SCROLL DOWN TO READ THE POST
Impact of ubiquity, the importance of brand, and Doug’s warning
In Doug Johnson’s blog post today, he suggests that the enemy is us.
Doug’s recent interaction with two learning and technology coordinators from the International School in Bangkok led him to ask:
If we take an honest look at what we as librarians have done since technology has come into our buildings, as painful as it is to say, we have dropped the ball – big time. Why?
Why have school librarians not had a bigger impact on information and tech literacy integration?
Doug proposes that the reasons for our lack of impact may fit into three categories: sexism (the subtext here is obvious, though I haven’t personally met it); schitzophrenia (we divide ourselves into two camps–book people and information literacy people); and strategy (our collaborations with individual teachers may overwhelm the need to work systemically to integrate technology and literacies in a big picture way).
As I read Doug, I thought about two other issues very currently impacting our impact.
1. Ubiquity–ubiquity changes everything. In one-to-one schools, students visit the library less frequently. In such environments, in all modern, truly relevant environments, library also be ubiquitous. Library MUST be everywhere. Librarians must teach everywhere, in and outside of the library. And I think we need to redefine library. We must be ready to scale our instructional voice, as well as our resources. And we must make libraries just for me, just in time, all the time.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Library must find a way to be a window on a students’ desktops. We must present ourselves as a real adult who knows the students, their teachers, their learning and recreational needs, their curricula. Library space, off- and online, is for the whole information fluency process; for displaying, for archiving the information and communication work of the whole school; for organizing collections that look far different from the ones I once collected.
2. Brand–The schitzophrenia Doug described, is in my mind, related to the shifting concept of brand.
What is the brand of the librarian? I am not sure we clearly articulate our brand to our colleagues, our administrators, ourselves. And I am not sure I have all the answers.
But, here’s what I am thinking:
Our schools are now far more crowded with faculty and supports. The reading coach also does books. The technology coach also does integration. In our state, high school technology coaches are now funded (in part) by the Classrooms for the Future grant. Their training is impressively extensive and continual and I worry that librarians who choose not to seriously (and voluntarily) train or retool themselves in the same way, are doomed to obsolensce in relation to technology integration. Technology integration is directly connected to integration of information and communication skills.
I work very well with our school’s technology coach, a good friend who was formerly an English teacher I worked with closely. Despite the fact that we are both working on technology integration, there is enough work for both of us and we continue to learn from each other. Nevertheless. I am now hearing scary stories from other schools, and I continue to worry about our own overlapping interests and duties.
But back to brand.
My brand, the library brand is connected to my philosophy–a library philosophy. (In Yiddish, my mother would have called this a library kop, or head.)
At its most essential element, here’s what the teacher librarian brand means to me–I help learners learn; I help teachers teach. But that is vague. Other coaches, other teachers and administrators do that too.
The library brand is connected to intellectual freedom, and to translating that critical value to the online world. Ours may be the only voice that helps ensure fullest possible physical and intellectual access to online tools and resources, to advocate for equity, to promote open source alternatives, to prepare full pathfinders for information needs.
The library brand is about information ethics and intellectual property. It is about respect for artists and creators. It is about understanding the copyright/copyleft and it is about interpreting fair use. At a recent conference I attended, I asked the audience (95% school librarians) if they understood Creative Commons licences. Shockingly few had even heard of Creative Commons. They no longer own this part of the brand.
Information/media fluency is my mission, and my curriculum, and my brand.
I know that:
• Research is a process.
• Intervention is critical. Learning is social. Students need guidance as they improve their skills in research and communication.
• Students must learn to evaluate information in all media formats through practice. I know I can and must teach them to pushing quality to the top, to evaluate blogs, wikis, streamed media, whatever comes next.
• Collection looks different these days. I must collect RSS feeds, and wikibooks, and ebooks, and streamed media. I must help students find all of these resources.
• Communication is the end-product of research. I know I need to teach learners how to communicate creatively and engagingly for new audiences.
Please help me add to a new definition of brand in your comments.
Why have school librarians not had a bigger impact on information and tech literacy integration?
We should be able to answer Doug’s question or we should be able to tell him he is wrong.
Filed under: Uncategorized
About Joyce Valenza
Joyce is an Assistant Professor of Teaching at Rutgers University School of Information and Communication, a technology writer, speaker, blogger and learner. Follow her on Twitter: @joycevalenza
ADVERTISEMENT
SLJ Blog Network
Endangered Series #30: Nancy Drew
Research and Wishes: A Q&A with Nedda Lewers About Daughters of the Lamp
Cat Out of Water | Review
MakerSpace: Dipping My Toes into Sublimation 101
The Classroom Bookshelf is Moving
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT