References
Agre, P. (2003). Information and Institutional Change: The Case of Digital Libraries. In A. Bishop, N. Van House & B. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation (pp. 219-240). Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.
Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New directions for teaching and learning, (68), 3-12.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
Brown, M., & Edelson, D. (2003) Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their change in practice? (Design Brief). Evanston, IL: Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lagoze, C. Krafft, T. Cornwell, N. Dushay, D. Eckstrom and J. Saylor. (2006). Metadata aggregation and automated digital libraries: A retrospective on the NSDL experience. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 230-239). New York: ACM.
Lagoze, C., Krafft, D., Payette, S., & Jesuroga, S. (2005). What Is a Digital Library Anymore, Anyway? D-Lib Magazine, 11(11). Available at doi:10.1045/november2005-lagoze.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, P. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge, The Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054.
Recker, M. (2006). Perspectives on Teachers as Digital Library Users: Consumers, Contributors, and Designers. D-Lib Magazine, 12(9).
Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2008). A Problem Based Learning Meta Analysis: Differences Across Problem Types, Implementation Types, Disciplines, and Assessment Levels. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
Comments on this entry are closed.
Mimi describes the problems of the “wheel reinvention” and “tool silos” that are created when projects with similar functionality and audiences develop in parallel rather than in a complementary fashion. Part of this may be due to the fact, which she points out, that technical standards for the NSDL were not in place when earlier projects such as Instructional Architect began creating tools. Are there some specific approaches that the NSDL should consider to avoid similar problems in the future? For example, could the annual RFP be more explicit in referencing what’s already been developed and suggesting directions for combining related efforts?
Despite the often-expressed value of the NSDL Annual Meeting, Whiteboard Report, and other community activities, projects can still be unaware of very specific resources, tools, or evaluation approaches that could be adapted for their own purposes. Matchmaking efforts seemed more prominent several years ago, with events such as Tool Time. Should the NSDL again take a more active role in such activities, e.g. by sponsoring workshops for non-pathways groups, such service providers or tool builders?
Mimi and others have pointed out the critical nature of the NSDL Annual meeting and the value of committees (such as the Evaluation and Impact Standing Committee) in fostering collaboration. In light of the planned shift from committees to work groups, how can collaboration be encouraged and sustained in practical and effective ways?
Mimi comments that the NSDL continues to be primarily driven by technical concerns, leaving out the voices of the users, especially in the K-12 world. Do you agree? If so, how can the NSDL foster development that acknowledges and acts on the needs of that user base?
I agree 100% with Mimi’s point (as pointed out by Lois) about the NSDL being driven by technical concerns. While technical elements are an essential component of the NSDL, attention has to shift to the needs of educators who are accessing the online resources and also on quality versus quantity. In these times of increased accountability and high stakes testing, we should try not to lead teachers astray by presenting them with tons of content that is only tangentially or topically related to the big ideas they have to teach. Otherwise they will promptly get out. So an important question is: What objective measures–preferably based on human rather than machine methods–can we present to the user to help them quickly decide whether any given resource is worth even checking out further–that is, likely to be useful to their teaching?