Spring Cleaning (Article Review)

Though I found this article a couple weeks ago, I was amused to see that is fits right in with this week's lesson on building a reference section. Terri Kirk's (2010) "Tough Love for Your Reference Collection"  is not an article on how to build a reference collection but is her account of how she weeded through her existing collection.

Kirk introduces her article with how much she hates reference. That statement automatically hooked me as I wanted to find out why. She than went on to say "what I hate about reference is that it seems to be a big waste of money. Today, with everything that we need available on our cell phones, a book that can't be checked out of the library is ludicrous" (p. 28). Yes, I can see her point. I new set of World Book Encyclopedias is priced at $1,044.00. Most schools in our district have access to WorldBookOnline now. The benefits of this being, it is accessible from home, it is continuously updated, it is available to unlimited users at a time and it does not take up space in the library. Which is the better deal?


The rest of Kirk's article discusses how she decided on what parts of her reference collection "lived" and which ones "died". Her regular weeding practices go by the acronym: MUSTY
                                
                              M-misleading information 
                               U-ugly, worn copies
                               S-superseded by another
                               T-trivial
                               Y-your collection has no use for the materials

Even though these guidelines have helped her in the past and did play some role in this latest weed, she said in terms of reference she had to go by some different guidelines which she made up as she went along.


The Big Weed:

• She removed most of the books with information containing statistics, as they can easily be found online. 
• Books of maps were also removed, because they were so easily outdated and again, could easily be found online. I don't know if I would removed atlases, unless they were extremely outdated because as a classroom teacher, they are good hands on resources to have in order to teach longitude and latitude. 
• She rid the library of dictionaries as well, with the exception of the unabridged dictionary and the foriegn language dictionaries. Her reasoning being that all the students in her school had recived MacBooks which included dictionarys. Not many schools are so fourtunate, so many dictionary collections would most likely remain in schools.
• Technical books were removed as they were outdated
• Art books were weeded with the criteria of "if the pictures, drawings or photographs were in black and white and the originals were colour, [she] got rid of them" (p. 28). 
• Kirk also went by the guideline, if teachers had not used the materials, she got rid of them. An example being, a complete set of critical analysis of American and British literature. 
• The history section was weeded according to the curriculum, as well as, by her MUSTY guidelines. This was the hardest section for her to weed as she confessed her love for history, but in the end weeded with her head instead of with her heart. I think because of this, and my love for books, weeding would be a difficult task for me. 

The Survivors:

• Two sets of encyclopedias
• Specialty dictionaries
• Two books of quotations
• One set of decades books
• One fourth of the original reference section was placed in circulation

After the weed Kirk describes the library that is "cleaner and neater...and the books that are left are ones that will be used by the students" (p. 28). And best of all? She can now spend money to update the reference collection with a better understanding of what materials will get used.

Overall I enjoyed Kirk's article as it is a realistic situation that Teacher-librarians are being faced with today. No longer do our reference sections have to be so large because of the compact nature of online reference materials, which are automatically and continually updating and are available from any computer with an internet connection.


Works Cited:

Kirk, Terri. "Tough Love for Your Reference Collection." Library Media Connection 29.2 (2010): 28. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts. EBSCO. Web. 16 May 2011.

"The World Book Encyclopedia 2011" World Book Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 May 2011. <http://www.worldbook.com/all_products/the_world_book_encyclopedia_2011/flypage.tpl.html>. 

Times Have Changed So Why Hasn't The Approach? (Article Review)

I can remember quite clearly my grade seven project on Egypt. It consisted of my teacher, who was also the teacher-librarian, going over the criteria and then setting us loose in the library. She had already diligently pulled all the books on Egypt and placed them on the library tables for us to find our information; independently for the most part. The internet was still a couple years away, so we were limited to printed sources and back then, this was the norm. I thought myself lucky to be able to supplement my research with our set of encyclopedias at home, as it would be information that no one else in my class would have access to; or so I believed. 

Today is different. With the internet students have access to enormous amounts of information, which is not always scrutinized and authenticated as it would be if published in a book. However, many teachers have not changed. Instead of diligently pulling books off the shelves relating to the topic, they set their students free in the computer lab, left to their own devices. No wonder students are getting frustrated and not learning a whole lot from these projects.

The Article:

Jennifer Branch (2002) wrote an article entitled “Helping Students Become Better Electronic Searchers”. She states “searching is difficult and instruction is becoming ever more important because such a large amount of information is available to students. School library programs must help students recognize, select and use information that best meets their needs” (p.1).  She also suggests that accessing information electronically requires new kinds of skills. Without directed instruction of research skills and a research model to follow, it is not fair to expect students to produce quality work and develop higher levels of learning. Branch quotes Marcia Bates (1989) who stresses “that effective searchers, rather than using a single search query, gather bits and pieces of information in a “berrypicking” manner” (p. 1). As discussed in my last article review, “To Google or not to Google - When is the question”, I have watched students countless times Google a topic, go to the first source listed, summarize the information found and hand in their competed work. This is not research.  Branch explains “the three main problem areas in the use of [electronic multimedia] are disorientation, navigation inefficiency and cognitive overload…Novice searchers lack the ability to form effective search plans and queries, cope with searching obstacles, assess, refine and select results and synthesize data” (p. 2).

 

The Study:

The purpose of Branch’s study was to examine the information-seeking processes by a group of middle school students while using CD-ROM encyclopedias,

 

The twelve participants represented different reading abilities, language and travel experiences, ethnic backgrounds, were between the ages of eleven and fifteen, and there was an equal gender ratio of males to females

 

None of the participants were familiar with the 1999 World Book encyclopaedia, while some had used the Microsoft Encarta encyclopaedia deluxe 2000 prior to this study. Each of the participants was given a brief introduction to the CD-ROM encyclopaedias.

 

The Process:

In the first session, the participants were given a list of questions to search for, such as, “Who was the first woman in space?” In the second session the three grades, 7, 8, and 9 were given there own sets of questions. For the third session the participants were asked to generate four of their own questions and answer them using the encyclopaedia of their choice.

Although Branch did not say why the grade levels were given different sets of questions in the second session, my guess from looking at the questions would be the degree of difficulty involved. The grade seven questions could easily be found by typing in the question into the search query, while the grade nine questions were more complex and involved inferring what the question was asking then typing in an appropriate search term, which may have lead to multiple searches to find the answer.

 

The Findings:

-          When faced with “no topics found” some students became confused and asked for help

-          The participants tended to follow three main processes

o       Entered search terms

o       Skimmed list of retrieved topics to find an article

o       Read, skimmed or scanned to find the answer

-          Practice over time improved confidence and navigation

-          There were factors that influenced the process

o       Finding the right key term

o       Knowing when to broader or narrow a search

o       Having enough time and patience to continue searching

o       Previous computer experience

o       Reading ability

o       Skimming and scanning skills

o       Having an understanding of what could be found in an encyclopaedia

-          More experienced searchers used different strategies to finding information, while novice searches used one strategy – simple search terms

 

The Implications:

Overall the findings of this study show that teachers and teacher-librarians need to explicitly teach research skills so students can access information efficiently and effectively. Branch provided three sets of recommendations to assist TLs.

Preparation

·         TL’s should become familiar with the works of Tenopir et al (1991), Kuhlthau (1991), Gross (1999), Todd (1995) and Bates (1991), as well as, the different research models.

o       Before beginning this course I was not familiar with any of the research models we have thus discussed in this course. The only one I was introduced to during my BEd was Alberta’s Focus on Inquiry.

·         Teach these models to your students and allow them opportunities to practice.

o       Researching should be fun and exciting and not a process so full of anxiety that the students turn off.  Teachers should give the students a chance to explore the process before assigning a project.

·         Aide students in developing strategies and skills to deal with the affective stages of the process, like frustration, confusion, doubt etc.

o       If the students do not understand that these feelings are normal and they can be resolved they are going to be more willing to give up or take the easy way out.

·         Give students the opportunity to search personal preference material at their own reading level.

o       This would provide motivation and the ability to succeed.

·         Introduce vocabulary before a project and encourage peer help

o       As teachers, we traditionally do this before starting any new chapter or assignment

·         Model skimming and scanning techniques and give time to practice.

o       Many students would think they have to read the entire article to find the information, and this could lead to information overload.

·         Explain the differences between databases, indexing and abstracting services, CD-ROM encyclopedias, and the Internet.

o       Going back to my previous blog on terminology, these terms are something that TL’s take for granted and use fluidly, but to someone new to the experience of researching, they could become very confusing.

Facilitation

·         Support small group and whole group discussions on search terms and strategies, as students can learn from one another’s experiences.

o       I have encountered this several times, where I have tried to explain something to a student until I am blue in the face. I then ask if a peer to assist in explaining, and voilà! they understand.

·         Encourage self talk, peer talk and talk with teachers and TLs during searches.

o       Everyone is definitely there to help.

·         Allow students with low literacy levels less work and extra time.

o       As a Special Education teacher, I laughed out loud that this needed to be included. Seems like common sense. 

·         Give students time to develop skills needed to help with the three main steps of searching – generating search terms, selecting topics/articles from a retrieved list and reading/skimming/scanning to locate information.

o       This goes back to the research models.

·         Focus on the three domains of human behaviour as discussed in Tenopir et al. (1999) – affective, cognitive and sensorimotor. Provide time for students to practice skills and strategies to apply at each step.

o       Kuhlthau uses these in her research model Information Seeking Process as well. Even if I did not necessarily chose to use this model, I would incorporate these within the model I choose, as I think it is important for the students to understand what they are thinking and doing is appropriate to the process.

Evaluation and Reflection

·         Support and encourage research projects in your school. Make your school available to enable researchers to carry out studies of importance to teachers and TLs.

o       This is not always possible and realistic and of course Branch has an invested reason to include this in her recommendations, as here paper is based on a study she conducted in a middle school.

·         Observe searching processes in your school and continue to test information seeking models in real life settings.

o       I thought this section of recommendations would be geared towards ways a TL can assist her students on evaluating and reflecting on their work, but instead it was more about reflection on how you will teach these skills and strategies.

 

Conclusion:

Times have definitely changed from when the information for a report or project was limited to what could be found within the four walls of the library. Back then it was easier for a TL to be an expert on her collection. Now with the Internet, it would be impossible. The TL has to adapt their approach to teaching research skills because of this. Branch’s article reinforced my belief that students need explicit instruction on how to research electronically. But they also need time to explore, ask questions and become comfortable with the process before being asked to complete a project.

 

 

Works Cited:

 Branch, Jennifer. "Helping Students Become Better Electronic Searchers." Teacher Librarian 30.1 (2002): 14. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts. EBSCO. Web. 16 May 2011.

To Google or not to Google - When is the question. (Article Review)

Last Thursday I TOCed in a grade six classroom. The teacher left me a day plan that included going to the computer lab so the students could finish researching their project on Japan. She left me no outline of the criteria, so when discussing it with the students I found they were expected to write five paragraphs on the topics of, food, fashion, holidays, school and after school activities. We went to the computer lab and I was not surprised that all the students logged onto Google to continue they research. Kuhlthau states in Riedling (2005), “Living in the information age requires people to go beyond the ability to locate information and requires competence in seeking meaning and understanding. More is not necessarily better without skilful guidance from an insightful person” (p. 9). This relates to quantity versus quantity. Yes, a Google search will give you a large number of sources, but the searcher is not guaranteed quality. It requires a good understanding of how to obtain quality information from all the information out there. Using Google to find information for the more complex stuff can be both daunting and frustrating, like finding a needle in a haystack. On the other hand, students that have not received any research training and do not have a research model to follow, may feel doing a Google search on a topic and visiting only one or two sites is adequate research. The problem with this is not only the lack of higher level thinking and learning occurring, but also the real potential to plagiarise. I have witnessed countless times, students simply Googling a topic, going to the first page listed and at best changing the words found into slightly different passages, and at worst highlighting passages, cutting, pasting and claiming it as their own. Many of the students last Thursday ended up on sites like Wikipedia, where they did just this. Like I said I was not surprised, but I was not impressed. Although I had the chat with the class about plagiarism, I felt pretty helpless in stopping the cycle. Obviously these students had not been taught the skills needed to research effectively and were falling back on what they thought was appropriate and/or easiest.

With this week’s discussion of research models in the back of my mind and this experience in the classroom, I found an article entitled “Thinking and Researching – Don’t Just “Google It’” by Steven M. Cohen (2006). Cohen explains that he is not against using Google, as he does himself, but “the problem is that the search engines that we use to answer "ready reference" questions (the easy stuff) are the same engines being used by students who are writing a term paper (the harder stuff)” (p.29) and thus students are not developing the critical thinking/research skills needed later on in life. Cohen also admits that because using “Goggle to find the simple stuff becomes so easy [he] immediately uses it for difficult stuff that it was not meant to be used for” but he fights “the urge to use Google for every research task…for the love of research…[he] is not taking the easy way out” (p. 29). I agree with Cohen that Google is not the enemy, but students have to be taught the difference of when the appropriate time is to use it. Yes they can look up easy stuff that would be found in a almanac, like What is the capital of Brazil?, but should not relay on it solely to write their five paragraph project on Japan. The trouble is they have to be shown and taught how to use alternative means to locating information effectively.  

Cohen also outlines a few things that teacher-librarians can do to ensure they are not promoting and reinforcing the “Just Google It” approach.

• Make online searching mandatory in library school. Make it a core course.
• Not something that is mandatory at UBC as of yet, but something I would be interested in learning more about, however, an entire course, not so sure.
• Keep up with search engine news and how to use these tools to their maximum capabilities
• Absolutely – Professional Development. 
• Do not make Google the default page at your reference workstations. If you are going to do this, at least use the advanced page.
• Give students options and a model to follow. 
• Don’t enable. Not only should we teach better searching skills to our colleagues and users, we should practice what we preach. Don’t have a Google search box on your library Web page or blog. Don’t have canned Google searches on your Web page or blog that lead to atrocious results.
• If Google is all they see when they log in, of course they are going to be conditioned to use it. 
• Don’t forget the importance of using fee-based databases that your library pays for. Remember that “free is as free does”.
• I know a TL in my district who I have TOCed for in the past is trying to push her students away from Google and towards World Book. She is struggling with this because students just naturally turn to Google as their “research” authority.  

  I would also add:

• Talk with the classroom teachers and ensure they are on the same page. Many use the phrase “Google it” and “research” synonymously.

On another note…

Riedling (2005), touches on a quote taken from the American Library association which describes "information literate individuals as people who have learned how to learn. They know how to learn because they know how knowledge is organized, how to find information...They are people prepared for life long learning" (p. 6).

Riedling, also states later, “School library media specialists should foster information literacy, defined as the ability to access, comprehend, use, and evaluate information. School library media specialists must help students learn how to learn, to become lifelong learners” (p. 12).

These quotes remind me of Adrienne Gear’s Reading Power (2006), when she speaks of metacognition and “thinking about reading”. Gear’s approach to reading comprehension is by breaking the process down into different components, such as, visualizing, inferring, transforming, connecting and questioning. Although these components are not taught linearly like a research model, Reading Power does break the process down into manageable steps that students can relate and connect to – they are “thinking about reading”. We would never expect our students to figure out how to read on their own, so why would we expect them to know how to research effectively without ever being taught? We should then be teaching our students to “think about researching” as well. Without these skills, of course they are going to rely on what they know and are familiar with – and that is to Google it.  

Works Cited

Cohen, Steven M. "Thinking and Researching--Don't Just 'Google It'." Information Today 23.6 (2006): 28-29. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts. EBSCO. Web. 22 May 2011.

Gear, Adrienne. Reading Power: Teaching Students to Think While They Read. Markham, Ont.: Pembroke, 2006.

Riedling, Ann. Reference Skills for the School Library Media Specialist: Tools and Tips. Worthington, OH: Linworth, 2005.

Oh Why Do Things Have To Be So Complicated?

I noticed the last two weeks of discussions have brought up a common theme - simplifying language. Beginning with the discussion on definitions and the terminology used in the library system, Lori Ingles made the comment "there are so many fancy ways to describe what we do and the ways we do it. I find myself wondering whether we are trying to distinguish ourselves from teachers (not necessarily a bad thing), or justify ourselves as librarians (again, not necessarily a bad thing). I am concerned that some of the terminology makes us less accessible to the people we are trying to serve" (May 13, 2011). This comment resonated with me, not only because I was feeling overwhelmed because I was unfamiliar with many of the terms in this activity, but also because I can remember feeling the same way when I began my Special Education Diploma program and being faced with challenging, new terms and acronyms. Although I am comfortable with the language of Special Education now and can carry on a conversation with colleges in my field with confidence, we are trained as Learning Assistance Resource Teacher's (LARTs) to use Laymen terms and simplify language when speaking to parents in order to reduce anxiety and promote a sense of ease - we are all working together to help the student.  I wonder if Teacher-Librarians take this into consideration when working with not only their students, but with their teacher colleagues that may not be familiar with how a library runs. Would this make the TL more accessible...I think so.

In the second discussion around research models,  a frequent comment was on the language used to describe the different stages within each model. Although, each of the models were fairly similar in process, each author named their steps differently. Brooke Muir mentioned when describing BCTLA's Research Quest  " I...like that there are 5 steps in the research process and all of them have student-friendly language. Although many of the stages are similar to the Big6 model, I liked the language of “Communicate” rather than “Synthesis” for presenting the information. I also preferred “Reflection” to “Evaluation” for the last stage of the process" (May 16, 2011). I am a believer that the research process should be taught at an early age, just not as a mini lesson two weeks prior to assigning a grade six social studies project. This way the students are familiar and comfortable with the process and the language involved, so they can proactively begin the process independently, and be able to effectively ask for assistance when needed; not just state, "I don't know what to do". With this in mind, going back to Brooke's comment, how would you begin to explain the word "synthesis" to a grade one class? I think communicate is much easier to comprehend and put into practice. All in all however, no matter which research model you choose to use as a TL, I think the most important things to remember would be to be consistent by having a universal, school wide model and starting to teach students that model at a younger age.