Here is a post of the WILU 2009 Conference presentation I delivered with Irene Tencinger on the Social Constructivist theory of Scaffolding and it’s application in Virtual Reference. This was my first attempt at attaching sound to a presentation and although I sound strange due to a sore throat, I think it went well. I apologize for the poor sound quality when people are asking questions.
Here is a brief description of the presentation:
This presentation will provide a response to the issues/problems that are holding back virtual reference from becoming a truly instructional forum by providing the best ways to translate theory into “sound” instructional practice in virtual reference. By applying the theoretical principals of scaffolding with practical examples, the participants will learn techniques and strategies to apply in training librarians in an instructional methodological approach to information literacy in the virtual environment.
For a reading list, just drop me a line.
Keeping it Together - Algebra and Keywords, It's All The Same!
As a part of my role as member of the Information Literacy team, I created a presentation with a colleague Sarah Coysh on instructional theory. We decided to talk about humanist, constructivist, behaviorist, social situational, and transformational theories. Although it was a bit of a whirlwind experience, 5 theories in 1 hour, the feedback was fantastic.
The most successful part of my section of the session (which covered the constructivist and social situational theory) was the examples of how I incorporate these models of instruction into my own lessons. Theory in practice… sometimes a difficult transition. We can understand that knowledge in constructivist theory is socially created, but how do we do this in the classroom? To illustrate the transition I talked about Boolean Logic and elementary algebra.
The scenario is as follows: I am teaching first year undergraduate students about the use of AND and OR to narrow and broaden a search and to create a search string. I have them place the entire search string in the keyword search field and attempt the search. They receive an error message. I question why. After some conversation, which rarely comes to the correct conclusion but is important to the co-construction of knowledge as it asks the students to be engaged in the learning process, I take them back in time. Well … not literally. I create a framework that is familiar to them. I state:
I want to take you back to grade 8 math class. You are learning some basic algebra and the concept of like concepts. Your teacher is at the board and states “When like concepts have to stay together, we have to put them inside what?”
The lights suddenly go off for the students. There is a moment where there is a mental connection between like concepts in a keyword search and like concepts in algebra. The same action but in a different context. An old mental framework incorporated into a new mental model.
This type of example of theory in practice is of key importance in discussing instruction for librarians. Many librarians do not have training in instruction. As such the comfort in knowing that what they are doing has some root in sound instructional practice is limited. By sharing practices that connect to pedagogy we can create instruction that is more successful.
An Art Historian Edits Wikipedia - Should Everyone?
I was recently preparing for a presentation on collective intelligence and the library and I found myself thinking about the old wiki debate. Yes, I know this is not a new debate and it comes from many sources but during my preparation I had a moment of clarity and considering that these moments are rare, I thought I should work out my thoughts on the topic.
Largely librarians have debated collective intelligence initiatives such as Wikipedia since their creation. As librarians we have spent a large part of our career attempting to provide context to students and asking them to critically evaluate resources and to learn the importance of access within a given system. This causes librarians to see collective intelligence initiatives, like Wikipedia, as in direct opposition to those endeavors. For librarians Wikipedia raises questions, such as:
- How can definitive statements be made about a topic when there are no credentials given?
- How can there be trust of the information when those involved in the creation of the object don’t work in unison?
- How can there be a focus to work when there is no guiding voice or control to bring in to clarity the multitude of ideas?
- And in support of that, why would experts be expected to get involved in Wikipedia when they have more prestigious outputs such as articles and books?
The issue is that librarains support Wikipedia, and collective intelligence initiatives, insofar as a expert is involved. This falls back to our understanding of what is authoritative and we would certainly support Wikipedia if it was more like the Encyclopedia Britanica because at the very least there is authority, context, and a system that supports “fact” checking. Something that Wikipedia doesn’t have.
Now, my moment of clarity.
I would put forth that the “right” credentials and knowledge doesn’t necessarily mean people who are already a part of a community due to their education or position within a system of authority, but the “right” people are people who are engaged out of self selection. Individuals who participate in the development of content tend to participate because there is some knowledge and interest. Certainly some sources of information will be more authoritative, but the act of working towards a common shared goal of providing content is in itself a highly important act.
For example, the research and writing process is an iterative one, a concept that is sometimes difficult to impart to students. This process of researching, writing a draft, and re-writing is something that is encouraged in academia. Collective Intelligence initiatives that encourage the amateur voice allows for disagreements, arguments, dialogue, and teachable moments where it simply isn’t about stating an opinion, but about working out the very nature of the topic. That dialogue that occurs is just as important as the final “right” information as it shows process and mirrors how we grow knowledge. Collective Intelligence initiatives such as Wikipedia mirror this process. We make a hypothesis, we research, we write and rewrite, and then we gain feedback and the content changes.
Could this be how we can reconceptualize our understanding of Wikipedia? Can we engage with it by thinking about how research and writing is created and can that affect how our students and faculty/researchers understand the uses of collective intelligence technologies in the classroom? I think this warrants further debate and maybe more thought on my part.
Some excellent sources to read on this topic would be an article by Jaron Lanier and the librarians response, Collectivism vs. individualism in a wiki world: Librarians respond to jaron lanier’s essay “digital maoism: The hazards of the new online collectivism.” Serials Review (March 2007). Serials Review, 33 (1), p. 45-53.
