Gaming and libraries seems to be a topic on the tip of everyone’s tongue here lately. Shifted Librarian, Jenny Levine has been blogging notes about the Gaming, Learning and Society conference which took place in Madison, Wisconsin last week and I imagine the biblioblogshere will soon be buzzing about the much anticipated ALA TechSource Gaming, Learning and Libraries symposium taking place later this month on July 22-24. All this recent attention on gaming and libraries has brought a shift in focus from viewing gaming simply as a recreational activity to acknowledging its potential as a literacy/educational tool.

At ALA this past June, OCLC Vice President George Needham conducted a presentation called Gaming, Information Literacy and the College Student, which ultimately attracted a lot of stimulating discussion and criticism. Although the focus of this presentation was directed more towards academic libraries, I think there is a lot here that would make for some interesting discussion amongst teen librarians also. Relying on recent research (2003 Environmental Scan: Pattern Recognition, Pew Internet and American Life Project, Marc Prensky) Needham’s presentation attempted to encourage librarians to think ahead a few years and consider the information literacy needs of the graduating class of 2010. Pegged with a multiple of descriptive, if not stereotypical names (net gens, millennials, gen y, gen me), this generation is especially known for its video gaming enthusiasm.

According to Needham’s presentation, gamers believe:

• there are multiple paths to victory
• failure along the way is to be expected
• leaders can’t be trusted
• life should be fun

Taking these traits into consideration, Needham suggests that we design library tools with gaming technology in mind so users can essentially learn on their own (remember: multiple paths to victory, failure to be expected, life should be fun) without having to turn to the “information priest” (leaders can’t be trusted) for assistance. He does not necessarily advocate that we completely forfeit our role of helping students find information, only that we allow them the opportunity to “play” first and ask when they feel they need the help.

Needham said that in this environment, librarians should focus on “in demand training,” helping students when they hit an obstacle, not before they start. Even then, he said, librarians shouldn’t say that they are providing formal training, but should say things like “let me show you a short cut,” the kind of language students use with one another all the time.

Many critics have since taken issue with Needham’s use of metaphor (digital native vs. digital immigrant, librarian as information priest), while others have take issue with his attempt to make gaming behavior synonymous with information seeking behavior. There is a lot of concern that allowing for “failure” is the same things as lower expectations and as such would be detrimental to the learning process. There also seems to be a lot of concern about taking the “librarian” out of the process and diminishing their role to mere “shortcut pointer-outer”. Would designing library technology tools so they are more game-like, more intuitive and trial-by-error be better for teens? Would this be considered the same as speaking to them on their own terms or is it simply “lowering the bar”?

When mulling over this myself, I can’t help but think about a presentation I saw at PLA last year called Making Traditional Library Services Teen Friendly. Mary K. Chelton was among those presenting that day. Well known for her research on teens and information seeking behavior, one of the things she kept repeating was how librarians tend to suffer from an “ideal user” syndrome. Attitudes need to change, she said, we need to start treating teens according to who they are, not how we wish them to be. I have since come to believe that this philosophy is key to providing successful services to teens; however, critics may still view it as another example of lowering standards. Reference-anxiety is another thing that needs to be taken into consideration here. Can we really expect teens to admit that they can’t do something and to come for help?

Current research on teens and information seeking indicates that whatever information literacy we are teaching them isn’t working very well. They make errors when they search and have difficulty combining word variations. But research in this area is incomplete and I have yet to see anything that really substantiates whether other tools such as podcasting or vodcasting might actually help in this area. So what do ya’ll think? Is it time to push for more alternative, non-traditional methods when it comes to teaching teens how to find information? Does the answer rest with gaming technology? Or do we need to take this thing back to the drawing board?