Self Directed Reading #3

 Please read the rules about posted assignments before reading onward. 

For the Self Directed Readings, I had to 1) read an article, 2) write a paragraph summary, and 3) write a paragraph of my reactions to the article.  A short but sweet assignment.

Julian, Suzanne and Kimball Benson. “Clicking your way to library instruction assessment: using a personal response system at Brigham Young University.” College and Research Libraries News 69.5 (May 2008): 258-60.

In order to facilitate student participation in their library instruction sessions, Brigham Young University instructors purchased a PRS, or a Personal Response System.  This involves the students using "clickers" to answer predetermined questions about the different topics covered in the session.  The instructors were quickly recognized several benefits to using the clickers, which included more student participation, checking student comprehension, and hearing more of the students' opinion because results were posted anonymously.  The authors cautioned interested clicker users to word questions wisely and not to rely on the clickers too much throughout the presentation. Instructors at Brigham Young University recommend the clicker system to anyone searching for a new way to assess their library instruction sessions.

As a former user of the clicker, I saw that there was a lot of potential in the clicker for a physics class I took several years ago.  Unfortunately, the professor never tested the clickers before class and most people would forget to bring them, which made clicker ultimately useless.  After reading this article, I am again hopeful that clicker technology will expand and be used to its fullest extent.  Instructors can easily find out what students need help with, or whether they are paying attention, and change their session accordingly.  Any data received can be examined later, to better plan future sessions.  The Personal Response System is an easy way to get quick answers.

Self Directed Reading #2

Please read the rules about posted assignments before reading onward. 

For the Self Directed Readings, I had to 1) read an article, 2) write a paragraph summary, and 3) write a paragraph of my reactions to the article.  A short but sweet assignment.

The CIBER research team at University College London conducted this study to determine how the Google Generation, those born in 1993 and later, will search for digital objects.  It also points out the many "myths" about the Google Generation being inherently different from previous generations, finding that “power browsing” and a need for immediate gratification is instead a “truism of our time” (CIBER 2008 19).  CIBER strongly recommends libraries to increase visibility in social networking sites, educate users in navigating their catalogs, and “evaluate their users” to understand their needs (CIBER 2008 32-3).  In closing, the report warns that the future is grim for a society that cannot properly navigate the all of the information available.

This study tied in very well with this past week’s readings.  It addressed library anxiety as a major problem for freshmen college students, and that library literacy should start at an earlier age for students to become proficient in it.  The study also pointed to the fact that the Google Generation is not any more competent in searching than previous generations.  In my opinion, this myth arises because as a society, we equate expertise in finding friends on Facebook to mean we are experts in all types of information technology.  People can become overconfident in their skills, and not even realize that they do not know how to use the plethora of library resources available to them.  We need to stop assuming that the Google Generation knows things that they do not.

 

“Information Behavior of the Researcher of the Future.” CIBER. University College of London. Retrieved from http://www.bl.uk/news/2008/pressrelease20080116.html.

Self Directed Reading #1

Please read the rules about posted assignments before reading onward. 

For the Self Directed Readings, I had to 1) read an article, 2) write a paragraph summary, and 3) write a paragraph of my reactions to the article.  A short but sweet assignment.

In his article “Prove Your Case: A New Approach to Teaching Research Papers,” Stephen Broskoske, an assistant professor in the College Misericordia, explains a new technique for teaching research papers. To get his freshmen students to understand the importance of a specific thesis and sound research, Broskoske now equates a research paper to a lawyer’s preparation for a trial. Lawyers must first decide how to frame their case, as students must figure out how to “define their topic.” Then, as lawyers sift through evidence to prepare their arguments, so do students with their search for sources. The act of writing their paper became their day in court, where they could “present the evidence” they collected from a variety of sources. The “closing statement” to their “case” would be their conclusion, where they would have to summarize their argument and strongly finish their paper (Broskoske 31).

To a librarian instructor in an academic library, this approach to teaching research papers could prove very effective. Broskoske, himself, wrote, that this teaching method works because students can relate to the “high-visibility court cases in the news” (31). The "lawyer arguing a case" method relies on the students’ past experiences with popular court cases to help understand a similar process – writing. Constructivist teaching methods, a topic of last Wednesday's class, relies on the past experiences of a student to help develop new ideas, which the proposed method does. Many popular television shows, such as Law and Order and and The Good Wife, show the same process as the real court cases in the news. As a librarian instructor, I can use these shows the same way Broskoske used court cases, and create a library session framed around an episode of one of these shows and have the students "defend" cases. I would highly recommend library instructors faced with similar challenges to read this article.

Broskoske, S. (2007). "Prove Your Case: A New Approach to Teaching Research Papers." College Teaching 55(1), 31-2.

Reading Response #4

Please read the rules about posted assignments before reading onward. 

Alenka Šauperl’s and Jerry D. Saye’s article, “Have we made any progress?  Catalogues of the future revisited,” is a follow up of an earlier article they wrote nine years ago.  In the earlier article, they provided suggestions intended to improve a library’s online catalog, in the user’s eyes.  They recommended showing the table of contents of books, and allowing users to comment on books they checked out.  The new article tries to answer the question of whether these catalogs made any progress within the past several years, in terms of user friendliness.  The authors wrote these articles hoping that with these suggestions, library catalogs would “survive ‘Google attack’” (Saye and Šauperl 2009).
    During this semester, Google has come up in our discussions, in both, positive and negative ways.  The projects Google Books and Google Scholar made some of my classmates angry, while others were awed by Google’s ability to spearhead such a movement.  “Google attack” seems even more likely today than it did nine years ago, as much as the search engine still retains its simplicity and popularity.  The word Google even became a verb in 2006, when the Oxford English Dictionary defined it as such (Bylund 2006). 
    As Google grows, how do Saye and Šauperl suggest for library catalogs to improve further?  One area that could use improvement is the results page.  Google lists its results by popularity, something the authors find alarming.  Google Books and Google Scholar lists results by loading date, another poor form of listing results.  The authors pointed to the North Carolina State University Library’s OPAC as an example of a sophisticated results page.  Unlike Google, their results page is listed by subject.  If a large amount of results are retrieved, the user is able to limit the results with various options (Saye and Šauperl 2009).  These intuitive results pages should be inclued in more OPACs, which hopefully will draw more users into adopting them.
    The authors also mentioned the need for OPACs to have multiple interfaces.  In my opinion, OPACs should become “pioneers” in creating different interfaces for specific groups of people.  As professionals, librarians strive to ensure freedom of information for everyone.  To me, this means providing information regardless of a user’s language barrier, disability, or age.  If a library is located in a multilingual neighborhood, the library’s OPAC should have an interface for those local language speakers.  If blind people use the library, screen readers should be installed, and the OPAC should have a voice input/output option.  For children, an OPAC using “Simple English” could make browsing easier.  Google and Amazon do not have such functions, and could bolster OPAC’s popularity with these groups of people.
      In their conclusion, Saye and Šauperl urge librarians not to “take ‘no’ as a satisfactory answer” when OPAC vendors and other librarians resist these changes (2009).  Librarians must demand these new features in their OPACs in order to keep up with the “Google attack” and to ensure the existence of OPACs in the future. 



Bylund, Anders. (2006, July). To Google or Not to Google. Retrieved from  The Motley  Fool website: http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2006/07/05/ to- google-or-not-to-google.aspx
Sauperl, A.; Saye, J. D. (2009). Have we made any progress? Catalogues  of the future  revisited. Journal of Documentation 65(3): 500-514.

Reading Response #3

Please read the rules about using posted assignments before reading onward. 

      Gene Smith's Tagging: Emerging Trends taught me one important thing, that tagging has not gone "stale." Tagging has indeed evolved from the mess of delicious tags to the organized, semi-controlled, vocabularies of LibraryThing and Etsy.
       Since tagging has become such a part of the Internet today, it was surprising to read about two websites I use, LibraryThing and Etsy. Their creative mix of controlled and uncontrolled vocabularies could be the future of Internet libraries. Though Etsy does have a “controlled vocabulary,” it only exists at the very top tier. Sub-tags can be either chosen from a list or typed in by users. This system assures that at least in the main categories, redundant words are not used, and allows users to find the items they need. LibraryThing’s solution to tagging arises from the community. Users can link together tags that mean the same thing, with the most popular appearing in tag clouds. This methodology resolves the problem of redundant tags and solidifies the user community.
       Folksonomies might become a permanent fixture for the average user, but I believe information architects and librarians will never fully let go of the controlled vocabularies they have used for years. There is a reason why controlled vocabularies lasted for so long -- they work. The problem with controlled vocabularies is that it is hard to change them after they have been adopted. A better way of “linking” words has to be developed, in order to keep controlled vocabularies relevant for today’s users.
       Tagging has not grown stale, but it can if information architects stop working on improvements. Two websites, LibraryThing and Etsy, show that tags and a type of controlled vocabulary can be useful for finding information. Ultimately, that is what librarians want the most.

Reading Response #2

Please read the rules about using posted assignments before reading onward. 

Can user generated tags make users use catalogs more often? Information professionals are just starting to write about the tagging features made popular by Delicious and Flickr. Librarians frustrated with the controlled vocabulary of the Library of Congress Subject Headings are toying with the idea of incorporating user tags into library catalogs in order for them to be more user friendly. Peter J. Rolla’s article “User Tags versus Subject Headings,” a study about LibraryThing, provides a mixed review.

LibraryThing is a great site to publicly record and organize your book collection. User tags make this organization possible, allowing users to sort their books according to their own tags. It is as if a LibraryThing’s user created his or her own controlled vocabulary to define their collection. As with everything, user tags are both a virtue and a vice. The use of “folksonomies” can lead more general users to a book of their choice, but the lack of controlled vocabulary can make non-standard terminology a barrier in finding another book. This arises because of several factors, including synonyms, misspellings, and irrelevant personal tags.

As with many of the articles we have read in both LIS 501 and LIS 502, librarians must change with the environment and its users. We must try to save what worked in the past and blend it with the things that work in the present. In my opinion, though, Rolla’s call for more research should be replaced with a call for experimentation. The University of Illinois Vufind beta is starting to feature both, and hopefully will prove as successful as I think it can be.


Rolla, P. J. (2009). Can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? Library Resources & Technical Services 53(3): 174-184.

Reading Response #1

Please read the rules about using posted assignments before reading onward.

Class: LIS 501
Posted date: October 22nd, 2009

    Janet Swan Hill’s article “Entering an Alternative Universe […],” (2008) a paper based on a keynote speech, summarizes what I have heard from many people about the paradoxical world of librarians. There is a sentimental side, where librarians take time to find exactly what a user wants and believe themselves to be keepers of a public resource. The alternative universe, or the utilitarian side, finds librarians focusing on effectiveness and efficiency, by introducing automation that streamline a librarian’s work. Both exist side by side in today’s libraries, hindering any progress in finding ways to cope with desperate financial circumstances.
    Hill’s call to be open-minded about changes in cataloging are necessary in today’s world. In order to be relevant to our uses, we must change cataloging procedures that make sense to them. However, as Hill also suggests, we must ask some tough questions first, such as “What is our purpose? […] Do any of the things we are concentrating on distract from the main purpose?” (Hill, 2008, p. 226). These questions will put librarians on track to making decisions that could change the ways libraries work.
    Unfortunately, there is a catch -- not all librarians have the same answers to these questions. The little experience I have in the library world showed me that each librarian is usually an independent person with a lot of opinions. In order to bring about changes in cataloging, these independent minded people must decide to adapt for the sake of their library’s future. It will be a long road for real change to come to the catalog.


Hill, J. S. (2008). Entering an alternatve universe: Some consequences of implementing recommendations of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. Library Resources & Technical Services 52(4): 218-226.