BKeenan_Articles and Summaries

8/4/2019 BKeenan_Articles and Summaries

1/12

Article Summaries & Critiques

Bobbie Keenan

Web Design and Development FRIT 7335

Kenneth Clark

June 6, 2010


2/12

Baumbach, D. (2009). Web 2.0 & YOU. Knowledge Quest , 37 (4), 12-19.Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Summary

The basis is of this article is to illustrate for the reader the importance of having Web 2.0 as a major tool available for all students. The author brieflyintroduces the origins of Web 2.0 to give the reader an idea of how fartechnology has come in a very short amount of time. The reason for this is toimplore the reader, if they havent already, to investigate the Web 2.0 toolsand their power to transform and improve the world of education. The articlecontinually refers to Media Specialist as a driving force that should bring thevast wealth of Web 2.0 technology to school systems everywhere. However,she also shares information from her own studies/surveys that illustrate whyWeb 2.0 is not more prevalent in more schools. She sites lack of knowledge,training, accessibility, and time as the main culprits. Budgets are so strainedand school staffs are spread so thin that it seems almost impossible to findthe time to investigate and implement anything new. The author realizes thatthis is the current environment, and contends that not only is this the perfecttime to bring Web 2.0 to our teachers and students, its what could takeschools from merely standing in place, to taking great strides and movingforward. Most Web 2.0 tools are easily accessible, free to use, and easy tolearn. The article goes on to educate the reader about the new 21 st centurylearner standards that require Web 2.0 skills. These standards are based onwhat leaders in government and the business world are telling educators arenecessary to be successful after school. The ability to collaborate with otherson a global scale is at the forefront of skills required for tomorrows jobs. Web2.0 tools are the perfect means of making that happen in todays schools.

CritiqueI kept nodding my head while I read this article. This is everything that I havebeen saying to my schools owner for the past year, pleading with her to letme start teaching this technology to our students. I have every intention of giving her a copy of it to read. Im hoping that hearing it from another sourcewill make her see how important this is for our students and the future of ourschool.

This article hits on everything that is necessary to understand why Web 2.0 isso important to the success of all students. In light of todays economic woesthat are directly impacting schools everywhere, it would be foolish not to take

advantage of all the wonderful resources out there, especially since many of these resources are free. Donna Baubach does a great job in spelling outwhy we cant afford to ignore these tools on several different levels not justthe monetary level.

I think this article is great for anyone, like me, that is trying to bring Web 2.0into their school. Not only does it tell you why it is important, it providesinformation about resources available that could get a beginner started onthe road to Web 2.0 without overwhelming them.


3/12

Coombs, K. (2007). Building a Library Web Site on the Pillars of Web 2.0.Computers in Libraries , 27 (1), 16-19. Retrieved from Academic SearchComplete database.

Summary

This article discusses ways to make a library website more Web 2.0 based. The author of the article, Karen Coombs, is the head of library Web servicesat the University of Houston in Texas. Coombs reveals her journey inproviding a more interactive website for the Universitys staff and studentsbased on Web 2.0 tools. To help in this process, she designed the six pillarsof Web 2.0 to help her achieve her goal. The six pillars are:

1. Radical Decentralization: Instead of having one means of puttinginformation on the website, a content management system was created to

allow staff members to create their own content, making it moremeaningful to users and easier to update and maintain overall.2. Small Pieces Loosely Joined: Instead of having an singular system that is

inflexible, Coombs implemented different Web 2.0 tool that are capable of working together, to provide optimal flexibility and functionality for usersand those that maintain the sites.

3. Perpetual Beta: This pillar brings more of the interactive element to thedesign. Users of this website were informed that the website was in aconstant state of development, and they were encouraged to providefeedback that would enable Coombs and her staff to constantly improvethe site as a way of keeping it relevant.

4. Remixable Content: Remixable content is having the ability to allow

content from one website to be incorporated into a separate website vicaversa. As of the writing of this article, Coombs was still in the process of making this possible for her website.

5. User as a Contributor: This is self explanatory. Coombs has yet toincorporate this pillar into her website. The functionality exist, its just amatter of determining how implement it in a way that wont disrupt themain purpose of the website which is to provide access to accurateinformation.

6. Rich User Experience: This pillar is tied to directly to pillar five, but allbrings in the ability to provide Web streaming as well as othermultimedia experiences to library patrons.

Critique

This article is helpful in the since that it provides a solid outline as to how tocreate an interactive website that would be a wonderful asset to any library.However, it is written for an audience that has more tech knowledge that theaverage librarian. It is implied that all the readers of this article already acertain amount of skill at developing websites. As a result, it is vague inletting readers know exactly how this task could be accomplished from abeginners point of view. Coombs doesnt share any resources that might


4/12

assist the reader. Its as if she assumes that the reader already has all thetools they need at hand, and they just needed to know how to organize theplan to implement the tools for the best results.

I know that given time, I could do the research to find out what I needed toimplement what Coombs has laid out in this article. I will definitely keep thisarticle on hand for future reference, but at this point, I need to learn morebefore I could use this article to help implement such a design.

Fox, M. (2008). Information Anywhere. Library Journal , 133 2-5. Retrieved fromAcademic Search Complete database.

Summary

This article is addressing the need for librarians to be informed about theever growing population of mobile devices. Mobile devices are just anothermeans of seeking and receiving information, and since information is the

business of librarians it only makes since that we should add mobile devicesto our arsenal of resources.

The article discusses the new Internet domain, .mobi that has been createdspecifically to service mobile devices. Certain library standards such as newswebsites, journals, and periodicals are converting their information to beeasily accessed by mobile users, so librarians need to be aware of what is outthere so they can inform users of the various locations they can accessinformation. Librarians also need to consider including access to mobilemedia as part of their collection development process, since everything thingfrom eBooks to movies are being converted to fit in the mobile world.

The article also discusses the fact that the majority of material on the Webneeds to be, but currently isnt sized to fit mobile device screens. Transcoding content is also discussed. This is a process by which informationis stripped down to the bare basics in order to be seen on a small screen.Librarians should be aware of what information is transcoded so they caninform their patrons if they are missing information that has been removed tofit the small screen that they otherwise could see on a regular PC.

Critique

This article overwhelmed me, because just when I think Ive got a handle onwhat is cutting edge, I get hit with information like this. And I realize that isthe whole reason for exercises like this one. I think it is exactly the type of article that librarians, or anyone thats in the business of information need toread, because it keeps us thinking forward. If we dont keep looking forward,then our libraries will become stagnant or even archaic. The article was veryinformative, giving links to websites that allow the reader to furtherinvestigate how people are using their mobile devices to access information.As someone, that still has a traditional laptop, and a seven year old cellphone, I feel completely out of the loop, hence feeling overwhelmed. Of


5/12

course, now that I know more I will continue to investigate the potentialimpact mobile devices could have on libraries in the not so distant future.

Huber, C. (2010). Professional Learning 2.0. Educational Leadership , 67 (8),41-46. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Summary

The article begins by given examples of more traditional methods of how

educators have attempted to share potential professional learninginformation with the colleagues in the past. Usually these well intendedattempts were lost because of the means by which they were delivered or thelack of time available to explore them. This article also emphasizes that inthe past, professional learning was sought outside of the school walls, makingthe assumption that teachers within the school were not valuable resourceswith their own information to share.

After the history lesson concerning what doesnt work in terms of professionallearning, the article is basically a series of examples of what can be done tomake professional learning more accessible and even enjoyable through theuse of Web 2.0 tools. The article focuses a lot on Moodle because of itsflexibility and apparent ease of use. The article also gives a general overviewof Wikis, Twitter, Blogs, Nings, Jing and RSS Feeds and how they can be usedto allow educators to benefit from each others knowledge on a daily basis.

The author also points out that a great deal of administrative tasks thatnormally take up a great deal of time in staff meetings could be handledmore effectively and efficiently through the use of the Web 2.0 toolsmentioned. The ability to communicate more readily with one another wouldalso enable teachers to give each other feedback on how to modify lessonplans that would make them more effective. The article ultimately wantsteachers and administrators to realize that they arent all islands alone tryingto educate. We are all in this together, and Web 2.0 tools make thatpossible.

Critique

I have heard of Moodle before, but Ive never really looked into it. This articlealmost seemed to be a running ad for Moodle, so I felt that I absolutely mustlook into it as a result. Im not offended by that it was just apparent that theauthor preferred Moodle over any of the other tools that were mentioned.


6/12

The author made a good case for how much more efficient Web 2.0 toolsmake the drudgery of administrative tasks and professional learning. Afterall, it is much more enjoyable to be able to interact with someone and shareyour ideas as opposed to having to sit through a meeting or listen to alecture. Just like our students, we are more likely to retain information anduse it in the future if we are actively engaged when it is presented to us. Andunlike meetings and lectures that end and are presented at various timesthroughout the year, the conversation and learning with the use of Web 2.0tools can keep lines of communications open and learning going onindefinitely.

Peltier-Davis, C. (2009). Web 2.0, Library 2.0, Library User 2.0, Librarian 2.0:Innovative Services for Sustainable Libraries. Computers in Libraries , 29 (10),

16-21. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.Summary

This article informs the reader of the wave of change that is occurring in thelibrary world in terms of Web 2.0 technologies. The internet has invaded thelives of the majority of people on a global scale. In the past, if people neededinformation, they would go to the library, now people have the ability toobtain vast quantities of information on their own at any time thanks tomobile computing devices. This raises the question of how libraries will berelevant in the future.

The article goes on to discuss what exactly Web 2.0 is by giving lists of examples of various programs that are available. It then progresses on todiscuss how Web 2.0 is being successfully integrated into library programsaround the world, not only allowing patrons to access information, but alsoallowing them to interact with the information and other patrons as well. Thearticle gives the reader a sense of what the needs and expectations of todays library users are, and then goes on to explain what the requirementsare for todays librarians. Theres also a series of descriptions that providethe reader with ideas on how to integrate Web 2.0 (or further integrate)technologies into their library.

Critique

I must say that I am always uncomfortable when I read about the possibilitythat libraries could possibly become irrelevant in the very near future. Of course, if we dont stay on the forefront of the wave of information that thetechnology available to retrieve it, that is exactly what will happen. Thisarticle is just reminding us that we must stay diligent to remain relevant.


7/12

I think this article is very helpful, because it doesnt assume the reader isignorant to the various tools available, but neither does it assume that theyare not. Theres enough explanation of the state of things for there to be aclear understanding whether the reader is a layperson or an expert. I alsoalways appreciate when an author provides examples and links to how othersmanaging their situation using the tools being addressed in the article.

Rethlefsen, M., Piorun, M., & Prince, J. (2009). Teaching Web 2.0 technologiesusing Web 2.0 technologies. Journal Of The Medical Library Association: JMLA ,97 (4), 253-259. Retrieved from MEDLINE with Full Text database.

Summary

The article focuses on a study conducted by The Medical Library Associations Task Force, to determine whether or not teaching Web 2.0 technologies bymeans of using Web 2.0 technologies was affective. An eight week onlinecourse was designed by the MLAs Task Force and offered to all the membersof the MLA. Upon completion of the course members would receivecontinuing education (CE) credits. The course offered to all the members wasbasically a Web 2.0 101 course. The study was done to determine whether ornot this type of submersion class would have any impact (positive ornegative) on the participants understanding of Web 2.0 technologies.

The course was broken up into eight learning modules that were delivered toparticipating members online via a Blog. Each week and new learning modulewas posted on the Blog. Each assignment was hands-on that required toparticipants to explore a specific Web 2.0 tool and complete an assignmentusing that tool. Participants were not required to complete each assignmentby the end of the week. However, they were required to complete allassignments before the final date for the course in order to receive the CEcredits.

To determine the success of the course, participants were asked to completean online evaluation of the course once the course was completed. With theevaluations that were complete, it was determined that the course was, forthe most part, and overall success. So much so, that an additional coursemore advanced course was created at the request on some of the


8/12

participants. Modifications were made to the new course based on thefeedback received from the evaluations. Ultimately, the participants in thestudy developed a greater understanding of Web 2.0 technologies as a resultof the online course.

Critique

While I have never been one for reading articles based on studies, this oneactually inspired me. This article is basically describing everything we do inthe Instructional Technology program, but scaled down a simplified. Thisinspired me to develop an even more scaled down version of this idea for myschools Junior High Students. Of course, it will have to be approved, but I cansee this working, and it side tracked me from doing this assignment, I got soexcited about it.

As I said previously, Im not a fan of reading dry articles discussing studies,but this just showed me that I shouldnt judge a book by its cover so to

speak. Ill be more care to not dismiss things so readily next time I have anassignment dealing with articles, or if Im just reading in general. I mayoverlook something that could have inspired me in my own work.

Rhoades, E., Friedel, C., & Morgan, A. (2009). Can Web 2.0 Improve OurCollaboration?. Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers , 83 (9), 24-27.Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Summary

This article is written from the perspective of a researcher. The basis of thisarticle is questioning how collaboration using Web 2.0 ultimately be helpful oreven practical when it comes to giving credit where credit is due. Theauthors of this article dont question that the use of Web 2.0 technologieshave improved curriculums and overall student learning, but their concernstems from collaboration when it comes to research on a professional level.

The article defines the nature of collaboration comes down to people and nottechnology. The authors point out that just because the word is being used alot now in the world of education, it is not a new concept. Collaborationoccurs when a teacher and a student work together and the student learns aconcept as a result. The article even cites the works of behavioral theoristsregarding the learning collaboration and the learning process.

The article then goes on to define the nature of Web 2.0. In order for Web 2.0to truly be Web 2.0 it requires more than one person to be involved at somepoint. The authors also recognize that collaborative efforts that haveimplemented Web 2.0 technologies have opened doors that made it


9/12

possible for progress in certain areas, that would have previously taken muchlonger to achieve were it not for Web 2.0 tools.

Ultimately the article ends without coming to any real conclusions about whogets credit at the end of all this collaboration? It actually requests thatreaders log onto a Wiki that they have set up, so they can collaborate abouthow to figure out all the questions this article raised.

Critique

This was such a circular article. Nothing new was presented, and it all endedwith a big question mark. It seemed like one of those articles that the author(s) wrote just to fulfill a publishing requirement thats part of their contract orsomething.

I dont know if I read it wrong, but I do hope the authors were trying to beironic when after all the whining about who gets credit for what, they asked

the reader to participate in a collaborative effort to figure out who should getcredit for collaborative efforts at the end. I suppose it does raise legitimatequestions about collaborative effort, but the way the questions were raised,

just seem annoying at best.

Vandenbark, R. (2010). Tending a Wild Garden: Library Web Design forPersons with Disabilities. Information Technology & Libraries , 29 (1), 23-29.Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Summary

The article addresses the challenges facing librarians in terms of makinginformation available to those with disabilities. It is difficult enough to keepup with the ever evolving world of technology and being able to make itaccessible to people without disabilities. However, the law and moral ethicsrequire that information in the forms of all media need to be available to allcitizens. While U.S. regulations, standards, and guidelines define what isrequired to meet the need of those with disabilities, it makes no effort toassist developers of websites or software how to go about creating materialthat meet the requirements demanded by law. While advancements arebeing made to insure that people with disabilities have access to all forms of information, its difficult to keep up with break neck speed at whichtechnology is evolving. Ultimately, the best that librarians can do is be aware


10/12

of the newest technology and assist all their patrons as best as they can, andimprove accessibility when they can.

Critique

I understand the importance of this topic, but this was a very dry article. Imactually surprised, because the title of the article led me to believe that itwouldnt be just a bunch of organized lists of standards and facts. Maybe I

just read too much into the title, and thats my fault. I wouldnt suggest thisarticle for anyone else to read though.

Im actually very disappointed, because my late brother was disabled and Iwould hate to think that in order to get the point across of how necessary it isfor people with disabilities to have access to the Internet, I would have toread this article and others like them. This author just seems disconnected tome, and for some reason that rubbed me the wrong way. Its probablybecause this topic has a personal connection for me, and I just didnt connect

with the sterile, almost clinical, manner in which this article was written.

Woodard, A. (2009). From Zero to Web 2.0 Part 1. Computers in Libraries ,29 (8), 41-42. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.



Summary

These three articles follow the progress of a digital makeover of theCumberland University Library. Amber Woodard, the author of these articlesand the library technical assistant at CU documents the changes she and the


11/12

staff hope to make, the progress that is made, and the end result. The firstarticle briefly informs the reader of how the CU library is currently set up interms of technology and its ability to reach out to the student body. It alsomakes a list of six changes that the staff of the CU library would like to maketo better serve their patrons on campus and those online as well. Theimprovements include a more up-to-date and user friendly website, activateand maintain social networking sites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, MySpace) forusers, create a library blog that would ultimately replace the librarynewsletter, improve chat services and create a text referencing service,create a YouTube account and make information videos about the library andits services, and podcast the librarys iRead sessions in hopes of improvingattendance.

The second article is essentially a progress report of how the makeover isgoing. At this point in the process, the website has been redesigned. It wasdesigned after surveying staff and students at CU to find out what isimportant to them concerning website design. Other areas of the redesignhave been completed while others are still in progress.

The final article is a summation of what was achieved in this Web redesign.For the most part, what Amber and her team set out to do was achieved, butthey learned that their original goals didnt achieve the results they hadhoped. For instance, the Blog was supposed to be a way to reach out to thestudent body and encourage more communication. Instead they discoveredthat while the staff, at CU, were very active on the Blog, the students rarelyever read it. The podcasting also proved to be more time consuming thanthey initially thought, and would have to be implemented in the summerwhen time constraints werent as much of an issue.

CritiqueUltimately this article illustrates that while a big website redesign might benecessary its not a onetime thing. Websites need to constantly be assessedand tweaked to remain relevant. The article also shows that even a wellthought out plan wont necessarily work. You may have to reassess yourdesign if its not achieving the results you want. The article also showed thatthe landscape of Web 2.0 is ever changing. Ambers team thought the Blogwould be valuable asset to their Web presence, but it turned out that thestudents didnt view it as useful.

I liked that these articles were presented as a timeline. I often try to gage

how long it will take me to implement something, but I never know and Idont have a staff to help me out. The fact that this happened over the courseof 4-5 tells me that the same process would probably take me a year, and beconsidered out dated by the time I finished.


12/12

Documents

BKeenan_Articles and Summaries