Thoughts on Web 2.0 perspectives
Icebergs by Rick Anderson, Director of Acquisitions, U Nevada, Reno
Straight talk, tough talk. Anderson is working at university level, where huge collections may no longer be necessary. Commercial databases like
EBSCO and
NexisLexis probably make a good portion of what was stored in physical format in the past unnecessary in the university and high school setting.
At upper elementary/middle school level we certainly have reduced our back issues of magazine holdings. Our reference collection has moved in the direction of digital resources, but not altogether, and I don’t expect it will ever completely.
What should comprise a library collection? What should we still be teaching? Parts of a newspaper? How to locate a city in an atlas? How to use a print encyclopedia? Are these relics of a bygone print age? Or do they still have a place in an already overloaded curriculum? Important questions: What do we teach? What resources are best for the job and why? What can we do to empower the learner?
Although I believe that resources should be as accessible as possible and that we should never stand between the user and the information, I can’t let go of the idea that, at my level anyway, I should be in the business of teaching research. Nor do I believe that speeding up the research process is inherently better than slowing it down. Important thinking does happen as one is pursuing information, exploring, skimming, sorting, selecting. I question the idea that quick access to all the needed information is necessarily an advantage. I have seen too many examples that contradict this idea, resulting in a kind of grab-and-go mentality in some students. Do I think students should be frustrated on purpose? No. Do they need to develop the habit of mind that allows them to persist through the seeking, sorting, and pondering phase, yes, definitely.
I fully agree with the idea of placing as many resources as possible in the user’s preferred environment, accessible anytime. That environment is the web for many, not everyone and not for everything. Whether young readers prefer to read books on their desktops, their handheld Kindle, audio-only via an
ipod or other device, or whether they will prefer an old fashioned book remains to be seen.
I do agree with Rick Anderson that unless school libraries are willing to pursue change and constantly assess their missions, they risk becoming irrelevant, and non-existent. Chris Harris would agree with Anderson. At the MSLA annual conference last fall he said it's a lot easier to be on the cutting edge than left behind (my words).
In a New World of Librarianship by Michael Stephens
Michael Stephens’ short essay,
In a New World of Librarianship, is inspiring. He has avoided Doug Johnson’s negativism toward peers in the library field, and has chosen instead to state positively what a library needs to be in a 2.0 world. His definition of a library as a “social and emotionally engaging center for learning and experience” reflects balance, passion, and understanding of the changes that must take place in libraries as they evolve in response to society’s demand that technology facilitate human communication.
Stephens lists five traits of Librarians 2.0. These include a focus on the user and the user’s needs, an embrace of 2.0 tools, an avoidance of technology for technology’s sake, and a determination to stay current with research, including using it to spot trends and to plan with. A final trait of Librarians 2.0, according to Stephens, is that Librarians 2.0 “gets” content. He writes that librarians should be involved in the “content conversation” and in guiding users in accessing, using, and, importantly, creating content.
Finally, Michael Stevens describes a 2.0 Librarian as someone who listens to and learns from staff and users, who celebrates successes and learns from failures, and shares them both, takes time and allows staff time to play and learn, and never stops dreaming about how to deliver the best library services.
Steven’s understanding that 2.0 Librarians must be involved with content and in guiding the user in the production of content is critical to the success (and survival) of school librarians in a 2.0 world.
Stephen’s essay about 2.0 libraries being a “social and emotionally engaging center for learning and experience” echos comments made by Joyce Valenza in a podcast from EdTech Talk.com, Women of the Web 2.0 show, 65 aired March 4, 2008. In that program Valenza uses the word “libratory” to define libraries as places where content is created under the guidance of trained staff. She states that students are sometimes considered tech guru’s, but are, in fact, not that good at content creation.
Her comment that “students like to live in [virtual] places that they design and build themselves" connects with Stephen’s idea that user needs should drive the library program.
Steven’s essay provides inspiration and guidance to those of us who wish to be part of the 2.0 world and provide services to students who already live in that world.
As I review my blog posts of the last nine weeks, I feel a tremendous sense of personal accomplishment and deep gratitude to those who have made this tutorial possible -- Helen Blowers and the California School Library Association for creating the program, my own Massachusetts School Library Association leadership team for discovering this tutorial and partnering with CSLA so that I could take part, to Kathy Dubrovshy, who shepherded our Massachusetts group despite her many other responsibilities, and Beth Donahue, my cheerleader for the tutorial (Even though I did not call on you, just knowing you were there and available made such a difference!). What a journey!
