Paperless classes would improve my role when I teach information literacy classes to community college students. I would still have to create assignments and readings, but these would be online. In fact, for several years, preparation has all been online. Paperless classes would be more time efficient as comments can be easily added in Word. Currently the class assignments are paper, but I can see this changing quickly.

We use a class management system, so in essence, we are in the paperless classroom. Grading, presentations, and resources are just a part of the this system. The syllabus is online with the assignments, so students have access to this information 24/7 (as long as they can find a computer or a fairly new cell phone). Assignments are turned in electronically. The only problem is the dog can no longer eat your homework. Of course, the computer can crash, the class management system may hiccup, but all in all, it’s efficient.

Paperless classrooms enhance, from my experience, the instructor-student relationship. It’s more work for the instructor, but the student is better motivated from the steady communication. The student can post questions about assignments after office hours or write a question to the class. This means that instructors will need to rethink their office hours and will need to check the class discussion board instead of the regular office hours (which they will still have). Class discussion and questions may not end at the end of the regular face-to-face classroom period. So, yes, it’s a challenge because students will expect more. .

I think if the test had been presented differently, the assessment team would have found better results. I know many college age and graduate school students don’t read for pleasure. Their medium is television, text and online. They read all the time, but not what we consider formal reading. I remember when a teacher told me not to worry that my child wasn’t reading. She asked me: “does he read the sports column in the paper?” She also asked if he read magazines. Wasn’t she the wise one? Well, I think the same today. If a student is asked to participate in a survey, why not change the its venue.  Richardson states “[they] must learn to be critical consumers of … information.” He also states that “reading is a more active undertaking.” To me, the best way to find out their level is to change the playing field.

So, where does this leave me? I don’t teach on a regular basis and when I do, I involve students in activities where they must evaluate the validity of information on web sites. So as they read, they must be critical and be able to communicate their opinion.

My views haven’t changed much because I think technology is the expression of critical thinking. Social networking skills are the tools, but we have to use these tools (whether these are chisel and stone, blackboard and chalk, paper and pencil), to discuss, compare, create, read, and evaluate. This technology encourages participation. Participation is communication. So, is communication the throughway of technology?

Neat.

And then, just as we become comfortable, along comes a new idea that makes us stop and think “oh yes” I can see that. Have you all heard of Chris Anderson and his book, The Long Tail? Basically he’s examining the changes in marketing. Only a few years ago, marketing groups were concerned with reaching large numbers of people. Now, it’s the niche markets and the specialized groups who are important.  Clay Shirky is shaking matters up in the online world with his philosophy of online democracy. Shirky explains this in his book, Here Comes Everybody, a discussion of the Internet as a social revolution. Ok, you say, we all know this. And, we do; Shirky, however, extends this a bit further.

Let me summarize briefly Shirky’s vision of the Internet from his historical perspective (or you can click here  to hear Shirky’s lecture or here for Shirky on Colbert). First off, Shirkey’s theory: online communities have strength in numbers and online social networks affect culture.  How did Shirky get to this point? He says that previous communication revolutions, the telegraph, telephone, and television were one-way communication channels. The Internet, however, is a two way communication street. And, here’s his main point, group action just got easier. Prior to the development of the Read/Write Web, it would take a long time for groups to form connections. It was complicated and time-consuming. The “reply  all” response to email lessened this process  because it was efficient and timely.

Now it doesn’t take much effort to belong to a group because you have sharing, conversation, and collaboration—three of Shirky’s four major points about the social effect of the Internet on culture.

Do you remember when you first started using instant messaging (IM)? Wasn’t it great that you could carry on a conversation with friends all over the world at any time and it didn’t cost a huge amount of money, nor did this use up precious minutes of cell phone time.  Now we can skype, flickr, and twitter our way across the social landscape. We do this through URLs and tags—the common denominators of sharing. As Shirky puts it: “every URL is a community;” individuals share and through their sharing become a group. These individuals don’t get together; they first put the tags out there and then the group forms.

What does this have to do with anything? Well, Shirky’s 4^th point is collective action. People connect and form communities from tagging. Then they begin to communicate because they have similar interests. Shirky mentions one group that formed in Flickr because of a photographic method, high dynamic range photography. What would have taken years to revise and teach, took just a few months on Flickr. When the photo was posted, others saw this new method, tried working with it, and asked questions. They all helped each other. They formed a community.

Let’s say you hear a lecture. The lecturer states that she writes more about this on her blog. You go to the blog, read the post and the comments. You start commenting and add a link to your blog. All of a sudden, you’ve become part of a community. You’re reading, learning, and participating—in other words, communicating.

So let’s take this one step further. We all have moaned and groaned about IT departments, school boards, state funding, and so on. What would happen if our school board had a blog? Or if one of our favorite journalists posts comments about the state of education on his or her blog? We could write back. We could tag our comments so others would join the fray. We could start a grass roots organization to put these problems out there. We could all as a group demand better educational funding. We could do so many things with just a few tags. I believe that we have been learning not just about social networking, but also about social awareness. It’s obvious we all care about education and children and being life-long learners. Can we use these tools to develop awareness in our society about the lack of funding or about finding solutions to other educational, health, and/or political problems?  Will our groups of connected dots have the ability to affect the world? 

If you want to read more, click here for an interview and this link will take you to a column in Salon.

From a viewpoint of mentoring and librarianship, Skype would be an excellent tool. Class work and lectures do not prepare you for true reference face-to-face interviews. Being able to shadow a mentor, discuss the interview process, and ask questions will lead to better preparation and less “first day” jitters.  A student still needs a practicum, but it’s scary and stressful when you really don’t know what’s out there. So, this is a great opportunity in my field to help future librarians see and hear what we do, how we answer questions, and how we sometimes are just stumped.

As to confusing parts of the theory, yes I believe most of it is confusing. When I read the line about business scams, I thought this was just a bit over the top. What theorist doesn’t push their work? In George’s case, he has to explain because it’s so confusing. Yet, he replies to blog postings and isn’t charging a participatory fee.

I totally agree that one theory doesn’t explain everything. Each theory builds, a complex layering that leads to a new direction. Also, are all of these theories linear? If these learning theories try to explain a process, then why are the theorists so bogged down with linear thinking?

It’s just possible that we need to find a “hook” just by talking to a child and discovering his or her interests. If we initially teach to their interest, this may be our window of opportunity.

Thanks to Mindy for her comment that precipitated this post and my bringing this to the meeting tomorrow.