ETL 501 Assignment 1

Some quick thoughts about the ETL 501 assignment 1. Firstly, you may not be aware that CSU have their own website evaluation criteria. It can be found doing a search in the library.

Secondly, I received some excellent advice about doing the critical evaluation. Pick the things that matter educationally and explain, from your reading or criteria, why those aspects are important.
•Easy to navigate? Yes/No? Why does this matter?
•Great graphics or interactivity? Why does this matter?
•Why could interactivity be a problem as well as a positive?
•Author's name easy to find? Why does this matter?
•Domain name .edu or .org Why is that helpful?
•Evidence of bias? Does this matter? Why or why not?
•Links work or they don't? What does this say about the site?
•What is the student's purpose for the site and what is my student audience?
•Will the site suit their purpose?
•Will it cater for all or just some of them?


Here are some references that may be of interest.

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

ETL401 Collaboration

Just in case there are links out there to those doing ETL 401, I'm providing this link for an article on Collaboration between teacher librarians and teachers. You will recognise many of the researchers cited.

http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-2/librarians.html

ETL 401 Information Literacy

Those who subscribers to the OZTL_NET will already be aware of this site that links to podcasts about teaching Information Literacy in libraries. It might be of interest to ETL 401 students.

This is a great idea! Adventures in library instruction is a monthly hour long podcast (available in mp3) ”about teaching information literacy in libraries.”


http://adlibinstruction.blogspot.com/

and this one for both ETL 401 and ETL 501

http://www.rusq.org/2010/06/23/instructional-strategies-for-digital-reference-methods-to-facilitate-student-learning/

Reference, The Net and the Nature of Truth

In ETL 501 we have been considering the future of reference material. Of first interest is the multi-faceted nature of reference material. On one hand, it is the books that are not available for loan and can only be used in the library itself. The State Library of NSW is a reference library in keeping with this definition. In school and public libraries, the reference books tend to be the most expensive books or books of which there may be only one copy. Print encyclopaedias, some dictionaries, year books and so on are classified as reference books because they are unavailable for borrowing and can only be used within the library.

Somehow, this means that the term "reference" has also come to mean those books, such as encyclopaedias, that have been designed for easy reference to information, facts and images. It has also come to mean academic or authoritative texts to which one refers for reliable, verifiable facts and information.

However, post-modernism does not sit comfortably with the notion that there is such as thing as reliable, verifiable facts and information. According to post-modern thinking, the authority or reliability no longer lies necessarily with an academic researcher, expert author or even scientific paper. It lies with the individual reader and their experience and understanding. If it's true for them, then it's true.

There is a positive and negative aspect to this. One the positive side we have come to recognise and respect the authority and reliability of other traditions, such as the oral tradition of indigenous cultures as having equal standing with Western academic knowledge. We also acknowledge that not all knowledge and wisdom lies in the realm of academia or rational modernism.

On the negative side, there is no longer a consensus of what constitutes an objective, testable truth. The growing awareness that observations and records can consciously or unconsciously influenced by the observer or author themselves has led to mistrust of much that would have been taken for granted as fact in years gone by.Scientific measurement may suggest an objectivity but the purpose and design of the experiment or empirical observation or the use, projection and interpretation of the measured observations have left contemporary citizens less inclined to view the results as infallible.

While this situation perplexes neo-Darwinists such as Dawkins and Hitchin, science has itself to blame. Ordinary citizens see the result of the arrogant assurance of science in the arms race, the space race and the dehumanising effect of technology. They see the champions of scientific progress choosing between a sterile, anti-spiritualism and a fanatical and fervent religious belief in the ability of science as the saviour of humankind.

This post-modern view of knowledge is evident in a resource such as Wikipedia. Obviously, there is also a financial saving to having willing contributor share their knowledge for free but the key element is the democratic approach that honours the knowledge of each individual and the ability of the collected readership to approve or correct the knowledge being provided.

At one level it serves the original purpose of the world wide web, to allow researchers around the world to share their knowledge but the pool of knowledge and expertise has been expanded or democratised. Somehow the arbiter of truth or fact is now the collective mind of the world.

Where does that leave the internet and Wikipedia as a reference source? It is a product of the desire to make information instantly available to whoever wants it. It is also a victim of the scepticism that underscores post-modern society. If it taken with these characteristics in tension, then Wikipedia and similar online references deliver exactly what they were created to provide.If we can educate our students to use them with this understanding AND to seek information and verification from a number of sources then we are contributing to their development as successful users of online information.

If we can reinstate trust both through our relationships with them and through the quality and usefulness of information and resources to which we direct them, we will do them an even greater service.

Bloom, Gardner and Pirozzo

In ETL 501, we're looking at the educational foundation for research. Bloom's Taxonomy has been suggested as a common starting point for learning, thinking and research. One of the forum posts referred to the combined Gardner/Blooms Matrix and the work of Ralph Pirozzo. I have attended two workshops with Ralph and I find his approach and his published material very useful. However, I always take the time to make the observation that combining Bloom and Gardner was originally set out in a book by Helen McGrath and Toni Noble, entitled Seven Ways at Once. The first of which was published in 1997. No doubt they will update these at some stage to include the eighth, Naturalist, intelligence. The McGrath and Noble books contain matrices of General Classroom Tasks and Starting Points. You can also find Blooms units and these Multiple Intelligence for a range of school stages and subjects (including Maths) in the TalentEd publication from the University of New England (UNE).

The point of these expanded grid is to remind us that, as James has said in the notes, that different students learn in different ways and that reference material is more than printed text. So the 42-grid reminds us that an image or an animation or even a site with sound is an important alternative for some learning styles.

By way of interest or maybe clarification here are three variations of the Blooms Taxonomy levels. I've used rows as there is no formatting available to make columns. The terms in the second row may help clarify the meaning of each level.

Bloom: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation

Mean: Remembering, Understanding, Using, Breaking Down, Creating, Judging

Pohl: Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analysing, Evaluating, Creating

You will note that the third row, by Australian author Michael Pohl (who has written lots of useful Thinking Skills books), has the "top" two levels swapped around. An interesting variation that is worth pondering if and when you have time.

In some ways Bloom would have expected that students moved beyond an external reference for synthesis and evaluation to their own thinking and creative skills. However, as we have found, finding a reputable scholar or researcher who has published findings to support your thinking. So Google Scholar, or the Research Assistance section of AskScott or Newscan for the older students OR Study Search Australia for both Primary and Secondary Students would be useful for the higher levels of Bloom's Taxonomy.

Here's a link to Study Search

http://www.studysearch.com.au/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

The Six Thinking Hats and the Thinking Caps (which I think are Pohl's variation but I could be wrong) overlap with Bloom in that they separate facts (White) from Evaluation (Positive and Negative, Yellow and Black) and Action (Green. Creativity). They also include the affective or emotional aspects (Feelings, Red) and metacognition (thinking about thinking, Blue).

ETL 401 Assessment 2 Reflection

As with many of those who have posted forum comments I'm happy with the result. I also agree that my marker's feedback was clear and helpful. There are two comments that I would make for the interest of those attempting this task in the future. The first is that two observations that I made about the practical use of the Information Literacy Models were questioned for not having a supporting reference. These were observations from my experience as a teacher. Obviously, I couldn't say, "From my experience ..." in such an assignment (it wouldn't be in the third person) but it appears that, even at this level, a scholarly paper must have more received wisdom than original thought and that critical analysis must carry the authority of published research rather than first-hand observation. I wonder if it would have been more acceptable if I had found the time to conduct my own research, following the advice of Ross Todd. One small postscript is that I used the term aspirational to describe the ASLA twelve standards, the later found an article in which the author of the standards used exactly the same term, so I added the reference. Does this make the observation any more valid?

I would, therefore suggest, that students select three Information Literacy models for which they can find published critical analysis. Obviously the ones that spring to mind are the Big6, Kulthau's Model and the Herring PLUS model. The Alberta model is another that falls into this category and is one of three that I chose. I obviously needed to make more of the studies of this and the Big6 (another of my choices) and less of my own critical analysis.

The second piece of feedback is that it's important to include specific curriculum-related observations in the analysis of the ASLA twelve standards. If these aren't apparent from the readings, then use the SCAN periodical which makes practical suggestions about teacher librarians and curriculum in just about every issue. In hindsight I would have said more about the collaboration of teacher librarian and class teacher in design, implementation and assessment of curriculum programming.

As always, I hope these reflections may assist others.

Reflections on ETL 503 Assignment 2

I expect that you, like me, may well be receiving back your second assignment soon. I thought that I'd reflect on the marker's comments as they may be of use to those attempting this task in the future. There is no gripe here, just things that I could have done better that may assist others, especially as it is not always easy to interpret the guidelines in the assessment task itself.Firstly, although I used two measures of collection analysis I should have included other methods, or possible methods, that could be used to measure the usefulness of the collection in the learning/teaching process. There are a number of these given in the readings, for example the Bishop reading.

The needs of the curriculum are paramount in shaping the curriculum and I did not identify these well enough in the opening. I also failed to refer to enough sources, even if they may have said the same thing. I can see that me knowing that is not readily apparent to the marker unless I include the reference for a similar point. I also omitted to refer to Debowski with relation to budgeting in Part A. (Well I had and then I moved it to keep within the word limit. In fact, the same could be said of the extra measures of collection, which I included in the reflection in Part C). I certainly referred to Debowski specifically in Part B and Part C.

I also got into trouble for using an old edition of Learning for the Future. I know that a 2001 edition exists and our library catalogue says that we have it but it couldn't be found. I suppose it shows I'm limited in how far I will search out resources.

The suggestions about the Policy itself are helpful. As many others indicated on the forum, it was very hard to fit in with the word limit. Interestingly, under Ashley's advice I dropped all the specific school standards and vision statements. The marker wanted these included in my policy, even though they were in the Appendix A and I commented more than once on their effectiveness.

I did not include enough aids to selection (I had heaps more from Ashley's study guide and left them off due to the word limit) and I ignored the School Library Bill of Rights, although I knew that others were including this. Once again, all of its statements appeared in some form or another in the original library policy (Appendix A) and I left them out in this form due to space.

I failed to include collaboration in the policy, specifically collaborative development and review,even though I did nominate teachers and head teachers as part of the selection team for resources (as is the case with the present school policy). The policy needed to specify the collaboration taking place in the decision-making process and the benefits of this for ownership of the collection development by all staff. I know that I did use this almost exact phrase somewhere in my four assignments – I think ETL 401 Assignment 1. It's useful to make the cross overs.

The final omission was not to include a policy review date (as, of course, we have on every other school policy document) and reference to the approval by Principal or school Board. I did discuss the need to review in Part C. It is worth noting that, in the Board of Studies inspection, every policy except the Library policy had to be submitted for detailed scrutiny.

As I said this has been for the purpose of helping others with their future assignments. The rest of the detailed comments will help me to go back now and polish up my own library policy – without the pressure of a word limit!