Live at the Greenwich Library!

16 Nov

I’m excited to announce that I’ll be presenting my program, ePortfolios for Professional Development, at the Greenwich Library tomorrow afternoon! Want to know more? Check out the details below:

Date: 11/17/2014
Start Time: 2:00 PM
End Time: 3:15 PM

Learn how to take control of and positively shape your professional online identities by creating and maintaining e-portfolios. Attendees will receive guidance on planning and executing the e-portfolio, including how to select materials, structure content, and choose a web-based platform.

Library: Greenwich Library
Location: Training Center
Contact: Michele Martin
Contact Number: 203-625-6533

One ID Model to Rule Them All?

15 Sep

The Essentials of Instructional Design: Connecting Fundamental Principles with Process and Practice, Abbie Brown & Timothy D. Green

In EDTR 609, we’re reading The Essentials of Instructional Design: Connecting Fundamental Principles with Process and Practice by Abbie Brown and Timothy D. Green. This week, we were asked to respond to the following questions after reading chapter one: which model of instructional design/development would you most likely follow and why do you suppose that model is particularly appealing to you? Below, you will find my response, which is based on my experience as an instruction librarian.

After reviewing the models presented in chapter one, I would select the instructional design plan presented by Kemp, Morrision, and Ross as the most appropriate model for the design of my one-shot information literacy sessions and rapid prototyping as the most appropriate model for my individual research consultations.

What appeals to me most about the Kemp, et al model is its flexibility and its level of granularity. I find Dick and Carey’s model (at least as it is characterized and presented in the chapter) a bit too rigid at the start of the process (although I might utilize it to streamline the revision processes once a course has been designed) . There is a well-defined flow with regard to the sequence of the steps that must take place; in theory, this makes perfect sense as it illustrates an ideal model. That said, as an illustration of an ideal model, it makes the assumption that all necessary data about learners and content will be available to the designer at each given stage of the process. In practice, instructional design rarely occurs under ideal conditions. My own experience demonstrates this: when I receive a request for a one-shot information literacy session, I often receive information about learners and the desired content in a piecemeal fashion. Sometimes, after I have planned a mini-unit within the session, I receive information that requires that I return to the instructional materials and revise accordingly. Given the nature of my instructional demands, the Kemp, et al  model offers a model more suited to my needs; while it provides a structured method for planning instructional events, the framework itself is flexible enough to accommodate an entry into the system or the revision of specific components as needed at any stage of planning.

Rapid prototyping, on the other hand, would be a more appropriate model for my research consultations. Although they are not considered formal courses, these one-on-one sessions are none-the-less instructional events. Because the amount of individual attention I can dedicate to students, the specificity of the research problems with which they arrive, and the varying levels of research proficiency with which they arrive, the element of failure inherent in rapid prototyping has the potential to be a powerful teaching tool. It requires that the student and I to work together to consider the nature of the failure (inappropriate keywords? wrong database?) and how best to address it; this level of engagement is likely to result in a deeper understanding of the research process.

After reviewing the models presented in this chapter, it is evident that some models are more appropriate for specific instructional scenarios than are others. For my one-shot information literacy sessions (which seldom afford me the opportunity to dedicate significant attention to individual queries), the Kemp, et al model presents a design approach which is structured without being rigid, allowing me to maximize instructional effectiveness. On the other hand, given the amount of time I can dedicate to individual students and their queries, rapid prototyping and its affordances for failure make it the ideal model for my individual research consultations.  

Back to School!

14 Sep

I’m officially back to school, folks! During the next year and a half, I’ll be working on earning a Master of Science in Instructional Technology for Professional Trainers from the New York Institute of Technology. This will be my first foray into a completely online program, and I’m very excited about it 1.) because  it’s online (hey, that’s pretty exciting in and of itself!), 2.) because we have amazing faculty members in the School of Education, and 3.) because everything I am learning will make me a better information literacy instructor.  I’m taking the following courses this semester:

EDTR 609: Instructional Systems Design

Participants are introduced to systems approach, or ISD. Classwork applies scientific method to training development to be sure programs are comprehensive in scope, yet lean in execution. Each student will select a specific training need and then develop a systematic training design through careful front end analysis of training needs, tasks performed and learner population. Media and techniques appropriate to a given setting are chosen. Participants complete all aspects of program design, including analysis described, construction of training objectives, evaluation measures and budgets. At course completion, each student will have a blueprint for training for implementation in EDTR 659 (NYIT Graduate Catalog).

EDTR 671: Gaming & Virtual Reality Environments

Candidates will explore theories of game-based learning environments, including educational games, training games, simulations and virtual reality learning environments. The course topics include three units: examine game based learning theories, research learning effectiveness of game-based learning environments, evaluate and implement games, simulation and VR for learning. The course uses a hands-on approach to guide candidates to apply the instructional design process to plan, design, develop, implement, and evaluate a game-based learning environment (NYIT Graduate Catalog).

Feel free to join in the discussion as I post my thoughts on course topics.

ePortfolios at the Connecticut Library Association Conference

10 May
Derek & Danielle at the CLA 2014 Conference.

Derek Stadler & Danielle Apfelbaum at the CLA 2014 Conference.

Many, many thanks to Dan Lewis and Martha Kruy from the Connecticut Library Association for inviting us to present “Two Birds, One Stone: ePortfolios as Professional Development & Patron Programming” at CLA’s 123rd annual conference! And thanks, of course, to every one who attended! If you missed our session on 4/28, no worries: the presentation and handouts are all here.

Thoughts on the IL Framework Drafts

12 Apr

If you came here expecting to find a new or groundbreaking perspective on the Framework recently released by ACRL, my sincerest apologies, dear visitor. In truth, I have very little to add to the conversation. I do, however, believe that certain points deserve reiterating.

First, the drafters definitely deserve a big thanks. While responses to the Framework in the blogsphere have been both constructive and civil, I imagine that it’s no easy task to spearhead the complete reconceptualization of IL as we know it. As the old phrase goes: “It’s a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it.” Thanks, Task Force, for taking on this icky, but totally necessary job.

Second, two thumbs-up for the threshold concepts approach. Not only is it a great step towards crafting a highly adaptable document, but this approach also lends further legitimacy to the idea that information literacy is not ancillary but integral to successful study in and across all disciplines. Some have noted that this might take information literacy out of the hands of librarians entirely. A valid concern? Sure: if it’s essential to the discipline, then one might reason that it should be left up to the subject experts to teach. But I have a difficult time believing that faculty will want to tackle this on their own. If anything, I see the new Framework as the perfect supporting documentation for an argument in favor of the expansion of embedded librarian programs.

Finally, the jargon (but not its pedagogical underpinnings) must go. Donna Witek’s post on metaliteracy says it all; go read it. You’ll be glad you did.

With that, I’ll share my responses to questions asked by the Task Force:

1. In what ways will the focus on threshold concepts help you to generate conversations with other campus stakeholders (such as disciplinary faculty partners, members of the general education curriculum committee, and academic support services staff)?
Having a document that reframes information literacy as a set of abilities and dispositions rather the mechanical completion of a series tasks will be helpful in emphasizing to faculty and administrative personnel that information literacy cannot be attained in a single, 50-minute instruction session. Instead, it must be cultivated over time. At the very least, it will further articulate and provide compelling support for the value of information literacy and, hopefully, spark more collaboration between librarians and instructors in strengthening its place in the curriculum.

2. How do the sections for knowledge practices and assignments/assessments provide helpful guidance when considering implementing the new Framework? What else would you want to see in these sections?
In the interest of streamlining the Framework, I’d like to see the self-assessments section expanded and the possible assignments/assessments section scraped. Presented out of specific teaching contexts, the sample assignments are more distracting than useful, even with the revisions presented in the second draft. This is best left to a supplemental toolkit or any number of the exercise idea books that will surely follow the finalization of the Framework.

3. We plan to include additional materials in a subsequent phase (described below). What other elements would you find helpful that aren’t mentioned in our plans?
I think an online sandbox — which has been mentioned only as a possibility — is essential. Ideally, it should be able to capture on-going discussions as well as resources generated by librarians and the Task Force. Additionally, I think there should be some guidance on connecting the new Framework to the agenda set in the Value of Academic Libraries report. I see the Framework as a new opportunity for expanding  our impact on our institutions. For example: If students begin to see themselves as part of a larger scholarly conversation, they may be more likely to submit papers/proposals to prestigious undergraduate publications or national conferences. If more students participate in scholarly activities, the prestige of the institution may rise. If the prestige of the institution rises, the number and quality of applicants may increase thus positively impacting the institution’s revenue. In short:  I’d like to see additional tools for communicating the overall value of the new Framework not just in terms of student learning but for the success of the institution as a whole.

An Interview with Laura Spence-Ash

16 Mar

If you’re a Saturday librarian, you know the drill: it’s feast or famine at the reference desk. So, you learn to cope with those long, quiet stretches (during which time the most mentally taxing question asked of you is “Where’s the bathroom?”) by occupying yourself with any number of productive diversions.  For me, those diversions include catching up on C&RL News and, for sheer enjoyment, my always mounting stack of One Story chaps.  In fact, a few weeks ago, I brought a handful with me to my Saturday gig, but I only got through one: “The Remains” by Laura Spence-Ash. I read it three times that day and still, I am finding new things to love and admire about it. 

Rightly or wrongly, I approach the short story in the same way that I approach any written work: I believe the hallmark of a well-crafted piece is that it reveals itself in layers — that it doesn’t merely require rereading to get the full effect, but that, instead, it so ensnares the reader by its charm or grit or wit that one cannot help but to return again and again and again — like an addict — for the fix it provides.  This was precisely the effect “The Remains” had on me, and I am absolutely thrilled to have had the chance to discuss the piece with its author, Laura Spence-Ash, below.

This is your first published story. Congratulations! Can you tell us a little bit about your journey (forgive the cliché) as a writer?

Thanks!  I’m so thrilled to have my first story published in One Story – they really believe in supporting emerging writers and I couldn’t have asked for a better place to debut.  I wrote in college but stopped soon after graduation as my career and then my family took hold of my time.  My father died in 2007 and that made me reconsider my priorities.   I decided it was time to return to writing, and I began taking classes and attending workshops.   I received wonderful support and guidance along the way from teachers and fellow writers but my time was limited so everything moved slowly.  Last summer I attended the One Story workshop and had the great opportunity to meet and work with contributing editor Will Allison and editor-in-chief Hannah Tinti.  Like so many things in life, a small decision led to being in the right place at the right time.   I’m hoping to dedicate more time now to my writing.

In your interview with Will Allison, you explained that previous readers were less than enthusiastic about your use of multiple points of view. How did you negotiate a balance between editorial input and staying true to your vision while writing “The Remains”?

I couldn’t imagine telling this story in any other way.  So much of the content of the story, I think, resides in the form.   There is this unwritten rule that you shouldn’t switch point-of-view in a short story as the structure and length don’t really support multiple viewpoints.   I actually toyed with turning this into a novel after several people told me that there were too many viewpoint characters.   But I really didn’t want to write a novel as I always saw this as a short story.  When I worked with the One Story editors, we made sure that each character had a narrative arc of their own, and I think that helped immensely.

I’ll admit it: as an information professional, I almost had a bone to pick (no pun intended) with you. By the time we find out that Sophia Constantine is a law librarian, we’ve already seen her characterized as “that weird lady” who was an “odd sort, always kept to herself, never wanting much of anything to do with anyone else” and who seemed to act as if “she were better than everyone else.” Add to that her sensible shoes, her impeccable wardrobe, and her standoffishness toward children, and what remains is the quintessential librarian stereotype: a socially awkward, unexciting, aloof middle-aged woman. But, just as we are given that stereotypical depiction, we’re turned from it. At work, Sophia is quite affable and something of a mother hen to the young lawyers and paralegals. From Mel, we discover a Sophia who collects airplane bottles (presumably, she enjoys a strong drink) and has smoked marijuana. Most important, however, we discover that the detachment Sophia exhibits in the flashbacks is not a product of stereotypical characterization but (most likely) the result of the traumatic loss of her daughter. That said, while crafting Sophia, did you ever consider supplying her with an alternative occupation? In choosing librarianship for Sophia, did you find it challenging to work with and ultimately break those stereotypical associations?

This is fascinating to me because I never thought of Sophie as a stereotypical librarian.  I wrote the first sections before I got to Bob’s section and it was only then that I realized that she was a librarian.  I don’t think I ever thought of her having a different occupation.  If anything, I saw her life as a librarian as being something that saved her – she so enjoyed being surrounded by books and talking about books with Bob.  I also think that it’s mainly through Annie that we get a negative portrayal of her, and I think that’s more due to Annie’s personality than to an overall portrait of Sophie.  Part of what I wanted to think about here is how we all view others differently – whether in life or in death – and that we never really know anyone because we only understand a sliver of who they are.

I don’t think it would be out of line to generalize and say that it’s just good form to eschew stereotypical depictions of characters. But I often wonder what underlying principle should guide that practice: do writers of fiction have an ethical obligation not to perpetuate certain stereotypes or is it just that stereotypical depictions lessen the artfulness of our craft? (That is, if we surrender characterization to a stereotype, we let the stereotype — not our imaginations — build the character.) Or is it both? Your thoughts?

I think it’s probably both although I would lean more towards the latter.  Characters who are stereotypes are boring, I think, both to the reader and to the writer.  The more that we can deepen a character by adding in quirks and flaws, the more the character becomes a real person.  For me, this is the great challenge and the great joy of writing – to create characters who are believable and real.  I find that I often start with a character who’s drawn too broadly and therefore ends up being one extreme or another.  By adding in unique details, I try to move him or her closer towards the center where all real characters live.

One thing that struck me about this story was the use and arrangement of multiple perspectives. Perhaps I’m seeing (or want to see) this because I’m an academic librarian, but throughout the story I felt as if I were watching a research query unfold. At first, we don’t even know to whom the skeletal remains belong. But just as the systematic refinement of one’s search vocabulary (from broadest to narrowest terms) increases the precision of one’s search, so too do we refine our understanding of Sophia as we move through each increasingly intimate perspective: Sophia goes from being a nameless corpse, to Mrs. Constantine, to Mrs. C., to Sophia, and finally to Sophie. Because it contributes so significantly to the impact of the story, perhaps you could talk about the process of sequencing of those points of view.

I love this interpretation.  I wish I could say that it was intentional but I think it was subconscious at best.  I certainly did think about having the viewpoints become more and more intimate as we progress through the story, and I also wanted to contrast that with being physically and geographically close.  As we move farther away from Sophie’s body, we find people who knew her increasingly well.  I remember drawing a spiral on a scrap of paper – with Sophie’s body at the center – and keeping that image in mind as I wrote the story.   It’s so sad to me to think that she was alone when she died and that the first person who finds her is a stranger. By the end of the story, she is no longer alone and is with Zoe forever.

While the final is scene is without a doubt the most moving in the piece, I think that the scene in which Sophia and Bob work together to calculate the visibility from Sophia’s ferry is the most crucial. Not only does it articulate the idea that there is a difference between boundaries and horizons, but it also implies that this difference matters greatly. It invites us to think about each point of view as a sort of horizon: each perspective can go only so far in presenting a picture of Sophia, yet we understand that what there is to know about her goes far beyond what we are told. Because of this, it’s hard to decide whether to be heartbroken or relieved at the end of “The Remains”. If we take the boundary approach, Kleenex are in order: Sophia’s dead, Zoe’s dead, Mrs. Turani’s dead. That’s it. The end. However, if we take the horizon approach, a sense of hope prevails: instead of a line in the sand, death becomes a spot in the distance beyond which we have no ability to see. For all we know, Sophia is lovingly reunited with her mother, her daughter, and her friend Mrs. Turani.  

This is such a wonderful read of the story.  What’s fascinating to me is that because the story was developed over a long period of time, I think it’s possible that the resonance of the ending changed over time.  When I first started the story, my father had recently died, and I was thinking about memory and how people stay with us after death.  When I edited the piece with One Story, my mother had died a year earlier, and I think the ending took on a different meaning for me.   There had been a bit about Sophie’s interest in the horizon in earlier drafts but the scene with Bob was added during the editing process.  I think you’re right that this scene becomes a turning point of sorts and it changes the ending, leaving the reader with that sense of hope.

Is there anything that I didn’t ask you that you wish someone would ask (or point out) about “The Remains”?

What has struck me the most in hearing reactions from readers is how people read the story differently.  I’m sure that’s true with every story to a certain extent, but it’s so interesting to me that people pick up on different themes or meanings that resonate with them.  And I love that this ties in directly with both the form and the content of the story – just as the characters perceive Sophie differently so do people read the story through a variety of lenses.

Thanks so much, Laura! 

Poll Everywhere: Building Rapport, Assessing Learning

15 Feb

On February 6, 2014, I had the pleasure and honor of participating in NYIT‘s first Tech Talks program. Inspired by PechKucha- and Ignite-style presentations, each presenter was given 20 slides and 5 minutes to share his/her use of technology in the classroom (check mine out below). It was definitely a challenge, but well worth it. Not only did I learn just how much information you can squeeze into a 300 second presentation, I also now have a list chock full of apps and resources to test pilot in my future information literacy sessions! Many thanks to all the speakers, and a very special thanks to Sebastien Marion and Jim Martinez for curating this awesome series.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 572 other followers

%d bloggers like this: