We Are Continual Students

An explanation of Patricia Wolfe’s quote, “There is no such thing not paying attention; the brain is always paying attention to something,” (Wolfe, p.81) can start with the reference interview of a librarian with a library patron. A librarian has learned through experience (Jonassen, 2006). It is through this experience that has helped librarians to develop their concepts (knowledge) into theories about how to find the right information for patrons (Shultz, 2008). The learning about how to find the right information stemmed from library school.

Some Reference Services teachers have had the students work “in the field” where real questions were asked in a public library setting. As a group, the class would try to answer as many questions and keep notes on what was done. At the end of the work day, the teacher would listen to how the classmates found the answer or if a classmate had told the patron that they would call them back with the answer. It was in the discussion, afterwards, that would help the future librarians to gain insight into what their peers thought that they could have given by their peers and the teacher in the group.

These were possible solutions but they were not “the” solution. Each future librarian would have to work out which one would actually help the patron. It was based on the different levels of questions involved by the patron: “the user asks for a known item”; the user asks for information without any knowledge of a specific source”; “specific search”; “research” (Katz, 1982).

When a patron would ask a question, the librarian would ask,” What is it that you want to know about that subject?” This would open up their question’s topic to help narrow it. It would be a form of “cognitive process of adapting and restructuring” of what the patron first thought was what they wanted into a more definite approach to what they “really” would need (Jonassen, 2008). This type of learning process showed that the librarian was in the role of student learning what would answer the patron’s question. The patron also was in the role of student developing the subject of their question through the librarian’s probing questions of what the patron would be really looking for until finally the librarian would find the answer (or come close to the answer).

When the driving instructor would show the students how to parallel park, the instructor would tell the student to get the car in between two metal poles. The student would try parking the car at the pole that represented the back end of a car and tried to drive their car in front wise.

The student would find themselves half-way in but not successful. The instructor would tell the student to align the car's door handle with one of the poles. The student would then be left to figure out which one. Through adaptation, and knocking the poles down, the student would figure out how to properly align their car with the pole that represented the front of a car so that the student could parallel park.

The student's experiences of getting the car finally in the space would work for the student in the future for that type of parking condition or for another task. These experiences would not work for other people because their interpretation of the experiences would be different theories that they would create.

In conclusion, the examples that I have given would show that the brain is constantly working. Students would always try to solve the problem, even when getting help from the librarian or the driving instructor. It is up to the student to figure out the ultimate interpretation of what they have done for a specific activity to add to their knowledge base for the next task to be figured out.

References

Constructivism across the curriculum in early childhood classrooms; big ideas as inspiration. (2009, August). Reference and Research Book News, 24(3). Retrieved September 23, 2009, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1825418901&Fmt=3&clientId=11123&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Information technology and constructivism in higher education; progressive learning frameworks. (2009, August). Reference and Research Book News, 24(3), Retrieved September 23, 2009, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1825424091&sid=1&Fmt=7&clientId=11123&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Jonassen, D. H. (2005). Modeling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall

Shultz, T. (2008). Toward automatic constructive learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(3), 344-345. Retrieved September 23, 2009, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1512910371&sid=4&Fmt=6&clientId=11123&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Wolfe, P. (2001). Brain matters: translating research into classroom practice. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Deve. Retrieved on September 23, 2009, from http://books.google.com/books?id=eDqFv_PNtoIC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=There+is+no+such+thing+not+paying+attention%3B+the+brain+is+always+paying+attention+to+something&source=bl&ots=dip5_d2Azm&sig=AI6G2UHZk0QWpKt0i1iTW17n-Ww&hl=en&ei=Zq26Sv-RNMOwtgfRyKi3BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=There%20is%20no%20such%20thing%20not%20paying%20attention%3B%20the%20brain%20is%20always%20paying%20attention%20to%20something&f=false