Social bookmarking has been around for a while now, and is really starting to take off. Why? It's convenient (always having your favorite websites at your fingertips) and allows for easy sharing with friends (interesting articles, professional information, and, of course, this week's must-see viral YouTube video).
Roush, W. (2005). Tagging is it. Technology Review, 108(6), 21-22. Retrieved January 15, 2011 from EBSCOhost.
Why social bookmarking? It allows you to share things you find interesting, and creates an organized "list" of the things you share so you can easily access them from anywhere (so long as you have an internet connection). You "tag" the websites you save (add keywords you can use to search) and can see websites others are posting. Just as is the case with conversation, different people use different words for the same things so, while tagging isn't perfect, it can still be helpful. "But a bunch of people doing 'okay' tagging may actually have a higher net value than an authoritative organization telling you how information should be organized," says Joshua Schachter, the creator of Delicious (Roush, 22).
Gilmour, R., & Stickland, J. (2009). Social bookmarking for library services: Bibliographic access through Delicious. College & Research Libraries News, 70(4), 234-7. Retrieved January 15, 2011 from Education Full Text database
How does this impact libraries? Your patrons now have their bookmarks wherever they go, including the library. Traditional browser-based bookmarking tools were specific to one computer and were difficult to share. Tagging helps users create connections between different bookmarks and share with other users things they find interesting. It is the opposite of the traditional "top down" subject heading approach to information management. Lists can be shared with library users by embedding code in existing public webpages.
--
How can this be used in the classroom? One, it helps you as instructor librarian stay organized, wherever you are. Two, have you ever had students researching something fairly new or doing website assessment? Bingo! You've got great tools at your disposal: tagging and sharing. Coming up with a unique course tag (i.e. UDSoc112) can help students search and see what sorts of things their classmates are finding. For one of my graduate-level courses I used others' tags in Goodreads to find new-to-me reading materials.
--
Which social bookmarking tool should you use? It depends on what you are interested in doing. I will discuss two, Delicious and Diigo. The fate of Delicious has been up in the air for quite some time with the latest announcement that the creators of YouTube have acquired Delicious and is becoming part of AVOS, a new internet company. With this change, current Delicious users need to transfer their bookmarks sometime before July 2011. The transfer process is pretty simple (entering in name, contact information, and agreeing to the new AVOS terms of use). The benefits outlined above for social bookmarking are what make Delicious such a great tool--that and it's one of the (if not the) top bookmarking tools today, so if your main interest is sharing with friends, Delicious is a great tool for you to use. Other features include the ability to post to Facebook and Twitter.
Let's talk Diigo. Diigo gives you a toolbox allowing you to bookmark, highlight, add sticky notes, images, notes, and documents. All of the annotations are stored in the cloud and can be seen by you from anywhere, as long as you've logged in. You add tags, just like Delicious, but you can also upload the entire webpage (saved as HTML and an image) to make sure you have it later (should it change online). The annotation tools are simple and also allow you to capture and mark up screen shots to share with others in your library. You can also mark things to read later. iPhone's offline reader downloads pages to read later. Diigo seems to have all the bells and whistles beyond Delicious's current offerings. For new users, that may be a barrier.
--
Tucker, Christy. (2008, March 29). Diigo or Delicious for Beginners? Retrieved from http://christytucker.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/diigo-or-delicious-for-beginners/
According to Christy Tucker, the features that make Delicious approachable are that it is so basic, lots of tutorials are available, and it can be a gateway to Diigo (easily import bookmarks). As I mentioned before, Diigo has a lot going for it, and it's visually more appealing than Delicious. You don't have to use all of the features Diigo offers, but it is nice having them there.
--
Over the years Diigo has added helpful (albeit a little bland) tutorials that nicely explain the features and how to best use them). For me the real difference is the ability to annotate (and share annotations) and save entire pages to be viewed offline. I was one who started with Delicious but have decided to embrace the other features Diigo offers.
--
Also consulted:
Pierce, David. (2008, November 8). 7 reasons Diigo tastes better than Delicious. Makeuseof.com Retrieved April 25, 2011 from http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/7-reasons-diigo-tastes-better-than-delicious/
Stolley, K. (2009). Integrating social media Into existing work environments: The case of Delicious. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 23(3). 350-371. DOI: 10.1177/1050651909333260
What’s next for Delicious? (2010). Delicious Blog. Retrieved January 16, 2011 from http://blog.delicious.com/blog/2010/12/whats-next-for-delicious.html
Showing posts with label social bookmarking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social bookmarking. Show all posts
Monday, May 2, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Article Discussion: Instruction 2.0 - What are we actually doing?
The past few weeks I have begun working on a longer post discussing Delicious (Yahoo’s bookmarking product). In the meantime, I keep finding other articles that peak my emerging-technology interests. The next few posts discuss such examples.
--
Bobish, G. (2010). Instruction 2.0 - What are we actually doing?. Communications in Information Literacy, 4(1). Retrieved January 26, 2011, from http://www.comminfolit.org/index.php/cil/article/view/Vol4-2010AR5
--
Bobish begins with an elementary discussion of web 2.0 and its use in library instruction. Who can we as instructors incorporate these tools more widely and what is currently being utilized by librarians and (in this case) college students? He describes "Library 2.0" as something that is constantly changing to meet the needs of users, developing an interactive approach to librarianship using web-based tools. Throughout the article, user participation is emphasized as a key element of Library 2.0.
The partnering of Web 2.0 and instruction is a good match in that the services libraries offer should reflect the needs of their patrons. In this case, the use of Library 2.0 tools in library instruction takes the service-minded model and orients it toward instruction.
A vast majority of teens use the internet and over two-thirds have created some sort of online content. Students expect interactivity from all aspects of their life, not just when they are gaming or instant messaging (IMing) their friends. Incorporating these interactive aspects into their education is something colleges around the country are actively promoting. By making learning interactive, the students are not only becoming more intrinsically motivated to complete learning tasks, they are also allowed to share their learning with others.
In the literature review the author discusses how 2.0 tools can help students develop information literacy skills, in keeping with ACRL's InfoLit standards. Examples include student-created wikis, blogging, Flikr, web-based tutorials, and IM.
But how exactly are these technologies incorporated? Are they used just so the institution can boast of their technological savvy? Or, are these technologies used to support the educational mission of the institution? Rather than providing practical ideas for application in an academic library setting, the author visits academic libraries' instruction websites and examines their Library 2.0 offerings.
Bobish examined 122 ARL websites, looking for publicly available Web 2.0 tools specifically tied to library instruction. The following tools were focused on during this examination:
The author found IM employed by the most libraries, most in conjunction with the library's reference services. Very few required logins (those institutions that did, used email information); most used widgets like Meebo. An interesting point that was made about IM use was that, in order for IM to be used as widely as possible, it needed to be embedded on every page of the library's website, as opposed to just on the main page.
Media
When the author spoke of Media earlier in the article, I was curious to see how he defined it in relation to library instruction--particularly as the article is emphasizing interaction with students. While nearly half of the libraries had some form of media within their instruction webpage (considered to be video, flash, screen-capture tutorials, podcasts, and audio tutorials), the level of interaction was minimal at best. Many of the pieces were librarian created with a similar approach to lecture-based instruction, simply made available online. The author questions if it is really Library 2.0 if it is not truly interactive.
Interactive Content
The author admits to the vagueness of the title of this category, as virtually all Library 2.0 tools are meant to be interactive. The items found took the form of tutorials or reviews. One thing of interest was that, though none of these tutorials required logins to be viewed, in some cases students could log in and receive course credit for viewing. Some of the tutorials were simple "slick-through tutorials with quizzes; the author adds that modifying the permissions on the activities to allow students “to contribute examples, comments, or questions to these tutorials would be a way to start allowing more substantial interaction.” Understandably, some may be hesitant to give up the control of the content or take on the time-consuming task of monitoring the content. Bobish offers the following to those who are hesitant: "students could be allowed to download and remix the tutorials and then submit them for review in a special section of the site” and then reviewed by the professor to determine whether the student-created content would be featured and made available to all students.
Plug-ins or Widgets
Examples of Plug-ins and Widgets include things like bibliographic tools (Zotero) and catalog search boxes. While some library catalogs did require logins, most of these applications were simply discussed (i.e. how to use Zotero in your research) as opposed to embedded as an integral part of web-based library instruction. Many of the pages that had Plug-ins or Widgets simply linked to the applications rather than allow direct access. Rather than completely redesign the library's website, many allowed the links and information provided to serve as an introduction to the tool. For libraries looking for a small (file size and visually) way to incorporate free technologies into their webpages
RSS
RSS stands for "Really Simple Syndication" and allows users to follow new announcements or changes to various websites by "subscribing" to the changes. RSS is available without having a login, those interested in subscribing do need a way to subscribe (i.e. Google Reader). Most libraries used this as a way to subscribe to announcements about tutorials, podcasts, etc. but some also incorporated research aspects using RSS to subscribe to database updates or newsfeeds.
Blogs
This portion of the article contained the basics of library blog use (i.e. using blogs as an easily updated website, linking to blogs, etc.) but also introduced me to Technorati, a blog index (http://technorati.com/). Technorati not only indexes blogs, it also compiles lists of the most popular blogs, highlights blogging trends, topics, and tags.
Interactivity with the blogs was restricted to commenting on posts, but that often required a login. Most were used as a way to broadcast Instruction news. The author suggested using polls or questions about the content presented either in class or during instruction sessions.
Wikis
Wikis are useful for collaborative creation of content. Seven of 122 pages had wikis as a part of their Instruction web page; one instruction web page was a wiki. Again, many of the pages limited interaction by simply discussing wikis or using them as a subject-guide page. In order to edit any of the wiki content, logging in was required, but were able to view content without logging in. Bobish recognizes the library's need to monitor content, but recommends an area of the wiki that is a student area where content could be added and considered for placement within the main sections of the wiki. This would allow for questions to be asked and for the students to share their perspectives and helpful tips with each other and with the librarians.
Social Bookmarking
Folksonomy was discussed briefly by Bobish, noting that the creation of labels by the users themselves may help add to the richness and relevancy of some resources, as opposed to simply using subject headings or library jargon. Students could tag pages for certain types of classes, assignments, or types of research. The tags can then serve as resource guides for classes.
Media Sharing
In this instance, media sharing is described as "creating media and then making it available for others to download, remix, or share," as opposed to compiling links to others' content. One example is TILT, the Texas Information Literacy Tutorial. This can be downloaded and customized by any school, but is primarily used by librarians (as opposed to students adding content). Other examples are using Creative Commons content to create tutorials, videos, etc. The Animated Tutorial Sharing Project http://ants.wetpaint.com/ allows librarians to share various tutorials and other tech-related instruction ideas. According to the ANTS Project website, "Recognizing that creating and updating Tutorials for each online resource is a daunting task for any library to undertake on its own, librarians in COPPUL got together to find a way to share in their development. This project is an outgrowth of that initiative and our goal is to create a critical mass of Open Source Tutorials for online resources used by libraries everywhere."
Student/User-Contributed Content
Five of 122 schools featured student-created videos or tutorials, or had student feedback forms. For the videos, much of the interaction with students came prior to the information being uploaded to the page (i.e. during the production stages). Allowing for student comments would provide valuable feedback to the librarians, however, monitoring comment content is a time consuming task.
Social Networking, Gaming, & Second Life
While many libraries have social networking presences (i.e. Facebook), only three instruction web pages had a Facebook presence. Gaming was only used by Ohio State, for their "Head Hunt" game, which is highly interactive and combines basic library policies/skills with campus knowledge. No library instruction pages incorporated Second Life into their user experiences. This last point does not surprise me, as I see Second Life as more of a leisurely for users, as opposed to something they would incorporate into their library pursuits.
Comparing Reality to Literature
This section was particularly interesting. The author examined the emphasis of Library 2.0 in the literature and compared it to the reality of incorporating 2.0 tools in daily instructional practice. The discussion in literature far outweighed the practice reflected by instruction websites. “A basic search in the LISTA database reveals that social networking, gaming, and Second Life are written about disproportionately to their actual presence on library instruction websites." There are several considerations when comparing the two data sets. When examining literature, the author did not limit the search to just instruction articles, stating many of the ideas shared in other articles could easily be adapted to suit instruction practices. It was encouraging to see that most libraries have adopted at least one of the technologies listed above in their instruction practices.
A caveat of incorporating new technologies is the time it takes to maintain (i.e. monitoring comments, upgrades, training librarians and students, etc.). One must carefully consider the technology to see if it aligns clearly with their pedagogical standards, weighing the pros and cons. Some technologies, such as the game from Ohio State, require a significant time commitment and expertise whereas others, such as wikis and blogs, can be done fairly quickly and easily.
“The key, both for instructional success and for institutional support, is to find ways of connecting the benefits of the tools to recognized instructional objectives.”
--
Bobish, G. (2010). Instruction 2.0 - What are we actually doing?. Communications in Information Literacy, 4(1). Retrieved January 26, 2011, from http://www.comminfolit.org/index.php/cil/article/view/Vol4-2010AR5
--
Bobish begins with an elementary discussion of web 2.0 and its use in library instruction. Who can we as instructors incorporate these tools more widely and what is currently being utilized by librarians and (in this case) college students? He describes "Library 2.0" as something that is constantly changing to meet the needs of users, developing an interactive approach to librarianship using web-based tools. Throughout the article, user participation is emphasized as a key element of Library 2.0.
The partnering of Web 2.0 and instruction is a good match in that the services libraries offer should reflect the needs of their patrons. In this case, the use of Library 2.0 tools in library instruction takes the service-minded model and orients it toward instruction.
A vast majority of teens use the internet and over two-thirds have created some sort of online content. Students expect interactivity from all aspects of their life, not just when they are gaming or instant messaging (IMing) their friends. Incorporating these interactive aspects into their education is something colleges around the country are actively promoting. By making learning interactive, the students are not only becoming more intrinsically motivated to complete learning tasks, they are also allowed to share their learning with others.
In the literature review the author discusses how 2.0 tools can help students develop information literacy skills, in keeping with ACRL's InfoLit standards. Examples include student-created wikis, blogging, Flikr, web-based tutorials, and IM.
But how exactly are these technologies incorporated? Are they used just so the institution can boast of their technological savvy? Or, are these technologies used to support the educational mission of the institution? Rather than providing practical ideas for application in an academic library setting, the author visits academic libraries' instruction websites and examines their Library 2.0 offerings.
Bobish examined 122 ARL websites, looking for publicly available Web 2.0 tools specifically tied to library instruction. The following tools were focused on during this examination:
- IM
- Media
- Interactive Content
- Plug-ins/Widgets
- RSS Feeds
- Blogs
- Wikis
- Social Bookmarking
- Media Sharing
- Student-Created Content
- Social Networking
- Gaming
- Second Life
- Is it there?
- Is it publicly accessible? If not what login/affiliation is required?
- What is the level of interactivity/participation?
The author found IM employed by the most libraries, most in conjunction with the library's reference services. Very few required logins (those institutions that did, used email information); most used widgets like Meebo. An interesting point that was made about IM use was that, in order for IM to be used as widely as possible, it needed to be embedded on every page of the library's website, as opposed to just on the main page.
Media
When the author spoke of Media earlier in the article, I was curious to see how he defined it in relation to library instruction--particularly as the article is emphasizing interaction with students. While nearly half of the libraries had some form of media within their instruction webpage (considered to be video, flash, screen-capture tutorials, podcasts, and audio tutorials), the level of interaction was minimal at best. Many of the pieces were librarian created with a similar approach to lecture-based instruction, simply made available online. The author questions if it is really Library 2.0 if it is not truly interactive.
Interactive Content
The author admits to the vagueness of the title of this category, as virtually all Library 2.0 tools are meant to be interactive. The items found took the form of tutorials or reviews. One thing of interest was that, though none of these tutorials required logins to be viewed, in some cases students could log in and receive course credit for viewing. Some of the tutorials were simple "slick-through tutorials with quizzes; the author adds that modifying the permissions on the activities to allow students “to contribute examples, comments, or questions to these tutorials would be a way to start allowing more substantial interaction.” Understandably, some may be hesitant to give up the control of the content or take on the time-consuming task of monitoring the content. Bobish offers the following to those who are hesitant: "students could be allowed to download and remix the tutorials and then submit them for review in a special section of the site” and then reviewed by the professor to determine whether the student-created content would be featured and made available to all students.
Plug-ins or Widgets
Examples of Plug-ins and Widgets include things like bibliographic tools (Zotero) and catalog search boxes. While some library catalogs did require logins, most of these applications were simply discussed (i.e. how to use Zotero in your research) as opposed to embedded as an integral part of web-based library instruction. Many of the pages that had Plug-ins or Widgets simply linked to the applications rather than allow direct access. Rather than completely redesign the library's website, many allowed the links and information provided to serve as an introduction to the tool. For libraries looking for a small (file size and visually) way to incorporate free technologies into their webpages
RSS
RSS stands for "Really Simple Syndication" and allows users to follow new announcements or changes to various websites by "subscribing" to the changes. RSS is available without having a login, those interested in subscribing do need a way to subscribe (i.e. Google Reader). Most libraries used this as a way to subscribe to announcements about tutorials, podcasts, etc. but some also incorporated research aspects using RSS to subscribe to database updates or newsfeeds.
Blogs
This portion of the article contained the basics of library blog use (i.e. using blogs as an easily updated website, linking to blogs, etc.) but also introduced me to Technorati, a blog index (http://technorati.com/). Technorati not only indexes blogs, it also compiles lists of the most popular blogs, highlights blogging trends, topics, and tags.
Interactivity with the blogs was restricted to commenting on posts, but that often required a login. Most were used as a way to broadcast Instruction news. The author suggested using polls or questions about the content presented either in class or during instruction sessions.
Wikis
Wikis are useful for collaborative creation of content. Seven of 122 pages had wikis as a part of their Instruction web page; one instruction web page was a wiki. Again, many of the pages limited interaction by simply discussing wikis or using them as a subject-guide page. In order to edit any of the wiki content, logging in was required, but were able to view content without logging in. Bobish recognizes the library's need to monitor content, but recommends an area of the wiki that is a student area where content could be added and considered for placement within the main sections of the wiki. This would allow for questions to be asked and for the students to share their perspectives and helpful tips with each other and with the librarians.
Social Bookmarking
Folksonomy was discussed briefly by Bobish, noting that the creation of labels by the users themselves may help add to the richness and relevancy of some resources, as opposed to simply using subject headings or library jargon. Students could tag pages for certain types of classes, assignments, or types of research. The tags can then serve as resource guides for classes.
Media Sharing
In this instance, media sharing is described as "creating media and then making it available for others to download, remix, or share," as opposed to compiling links to others' content. One example is TILT, the Texas Information Literacy Tutorial. This can be downloaded and customized by any school, but is primarily used by librarians (as opposed to students adding content). Other examples are using Creative Commons content to create tutorials, videos, etc. The Animated Tutorial Sharing Project http://ants.wetpaint.com/ allows librarians to share various tutorials and other tech-related instruction ideas. According to the ANTS Project website, "Recognizing that creating and updating Tutorials for each online resource is a daunting task for any library to undertake on its own, librarians in COPPUL got together to find a way to share in their development. This project is an outgrowth of that initiative and our goal is to create a critical mass of Open Source Tutorials for online resources used by libraries everywhere."
Student/User-Contributed Content
Five of 122 schools featured student-created videos or tutorials, or had student feedback forms. For the videos, much of the interaction with students came prior to the information being uploaded to the page (i.e. during the production stages). Allowing for student comments would provide valuable feedback to the librarians, however, monitoring comment content is a time consuming task.
Social Networking, Gaming, & Second Life
While many libraries have social networking presences (i.e. Facebook), only three instruction web pages had a Facebook presence. Gaming was only used by Ohio State, for their "Head Hunt" game, which is highly interactive and combines basic library policies/skills with campus knowledge. No library instruction pages incorporated Second Life into their user experiences. This last point does not surprise me, as I see Second Life as more of a leisurely for users, as opposed to something they would incorporate into their library pursuits.
Comparing Reality to Literature
This section was particularly interesting. The author examined the emphasis of Library 2.0 in the literature and compared it to the reality of incorporating 2.0 tools in daily instructional practice. The discussion in literature far outweighed the practice reflected by instruction websites. “A basic search in the LISTA database reveals that social networking, gaming, and Second Life are written about disproportionately to their actual presence on library instruction websites." There are several considerations when comparing the two data sets. When examining literature, the author did not limit the search to just instruction articles, stating many of the ideas shared in other articles could easily be adapted to suit instruction practices. It was encouraging to see that most libraries have adopted at least one of the technologies listed above in their instruction practices.
A caveat of incorporating new technologies is the time it takes to maintain (i.e. monitoring comments, upgrades, training librarians and students, etc.). One must carefully consider the technology to see if it aligns clearly with their pedagogical standards, weighing the pros and cons. Some technologies, such as the game from Ohio State, require a significant time commitment and expertise whereas others, such as wikis and blogs, can be done fairly quickly and easily.
“The key, both for instructional success and for institutional support, is to find ways of connecting the benefits of the tools to recognized instructional objectives.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)