Definition of Competency or Understanding of Competency
Emerging technologies that deal with information or communication have always been a part of the human record. Lynch illustrates how the evolution of the codex made random access memory (RAM) and the e-reader possible (2016, pp 64-66), argues that the theoretical “memex” is the progenitor of hypertext (p 384), and notes that the Human Genome Project owes much of its existence to the history of scientific handbooks (p 351). In Lynch’s view, an online interactive encyclopedia like Wikipedia is an emerging technology that embodies the three thousand years of reference work and technological advances that preceded it (2016, pp 385-390). Part of the reason you can instantly communicate with people from around the planet is that the algorithmic processes first developed in the early 17th century (Lynch, 2016, pp 110-111) have reached and exceeded the petabyte level (Ashley, 2010, p 10).
Looking at the evolving history of technology in library reference services from the year 2008, Tyckoson sees two predominant categories: storage & reproduction technologies, and communication technologies (p. 136). Ten years later, Tunon declares that the major present-day issues affecting reference services are the impact of new technologies such as algorithm-based search engines, database search features (to search anywhere in a document), discover tools (allowing global searching), citation index and management tools, Cloud-based translation tools, as well as virtual reference tools like Quora, and WikiAnswers (2018, pp 131-133). These new technologies are both extensions of the tools that Tyckoson mentions (e.g., computer/USB; email/Internet/wireless), yet at the same time they have less to do with storage and reproduction and more to do with search and retrieval.
With regard to cataloging, the Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) format is trending toward a new standard, FRBR, (or Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records), which is more capable of expressing relationships between “works,” and the expressions, and manifestations of those works (Bolin, 2018, pp 145-146). Meanwhile, the Library of Congress’s project BIBFRAME (“Bibliographic Framework”), has been slowly “deconstructing MARC and reconstituting it in a linked data format” most likely using an XML (Extensible Markup Language) metadata schema (Bolin, 2018, pp 146-152). Still, FRBR-ization has not yet occurred in most integrated library systems (ILS) (Bolin, 2018, p 154), and more than half of U.S. academic libraries (and even more internationally) remain on IL systems (Breeding, 2019, p 7). The automation of circulation through an ILS, and ILS’s bigger role in collection management, resource sharing (interlibrary loan), and other library functions (like facilities or security), remains the trend in libraries (Krasulski, 2018, pp 185-193). Still, Breeding considers web-based interfaces in libraries long overdue (2019, p 3).
For digital resources, a major issue is managing the needs and expectations of both users and stakeholders (Gregory & Rudersdorf, 2018, pp 120-122). Two other major issues for digital managers are:
Everyday issues in the management of digital resources include weighing risks and rewards when deciding whether or not items in their collections can be made available digitally, considering privacy concerns, copyright law, and the needs of both item creators and users. (Gregory & Rudersdorf, 2018, pp 120-122).
Issues with digital preservation and archiving have been raised within librarianship since at least 2008, when Michael Gorman declared that there would be a crisis if “a substantial amount of the human record were to be available in, and only in digital form” (p 15). The issues for Gorman are many-faceted:
Gorman also takes issue with librarians seeing digital technology as an end in itself, and an uncritical embrace of a scientific management worldview (Gorman, 2012, p 121). Web archiving has been the “least attended to and most important frontier of preservation” and there are myriad hindrances to the process itself, including intellectual property barriers, variability in how pages render for different viewers, and the inaccessibility of the ‘Deep Web’ (Skinner, 2018, p 165). Skinner sketches out ongoing problems preserving federal data, newspapers, data locked in digital devices, digital artwork, and social media posts (2018, pp 165-166). The particular challenges of preserving social media come in three main forms: intellectual property and legal issues around privacy for material that is produced in such a public arena; technological challenges; and volume/speed of creation (Skinner, 2018, p 166).
Makerspaces are still making headway within libraries (Fontichiaro, 2018, pp 220-227), and cloud computing, gamification, and the use of location-based apps continue to be library trends (Stephens, 2018, pp 211-218). Finally, the digital divide continues to be an international issue for libraries, where the inequity of both the quality and quantity of digital access remains a constant (Steele, 2018).
Technologies that affect how humans communicate or find information have always been with us, but it has been libraries and librarians who have most consistently tracked changes in this sphere. The more these technologies have reduced the distances needed to communicate with one another, or to share information, the greater has been the need to understand these emerging technologies and the issues surrounding their implementation and use. The development of the Internet, the spread and popularity of the personal computer, and advances in wireless technologies have brought us to an information environment where not only are humans communicating with each other and searching for information, but our records, our digital devices, and our information and communication systems are all communicating with and inquiring of each other. Managing these digital resources effectively and responsibly, while managing the expectations of users and stakeholders, remains the purview of information professionals and the organizations of which they are a part. Maintaining an awareness of technological trends and issues, therefore, remains an important part of our job as librarians.
Preparation to Understand Competency H: Coursework and Work Experience
Emerging technologies was a regular discussion in all of my MLIS classes, although the biggest technological sea change I discovered affecting libraries, was from my cataloging and classification course (INFO 248), where the eventual replacement of MARC records was explained. I also learned that web-based library interfaces were due to replace current IL systems, a hypothesis that was confirmed for me when I learned my library system’s circulation software, Evergreen, would soon be Cloud-based.
The rest of what I know of emerging technologies, and the issues surrounding their emergence, has been through my work in the XX library system (XXXX). Many of the trends and issues mentioned in this competency I have already experienced or witnessed in the course of my daily work. I have observed as devices for digital downloading have evolved and become easier to use. I have seen the proliferation of apps for these devices (Overdrive, Libby). I recently read about the acquisition of the company that owns Overdrive and Libby, Rakuten, by a KKR, a corporate raider, and read about the potential problems. this brings up for public libraries and their patrons. XXXX has provided training for in the use of eBooks, the Intranet (for content providers), and mobile printing. Through XXXX I was exposed to maker spaces and programming that used emerging technologies such as the Kerbal Space Program interface and Cubelets (modular robotic blocks you “program”).
For my first evidentiary item I chose a screencast I created for my Instructional Design class (INFO 250) because screencasts are becoming more widely used in the library field, and because the researching, planning, editing, and constructing of the screencast demonstrates proficiency in using a new technology. I follow this evidence with a video and notes I submitted for my Information Communities class (INFO 200) for a module on Emerging Technologies. In the rather lengthy video I discuss, through my reading of over 15 articles and other readings, issues and trends related to emerging technologies in libraries; the notes that I prepared for the video discussion are included because they show how I am able to gather together disparate scholarly research on this topic and verbally articulate connections between them. Finally, for my last evidentiary item I revisit the paper I wrote for my Online Searching class (INFO 244) where I describe the origin and evolution of Google Scholar as a new kind of information retrieval system that presented itself as a hybrid of both a database and a search engine, and I elaborate on its effect on the information environment.
Evidence
Screencast-O-Matic for Instructional Draft Plan
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://screencast-o-matic.com/watch/cqXFfZU0Ed
One necessary component for my final project in my Instructional Design for Information Professions (INFO 250), was the inclusion of a screencast introduction, which I took it upon myself to accomplish, even though I had no prior experience creating one. I learned that that term “screencast” was only coined as recently as 2005, and that screencasts are ‘a digital video and audio recording of what occurs on a presenter’s computer screen” (Ruffini, 2012, p 2). I spent a good amount of time researching various screencast types including Screenr, Goview, ISU, Webinaria, Krut, Camstudio, Jing, Biteable, and others, looking first and foremost for an application that was free, user-friendly, and attractive. After perusing myriad screencast reviews I decided to try Screencast-O-Matic, but not without skepticism as I still had unanswered questions. Would it be compatible with my Mac computer? It was. Was editing possible? No. Could my partner (who lived in another city) be in the screencast with me? No. Could I insert text or do a scripted recording? No. Would I be able to save the screencast not only to the Screencast-O-matic site, but also be able to upload and send it to others as a shareable link? Yes.
After seeking out and finding answers to these questions to my satisfaction, I determined that it should be possible to create a screencast to fit our needs. I set up an account, and then went about finding and watching appropriate video tutorials, and how-to training articles. I discovered a great deal the limitations of the free version, but also what it could do. I figured out how to frame the screencast, and how to prepare appropriate settings for recording. I learned how to narrate, record, and publish the screencast. I found out that the format for screencasts was an mp4. I read instructions on how to reduce and enlarge my onscreen image, zooming in and out to allow the viewer to see what I wanted them to see. I learned how to use the cursor to highlight features. Through trial and error, I realized that it was wise to bring up all the websites I wished to discuss ahead of time so that I could open them up as I narrated. I spent a lot of time condensing multiple talking points into a 5-minute presentation, and then spent even more time preparing that script in an on-screen format, in a large type font, that I could read without looking away from the on-screen camera. I learned how to preview recordings and delete them, and I previewed and deleted dozens of attempts before creating one that was suitable.
Screencasts can be used for training, teaching and instruction, and communicating ideas, and having the ability to create one shows that I understand how they might be applied in an information environment. The attention with which I planned and edited my screencast, and the finished product that results shows that I understand how it might impact the viewer, and thus the information environment in which screencasts are utilized. Figuring out how to create a screencast with no prior knowledge shows that I have the confidence, curiosity, and ability to try and successfully use emerging technologies.
Emerging Tech Video and Notes
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3rjFtrVja9cYUtxcWZVUU00Q2s/view
and
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Ab46ecd2a-90f5-432b-8516-3462cd6f858f
I produce this video on Emerging Tech as an assignment in my Information Communities (INFO 200) class. Because I chose to focus on reference librarians as an information community, it allowed me to focus on emerging technology and its effect on these professionals, thus narrowing the scope of my inquiry significantly. I also began this assignment under the assumption that we would be producing a paper rather than digital document, and this is reflected in my notes, which start as a formal paper would, then begin to resemble notes later when I realize I need to present my findings in a digital form.
The video has me presenting my research findings roughly in the order I planned for my paper. Drawing from Lynch’s history of reference tools I illustrate how information and communication technologies have always been “emerging,” and that current technological iterations always draw upon previous creations. In order to properly discuss which emerging technologies are of most interest or concern for reference librarians, I use the reference desk as a contested focal point. I describe some of the technologies that came to be used by reference librarians leading up to the computer and then ILS interfaces. About halfway through the video I come to focus on the impact and issues surrounding the Apple iPad and the iPad 2. Part of my reason for homing in on the iPad were the numerous forecasts, reviews, studies, analyses, and papers that referenced the device. Furthermore, the iPad seemed to have attracted a lot of hype, and the expectations for its adaptation within reference services eclipsed all other trends. I spend a lot of time in the video sifting through the literature, assessing others’ assessments regarding the pros and cons of how the devices worked in actual practice. I point out when the iPad’s use improved service but do not hold back from listing the many problems identified with the devices, nor do I refrain from indicating when a researcher seems to have reached conclusions unsupported by the data. I do touch on other technologies such as location intelligence (geolocating), web-based ILS’s, chat enquiry services, pre-configured tablets, and a ProQuest’s web-scale discovery service, Summon. Throughout the video I reference the papers and page numbers from which I am drawing my facts and evidence.
My video presentation and accompanying notes show that I am capable of trawling through the constantly evolving literature on emerging technologies for facts and analyses relevant to a particular user group, drawing connections between those facts and analyses to highlight issues of concern to those users. My narration and notes also shows that I can identify current and emerging issues and trends, but also describe how those issues and trends might affect the information environment of the user in question.
Overview of Google Scholar’s Search Capabilities and Limitations
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A4b38a929-b786-4be6-be62-968ed8f88c7f
My final project for my Online Searching class (INFO 244) was an overview of Google Scholar’s (GS) search capabilities and limitations. I chronicle GS’s origins and evolution as a new search tool that seemed to be a hybrid of both a database and a search engine. I analyze GS in three separate areas— coverage, utility for search and research, and bibliographic utility— comparing GS (and various features it added over the years) with other technological rivals in the process. Drawing from the available literature I track how information professionals and scholars reacted, both positively and negatively, to GS as an emerging technology. My research shows that over its first decade, GS established itself as a viable search and retrieval tool providing broad coverage in several academic subject spheres. I illustrate how the years following GS’s first decade of growth were marked by the rise of the bibliometrician as user, and subsequently the bibliometric utility of GS began to be called into question. Google Scholar’s users, through their interactions with the IR system, began to expose both GS’s benefits but also its endemic problems.
One persistent problem was that institutional repositories (IRs) were not showing up on GS results, and the reason for this was the inadequacy of Google’s metadata schemas. While generally adequate for the average user (there were some issues with accessibility), these metadata schemas made GS much less useful for researchers and bibliometricians. I consider the strengths and weaknesses of GS’s newest bibliographic tools compared to competitors like Microsoft’s Academic Search (MA). I conclude my study from a retrospective view, by looking at how GS has performed over time, and asking whether or not it has achieved the results set forth by its chief designer, when he envisioned GS back in the year 2000. I summarize my research by declaring that GS may work well enough for researchers but may not work as well for researchers of the future. Finally, I cite a scholar who believes that libraries and vendors have a role to play in increasing access to GS (Fagan, 2017, pp 29-31).
My research and analysis of Google Scholar shows that I am capable of a) identifying and describing a current and emerging information technology, b) describing current and emerging issues and trends with it and competing technologies, and c) illustrating how this might affect the information environment, in this case that of researchers and bibliometricians.
Conclusion
Having the confidence and patience to try new and emerging technologies are soft skills I bring to my work every day. Demonstrating that I am capable of planning, editing, and launching a screencast with no prior experience indicates that I can readily adapt to unknown communication technologies, and quickly learn how to adopt them into my skill set. Just as I am able to research how to use a new and unknown technology, I have shown that I know how to keep up with the ever-evolving literature around emerging information and communication technologies, and that I am capable of articulating the promises, expectations, and issues that surround them, as well as how these might affect both users and various information environments. My screencast and video efforts show that I can present my experience and research with emerging technologies in technically modern formats. My research into Google Scholar as an emerging information technology demonstrates that I can present my research in a more traditional format if the occasion requires it.
My ability to keep up with emerging information and communication technologies, to stay current through research and analysis, and to remain adept at adapting and possibly adopting such technologies, are a set of skills I can modify for use in any information environment.
References
Ashley, M. (2010). Digital conservation and access: Saving humanity’s history in the petabyte
age. Virtual archaeology review, 1(1), 9-12. Retrieved from https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A01c5c134-593c-4f44-a936-7029dbe9ce16
Bolin, M.K. (2018). Metadata, cataloging, linked data, and the evolving ILS. In
Hirsh, S. (Ed.). (2018). Information services today: An introduction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Breeding, M. (2019, May 1). Library systems report: Cycles of innovation. American libraries
magazine. Retrieved from https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2019/05/01/library-systems-report-2019/
Fagan, J. C. (2017). An evidence-based review of academic web search engines, 2014-2016:
Implications for librarians’ practice and research agenda. Information Technology and Libraries, 36(2), 7-47. Retrieved from https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A5d50699e-e0c5-4040-8d3d-781fe845246e
Fontichiaro, K. (2018). Creation culture and makerspaces. In Hirsh, S. (Ed.),
Information services Today: An introduction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Gorman, M. (2012). The Prince’s Dream. SCONUL Focus, 54. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Gorman5/publication/271605679_The_Prince's_Dream_A_Future_For_Academic_Libraries/links/5a9c01f6a6fdcc3cbacd3d91/The-Princes-Dream-A-Future-For-Academic-Libraries.pdf
Gorman, M. (2008). Professional ethics and values in a changing world. In The Portable
MLIS.
Gregory, L. & Rudersdorf, A. (2018). Digital resources. In Hirsh, S. (Ed.),
Information services today: An introduction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Krasulski, M. (2018). Accessing information anywhere and anytime. In Hirsh, S. (Ed.),
Information services today: An introduction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Lynch, J. (2016). You could look it up: The reference shelf from ancient babylon to wikipedia.
New York: Bloomsbury
Ruffini, M. F. (2012, October 31). Screencasting to engage learning. Educause Review Online, 1.
Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2012/11/screencasting-to-engage-learning
Skinner, K. (2018). Analog and digital curation and preservation. In Hirsh, S. (Ed.),
Information services today: An introduction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Steele, C. (2018, November 10). Is the digital divide widening or narrowing? Retrieved from http://www.digitaldividecouncil.com/is-the-digital-divide-widening-or-narrowing/
Stephens, M. (2018). Hyperlinked libraries. In Hirsh, S. (Ed.),
Information services today: An introduction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Tunan, J. (2018). Information intermediation and reference services. In Hirsh, S. (Ed.),
Information services today: An introduction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Tyckoson, D. A. (2008). Reference Service: The Personal Side of Librarianship. In The Portable
MLIS.
Emerging technologies that deal with information or communication have always been a part of the human record. Lynch illustrates how the evolution of the codex made random access memory (RAM) and the e-reader possible (2016, pp 64-66), argues that the theoretical “memex” is the progenitor of hypertext (p 384), and notes that the Human Genome Project owes much of its existence to the history of scientific handbooks (p 351). In Lynch’s view, an online interactive encyclopedia like Wikipedia is an emerging technology that embodies the three thousand years of reference work and technological advances that preceded it (2016, pp 385-390). Part of the reason you can instantly communicate with people from around the planet is that the algorithmic processes first developed in the early 17th century (Lynch, 2016, pp 110-111) have reached and exceeded the petabyte level (Ashley, 2010, p 10).
Looking at the evolving history of technology in library reference services from the year 2008, Tyckoson sees two predominant categories: storage & reproduction technologies, and communication technologies (p. 136). Ten years later, Tunon declares that the major present-day issues affecting reference services are the impact of new technologies such as algorithm-based search engines, database search features (to search anywhere in a document), discover tools (allowing global searching), citation index and management tools, Cloud-based translation tools, as well as virtual reference tools like Quora, and WikiAnswers (2018, pp 131-133). These new technologies are both extensions of the tools that Tyckoson mentions (e.g., computer/USB; email/Internet/wireless), yet at the same time they have less to do with storage and reproduction and more to do with search and retrieval.
With regard to cataloging, the Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) format is trending toward a new standard, FRBR, (or Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records), which is more capable of expressing relationships between “works,” and the expressions, and manifestations of those works (Bolin, 2018, pp 145-146). Meanwhile, the Library of Congress’s project BIBFRAME (“Bibliographic Framework”), has been slowly “deconstructing MARC and reconstituting it in a linked data format” most likely using an XML (Extensible Markup Language) metadata schema (Bolin, 2018, pp 146-152). Still, FRBR-ization has not yet occurred in most integrated library systems (ILS) (Bolin, 2018, p 154), and more than half of U.S. academic libraries (and even more internationally) remain on IL systems (Breeding, 2019, p 7). The automation of circulation through an ILS, and ILS’s bigger role in collection management, resource sharing (interlibrary loan), and other library functions (like facilities or security), remains the trend in libraries (Krasulski, 2018, pp 185-193). Still, Breeding considers web-based interfaces in libraries long overdue (2019, p 3).
For digital resources, a major issue is managing the needs and expectations of both users and stakeholders (Gregory & Rudersdorf, 2018, pp 120-122). Two other major issues for digital managers are:
- managing data (libraries beginning to rely on linked data; funding for the shift from physical to digital not always there), and
- managing information (stewarding licensed content, content they create themselves, and content donated by others).
Everyday issues in the management of digital resources include weighing risks and rewards when deciding whether or not items in their collections can be made available digitally, considering privacy concerns, copyright law, and the needs of both item creators and users. (Gregory & Rudersdorf, 2018, pp 120-122).
Issues with digital preservation and archiving have been raised within librarianship since at least 2008, when Michael Gorman declared that there would be a crisis if “a substantial amount of the human record were to be available in, and only in digital form” (p 15). The issues for Gorman are many-faceted:
- Danger of technological obsolescence
- Difficulties of being able to determine what digital resources are of “enduring” value
- Difficulties of satisfactorily identifying and retrieving millions of digital documents
- Vast sums of money and effort required to create and maintain digital archives
- The “inherent mutability and fragility of digital documents” (2012, p 120)
Gorman also takes issue with librarians seeing digital technology as an end in itself, and an uncritical embrace of a scientific management worldview (Gorman, 2012, p 121). Web archiving has been the “least attended to and most important frontier of preservation” and there are myriad hindrances to the process itself, including intellectual property barriers, variability in how pages render for different viewers, and the inaccessibility of the ‘Deep Web’ (Skinner, 2018, p 165). Skinner sketches out ongoing problems preserving federal data, newspapers, data locked in digital devices, digital artwork, and social media posts (2018, pp 165-166). The particular challenges of preserving social media come in three main forms: intellectual property and legal issues around privacy for material that is produced in such a public arena; technological challenges; and volume/speed of creation (Skinner, 2018, p 166).
Makerspaces are still making headway within libraries (Fontichiaro, 2018, pp 220-227), and cloud computing, gamification, and the use of location-based apps continue to be library trends (Stephens, 2018, pp 211-218). Finally, the digital divide continues to be an international issue for libraries, where the inequity of both the quality and quantity of digital access remains a constant (Steele, 2018).
Technologies that affect how humans communicate or find information have always been with us, but it has been libraries and librarians who have most consistently tracked changes in this sphere. The more these technologies have reduced the distances needed to communicate with one another, or to share information, the greater has been the need to understand these emerging technologies and the issues surrounding their implementation and use. The development of the Internet, the spread and popularity of the personal computer, and advances in wireless technologies have brought us to an information environment where not only are humans communicating with each other and searching for information, but our records, our digital devices, and our information and communication systems are all communicating with and inquiring of each other. Managing these digital resources effectively and responsibly, while managing the expectations of users and stakeholders, remains the purview of information professionals and the organizations of which they are a part. Maintaining an awareness of technological trends and issues, therefore, remains an important part of our job as librarians.
Preparation to Understand Competency H: Coursework and Work Experience
Emerging technologies was a regular discussion in all of my MLIS classes, although the biggest technological sea change I discovered affecting libraries, was from my cataloging and classification course (INFO 248), where the eventual replacement of MARC records was explained. I also learned that web-based library interfaces were due to replace current IL systems, a hypothesis that was confirmed for me when I learned my library system’s circulation software, Evergreen, would soon be Cloud-based.
The rest of what I know of emerging technologies, and the issues surrounding their emergence, has been through my work in the XX library system (XXXX). Many of the trends and issues mentioned in this competency I have already experienced or witnessed in the course of my daily work. I have observed as devices for digital downloading have evolved and become easier to use. I have seen the proliferation of apps for these devices (Overdrive, Libby). I recently read about the acquisition of the company that owns Overdrive and Libby, Rakuten, by a KKR, a corporate raider, and read about the potential problems. this brings up for public libraries and their patrons. XXXX has provided training for in the use of eBooks, the Intranet (for content providers), and mobile printing. Through XXXX I was exposed to maker spaces and programming that used emerging technologies such as the Kerbal Space Program interface and Cubelets (modular robotic blocks you “program”).
For my first evidentiary item I chose a screencast I created for my Instructional Design class (INFO 250) because screencasts are becoming more widely used in the library field, and because the researching, planning, editing, and constructing of the screencast demonstrates proficiency in using a new technology. I follow this evidence with a video and notes I submitted for my Information Communities class (INFO 200) for a module on Emerging Technologies. In the rather lengthy video I discuss, through my reading of over 15 articles and other readings, issues and trends related to emerging technologies in libraries; the notes that I prepared for the video discussion are included because they show how I am able to gather together disparate scholarly research on this topic and verbally articulate connections between them. Finally, for my last evidentiary item I revisit the paper I wrote for my Online Searching class (INFO 244) where I describe the origin and evolution of Google Scholar as a new kind of information retrieval system that presented itself as a hybrid of both a database and a search engine, and I elaborate on its effect on the information environment.
Evidence
Screencast-O-Matic for Instructional Draft Plan
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://screencast-o-matic.com/watch/cqXFfZU0Ed
One necessary component for my final project in my Instructional Design for Information Professions (INFO 250), was the inclusion of a screencast introduction, which I took it upon myself to accomplish, even though I had no prior experience creating one. I learned that that term “screencast” was only coined as recently as 2005, and that screencasts are ‘a digital video and audio recording of what occurs on a presenter’s computer screen” (Ruffini, 2012, p 2). I spent a good amount of time researching various screencast types including Screenr, Goview, ISU, Webinaria, Krut, Camstudio, Jing, Biteable, and others, looking first and foremost for an application that was free, user-friendly, and attractive. After perusing myriad screencast reviews I decided to try Screencast-O-Matic, but not without skepticism as I still had unanswered questions. Would it be compatible with my Mac computer? It was. Was editing possible? No. Could my partner (who lived in another city) be in the screencast with me? No. Could I insert text or do a scripted recording? No. Would I be able to save the screencast not only to the Screencast-O-matic site, but also be able to upload and send it to others as a shareable link? Yes.
After seeking out and finding answers to these questions to my satisfaction, I determined that it should be possible to create a screencast to fit our needs. I set up an account, and then went about finding and watching appropriate video tutorials, and how-to training articles. I discovered a great deal the limitations of the free version, but also what it could do. I figured out how to frame the screencast, and how to prepare appropriate settings for recording. I learned how to narrate, record, and publish the screencast. I found out that the format for screencasts was an mp4. I read instructions on how to reduce and enlarge my onscreen image, zooming in and out to allow the viewer to see what I wanted them to see. I learned how to use the cursor to highlight features. Through trial and error, I realized that it was wise to bring up all the websites I wished to discuss ahead of time so that I could open them up as I narrated. I spent a lot of time condensing multiple talking points into a 5-minute presentation, and then spent even more time preparing that script in an on-screen format, in a large type font, that I could read without looking away from the on-screen camera. I learned how to preview recordings and delete them, and I previewed and deleted dozens of attempts before creating one that was suitable.
Screencasts can be used for training, teaching and instruction, and communicating ideas, and having the ability to create one shows that I understand how they might be applied in an information environment. The attention with which I planned and edited my screencast, and the finished product that results shows that I understand how it might impact the viewer, and thus the information environment in which screencasts are utilized. Figuring out how to create a screencast with no prior knowledge shows that I have the confidence, curiosity, and ability to try and successfully use emerging technologies.
Emerging Tech Video and Notes
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3rjFtrVja9cYUtxcWZVUU00Q2s/view
and
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Ab46ecd2a-90f5-432b-8516-3462cd6f858f
I produce this video on Emerging Tech as an assignment in my Information Communities (INFO 200) class. Because I chose to focus on reference librarians as an information community, it allowed me to focus on emerging technology and its effect on these professionals, thus narrowing the scope of my inquiry significantly. I also began this assignment under the assumption that we would be producing a paper rather than digital document, and this is reflected in my notes, which start as a formal paper would, then begin to resemble notes later when I realize I need to present my findings in a digital form.
The video has me presenting my research findings roughly in the order I planned for my paper. Drawing from Lynch’s history of reference tools I illustrate how information and communication technologies have always been “emerging,” and that current technological iterations always draw upon previous creations. In order to properly discuss which emerging technologies are of most interest or concern for reference librarians, I use the reference desk as a contested focal point. I describe some of the technologies that came to be used by reference librarians leading up to the computer and then ILS interfaces. About halfway through the video I come to focus on the impact and issues surrounding the Apple iPad and the iPad 2. Part of my reason for homing in on the iPad were the numerous forecasts, reviews, studies, analyses, and papers that referenced the device. Furthermore, the iPad seemed to have attracted a lot of hype, and the expectations for its adaptation within reference services eclipsed all other trends. I spend a lot of time in the video sifting through the literature, assessing others’ assessments regarding the pros and cons of how the devices worked in actual practice. I point out when the iPad’s use improved service but do not hold back from listing the many problems identified with the devices, nor do I refrain from indicating when a researcher seems to have reached conclusions unsupported by the data. I do touch on other technologies such as location intelligence (geolocating), web-based ILS’s, chat enquiry services, pre-configured tablets, and a ProQuest’s web-scale discovery service, Summon. Throughout the video I reference the papers and page numbers from which I am drawing my facts and evidence.
My video presentation and accompanying notes show that I am capable of trawling through the constantly evolving literature on emerging technologies for facts and analyses relevant to a particular user group, drawing connections between those facts and analyses to highlight issues of concern to those users. My narration and notes also shows that I can identify current and emerging issues and trends, but also describe how those issues and trends might affect the information environment of the user in question.
Overview of Google Scholar’s Search Capabilities and Limitations
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A4b38a929-b786-4be6-be62-968ed8f88c7f
My final project for my Online Searching class (INFO 244) was an overview of Google Scholar’s (GS) search capabilities and limitations. I chronicle GS’s origins and evolution as a new search tool that seemed to be a hybrid of both a database and a search engine. I analyze GS in three separate areas— coverage, utility for search and research, and bibliographic utility— comparing GS (and various features it added over the years) with other technological rivals in the process. Drawing from the available literature I track how information professionals and scholars reacted, both positively and negatively, to GS as an emerging technology. My research shows that over its first decade, GS established itself as a viable search and retrieval tool providing broad coverage in several academic subject spheres. I illustrate how the years following GS’s first decade of growth were marked by the rise of the bibliometrician as user, and subsequently the bibliometric utility of GS began to be called into question. Google Scholar’s users, through their interactions with the IR system, began to expose both GS’s benefits but also its endemic problems.
One persistent problem was that institutional repositories (IRs) were not showing up on GS results, and the reason for this was the inadequacy of Google’s metadata schemas. While generally adequate for the average user (there were some issues with accessibility), these metadata schemas made GS much less useful for researchers and bibliometricians. I consider the strengths and weaknesses of GS’s newest bibliographic tools compared to competitors like Microsoft’s Academic Search (MA). I conclude my study from a retrospective view, by looking at how GS has performed over time, and asking whether or not it has achieved the results set forth by its chief designer, when he envisioned GS back in the year 2000. I summarize my research by declaring that GS may work well enough for researchers but may not work as well for researchers of the future. Finally, I cite a scholar who believes that libraries and vendors have a role to play in increasing access to GS (Fagan, 2017, pp 29-31).
My research and analysis of Google Scholar shows that I am capable of a) identifying and describing a current and emerging information technology, b) describing current and emerging issues and trends with it and competing technologies, and c) illustrating how this might affect the information environment, in this case that of researchers and bibliometricians.
Conclusion
Having the confidence and patience to try new and emerging technologies are soft skills I bring to my work every day. Demonstrating that I am capable of planning, editing, and launching a screencast with no prior experience indicates that I can readily adapt to unknown communication technologies, and quickly learn how to adopt them into my skill set. Just as I am able to research how to use a new and unknown technology, I have shown that I know how to keep up with the ever-evolving literature around emerging information and communication technologies, and that I am capable of articulating the promises, expectations, and issues that surround them, as well as how these might affect both users and various information environments. My screencast and video efforts show that I can present my experience and research with emerging technologies in technically modern formats. My research into Google Scholar as an emerging information technology demonstrates that I can present my research in a more traditional format if the occasion requires it.
My ability to keep up with emerging information and communication technologies, to stay current through research and analysis, and to remain adept at adapting and possibly adopting such technologies, are a set of skills I can modify for use in any information environment.
References
Ashley, M. (2010). Digital conservation and access: Saving humanity’s history in the petabyte
age. Virtual archaeology review, 1(1), 9-12. Retrieved from https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A01c5c134-593c-4f44-a936-7029dbe9ce16
Bolin, M.K. (2018). Metadata, cataloging, linked data, and the evolving ILS. In
Hirsh, S. (Ed.). (2018). Information services today: An introduction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Breeding, M. (2019, May 1). Library systems report: Cycles of innovation. American libraries
magazine. Retrieved from https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2019/05/01/library-systems-report-2019/
Fagan, J. C. (2017). An evidence-based review of academic web search engines, 2014-2016:
Implications for librarians’ practice and research agenda. Information Technology and Libraries, 36(2), 7-47. Retrieved from https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A5d50699e-e0c5-4040-8d3d-781fe845246e
Fontichiaro, K. (2018). Creation culture and makerspaces. In Hirsh, S. (Ed.),
Information services Today: An introduction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Gorman, M. (2012). The Prince’s Dream. SCONUL Focus, 54. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Gorman5/publication/271605679_The_Prince's_Dream_A_Future_For_Academic_Libraries/links/5a9c01f6a6fdcc3cbacd3d91/The-Princes-Dream-A-Future-For-Academic-Libraries.pdf
Gorman, M. (2008). Professional ethics and values in a changing world. In The Portable
MLIS.
Gregory, L. & Rudersdorf, A. (2018). Digital resources. In Hirsh, S. (Ed.),
Information services today: An introduction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Krasulski, M. (2018). Accessing information anywhere and anytime. In Hirsh, S. (Ed.),
Information services today: An introduction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Lynch, J. (2016). You could look it up: The reference shelf from ancient babylon to wikipedia.
New York: Bloomsbury
Ruffini, M. F. (2012, October 31). Screencasting to engage learning. Educause Review Online, 1.
Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2012/11/screencasting-to-engage-learning
Skinner, K. (2018). Analog and digital curation and preservation. In Hirsh, S. (Ed.),
Information services today: An introduction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Steele, C. (2018, November 10). Is the digital divide widening or narrowing? Retrieved from http://www.digitaldividecouncil.com/is-the-digital-divide-widening-or-narrowing/
Stephens, M. (2018). Hyperlinked libraries. In Hirsh, S. (Ed.),
Information services today: An introduction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Tunan, J. (2018). Information intermediation and reference services. In Hirsh, S. (Ed.),
Information services today: An introduction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Tyckoson, D. A. (2008). Reference Service: The Personal Side of Librarianship. In The Portable
MLIS.