable use policy (using a questionnaire such as this one created by Christy Roe) based on the policy created by the administration (such as those listed in the resources section below), including cohesive terminology that we will utilise as a school (Common Sense Media, n.d.), e.g. linking the Positive Behaviour for Learning Behaviour Matrix or Code of Student Conduct to the school’s “Acceptable use Policy (AUP), Responsible Use Guidelines (RUG), Acceptable Use Agreement (AUA), Internet Use Policy (IUP), Bring Your Own Device (BYOD), or Bring Your Own Technology (BYOT)” etc.
Liaise with others in our personal learning networks (PLN) (Sheninger, 2017) to map the digital citizenship areas of the syllabus or curriculum documents (NESA / ACARA), find examples of a digital citizenship scope and sequence (such as this (2011) one by Mike Ribble), develop sample lessons or units of work, and accumulate appropriate resources (such as those provided in the resources section below)–made available to all stakeholders (Common Sense Media, n.d.).
Allow teacher librarians (and the school leadership teams) to readily undertake the role of information leaders who ‘meet the students where they are,’ recognising that there may not only be gaps in terms of technology access, or information access, but there may also be an (intergenerational) gap between what some view as the purpose of technology – i.e. is the purpose of technology to assist in informing, socialising or varying degrees of both, and what is true for the individuals in each school or home context? (Levinson, 2010, p.11).
2. In phase 2, within the first fortnight of the school year, we must train teachers and engage families:
“Alignment between school and home with regards to digital citizenship and healthy digital usage is a hallmark of a 21st-century school. A community-wide understanding of the norms, rules of behaviour, rules of engagement, and common practices is necessary for all schools in order to raise an ethical, digital (and real-life) citizen. Without this key parental partnership, these conversations regarding digital citizenship will just become incoherent whispers in the minds of our students, overwhelmed by the louder voices of media, false information, and misunderstanding” (Chen & Orth, 2013).
Hague, C., & Payton, S. (2010). Digital literacy across the curriculum [Handbook [Image]. p. 19
As per the circles image from Hague & Payton (2010) (as well as information from Sheninger (2017)), schools and families need to continually foster 21st century learning and digital literacy skills such as: creativity, (innovation), critical thinking, evaluation (and problem solving), cultural and social understanding, collaboration, effective communication, (global collectedness), the ability to find and select information, (media literacy), e-safety and technological functional skills.
While at the same time, we must also utilise situations of technology misuse as learning opportunities (see the POISE image below) for the students as well as ourselves as adult digital citizens, setting appropriate boundaries, listening student voices, and continuously encouraging digital literacy and digital citizenship (Chen & Orth, 2013).
Educators as professionals need to get onboard with 21st century learning and nurture safe, culturally aware, global citizenship and global connections for ourselves as well as for and with our students (Hilt, 2011);
We must ensure that our digital citizenship curriculum not only protects our students in terms of safety, privacy, copyright, fair use or legality issues, but that it also promotes global cultural, gender, socio-economic status, religion, language and ability awareness and a global appreciation of difference (Hilt, 2011).
Educators who have embraced the need for global digital citizenship and global connections, need to lead by example and have our own safe, culturally aware, positive and professional ‘brand’ or digital footprint, and we also need to help our students create and tailor their own safe, culturally aware and positive digital footprint ‘brand(s)’ (Neilson, 2012).
The digital citizenship leadership team, or perhaps even the whole staff, need to hold regular meetings and face to face information and collaboration sessions with families to ensure that preferred means of communication are clarified, that families have input into the digital citizenship program and also so that families are given support in implementing policies, procedures and guidelines at home that suit their individual situation(s) (Chen & Orth, 2013; Levinson, 2010).
Finally, the digital citizenship team need to develop a plan to help students move from digital citizenship to digital leadership by creating a technology peer mentorship or student technology leadership program (such as YesK12.org) (Oxley, 2012; TeachThought Staff, 2018).
3. In phase 3, we must implement our plans:
Prior to students being given devices, we must workshop the digital citizenship expectations, policy, procedures and guidelines that we created in phase 1 & 2 (Cofino, 2012).
“The message is threefold: (1) helping children become good digital citizens must be an ongoing practice led by families and schools together; (2) having access to a range of technology and global connections through school creates a positive context in which to have these conversations; and (3) students will make mistakes, and it’s our collective responsibility to turn mistakes into learnable moments” (Chen & Orth, 2013).
Bitmoji Christy ‘Do it!’
Once students begin to utilise digital devices, we must implement the digital citizenship lessons or units of work that we created in phase 2, with a key focus on 21st century learning skills, boundaries, student voice, digital footprints and global connections.
We must implement the peer mentorship program that we created in phase 2, including student voice in the consequences for unacceptable behaviours (such as the student court, implied by in the slideshow by Cofino, 2012).
We must continually check in with families, using the resources and communication devices agreed upon in phase 2.
4. And finally, in phase 4, we will reflect and evaluate:
Growth Coaching International (n.d.) Growth Framework [Image] https://www.growthcoaching.com.au/about/growth-approach?country=auWe must continuously reflect and evaluate our practice collegially and with a comprehensive evaluation system (such as the GROWTH model templates created by Christy Roe) including “professional development plans, administrative and institutional support, and a clear vision of the utility of technology to promote, advance, and customise learning for students” (Levinson, 2010, p.112).
Cofino, K. (2012, March 24). Digital citizenship: The forgotten fundamental. http://www.slideshare.net/mscofino/digital-citizenship-the-forgotten-fundamental.
Growth Coaching International (n.d.) Growth Framework [Image] https://www.growthcoaching.com.au/about/growth-approach?country=au
Hague, C. and Payton, S. (2010). Digital Literacy Across the Curriculum (Futurelab Handbook). Futurelab. https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/FUTL06/FUTL06_home.cfm
Lindsay, J. (2016). The global educator: Leveraging technology for collaborative learning and teaching. International Society for Technology in Education.
Key words: Research is critical, creative, formal/systematic/scientific/pure/rigorous, applied, experimental/theoretical, investigating, understanding, interpreting, analysing, confirming/refuting, communicating and cyclical (Leedy & Ormrod, 2015):
(The Research Cycle by Leedy & Ormrod 2015, p. 21).
Researchers follow a process that could be referred to as G. R. Ac. E. Fi. (Gather information, Reflect on the meaning, Arrive at a conclusion, Evaluate the process and conclusion, and finally, put Forward an interpretation).
We must understand the underlying philosophies of researchers such as positivism, post-positivism, constructivism, and pragmatism/realism (Leedy & Ormrod, 2015), as well as their methodologies, assumptions (according to Leedy & Ormrod, 2015, assumptions are facts or ideas accepted as true, usually determined or stated at the start of the research), and methods or design of research in order to validate or apply it into practice.
Information gathering (or organising, summarising, discussing and referencing a ‘research report’) is not the same as ‘research’ because it misses the important step of interpreting or analysing the information or data (Leedy & Ormrod, 2015) and / or hypothesis (a hypothesis being: an open minded speculation, or “a logical supposition, a reasonable guess, an educated conjecture” according to Leedy & Ormrod, 2015 p22).
There are 3 methods of research: 1. quantitative (quantity based), 2. qualitative(qualities based), and 3. mixed method research (utilising both quantitative and qualitative methods) hence the names (Leedy & Ormrod, 2015 p24).
There are 3 paradigms of research: positivism(linked to quantitative / scientific method) using singular reality as a singular truth, interpretism, reality is built by individual(s) within particular context(s) interpreted subjectively by individuals (linked to qualitative), post-positivism says that the nature of being and existence is singular but that can be interpreted differently by each individual within their own context(s) (linked to mixed method research).
Other topics in this module I will cover in my upcoming assessment task:
The reasons behind and processes for creating a quality DLE is much like creating a ‘Learning Commons,’ (which I’ve discussed in two previous posts from ETL503 Resourcing the Curriculum: click here and here).
How do we create a quality DLE?
The article from Chen & Orth (2013) is absolutely amazing, not only because it points out that we must link the school DLE to the home DLE, but also because they outline the key steps to creating a quality DLE starting with 1. forming a group of stakeholders, creating a shared vision and core beliefs, then 2. training, communicating with or informing all stakeholders, followed by 3. implementing the DLE plan of lessons and concepts of digital citizenship and digital literacy, completing the circle by 4. evaluating and reviewing the DLE regularly.
How do we manage the DLE to foster globally connected learning?
As recommended by Lindsay (2016), we need to:
Discuss the digital footprints or ‘branding’ of all students and make sure they are using long-term appropriate and culturally sensitive language and images.
Consider the digital divide and make sure that platforms, discussion tools and global or local connections are provided synchronously (in real time) and asynchronously (offline or pre-recorded).
Create a DLE that offers students opportunities to authentically and collaboratively engage with peers globally. (Lindsay, 2016).
How can we manage the DLE to move students from social media citizens to social media leaders?
Moving from Digital Citizenship to Digital Leadership (Image) by Casa-Todd, J. (2016).
References
Casa-Todd, J. (2016). Rethinking Student (Digital) Leadership and Digital Citizenship [Image]. Retrieved from: https://jcasatodd.com/rethinking-student-digital-leadership-and-digital-citizenship/
Lindsay. J. (2016, July 19). How to encourage and model global citizenship in the classroom. Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/global_learning/2016/07/how_to_encourage_and_model_global_citizenship_in_the_classroom.html
Chen, E., Orth, D. (2013). The strategy for digital citizenship. NAIS Independent School Magazine (online) http://www.nais.org/Magazines-Newsletters/ISMagazine/Pages/The-Strategy-for-Digital-Citizenship.aspx.
Digital Learning Environments (DLE) and digital citizenship implementation have a few issues and dilemmas that must be considered by teacher librarians, and all educational stakeholders:
Lack of growth mindset: Educators are often reluctant to change. We expect students to have an open mind to proactively embrace new things and attempt to connect to personal learning networks – and recognise that, generally, failure is a part of learning. We expect 21st century learners to be quick to learn and be resilient, yet we ourselves are sometimes close minded, reactive, afraid to fail, and stuck in ruts and ‘old’ methods or tools – as teacher librarians, we must lead in professional reflection, respond to needs and initiate change, particularly in terms of individualising learning plans and environments and recognising that the ways students access information is much different than what it once was (Cooke, 2012).
Communication via DLE is different: We must tailor the methods and means by which we communicate to ensure that we are understood and authentic. Communication in an DLE is different to face to face communication in terms of turn taking, online digital footprints or identities may not be authentic, the level of commitment or willingness to behave ethically vary understanding and clarity can be varied or blurred, and community expectations are different (Cooke, 2012).
Lack of thought into quality control: While there are several methods for measuring teacher quality in recent times, there is no official one way to measure the quality of DLE Digital citizenship lessons or teacher / teacher librarian quality (Cooke, 2012). (NOTE: In fact, 21st century learning skills are themselves very difficult to assess and measure in students. We need to find or design one agreed way of measuring quality teaching!)
Varied degrees of self-regulation, motivation, & overwhelmed, or distracted students: DLE education is often asynchronous or self directed (Cooke, 2012) relying on a student’s ability to self-regulate and motivate. This is sometimes problematic, not only because of individual student ability levels but also because the DLE can be overwhelming, or a place of distraction or ambiguity (see #14).
Lack of a fluid community of practice or PLNs: Wenger (p.2, 1998, in Cooke 2012) specifies 3 dimensions of a community of practice: 1. they are joint enterprises, created and maintained by their members, 2. they feature mutual engagement with all members joining to form a social entity, and 3. members have a shared store of resources and sensibilities that have been communally developed. However, Wenger (p.6, 1998, in Cooke 2012) does caution that communities of practice should take care not to become insular, rather they should attempt to remain ‘dynamic and fluid.’ (NOTE: I have discussed the concept of a community of practice at length in other blog posts: 1 or 2– see tags also).
Content at the cost of engagement and application: Stagnant, repetitive, standardised education, subjects and content are still taught in isolation from each other. Memorising facts and clerical tasks are still, despite being the 21st century, generally considered more important than engaging lessons that link to or apply to real life situations – students should be learning by doing rather than by being told (Wheeler, 2015). (NOTE: Would you rather be treated by a ‘doctor’ who learned medicine by reading about it or would you rather be treated by a doctor who has actual experience treating patients?)
Critical thought is not taught or supported: Inquiry learning and learning through questioning is still not the preferred method of teaching, ill-preparing students for their ‘why’ and ‘how to’ (rather than ‘what’) futures (Wheeler, 2015). “Critical thinking, flexibility, working collaboratively, and creative problem solving are all key components for success in changing environments. But ‘knowing that’ and ‘knowing how’ will not be enough. Students also need to know why” (Wheeler, 2015, Ch.6, p.9).
Educators have all the say: According to Wheeler (2015), instead of taking a ‘flipped classroom’ approach where learning is student led, the majority of educators are still deciding the curriculum and delivery of the content, delivering lessons with one way dialogue and lack of conversation. This means that students can become disengaged, disconnected and disempowered from their own learning (Wheeler, 2015). It is crucial that we design engaging lessons and topics and use varied learning approaches in order to promote the ability in students to generate their own ideas and voices (rather than copying the voices of others) (Williamson & McGregor 2011). (NOTE: How many of us consider ourselves facilitators of student learning? I myself have it in my teaching and learning philosophy…Time to put this into action!)
Lack of digital literacy: as per my previous blog post on Information Literacy and Inquiry Based Teaching: ‘According to the ALA, (2016) we must help our students become information literate individuals who can: “determine the extent of information needed; access the needed information effectively and efficiently; evaluate information and its sources critically; incorporate selected information into one’s knowledge base; use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose; and understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information ethically and legally” (ALA 2016). This is expanded into Digital Literacyby Stripling (2010) who writes: “Digital literacy, itself, is not enough preparation, however, for our students to thrive in today’s global, information-driven world. Students must also acquire the skills of digital inquiry: connecting ideas to personal interests and a desire to know, asking questions that probe beyond simple fact gathering, investigating answers from multiple perspectives, constructing new understandings, expressing the new ideas through a variety of formats, and reflecting on both the process and product of learning” (p16).
Constantly evolving trans-literacy (multi-literate) expectations: educators must be able to prepare students to evaluate, access and effectively, ethically and legally utilise a variety of resources and tools across a variety of platforms (Preble, 2013; Wheeler, 2015, p.175).
The digital divide (as discussed in my previous blog post): the digital divide is closely related to Socio-Economic Status and is not just a lack of access to technological devices or internet, but it is also a lack of the ability to utilise technology, inability to produce content, and/or the lack of the ability to apply digital information and skills to real life applications (Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robison & Weigel, 2006; & Schradie, 2013). (NOTE: this is something imperative for educators to be reflecting upon NOW during this COVID-19 crisis: the digital divide is real and it has an impact on our students whether they are in lockdown or not! Schools MUST CREATE A PLAN for access to and for digital literacy for all students).
Confusion, panic and lack of policy regarding intellectual property, copyright, fair use and Creative Commons: Educators must create a policy for intellectual property, copyright, fair use and Creative Commons. Thus, we must create guidelines at whole-school level that promote intellectual honesty and respect for the work of others as an ingrained community value (Williamson & McGregor 2011, p17). Educators must then model and teach deeper digital citizenship knowledge and understanding of what can be used, re-used, and shared in items produced electronically, based on an age appropriate teaching sequence (such as teaching students how to locate key words and write bulleted notes before paraphrasing quotes, as suggested by Williamson & McGregor, 2011).
Safety in the DLE: The DLE requires educators to help students be aware of safety issues such as cyberbullying, creating a work/life balance, age-inappropriate online communications (eg adult images, videos, ads or ‘chats’). (NOTE: The Australian Government have an e-safety page that is particularly relevant and offers resources to educators). However, we must also teach students how to use social media platforms responsibly (Elkin, 2013; Murray, 2013).
Lack of content curation, aka overwhelmed due to ‘filter failure’ or narrowed view due to ‘filter bubbles’: We must consider how we curate information within our personal learning networks (see #5), and model and teach students how to evaluate the methods for curation so that they aren’t either overwhelmed due to filter failure or creating a narrow world view due to over-stringent filters that act as ‘filter bubbles.’ (Crowdspoke. (2011, June 7).“good curation tools are those that allow you to: Aggregate and gather web pages specific to the topic; Filter content allows the curator to select the best material; Publish to your collection with ease; Share, syndicate and distribute to your audience and the wider community; Allow the curator to edit and add comments as well as providing a comment stream for the audience to nurture discussion around the article; Analytics so you can track the usage of the site; An export facility or a way to back up the curated work” (Adapted from De Rossi, L.C. and Good, R. 2010).
11 further ideas on what to think about from lecturer, Julie Lindsay (in ETL523):
Have we clearly identified our context (eg k-12 NSW Public School in x suburb…)?
Do we have a shared vision?
How can we create personalised learning spaces linked to learning needs?
Have we considered: Hardware / software / networking access?
Have we considered: Understanding / experience access?
Do we know our students’ and teachers’ individual digital profiles?
Are the tools in our ‘digital tool kit’ age appropriate?
What evidence are we using to determine best practice for online, topical, or connected learning?
Do all stakeholders have shared understandings, policies or guidelines?
Is there a PD program or plan to continually evaluate and support the changing environment (eg. do teachers model the digital citizenship behaviours they expect or teach)?
How will this be shared and networked within a global professional network(s) and local context(s)?
References:
ALA (2016). Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher education. Retrieved from: https://alair.ala.org/handle/11213/7668
Cooke, N. A. (2012). Professional development 2.0 for librarians: developing an online personal learning network (PLN). Library Hi Tech News, 29(3), 1-9.
Crowdspoke. (2011, June 7). Understand collective curation in under 90 seconds. http://youtu.be/eW775HIlVMg.
Wheeler, S. (2015). Learning with ‘e’s: Educational theory and practice in the digital age. Crown House Pub Ltd. (Chapter 6: A 21st Century Curriculum). Retrieved from ProQuest
Williamson, K., & McGregor, J. (2011). Generating knowledge and avoiding plagiarism: Smart information use by high school students. School Library Media Research, 14.
21st Century learning and COVID-19 – catalysts for change:
With the COVID-19 lockdown, the Digital Learning Environment (DLE) issues are relevant like never before. Teachers who have been allowed to stick to their paper programs, regurgitating content from previous classes that they’ve taught or from purchased sources and shying away from digital tools and applications, must now think on their feet to create online programs to suit their classes and individual students.
The Digital Education Advisory Group, approximately 8 years ago, wrote: “What is now required is a catalyst intervention to bring into recognisable focus the change that the whole community will recognise and welcome as transformation that shapes our future” …”We need to harness the transformative potential of digital technology to support new approaches to innovative learning centred around the development of 21st Century Learning skills. These include creativity and innovation; critical thinking, problem solving, decision making; life-long learning; collaboration and communication; ICT literacy; consciousness of being a local and global citizen; and personal and social responsibility” (Digital Education Advisory Group – DEAG, no date).
“Assuming a world in which the welfare of the young people and the economic health of a society and the political health of a democracy are the true goals of education, I believe modern societies need to assess and evaluate what works and what doesn’t in terms of engaging students in learning. If we want to do this, if we want to discover how we can engage students as well as ourselves in the 21st century, we must move beyond skills and technologies. We must explore also the interconnected social media literacies of attention, participation, cooperation, network awareness, and critical consumption” (Rheingold, 2010 p.24; emphasis added).
“Schools need not only to prepare students to be responsible citizens, but also to prepare them with the technological and communicative skills necessary to engage civic responsibility in a digital age” (Richards, 2010, p.520).
Teacher ability:
It takes a village: I wholeheartedly subscribe to the notion presented by Hollandsworth, Dowdy, & Donovan, (2011) that educators have a duty of care for student safety and security, educational enhancement, ethical and legal behaviours and becoming an effective member of communities, in both the physical and digital environment through policy, leadership and practice.
It does, indeed, ‘take a village to raise a child’ to be a good global and digital citizen, and this process should include all stakeholders: parents, teachers, teacher librarians, administrators, academics, technology professionals and, none the least of which, students. This means that educators must be proactive in effective digital citizenship DLE (including risk awareness et al), as well as in fostering student peer mentor programs, effective student role models, and quality educational faculty/staff DLE ability.
PLC, PLN, PLE, DLE: Furthermore, we as educators need to foster professional learning communities (PLC) through culture of personal learning networks (PLN) and personal learning environments (PLE), including networks within the Digital Learning Environment (DLE) according to ‘Steve Wheeler on future learning environments: professional, powerful and personal’ (YouTube / 2:09 mins) | https://youtu.be/db9PXLqoduQ
Creation of content:
There are some great resources for creating content, as recommended by ETL523 Module 1, including:
Just as most schools have created a school ‘code of conduct’, so too should they proactively (rather than reactively) teach a DLE ‘code of conduct’ (Hollandsworth, et al, 2011). And just as we review and evaluate the quality of our lesson content and physical curriculum, so too should educators have a structured means in which to create, deliver and then evaluate their online DLE digital citizenship curriculum. (I like the ‘writing on the bathroom wall’ analogy, which links toilet graffiti to the banter and issues that sometimes arise in social media platforms or chats-we should have a plan for how to help students handle these situations in both environments as neither are able to be fully policed or ‘filtered’ by adults). A great source of raising awareness in students are the Pause and Think by Commonsense Education.
Furthermore, we need to reconsider the curriculum and how we have created and delivered content in the past: “For educators and the schools in which they teach, the challenges of this moment are significant. Our ability to learn whatever we want, whenever we want, from whomever we want is rendering the linear, age-grouped, teacher-guided curriculum less and less relevant.” (Richardson, 2008, Emphasis added).
Brown, Dehoney and Milichap (2015) surmise that the core dimensions of Next Generation Digital Learning Environment (NGDLE) are:
Interoperability and integration
Personalisation
Analytics, advising and learning assessment
Collaboration
Accessibility and universal design
Lindsay & Davis’ (2012) ‘enlightened digital citizenship model’ recommends we consider digital citizenship in terms of four areas of content:
Safety and privacy
Etiquette and respect
Learning habits – workflow
Literacy and fluency
Social media / Digital footprints (safety / privacy / brand):
We all have a digital footprint and we must model and teach an awareness of this to students. I agree with Richards (2010) who points out that we either teach students how to engage in social media responsibly, or risk them attempting it on their own, which is very much in line with research on sexual reproduction education. Wheeler equates learning about the internet to learning how to cross the road safely – what better place to teach these concepts than in school? (Wheeler, 2015, p.176).
I think it is imperative that this education begins prior to students having a substantial digital footprint, adhering to guidelines like ‘no facebook until you are 13’ – because teaching them to be mindful of what they display digitally after they have already begun displaying themselves, is like trying to teach someone who has just voted in a political election, how to vote. We must teach them early on how our digital footprint or identity is now our (online) personal ‘brand.’
We are identified at home in one way, at work or school in one way, and online or digitally in one way and our identities change through the passage of time. People can forget or not know anything about your identity in the real world, but in the digital environment, your identity is more permanent. Furthermore, the 21st century boundaries between these contexts are now blurred. We need to ask our students and them how to recognise ‘what is your identity?’across these three platforms and throughout time.
We must therefore consider that students (and teachers) need to be literate in (aka be able to have understanding access) social media, which requires: attention, participation (civil or otherwise), collaboration, network awareness and critical thought (or critical ‘consumption’) as according to Rheingold, H. (2010).
Something else to consider is that we have an expectation that students will be capable of digital citizenship, when their understanding of citizenship overall is still developing, particularly at the K-6 level. We must be aware of the way that we have learnt citizenship in the face to face world and how 21st Century learners have not had the same face to face opportunities and foundations that we’ve had. They must learn citizenship face to face and digitally simultaneously…like learning two different languages at the same time! Furthermore, social networks and social media have played a significant part in changing citizenship and previous boundaries and accepted expectations for social behaviour. Some face to face social constructs (such as body language) are not relevant in the digital social environment and as a result, effective use of emoticons or gifs or memes have been created to fill the void.
Delivery of content:
In order to deliver the content or curriculum, the devices and tools chosen must be convenient, consistent, and allow for frequent accessto digital devices (Mann, 1999; Kelley & Ringstaff, 2002; NCES, 1999; and Statham & Torrell, 1999, in Kemker, 2005).
Having access to physical technology (primarily due to SES) is not the only issue. As pointed out by Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robinson & Weigel (2006), teachers who wish to obtain full involvement of their students by creating a ‘participatory culture,’ must also make adjustments to their pedagogy based on:
Individual student ability to participate in the DLE given their varied accessto opportunities, experiences, skills and knowledge,
The varied degrees of understanding mediatransparency (or lack thereof) around how media shape world views, or how to apply filters for the large number of ‘hits’ or ‘tweets’ or emails that one receives so as to not become overwhelmed,
and the varied degrees of understanding, training or socialisation of digital citizenship or ethical expectations for global DLE success.
(Note to self: The issue of access to the internet, devices, applications and digital or social media tools in terms of Socio Economic Status and individual choice was covered in ETL401 and ETL503 and in my blog posts for those courses).
Furthermore, we must plan whether our delivery will be synchronous or asynchronous (or a mixture of the two): “Synchronous discussion is real-time or live communication that takes place on platforms such as instant messengers, audio chat, or video chat. Asynchronous discussion is non-live communication that takes place over time and includes platforms such as e-mail, discussion forums, blogs, and wikis” (Richards, 2010, p.516).
Richards, R. (2010). Table 1. Examples of Web 2.0 Communication Tools. p 517.
Evaluation & quality control:
Digital learning spaces need to be created in conjunction with digital citizenship awareness and incorporating essential attitudes and skills needed to be a productive (digital) learner . However, this means that digital citizenship is not just about recognising online copyright laws, or keeping students safe online. (See my previous post What is digital citizenship?).
Quality tools, lessons (either face to face or digitally) should enable students to be engaged in authentic tasks, connected to the real world, involving all partners of the learning community such as teachers, students, parents, business partners, and higher education experts (Kemeker, 2005). But, what can we use to measure student engagement and connectedness to ensure they are fully active, creative and ethical DLE participants?
Jenkins, et. al. (2006) have a comprehensive list of skills and competencies:
Jenkins, et al., (2006). p56 Core Social Skills and Cultural Competencies [Screen Shot]. Retrieved from https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDFSimilarly, schools can use standards created by the International Society for Technology (ITSE) for assessing student outcomes, assessing teacher quality and assessing leadership quality. In addition, we could use the resources created by BattelleforKids. However, I am not familiar with these and am hesitant to use them in my daily practice when other means are utilised by my employer.
Prior to the DLE, quality standards, each with a scale of 1-5, were created by Newmann and Wehlage (1993) to help teachers assess the “authenticity” of classroom tasks and experiences, Newmann and Wehlage (1993): 1. Higher order thinking, 2. Depth of knowledge, 3. Connectedness to the world beyond the classroom, 4. Substantive conversation, and 5. Social support for student achievement – which is closely linked to the more expanded and also individually scaled from 1-5 Quality Teaching Framework (Gore, 2018):
Dimensions and Elements of the Quality Teaching Model (Gore, 2018)
Bitmoji Do It!
I think it is important to consider quality teaching and leadership standards within the context of the DLE, as well as the skills and competencies from Jenkins et al (2006) and possibly the 21st Century Learning skills identified from various sources (see previous blogs via tags).
Gore, J. (2018). Dimensions and Elements of the Quality Teaching Model. [Image]. Australian Council for Educational Research – Research Conference 2018. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=research_conference
Kemker, K. (2005). The digital learning environment: What the research tells us. Apple White Paper. Retrieved from (see link).
Lindsay, J., & Davis, V. (2012). Flattening classrooms, engaging minds: Move to global collaboration one step at a time. Allyn and Bacon. Chapter 5: Citizenship. (available on CSU DOMS as a downloadable PDF)
Rheingold, H. (2010). Attention and other 21st century social media literacies. Educause Review 45(5). Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/attention-and-other-21st-century-social-media-literacies
Nielsen, L. (2011, August 19).Discover what your digital footprint says about you. Retrieved from http://theinnovativeeducator.blogspot.com/2011/08/discover-what-your-digital-footprint.html
Richards, R. (2010). Digital citizenship and Web 2.0 tools. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 516-522. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7740/fb40e7030935d7b00d5bd07a19ba83c496ff.pdf
Wheeler, S. (2015). Learning with ‘e’s: Educational theory and practice in the digital age. Crown House Pub Ltd. Chapter 12: Literacy in a connected world.
![Hider, P. (2018). The 6 Tables of DDC [Image] in Information Resource Description / Creating and Managing Metadata. Vol. Second edition. Facet Publishing. p195](https://teacherswhoknowme.edublogs.org/files/2020/10/Hider-P.-2018.-The-6-Tables-of-DDC-Image-in-Information-Resource-Description -Creating-and-Managing-Metadata.-Vol.-Second-edition.-Facet-Publishing.-p195.png)
Thoughts: $375 a year plus HECS repayments might be a bit much to ask as I’m working part time as a casual…maybe there is a job out there for me…
![Lorenz, A. (2012). [Screen shot]](https://teacherswhoknowme.edublogs.org/files/2020/08/Screen-Shot-2020-08-05-at-4.25.35-pm.png)
![Hague, C., & Payton, S. (2010). Digital literacy across the curriculum [Handbook [Image]. pp. 19.](https://teacherswhoknowme.edublogs.org/files/2020/05/Hague-C.-Payton-S.-2010.-Digital-literacy-across-the-curriculum-Handbook-Image.-BECTA-FutureLab.-pp.-19.-National-Foundation-for-Educational-Research-httpswww.nfer_.ac_.uk-publicationsFUTL06FUTL06.pdf.png)
![Growth Coaching International (n.d.) Growth Framework [Image]](https://teacherswhoknowme.edublogs.org/files/2020/05/Growth-Coaching-International-n.d.-GROWTH-Framework-Image.jpeg)
