Thursday, February 22, 2007
MultitaskwaitwhatwasIsaying?
This morning, as I was watching Jake read one book while simultaneously listening to a different title on CD, I flashed back to this Myth of Multitasking diagram that was making the rounds a while back.
I've been doing some reading on giftedness and how it can be misdiagnosed as ADD -- part of the reason being teachers' observations of gifted kids staring out the window, doodling, moving around, reading, or otherwise occupying themselves while the teacher's talking to the class about something else. The difference here, though, is that gifted kids, when asked, are also following the teacher's discussion -- but, since it doesn't occupy enough of their mind or covers ground they already know, they're "multitasking" to keep the rest of their brain active.
For me, the effectiveness of multitasking is task-dependent -- I read while I watch TV (although not as often now that we have DVR and can skip commercials!) -- but not if what's on TV is especially gripping or what I'm reading is especially dense. I often work on several articles at a time, writing a paragraph here, a paragraph there, and find that moving back and forth allows my brain to work on things in the background and helps prevent writer's block. I have e-mail open all day, IM open often, and I'm quite sure that constantly checking e-mail saps my productivity (but can't stop!).
I've been doing some reading on giftedness and how it can be misdiagnosed as ADD -- part of the reason being teachers' observations of gifted kids staring out the window, doodling, moving around, reading, or otherwise occupying themselves while the teacher's talking to the class about something else. The difference here, though, is that gifted kids, when asked, are also following the teacher's discussion -- but, since it doesn't occupy enough of their mind or covers ground they already know, they're "multitasking" to keep the rest of their brain active.
For me, the effectiveness of multitasking is task-dependent -- I read while I watch TV (although not as often now that we have DVR and can skip commercials!) -- but not if what's on TV is especially gripping or what I'm reading is especially dense. I often work on several articles at a time, writing a paragraph here, a paragraph there, and find that moving back and forth allows my brain to work on things in the background and helps prevent writer's block. I have e-mail open all day, IM open often, and I'm quite sure that constantly checking e-mail saps my productivity (but can't stop!).
Labels: add, education, gifted, multitasking
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
We Don't Need No
Library Journal has a short news story up about "Burger to Appoint LIS Task Force" -- yes, we're back to discussing the state of library education, with the interesting note that, at the ALISE Forum on Professional Education at Midwinter: "With some 80 percent of those present educators and 20 percent practitioners, there were too few students or new librarians to offer their immediate perspective—a limitation that has also been the case in previous forums." Meanwhile, Michael Stephens points to a blog from San Jose State University, slis21 (SLIS Associate Director: Discussions on a Curriculum for a 21st Century Library School). A post on "skills for the 21st century librarian" is garnering some particularly interesting comments, both in- and outside the SJSU community.
Our ongoing discussions about the state of library education and accreditation are a further testament to the "fuzziness" of our field. While many agree that changes need to be made, there are real fundamental disagreements on the types and scope of changes that are necessary. Those envisioned by Michael Gorman, for instance, may not resemble those desired by Meredith Farkas.
The LJ squib points out that the discussions on accreditation beg the question of "whether the profession retains sufficient commonality" around which to build a core curriculum. This is a larger question worth pulling out for examination. My gut feeling is yes, but I think we need to build that core with an understanding of the very different environments in which people will work post-graduation, and an agreement of what we need to know to both build the foundations of that work and understand the importance (and basic idea of) our colleagues' work -- of librarianship in all its variations.
I'm also interested in hearing what the rest of you feel is core to a 21st century library education. Can we update our curricula to build a common -- and relevant -- center?
Our ongoing discussions about the state of library education and accreditation are a further testament to the "fuzziness" of our field. While many agree that changes need to be made, there are real fundamental disagreements on the types and scope of changes that are necessary. Those envisioned by Michael Gorman, for instance, may not resemble those desired by Meredith Farkas.
The LJ squib points out that the discussions on accreditation beg the question of "whether the profession retains sufficient commonality" around which to build a core curriculum. This is a larger question worth pulling out for examination. My gut feeling is yes, but I think we need to build that core with an understanding of the very different environments in which people will work post-graduation, and an agreement of what we need to know to both build the foundations of that work and understand the importance (and basic idea of) our colleagues' work -- of librarianship in all its variations.
I'm also interested in hearing what the rest of you feel is core to a 21st century library education. Can we update our curricula to build a common -- and relevant -- center?
Labels: education, l2, library 2.0, library20, libraryschool, lis
