Here is a summary of the marker's comments and some observations from me about Assignment 2. I achieved what I would describe as a respectable pass. I did better with Assignment 1, for those interested. This was marked by James Herring, so it may prove a good guide. I have no quibble with James' comments or marks and I am not seeking to justify my work (however it might seem), but to both reflect on the feedback and provide assistance for others who are yet to undertake this course and assignment.
Before I relate some specific shortcomings, it appears that I made two major mistakes.
In the Pathfinder itself, my annotations had too much information ABOUT the resource and not enough information about how to use them. I don't know that I recall that being clearly explained as the role of the annotations. It may well have been in a podcast or a reading that I missed (there were one or two that I couldn't get to via CSU library) but I felt that my annotations followed the prescriptions given by Lamb and Johnson. The annotations should have included IL directions. I included these in the front page of the Pathfinder as part of a scaffold based on an IL model.
In the critical analysis of what was learned from the process of constructing the pathfinder, I failed to analyse my learning and research process. I thought that the Pathfinder was the evidence of my learning and research and (as you can't refer to yourself) referred to aspects of the Pathfinder and analysed them as examples of my learning.
So the lesson is, from the first time you start experimenting with the search engine, keep a record of what you do, good and bad, and include an analysis of this in the assignment. For me, searching for websites is an automatic skill that I have been developing for some time. I had selected the resources and put the Pathfinder together well before I began the analysis and found it hard to recall the detail of the process apart from one or two highlights.
The difficulty was containing the resources to the specified 15. I think that I'm pretty good at that but I also know that it takes a long time – even longer now that the course has introduced me to so many new search engines. I have learnt some new things such as how to have quick access to most of these search engines through the search box in my web browser toolbar. Should I have included that?
Anyway, some specifics.
1. I didn't reference the class for which I designed the Pathfinder. I named it by NSW Stage and described the make-up of the class. I'm not sure what it means to reference the class. It would be worth finding out.
2. I failed to establish the learning needs. I didn't refer to outcomes but I did specify the topic, type of task and assessment and needs such as "choice" and "access to primary sources".
3. I didn't compare the search engines. In fact I did include some detailed observations about the strengths and weaknesses of the search engines and them took them out to keep under the word limit.
4. I thought that the aim was to evaluate the websites for their usefulness for the students, but I should have evaluated my search strategy and use of the web evaluation criteria from Assignment 1. (It makes so much sense when I write it now). Except that James says, less on source evaluation and more about my search strategy.
5. One of the times that I did discuss something new that I had learned doing this task, I talked about using Advanced Google to locate copy-right free images (they're referred to as reusable images). I explained what I had learned about the importance of eye candy for teenagers. James said that this was discussing the pathfinder, not my learning.
6. I included a quote from Johnson and Lamb about what annotations should do. It didn't include IL. James thought that I should have included this. Once again, I shared what I had learned from Johnson and Lamb but this wasn't seen as my learning.
7. James said that I needed to include references on searching and search engines.
Finally, as always, a reference list that might prove useful.
References
Australian Schools Library Association. (2004). Standards of professional excellence for teacher librarians. Retrieved from: http://www.asla.org.au/policy/standards.htm
Schools Library Association of South Australia. (2008). http://www.slasa.asn.au/Advocacy/rolestatement.html
Brown, C.A. (2008). Building Rubrics: A step-by-step process. In Library media connection. Limworth Publishing Inc., January, 16-18
Focus on inquiry: a teacher’s guide to implementing inquiry-based learning. (2004). PDF version retrieved from the Alberta Learning Web site: http://www.learning.gov.ab.ca/k_12/curriculum/bySubject/focusoninquiry.pdfEdmonton, Alberta: Alberta Learning. Learning and Teaching Resources Branch.
Gross, M., Sleap, B. and Pretorius, M. (1999). Gifted students in secondary schools: Differentiating the curriculum. University of New South Wales, Sydney: Gerric
Hague, C. and Payton, S. (2010). Digital literacy across the curriculum. Futurelab. Retrieved from www.futurelab.org.uk/projects/digital-participation
Johnson, L. and Lamb, A. (2007). Evaluating internet resources. In Teacher tap: Professional development resources for educators and librarians. Retrieved from: http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic32.htm
Johnson, L. and Lamb, A. (2006-2010). Pathfinders. In Electronic materials for children and young adults. Retrieved from http://eduscapes.com/earth/informational/path3.html
Kuhlthau, C. (1993). Seeking Meaning: A process approach to library skills instruction. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Kuntz, K. (2003). Pathfinders: Helping student find paths to information, In Multimedia Schools, 10(3). Retrieved from http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/may03/kuntz.shtml
McKenzie, J. (1997). Deep thinking and deep reading in an age of info-glut, info-garbage, info-glitz and info-glimmer. In From now on: The educational technology journal, 6(6), March.
McNicholas, C. and Todd Ross J. (1996). New kids on the block: is it worth the investment? Scan, 15(4), November, 40-42.
Nielsen, J. (2005). Usability of websites for teenagers. On Alertbox, January 31. Retrieved from: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/teenagers.html
Nielsen, J. (2010). Scrolling and Attention. On Alertbox, March 22. Retrieved from: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/scrolling-attention.html
Sizer, T. Essential Questions. Retrieved from http://www.colegiobolivar.edu.co/apenglish/ces_essential_questions.
Valenza, J. (2008). Top ten reasons why your next pathfinder should be a wiki. Retrieved from: http://informationfluency.wikispaces.com/Ten+reasons+why+your+next+pathfinder+should+be+a+wiki
Thursday, October 28, 2010
ETL 501 Assignment 1 Feedback
It seems, dear readers, that some people have been uncovering my credentials. Let me assure whomever it may concern that any previous academic experience means little when it comes to the MTL course. It is a level playing field, if ever there was. Here is a belated report on ETL 501 Assignment 1.
1. Don't forget to include the two website criteria in your bibliography. (Obvious isn't it). I chose WWW Cyberguide rating for content evaluation by McLachlan and Criteria for website evaluation by Johnson and Lamb.
2. In your critical examination, include some rank or comment about which criteria are the more important.
3. I only discussed some of the criteria (word limit) that I thought needed further work. I needed to mention and comment briefly on the other criteria and the evaluation tool/model as a whole. Do they cover all the areas that are important to cover? Why is or isn't each tool a valid set of criteria for a TL to use.
4. Because I thought that there were inadequacies in The Cyberguide, I added a couple of criteria. My understanding of the assignment was that this was acceptable and that this set [revised] of criteria should be used in part 2. However, I was criticised for using these extra criteria.Perhaps that's a bit strong. The comment was, "If you are going beyond the designated set of criteria you need to state that you are doing so and why you feel that it is important to do so.
5. I ran out of words or word limit and didn't address all four websites in equal depth and specific references to the criteria.
6. It's important to refer to the needs of your chosen student group and the usefulness of the website for them. You should also refer to the usefulness of the tools for the TL is making that judgement.
Finally, here is my reference list (minus the McLachlan Cyberguide).
References
Bomar, S. (2010) The annotated bibliography: A schoolwide instructional framework for evaluating sources. In Knowledge Quest Volume 38 No. 3 January/February pp. 72-75 American Library Association. Retrieved from CSU Library.
Brown, J., Hickey, K., and Pozen, V. (2002 revision). Methods of evaluation. In An educators’ guide to credibility and web evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/wp/credibility/
Gaffney, M. (2010). Enhancing teachers’ take-up of digital content: Factors and design principles in technology adoption. Education Services Australia.
Standards of professional excellence for teacher librarians. Australian School Library Association. Retrieved from: www.asla.org.au/policy/standards.htm
Hague, C. and Payton, S. (2010). Digital literacy across the curriculum. Futurelab. Retrieved from www.futurelab.org.uk
Herring, J.E. (2004). The internet. In The internet and information skills: a guide for teachers and school librarians. London: Facet
Hughes-Hassell, S. and Mancall, J. (2005). Collection management for youth: Responding to the needs of learners. ALA Editions. Retrieved from CSU EBook library.
Johnson, L. and Lamb, A. (2007). Evaluating internet resources. In Teacher tap: Professional development resources for educators and librarians. Retrieved from: http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic32.htm
Kennedy, J. (2005). A collection development policy for digital information resources. In The Australian Library Journal. April 2005. Retrieved from: http://alia.org.au/publishing/alj/54.3/full.text/kennedy.html
Kennedy, J. (2006). Collection management: A concise introduction. Wagga Wagga: Charles Sturt University Centre for Information Studies
Latham, B., & Poe. J. (2008). Evaluation and selection of new format materials: electronic resources. In J.R. Kennedy, L Vardaman, & G.B. McCabe (Eds.), Our new public, a changing clientele: bewildering issues or new challenges for managing libraries (pp. 257-265). Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.
Naidu, S. (2005) Evaluating the Usability of Educational Websites for Children. In Usability News. Vol. 7(2) July. Retrieved from http://psychology.wichita.edu/newsurl/usabilitynews/72/children_internet.asp
Nielsen, J. (2005). Usability of websites for teenagers. January 31st. Retrieved from: Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox http://www.useit.com/alertbox/teenagers.html
Osborne, H. (2000). In Other Words... Assessing Readability. . .Rules for Playing the Numbers Game. In Boston Globe's On Call Magazine, December Retrieved from: http://www.healthliteracy.com/article.asp?PageID=3806
Pfoeffer, P. (2002). Web usability and children: Current research and implications for information professionals. In Orana. July. pp. 11 to 13
Retrieved from: http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/fullText;dn=119869;res=AEIPT
Shrock, K. (2002). The ABCs of Web Site Evaluation. Retrieved from http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schrockguide/eval.html
South Regional Educational Board: SREB (2010). Criteria for evaluating web sites. Retrieved from http://www.evalutech.sreb.org/criteria/web.asp
1. Don't forget to include the two website criteria in your bibliography. (Obvious isn't it). I chose WWW Cyberguide rating for content evaluation by McLachlan and Criteria for website evaluation by Johnson and Lamb.
2. In your critical examination, include some rank or comment about which criteria are the more important.
3. I only discussed some of the criteria (word limit) that I thought needed further work. I needed to mention and comment briefly on the other criteria and the evaluation tool/model as a whole. Do they cover all the areas that are important to cover? Why is or isn't each tool a valid set of criteria for a TL to use.
4. Because I thought that there were inadequacies in The Cyberguide, I added a couple of criteria. My understanding of the assignment was that this was acceptable and that this set [revised] of criteria should be used in part 2. However, I was criticised for using these extra criteria.Perhaps that's a bit strong. The comment was, "If you are going beyond the designated set of criteria you need to state that you are doing so and why you feel that it is important to do so.
5. I ran out of words or word limit and didn't address all four websites in equal depth and specific references to the criteria.
6. It's important to refer to the needs of your chosen student group and the usefulness of the website for them. You should also refer to the usefulness of the tools for the TL is making that judgement.
Finally, here is my reference list (minus the McLachlan Cyberguide).
References
Bomar, S. (2010) The annotated bibliography: A schoolwide instructional framework for evaluating sources. In Knowledge Quest Volume 38 No. 3 January/February pp. 72-75 American Library Association. Retrieved from CSU Library.
Brown, J., Hickey, K., and Pozen, V. (2002 revision). Methods of evaluation. In An educators’ guide to credibility and web evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/wp/credibility/
Gaffney, M. (2010). Enhancing teachers’ take-up of digital content: Factors and design principles in technology adoption. Education Services Australia.
Standards of professional excellence for teacher librarians. Australian School Library Association. Retrieved from: www.asla.org.au/policy/standards.htm
Hague, C. and Payton, S. (2010). Digital literacy across the curriculum. Futurelab. Retrieved from www.futurelab.org.uk
Herring, J.E. (2004). The internet. In The internet and information skills: a guide for teachers and school librarians. London: Facet
Hughes-Hassell, S. and Mancall, J. (2005). Collection management for youth: Responding to the needs of learners. ALA Editions. Retrieved from CSU EBook library.
Johnson, L. and Lamb, A. (2007). Evaluating internet resources. In Teacher tap: Professional development resources for educators and librarians. Retrieved from: http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic32.htm
Kennedy, J. (2005). A collection development policy for digital information resources. In The Australian Library Journal. April 2005. Retrieved from: http://alia.org.au/publishing/alj/54.3/full.text/kennedy.html
Kennedy, J. (2006). Collection management: A concise introduction. Wagga Wagga: Charles Sturt University Centre for Information Studies
Latham, B., & Poe. J. (2008). Evaluation and selection of new format materials: electronic resources. In J.R. Kennedy, L Vardaman, & G.B. McCabe (Eds.), Our new public, a changing clientele: bewildering issues or new challenges for managing libraries (pp. 257-265). Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.
Naidu, S. (2005) Evaluating the Usability of Educational Websites for Children. In Usability News. Vol. 7(2) July. Retrieved from http://psychology.wichita.edu/newsurl/usabilitynews/72/children_internet.asp
Nielsen, J. (2005). Usability of websites for teenagers. January 31st. Retrieved from: Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox http://www.useit.com/alertbox/teenagers.html
Osborne, H. (2000). In Other Words... Assessing Readability. . .Rules for Playing the Numbers Game. In Boston Globe's On Call Magazine, December Retrieved from: http://www.healthliteracy.com/article.asp?PageID=3806
Pfoeffer, P. (2002). Web usability and children: Current research and implications for information professionals. In Orana. July. pp. 11 to 13
Retrieved from: http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/fullText;dn=119869;res=AEIPT
Shrock, K. (2002). The ABCs of Web Site Evaluation. Retrieved from http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schrockguide/eval.html
South Regional Educational Board: SREB (2010). Criteria for evaluating web sites. Retrieved from http://www.evalutech.sreb.org/criteria/web.asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)