Who uses the databases?

Looking at the discussion about databases, it sounds like mine isn't the only district that pays for databases that no one seems to use. A few people mentioned today (July 20) that the lack of training for staff on how to use the resources is a major problem, especially considering the amount of money that must be spent on the databases. As Joanne indicated, this would be a good place for the CBAM model to be applied.

That's what I thought too, which is why is used it for my assignment 3. What I found, though, was not only did no one seem to use it, but no one seemed to know about it. As I explained in my discussion post, "When I asked the TL for the logins for the databases we have, she gave me ones for World Book and EBSCO, but said that she never uses either because EBSCO doesn't have much in French, and World Book is lacking Canadian content." I was worried when she said this, because the project I was going to suggest my colleague revamp was a research project about Canadian provinces. I didn't have a problem there, however, although this isn't necessarily a good indicator of Canadian content for areas like art and culture.

Another point: no where on the school website is mentioned the Encyclopedia of British Columbia, which we also get. I didn't know to ask about it when I did my project, but I found it on the district website when I was looking into databases further for the related lesson. The TL didn't mention it at all when I was talking to her, and I can't help but wonder why, if we're worried about Canadian content, we are not using it. It is at a higher reading level than is generally useful, but it would be still be worth knowing about, I would think.

It seems so unfortunate that educators are not able to use/willing to use/aware of these resources. For one thing, it doubles the amount of time you have to do library research during the week, because your computer lab periods are more useful than a dabble on Wikipedia.

Overall, I think, this is going to be one of the big ideas I take from this course. Ways to better use the internet for researching are available and valuable, and I intend to teach them to my students. This means not only the skills to use Wikipedia properly, but also all the other available tools and resources that we have (and that the district pays for!)

Good Practice for Historical Atlases

As I stated in my discussion post today (July 20), I don't think I've ever really seen a current atlas. I don't really use them in my everyday life, and the ones one sees in classrooms are generally "historical" to say the least. In French immersion classrooms, I'm pretty sure I recognize the same green atlases that I was using in grade 7.

When using atlases, class sets are often crucial to the kinds of activities we do. However, it would be extraordinarily expensive to replace this every 5 years, even if you don't have more than one set for the school, which you need to. Online resources would be great, but then we have to contend with access and the cost of that in the classroom environment.

What this makes me think, then, is this: is it still good practice to use historical atlases for regular use in the classroom? Certainly, it is necessary to have up-to-date information available in the library for when it is needed. When it comes to class sets, however, is it better to have something than nothing?

Realistically, the degree of detail required for classroom use is not often much. Additionally, the areas of the world we tend to study at the elementary level, let's be honest, are not the ones that are doing much of the changing. So long as we have Nunavut when we're looking at Canada, can we use atlases that should be considered historical and still consider it good practice for teaching geography? I'm not sure what I think is the best answer, but I do think I'll go on teaching kids to use maps with what I have, even it means explaining what USSR means.

Blame Game

There are many legitimate concerns about Wikipedia. There are also, however, many problems that are easy to blame on Wikipedia (or the resource at hand, but more often then not Wikipedia), but which are actually issues with our reference services. Jody mentioned a few of these when discussing her concerns with how she has seen Wikipedia used in the classroom as a TOC in her posting on July 3.

The first of these was when she said “I do not feel comfortable allowing it to be a starting point for my students’ research when most of them have not been taught the information literacy skills required to verify the information.” While the concern is very valid, I disagreed with the implication that this is a problem with using Wikipedia. The problem here is that students have not been taught the appropriate information literacy skills, something that is required for all research in all resources. Wikipedia does require a different technical skill set than print encyclopedias, but the lack of this in the program does not make Wikipedia a lesser resource. The fact that “Most of the time students turn towards Wikipedia as their first and sometimes only source of information” is a problem with library services and information literacy education, not Wikipedia. I responded applying this concern to the use of other research materials: “I am not comfortable having students use print encyclopedias or newspapers or textbooks either without the information literacy skills required to critically evaluate the information they are receiving. In fact, they should be taught these skills before being asked to apply them by being given a research assignment.”

The second was referring to the ease of plagiarism when using Wikipedia, something often mentioned when teachers have problems with how they students are doing their research. Perhaps it is faster to cut and copy from Wikipedia than to copy out a print encyclopedia, but conventional encyclopedias online have the same drawback. Realistically, if a student is going to plagiarise (either innocently because they have not been taught not to, or despite being taught not to), they will manage just fine out of any resource. It is unreasonable to list this as a drawback of Wikipedia.

Many of us find it difficult to trust Wikipedia for a variety of legitimate reasons. However, we need to be sure to separate this from things that students who are not information literate do wrong while using Wikipedia. Not doing so weakens the important concerns and issues that need addressing when using Wikipedia in the classroom.

How do we determine reliability?

I have found the discussion surrounding Wikipedia to be immensely interesting. As I have stated before, I like Wikipedia for school use, as well as acknowledge that it has limitations and potential problems. It is, however, quite difficult to make (and defend) the mental leap required to accept that Wikipedia can be reliable despite its disregard for conventional ideas of authority. I feel the need to couch my statements in this regard (as in my reply to Jody's posting on July 5), and the statements of others (such as the representatives from Britannica in the Bernstein article on the extreme end) seem to support this difficulty.

Personally, I think it's incredibly compelling to think that the way we conventionally define authority is not the only way attribute reliability to information. In this age of information (I cringe to use a buzz word, but it's a very telling description of our time) where data points and users are so numerous, we can count more heavily on probability. The iterations are so many that we have a statistically significant sample. As such, if we say that most people will do conscientious work on Wikipedia, then we can rely on most articles being conscientiously written. If many people are assessing, correcting, and evaluation articles, then we can rely on most errors being caught. With so many articles, maybe we can count on these probabilities enough to define a new kind of reliability. Maybe, we can depend on "surely someone will notice". I'm not saying that this is necessarily true, but we are redefining so many ways of thinking, and wouldn't it be fascinating? Wouldn't it be fascinating if this system that depends on millions iterations could be as reliable as "authority" as defined by Britannica?

Are we fighting a losing battle?

To begin, I love real live paper books. They are nice to hold and to flip through, easy on the eyes, easy to share and manage. All of this is important.

However, I also think it is a bit closed minded to consider the question of print or electronic resources to be a battle. At the moment, there is a key distinction between anything print and anything digital, namely around access. Until access to digital versions of all out print texts becomes as easy, as pleasant, and as available to everyone in all circumstances, print will always differ completely from digital. However, once we get there, an ebook and a print book will be exactly the same resource, just like hard cover and paperback. They will need librarians to manage them, too, remember, and libraries to hold them, even if they look a little different.

The difference to consider, then, is between:

Static resources - print and ebooks; peer-edited, (usually) reliable, purposefully structured but not quite current and not interactive

Fluid resources - websites, databases, wikipedia; constantly updated, interactive, cross-linked, but not necessarily subject to academic rigour (although not impossible), and with a differently designed, less controlled structure.

Each of these types have different purposes and uses in research and question answering, but whether the words are printed on a screen or a piece of paper is not the issue.

Until our user interfaces become as intuitive and print books, and everyone has as easy access to digital versions as print versions, the dynamic between print and digital is an issue. Right now, print resources can come back to a student’s desk, be carried home, and be browsed intuitively. By contrast, digital resources stay where the computer is, and students rarely can access them as easily as print. Also, each print resource can be used by a different student at once, can be shared and traded easily. Meanwhile, only the number of students as have workstations can get at digital materials. Print resources can automatically be given a certain amount of authority, as being checked and reviewed is inherent in the way they are produced. All these are important considerations, but it is very possible that technology will catch up with all of these.

I’m not saying that I think digital resources are better and we should abandon print books, but I do think that before too terribly long, there won’t be any difference.

Biases regarding reference formats

I think we all have a bias when it comes to the electronic vs print question. For myself, I think that I equally value both electronic and print. They both have a place, and should both be used. When I’m teaching, I don’t mind which they use. This, however, doesn’t mean I don’t have biases about it. I come from the generation of internet research, and of Wikipedia, and my bias is very strong there.

I’m going to go out on a limb here, and say that I think Wikipedia is great. Is it always reliable? No, but neither are many other online sources (for the same reason), and neither are many print sources (because knowledge changes and they don’t). If evaluating information is a key part of information literacy, then surely teachers’ and librarians’ insistence on No Wikipedia! is poor information literacy? We should be reading everything critically, not automatically trusting or distrusting sources. Also, I’ve never come across a crass error. Missing or unclear technical details do occur, but at the elementary level, how much technical detail do we need? The writing is sometimes unclear, but again, let’s assess on a case by case basis. In terms of question-answering reference sources, it is fast, usually accurate, well laid-out, extensively cross-referenced, and easy to navigate. It is a great place to look up definitions, or to gather basic information about a topic. We of course need to check with other sources as well if it is formal research and not just a casual query, but shouldn’t that always be true? Surely the requirement for a permitted reference source isn’t “perfect”.

I am a teacher, and I like Wikipedia. No embarrassed reservations, explanations, or excuses.

Research Models

I found the discussion regarding research models to be very interesting. It seems that in order to select an appropriate model, and to rewrite it in child-friendly language, one needs to carefully consider the terminology used. The only way to really know what is going to be effective is to take a step back and look at the goals of teaching research from a pedagogical standpoint. The various stage of the model in use and the terminology used to express this model need to fulfill the goals and learning objectives at hand.

According to Riedling, the information literacy process has five basic steps (p. 6):

1. A need for information
2. a question
3. the search for information
4. an answer or response
5. an evaluation

These steps allow students to fulfill the goals of information literacy: “the abilities to access, comprehend, use, and evaluate information.” (p.6)

As a teacher on call, I have no classroom currently and only have a year’s experience teaching full time, so I am currently less engrossed with the practical and feasibility of these issues. When I have worked as a new teacher, however, my focus quickly becomes what will they do for the next 45 min? rather than how will I achieve and evaluate the learning outcomes? Certainly, this is an imperative consideration as well, seeing as the model has to work or no nobly considered goals will be achieved. Nonetheless, I found I could not agree with the common opinion criticising the terminology of Big6 model that Jennifer explained succinctly on May 17: “Like Brooke, I prefer the easily understood term "communicate" to the more abstract "synthesis." I also prefer "reflect" to "assessment" or "evaluation" because it is a broader term less likely to restrict students to a statement of success or failure.” While these are important issues, I found that in order to reflect the pedagogical goals at hand, the terminology used in the Big6 is more appropriate, as I explained in my post on May 21:

I think that the focus on synthesis of information over the presentation or product is a key concept for students. The goal here is not to produce a report, but for learning to occur. As to reflection versus evaluation, I think that evaluation is far more relevant. This should be a critical thinking process, in which the evaluation of method and results should be emphasized. … The research process should be focused, rather, on problem solving and critical thinking, as these are foundational to information literacy.

Synthesis and evaluation are both common key terms when referring to information literacy, and thus need to be in place in the research model. Synthesis may be a difficult term to use with young children, but “communication” does not adequately fulfill the pedagogical goals. As well, students should be able to evaluate and assess their own work and the quality of their answer as well as the sources they are using. The idea that students may have that evaluation is about failure or success is a misunderstanding of an important word that should be addressed rather than ignored.