(Generation 1.5) Latino Students and the Library: A Case Study

Bradley, Rebecca
INFO 266
Fall 2016

Haras, C, Lopez, E. & Ferry, K. (2008). (Generation 1.5) Latino students and the library: a case study.  The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(5), 425-433.

This fascinating article studies the past, present, and future perception and use of library services among U.S.-educated first-year Latino undergraduate students. Using focus groups and an electronic survey, the authors conclude that the research skills among the Latino Freshman studied were underdeveloped due to low levels of K-12 library use. The authors further suggest that the under-utilization of K-12 library resources leads to lower levels of information literacy development within this student population, which could be one cause of the high rate of drop out among Latino students after their first year of college. The authors note that previous studies have focused on early literacy and numeric development as a predictor of future academic success or failure of Latino students, but not on the specific impact of library use and information literacy development.

As a Spanish-bilingual teacher-librarian, some of the information noted in this study as well as the findings were frankly alarming. On the positive side, 83.5% of the participants said that their first visit to the library happened before sixth grade with their mothers or a teacher. Many students also stated that they had fond memories of their visits and remembered the library as a “safe place.” In addition, 72% of these Latino students reported doing some research in high school and 76% said that they felt familiar with scholarly databases.

However, on the negative side, the authors noted that many “Generation 1.5” students stuck between their home language of Spanish and the English-dominant school environment were placed in low-track ESL classes in poor urban high schools lacking in adequate technology and library collections, which meant they were ill-prepared for the academic load in college. More shocking was the fact that according to a report by the California Department of Education in 2004, only 23% of our state schools had credentialed library media teachers and ranked last among all 50 states with librarian to student ratio (1:5,965). In one particularly shocking study on library use by undergraduates based on race, Ethelene Whitmire (2003) found that only 40% of Latino respondents had ever borrowed a book from a public library. The sad result of this lack of preparation and contact with libraries led to only 40.9% of Latino students surveyed in the study presented in this article to state that they felt “good” at doing research. Many of the participants felt that their former teachers did not prepare them adequately on how to use the library and its resources, which led to frustrating attempts in academic libraries.

After reading this article, I am even more concerned about the Latino students at my school. Clearly, the information literacy and research skills taught by me and the other teachers at my elementary school as well as the positive connection to be built between our students and the library are essential to their future academic success.

Reimagining the Academic Library

Go Circular! by zeronaut 

Micka, Tracy

INFO266, Fall 2016

Lewis, D.W. (2016, April 21). Reimagining the Academic Library [Webinar]. In Spring 2016 ACRL-Choice Webinars. Retrieved from http://acrlchoice.learningtimesevents.org/webinar-apr212016/

Summary:

David Lewis, Dean of the University Library at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, and thought-leader on the changing role of academic libraries, recently provided a webinar for ACRL members about his new book, Reimagining the Academic Library. The focus of David Lewis’ hour-long presentation (and the premise of the book) settles on the question, what does it mean to be a library/librarian as our collections go away? Working from a number of Clayton Christensen’s theories, including Disruptive Innovation and Jobs to be Done, Lewis succinctly outlines the forces faced by academic libraries, the things we need to think about moving forward, and a prescriptive list of the 10 things we need to do right now.  For Lewis, it all centers around flipping the role of the academic library from an institution that brings in content from the outside, to one that preserves and makes available scholarly content created by, and important to, their own scholars. The lynchpin is to retire the legacy print collection now. Right now. The sooner the print items go away, the sooner the library can focus on strategies to help students and faculty do what they need to do in a way that is more effective, convenient and affordable. Of course, this has everything to do with the disruptive innovations of purchase-on-demand, open access, and growth of high quality OER / digital content. There’s no love coming to commercial publishing companies from Lewis. Lewis understands the economics of information and the evolving environment of the scholarly record- and you will begin to as well after reading his book (or watching this webinar).

My comments:

Lewis makes a strong case for what remains the touchiest of subjects: throwing away good books! Ok, not throwing them away, but getting them out of the library (ideally in some kind of consortial arrangement), in order that we may have space and resources to provide a service that ‘the market’ (google, etc) cannot. What we really need is space for students to study and a sustainable model of preserving the scholarly record- which, by the way, he points out, is a wicked problem given the high rates of link rot and content drift. Still, his presentation is not all about pointing out obvious obstacles and unsolvable problems, rather he’s quite optimistic that we can make the leap. Watch the webinar (you don't have to be an ACRL member- just fill out the form), or read the book to find out how! This would be a great book for a staff read & discuss event.

Will smart phones and other bring your own devices (BYOD) dominate how academic library services are developed and delivered for the foreseeable future?

Guzman, Laura

Walton, G. (2014). Will smart phones and other bring your own devices (BYOD) dominate how academic library services are developed and delivered for the foreseeable future?. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 20(1), 1-3.

Descriptive Summary:

In Australia and around the world, more students and faculty are using their own devices in the process of teaching and learning.  Should libraries get rid of fixed PCs and head completely in the personal device direction? In this editorial, Walton focuses on the importance of making decisions based on users’ real needs and not just trends. 

Some reports say that the smart phone will not be highly used in a few years, but instead will be replaced by wearable devices.  Technology changes fast and library educational decisions should be structured around real situations and real needs. 

Based on a couple of studies, Walton highlights that at universities in Australia, fixed PCs in the library are still being highly used for academic work, while smart phones have more of a social function.  Students expect complete WIFI and need more group work collaboration spaces.  These small surveys show that some information behaviors remain the same, but others alter fundamentally.    

Evaluation:

At our library, student workers and staff are still not allowed to use their own devices while working.  Maybe we are way behind the times.  But, like the above surveys showed, students still primarily use their smart phones for social purposes, and not for educational ones.  Important decisions, like getting rid of fixed PCs, should be based on real usage and not on trends which soon may pass.  

Reference Librarians and the Potential for Teaching

Amy Bush

Info 266-Fall 2016

Dempsey, P.R. (2016). “Are you a computer?” Opening exchanges in virtual reference shape the

potential for teaching. College & Research Libraries, 77(4), 455-468. DOI: 10.5860/crl.77.4.455

Summary

            The purpose of this study was to apply conversation analysis theory to live chat reference transcripts at two university libraries. The study analyzed 412 transcripts of live chat interactions and examined how opening exchanges between students and librarians affected a potential for teaching and learning. The research questions were:

1.      In what ways do students begin chat reference interactions?

2.      To what extent do student openings vary at different institutions?

3.      How do students’ choices about beginning chats influence the length of the interaction and their satisfaction?

4.      What first response strategies do librarians use to prompt students to interact with them as teachers?

Dempsey states, “Both universities are diverse, urban, multi-campus institutions with a preponderance of commuter students” (p. 458). The primary differences were that Library 1 (L1) had private offices where librarians monitored live chats and Library 2 (L2) monitored live chats from public desks. Also, L2 had a policy on the Ask A Librarian page that restricts chat reference to brief and factual questions, whereas L1 had no such policy. The findings indicated that a higher percentage of students and librarians included greetings at L1 than at L2, and that the librarians from L2 often began their chats by asking patrons to wait of apologizing after a delay. The data also demonstrated that the duration of the chats were substantially longer when greetings were included and the students offered more enthusiastic gratitude. Finally, this study showed that when librarians assert their teacher identity and teach students how to do the research, rather than provide them with articles the librarian re-frames the transaction into a conversation that promotes student growth and discovery (Dempsey, p. 465).

Evaluation

            This article was thorough and well researched. It also provided direction toward further research which included: whether student assistants would bring strengths or weaknesses to live chat, how librarians avoid or include teaching, and further investigation concerning the percentage of libraries who restrict chat to brief questioning (Dempsey, P. 465). This article did a great job in addressing each question and further examining perspective reasons for findings. For example, Dempsey made a valid point concerning L2 and the effectiveness of live chat from a business perspective. She said, “Having librarians monitor chat reference at a busy service desk is cost-effective but can impede a real and significant educational role” (Dempsey, p. 466). This article was quite interesting and informative.

PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT

Fair, Jeremiah
CB

Mickelson, A. (2016). Practice makes perfect. Library Journal, 141, 34-36. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/ehost/detail/detail?sid=a5794a3c-fb6b-4e84-8a8e-ffe98744c05d%40sessionmgr102&vid=11&hid=107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=117655292&db=llf

Summary of article: A beginner's overview to the current climate and challenges for public libraries in terms of collection development. Mickelson goes over several factors that collection development and building are currently undergoing in the internet age including: Budgets and formats, Tech tools and the human touch, Donations and self-publishers, and weeding and maintenance.

Analysis: While just a basic overview, this article does a great job of describing the base foundation of collection development for public libraries. Mickelson interviews a few librarians on how they go about collection development and building to get the current climate of how they go about doing it. A very great part of this article in my opinion is that Mickelson lists several of the websites and databases that the current librarians use to help them make their selections for their collections. This includes LibraryReads, Edelweiss, NPR Books, and Netgalley. As someone who is very new to the library world, I had no idea of the existence of such sites.

Key Trends & Technologies Impacting Higher Ed: The 2016 Horizon Report

Micka, Tracy.

INFO266, Fall 2016

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., and Hall, C. (2016). NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2016-higher-education-edition/

The highly respected Horizon Report (Higher Education edition) for 2016 has been released, highlighting the trends, challenges, and technology that will impact higher education over the next five years. The key trends accelerating technology adoption can be summarized as:

1. Advancing cultures of innovation:  Using technology as a catalyst, universities aim to foster a Silicon Valley startup / entrepreneurial culture in order to drive innovation that will have practical / commercial outcomes for the local community and even the global workplace.
2. Rethinking how institutions work: Research shows a gap between the needs of the 21st century economy and how students are currently being prepared for the workplace. Cross-disciplinary approaches and new competency-based credentialing programs are made possible by technology and work to expand educational opportunities while also enhancing the employability of graduates.
3. Redesigning Learning Spaces: Physical spaces on campus must accommodate the new pedagogies of student-centered, active learning which is project-based and hands-on, calling for multiple devices, mobility, collaboration, lots of bandwidth, and remote access. These new spaces mimic real-world work environments, not lecture halls.
4. Shift to deeper learning approaches: Critical thinking, problem-solving, collaboration and self-directed learning are the new buzzwords articulating the cornerstones of modern education. All of this works to help students make connections between their education and the real world. Technology- namely the internet, but also web 2.0 tools, virtual reality, robotics and even 3D printers- enables deeper learning by giving students unprecedented access to information, otherwise remote experts/practitioners, and to each other to collaborate, create, and share to an authentic audience.
5. Growing focus on measured learning: Data mining software, and the prevalence of online programs and learning management systems provide the basis for massive data gathering that feeds a growing industry in analytics and changes in student assessment. With the trend toward better matching student skills with workplace needs, assessment is morphing from measuring rote learning to tracking competency-based learning goals. Protecting student privacy in the midst of this data mining is a key factor for policy leaders.
6. Increasing use of blended learning designs: Online learning is gaining traction in colleges and universities as technology and multimedia make high quality, low-cost, and even free learning objects/content available. By integrating face-to-face classes with online offerings, universities can offer greater affordability, accessibility, and more personalization.  

The following six technologies have been selected as ones likely to have real impact in higher education over the short, medium, and long term:

1. BYOD (Short Term; 1 yr or less)
2. Learning Analytics and Adaptive Learning (Short Term; 1 yr or less)
3. Augmented and Virtual Reality (Medium Term; 2-3 yrs)
4. Makerspaces (Medium Term; 2-3 yrs)
5. Affective Computing (Long Term; 4-5 yrs)
6. Robotics (Long Term; 4-5 yrs)

My comments:

Understandably, I see a lot of overlap between the K-12 and the higher ed reports. Namely, the trends of attention to deeper learning and redesigning learning spaces, since everyone is rethinking how these institutions (schools and universities) work. As far as technology developments, both institutions will be impacted by makerspaces, robotics & virtual reality, and online learning which provides useful analytics to boost learning outcomes, but which needs to be balanced by privacy concerns. All in all, education is changing dramatically, fueled by disruptive technologies and the new pedagogies that spring from them.

Review of: Teens, Technology, and Libraries

by Lindsay Lamar Schweizer

Agosto, D. E., Magee, R. M. Dickard, M., & Forte, A. (2016). Teens, technology, and libraries: An uncertain relationship. Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 86(3), 248-269.


This paper aims to look at how public and school libraries are meeting the information needs of teenagers. While the authors thought there had been research into how teenagers use technology, there hadn't been sufficient research on where school and public libraries fit into that equation.

Because this paper was published in 2016, I felt like it had relevant information for today. In the past, I have looked at information on the digital divide, and there are certainly portions of our population who have less access to computers and other technology. But I found it noteworthy that this article cited research from 2013 that indicates that 93% of teens have a computer at home, 78% of teens have a cell phone, and 37% of them are smart phones (Agosto, Magee, Dickard, and Forte, 2016, p. 248). So while it is still a valid idea that teens may need to use a library for its technology, it may not be the main reason, and it may shift students' perception of what they need from a library.

The authors did surveys and interviews with students at a high school. This particular paper focused on the in-depth interviews, as this was the form in which student perception of libraries was measured. Not surprisingly, most students in the study still equate libraries with books (Agosto et al., 2016, p. 255). About 40% of the students viewed libraries as obsolete, and do not connect technology with libraries, but rather in competition with what is easily available to them through the Internet (Agosto et al., 2016, p. 257). In fact, "these students also tended to view technology as easier and quicker to use than libraries. As one of the boys explained: 'Because everyone is so tech-based, it is kind of pointless to go into the library anymore' (age 17)" (Agosto et al., 2016, p. 258).

However, students were also asked about the reasons that they use a library. Library use seemed to focus around social opportunities, and use for leisure reading and leisure music. One student talked about being dragged to the library by a friend because he needed to check out something but had fines on his card so wanted to use hers. When they got there, they discovered a game night activity that was going on. They had so much fun that they started regularly attending it (Agosto et al., 2016, p. 258-259). Another student needed a couple books from her public library because they weren't in her school library, and rediscovered how great a space it was to work (Agosoto et al., 2016, p. 259).

Of important note, among the teens in the study, only 8% used the library for its technology (and one cited that it was because of technology malfunction at home, rather than no technology ever) (Agosto, et al., 2016, p. 259). The paper emphasized that the perceptions of libraries are outdated for teens, and some effort needs to be made to rebrand them for teens as a social space that can also be a quiet place to work as well.

Towards the end of the paper, the authors point out:

Just because the teens in this study tended to be infrequent library users does not mean that they were infrequent information users or infrequent information searchers.... For students with high levels of technology access, such as those in our study, librarians acting as technology educators to teach teens sophisticated information searching and resource evaluation and how to arm their phones or computers with available resources would probably be more useful than positioning libraries as technology access points. Thus, this work suggests an additional shift from the traditional focus on librarians as resource providers to librarians as information educators. (Agosto et al., 2016, p. 263)

I thought the insight of teaching teens how to access resources on their own devices was a powerful observation. If more and more people are walking around with a computer in their pocket, how can libraries arm them with what they need when both in the library walls and at home? Maybe libraries become less and less of a physical technology access point, but become a virtual one as well. And then maybe we look at the different ways that the physical space can meet other needs as well.