Digital Natives, 21st Century School Libraries, and 21st Century Preparation Programs: An Informal Affirmation of Branch and deGroot
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The presentations from the 2011 IASL conference theme School Libraries: Empowering the 21st Century Learner offered much to think about for graduate programs preparing future teacher librarians. Research indicates that school librarians are not actively integrating Web 2.0 tools into their programs, but students are regularly using these tools outside of school for accessing and sharing information. Professional preparation programs must help future librarians master these tools so they can be school leaders on the Web 2.0 technology frontier. This paper discusses issues related to Web 2.0 integration in online graduate programs in school librarianship and offers examples of Web 2.0 activities that can be used in graduate courses. Introduction My how time flies! I have just spent the last hour on Facebook chatting with my friend and colleague, with whom I attended the 49th annual International Association of School Librarianship (IASL) conference in Kingston, Jamaica in August 2011. We were just sharing our views on yellow versus black plantains, recipes for mango sorbet and other important tidbits of information from the conference. At the same time, I was hanging out on Google Plus with my daughter, chatting about the new hire at her library and a new date for the upcoming state fair. Just moments before, I posted some links on our WKU Library Media Education (LME) program's Facebook page promoting International School Library Month and our state library association's upcoming conference. While yesterday I was on Skype, chatting with a colleague in Spain about various personal and professional matters. By the way, the weather in Barcelona is superb! Tomorrow I plan to create YouTube videos and Podomatic podcasts for graduate students in my online classes in school librarianship to help them get started with the semester, and I have yet to begin my day's work! Or have I? That's just how our learning ecology works online. When we use these tools simultaneously for work and play, the boundaries between learning in our personal and professional lives start to blur and intersect. In writing this article, I have come to realize that I have become the subject of my own research! It seems that lately that my own interests and experiences drive much of my current research in teacher librarianship. So, here I sit, laptop in hand, iPod at the ready, busy creating and sharing information in the personal, professional, and academic areas of my life using Web 2.0 applications. Coincidentally, these very activities were the subject of my research on Web 2.0 tool usage last semester (Houston, 2011). My interest at the time was in exploring the learning ecology of our graduate students' use of Web 2.0 tools in the different areas of their lives to better understand what they know and what they might need to learn about this exciting educational technology frontier. I use the learning ecology framework because the Web 2.0 tools we use for informal learning have the potential to influence teach in formal environments, and vice versa (Barron, 2006). In my own case, I started a travel blog with my friend and parlayed this knowledge into developing a blog for my graduate students on Web 2.0 information resources. As this example demonstrates, the learning ecology perspective moves Web 2.0 tools to the forefront of teaching and learning in the 21st century because of the way we tend to use them in different learning contexts, and the potential they have to merge our learning experiences from one context into another. This is especially true for our young digital natives who use Web 2.0 applications regularly for informal learning activities. Researchers assert that these 21st century tools could have powerful formal educational applications if they are effectively integrated into learning experiences taking place inside the school walls (Barron, 2006; Zhao & Frank, 2003). Aside from developing a keen affection for Jamaican cuisine, my most valuable souvenir from the IASL conference was the overwhelming sense of urgency I felt to integrate Web 2. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,040 | 0,037 |
| Communication savante | 0,021 | 0,017 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,026 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».