Task:
Part 2A: Write an evaluative statement using three (3) experiences documented in your online journal as evidence of meeting the learning objectives of the subject
Online Journal (OLJ) Entries:
My Personal Learning Network (January 01, 2012)
Trends and Policy (January 19, 2012)
Second Life Presentation (January 25, 2012)
INF506 Learning Objectives:
(1) demonstrate an understanding of social networking technologies;
(2) demonstrate an understanding of concepts, theory and practice of Library 2.0 and participatory library service
(3) critically examine the features and functionality of various social networking tools to meet the information needs of users;
(4) evaluate social networking technologies and software to support informational and collaborative needs of workgroups, communities and organisations; and
(5) demonstrate an understanding of the social, cultural, educational, ethical, and technical management issues that exist in a socially networked world, and how information policy is developed and implemented to support such issues.
Part 2A: Write an evaluative statement using three (3) experiences documented in your online journal as evidence of meeting the learning objectives of the subject
Online Journal (OLJ) Entries:
My Personal Learning Network (January 01, 2012)
Trends and Policy (January 19, 2012)
Second Life Presentation (January 25, 2012)
INF506 Learning Objectives:
(1) demonstrate an understanding of social networking technologies;
(2) demonstrate an understanding of concepts, theory and practice of Library 2.0 and participatory library service
(3) critically examine the features and functionality of various social networking tools to meet the information needs of users;
(4) evaluate social networking technologies and software to support informational and collaborative needs of workgroups, communities and organisations; and
(5) demonstrate an understanding of the social, cultural, educational, ethical, and technical management issues that exist in a socially networked world, and how information policy is developed and implemented to support such issues.
Throughout INF506 I have maintained an OLJ where I recorded insights and thoughts about my learning experiences. While only three are selected for this report, there many more entries available.
My first OLJ entry on my personal learning network (PLN) addressed objective (1) on social networking technologies, as well as (5) on management issues. In it, I explained that I had been using social networking technologies for many years. My connections, while initially social, evolved to include professional relationships. I became comfortable combining those roles online as I was inspired by Stephens’ ideas of “demonstrating humanity using technology,” and that we should “proudly be in the social networks as information professionals” (2011). I later justified this, stating that “I believe online connections can easily develop into personal relationships” (Taylor-Weber, 2012, January 1). By this, I refer to professional-turn-personal friendships with those in my PLN. This fading line between personal and professional connections could create a conflict of interest while in the workplace, but establishing policy can define these roles (Kroski, 2009). As an information professional, I believe it is necessary to model responsible use of social media, and always be aware of my conduct online, personal or professional.
This entry also addresses objective (2) on concepts, theory, and practice of library 2.0, as I explored Utecht’s stages of PLN adoption (Utecht, 2008). While these concepts were addressed with regards to the development of my own PLN, the exercise was useful as a librarian, in order to understand typical user experiences. Such understanding will allow me to become a more effective supporter of social media for the building of PLNs.
In my second OLJ on trends and policy, I discussed several trends which support objectives (1) on social media technologies, and (5) on management issues. One trend was the “exponential growth in the amount of information available to people” (Taylor-Weber, 2011, January 19). Because of the rise of digital advertising, and that users have different purposes for being and sharing online, it is increasingly important that users judge the information they encounter. The evaluation of information is shifting “from the contributor (as with television networks, or publishers) to the user.” As a result, there is a growing need for information literacy skills instruction, as currently, student research and evaluation skills are lacking (Thompson, 2011).
In some cases, schools protect themselves from social media problems by blocking access completely. Approaches toward censorship such as this should be handled with great caution, as the benefits of social media are vast, with collaborative, informational, and creative potential (Dreyer, Grant & White, 2009). Working smarter and educating users, rather than avoiding the issues will help to maintain an open and more innovative social media culture.
In this blog entry, I also responded to a statistic about the significant violation of social media policy and intellectual property among everyday users. I stated, “Technology has depersonalized interactions, giving people the comfort to conduct themselves in ways they might not do in ‘real life’” (Taylor-Weber, 2011, January 19). While policies may exist to prevent this behavior, they are not persuasive enough to change behavior. Either the policies are ineffectively implemented, or users may simply feel distanced from the social interaction, and therefore less inhibited in their actions (Crowell, Narvaez, Gomberg, 2008).
My final OLJ entry about my Second Life (SL) presentation addressed two remaining standards: (4) the ability to support the needs of workgroups, communities, and organizations, and (3) examining the features and functionality of social networking tools. As a social network, I felt SL was best used as an online community for participating in group events. “It is particularly conducive to hosting a large audience, as other programs like Google Talk and Skype are limited in audience size” (Taylor-Weber, 2011, January 25). It’s virtual environment is different from social networks like Facebook or Myspace because it allows realistic interaction through voice and avatar behavior. While I used words like “engaging,” “fun,” and “familiar” to describe SL, in my experience, managing the elements that make it so enjoyable was actually part of the problem. Users must not only download software, learn to manage technical settings, but in my case I had to do a significant amount of trouble shooting. SL also requires a great deal of orientation. It doesn’t fit “into your existing life.” While nearly all social networks require some orientation and technical effort, I found it particularly excessive with SL. “Ease of use” or “error prevention” is an important factor in judging usability (Uden & Eardley, 2010). In my experience, SL had too many technical challenges to make it useful.
Part 2B: Reflective Statement
References
My first OLJ entry on my personal learning network (PLN) addressed objective (1) on social networking technologies, as well as (5) on management issues. In it, I explained that I had been using social networking technologies for many years. My connections, while initially social, evolved to include professional relationships. I became comfortable combining those roles online as I was inspired by Stephens’ ideas of “demonstrating humanity using technology,” and that we should “proudly be in the social networks as information professionals” (2011). I later justified this, stating that “I believe online connections can easily develop into personal relationships” (Taylor-Weber, 2012, January 1). By this, I refer to professional-turn-personal friendships with those in my PLN. This fading line between personal and professional connections could create a conflict of interest while in the workplace, but establishing policy can define these roles (Kroski, 2009). As an information professional, I believe it is necessary to model responsible use of social media, and always be aware of my conduct online, personal or professional.
This entry also addresses objective (2) on concepts, theory, and practice of library 2.0, as I explored Utecht’s stages of PLN adoption (Utecht, 2008). While these concepts were addressed with regards to the development of my own PLN, the exercise was useful as a librarian, in order to understand typical user experiences. Such understanding will allow me to become a more effective supporter of social media for the building of PLNs.
In my second OLJ on trends and policy, I discussed several trends which support objectives (1) on social media technologies, and (5) on management issues. One trend was the “exponential growth in the amount of information available to people” (Taylor-Weber, 2011, January 19). Because of the rise of digital advertising, and that users have different purposes for being and sharing online, it is increasingly important that users judge the information they encounter. The evaluation of information is shifting “from the contributor (as with television networks, or publishers) to the user.” As a result, there is a growing need for information literacy skills instruction, as currently, student research and evaluation skills are lacking (Thompson, 2011).
In some cases, schools protect themselves from social media problems by blocking access completely. Approaches toward censorship such as this should be handled with great caution, as the benefits of social media are vast, with collaborative, informational, and creative potential (Dreyer, Grant & White, 2009). Working smarter and educating users, rather than avoiding the issues will help to maintain an open and more innovative social media culture.
In this blog entry, I also responded to a statistic about the significant violation of social media policy and intellectual property among everyday users. I stated, “Technology has depersonalized interactions, giving people the comfort to conduct themselves in ways they might not do in ‘real life’” (Taylor-Weber, 2011, January 19). While policies may exist to prevent this behavior, they are not persuasive enough to change behavior. Either the policies are ineffectively implemented, or users may simply feel distanced from the social interaction, and therefore less inhibited in their actions (Crowell, Narvaez, Gomberg, 2008).
My final OLJ entry about my Second Life (SL) presentation addressed two remaining standards: (4) the ability to support the needs of workgroups, communities, and organizations, and (3) examining the features and functionality of social networking tools. As a social network, I felt SL was best used as an online community for participating in group events. “It is particularly conducive to hosting a large audience, as other programs like Google Talk and Skype are limited in audience size” (Taylor-Weber, 2011, January 25). It’s virtual environment is different from social networks like Facebook or Myspace because it allows realistic interaction through voice and avatar behavior. While I used words like “engaging,” “fun,” and “familiar” to describe SL, in my experience, managing the elements that make it so enjoyable was actually part of the problem. Users must not only download software, learn to manage technical settings, but in my case I had to do a significant amount of trouble shooting. SL also requires a great deal of orientation. It doesn’t fit “into your existing life.” While nearly all social networks require some orientation and technical effort, I found it particularly excessive with SL. “Ease of use” or “error prevention” is an important factor in judging usability (Uden & Eardley, 2010). In my experience, SL had too many technical challenges to make it useful.
Part 2B: Reflective Statement
References
