Campus, after rain
Mourinho, hands in pockets, trudging through a field of soap bubbles.
From the Dept. of Intersecting Interests: Ruby Tandoh of the Great British Baking Show writes about the history and aesthetics of sugar.
The Stanford UP edition of The American Yawp doesn’t look to have broken any links!
Ishii vs. Ibushi. Who knew Kota could brawl like that?
“Elsevier solutions” shudder
Writing a memoir, bird by bird.
I’ve begun to use an iPad to annotate pdf files. Many apps let you highlight text and write comments that can be extracted as a text file. Currently I’m using LiquidText, but there are many other options.
On files created from Word documents this works great. But if I’m working with an older pdf – say, one from JSTOR – it’s painful to use. The OCR layer doesn’t line up exactly with the visible text layer, so that as you try to highlight the visible text the selection is actually set off somewhat, and individual words are highlighted instead of a straight passage. Here’s an example from Shari J. Stenberg, “Liberation Theology and Liberatory Pedagogies: Renewing the Dialogue” (2006):
The Stenberg article was also large – 6.1 MB for a 21-page piece. I’m getting near the 2 GB limit on my paid Zotero account, and would rather not upgrade to the next level until I really need to. So I decided to see if I could use Adobe Acrobat to reduce the size of the document, and to run a new OCR scan that would allow me to more easily highlight and otherwise mark passages.
The process was simpler than I thought it would be. I opened the file in Acrobat and went to Tools –> Optimize Scanned PDF –> Optimize Scanned Pages. I tested several different settings but found that the defaults worked best:
The process took 2-3 minutes on my 21-page, 6.1 MB file. The resulting file was one-twelfth the size: 480 KB. But was the OCR improved?
Yes! It was much easier to highlight passages, and the highlights look much better on the page.
P.S. On another PDF that was 53 MB but didn’t have the offset OCR problem, when I tried “Optimize Scanned Pages,” it returned an error because the pages were already rendered. But just using “Reduce File Size” with default options brought the file size down to 7 MB.
Chambliss and Takacs rely on sociologist Randall Collins’s theory of “how emotionally bonded groups come to exist.” What struck me is how material the theory is – how it’s not just institutions in the abstract, but the physical spaces themselves, that contribute to a sense of belonging. The best example in How College Works is Hamilton’s Science Center. Yet the emotional bonding that takes place at the Science Center is in part due to a sense of exclusivity, and is thus in tension with the inclusivity valued by critical librarianship.
Even within a selective liberal arts college like Hamilton, the sciences are seen a further narrowing of the field. Science majors regard themselves as an elite. They come better prepared from their high schools and take harder courses in college. (The authors, themselves social scientists, believe that natural science courses really are more rigorous than those in other departments). Yet the result is that women are underrepresented. They’re less likely to tolerate poor introductory teachers and leave for other majors. Students with less preparation from high school, disproportionately minorities, are at a disadvantage. Moreover, science is increasingly taught via research-based education, which may be better for future scientists but not for the majority of students. In short, the authors see a rigorous science education as a good thing, and something that should be available to more than a relatively small, self-selected share of students (119-126).
Collins argues that there are four requirements necessary for a “dynamics of belonging,” all of which are present within the sciences at Hamilton. The Science Center, and its many labs and classrooms designed for different disciplines, provide for the physical copresence of people.1 Lab experiments and activities make for a shared focus of attention, and for ritualized common activities. And the Science Center’s existence, set off from the rest of the college, as well as science students’ perceived status as an elite, give the sciences an exclusivity based on clearly defined boundaries (79-81).
The Writing Center, in contrast, gives up some of the exclusivity of the sciences for a deeper integration across the college. It still maintains a particular status because of the importance of writing at the college. The student tutors at the Writing Center meet peers from across the disparate subcommunities on the campus and thuse are near the center of the larger social network amont Hamilton students — thus reinforcing the curricular primacy of writing at the college.
The Science Center and the Writing Center together point to ways libraries should consider their physical space. Libraries can, like the Science Center, fulfill Collins’s four requirements for a dynamics of belonging. The library allows for physical copresence with one’s peers. The work done at the library forms a ritualized common activity. And those students who spend time in the library come to recognize each other and to consider themselves an exclusive set.
This leaves out the second of Collins’s requirements: that there be a shared focus of attention. When considering the library as a study space, there is a tension between this requirement and C&T’s argument that study alone is more effective than in groups. When studying alone, even co-present people have different foci of attention.
But libraries have moved away from their traditional role as a space for concentrated individual study. Instead they emphasize group-friendly additions like lounges, presentation rooms, and the “information commons.” Yet where else can students go for quiet study space? For this is what libraries, better than anyone else, can provide. The library should enable the copresence of peers around the ritualized common activity of concentrated study, in an atmosphere that asserts the importance and the exclusivity of that concentrated study. Surely this is how the physical space of the library can best help college to work.
Other posts in this series:
There was a moment of serendipity on my Twitter feed today. First, Nnedi Okarafor wrote:
I had to discover African lit on my own by accident at the Michigan State Library. I walked past a wall of books in the stacks...
...An Igbo name (Buchi Emecheta) caught my eye and I stopped and picked up the book. I ended up reading everything on that shelf.
Then, Zeynep Tufeczi penned a paean to the United States’ robust infrastructure, especially things we can take for granted like the post office and the library:
I bit my tongue and did not tell my already suspicious friends that the country was also dotted with libraries that provided books to all patrons free of charge. They wouldn’t believe me anyway since I hadn’t believed it myself. My first time in a library in the United States was very brief: I walked in, looked around, and ran right back out in a panic, certain that I had accidentally used the wrong entrance. Surely, these open stacks full of books were reserved for staff only. I was used to libraries being rare, and their few books inaccessible. To this day, my heart races a bit in a library.
For Tufeczi, accessible stacks remain a powerful metonym for our infrastructure, while for Okarafor, the serendipity of browsing revealed a previously unthought-of literature.
In How College Works, Daniel Chambliss and Christopher Takacs (C&T) argue that “college works when it provides a thick environment of constant feedback, driven by the establishment and maintenance of social relations” (132). They’re particularly interested in how that environment helps students learn the skills of writing, speaking, and critical thinking that are central to a liberal arts education. (Note that they neither include information literacy as a separate skill nor even mention it).
Though each department at Hamilton has its own disciplinary content, all are expected to teach certain core skills: writing, speaking, and critical thinking. Writing, in particular, is deeply embedded in Hamilton’s culture. Students must take several writing-intensive courses to graduate, often beginning at the 100 level. The basic messages about good writing are repeated over the next four years. Writing is not merely an intellectual activity in the curriculum, but a social activity. And, accordingly, students believe the most important factor in learning to write well is good feedback from their professors both written and, especially, face-to-face (106, 140-142).
Similarly, speaking and critical thinking are learned as part of a community. In speaking, short presentations and small efforts, accumulated over years, lead to large gains in skill and confidence. Speaking, too, has value in that it forces the student to be engaged and rewards emotional intensity, traits that assist learning. Critical thinking also demands emotional engagement by exposing the student to new people and ideas. Faculty emphasize critical thinking across the curriculum, with the goal that, like good writing and good speaking, it will become a habit (112-119).
Yet these skills are not learned without a context. C&T argue that the faculty do not need any special expertise in the theory of writing or speaking when the goal is to instill a basic fluency. Skills are learned by learning and doing, rather than by mastering formal rhetoric or technical perfection. Though critical thinking may be more a general than a professional skill, it is still taught and learned in the context of a particular discipline. The key, then, to learning these skills is a teacher who is both competent and who cares, about both their subject and their students. The discipline or program forms the necessary context, but it is the relationships with faculty and peers that are most crucial to learning to write, speak, and think critically (130-131, 133).
Though C&T don’t include information literacy in list of their core skills, it seems to me that the discipline-based learning they celebrate is a model for IL as well. As Barbara Fister’s said in her LILAC 2015 keynote “The Liminal Library,” “…librarians don’t teach students how to be information literate. This isn’t a failing. It’s the nature of the thing we want students to learn. … You learn how information works by encountering, using, and creating it. Having good guides helps, but this kind of learning only happens in the doing of it.”
Jo Becker, writing in Vice:
In every class I've had at Shimer, women have struggled to speak and be heard. I've had classes where students had panic attacks and had to leave. One student, an undocumented Latina woman was called a "wetback" by a professor in casual conversation. Why should anyone pay tens of thousands of dollars into debt only to have their basic humanity disrespected?
I’ve been fascinated with Shimer for the past little while. In large part that’s been due to Adam Kotsko’s blogging. Kotsko is a Shimer professor and believes in the pedagogy and the curriculum. Much of his writing has been about his experience teaching Islam and the Qur’an. So, though I knew Shimer was based on the Great Books tradition, I thought that was balanced by an emphasis on women and minority voices in dialogue with that tradition, and that the culture of the college was in line with that dialogue. I’m disappointed to find out it isn’t so.
Ann Finkbeiner, “The Great Quake and the Great Drowning,” in Hakai:
From the Tolowa people in northern California: one autumn, the earth shook and the water began rising. People began running and when the water reached them, they turned into snakes. But a girl and a boy from the village, both adolescents, outran the water by running to the top of a mountain where they built a fire to keep themselves warm.
The New Yorker article “The Really Big One” touched briefly on the earthquake stories of the Pacific Northwest’s indigenous peoples. Finkbeiner’s piece is centered on those same stories. Very much worth reading.
How College Works, by Daniel F. Chambliss and Christopher G. Takacs, is a book about the ingredients of a successful education at a small liberal arts college. The library is, to appearances, largely irrelevant to this education; the authors only mention the library a single time. Moreover, that is a remark in passing: time and space can be flexible at college, as for example how “…the library morphs into a social center” (86). The library is otherwise absent, buildings, collections, and librarians alike. Yet How College Works is worth librarians’ time, and I think a place exists for the library within the authors’ vision of higher education.
The subject of How College Works is upstate New York’s Hamilton College. The authors are, respectively, a sociology professor at Hamilton and an alumnus finishing a doctorate in sociology at the University of Chicago. The main source for the research is a series of interviews with former students at Hamilton, conducted five to ten years after the student’s arrival. The goal was to allow the students time and space to reflect on their college experiences so that they could identify the elements that significantly affected their lives, whether positive or negative. A second important source for the book is a qualitative, longitudinal study of student writing.
In short, Chambliss and Takacs (C&T) argue that person-to-person relationships are central to the college experience. Healthy relationships, among students and between students and faculty, are a prerequisite to learning. Ten years after students enter, these relationships with peers and with faculty — the long-lasting friendships students made — are what they remembered about their time at Hamilton. These friendships were far more significant than the particulars of any program of study (4-5).
A student does not have to have a large number of friends for their college experience to be a success. Rather, having a few close friends — two or three good friends and one or two faculty mentors — are sufficient but essential (17).
This process of building relationships begins even before classes start. If students miss out early on they’re likely to be at a permanent disadvantage. Where one lives makes a difference, and the “lifestyle integration” that C&T find essential to a successful college experience begin here, with “a selected group of residents, close living around the clock, meeting and interacting with others in a variety of roles, multiple uses of time and space, [and] separation from the rest of the world” (89).1
If a community of peers is essential to the college experience, so too are relationships with faculty. C&T identify four characteristics of good teachers: they excite the student about the course material, they are skilled and knowledgeable in their discipline, they are accessible, and they are engaging. One of the four can’t be used to differentiate between faculty: at an elite liberal arts college like Hamilton, all the faculty are skilled and knowledgeable. Thus, it’s the other three characteristics that make the difference. Taken together, they represent students’ reaction to teachers. And first impressions are important, for a discipline as much as for a person. An introductory teacher represents a whole field of study to a new student. A good teacher can remake a student’s entire career by drawing them into their field, while a single bad professor can keep a student from ever returning (47, 50-51).2
Close contact with faculty is essential to students’ well-being. Mentoring over the long term, whether from professors or from other figures like athletic coaches, is far more important than formal relationships with an assigned advisor. Good mentoring results in a virtuous cycle of success and attention. But even smaller gestures make significant differences. C&T found that, ten years later, students remembered and valued invitations to professors’ houses. This practice, though, may only be possible at smaller colleges within a particular geography and culture — urban universities, or large land-grant institutions, don’t offer this possibility (55-59).
It turns out that these relationships with peers, with faculty, and with a larger campus community are not merely pleasant, but are essential motivators in the learning process. By their junior years students are focusing on the specifics of their chosen discipline. They need to acquire skills, knowledge, and methods particular to those fields. This requires hard, concentrated work: “tasks [that] must be faced by each individual, and students studying alone seem to perform better than those working in groups.” The student might need to study alone for the deepest learning, but even then the community of peers and mentors provides important support (105-106).
To sum up, Chambliss and Takacs believe that “college works when it provides a thick environment of constant feedback, driven by the establishment and maintenance of social relations” (132). Later I’ll look at how those factors influence several topics covered in How College Works that are of particular interest to librarians: the teaching of skills, the importance of place, and assessment.