While I love the smell of old books and websites with no ads, today's kid might actually enjoy their disco effects. To each his own.
Monday, June 22, 2009
How Do Kids Really Feel About Ads on Commercial Websites?
A colleague recently discredited a website that I found to be very helpful. Initially, I agreed with her; and then I had another thought. Certainly, inappropriate ads could never be tolerated; yet, child-focused ads may be very attractive to younger folks. Kids today are used to sites that bounce, flip, flicker, and flash. It is part of their culture. They do their homework while listening to music, watching tv, playing a game, texting, im-ing, and surfing the web. Kids today attend to information differently than older people; and they apparently have a high tolerance for distraction--at least when it comes to information on the Internet.
While I love the smell of old books and websites with no ads, today's kid might actually enjoy their disco effects. To each his own.
While I love the smell of old books and websites with no ads, today's kid might actually enjoy their disco effects. To each his own.
My 1911 Roget's Thesaurus and Me
| My very favorite, must-have reference is Roget's Thesaurus--not just any Roget's Thesaurus [I find some versions worthless]--but the book first printed in 1911. My edition was published in 1946 by Thomas Y. Crowell Company. I have an MA in English; and I have written tons of papers, reviews, etc. I write daily; and I absolutely use this book many times each day. In fact, I bought my first edition of this book while I was in undergraduate school--in about 1970. I used it until my home burned. This was the first book that I replaced after that fire; and I did so by looking both at Amazon's collection of used books and on Ebay. The general rule about writing is that one should not use the same word over and over in the same paper. Yet, even the best word-hounds get stuck. Roget's Thesaurus is invaluable for help avoiding this mistake--and in avoiding it, without a large investment of time. For instance, I might be writing about a person who is funny; but I don't want to keep using that same, common descriptor in my paper. I can look at the back of my old, trustworthy, 1911 friend-- for the word "funny," which is listed in alphabetical order. I see that in using this word adjectivally, I might be talking about something that is odd [83.10]; something that is humorous [842.9]; or something that is ridiculous [855.5]. In order to find accurate alternatives for the term "funny," in any of these specific contexts, one would decide precisely what he/she wants to say--and then flip to the front of the book at either section 83.10; 842.9; or 855.5, to discover alternate ways of saying the same thing [synonyms and antonyms]. Just to be sure that I have made the correct choice, I double-check myself by reading the definition of the word that I have selected. I have discovered The American Heritage College dic-tion-ary to be more than able for this task--or for any other, requiring a certain degree of precision in word usage. I currently use the Fourth Edition, published by Houghton Mifflin; but unlike thesauri, many dictionaries would do. |
Should Reference Librarians Offer Medical Advice?
My ex-husband is a physician. Even though I helped fund a wealth of medical knowledge, Merck Manual became the do-all/be-all source of medical info in our home--even when a doctor was in the house.
I haven't looked at a Merck Manual for years; but back in the day, you could look up any type of ailment [even flatulence, actually called by its layman's name] and find an incredible amount of information about that ailment--what might have caused it; how to treat it; etc. Not many years ago, I saw a specialist about a medical problem that I was having. Even this specialist was not sure about the problem; and I honestly saw him pull a Merck Manual from his shelf, to seek answers. Little did he know that I had my own Merck Manual at home. I could have saved myself a trip and a co-pay for this info. In short, Merck Manual is essentially a Cliff's Notes Medical Degree.
On page 94 of the book: Reference and Information Services in the 21st Century (Cassell and Hiremath, 2004), the following is said about Ready References: "Quick. . . Relative facts need to be located in the same source. The information is wide-ranging and not deep." That perfectly describes Merck Manual. The entire medical profession is lightly whisked into one book, which is slightly larger than the Bible. What a tool!
Although librarians need to be careful about offering professional opinions about medical issues [trust me, even doctors need to be careful about that], they might continuously be asked for that kind of help. I would be very cautious about offering my humble opinion about any ailment; but I would feel very comfortable showing a patron where they can go to find more information and to formulate their own plans of action.
The current, online powerhouse WebMD has become much the same type of resource for finding information about what ails one--but it offers even more.
Incidentally, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree: my daughter is an executive for WebMD in Manhatten.
I haven't looked at a Merck Manual for years; but back in the day, you could look up any type of ailment [even flatulence, actually called by its layman's name] and find an incredible amount of information about that ailment--what might have caused it; how to treat it; etc. Not many years ago, I saw a specialist about a medical problem that I was having. Even this specialist was not sure about the problem; and I honestly saw him pull a Merck Manual from his shelf, to seek answers. Little did he know that I had my own Merck Manual at home. I could have saved myself a trip and a co-pay for this info. In short, Merck Manual is essentially a Cliff's Notes Medical Degree.
On page 94 of the book: Reference and Information Services in the 21st Century (Cassell and Hiremath, 2004), the following is said about Ready References: "Quick. . . Relative facts need to be located in the same source. The information is wide-ranging and not deep." That perfectly describes Merck Manual. The entire medical profession is lightly whisked into one book, which is slightly larger than the Bible. What a tool!
Although librarians need to be careful about offering professional opinions about medical issues [trust me, even doctors need to be careful about that], they might continuously be asked for that kind of help. I would be very cautious about offering my humble opinion about any ailment; but I would feel very comfortable showing a patron where they can go to find more information and to formulate their own plans of action.
The current, online powerhouse WebMD has become much the same type of resource for finding information about what ails one--but it offers even more.
| Some might argue that WebMD is a commercial site; but that actually works for the visitor, who gets the info free. Drug companies pay enormous amounts of money for advertising on WebMD; and those funds pay for quality information on a quality web space. If the site was not well endowed, it would offer far less to the visitor--it couldn't. Someone has to pay the Piper. In this instance, I am just glad that someone is someone else and not me. |
Teaching Elementary Children to Evaluate Websites
| Well, this is a cop-out; I actually have nothing to add; but I discovered that Kathy Schrock has created a great Evaluation Guide, for teaching elementary kids how to evaluate websites: Kathy Schrock's Guide I want to pass on Schrock's Evaluation Form, that was created for elementary children to complete. I like the way that her evaluation begins by having the child list the name of the site and by copy-pasting the URL. Children in elementary school are learning things from the most basic level; and they need to be taught how to identify the most basic of information. The child is then asked to determine the following [these are paraphrased and loosely interpreted]:
| |||
web 2.0 is the BOMB!
| First, I recommend the book Social Software in Libraries by Meredith Farkas (2007). In the introduction to the book, Roy Tennant, User Services Architecht from the University of California says the following: "The Internet's creators thought that moving data from place to place was an essential component of a computer network; file transfer was one of its first applications....the need for two-way and many-way communication has once again reasserted itself in the form of social software. Social software provides easy-to-use ways to communicate, collaborate, and participate on an unprecedented scale....As institutions rooted in our communities, libraries are social institutions. Therefore, libraries belong in the social network. We belong where our users can be found--and they are increasingly found online, interacting in completely new ways....Brick-and-mortar libraries are not going away, but they are now not the only way to be there for our clientele. Social networking is a new tool that lets us accomplish many of the same things we've done before, but in new and more effective ways." (pp. xix-xx). Farkas (2007) summarizes the impact of web 2.0 by saying the following about Social Information:
I personally have reaped tremendously from free shareware, provided via web 2.0. I also endorse the sharing in return. I have begun 92 wikis and several blogs. Only a few of these are open to the public [most of them are my own databases, organizing my own material--hence, doing something in a new way]; but within months of having been launched, my available material was viewed by people from 28 countries. That blows my mind! Web 2.0 is sharing of resources; and in my opinion, that is the Internet. Farkas, Meredith G. (2007). Social software in libraries: Building collaboration, communication, and community online. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. Note: I just created that APA bibliographical entry, using a free, interactive web 2.0 resource, from the following site: KnightCite Citation. That resource and my other favorite web 2.0 sites are stored in my computer's Bookmarks, my own Ready References, at my fingertips--as long as I am at home and my Internet and/or my computer are not down. By placing the information on a wiki or in a blog, I organize the material for myself and share it with others simultaneously. One more important point: Once the material has been launched online, it won't be lost by my computer's crashing. That problem can be eliminated. *No, I take that back. I had stored several podcasts with some site that discontinued. I lost all of those podcasts, Many of the podcasts were the sound for some of my blogs and wikis. Probably we should store the material in several places. We should probably continue storing material in more than one place--at least for a while longer. One last benefit of web 2.0 is that all of us can be creators of our own audio-visual production companies; and we can take it to the public. Another great book to read: The Long Tail by Chris Anderson (2006). In this book, he talks about the aforementioned phenomenon, the fact that web 2.0 makes it possible for us little people to produce, direct, and publish ourselves. That is actually putting a squeeze on some of the former major hitters in the information industries. Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more. New York: Hyperion. | |||
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Should Reference Books Circulate?
The question was recently asked: Should library reference books circulate?
I am working in a small,l public library, where the buzzing indicates that reference books don't circulate. They sit, gather dust, become old, and are never touched. In our small library, it is rare for kids to do research on site.Therefore, books that just rest on our shelves, waiting to be read in our library, are actually not referring to anyone. They are not being used. They aren't even taken from the shelf. They are just expensive placeholders. If a book isn't referring--is it a reference book at all?
Research indicates that there is a generalized trend for kids everywhere to elect to do their research at home [or at a friend's house or at Borders--anywhere but the library], at random hours. Abraham and Luther (2004) report that today’s children have become accustomed to information that is always available [not just during library hours], adding the following: “After all, the web is 24/7. This expectation is about more than convenience; it indicates a major shift in behavior.” (pp. 34-35). Abram, Stephen & Luther, Judy. (2004). Born with the chip. Library Journal, 129 (8), 34- 37).
As a youth librarian, I can't justify buying books that are just there--"sculptures" to decorate our shelves--even if they are technically called reference books. This is a library policy established for another generation of patrons. The days of following behind tenets established by and for people in the 19th century are over. If libraries continue to do this, we allow ourselves to become museums--like Williamsburg--testimonials of another time in history--shrines. We need to do what works for our 21st Century patrons. I feel that blindly following ancient policies is an inflexible inability to be viable--to continue to grow. Consider a tree: when a tree quits growing, it is dead. I feel that if the library refuses to shift and adapt to new generations of patrons, it essentially quits growing--it dies--it becomes a dinosaur.
I can't speak for all types of patrons; but when it comes to purchases for the Children's Department, I say that libraries should buy good, well-illustrated, attention-grabbing, authoritative information [not just books] that kids will actually use--and let them use them--even at home--or wherever.
I realize that this leads to an entirely different set of needs--how to harness technology and the internet, so that they are actually serving the patrons--and not distracting them. A great deal of research has been done in that area, too. I believe that investigating this research, even though it is time-consuming, is time well spent.
I am working in a small,l public library, where the buzzing indicates that reference books don't circulate. They sit, gather dust, become old, and are never touched. In our small library, it is rare for kids to do research on site.Therefore, books that just rest on our shelves, waiting to be read in our library, are actually not referring to anyone. They are not being used. They aren't even taken from the shelf. They are just expensive placeholders. If a book isn't referring--is it a reference book at all?
Research indicates that there is a generalized trend for kids everywhere to elect to do their research at home [or at a friend's house or at Borders--anywhere but the library], at random hours. Abraham and Luther (2004) report that today’s children have become accustomed to information that is always available [not just during library hours], adding the following: “After all, the web is 24/7. This expectation is about more than convenience; it indicates a major shift in behavior.” (pp. 34-35). Abram, Stephen & Luther, Judy. (2004). Born with the chip. Library Journal, 129 (8), 34- 37).
As a youth librarian, I can't justify buying books that are just there--"sculptures" to decorate our shelves--even if they are technically called reference books. This is a library policy established for another generation of patrons. The days of following behind tenets established by and for people in the 19th century are over. If libraries continue to do this, we allow ourselves to become museums--like Williamsburg--testimonials of another time in history--shrines. We need to do what works for our 21st Century patrons. I feel that blindly following ancient policies is an inflexible inability to be viable--to continue to grow. Consider a tree: when a tree quits growing, it is dead. I feel that if the library refuses to shift and adapt to new generations of patrons, it essentially quits growing--it dies--it becomes a dinosaur.
I can't speak for all types of patrons; but when it comes to purchases for the Children's Department, I say that libraries should buy good, well-illustrated, attention-grabbing, authoritative information [not just books] that kids will actually use--and let them use them--even at home--or wherever.
I realize that this leads to an entirely different set of needs--how to harness technology and the internet, so that they are actually serving the patrons--and not distracting them. A great deal of research has been done in that area, too. I believe that investigating this research, even though it is time-consuming, is time well spent.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Does Today's Pop Culture Deliver Stupidity?
The pendulum is in motion! With every swing, new technology adds more bells and whistles to the Pop Culture Toy Chest. Information eddies and rushes from a stream that is ever-widening. No need for today's researchers to go to the library--to pull out the card catalogs and periodicals. Research is at home--at the tip of one's fingers.
Life is simple. Students today have it made. Right?
NO!
Over the past several decades, educational trends have come and gone. At a glance, it might seem that students today are on “Easy Street.” They certainly have more gadgets and study aids than ever before. They can research and write papers from their beds, propped up on pillows, in front of the television. It might seem logical that because of all of their technological conveniences, students no longer have to think. Yet, while it might seem that Pop Culture, with its technological trinkets, has delivered to today’s student a recipe for sloth and stupidity, is that actually the case?
Not really.
Getting an education in today’s schools is still pretty tough!
Kids today are expected to read at much younger ages than they did, even twenty years ago. They are rushed through the curriculum at break-neck speed, because more material is continuously added—and time is a budgeted commodity.
A group who are often characterized as lazy and spoiled, today’s high school students actually function under a great amount of pressure. Getting into a good college becomes more difficult each year. College-bound students must make outstanding grades throughout high school, while strenuously preparing for the SAT exam, because SAT scores can make them or break them. And the same happens, when undergraduates struggle to get into quality graduate and professional schools.
Students today are actually walking on a very thin tightrope. Even their games are tough!
In his book Everything Bad Is Good For You, Steven Johnson (2009) says, "The dirty little secret of gaming is how much time you spend not having fun. You may be frustrated; you may be confused or disoriented; you may be stuck." (p. 25).
Consequently, even at play, today's kids function at intense levels. To resolve game issues, they are required to undertake engineering and strategic missions that many adults would not tackle for money.
Is Pop Culture Stimulating? Yes!
Does Pop Culture Deliver Stupidity?
Hardly!
Today's Pop Culture might offer a bit of comic relief and an occasional breath of fresh air to today's students; but those same students have little time to wallow in sloth. The current is too fast for that. Kids today can barely stay afloat.
If we really want to discuss the problem for students in today’s pop culture –that is it!
Kids today can barely stay afloat.
The current is too fast!
Based on the book:
Johnson, Steven. (2005). Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter. New York: Penguin Group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
