When looking at the items included in a “23 Things” developmental program the following online tools are included: Blogs, Building Community & Widgets, Online Podcasting, Photo and Image Generators, Productivity Tools (like Google Docs), RSS Feeds, Social Bookmarking, Wikis, and YouTube (Lemmons, 2009). Those online tools are all part of Web 2.0 which is becoming a regular part of libraries. This inclusion can be through patron or student instruction, community networking, colleague or staff collaborations, and programming.
Before looking at the implications of Web 2.0 there are drawbacks to be familiar with. As stated by Luo, the use of these tools brings technical challenges (2009). Librarians, library instructors, and all Web 2.0 users (including library patrons or the students in a school library) need to have significant technical understanding and various computer skills to use the tools effectively (Luo, 2009). Time is also a factor (Luo, 2009). Everything takes time including the continued development and management of Web 2.0 tools. Also, vandalism was a drawback Luo included with the use of Web 2.0 tools (2009). With the concept of Web 2.0 being a collaborative resource, vandalism could be a problem. Users can comment on all posts, add tags, include hyperlinks, add video, and much more; this can be used for learning and sharing amongst library users but one could also include items or text that are not appropriate, delete materials, or manipulate parts of the tools.
Librarians need to be knowledgeable of the implications for Web 2.0. Educational implications include the need for professional development of library staff. Also, librarians can use Web 2.0 to engage students and improve learning (Luo). Blogger, Google Docs, Delicious, and Wikis are all Web 2.0 tools that I have found appealed to me as a student and did facilitate not only my individual learning but also collaborative learning through sharing with my peers. Informational implications include an understanding of all the tools available to users. Librarians should continual educate themselves when it comes to Web 2.0; this means they should be experimenting with the many tools themselves! Tools with an “s”, it’s not enough to just understand one or two of the Web 2.0 tools. One information literacy implication is for librarians to include tools in order to increase student participation, interest, and learning in lessons or activities; “the accessibility and functionality Web 2.0 tools have made them appealing as instructional vehicles” (Luo, 2009, p. 32). Another implication is for librarians to choose which tools are a better fit for their library (Fredrick, 2011). Librarians need to look at the “educational significance, physical format, functionality, readability, and technical quality” of tools (Fredrick, 2011, p. 36). Social implications of Web2.0 are that the tools make it possibility to converse “online” with peers or other users with a common interest. Libraries can use Web 2.0 to keep their staff, patrons, new users, or others collaborating, conversing, sharing, and learning from one another.
In conclusion, Web 2.0 is the future. No, it’s now! Public, school and all libraries can utilize Web 2.0 for their specific users needs. This may be through public blogs, a social bookingmarking account in which tags are added to favorite online resources, a post with podcastings of book readings, or a collaborative Wiki used for students to complete a group assignment. Talk and listen to library users, find the tools best for your library, and continue to expand the use of Web 2.0!
References
Fredrick, Kathy. (2011). A fleet of freebies: Choosing web 2.0 tools for a school community. School Library Monthly, 27(8), 37-38. Retrieved from Library Literature & Information Science Full Text database.
Lemmons, K. (2009). Skill of the month: Professional development. School Library Monthly, 26(3), 22-23. Retrieved from Library Literature & Information Science Full Text database.
Luo, L. (2009). Web 2.0 integration in information literacy instruction: An overview. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(1), 32-40. Retrieved from Library Literature & Information Science Full Text database.
Samantha,
ReplyDeleteI had not thought about the very real need for patrons to have the technical understanding in order to use different Web 2.0 tools. Good point! Another area you brought up was the one of vandalism due to the collaborative nature of resources. Your final paragraph had some great ideas for application of resources. I agree, as so many do, that we must use these Web 2.0 tools to keep patrons thinking of us as a viable resource for information.
Twila