Gone are the days when the school librarian was the austere custodian of the books. Twenty-first-century standards progressively call for librarians to step in as instructional leaders, connecting educators and students to materials, methods, and technology across the curriculum. In an age of increased accountability through never-ending standardized testing, as well as the implementation of Common Core standards, classroom teachers need all the support they can get. To add fuel to the fire, numerous states have reduced their budgets, leaving reading specialists and literacy coaches short in terms of time and materials. Students who once received differentiated instruction or reading intervention are overlooked or underserved. Where can teachers and reading specialists receive support to help close the achievement gap? Librarians to the rescue! Currently, school librarians are discovering yet another dynamic leadership and role: coteacher with classroom teachers and reading specialists in the library learning commons. This article explores strategies for librarians to implement differentiated instruction in collaboration with classroom teachers and reading specialists using a coteaching model. Keywords: school librarians, literacy coaches, reading specialists ********** Librarians have long worn many hats that improve the learning of students in the school. These include instructional leader, technology specialist, promoter of reading initiatives, and guardian of books. Once again, librarians find themselves called upon to sport yet another: coteacher with classroom teachers and reading specialists. With a focus on preparing students to be college and career ready, the new Common Core State Standards (CCSS) ask students to grapple with complex grade-level texts and write research papers. Even at the kindergarten level, students engage in rigorous learning that asks them to participate in shared research and writing projects (National Governor's Association, 2010). In this article we suggest that this rigorous learning requires teachers to join forces with others in the building to ensure student success. Thus the librarian, reading specialist, and classroom teacher form coteaching teams that address difficult concepts in such a way that the library becomes a learning commons (Loertscher, 2014). In this learning commons space, learners experience scaffolded support with print and differentiated instruction (DI) (Tomlinson, 1999) to address the achievement potential of students as they engage firsthand with the learning tasks set forth by the CCSS. In the learning commons, the library functions as a dynamic arena where librarians, reading specialists, and classroom teachers bring individual talents to the instructional process in a coteaching team. The idea of the learning commons still allows for print books to play a vital part in instruction; however, digital technologies also play a large role. Due to the rigor of the CCSS, this idea of a learning commons comes just in time. For the past ten to fifteen years, administrators have continuously called upon librarians to take a larger role in the literacy arena (Robins & Antrim, 2012). Empowering Learners: Guidelines for School Library Media Programs (AASL, 2009a) contends that librarians are uniquely positioned to affect reading outcomes of students. In many school districts, administrators have asked librarians to provide collaborative support to classroom teachers to identify materials and methods to support struggling readers. While in other districts, administrators have asked librarians to lead response to intervention groups. While these efforts to suggest and provide materials hold potential, they fall short due to the fact that one individual has limited impact in comparison with what teams of librarians, reading specialists, and classroom teachers might achieve in a learning commons. LIBRARIANS' ROLE IN COLLABORATIVE TEAMS IN THE LEARNING COMMONS If the expectation for librarians extends beyond the support already provided to include coteaching while also attending to duties in the library, what should librarians do? Build upon what they already know! Librarians regularly assist with the analysis of assessment data to determine students' and teachers' needs, the integration of technology, the provision of resources, and the implementation of instruction in the physical library space. For decades, librarians' instruction consisted of isolated units of study. These discrete units stand in stark contrast to Turner's (1993) suggestions that librarians join forces with teachers to plan instruction that extends and enriches classroom curriculum. The American Association of School Librarians (2009) calls for librarians to collaborate with instructors to create relevant instruction that motivates students to be lifelong learners. While collaboration is not a new idea, what is new are the dynamics that make up the coteaching team and ways to facilitate the alliance. Librarians support coteaching teams by serving as a connective agent with a physical and virtual venue: the learning commons. During the coteaching team's planning phase, librarians supply a common virtual space within the learning commons that expedites planning. The virtual learning commons alleviates planning concerns of distant geographic spaces and incompatible release times. …

No description available.

No description available.

n/a

<p>The development of software was considered until the beginning of the 1990th as a cathedral like product development in closed companies. This way of development changed in the last decade. Open source software (OSS) development challenged this consideration significantly. OSS is produced in co-operation by skilled people, distributed and used by many moral agents. The result, the software itself, can be studied and modified. Herein is the main incentive for people to develop the software. In such a mode of production the freedom to access knowledge and information (=source code) is a necessity to produce the artifact (software).</p><p>Software is a digital entity. The main difference in comparison to natural resources like oil, land, minerals is that it can be used and reproduced without losses. It lacks the capacity of getting naturally scarce. Contemporary intellectual property rights assume implicitly that goods might getting scarce one day. Imbedded in the term intellectual property is also an idea of "fencing" objects. In this thesis I will argue that anartificial"encing"of digital objects might cause unintentional bad consequences for the society. An other quality intellectual property rights are claimed to have is that they serve as an incentive for inventors/authors to produce new inventions and ideas. The practice of OSS development works without such an incentive provided by intellectual property rights.</p><p>The moral conflict, which I attempt to unravel in this work deals with the question to what extend the application of intellectual property rights in software is necessary and how restrictive particular property rights in digital objects should be - if there should be any at all. Knowledge as the factor of production is of the same value in knowledge societies as land was for agrarian societies. The difference is in the mode of production and the un-limitless availability of digitalized knowledge. I argue that the"protection"of knowledge, and software is knowledge, has to be carefully revised in so called knowledge societies.</p>

No description available.

The development of software was considered until the beginning of the 1990th as a cathedral like product development in closed companies. This way of development changed in the last decade. Open source software (OSS) development challenged this consideration significantly. OSS is produced in co-operation by skilled people, distributed and used by many moral agents. The result, the software itself, can be studied and modified. Herein is the main incentive for people to develop the software. In such a mode of production the freedom to access knowledge and information (=source code) is a necessity to produce the artifact (software). Software is a digital entity. The main difference in comparison to natural resources like oil, land, minerals is that it can be used and reproduced without losses. It lacks the capacity of getting naturally scarce. Contemporary intellectual property rights assume implicitly that goods might getting scarce one day. Imbedded in the term intellectual property is also an idea of "fencing" objects. In this thesis I will argue that anartificial"encing"of digital objects might cause unintentional bad consequences for the society. An other quality intellectual property rights are claimed to have is that they serve as an incentive for inventors/authors to produce new inventions and ideas. The practice of OSS development works without such an incentive provided by intellectual property rights. The moral conflict, which I attempt to unravel in this work deals with the question to what extend the application of intellectual property rights in software is necessary and how restrictive particular property rights in digital objects should be - if there should be any at all. Knowledge as the factor of production is of the same value in knowledge societies as land was for agrarian societies. The difference is in the mode of production and the un-limitless availability of digitalized knowledge. I argue that the"protection"of knowledge, and software is knowledge, has to be carefully revised in so called knowledge societies.

No description available.

Environmental issues increasingly demonstrate local-global linkages in driving forces and effects. Policy responses are initiated at local, national and global levels. The successful management of such cross-level environmental issues involves co-ordinated and co-operative policies and action among stakeholders at several levels of governance. Pesticide use in the South-which is a potential driving force for environmental and health problems-has in this dissertation been analysed in relation to such multilayered governance. The theoretical framework from studies on common property resource (CPR) management is applied, facilitating the cross-level analysis of pesticide use in the South as being a global common. The study looks into problem structuring, risk reduction policies and decisionmaking with respect to pesticide use in the South at the local, national and global levels, with Kenya and Costa Rica as cases for the national and local levels. The degree of common understanding among stakeholders across governance levels on what the problems with pesticide use in the South are and how the problems should be addressed and why, is limited but not entirely absent. Mismatches ininformation flows and knowledge, institutions, and values between governance levels hamper the prospect of establishing multilayered governance. These mismatches can be addressed by giving more attention to the level at which institutions are functional, by involving more stakeholders in the generation of knowledge, and by adopting more inclusive values. One approach to achieve these required changes is to embrace a systems perspective on this issue as a global common, a global environmental concern.

Sacred sites in Ysyk-Köl area of Kyrgyzstan represent areas of land and bodies of water which are spiritually and culturally meaningful for local people. The present study mapped about 130 sacred sites, which are conserved-through-use by local communities and represent traditional model of conservation. The entire territory of Ysyk-Köl region is a formal protected area as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Thus, sacred sites, as traditional model of community conserved area, are embedded in the formal government-run Biosphere Reserve. The study scrutinizes how these two models of conservation (sacred sites and the Biosphere Reserve) co-exist in the same territory and interact with each other. Results indicate that these two models are parallel. However, recognition of sacred sites can improve formal conservation by: a) providing a complementary culture-based set of incentives for conservation, b) fostering a biocultural approach, and c) serving as a communication hub for YKBR managers and local communities. / February 2016