Right away in Elmborg’s article, “Teaching at the Desk: Toward a Reference Pedagogy,” the author relates teaching at a reference desk to teaching writing—it is more teaching the process, not the end product. Obviously, being a teacher myself, I completely agree with this conclusion. While students in academic libraries may want librarians to search and find materials for them, it does not help the student learn how to do this for the future. As I was reading the article and the comparisons to the teaching of writing, I kept thinking of quotes that I have learned in my professional development by Lucy Calkins about the teaching of writing. Our district has made a push as of late to use her methods to teach writing. Then- imagine my surprise when I am reading along in this article and the author actually QUOTES Lucy Calkins! I was shocked, excited, and a little amazed at myself that I made the same connection as the author. I thought this article was well thought out, to the point, and made a valid point for the need of “teaching” at a reference desk in academic libraries.
Morris’s “Toward a User-Centered Information Service” took me back a little bit to the overwhelmed-edness I felt last week concerning information. I started reading this article and all I could think was, “Oh no, more thinking about information.” I don’t think I have ever thought so much about information. Yet, as I read along, I found this article easier to grasp. The constructivist model makes sense to me: “information is not something objective and external, but as something constructed by the user. Information does not exist in the abstract- it needs to be interpreted.” I liked Delvin’s “situation-gap-use” metaphor. That is very much the same mentality we have in teaching. If someone is not learning, there is a gap in their knowledge- and it is our job to then work to fill that gap. It makes sense that this metaphor for information also works with learning. I think ideas in this article also relate to Elmborg’s article, with respect that information needs to be used by the user-not just the librarian. I did question Morris’ point when she said “one reason why users seem to be generally satisfied with what they find is that, based on cumulative experience with research and with libraries, they have come to expect relatively little.” Is she referencing “expecting little” from the information? Or from the librarian? It seems unclear, and each scenario is suggesting completely different things.
Two positive thoughts on Wiegand’s “Mom and Me: A Difference in Information Values…” (1) Loved that the article was short, to the point, and used an excellent, relatable example to make his point. People do have different personal information economies that influence the way they look at information and make decisions (2) His mom reminded me a lot of my own grandmother and her decision making antics. Again, great example that made me smile.
Opposed to the previous article we read concerning archives, I found Yakel’s article “Museuems, Management, Media, and Memory: Lessons from the Enola Gay Exhibition” quite informative and interesting. I immediately saw the controversy concerning the exhibition, and I do not know which side I necessarily agree with. I began to think of museums in general, and realized that I never thought there could be controversy concerning them. In my mind, museum exhibits are an informative representation of history, science, literature, or a combination of the three. I think back to the Milwaukee Public Museum (where I spent a lot of time during my youth) and the exhibits they offered. The huge T-Rex, the Streets of Old Milwaukee, the Native American Pow-Wow, the shrunken heads, the howler monkey in the rainforest… they all seem pretty cut and dry. However, after reading this article, it makes me wonder—how subjective were the curators when they made these exhibits? Now granted, these exhibits do not pose the same history/memory relevance as the Enola Gay, but still, they are a representation that a person put together. To quote Yakel- “Who has the authority to interpret history to the public- indeed who “owns” history?” I also liked her point that “artifacts do not speak for themselves.” I feel some artifacts can stand alone and have meaning to patrons, but only if they have prior background knowledge on the topics. Also she mentions that museums, like libraries, are not meant to represent inclusiveness. That is very important to remember when you are viewing an exhibition. One lasting thought – after reading this article, I have more appreciation for museums and their curators. I love museums—I mean, really love them. But never before did I actually stop and think about all of the work that goes into making meaningful exhibits for the public. Next time I am back in Milwaukee, I am going to stop in the museum and revisit the memories of my youth and work my way through the museum with a more appreciative and critical eye.
No comments:
Post a Comment