Information literacy | Page 3

Gamification Information literacy

Gaming in libraries, a special issue of Library Trends

The Spring 2013 issue of Library Trends deals with gaming in libraries (v. 61, n. 4), public, academic or otherwise. The editor of this special issue presents it in light of his recent book:

In my book, Everyone Plays at the Library: Creating Great Gaming Experiences for All Ages (2010), I created a model for the library gaming experience that brings together players, the game world, spectators, and library staff and explores how each interacts with the others. On the basis of this model, I developed a set of five Game Experience Archetypes that provides the organizational structure for the book and a basis for librarians to assess the usefulness of games of all types in meeting the goals of their libraries. Librarians looking to create a gaming experience can start by selecting an archetype based on their goals and then choose games that will bring about that game experience. This ensures that the chosen games meet the goals of the gaming program and fit into the mission of the library.
Each of the five archetypes—Social, Narrative, Action, Knowledge, and Strategy (SNAKS)—focuses on a different area of this model. Specific game titles can fit with more than one archetype, so librarians seeking to use games to meet different needs for different audiences should select games that span a variety of archetypes. Social game experiences are those that focus on facilitating social interactions among players; they are useful when a library uses games to forge connections between different groups of patrons. Narrative game experiences are those that immerse players in a story and can be useful for libraries wanting to connect games to literacy. Action game experiences reward physical skill, either with the use of a digital game controller or the manipulation of something in the physical world, and can create a lively game experience that generates excitement in players and spectators. Knowledge game experiences are focused on the knowledge that players bring to the game table and are a good match for libraries meeting educational goals. Strategy game experiences emphasize the decision-making processes that challenge players; these game sessions [End Page 752] tend to be quiet and create opportunities for players to engage with a few others at a deep level.
The goal of this special issue is to take a close look at different library gaming programs. Authors who wrote for the issue were challenged to explore the impact of gaming programs in their libraries. In each of the articles, the author presents a different way of bringing gaming into the library and then explores the impact of these library gaming programs.

Of particular interest for academic libraries is this article:

Brawling in the Library: Gaming Programs for Impactful Outreach and Instruction at an Academic Library
pp. 802-813 | DOI: 10.1353/lib.2013.0016
Angela M. Vanden Elzen, Jacob Roush

Business plans Information literacy Reference

Flowchart for researching a Company or an Industry

Stumbled on this flowchart from Jenny Mueller-Alexander at Arizona State University Libraries about researching a single company or an industry.

I like how the company process splits into private company and public company – which has a huge impact on the amount of information available. Remember that anything a company tells you is either to their benefit, either required my law (like disclosing financial statements when their equity is traded on public markets of capital like stock exchanges).

I’ve been meaning to adapt my similar research protocol for business students to distinguish between researching a business idea (entrepreneurship) that targets consumers versus other companies. This also has great bearing on how one researches the information for a business plan… more on that later…

Gamification Information literacy

Quick “gamification” bibliography

Following my post on prof Hirumi, his InterPLAY model and experiential learning,
I sent off to learn more on gamification, eLearning and other related topics. I setup an quick and dirty bibliography on the topic and shared it from my RefWorks site.

In addition to what I have posted in my first post on prof. Hirumi, here are the items in it so far in my gamification bibliography:

Annetta, L. A., & Bronack, S. C. (Eds.). (2011). Serious educational game assessment : Practical methods and models for educational games, simulations and virtual worlds. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Anthropy, A. (2012). Rise of the videogame zinesters : How freaks, normals, amateurs, artists, dreamers, dropouts, queers, housewives, and people like you are taking back an art form (Seven Stories Press 1st ed.). New York: Seven Stories Press.

Haythornthwaite, C. A., & Andrews, R. (Eds.). (2011). E-learning theory and practice. Los Angeles: Sage.

Hirumi, A. (Ed.). (2010). Playing games in school : Video games and simulations for primary and secondary classroom instruction (1st ed.). Eugene, Ore: International Society for Technology in Education.

Juwah, C. (Ed.). (2006). Interactions in online education : Implications for theory and practice. London ; New York: Routledge.

Suits, B. (2005). The grasshopper games, life and utopia. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press.

Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (Eds.). (2012). For the win : How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Philadelphia: Wharton Digital Press. 

I also have another open bibliography on business information literacy.

Concordia University Critical Thinking Gamification Information literacy

Experiential Learning and the InterPLAY Model from prof. Hirumi

Prof Hirumi I learned so much from the e.SCAPE conference at Concordia – but professor Hirumi inspired me to look into grounding the curriculum I am developing for business information literacy in proven theories.

Professor wrote a book in 2010 on this model:

Call Number LB 1029 S53P53 2010
Title Playing games in school : video games and simulations for primary and secondary classroom instruction / edited by Atsusi “2c” Hirumi
Edition 1st ed
Publisher Eugene, Ore : International Society for Technology in Education, c2010

He also wrote a book chapter in 2006:
Atsusi Hirumi — Designing interaction as a dialogue game : linking social and conceptual dimensions of the learning process
Call Number LB 1044.87 I548 2006
Title Interactions in online education : implications for theory and practice / edited by Charles Juwah
Publisher London ; New York : Routledge, 2006
Prof. Hirumi’s chapter in this book is available here.

In addition, prof. Hirumi offered some great summaries of contemporary proven learning theories For example, see this 30 page summary I found on a conference website (title: Grounding e-Learning Interactions to facilitate Critical Thinking
& Problem Solving)

During the conference, he presented his InterPLAY model, as seen here from a few of his slides:


He also presents it as such in the pdf document linked above (title: Grounding e-Learning Interactions to facilitate Critical Thinking
& Problem Solving )
. On page 19, he describes it as such:

Interplay Strategy
(Stapleton & Hirumi, 2011; Hirumi, Atkinson, & Stapleton, 2011)
Based on the belief that the learning of facts, concepts and principles occurs best in context of how they will be used, the Interplay strategy evokes emotions and sparks imagination, based on cognitive neuroscience research, to enhance experiential learning theories by addressing three primary conventions of interactive entertainment and their related elements (i.e., Story – characters, events, worlds; Game – rules, tools, goals; Play – stimulus, response, consequences).
1. Expose – Exposure provides the back-story to entice empathy for the character or player, and orients the audience into the same reference point or point of view. Exposure sets up specified learning objectives in a meaningful way to invite the student to contribute, to engage and to achieve the challenges set before them.
2. Inquire – Inquiry validates Exposure. If exposure sets a desire to learn, then inquiry is automatic. Inquire provides a response to student’s curiosity with something to do that showcases different elements that will be used later.
3. Discover –Discovery provides the personal reward, achievement, and the “ah ha” moment. The consequences of discovery, whether negative or positive, provide feedback to inspire further exploration to the next level of achievement.
4. Create – Transforms the experience from being merely reactive to truly interactive. Instead of responding to cues, the learner contributes to the content by applying the elements of the subject matter in novel ways.
5. Experiment – Provides an opportunity to assess learning and provide feedback without losing or winning. The goal is less about the hypothesis being right or wrong, but rather setting up the elements of the subject matter so that new knowledge can be gained. Failure should be fun.
6. Share – The sharing of personal experiences and feelings is facilitated at the end of the lesson or unit, to seal the memory of the learning experience. Sharing compels learners to put lessons learned in their own perspective as well as others.

He presented the context of the InterPLAY model as such:


In addition to the books references above, here are some works prof. Hirumy contributed to:
Crippen, K. J., Archambault, L., & Kern, C. (in press). Using Scaffolded Vee Diagrams to Enact Inquiry-Based Learning. In A. Hirumi (Ed.). Grounded Designs for Online and Hybrid Learning: Practical Guidelines for Educators and Instructional Designers. Eugene, WA: International Society for Technology in Education.

Hirumi, A. (2002). Student-centered, technology-rich, learning environments (SCenTRLE): Operationalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Journal for Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 497-537.
Hirumi, A. (1998, March). The Systematic Design of Student-Centered, Technology-Rich Learning Environments. Invited guest presentation given at the first Education Graduate Students and Academic Staff Regional Meeting, Guadalajara, Mexico.
Hirumi, A. (1996, February). Student-Centered, Technology-Rich Learning environments: A cognitive-constructivist approach. Concurrent session held at the Association for Educational Communication and Technology Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Hirumi, A. & Stapleton, C. (in press). Designing InterPLAY Learning Landscapes to Evoke Emotions, Spark the Imagination, and Foster Creative Problem Solving. In A. Hirumi (Ed.). Grounded Designs for Online and Hybrid Learning: Practical Guidelines for Educators and Instructional Designers. Eugene, WA: International Society for Technology in Education.
Hirumi, A., Atkinson, T., Stapleton, C. (2011). Interplay: Evoking Emotions andSparking Imagination through Story, Play and Game. Concurrent Session presented the annual Association for Educational Communication and Technology conference, Jacksonville, FL. Nov. 8-12.
Stapleton, C. & Hirumi, A. (2011). Interplay instructional strategy: Learning by engaging interactive entertainment conventions. In M. Shaughnessy & S. Fulgham (eds). Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching (pp. 183-211). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Concordia University Information literacy Open access

e.SCAPE Conference

I gave a talk at the e.Scape conference at Concordia University on the topic of :
The unexpected journey from a 60 minute lecture to a MOOC: a librarian’s mid-way report
Here is the description:

Information Literacy can be understood as the curriculum Librarians must curate without a classroom. Traditionally, this has meant organising library services as well as in-class lectures to advise students on research skills and strategies. But two factors have moved me to explore a new approach. Firstly, the Internet and open education offer incredible opportunities to disseminate knowledge and collaborate with colleagues worldwide. Secondly, as one of the Business Librarians working closely with the John Molson School of Business, my community is broad and their needs are as deep as their passion for their field. In order to meet this challenge, I’ve implemented a series of training videos in order to test a new curriculum deployment strategy.

Learning objectives for the session
Determine the resource implications of designing a MOOC, in terms of effort (time), technology and skill
Evaluate the relevance of the MOOC model for one’s teaching

I briefly discuss MOOCs. More on MOOCs here (this is the video I show in my lecture):
I position MOOCs as the extreme end of the elearning continuum – both in terms of structure and pace. I may never achieve this end-game in my development of curriculum and learning objects. In fact, I realistically envision that I will develop a series of learning objects that will be embedded in various courses throughout the undergraduate experience at the John Molson School of Business. Taken as a whole, these learning objects may constitute enough content to be called a MOOC or an online class. But for now, I am focussing on developing my curriculum and building meaningful learning objects from that.

Concordia University Information literacy Lectures and conferences Open education

Talking at the e.Scape conference today

I will be giving my talk shortly this morning at the e.Scape conference at Concordia University on the topic of :
The unexpected journey from a 60 minute lecture to a MOOC: a librarian’s mid-way report
I’ll be talking about how my use of technology has changes my professional practice.
I’ll briefly discuss MOOCs also, positioning them as the extreme end of the elearning continuum – both in terms of structure and pace. More on MOOCs here:
Mostly, I’ll discuss my training videos as well as the development of a business information literacy curriculum as part of my employment, most of which are in various stages as pilot projects or drafts.