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