On hooding and babies and bathwater

I am back from Texas, from the UNT hooding ceremony and from visiting family in Houston. (Those of you who are already groaning, please keep reading, this post moves beyond the personal.)

First, let me say that I am grateful to the UNT SLIS faculty for offering me a precious gift–the chance to pursue the degree that eluded me through so many years of kids and work. I was able to graduate with two members of my wonderful cohort: Michael Stephens and Stacy Creel. And I am grateful to my committee: Carol Simpson, Brian O’Connor, Sam Hastings, and Marjorie Pappas for guiding me through an arduous process.

As I sat in the audience watching 72 doctoral candidates get hooded before it was my turn, I considered that arduous process.

I considered it in light of my recent post on databases in SLJ, the argument I’ve been following in Chronicle of Higher Education, Britannica’s Web 2.0 Forum, Prensky’s motto: “Engage me or enrage me,” our/my very honest passion for all things 2.0. And then Chris Sessums pointed to YouTube video based on an Alan Watts talk: Music and Life, fairly scornful of the arduous (empty) process.

I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between a scorn for the worn and the thrill of the new. Can we engage our learners without throwing out some of the 1.0 bathwater?

I grew up “paper trained.” But nearly every time I opened the bag I received (see that video), though I had to wait a bit, it actually did contain riches that allowed me to do the things I wanted to do and to grow as I did them. No one ever told me to sell insurance or wear a gray suit. Along the way there was time for music and dance and wine and friends.

Back in high school, I wrote carefully scrutinized papers, that were scanned for the quality of my argument and the quality of my evidence. I also worked on authentic projects; I tried to save the world; I created media (albeit primitive).

I am so impressed with Marco Torres’ students’ work. I want my students to create work like that, work is powerful and relevant and intelligent. I truly get the problems Marco’s students describe in Digital Students @ Analog Schools. I want my students to encounter university programs that allow them to continue to learn, to create in multiple media, to contribute.

But I want them also to learn to write a formal paper. I want them to develop the patience required to read serious nonfiction and journal articles. I want them to be able to carefully evaluate media and sources in any format. I want them to be ready and able to write an academic argument, an annual report, a carefully considered business plan.

As I work to engage them, as I look for projects that allow them to explore the power of media, to communicate effectively with expanded audiences, I want want them also to strive for quality. I want them to develop some more traditional skills.

I want them to have some level of academic patience. This work might take energy.

Though I want to make those databases I love way easier to find and use, I also don’t think asking students to go one more click beyond Google is too much to ask.

I am back (and new Twitter tools to play with)

Finishing my dissertation means that I can blog and Twitter again.

I must admit it. Twitter did not impress me at first. But, as I mentioned briefly in my last post, as folks began to use it at and beyond the podium at NECC and at the BLC conferences this summer, we all began to consider its use in the classroom.

I know I am going to run Twittercamp on our library SmartBoard during films and discussions this year to capture student reactions, ideas, and questions with immediacy. It captures tweets realtime, bulletin board style, with thought bubbles connected to users’ avatars. I also like Twitterific, for use with my Mac. It accomplishes similar goals on a transparent black background.

Hmmm, I wonder how this stuff would work at our faculty meetings and planning team sessions.
In a tweet this morning, Will Richardson shared this piece about Twitter, which led me to a ReadWriteWeb post about the Top Ten Twitter Apps. Lots here to play with.

From my study: How are school library sites changing?

One of my research questions asked, “How are school library sites evolving? How do the features and services offered by exemplary sites in the 2006/2007 school year differ from the state-of-the-art of the randomly selected sites last studied by Clyde in 2002?”

Clyde’s (2004) longitudinal content analysis described the state-of-the-art relating to school library website practice in 2002, 1999, and 1996. Though her sample was larger, randomly selected, and crossed grade levels, a comparison with my sample of 10 secondary exemplary is nevertheless interesting.

Since Clyde’s last study, several features–guestbooks, lists of CD-ROMs, and general Internet tutorials–appear obsolete. Basic features, like e-mail links and name of school seem hardly worth counting in a 2007 content analysis.

Clyde noted the growing importance of online subscription databases in transforming sites into “electronic information gateways” (p. 166). These databases now appear ubiquitous among effective school library websites. In fact, the sample sites appear to be expanding their database holdings into new media formats—video and e-books. It was surprising that these exemplary sites do not yet offer students and faculty access to subscription databases of audiobooks.

Some features Clyde noticed in her two later studies, appear as site staples in this small sample. OPACs, links to the OPACs of other libraries, and links to reference sources are present in all sites in the smaller sample. Site search engines, new to Clyde’s 2002 list, are present in six of the 10 sample sites.

The popularity of some features appears slow to grow based on practice demonstrated by this sample. Clyde noticed suggestion forms as new features in 2002. This interactive feature is present on fewer than half of the 10 sample sites. The easy availability of interactive forms, online survey tools, and simple blogging strategies for soliciting user suggestions and feedback makes this absence surprising.

Clyde found that none of the sites in her larger sample offered chat-based reference. This is also true of the smaller sample, where in fact fewer than half of the sites link directly to available live reference services hosted by remote institutions.

If the sites of this sample provide any major evidence of change since Clyde’s last study, they reveal that sites are evolving to include 2.0 tools. While Clyde was surprised to note that no site in her sample included what she called a “weblog,” most of the sites in the smaller study featured some type of blog presence. One site also currently includes wikis for faculty collaboration and student writing projects. The general growth of the blogosphere (Sifry, 2006), combined with students’ own facility with 2.0 tools (Lenhart & Madden, 2005), and the ease with which users can use these tools to post Web content points to even further growth in this area in the coming years.

Clyde saw major differences in her sample sites relating to size and mission. “The school library Web sites as a whole remain a diverse collection in terms of intended audience, apparent aims, content, and resources made available through them” (Clyde, p. 166). Clyde compared one-page billboard type sites with sites of “more than 40 pages of information and many features designed to meet the needs of users” (p. 164).

Though all sites in this highly selective sample present a relatively comprehensive approach, they too vary dramatically from each other in terms of size and depth of service. Several are on the small size, with approximately 20 pages representing all of their online services. Others offer far more comprehensive services with content equaling nearly 200 pages.

Clyde noted her sample’s lack of purpose, as evidenced in the absence of mission statements in 34 sites of the original 50 sites. The sites in this study appear have clearer notions of their audience. Nearly all the sites in this exemplary sample present statements of their missions and goals. These statements—most often promoting information literacy, inquiry, and reading–are largely supported by site content.

In addition to demonstrating overall gains in size, the use of Web 2.0 strategies, and greater sharing mission and goals, the smaller sample includes a number of features and characteristics not documented in any of Clyde’s studies. Among the most popular features since Clyde’s studies are pathfinders, e-book databases, online password lists to facilitate remote access to subscription databases, WebQuests and other online collaborative lessons, school-specific style manuals, and online book discussions.

Most of the new features identified in this study cluster in the category of Learning and Teaching. In terms of characteristics, this smaller sample includes a number of site strategies not noticed by Clyde. These characteristics include the use of student work, images of students, and images of library events. Other new characteristics, such as embedded explanations and annotated links, relate to improving user access.

For those of you who want a closer look at the comparisons with Clyde’s findings, I’ve included four of my charts.

Clyde, L. A. (2004). School library Web sites: 1996-2002. The Electronic Library, 22(2), 158-167.

Lenhart, A. & Madden, M. (2007). Social networking websites and teens: An overview. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved February 11, 2007 from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/198/report_display.asp
Lenhart, A. & Madden, M. (2005). Teen content creators and consumers. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved February 12, 2007 from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/166/report_display.asp

Sifry, D. (2006). State of the blogosphere, August 2006. Sifry’s Alerts. Retrieved December 10, 2006, from http://www.sifry.com/alerts/archives/000436.html

School Library Websites–Characteristics

My study looked at both features and characteristics of a small sample of exemplary school library sites. That is, it looked at both the “whats” and the “hows” of effective practice online.

Regarding the “hows,” one of my research questions was: What common organizational structures and design characteristics are employed in exemplary school library sites?

With the guidance of a Delphi panel, I divided site characteristics into five categories: curricular connectedness, organization and navigation, aesthetics, collaboration and interactivity, freshness.

(Note: School and district differences may impact the differences among schools libraries relating to the characteristics they employ in online communication. Some schools require all departments to share a template. School and district policies may also determine whether or not a site might incorporate images or such 2.0 applications as blogs and wikis.)

Most sites in the sample displayed connection to curriculum in their collections of databases, pathfinders for particular assignments, and promotion of reading as a life-long activity. Most displayed evidence of collaboration with the learning community and support of reading.

The sample sites appear to seriously consider users in elements relating to navigation. Some sites consciously replaced library-specific terms like “OPAC” with phrases like, “Find a book,” in the spirit of Kupersmith’s research relating to library terminology. Nearly all of the sample sites presented no download wait issues.

Interestingly, not one site in the study passed the University of Toronto’s ATRC (accessibility check). The ATRC checker examines sites for their compliance to current Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 standards established by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).  

Nevertheless, most of the sites offer clear labels, embedded explanations–often mouseovers–to describe content for their secondary school audiences. Nearly all annotate their links. In terms of navigation and organization nearly all of these exemplary sites offered legible text, consistent design, logical strategies for organizing content into understandable categories. Most offer either a site map or a site search to facilitate navigation. Only two of the ten sites offer neither.
Sites vary dramatically in terms of aesthetics. Though several sites are recognizing the value of including images of learners, materials, and events, original art and media are surprisingly sparse. This is particularly strange in the 2006/2007 school year–a year in which media sharing sites are widely popular.

The biggest trend in terms of strategies or characteristics is in the area of opportunities for collaboration, feedback, and involvement. While use of streamed media and wikis is limited, sites display other interactive strategies. Half of the sites include student work and use interactive forms. Use of blogs by nearly all–eight of the 10 sample sites– demonstrates the growing importance of Web 2.0 tools for communicating with online audiences.

The fifth category considered freshness, or strategies relating to updates, revisions, and currency. In spite of their useful content, some Delphi panelists felt that sample sites with a 1990s look would have limited appeal for Web-savvy young users. While some sites appeared quite fresh (without a 1990s “visual accent”), others, despite their valuable content, spoke with a bit of an accent.

Next time: Evolution of school library sites since Clyde’s (2004)  longitudinal study.

Effective school library websites: about the study

I finally submitted my dissertation to the university after addressing my committee’s suggestions. The paper and the stuff that had to go with it were so bulky that Liza (above) had to help me stuff it all in the official envelope.

Looking at my past posts, as well as the past couple of sentences, I realize I’ve been writing far more about the process of writing a dissertation than the study itself.

My goals were to identify and examine models of exemplary practice in school library websites and to develop two taxonomies to describe them–one of features, one of characteristics. A wonderful Delphi panel helped me to identify ten exemplary sites and helped me build the taxonomies. I followed with a content analysis of the ten sites. The taxonomies and their accompanying codebooks should serve practitioners as they plan and build effective sites, whether in traditional html or blog or wiki or other emerging formats. I will be working on an article to summarize results, but since folks are asking, I thought I’d share just a bit here:

Research Questions
The thousands of school library website efforts represent conspicuous diversity in approach. With sites ranging from single-page brochures to dynamic, multi-page learning environments, examining the broad scope of these professional efforts would be much like comparing apples and oranges. The disparity of these efforts, compounded by students’ heavy reliance on the Web, and a body of professional literature that documents the need for online professional intervention with learners, suggests the need for research and points to the following critical research questions:

1. What models of exemplary practice exist in school library websites?
2. What common features are presented in sites representing exemplary practice?
3. What common organizational structures and design characteristics are employed in exemplary school library sites?
4. From the models observed in sites identified as exemplary practice, can a functional descriptive taxonomy of features be developed?
5. How are school library sites evolving? How do the features and services offered by exemplary sites in 2006 differ from the state-of-the-art of the randomly selected sites last studied by Clyde in 2002?
6. To what extent do exemplary school library websites present features devoted to: information access and delivery, learning and teaching, and program administration, as expressed in the context of the current national standards document Information Power (AASL & AECT, 1998)?

I hope to eventually cover all these questions a bit here in the blog, but for now let’s look at Question 2.  (BTW, Question 3, on characteristics takes a look at 2.0 strategies! We’ll look at that one next time.)

Among the conclusions (on common features):

What are the universal features in the ten sites I studied?

The features, present in all 10 sites in the sample are– OPACs, databases, search tools, reference, documentation, and contact information.

Nine of the sample sites include links to other OPACs, links to news sources, online book discussions, library hours and staff information.

Eight of the sites offer instructions for remote access; links to dictionaries, biographical and geographical reference tools; links to local and international news; pathfinders; and mission statements.
Here are four tables that describe features present on six or more of the ten sites in the sample:

I discovered major discrepancies between the features the Delphi panel expected to be present in exemplary sites and what actually existed in practice.

These discrepancies are especially evident in the absence of content in the category of Learning and Teaching.  The limited content observed in this area of the features taxonomy is inconsistent with the instructional focus represented by Information Power (AASL & AECT, 1998).

According to Information Power,

Schools have evolved to focus on learning, and effective school library programs have also changed their focus from collections to learning that engages students in pursuing knowledge within and beyond a formal curriculum (AASL & AECT, 1998, p. 59).

The limited instructional content is also inconsistent with the predictions of major school library researchers.  Kuhlthau (1997, 1999) saw library websites as constructivist environments, as new zones of intervention for guiding learners and customizing instruction.  Clyde (1997) believed that the primary purpose of the library homepage would be instructional.  While a few of the sites in the sample appear to have strong instructional focus, most did not.  If teacher-librarians are truly to function as teacher-librarians in the 21st century, we  need to investigate effective strategies for translating our instruction for digital landscapes. Teacher-librarians would  benefit by examining effective practice in Web-based instruction outside the library world.

Program Administration was another area of service not fully addressed by these exemplary sites. The availability of online survey tools and interactive forms, led me and several panelists to predict that exemplary sites would be using such strategies to enhance the librarian’s ability to communicate, solicit feedback, schedule, promote, and manage.  Few libraries share their reports and public relations materials. Few use available interactive calendar tools to share their library schedules. Few use available technology to survey users or to mine data.

It is quite possible that busy school librarians who choose to maintain websites for their learners will focus most of their efforts in creating Web spaces that address those learners directly.  When prioritizing content for a library website, program administration features might not warrant the same attention as information access, learning and teaching or books and reading.  Yet, features identified in this area by the Delphi panel and the principles identified in Chapter 6 “Program Administration” of Information Power (AASL & AECT, 1998, p. 100) serve to communicate the purpose and impact of the library program. These features may be strong tools for advocacy. Potential in the area of Program Administration is addressed by some of the sites in the sample but less than fully realized.

Next time, characteristics!

Post-defense (yippee!)

(I know that the universe won’t shift with this news. So, those of you who read this blog because a professor is forcing you to, please wait for the next post which I promise will come soon now that I am released and relaxed.)

Those of you who are friends and colleagues, please celebrate with me. I defended successfully this morning. In the pic below you see the balloons and banners my dear (and confident) assistants had ready to mark the event.

The defense was surprisingly painless and I now have to do some minor editing before I complete the process. Thank you, committee–Carol, Sam, Marjorie, and Brian–for all your support. Thank you cohort–I’ve been looking at our first group picture below and remembering the long (often sweet) road we’ve traveled together. Thank you family, for tolerating my doctoral mishegas. Friends, forgive me for not phoning for three years.

The students were so excited for me today. They peeked in the window as I defended and provided many supportive hugs after.  These kids know a bit about research!  I smiled all afternoon.
And then, after school, I got my toenails done. I’ll spare you that photo.

Serious library and technology stuff to come in the next post. Promise.

Preparing to defend

This week I got a draft of my dissertation back from my chair. There is much to adjust before my defense on May 7th. And so, dear readers, for the next two weeks this blog is going to be a bit quiet. Please forgive me and wish me well. (And pray that I get over this flu-like stuff.)

Some good news:  When I get back to real life, my blog will join the others on the School Library Journal site. (I am hoping it will stay here as well.)
While I am gone, don’t forget to visit our TeacherLibrarianNing!  The action is really picking up.  Post your forum questions, your pics, your videos.  Put yourself on our Frappr map.

A draft is born.

I have a draft. I have a defense date–May 7th. And after I do a little editing, I may have a life again. To those friends I have disappointed over the last nearly three years, I apologize. I will try to learn to be a friend again. And I hope after a few more days of editing, I may even blog more cogently. (Maybe not. )

PETE & C and the further adventures of D-girl

I attended our state technology conference (PETE&C) week. At one of the Sunday night receptions, I won a laptop cart–minus the laptops. Darn! Nevertheless, you can see Ken, Michael, and I got pretty attached to the cart at the party. More pics on Flickr.

I enjoyed Apple’s Dave Marra’s workshop on podcasting with GarageBand. I can’t wait to get started, but that, my friends, looks like a post-D activity. Jim Gates’ tips were cool and I added several of his ideas to my cool new tools wiki.

If you were not lucky enough to be in lovely Hershey, PA this past snowy week, a wiki, created by Bridget Belardi, captures some of the PETE&C excitement.

At the first morning keynote, Kathy Brautigam, Director of the state’s Bureau for Educational Technology, shared this video, an ad for EDS, a tech company–Building an Airplane While it’s Flying. I absolutely felt that was how I worked last week when LearnerBlogs was experiencing off and on tech issues and I was working with three classes to build research blogs.

Actually, I feel like that a lot. Not a problem when you are working with colleagues who also thrive on risk and moderate chaos (and yes, sometimes, big gains).

And now for the D-update: To continue with the old analogy, I’d say I am at about 2 centimeters right now. In two weeks (this has been a long gestation), I should have a sharable draft.  I’ll let you hold it if you like!

The bad news: my committee is too swamped and I cannot get my paper read, revised, and filed by spring graduation. The good news: I should be able to defend on May 7th and I may be able to enjoy a real summer break. Please send all your positive “D vibes” towards the Philly burbs!

D-Girl!

Emily created this new avatar to inspire me to write and finish my D!

What a super-daughter!