Assignment 3: OLJ/ Evaluative Report
a) An evaluative statement using 3 experiences documented in your OLJ as evidence of meeting the learning objectives of the subject.
The three blogs selected explains my understanding of Social Networking (SN) technologies, Library 2.0 and features and functions of SN tools as a way to meet the information needs of users.
SN involves the sharing of ideas, opinions and information with peers, colleagues, communities and organisations through a digital medium or platform (OCLC, 2007, p. 2-1)
These digital technologies are referred to as Web 2.0 tools. Cavazza (2011) social media landscape 2011 diagram best encapsulates the many different platforms that form a SN environment.
In the digital world, social media and Social Networking Sites (SNS) are defined by their functionality. For example, social media (e.g. YouTube) is for sharing content and ideas, rather than facilitate collaboration, SNS (e.g. Facebook) are designed for facilitating relationships, conversations and collaboration ( Hay, Wallis, O’Connell & Crease, 2013, definitions).
Through immersion into the virtual world of Second Life (SL), I gained a deeper understanding and appreciation of virtual environments. The Second Life blog on April 13 describes my exploration and evaluation of this Web 2.0 tool for educational purposes. SL is a MUVE (multiuser virtual environment) which is renowned for its high user engagement; it is not a game as indicated in the blog. Users create a virtual representation of self through avatars.
This SN technology allows users to connect with other users globally. SL has its benefits and downfalls, which is addressed in the Second Life blog.
SL has been used for demonstrations, research, experiments and for constructive purposes in universities and research organisations. Exploration of the Charles Sturt University (CSU) learning centre has provided an insight into the areas where SL has been successful and broadened my skills and knowledge of platforms formulated from this SN technology.
There are many definitions of Library 2.0. The blog on the 4Cs of social media illustrates my understanding of the participatory aspect of a Library 2.0. Through the use of ASU libraries one minute videos “The Library Minute” (ASU, 2011, April 15), I demonstrate my views on the 4 Cs of social media which are “collaboration, conversation, community and content creation” (Hay et al., 2013, module 3).
This learning objective highlights my understanding of theory and practice of Library 2.0.
ASU libraries utilises several social media technologies to connect with their users. “The Library Minute” promotes and educates the community about the library services. ASU libraries subscribe to SNS and social media such as twitter, Facebook, blogs to collaborate, connect and initiate conversation. Casey and Savastinuk (2006, para. 11) state “the library 2.0 model seeks to harness our customers’ knowledge to… improve library services”. These ASU videos provided a preview of what libraries and librarians can achieve using social media.
If libraries are implementing these Web 2.0 tools, what determines their success? The learning objective illustrated in the blog Reasons why libraries should be on social media examines the features and functionality of the SN tools to satisfy user needs. The blog shows a comparative table of three different libraries (local, university, national) and the social media or SNS that are utilised within each library to satisfy their patrons’ needs.
A marked difference in the type of technology utilised, is illustrated in the table between the local library and the university library to cater to its community.
Li and Bernoff (2008, p. 18) state it is about the people relationship with the technology that determines its success. In the video Building Academic Library 2.0 (University of Berkeley, 2007, November 2) Farkas posits an important element of Library 2.0 is “knowing your users”. It is about Feedback (Burkhardt, 2009) and “trusting them….giving the community a role” (Farkas, 2008, January 24) in defining the library.
The blog Reasons why libraries should be on social media recognises that libraries need to compete with other organisations, and describes ways librarians can incorporate a Library 2.0 incentive to remain active on these social media sites.
Brookover (2007, para. 3) suggests collaborating and “improving communication flow” with internal and external staff through blogs and twitter. Wee (2010) suggests from a marketing perspective, the importance of using specific social media to enhance the ranking of the library’s site on a search engine, known as search engine optimization (SEO).
As a future information professional, we need to be aware of the issues associated with privacy, identities and information policies regarding our data. “…the ubiquity of the internet, and the ease with which data can be collected, posted, altered” (Hodson, para. 19) can be problematic in a socially networked world.
In each of the three blogs, problematic issues with the SNS and Library 2.0 are identified. The advent of Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 describes the roles of the librarian as an information professional (Hay et al., 2013, subject outline).The three experiences highlights aspects of SN that teacher librarians needs to consider in a social networked environment.
b) Reflective statement.
Reflecting back to the OLJ creation & First entry blog on March 10, my definition of social networking (SN) has evolved. My original thought on SN mirrored the OCLC report (2007, p. 2-1) which defined SN as “the sharing of ideas, opinions and information” through the use of a digital tool, however INF506 subject has introduced me to new aspects of SN applications and issues associated with them.
I expressed in my first blog on March 10 that I had started using Web 2.0 tools such as Delicious, Edublogs and Facebook as a result of undertaking the Teacher Librarianship (TL) course, however I explained that I did not continue accessing some of these Social Networking Sites (SNS). Throughout this course I frequently utilised Facebook, Edublogs and Second Life (SL).
Prior to studying INF506, I placed all SN technology into one category, without distinguishing between the types of SN technology. The OCLC report (2007, glossary) clearly differentiates these technology into Social Media and SNS. This differentiation deepened my knowledge on the type of applications to use for enhancing classroom participation or content creation.
Prior to undertaking INF506, I was not familiar with gaming and virtual worlds and did not recognise their benefits for libraries and education, rather as a distraction.
Immersion in the SL tutorial with the Charles Sturt University (CSU) group was engaging and provided a different perspective of virtual worlds. The opportunity to explore features and functions of SL raised my awareness of issues arising from implementing SL in schools. Being a novice in this virtual environment, I recognised constraints that a teacher may face when using a Web 2.0 tool in the classroom.
Establishing personal development sessions for teachers and making necessary modifications to its software and content would need to be considered when implementing SN technology. However, the collaboration of classroom teacher and TLs has alleviated some of my concerns of introducing Web 2.0 into classrooms.
When gathering evidence for the SN report, two key factors resonated in understanding why the SNS was unsuccessful. Did the students need the SNS and did they understand the significance of using the SNS. As a result, I learnt prior to implementing any Web 2.0 technologies, it is important to determine: what the community needs, explore and learn the functions and features of the site and establish a Personal Learning Network (PLN) (Trust, 2012, p.134) for online support and assistance in providing learning programs.
In a school environment, there are factors that limit the implementation of a SNS. The school’s policy is to maintain privacy, security and protection of staff, students and teachers. In the socially networked world, schools need to update their policies which require time, and programs that incorporate security measures.
As stated in my first entry on March 10, I had hoped to gain a better understanding of the privacy and ethical issues associated with SN. The article by Mallan and Giardina (2009, para. 2) has alerted me to the impact that our “online identities has in representing our real identities, what we say, our profile images, the friends we have is “permanent and public” (Raynes-Goldie, 2010, para. 1). How do organisations compete with other organisations without damaging their own reputation?
In a library situation, Hodson (2006, August 7) article on archives on the web further delves into the types of materials that can be accessible to the public. How do we as information professionals create the policies to protect these materials and the content within these collections? Hodson (2006, para. 34) cautions that institutions needs to have information policies in place (Hodson, 2006, para. 34) to protect the privacy and security of the organisation and its users.
Through exploration of the different SN environments, I developed a broad understanding of the many roles of future information professionals. Technology is constantly changing, the web has changed rapidly as clearly shown in the ‘Social Media Revolution video 2012’ (accessed in Hay et al., 2013, Module 1).
To remain active and recognised in the digital world, TLs need to encompass a Library 2.0 incentive. In establishing Library 2.0, librarians need to collaborate, communicate, create and connect through a social media or SNS. As a TL we also need to be aware of ethical issues and privacy issues when considering the materials and collections we distribute online.
The INF506 course has provided many opportunities to interact in a Social Networked environment. I enjoyed exploring the CSU learning centre with the CSU group and collaborating in our Facebook group with the other students.
Brookover, S. (2007) WHY WE BLOG. Library Journal. 132(19), 28-31. Available CSU Academic Search Complete
Burkhardt, A (2009, August 25) Four reasons libraries should be on social media [web log post]. Retrieved from http://andyburkhardt.com/2009/08/25/four-reasons-libraries-should-be-on-social-media/
Casey, M. & Savastinuk, L. (2006). Library 2.0: Service for the next-generation library, Library Journal, 1 September. Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html
De Rosa, C., Cantrell, J., Havens, A., Hawk, J. & Jenkins, L. (2007). Section 3: Privacy, Security and Trust. In Sharing privacy and trust in our networked world: A report to the OCLC membership. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC. [ebook] Availablehttp://www.oclc.org/reports/pdfs/sharing_part3.pdf
Farkas, M (2008, January 24) The essence of library 2.0, Information wants to be free [web log post]. Retrieved from http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/2008/01/24/the-essence-of-library-20/
Hay, L., Wallis, J., O’Connell, J., Crease, R. (2013) Social Networking for Information Professionals [INF506]. Retrieved from Charles Sturt University website: http: http://interact.csu.edu.au/portal/site/INF506_201330_W_D
Helmer, J., & Learning Light (2007). Second Life and virtual worlds Available from http://www.norfolkelearningforum.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/virtual-worlds_ll_oct_2007.pdf
Hodson, S.S. (2006). Archives on the Web: Unlocking collections while safeguarding privacy, First Monday, 11(8), August. Availablehttp://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_8/hodson/index.html
Li, C. & Bernoff, J. (2008). Jujitsu and the technologies of the groundswell. In Groundswell: winning in a world transformed by social technologies (pp. 17-37). Retrieved April 24, 2013 from CSU ereserve http://www.csu.edu.au/division/library/ereserve/pdf/li-c.pdf
Mallan, K. & Giardina, N. (2009). Wikidentities: Young people collaborating on virtual identities in social network sites, First Monday, 14(6), 1 June. Available
Raynes-Goldie, K. (2010). Aliases, creeping, and wall cleaning: Understanding privacy in the age of Facebook, First Monday, 15(1), 4 January. Availablehttp://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2775/2432
Trust, T. (2012). Professional Learning Networks Designed for Teacher Learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(4), 133-138. Available Mar 28, 2013 from Education Research Complete, on http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ972454
Wee, W. (2010, March 15) INFOGRAPHIC: Guide to the social media marketing landscape. Retrieved from http://www.techinasia.com/infographic-guide-to-the-social-media-marketing-landscape/