Jenny Evans and Ruth Harrison (Imperial College London)
The Imperial College London are the first English HEI to run a web 2.0 awareness/training programme inspired by ‘The 23 Things’ as originally conceived by Helen Bowers, Public Library of Charlotte & Mecklenburg County. McMaster University Library has run a similar programme in America, as have Murdoch University Library in Australia.
I was interested to attend this session as I have recently completed a 12 week training programme at Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) – Learning 2.0 @ LJMU – in which the whole of Learning and Information Services (LIS) have participated across the board, senior management and assistants alike, in a web 2.0 awareness initiative. I felt that this session would be an excellent opportunity to compare some of the things I have experienced at LJMU, and the ways in which this was achieved, with that of the staff at Imperial College London.
Imperial College London ran their learning 2.0 programme for a 10 week period, over the summer vacation; participants were given 1 hour per week to complete designated tasks. Experiences included exercises in all sorts of web 2.0 technologies, from blogs and wikis, to podcasting and multimedia, RSS feeds to social networking, and even gaming and virtual worlds.
The Imperial 2.0 team practiced what they preached, utilising web 2.0 technologies to develop and implement the Learning 2.0 @ Imperial College Library scheme through the medium of a wiki, a blog and slideshare. Participants were also expected to continually develop their use of web 2.0 tools through a reflective blog which was to be maintained throughout the 10 week period.
Interestingly, from a personal point of view, during week 6 (online tools and applications), participants were asked to explore how mobile phones could potentially be used in academic libraries, and whether other HEIs were currently experimenting in this field. This is very different from my experiences of the Learning 2.0 @ LJMU training programme where the tasks were very much centered on (what I would describe as) ‘traditional’ web 2.0 tools (blogs, wikis, social networking). This is again highlighted in Imperial’s bravery(!) in experimenting with online gaming and virtual worlds – an area currently unexplored in the current Learning 2.0 @ LJMU programme!!!
The main problem that the 2.0 team at Imperial encountered was that of bad timing (and having the control of certain decisions taken out of their hands) – unfortunately the start of the learning 2.0 programme got pushed back and this meant that the scheduled finale of the 10 week programme fell directly before the first week of semester – probably one of the worst times of year as many Information Professional will probably appreciate! The Learning 2.0 team at Imperial found that approximately a third of participants excelled, a third tried hard but lost their way a bit and a third didn’t really complete much at all…a point to note here is that the Imperial’s Learning 2.0 programme was not compulsory (as it has been here at LJMU) so maybe a higher success rate was anticipated than was actually achieved…?? Obviously the unfortunate rescheduling of the run period of the programme probably also had a bearing on the success rate of participants.
On a more positive note, it appears that participants of the Learning 2.0 @ Imperial College Library programme are now not only more confident and aware of web 2.0 technologies, they are also using them on a day-to-day basis: Twitter and IM being the two of note. Also, some of the reflective blogs kept by participants are extremely inventive and suggest that participants of the Learning 2.0 programme have really been ‘excited’ by web 2.0 and thus keen to experiment!
I felt that the interactive session hosted by Jenny Evans and Ruth Harrison was delivered extremely well. It provided delegates with a good insight in to the Learning 2.0 @ Imperial College Library training programme and encouraged people to have the confidence to experiment (both within the LILAC workshop but more importantly within the overall training scheme). The whole ‘just do it’ idea that encapsulates web 2.0 is something that I feel really needs to be instilled into any future ‘The 23 Things’ type initiatives, without empowering participants with an element of freedom, and encouragement to experiment, the learning achievements will probably be quite poor.
Jenny and Ruth alluded to the skills gap in this area with regards to library staff and knowledge of web 2.0; as more and more students are growing up in an era of content creation, collaboration and experimentation, the implications of ignoring this field of work are grim. If our students are using web 2.0 channels to learn and study we need to make sure that we stake our place in this ever expanding area now so that we can effectively support our students in the future.
Monday, 6 April 2009
Keynote Speaker: Patricia Iannuzzi (University of Nevada)
If 63% of employers are saying that today’s graduates do not have the necessary skills to be successful then something needs to change, and soon. Patricia Iannuzzi’s keynote covered the issues surrounding this notion, looking at how information literacy can be used to engage and motivate, and hence empower today’s learners to succeed.
Patricia began by looking at the investments different groups of people put into university education and what they get in return. Students, parents, politicians and employers all have questions that need to be answered.
Patricia spoke about how today’s learners are evolving from a culture of receivers into a culture of inquirers and that information literacy is an adventure of discovery. She concentrated on the ‘labelling’ we do as a society and explored the different labels people assign to principally the same thing: digital literacy, media literacy, ICT literacy. Patricia enforced that it shouldn’t matter what something is called or labelled but that the learning outcomes ought to be the point of note. However, learning outcomes cannot be successfully achieved without student engagement. ‘Engagement’ was a bit of a buzz word around LILAC this year with many of the sessions I attended not only looking at ways in which we can actively engage our students in information literacy but dynamically trialling new ideas and methods in order to achieve this (Andrew Walsh’s session for example: if they won’t turn them off, we might as well use them. Using mobile phones in information skills sessions).
Patricia expanded on the idea of ‘engagement’ drawing on Prensky’s (2005) work into children’s engagement with video games; imagine if as educators we could achieve the same levels of engagement that ‘World of Warcraft’ does. A short video about such games and the engagement levels of ‘gamers’ revealed interesting insights into the elements enjoyed and factors valued such as collaboration, empowerment and interaction. Patricia proposed a framework for student learning built upon the underpinning of ‘student engagement;’ the faculty, curriculum and co-curriculum (or extra-curricula activities) are the three pillars above the student engagement foundation, topped off with student learning.
Being from Las Vegas Patricia drew on a very topical subject area – that of gambling. Now how did she manage to correlate gambling to learning you may wonder, well very eloquently is the answer…the gambling industry are driven by the demands of the gambler (or the customer, consumer, user, gamer), new developments are innovated as a result of ‘user driven innovation’ – education (at this moment in time is the polar opposite). Imagine if education was lead by ‘learner driven innovation,’ what would education look like in a world in which the learner directed advancements? Would there be more communication, collaboration, interaction and multimedia? 21st century learners are a generation that likes to talk through their devices and the gambling industry have recognized this and acted accordingly. Particularly interesting for my research is that of ‘mobile gambling’. Is it time for the education sector to do the same?
So after all the bright lights, and back to reality in the cold light of day, what are the implications for libraries…? Patricia inferred that we need to actively participate in the curriculum review, we must improve instructional design, we should model good teaching practices and invest in faculty development, and we should institutionally design co-curricular activities. Libraries need to (forcibly??) have a presence in directing not only its own departmental future directions but also that of the faculties in order that teaching, learning, and information literacy, are embedded and delivered in the most appropriate means possible for learner.
PRENSKY, M. (2005) Engage me or enrage me: what today’s learner demand. Educause Review, 40 (5), pp.60-65 [online]. Available from: http://www.educause.edu/ER/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume40/EngageMeorEnrageMeWhatTodaysLe/158006
Patricia began by looking at the investments different groups of people put into university education and what they get in return. Students, parents, politicians and employers all have questions that need to be answered.
Patricia spoke about how today’s learners are evolving from a culture of receivers into a culture of inquirers and that information literacy is an adventure of discovery. She concentrated on the ‘labelling’ we do as a society and explored the different labels people assign to principally the same thing: digital literacy, media literacy, ICT literacy. Patricia enforced that it shouldn’t matter what something is called or labelled but that the learning outcomes ought to be the point of note. However, learning outcomes cannot be successfully achieved without student engagement. ‘Engagement’ was a bit of a buzz word around LILAC this year with many of the sessions I attended not only looking at ways in which we can actively engage our students in information literacy but dynamically trialling new ideas and methods in order to achieve this (Andrew Walsh’s session for example: if they won’t turn them off, we might as well use them. Using mobile phones in information skills sessions).
Patricia expanded on the idea of ‘engagement’ drawing on Prensky’s (2005) work into children’s engagement with video games; imagine if as educators we could achieve the same levels of engagement that ‘World of Warcraft’ does. A short video about such games and the engagement levels of ‘gamers’ revealed interesting insights into the elements enjoyed and factors valued such as collaboration, empowerment and interaction. Patricia proposed a framework for student learning built upon the underpinning of ‘student engagement;’ the faculty, curriculum and co-curriculum (or extra-curricula activities) are the three pillars above the student engagement foundation, topped off with student learning.
Being from Las Vegas Patricia drew on a very topical subject area – that of gambling. Now how did she manage to correlate gambling to learning you may wonder, well very eloquently is the answer…the gambling industry are driven by the demands of the gambler (or the customer, consumer, user, gamer), new developments are innovated as a result of ‘user driven innovation’ – education (at this moment in time is the polar opposite). Imagine if education was lead by ‘learner driven innovation,’ what would education look like in a world in which the learner directed advancements? Would there be more communication, collaboration, interaction and multimedia? 21st century learners are a generation that likes to talk through their devices and the gambling industry have recognized this and acted accordingly. Particularly interesting for my research is that of ‘mobile gambling’. Is it time for the education sector to do the same?
So after all the bright lights, and back to reality in the cold light of day, what are the implications for libraries…? Patricia inferred that we need to actively participate in the curriculum review, we must improve instructional design, we should model good teaching practices and invest in faculty development, and we should institutionally design co-curricular activities. Libraries need to (forcibly??) have a presence in directing not only its own departmental future directions but also that of the faculties in order that teaching, learning, and information literacy, are embedded and delivered in the most appropriate means possible for learner.
PRENSKY, M. (2005) Engage me or enrage me: what today’s learner demand. Educause Review, 40 (5), pp.60-65 [online]. Available from: http://www.educause.edu/ER/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume40/EngageMeorEnrageMeWhatTodaysLe/158006
Friday, 3 April 2009
Keynote Speaker : Melissa Highton (University of Oxford)
Melissa had the honour of giving the opening keynote of LILAC 2009 and she created a strong foundation for the conference, providing delegates with insights into information literacy, new technologies and the convergence of the two trends.
Melissa began by discussing the term ‘digital literacy.’ She emphasised the lack of definition currently on offer through wikipedia and questioned if you can be information literate without being digitally literate and vice versa.
To me, digital literacy is the term that can be used to describe the new kinds of skills that 21st century learners need to be proficient in order that they can function successfully in the modern world. For example, the ability to share, collaborate and communicate via the internet, either at a desktop or facilitated by mobile technologies; Sharples (2006, p.23) describes this set of skills as “transferable skills that employers prize, such as knowledge-working, media production and collaborative working.” I feel that to be digital literate is to be adept in the practice of web 2.0 technologies such as blogs and wikis, to be able to navigate online information spaces and to have the ability to create content and share it through an appropriate medium. Digitally literate learners are flexible in their approaches to learning and are able to use the tools relevant for the task in hand depending upon time, location and available technologies.
The problem with digital literacy is borne from the fact that it has not yet been explored by Information Professionals, Melissa suggests that this needs to be carried out so that a framework can be constructed and decisions can be made as to whether information literacy and digital literacy are one of the same or whether they need to be approached separately. To do this, Librarians, Information Officers, Subject Support Teams (whatever ‘we’ may be called) need to engage in shaping the debate about emerging technologies and the ICT expectations of new students. We need to be actively involved in answering the question ‘where should digital literacy fit in the curriculum and how can this be achieved?’ The answer to this question is becoming ever more crucial as the convergence of mobile and web 2.0 technologies has created a shift in the ways in which learners can access and share information. As a result of this the established information cycle of production, transmission, storage, retrieval and consumption can now take place in mobile contexts and without a central control element (Traxler, 2008). As Information Professionals however, we still need to maintain that our students can manage their information needs in an academically acceptable manner and that today’s learners can navigate their way through the plethora of access channels accordingly.
Melissa then moved on to discuss the ever topical Marc Prensky (2001a; 2001b) and his work on ‘digital natives’ versus ‘digital immigrants.’ She suggests that the current economic crisis will have an impact on the types of students we will begin to see applying for university places over the coming years. For example, there may be an in-flux of mature students as a direct result of the recession, these will be people that have perhaps lost their jobs and are looking to re-train and gain new skills. Obviously in this instance it throws a ‘spanner in the works’ of Prensky’s debate and the view of the ‘traditional’ undergraduate, 21st century student and directly impacts on the information literacy training we provide within our institutions.
The idea of ‘information abuse’ was also brought to the table and admittedly not something I had particularly thought of previous. Melissa interlinked this to the current banking crisis and the bad decisions made over the last few years; bad use of information has resulted in a global recession. Melissa inferred that banking chiefs (and the like) didn’t understand the predictive models they were using and the information they produced, which led to catastrophic mistakes in the decision making process – is ‘modelling’ literacy yet another string to the information literacy bow? The ability to interpret information well would lie at the heart of the ‘modelling literacy’ notion. The bringing together and comprehension of all these types of literacy’s (information, digital, modelling, ICT etc.) would result in learners leaving university with ‘digital wisdom’ (Prensky, 2009).
‘Open content literacy’ was Melissa’s final point about which she discussed the surrounding issues. Even though the content is available and out there, it is still important for Information Professionals to lead within this field; permissions, attribution, adaptation and the re-use of content needs to be mediated to ensure that learners are managing the information they are using in an suitable manner. A whole host of themes and technologies are drawn into this area, from copyright to categories, platforms (You Tube, iTunes etc.) to tags. This led directly to Melissa’s closing points – the emergence of iTunes U in academic institutions in England.
The University of Oxford have had an iTunes U site since October 2008 and Melissa offered advice and support to any institutions wishing to head down the iTunes road. One of the key points that has stayed with me is Melissa’s idea that Information Professionals still need to be involved in adding metadata to the podcasts produced for housing in your institution’s iTunes U store. Melissa felt that it was important that the academics started off the ‘tagging’ of the podcasts they produced in a web 2.0 context but that the Information Professionals should be on hand to provide the information rich metadata that will ensure students can find relevant podcasts to their subject area in a quick and easy manner.
Melissa invigorated me and prepared me for some of the key themes of LILAC 2009, her keynote speech was clear and coherent and really struck a chord with me and my research.
References
PRENSKY, M. (2009) H. sapiens digital: from digital immigrants to digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5 (3), February/March 2009 [online]. Available from: http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=705&action=article
PRENSKY, M. (2001a) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (5), pp.1-6
PRENSKY, M. (2001b) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (6), pp.1-6
SHARPLES, M. (2006) How can we address the conflicts between personal informal learning and traditional classroom education. In: SHARPLES, M. (ed.) (2006) Big issues in mobile learning: report of a workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence Mobile Learning Initiative, pp.23-25 [online]. Available from: mlearning.noe-kaleidoscope.org/public/news/KALEIDOSCOPE%20REPORT_07_Big_Issues_In_Mobile_Learning.pdf
TRAXLER, J. (2008) Use of mobile technology for mobile learning and mobile libraries in a mobile society. In: NEEDHAM, G and ALLY, M. (ed.) (2008) M-libraries: libraries on the move to provide virtual access, pp.47-55. Facet
Melissa began by discussing the term ‘digital literacy.’ She emphasised the lack of definition currently on offer through wikipedia and questioned if you can be information literate without being digitally literate and vice versa.
To me, digital literacy is the term that can be used to describe the new kinds of skills that 21st century learners need to be proficient in order that they can function successfully in the modern world. For example, the ability to share, collaborate and communicate via the internet, either at a desktop or facilitated by mobile technologies; Sharples (2006, p.23) describes this set of skills as “transferable skills that employers prize, such as knowledge-working, media production and collaborative working.” I feel that to be digital literate is to be adept in the practice of web 2.0 technologies such as blogs and wikis, to be able to navigate online information spaces and to have the ability to create content and share it through an appropriate medium. Digitally literate learners are flexible in their approaches to learning and are able to use the tools relevant for the task in hand depending upon time, location and available technologies.
The problem with digital literacy is borne from the fact that it has not yet been explored by Information Professionals, Melissa suggests that this needs to be carried out so that a framework can be constructed and decisions can be made as to whether information literacy and digital literacy are one of the same or whether they need to be approached separately. To do this, Librarians, Information Officers, Subject Support Teams (whatever ‘we’ may be called) need to engage in shaping the debate about emerging technologies and the ICT expectations of new students. We need to be actively involved in answering the question ‘where should digital literacy fit in the curriculum and how can this be achieved?’ The answer to this question is becoming ever more crucial as the convergence of mobile and web 2.0 technologies has created a shift in the ways in which learners can access and share information. As a result of this the established information cycle of production, transmission, storage, retrieval and consumption can now take place in mobile contexts and without a central control element (Traxler, 2008). As Information Professionals however, we still need to maintain that our students can manage their information needs in an academically acceptable manner and that today’s learners can navigate their way through the plethora of access channels accordingly.
Melissa then moved on to discuss the ever topical Marc Prensky (2001a; 2001b) and his work on ‘digital natives’ versus ‘digital immigrants.’ She suggests that the current economic crisis will have an impact on the types of students we will begin to see applying for university places over the coming years. For example, there may be an in-flux of mature students as a direct result of the recession, these will be people that have perhaps lost their jobs and are looking to re-train and gain new skills. Obviously in this instance it throws a ‘spanner in the works’ of Prensky’s debate and the view of the ‘traditional’ undergraduate, 21st century student and directly impacts on the information literacy training we provide within our institutions.
The idea of ‘information abuse’ was also brought to the table and admittedly not something I had particularly thought of previous. Melissa interlinked this to the current banking crisis and the bad decisions made over the last few years; bad use of information has resulted in a global recession. Melissa inferred that banking chiefs (and the like) didn’t understand the predictive models they were using and the information they produced, which led to catastrophic mistakes in the decision making process – is ‘modelling’ literacy yet another string to the information literacy bow? The ability to interpret information well would lie at the heart of the ‘modelling literacy’ notion. The bringing together and comprehension of all these types of literacy’s (information, digital, modelling, ICT etc.) would result in learners leaving university with ‘digital wisdom’ (Prensky, 2009).
‘Open content literacy’ was Melissa’s final point about which she discussed the surrounding issues. Even though the content is available and out there, it is still important for Information Professionals to lead within this field; permissions, attribution, adaptation and the re-use of content needs to be mediated to ensure that learners are managing the information they are using in an suitable manner. A whole host of themes and technologies are drawn into this area, from copyright to categories, platforms (You Tube, iTunes etc.) to tags. This led directly to Melissa’s closing points – the emergence of iTunes U in academic institutions in England.
The University of Oxford have had an iTunes U site since October 2008 and Melissa offered advice and support to any institutions wishing to head down the iTunes road. One of the key points that has stayed with me is Melissa’s idea that Information Professionals still need to be involved in adding metadata to the podcasts produced for housing in your institution’s iTunes U store. Melissa felt that it was important that the academics started off the ‘tagging’ of the podcasts they produced in a web 2.0 context but that the Information Professionals should be on hand to provide the information rich metadata that will ensure students can find relevant podcasts to their subject area in a quick and easy manner.
Melissa invigorated me and prepared me for some of the key themes of LILAC 2009, her keynote speech was clear and coherent and really struck a chord with me and my research.
References
PRENSKY, M. (2009) H. sapiens digital: from digital immigrants to digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5 (3), February/March 2009 [online]. Available from: http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=705&action=article
PRENSKY, M. (2001a) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (5), pp.1-6
PRENSKY, M. (2001b) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (6), pp.1-6
SHARPLES, M. (2006) How can we address the conflicts between personal informal learning and traditional classroom education. In: SHARPLES, M. (ed.) (2006) Big issues in mobile learning: report of a workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence Mobile Learning Initiative, pp.23-25 [online]. Available from: mlearning.noe-kaleidoscope.org/public/news/KALEIDOSCOPE%20REPORT_07_Big_Issues_In_Mobile_Learning.pdf
TRAXLER, J. (2008) Use of mobile technology for mobile learning and mobile libraries in a mobile society. In: NEEDHAM, G and ALLY, M. (ed.) (2008) M-libraries: libraries on the move to provide virtual access, pp.47-55. Facet
LILAC 2009 - Keynote Speakers
The keynote speakers for LILAC 2009 were Melissa Highton (University of Oxford), Patricia Iannuzzi (University of Nevada), Lesley Burger (Princeton Public Library) and Conor Galvin (University College Dublin). With regards to my research and personal interests, Melissa Highton and Patricia Iannuzzi delivered talks that really inspired me – and have enthused me to blog about some of the key concepts they conveyed.
Blog postings to follow shortly...
Blog postings to follow shortly...
LILAC 2009 - An Overview of Events
Well before this week I was a LILAC virgin, but I feel that after a manic few days down in sunny Cardiff I have been officially initiated into the LILAC phenomenon, and, been subjected to a few home truths about ‘stereotypical librarians’ (seeing a throng of Librarians rock to Nirvana was definitely an eye-opener!!)
I must admit that I had a fair few pre-conceptions about what LILAC would have in-store, many of which were way off the mark…
Fact or Fiction?
The days are steady and the nights are filled with a cup of cocoa and an early night.
FALSE – the days are packed to the rafters with parallel sessions and keynote speakers, a mad dash from room to room, intermittently broken by refreshments. The evenings are a frenetic race to get showered, dressed and ready to network, a none stop whirl of wine, food, talk, wine, laughter, talk…and a bit of dancing too!!
It’s important to dress to impress.
FALSE (apart from during the Conference Dinner) – I learnt my lesson wearing smart work clothes (with heeled boots) throughout the entire time at Cardiff. Daytimes should be strictly casual and comfy – FLAT SHOES are a must…I had an hours walking everyday – in heeled boots this was not the best part of my day!! The Conference Dinner was the time to get the glad rags on and enjoy some of Cardiff’s finest…
You’ll get to meet lots of extremely interesting people.
TRUE – Everyone is so friendly at LILAC and every new person you meet has a different story to tell or idea to share. A truly fascinating experience in discovering what’s really happening outside of your institution.
There will be time to reflect and blog about sessions.
FALSE – The days are full as are the evenings; I never had chance to reflect on the sessions I had attended never mind actively blog about them!!
‘LILAC’ stands for Librarians Information Literacy Annual Conference.
TRUE (however I came up with another option whilst returning home after an eventful Conference Dinner... lively intoxicated librarians at Cardiff…)
I would have to say that my overall experience at LILAC was a rather exhausting one (in the nicest way possible of course!). The keynote speakers this year delivered thought-provoking talks about Information Literacy in the 21st Century, Melissa Highton (University of Oxford) particularly struck a chord with me and my research with her allusion to Prensky’s ‘digital natives/immigrants’ and the term ‘digital literacy.’ Patricia Iannuzzi (University of Nevada) also referred to Prensky’s work on ‘engaging’ 21st Century learners which I found particularly pertinent with regards to the m-learning trend. (Check back soon for more in-depth insights into this year’s keynotes in a separate blog posting).
So what about the parallel sessions? I will give a brief insight into the most relevant sessions I attended here, and will blog in more detail in separate postings about the sessions which particularly grabbed me.
Most informative to my project was Andrew Walsh’s (University of Huddersfield) session ‘If they won’t turn them off, we might as well use them. Using mobile phones in information skills sessions.’ Andrew gave great insights into the different methods he has trialled during his information skills sessions for undergraduate students and looked towards the future for the University of Huddersfield and the use of the mobile phone in library settings, including an exploration of QR tags and such schemes as ‘text a librarian.’
Peter Godwin (University of Bedfordshire) talked of the exploitation of mobile devices with regards to information literacy in his session ‘Information literacy meets the mobile web.’ Peter gave an overview of m-learning possibilities correlating to information literacy practices and spoke of the options appearing as a result of a more mobile future. His session backed up a lot of the research I have performed and reinforced certain aspects of m-learning, whilst also providing interesting references to articles I had not yet read.
Having experienced the Learning 2.0 at LJMU training programme over the last 12 weeks, I attended the session hosted by Imperial College London ‘ 2.0 much to do: how, when and why should library staff find out about web 2.0, and what does it mean for information literacy?’ Jenny Evans and Ruth Harrison gave an interesting interactive session about the very first English web 2.0 training programme for library staff; it was good for me to have an insight into another HEIs approach, enabling me to feedback to our Learning 2.0 @ LJMU team here at John Moores.
Not especially relevant to my m-learning research but probably my favourite session was that conducted by Zoe Johnson and Lisa Balman (University of Huddersfield ‘Just give me The Basics: online inductions at the University of Huddersfield Library.’ Zoe and Lisa highlighted the problems encountered through trying to engage 21st century learners with quite ‘dry’ material associated with information literacy. To overcome this hurdle they have designed a clear and easy-to-navigate website packed with podcasts, demo’s and image slideshows to help make the delivery of information literacy all the more interesting.
Nathan Rush’s (De Montfort University) session ‘Researcher Wiki: experiences, analysis and reflections on using the read/write web to build researcher communities’ was also a very informative interactive session that I think deserves a mention!!
For me, LILAC gave me great insights into the possibilities and practices with regards to information literacy skills training and library inductions. Being at such an early stage in my career I feel that this experience has been invaluable in raising my awareness and preparing me to continue on down my chosen career path. I now feel that I have a much greater understanding of the best way to ‘reach’ our students and deliver sessions that are relevant, engaging and accessible to all students across the ‘digital native – digital immigrant’ spectrum.
And finally, for any other LILAC virgins that are compelled to attend next year here are my top 5 tips:
1. Wear flat shoes.
2. Take a supply of pro plus.
3. Research accommodation (both location and customer reviews!) properly and book early.
4. Take contact cards/business cards (or you will end up with loads of scrappy bits of paper to exchange details with new found acquaintances.
5. HAVE FUN!
Check back soon for individual postings about individual parallel sessions and keynote speakers…
Friday, 6 March 2009
Case Study 3 – Tate Modern
During my trip to London I went to the Tate Modern (all in the name of hardwork!) to experience their multimedia tour, delivered through a PDA. The tour has won a Bafta-award for technical innovation and visitor feedback has proven extremely positive.
Upon arrival at the Tate Modern I was kindly directed to the multimedia tour desk where I was told that the tour cost £2 (£1 for concessions and students) and that I would need to leave some formal identification (such as a Driving Licence or Passport) to act as a guarantee for the device. The tours are delivered through Dell Axim X51V (which appear to retail at approx £250), users are also supplied with a set of headphones and a stylus.
I was disappointed by the help I was given with the PDA from the girl that was manning the multimedia tour desk, in 10 seconds flat she gave me a whistle-stop tour of what to do and I must admit I was confused. It didn’t help that there was a glass security window between myself and the member of staff, it proved to be quite a barrier. I took the PDA to one side and spent a few minutes acquainting myself with the device and the tour. It didn’t take me too long to work it all out but I couldn’t help feeling that I should have been supported in its use from the very start by the Tate staff and I also knew for a fact that someone less confident with technology would have been blinded by science. This is a shame as some people may be missing out on the true benefits of the tour simply because they couldn’t work out how to use the device properly.
There are two different tour options, the family tour or the collections tour. The tour applies to four of the collections currently on display in the Tate Modern: Poetry and Dream, Material Gestures, States of Flux and Idea and Object. For the special collections there was an extra charge for the tours at approx £1.50.
I chose the collections tour option and headed for the ‘Poetry and Dream’ section. Depending upon the pieces of art you are in front on, the information of the multimedia tour differs. For example the first piece of art that I studied was Joan Miró’s a Star Caresses the Breast of a Negress (Painting Poem), 1938 which came under the ‘surrealism and beyond’ banner. The options provided by the tour were:
Ø About this picture
Ø The artist speaks
Ø Get talking
Ø Dream music
Ø Credits
The ‘about this picture’ option is a standard option for all the artwork included as part of the multimedia tour which tended to draw upon the artist’s inspiration for the work. Particular pieces were accompanied by an interview with the artist (as with this Joan Miró piece) which sometimes included video as well as audio. The ‘get talking’ option presents two points of view of a piece of work and asks you to consider, either together if in a group, or on your own if alone, which point of view you can relate to – this is interesting as within groups it encourages collaboration. The ‘dream music’ option that accompanied Joan Miró’s piece contextualised the piece through music and blended well with the surrealist element. The ‘credits’ option was another standardised option and simply credited any information, interviews etc. to the correct people.
I continued to experience the tour as I made my way around the gallery. Options specific to particular works included amongst others:
Ø Material and technique
Ø Love triangle
Ø Inspirations
Ø Friends, lovers and models
Ø The artist at work
After I had experienced the full collections tour I decided to get a bit of a taster for the family tour, I was interested how it would deal with some works that were not suitable for young children, for example Marlene Dumas’s work is not included in the family tour due to its generally dark nature and sexual connotations.
The family tour was a brilliant example of adapting content to suit the needs of the users. In order to demonstrate this I compared the collections tour with the family tour in relation to Jason Pollock’s Summertime, 1948. The options offered though the collections tour included:
Ø About this work
Ø The artist at work
Ø Pollock and music
Ø Pollock and patterns
Ø Credits
The options offered in the family tour included:
Ø About this painting
Ø Finger painting?
Ø Credits
The options of the family tour were accessible to all age groups containing information relevant to a younger audience. The finger painting option asked the children to see if they could see evidence where Jason Pollock had used his fingers on the canvas. There was also an on-screen option which encouraged users to select certain areas of the painting which when pressed musically announced the technique Pollock had use on that particular area e.g. finger, splatter. This interactive picture made music when touched in multiple areas through the artistic techniques used.
I was amazed at how much information the multimedia tour offered and the different formats this information was delivered. The tour definitely left me feeling much more in-tune with certain pieces of work currently on display at the Tate Modern and really helped me to understand some of the history and inspirations to the pieces of work, contextualising the techniques used by the artists to achieve a certain impression. I saw people of all age groups and all nationalities using the PDA tours, children as young as five up to couples in their sixties. The Tate’s multimedia tours are an excellent example of a successful mobile learning culture, but reinforce the strong need for support of such provisions.
I feel that there is potential to use Tate’s multimedia tour model in an academic setting, particularly in library instruction. It would enable students to experience the library induction in a more hands-on and contextual setting, rather than sitting in a lecture theatre staring at yet another PowerPoint presentation. It would also enable students to recap (after the madness of Fresher’s week when most inductions take place) on how to use the library effectively. In an academic setting I feel that if some of the Tate’s elements were adopted they would need to be delivered via students personal devices. This is because 1. I can’t imagine many students wanting to advertise the fact that they are doing a multimedia tour of the library (not cool!). If they can walk around with their mobile phone or iPod it is less conspicuous! 2. It would negate any cost element to students; they would simply have to download the library induction app to their device 3. From a support point of view, our front of house staff would not been inundated with device related questions and students would feel more comfortable using their own device that they are confident in using.
Overall I think it is definitely something that needs to be considered enabling us to deliver library inductions to students in a more flexible and blended manner.
Looking to the future for the Tate, apparently they have developed an app for the iPhone which would allow visitors to experience the multimedia tour via their own device…what was I just saying…!!!
Upon arrival at the Tate Modern I was kindly directed to the multimedia tour desk where I was told that the tour cost £2 (£1 for concessions and students) and that I would need to leave some formal identification (such as a Driving Licence or Passport) to act as a guarantee for the device. The tours are delivered through Dell Axim X51V (which appear to retail at approx £250), users are also supplied with a set of headphones and a stylus.
I was disappointed by the help I was given with the PDA from the girl that was manning the multimedia tour desk, in 10 seconds flat she gave me a whistle-stop tour of what to do and I must admit I was confused. It didn’t help that there was a glass security window between myself and the member of staff, it proved to be quite a barrier. I took the PDA to one side and spent a few minutes acquainting myself with the device and the tour. It didn’t take me too long to work it all out but I couldn’t help feeling that I should have been supported in its use from the very start by the Tate staff and I also knew for a fact that someone less confident with technology would have been blinded by science. This is a shame as some people may be missing out on the true benefits of the tour simply because they couldn’t work out how to use the device properly.
There are two different tour options, the family tour or the collections tour. The tour applies to four of the collections currently on display in the Tate Modern: Poetry and Dream, Material Gestures, States of Flux and Idea and Object. For the special collections there was an extra charge for the tours at approx £1.50.
I chose the collections tour option and headed for the ‘Poetry and Dream’ section. Depending upon the pieces of art you are in front on, the information of the multimedia tour differs. For example the first piece of art that I studied was Joan Miró’s a Star Caresses the Breast of a Negress (Painting Poem), 1938 which came under the ‘surrealism and beyond’ banner. The options provided by the tour were:
Ø About this picture
Ø The artist speaks
Ø Get talking
Ø Dream music
Ø Credits
The ‘about this picture’ option is a standard option for all the artwork included as part of the multimedia tour which tended to draw upon the artist’s inspiration for the work. Particular pieces were accompanied by an interview with the artist (as with this Joan Miró piece) which sometimes included video as well as audio. The ‘get talking’ option presents two points of view of a piece of work and asks you to consider, either together if in a group, or on your own if alone, which point of view you can relate to – this is interesting as within groups it encourages collaboration. The ‘dream music’ option that accompanied Joan Miró’s piece contextualised the piece through music and blended well with the surrealist element. The ‘credits’ option was another standardised option and simply credited any information, interviews etc. to the correct people.
I continued to experience the tour as I made my way around the gallery. Options specific to particular works included amongst others:
Ø Material and technique
Ø Love triangle
Ø Inspirations
Ø Friends, lovers and models
Ø The artist at work
After I had experienced the full collections tour I decided to get a bit of a taster for the family tour, I was interested how it would deal with some works that were not suitable for young children, for example Marlene Dumas’s work is not included in the family tour due to its generally dark nature and sexual connotations.
The family tour was a brilliant example of adapting content to suit the needs of the users. In order to demonstrate this I compared the collections tour with the family tour in relation to Jason Pollock’s Summertime, 1948. The options offered though the collections tour included:
Ø About this work
Ø The artist at work
Ø Pollock and music
Ø Pollock and patterns
Ø Credits
The options offered in the family tour included:
Ø About this painting
Ø Finger painting?
Ø Credits
The options of the family tour were accessible to all age groups containing information relevant to a younger audience. The finger painting option asked the children to see if they could see evidence where Jason Pollock had used his fingers on the canvas. There was also an on-screen option which encouraged users to select certain areas of the painting which when pressed musically announced the technique Pollock had use on that particular area e.g. finger, splatter. This interactive picture made music when touched in multiple areas through the artistic techniques used.
I was amazed at how much information the multimedia tour offered and the different formats this information was delivered. The tour definitely left me feeling much more in-tune with certain pieces of work currently on display at the Tate Modern and really helped me to understand some of the history and inspirations to the pieces of work, contextualising the techniques used by the artists to achieve a certain impression. I saw people of all age groups and all nationalities using the PDA tours, children as young as five up to couples in their sixties. The Tate’s multimedia tours are an excellent example of a successful mobile learning culture, but reinforce the strong need for support of such provisions.
I feel that there is potential to use Tate’s multimedia tour model in an academic setting, particularly in library instruction. It would enable students to experience the library induction in a more hands-on and contextual setting, rather than sitting in a lecture theatre staring at yet another PowerPoint presentation. It would also enable students to recap (after the madness of Fresher’s week when most inductions take place) on how to use the library effectively. In an academic setting I feel that if some of the Tate’s elements were adopted they would need to be delivered via students personal devices. This is because 1. I can’t imagine many students wanting to advertise the fact that they are doing a multimedia tour of the library (not cool!). If they can walk around with their mobile phone or iPod it is less conspicuous! 2. It would negate any cost element to students; they would simply have to download the library induction app to their device 3. From a support point of view, our front of house staff would not been inundated with device related questions and students would feel more comfortable using their own device that they are confident in using.
Overall I think it is definitely something that needs to be considered enabling us to deliver library inductions to students in a more flexible and blended manner.
Looking to the future for the Tate, apparently they have developed an app for the iPhone which would allow visitors to experience the multimedia tour via their own device…what was I just saying…!!!
Thursday, 5 March 2009
Case Study 2 – London School of Economics (LSE)
Yesterday I went to London for a visit to LSE and to meet with Jane Secker (Learning Technology Librarian) and Dave Puplett (Data Librarian) to discuss mobile learning.
The day got off to a good start, glorious sunshine and a train that departed on time…if only my map reading skills were as good as my enthusiasm…on arriving at Euston I initially took a wrong turning (whoops) but realised my mistake pretty sharpish when I arrived at the hospital (that hadn’t been a landmark in my directions!)…after an 180 degree turn and asking for directions from a couple of really helpful people I managed to make my way to LSE, arriving only a few minutes later than planned!!
Jane and Dave gave me some good insights into the kinds of mobile orientated learning currently in action at LSE. Firstly Dave showed me some stats which highlight that the iPhone is the fourth most popular access method for their library catalogue totalling 869 times in a four month period. This is promising as the students are choosing this access method, mobile learning is yet to be fully realised at LSE yet the students are bridging the gap between their personal devices which they use so ubiquitously socially, and their personal study.
An interesting comparison between LJMU and LSE is the level of support that we offer to our students and staff with regards to mobile access, as advertised on our webpages. LSE seem to interlink mobile devices with laptops, so any support they offer to laptop users is mirrored in that offered to mobile device users. This is achieved through their laptop surgery service. The IT services homepage states:
‘For assistance connecting to LSE resources from off-site and connecting personally-owned laptop and mobile devices to the LSE network’
In a mobile learning culture this invisible connection which blurs the devices, laying emphasis on the support, not on the device, is definitely a promising way forward. Here at LJMU it appears that support for mobile devices is offered in separate places. Firstly we have the ‘other devices’ page which actively promotes different access channels for staff and students with regards to their email. Then there is the ‘via POP/IMAP’ page which guides users on how to configure mobile devices in order that university email can be accessed but stipulates that at LJMU we offer ‘as is’ the information on our webpages. This implies to students that there isn’t a physical support layer with regards to using mobile devices to access the university network when in truth this is not actually the case. Computing Assistants offer front line support to our students and staff across our 3 LRC sites. The Off-Campus Support Team also offer support in terms of students and staff that are based away from the campus in accessing the university network via mobile devices, we should openly advertise this fact in order to instil a mobile learning culture. We are doing it so why not let our staff and students know about it?
LSE also offers a service called VITA (Virtual IT Assistance) which seems quite similar to the services offered by the Off-Campus Support team here at LJMU. VITA (as with Off-Campus Support) allows students and staff to chat online in order to resolve any issues they may have with software etc. and provide a level of IT support.
Back on the mobile front, LSE have a WAP page that indicates which PCs are free so as their students travel into the university knowing that they need a PC on that particular day, they can access information that will allow them to make informed decisions as to the best location for them. This idea is an excellent example of enabling the 21st century learner to make use of their travelling time in a constructive manner (if they so wish) and in turn save them time (by directly leading them to free PCs taking away the ‘looking’ element)!
Something that I have only recently started looking into is that of lecture capture systems. LSE uses Echo 360. Echo 360 automatically captures, manages, and publishes class lectures therefore the lecturers don’t have to do anything differently than they would normally. Jane showed me an example of the data that is captured and made accessible via the VLE and indicated that lecturer uptake was positive as was student opinion. Interestingly from a mobile learning point of view, the audio file could be extracted in order that it be downloaded onto an MP3 or iPod. This would enable students to learn on the go, whilst travelling, maybe printing off particular slides to use in-conjunction with the audio in order to revise a particular topic area or concept.
We finished the morning talking briefly about social softwares including Facebook and Twitter. Both very topical within libraries and HE at this moment in time – but that’s a whole new blog posting!!
The morning spent at LSE made me even more invigorated with mobile learning, I truly believe we need to start advertising the elements of mobile learning that we currently ‘do.’ Whether it be academics experimenting with podcasting or the LRC staff showing students how to connect to the wireless through a mobile device. A mobile learning culture isn’t going to happen over night but each step we take is getting us one step nearer to a successful and innovative blended learning environment.
The day got off to a good start, glorious sunshine and a train that departed on time…if only my map reading skills were as good as my enthusiasm…on arriving at Euston I initially took a wrong turning (whoops) but realised my mistake pretty sharpish when I arrived at the hospital (that hadn’t been a landmark in my directions!)…after an 180 degree turn and asking for directions from a couple of really helpful people I managed to make my way to LSE, arriving only a few minutes later than planned!!
Jane and Dave gave me some good insights into the kinds of mobile orientated learning currently in action at LSE. Firstly Dave showed me some stats which highlight that the iPhone is the fourth most popular access method for their library catalogue totalling 869 times in a four month period. This is promising as the students are choosing this access method, mobile learning is yet to be fully realised at LSE yet the students are bridging the gap between their personal devices which they use so ubiquitously socially, and their personal study.
An interesting comparison between LJMU and LSE is the level of support that we offer to our students and staff with regards to mobile access, as advertised on our webpages. LSE seem to interlink mobile devices with laptops, so any support they offer to laptop users is mirrored in that offered to mobile device users. This is achieved through their laptop surgery service. The IT services homepage states:
‘For assistance connecting to LSE resources from off-site and connecting personally-owned laptop and mobile devices to the LSE network’
In a mobile learning culture this invisible connection which blurs the devices, laying emphasis on the support, not on the device, is definitely a promising way forward. Here at LJMU it appears that support for mobile devices is offered in separate places. Firstly we have the ‘other devices’ page which actively promotes different access channels for staff and students with regards to their email. Then there is the ‘via POP/IMAP’ page which guides users on how to configure mobile devices in order that university email can be accessed but stipulates that at LJMU we offer ‘as is’ the information on our webpages. This implies to students that there isn’t a physical support layer with regards to using mobile devices to access the university network when in truth this is not actually the case. Computing Assistants offer front line support to our students and staff across our 3 LRC sites. The Off-Campus Support Team also offer support in terms of students and staff that are based away from the campus in accessing the university network via mobile devices, we should openly advertise this fact in order to instil a mobile learning culture. We are doing it so why not let our staff and students know about it?
LSE also offers a service called VITA (Virtual IT Assistance) which seems quite similar to the services offered by the Off-Campus Support team here at LJMU. VITA (as with Off-Campus Support) allows students and staff to chat online in order to resolve any issues they may have with software etc. and provide a level of IT support.
Back on the mobile front, LSE have a WAP page that indicates which PCs are free so as their students travel into the university knowing that they need a PC on that particular day, they can access information that will allow them to make informed decisions as to the best location for them. This idea is an excellent example of enabling the 21st century learner to make use of their travelling time in a constructive manner (if they so wish) and in turn save them time (by directly leading them to free PCs taking away the ‘looking’ element)!
Something that I have only recently started looking into is that of lecture capture systems. LSE uses Echo 360. Echo 360 automatically captures, manages, and publishes class lectures therefore the lecturers don’t have to do anything differently than they would normally. Jane showed me an example of the data that is captured and made accessible via the VLE and indicated that lecturer uptake was positive as was student opinion. Interestingly from a mobile learning point of view, the audio file could be extracted in order that it be downloaded onto an MP3 or iPod. This would enable students to learn on the go, whilst travelling, maybe printing off particular slides to use in-conjunction with the audio in order to revise a particular topic area or concept.
We finished the morning talking briefly about social softwares including Facebook and Twitter. Both very topical within libraries and HE at this moment in time – but that’s a whole new blog posting!!
The morning spent at LSE made me even more invigorated with mobile learning, I truly believe we need to start advertising the elements of mobile learning that we currently ‘do.’ Whether it be academics experimenting with podcasting or the LRC staff showing students how to connect to the wireless through a mobile device. A mobile learning culture isn’t going to happen over night but each step we take is getting us one step nearer to a successful and innovative blended learning environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
