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.