Tim O’ Reilly meme map 2005Most relevant: User control“Architecture of participation”Collective intelligence (and creativity)Radical decentralization and radical trust
Why FB?Popularity- 400 million active users ; 20 million users between 18 and 25 y.o.;Convenience- everyone is there- with well-understood and easy to use interface; user centredFlexibility- combines in a single platform many kinds of media and internet tools. FB has made codes available so many library tools can now be embedded in FB Relevance- immediately applicable to everyday use; FB use provides models for IL in academic contexts Ex. Technological literacy is the ability to understand and evaluate technology.Communication- using chat and email to correspond for informationEvaluation- using as a metaphor – online friend request- do you accept?Organization- Use tagging functions to collaboratively label photosEthics and privacy- safe use of FBEthics and privacy:the dangers of putting personal information on theses sites, which couldcompromise future employment possibilities is important (Windham 2006). Italso leads to the ethical use of visual, auditory and textual material on these sites,as today’s student is likely to be unaware of such ethical issues.
American University in Cairo- Boxes- jump to Libguides- Reference assistance- extensive explanations, subject guidesAdd a libguides app to your FB accountLeonard H. Axe Library, Pittsburg State University- home page link to instructional videos, news on the wall, Cite me from World cat; relevant news (Chicago style manualTRAILS- tool for real time assessment of information literacy - link to home page where the site is offered; FB wall has questions to stimulate discussions. (with instant feedback for comments); can subscribe for updates- discussion page among educatorsMashables- Mashable is The Social Media Guide - a place for tips, how-tos and the latest information about social media for web users, brands, news organizations, marketers and charities.Social media articles
Smith Reynolds Library, Wake Forest UniversityRationale:The perspective that students come to IL classes with aset of core skills and conceptual understandings has also been examined byresearch that evaluated how closely aligned instructor perceptions of studentexpertise and actual student expertise are in relation to specific informationSkillsMost of the Z. Smith Reynolds Library IL instructors hadexperimented to some extent with 2.0 tools and other technologies. A previoussemester’s class had been successful using Flickr (http://www.flickr.com)and wikis (Smith, Mitchell, and Numbers 2007). Others had used GoogleDocs (http://docs.google.com), clickers, and blogs. On the other hand, theuniversity learning management system (LMS) is Blackboard (http://www.blackboard.com), and it has been found to be particularly unsatisfactory inpromoting interaction and a feeling of ownership by the students.Facebook:almost universally used Studentdriven space. Sufficient: group space, collaboration capabilities, document storage, and these were extendableThey established a special FB group, We installed the Wiki Project Facebook application to present syllabusand for the group research essays.Lacked:A bibliographic generator as good as the one used on campus- Continued to useBlackboard for posting marks b/c FB could not guarantee privacy / confidentialityUsed Freemind (mind maps) to enhance class presentations
Pre course awareness; post course assessmentStudents overall were most comfortable using FB to interact as a group. More academic functions decreased comfort.Feelings of fragmentation among different platforms (wiki, Blackboard, FB)Student-driven discussion / activities did not happen (various reasons)From the instructors’ perspective, framing the class around low-barrier Web2.0 tools facilitated the ability to easily adapt and change course contentand direction as the course progressed. When working with current informationissues as the centerpiece for conveying IL concepts, it is importantto be able to shift direction and deploy them rapidly.
When setting up for the next class the following semester, it wasdiscovered that Wiki Project had ceased, and all the course content thathad been created was gone. The lesson learned from this experience wasto now put only disposable content in Facebook’s third-party applications.Fortunately, this happened after the course’s end; if it had happened earlier,all the students’ work could have been lost.
1. Jeff Verbeem<br />LIBR 559M, School of Archival, Library and Information Studies, UBC <br />Information Literacy 2.0: The Instructional Role of Facebook<br />
2. contents<br />Definitions of terms<br />Social media in IL instruction<br />Affordances and Constraints of Facebook<br />Examples of Facebook as IL gateway<br />Example of Facebook as courseware<br />Guidelines<br />Summary<br />
3. <ul><li>As conceived by Tim O’Reilly (2005), Web 2.0 relates to platforms that support communication among many users and collaborative information creation and retrieval
4. The ‘2.0’ suffix has been applied to name the move in various online sectors towards a more interactive, user-centred online presence that fosters creativity.
5. Library 2.0, for example, refers to the range of internet tools that libraries now use to deliver a range of promotional, reference, and instructional services (Carpan, 2010).</li></ul>DEFINITION OF TERMS: Web 2.0<br />
6. The standard information literacy (IL) as articulated by AACRL competencies have been criticized for… <br /><ul><li>putting insufficient emphasis on technology and
7. not reflecting the new capabilities for creating new content individually or collaboratively as afforded by social media.
8. over-emphasizing discrete skill development</li></ul> (from a preprint of Mackey & Jacobson, 2010)<br />DEFINITION OF TERMS: information literacy 2.0.(IL)<br />
9. Information literacy 2.0<br />Information Literacy (2.0) encompasses the old competencies as well as those that relate to collaboration and creativity. <br />
10. Instructional uses of Web 2.0 in libraries:<br /><ul><li>4%: to organize course materials
11. 84%: to deliver course content
12. 38%: to illustrate IL concepts</li></ul> (From Luo, 2010)<br />Web 2.0 and il instruction<br />
21. Creativity</li></ul>facebook for il instruction<br />
22. Facebook as gateway<br />Due to the wide range of applications now available, Facebook can provide a link to a variety of IL resources:<br /><ul><li>basic reference information
23. subject guides
24. Libguides and online tutorials.
25. library digital reference “Ask a Librarian” service</li></ul>(Mitchell & Watstein, 2007, p. 523)<br />
26. Facebook as courseware<br /> Mitchell & Smith (2009) describe adding a Facebook component to their F2F information literacy course at the Z. Smith Reynolds library at Wake Forest University <br />Facebook applications used at WFU:<br />◦ ZSR Library search (http://apps.facebook.com/searchzsr/)<br />◦ WorldCat (http://apps.facebook.com/worldcat/)<br />◦ JSTOR (http://apps.facebook.com/jstorsearch/)<br />
27. Facebook as courseware: student feedback<br /><ul><li>understanding and acceptance of certain technology increased.
28. reasons for positive response to Facebook included novelty, familiarity with Facebook, and the superior usability of the interface over other course management systems.
29. BUT: limited functionality of Facebook compared with Blackboard, etc and the uncertain division between the personal and academic spheres were identified as drawbacks. </li></ul>Described in Mitchell & Smith, 2009<br />
30. Guidelines<br />FB should work in tandem with other modes of instruction delivery. While limitations of time and space make completely online courses sometimes necessary, even these can be augmented with alternative avenues of communication.<br />While diversity of media can be a good thing, this diversity brings with it the risk of feeling fragmented among different platforms (Mitchell & Smith, 2009). <br />Take advantage of Facebook’s affordance of flexibility to quickly adapt course content and shift direction when necessary (Mitchell & Smith, 2009). <br />Citing loss of data concerns, Mitchell & Smith (2009) argue against putting any crucial content in an uncontrolled environment. <br />
31. Guidelines<br />As with all interactive media, Facebook requires time and effort by administrators to keep content relevant.<br />Time should be spent reflecting on your goals and getting to know your target population, whether they are students in a course or visitors accessing resources from the Facebook platform.<br />On a related note, remember that Facebook is primarily a medium for social and personal interaction. Not all environments would be appropriate for using Facebook. <br />If new to Web 2.0,, do your best to educate yourself about a number of technologies and how they relate to library services.<br />
32. Moving forward<br /><ul><li>Increasing use of mobile electronic devices: With its cross-media compatibility, an expanding list of applications, and accessibility from these devices, Facebook may be well-positioned to take advantage of this trend toward mobile education. (Click & Petit, 2010)
34. References<br /><ul><li>Carpan, C. (2010). Introducing Information Literacy 2.0. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 17(1), 106-113. doi:10.1080/10691310903584627.
35. Click, A., & Petit, J. (2010). Social networking and Web 2.0 in information literacy. International Information & Library Review, 42(2), 137-142. doi:10.1016/j.iilr.2010.04.007.
36. Luo, L. (2010). Web 2.0 Integration in Information Literacy Instruction: An Overview. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(1), 32-40. Retrieved from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.
37. Mitchell, E., & Watstein, S. (2007, November). The places where students and scholars work, collaborate, share and plan. Reference Services Review, pp. 521-524. Retrieved from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.
38. Mitchell, E., & Smith, S. (2009). Bringing Information Literacy into the Social Sphere: A Case Study Using Social Software to Teach Information Literacy at WFU. Journal of Web Librarianship, 3(3), 183-197. doi:10.1080/19322900903113381.
39. O’Reilly, T. (2005, September) What is Web 2.0. [web log comment] Retrieved from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
40. Rethlefsen, M. (2010). facebook's MARCH ON PRIVACY. Library Journal, 135(12), 34-35. Retrieved from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.</li></li></ul><li>Further reading<br /><ul><li>Godwin, P. (2007). Information literacy meets Web 2.0: How the new tools affect our training and our teaching. New Review of Information Networking, 13(2), 101-112. doi:10.1080/13614570801900005.
41. Mackey, P. and Jacobsen, T. (2010). PREPRINT of: Reframing Information Literacy as a Metaliteracy. College and Research Libraries, Anticipated Publication Date: January 2011 Retrieved from http://api.ning.com/files/kCBYlBVOpZhEdjomANEXEVTHPrEIWM5YVYCzFlRvxWj*uMwM8nhiR38wIg9RgGRo2D8hY8azVlHvzKAwTT1OXM0hAqnlnAEd/metaliteracy.pdf
42. 7 Things You Should Know About ... Facebook. (2006, August). Educause Learning Initiative. Retrieved 5 August 2010,from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7017.pdf.</li></li></ul><li>Images<br /><ul><li>Information Literacy from http://hlwiki.slais.ubc.ca/index.php/File:Bloom.gif
43. Social media bandwagon by Matt Hamm at http://www.flickr.com/photos/matthamm/2945559128/sizes/m/in/photostream/</li>