Article Summaries & Critiques Bobbie Keenan Web Design and Development FRIT 7335 Kenneth Clark June

e 6, 2010

Baumbach, D. (2009). Web 2.0 & YOU. Knowledge Quest, 37(4), 12-19. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Summary The basis is of this article is to illustrate for the reader the importance of having Web 2.0 as a major tool available for all students. The author briefly introduces the origins of Web 2.0 to give the reader an idea of how far technology has come in a very short amount of time. The reason for this is to implore the reader, if they havent already, to investigate the Web 2.0 tools and their power to transform and improve the world of education. The article continually refers to Media Specialist as a driving force that should bring the vast wealth of Web 2.0 technology to school systems everywhere. However, she also shares information from her own studies/surveys that illustrate why Web 2.0 is not more prevalent in more schools. She sites lack of knowledge, training, accessibility, and time as the main culprits. Budgets are so strained and school staffs are spread so thin that it seems almost impossible to find the time to investigate and implement anything new. The author realizes that this is the current environment, and contends that not only is this the perfect time to bring Web 2.0 to our teachers and students, its what could take schools from merely standing in place, to taking great strides and moving forward. Most Web 2.0 tools are easily accessible, free to use, and easy to learn. The article goes on to educate the reader about the new 21st century learner standards that require Web 2.0 skills. These standards are based on what leaders in government and the business world are telling educators are necessary to be successful after school. The ability to collaborate with others on a global scale is at the forefront of skills required for tomorrows jobs. Web 2.0 tools are the perfect means of making that happen in todays schools. Critique I kept nodding my head while I read this article. This is everything that I have been saying to my schools owner for the past year, pleading with her to let me start teaching this technology to our students. I have every intention of giving her a copy of it to read. Im hoping that hearing it from another source will make her see how important this is for our students and the future of our school. This article hits on everything that is necessary to understand why Web 2.0 is so important to the success of all students. In light of todays economic woes that are directly impacting schools everywhere, it would be foolish not to take advantage of all the wonderful resources out there, especially since many of these resources are free. Donna Baubach does a great job in spelling out why we cant afford to ignore these tools on several different levels not just the monetary level. I think this article is great for anyone, like me, that is trying to bring Web 2.0 into their school. Not only does it tell you why it is important, it provides information about resources available that could get a beginner started on the road to Web 2.0 without overwhelming them.

Coombs, K. (2007). Building a Library Web Site on the Pillars of Web 2.0. Computers in Libraries, 27(1), 16-19. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Summary This article discusses ways to make a library website more Web 2.0 based. The author of the article, Karen Coombs, is the head of library Web services at the University of Houston in Texas. Coombs reveals her journey in providing a more interactive website for the Universitys staff and students based on Web 2.0 tools. To help in this process, she designed the six pillars of Web 2.0 to help her achieve her goal. The six pillars are: 1. Radical Decentralization: Instead of having one means of putting information on the website, a content management system was created to allow staff members to create their own content, making it more meaningful to users and easier to update and maintain overall. 2. Small Pieces Loosely Joined: Instead of having an singular system that is inflexible, Coombs implemented different Web 2.0 tool that are capable of working together, to provide optimal flexibility and functionality for users and those that maintain the sites. 3. Perpetual Beta: This pillar brings more of the interactive element to the design. Users of this website were informed that the website was in a constant state of development, and they were encouraged to provide feedback that would enable Coombs and her staff to constantly improve the site as a way of keeping it relevant. 4. Remixable Content: Remixable content is having the ability to allow content from one website to be incorporated into a separate website vica versa. As of the writing of this article, Coombs was still in the process of making this possible for her website. 5. User as a Contributor: This is self explanatory. Coombs has yet to incorporate this pillar into her website. The functionality exist, its just a matter of determining how implement it in a way that wont disrupt the main purpose of the website which is to provide access to accurate information. 6. Rich User Experience: This pillar is tied to directly to pillar five, but all brings in the ability to provide Web streaming as well as other multimedia experiences to library patrons. Critique This article is helpful in the since that it provides a solid outline as to how to create an interactive website that would be a wonderful asset to any library. However, it is written for an audience that has more tech knowledge that the average librarian. It is implied that all the readers of this article already a certain amount of skill at developing websites. As a result, it is vague in letting readers know exactly how this task could be accomplished from a beginners point of view. Coombs doesnt share any resources that might

assist the reader. Its as if she assumes that the reader already has all the tools they need at hand, and they just needed to know how to organize the plan to implement the tools for the best results. I know that given time, I could do the research to find out what I needed to implement what Coombs has laid out in this article. I will definitely keep this article on hand for future reference, but at this point, I need to learn more before I could use this article to help implement such a design. Fox, M. (2008). Information Anywhere. Library Journal, 1332-5. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Summary This article is addressing the need for librarians to be informed about the ever growing population of mobile devices. Mobile devices are just another means of seeking and receiving information, and since information is the business of librarians it only makes since that we should add mobile devices to our arsenal of resources. The article discusses the new Internet domain, .mobi that has been created specifically to service mobile devices. Certain library standards such as news websites, journals, and periodicals are converting their information to be easily accessed by mobile users, so librarians need to be aware of what is out there so they can inform users of the various locations they can access information. Librarians also need to consider including access to mobile media as part of their collection development process, since everything thing from eBooks to movies are being converted to fit in the mobile world. The article also discusses the fact that the majority of material on the Web needs to be, but currently isnt sized to fit mobile device screens. Transcoding content is also discussed. This is a process by which information is stripped down to the bare basics in order to be seen on a small screen. Librarians should be aware of what information is transcoded so they can inform their patrons if they are missing information that has been removed to fit the small screen that they otherwise could see on a regular PC. Critique This article overwhelmed me, because just when I think Ive got a handle on what is cutting edge, I get hit with information like this. And I realize that is the whole reason for exercises like this one. I think it is exactly the type of article that librarians, or anyone thats in the business of information need to read, because it keeps us thinking forward. If we dont keep looking forward, then our libraries will become stagnant or even archaic. The article was very informative, giving links to websites that allow the reader to further investigate how people are using their mobile devices to access information. As someone, that still has a traditional laptop, and a seven year old cell phone, I feel completely out of the loop, hence feeling overwhelmed. Of

course, now that I know more I will continue to investigate the potential impact mobile devices could have on libraries in the not so distant future.

Huber, C. (2010). Professional Learning 2.0. Educational Leadership, 67(8), 41-46. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Summary The article begins by given examples of more traditional methods of how educators have attempted to share potential professional learning information with the colleagues in the past. Usually these well intended attempts were lost because of the means by which they were delivered or the lack of time available to explore them. This article also emphasizes that in the past, professional learning was sought outside of the school walls, making the assumption that teachers within the school were not valuable resources with their own information to share. After the history lesson concerning what doesnt work in terms of professional learning, the article is basically a series of examples of what can be done to make professional learning more accessible and even enjoyable through the use of Web 2.0 tools. The article focuses a lot on Moodle because of its flexibility and apparent ease of use. The article also gives a general overview of Wikis, Twitter, Blogs, Nings, Jing and RSS Feeds and how they can be used to allow educators to benefit from each others knowledge on a daily basis. The author also points out that a great deal of administrative tasks that normally take up a great deal of time in staff meetings could be handled more effectively and efficiently through the use of the Web 2.0 tools mentioned. The ability to communicate more readily with one another would also enable teachers to give each other feedback on how to modify lesson plans that would make them more effective. The article ultimately wants teachers and administrators to realize that they arent all islands alone trying to educate. We are all in this together, and Web 2.0 tools make that possible. Critique I have heard of Moodle before, but Ive never really looked into it. This article almost seemed to be a running ad for Moodle, so I felt that I absolutely must look into it as a result. Im not offended by that it was just apparent that the author preferred Moodle over any of the other tools that were mentioned.

The author made a good case for how much more efficient Web 2.0 tools make the drudgery of administrative tasks and professional learning. After all, it is much more enjoyable to be able to interact with someone and share your ideas as opposed to having to sit through a meeting or listen to a lecture. Just like our students, we are more likely to retain information and use it in the future if we are actively engaged when it is presented to us. And unlike meetings and lectures that end and are presented at various times throughout the year, the conversation and learning with the use of Web 2.0 tools can keep lines of communications open and learning going on indefinitely.

Peltier-Davis, C. (2009). Web 2.0, Library 2.0, Library User 2.0, Librarian 2.0: Innovative Services for Sustainable Libraries. Computers in Libraries, 29(10), 16-21. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Summary This article informs the reader of the wave of change that is occurring in the library world in terms of Web 2.0 technologies. The internet has invaded the lives of the majority of people on a global scale. In the past, if people needed information, they would go to the library, now people have the ability to obtain vast quantities of information on their own at any time thanks to mobile computing devices. This raises the question of how libraries will be relevant in the future. The article goes on to discuss what exactly Web 2.0 is by giving lists of examples of various programs that are available. It then progresses on to discuss how Web 2.0 is being successfully integrated into library programs around the world, not only allowing patrons to access information, but also allowing them to interact with the information and other patrons as well. The article gives the reader a sense of what the needs and expectations of todays library users are, and then goes on to explain what the requirements are for todays librarians. Theres also a series of descriptions that provide the reader with ideas on how to integrate Web 2.0 (or further integrate) technologies into their library. Critique I must say that I am always uncomfortable when I read about the possibility that libraries could possibly become irrelevant in the very near future. Of course, if we dont stay on the forefront of the wave of information that the technology available to retrieve it, that is exactly what will happen. This article is just reminding us that we must stay diligent to remain relevant.

I think this article is very helpful, because it doesnt assume the reader is ignorant to the various tools available, but neither does it assume that they are not. Theres enough explanation of the state of things for there to be a clear understanding whether the reader is a layperson or an expert. I also always appreciate when an author provides examples and links to how others managing their situation using the tools being addressed in the article.

Rethlefsen, M., Piorun, M., & Prince, J. (2009). Teaching Web 2.0 technologies using Web 2.0 technologies. Journal Of The Medical Library Association: JMLA, 97(4), 253-259. Retrieved from MEDLINE with Full Text database. Summary The article focuses on a study conducted by The Medical Library Associations Task Force, to determine whether or not teaching Web 2.0 technologies by means of using Web 2.0 technologies was affective. An eight week online course was designed by the MLAs Task Force and offered to all the members of the MLA. Upon completion of the course members would receive continuing education (CE) credits. The course offered to all the members was basically a Web 2.0 101 course. The study was done to determine whether or not this type of submersion class would have any impact (positive or negative) on the participants understanding of Web 2.0 technologies. The course was broken up into eight learning modules that were delivered to participating members online via a Blog. Each week and new learning module was posted on the Blog. Each assignment was hands-on that required to participants to explore a specific Web 2.0 tool and complete an assignment using that tool. Participants were not required to complete each assignment by the end of the week. However, they were required to complete all assignments before the final date for the course in order to receive the CE credits. To determine the success of the course, participants were asked to complete an online evaluation of the course once the course was completed. With the evaluations that were complete, it was determined that the course was, for the most part, and overall success. So much so, that an additional course more advanced course was created at the request on some of the

participants. Modifications were made to the new course based on the feedback received from the evaluations. Ultimately, the participants in the study developed a greater understanding of Web 2.0 technologies as a result of the online course. Critique While I have never been one for reading articles based on studies, this one actually inspired me. This article is basically describing everything we do in the Instructional Technology program, but scaled down a simplified. This inspired me to develop an even more scaled down version of this idea for my schools Junior High Students. Of course, it will have to be approved, but I can see this working, and it side tracked me from doing this assignment, I got so excited about it. As I said previously, Im not a fan of reading dry articles discussing studies, but this just showed me that I shouldnt judge a book by its cover so to speak. Ill be more care to not dismiss things so readily next time I have an assignment dealing with articles, or if Im just reading in general. I may overlook something that could have inspired me in my own work.

Rhoades, E., Friedel, C., & Morgan, A. (2009). Can Web 2.0 Improve Our Collaboration?. Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers, 83(9), 24-27. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Summary This article is written from the perspective of a researcher. The basis of this article is questioning how collaboration using Web 2.0 ultimately be helpful or even practical when it comes to giving credit where credit is due. The authors of this article dont question that the use of Web 2.0 technologies have improved curriculums and overall student learning, but their concern stems from collaboration when it comes to research on a professional level. The article defines the nature of collaboration comes down to people and not technology. The authors point out that just because the word is being used a lot now in the world of education, it is not a new concept. Collaboration occurs when a teacher and a student work together and the student learns a concept as a result. The article even cites the works of behavioral theorists regarding the learning collaboration and the learning process. The article then goes on to define the nature of Web 2.0. In order for Web 2.0 to truly be Web 2.0 it requires more than one person to be involved at some point. The authors also recognize that collaborative efforts that have implemented Web 2.0 technologies have opened doors that made it

possible for progress in certain areas, that would have previously taken much longer to achieve were it not for Web 2.0 tools. Ultimately the article ends without coming to any real conclusions about who gets credit at the end of all this collaboration? It actually requests that readers log onto a Wiki that they have set up, so they can collaborate about how to figure out all the questions this article raised. Critique This was such a circular article. Nothing new was presented, and it all ended with a big question mark. It seemed like one of those articles that the author (s) wrote just to fulfill a publishing requirement thats part of their contract or something. I dont know if I read it wrong, but I do hope the authors were trying to be ironic when after all the whining about who gets credit for what, they asked the reader to participate in a collaborative effort to figure out who should get credit for collaborative efforts at the end. I suppose it does raise legitimate questions about collaborative effort, but the way the questions were raised, just seem annoying at best.

Vandenbark, R. (2010). Tending a Wild Garden: Library Web Design for Persons with Disabilities. Information Technology & Libraries, 29(1), 23-29. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Summary The article addresses the challenges facing librarians in terms of making information available to those with disabilities. It is difficult enough to keep up with the ever evolving world of technology and being able to make it accessible to people without disabilities. However, the law and moral ethics require that information in the forms of all media need to be available to all citizens. While U.S. regulations, standards, and guidelines define what is required to meet the need of those with disabilities, it makes no effort to assist developers of websites or software how to go about creating material that meet the requirements demanded by law. While advancements are being made to insure that people with disabilities have access to all forms of information, its difficult to keep up with break neck speed at which technology is evolving. Ultimately, the best that librarians can do is be aware

of the newest technology and assist all their patrons as best as they can, and improve accessibility when they can. Critique I understand the importance of this topic, but this was a very dry article. Im actually surprised, because the title of the article led me to believe that it wouldnt be just a bunch of organized lists of standards and facts. Maybe I just read too much into the title, and thats my fault. I wouldnt suggest this article for anyone else to read though. Im actually very disappointed, because my late brother was disabled and I would hate to think that in order to get the point across of how necessary it is for people with disabilities to have access to the Internet, I would have to read this article and others like them. This author just seems disconnected to me, and for some reason that rubbed me the wrong way. Its probably because this topic has a personal connection for me, and I just didnt connect with the sterile, almost clinical, manner in which this article was written.

Woodard, A. (2009). From Zero to Web 2.0 Part 1. Computers in Libraries, 29(8), 41-42. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Woodard, A. (2009). From Zero to Web 2.0 Part 2. Computers in Libraries, 29(9), 41-43. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Woodard, A. (2010). From Zero to Web 2.0 Part 3. Computers in Libraries, 30(1), 27-28. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Summary These three articles follow the progress of a digital makeover of the Cumberland University Library. Amber Woodard, the author of these articles and the library technical assistant at CU documents the changes she and the

staff hope to make, the progress that is made, and the end result. The first article briefly informs the reader of how the CU library is currently set up in terms of technology and its ability to reach out to the student body. It also makes a list of six changes that the staff of the CU library would like to make to better serve their patrons on campus and those online as well. The improvements include a more up-to-date and user friendly website, activate and maintain social networking sites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, MySpace) for users, create a library blog that would ultimately replace the library newsletter, improve chat services and create a text referencing service, create a YouTube account and make information videos about the library and its services, and podcast the librarys iRead sessions in hopes of improving attendance. The second article is essentially a progress report of how the makeover is going. At this point in the process, the website has been redesigned. It was designed after surveying staff and students at CU to find out what is important to them concerning website design. Other areas of the redesign have been completed while others are still in progress. The final article is a summation of what was achieved in this Web redesign. For the most part, what Amber and her team set out to do was achieved, but they learned that their original goals didnt achieve the results they had hoped. For instance, the Blog was supposed to be a way to reach out to the student body and encourage more communication. Instead they discovered that while the staff, at CU, were very active on the Blog, the students rarely ever read it. The podcasting also proved to be more time consuming than they initially thought, and would have to be implemented in the summer when time constraints werent as much of an issue. Critique Ultimately this article illustrates that while a big website redesign might be necessary its not a onetime thing. Websites need to constantly be assessed and tweaked to remain relevant. The article also shows that even a well thought out plan wont necessarily work. You may have to reassess your design if its not achieving the results you want. The article also showed that the landscape of Web 2.0 is ever changing. Ambers team thought the Blog would be valuable asset to their Web presence, but it turned out that the students didnt view it as useful. I liked that these articles were presented as a timeline. I often try to gage how long it will take me to implement something, but I never know and I dont have a staff to help me out. The fact that this happened over the course of 4-5 tells me that the same process would probably take me a year, and be considered out dated by the time I finished.