According to the Team 5 meeting notes of 9/22/2015, presented to the library administration, under individual updates, e. Pedagogy, Active Learning/Interactivity/Focused Engagement, there are six points, including ‘flipped classroom,’ as proposed by Chris Inkster, but nothing about my proposal, which can be outlined as “changing the pedagogy of library instruction to fit the increased environment of mobile devices.” It makes the absence of my proposal even more bizarre considering that:

– during a meeting of Team 5 on Sept 23, I was questioned about my proposal and i delivered renewed explainations

– the webinar ONLINE GENERATION IS TRANSFORMING LIBRARIES: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/09/22/online-generation-is-transforming-libraries/, as referred by Chris Inkster, is discussing exactly the need of pedagogical changes proposed by me.

Thus, since past proposals submitted by me were cut/ignored in a similar fashion as well as this one, I am formally entering it in a medium, which will bear the time stamp and the seal, so my proposal is not bastardized in the future and everyone can refer to the original idea, shall misunderstandings occur.

From: Miltenoff, Plamen
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:33 PM
To: Inkster, Christine D. <cinkster@stcloudstate.edu>; Gruwell, Cindy A. <cagruwell@stcloudstate.edu>; Gorman, Michael S. <msgorman@stcloudstate.edu>; Hubbs, Susan <shubbs@stcloudstate.edu>
Subject: Miller Center 218 – Remodel – TWO Questions

Good evening,

I will pick up from the correspondence below and share my thoughts thereafter.

1. Several weeks ago, Cisco announced a technology, which will allow the institutional IT to assign preference of teaching content over personal usage. In my understanding, the news signals that questions about accessibility need to be accordingly rephrased. It also craves transparency on the SCSU IT.
2. I have difficulties following Henry May’s ideas because of: 1. Lack of transparency and 2. Lack of didactical understanding.

The quintessential disparity (cart in front of the ox) is that from the emails below, it seems that the technology is driving didactic. If I need to prove that pedagogy drives technology, not vice versa, then there is a profound problem. I will assume that everyone agrees with pedagogy being in the center and technology is serving it. In that sense, this team and any other faculty unit trying to line up their curricular process to Henry’s vision, becomes preposterous; Henry is the one who has to be listening to the faculty and serve them.

Therefore, trying to adjust [long-term]future plans about pedagogy, by asking technology questions first, is in its best limiting. One needs to come up with a didactic frame and ask the responding questions how to furbish such frame with technology. If one assumes, as it is claimed, that this campus is moving to m-learning (mobile learning), BYOD, BYOx or any other fancy acronym, which de facto reflects the preponderance of mobile devices as main gateway to information used by students, then the pedagogy must be [re]designed for m-learning. In that sense, from a pedagogical point of view, I find perplexing focusing on MC 218 and subduing BYOD/x/mobile learning to the pedagogy, which will be exercised in a room ( MC 218). How is it mobile? Using mobile devices in room full with desktops does not make sense to me. Keep teaching a dynamic content such as library instruction in a confined room, also does not make sense to me.

Here is how I see the pedagogical reconsideration of library instruction must be considered.

In April 214, I proposed a plan, adopted from a Chicago librarian:

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/bi/

the plan reflects one of numerous possibilities to change the pedagogy of lecturing in a room (MC 218) to hands-on, real-life construct of knowledge by students on their own (constructivism). The pedagogical foundation is based on the use of personal mobile devices (BYOx), which renders the issue of MC 218 accessibility by wi fi as non-significant, since the hit on the wi fi network will be evenly distributed across the entire building.

The example above is only one of many on curriculum that needs to be changed by adopting gaming and gamification techniques:

https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/03/19/recommendations-for-games-and-gaming-at-lrs/

the essence of library instruction needs to change from lecturing to facilitation and consultations of students’ own construct and discovery how the library works and can help them; it needs to be a F2F rehearsal of students-librarian virtual relationship, which later on can guide and help students individually then in groups.

In that sense, MC 218 can/should to be considered a hub for activities, which mostly take place across the library. MC 218 can be the center place, where in-depth exercises are performed. Exercises, which require either:  1. Stronger processing power, 2. Intensive typing, or 3. Larger screens. While it needs to be further surveyed, I believe that MC 218 needs to have prevalent presence of dock-type of stations (recharge, dongles to  connect to large screens) and other peripherals which can allow students to connect their laptops, tablets and mobile devices, then desktops.

Thank you.

Plamen