OLJ/ Evaluative Statement

Part A: Evaluative Statement:

Bobish (2010) states that in a recent survey ‘ 84% of teacher librarians used Web 2.0 tools to facilitate delivery of content  but only 38% of these same librarians were using the tools to actively illustrate information literacy concepts to their students’ (p. 54). This is significant. Information professionals not only have to use Web 2.0 tools to provide content but must exploit these tools to elucidate information literacy in context.

Dede (2009) identifies three main advantages for immersive learning in a 3D virtual world. It enables multiple perspectives and situated learning which enhances engagement and learning.  More importantly it  facilitates transfer of learning. Presently student must ‘far-transfer’ ie apply knowledge learned in a one situation to a new or different situation. However immersive interfaces facilitate near-transfer using authentic similulators. In times where librarians are finding it difficult to find the proof of transfer of information literacy skills, can SL offers respite?  In the blog post The Line Blurs, I explore the potential of Second Life (SL) as an educational tool. My previous perceptions of virtual worlds as outlined in OLJ is challenged. I experienced its potential as a P2P and remote learning environment. I was exposed to a new culture. It is not polite to ask an avatar where they are from. This is seen as an invasion of privacy, yet this would be a polite question of interest in the ‘real’ world.

SL also facilitates creativity and freedom of expression. The creation of an avatar allows the user to create an extension of their real persona or to create a completely different one. SL facilitates the teaching of  21st Century skills such as collaborative problem solving and creativity. SL users can build new environments and create artefacts. However, more empirical research  on learning benefits is required. Other  important considerations are an updated  Acceptable Use Policy and sufficient bandwidth.

Creating a stack on SL topic was a meaningful way for me to collect useful information to enhance my learning. I had hoped others would share other links on the group stack, but as of today, I have three followers, one comment and no contributed links! A tweet from some one influential is what is needed. You need to network with some one with a wide network to gain influence. Case in point was when Lyn Hay tweeted a Prezi by a student. Views went from 15 to 201 in a single day as documented in Sue Carr (2012).

Elliot (2012) in her presentation evaluated the effectiveness of  Delicious as a collaborative information gathering tool . As a manager, she was frustrated with tagging anomolies. User feedback was mixed. In my blog A Shift to Social, I examine the features and functionality of Delicious to meet the informational needs of primary school students. The new feature of stacks shifts the focus from a book marking tool to a curation tool. Curation tools are latest way people are sharing information.  Stacks offers opportunities for critical thinking and would be an ideal tool to teach information literacy in context.

The main barrier to my hesitancy in engaging in online social networking was lack of trust as highlighted  in OLJ. I explore this further in Identity Privacy, Security and Trust. I did not trust technology to keep my details safe. This fact remains the same but what is different now is that I am informed. Aswell as being tech savvy one needs to be security savvy about what details one shares online. This shift in responsibility to the user, allows me to participate more freely in online networks. There is a trade off but it needs to be calculated. I no longer join groups without reading privacy policies. I set high levels of privacy and security. I am armed (with awareness) not alarmed. I vet my content with a mother’s eye!

A new dilema is unfolding, organisations need to consider how to archive social media(SM).  A 2010 study  of American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers showed 81% of its members had seen an increase in cases that had relied on information taken from social networks (Madhava,2011). It is the responsibility of organisations to  preserve social media. The importance of information policies have never been so pertinent.

My journey as an informational professional has been profoundly changed. I have a better understanding of the participatory nature of Library 2.0. My experiences allow me to meet the information needs of clients in a innovative responsible way. I have embraced mobile technology and developed a valuable PLN to promote lifelong learning. I am now a true advocate of SN’s place in a 21st century curriculum.

References:

Bobish, G. (2010). Participation and pedagogy: Connecting the social web to ACRL learning outcomes. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(1), 54-63.

Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Education & Technology Science, 323(5910), 66-69.

Elliot, S. (2012) Delicious a tool for collaborative information gathering [Google docs]. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=0ASi8lFJWZAmxZGhwYnpwandfMjZkeDRrcXJkNg

Madhava,R. (2011). 10 things to know about preserving social media. Information Management, September/October  33-37.

Sue Carr (2012, February 2) 201 now![Facebook Update]. Retrived from http://www.facebook.com/groups/inf506.201190/351033478241573/#!/groups/inf506.201190/

Part B: Reflective Statement

My participation in INF506 201190 Social Networking for Information Professionals Facebook group is a testament to my development as a social networker. I had only used Facebook as a portal into friends accounts to view their photos at irregular intervals. I identified with Peckham’s (2009) barriers to social networking. I lacked confidence and thought others might not see the value of my comments . I was more concerned with social privacy than institutional privacy. However, after my studies I am more aware of both kinds and with my current knowledge I am better able to make responsible decisions to protect myself. I have made informed decisions. I have taken calculated risks.
I still continue to view blogs as published articles rather than diary musings. I am not a prolific blogger. I tended to record my thoughts offline and only posted when my understandings had developed sufficiently. I tried to be less critical of my writing and more informal on my Ning, in an effort to engage the participation of others. It was quite liberating and I enjoyed creating the content.
Brown (2011) predicts an increase in mobile apps for libraries. Having recently purchased an iPhone and iPad, this makes sense. Being able to access information easily and quickly on the go is imperative as smartphone users rise. As discussed in my A-Z of Social Networking for Libraries mobile technology is key and as a librarian I need to embrace this. Suddenly, with multiple devices cloud computing became an informational need. Having a purpose, I explored the functionality of Evernote and reaped the benefits.
With mobile technology at my fingers I began to build my professional learning network, using a variety of platforms. Marcia Conner (as cited in Allen and Naughton, 2011) states that ‘Twitter excels at widening your network’ (p. 53). I started to explore tweets like a Russian doll adventure. Then I began to retweet. After a few weeks I actively sought users with similar interests and exploited hashtags to find specific content. Currently I am tweeting 2-3 times a week. It was time-consuming to check individual Facebook, Twitter and Flickr accounts so Yoono helps me manage these in one central place. It is now quick and easy to keep up-to-date.
I have seen an improvement in my blogs. Referencing has increased as I began to utilise my social networking tools. I exploited the Stack function on Delicious. I used it to curate links for topics of interest. I searched Delicious for similar topic stacks. This selective filtering (Pettenati & Cigogning, 2007) reduced time spent trawling a sea of information. Using an RSS reader and widgets have also helped me filter information.
I now use SN tools differently. I look at features with a critical eye, analyse functionality with the purpose of satisfying educational and information needs. My teaching is transformed. Having experienced first hand the value in tags and the metacognition involved in creating stacks, I will use this in my role as an informational professional. There is power in crowdsourcing. I will create Delicious stacks to function as pathfinders. I will empower students to create their own groups stacks during research projects. Allowing students to analyse and create mash-ups will act as a catalyst for authentic just in time learning opportunities in information literacy. Issues such as intellectual freedom and plagiarism will be taught in context.
The use of twitter according to Junco, Heibergert & Loken (2010) increased students’ sense of connection with faculty, improved academic engagement and facilitated an omnipresent peer support group. Webster(2012) expresses a similar gratitude. She saw the course as a life changing experience and valued the connection with fellow students. I value the potential of SN tools for learning and will advocate for the use of such tools. I hope to lead change. I intend exploring the possibilities of 3D virtual worlds as learning environments. There is an urgent need to revisit policies, it is imperative that policies are current and all stakeholders participate in their evolution as stated in my blog Identity, Privacy, Security and Trust. I also appreciate the importance of not only listening to feedback but actively seeking it, as advocated by Agosto & Abbas (2011).

I have used Hayes(2008)simple phases for social media marketing as a reflective tool. I have been involved in Twitter, Facebook, Delicious, Flickr. I have created content in the form of blogging, screencasts and image sharing. I have had discussions with other users on Facebook and Second Life to increase my learning. I have promoted useful links through Delicious and Twitter. However, I have only promoted my own content creation on my Ning. I have not had the confidence to use Twitter or Delicious. So measuring my success, is limited regards marketing but infinite in my own personal development. As an information professional, I now concentrate on the relationships not the technologies as recommended in Li & Bernoff(2008).

References

Agosto, D. E. & Abbas, J. (2011). Teens, libraries and social networking: what librarians need to know. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Libraries Unlimited.

Allen, M. &  Naughton, J. (2011). Social learning: A call to action for learning professionals. T + D, 50-55.

Brown, A. (2011, December 29). Top 10 Social Media and Libraries Predictions for 2012 Social Networking Librarian [Web blog]. Retrieved from http://socialnetworkinglibrarian.com/2011/12/29/top-10-social-media-and-libraries-predictions-for-2012/

Carrie Webster.  (2012, January 31) Just wanted to say thank you.[Facebook Update]. Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/groups/inf506.201190/permalink/362152383796349/

Junco, R., Heibergert, G. & Loken, E. (2010).The effect of twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of computer Assisted Learning. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x

Hayes, G. (2008, October 26). The future of social media entertainment. [Slideshare]. Retrieved from http://www.personalizemedia.com/the-future-of-social-media-entertainment-slides/

Li, C. & Bernoff, J. (2008). Jujitsu and the technologies of the groundswell. In Groundswell: winning in a world transformed by social technologies (Chapter 2). Boston, Mass. : Harvard Business Press.

Pettenati, M. C., & Cigognini, M. E. (2007). Social networking theories and tools to support connectivist learning activities. International Journal of Web – Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 2(3), 42-50, 52-60. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/224638774?accountid=10344

Peckham, S. (2009). Networking: Overcoming your hesitation. FUMSI, November. Retrieved from http://web.fumsi.com/go/article/share/433

Uden, L., & Eardley, A. (2010). The Usability of Social Software. In T. Dumova, & R. Fiordo (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Social Interaction Technologies and Collaboration Software: Concepts and Trends (pp. 574-584). doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-368-5.ch050

Posted in INF 506 Social Networking for Information Professionals | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Line Blurs

Where does one’s online life end and one’s real life begin? Tufecki as cited in Ingram(2011) says ‘our online lives are becoming inextricably linked with our offline one.’ My Second Life (SL) experience was transformational. It exposed me to an environment that tested my skills of movement and navigation. It changed my perception of 3D worlds from a hangout for the socially challenged to a stimulating environment full of educational potential. It exposed me to concepts of new and novel ways to engage learners. Multi-tasking was taken to a new level. It was difficult to manipulate controls, converse and document evidence of learning by taking snapshots. However, it was a fun way to engage with fellow students. Insights were gained by how people designed their avatars and how they interacted with the environment.

3D Virtual worlds facilitate remote learning, immersive learning and P2P learning (KZero Worldwide, 2010). INF506 presentation of projects event is an example of remote and P2P learning. Students living in different time zones shared their project findings and learned from each other in the process.

Barid (2011) states that there are  over 300 virtual worlds for children. He also states that in the U.S., the virtual world and massively multiplayer online (MMO) space increased more than 50% in 2010 compared to that of 15% for 2009. However, even more interesting is the fact that educational destinations hold less than 6% space for all ages. The rise in virtual world users and the lack of space for educational destinations is significant. There is a lack of empirical data on the educational or cognitive effects of virtual worlds (Herold, 2010). This needs to increase for educators to be convinced of its benefits. Careful evaluation and a blended learning approach is advocated by Herold.

Brooks-Young (2010) advises teachers to check the school’s acceptable use policy and think carefully about the purpose when choosing the appropriate 3D environment. The available equipment needs to be powerful (suitable bandwidth)  and up-to-date. Most importantly  parents need to be informed of its educational value.  Time is  also required to learn basics. Girvan and Savage’s (2010) study using social constructivist pedagogies in SL shows evidence of learning. The  group task was to build a book to share learning on a specific topic. Subsequent groups built on this learning artefact. This is an excellent way to utilise SL in an educational context, using social learning theory.

The number of universities and schools with a SL presence is rising. Libraries can host information here too. It facilitate collaborative resource building by changing settings in designated areas. Building involves critical thinking, a key 21st century skill.

 The online and real life lines may blur as long as learning remains central.

Barid, D. (2011, July). 360blog Children’s Virtual Worlds Sliced and Diced [Web blog]. Retrieved from http://www.360kid.com/blog/2011/07/vws-sliced-and-diced/

Brooks‐Young, S. (2010). Teaching with the tools kids really use: Learning with Web and mobile technologies. Thousand Oaks, Calif. :Corwin.

Girvan, C. & Savage, T. (2010).Identifying an appropriate pedagogy for virtual worlds: A communal constructivism case study.Computers & Education, 55,  342-249

Herold, D. K. (2010). Mediating media studies – Stimulating critical awareness in a virtual environment. Computers & Education, 54,  791-798.

Ingram, M. (2011, September 11). Memo to Gladwell: Social media helps activism, and here’s how [Web blog]. Retrieved from http://gigaom.com/2011/09/01/memo-to-gladwell-social-media-helps-activism-and-heres-how/

KZero Worldwide. (2010). Kids, tweens and teens in virtual worlds [Slideshare]. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/nicmitham/kids-tweens-and-teens-in-virtual-worlds-2091502

Posted in INF 506 Social Networking for Information Professionals | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Shift to Social

My first experience of Delicious was in 2008, when my school used it to collect, organise and share relevant websites with students and staff. Teachers tagged, students clicked. However, after a year of using it, folksonomy had reared its ugly head. Mathes (as cited in Estellés et al., 2010) explains that the lack of consistency and agreement on how to define tags gives rise to ambiguities. The most common offending anomalies were the use of both singular and plural words, inconsistent use of capital letters and phrases fragmented into random words due to the use of the space bar. The site became redundant as it was difficult to access links quickly and easily.

There is a shift to social in the recently relaunched Delicious. Szewczyk (2011) hits the mark when he states that ‘the new Delicious is less an aggregated bookmark collection and more a both curated and editorial publication’. It is the new feature of stacks that redefines Delicious as a curation tool. Delicious expound its 4Cs possibilities in its post ‘Stacks go social’. It not only has the potential to build a community of followers but also allows them to have a voice through Stack Responses.

Pluss (2008) suggests that teachers organise students into groups to collect bookmarks on themes of work they undertake during the year. Estellés et al. (2010) recognises that a social bookmarking tool is useful for ‘collaborative work because links are shared and metadata are cooperatively built.’ My school did not allow students contribute.  The metadata (tagging, comments, annotations) plus features such as group stacks and stack responses  may be exploited as Lin and Tsai (2011) suggest and become ‘scaffolding tools for managing and evaluating online resources to offer students opportunities for critical judgement and reflective thinking in the process of searching the Internet’.  These higher order thinking and problem solving skills are key information literacy skills. Like most Web 2.0 tools issues such as copyright laws and intellectual property are faced, thus affording the opportunity to teach in context about fair use and plagiarism.

Students can access delicious at d.me and email links on the go using mobile devices. With the purchase of Trunk.ly simultaneous bookmarking across platforms will hopefully be added. Academic libraries by curating resources may ‘expand their sphere of influence while delivering instruction and various services in a culturally-current context’(Redden, 2010).

Delicious’ shift to social enables users to network in a more meaningful way. Diigo has more collaborative features but Delicious is certainly on the right track and is actively listening to its users.

Delicious. (2012, January 20). Stacks go social [Web blog]. Retrieved from http://blog.delicious.com/2012/01/stacks-go-social/

Estellés, E., del Moral, E. & González, F. (2010). Social bookmarking tools as facilitators of learning and research collaborative processes: The diigo case. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects. 6, 175 – 191.

Lin, C.C. & Tsai, C. C. (2011). Applying social bookmarking to collective information searching (CIS); An analysis of behavioural pattern and peer interaction for co-exploring quality online resources. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1249 – 1257.

Pluss, M. (2008). Through the maze: Social bookmarking for a real network. Professional Educator, 7(1), 14-16.

Redden, C. S. (2010). Social bookmarking in academic libraries: Trends and applications. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(3), 219-227.

Szewczyk, T. (2011, October 3). How to use the new delicious for link sharing [Web blog]. Retrieved from http://www.seoptimise.com/blog/2011/10/how-to-use-the-new-delicious-for-link-sharing.html

Posted in INF 506 Social Networking for Information Professionals | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Social Media

Social media breathes new life into information, in how it is created, shared and regenerated. Web 2.0 is the participatory web. It has changed how information is delivered and received. It is no longer a few creating and publishing for the masses. The consumers have now become the prosumers. It is a smorgasboard of information formats. Pick and choose how you would like to digest it. Social media has played a central role in popularising mashups (Lasica, 2009).

Mashups recombine and modify existing digital works to create a derivative work.  According to Paul D Miller (as cited in Lasica) this challenges the notion of the finished object and leads to the idea of a culture of copies – a copy that generates another. This remixing and sampling creates copyright and intellectual property tensions. Schools need to teach students how to become ethical digital citizens. Creative Commons Licencing has emerged. Even so, copyright laws are outdated and out of sync with what is happening on the web (Miller, 2009). These laws need to shadow the culture.

Social media facilitates conversation and group creation (Shirky, 2009). It allows a for ‘collective distributive intelligence’ (Surowiecki, 2008). It is multi-dimensional in its perspective. Natural disasters and political revolutions are being reported in ‘real time’. This allows a complete and powerful picture of what is happening in a way we never had access to before (Surowiecki, 2008). With so much information, it is difficult to decide what is important. Hersmen (2009) introduces the idea of creating a crowd sourcing filter.

Social media gives the people a voice. It is difficult to censor. Shirky (2009) explains how China had been a successful manager of censorship. However, when an earthquake struck in 2008, the Chinese people began to tweet from inside the country to the outside world. The BBC broadcasted the event using a tweet as their source. Due to the volume and other factors, it was impossible to filter! The audience can now respond and talk back. According to Tufecki (as cited in Ingram, 2011) social media facilitates social activisim. It allows people to connect and share views in order to produce ‘collective action’. Arab Spring being a case in point. ‘The media landscape is social, global, ubiquitous and cheap’ Shirky(2009).  This changes the playing field and we are all responsible for learning the new rules.

Hersmen, E. (2009, April). Erik Hersman reporting crisis via texting. [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/erik_hersman_on_reporting_crisis_via_texting.html

Ingram, M. (2011, September 11). Memo to Gladwell: Social media helps activism, and here’s how. [Web blog]. Retrieved from http://gigaom.com/2011/09/01/memo-to-gladwell-social-media-helps-activism-and-heres-how/

Lasica, J.D. (2009, March 13) Mashup culture and social media. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.socialmedia.biz/2009/03/13/mashup-culture-and-social-media/

Surowiecki, J. (2008, November). When social media became news. [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/james_surowiecki_on_the_turning_point_for_social_media.html

Shirky, C. (2009, June). How social media can make history. [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html

Posted in INF 506 Social Networking for Information Professionals | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

To Infinity and Beyond!

Libraries ‘are about something deeper, about information, about access to knowledge, about providing a public space where citizens can interact with each other, all within the context of an exchange of knowledge. Libraries are at the core of our understanding of civilization, and if we are to keep them healthy, we’ll have to make sure that they continue to answer deep needs in our society, rather than provide particular services because they’ve always done so.’ McGuire (2011)
I love this view of what a library is. Social networking existed long before Twitter and stories were shared long before the invention of the printing press. There is something very human in the exchange of ideas and information. The information landscape maybe changing but the core values have remained the same. The debate over the book vs. the e-book is an excellent case in point. Rebuck (2012) says we should ‘be agnostic on the platform, but evangelical about the content’. The most important factor is not whether you read an e-book or a good old fashioned paperback, it is reading. Research shows that if we stop reading we are less intricate, less interesting and less empathetic (Rebuck, 2012). We don’t want this to happen, do we?
Libraries need to serve the present information needs, using the tools of the present. Librarians need to embrace this change. As I ‘remix’ (in true Library 2.0 culture) John F K’s famous quote ‘Ask not what technology can do for you but what you can do for technology’, the challenge is not to retro fit. The impetus to disseminate information must drive the technology, not vice versa. As a service provider, libraries must innovate and facilitate the distribution of knowledge. Are you ready to lead? Are you ready to boldly go where no one has gone before?
Brown(2011) puts mobile library websites and apps as her number one social media and library prediction for 2012. The 21-40 year olds according to Rebecca T. Miller, “are voracious about how they use library services, and they are early adopters of technology. Getting to know them provides insights into future demands, and responding to their needs, with an eye on the next generation, will help foster a deeper connection to what the library delivers.” (PRWEB, 2012). Mobile technology is fast information on the go! With smartphones on the rise, libraries need to have mobile apps.
Brown, A. (2011, December 29). Top 10 social media and library predictions 2012 [Blog post]. Retrieved from: http://socialnetworkinglibrarian.com/

McGuire, H. (2011). What are libraries for? [Weblog] In the Library with the Leadpipe. Retrieved from: http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2011/what-are-libraries-for/

Rebuck, G. (2012, January 2). Don’t let technology stultify your brain – download a book. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dont-let-technology-stultify-your-brain–download-a-book-20120101-1ph65.html

Posted in INF 506 Social Networking for Information Professionals | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Identity, Privacy, Security and Trust

Your online self is effectively ubiquitous (Pearson, 2009). For both the individual and organisation the message is clear, be informed. Forty two percent of surveyed respondents always or often use the same password when registering at a website (De Rosa, Cantrell, Havens, Hawk, and Jenkins, 2007). Falls (2010)advises separating your social networking logins, passwords and perhaps even emails from your financial information credentials.

The online presence of organisations, including schools has increased dramatically. Facebook and Twitter accounts are a must. However, with an online identity comes responsibilities. Claire Robinson (as cited in Harris, 2010) advises schools ‘to have a very clear and robust acceptable use policy which is a living breathing document’. Vague policies are unacceptable. It is the process of its creation and evolution that is most powerful. All stakeholders must be consulted as it is imperative that they understand and implement it. Harris (2010) advocates the creation of an organisation Facebook account, so students/clients can become fans, to avoid teachers friending students and falling prey to inappropriate communication. A poll conducted by Sarah Elliot on January 24, 2012 on INF506 Facebook Group page shows agreement, with 21 out of 24 participants voting against teachers friending students.

Individuals and organisations need to keep up-to-date with privacy policies. Google says its new privacy policy will facilitate ‘a simpler, more intuitive experience’ but in essence it’s integrating data across its platforms to learn more about you (Tsukayama, 2012). One needs to read the privacy policy of a website and critically evaluate it before engaging in its use. There is a high social cost to non participation in social networking. According to AASL standards of the 21st century learner, libraries and librarians need to be active members of social networks. Privacy trade-offs need to be made. However one must know the cost of an informational transaction (Pearson). As privacy pragmatists (Raynes-Goldie) one must make responsible decisions and following AUPs. ‘Be aware of what you’re doing online. Don’t click on links or images from people you don’t know, not just in your email, but also in messages on your social networks like Facebook and Twitter’ (Falls, 2010).

One needs to set high privacies and security settings in social media sites.It is important to explore what privacy means among different user groups (Raynes-Goldie,2010). Anonymity and privacy are often confused, the former is not a core attribute of the web (Pearson, 2009). Never write anything you wouldn’t want your grandmother (Pearson, 2009) or mother (Schriro, 2011) to read is a good rule of thumb. Nothing online is truly private.
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] Available http://www.oclc.org/reports/pdfs/sharing_part3.pdf
Falls, J. (2010, May 7). What you need to know about privacy, security and safety on the social web [Blog post]. Retrieved from: http://www.socialmediaexplorer.com/social-media-tv-show/social-media-privacy-and-safety/
Harris, C. (2010). Friend me?: School policy may address friending students online, School Library Journal, 1 April. Available http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6724235.html
Pearson, J. (2009). Life as a dog: Personal identity and the internet. Meanjin, 68(2), 67-77. Retrieved from: http://search.informit.com.au/fullText;dn=200906244;res=APAFT
Raynes-Goldie, K. (2010). Aliases, creeping, and wall cleaning:Understanding privacy in the age of Facebook, First Monday, 15(1), 4 January. Available http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2775/2432
Schriro. (2011, April 3).Your mother is watching; develop your social media accordingly [Blog Post]. Tehillim and the Nogah. Retrieved from: http://schriroist511.blogspot.com/2011/04/youre-mother-is-watching-develop-your.html
Tsukayama, H. (2012, January 25). FAQ: Google’s new privacy policy. The Washington Post. Retrieved January 30, 2012 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/faq-googles-new-privacy-policy/2012/01/24/gIQArw8GOQ_story.html

Posted in INF 506 Social Networking for Information Professionals | Tagged | Leave a comment

The 4 Cs – Collaboration, Conversation, Community and Content Creation

Arizona State University (ASU) libraries employs a webpage aptly named librarychannel to communicate with its patrons. A synonym for ‘channel’ (noun) is network and as a verb, it is guide. This sums up the purpose of the website, to network with its patrons and guide them in their information needs by keeping them up to date with news, events and announcements.
The literature says to use as many platforms as possible to reach its clients. The Librarychannel has links to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Vimeo, Flickr and iTunesU. Each of these platforms are up to date and have engaging, valuable, relevant information on up coming events and services. It certainly is reaching out to its patrons, and engaging the community, using the networking tools favoured by clients. However, under closer examination, the actual interaction, two way conversation is minimal. It provides several ways for patrons to provide feedback as expounded in the Library Minute ‘The Social Connection’. However, comments on Facebook posts are less than 40%, with most feedback in the form of Likes or short complimentary comments. Statistics show that students do not like to friend Facebook, with 276 fans, this seems a low number for the huge population it serves. For all SN sites and SM tools, ASU does not provide a link back to the librarychannel webpage. This is recommended. Also the link to open the comment box in the main feed is placed at the top of posts and is very small. These might be influencing factors, as it may viewed as not having much importance. It is difficult to gauge conversation, as this may be in the form of face to face feedback. Having a mobile librarychannel app reflects students’ love of all things mobile and is probably a response to demand.
The webpage uses tagging to display its topics, with the print increasing in size due to the number of links associated with it. This social tagging system allows for folksonomy culture among the library staff but does not offer much to the clients other than it is a quick and easy way to navigate topics.
Anali Perry’s content creation in the form of The Library Minute videos are engaging. She uses a mix of graphics, music, text and humour to inform and entertain the viewer. It’s popularity can be gauged by the amount of hits, some videos numbering more than 40,000. This shows it has a community of followers. However, the amount of comments left are minimal, with usually no more than 6 Likes and 2 comments. Now that YouTube has the capability to respond using a video response, more students might like to respond with what the event/news item means to them. With most students having Smart phones, students can easily contribute to the site content creation. It would also create a sense of collaboration, evidence of which is minimal.
ASU library channel converses with it community with unique content creation. Now it’s time to allow the student community to collaborate with them and make it a joint relevant venture to express relevant news and events.

Posted in INF 506 Social Networking for Information Professionals | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment