Oh yeah, I have a blog

A blog I have thought about in the last month, but on which I have had no time to post. I have a little backlog of things to write about, and I think it’s going to be sooner rather than later before this space starts seeing some new content.

I almost wrote new ideas there instead of content, but let’s not over-reach.

I kept waiting for a way to explain the silence more organically than the standalone announcement, but none has presented itself, so I’m giving up. My husband and I became parents last month, after several months of navigating through the domestic adoption process in these parts. Our daughter is 11, and she is awesome.

Thus far, what I have learned about parenting is not very much. I think it might be a lot like teaching, except I’m really missing my prep periods.

grammar + law = 2 things I love

This is like speaking to my high school self, so loud.

Someday soon I’ll have time to talk about everything that’s going on.  It’s tutorials, and videos, and student collaborations, and peer review.  But for now – I just liked this.  I spent two years of my life diagramming sentences in middle school which I’m pretty sure no one else my age had to do, but at this point the whole experience has faded to a warm and fuzzy childhood memory.  Plus! women’s suffrage!

via Feminist Law Professors.

irony alert!

(click to enlarge)

I am an unscrupulous, unscrupulous formatter

Knowing about my constant and abiding interest in all things peer-review, a colleague handed me this pamphlet the other day.  Published by a project I like, Sense about Science (and funded by, among others, Elsevier, Blackwell, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, the Institute of Biology and the Medical Research Council), this pamphlet provides a good summary of a lot of reasons why people should value peer-reviewed research.

I really like its focus on the reproducability of research, the role that peer review plays in getting science out there to be acted upon by other scientists.  And this statement here gets at a lot of what I have been thinking about information evaluation lately – about how important it is that we evaluate sources within contexts, not in a vacuum:

If it is peer-reviewed, you can look for more information on what other scientists say about it, the size and approach of  the study and whether it is a part of a body of evidence pointing towards the same conclusions.

But this has me mystified.  A callout box titled How can you tell whether reported results have been peer reviewed? A question any academic reference librarian has struggled to answer at some point, right?

Their answer totally mystifies me.  I keep reading it and reading it and I can’t make it make any sense.   Seriously – they say the full reference to peer-reviewed papers is likely to look like this, and then they present – two formatted article citations, one from the New England Journal of Medicine and one from Science.  The Science one is APA, but I’m not even sure exactly what style the second one follows.

just formatted citations, right?

just formatted citations, right?

So under the citations, there’s a word balloon that says that unscrupulous people might “use this style on websites and articles to cite work that is not peer reviewed. But fortunately, this is rare.”

!

Wait, what?   So yeah, it turns out that I’m totally unscrupulous!  And so are you if you use APA to cite an article from the New Republic, or Time or The Journal of Really Lousy Non-Peer Reviewed Science!

I am so confused!  What do they mean by this?

identity, information literacy and professors as celebrities

So, in the infamous checklists we tell students “make sure you can tell who the author is, check their credentials, are they expert, are they scholarly?” as a necessary part of scholarly information evaluation, right?  Well, wouldn’t you say that an assistant professor of history at Southern Baptist University would be well-qualified to talk about the historical implications of the current President?

Apparently, someone thought so, and a lot of other someones thought so enough that they started forwarding emails based on that assumption.  Via Historiann, in today’s Inside Higher Ed, professor of history Tim Wood tells the story of how his name was attached to a document with a clear political agenda, with which he did not agree — and how the professional identity that he had built was clearly lending credibility to the essay in question.

Wood also tells the story of what  he did, and what others might do, to prevent and contain similar situations.  This line really jumped out at me -

Moreover, this incident has led me to reconsider my somewhat adversarial relationship with technology. (I’m the guy who still refuses to buy a cell phone.) But one of the greatest difficulties I encountered in all of this was finding a platform from which to launch a rebuttal.

He suggests that actively building, policing and maintaining an online professional identity is a good way to protect that identity.  This, I think is an important information literacy skill – and one we don’t talk about a lot.  In Wood’s case, his university gave him a space to post a rebuttal, that could be then pointed to and linked to expose the lies.

Using that space, Wood directly links this back to the information literacy skills we do talk about a lot as well -

To navigate those potential pitfalls, historians check facts and look for other documents that conform (or contradict) the information found in our source. We seek to identify the author and understand his or her motives for writing. We try to understand the larger historical and cultural context surrounding a document. By doing our homework, we’re better able to judge when something or someone deserves to be “taken at their word.”

This episode has taught me that these skills have an important place even outside this history classroom.

I’ve said before that I don’t think we should focus our evaluation teaching on those situations where someone is actively trying to trick us, but that doesn’t mean that we should pretend that possibility doesn’t happen either.  The checklist doesn’t get us where we need to go when it comes to information evaluation – at best it gets us to where we need to be to start doing our real evaluation.  When you figure out what the author’s agenda is, you’re not done evaluating, right?  When you figure out if it’s peer-reviewed, that just tells you what you need to be looking for as you evaluate, right?

(Full disclosure, I haven’t read the essay in question, so I’m not sure how aligned the content is with the scholarly research of the professor in question, but I do think that for most students brand-new to thinking about what academic expertise means “professor of history” would probably be enough to establish credibility)

And in this case, when you figure out who the author is, you’re not done evaluating either.  Does the work match other work by the author – does it fit within their normal research agenda – is it part of a scholarly/expert consensus, or is the interpretation more on the whacked-out side?  That’s what this story has me thinking about – how to get students from “professor of history” to “there’s something seriously wrong here.”

ETA – apparently, Professor Wood isn’t the only one to be dealing with this.

Pride and copyright

So everyone knows that they mixed some zombies into Pride and Prejudice.  And coming soon!  Mr. Darcy is a vampireTwice.

Austen didn’t tell us what happened next, but lots of other people have.  What happens when the Darcys (or the Bingleys) have children? Solve crime? Deal with their families?

Georgiana Darcy was so nice – lots of people are interested in what happened to her.  Caroline Bingley finds her own Mr. Darcy (but he’s an American cousin?  Seriously?).  The existence of the Lydia Bennet story isn’t too surprising — and if you spent your time thinking Pride and Prejudice would just be awesomer if there was more about the De Bourghs, you’re not alone.

And as for Prada & Prejudice up there, well, wacky time travel hijinks seem to send people back to Regency England more than any other time period, don’t they?

And there’s not enough room here for the  straight-up retellings.  Same book, different take -  shift the point of view away from Elizabeth, set it in India, set it in UTAH, play the what-if game, play it again, tell the story but add in more boats.

Tell the story on Facebook, rewrite it for Twitter, tell it with Barbies, turn it into Gone with the Wind (okay, they don’t say they’re doing that, but look at those hats), move it to the next century.

Seriously, if you just want to read the same story one million times, it’s out there for you.

Note: I haven’t read most of these – link DOES NOT EQUAL endorsement!

Looking just a bit ahead on Amazon or similar and it’s pretty clear the steady stream of Austen-inspired stuff isn’t drying up any time soon.  Which is sometimes taken to mean that Austen is awesome, which she is.  There’s lots of mentions of the Austen brand and what it means for an eighteenth-century author to be so currently popular and relevant.

But that brand language is odd because it’s not like you can point to the group of Austen family descendents or the current version of her publisher who own the brand and who are systematically and strategically leveraging it for all it’s worth.  A lot of the stuff above is professionally, commercially produced, but a lot of it isn’t.  There are so many self-published components to the Austen pastiche available on Amazon, and off Amazon.  The Barbie thing?  totally not commercial.  It got me thinking the other day about how much all of this has to do with copyright and how it should work and how it doesn’t.

austenP&P is in the public domain, so anyone can do what they want with the story.  Colin Firth’s particular Darcy may be limited, but that leaves a lot of room for a lot of creativity, some more creative, some more good, some more horribly, horribly wrong.  But a lot of creativity – people building on the creativity and stories of our past.

How much of this creative energy is focusing on Austen because it can?  How awesome would it be if other stories, other artifacts were fair game as well?

what I’ve been doing instead of blogging

I have no idea why I am feeling compelled to put this up here, except that it is what I have been writing instead of blogging.  Not that I’ve been spending the actual minutes writing it, because I limited the writing time carefully, but it is where the mental energy that would usually produce a blog post has been going for the last couple of weeks.  The hours when I’d usually be thinking about something I have read and getting worked up enough to write about it have gone to thinking about how to finish this teaching philosophy statement.

It starts here –

Learning can be hard, it can be exhilarating, it can be scary, and it can be transformative changing the way the learner understands the world.  The most meaningful experiences I have had in my education, as both a teacher and a student, have happened when a new thought, a new idea or a new understanding has that transformative effect.

…human learning presupposes a specific social nature and a process by which
children grow into the intellectual life of those around them.
(Lev Vygotsky, Mind and Society)

Teaching college-level research inherently means teaching students that research and learning are social processes.  Scholars do their research and communicate their findings according to practices and conventions defined by disciplinary communities and practice networks.  Teaching information literacy works best when the learning students do is grounded in these larger conversations.  This means the most effective teaching happens when I am working closely with faculty, to connect the research activities students do to the broader learning going on in the class.  For example, in Oregon State University’s beginning composition classes students engage in information literacy activities throughout the term, that connect information literacy skills to every stage of the writing process.

I believe that the best learning is a personal act of meaning-making where new information is integrated with existing mental models to create new knowledge.  Within this context, information literacy is not an end in itself.  Instead, it is the thing that gives students the cognitive capacity make that meaning for themselves.  As such, I believe that the best way I can teach students about information literacy is to introduce them to the necessary concepts, skills and ideas in an environment and context where they can immediately apply them within a larger process of learning and meaning-making.

While the meaning we make out of new ideas and information is deeply personal, the learning that supports that meaning-making is still social and collaborative.  My own ideas about teaching and learning have been strongly influenced by constructivist philosopher Lev Vygotsky, who frequently focuses on this connection. Vygotsky’s work emphasizes the interplay between teacher and student.  His description of learning as that which we can do with help, reflects the teacher’s expertise and body of experience without devaluing the knowledge, understanding and body of experiences the student brings to the process.  This is an especially useful and important way to think about learning for me, as an academic librarian.  My teaching is most effective when my knowledge and expertise about the research process combines with the student’s own expertise and experience with their topic area.

Liberating education consists in acts of cognition, not transferals of information.
(Paolo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed)

When that connection happens, between teacher and student, we are both engaged in the learning process.  I believe that one of my most important responsibilities as a teacher is creating an environment where that kind of learning can happen.

As a teaching librarian, I think one of the most important things I can do is to model an appreciative, curious, recursive research process.  Scholars do not know all of the answers in advance when they do their research; the research projects that result in deep learning are frequently those where no easy answer exists to find.  It is in the process of constructing an answer out of the information that is out there, a process that is often messy and chaotic, that that deep learning happens.  I have come to believe that avoiding that messiness and chaos when I am teaching does my students a disservice.  Instead, using my time with the students to show them how to navigate the research process, to troubleshoot when problems arise, and to keep their minds open enough to recognize opportunities when they find them is a more effective, though stressful, way for me to teach.

This includes strategies as simple as using new, untested topics to demonstrate research strategies, trying keywords without knowing what they will find.  It includes developing activities that focus on broad exploration, and teaching students how to browse a topic before searching for specific sources.  For example, in OSU’s advanced composition class the students and I spend half of our class session browsing obviously biased online news and commentary sites before switching our focus to published sources.

This also includes an emphasis in the classroom on active learning activities that allow students to connect new skills and concepts introduced in class to their own topics of inquiry.   It is when the idea or skill I have just demonstrated works to further their knowledge of their topic that they learn it best.  Building in time for them to make and reflect on those connections is crucial.

One of the biggest challenges I face as a teaching librarian is that most of the direct contact I have with students happens in the context of a single-shot, guest lecture appearance in someone else’s class.  It can be very difficult to push beyond the idea of teaching as an act of transferal in that context, because students frequently make the crucial connections between your teaching and their learning after they leave that guest-lecture session.  After several years in this environment, I still feel that I have not mastered this type of teaching.

The big deal is, that it’s part of my job to make sure that you don’t grow up stupid
…it’s bad for the world.
(Tami Taylor, Friday Night Lights)

I will continue to work on becoming effective within that one-shot context, and developing new ways to teach beyond that context because I believe that what I teach, what we teach as academic librarians, is important.  It’s good for the world.   Information literate learners can take control of their own learning, and continue learning throughout their lives.

Students who understand what evidence is, and how other people use it to further particular agendas are powerful.  Students who can find, understand, evaluate and use evidence themselves are even more powerful.  When people graduate from college without those skills and without mastering those concepts, it’s bad for the world.  As a teaching librarian I get to focus my time and energy on helping students develop their power, and making the world a better place.

and ends here.

So there it is.  For all I like reflecting on stuff, I find this kind of writing excruciatingly mentally difficult, and have to strictly limit how much time I give it.

In the end, the only way I could was to focus on a few of the things that have really sparked me to think about teaching in ways that have stuck with me – even the quotation  from Mrs. Coach on Friday Night Lights (which I agonized about because the word “stupid” seemed too unlike me to put in a teaching philosophy statement because I would never say that. But Tami Taylor would so I couldn’t change it either, and there’s no room in said statement to explain the context where it is not about that, but actually is exactly about what I wanted it to be about.

And of course it’s not finished.  That’s why this kind of writing is so difficult for me.  I never feel happy with it, and it never feels done.  I suspect that is the main reason I feel compelled to post it – because sharing it takes it out of my head.

adventures in e-reading

So I live on the west coast, and many library conferences are on the east coast, and I attend many library conferences which means a lot of long flights.  And I’m a fast reader.  Which all added together equals this one conference last year where I found myself carrying nine books with me on the plane.

Lest you think that was excessive, okay that was totally excessive.  But the thing is, I don’t really like to fly.  My legs are too long for the plane seats (and I’m not super-tall.  What do super-tall people do?), the air is too dry and I get headachy from the engine noise so my strategy of choice for dealing with all of that discomfort is to find something engrossing to read, and I never know exactly what it is I will find engrossing in the moment.

Plus I never know exactly how much I will get through, and I live in fear of finishing all of my books and being left!  on a plane!  without a book!

On that flight, I started and finished four of those books on the plane (one was a quick-read young adult novel and one was a totally mindless mystery that my traveling companion started and finished after I did).  The other five books included three things I read in the hotel: two comics collections in trade paperback, a novel I had started before and finished after the trip.  One book I started on the plane and didn’t have time to finish and the last one was a non-fiction book I never did pick up.

So that’s a long way of explaining why and when I decided that I needed to seriously pursue the idea of e-books.  And this video I came across today is the first thing that really kind of gets at why I have been so happy with that choice.  It’s in french, but even my lousy french is good enough to follow along.

(via if:book)

(I suggest going to YouTube itself to watch, and watching in high quality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK75RSQBZYs)

Happy except for the ever-present issue of e-book DRM.  My french isn’t up to telling if they really talk about DRM in the video or not, but even if they don’t that sure looks like what replicating open-formats aspects of the print world would look like.  I’m also on a small group looking at the issues surrounding circulating Kindles in the library, which has given me some experience with Kindles even though I didn’t go that way myself — because I couldn’t deal with the DRM issues, that just keep coming up.

At Menucha last year my colleague Terry recommended checking out the iPod touch as an e-reader, so that’s the way I went. Of course, that doesn’t mean avoiding DRM altogether, though Fictionwise’s might be softer.  And also of course now Amazon owns Stanza, which is the Fictionwise-connected reader I have been using, so how much longer will that be true?

But beyond the DRM, the movie also reminded me of an issue I am having with the device itself.  I have also noticed since using the Kindle for this project, that I am really having trouble using it because it doesn’t have a touch screen.  I don’t know if it is because I am trained to use the touch screen on the iPod, or if that is just what we are coming to expect?  But it’s been a while now and I keep trying to make that screen work by touching.  I don’t think it’s going to get any better.

This, though, this looks like what’s fun about the Internet with books added back in.  And as a book lover, I like that picture.

Taking control of fair use – (Peer-Reviewed Monday)

ResearchBlogging.org

And… on a Monday even.  What are the odds?

This article (PDF) picks up on the post last week about Emily the Strange and Nate the Great.  In terms of creativity, transformation, fair use and — what this means for those of us in libraries, those of us who teach, or those of us in higher ed.

Aufderheide, P. (2007). How Documentary Filmmakers Overcame their Fear of Quoting and Learned to Employ Fair Use: a Tale of Scholarship in Action. International Journal of Communication [Online], 1 (1), 26-36

And it might not mean the same things for all of those groups, even given the overlap that must exist between them, because what this article is arguing is that groups like teachers (or even like teachers who teach specific things), or like librarians should take the time and spend the energy it takes to define for themselves what constitutes “Best Practices” in their field or community, when it comes to fair use.

Backing up – the authors claim that fair use is kind of the forgotten strategy of intellectual property, that the lines between fair and unfair use can be blurry, that there’s a lack of clarity about what it means and that people and institutions are nervous about asserting it.   By defining Best Practices, creating a statement that clears up some of the ambiguity surrounding fair use, a community can add clarity to the process and increase the likelihood that people within the community will assert their fair use rights.  Beyond that, the authors argue that a best practices statement also has legal value, that courts do consider the norms within a community when deciding whether or not a use is fair.

The case study example the authors use is documentary filmmakers.  This was a group that really needed clarity about fair use, but that wasn’t widely using fair use.  The authors started their project with by doing long interviews with documentarians and found that there was confusion about fair use, misunderstandings about the law, and a lot of fear out there about being sued:

Documentarians were avoiding a wide range of subjects including political and
social commentary, musical subjects and popular culture generally. They routinely altered the reality of
the localities where they captured images, and they also changed both sound and picture after the fact.

These documentarians also pointed out that they did not totally control what got used and what didn’t.  Even if they wanted to go the fair-use route, those who made it possible for them to broadcast or distribute their films had bought into the “permissions culture” and the only way to safely use copyrighted works.

Now, to me, this sounds familiar – there is a lot of acceptance of permissions culture in higher ed, I think.  And in libraries.  And while a lot of teachers I know may not necessarily think they should have to get permission for the things they use in the classroom, the gatekeepers above them (especially when we’re talking about using digital materials in the classrom) do.

So, after doing the interviews, the authors identified the different ways that documentarians use copyrighted information, and which of those uses the community members identified as “fair.”  They also asked “if someone who was not you was using your material in that way, would you still consider it fair.”  From this, they identified a set of best practices, things the documentary community thought constituted fair use of copyrighted materials:  Documentary Filmmakers Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use.

Then, they looked at the legal record.  They found that where challenges had been made, the defendents often won, for doing things that the community had considered fair.  Where the defendents lost, they had been doing things the community had rejected.  So the community had done a pretty good job defining its own practice.

The authors identified 3 main questions the courts had asked when deciding fair use cases — these questions dealt with:

  1. the transformative nature of the new work — if something new was created out of the copyrighted material/ significant value was added, then the use was more likely to be considered fair.  If the copyrighted material was simply being re-used for its intended purpose, then not so much.
  2. the good faith of the defendant.
  3. the best practices of the community – was the use “reasonable according in the general opinion of the field or discipline within which it was made?”

The best practices idea is also important because no single case will ever provide clarity on fair use – so long as the law depends on precedent and precedent is by definition situational, it can’t.

The authors conclude by arguing that there was an almost immediate, practical shift in how the community approached questions of fair use (and they built upon that argument further here).  All of a sudden, authors were asserting fair use rights, using the document to support them.  With further, active outreach, fair use became a part of the conversation in a way it had never been so before.

The implications of this for teaching and learning are probably pretty clear, as another area where best practices should be definable.  Indeed, the next project outlined on the website is on a topic not only of interest to instruction librarians as teachers, but specifically as information literacy teachers.  In 2006 the Berkman Center released a white paper about best practices for digital learning.  The Center for Social Media picked up the thread with a Best Practices document specific to Media Literacy education — specifically teaching students about media (not just using media to teach students about any topic):  The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education.

Media literacy, defined here as “the capacity to access, analyze, evaluate, and communicate messages in a wide variety of forms.”  The overlap there with information literacy is obvious, and the document has a lot of relevance to information literacy teachers.  More than that, doesn’t it show what we could do, or should do, in our communities (higher ed and librarianship) to take control of this issue for ourselves?

SLIM Information Literacy class