More thoughts on the CA Study

I don't think it's hyperbole to say that actually reading the text of the CA study was transformational to my entire way of thinking.  (HAVES, HALVES, AND HAVE-NOTS: SCHOOL LIBRARIES AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA Douglas L. Achterman)

First, I got a real sense of the history of school libraries in CA and why they are as bad as they are.  Frankly, school libraries were never great in CA--we have never been at the head of the pack in terms of staffing levels and are sadly still behind (a LOT) in that arena.  The issue was compounded when prop 13 passed and then again when ESEA funding that had been used to expand school library programs shifted into a block grant, giving local schools control of the funds--the result was that within a few years only 29% of the funding was being used for school libraries (likely a lower percentage now).  With the exception of a short-lived funding "boom" around 1999-2000, school library funding in CA has been awful and is not protected.  In addition, schools in CA are not required to have TLs to earn WASC accreditation (in an interview I watched with Lance, he mentioned that this was the saving grace for most high schools, but apparently not in CA!).  The state legislature has never mandated funding levels for school libraries, even when funding was in place, probably because doing so would mean they would have to sustain funding (this is my conjecture).  Libraries are "discretionary," and so when cuts must be made, the library is a prime target despite all the evidence that quality school libraries are essential to quality schools.

So, we were already lagging behind (FAR behind, as in last place), then got a little boom with the tech boom, but we never got caught up, particularly in terms of staffing levels, and then the tech bust killed that funding and the recession has caused additional cuts.  Since California has never had strong libraries in most schools (around 1% of elementary schools and 30% of high schools are staffed at levels considered adequate), most teachers, administrators, and students have no concept of what the TL SHOULD be doing and how it would impact their school communities if they had strong school libraries.  We have a history of ignoring research, or of taking notice but not making funding decisions based on it.

Maybe I should start a ballot initiative. . . but first I'd have to figure out how to pay for it.

I sent the pdf of the study to my daughter's school district superintendent, but seriously, I doubt he has time to read it and you can't squeeze blood from a turnip.   What I CAN do is lobby for her school (which is parent participation) to offer something like "information literacy and technology" as one of their "enrichment" classes, which are parent lead, and offer to teach it (you know, when I'm finished with my degree and have time since I likely will not be employed).  Maybe then I can wiggle my way into giving inservice trainings in the district and preach the TL gospel.

At any rate, my point was that I learned a LOT from this study that has nothing to do with collaboration and has helped me to understand school libraries in California.  While this knowledge is, frankly, depressing, it is useful.  I also found a TON of useful resources for my lit review.  I could seriously have just mined this one study and gotten all my resources from it.

Something else I learned from reading this study:  all the numbers and statistics make my head hurt.  n=r whatever?  Thank goodness for the textual analysis of those stats!

What is clear to me is that there is plenty of research on the impact of quality school libraries and TLs.  There is also plenty of research on TL/CT collaboration.  I'm excited to read the article cited in the CA study that details traits (including personality) of TLs that make teachers WANT to collaborate with them.  Trends I see so far:

1.  TLs must be viewed as leaders on campus before teachers want to collaborate with them.
2.  Time must be given for collaboration, both for the CT and the TL.  Without that time, collaboration tends not to happen or tends to be cursory and not as valuable.
3.  The attitude of administration has a huge influence on the value placed on collaboration.
4.  Even if collaboration is under-utilized, TLs can still impact student achievement by offering other services.
5.  TLs who can help CTs infuse lessons with technology are more sought after for collaboration.
6.  TLs who give inservice training, esp. w/ technology, are more sought after for collaboration.
7.  TLs must make teachers aware that they want to do more than bring them resources--taking part in lesson delivery and assessment is vital.

ca study resources

Aaron, S. L. (1981). The instructional role of the school library media specialist: What research
says to us now. School Media Quarterly 9(4), 281-285.

Archon, M. (2003). A study of perceptions of the impact of new funding on library media teachers’ and paraprofessionals’ provision of service toward library clients in school libraries. Retrieved from Proquest Digital Dissertations (AAT 3100046).

Beaird, Marilyn Miller. (1999) The effect of increased collaboration among the library media specialist and school personnel on perceptions of the roles and responsibilities of the library media specialist. Retrieved from Proquest Digital Dissertations database (AAT 9987938).

Bell, M.D. (1990). Elementary school climate factors and personality and status variables associated with school library media specialists chosen by classroom teachers for cooperation on instructional problems. Retrieved from Proquest Digital Dissertations database (AAT 9114100).

Bell, M., & Totten, H.L. (1991). School climate factors related to degrees of cooperation between public elementary school teachers and school library media specialists. Library Quarterly 61(3), 293-310.
Bell, M., & Totten, H.L. (1992). Cooperation in instruction between classroom teachers and school library media specialists. A look at teacher characteristics in Texas elementary schools. School Library Media Quarterly 20(2), 79-85.

Cleaver, B.P., & Taylor, W.D. (1989). The instructional consultant role of the school library media specialist. Chicago: American Library Association.

Craver, K.W. (1986). The changing instructional role of the high school library media specialist: 1950-84. School Library Media Quarterly 14(4), 183-191.

Donham van Deusen, J., & Tallman, J.(1994). The impact of scheduling on curriculum consultation and information skills instruction. Part one: The 1993–1994 AASL/ Highsmith Research Award study. School Library Media Quarterly 23(1), 17–25.

Farwell, S.M. (1998). Profile of planning: A study of a three year project on the implementation of collaborative library media programs. Retrieved from Proquest Digital Dissertations database (AAT 9913911).

Grazier, M.H. (1979). The curriculum consultant role of the school library media specialist. Library Trends 28, 263–79.

Jones, A.C. (1997). An analysis of the theoretical and actual curriculum development involvement of Georgia school library media specialists. Retrieved from Proquest Digital Dissertations database (AAT 9804388).

Kreiser, J. (1991) A comparative study of curriculum integrated and traditional school library media programs: Fifth-grade students' reading and media program attitudes and utilization. Retrieved from Proquest Digital Dissertations database (AAT 9218617).

Lance, K.C., Rodney, M. J., & Hamilton-Pennell, C.H. (2000a). How school librarians help kids achieve standards: The second Colorado study. San Jose, CA: Hi Willow Research and Publishing.

Loertscher, D.V. (2000). Taxonomies of the school library media program. 2nd edition. San Jose: Hi Willow Research and Publishing.

Loertscher, D.V., Ho, M. L., & Bowie, M. M. (1987). "Exemplary elementary schools" and their library media centers: A research report. School Library Media Quarterly, 15(3), 147- 153.

Marchant, M.P., Broadway, M.D., Robinson, E., & Shields, D.M. (1984). Research into learning
resulting from quality school library media service. School Library Journal 30(8), 20-22.

McCracken, A. (2001). School library media specialists' perceptions of practice and importance of roles described in Information Power. School Library Media Research 4(42). Retrieved October 11, 2008 from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume4 2001/mccracken.cfm.

Miller, M.L., & Shontz, M.L. (1996). Live wires: “High-tech” media specialists get connected. School Library Journal 42(10), 26-32.

Oliver, S.Q. (2003). The role of the school library media specialist in the integration of computer technology in the high school curriculum. Retrieved from Proquest Digital Dissertations database (AAT 3115129).

Putnam, E. (1996). The instructional consultant role of the elementary-school library media specialist and the effects of program scheduling on its practice. School Library Media Quarterly 25(1), 43-49.

Rojtas-Milliner, M.C. (2006). Hey, this school library isn't what it used to be: The change process and the sociopolitical realities of implementing a curricularly integrated high school information literacy program. Retrieved from Proquest Digital Dissertations database (AAT 3224035).

Slygh, G.L. (2000). Shake, rattle and roll! The effects of professional community on the collaborative role of the school librarian. Retrieved from Proquest Digital Dissertations database (AAT 9982268).

Tallman, J.I., & Donham van Deusen, J. (1994). Collaborative unit planning: Schedule, time, and participants. Part One: The 1993-94 AASL/Highsmith Research Award study. School Library Media Quarterly 23(1), 33–37.

Todd, R. (1999). Transformational leadership and transformational learning: Information literacy and the World Wide Web. NASSP Bulletin 83(605), 4-12.

Underwood, Linda Jean (2004). A case study of four school library media specialists' leadership in Louisiana. Retrieved from Proquest Digital Dissertations database (AAT 3132971).

Yetter, C.L. (1994). Resource-based learning in the information age school: The intersection of roles and relationships of the school library media specialist, teachers, and principal. Retrieved from Proquest Digital Dissertations database (AAT 9426426).

The California Study

I've been reading "The California Study" today (it has a different official title but this is what it is in my head, and probably the heads of lots of librarians).  One section addresses leadership (the perception that the TL is a leader in the school) and the connection of leadership to collaboration.  Here's a quotation from Lance (who did the CO studies).

Said Lance, “You have to step into those leadership shoes first and establish yourself as a leader that somebody would want to collaborate with” (Achterman, 2007, p. 51).

The paper goes on to address the TL as a leader in the school and how leadership influences collaboration.

When I was a classroom teacher in OK, CA, and the first year in ID, I did not realize that the TL was supposed to be a "leader" or "administrator."  I didn't know that TLs had to have first been classroom teachers, or why that would even be important.  My interaction with the TL was limited to those times I took a class to the library, asking for resources or technology (yes, I once showed a filmstrip), or (in CA) taking 9th grade students for a "library orientation."  My final year of teaching in ID the TL introduced herself to all teachers new at the school as our "fairy godmother."  While we never formally planned a lesson together and she did not ever actively teach my students, she was really vital to my curriculum planning that year.  Because I viewed her as someone who was involved with students and curriculum, I would have been very open to planning a collaborative lesson with her had she asked--but I didn't even know I COULD ask her to do that. 

And I think that is one barrier to TL/CT collaboration--classroom teachers do not realize they can ask the TL to be a co-teacher in their classroom.  They may feel uncomfortable allowing someone else to assess their students in a way that directly effects their grades.  And, of course, because of inadequate staffing levels in many schools, true collaboration can't be a reality.

I really think if we just got a huge influx of funding for library staffing and materials, we have an opportunity to change the way teacher librarians are viewed in the school community.  What we need is an influx of teacher librarians who can become leaders and collaborators on their campuses in a way that "wins over" most teachers, and administrators who view librarians and tl/classroom teacher collaboration as essential to student success so that a culture of collaboration results.  (none of this is new to me--lots of it is based on the background info in the CA study as well as other readings).  But it always comes down to funding--the need for a full-time TL and classified support staff to make it happen.  And CA has now created this bizarre situation where, even if we wanted to do this tomorrow and the funds magically appeared, we couldn't.  Where would the TL's come from?  We don't have enough qualified TLs to step into these jobs, and if we can't hire people who are qualified to do the job, it won't be done well, and the idea that we don't "need" a "real" librarian in the school library gets perpetuated.

It is both a frustrating time to be in library school because of this and an exciting time, because I have to believe that at some point school funding will improve and the mounting evidence in favor of school librarians will push practice in that direction.  It seems to be doing so, at least in part, in some areas of the country.

I don't really know if this ramble belongs here, but I just wanted to record my thoughts for now.  This study (and its bibliography) are going to be really useful to my lit. review.  I kind of feel like I'm cheating somehow, b/c I'm basically reading his lit review and going "yeah!" "I should include that!"  "yeah!"  "I need to look up that paper!"

As an aside, it's also kind of awesome to be reading papers that refer to professors who teach or have taught at SJSU SLIS.  I know there are varying opinions on the value of a program that is entirely online, but I love being able to point to specific leaders in the field of LIS and say, "oh, yeah, I took a class from that person." :)

Citations to look at

From the Meyer Washington article:  

Johnson, M. J. (2005). Collaborating to improve social studies instruction: A case study." Library Media Connection 23 (4), 22-6.
Lane, D. A. & Maxfield, R. R. (1996). Strategy under complexity: Fostering generative relationships. Long Range Planning 29, 215-231.

Marcoux, B. (2007). Levels of collaboration: Where does your work fit in. School Library Media Activities Monthly 24 (4), 20.

A side note:  it is very frustrating to read study after study pointing to the impact school librarians have on student learning given that, at least in San Jose, that data has not brought about funding for actual school librarians. 

Search Terms/Results

Librarian and Classroom Teacher Collaboration
Teacher Librarian Collaboration
teachers and teacher librarians

Also, I just realized I can search in LIS cross search, save the articles I want for later, and then import them directly into Zotero, which is awesome.  Sadly, ERIC does not allow this (or if it does I couldn't figure it out), so I emailed an annotated bibliography to myself.  I also requested some books from the library, so hopefully they'll make it to Edenvale by my usual Wednesday visit.

One thing I noticed while searching is the variety of publications that show up.  Librarians might do well to remember to submit articles not only to "library" journals but also to journals of other educators (ie, if you collaborate with a social studies teacher, submit to a social studies education journal).  The more we promote collaboration in those professional journals, the more teachers will view us as their partners.

Also, much of what's out there is focused on universities.  I'm going to try to stick to K-12 but we shall see--I know a lot of the research happens at the University first, so it's not that the research is irrelevant, it's just a tool for narrowing my focus.

Tomorrow, I read, read, read!

My research question and some thoughts

I think I'm going to focus on TL/Classroom Teacher collaboration for my Literature Review.  Maybe something like "How can Teacher Librarians best support classroom learning through collaboration with teachers?"  or "How can Teacher Librarian/Classroom Teacher collaboration encourage the reinforcement of information literacy skills throughout the school year?"  Basically, since it is not possible for the TL to collaborate on EVERY lesson, does collaborating on one or two lessons help classroom teachers internalize information literacy in a way that encourages them to promote those skills (and a standard vocabulary) with their students throughout the year?  I'm focusing my research for now on collaboration.

Also:  I think if I were doing this again I'd use a wiki, not a blog, for a research journal.  Then I could have an area that was sort of blog-like, like this, with reflections and connections, an area that was just article summaries since I like doing them so much, an area for search terms, an area with citations of articles I want to check out, etc.  A blog is not as easy to sift through as a wiki would be.  I am surprised I think this since I've never really used a wiki before--one attempt with a group last year just turned into a big waste of space b/c we ended up using google docs more than anything else.

Just some random thoughts before I go do some research. :)

Thoughts and Research Questions

I wanted to save part of the discussion I've been having with my Distributed Research Group about Youth and Information Literacy Instruction:

"It seems that, based on what I've read so far, the issue in late elementary school is learning the research process and learning to find and read websites.  Middle schoolers may still have some Web reading issues, but can also be taught more refined search strategies.  Late middle school and high school should reinforce those ideas but focus on evaluation of resources and synthesis of information.  Do you agree there is this "taxonomy" of skills to be taught, or should we be trying to teach all of those literacies at all grade levels?" (me)

"The taxonomy you outline in the last paragraph of your post makes sense to me, but I can't claim to have thought deeply about all these issues yet. I like how you have organized it in two levels: what is developmentally most appropriate at a given age and where we need to be stretching them as they grow into the next stage." (Pete)

I may want to consider this a bit more as I look for my research question.  I do think some of the steps in the information seeking process (particularly involving evaluation of resources) are, in part, developmental.  Of course, you can encourage elementary students to evaluate sources, but they may not be capable of really analyzing those sources until their thought processes allow them really understand the concept of bias, particularly when that bias is subtle.  Are we beating our heads (and theirs) against the wall in trying to teach things that are not developmentally appropriate?  If so, what is the correct "order" in which to teach skills, are there skills that should be the "focus" skills at some levels vs. others, how do we introduce those "stretch goals" in a manner that is effective? 

I do think looking at "best practices" for TL in general is too broad.  But focusing specifically on information seeking behaviors and how best to scaffold activities for different age groups is of interest to me.

I was also really interested in the article I read on group information seeking behavior.  It seems like group information seeking is best suited for information problems that do not have a "correct" answer.  How can TLs support classroom teachers in designing and implementing effecting group information seeking activities?

I am both dreading (because of time) and looking forward to focusing on a research question to examine in my upcoming assignments.  The good news is it looks as if my son is headed to preschool 5 mornings a week instead of his current 2.  This will give me 3-4 mornings of protected "school" time and, since his afternoon nap has become intermittent at best, I'll still get to spend time with him in the afternoons.  Now, of course, I just need to research and locate where this preschool will take place since his current program doesn't offer 5 days.

My abstracts are FINISHED!

I am so happy to have these finished!  I feel like it took me a lot longer than it should have (although I am ahead of most of my group).  I had a hard time narrowing down which articles to use.  I think once I got close to the deadline and just forced myself to choose, things (obviously) went a lot more quickly.  I also used drop-in child care and the tv, which helped give me stretches of time to work.

Looking ahead, I'd like to continue to focus on best practices for teacher librarians for my literature review, if that is not too broad.  If I need to narrow my focus, I could focus on TL-classroom teacher collaboration, specifically how to teach information processes and search skills, or how to promote consistent vocabulary in the information seeking process across an entire school.  In terms of data, I think I'd find the most on the TL-classroom teacher collaboration.

The readings I've done so far would significantly change the way I design assignments and teach information processing in the classroom, either as an English teacher or TL.  I'd also rethink assessment, paying more attention to the process in addition to the product.

Mediating Group Search: Lessons from a Middle School Study

Meyers, Eric M. (2010) Mediating Group Search:  Lessons from a Middle School Study.  Teacher Librarian. 38 (2), 24-29.

I went back and forth about including this vs. a different study for my abstracts, but finally settled on this one simply because the other article was also from Computers in Human Behavior and I already used two articles from that issue of that publication.  As an aside, CIHB is not a publication I'd have thought I'd find useful as a future teacher librarian.  Interesting what you discover when you do some digging.

Teacher Librarian is decidedly more readable than the more scholarly publications, too. :)

(Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2--6, Eisenberg, 2008) "The 21st Century will demand a combination of information literacy, technical proficiency, and "people knowledge."  This may include skills such as communicating effectively and efficiently with others, collaborating in solving ill-structured problems, and reflecting on group goals and processes."  Schools have responded by integrateg roup learning into curricula, with authentic, project-based tasks that ask students to gather information, make decisions, use or reject resources they find, and develop a solution or way of changing the situation.

"Understanding how students solve information problems in small groups demands that we address three concurrent processes:  learning, information seeking, and managing group work."

Mixed-methods study conducted at a middle school in metropolitan Seattle.  Classrooms of students solving complex information problems alone compared with similar classes working in small groups of 3 sharing the same computer.

Research question:  How is solving information problems in small groups different than solving those same problems alone?

Background:

Small groups should result in positive outcomes (O'Donnell, 1999; Terwel, 2003), such as:

• resource pooling (bringing together knowledge, skills, experiences to generate unique solutions)
• socio-cognitive conflict (clash of multiple ideas prompts individual reflection and reassessment of ideas).
• cognitive elaboration:  providing and receiving explanations of thought processes in approaching problems increases internalization of strategies.
• social-motivational effect:  youth between 10 and 16 are particularly drawn to opportunities to interact socially with peers.
• provides opportunity to address more complex, information-intensive problems, adding instructional diversity and appealing to different cognitive strengths and experiences.

But can result in negative outcomes (Barron, 2003):

• information overload
• increased uncertainty
• personal disagreements/negative emotional experiences
• disjointed processes
• wasted time
• poor products

Additional challenges of group searching:  shared technology and uncertainty of Web-based info, scant research to date.

Method:  worked with middle school science teacher to develop 2 problem-based information assignments on topics in the 7th grade micro-life curriculum.  2 month units where students explored microscopic life, microbiomes, diseases prevention, and personal hygiene.  Info-seeking assignment presented as a multi-part scenario.  Students performed research online using classroom computers to answer a series of related questions.  Scenario 1: hypothetical salmonella outbreak.  4 classes participated--2 individually, 2 in small groups of 3 sharing a single computer.  Two weeks later, 2nd assignment, but reversed individual/group classes.

Findings:  Students working individually tended to do better on info-seeking assignment than students who worked in groups (by about 12%).  This was true for both assignments.  Quizzes given after assignments also proved the results--students who worked in groups had slightly lower post-test scores than those who worked alone.  Data suggested that working in groups has a negative effect on the way students solve problem-based scenarios using online resources, which affected their learning outcomes.

Researcher wanted to look at the "nuances that can be found in examining the students' search processes.  What we really want to know is why students working in groups might come to different conclusions than students working alone.  Teachers care about whether students got the right answer, but also how they arrived at the answer."

Student process data was gathreed by recording computer screens/conversations of select groups and individuals as they worked.  Data showed students working in groups performed poorly on some questions but not all.  Questions where students struggled were those that asked them to make inferences or decisions from information resources they found online.  If simply fact-finding, individuals and groups performed about the same.  Groups struggled when they needed to use the facts to make a decision.  Researcher wants to know why this happens.

Key process loss for students:  they were prone to "groupthink," meaning they wish to reduce tension within the group--rather than challenge each others assumptions, group members rationalize their answer and do not support their conclusions with expert opinion.

Three types of groupthink:

1. Relying on surface understanding.  Groups found info on one way salmonella is transmitted and assumed that was all there was to know.  They did not  read deeply or perform additional searches to verify their assumption.  Groups jumped to hasty conclusions, not taking the time to engage with ideas and each other.
2. Discounting the evidence.  Groups would encounter good explanations online of why those infected with salmonella should be kept home, but would discount it b/c it was inconsistent with their perception of peer hygiene.  Students might not want to admit that people don't wash their hands or that their hands might touch "gross" stuff.  Groups concluded that as long as everyone washed hands then sending infected students to school would be ok.  Groups also tended to express empathy for classmates who might be kept home from school.  The more groups discussed the issue, the more they minimized the risk of spreading bacteria, contrary to the evidence online.
3. Ignoring correct suggestions.  Unequal social dynamics might result in the ideas of some students having more weight than others.  The correct answer might be ignored or rejected based on social status of the suggester, not on the idea's merit.

There was a fair amount of resource and strategy pooling within the groups.  They checked with each other for understanding and discussed resources they found.  Some encouraged others to not rely on preconceptions.  They checked to make sure each others answers were consistent with their findings.   The researcher feels the process gains offset the distraction of working socially to some extent.

Overcoming Groupthink:

Using a teacher-librarian or classroom teacher (or both) can help overcome groupthink by helping with teh sense-making process.  Students were able to find appropriate, relevant resources on their own; they needed help making sense of that information.  Suggestions for educators:

• assign roles to group members, ie searcher, fact checker, group leader, summarizer, etc. to build interdependence and reduce the dominance of a high-status student.
• use a mix of individual and group assignments.  Students can brainstorm socially, search individually, discuss findings in small groups, etc.  Varying the level of interaction gives students the opportunity to flow together and apart as they think.
• encourage healthy disagreement.  Students may need guidance regarding how to make differing opinions work for them.  Model effective group work, including handling disagreements with respect.

Conclusion:  group work is assigned for a variety of reasons, from a desire to develop effective social skills to making the most of inadequate resources.  It is a complex task, but the emphasis on collaboration in education today makes it important for teachers to have research-based understandings of the benefits and risks of small group interaction.  It must be carefully designed and should involve skilled information professionals as mediators.

My response:  Interesting.  I like the way he looks beyond the test scores to examine the processes of group work more closely and finds value in the process itself.  This study is highly useful both for teacher librarians and classroom teachers, and points to another benefit of having a teacher librarian to help when group work has been assigned.  The classroom teacher and teacher librarian could model healthy disagreement in front of students, which could help them learn to disagree amicably in their groups.

In terms of where this fits with other research, I have to think about that some more.  This researcher seems to think students did an adequate job of finding resources.  Of course, the nature of this project may not have required extensive searching.  However, like the other studies, students may have ignored important information on each site or only read the first section/page of a site, resulting in incomplete information.  Clearly, in addition to direct instruction/support in group processes, students need instruction in reading websites and searching within them.  I'd also be curious to know if explicit teaching of group processes transfers from one grade level/subject area to the next.  In my experience, by high school students are a bit weary of group work and tend to roll their eyes if you assign them specific roles within the groups, although it does force some students to contribute more than they might otherwise.  At that stage, though, so much is about effort that highly motivated students generally do not like group work because they care a great deal about the final product (ie, they want an A).  Perhaps some method of assessing the process of working as a group (reflective journaling?  observational checklists?) and giving that assessment equal weight with the final product would help.  Having a TL and a classroom teacher to monitor the process would certainly make things easier.

Competent Info Search in the WWW

Gerjets, P. & Hellenthal-Schorr, T.  (2008) Competent information search in the World Wide Web:  Development and evaluation of a web training for pupils.  Computers in Human Behavior 24(3) 693-715.

Also part of that special sectin in CIHB, this study focuses on 6th grade students in Germany.

Intro notes:  Students take the availability of Internet-based information resources for granted. As of 2004, 95% of 14-19 yr olds use the Internet.  As of 2001, 99% of US public schools had Internet Access.  Characteristics of the WW that present challenges:  open access for info retrieval and authorship, vast differences in user population, distributed authorship of docs, lack of central agency responsible for structure/quality of docs, lack of stability, vast amount of info, broad nature of conents, unordered network structure, and interaction of multimedia components.  Because of this, web users need skills such as orientation and search planning, info selection, and info evaluation to benefit from WWW resources.  Current approach of short-term Internet trainings, which focus on technical aspects and neglet cognitive aspects of internet searches.  Authors developed CIS-WEB (competent information search in the world wide web); aims at improving cognitive and metacognitive aspects of students' ability to search the www.  Following 2 theories guided development:

1.  Conceptual analysis of info search from media literacy/info retrieval research:

• media literacy rsch tends to list sub-competencies, independent of specific medium and users' goals.
• Info Literacy Perspective (Doyle):
• recognizes that accurate and complete information is the basis of intelligent decision making
• recognizes need for information
• formulates questions based on information needs
• identifies potential sources of information
• develops successful search strategies
• accesses sources of information (incl electronic)
• evaluates info
• organizes info for practical application
• integrates new info into an existing body of knowledge
• uses info in critical thinking and problem solving
• Media Literacy sub-competencies (Gapski):
• technical knowledge of how media work
• practical knowledge of how to use media
• self-reflective w/ regard to relation between media usage and env.
• creative skills
• social-reflective (how media influence social resp/political action
• coping w/ media effects.

• Most important content aspects for info search in WWW (schorr):
• background knowledge in terms of development and structure of Internet as information environment.
• skills for using computers (connect to internet, browser software, search engines)
• Ability to keep oriented in regard to info sources provided by www
• ability to evaluate info provided in www in terms of relevance in context of current info problem, quality, and credibility.  Ability to select info according to those criteria.

•  info retrieval tends to identify sub-processes. (more user-oriented)
• Models (blair, clark, eisenberg & berkowitz, kuhlthau, marchionini)  segmented into sub-processes and propose appropriate sequence.  Five sub-processes most imortant:
• specification of info requirements
• application of search strategies
• handling search systems
• selection and evaluation of information/sources
• monitoring processes and results of information searches

Pulling from both lines of research, there are five integrated content aspects the researchers used as the basis of developing CIS-WEB:

1. Representation of WWW as an information environment: media background knowledge and operation skills with regard to www.
2. specification of information requriements:  segmenting of info problems into sub-problems, sequencing of information sub-problems, formulations of hypotheses in terms of type and localization of information needed.
3. application of search strategies:  typing in urls, following links, using search engines, distinguishing appropriate info for different search strategies.
4. selection and evaluation of information and information sources:  evaluating relevance, quality, credibility, and actuality of information in context of current info problem as well as the selection of info according to those criteria
5. monitoring of info searches:  knowledge on monitoring of processes and results of info searches.

Also developed systematic taxonomy of different search strategies based on problem-space paradigm by Newell and Simon (1972).  Tasks distinguished according to their complexity and how to adapt search strategies.

Design of CIS-WEB:  five pivotal content aspects plus four sub-goal structures of info.  Six training modules developed.  Problem-based training.  All six modules are covered in a total of 12 45 min lessons.  Contents:

1. Representation of WWW as info environment:
1. definitions, services, origin, user  stats, access options of internet
2. different formats of info, contents, authors, lack of quality control, security advice, continuous change of info, technical terms, web-browsers.
3. def of search systems, functionality of different systems, selection criteria for different search systems.
2. Info problems, sub-goals, and complex sub-goal structures:
1. categorizing info problems according to sub-goal structure; info requirements for different categories of info problems
2. basic knowledge on how to adapt search strategies to sub-goal structures
3. intro to 4 pivotal sub-goals of info on www:  locating info on website, locating website, selecting info provider, id of subtasks.
3. Locating info on Website
1. typical structure of website
2. using search funcitons and sitemaps as web tools
3. strategies for quickly assessing contents of websites
4. evaluating relevance of info in context of current info problem
4. locating website
1. direct retrieval (urls, inferring urls)
2. following links
3. searcy systems:  portals and search engines, selection of keywords, definign queries, selecting links in query results.
5. Selecting an info provider
1. eval of credibility of info source
2. eval of actuality of an info source
6. ID sub-tasks of info problems (breaking down complex info problems into sub-tasks and selecting strategies to help with sub-tasks)
1. breaking down complex info problem into subtasks and specifying different info requirements.
2. iding operators/methods to achieve sub-tasks
3. monitoring processes and results of info searches

Instructional Methods used in CIS-WEB:

Instructional setting:

• regular classroom teaching:  concepts introduced and discussed using powerpoint
• working in student pairs based on a computer-based hypermedia environment.
• individual work: exercises and problem-solving assignments based on paper-pencil materials, corrected either in pairs or by whole class with help of teacher.

Instructional methods:

• Elaborated worked-out examples:  example info problems from different content areas with a step-by-step solution to convey details of finding solution to info problem.
• use of symbols to illustrate complex and abstract relationships (structures of Internet) and to demonstrate important procedures for an info search.
• Interactive mult-choice questions w/ feedback
• worksheets: paper/pencil based problem-solving assignments forcing students to apply new knowledge.
• recapitulations:  at beginning of each new module, contents of previous models were reviewed; at end of training, entire module was reviewed.

Study 1:  tests common assumption that attending short-term Internet training is sufficient. ("surfcheck-online")  2 hypotheses:

1. participating in a conventional Internet training (cmpared to an unguided explorationof the web) will increase pupils' search-relevant and search-irrelevant declarative knowledge.
2. participating in a conventional Internet training will improve pupils' search performance when trying to solve information problems with the help of the WWW, at least if these information problems are not too complex with regard to their sub-goal structure.  

Method:
participants:  28 6th grade pupils from public German school (21 female, 7 male), avg age 11.92 yrs.
materials and procedure:  3 subsequent days, 2 45-min lessons per day.  Day 1: pretesting.  15 min to fill in declarative knowledge test w/ 20 mult-choice items, 75 min to solve 1 of 2 sets of 16 info problems each.  Questionnaire on computer/Internet experience.  Day 2:  implement instructional intervention--"surfcheck online" or unguided exploration of www).  Day 3:  posttest.

Results: 

All pupils had used computers at school or at home for at least 1 year.  92% used Internet--73% for at least one year, 50% at least once a week.  92% reported they were experienced with info retrieval on www.

Prior declarative knowledge for search-irrelevant facts 73.1%, search-relevant facts 66.9%.  However, solving info problems 17.2% correct.

Post-knowledge for "surfcheck" students:  search-irrelevant gained 4.55%, search-relevant gain .80%
Post-knowledge for independent exploration students:  negative gains in both areas.

Hypothesis 1 not proved.

Search performance decreased (-4.46%)
Hypothesis 1 not proved.

Summary of study 1 results:  pupils face problems searching the web, which increase when search tasks become more complex.  Neither conventional Internet training nor unguided exploration improve search performance or declarative knowledge with regard to search-relevant and search-irrelevant facts.  A more comprehensive training is needed.

Study 2:  tests effectiveness of CIS-WEB

Hypothesis 1.  Search compentence on the www increases with age.  thus, 8th graders should outperform 7th graders.  These differences should disappear after CIS-WEB due to training effects.
Hypothesis 2.  CIS-WEB improves pupils search-relevant and search-irrelevant declarative knowledge with regard to the web.
Hypothesis 3:  Pupils' search performance improves due to studying CIS-WEB.  Search performance is expected to increase for all four sub-goal structures although information problems of more complex sub-goal structures are expected to result in an inferior overal search performance than information problems of simpler sub-goal structures.
Hypothesis 4:  The time course of pupils' search performance improvements depends on the complexity of the information problems.  This assumption is based on the modular structure of the web training where the knowledge necessary to solve information problems of more complex sub-goal structures is conveyed later than the knowledge necessary to solve less complex search tasks.  Consequently, search performance regarding information problems with more complex sub-goal structures is expected to only increase substantially in later phases of the web training.

Participants:  61 pupils (7th and 8th grade) from a public German high school (30 female, 31 male).  Average age 12.74.  avg age 7th grade 12.33, avg age 8th grade 13.3.

Materials/procedure:  3 subsequent days; 12 lessons of CIS-WEB plus six additional lessons needed for testing.  Six lessons on each of 3 days.
Day 1: declarative knowledge test and module 1 of CIS-WEB, plus 10 info problems (same test as study 1).  Day 2: declarative knowledge test and modules 2-4, plus 10 info problems.  Day 3:  modules 5-6, declarative posttest, 4th and 5th sets of info problems.


Results: 

All pupils used computers in school or at home (at least 1 year, 93%.  98% used Internet--at least 1 year, 71%, at least once a week: 58%.  88% report experienced w/ info retrieval on WWW. 

Prior declarative knowledge:  search irrelevant facts 70.5% correct, search relevant facts 60.5%.  Problems olving info problems:  18% correct.

First hypothesis:  no siginficant effects of pupil grade on declarative knowledge test or search performance at beginning or ending of training.  Not proved--age does nto necessarily lead to more competent information searches.

Second hypothesis:  declarative knowledge increased after 1st module of CIS-WEB, but between module 1 and end of course of study, pupils forgot some of the search-irrelevant facts so there was a decrease of declarative knowledge for them.  Search-relevant fact gains remained.  CIS-WEB had a positive impact on declarative knowledge acquisition.

Third hypothesis:  pupils' search performance on all 4 sub-goal structures improves while using CIS-WEB.  More complex sub-goal structures had lower performance than simpler sub-=goal structures (as expected). 

Summary:  CIS-WEB substantially improves declarative knowledge and increases performanceon solving information problems of different sub-goal structures.  Module 1 had the strongest training effects.  Modules 2-6 relied heavily on pupils engagement with worksheets/exercises, so motivation may have impacted results.    There are substantial correlations between pupils' learning intensity (performance on worksheets/exercises) and later learning outcomes--only pupils who were actively involved in working on module 2-6 benefitted substatially from those later modules.  However, suggestions for improvement of CIS-WEB include changing instructional methods in modules 2-6 to increase active participation, extend module 6 to improve learning outcomes of "identification of sub-tasks," which might lengthen web training.

Overall summery and discussion: 

Options for improving CIS-WEB:  focus on module 1, which improved performance substantially, and implement it in place of current web training. OR optimize instructinal methods in CIS-WEB to ensure more engagement in models 2-6, extending training materials and spacing presentation over a longer period of time (maybe 2 lessons per week for several weeks).  This might avoid pupils getting tired or overwhelmed and increase willingness to invest in worksheets and exercises, or use group work and small problem-based activities to enrich the course.  Also interweave CIS-WEB with other school subjects to students can apply skills to academic work. Also broaden target group to include senior citizens or other user populations.  Finally, improve technical tools and innovations to conform with how people conduct searches (ie, you could tackle this problem by changing the search engines rather than changing the user habits).  However, since current technology cannot undertake metacognitive processes, this system-oriented approach could only go so far and some user training would still be required.

My thoughts:  One concern I have with studies like this is that they seem to focus on one unit of study, as if you can just teach this once and everyone will "get" it.  It seems to me, based on my experience and the austrailia study I abstracted, that in order for students to internalized these strategies and use them regularly (rather than being able to tell you what the SHOULD do but not actually doing it), they need repeated exposure to these concepts over an extended period of time.  In other words, teach the specific modules, yes, and integrate them with coursework, yes, but also teach the classroom teachers to review the concepts regularly and expect students to demonstrate their use of them repeatedly in research assignments, over several grade levels/subject areas, using consistent steps and vocabulary.  Also, as technology changes, the course will have to be updated and teachers will need additional training.

Crunch Time

I've saved multiple pdfs to use for the abstract assignment but just haven't had the time/energy/attention span to devote to them.  I had such a hard time doing my 2nd abstract, and I'm not really sure why other than that the content was a bit over my head.  I'm really attracted more to the pragmatic.  It's just how my brain works.

I've pretty much decided just to choose my other 3 articles from those I've already found and start churning out the abstracts.

This article, Integrating critical Web skills and content knowledge:  Development and evaluation of a 5th grade educational program, by Els Kuiper, Monique Volman, and Jan Terwel, comes from Computers in Human Behavior.  I was trying to abstract a different article from this edition of CIHB, but it was a review of the other studies published in the same issue of the journal.  Once I figured that out, I went and selected the actual studies I wanted to focus on to use here.  I don't know why it took me so long to figure this out.  In the future, I hope I'll remember this and figure it out more quickly.

The authors make an interesting point:  "The Web certainly is a potentially useful suppplement to the educational tools traditionally used in the classroom.  However, it has not been designed for use by children, nor for use in educational settings."  I can't believe this never occurred to me.

More on this thought:    "Children's navigational skills often are [better than the teacher's], but when it comes to searching, processing and evaluating skills the picture is different."  Children may be confident Web users, but they don't actually have adequate searching, processing, and evaluating skills (multiple studies cited on that point).

As a result of those studies, multiple recent LIS studies focused on children's Web information seeking behavior.  They generally focus on search processes, but don't address the "processing the information" phase.

Educational researchers are more focused on how the Web may be used for educational goals.

(aside:  teacher librarian should be the "liason" between LIS research findings and Educational research findings.  I don't know any teachers who read primary research unless they are taking courses themselves.  As a TL, a regular "research corner" type of communication, whether it's at a staff meeting or some other form of communication, could be useful.  Awesome, if I do get a job as a TL I'll be reading journal articles forever, happy joy.)

Ed research focuses on conditions for using the web in an educational setting.  Students' lack of Web skills is often countered by offering scaffolds such as preselection of websites (I just mentioned in a review for my tween resources class that, while KidsClick! might be a great way to introduce students to searching the Web, the fact that content is pre-screened means kids don't really have to evaluate it for authority or appropriateness, which is half the point of teaching them to do a search.)

So:  LIS research focuses on skills, Ed rsch focuses on products of web use.  Additonal researchers have been looking at reading comprehension processes, and the differences between reading on the Web and reading print resources.  What skills do students need to construct knowledge from Web resources?

All interesting areas of research.  I'm pretty sure I could just spend a year reading research and doing nothing with it, synthesizing everything.  I really would like to write a "manual" of best practices for the TL, which probably already exists somewhere.  Of course, no one wants to hear that from someone who hasn't actually done the job. . .

The research that exists on teaching web skills is mostly aimed at upper grade and university students.  "good practices" that currently exist are not based on research (teachers just making stuff up as they go?).

This study aims to fill the gap between "good practices" and theories on how students should learn to manage the Web.    It focuses on teaching Web literacy skills in an integrated way, in this case focused on a unit on healthy food.

Web Literacy:  the ability to handle the Web critically.  An umbrella term comprising various skills regarding the critical and meaningful use of the Web, including good searching skills, identification of information needs, cyber safety, how to deal with reading challenges such as hypertext that "makes high demands on critical reading skills because it invites the reader to follow his or her own path through Web texts."  Also, the ability to "read" non-textual information elements such as illustrations and animations and to relate those to the information in the text.

For this research, they focus on three categories of skills:

1. web searching skills
1. ability to define appropriate key words
2. ability to locate appropriate information
2. web reading skills
1. ability to handle hypertext elements
2. ability to explore great amounts of diverse information
3. knowing what information to use and explore
4. knowing what information to ignore
3. web evaluating skills
1. ability to assess the relevance of info
2. ability to assess the reliability of info
3. ability to assess the authority of info

A useful list!

Beliefs of authors:  Socio-constructivist theories on teaching and learning--students should be activated to construct their own knowledge, building on what they already know and can do.  Collaboration  with students can enhance knowledge building since it challenges students to assume an active role.  Role of teacher is to provide students with support in their learning processes.

Aside:  just a thought about how our entire educational system is obsessed with PRODUCT.  Grades are based on assessment results.  No consideration is given to the PROCESS of learning, which it seems is where the actual learning takes place.  I have no solutions to offer, just thinking "that's messed up."

Beliefs reflected in the alternation of teacher-guided instruction, whole class discussion, and individual or group work.  Elements of constructivist learning environment:  ill-defined, authentic problem that drives student learning, teacher support through modeling, coaching, and scaffolding, and the use of a variety of learning tools (Jonassen, 1999).

How do those learning principles connect with the aim of teaching critical Web skills?

• web skills are aquired within a relevant and meaningful context, as part of a content-area assignment, not in isolation
• students should gain insight into the connection and interrelatedness of these skills and their functionality (transfer to future learning endeavors)
• "Although randomly surfing is a preferred activity by both children and adults, at school children have the opportunity to experience the advantages of using Web skills."

Many teachers do not have these skills, especially those who were educated before the Internet became prominent.  I was thinking earlier today that if doctors just hunkered down in what they learned in med school and refused to embrace new technologies, medications, or techniques, people would be outraged.  Yet this is what often happens with teachers, and we just let them teach how they want to teach because it's their classroom.  That mode of thinking is certainly outdated, and we need to change the way schools are structured to reflect the new paradigm of education technology has created.

This would be much faster if I'd stop inserting my little soap boxes, but I suppose this is how I process information and construct meaning.

The lesson:  8 weeks of lessons, including web searching, reading, adn evaluating skills.  Students got structured assignments, all focused on aspects of healthy food.  Used or required use of websites on the subject.  Teachers discussed both the Web skills adn the subject with the students.

Guiding Questions:

1. How do the teachers implement the program and how do contextual factors influence the realization of the program?
2. What are the learning results of the program in the participating classes in terms of both content knowledge and Web skills?

(pause--time to work in my daughter's classroom--I'll be back later)

Ok, back to work:

Method:

Subjects:  4 5th grade teachers (3 male, 1 female) from 4 different schools; 82 students (43 male, 39 female, mean age 10.4 years.  Classes differed in size, teacher experience, teaching style, teacher's Web skills, ethnic and socio-economic background, and reading ability.  All teachers were convinced of the value of teaching Web literacy skills and were willing to practice a more socio-constructivist teaching style for the purposes of the study.  Main difference in classes:  main language spoken at home and parents' native country.  No significant difference in Internet connection at home, time students spent on the computer, self-reported Web skills, and preference for books vs. Web as information source.


Environment:  All schools had a traditional view on education--teacher-directed, fixed curricula, little experience with collaborative learning and project work.   All had ample ICT facilities and teachers and students were accustomed to working with various applications.

• School 1:  suburban, lower class Turkish or Moroccan families.  Participating class also has white lower middle class students and a refugee from Afghanistan.  Good ICT facilities.  6 computers in the classroom.  Teacher has worked at the site for 5 years and views the study as a chance to practice project work and stimulate student collaboration.  Students are weak readers (score of 39 vs. national average of 49).  Several students present behavior problems; as a result, teacher has very strict class rules.
• School 2:  suburban, mixed population--white lower middle class and middle class, immigrants (Surinam, Turkish, Moroccan).  Traditoinal views on education.  ICT use integrated into curriculum.  Teacher is a "trainee teacher" in his last year of training.  He teaches for 2 days per week under supervision of an experienced teacher who is not present for most of the study's lessons.  Class of 31 students, lots of animosity between students, particularly boys.  As a result of behavior issues, principal split up the class.  Half the class did not finish the program as a result.  Average reading score of 16 students remaining in the class is 44.7.
• School 3:  near the center of the same town as school B.  white lower and middle class families.  good ICT facilities.  Half the class is staying in the classroom during 2 computer lessons.  TEacher has 25 years experience.  Views herslef as an ignorant computer/Web user; spent a lot of time during hte program practicing her own skills.  Class of 26, many active students, reading score average 49.4 (close to average of 49).
• School 4:  small town, white upper middle class, good computer facilities.  5 years experience.  Teaching style is directive and strict, expects students to be polite and obey class rules.  Experienced in using the computer/Web in teaching.  Average reading score of 45.4, but much diversity between students.

Program:  8 weekly lessons of 1.5-2 hours each on the subject of "healthy food."  Related to but not restricted to schools' curricular goals. "eased" into socio-constructivist learning by using elements of structured teaching combined with class discussion and student collaboration.  First 5 lessons focused on acquiring Web searching, reading, and eval skills.  Last 3 aimed at integrating the Web skills and specific content knowledge about healthy food.  (assignments)

First 5 lessons:  begin w/ teacher instruction and discussion, followed by pairs at the computer.  Instruction on web skills given both during and after discussions.  Student pairs given workbook with assignmetns and background info on several web sills.  Teacher supported students as necessary.  After computer time, class discussed the work and challenges; teacher used projector to model the desired skills together with students.

Last 3 lessons:  students given an assignment on one aspect of healthy food.  Assignments connected to home activities (eating diaries and collecting food labels).  Students were to search the Web for specific info and had to write based on that info.  Ex:  compare own eating habits to healthy eating habit guidelines.  Students were meant to work more independently than in the previous lesson, but teacher did discuss assignments in detail and support them during their work. 

Teachers given teaching manual describing all lessons in detail, learning goals, necessary preparation.  5 hour teacher training course, focused on aspects as background and learning goals of the program, design and content of lessons, necessary teaching skills.

Data collection:  lesson observation, field notes, face to face teacher interviews, student interviews, student questionnaires, final student assignments.  Variety of data sources = triangulation of data.

• observations, field notes, interviews:  focused on teachers' actions     and conversations between teachers and students.  Videotaped every other week and transcribed (every lesson plan videoed in 2 different classes).  Field notes serve as supplementary observation data.  Observation checklists (teacher instruction, student involvement, class climate, way teacher supported students.  Field notes = primary material in data analysis = direction for later observations.  Teacher interview every other week and maintained diaries of all lessons, focused on implementation of the program and student learning processes.  Asked to share opinion of program w/ researchers, which allowed researchers to compare their observations with teacher experiences.
• student questionnaires, observations, interviews w/ students, final assignments:  76 of 82 students filled out questionnaire both before and after program.  Focused on aspects of studetns' backgrounds, attitudes toward computers and the Web, 10 knowledge items on subject of healthy food and 15 knowledge items on searching and evaluating (mult choice).  Low reliability scores.  (are they telling me their test didn't really measure what they wanted it to measure??).  In each class 3 student pairs were selected and more intensively observed, using a checklist.  Those students were also interviewed every other week.  Aimed for diversity, choosing students of mixed gender and ability.  Assignments also captured using Camtasia Studio screen recording software, which had glitches in assignment 6 and schools 1 and 2 b/c the website for the assignment was "under construction" on that day.

I am totally confused by the assignments.  In the previous paragraphs, the authors said the unit was focused on healthy eating and my understanding was that instruction in web skills would be focused there.  However, the sample assignments have nothing to do with healthy eating.  Maybe they taught the web skills in isolation and then hoped for transfer when it was time to do the healthy eating stuff?

Study design/data analysis:

• phase 1:  
• in-class description of implementation of the program in each lcass, cross-analysis to determine which contextual factors at the class level affected student learning in the program. 
• Analysis of lesson observations/field notes/teacher interviews:  focal points:
• way teachers gave instruction on web skills and discussed student exercises
• way teacher and student discussed web skills and assignments
• way teacher supported students during computer work
• way students collaborated
• student involvement

• videotapes and observations combined, key events described.  Each classroom characterized by identifying which elements were present.  
• Way teacher worked with provided materials was analyzed.
• teacher interview transcripts analyzed with a view to the focal points and with a focus on teacher reflection.

• Analysis of student interviews/observations/questionnaires/final assignments:
• focused on student opinion on program  materials and how their teacher worked with it, and on program usefulness
• answers on knowledge items on questionnaires scored, both for entire group and individual 4 classes.  T-tests compared mean scores of 4 classes.
• screen/audio recordings of final assignments transcribed.  
• assignments 1 and 2 analyzed with the help of a list of web searching, reading, and evaluating strategies the program introduced.  (strictly separated into the 3 categories, so reading strategies restricted to reading on a specific website, not search engine results.)  Designed a coding procedure to account for different searching/reading needs which helped calculate each pair's searching adequacy score.
• assignments 4-6 focused on an overview of arguments students used when evaluating web info.
• Data from multiple sources analyzed in relation to each other and between classes.

Results:

•  Within each class:
• School 1:  student pairs were able to work together in the actual classroom, which means students could work at other times during the week and the teacher could guide them closely.  Reading ability was an issue, and students were not accustomed to such independent work.  Students liked using the computer and the Web and liked being part of a research study.  They looked forward to the lessons.  The teacher's approach to discussion was to ask a question and either wait for raised hands or give each student a turn.  He did not encourage discussion between students, instead focusing on giving all students an "equal opportunity" to answer.  Despite that, boys talked more than girls.  Students seemed unused to discussing their own opinions, possibly influenced by difficulty speaking Dutch fluently.  Teacher followed the lesson plan literally.  He was surprised at how well the students collaborated and worked to finish the exercises.  After the program, he used the Web in his lessons more frequently and continued to remind students of the Web skills.  "In his view, the students had learned a lot during the lessons, although he would have liked to spend more time on the subject of healthy food."
• School 2:  Existing behavior problems affected this class, often interrupting lessons, which often did not go as expected.  Class discussions were often interrupted by student conflict.  Instruction time took longer than estimated and sometimes could not be finished.  The arrangement of the computer room (half the class worked in the room while the other half had lessons with a different teacher) meant a tight time schedule, and often students did not finish their work.  Behavior problems also prevented the teacher from supporting student work as much as needed.  After the principal split the class in half, the atmosphere changed and the teacher was able to spend more time on class discussions and supporting students.  The teacher is positive about the program not only as a way to teach Web literacy but also as a way to practice supporting students in project learning.  He mentioned students had problems reading the student workbooks, and the length of exercises in workbooks was an issue.  
• School 3:  The teacher took ample time for discussion, which became lively and entertaining.  From the 3rd lesson on, she used a computer projector in all lessons, directing the students' attention to the lesson themes and modeling Web skills.  She talked about both content and Web skills learned in other lessons (made connections across the curriculum, both in terms of healthy food content and web skills), outside program time.  She was able to support student learning despite her lack of experience with the Web, particularly reading and evaluationg Web information.  Most pairs worked well together, but the teacher supported student pairs in collaborating in every lesson.  The teacher found it sometimes difficult to support students during computer work or recognize their problems.  Some lessons were too long, and she felt the program in itself was too long--students got bored after the 5th or 6th week.  Both teacher and students felt the student materials were too elaborate, requiring a lot of reading, which was a challenge for weaker readers.  She was satisfied with how the program worked in her class and felt students learned both Web skills and content on healthy food, as well as how to work together and express their opinions both verbally and in text.
• School 4:  Due to school projects and illness, the program took 12 weeks rather than 8, resulting in fragmentation.  Students like the program because they got to use the Web, but didn't seem to realize what the program was about.  The teacher did not begin by discussing the program's goals with the students, and either skipped class discussion as part of the lessons or invested little time in them.  Instruction was more top-down, with students taking a more passive role and the teacher not really engaging them as active participants in the discussion.  Teacher focus was on providing students the "right answer" and correcting behavior, which meant spontaneous remarks were not welcome.  During computer work, the class was divided, but the teacher had to supervise both the students on the computers and the ones in the classroom.  As a result there was insufficient student supervision.  Some played games rather than work on the exercises.  Others got stuck.  The teacher was unhappy with this but didn't do anything to solve it, characterizing the students as restless and "difficult," partly because the exercises were too hard for them and partly because they gave up easily.  The teacher was not satisfied with the way the program worked out for his class.  He thought the learning goals were useful and necessary, but preferred shorter lessons more focused on sub-skills that were easier for students to manage.

•  Cross-class comparison:
• teachers:  work conditions were not comparable for all teachers, and student populations were different, and teachers had different styles.  Discussions moved in very different directions: some were active and lively and others were strictly teacher question student answer with no dialogue at all.  Teacher experience was also a factor.  Teachers at schools 1 and 3 put more time and effort into the program.  The teacher in school 3 practiced all student exercises so she could better support students in their learning.  Use of computer projector had a positive impact on learning.  Both teachers took the time to discuss collaborative work both before and after the lessons.  All teachers struggled with fitting the lessons into the allocated time.  Introduction, instruction, and discussion took more time than expected, and not all classrooms made allowing students to finish later possible.  Teachers at schools 1 and 3 paid attention to both content and web skill learning goals, connecting content to other school subjects.  The teacher at school 4 was critical of the program.  The researchers feel this is because the socio-constructivist learning principles did not match his teaching style.  Both school 1 and 4 teachers had a teacher-directed style, but the teacher at school 2 was able to work with the program in a way that served both the program's goals and his own style.  He welcomed the opportunity to try out a new way of teaching.  The teacher at school 4 did not seem to be aware how his teaching affected class discussions, student motivation, and how they worked with the program.
• all teachers had difficulty with the last 3 lessons (web searching, reading, and evaluating had to be integrated and applied).  Students were not used to composing their own texts or expressing their opinion in writing.  Suggestions were to disconnect the assignments from the rest of the lesson or take more time to support students and practice writing skills before the program. 
• Teachers initial opinions of learning goals remained the same.  The recognized student problems with searching, reading and evaluating Web information more clearly after hte program.  Reading Web content was a particular area of problems for students; teachers mentioned "fleeting" behavior and tendency for students to lose focus quickly.  The low reading levels made it difficult for students to work independently in their workbooks.  Teachers in school 1 and 3 had a more positive opinion of what students had learned in the program.
• All teachers felt 8 weeks was too short a time to expect much visible results.  They advocate splitting up the program into 3 or 4 smaller ones throughout the school year.  Students had come across web skills they had never practiced or even discussed before, particularly the reading and evaluating skills.  Students had trouble with reading but enjoyed evaluating because they got to express their opinions.
• Students:
• Students in schools 1 and 3 were positive about the program, but critical of lessons in which they had to read a lot.  Some exercises were difficult and too long.  They worked well together and were on task.  Students in schools 2 and 4 were more critical of program.  Esp. in school 4, they were bored with the program or didn't like how the instruction was delivered or the discussions afterwards.  Not having heard the goals (as a discussion) resulted in students not knowing why they were doing the work and made them think they could learn everything in the program at home on their own computers.  At school 2, the negative classroom atmosphere became more important than the program.  School 1 students mentioned they had learned better web searching skills.  School 2 students mentioned being more critical of websites following the program and mentioned specific reading strategies (such as using menus).
• Questionnaires:  
• Students were more likely to state there was a difference between info found in books vs the web after the program.  When asked why, answers focused on critical statements regarding authority.  
• All classes showed improvement in the content area (healthy food), although schools 2 and 3 showed little progress, possibly because their scores on the pre-test were relatively high in 3.
• scores on web skills are higher after the program, with schools 3 and 4 being statistically significant.  The differences in program implementation are not reflected in the scores.

• Final assignments
• students mainly use google when searching for information despite class discussion on other search strategies and limitations of using google.
• usually used single or multiple search terms, but sometimes typed in the whole assignment or used spoken language.
• when reading, students mostly used scanning strategies and only sometimes used menus or links, often failing to recognize relevant links when they came across them.
• They also ignored relevant headings.
• students never questioned the reliability of a specific website, though they sometimes paid attention to the usefulness in terms of information relevance (did it have the answer).
• The table in the article shows that, on lesson 2, students were more likely to use a children's search engine or the search option within a specific website.  Non-reading increased between assignment 1 and 2. 
• Researcher analysis:
• students act impulsively and begin by "trying" something to see if it works. 
• Better performing students showed more patience, had the ability to use appropriate searching and reading strategies, and were flexible.
• students who wanted quick results were easily frustrated, particularly with reading Web texts.
• tended to overlook headings that contained useful info
• although low scores of some pairs reflect low reading levels, there was not a relation between reading skills and performance; some pairs with high reading levels did not do well.  
• in general , weakest readers showed less adequate web behavior than strongest, they also seemed to have "bright moments" or luck.  Strong readers also tried irrelevant strategies "just for fun," like typing a whole question in the search box though they knew it was not a good strategy.
• weaker students tended to stay at one strategy they thought was useful or try several strategies without really exploring them, without reflection or adaptation.  Stronger pairs were more reflective, but some were inflexible or too convinced of their capabilities ("I know it must be here" or "I always do it this way and it works").
• REsults are inconsistent--many used sophisticated searching and reading skills at moments but did not do so consistently.
• website appearance had the most influence on student opinoin of a website.  many students mentioned content, both amount and quality.  Only 2 pairs navigated deeply into the website, connecting information and commenting on the appropriateness of pictures or relation between website mission and pictures and text.  Others looked at the homepage or navigated without reading content.
• Students were better at identifying the intention behind the website, mentioning labels they had learned in class, and mentioning more than one label, but often this was done without really reading.
• on the last assignment, 4 of the 6 pairs recognized that the website was for parents, based on type of links or "boring information" on the site.  but some based their opinion on superficial info like colors/font.
• 
  
• Conclusions:
• Workability:  teachers were able to work with the teaching materials, although it worked better for some than others and length/difficulty was an issue.
• Limitations:  lessons too long to be finished in the estimated time, searching skills were only one lesson, which made it "dense."  Particularly for struggling readers, exercises in the workbook were difficult and time consuming, and students did not like the amount of reading in the workbooks.  Students and teachers preferred the evaluating skills lesson.  Students liked expressing their own opinions
• Teachers suggested splitting up the program in 3 or 4 smaller projects, giving students the opportunity to practice all skills in a project of their own choice at the end of the year.
• Different conditions impacted the results.  Teachers must be willing ot invest time and effort into the program.  Discussing design and learning goals of the program was important.  
• use of technology tools increased student learning by focusing attention and promoting discussion and by allowing the teacher to model web behavior.
• conditions on the class and school level are relevant.
• the way computers and supervision are organized at the school is important; one teacher can't support all students at once, but splitting up the class means there must be a 2nd adult.
• teaching style impacted results--teachers who were able to connect socio-constructivist elements with their own style felt mor positive about the program and had students who were more positive as well.
• while all classes show gains, the researchers mention the low reliability of their tests and the lack of a control group.  Also, children learn a lot about the web outside school.
• students are inconsistent web users who do not always act upon the skills they have learned.  
• students showed little planning behavior while searching.
• patience is a characteristic of stronger performing students.
• students can use and name aspects of evaluating web info, but did not truly investigate website content.
• teachers mus tstay aware both of educational practice and research of emerging digital divide in terms of literacy skills.  
• The web is a textual resource, often more complex than printed text, making it a challenge for weaker readers.  Specific support for weaker readers is called for.
• teaching content and web literacy skills together may be possble, but requires time/computers/room/assistance for students.  the researchers do not feel the program should be split into smaller lessons because the three categories overlap and are mutually connected.  Integrating web skills as a whole may increase flexibility.
• suggest developing lessons focusing on embedding web literacy skills within inquiry activities. 
• call for more research on meta-cognitive skills (planning, monitoring, relfecting) when using the web for knowledge construction, particularly with younger students.
• disconnect between knowing what they "should" do and actually doing it--perhaps b/c of computer use outside school?

My thoughts:  It's hard to know what to make of this study because there were so many variables within/between each classroom.  It's clear that teachers who involve students in the lesson by sharing lesson goals and encouraging true discussion are more effective (and I'd bet they are more effective at teaching pretty much anything).  Still, the lack of "transfer" from what students KNOW to do and actually seeing them do it when using the Web is frustrating.    I disagree with the authors about not breaking up the lesson into smaller parts.  While I understand their concern, we are talking about 10 year olds, and they need to focus on one skill at a time.  Or, really, they need to focus on one skill, then use it plus another on the next assignment, etc.

The bottom line is that students want to get done quickly, so the best way to get them to use better searching/reading strategies is to show them that it saves them time in the long run.  In my opinion. . .

I realize it's probably annoying to read my long summary/notes of these articles, but it helps me synthesize everything so I can write a decent abstract. :)  Plus I very rarely (never) get to read an entire article in one sitting, so having these notes helps me remind myself what I'd been reading before I was forced to stop. 

Themes, trends, interests.

My attention has been pulled in multiple directions lately.  I have managed to get two of my five abstracts written (although the 2nd one clearly needs some revision--apparently when you don't clearly understand all of an article your abstract won't make a lot of sense--shocking, that).  I've been doing a lot of reading on tween Internet use for my resources for tweens class, and some of that is kind-of-sort-of related here.  I've also been thinking about the direction I want to take in my research methods course and where I want to focus.

Here are some thoughts:

• Integrating technology (and web 2.0 tools) in curriculum as a teacher librarian/serving as a site technology leader, etc.  Basically, anything focused on teacher librarians and technology in a way that enhances teaching and learning.
• The teacher librarian as a teacher leader.  This would allow me to incorporate things like technology but also focus on more traditional information seeking skills and processes, building common terminology across the curriculum, etc.
• Teacher Librarian "best practices."  This is kind of a cop-out focus area since it really just lets me choose anything I am interested in regarding teacher librarianship.  OR it could serve as a useful tool and force me to identify specific areas of teacher librarianship (probably pulled from the state standards) and investigate each of them.  And it would include things previously mentioned.  Is it too broad?

On a related topic, but not really an area I could use for my course, is the need for peer-reviewed research papers focused on middle school and elementary students and information seeking, technology use, etc.  A lot of what I found when looking for information for my tweens class was just something written by a teacher based on anecdotal information or what works for them.  When I tried to find peer-reviewed articles on what tweens are doing online, etc., there weren't many.  And very rarely did these less formal articles list their sources.  Why do teachers (specifically) do this?  Do doctors publish non-peer-reviewed "I did this with my patient and it worked, you should try it" type of articles?  I highly doubt it.

Articles from Joanne

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ633246

Jia Rong Wen, Wen Ling Shih, Exploring the information literacy competence standards 

for elementary and high school teachers, Computers & Education, Volume 50, Issue 3,

April 2008, Pages 787-806, ISSN 0360-1315, 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.08.011.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131506001333)
Keywords: Information literacy competence; Competence standards; Delphi technique

 

Herring & Bush: Info Literacy & Transfer

Key research questions in the paper:

• How did teachers define information literacy and transfer?
• What was the teachers' experience of using the New South Wales information literacy skills model with their students?
• What evidence did teachers find of the transfer of ils amongst their students?
• What factors may be identified that contribute to establishing a school wide culture of transfer of ils across time and subjects?
• What impact might the school executive have on establishing a culture of transfer of ils?

So, based on those, this article is one I should include in my abstract assignment.  I need to know more about the New South Wales information literacy skills model.   This is an issue I often have with academic journal articles.  There is usually an assumption that those reading know the context of the "discussion."  Apart from beginning with scrolls, everyone has to come into the discussion at some point.

But anyway.

1.  The article admits there is no agreed definition of "information literacy."  Hallelujah, it's not just me.  NSW is "the information process."  Stages:  defining, locating, selecting, organizing, presenting, and assessing.  Each stage represents a number of skills.  In the U.S. we tend to use "The Big 6."  I think I just deleted a pdf of an article about The Big 6 b/c it didn't look scholarly but maybe I should search for some and read them.

2.  Some criticize the use of any model b/c information seeking is an individual process.  The response, in general, is that we should teach a model and show students how to adapt it to fit their own style of information seeking.  This seems reasonable to me because what is the alternative--teach them nothing?  Have everyone re-invent the wheel for every student?

3.  Past research has focused on improvement of models:  students' identification of purpose, question formulation, concept mapping, information seeking, information evaluation, and the use of information and ideas in assignment presentation.  This paper focuses on transfer (more below).

4.  Educators do not agree upon one definition or on students' ability to transfer knowledge or skills from one setting to the next.  In this article, the authors feel they can show evidence of transfer in students.  Past research (Haskell) indicates that transfer is likely to be limited unless it is specifically addressed by staff and unless staff believe that encouraging students to transfer knowledge is valuable.  (why would an educator not want students to apply what they learn to other areas of learning??)

5.  Method used:  constructivist grounded analysis approach.  Did not set out to prove a hypotheses, used coding to identify what is happening in the data (as opposed to iding repeated themes), interprets the data (vs. merely reporting, allows for establishing categories), categories tested by researcher, coded data re-examined, can lead to theory development.

Data collection/study itself:

Teachers for grades 3-6 agreed to incorporate specific information literacy terminology into their science and (from what I can tell) social studies lessons.  Participating teachers were given a diary with sections for each of the 6 IL steps.  They recorded their own observations of "what they perceived their studetns' understanding and degree of completion of individual il steps to be."  Posters of the 6 steps were displayed in the classroom.  Teachers were also interviewed at the end of the term.  Before the next term, teachers were asked not to explicitly teach IL skills.  They were given comment sheets in lieu of diaries an asked to record observations at weekly intervals, recording observations of transfer.  Principals were interviewed about definitions and beliefs about il and transfer.

Data analysis:  data coded, final categories established after coding.  B/c of small size of study, no theory was set forth.  Conclusions are based on coded/categorized data.

Conclusions:

• diary observations:  there was extensive scaffolding for students, including providing defining questions (who am I looking for, what type of info do I need, why do I need the info?), guidance on how to select info or organize it, or how to format their final products.  Students did well with defining, locating, and presenting, but many had trouble with selecting.  This may have been b/c of low reading comprehension skills. Some reported that students seemed overwhelmed by information available.  Teachers did not comment on student search skills. (interesting).  Assessing stage was largely neglected by the teachers (or misunderstood to mean teacher reflection rather than student metacognitian).  The use of the diary/participation in the study resulted in teachers paying much more attention to students' use of ils than in the past.
• teacher interviews:  
• definitions of info literacy varied.  "There was no agreement amongst the teachers about what might constitute information literacy in the school context."  (this is why we need a dedicated TL)
• Most agreed the NSW model was helpful and that having a common terminology was important for students across grade levels.  They found the model easy to incorporate into their own teaching styles and found it forced them to focus on addressing gaps in student understanding.  Problems with the model included having too many steps (some could be combined), presenting too great a challenge for less able students (requiring more direct teacher help), and not helping with root issues like poor reading skills.  (students with poor reading comprehension were overwhelmed by information, particularly on websites, and the ils model did not help them with that problem).  Teachers all identified a need for differentiation.
• Teachers agreed that student ability to transfer ils over time/subjects would vary.  Most thought students could transfer the defining and locating steps, but doubted student ability to transfer all stages.  Most felt transfer would only really happen if teachers consistently taught the same model from year to year (in other words, one term's instruction was not enough for transfer to occur).  
• Teacher comments:  Teachers insisted scaffolding was needed for lower ability students.  Teachers in years 4-6 indicated evidence of transfer.  Year 3 teachers didn't see the transfer, perhaps because of their own narrow interpretations of the skills (related only to a formal assessment task).  Students showed the most improvement in defining and locating.  "most students showed an improved awareness of identifying a clear purpose for their information gathering, and most students appeared to have improved their web searching."  "Less able students still found some of the concepts in the model difficult to understand, whereas the most able students had incorporated the model as a whole."  Year 6 teachers noted improvement in how students assessed and organized information.  "less cutting and pasting. . .paragraphs better sequenced."  
• teacher interviews end of term 3:  
• information literacy:  teachers increased their understanding of info literacy and, in general, viewed it in a wider context, though some still viewed it as a process rather than a way of thinking.   Year 6 teachers referred to students taking a more critical approach to ils.  All teachers felt that having one model for staff and students was beneficial.  Shared terminology was also viewed as beneficial, and teachers felt that using the nsw model would become "second nature" to students.  High ability students demonstrated the most benefit, but all students benefited.  Less able students still needed "considerable support."  Teachers identified the need for teacher training, making sure everyone understood the NSW model and embedded it in their lessons, using the shared terminology.  Need for consistent reminders at staff meetings was mentioned.
• transfer:  teacher understanding of transfer had increased, attributed by teachers to discussions among themselves and with the tl.  Teachers saw a need for the whole school to focus more on transfer.  Teachers saw evidence of transfer among most students, more with high ability and less with lower ability students.  Teachers saw value in transfer but did not all agree that schools could "be seen to have culture of transfer."  One teacher who she wasn't sure (transfer happened) b/c she hadn't seen what others were doing.  To me, this means teachers need to talk to each other over grade levels/subject areas more often.
• Principal interviews:  (2 b/c one left in middle of study)  both agreed that developing information literacy was a high priority for the school.  1 said there had been considerable work in ils (b/c of teacher librarian), 2 said it had been done but that ils needed to be embedded in assessment.  Both saw culture of transfer as desirable but difficult to achieve.  1 said there should be a whole school approach with leadership from admin and tl.  2 said all staff must be involved.  Both agreed culture of transfer could only be attained with a combo of top down and bottom up approaches--staff need to feel they are involved in developing the culture of transfer.  Both felt it would be a gradual process, not something that could be imposed.

Discussion:

3 categories identified by researchers:  1.  teachers' adoption of the NSW model, 2. teachers' critical views on transfer, and 3. teachers' adn principals critical views on establishing a cutlure of transfer in the school.  Collaboration between teachers and TL is an underlying theme in all 3 categories.

1.  Teachers saw value in NSW model, noted improvement in students, particularly in planning for learning tasks and information seeking/use.  Evident that teachers had paid little attention to ex;licity leacthing ils in the past.

2.  At beginning, teachers knowledge of transfer was limited.  While they saw it of great value in principle, little attention was paid to transfer in the school.  Involved teachers took a "more critical view" of transfer, demonstrated by differentiation between groups (identifying those who could transfer skills easily vs. those who needed more scaffolding).

3.  Teachers and principals view establishing a culture of transfer as important, but difficult to achieve.  Factors which might influence developing a culture of transfer:  common terminology, formal and informal discussion of transfer within the school, and leadership on part of principal.

"Underpinning the above categories is the need for collaboration between the school staff and the school librarian."

Conclusions:  "To be influential in establishing a culture of transfer in the school, teacher librarians should consider playing an active role in:

• in-service training for all staff to establish clear understanding of meaning of transfer and information literacy
• gaining support from administrators
• establishing a close liason between teachers and tl and tl and principal
• embedding ils, including higher order thinking skills, in school curriculum
• ensuring a consistent approach to ils in the school via use of shared terminology across the school
• providing visual reminders of il in every classroom (posters)
• developing strategies for improving students' use of information literacy skills and practices in a virtual environment.

My response:  There are a lot of studies showing that student achievement is higher in schools where trained tls are involved in curriculum planning.  This study, though small, shows WHY that is true--because the TL can ensure that teachers all understand ILS themselves and are using common terminology to explain them to students, because TLs can consistently remind and assist teachers in embedding ils in their lessons, and because TLs can help teach and reinforce those skills across curriculum areas and grade levels.   While educators like to think they do this type of thing on their own, the truth is that teachers often teach in an isolated bubble, and the more budgets shrink, the more teachers are asked to do in their already limited time.  Having a TL to coordinate this type of collaboration and consistency across a school is invaluable.  CAN it be done without a TL?  Maybe, if dept/grade level heads take up that role.  But it will be done less consistently, and teachers will eventually get tired and go back to doing what they have always done in the past.

Frustrating given the current state of things in CA, but maybe I can help correct this issue in my own children's school at least.

I am feeling a bit better about my "focus area" and choosing articles for abstracts.  This one will be among them.  I'm kind of focusing on teaching and learning and the role of the teacher librarian, I guess.