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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)