Wednesday, April 01, 2009

Campus talk on evolution

The campus Phi Sigma Tau (the Honor Society in Philosophy; national link, campus information) had a meeting on Friday, March 27th, and they hosted Dr. Killebrew to give a talk about evolution and intelligent design. My two readers may remember that Dr. Don Killebrew was one of our speakers for the library's celebration of Darwin Day back in February. So, when I saw the announcement for the March talk, I took some time to go. Besides, part of being an Outreach Librarian is being visible in campus. Keep in mind, for audience purposes, this is a scientist speaking to a philosophy group.

* * * *

So these are my notes from the event:

  • Biologists seek to understand biological diversity. Some examples of ways to study life include, but are not limited to, physiology, genetics, conservation, cell and molecular biology.
  • Life abounds. There are far more species that have gone extinct than are alive today. And there are still many more needing description.
  • Science cannot look at nature in terms of intelligent design. The wish for some for a benevolent intelligent designer can be there, but this is not compatible with science. Science uses empirical evidence. An intelligent designer cannot be questioned. To say things happen just because does not lead us far into understanding. Scientists look at how things happen.
  • By using the methods of science, we get objective, unemotional, detached empirical causes.
On what science is:
  • a human endeavor
  • tentative: it can change. Science is not absolute. It always seeks answers based on evidence.
  • a way of knowing
  • based on observation
  • structured to be falsified: this is to mean it raises questions to gather support for an explanation.
  • open to challenge and change.
  • replicating experiments is important
  • in the end, science is about explaining the natural world.
On what science is not:
  • absolute
  • the only way to know
  • based on hopes or wishes
  • good or bad. The "bad" is in how it is used.
  • under the control of a select few. It is probably one of the most free enterprises.
  • a process that rejects the possibility of God. Science is not about discrediting the existence of God. God is left out of science.
  • able to deal with the supernatural.
  • predetermined to go in a particular direction.
The best scientific concept to explain biological diversity is evolution.

Components of evolution:
  • Natural selection
  • genetic drift
  • differential migration
  • differential mutation
  • linkage disequilibrium
  • random mating
The point is that science has come a long way since Darwin, and it has added much to his idea of natural selection. Evolution is not one theory but a multitude of theories.

The Darwinian notion of descent with modification remains consistent with the empirical evidence from the natural world as the cause of biological diversity.

* * * *

There was a Q&A after the talk. These are some notes from the questions asked:

  • On the influence of technology on evolution, or rather, on our evolution? Technology has not quite been around long enough to have an influence. What would be the "fitness" issue for humans to evolve? Faster fingers to type better? Medicine has been helpful in improving life quality, but in terms of evolutionary change, technology has not been around long enough. Now, with a high selection pressure, a very successful trait happening and passing, evolution could accelerate a bit.
  • On there being one source for evolution? Biologists ask how the diversity occured in life. Current thinking is for one common (or a few) ancestors. And yes, evolution happens simultaneously in various places (some else asked that).
  • What could falsify evolution? For instance, finding an intact human skeleton in strata of 2.5 billion years given we've been around for 5 million or so. This would have to be verifiable (i.e. not a hoax).
  • On taking God out of science? If you were to include God, you'd need a controlled experiment, which is impossible. Science does not allow for ignoring something because it is not understood.
  • On what is a theory? On the use of the word "theory." Science does not see a theory as a guess. It is based on work and evidence that supports evolution. Evolution as a fact means it has not been falsified. There is a big data set of evidence to support the theory. Intelligent design is an idea, not a theory as it lacks evidence.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Article Note: On Undergraduates and Internet Abuse

Citation for the article:

Castiglione, James. "Internet Abuse and Possible Addiction Among Undergraduates: A Developing Concern for Library and University Administrators." Library Review 57.5 (2008): 358-371.

Read via Emerald.

I have to admit that title may sound a bit provocative, but the article does look at an issue that has potential to become a serious problem. The article looks at the literature of librarianship and of addiction to see if there is a problem with Internet addiction amongst undergraduate students. The answer is not an easy one.

The literature review begins with some basic statistics about Internet use for young people. The definition for young people does cover high school and college levels. The bottom line is that there is some relevant literature, but there is still a lot more to learn. What concerned me was that I often observe in the librarian blogosphere a very high level of cheering for Internet use and online social toys and tools that at times can be seen as inappropriate uses, especially in an academic setting. And this cheering is often done under the rubric of increasing circulation, bringing more people into the library, or just making the library look hip. I don't think some of those cheerleaders stop and think about possible consequences, and I have seen that questioning like I am doing now can lead to the "you just don't get it" syndrome. I think there is a lot of potential for good uses of the Internet and social software in a library setting, and some recreational use is fine. I am not saying some recreation is a bad thing. But when it becomes a significant distraction that can interfere with the academic performance of students, we have to ask questions, and we have to act to help prevent failures and dropouts.

As usual, let's look at some highlights and notes I made:

"According to Kubey et.al. (2001), studewnts who are 'internet dependent' and show evidence of 'academic impairment' tend to spend an inappropriate amount of time engaging in a full range of internet activities. It is precisely the time-consuming use of OPRGs. internet-chat, and other internet-enabled entertainment resources that are of growing concern to many university administrators, educators, librarians, and health care professionals" (359).


The article in the literature review does briefly look at how the educational establishment, higher education, has helped to make the students more internet dependent by making a myriad of resources available online. However, the challenge comes when the various distractions are also available in that same online environment via the internet. For purposes of the article, ORPG means online role-playing games. From the looks of it, the term seems just another way of saying MMORPGs. By the way, I have to note that the article does not include the Kubey citation in its bibliography. Clearly a small sloppy moment for the journal editors since the article cites that reference a few times without even a hint of a title. I think it is referring to the following:

Kubey, R.W. et.al., "Internet Use and Collegiate Academic Performance Decrements: Early Findings." The Journal of Communication (June 2001): 366-382.


That Kubey article does sound interesting, so I may be taking a look at it in the near future. I did print myself a copy. Moving along. Part of the problem with assessing this issue is that there is not much in terms of current, substantial, empirical evidence. A lot of the hypothesis and speculation draws on old research based on things like television and the concern that too much tv would take away from the educational experience. There is some extrapolation involved from that research to today. However, there is reason for concern, at least according to anecdotal evidence. Castiglione does observe that "anecdotal accounts of addictive and distractive potential of internet-accessible content and services are not new" (361).

The author also notes that the APA does not currently recognize internet addiction as a mental disorder. You may have to wait until the next revision of the DSM in 2012 to see if it makes it into the book. Now, there is concern that certain students can be specially vulnerable: the ones who use emotion-based coping strategies when it comes to stress related to academic problems and/or failure. We are talking the kind of kid here who uses distractions like alcohol, drugs, or the internet to distance himself from the problem. "It is the latter student, who in an attempt to distance themselves from the psychological stress associated with academic failure, may succumb to the temporary psychological distractions of alcohol, substance abuse and possibly, the inappropriate use of internet-accessible content" (363).

Kubey apparently also mentions a case where some university administrators at William Woods University, "noticing that major cultural events on campus were poorly attended, began offering students financial incentives to stay off of their computers and attend the scheduled cultural events" (qtd. in 364). I really have to go read that article now, and I have to look into this because I don't think I could go to my director and say, "hey, can we pay students to attend some of our library events?" I don't think that form of outreach would fly, so I am really curious how they justified it, assuming this is true. Having said that, one of my challenges is increasing attendance at our library events in a campus that has a fairly poor culture of students staying on the campus. We are still a primarily commuter campus, and even though we have residences, students are mostly locals who can and do go home on weekends. Getting student attendance at events is a challenge, but on the positive, I can say that I have gotten some numbers up, albeit with a lot of effort. But that could be a separate post.

Then we have the finding that "43 per cent of students appear to have failed [i.e. dropped out of school due to academic dismissal] due to 'excessive patterns of late-evening logins to the university computer system' (Young, 2004, p.408)" Add this also:

"While this finding alone is distressing enough, Schwartz (2003) uncovered growing concern on the part of the university faculty, who describe increasing student use of the internet during class lectures to be rude, distracting, and incompatible with sound pedagogy. For example, Schwartz (2003) interviewed Ian Ayers, a professor at Yale University Law School, who suggested that students who are distracted by the internet during class are not fully involved with the lecture. Thus, according to Ayers, these students lose the opportunity to gain the 'critical thinking skills' that emerge from a deep analysis of the information presented in class" (364-365).


Just don't tell that to the 2.0 cheerleaders. Very often when a point like this is made, the cheerleaders will have one of these answers:

  • Student today learn differently. They are better able to multitask, so it should not be a problem.
  • The professor needs to be using other teaching methods besides a lecture, so the students will find the class more appealing.
  • For all one knows, the students may (or not) be taking notes on their computers and looking up supplementary material for the class as they listen. Of course, they can also be checking their Facebook, their Twitter, and/or their MySpace.
The question of whether the students are actually learning or not is never addressed in those stock answers. And while I am in agreement with concepts like multiple intelligences and teachers using various techniques in a classroom, at the end of the day, students still have to be held accountable if they do not pay attention. At the end of the day, if they choose to goof off too much on the internet (or drink or party too much), they get kicked out of the school.

Now let's look at libraries:

  • Librarians are in a rapid-change environment. Castiglione commends them for being able to adapt and integrate new technologies in libraries. However, our professionals "have not had the time to empirically study the potential impact these changes are having on the individual library stakeholder's propensity to learn and be creative" (365).
  • Assuming we do get some good empirical evidence: "Based on the result of appropriately designed and executed empirical studies, librarians may consider adjusting bibliographic and other types of instruction services they offer in an effort to provide the skills not only to navigate the library, but to avoid and minimize the internet distractions that may have a growing negative impact on academic outcomes" (366). Librarians do have a role in helping students succeed, so I could see this work happening in library instruction and as part of teaching information literacy. "Through traditional bibliographic instruction (Regalado, 2003) librarians continue to play an important professional role in the successful transition of new freshman students to college and university life" (qtd. in 366).
And one more piece:

"Unfortunately, a review of the library literature provides no guidance whatsoever on the development of communication initiatives designed to modify high and inappropriate levels of recreational internet use" (367).


I have to say it depends on what library literature you are looking at. In terms of the many librarian blogs, there is a lot on recreational use of the internet in the library. As I mentioned earlier, much of it is more to encourage use, which can facilitate or enable some of the inappropriate behavior. Of course, that is something that the profession (at least some elements) does not like to talk about. It's cool to use MySpace, Facebook, online games and so on in the library, not so cool to discuss the consequences of overdoing it or when inappropriate behaviors intervene with other library users who do wish to make appropriate use of the library and resources. This may well be one area where the profession at large has dropped the ball so to speak. It is an area that, for one, requires investigation, and two, requires action and better role models of positive behaviors. Again, we are not talking about incidental uses or casual recreation. When said behaviors go into the inappropriate, the disruptive, and just so distracting as to interfere with academics, it is a problem. And while we do not want to be alarmist or hysterical (or heaven forbid come across as luddites), the questions do have to be asked. Why? Well, how about for this reason:

The fact that reports are now emerging suggesting that some students are disrupting the classroom learning environment and are experiencing distractions in the library--based on the inappropriate use of internet-accessible content unrelated to sound pedagogical objectives--appears to be a developing phenomenon that requires rigorous empirical study" (368).

Monday, March 23, 2009

Article Note: On Infoseeking behaviors of education majors

Citation for the article:

Martin, Jason. "The Information Seeking Behavior of Undergraduate Education Majors: Does Library Instruction Play a Role?" Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 3.4 (2008): 4-17.

Read online. This journal is open access. Main page here.

The article reports on a small survey of 200 undergraduates from University of Central Florida's College of Education. The author does admit the limitations of the small convenience sample, but the findings are still not encouraging overall for library instruction and information literacy at large. We have our work cut out for us. This is especially so if the example of judges citing Wikipedia in their legal decisions is any indication. When I read that in the article, I had to wonder. Most articles on information literacy that I've read usually state or assume that professors always are skilled in research and will always favor the best sources. I think we may need to question that assumption. Could we ask if there are instances when some scholar fall for the Internet's trap of convenience just as their students do? Or would this idea be too scandalous to even consider? Just a side thought for me, in part because I have seen my fair share of incompetent teachers in my lifetime both as a teacher myself and as a librarian.

Some things to consider from the article's introduction and literature review:

  • Here is the problem of relying only on Internet sources: "Students relying only on Internet sources will not only be deficient in their knowledge of a subject, but also in how to find more information on that subject" (5).
  • "Those individuals who are deficient in information seeking skills have difficulty in knowing when information is needed, the value of libraries in finding information, and how to evaluate the sources they do find (Gross 155)" (qtd. in 5). In other words, we are seeing a lack of information literacy skills. By the way, the Gross citation is to this article, which I read.
  • I found this particularly important: "The problems, however, extend beyond the classroom. These same skills are needed when graduate seek home or small business loans, research options for their retirement plans, or seek to make informed decisions in local or national elections. Research and evaluation skills learned in the classroom are needed throughout life" (5). I think we should probably enlarge that statement and put in every library, then show it to every professor who asks, "why should I give time up in my classroom for library instruction." We should also show it to every college administrator who does not see the value of the library, and to every student who thinks "everything is on the Internet." All we have to do is look at the current economic debacle in the United States. To a large measure, it is due to a serious lack of information literacy skills ranging from people being ripped off in bad loans to electing poor government officials. But that could be another whole post.
  • "The preference for the Internet over the library is not limited to inexperienced researchers. One study found no real difference in library usage among freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior college students (Van Scoyoc and Cason 51)" (qtd. in 6). The Van Scoyoc and Carson piece is found in portal:Libraries and the Academy 6.1 (January 2006): 47-58. I have not read it, but based on other readings I have done, that finding seems just about right. By the way, though I am keeping a copy of this article, I am trying to make adding citations coming from the article, if mentioned in the article, part of my notes, in case I want to look something up later.
The literature review also reveals that a lot of what is published in this area is not terribly substantial, and it is mostly based on satisfaction surveys. Given all I read in information literacy and instruction literature, I could have told them that for free, so to speak. And no, I am not being light when I say that. I am speculating that a lot of that has to do with ease and convenience as well, plus the need of some of my academic librarian brethren to publish in order to meet tenure requirements. Anyhow, putting together a substantial assessment instrument with clear outcomes and objectives takes much more work than just administering a survey.

And here is one more point from the introduction:

  • "The students' choice of resources was most influenced by the instructors' directions to the students; when the instructors enforced penalties related to student grades, the students cited more scholarly sources (Robinson and Schlegl 280)" (qtd. in 7). Consider the notion of actual BI making a minimal difference given this statement. Professor influence is more significant, but it is only because they wield a grade over the students. The article cited also comes from portal: Libraries and the Academy, but this time it is 4.2 (April 2004): 275-290.
So let's look at the results:

  • "Even though these students realized that library resources were more credible than Internet sources, they still chose to use Internet sources instead of academic library sources for both personal and class work" (9; emphasis added). This does not speak very well for the students.
  • And this is not greatly encouraging either: "Students who had attended a library instruction session were proportionally just as likely to use academic and non-academic sources as those students who had not attended a library instruction session" (10).
The study found that, although students did not find the library difficult to use, they still found more comfort using stuff freely available on the Internet (11). This seems contradictory, and my experience makes me question if the admission that the library is easy to use is all that accurate. I am thinking in terms of databases, which can be a bit difficult to access, especially when used off-campus and authentication becomes a serious access issue. This post from ACRLog on "5 Things I Didn't Realize I'd Be Working On," which mentions the issue of authentication, made me think of that just a little more. Just don't get me started on the whole issue of multiple passwords and log-ins in this campus; it could turn into a very ugly rant. However, that detail does make me wonder about the idea of students saying the library is easy to use. One would think I would like to hear that, but instead, since I have met enough students who say the opposite, I find myself being sceptical. Anyhow, if this is the case, going to Google is certainly more comfortable and convenient. I am just wondering if this little idea of mine was taken into account.

More from the discussion"

  • And here is the problem of students who follow their syllabi too literally; it may also raise the issue of some faculty who, to put it mildly, are not very good at writing out syllabi or instructions for class tasks. My two readers probably have no idea how often I have to interpret syllabi and reassure students doing research because they are too afraid of "breaking some small rule" when they need some research material. But do also note the reversal problem the article describes: "This raises a crucial question as to how much students are learning about research from simply following the rules written in their class syllabi. If students are not citing Internet sources simply because they are told to use more academic sources, it is possible that they will revert to using the Internet when they are not specifically instructed to do so, and they would not have gained a deeper understanding of the critical importance of using academic sources. This is important, since almost 90% of the students in this study said they use the Internet as a primary tool for personal research" (12).
  • "Academic libraries might be better served to invest their limited resources in for-credit library classes, mandatory multiple library instruction sessions, or in integrating librarians into the class curriculum. These changes in practice will not be easy" (12). The author is concerned this may devalue the concept of the one-shot, but I disagree since I think the one-shot may still serve some purposes. I do agree with some investment as described above, but I see there is an institutional problem the library always faces when it decides to embark on ideas like these: the school's and the faculty resistance. The library can work on promoting some of the concepts described, but we all know that without faculty support or buy-in and institutional support, those things will never happen. One option, which could be seen as a middle ground, is libraries creating online tutorials and literacy modules for the course management systems. The fear, of course, is the possible devaluing of our work if the professors feel they can just "plug in" the module and then think their students are set. But the tutorials and similar tools can be most effective when balanced with effective classroom instruction or with embedded librarians.

Friday, March 20, 2009

Article Note: On asking the right question for research

Citation for the article:

Kloda, Lorie. "Asking the Right Question." Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 3.4 (2008): 79-81. (Available online).


This is a short piece that teaches the reader how to ask the right question for evidence based librarianship research. It is based on using the SPICE structure (setting, perspective, intervention, comparison, and evaluation). It is a pretty good tool to help those librarians out there who need or want to do some research and writing about that research. Certainly something I could use to help me shape some research ideas better.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Article Note: On reference collections and law libraries,with some thoughts

Citation for the article:

Hellyer, Paul. "Reference 2.0" AALL Spectrum March 2009: 24-27. (Available online as a PDF)

This is a short little article on reference collections and how electronic resources are overtaking print materials. For most academic librarians, this is not news. I got the impression this was still news to law librarians, or at least to the readers of AALL Spectrum. Having said that, there are some basic tips to consider when weeding your reference collection mentioned in the article. I just hope the collection, especially the print, does not get weeded out of existence. Contrary to popular belief, there are still many things you can find faster in a print reference book.

The suggestion given in the article on creating space was certainly a sore point for me. Where I work now, we already have a severe space constraint as it is. Oh, and by the way, I just found yesterday we are losing yet another classroom space so some administrative honcho (not library related) can get an office. Let's try not to go there. The point I was getting to is that some people on the campus would love nothing better than to completely eliminate the print holdings (and I don't mean just reference in this case) and use the space for computers and/or lounge spaces. This is in spite of some (old timer) professors who still make use of the collections as well as students.

More importantly, and this is part of my philosophy as a librarian, you lose something of what a library ought to be when you fail to update its collections. This includes reference. While there are some fine reference e-books and some very good online reference tools out there, they do not cover everything nor do they completely replace the print. I am just saying this as one of the guys in the reference trenches who works with our university patrons regularly. There is also the issue of older reference source standards that do not have an online counterpart. In a worst case scenario, for the sake of making more space or making a collection attractive, those items get weeded or discarded. This is a great loss in my humble estimation. While overall a reference collection has to be managed, it does not have to be managed out of existence or simply turned into an exclusive online domain, which by the way can raise all sorts of additional access issues. The failure lies in not updating while heavily weeding and discarding with the effect of providing less access to information sources. Such a reduction seems to me a disservice. But then again, my this part of my librarianship philosophy could very well be a minority view.