In the Catherine Ross text on Conducting the Reference Interview (pg. 237), Joyce Sarick is quoted as having said, “There are fifty thousand answers to the request, ‘Give me a good book’.” Sarick further suggests that the readers advisory interview requires some knowledge development activity before the patron ever arrives. I suppose in the past this was done by reading a lot of books, book commentaries, reviews, etc.. It seems to me that today, this process of knowledge development requires the same activity of reading like it did in the past, although today, for the most part, it is done by using electronic resources. By becoming familiar with the many different electronic resources, a librarian can understand the strengths and weaknesses of each and deftly use the right resource when the requests are made. In this regard, reader’s advisory is exactly the same as the reference advisory, in that knowing the best resource for the real information need makes the advisory process so much more efficient and efficacious.
Sarick goes on to describe the reader’s advisory interview as having a fun conversation about books, primarily by getting the patron to do most of the talking and the interviewer doing some careful listening. This approach makes the process seem much less daunting and after all, aren’t most librarians and information specialists in the field exactly because they enjoy having this kind of conversation about books? What a perfectly appealing way to describe it.
Another key point for me in this weeks’ reading was the cautionary advice to refrain from falling into the trap of responding with one’s own opinions about a book or an author. Although the question sometimes comes out that way, the requester is not really asking for the librarian’s opinion on another “good author”, “good book” or “good read”. What the librarian might like may not be what the requester will like. Staying focused on finding out what the patron likes came across to me as very sound and key advice.
Showing posts with label Reading Response LIS 504. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reading Response LIS 504. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
To Cognate or To Socialize?
In this response, my purpose is to identify a particular feature of Elmborg’s argument for a constructivist approach to reference desk services, which is significant in the acceptability of his argument. Without this feature, his argument could lose credibility and merit with some educators.
Elmborg’s argument that the reference desk can be a powerful teaching station is based on the learning theory called constructivism, which posits that people generate knowledge from their experiences. Further, this theory states that the learner learns best when in charge of the learning activities. Elmborg quotes from five scholars who studied and reported on the librarian in the reference services process during the 1990’s. All five authors emphasized the shift of academia to the “student-centered pedagogies”, known as constructivist pedagogies.
In the era of these studies and analyses the constructivist learning theory was quite popular and a movement existed throughout the United States to adopt the constructivist principles in public school curriculum and teaching methods. At that time, my children were in elementary and middle school and the community where we lived became embroiled in significant political debate over this movement. In fact, the school board president and another member of the board were voted out of office to counteract this movement. Because of that emotional experience, I became increasingly interested in Elmborg’s arguments.
On pg. 457 of his article, he makes a distinction of moving from cognitive constructivism to social constructivism. The ‘cognitive’ requires an emphasis on the mental models of the learner and the teacher having some understanding of those models, whereas the ‘social’ “emphasizes the social nature of knowledge formation”. His reasoning for this adoption of the ‘social’ is that “very few librarians are comfortable in making the sophisticated diagnoses required in a cognitive interview.”
Monday night, September 28, 2009, I listened to a radio program in the Chicago area called Extension 720, on WGN 720, wherein two renowned experts in the field of education were in a discussion with the program’s host about education in inner-city schools and in particular they espoused the adoption of more charter schools. A caller to the program (himself an educator) took issue with one of the guest panelists, Herb Walberg, who had somewhat denounced constructionism (a form of constructivism theory). Mr. Walberg, however, defended his position by citing studies that had proven some errors in constructivism. For one thing, the theory is weak when applied with a population of novice learners. The panelist accepted the value of constructivism for experienced or high IQ learners, but suggested it is not appropriate for general populations. The Wikipedia article on constructivism also identifies some opposition to the theory.
It occurred to me as I read Elmborg’s article, that his argument gains strength when he emphasized the social constructivism , which sets the learner in a social environment, rather than remaining alone. A novice learner in a cognitive constructivist environment must be highly capable and motivated in order to effectively learn. The social constructivism approach not only frees the reference librarian from making the difficult diagnoses spoken of, but also allows for another party to be involved with the learner. In fact, this other party is to be engaged with the learner from a position of one with special knowledge who can guide the learning process. This model fits well for a novice learner and is much more apt to be effective at the reference desk.
Elmborg, James K. “Teaching at the Desk: Toward a reference pedagogy.” Portal: libraries and the academy 2 (2002): 455-464.
Constructionism on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionist_learning, 30 Sep 2009
Constructivism on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28learning_theory%29, 30 Sep 2009
Extension 720 Broadcast of 28 September 2009
http://www.wgnradio.com/shows/ext720/wgnam-x720-uncut090928a,0,6044235.mp3file
Elmborg’s argument that the reference desk can be a powerful teaching station is based on the learning theory called constructivism, which posits that people generate knowledge from their experiences. Further, this theory states that the learner learns best when in charge of the learning activities. Elmborg quotes from five scholars who studied and reported on the librarian in the reference services process during the 1990’s. All five authors emphasized the shift of academia to the “student-centered pedagogies”, known as constructivist pedagogies.
In the era of these studies and analyses the constructivist learning theory was quite popular and a movement existed throughout the United States to adopt the constructivist principles in public school curriculum and teaching methods. At that time, my children were in elementary and middle school and the community where we lived became embroiled in significant political debate over this movement. In fact, the school board president and another member of the board were voted out of office to counteract this movement. Because of that emotional experience, I became increasingly interested in Elmborg’s arguments.
On pg. 457 of his article, he makes a distinction of moving from cognitive constructivism to social constructivism. The ‘cognitive’ requires an emphasis on the mental models of the learner and the teacher having some understanding of those models, whereas the ‘social’ “emphasizes the social nature of knowledge formation”. His reasoning for this adoption of the ‘social’ is that “very few librarians are comfortable in making the sophisticated diagnoses required in a cognitive interview.”
Monday night, September 28, 2009, I listened to a radio program in the Chicago area called Extension 720, on WGN 720, wherein two renowned experts in the field of education were in a discussion with the program’s host about education in inner-city schools and in particular they espoused the adoption of more charter schools. A caller to the program (himself an educator) took issue with one of the guest panelists, Herb Walberg, who had somewhat denounced constructionism (a form of constructivism theory). Mr. Walberg, however, defended his position by citing studies that had proven some errors in constructivism. For one thing, the theory is weak when applied with a population of novice learners. The panelist accepted the value of constructivism for experienced or high IQ learners, but suggested it is not appropriate for general populations. The Wikipedia article on constructivism also identifies some opposition to the theory.
It occurred to me as I read Elmborg’s article, that his argument gains strength when he emphasized the social constructivism , which sets the learner in a social environment, rather than remaining alone. A novice learner in a cognitive constructivist environment must be highly capable and motivated in order to effectively learn. The social constructivism approach not only frees the reference librarian from making the difficult diagnoses spoken of, but also allows for another party to be involved with the learner. In fact, this other party is to be engaged with the learner from a position of one with special knowledge who can guide the learning process. This model fits well for a novice learner and is much more apt to be effective at the reference desk.
Elmborg, James K. “Teaching at the Desk: Toward a reference pedagogy.” Portal: libraries and the academy 2 (2002): 455-464.
Constructionism on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionist_learning, 30 Sep 2009
Constructivism on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28learning_theory%29, 30 Sep 2009
Extension 720 Broadcast of 28 September 2009
http://www.wgnradio.com/shows/ext720/wgnam-x720-uncut090928a,0,6044235.mp3file
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)