__________ 2.0

March 2, 2008 at 10:19 am (virtual library)

As I consider my reading audience, I’m guessing that they are wondering about the nuances of all these 2.0 terms just like I am.  This time I decided to focus my exploration of terms on different versions of 2.0.  Since Web 2.0 was the first I put it at the top of the list.  After that I put School Library 2.0 as it directly relates to our topic this week.  A school library is a special library as it supports curriculum in a school.  It is still a Library none the less so I included the bigger picture of Library 2.0 which, as I understand it, is related to the work in public libraries.  As I read about Library 2.0, I often replaces users with students.  I believe the message is still important.  I also included some other versions of 2.0 including Staff Development 2.0 (Jakes, 2006) that we learned about in Topic 2.   

Web 2.0 . . . How It All Began
“pervasive interactivity, where multitudes of users online actively exchange or contribute content…transform the very nature of knowledge and information” (Harris, 2006); also referred to as the Read/Write Web; video and slideshare available at web2tutorial links and resources or Judy Web 2.0 Notes.   

School Library 2.0
“24/7 workspace; learning-centred laboratory; participatory, social, user-centered space; librarians are connectors; community of trust emphasizing personal responsibility; place for interactive learning and collaboration with others” (quoted by Will Richardson from School Library Journal Summit Wiki ) 

Library 2.0
In a presentation to the British Columbia Library Association, Marylaine Block quoted the following definition of Library 2.0:

“Library 2.0 simply means making your library’s space (virtual and physical) more interactive, collaborative, and driven my community needs.”  Sarah Houghton-Jan

Casey and Savastinuk (2006) explain it extensively in their Library Journal article:

“The heart is user-centered change.  It is a model for library service that encourages constant and purposeful change, inviting user participation in the creation of both the physical and virtual servies they want, supported by consistently evaluating services….Each component by itself is a step toward better serving our users; however it is through the combined implementation of these that we can read Library 2.0.”

“What makes a service Library 2.0?  Any service, physical or virtual, that successfully reaches users, is evaluated frequently, and makes use of customer input is a Library 2.0 service.  Even older traditional services can be Library 2.0 if criteria are met.  Similarly, being new is not enough to make a service Library 2.0.” 

“Currently, libraries have a tendency to plan, implement, and forget.  Library 2.0 attempts to change this by encouraging the development of a schedule that includes regularly soliciting [student] feedback and evaluating and updating services.  Both new and existing library services should be revisited routinely to ensure that they are still meeting expected goals.  Even older, traditional library services should be reviewed with a fresh eye to determine if any aspect needs updating.” 

This relates to Ross Todd’s evidence based practice.  He suggests we “[m]ove away from advocating the value of school libraries and start documenting tangible outcomes.”  Keith Curry Lance provides examples

“Many tools and ideas will come from the world of Web 2.0, and many will have nothing to do with technology.  The specifics of the Library 2.0 model will be different for each library system.  Every library has a different starting point.  Through collaboration between staff and users, you wil be able to develop a clear idea of how this model will work for your organization” (Casey and Savastinuk, 2006).

Building on this, I believe the specifics of the School Library 2.0 will be different for each school library.  Everyone is starting at a different point regarding information literacy, critical literacy and inquiry.  Different staff.  Different skills.  Different levels of confort and knowledge.  Even different inquiry model.  Someone asked me why we don’t have a district virtual library.  I think the answer stems from the fact that the content of a school’s virtual library is based on the needs of the students and teachers in the school.  Each school has a different focus and has has students complete projects.  One size does not fit all. 

Other 2.0 Terms 
Classrooms 2.0 a social networking site for those interested in Web 2.0 and collaborative technologies (site)

Curriculum 2.0 
“is about creating “habits” for the 21st century learner” (newliteracy.wikispaces.com).

Schools 2.0
“discussion of how education, learning, and our physical school spaces can (or should) change because of the changing nature of our social and economic lives brought on by these technologies” (site)

Staff Development 2.0
“In a digital age, high-quality professional development means tech-infused training that measurably impacts student achievement” (Jakes, 2006).

Terms Related to 2.0 
long tail coined by Wired editor-in chief Chris Anderson (2004); in contrast to the demand for all things popular, long tail aims to tap into the market that is not interested in what is popular; “going after the diverse long tail requires a combination of physical and virtual services, a move underway in many libraries” (Casey and Savastinuk, 2006).
“the cleaner, faster Internet formerly used only be universities and research institutions” (Valenza, 2006)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: