Spaces of possibility in pre-service teacher education

Pre-service teacher education is a spatialized enterprise. It operates across a number of spaces that may or may not be linked ideologically and/or physically. These spaces can include daily practices, locations, infrastructure, relationships and representations of power and ideology. The interrelationships between and within these (sometimes competing) spaces for pre-service teachers will influence their identities as teachers and learners across time and space. Pre-service teachers are expected to make the connections between these often-contradictory spaces with little or no guidance on how to negotiate such complex relationships. These are difficult spaces, yet the slippages and gaps between these spaces offer generative possibilities. This paper explores these spaces of possibility for pre-service teacher education, and uses the spatial theories of Lefebvre (1991) and Foucault (1977, 1980) to argue that critical reflective practice can be used to create a ‘thirdspace’ (Soja, 1996) for reconstructing future practice.

Stochastic regularization method for backward Cauchy problem in Banach spaces

We consider a stochastic regularization method for solving the backward Cauchy problem in Banach spaces. An order of convergence is obtained on sourcewise representative elements.

Redesigning school spaces : creating possibilities for learning

This chapter reports on a project in which university researchers’ expertise in architecture, literacy and communications enabled two teachers in one school to expand the forms of literacy that primary school children engaged in. Starting from the school community’s concerns about an urban renewal project in their neighbourhood, participants collaborated to develop a curriculum of spatial literacies with real-world goals and outcomes. We describe how the creative re-design of curriculum and pedagogy by classroom teachers, in collaboration with university academics and students, allowed students aged 8 to 12 years to appropriate semiotic resources from their local neighbourhood, home communities, and popular culture to make a difference to their material surrounds. We argue that there are productive possibilities for educators who integrate critical and place-based approaches to the design and teaching of the literacy curriculum with work in other learning areas such as society and environment, technology and design and the arts. The student production of expansive and socially significant texts enabled by such approaches may be especially necessary in contemporary neoconservative policy contexts that tend to limit and constrain what is possible in schools.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Hilary Hughes.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Bob Pymm.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Jake Wallis.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Lyn Hay.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Roy Crotty.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Mary Anne Kennan.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Huan Vo-Tran.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice ALTC Fellowship Report

This ALTC Teaching Fellowship aimed to establish Guiding Principles for Library and Information Science Education 2.0. The aim was achieved by (i) identifying the current and anticipated skills and knowledge required by successful library and information science (LIS) professionals in the age of web 2.0 (and beyond), (ii) establishing the current state of LIS education in Australia in supporting the development of librarian 2.0, and in doing so, identify models of best practice. The fellowship has contributed to curriculum renewal in the LIS profession. It has helped to ensure that LIS education in Australia continues to meet the changing skills and knowledge requirements of the profession it supports. It has also provided a vehicle through which LIS professionals and LIS educators may find opportunities for greater collaboration and more open communication. This will help bridge the gap between LIS theory and practice and will foster more authentic engagement between LIS education and other parts of the LIS industry in the education of the next generation of professionals. Through this fellowship the LIS discipline has become a role model for other disciplines who will be facing similar issues in the coming years. Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups exploring the current and anticipated skills and knowledge needed by the LIS professional in the web 2.0 world and beyond. Whilst each focus group tended to draw on specific themes of interest to that particular group of people, there was a great deal of common ground. Eight key themes emerged: technology, learning and education, research or evidence-based practice, communication, collaboration and team work, user focus, business savvy and personal traits. It was acknowledged that the need for successful LIS professionals to possess transferable skills and interpersonal attributes was not new. It was noted however that the speed with which things are changing in the web 2.0 world was having a significant impact and that this faster pace is placing a new and unexpected emphasis on the transferable skills and knowledge. It was also acknowledged that all librarians need to possess these skills, knowledge and attributes and not just the one or two role models who lead the way. The most interesting finding however was that web 2.0, library 2.0 and librarian 2.0 represented a ‘watershed’ for the LIS profession. Almost all the focus groups spoke about how they are seeing and experiencing a culture change in the profession. Librarian 2.0 requires a ‘different mindset or attitude’. The Levels of Perspective model by Daniel Kim provides one lens by which to view this finding. The focus group findings suggest that we are witnessing a re-awaking of the Australian LIS profession as it begins to move towards the higher levels of Kim’s model (ie mental models, vision). Thirty-six LIS educators participated in telephone interviews aimed at exploring the current state of LIS education in supporting the development of librarian 2.0. Skills and knowledge of LIS professionals in a web 2.0 world that were identified and discussed by the LIS educators mirrored those highlighted in the focus group discussions with LIS professionals. Similarly it was noted that librarian 2.0 needed a focus less on skills and knowledge and more on attitude. However, whilst LIS professionals felt that there was a paradigm shift within the profession. LIS educators did not speak with one voice on this matter with quite a number of the educators suggesting that this might be ‘overstating it a bit’. This study provides evidence for “disparate viewpoints” (Hallam, 2007) between LIS educators and LIS professionals that can have a significant implications for the future of not just LIS professional education specifically but for the profession generally. Library and information science education 2.0: guiding principles and models of best practice 1 Inviting the LIS academics to discuss how their teaching and learning activities support the development of librarian 2.0 was a core part of the interviews conducted. The strategies used and the challenges faced by LIS educators in developing their teaching and learning approaches to support the formation of librarian 2.0 are identified and discussed. A core part of the fellowship was the identification of best practice examples on how LIS educators were developing librarian 2.0. Twelve best practice examples were identified. Each educator was recorded discussing his or her approach to teaching and learning. Videos of these interviews are available via the Fellowship blog at .The LIS educators involved in making the videos felt uncomfortable with the term ‘best practice’. Many acknowledged that there simply seeking to do the best by their students and that there was always room for improvement. For this reason these videos are offered as examples of “great practice”. The videos are a tool for other educators to use, regardless of discipline, in developing their teaching and learning approaches to supporting web 2.0 professionals. It has been argued that the main purpose of professional education is transformation (Dall’ Alba, 2009; Dall’Alba & Barnacle, 2007). As such professional education should focus not just on skills and knowledge acquisition but also on helping students to develop ways of being the professionals in question (ie LIS professionals, teachers, lawyers, engineers).The aim of this fellowship was to establish Guidelines for Library and Information Science Education 2.0 it has however become apparent that at this point in time it is not yet possible to fulfil this aim. The fellowship has clearly identified skills and knowledge needed by the LIS professional in web 2.0 world (and beyond). It has also identified examples of ‘great practice’ by LIS educators as they endeavour to develop LIS professionals who will be successful in a web 20 world. The fellowship however has also shown that the LIS profession is currently undergoing significant attitudinal and conceptual change. Consequently, before a philosophy of LIS education 2.0 can be expressed, the Australian LIS profession must first explore and articulate what it means to be an LIS professional in the 21st century (ie a world of web 2.0 and beyond). In short, the LIS profession in Australia must take stock not of “what we know and can do” but on “who we are becoming” (Dall’Alba, 2009, p 34).

Analysis of rural activity spaces and transport disadvantage using a multi-method approach

Current knowledge about the relationship between transport disadvantage and activity space size is limited to urban areas, and as a result, very little is known about this link in a rural context. In addition, although research has identified transport disadvantaged groups based on their size of activity space, these studies have, however, not empirically explained such differences and the result is often a poor identification of the problems facing disadvantaged groups. Research has shown that transport disadvantage varies over time. The static nature of analysis using the activity space concept in previous research studies has lacked the ability to identify transport disadvantage in time. Activity space is a dynamic concept; and therefore possesses a great potential in capturing temporal variations in behaviour and access opportunities. This research derives measures of the size and fullness of activity spaces for 157 individuals for weekdays, weekends, and for a week using weekly activity-travel diary data from three case study areas located in rural Northern Ireland. Four focus groups were also conducted in order to triangulate quantitative findings and to explain the differences between different socio-spatial groups. The findings of this research show that despite having a smaller sized activity space, individuals were not disadvantaged because they were able to access their required activities locally. Car-ownership was found to be an important life line in rural areas. Temporal disaggregation of the data reveals that this is true only on weekends due to a lack of public transport services. In addition, despite activity spaces being at a similar size, the fullness of activity spaces of low-income individuals was found to be significantly lower compared to their high-income counterparts. Focus group data shows that financial constraint, poor connections both between public transport services and between transport routes and opportunities forced individuals to participate in activities located along the main transport corridors.

Forgotten places : rediscovering the small spaces and laneways of Fortitude Valley

A design Charrette was the starting point for understanding the different scales within the design process of this architectural intervention. The week-long, intense design activity promoted group interaction amongst students while examining local issues of the Fortitude Valley context. The process was an opportunity for the fourth year architectural design students to collaborate on a complex design problem. Students were asked to identify a unique condition of their site beyond the physical built environment. They were asked to consider the political and social context and respond to these by designing a temporary art gallery for underdeveloped areas within Fortitude Valley. The exhibition shows how architecture can invigorate a space by providing new use and new life.

Academic faculty’s teaching social networks : what is the extent of library faculty’s inclusion?

Collaboration between academic and library faculty is an important topic of discussion and research among academic librarians. Partnerships are vital for developing effective information literacy education. The research reported in this paper aims to develop an understanding of academic collaborators by analyzing academic faculty’s teaching social network. Academic faculty teaching social networks have not been previously described through the lens of social network analysis. A teaching social network is comprised of people and their communication channels that affect academic faculty when they design and deliver their courses. Social network analysis was the methodology used to describe the teaching social networks. The preliminary results show academic faculty were more affected by the channels of communication in how they taught (pedagogy) than what they taught (course content). This study supplements the existing research on collaboration and information literacy. It provides both academic and library faculty with added insight into their relationships.

Re-conceptualising and re-positioning Australian library and information science education for the 21st century [Final Report 2011]

How can Australian library and information science (LIS) education produce, in a sustainable manner, the diverse supply of graduates with the appropriate attributes to develop and maintain high quality professional practice in the rapidly changing 21st century? This report presents the key findings of a project that has examined this question through research into future directions for LIS education in Australia. Titled Re-conceptualising and re-positioning Australian library and information science education for the twenty-first century, the purpose of the project was to establish a consolidated and holistic picture of the Australian LIS profession, and identify how its future education and training can be mediated in a cohesive and sustainable manner. The project was undertaken with a team of 12 university and vocational LIS educators from 11 institutions around Australia between November 2009 and December 2010. Collectively, these eleven institutions represented the broad spectrum and diversity of LIS education in Australia, and enabled the project to examine education for the information profession in a holistic and synergistic manner. Participating institutions in the project included Queensland University of Technology (Project Leader), Charles Sturt University, Curtin University of Technology, Edith Cowan University, Monash University, RMIT University, University of Canberra, University of South Australia, University of Tasmania, University of Technology Sydney and Victoria University. The inception and need for the project was motivated by a range of factors. From a broad perspective several of these factors relate to concerns raised at national and international levels regarding problems with education for LIS. In addition, the motivation and need for the project also related to some unique challenges that LIS education faces in the Australian tertiary education landscape. Over recent years a range of responses to explore the various issues confronting LIS education in Australia have emerged at local and national levels however this project represented the first significant investment of funding for national research in this area. In this way, the inception of the project offered a unique opportunity and powerful mechanism through which to bring together key stakeholders and inspire discourse concerning future education for the profession. Therefore as the first national project of its kind, its intent has been to provide foundation research that will inform and guide future directions for LIS education and training in Australia. The primary objective of the project was to develop a Framework for the Education of the Information Professions in Australia. The purpose of this framework was to provide evidence based strategic recommendations that would guide Australia’s future education for the information professions. Recognising the three major and equal players in the education process the project was framed around three areas of consideration: LIS students, the LIS workforce and LIS educators. Each area of consideration aligned to a research substudy in the project. The three research substudies were titled Student Considerations, Workforce Planning Considerations and Tertiary Education Considerations. The Students substudy provided a profile of LIS students and an analysis of their choices, experiences and expectations in regard to LIS education and their graduate destinations. The Workforce substudy provided an overview and analysis of the nature of the current LIS workforce, including a focus on employer expectations and employment opportunities and comment on the core and elective skill, knowledge and attitudes of current and future LIS professionals. Finally the Tertiary Education substudy provided a profile of LIS educators and an analysis of their characteristics and experiences including the key issues and challenges. In addition it also explored current national and international trends and priorities impacting on LIS education. The project utilised a Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) approach. This approach involves all members of the community in all aspects of the project. It recognised the unique strengths and perspectives that community members bring to the process. For this project ‘community’ comprised of all individuals who have a role in, or a vested interest in, LIS education and included LIS educators, professionals, employers, students and professional associations. Individuals from these sub-groups were invited to participate in a range of aspects of the project from design through to implementation and evaluation. A range of research methodologies were used to consider the many different perspectives of LIS education, including employers and recruiters, professional associations, students, graduates and LIS teaching staff. Data collection involved a mixed method approach of questionnaires, focus groups, semi-structured interviews and environmental scans. An array of approaches was selected to ensure that broadest possible access to different facets of the information profession would be achieved. The main findings and observations from each substudy have highlighted a range of challenges for LIS education that need to be addressed. These findings and observations have grounded the development of the Framework for the Education of the Information Professions in Australia. The framework presents eleven recommendations to progress the national approach to LIS education and guide Australia’s future education for the information professions. The framework will be used by the LIS profession, most notably its educators, as strategic directions for the future of LIS education in Australia. Framework for the Education of the Information Professions in Australia: Recommendation 1: It is recommended that a broader and more inclusive vocabulary be adopted that both recognises and celebrates the expanding landscape of the field, for example ‘information profession’, ‘information sector’, ‘information discipline’ and ‘information education’. Recommendation 2: It is recommended that a self-directed body composed of information educators be established to promote, support and lead excellence in teaching and research within the information discipline. Recommendation 3: It is recommended that Australia’s information discipline continue to develop excellence in information research that will raise the discipline’s profile and contribute to its prominence within the national and international arena. Recommendation 4: It is recommended that further research examining the nature and context of Australia’s information education programs be undertaken to ensure a sustainable and relevant future for the discipline. Recommendation 5: It is recommended that further research examining the pathways and qualifications available for entry into the Australian information sector be undertaken to ensure relevance, attractiveness, accessibility and transparency. Recommendation 6: It is recommended that strategies are developed and implemented to ensure the sustainability of the workforce of information educators. Recommendation 7: It is recommended that a national approach to promoting and marketing the information profession and thereby attracting more students to the field is developed. Recommendation 8: It is recommended that Australia’s information discipline continues to support a culture of quality teaching and learning, especially given the need to accommodate a focus on the broader information landscape and more flexible delivery options. Recommendation 9: It is recommended that strategies are developed that will support and encourage collaboration between information education within the higher education and VET sectors. Recommendation 10: It is recommended that strategies and forums are developed that will support the information sector working together to conceptualise and articulate their professional identity and educational needs. Recommendation 11: It is recommended that a research agenda be established that will identify and prioritise areas in which further development or work is needed to continue advancing information education in Australia. The key findings from this project confirm that a number of pressing issues are confronting LIS education in Australia. Left unaddressed these issues will have significant implications for the future of LIS education as well as the broader LIS profession. Consequently creating a sustainable and cohesive future can only be realised through cooperation and collaboration among all stakeholders including those with the capacity to enact radical change in university and vocational institutions. Indeed the impending adoption and implementation of the project’s recommendations will fundamentally determine whether Australian LIS education is assured both for the present day and into the future.