"Intelligence without ambition is a bird without wings."
-Salvador Dali
-Salvador Dali
Just before I had to go into work today, as I was resting on the couch with my eyes closed, a number of brilliant ideas and question connected together in my brain, but I dismissed the thought that I should get up and write these things down because I was tired and wanted to rest, and I figured I'd remember those brilliant thoughts later. Funny how a shift at work can so quickly and easily erase all intelligent thoughts from one's mind. I still hope that I might be able to recover the thoughts I had earlier. But for now, you'll have to settle for the less-than-brilliant reflections on the past week's lecture and reading.
One thing I have come to really appreciate about the book, The Atlas of New Librarianship, is that at the beginning of each thread, there is a nice graphic organizer showing how the threads will play out in the text. I suppose this seems an obvious idea- after all, the book is called an "atlas," and the graphic organizers are a form of verbal/visual map of ideas- but obvious or not, I like how handy it is to have before I even begin reading the thread.
Throughout this thread, I found a number of things that sparked questions and thoughts in my own mind. I think one that resonated in particular was the idea of getting communities to feel a sense of ownership in their library spaces, physical or virtual. When I was a teacher, some of my biggest frustrations stemmed from the infamous initiative known as "No Child Left Behind." I will try to refrain from launching into my soapbox tirade about this particular topic, but it suffices me to say that the primary problem of this initiative- as well as almost any and all related legislation following it- is that it takes all responsibility of learning away from the students (and indirectly, their parents) and places it all on the shoulders of the teachers. I can concede that teachers should have their share of the responsibility for the learning that occurs- after all, they, like librarians, are facilitators of knowledge acquisition. But to deny students their share of responsibility for their own learning discourages motivation to take ownership of their education. After all, why should they care whether or not they fail when, according to the government, their failure is always the teachers' fault and not their own?
The same principle applies to community learning. I liked this idea of structuring the library environment- both physically and online- in such a way that the members of the community take ownership of "the physical spaces we maintain and the artifacts within them." (Atlas, p. 69). If we deny them the opportunity to feel ownership by insisting that we do it all ourselves- if we treat the library like a temple of knowledge in which the members are privileged to have access, and act as the gods who are graciously, benevolently bestowing knowledge to all who come seeking- why, really, should they care then if something goes wrong? As librarians, for all the knowledge and skills that we have (and will hopefully gain), we are not then superior beings. Rather the knowledge and skills that we have better enable us to serve our communities. In order to server them effectively, though, we need to know what their needs are, how they need to be served. And, as Prof. Lankes and others have already iterated and reiterated, the only way to know what our communities need is to open those conversations with them.
One thing I have come to really appreciate about the book, The Atlas of New Librarianship, is that at the beginning of each thread, there is a nice graphic organizer showing how the threads will play out in the text. I suppose this seems an obvious idea- after all, the book is called an "atlas," and the graphic organizers are a form of verbal/visual map of ideas- but obvious or not, I like how handy it is to have before I even begin reading the thread.
Throughout this thread, I found a number of things that sparked questions and thoughts in my own mind. I think one that resonated in particular was the idea of getting communities to feel a sense of ownership in their library spaces, physical or virtual. When I was a teacher, some of my biggest frustrations stemmed from the infamous initiative known as "No Child Left Behind." I will try to refrain from launching into my soapbox tirade about this particular topic, but it suffices me to say that the primary problem of this initiative- as well as almost any and all related legislation following it- is that it takes all responsibility of learning away from the students (and indirectly, their parents) and places it all on the shoulders of the teachers. I can concede that teachers should have their share of the responsibility for the learning that occurs- after all, they, like librarians, are facilitators of knowledge acquisition. But to deny students their share of responsibility for their own learning discourages motivation to take ownership of their education. After all, why should they care whether or not they fail when, according to the government, their failure is always the teachers' fault and not their own?
The same principle applies to community learning. I liked this idea of structuring the library environment- both physically and online- in such a way that the members of the community take ownership of "the physical spaces we maintain and the artifacts within them." (Atlas, p. 69). If we deny them the opportunity to feel ownership by insisting that we do it all ourselves- if we treat the library like a temple of knowledge in which the members are privileged to have access, and act as the gods who are graciously, benevolently bestowing knowledge to all who come seeking- why, really, should they care then if something goes wrong? As librarians, for all the knowledge and skills that we have (and will hopefully gain), we are not then superior beings. Rather the knowledge and skills that we have better enable us to serve our communities. In order to server them effectively, though, we need to know what their needs are, how they need to be served. And, as Prof. Lankes and others have already iterated and reiterated, the only way to know what our communities need is to open those conversations with them.