Here’s a few random thoughts/conversations.
What does all this exciting attention to pedagogy in curricular teaching mean for librarians? In particular, for our research guides? Is the comprehensive brain dump really what students would choose for assistance? Or would they get more use from a “guide” with some pedagogy/instruction embedded into it? What can we learn from the “clicks counting” reporting features of campus guides about what’s really useful in our guides? Or would it make better sense to first redesign a research guide around a specific learning outcome, as opposed to producing a “big list” of resources? In the “librarians-help-people-find-things” paradigm, is there a better tool than a research guide — e.g., a thickly populated FAQ.
Learning Analytics – can end up maybe being just like grades – pressure is on to produce the “grades.” (Michael Wesch.)
Chris Dede – very hard to transfer what you have done well in teaching and learning even down the hall, much less across the country or across the globe. Situated learning. It’s complicated. Think of growing Iowa corn in Africa.
You cannot anticipate how an intervention will ripple through a complex environment – what does this mean for assessments of student learning.
School as a credentialing system is increasingly iffy — content you learn in class has a half life.
Harvard’s program for student assistants who serve as instructional technology assistants to faculty is three years old.