While I know for sure that I want to work in a public library, I am undecided on whether I want to work with children, young adults, or maybe even adults. However, for a long time I had planned on being a children's librarian, so I chose to read the competencies posted by ALSC on the requirements for librarians serving children. Though at times brief, repetitive, or unspecific, the requirements overall seem very up to date and important for children's librarianship in today's society. I like that in multiple sections the subject of diversity came up. The competencies state that it is necessary to have diverse collection materials, and that children's librarians should know how to interact effectively and respectfully with patrons of other cultures. I do think that a little more needs to be said about these topics, but overall it is good.
A section that seems extremely important is the Technology section. It stresses having strong computer skills and a strong knowledge about current and future technology. I am by no means a fan of all the technological advancements that are occurring. However, I do not think that they are going to stop, and to just ignore them and hope they go away is both useless and ignorant. This is true in all forms of librarianship, not just for children's librarianship. Keeping up with and utilizing current technology is also a great way to reach and relate to children who were raised using these resources (although in some cases this might apply more to YA than to children). This section also strikes me as one of the more difficult to achieve. We are living in a time of almost constant technological advancements. Just to have basic knowledge about all of them seems overwhelming, but to constantly be developing the skills necessary to use them effectively seems almost impossible. However, as I said above, I think it is very important and definitely deserves the time and attention of children's librarians.
In reading How People Learn I found out many interesting and surprising things about learning and teaching. I especially thought it was interesting to read how sixth graders who were taught using Thinker Tools Curriculum were better at solving (conceptual) physics problems than eleventh and twelfth graders who were in traditional physics classes. I would not have guessed that this teaching style would make that much difference. I have had many classes, from elementary school all the way up to grad school, that have required me to reflect on what I know, what I have learned, what my hypotheses are... And I always hated it. It has always felt forced and not at all beneficial. Maybe I was not properly taught how to evaluate myself when I was little. I'm not sure.
At the same time, I do agree that too much emphasis in high school and college on memorizing facts, without regard for understanding. This was especially true in my math classes in college. I have always been good at memorizing facts but I did not always fully understand the concepts behind them. My fiance, on the other hand, does not memorize, but instead spends time truly understanding the concepts. I would do significantly better on tests but I am sure that if we were both asked to take the tests now, a few years later, that I would not be able to do any of the problems and he would do decently well.
I found the Experts and Novices chapter more difficult to relate to and understand. What I did get out of it made me a little worried about myself and about teaching systems in general. As I said in the last paragraph, I am pretty good at memorization. Because of this I have always done quite well in school. However, I tend to forget things immediately following the test. Even if I do remember it, it does not do a lot of good. As this chapter stated, "Experts' knowledge cannot be reduced to sets of isolated facts or propositions " (page 31). I'm pretty sure that my knowledge puts me in the novice category for everything. I have a feeling that many people who have wanted to do well in school also have this problem, and I don't think it is fully out fault (although a little bit for somewhat taking the easy way out).
I am a little worried that even at SI where there are no tests that require memorization, I am not always getting the hands on experience necessary to move past being a novice in any category. Classes such as 501 give step by step detailed instructions that do not allow for students to figure things out on their own, and develop their own methods. I do think that expertise often comes with time. The book mentioned in the example of chess players that expertise came from playing thousands of games. I have a feeling that becoming an expert (or accomplished novice) librarian will come after working as one for a while. It just makes me wonder a little about the point, then, of being in grad school.
I, too, am quiet good at memorization and credit that with my good grades in school. There was really very little I learned prior to college that I learned for understanding. There was always emphasis put on getting correct answers and not being wrong, and being a sensitive kid, I was doubly afraid of giving a wrong answer! Truth be told, I don't know how I would have gotten through some classes without memorization, as there were so many facts that to remember everything for understanding would have been unrealistic, and even bordering on ridiculous. I was shocked in college when my history professors told me that dates were less important than events and understanding the causes of those events--what a revelation! I have to agree that I think I'm probably a novice in most things...maybe even everything (except perhaps my senior thesis, which I can still go on about at length). I wonder if most other people feel this way too? Strangely, I also questioned the point of school--K-12 that is--if we're only learning to regurgitate facts in my blog.
ReplyDelete