What was the most interesting thing you learned from a class colleague this semester? How did it change your perspective?
I’m not sure I can pinpoint one particular thing, but what came to mind immediately in answer to this question was that I feel like my eyes were opened to the perspective of widely diverse viewpoints, especially those of economically disadvantaged communities. (I love that this is actually not related to innovation and participatory learning at all!) I come from a very comfortable economic background, and the school where I work is a very expensive private school. There are some issues that I simply have never dealt with. Without the insight of our classmates, I wouldn’t be thinking about these perspectives and how libraries can best serve these communities. Reading about our classmates’ families, backgrounds, and work situations really taught me about how varying communities and patrons can be, and how our work in libraries, including our innovative programming, can target specific needs.
Was the content of this course what you were expecting it to be? What would you like to have spent more time learning? Less time focusing on?
This course was so much more than I was expecting! I was expecting it to focus on maker spaces and that type of related programming, but I think that was only a tiny fraction of what I learned. I learned so much in every single unit—about how young people think and learn, about how we can learn to be creative, how to engage people with good programs, and so much more. I think I would have liked to have learned even more about pedagogy and learning styles—the parts we touched on really interested me, and one classmate’s comment about there being much more to it makes me wonder how what we learned fits in with what is generally implemented. If I had to choose something to spend less time on, it might be the innovation style book and corporate innovation. I think that some of that can certainly translate to libraries, but not that much. It’s more the spirit of the personalities and the idea that you need lots of different types of innovative styles on an effective team. What I really would have liked is if the information in the book were condensed to the length of a long magazine article. It think the innovation styles were really interesting, but the book was full of self-congratulatory examples that weren’t that relevant to me.
What was your favorite project or reading you worked on this semester? If you had to eliminate a project or reading, what would it be?
I can’t decide! I’m going to pick two: The New Culture of Learning and The Participatory Museum were my two favorite readings. Both of them were fascinating, eye-opening, and inspiring to me. My least favorite reading was Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out. I thought these three concepts were interesting, but the text was dry. Again, everything I took away from that book could have been condensed into a magazine article. And actually, Invent to Learn cited it and covered most of the important points pretty well. My least favorite project was the innovation style paper. I don’t feel like it was a very strong learning opportunity. It was very narrow.
Overall, this was my favorite class I’ve taken so far. I have learned so much about things innovative and not, and it has made me see librarianship in totally new ways. I have been so inspired by everything we’ve done in this class. Thanks to everyone for a great semester!
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Monday, November 16, 2015
DIY Jewelry Holder
I especially like to make things that have a practical application, so I decided to make myself a hanging jewelry holder. For years, most of my earrings have been stored in a plastic grocery bag that I had stuffed them into when we last moved. Because I don’t have a good place to put them, they have languished in that bag unused. I don’t want a traditional jewelry box because I hate it when the earrings get all tangled up, and I don’t think it’s very easy to see what’s available or find something you’re looking for. I have been wanting some sort of display method where you can see everything and have everything easily accessible.
After spending way too much time online looking for earring holders, I decided that the picture frame idea was exactly what I wanted. I found some examples that looked easy enough to make on my own. I took ideas from different things I found so that I could have all the feature that I really wanted without any that I didn’t need.
My project was pretty simple—I bought a frame, a decorative metal sheet, and some hooks. I cut the metal sheet and replaced the glass and backing of the frame with the metal, using nails to keep it in. Then I drilled holes in the bottom of the frame and inserted the little hooks. In total, the project took about an hour.
A few things about this project surprised me. First, the cost of the materials. The frame was $15, and then I almost balked at buying a piece of decorative metal for $20, because at that point maybe I should just BUY a jewelry holder! I think this must happen a lot, when you want to make something yourself but it turns out to be much more expensive than just buying it. Of course, when you make it yourself, it will be exactly how you want it.
It was also surprisingly difficult to nail the metal sheet to the frame. It took some trial and error with different tools. Luckily my husband has a whole garage full of tools and nails and fasteners. Otherwise it would have taken many trips to Home Depot and much more hassle.
In the end, I am very pleased with the result and I love it! I even had extra metal to make another one for a friend.
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
A Hundred Cars
We’ve previously discussed the importance of providing ‘Failure culture’ when Invent to Learn says we should focus on Constructionist education. What makes more sense to you?
A few months ago, four-year-old James and Daddy were drawing cars together. They had just started, and each had drawn a car. James started to melt down. “My car is terrible!” he wailed. “It doesn’t look anything like Daddy’s car! I can’t draw cars!” James’s car looked great—for a four year old. It certainly was not a failure in any sense of the word. But to James, it felt like failure, because it didn’t look like Daddy’s. After some tears, we were able to convince him that Daddy has been drawing cars for years and years, and if he drew a hundred cars, then his hundredth car would FOR SURE look like Daddy’s. We even got him a special notebook just for drawing a hundred cars in. Reenergized, he got started right away, and was pleased to notice that even after four or five cars, they were starting to look better and better.
I think that failure culture and constructionist education are actually very similar concepts. Failure culture is based the idea that students these days are too afraid to fail, and consequently do not take risks or be creative. James was ready to cry and give up drawing because his cars didn’t look perfect. But kids need to learn that this is not a terrible thing—in fact, it is part of the learning and improving process. Contructionist education is where students learn by doing; one important idea is that projects are always in a cycle of improvement iterations; when things don’t work, they are fixed. When things do work, they can be made even better. To me, these are very similar concepts, and I think Martinez and Stager’s criticism of failure culture is really a criticism of its name, not its spirit.
“Failure” probably isn’t the best word choice to describe the process of learning. No one really means true “failure” when discussing failure culture. Most often, mistakes aren’t failures at all—they are early iterations of success (learning). Or they are just how things are when you are a beginner at something. No matter what we call this, the underlying aim is the same: to teach kids that creating and improving is an ongoing process that lasts a lifetime. In a word, it is to build resilience.
James, of course, never drew a hundred cars. He lost interest soon afterward and went to do other things. That notebook is still there, in case he wants to keep going. But either way, I hope that he might have learned one small lesson that day in a lifetime of lessons, that helps him build resilience one obstacle at a time.
A few months ago, four-year-old James and Daddy were drawing cars together. They had just started, and each had drawn a car. James started to melt down. “My car is terrible!” he wailed. “It doesn’t look anything like Daddy’s car! I can’t draw cars!” James’s car looked great—for a four year old. It certainly was not a failure in any sense of the word. But to James, it felt like failure, because it didn’t look like Daddy’s. After some tears, we were able to convince him that Daddy has been drawing cars for years and years, and if he drew a hundred cars, then his hundredth car would FOR SURE look like Daddy’s. We even got him a special notebook just for drawing a hundred cars in. Reenergized, he got started right away, and was pleased to notice that even after four or five cars, they were starting to look better and better.
I think that failure culture and constructionist education are actually very similar concepts. Failure culture is based the idea that students these days are too afraid to fail, and consequently do not take risks or be creative. James was ready to cry and give up drawing because his cars didn’t look perfect. But kids need to learn that this is not a terrible thing—in fact, it is part of the learning and improving process. Contructionist education is where students learn by doing; one important idea is that projects are always in a cycle of improvement iterations; when things don’t work, they are fixed. When things do work, they can be made even better. To me, these are very similar concepts, and I think Martinez and Stager’s criticism of failure culture is really a criticism of its name, not its spirit.
“Failure” probably isn’t the best word choice to describe the process of learning. No one really means true “failure” when discussing failure culture. Most often, mistakes aren’t failures at all—they are early iterations of success (learning). Or they are just how things are when you are a beginner at something. No matter what we call this, the underlying aim is the same: to teach kids that creating and improving is an ongoing process that lasts a lifetime. In a word, it is to build resilience.
James, of course, never drew a hundred cars. He lost interest soon afterward and went to do other things. That notebook is still there, in case he wants to keep going. But either way, I hope that he might have learned one small lesson that day in a lifetime of lessons, that helps him build resilience one obstacle at a time.
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Not Full STEAM Ahead
How do you feel about the STEAM acronym? Does the A belong or should we only refer to these concepts as STEM? Why?
The STEM/STEAM acronym makes me a little nervous. My impression of it is that it was devised because Americans were concerned about falling behind other countries in these areas, mostly because of wanting to capture more of the market of tech jobs. While I’m all for kids learning about science and technology (it sure beats not learning at all), I’m very skeptical of the results.
Don’t get me wrong. I love science, technology, engineering, and math. And I agree that the US is falling behind other countries in these areas. But will creating an acronym make a difference? If so, what difference will it make?
I’m worried about a number of possible outcomes:
I think Martinez and Stager make an interesting argument in Invent to Learn that adding the A to STEM might result in the further marginalization of Arts in schools, because it pushes arts into the domain of the science teachers (assuming that “STEM subjects are devoid of the creative disposition of artists”) (p.54).
At any rate, I think the use of the STEM/STEAM acronym is just going to be a passing fad. Mostly because it will soon be meaningless—digital natives are not going to need to be reminded of the importance of STEM subjects in our lives. (Then, in my low moments, I worry that it’s hard enough combating people who don’t even want evolution taught in schools, and that it’s all hopeless.) I think STEM is somewhat deifying these subjects, and inadvertently deifying Maker and Geek culture instead of just showing kids how fun and creative sciences can be. Science and math can be fun for everyone. I hope the adults don’t ruin it.
The STEM/STEAM acronym makes me a little nervous. My impression of it is that it was devised because Americans were concerned about falling behind other countries in these areas, mostly because of wanting to capture more of the market of tech jobs. While I’m all for kids learning about science and technology (it sure beats not learning at all), I’m very skeptical of the results.
Don’t get me wrong. I love science, technology, engineering, and math. And I agree that the US is falling behind other countries in these areas. But will creating an acronym make a difference? If so, what difference will it make?
I’m worried about a number of possible outcomes:
- The kids who benefit most from this might end up being only affluent kids, not all kids
- The kids who don’t like/are not good at STEM will feel less valued and less interested in learning
- The kids who don’t like/are not good at STEM will not get nurturing opportunities that make them like it more or be better at it
- Girls will get left farther behind than they already are in these areas
- All other areas of learning or ways of thinking will be devalued
- Nothing will change
I think Martinez and Stager make an interesting argument in Invent to Learn that adding the A to STEM might result in the further marginalization of Arts in schools, because it pushes arts into the domain of the science teachers (assuming that “STEM subjects are devoid of the creative disposition of artists”) (p.54).
At any rate, I think the use of the STEM/STEAM acronym is just going to be a passing fad. Mostly because it will soon be meaningless—digital natives are not going to need to be reminded of the importance of STEM subjects in our lives. (Then, in my low moments, I worry that it’s hard enough combating people who don’t even want evolution taught in schools, and that it’s all hopeless.) I think STEM is somewhat deifying these subjects, and inadvertently deifying Maker and Geek culture instead of just showing kids how fun and creative sciences can be. Science and math can be fun for everyone. I hope the adults don’t ruin it.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Should Libraries Have Non-Traditional Programming?
Do libraries risk getting “off message” when we focus on non-traditional services and community collaboration. Is there a line to walk and if so how do you think an innovative organization walks that line?
Libraries can’t do everything. I know librarians wish that libraries could do everything, but there just isn’t enough money or manpower. And really, when it comes down to it, libraries don’t have to do everything. It’s perfectly acceptable to leave the coffee-making to baristas in a café, or karaoke night to the local watering hole. The question is, how does one choose which programs to implement and which to skip?
I think it all comes down to creating a detailed mission statement for your library. Once you have this in place, it will be easy to decide if a program idea furthers the library’s mission or not. If it doesn’t, how can the idea be modified to do so?
This mirrors exactly what Nina Simon reiterates in both the book The Participatory Museum and her follow-up blog post. She writes on the blog, “I still feel strongly that there is no universal reason to encourage visitor participation.” She emphasizes that you need to have a reason to implement collaborative and participatory projects.
I think if one of a library’s explicit missions is to foster dialogue or connections among patrons, then certainly non-traditional services will be a great way to do this. But if it is not, then a participatory program must be designed such that it meets the stated goals of the library. Hopefully, it will be able to do so in a stronger and more lasting way than a traditional program. For example, if fostering childhood literacy is one of a library’s missions, then using a “flipped learning” approach or even a participatory bulletin board that invites kids to write about their favorite book would both work toward that mission very well, perhaps better than a librarian standing up in front of a group of children talking about books would. Or maybe it wouldn’t. Programs need to be evaluated, and if it turns out that it is not furthering the mission, it shouldn’t be done anymore.
I think an innovative organization can always find ways to design good programs that meet the organization’s goals. With a wider arsenal of tools to choose from, including all the ways programs can be collaborative and participatory, there is an even greater chance that these goals will be met with better results and efficient use of resources. As always, there is no disadvantage to having more knowledge at your disposal. If something doesn’t work for your library, you don’t have to do it.
Simon, N. (March 4, 2015). The Participatory Museum, Five Years Later. Retrieved from http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-participatory-museum-five-years.html
Libraries can’t do everything. I know librarians wish that libraries could do everything, but there just isn’t enough money or manpower. And really, when it comes down to it, libraries don’t have to do everything. It’s perfectly acceptable to leave the coffee-making to baristas in a café, or karaoke night to the local watering hole. The question is, how does one choose which programs to implement and which to skip?
I think it all comes down to creating a detailed mission statement for your library. Once you have this in place, it will be easy to decide if a program idea furthers the library’s mission or not. If it doesn’t, how can the idea be modified to do so?
This mirrors exactly what Nina Simon reiterates in both the book The Participatory Museum and her follow-up blog post. She writes on the blog, “I still feel strongly that there is no universal reason to encourage visitor participation.” She emphasizes that you need to have a reason to implement collaborative and participatory projects.
I think if one of a library’s explicit missions is to foster dialogue or connections among patrons, then certainly non-traditional services will be a great way to do this. But if it is not, then a participatory program must be designed such that it meets the stated goals of the library. Hopefully, it will be able to do so in a stronger and more lasting way than a traditional program. For example, if fostering childhood literacy is one of a library’s missions, then using a “flipped learning” approach or even a participatory bulletin board that invites kids to write about their favorite book would both work toward that mission very well, perhaps better than a librarian standing up in front of a group of children talking about books would. Or maybe it wouldn’t. Programs need to be evaluated, and if it turns out that it is not furthering the mission, it shouldn’t be done anymore.
I think an innovative organization can always find ways to design good programs that meet the organization’s goals. With a wider arsenal of tools to choose from, including all the ways programs can be collaborative and participatory, there is an even greater chance that these goals will be met with better results and efficient use of resources. As always, there is no disadvantage to having more knowledge at your disposal. If something doesn’t work for your library, you don’t have to do it.
Simon, N. (March 4, 2015). The Participatory Museum, Five Years Later. Retrieved from http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-participatory-museum-five-years.html
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
How Amazing is the ALA Library of the Future Site?!
Click on and check out the individual trends ALA sees as most impacting the library of the future. What do you think of these trends? Did you see something you hadn't considered? Do you think they are missing anything important? http://www.ala.org/transforminglibraries/future/trends
First of all, can I just say that this section of the ALA site is A-MAZING? Who knew this was here?! Not only are all the hot-topics of the future here, but they are so well explained that what seem like huge sprawling topics are concisely explained in just a few paragraphs. And then, on top of that, how each topic relates to libraries is explored! Do people know about this?! People should know about this!!
So, as I was clicking around this site and looking at things, almost every trend I clicked on stimulated my brain to think of ideas. Talk about prompts! For example, I first clicked on “Badging.” Aha, I thought. Yes! People love badging and companies seem to all be doing this. When I got my fitbit, I started getting emails from Fitbit with “badges” I earned for walking 100 miles, visiting certain places, etc. My five-year old loves going to the kids’ workshops at Home Depot. Every time you do a project, you get a pin with a picture of the project to pin to your Home Depot apron. Not only do kids love getting a little something, but then you can look back and see all the things you’ve accomplished over time. We could totally incorporate badging into libraries very easily, by setting up milestones for reading or doing or making, etc. Especially for summer reading programs, this would be a really easy and fun addition.
Next I clicked on “Unplugged.” Yeah, that’s right! I thought. Even though we are, on the one hand, spending more time with our devices than ever, the unplugged trend seems really popular as well. Why not have libraries jump on that trend and celebrate spaces where you can sit quietly and read or work? You could set up a space to look and feel like a spa (why not have new age-y music and some plants and a little bubbling fountain) and call it the Unplugged Room.
I learned something from every trend I clicked on, and got ideas too. I even learned about trends I didn’t know about, and terms I hadn’t heard before (Haptic Techology—how cool!). I don’t consider myself someone who is on top of trends, so this page was a mind opener and so fun to explore. The only trend I can think of that I didn’t see here is the slow food/back to the farm-type of trend for cooking and eating. I don’t know if it has any implications for libraries, but it could… library gardens? Cookbook tie-ins? Cooking demonstrations? Everything has possibilities!
First of all, can I just say that this section of the ALA site is A-MAZING? Who knew this was here?! Not only are all the hot-topics of the future here, but they are so well explained that what seem like huge sprawling topics are concisely explained in just a few paragraphs. And then, on top of that, how each topic relates to libraries is explored! Do people know about this?! People should know about this!!
So, as I was clicking around this site and looking at things, almost every trend I clicked on stimulated my brain to think of ideas. Talk about prompts! For example, I first clicked on “Badging.” Aha, I thought. Yes! People love badging and companies seem to all be doing this. When I got my fitbit, I started getting emails from Fitbit with “badges” I earned for walking 100 miles, visiting certain places, etc. My five-year old loves going to the kids’ workshops at Home Depot. Every time you do a project, you get a pin with a picture of the project to pin to your Home Depot apron. Not only do kids love getting a little something, but then you can look back and see all the things you’ve accomplished over time. We could totally incorporate badging into libraries very easily, by setting up milestones for reading or doing or making, etc. Especially for summer reading programs, this would be a really easy and fun addition.
Next I clicked on “Unplugged.” Yeah, that’s right! I thought. Even though we are, on the one hand, spending more time with our devices than ever, the unplugged trend seems really popular as well. Why not have libraries jump on that trend and celebrate spaces where you can sit quietly and read or work? You could set up a space to look and feel like a spa (why not have new age-y music and some plants and a little bubbling fountain) and call it the Unplugged Room.
I learned something from every trend I clicked on, and got ideas too. I even learned about trends I didn’t know about, and terms I hadn’t heard before (Haptic Techology—how cool!). I don’t consider myself someone who is on top of trends, so this page was a mind opener and so fun to explore. The only trend I can think of that I didn’t see here is the slow food/back to the farm-type of trend for cooking and eating. I don’t know if it has any implications for libraries, but it could… library gardens? Cookbook tie-ins? Cooking demonstrations? Everything has possibilities!
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Participatory Art and Museum Exhibitions
Is there a downside to making more museums and cultural institutions more interactive?
I thought the NY Times article we read by Judith Dobrzynski this week was particularly thought-provoking. While it is clear that she doesn’t exactly approve of the experiential-culture trend and she put forth some good arguments for traditional museum exhibits, it took me some thinking to figure out why I couldn’t wholeheartedly agree with her.
I definitely agree that in the last decade, there has been a huge increase in popularity for “experiences,” as Dobrzynski states. However, I think there’s a huge difference between participatory museum exhibits as described by Nina Simon in The Participatory Museum, experiential art, and experience-focused businesses.
Obviously, businesses are trying to make money. People want to buy experiences these days, so business are scrambling to come up with experiences they can sell people. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is when artists adapt art to be more “sellable” to the public because it’s popular right now. I think the subtext of Dobrzynski’s article—what she really wants to say but cannot come right out and say—is that she thinks experiential art is not “real” art.
I can see why she might think this. Is building a transparent slide between a 4th floor gallery and the 2nd floor that visitors can slide down really art? Is sitting in a room across from a silent artist really art?
Here’s what I think: I think that when Marcel Duchamp put a urinal on a wall, most people thought that it wasn’t art and couldn’t believe what this world was coming to. When Phillip Glass wrote a piece of music that was nothing but several minutes of silence, people thought that was certainly not music. When Mozart wrote The Magic Flute, it was performed in a rowdy vaudeville theater because it wasn’t considered real art. When Michelangelo painting his figures with bulging muscles and rounded forms, people thought it was blasphemous.
So for museums, I think that there is a place for all sorts of museum experiences. Participatory museum experiences will bring in a certain type of patron while traditional exhibits will bring in another. Or the same person can enjoy traditional exhibits in one museum and participatory ones in another. The downside to any one interactive exhibit is that it will turn off some people. This is the same downside that traditional exhibits have, so in the end, I think there are only upsides to having a wide range of experiences available in many different museums.
I thought the NY Times article we read by Judith Dobrzynski this week was particularly thought-provoking. While it is clear that she doesn’t exactly approve of the experiential-culture trend and she put forth some good arguments for traditional museum exhibits, it took me some thinking to figure out why I couldn’t wholeheartedly agree with her.
I definitely agree that in the last decade, there has been a huge increase in popularity for “experiences,” as Dobrzynski states. However, I think there’s a huge difference between participatory museum exhibits as described by Nina Simon in The Participatory Museum, experiential art, and experience-focused businesses.
Obviously, businesses are trying to make money. People want to buy experiences these days, so business are scrambling to come up with experiences they can sell people. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is when artists adapt art to be more “sellable” to the public because it’s popular right now. I think the subtext of Dobrzynski’s article—what she really wants to say but cannot come right out and say—is that she thinks experiential art is not “real” art.
I can see why she might think this. Is building a transparent slide between a 4th floor gallery and the 2nd floor that visitors can slide down really art? Is sitting in a room across from a silent artist really art?
Here’s what I think: I think that when Marcel Duchamp put a urinal on a wall, most people thought that it wasn’t art and couldn’t believe what this world was coming to. When Phillip Glass wrote a piece of music that was nothing but several minutes of silence, people thought that was certainly not music. When Mozart wrote The Magic Flute, it was performed in a rowdy vaudeville theater because it wasn’t considered real art. When Michelangelo painting his figures with bulging muscles and rounded forms, people thought it was blasphemous.
So for museums, I think that there is a place for all sorts of museum experiences. Participatory museum experiences will bring in a certain type of patron while traditional exhibits will bring in another. Or the same person can enjoy traditional exhibits in one museum and participatory ones in another. The downside to any one interactive exhibit is that it will turn off some people. This is the same downside that traditional exhibits have, so in the end, I think there are only upsides to having a wide range of experiences available in many different museums.
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
Even I Can Be a Caregiver!
When looking at the Organizing and Building Personas, do you recognize those styles in your colleagues or yourself?
I work at a middle school library, and the first thing I noticed when I started this job was how welcome I felt. Even though I was new, I felt immediately embraced by the community. This initial impression I had coming in has made a huge difference in my own attitude. I enjoy going to work every day and I try to be as kind to others as they were to me. I’m pretty sure this attitude of Caregiving is fostered by the administration in a very deliberate way. It creates a warm environment for everyone here, including the faculty, staff, and students.
I have actually been thinking about this for a while, because I am not really a natural caregiver. But I have found that working here makes me want to try harder. Because it doesn’t come naturally to me, I am paying attention to the specific actions people do to make me feel cared for.
There are a few colleagues on staff here that always make me feel particularly special whenever I see them. I figured out that what they have in common is that they always greet me by my first name. It’s that simple! So I have been consciously trying to do the same to others. Last week, I walked by one of the new teachers and I said, “Hi, Melanie,” as I walked by. I think she was surprised because I had never spoken to her before. She probably didn’t even know my name. When I walked back in the other direction, she greeted me with a quip as I passed. And the next time I saw her, she was all smiles and hellos for me.
I’m also trying to do the same to the students, if I know their names. It requires great effort from me because I am an introvert and I am always worried that I’ll get someone’s name wrong, but I think it’s worth the effort. If the students feel like all the staff on campus care about them, they will have a much better experience here as well. I like the idea of the Caregiver being an integral part of an innovation team because it’s true. When a customer or patron feels cared for and special, they will come away thinking that the company/school/library is special too.
I work at a middle school library, and the first thing I noticed when I started this job was how welcome I felt. Even though I was new, I felt immediately embraced by the community. This initial impression I had coming in has made a huge difference in my own attitude. I enjoy going to work every day and I try to be as kind to others as they were to me. I’m pretty sure this attitude of Caregiving is fostered by the administration in a very deliberate way. It creates a warm environment for everyone here, including the faculty, staff, and students.
I have actually been thinking about this for a while, because I am not really a natural caregiver. But I have found that working here makes me want to try harder. Because it doesn’t come naturally to me, I am paying attention to the specific actions people do to make me feel cared for.
There are a few colleagues on staff here that always make me feel particularly special whenever I see them. I figured out that what they have in common is that they always greet me by my first name. It’s that simple! So I have been consciously trying to do the same to others. Last week, I walked by one of the new teachers and I said, “Hi, Melanie,” as I walked by. I think she was surprised because I had never spoken to her before. She probably didn’t even know my name. When I walked back in the other direction, she greeted me with a quip as I passed. And the next time I saw her, she was all smiles and hellos for me.
I’m also trying to do the same to the students, if I know their names. It requires great effort from me because I am an introvert and I am always worried that I’ll get someone’s name wrong, but I think it’s worth the effort. If the students feel like all the staff on campus care about them, they will have a much better experience here as well. I like the idea of the Caregiver being an integral part of an innovation team because it’s true. When a customer or patron feels cared for and special, they will come away thinking that the company/school/library is special too.
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
My DMV Revelation
Quiz: What is the most horrible customer service experience known to man? I'll give you a moment to think about it.
…
The DMV, right?! It’s almost a joke, but I distinctly remember that the last time I was at the DMV, not only did I wait for hours, but when I finally spoke to someone, they treated me like I was an imposition on their time, and that they hated every second of having to talk to customers. I have been saying for years that the people at the DMV just hate their jobs and it shows. Going to the DMV is far worse than going to the dentist.
Since then, however, someone in California has been innovating. Last week, I discovered that I had been driving around with a license that expired almost a year and a half ago. I had to go to the DMV. I went to a new DMV License Processing Center in San Jose, which was recommended to me by a friend. It was a revelation.
This DMV was huge, and the entire mega-center was devoted to one thing: driver’s license processing. Right inside the entrance, several people are cheerfully greeting people who come in. “What can I help you with today?” I explained to the man what I needed, he pulled a form out of his mobile file cart, and told me which line to take it to when I was done with it. That line had no wait. That person processed my form and gave me a number.
In the waiting area were several large monitors that showed which numbers were being served at which windows, and what upcoming numbers were. This was very reassuring. And in less than two minutes, my number was up. The next person processed me, I paid the fee, read a few lines on an eye chart. Then I was given a slip of paper with a barcode on it and directed to the camera line. Again, there was no wait. I took a picture, and that person directed me to a bank of computer carrels to take my “written” test. Each computer had a barcode scanner, so I scanned my paper and used the touch screen to take the multiple choice test. Once you chose an answer, it indicated whether it was right or wrong. When I was done, I stood up and someone was there helping people. He directed me to the next line, where I handed my form in and got an interim license. The whole process took about twenty minutes.
As I was reading The Ten Faces of Innovation, I realized how much of what we read about was implemented in this new DMV center. Compared to the old centers, this place was not even recognizable. This is the DMV?
Look how many innovations were made:
-Set Design: OK, it’s not a spa, but it’s huge and spacious and clean. And since this center does only one thing, the whole place is more efficient.
-Caregiving: People at the door to greet you! Oh, you need this form, I’ll just whip it out here. People at the computers to help you!
-Caregiving: If you have to wait, at least you can see what the status of the wait is.
-Experience: I was bounced to six different stations, but each had almost no wait and seamlessly got my information and did what I needed. It felt very efficient.
-Experience: Computers were used very effectively. Remember the days when you were handed a paper test and a clipboard? They didn’t try to computerize the entire process, just the part that made the most sense and produced the most efficiencies for everyone.
Some wonderful Anthropologist fixed almost everything wrong with the old DMV. This experience has made me completely change the way I think about the DMV. Not that we have any choices, but now if I have a license issue, I will totally not dread going to take care of it.
…
The DMV, right?! It’s almost a joke, but I distinctly remember that the last time I was at the DMV, not only did I wait for hours, but when I finally spoke to someone, they treated me like I was an imposition on their time, and that they hated every second of having to talk to customers. I have been saying for years that the people at the DMV just hate their jobs and it shows. Going to the DMV is far worse than going to the dentist.
Since then, however, someone in California has been innovating. Last week, I discovered that I had been driving around with a license that expired almost a year and a half ago. I had to go to the DMV. I went to a new DMV License Processing Center in San Jose, which was recommended to me by a friend. It was a revelation.
This DMV was huge, and the entire mega-center was devoted to one thing: driver’s license processing. Right inside the entrance, several people are cheerfully greeting people who come in. “What can I help you with today?” I explained to the man what I needed, he pulled a form out of his mobile file cart, and told me which line to take it to when I was done with it. That line had no wait. That person processed my form and gave me a number.
In the waiting area were several large monitors that showed which numbers were being served at which windows, and what upcoming numbers were. This was very reassuring. And in less than two minutes, my number was up. The next person processed me, I paid the fee, read a few lines on an eye chart. Then I was given a slip of paper with a barcode on it and directed to the camera line. Again, there was no wait. I took a picture, and that person directed me to a bank of computer carrels to take my “written” test. Each computer had a barcode scanner, so I scanned my paper and used the touch screen to take the multiple choice test. Once you chose an answer, it indicated whether it was right or wrong. When I was done, I stood up and someone was there helping people. He directed me to the next line, where I handed my form in and got an interim license. The whole process took about twenty minutes.
As I was reading The Ten Faces of Innovation, I realized how much of what we read about was implemented in this new DMV center. Compared to the old centers, this place was not even recognizable. This is the DMV?
Look how many innovations were made:
-Set Design: OK, it’s not a spa, but it’s huge and spacious and clean. And since this center does only one thing, the whole place is more efficient.
-Caregiving: People at the door to greet you! Oh, you need this form, I’ll just whip it out here. People at the computers to help you!
-Caregiving: If you have to wait, at least you can see what the status of the wait is.
-Experience: I was bounced to six different stations, but each had almost no wait and seamlessly got my information and did what I needed. It felt very efficient.
-Experience: Computers were used very effectively. Remember the days when you were handed a paper test and a clipboard? They didn’t try to computerize the entire process, just the part that made the most sense and produced the most efficiencies for everyone.
Some wonderful Anthropologist fixed almost everything wrong with the old DMV. This experience has made me completely change the way I think about the DMV. Not that we have any choices, but now if I have a license issue, I will totally not dread going to take care of it.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
When a Problem Isn't a Problem
How did you feel reading the article about MOOC success and intrinsic learning? How does it compare with the kind of formalized online learning that you're doing in your SJSU program? How do you compare it to a traditional physical classroom.
I thought the article we read very clearly discredits a problem that I was not even aware was a problem! I never knew that MOOC success was measured by completion rate. I was not aware that people were alarmed when a completion rate dropped after a wave of new learners signed up. It seems to me that this is just a matter of simple math and common sense.
This problem is only a problem if you think MOOCs are like traditional classes. They are not. They are more like web pages. Which they are. In the new culture of learning, people learn from many different places. Just because they didn’t complete an entire online course doesn’t mean they haven’t learned anything. (Conversely, just because someone watched twelve videos doesn’t mean they have.) The beauty of the MOOC is that people can choose where, when, and how much they want to learn. And even if one person watches one “Justice” video, isn’t there that much more justice in the world?
Program completion, certificates, and degrees in formalized learning (on- of offline) have a few purposes that go beyond mere learning. They are a marker that the person who holds the degree has completed a certain amount of learning, with a certain understanding for professionals in the field of what the person has learned. For example, if you hold an MLIS degree, an employer could be reasonably certain that you have learned about the ALA Bill of Rights. If the entirety of our MLIS program were available online as a MOOC, and you told an employer you completed some of it, how would your employer know which parts you knew and which you didn’t?
In this respect, formalized online learning is like physical classrooms. That is to say, they are formalized. There are third parties that accredit the programs so that everyone has an understanding of their scope and quality. As a culture, we all agree to these standards.
Every other type of learning we do is still learning, though it is more personal. It is usually not done to fulfill job requirements. However, it is informal learning in our new culture that is how most of us get information and experience. Employers would do well to remember that, because your degree is really just a baseline of knowledge, not a whole picture of a person’s knowledge, skills, abilities, and talents.
I thought the article we read very clearly discredits a problem that I was not even aware was a problem! I never knew that MOOC success was measured by completion rate. I was not aware that people were alarmed when a completion rate dropped after a wave of new learners signed up. It seems to me that this is just a matter of simple math and common sense.
This problem is only a problem if you think MOOCs are like traditional classes. They are not. They are more like web pages. Which they are. In the new culture of learning, people learn from many different places. Just because they didn’t complete an entire online course doesn’t mean they haven’t learned anything. (Conversely, just because someone watched twelve videos doesn’t mean they have.) The beauty of the MOOC is that people can choose where, when, and how much they want to learn. And even if one person watches one “Justice” video, isn’t there that much more justice in the world?
Program completion, certificates, and degrees in formalized learning (on- of offline) have a few purposes that go beyond mere learning. They are a marker that the person who holds the degree has completed a certain amount of learning, with a certain understanding for professionals in the field of what the person has learned. For example, if you hold an MLIS degree, an employer could be reasonably certain that you have learned about the ALA Bill of Rights. If the entirety of our MLIS program were available online as a MOOC, and you told an employer you completed some of it, how would your employer know which parts you knew and which you didn’t?
In this respect, formalized online learning is like physical classrooms. That is to say, they are formalized. There are third parties that accredit the programs so that everyone has an understanding of their scope and quality. As a culture, we all agree to these standards.
Every other type of learning we do is still learning, though it is more personal. It is usually not done to fulfill job requirements. However, it is informal learning in our new culture that is how most of us get information and experience. Employers would do well to remember that, because your degree is really just a baseline of knowledge, not a whole picture of a person’s knowledge, skills, abilities, and talents.
Monday, September 14, 2015
The Parenting Collective
Have you personally benefitted from learning in the new cultural environments discussed in A New Culture of Learning? What did they provide that an in classroom or one-on-one educational meeting could not?
For our game assignment, I have been learning how to play Minecraft. As I was thinking about that experience, I thought to myself, playing video games is like having a baby! It doesn’t matter what you’ve read about beforehand, or what tutorials you’ve watched, once you start playing, you’re all, “AAAAGGHHH! I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I’M DOING!!!” And then, of course, the more you do it, the more comfortable you get and the more confident you are.
Now that I think about it, parenting is probably the area in which I benefitted the most from the new culture of learning. I didn’t take any classes (traditional learning) on how to take care of a baby before I had one, and all the material I read could not really prepare me for the actual job of Keeping a Small Human Alive. Everything I know about parenting comes from new learning collectives and hands-on experiential learning.
The internet is a great source of information. I consult babycenter.com for a lot of questions I have (Is it okay that my newborn slept for 20 hours today? At what temperature of fever do we need to call the doctor?). I also google questions and read answers that others have posted in forums (How do I get my 4-year-old to put on his clothes in the morning?). Through our doctor’s website, I can also ask our doctor questions directly (What should I do about the baby’s rash?).
But the internet is not the only collective in our lives. We have a great network of friends and family who can also offer insight. I have friends with older children who share their experiences. I also have friends with younger children with whom I can feel like an expert.
The intersection of these is Facebook, where I socialize with my friends and family online. People like to post parenting articles, and I have a bad habit of reading a lot of them. I share funny stories of my kids, and read what others post about theirs. In this way, we are all learning from each other.
The reason this new culture of learning is so beneficial in the area of parenting is that learning how to parent never ends. From the moment a baby enters our lives, we will never stop learning about being a parent. Because of this, the amount of information to learn is infinite. A classroom setting could never cover everything you need to know. Also, the information that we are learning is both ever-changing and different for every child. As our textbook points out, this is the type of information that the new culture of learning handles best. And finally, the only way to truly learn how to parent is to do it. It is only through hands-on experience that we figure out what method of discipline works best for our child, or simply which brand of lotion doesn’t give him a rash.
For our game assignment, I have been learning how to play Minecraft. As I was thinking about that experience, I thought to myself, playing video games is like having a baby! It doesn’t matter what you’ve read about beforehand, or what tutorials you’ve watched, once you start playing, you’re all, “AAAAGGHHH! I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I’M DOING!!!” And then, of course, the more you do it, the more comfortable you get and the more confident you are.
Now that I think about it, parenting is probably the area in which I benefitted the most from the new culture of learning. I didn’t take any classes (traditional learning) on how to take care of a baby before I had one, and all the material I read could not really prepare me for the actual job of Keeping a Small Human Alive. Everything I know about parenting comes from new learning collectives and hands-on experiential learning.
The internet is a great source of information. I consult babycenter.com for a lot of questions I have (Is it okay that my newborn slept for 20 hours today? At what temperature of fever do we need to call the doctor?). I also google questions and read answers that others have posted in forums (How do I get my 4-year-old to put on his clothes in the morning?). Through our doctor’s website, I can also ask our doctor questions directly (What should I do about the baby’s rash?).
But the internet is not the only collective in our lives. We have a great network of friends and family who can also offer insight. I have friends with older children who share their experiences. I also have friends with younger children with whom I can feel like an expert.
The intersection of these is Facebook, where I socialize with my friends and family online. People like to post parenting articles, and I have a bad habit of reading a lot of them. I share funny stories of my kids, and read what others post about theirs. In this way, we are all learning from each other.
The reason this new culture of learning is so beneficial in the area of parenting is that learning how to parent never ends. From the moment a baby enters our lives, we will never stop learning about being a parent. Because of this, the amount of information to learn is infinite. A classroom setting could never cover everything you need to know. Also, the information that we are learning is both ever-changing and different for every child. As our textbook points out, this is the type of information that the new culture of learning handles best. And finally, the only way to truly learn how to parent is to do it. It is only through hands-on experience that we figure out what method of discipline works best for our child, or simply which brand of lotion doesn’t give him a rash.
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Raising Kids in the New Culture of Learning
I’m surprised to find myself relating a lot of what we’re learning in this class to parenting. As a parent whose first son has just entered the public school system just a few weeks ago, I can say that I am a bit apprehensive about the education he’s going to get over the next thirteen years. I’m not worried that he won’t be taught reading and math and science, but will he be taught to be a strong, resilient, creative problem solver who seeks to make the world better through kindness and empathy?
In our reading in A New Culture of Learning, what really resonated with me was the dichotomy of traditional learning vs. new learning. To briefly summarize the Thomas and Brown’s definitions, traditional learning is when a teacher imparts information to students, and students prove that they have learned the information by taking a test. New learning is when a community of like-minded people learns from each other. Thomas and Brown suggest that optimal learning is a combination of the two.
The article we read in week two, Good Video Games and Good Learning, also spoke to me in the same way, where Gee specifically talked about video games and what players can learn from well-designed games, and especially from interacting with other players. This is precisely the type of new learning that Thomas and Brown are talking about.
I don’t know much about the curriculum of our public school, but let’s just assume that public school is traditional learning. That means our children will be fairly competent in learning facts that are unchanging. But what about everything else? It makes me start to think about how we as parents can steer our children and in what areas we can best support them. Maybe I’m not going to let my five-year-old play World of Warcraft yet, but armed with this knowledge of different ways people learn, I might be more inclined to support his ideas when he wants to make ridiculous projects. When he’s older, I might encourage him to join clubs, find groups online where people share his interests, and learn things through participatory channels, no matter what the subject is.
In our reading in A New Culture of Learning, what really resonated with me was the dichotomy of traditional learning vs. new learning. To briefly summarize the Thomas and Brown’s definitions, traditional learning is when a teacher imparts information to students, and students prove that they have learned the information by taking a test. New learning is when a community of like-minded people learns from each other. Thomas and Brown suggest that optimal learning is a combination of the two.
The article we read in week two, Good Video Games and Good Learning, also spoke to me in the same way, where Gee specifically talked about video games and what players can learn from well-designed games, and especially from interacting with other players. This is precisely the type of new learning that Thomas and Brown are talking about.
I don’t know much about the curriculum of our public school, but let’s just assume that public school is traditional learning. That means our children will be fairly competent in learning facts that are unchanging. But what about everything else? It makes me start to think about how we as parents can steer our children and in what areas we can best support them. Maybe I’m not going to let my five-year-old play World of Warcraft yet, but armed with this knowledge of different ways people learn, I might be more inclined to support his ideas when he wants to make ridiculous projects. When he’s older, I might encourage him to join clubs, find groups online where people share his interests, and learn things through participatory channels, no matter what the subject is.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Making What's In Your Head or What's In the World Already
I totally agree with Adam Savage that when it comes to making something that emulates pop culture or making something you’ve thought of on your own, neither is better or worse. I do, however, think that the two processes are different, and the creative and problem-solving processes are different between the two.
The differences are so fascinating to me. My older son will be five in a month, and he has recently become really into what he calls “art projects,” and what often turn into elaborate “makes.” What is most interesting to me is his process of coming up with ideas, and what he, of limited physical competence, can do with his ideas. A few weeks ago he got it into his head that he wanted to make a helmet out of paper. He had a VERY definite idea in his head of what he wanted it to look like. He tried drawing the shape on paper, but got so frustrated that he couldn’t draw what he was picturing in his head, and neither could he articulate it for someone else to help him. There were tears.
After Daddy helped him calm down and used the computer to help him draw a perfectly symmetrical shape, he wanted to punch holes on either side of the bottom edge and tie a string through that would go under his chin. He didn’t realize that if you do that the paper will bend and the hat will site flat on top of your head instead of perpendicular to the floor. He’s four! He clearly wanted the hat to look a certain way on his head, and came up with a plan to execute it, but it didn’t work. There were more tears. But then he said, okay, wore it for a second, then abandoned it. “It’s not really right anyway,” he said.
I think about this because I think the visualization of what you want the finished product to be is the key difference between your own ideas and something from pop culture. When you are emulating something you’ve seen before, someone else has done that visualization already, and your job is to execute. You want to reproduce something as faithfully as possible, in all its physical aspects and capabilities. Your work is, in effect, limited by what someone else previously visualized.
When you make something of your own, you do the visualizing yourself. But then the execution can be much more flexible, and if something doesn’t work you can always change it. Or change your mind halfway through about what you wanted it to look like or do. This flexibility allows you to be more creative from a design perspective, but doesn’t necessarily challenge you in the same way with restrictions. You may actually be more creative in your problem solving when your final product must look a certain way or do a certain thing.
So I think that both types of projects challenge the maker in different ways, and allow the maker to be creative in different ways. Either way gives makers abundant learning opportunities. Either way lets makes be creative problem solvers. And even better? Do both!
The differences are so fascinating to me. My older son will be five in a month, and he has recently become really into what he calls “art projects,” and what often turn into elaborate “makes.” What is most interesting to me is his process of coming up with ideas, and what he, of limited physical competence, can do with his ideas. A few weeks ago he got it into his head that he wanted to make a helmet out of paper. He had a VERY definite idea in his head of what he wanted it to look like. He tried drawing the shape on paper, but got so frustrated that he couldn’t draw what he was picturing in his head, and neither could he articulate it for someone else to help him. There were tears.
After Daddy helped him calm down and used the computer to help him draw a perfectly symmetrical shape, he wanted to punch holes on either side of the bottom edge and tie a string through that would go under his chin. He didn’t realize that if you do that the paper will bend and the hat will site flat on top of your head instead of perpendicular to the floor. He’s four! He clearly wanted the hat to look a certain way on his head, and came up with a plan to execute it, but it didn’t work. There were more tears. But then he said, okay, wore it for a second, then abandoned it. “It’s not really right anyway,” he said.
I think about this because I think the visualization of what you want the finished product to be is the key difference between your own ideas and something from pop culture. When you are emulating something you’ve seen before, someone else has done that visualization already, and your job is to execute. You want to reproduce something as faithfully as possible, in all its physical aspects and capabilities. Your work is, in effect, limited by what someone else previously visualized.
When you make something of your own, you do the visualizing yourself. But then the execution can be much more flexible, and if something doesn’t work you can always change it. Or change your mind halfway through about what you wanted it to look like or do. This flexibility allows you to be more creative from a design perspective, but doesn’t necessarily challenge you in the same way with restrictions. You may actually be more creative in your problem solving when your final product must look a certain way or do a certain thing.
So I think that both types of projects challenge the maker in different ways, and allow the maker to be creative in different ways. Either way gives makers abundant learning opportunities. Either way lets makes be creative problem solvers. And even better? Do both!
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Online Cultures, Physical Spaces, Teens, and Adults
When I began to think about my answer to this question, I thought of my own experiences first, and then realized that the way I interact with others online and face-to-face is actually very different from the way teens navigate the different spaces. After giving it some thought, I am inclined to say to teens, online and real-world interactions are probably more aligned and more similar than they are to adults (slightly older adults, actually—I can’t believe I turned 40 this year).
My contemporaries treat online culture as a separate space
from our “real” lives. We put thought into our online personas, take time to
choose and edit our postings, and create a face to show the public. Because we
have such busy lives, being online feels very different from physical space
interactions because our physical presence is so scheduled that every
interaction is important. Online, however, we can pop in and out, check on
things at all hours, and even send texts and emails without expecting an
immediate reply.
From what we read in Hanging
Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out, it seems that teens move between
online worlds and physical worlds more fluidly, where they could be talking to
a group of friends and texting another at the same time. Or they could physically
be with someone working on what to post to present themselves to the world (p. 85).
So for me, online culture is distinct and different because
I think about every post, and what it says about me. I enjoy keeping up with
people I don’t see very often, just by seeing what they are posting. I only
text close friends, and (with the exception of my husband) don’t expect people
to reply immediately because I know they’re busy too.
Teens, however, can occupy multiple spaces at the same time.
They also use the online medium to facilitate physical interactions, such as
going online or texting to see if someone wants to meet up (p. 39). Because
most of the people they interact with online they also see daily, online
personas tend to match their offline personas. When they don’t, this can cause
stress and drama within relationships (p. 100).
It was interesting to learn about how teens use online tools
for socializing and learning. I kept thinking that this book was published in
2010, and in the intervening five years, so much has changed. It all must be
different even now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)