I’ve been working hard on an information literacy program for undergraduate students in the marketing and management departments at Concordia University’s John Molson School of Business (more on that later) but, in recent email exchange with a colleague, I came up with the following themes for graduate students:
Off the cuff, this curriculum would obviously discuss important academic resources such as peer-reviewed articles and related databases, but I feel it should also cover best practices with regards to managing one’s information need at the graduate level, well beyond “just” searching for information. This should include: using social media for graduate studies, active information discovery, advanced text processing, bibliographic management software, coping with information overload, etc.
Will come back to that later…
It uses the excellent NFB documentary by Brett Gaylor called: RIP! A remix manifesto. See also the movie’s page here.
This is a similar lecture to the one I delivered in February 2013 in prof. Tagny Duff’s Intermedia class at Concordia University’s Scholl of Communication Studies.
It is part of a playlist of videos on YouTube, including one on Creative Commons and the user generated content exception. Here are the 6 videos in a single playlist:
Additional reading materials:
– Read the legislative summary for bill C-11 by the Library of Parliament. (in general, it is a great idea to find these legislative summaries, the Library of the Parliament of Canada usually issues these for most laws).
– The “CCH” supreme court case (on fair dealings): CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13,  1 SCR 339
Read the first dozen pages for a great introduction to Canadian Copyright. On fair dealings, start with paragraph 48, which reads :
48 Before reviewing the scope of the fair dealing exception under the Copyright Act, it is important to clarify some general considerations about exceptions to copyright infringement. Procedurally, a defendant is required to prove that his or her dealing with a work has been fair; however, the fair dealing exception is perhaps more properly understood as an integral part of the Copyright Act than simply a defence. Any act falling within the fair dealing exception will not be an infringement of copyright. The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user’s right. In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users’ interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively. As Professor Vaver, supra, has explained, at p. 171: “User rights are not just loopholes. Both owner rights and user rights should therefore be given the fair and balanced reading that befits remedial legislation.”
On the 5 Supreme Court copyright cases delivered during the Summer of 2012, please access the Canadian Legal Information Institute’s website for the free full-text version of these rulings:
|2012-07-12||Re:Sound v. Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada, 2012 SCC 38,  2 SCR 376|
|2012-07-12||Alberta (Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 SCC 37,  2 SCR 345|
|2012-07-12||Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Bell Canada, 2012 SCC 36,  2 SCR 326|
|2012-07-12||Rogers Communications Inc. v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, 2012 SCC 35,  2 SCR 283|
|2012-07-12||Entertainment Software Association v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, 2012 SCC 34,  2 SCR 231|
How to analyse a copyright issue (in French) :
We are undergoing a library redesign project and here are some brainstormed ideas of how I would create an information experience at a modern university library:
1. Would it be desirable to have a prominent desk greeting users as soon as they enter the library, or a more open space (with a smaller desk) that would allow users to get acquainted with their environment?
Desks create a barrier between the patron and us. Why not an open space, with a few bar-height round tables with stools, carpeting (or different flooring) to indicate that this space is special. This space could be directly in front of the entrance, the first thing students see when they come in.
Other spaces could be designed close at had, like a more private “cabinet’ type with table, chairs and connectivity tools (chargers, plugs, etc.) In all cases, the consultation space should be open – ne distance between users and staff.
2. What kind of furniture would you like to see in the new space?
Round tables. Same chairs for patrons and staff. High tables and stools for quick discussion. Closed cabinet for longer issues.
3. What type of equipment / tools / technology should be available?
Internet. Multiple surface technologies – Wired PC with many screens facing in various directions. Tablets. Paper and pencils also – they are mysteriously portable, stable and useful when available. Other paper technology: Stapler, stapler-remover, hole punch, high-capacity printer. Electricity plugs. CD Burner. USB connectors easily available. 3D printers…. maybe even a few reference books still. Expresso machine (the kind that makes coffee).
4. Should there be many levels of service spaces available (i.e. information, reference, technical assistance, etc.), and if so, how would you envision the furniture / technology available for each?
Remember, users do not care what “category” their question falls under. They will keep asking if they feel their interlocutor is competent. So, this question is biased towards our conception of their need (which, I will argue without further discussion, is wrong).
Time is the only factor useful to distinguish between the “types” of questions. So, there are long interactions and short interactions. Short ones require an open, standing-up level, space, with high round tables and longer interactions require more comfortable, intimate, space. Round tables and same chairs for patrons and staff speak to an open, collaborative, collegial service.
5. Any other comments on how you would envision the space (or anything else you’d like to comment on)?
Yes. The name we give to the service is everything. I hate long complex concept driven names. I like short, evocative names. So, I would call the Ref\Tech\Info desk the “ASK” area and the circulation desk the “GET” area. This draws from the FTP (file transfer protocol) whereby you define system functions with simple 3-letter words. Would help with branding and directing students to the proper area.
Stop using the word “desk” – a desk is where you sit and work. We interact with patrons, so we need a new way to explain the space… I suggest “area” as a better term, there could be others.
I just learned that Mike Groenendyk is joining Concordia University Libraries as a fellow business librarian. Michael comes to us from Dalhousie University Libraries, where he’s had quite a bit of impact !
In my lazy-yet-mysteriously-efficient-googling, I’ve stumbled on this really interesting project to bring 3D printing to the DAL Libraries, funded by CARL. Watch a YouTube video of a joint presentation at the Access 2012 conference:
Also if interest is this video from PBSoffbook on 3D printing:
My favorite use of 3D printing so far? Making the characters of the stop-motion animation film ParaNorman. That and a harmonica. Harmonicas are cool.
Also of interest is this thread from the blog at MakerBot on 3D printing in Libraries.
If you want to read up on the potential of 3D printing, I highly recommend a novel by Cory Doctorow called Makers, available in print or free download. I devoured it during my summer vacation and it really speaks to the potential of this technology. The protagonists are two hacker/artists and they meander through a seemingly probably web of open communities, fans, fellow hackers and corporations spanning the evil/good axis. I personally thought that there was just a tad too much romantic melodrama, but in the end it was pale in comparison with Cory’s vision about 3D printing.
Please note that I am in sabbatical for the next 6 months, essentially writing my doctoral thesis. I won’t be checking my work email.
To follow my work, please refer to my French language research blog CultureLibre.ca. I’ll try to post on this blog once and a while, but not as often as usual…
I brainstormed this a while ago about the Concordia University Libraries when tkinking about presenting the library. Maybe it is useful?
** Top 10 awsome things your library does for you **
1. We buy all your textbooks and required readings (Reserve Room)
2. Computers, laptops, tablets, print, scan and internet
3. Open 24hrs, 7 days a week
4. 15 group study rooms
5. 5 million dollars – that’s how much we spend every year on stuff
6. Get stuff from us, but also any Library in Canada and the world (Colombo/Crepuq Card)
7. Forget Google & Wikipedia, we’ll teach you how to search for real
8. Use RefWorks and avoid plagarism
9. Talk to a person – our staff cares and will help you
10. Get all this FOR FREE !
I learned so much from the e.SCAPE conference at Concordia – but professor Hirumi inspired me to look into grounding the curriculum I am developing for business information literacy in proven theories.
Professor wrote a book in 2010 on this model:
Call Number LB 1029 S53P53 2010
Title Playing games in school : video games and simulations for primary and secondary classroom instruction / edited by Atsusi “2c” Hirumi
Edition 1st ed
Publisher Eugene, Ore : International Society for Technology in Education, c2010
He also wrote a book chapter in 2006:
Atsusi Hirumi — Designing interaction as a dialogue game : linking social and conceptual dimensions of the learning process
Call Number LB 1044.87 I548 2006
Title Interactions in online education : implications for theory and practice / edited by Charles Juwah
Publisher London ; New York : Routledge, 2006
Prof. Hirumi’s chapter in this book is available here.
In addition, prof. Hirumi offered some great summaries of contemporary proven learning theories For example, see this 30 page summary I found on a conference website (title: Grounding e-Learning Interactions to facilitate Critical Thinking
& Problem Solving).
During the conference, he presented his InterPLAY model, as seen here from a few of his slides:
He also presents it as such in the pdf document linked above (title: Grounding e-Learning Interactions to facilitate Critical Thinking
& Problem Solving ). On page 19, he describes it as such:
(Stapleton & Hirumi, 2011; Hirumi, Atkinson, & Stapleton, 2011)
Based on the belief that the learning of facts, concepts and principles occurs best in context of how they will be used, the Interplay strategy evokes emotions and sparks imagination, based on cognitive neuroscience research, to enhance experiential learning theories by addressing three primary conventions of interactive entertainment and their related elements (i.e., Story – characters, events, worlds; Game – rules, tools, goals; Play – stimulus, response, consequences).
1. Expose – Exposure provides the back-story to entice empathy for the character or player, and orients the audience into the same reference point or point of view. Exposure sets up specified learning objectives in a meaningful way to invite the student to contribute, to engage and to achieve the challenges set before them.
2. Inquire – Inquiry validates Exposure. If exposure sets a desire to learn, then inquiry is automatic. Inquire provides a response to student’s curiosity with something to do that showcases different elements that will be used later.
3. Discover –Discovery provides the personal reward, achievement, and the “ah ha” moment. The consequences of discovery, whether negative or positive, provide feedback to inspire further exploration to the next level of achievement.
4. Create – Transforms the experience from being merely reactive to truly interactive. Instead of responding to cues, the learner contributes to the content by applying the elements of the subject matter in novel ways.
5. Experiment – Provides an opportunity to assess learning and provide feedback without losing or winning. The goal is less about the hypothesis being right or wrong, but rather setting up the elements of the subject matter so that new knowledge can be gained. Failure should be fun.
6. Share – The sharing of personal experiences and feelings is facilitated at the end of the lesson or unit, to seal the memory of the learning experience. Sharing compels learners to put lessons learned in their own perspective as well as others.
He presented the context of the InterPLAY model as such:
In addition to the books references above, here are some works prof. Hirumy contributed to:
Crippen, K. J., Archambault, L., & Kern, C. (in press). Using Scaffolded Vee Diagrams to Enact Inquiry-Based Learning. In A. Hirumi (Ed.). Grounded Designs for Online and Hybrid Learning: Practical Guidelines for Educators and Instructional Designers. Eugene, WA: International Society for Technology in Education.
Hirumi, A. (2002). Student-centered, technology-rich, learning environments (SCenTRLE): Operationalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Journal for Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 497-537.
Hirumi, A. (1998, March). The Systematic Design of Student-Centered, Technology-Rich Learning Environments. Invited guest presentation given at the first Education Graduate Students and Academic Staff Regional Meeting, Guadalajara, Mexico.
Hirumi, A. (1996, February). Student-Centered, Technology-Rich Learning environments: A cognitive-constructivist approach. Concurrent session held at the Association for Educational Communication and Technology Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Hirumi, A. & Stapleton, C. (in press). Designing InterPLAY Learning Landscapes to Evoke Emotions, Spark the Imagination, and Foster Creative Problem Solving. In A. Hirumi (Ed.). Grounded Designs for Online and Hybrid Learning: Practical Guidelines for Educators and Instructional Designers. Eugene, WA: International Society for Technology in Education.
Hirumi, A., Atkinson, T., Stapleton, C. (2011). Interplay: Evoking Emotions andSparking Imagination through Story, Play and Game. Concurrent Session presented the annual Association for Educational Communication and Technology conference, Jacksonville, FL. Nov. 8-12.
Stapleton, C. & Hirumi, A. (2011). Interplay instructional strategy: Learning by engaging interactive entertainment conventions. In M. Shaughnessy & S. Fulgham (eds). Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching (pp. 183-211). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.