WILU 2010: Lighting Strikes, Birds of a Feather and more (Day Two)

Conferences are interesting events where the learning, socializing and networking combine to produce a more productive and inspired Bruce. The traditional “sage on the stage” giving a presentation is still a very popular model and one that succeeds in many cases. That said, I like when conferences experiment with different models and that’s what I received today. The day began with “lighting strikes” sessions where presenters have to convey a concept or practice in seven minutes. Michelle Baratta and Sarah Forbes  from the University of Toronto presented on their efforts to use games, both video and real life, to engage students and build engagement.The creativity and energy of these presenters (and others I haven’t mentioned) was a great way to start the second day of the conference.

The “birds of a feather” session (see the official WILU notes on the session) was a free form ‘unconference’ style session. Participants looked at a list of tables dedicated to different topics, sat down and started talking. My table explored the challenge of student motivation. To my delight, another librarian raised Dan Pink’s work on motivation who has argued that the drive for mastery, autonomy and purpose. Others discussed exercises they have devised for students that challenges them to think critically about what they read. I was intrigued by the idea of setting high expectations – university is a demanding intellectual environment – and community. By interacting with their sources deeply, students can join the community of scholars. Intrinsic motivation is the best kind and librarians ought to seek out ways to engage it but there was a consensus that some students appear to be motivated solely by carrots and sticks. I’m not sure that a love of learning can be instilled in every case but it is well worth trying.

In the afternoon, I attended two sessions that sought to explore and understand students more deeply. From Utah State University, Wendy Holliday presented on, “From Active Learning to Activity: Getting Beyond Busy Work and into Deep Learning.” This ethnographic research followed a first year composition class, observing how students and instructors interacted. Reading actual transcripts of instructor-student interaction was enlightening on several levels as it revealed how both parties think about assignments and learning. Many students appear to desire (or indeed, operate from) a check list approach for research that short circuits learning and research. As Holliday argues, “information literacy is a reading problem,” – without deep and sustained reading, students will rarely progress beyond busy work.

The day’s presentations culminated with a deeply challenging but vital issue facing academic librarians; how can we support at risk students? Presented by Janet Goosney from Memorial University, I learned how librarians worked with struggling students, writing centre staff and instructors to support students. One of the reasons given for the success of the program was the history of close collaboration between Memorial’s librarians and writing centre staff – that strikes me as a natural partnership once I think about it but it isn’t an idea I had encountered before. The kind of support provided in thte at risk student program (if failing students take it and pass, they can stay on, otherwise they have to leave the university for a time) is a model of academic collaboration. Some of the methods – such as self-reflective student journalling on education – strike me as an effective approach to stimulate student interest. Arguably, many students would benefit from doing that and it is unfortuante that this practice is not more wide spread.

WILU 2010: Design, Play & Learn! (Day 1)

The WILU 2010 conference began today in Hamilton at McMaster University and it looks like it will be a great event. The opening keynote address was given by Dr James Paul Gee, an American academic who has recently published some very interesting work on the relationship between education and video games. Increasing academic interest in gaming is a fascinating trend that I want to understand better. Gee made the argument that players of highly interactive and flexible games (e.g. World of Warcraft and The Sims) master complex rules, language and narratives to successfully play games. They also construct theories about the game’s operation, build software and teach themselves new skills in cooperation with other gamers.  There was a lot to digest in this address and there is a challenge to discern how to apply these ideas to education and libraries.  One appealing idea is to find ways to increase the speed, quality and frequency of feedback in education. Make a mistake in a game and your character perishes; make a mistake in class and it might be weeks before  you fail a test and realize you have to go back and relearn it.

As with other conferences I have attended, deciding which sessions to attend is always a challenge. In the afternoon, I attended two sessions: “Student-focused learning curriculm planning: starting from the ground up” and “Good, better, best! – in peer learning” both given by librarians from Edmonton, Alberta. The student focused learning session, based on research conducted by Professors Heidi Julien and Lisa Given explored how K-12 education prepares students in research and information literacy skills in Alberta. The preliminary results from this multi year study – which tracks students from the senior year of high school to about half way through undergraduate study – are not encouraging. The median score of high school students on the James Madison University Information Literacy Test was 51% or less than proficient. The researchers identified several possible explanations for this weak student performance including the fact that information literacy skills are not formally tested in the province’s education exams. It looks like there is a significant if not institutionalized disconnect between secondary and post-secondary educational priorities.

The last session of the day concerned an interesting internal training program in place at Grant MacEwan University. As Karen Hering described it, the non-evaluative peer learning program involved librarians observing their peers teach and learning new approaches that they could apply on their own. Designed in cooperation with the Faculty Development Office and library leadership, the program has been a success in encouraging better information literacy teaching and bringing together the institution’s librarians who are spread out over several campuses. One of the critical rules that made the program successful was the participation rule: every participant must observe and be observed. This reminds me of Dr Gee’s opening address where he remarked that gamers tend to insist that all players contribute actively; sitting out and underperforming is noticed.