Is the Library Obsolete?

[enjay]

There was a conversation here recently (casual lunchtime chatter, not anything serious), about appropriate investment in library/reference resources, and someone questioned whether the Library is actually worth maintaining. With the wealth of good web sites, electronic resources, e-books and so on which can be kept up-to-date and have little or no cost associated to them, have paper books been obsoleted?

 

Just a thought, but I'd be interested to hear your views on it.

 

(I'm just meaning reference books here; the merit of fiction books is a separate conversation.)

[stevenwba]

for me, no.

 

for a quick burst of information on a subject the internet is quick and great, such as wikipedia, but i just cannot bring myself to sit and read an ebook, most ive done is the first page, before my eyes hurt and i get bored, so for that reason i still like to read huge amounts on a good old paper book

[srochford]

The FE college I used to work in found that book use increased substantially when they put computers in the library (Learning Resource Centre)

 

Students would come in to use a computer to find info for coursework etc, get stuck and ask for help. Sometimes the LRC staff would point them at a relevant web site but often they'd point them to a better book.

 

The critical thing here is that the book stock was relevant. Can't remember the exact numbers now but an average public library only lends about 20% of its stock in any year; this college library lent every book more than once.

 

The LRC staff were also involved in getting content into the VLE (Moodle) and making sure that it worked well - I think the future for education libraries that you have a mix of "traditional" and "modern" media and staff who are comfortable with all of it.

 

I think one real advantage of a book is that you can't just copy and paste and say "job done" - you actually have to read it, find a bit you think is relevant and write it out. Even if you end up just copying out a paragraph, at least you had to read it in the first place.

[K.C.Leblanc]

It would be a shame if they did.

 

Books, newspapers and magazines have a much better ability to show the context and the atmoshere in which an article was created.

 

Pick up an old magazine (maybe one that's 10 years old), even if you are only examining one article you'll noticed period advertising and other articles. Even the style of the type setting and photographs.

 

If you read the same article off a web page in isolation you'll miss many of these details.

Edited February 5, 2010 by K.C.Leblanc

[Little-Miss]

That's a scary thought.....i really hope not!

[korifugi]

...such as wikipedia,

 

Sorry for this being slightly out of context in the way you meant it but...

 

Wikipedia has the problem that anyone can edit it (okay - anyone with a pc, net connection and enough knowledge to do so) and while the vast majorityof it is correct, some pages are right out there. Go look up William Shakespeare for example. (There was alot wrong with it last time I looked, but that was aaaages ago)

 

Okay - I hear the counterarguement that anyone with the skills can write a book (which sadly seems to be a dying art these days), but its alot harder to actually get it out there to people whereas someone's "facts" about cheese coming from the moon can be up there in a couple of clicks!

 

Plus, theres nothing like sitting there with a good book - heres hoping the library never dies.

[enjay]

The critical thing here is that the book stock was relevant.

 

And that's our issue at present; the new specifications for some subjects - and some new subjects - have meant that some books aren't relevant while some topics don't have books at all. I wouldn't suggest chucking out a perfectly good book, but am questioning which would be a better investment given that money must be spent on something.

[enjay]

"facts" about cheese coming from the moon can be up there in a couple of clicks!

 

Too true, and I wasn't suggesting we burn the books and use Wikipedia instead, more that we could use things like Kerboodle (with the advantage of a strong syllabus tie-in) and proper, well-researched pages from respected establishments. The skill to differentiate between fact and Wikipedia is something we teach the students anyway!

 

Consider also how quickly some areas, especially Science and IT, are advancing at the moment. Given how quickly these books will become inaccurate, is it worth buying them? Our ICT GCSE textbook , published a mere 5 years ago, refers to how many PCs are now shipped with as much as 512MB RAM in them. I dread to think how quickly a book about the human genome project (part of the new Science spec) is going to be equally laughable in its inaccuracies, which could have a negative impact on the students' work if they're basing it on similar "facts".

[elsiegee40]

Vested interest here as I actually run our Library as well as the IT Network. I'm in a primary.

 

Libraries are about more than non-fiction. E-readers are NOT the solution for teaching children to read and the excitement of rummaging through shelves or book boxes to find something they like will never go away.

 

My dual-role helps the children to understand that there is more to finding out information than google and wikipedia.

 

Children in particular should be encouraged to read and gather information from multiple sources. Books, magazines, comics and newspapers are all as important as the internet.

 

Many school libraries (and probably college ones too) fall into disuse as they and their stock are not kept up to date as money is withdrawn to spend on other things. They can be grim and dusty places under those circumstances. They can also be bright vibrant places where people want to spend time... it will be a sad day if they disappear.

 

I'm proud of my 6000 volume Library that caters for children from 3 months (board books) to those with reading ages well above their 11 years. It was refurbished just before I started here 5 years ago and has just been done again.

[jumpinjamez]

The library here has gone when the librarian left, it will now be a computer based learning centre which will be very nice but i do beleive the library has a place as well.

No one will relise untill we have chucked all the books aways away and they become more expensive than the latest IPAD

[EvLPhenom]

My dual-role helps the children to understand that there is more to finding out information than google and wikipedia.

 

Children in particular should be encouraged to read and gather information from multiple sources. Books, magazines, comics and newspapers are all as important as the internet.

 

I absolutely agree that children should know that there are other places other than google to find information.

 

To me there is nothing more interesting than to flick through pages of a book to find something you need other than going on the internet and searching google.

 

I don't think Libraries will become a thing of the past, but i think as someone mentioned that they should have a mixture of media from books, to computer and all the things in between.

[pete]

"The irony of the information age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion" - Some guy on the Internet.

 

Wikipedia assumes general knowledge will ensure articles are roughly accurate. That's great for commonly known things (or niche Klingon mating rituals), but when you get into specialised knowledge those with it are less likely to waste time on Wikipedia, especially if their article is likely to be reverted or contested by a basement-dwelling asshat.

Edited February 5, 2010 by pete

[farmerste]

for me the main drawback of using the internet, as a primary source of information, and most probably the laziest method of finding out information, is that people assume what they are reading is true. I would always trust a book over the information found on the net, as it has been examined for accuracy before publication.

Just about anyone can set up a website that will generate enough hits, to come top in search engines, or they can pay for the priviledge to do so, even if the information is wrong.

i can see the point about books being dated in areas of knowledge that are moving forward, such as science etc, but for me the internet is a poor substitute for written texts, face to face discussions, and teching in general, as it removes the human aspect. you cannot simply click the cross in the top right if you are speaking to someone in real life, and you disagree.

i can however see how the internet is good for contacting people/experts, but is a poor substitute for the generally accepted method of 1 teacher spreading knowledge with 30 face to face.

[srochford]

I would always trust a book over the information found on the net, as it has been examined for accuracy before publication.

 

Some books may have been checked for accuracy but unless it's some kind of academic text book I really wouldn't assume that it's any more or less accurate than the stuff you can find randomly searching the web.

 

This is particularly true in areas like politics where most of the content is opinion (you can be reasonably sure that it is the opinion of the author but that doesn't make it accurate!) but there are plenty of other books which are the view of one person (or one group of people) - the Bible and the Koran spring to mind but there are plenty of others - the Food Doctor is one where you might think that the content is fact but plenty of people would disagree.

 

The critical thing with any source of information is to try and assess who is writing it; Wikipedia loses out because its content is basically anonymous but there are plenty of websites where you can identify the author and you can find out whether their opinion is generally respected and trusted.

[enjay]

I would always trust a book over the information found on the net

 

Surely that just depends on the site in question - I would give the British Medical Association's web site as much trust as I would one of their books. Wikipedia is notoriously fictional, but you can't tar every web site with their brush.

 

as it has been examined for accuracy before publication.

 

Really? Ask any nutritionist about "Dr" Gillian McKeith's book. (the use of " was intentional, by the way, as the Advertising Standards Authority ruled her use of the term was misleading, considering it is a correspondence award from a non-accredited American college; she must now not use it or put it in quotes!).

 

the internet is a poor substitute for written texts, face to face discussions, and teching in general, as it removes the human aspect.

When did I suggest replacing teachers with the Internet? I suggested replacing outdated books with legitimate electronic resources, not even necessarily web-based ones, rather than (currently) up-to-date new books.

[bossman]

@all:

 

What with the advent of VTLEs, E-readers and audio books which touch on all the learning senses it does make one wonder about the value of the paper book which, costs dictate how many and which type the schools can afford, whereas the digital age is upon us I'm afraid and this is how young people are going to get their education in the future.

 

It is all part of the evolution which the human race is now going through at a terrific pace and needs to, if we are to engage ourselves with saving the planet and coming up with big changes in the way we do things.

 

I feel we are at the very beginning of a new age where all the things that we feel are relevant to us are about to change dramatically and in some cases we might feel for the worse but this is the future unlike the beginning of the last century when flight was at the forefront it is now the time of the digital age and there will be no room for paper books except in museums or peoples private collections.

 

But then again I could be wrong hehe!!

BTW I am an avid book reader myself but just love the audio books.

[localzuk]

I love a good library. They're filled with interesting stuff, however in the increasingly electronic world, they are becoming obsolete.

 

Just look at print media - newspapers have now been in decline for 50 years, increasing so with the advent of the internet. Journals are similar - they have a far higher electronic readership than paper readership now.

 

Fiction is one area which still rules in book form, but this is starting to be nibbled away by ebook readers (example, one of our English teachers, rather than carry tonnes of books for her travels last summer, bought a ebook reader and loaded it with novels).

 

Reference books are also appearing in electronic format - I have a subscription to a site of a series of books on Crystal Reports for .Net. There are sites such as Safari Books online etc... Older reference books are being digitised by services such as those offered by Google.

 

All of these things reduce the usefulness of the traditional 'library'.

 

It is only a matter of time before books become out dated - just like video cassettes, 8 tracks etc...

[elsiegee40]

I love a good library. They're filled with interesting stuff, however in the increasingly electronic world, they are becoming obsolete.

 

Just look at print media - newspapers have now been in decline for 50 years, increasing so with the advent of the internet. Journals are similar - they have a far higher electronic readership than paper readership now.

 

Fiction is one area which still rules in book form, but this is starting to be nibbled away by ebook readers (example, one of our English teachers, rather than carry tonnes of books for her travels last summer, bought a ebook reader and loaded it with novels).

 

Reference books are also appearing in electronic format - I have a subscription to a site of a series of books on Crystal Reports for .Net. There are sites such as Safari Books online etc... Older reference books are being digitised by services such as those offered by Google.

 

All of these things reduce the usefulness of the traditional 'library'.

 

It is only a matter of time before books become out dated - just like video cassettes, 8 tracks etc...

I agree that the tradiioinal library is becoming obsolete. Like everything it MUST move forward with the times, but

 

Should they stop being stocked with books and become electronics centres?

 

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

 

Books need to be in Libraries!

[farmerste]

@all:

 

What with the advent of VTLEs, E-readers and audio books which touch on all the learning senses it does make one wonder about the value of the paper book which, costs dictate how many and which type the schools can afford, whereas the digital age is upon us I'm afraid and this is how young people are going to get their education in the future.

 

It is all part of the evolution which the human race is now going through at a terrific pace and needs to, if we are to engage ourselves with saving the planet and coming up with big changes in the way we do things.

 

Are you 'avin a larf' ( not personally directed at you )

 

How is moving education onto power using equipment saving the planet?, i'm afraid the biggest challenge facing humanity is its rising population, and then the power required for that population to consume, as a close second. Thats also not to mention all the pollution, and energy consumed manufacturing 'needless' gadgets, that we don't need, but want, just to satisfy our own greed, or 'one upman ship' feeling over other individuals.

 

Education is going in the total wrong direction, with the reliance on technology that is spreading throughout developed countries, we are becoming more and more useless at performing simple everyday functions, without some sort of processor to keep us informed.

Primary kids probably need a couple of hours a week on a computer learning typing, spreadsheet, database, image manipulation skills. and that should be more than enough. At secondary this should be more, as they may be entering the job market, but computers should be used only for tasks that cannot be completed in a more carbon neutral way.

It seeems that teachers can no longer teach, unless there is a program that does the lesson on the white board, and pupils can no longer operate without reliance on technology.

The overall lesson that is getting taught/implied is that we need a super high level of technology just to function ,which is wrong.

All the cost of this is enormous, and a needless drain on the economy, tax payers, not to mention the worlds resources.

[localzuk]

How is moving education onto power using equipment saving the planet?, i'm afraid the biggest challenge facing humanity is its rising population, and then the power required for that population to consume, as a close second. Thats also not to mention all the pollution, and energy consumed manufacturing 'needless' gadgets, that we don't need, but want, just to satisfy our own greed, or 'one upman ship' feeling over other individuals.

 

I think you underestimate just how much energy is needed to make paper. Around 70% of paper still comes from wood (the rest made up of recycled sources). 1 tonne of paper produced uses about 2.5MWh of power, at least 10,000 gallons of water etc... That's pretty intensive. And that doesn't include the transport of the wood from source to the mills, or the delivery of the paper to the consumer.

 

Education is going in the total wrong direction, with the reliance on technology that is spreading throughout developed countries, we are becoming more and more useless at performing simple everyday functions, without some sort of processor to keep us informed.

 

How is this an issue? Seriously. What value does 'performing simple everyday functions' have when we can leave them to be done by technology and get on with other things. This is the very essence of civilisation - improving things, creating new things, learning new things. If we didn't do this, we can be damn sure we would never have left caves. Why would hunter gatherers have moved to farming?

 

 

Primary kids probably need a couple of hours a week on a computer learning typing, spreadsheet, database, image manipulation skills. and that should be more than enough. At secondary this should be more, as they may be entering the job market, but computers should be used only for tasks that cannot be completed in a more carbon neutral way.

 

You need to say *why* this is the case.

 

It seeems that teachers can no longer teach, unless there is a program that does the lesson on the white board, and pupils can no longer operate without reliance on technology.

The overall lesson that is getting taught/implied is that we need a super high level of technology just to function ,which is wrong.

All the cost of this is enormous, and a needless drain on the economy, tax payers, not to mention the worlds resources.

 

No, the economy runs on invention, new things etc... That's the only way GDP grows. If you don't have new things all the time, the economy stagnates and eventually collapses.

[wiwo]

The school library here and in other places is not just about books, it is a quiet and supervised area to study. Books give the room a study atmosphere (even if they're not being read!), therefore a library will always be needed.

[enjay]

I think you underestimate just how much energy is needed to make paper. Around 70% of paper still comes from wood (the rest made up of recycled sources). 1 tonne of paper produced uses about 2.5MWh of power, at least 10,000 gallons of water etc... That's pretty intensive. And that doesn't include the transport of the wood from source to the mills, or the delivery of the paper to the consumer.

 

You missed out the fuel costs necessary to heat and light a room the size of a decent library, as compared to running a smallish room containing the 10 Eee PCs which could (potentially) replace the reference books and the small fiction library. Let's also assume for a moment that the electricity comes from a sustainable source, but the heating is gas-fired. Then let's factor in a hypothetical building project for some extra classrooms, which wouldn't have been necessary had we digitised the library and re-used the room.

 

Okay, I'm getting a bit silly now, but the point stands that people are very quick to blame technology for our growing energy consumption, without considering the impact of the non-technological alternatives, or looking elsewhere. Yes, we have more electrical gadgets eating power, but we also drive places we used to walk or cycle to and buy everything in out-of-town supermarkets (HUGE drains on energy) rather than small local retailers.

 

Similarly, I've been criticised for leaving classroom PCs running all day, until I pointed out to the person levelling this against me that I knew for fact the lights were currently on in their empty classroom, using more energy than the idling PC. They went quiet after that.

 

I try and avoid the recycled paper argument, as that is a hotbed of debate too!

[Michael]

Well already lots of schools have computer library systems which allow children to scan books in and out typically using a barcode reader.

In future I can imagine schools having a book server which would be wirelessly downloaded to an e-reader of some kind, but maybe more child friendly looking. It could be easily tracked how much they've read, when they read it and to describe the book in their own words. They could also submit mini reviews. I think there are more advantages especially now as we're in a monitoring and evaluation (tracking) of pupil progress.

[mpe]

"The irony of the information age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion" - Some guy on the Internet.

 

Wikipedia assumes general knowledge will ensure articles are roughly accurate. That's great for commonly known things (or niche Klingon mating rituals), but when you get into specialised knowledge those with it are less likely to waste time on Wikipedia, especially if their article is likely to be reverted or contested by a basement-dwelling asshat.

Assuming your "basement-dwelling asshat" dosn't turn out to be "propaganda arm of some political or religious group". Which can even affect some "commonly known things"...

[localzuk]

One thing to remember about Wikipedia is that people are supposed to not take things at face value, but are supposed to follow the citations on the pages. It is a starting point, not an end point.