In one word: accessibility.
Certainly, the accessibility of information is something that libraries and librarians have been focusing on since…well, probably since the very first librarian established the very first library, but I'm not talking (or writing, as the case may be) about these traditional ideas of accessibility. That's SOOO Library 1.0. No, what I'm focusing my energy on in this blog post and what I think libraries and librarians should focus their energy on in the coming year and beyond is accessibility in the era of Library 2.0 and social networking.
As we approach the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, I think it's safe to say that most libraries and librarians have by this point embraced the concept of Library 2.0 (or, if not wholeheartedly "embraced," have at least realized that it can no longer be ignored) and social networking and have begun incorporating various Library 2.0/social networking features and functionalities into their library websites. Which is great (in theory, at least).
The problem is that, while feeling obligated to add all of these widgets and whatnot in order to make their website's users feel more welcome and like they are more able to interact with the library and with one another in an online environment, they haven't really made that online environment any more inviting or accessible to those users. If anything, all of the bells and whistles of blogs and wikis have in many instances made those online environments more confusing and closed-off to users than they were before.
What I'm saying is that, libraries and librarians have been distracted by plugging in all of the shiny plug-ins for long enough, and now need to return their focus to the users and to making all of these new Library 2.0 features and functionalities less of a novelty and more of a natural and ultimately accessible aspect of their websites and of their services in general.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy
In What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy, James Paul Gee attempts to respond to the many critics who dismiss playing video games as a “waste of time” by discussing and demonstrating how video games actually communicate information and teach specific skills incredibly efficiently and effectively, how children and young adults actually learn a great deal by playing video games (and enjoy themselves at the same time!), and how schools and teachers could actually learn a great deal from video games as well – about engaging students and encouraging true learning.
Gee begins by summarizing the arguments of those who view video games as a “waste of time,” stating that in their view (and unfortunately, in the view of many current educators and administrators), important knowledge is “content”: facts and figures that can be “drilled and skilled” – learned and memorized by students, and then measured and assessed by standardized tests. This is effective education in their eyes, and they view any other form of work (especially playing video games) that does not involve such learning as “meaningless.”
The absurdity of such an approach is immediately evident to Gee, and he attempts to help the reader appreciate this absurdity by considering another type of “gaming”: the game of basketball. “Imagine a textbook that contained all the facts and rules about basketball read by students who never played or watched the game,” he writes. “How well do you think they would understand this textbook? How motivated to understand it do you think they would be?” Not. At. All.
Isn’t that absurd? Wouldn’t it be absurd to try to teach children the game of basketball by forcing them to memorize all of the facts and rules related to it rather than by actually playing it? “But we do this sort of thing all the time in school with areas like math and science,” Gee rightly observes. True learning only occurs when the game of basketball (or any type of subject or skill) is experienced directly by the learner, and that is the primary reason why Gee believes that video games are actually better at facilitating learning than the current flawed educational system in place in many of our schools and enforced by many of our teachers and administrators.
Rather than being the “waste of time” that most adults believe them to be, Gee concludes that video games “encourage [the player] to think of himself as an active problem solver, one who persists in trying to solve problems even after making mistakes; one who, in fact, does not see mistakes as errors but as opportunities for reflection and learning.” In sharp contrast to much of what passes for education in this era of “No Child Left Behind” which forces students to simply “ritualize the solutions to problems,” the playing of video games encourages children and young adults “to be the sort of problem solver who leaves himself open to finding new ways to solve new problems in new situations.”
If you are at all interested in education and/or video games, or are at least willing to have your assumptions about education and/or video games challenged (and hopefully corrected), then I highly encourage you to read Gee’s book. Support your local library and check out What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy!
Gee begins by summarizing the arguments of those who view video games as a “waste of time,” stating that in their view (and unfortunately, in the view of many current educators and administrators), important knowledge is “content”: facts and figures that can be “drilled and skilled” – learned and memorized by students, and then measured and assessed by standardized tests. This is effective education in their eyes, and they view any other form of work (especially playing video games) that does not involve such learning as “meaningless.”
The absurdity of such an approach is immediately evident to Gee, and he attempts to help the reader appreciate this absurdity by considering another type of “gaming”: the game of basketball. “Imagine a textbook that contained all the facts and rules about basketball read by students who never played or watched the game,” he writes. “How well do you think they would understand this textbook? How motivated to understand it do you think they would be?” Not. At. All.
Isn’t that absurd? Wouldn’t it be absurd to try to teach children the game of basketball by forcing them to memorize all of the facts and rules related to it rather than by actually playing it? “But we do this sort of thing all the time in school with areas like math and science,” Gee rightly observes. True learning only occurs when the game of basketball (or any type of subject or skill) is experienced directly by the learner, and that is the primary reason why Gee believes that video games are actually better at facilitating learning than the current flawed educational system in place in many of our schools and enforced by many of our teachers and administrators.
Rather than being the “waste of time” that most adults believe them to be, Gee concludes that video games “encourage [the player] to think of himself as an active problem solver, one who persists in trying to solve problems even after making mistakes; one who, in fact, does not see mistakes as errors but as opportunities for reflection and learning.” In sharp contrast to much of what passes for education in this era of “No Child Left Behind” which forces students to simply “ritualize the solutions to problems,” the playing of video games encourages children and young adults “to be the sort of problem solver who leaves himself open to finding new ways to solve new problems in new situations.”
If you are at all interested in education and/or video games, or are at least willing to have your assumptions about education and/or video games challenged (and hopefully corrected), then I highly encourage you to read Gee’s book. Support your local library and check out What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy!
Web 2.0 at Work
I didn’t really have too terribly many occasions to use Web 2.0 technologies during my student teaching, but whenever the opportunity arose, I most definitely took advantage of it, often incorporating excerpts from blogs or streaming videos into my instruction.
I also even encouraged students to consider creating their own digital audio or video content instead of just writing an essay and turning it in. In one very memorable instance, a student created a short video for an assignment and then uploaded it to YouTube, which made it very easy for me to view and to share with other teachers and students (with his permission, of course).
Also, while none of the teachers that I worked with used them, at various department meetings I would hear teachers at the lower grade levels discussing the use of blogs and wikis in their classes. One common use for these two particular Web 2.0 technologies was that students were asked to keep a daily journal or a reading journal in which they wrote about their reactions to the content covered in class that day or the material that they read for homework that night, which they would then post and allow the teacher and/or the other students in the class to comment on.
Another similar yet different use of blogs and wikis in the classroom involved students would being asked to write reviews of the books, short stories, plays and poems that they read for class and to then post them, allowing other students to comment on their reviews and note whether they agreed or disagreed with that student’s assessment.
While this sounded very interesting and appealing to me and to the other teachers, when I talked to my actual students about using blogs and wikis in the classroom, the reaction that I received was overwhelmingly negative. Even though they were “digital natives” and have in many cases grown up reading and even contributing to blogs and wikis, that didn’t make the idea of having to use them for class any more appealing than any other type of assignment.
I guess homework is still homework to them, no matter how technologically trendy the teachers try to make it.
I also even encouraged students to consider creating their own digital audio or video content instead of just writing an essay and turning it in. In one very memorable instance, a student created a short video for an assignment and then uploaded it to YouTube, which made it very easy for me to view and to share with other teachers and students (with his permission, of course).
Also, while none of the teachers that I worked with used them, at various department meetings I would hear teachers at the lower grade levels discussing the use of blogs and wikis in their classes. One common use for these two particular Web 2.0 technologies was that students were asked to keep a daily journal or a reading journal in which they wrote about their reactions to the content covered in class that day or the material that they read for homework that night, which they would then post and allow the teacher and/or the other students in the class to comment on.
Another similar yet different use of blogs and wikis in the classroom involved students would being asked to write reviews of the books, short stories, plays and poems that they read for class and to then post them, allowing other students to comment on their reviews and note whether they agreed or disagreed with that student’s assessment.
While this sounded very interesting and appealing to me and to the other teachers, when I talked to my actual students about using blogs and wikis in the classroom, the reaction that I received was overwhelmingly negative. Even though they were “digital natives” and have in many cases grown up reading and even contributing to blogs and wikis, that didn’t make the idea of having to use them for class any more appealing than any other type of assignment.
I guess homework is still homework to them, no matter how technologically trendy the teachers try to make it.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Choose Your Own Adventure (and/or Blog Post Topic)!
For this week's blog post, I am choosing to write about what I felt was the most interesting part of my research into Folksonomies: metadata. More specifically, how it has been used in libraries and how it has been used (and not used) on the Internet.
Apparently, metadata was included as part of the original proposal for the Internet, which was envisaged as “a collection of organized, linked ideas.” While a structured system such as this would have made accessing and navigating the early Internet infinitely more efficient and effective, metadata was initially absent from the Internet because it’s designers felt that “the flexibility and simplicity of the Web was more important to its early users than the maintenance of a strict structure.”
Metadata did eventually find its way onto the Internet, however, as it continued to grow in popularity during the end of the previous millennium and the beginning of the current one. Marcel Gordon attributes this eventual inclusion of metadata by the Internet to two particular Internet innovations: “First, search engines began to map the Web, introducing what is now the Web’s primary interface.” These search engines, recognizing that metadata could be used to organize the Web, “began to use identity metadata such as titles and keywords in assessing the relevance of a page to a given query.” Accordingly, metadata’s importance to the Internet increased exponentially.
The second innovation was that not long after the appearance of search engines, commercial interests also appeared on the Web. In response, to the increasing use of metadata by search engines, “commercial Web site operators supplied false metadata about their pages to ensure that they appeared more frequently in search results and attracted more users.” As a result, metadata was essentially removed from the Internet once again because it had become “untrustworthy and effectively useless, depriving the Web of this powerful information management tool.”
Today, of course, metadata has returned to the Internet once again with the development and popularity of Web 2.0, which allows users to not only browse the Internet but to actively contribute to it by contributing original online content…just like I’m doing right now!
To learn more about the history of metadata use on the Internet and in libraries, and about how metadata is being used today in this wonderful Web 2.0 world, be sure to read Marcel Gordon’s article “Cleaning metadata on the World Wide Web: Suggestions for a regulatory approach.” As always, here’s the citation:
Gordon, M. (2006). Cleaning metadata on the World Wide Web: Suggestions for a regulatory approach. The John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law, 531-570.
Apparently, metadata was included as part of the original proposal for the Internet, which was envisaged as “a collection of organized, linked ideas.” While a structured system such as this would have made accessing and navigating the early Internet infinitely more efficient and effective, metadata was initially absent from the Internet because it’s designers felt that “the flexibility and simplicity of the Web was more important to its early users than the maintenance of a strict structure.”
Metadata did eventually find its way onto the Internet, however, as it continued to grow in popularity during the end of the previous millennium and the beginning of the current one. Marcel Gordon attributes this eventual inclusion of metadata by the Internet to two particular Internet innovations: “First, search engines began to map the Web, introducing what is now the Web’s primary interface.” These search engines, recognizing that metadata could be used to organize the Web, “began to use identity metadata such as titles and keywords in assessing the relevance of a page to a given query.” Accordingly, metadata’s importance to the Internet increased exponentially.
The second innovation was that not long after the appearance of search engines, commercial interests also appeared on the Web. In response, to the increasing use of metadata by search engines, “commercial Web site operators supplied false metadata about their pages to ensure that they appeared more frequently in search results and attracted more users.” As a result, metadata was essentially removed from the Internet once again because it had become “untrustworthy and effectively useless, depriving the Web of this powerful information management tool.”
Today, of course, metadata has returned to the Internet once again with the development and popularity of Web 2.0, which allows users to not only browse the Internet but to actively contribute to it by contributing original online content…just like I’m doing right now!
To learn more about the history of metadata use on the Internet and in libraries, and about how metadata is being used today in this wonderful Web 2.0 world, be sure to read Marcel Gordon’s article “Cleaning metadata on the World Wide Web: Suggestions for a regulatory approach.” As always, here’s the citation:
Gordon, M. (2006). Cleaning metadata on the World Wide Web: Suggestions for a regulatory approach. The John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law, 531-570.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Wikis and Folksonomies
Speaking of citation information (as I did at the end of my previous post), here are the citations for the two articles that I found for this week's class about wikis and folksonomies:
Bell, S. (2008). Wikis for reference, enthusiasts, and government information. Online, 33(1), 20-23.
Cosentino, S. L. (2008). Folksonomies: Path to a better way? Public Libraries, 47(2), 42-47.
Bell, S. (2008). Wikis for reference, enthusiasts, and government information. Online, 33(1), 20-23.
Cosentino, S. L. (2008). Folksonomies: Path to a better way? Public Libraries, 47(2), 42-47.
An Effective Example of Library 2.0 Service
After reading "Building a Library Web Site on the Pillars of Web 2.0" by Karen A. Coombs, I think that the library at the University of Houston has truly understood and embraced Web 2.0 and is making great efforts to effectively incorporate elements of it into its website and services.
Upon determining that their previous website “needed a new structure for both managing and organizing it” and that “the site’s structure was rigid and inflexible and provided no space for staff or users to participate,” Coombs began researching many elements of Web 2.0 including blogs, wikis, podcasts, and social software, and from this research identified six “Pillars of Web 2.0” that the library would use as the foundation for rebuilding its web site.
These six pillars are:
1. Radical decentralization, which Coombs says helped librarians to establish ownership of their library website content due to its “wiki-like nature,” in which “any staff member can make changes to a page if they see a problem.”
2. Small pieces loosely joined. Referring to the library’s previous website as “a monolithic silo that stood separate from the rest of the library’s web-based systems,” Coombs and the other librarians decided to make their new website “a combination of different technologies” which gives the new site “as much flexibility as possible.”
3. Perpetual beta, an idea that “embraces change” and creates an environment where “constant improvements can be made”to their new website.
4. Remixable content, which Coombs defines as “content and/or data that is accessible to be repurposed in other applications,” giving the example of subject guide content being “incorporated into the corresponding department’s website or appropriate classes” in addition to being hosted by the library’s website.
5. User as contributor, which allows library website users to “create content and give feedback,” and
6. Rich user experience, which is what Coombs and the other librarians at the University of Houston hope their website users will have as a result of their incorporation of the previous five pillars of Web 2.0 into their website.
For more detailed information about each of these six pillars and how Coombs used them to improve her library's website, be sure to read her full article. Here is the citation:
Coombs, K. A. (2007). Building a library web site on the pillars of Web 2.0. Computers in Libraries, 27(1), 16-19.
Upon determining that their previous website “needed a new structure for both managing and organizing it” and that “the site’s structure was rigid and inflexible and provided no space for staff or users to participate,” Coombs began researching many elements of Web 2.0 including blogs, wikis, podcasts, and social software, and from this research identified six “Pillars of Web 2.0” that the library would use as the foundation for rebuilding its web site.
These six pillars are:
1. Radical decentralization, which Coombs says helped librarians to establish ownership of their library website content due to its “wiki-like nature,” in which “any staff member can make changes to a page if they see a problem.”
2. Small pieces loosely joined. Referring to the library’s previous website as “a monolithic silo that stood separate from the rest of the library’s web-based systems,” Coombs and the other librarians decided to make their new website “a combination of different technologies” which gives the new site “as much flexibility as possible.”
3. Perpetual beta, an idea that “embraces change” and creates an environment where “constant improvements can be made”to their new website.
4. Remixable content, which Coombs defines as “content and/or data that is accessible to be repurposed in other applications,” giving the example of subject guide content being “incorporated into the corresponding department’s website or appropriate classes” in addition to being hosted by the library’s website.
5. User as contributor, which allows library website users to “create content and give feedback,” and
6. Rich user experience, which is what Coombs and the other librarians at the University of Houston hope their website users will have as a result of their incorporation of the previous five pillars of Web 2.0 into their website.
For more detailed information about each of these six pillars and how Coombs used them to improve her library's website, be sure to read her full article. Here is the citation:
Coombs, K. A. (2007). Building a library web site on the pillars of Web 2.0. Computers in Libraries, 27(1), 16-19.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Towards School Library 2.0: An Introduction to Social Software Tools for Teacher Librarians
As a follow-up to my previous post, here is the specific citation information for the article that I referenced in that post, as well as citation information for the other article that I found for tonight's class session dealing with public libraries:
Atwater-Singer, M., & Sherrill, K. (2007). Social software, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, & you: A practical guide for using technology @ your library. Indiana Libraries, 26(3), 48-52.
Giustini, D., & Naslund, J. (2008). Towards school Library 2.0: An introduction to social software tools for teacher librarians. School Libraries Worldwide, 14(2), 55-67.
Atwater-Singer, M., & Sherrill, K. (2007). Social software, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, & you: A practical guide for using technology @ your library. Indiana Libraries, 26(3), 48-52.
Giustini, D., & Naslund, J. (2008). Towards school Library 2.0: An introduction to social software tools for teacher librarians. School Libraries Worldwide, 14(2), 55-67.
Models of Constant and Purposeful Change
With Professor Torres' suggested blog journal entry topic of "Library 2.0 as a model for constant and purposeful change" in mind, as I was reading "Towards School Library 2.0: An Introduction to Social Software Tools for Teacher Librarians" by Dean Giustini and Jo-Anne Naslund, I couldn't help but think of the school classroom as an equally (if not even more) appropriate model of constant and purposeful change.
In order for a teacher to connect with every single one of the students in her classroom, she must attempt to diversify her lessons, constantly and purposefully changing and adjusting her plans and activities in one way to best meet the needs of the traditional text-based learners, in another way to engage the more audio/visual learners, in yet another way to address the bodily/kinesthetic learners, etc.
The teacher must first be aware of many different types of lesson plans and activities that exist, must evaluate them and select which ones she feels will help her to best meet the needs of her students, must implement them in her actual classroom with her actual students to see if they are as successful and effective as she expected them to be, and then must make further changes and adjustments as necessary.
Giustini and Naslund suggest taking the same approach to Library 2.0 technologies in their article: The librarian must first be aware of the many different types of Library 2.0 technologies that exist, must evaluate them and select which ones she fells will work best in her particular library in her particular school and with her particular students and teachers, must use them herself and must make them available for student and teacher use to see if they function as successfully and effectively as she expected them to, and must make further changes and adjustments as necessary.
School classrooms and Library 2.0: two excellent models of constant and purposeful change.
In order for a teacher to connect with every single one of the students in her classroom, she must attempt to diversify her lessons, constantly and purposefully changing and adjusting her plans and activities in one way to best meet the needs of the traditional text-based learners, in another way to engage the more audio/visual learners, in yet another way to address the bodily/kinesthetic learners, etc.
The teacher must first be aware of many different types of lesson plans and activities that exist, must evaluate them and select which ones she feels will help her to best meet the needs of her students, must implement them in her actual classroom with her actual students to see if they are as successful and effective as she expected them to be, and then must make further changes and adjustments as necessary.
Giustini and Naslund suggest taking the same approach to Library 2.0 technologies in their article: The librarian must first be aware of the many different types of Library 2.0 technologies that exist, must evaluate them and select which ones she fells will work best in her particular library in her particular school and with her particular students and teachers, must use them herself and must make them available for student and teacher use to see if they function as successfully and effectively as she expected them to, and must make further changes and adjustments as necessary.
School classrooms and Library 2.0: two excellent models of constant and purposeful change.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
How to Craft a Blog Post
Here's another more general/less library-specific blogging resource that I stumbled across while trying to teach myself more about blogging: "How to Craft a Blog Post - 10 Crucial Points to Pause" by Darren Rowse.
Rowse writes that "too often as bloggers we 'PUNCH' out content as though we're in a race or under some kind of deadline…unfortunately the posts we write often reflect this."
Well, Darren, I was indeed under a deadline while writing my first two entries, and I admit that I waited until the last possible minute to do so, and I'm afraid that those posts do reflect that. Hopefully my future posts (starting with this one) will be better and of more interest to whoever might be reading them (probably no one).
Anyway, Rowse suggests that blogging should be "a more thoughtful process that is about crafting words and ideas - shaping posts into content that take readers on a journey." The remainder of his article is then divided into ten sections in which he outlines exactly how to do just that. The ten sections are:
1. Choosing a Topic
2. Crafting Your Post's Title
3. The Opening Line
4. Your 'point/s' (making your posts matter)
5. Call to Action
6. Adding Depth
7. Quality Control and Polishing of Posts
8. Timing of Publishing Your Post
9. Post Promotion
10. Conversation
I hope to apply these ten suggestions to my future blog posts, and I hope that my fellow class bloggers who may or may not be reading this post with find them useful as well.
Rowse writes that "too often as bloggers we 'PUNCH' out content as though we're in a race or under some kind of deadline…unfortunately the posts we write often reflect this."
Well, Darren, I was indeed under a deadline while writing my first two entries, and I admit that I waited until the last possible minute to do so, and I'm afraid that those posts do reflect that. Hopefully my future posts (starting with this one) will be better and of more interest to whoever might be reading them (probably no one).
Anyway, Rowse suggests that blogging should be "a more thoughtful process that is about crafting words and ideas - shaping posts into content that take readers on a journey." The remainder of his article is then divided into ten sections in which he outlines exactly how to do just that. The ten sections are:
1. Choosing a Topic
2. Crafting Your Post's Title
3. The Opening Line
4. Your 'point/s' (making your posts matter)
5. Call to Action
6. Adding Depth
7. Quality Control and Polishing of Posts
8. Timing of Publishing Your Post
9. Post Promotion
10. Conversation
I hope to apply these ten suggestions to my future blog posts, and I hope that my fellow class bloggers who may or may not be reading this post with find them useful as well.
What is all the fuss about Library 2.0?
As a very, very brief follow up to my previous post, here is the specific citation information for the article that I referenced in that post:
Murley, D. (2008). What is all the fuss about Library 2.0? Law Library Journal, 100(1), 197-204.
Murley, D. (2008). What is all the fuss about Library 2.0? Law Library Journal, 100(1), 197-204.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Blogging and Libraries
I have had very little experience with blogs prior to beginning this blog for this class, so I have been doing some reading and research into blogs and how they can be applied to and used in libraries.
One article that I read in addition to this week's readings was "What is all the Fuss about Library 2.0?" by Diane Murley, in which she discusses many emerging 2.0 technologies being used in libraries today, including blogs.
Murley defines blogs as webpages “with certain characteristics that make them ideal for posting content that will be updated frequently,” which certainly sounds like a necessity of a library to me. He continues to explain how a standard blog operates, noting that “new information appears at the top of the page, previous items are available via archives, and entries can be assigned to categories” (Murley 201).
However, the defining characteristic of a blog, according to Murley, is “the availability of a comments function, which you can use to allow readers to add comments to entries.” She points out that “discussions often develop in the comments area between the blog author and her readers, furthering the communication between librarian and patron,” but also cautions that any and all librarians who invite comments on their library blogs to “moderate or filter” the comments to keep spam from “rendering [them] useless” (Murley 202).
Despite this worry, Murley sees blogs as being a very useful addition to a library indeed, immediately noting that “blogs can supplement or replace print or e-mail newsletters, delivering information faster and avoiding e-mail filter problems.” She further suggests that libraries use a blog as “a way to let patrons know what is new at the library by posting information about new materials, library news, event announcements, policy changes, etc. Most libraries are already using flyers, newsletters, and table tents to publicize these things, but, with a blog, patrons can respond to posts and engage in a conversation with the library” (Murley 202).
I hope that my new experiences with blogging for this class will make me familiar and comfortable enough with blogging to one day be able to manage and contribute to a blog in whatever library I ultimately end up working at!
One article that I read in addition to this week's readings was "What is all the Fuss about Library 2.0?" by Diane Murley, in which she discusses many emerging 2.0 technologies being used in libraries today, including blogs.
Murley defines blogs as webpages “with certain characteristics that make them ideal for posting content that will be updated frequently,” which certainly sounds like a necessity of a library to me. He continues to explain how a standard blog operates, noting that “new information appears at the top of the page, previous items are available via archives, and entries can be assigned to categories” (Murley 201).
However, the defining characteristic of a blog, according to Murley, is “the availability of a comments function, which you can use to allow readers to add comments to entries.” She points out that “discussions often develop in the comments area between the blog author and her readers, furthering the communication between librarian and patron,” but also cautions that any and all librarians who invite comments on their library blogs to “moderate or filter” the comments to keep spam from “rendering [them] useless” (Murley 202).
Despite this worry, Murley sees blogs as being a very useful addition to a library indeed, immediately noting that “blogs can supplement or replace print or e-mail newsletters, delivering information faster and avoiding e-mail filter problems.” She further suggests that libraries use a blog as “a way to let patrons know what is new at the library by posting information about new materials, library news, event announcements, policy changes, etc. Most libraries are already using flyers, newsletters, and table tents to publicize these things, but, with a blog, patrons can respond to posts and engage in a conversation with the library” (Murley 202).
I hope that my new experiences with blogging for this class will make me familiar and comfortable enough with blogging to one day be able to manage and contribute to a blog in whatever library I ultimately end up working at!
Philosophy of Technology
My philosophy of technology, as it applies to life in general and to libraries in particular, is that the technology itself is neutral: it is the users of technology who determine its ultimate value as they use it in ways that are both good and bad.
I think that the use of technology by libraries has been very good overall, and that the adoption of various new technologies by libraries over the course of the past fifty years or so has done a great deal to improve libraries and to help them meet their goal of better serving their users.
Some examples of technologies adopted by libraries in the second half o the Twentieth Century include the development of Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC) in the 1960s, the beginnings of computer networks and online services in the 1970s, the creation of Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs) in the 1980s, and the birth of the World Wide Web in the 1990s.
Today in the Twenty-First Century, more new interesting and exciting technological advances are being made than ever before, and accordingly, librarians and all users of technology need to evaluate the neutral technology before deciding whether to adopt it or not, so that they will have a full understanding of it and how to best use it.
I believe that it is this understanding on the part of users that leads to neutral technology being used in good ways, and a lack of understanding that results in it being used in ways that are seen as bad.
I'm looking forward to enhancing my understanding of technology as a result of being in this class, and I hope to be able to share my understandings with others through this blog, so that we can all become good users of technology.
I think that the use of technology by libraries has been very good overall, and that the adoption of various new technologies by libraries over the course of the past fifty years or so has done a great deal to improve libraries and to help them meet their goal of better serving their users.
Some examples of technologies adopted by libraries in the second half o the Twentieth Century include the development of Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC) in the 1960s, the beginnings of computer networks and online services in the 1970s, the creation of Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs) in the 1980s, and the birth of the World Wide Web in the 1990s.
Today in the Twenty-First Century, more new interesting and exciting technological advances are being made than ever before, and accordingly, librarians and all users of technology need to evaluate the neutral technology before deciding whether to adopt it or not, so that they will have a full understanding of it and how to best use it.
I believe that it is this understanding on the part of users that leads to neutral technology being used in good ways, and a lack of understanding that results in it being used in ways that are seen as bad.
I'm looking forward to enhancing my understanding of technology as a result of being in this class, and I hope to be able to share my understandings with others through this blog, so that we can all become good users of technology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)