Well, I'm not sure how to tie all of this week's materials together. Clearly, the video on Kindles didn't have the material in it that was expected when it was chosen (I think back to the article on Party Girl, when we were told that that article had very little to do with the topic for the week, even though it had all of the keywords we were looking for. I think this video is very similar, that it has all the right keywords, but still doesn't fit with the topic.). While accessibility is certainly an issue in libraries, I would hardly consider it as a subfield of "digitization". If anything, ereaders enable more readers to access texts, by allowing them to zoom in on the text (with limited capacity, of course, as I've seen from my own trouble zooming in on certain scanned images). However, the video focused only on the negative, that somehow ereaders don't accommodate those with disabilities. I still don't know how that's the case, but whatever. As I said, this clearly wasn't the content that was expected from the title, and as such, I don't feel like wasting more of my time discussing it on top of the hour and fifteen minutes of my life that I won't get back after listening to it. At least I was able to watch Wisconsin win a share of the Big Ten title while I was listening to it.
So now, to instead talk about the video that was more applicable to this week's topic. This video was mostly interesting to me because it crossed over significantly into the topics covered in LIS 644, Digital Tools, Trends, and Debate. Recently, we have been discussing digital preservation, which is a huge issue in libraries today, involving a broad range of topics: physical preservation (not letting CDs get scratched), format preservation (doc vs. docx file types, as a very simple example), data integrity (including topics like lossy vs. lossless compression, as well as making sure no ones and zeros get flipped in the binary coding of a file), and huge number of other issues. Some of these issues apply with physical materials as well, in particular that of physical preservation. Interestingly, digital formats can even face some of the same problems as physical formats in the face of malicious users: it's very easy to destroy a book, and in the hands of someone good with computers, it's also very easy to destroy a digital copy of something.
Another topic that I wanted to mention was that of eresources. The speaker in the video mentioned that we have adopted eresources very quickly. But what he doesn't say is that we haven't had a choice! Quite often, publishers realize that it's cheaper to issue digital copies of a journal than it is to print one, so they change to a digital-only format; subscribers have no choice but to adapt. The speaker does mention that we haven't had a choice but to license many titles, rather than purchasing them, but he still makes it sound like we've been on the cutting edge of eresources. True or not, it's only because we've had our hands forced, and we've basically been given a sink-or-swim option.
To put my own spin on things, digitization is a good idea. Digital formats can be at least as long-lasting as paper formats with the proper care, which may involve frequent (every few years or so) transition from an older file format to a newer one. Then again, that sounds like a possibility for paper copies, too, but the cost of making new digital formats is significantly lower than that for making new paper copies. The challenge facing us nowadays is coming up with new ways of describing these digital formats (metadata), so long as we also make sure that we're not letting files degrade or letting formats go extinct (think of 5 1/4" floppy disks).
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Can a remodeled Central Library attract public and accommodate homeless?
An interesting article was sent to me yesterday by one of my friends, regarding the homeless population and the pending remodel of the downtown library: Can a remodeled Central Library attract public and accommodate homeless?
Government Documents, with a Focus on Chronic Wasting Disease
I'm sorry, but I really just don't find government documents to be that interesting. In fact, I don't know of very many people who do. What I did find interesting this week, however, was some of the information about Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). A large part of this was because I live/lived in two of the states mentioned as suffering from CWD, Wisconsin and West Virginia. What also interested me was that, after glancing at this week's articles over the weekend, I noticed front-page news in the Wisconsin State Journal on Monday about CWD: Politics, deer hunt tradition undermine fight against CWD, experts say. Some of the points mentioned in the newspaper article agree with Eschenfelder and Miller's article, such as the question of whether the government is supplying enough information for citizens to make informed decisions. At best, the newspaper article would indicate that Wisconsin is falling into the "attentive citizen" model, although the fact that public opinion doesn't figure into policy-making would imply that Wisconsin is more closely following the "private citizen" model. I doubt anyone would argue that Wisconsin is falling into the "deliberative citizen" model, because they clearly have an agenda about controlling the disease, and thus are probably withholding some of the information that they have, such as the debate regarding how dangerous eating the meat of infected animals is or whether one infected deer is likely to infect an entire herd. However, even with this skewed portrayal of the information, hunters are rejecting some of the policies in place, choosing not to hunt instead of dealing with policies that don't make sense to them. That in itself should be enough to suggest that hunters aren't being supplied with enough information. Why do you have to kill a doe before you can kill a buck? Is it because females become infected more easily than males? Or is it because they want to reduce the reproductive viability of the herd? I have a feeling that it's more the latter, but there could be entirely other reasons that I didn't even think of that is influencing the policy decisions. The American populace is a bit smarter than our politicians often believe, and we're not going to be happy when we're not getting the full story. CWD is an excellent case to examine, because it is a scientific problem, not a question of morals, and yet our government is essentially censoring information that it supplies to us. As librarians, we generally take a strong stance against censorship, and government documents are no exception. We should be providing our patrons with as much information as possible, good or bad, although it's important that we try to help them understand what is reliable information and what is just rhetoric. When the government fails to provide us with the information, we need to search it out elsewhere.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Intellectual Property and the Lab
Considering the title of this blog, I think you can guess that I'm going to focus mostly on McSherry's article (well, book chapter) about scientific research and intellectual property. But before I get into that, I naturally have a few complaints with this week's readings. Primarily, my complaint is that I didn't go to law school. Moreover, I don't go to law school, either. Therefore, having to read four different chapters out of law textbooks (or at least four chapters clearly written by lawyers) is extremely difficult. When I was talking with one of my friends about this, they jokingly asked "having trouble with the Latin?" I very honestly answered them that no, corpus is a word that I know; it's the English words that are causing me trouble. Pelletier had to establish a "boundary" for her case. So she's calling the county surveyor? Or is she Tom Sawyer-ing someone into building a fence? Fact vs. artifact? How does a gift even apply here? Sadly, this article and the Brown article on native art were the most understandable of any of the articles, but that still didn't make them particularly easy to understand. I know that I received a response to some of my earlier blogs that some articles are intended to be more challenging than others, but this week was absolutely ridiculous. Boyle has been around for a long time, and I would almost be willing to bet that he's published some articles on intellectual property (note: articles, not book chapters) that are actually written for the general public and don't require such a large degree of legal knowledge a priori. (See? Told you I know enough Latin to get by.)
So, now let's talk about intellectual property and the lab. I'm just going to put it out there at the beginning: while I don't agree with bringing issues like this to the courts, I agree with most of, if not all of, Pelletier's claims. I've spent about two years total in graduate-level research labs. I was entrusted with quite a few processes, techniques, and research paths that would be considered "trade secrets" within the community, because it's stuff that we in the lab wanted and needed to know, but that we didn't want others outside the lab knowing. With that being said, in most of the labs in which I worked, we really didn't care who knew what we were doing. In my most recent position, we were working with complex intermetallics (quasicrystals is the word that is most often associated with the field, but that was only a small portion of our group's work). Within these intermetallics, I personally was working on finding balances between simple structure types and complex structure types. I won't go into details of what these are, because I have a feeling no one reading this blog is really going to care/know what I'm talking about. But the point I'm trying to make here is that I can basically tell anyone what research I was doing because no one else is doing this type of research. Sharing this "proprietary" information doesn't hurt the lab at all, because there are extremely few people in the entire world who have the equipment to reproduce our experiments and even fewer who have the interest in doing so. Now, I realize that this is a public blog, and as such I'm not going to go into details of exactly what ratios of elements I was mixing, or of the specific structure types that I was pursuing. Compare the publicness of this blog with the publicness of the chemistry department at UW-Madison. It's very different. I could and did discuss with my classmates exactly what I was doing in the lab, especially because I thought it was really cool that I was working with gold and platinum (I held several ounces of platinum in my hand at one point...very awesome). I had no worries about them using my information, because they didn't have the equipment to do so. Further, there was an unspoken agreement that they weren't going to go talk with one of our few competitors across the world and tell them what I was doing. It was quite interesting that I didn't have reciprocity with some of my classmates. One of the main reasons was that they had colleagues in the same building who were in fact competitors for their research, working on similar projects. I suppose all of this boiled down to a question of how much harm it could do in sharing our information, and whether it could fall into the "wrong hands".
Now, who did I care about getting access to my information? Believe it or not, the technicians who installed the x-ray diffractometer in our lab. These technicians traveled to all sorts of other institutions to service their diffractometers...including the labs of our competitors. How does this relate to the case talked about in the readings? Well, this would be like giving our information to someone at a business, who is interested in making money. Our competitors may not be interested in making money, but they're definitely interested in beating us to publishing something. Plus, we were doing something completely novel to the field, so we didn't want to give them any hints about what we were doing until we had time to make sure it was going to work and publish our initial findings. Why do we care about this? For the very reasons cited in the paper: publishing your work first really does afford you more prestige within the field.
One last comment about Pelletier's arguments: I too was doing crystallography in my work. However, mine was with metals. To form crystals with metals, all you have to do is cool them down slowly from a molten state (circa 700 or 800°C). With proteins, however, the crystallization process is orders of magnitude more difficult, so I applaud Pelletier for her ability to do so. Her comment that ammonium sulfate is only one of a large number of options to aid crystallization is also very true. It's not in the first 5 salts I think of to try; it might show up in my first 15, but that's only a maybe. Mostly because sulfates tend to precipitate things, and even though precipitation produces a solid, it doesn't produce a crystalline solid.
I apologize if I waxed too scientific here, but I think I expressed my point. The value of scientific data (or techniques) rest in keeping them secret until you're ready to publish them. They shouldn't be shared with just anyone, and those people with whom they are shared are under an unexpressed understanding that it's not to be shared freely with other people. Pelletier may have pursued an unusual path to get her problem resolved, but she brought up some very good points about "ownership" of scientific information and its value.
So, now let's talk about intellectual property and the lab. I'm just going to put it out there at the beginning: while I don't agree with bringing issues like this to the courts, I agree with most of, if not all of, Pelletier's claims. I've spent about two years total in graduate-level research labs. I was entrusted with quite a few processes, techniques, and research paths that would be considered "trade secrets" within the community, because it's stuff that we in the lab wanted and needed to know, but that we didn't want others outside the lab knowing. With that being said, in most of the labs in which I worked, we really didn't care who knew what we were doing. In my most recent position, we were working with complex intermetallics (quasicrystals is the word that is most often associated with the field, but that was only a small portion of our group's work). Within these intermetallics, I personally was working on finding balances between simple structure types and complex structure types. I won't go into details of what these are, because I have a feeling no one reading this blog is really going to care/know what I'm talking about. But the point I'm trying to make here is that I can basically tell anyone what research I was doing because no one else is doing this type of research. Sharing this "proprietary" information doesn't hurt the lab at all, because there are extremely few people in the entire world who have the equipment to reproduce our experiments and even fewer who have the interest in doing so. Now, I realize that this is a public blog, and as such I'm not going to go into details of exactly what ratios of elements I was mixing, or of the specific structure types that I was pursuing. Compare the publicness of this blog with the publicness of the chemistry department at UW-Madison. It's very different. I could and did discuss with my classmates exactly what I was doing in the lab, especially because I thought it was really cool that I was working with gold and platinum (I held several ounces of platinum in my hand at one point...very awesome). I had no worries about them using my information, because they didn't have the equipment to do so. Further, there was an unspoken agreement that they weren't going to go talk with one of our few competitors across the world and tell them what I was doing. It was quite interesting that I didn't have reciprocity with some of my classmates. One of the main reasons was that they had colleagues in the same building who were in fact competitors for their research, working on similar projects. I suppose all of this boiled down to a question of how much harm it could do in sharing our information, and whether it could fall into the "wrong hands".
Now, who did I care about getting access to my information? Believe it or not, the technicians who installed the x-ray diffractometer in our lab. These technicians traveled to all sorts of other institutions to service their diffractometers...including the labs of our competitors. How does this relate to the case talked about in the readings? Well, this would be like giving our information to someone at a business, who is interested in making money. Our competitors may not be interested in making money, but they're definitely interested in beating us to publishing something. Plus, we were doing something completely novel to the field, so we didn't want to give them any hints about what we were doing until we had time to make sure it was going to work and publish our initial findings. Why do we care about this? For the very reasons cited in the paper: publishing your work first really does afford you more prestige within the field.
One last comment about Pelletier's arguments: I too was doing crystallography in my work. However, mine was with metals. To form crystals with metals, all you have to do is cool them down slowly from a molten state (circa 700 or 800°C). With proteins, however, the crystallization process is orders of magnitude more difficult, so I applaud Pelletier for her ability to do so. Her comment that ammonium sulfate is only one of a large number of options to aid crystallization is also very true. It's not in the first 5 salts I think of to try; it might show up in my first 15, but that's only a maybe. Mostly because sulfates tend to precipitate things, and even though precipitation produces a solid, it doesn't produce a crystalline solid.
I apologize if I waxed too scientific here, but I think I expressed my point. The value of scientific data (or techniques) rest in keeping them secret until you're ready to publish them. They shouldn't be shared with just anyone, and those people with whom they are shared are under an unexpressed understanding that it's not to be shared freely with other people. Pelletier may have pursued an unusual path to get her problem resolved, but she brought up some very good points about "ownership" of scientific information and its value.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
A Reference Question Answered
I know this has almost nothing to do with copyright law (except for the fact that I had to log into UW from off-campus in order to access campus resources), but I had a friend ask me to find an article for her tonight. It was an example of a known-item search, because she and I both knew what an image looked like on the cover of the article and she remembered what journal it was found in. I thought I remembered a general time frame in which it was published, which was actually misleading for a while.
So, this is going to be a little funny, but this was a chemistry article in which the cover figure looks like a penis inserting into a vagina. Ridiculous, but it's the closest the chemistry world comes to something "viral" (disregarding the biological sense of virus, of course). Well, I began my search by logging into the American Chemical Society (ACS) database, which covers all of its proprietary titles, which are most of those that are important to chemistry. I started with a few keywords, such as "insertion" (a very popular term in chemistry, believe it or not, but it has more to do with inserting an atom into a bond and less to do with the "insertion" that the image looks like). When I realized that I had nearly 6000 hits to sort through, I limited my timeframe to August 2008-November 2008, because I knew that I first saw the article somewhere in that time frame (my first semester in the inorganic chemistry department at UW). When still too many hits remained, I limited myself to the journal Inorganic Chemistry, which is the journal in which my friend told me it was published. I looked through about 60 citations and didn't see the image, so I went back and refined my search. I had found an image of a key going into a lock on one article, which seemed quite similar to the image I was looking for, so I tried using the "find articles similar to this" link. No luck at all, seeing as I again had almost 6000 articles, but I did see the word "click" in the title. "Click chemistry" sounded about like what I was looking for, so I tried a new search similar to the last one, but this time leaving out the time frame because there were only about 60 articles total published in Inorganic Chemistry that use the word "click". Again, no luck.
At that point, I started wondering if maybe she had the journal title wrong. I glanced through the journal titles that ACS covers, and there was one journal that I'm very familiar with that didn't show up in the list, Angewandte Chemie (pronounced ahng-guh-von-tuh ki-mee), but that covers very similar topics to Inorganic Chemistry. Unfortunately, the search feature on Angewandte doesn't show images with their results, so I started flipping through the issues from Fall 2008, but to no avail.
At this point I moved to a regular search engine, both the images and the regular search through Google. I searched for things like "ridiculous chemistry images", incorporating "penis"*, "scorpion", and "llama" into my searches at various times, because I've seen journal figures that superimpose a molecule onto an image of a scorpion and another onto a llama, so I thought maybe someone would blog about the suggestive and/or stupid images that they've found. No such luck.
*Note to the user: I do NOT recommend conducting this search yourself. Some of the images that you will find are quite disturbing.
Return to Inorganic Chemistry. I decided to try a completely new approach, short of flipping through individual issues like I did with Angewandte. It was at this point that I noticed a link for "most popular articles" by month and by 12-month. I thought this might let me look back to 2008, because I knew that article was extremely popular then, having been shown to me both by my classmates here at UW and by friends who were still at my undergrad. Unfortunately, I was wrong about the ability to look at previous years' most popular articles, but I flipped through this year's most popular articles anyway. And, suddenly, there was my image! I found the article I was looking for because, even six years later, this image of a molecule-penis inserting into a molecule-vagina remains a highly-accessed article. I successfully used a variety of search techniques, progressively eliminating search terms and limitations in order to broaden my search, and ultimately found the item I was looking for, even if it was by a roundabout route that didn't actually use my search terms at all. Persistence pays off again! (I spent about an hour conducting this search, but it was well worth it in order to flex my reference muscles.)
And now, the image:
{trans-1,4-Bis[(4-pyridyl)ethenyl]benzene}(2,2‘-bipyridine)ruthenium(II) Complexes and Their Supramolecular Assemblies with β-CyclodextrinInorg. Chem., 2004, 43 (11), pp 3521–3527
So, this is going to be a little funny, but this was a chemistry article in which the cover figure looks like a penis inserting into a vagina. Ridiculous, but it's the closest the chemistry world comes to something "viral" (disregarding the biological sense of virus, of course). Well, I began my search by logging into the American Chemical Society (ACS) database, which covers all of its proprietary titles, which are most of those that are important to chemistry. I started with a few keywords, such as "insertion" (a very popular term in chemistry, believe it or not, but it has more to do with inserting an atom into a bond and less to do with the "insertion" that the image looks like). When I realized that I had nearly 6000 hits to sort through, I limited my timeframe to August 2008-November 2008, because I knew that I first saw the article somewhere in that time frame (my first semester in the inorganic chemistry department at UW). When still too many hits remained, I limited myself to the journal Inorganic Chemistry, which is the journal in which my friend told me it was published. I looked through about 60 citations and didn't see the image, so I went back and refined my search. I had found an image of a key going into a lock on one article, which seemed quite similar to the image I was looking for, so I tried using the "find articles similar to this" link. No luck at all, seeing as I again had almost 6000 articles, but I did see the word "click" in the title. "Click chemistry" sounded about like what I was looking for, so I tried a new search similar to the last one, but this time leaving out the time frame because there were only about 60 articles total published in Inorganic Chemistry that use the word "click". Again, no luck.
At that point, I started wondering if maybe she had the journal title wrong. I glanced through the journal titles that ACS covers, and there was one journal that I'm very familiar with that didn't show up in the list, Angewandte Chemie (pronounced ahng-guh-von-tuh ki-mee), but that covers very similar topics to Inorganic Chemistry. Unfortunately, the search feature on Angewandte doesn't show images with their results, so I started flipping through the issues from Fall 2008, but to no avail.
At this point I moved to a regular search engine, both the images and the regular search through Google. I searched for things like "ridiculous chemistry images", incorporating "penis"*, "scorpion", and "llama" into my searches at various times, because I've seen journal figures that superimpose a molecule onto an image of a scorpion and another onto a llama, so I thought maybe someone would blog about the suggestive and/or stupid images that they've found. No such luck.
*Note to the user: I do NOT recommend conducting this search yourself. Some of the images that you will find are quite disturbing.
Return to Inorganic Chemistry. I decided to try a completely new approach, short of flipping through individual issues like I did with Angewandte. It was at this point that I noticed a link for "most popular articles" by month and by 12-month. I thought this might let me look back to 2008, because I knew that article was extremely popular then, having been shown to me both by my classmates here at UW and by friends who were still at my undergrad. Unfortunately, I was wrong about the ability to look at previous years' most popular articles, but I flipped through this year's most popular articles anyway. And, suddenly, there was my image! I found the article I was looking for because, even six years later, this image of a molecule-penis inserting into a molecule-vagina remains a highly-accessed article. I successfully used a variety of search techniques, progressively eliminating search terms and limitations in order to broaden my search, and ultimately found the item I was looking for, even if it was by a roundabout route that didn't actually use my search terms at all. Persistence pays off again! (I spent about an hour conducting this search, but it was well worth it in order to flex my reference muscles.)
And now, the image:
{trans-1,4-Bis[(4-pyridyl)ethenyl]benzene}(2,2‘-bipyridine)ruthenium(II) Complexes and Their Supramolecular Assemblies with β-CyclodextrinInorg. Chem., 2004, 43 (11), pp 3521–3527
DOI: 10.1021/ic0352250
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Literacy and the WLA Book Cart Drill Team Competition
Considering that I found this week's book, Literacy in American Lives, to be one of the driest books I've read in a long time, and really couldn't find any pieces that were terribly relatable to my personal life, I want to tell a little story about a little girl's introduction to literacy (well, to the library). Note: this little girl is completely fictional, but she was the character used in our Book Cart Drill Team performance at the Wisconsin Library Association convention yesterday, and the story I'm about to tell is the story that we told in our performance.
Cue music: Star Wars. The scene: four librarians, checking their books to make sure that everything is in the right place. Enter: little girl, approximately age 8. Librarians realize that this is their chance to introduce a little girl to the library and books of all sorts.
Music change: Superman. Librarian 1 hands little girl a book on superheroes and puts a cape on her. Little girl flies like Superman (belly-surfs on a book cart) around the library with the librarians watching over her. She has discovered stories about superheroes.
Music change: E.T. Librarian 2 hands little girl a book about aliens and puts a blanket over her head, like E.T. wore in the movie. Librarians fly girl around the library like E.T. riding a bike. Little girl discovers story about aliens.
Music change: Jurassic Park. Librarian 3 hands little girl a book about dinosaurs. As little girl reads book, librarians swirl around her in fantastic pinwheels. Little girl becomes a dinosaur (puts on a dinosaur mask) and scares the librarians.
Music change: Hook. Librarian 4 hands little girl Peter Pan and sprinkles her with fairy dust. Little girl "sails" around the library on a book cart and sword-fights with librarians.
Music change: typical John Williams finale. Librarians wave good-bye to little girl, who takes her books home with her. Upon her exit, librarians rush to put on costumes and play for a little while longer.
Well, now that I've given a brief narrative of our championship-winning performance at last night's WLA (see the video at the bottom of this post), it's time to tie it in to libraries and literacy. I joked as we were preparing this performance that it's every children's librarian's fantasy, to take a child on a whirlwind adventure in the library, to help them learn to love books and the stories contained within. And really, if our librarians could take children on these true adventures, I have a feeling that children would much more easily develop a love of reading, too. Unfortunately, the problem lies in the fact that many children don't quite have the literacy skills to read books very quickly, and as such they get frustrated with books much sooner than they discover the wonder and adventure contained within. I don't offer any suggestions here of how to improve literacy among children (if I had a solution, I would already be very rich), but neither does Deborah Brandt. She's only exploring how people achieved literacy, and I believe this performance represents an event that would stand out in any child's mind about how they acquired literacy. If libraries helped a child act out what they're reading, that child would almost certainly remember the activity (especially if it involved flying, as our performance did).
Cue music: Star Wars. The scene: four librarians, checking their books to make sure that everything is in the right place. Enter: little girl, approximately age 8. Librarians realize that this is their chance to introduce a little girl to the library and books of all sorts.
Music change: Superman. Librarian 1 hands little girl a book on superheroes and puts a cape on her. Little girl flies like Superman (belly-surfs on a book cart) around the library with the librarians watching over her. She has discovered stories about superheroes.
Music change: E.T. Librarian 2 hands little girl a book about aliens and puts a blanket over her head, like E.T. wore in the movie. Librarians fly girl around the library like E.T. riding a bike. Little girl discovers story about aliens.
Music change: Jurassic Park. Librarian 3 hands little girl a book about dinosaurs. As little girl reads book, librarians swirl around her in fantastic pinwheels. Little girl becomes a dinosaur (puts on a dinosaur mask) and scares the librarians.
Music change: Hook. Librarian 4 hands little girl Peter Pan and sprinkles her with fairy dust. Little girl "sails" around the library on a book cart and sword-fights with librarians.
Music change: typical John Williams finale. Librarians wave good-bye to little girl, who takes her books home with her. Upon her exit, librarians rush to put on costumes and play for a little while longer.
Well, now that I've given a brief narrative of our championship-winning performance at last night's WLA (see the video at the bottom of this post), it's time to tie it in to libraries and literacy. I joked as we were preparing this performance that it's every children's librarian's fantasy, to take a child on a whirlwind adventure in the library, to help them learn to love books and the stories contained within. And really, if our librarians could take children on these true adventures, I have a feeling that children would much more easily develop a love of reading, too. Unfortunately, the problem lies in the fact that many children don't quite have the literacy skills to read books very quickly, and as such they get frustrated with books much sooner than they discover the wonder and adventure contained within. I don't offer any suggestions here of how to improve literacy among children (if I had a solution, I would already be very rich), but neither does Deborah Brandt. She's only exploring how people achieved literacy, and I believe this performance represents an event that would stand out in any child's mind about how they acquired literacy. If libraries helped a child act out what they're reading, that child would almost certainly remember the activity (especially if it involved flying, as our performance did).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)