ETL 501 Assignment 2 Feedback

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