Week One

The assignment for this initial post was to read/watch and consider:

• Chapters 1 & 2 of How People Learn
• ALA's Core Competences
• Josh Hanagarne's closing keynote speech from Internet Librarian 2013

That's a lot to consider (and the material feels somewhat disjointed), so I'll just go in order.

Of the two chapters of How People Learn, I have the most to say about the first. Like a lot of prescriptive writing about education, this chapter seemed to hold up the current common teaching model as flawed and in need of revision. I won't argue with that. My own experience fits well within the "Teacher A" mode of education - concern with the end product and making sure that students have the opportunity to learn, while punishing them if they do not take that opportunity. A few particular teachers went out of their way to engage students and create an environment that encouraged learning in a positive way, but they were exceptions. They were also often teachers in "gifted" or Advanced Placement classes. Doesn't this seem backward? It has been my experience that students in classes where teachers provide sufficient motivation and means for learning have already proven themselves capable of learning under more difficult circumstances, while the students who need the most help and attention from teachers often receive the least because they cannot advance past general or even remedial classes.

The problem becomes more pronounced as students grow older. I personally had the privilege of earning my bachelor's degree at a school where I was never in a class of more than thirty people, and almost every class was discussion-based. But having attended a semester of lectures here at the University of Michigan, I wonder how freshmen undergraduates manage to learn anything at all. The idea seems to be that as a student grows, she can be more responsible for her own learning. But what if she is learning something completely new, as we are all supposed to do in college? Does the learner of a new subject require the same kind of teaching as a young grade school student, for whom everything is new? Or is it the case that she has developed sufficient metacognitive abilities to be in control of her own learning by the time she reaches college? 

Of course, there are plenty of reasons why, while everyone understands that American education needs to change, few changes are apparently being made. Class size is a big one. Thirty students might not be a lot for a college class, but it is a lot for a grade school teacher to handle, and it's a common class size. With that many students, it may not be possible for teachers to give individual students the kind of attention recommended by the text. The imposition of standardized tests is another factor. The book acknowledges that the focus of these tests must change from breadth-based to depth-based, but until that happens, teachers are forced to keep teaching breadth over depth. It's also worth noting that while educational advancement (placement in advanced classes, college admission, etc) depend on grades, students will not be willing to risk lowering their grade point average by taking risks, even if it means that they will learn more. I would be interested in hearing about a school that successfully uses a "Teacher C" approach.

I found the ALA Core Competences and the Josh Hanagarne keynote to be interesting when considered together. Hanagarne is a clearly inspiring person, and he seems to be the model of what a librarian should be: determined, kind, intelligent, and passionate about libraries. He also, like many librarians and information professionals who fit that description, is completely dismissive of library school, saying that the best part of his experience there was a hamburger. Though I don't know anything about the quality of his day-to-day work at his own library, I doubt that he fails to meet the ALA Competences that are supposed to be the result of attending an ALA-accredited program. Does that mean that he and other librarians like him underestimate the importance of their education, or does it mean that formal education is not the only (or even best) way of becoming competent in librarianship? 

Before watching the speech, I thought about what makes someone a librarian and came up with this: "A librarian is someone educated in order to provide the best information service to her community within a library setting." I still think that is the case, but I wonder if it is necessarily so.