LIONS AND TIGERS AND BEARS OH MY!!!
To some this heading may appear silly and random, but with the evening I’ve had it is fitting. Since my shift began at 4p, working at the Undergraduate Library has been quite the experience. Here are the top questions that I’ve been asked this evening that left me somewhat perplexed:
1. I have an interview and I am looking for room 1600. My mom is trying to park the car, where can she park?
When the patron asked the first part of her question I directed her to room 1600. However, the second part of her question was met with some confusion. First, I had no clue where her mother was on campus. Next, my mind froze and I couldn’t think of any visiting parking structures off the top of my head. The patron ended up walking away, appearing unsatisfied with the help that was offered.
Final Thoughts: I could’ve suggested the meters as possible parking spots but again everything related to parking went out of my mind when asked on the spot.
2. I’m looking for books on authenticity, do you have any here?
I checked the catalog and indeed found some books on that subject matter for this patron. Of course, when he discovered that many of the titles we owned were located at Purdy-Kresge he became disinterested. He expressed a desire to only view books here at the UGL, and even complained about having books from other libraries on campus appear in the results. The patron’s complaining was interesting considering he didn’t request to find books only at the UGL originally. I ended up finding three books here for the patron that he decided to check out.
Final Thoughts: Purdy-Kresge is less than five minutes away from the Undergraduate Library. Perhaps the patron could’ve found better materials suited for his assignment there vs. at the UGL…either way it was his decision.
3. I’m looking for scholarly sources from articles?
This question left me positively STUMPED!! I couldn’t understand her question and that increased my inability to answer the question. Eventually, the patron walked off, irritated at my confusion to answering her question.
Final Thoughts: If the patron came with a better understanding of what she wanted/needed maybe I could’ve helped her more. I could’ve done a better job asking her open-ended questions to ascertain what she may have needed.
4. Can homeless people use this library?
I replied yes to this question and stated that as long as patrons who appear to be homeless aren’t bothering people (i.e. students, or staff) they are not prohibited from using our library or its services.
Final Thoughts: All WSU libraries have rules and policies that openly embrace “community users.” Regardless, if it turns off certain patrons’, members of the community have a right to access all the services our libraries may offer.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
How's My Voice?
Yay! Wayne State University is on Spring Break this week! Unfortunately, I have still had to come to campus to work at the library, which has been very quiet. I even contemplated not doing a blog this week in honor of Spring Break. Since I have to spend most of my day here, it made sense to just go ahead and do one. A co-worker suggested that I read an article that she thought I would enjoy. My blog for this week will focus on the article, why it’s important and what I valued about it.
First, the name of the article was Voice in teaching: Improving your classroom connection and it was written by Bob Schoofs. Schoofs is an arts and humanities librarian who was reviewing some student evaluations of his teaching at the end of the term (Schoofs, 2010). One comment struck him the most as it indicated that his voice was pretty boring (Schoofs, 2010). What really struck Schoofs was the fact that this was an aspect of his teaching that he should be able to improve (Schoofs, 2010).
Next, he began to consult with faculty members in relevant departments such as Education. To no avail, Schoofs didn’t discover any resources that required nor encouraged any vocal training for teachers. After meeting with a theatre professor, he was able to get expert help about developing more dynamic, expressive patterns of speaking (Schoofs, 2010).
Also, one of the tools Schoofs used was a tape recorder, which enabled him to analyze things like his pitch, pattern, and rhythm (Schoofs, 2010). He strongly suggests that regular, daily practice of things like rhythm and melody, pitch and pause has enabled him to develop new habits of speaking.
Moreover, this article is very important because it discusses the effects of bad vocal speaking in teaching. According to the article, twenty percent of teachers have had to take time off work because of voice problems compared with a national average of 4 percent (Schoofs, 2010). Besides that evidence, this article really promotes the idea of advancing and improving areas of weakness.
Finally, what I most valued about this article was the emphasis it put upon vocal training amongst teacher and librarians. Having a BFA Degree in Theatre, I’ve learned the importance of strong and effective speaking. As a storyteller, I try my best to implement those “theatre skills,” into the storytelling for my children audience. Last year, I had the opportunity to sit and listen to an intern read a story to some children. Overall, there was no excitement about any of the words she was reading, no inflections, just the sound of her monotone voice. I am not professing to be an expert in vocal training or storytelling, but how a person reads/speaks will greatly influence the attention of his/her audience. A great tip that Schoofs provides the readers is reading aloud to a pretend audience (i.e. family or friends) for 20 or 30 minutes once or twice a day. Bobb Schoofs initiative to improve his speaking abilities is admirable and should be a lesson to all in any profession.
References
Schoofs, B. (2010). Voice in teaching: Improving your classroom connection. College & Research Libraries, 71 (3), 143-144.
First, the name of the article was Voice in teaching: Improving your classroom connection and it was written by Bob Schoofs. Schoofs is an arts and humanities librarian who was reviewing some student evaluations of his teaching at the end of the term (Schoofs, 2010). One comment struck him the most as it indicated that his voice was pretty boring (Schoofs, 2010). What really struck Schoofs was the fact that this was an aspect of his teaching that he should be able to improve (Schoofs, 2010).
Next, he began to consult with faculty members in relevant departments such as Education. To no avail, Schoofs didn’t discover any resources that required nor encouraged any vocal training for teachers. After meeting with a theatre professor, he was able to get expert help about developing more dynamic, expressive patterns of speaking (Schoofs, 2010).
Also, one of the tools Schoofs used was a tape recorder, which enabled him to analyze things like his pitch, pattern, and rhythm (Schoofs, 2010). He strongly suggests that regular, daily practice of things like rhythm and melody, pitch and pause has enabled him to develop new habits of speaking.
Moreover, this article is very important because it discusses the effects of bad vocal speaking in teaching. According to the article, twenty percent of teachers have had to take time off work because of voice problems compared with a national average of 4 percent (Schoofs, 2010). Besides that evidence, this article really promotes the idea of advancing and improving areas of weakness.
Finally, what I most valued about this article was the emphasis it put upon vocal training amongst teacher and librarians. Having a BFA Degree in Theatre, I’ve learned the importance of strong and effective speaking. As a storyteller, I try my best to implement those “theatre skills,” into the storytelling for my children audience. Last year, I had the opportunity to sit and listen to an intern read a story to some children. Overall, there was no excitement about any of the words she was reading, no inflections, just the sound of her monotone voice. I am not professing to be an expert in vocal training or storytelling, but how a person reads/speaks will greatly influence the attention of his/her audience. A great tip that Schoofs provides the readers is reading aloud to a pretend audience (i.e. family or friends) for 20 or 30 minutes once or twice a day. Bobb Schoofs initiative to improve his speaking abilities is admirable and should be a lesson to all in any profession.
References
Schoofs, B. (2010). Voice in teaching: Improving your classroom connection. College & Research Libraries, 71 (3), 143-144.
Friday, March 12, 2010
What's the Hype Over Skype?
For months now I’ve listened to my friends discuss how they enjoy using Skype. I’ve sat and wondered in amazement about all the hype over Skype and what makes it so great! Clearly, I’ve never used it, but it was still worth learning more about the subject. The purpose of my blog this week is to discuss the phenomenon that is Skype.
According to Skype.com, it’s free software which works seamlessly with users’ current internet connection. People could chat away with free Skype-to-Skype calls and never worry about cost, time or distance. Skype can be used on a computer or on a person’s mobile phone (“Use Skype,” 2010). Just for starters people can instant message (IM) anyone on their contact list or even use group IM to chat with lots of people at the same time (“Use Skype,” 2010). Also, people could hold conference calls to organize a get-together and then find business recommendations to search for the perfect venue to hold it (“Use Skype,” 2010). The video features available on Skype enable people to make free video phone calls or even take pictures, as long as they have a webcam (“Use Skype,” 2010).
When Skype was founded six years ago, it was hailed as a way to change how people communicate with each other (Rosen, 2009). While the program, valued at 2.75 billion, is used regularly on TV shows like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, most publishers and booksellers agree that VolP (voice over Internet protocol) program is no replacement for live author appearances (Rosen, 2009). Still, a way to connect writers and their fans for free without paying for plane tickets and hotels is particularly appealing to publishers (Rosen, 2009). As with anything, there are some disadvantages to using Skype. First, Skype’s video quality can be spotty, with dropped connections and irritating time lags (Rosen, 2009). Plus, security can be problematic. If preferences aren’t set to exclude communication with people not in the user’s address book, a session can be interrupted with unwanted images and comments (Rosen, 2009).
It is my belief that the use of Skype will only increase in the future. Yes, there are issues that need to be worked out, but financially it appears that Skype is working in the best interest of its users. Would, I try Skype? Maybe, but I am not going to rush out right-away to connect with family, friends or co-workers. Skype seems to be a technology that’s fun to try but that would be the extent for me. I prefer face-to-face interaction in everyday life, versus Facebook, Instant Messenger, and yes perhaps even Skype.
References
Rosen, J. (2009). To skype or not to skype?. Publishers Weekly, 256 (50), 22-23.
Use Skype (2010). Get Connected. Retrieved from http://www.skype.com/getconnected/.
Friday, March 05, 2010
Is The Scholar Be-ta Than Databases?
My last two blogs have, in some way, dealt with Google regarding the American Revolutionary, John Hanson. Today’s blog will deal with Google Scholar, along with traditional library databases. It was recommended by my professor that we as Library and Information Students know about Google Scholar. For the first time this year, I used it to obtain and print an article needed for my Research class. While I found Google Scholar very simple and quick to use, I didn’t know much about it. So that I might familiarize myself with Google Scholar I did a little research about this popular resource. What follows is what I learned about Google Scholar and its impact on traditional library databases.
Google Scholar is a beta product that was introduced to the world in November 2004 (Howland, Wright, Boughan, & Roberts, 2009). Upon first reading the words “beta product,” I had no clue what they meant and so I went to find out. Technically, a Beta device or application isn’t considered to be a mature product (“Wiki” “Answers,” 2010). A Beta device has been through internal company review and error testing, but it hasn’t been thoroughly tested by people outside of the developmental team (“Wiki” “Answers,” 2010). Now, having the meaning of “beta product,” I was able to further understand Google Scholar.
Next, in the article “How Scholarly is Google Scholar? A Comparison to Library Databases,” the researchers pose two questions. The first question they asked was if Google Scholar result sets were more or less scholarly than licensed library database result sets (Howland et al., 2009). The second question the study posed was does the scholarliness of Google Scholar vary across disciplines (Howland et al., 2009). What the researchers found was that Google Scholar is, on average, 17.6 percent more scholarly than materials found only in databases and that there is no statistically difference between the scholarliness of materials found in Google Scholar across disciplines (Howland et al., 2009).
Moreover, the key to Google Scholar’s success is relevancy ranking and a large universe of information (Howland et al., 2009). A database is limited to its defined title list of content, whereas Google Scholar, by its very nature, is open to a much broader set of content that aids the researcher (Howland et al., 2009). Up to this point, many library databases have defaulted to sorting by date rather than by relevancy (Howland et al., 2009). The fact that many databases are now adding relevancy search options seems to indicate that Google Scholar got it right in the first place (Howland et al., 2009). It appears that Google Scholar has done a better job of both precision and recall than library databases have (Howland et al., 2009).
Bottom line, the results from this study left me surprised and very impressed. Apparently, Google Scholar is going very strong and is here to stay. A part of me wishes that I had done “more thorough” research of this topic before I wrote my last two blogs. In my defense, however, Google was the resource up for debate and not Google Scholar. Despite the debate, Google Scholar appears to be a credible resource that will only continue to grow and improve.
References
Howland, J.L., Wright, T.C., Boughan, R.A., & Roberts, B.C. (2009). How scholarly is google scholar? A comparison to library databases. College Research Libraries, 70 (3), 227-234.
Answers.com (n.d.). Retrieved from WikiAnswers:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_BETA_mean
Google Scholar is a beta product that was introduced to the world in November 2004 (Howland, Wright, Boughan, & Roberts, 2009). Upon first reading the words “beta product,” I had no clue what they meant and so I went to find out. Technically, a Beta device or application isn’t considered to be a mature product (“Wiki” “Answers,” 2010). A Beta device has been through internal company review and error testing, but it hasn’t been thoroughly tested by people outside of the developmental team (“Wiki” “Answers,” 2010). Now, having the meaning of “beta product,” I was able to further understand Google Scholar.
Next, in the article “How Scholarly is Google Scholar? A Comparison to Library Databases,” the researchers pose two questions. The first question they asked was if Google Scholar result sets were more or less scholarly than licensed library database result sets (Howland et al., 2009). The second question the study posed was does the scholarliness of Google Scholar vary across disciplines (Howland et al., 2009). What the researchers found was that Google Scholar is, on average, 17.6 percent more scholarly than materials found only in databases and that there is no statistically difference between the scholarliness of materials found in Google Scholar across disciplines (Howland et al., 2009).
Moreover, the key to Google Scholar’s success is relevancy ranking and a large universe of information (Howland et al., 2009). A database is limited to its defined title list of content, whereas Google Scholar, by its very nature, is open to a much broader set of content that aids the researcher (Howland et al., 2009). Up to this point, many library databases have defaulted to sorting by date rather than by relevancy (Howland et al., 2009). The fact that many databases are now adding relevancy search options seems to indicate that Google Scholar got it right in the first place (Howland et al., 2009). It appears that Google Scholar has done a better job of both precision and recall than library databases have (Howland et al., 2009).
Bottom line, the results from this study left me surprised and very impressed. Apparently, Google Scholar is going very strong and is here to stay. A part of me wishes that I had done “more thorough” research of this topic before I wrote my last two blogs. In my defense, however, Google was the resource up for debate and not Google Scholar. Despite the debate, Google Scholar appears to be a credible resource that will only continue to grow and improve.
References
Howland, J.L., Wright, T.C., Boughan, R.A., & Roberts, B.C. (2009). How scholarly is google scholar? A comparison to library databases. College Research Libraries, 70 (3), 227-234.
Answers.com (n.d.). Retrieved from WikiAnswers:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_BETA_mean
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
