Digital Natives, 21st Century School Libraries, and 21st Century Preparation Programs: An Informal Affirmation of Branch and deGroot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".