January 2021 – Seoul Learning

Assessment #2_Part B: Reflection

Assessment #2_Part B: Reflection

“The foundation of a school library programme is its collection” (Easley, 2017, p. 21)

Enokson. (2010). Adding a little shoe spice to the stacks. [Photograph]. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/47823583@N03/4993069751

I have learnt so much in ETL503 Resourcing the Curriculum. For starters, I didn’t even know that the resources in the library were called “a collection!” Before starting this Masters program, I realised that I viewed the collection as static (Seewald, 2021, Jan 10). In my mind, resources miraculously appeared and then just….stayed. Instead, a school library collection should be dynamic and relevant. I had no idea the intricate processes behind developing, maintaining and evaluating a school library collection (Seewald, 2021, Jan 10_Forum 5.1). I am gaining a whole new respect for what goes on behind the scenes.

Recorded in an early blog post, I sought out our high school teacher librarian (TL) for some help to get my head around some of the new terminology and how they translate into practice (Seewald, 2020, Dec 5). The TL also gave me a copy of our collection development policy (CDP). I’m pleased we have one, but there are obvious gaps that I have now been able to identify due to undertaking ETL503.

I’d like to highlight four points (although there are many more) that have stood out to me over the course of working through the subject.

Firstly, I’m appreciating the importance of a CDP. It provides for the purpose of a collection, guidance in selecting and deselection for that collection, a foundation for ensuring equal access to that collection, a process to follow when the collection is challenged and the direction for the future of the collection (Braxton, 2018; Johnson, 2018; Kimmel, 2014). What I appreciate most about the CDP is that it does not have to be a standardized document, but can (and definitely should) reflect the local context of the school (Hughes-Hassell & Mancall, 2005, p. 35).

I was surprised to read a number of posts from fellow students who work in libraries, stating that they do not have CDPs (Forum 6.1). I’m a naïve newbie, and have not yet worked in the library trenches, but a library without a CDP seems in my mind to be akin to a ship without a rudder, where the voices who are the loudest may be the only ones heard and decisions may be made without the big picture of the whole collection in mind. Hughes-Hassell & Mancall (2005) highlight the importance of policy as a form of accountability as well as safeguarding the collection users from “individual collector biases” (p. 19). Having said that, the opposite perspective is that CDPs are obsolete and a waste of words (Hazen, 1995; Snow, 1996). Unfortunately the word count limits me from further exploring this debate!

Secondly, in regards to the nature of the collection, it must reflect the learning needs of the school community (Hughes-Hassel & Mancall, 2005, p. 33). As the learning needs of students are ever evolving, the library must be able to match the pace, or be out in front of it. This is easy to write, but I sense it is a mammoth task to undertake, and demands a pro-active role of the TL. Ultimately, the collection should provide a diverse range of resources that will encourage a student “to discover books that speak to their unit interests and needs, and allow them to chart their own personalized course through the process of acquiring knowledge” (Fleishhacker, 2017, p. 26). As a practical example of this, I really liked the thoughtful pairing of fiction and non-fiction books that Fleishhacker (2017) presented when trying to motivate readers through science. It was a snapshot of a very small part of the collection, but one that was deliberately thought out. I acknowledge the challenges that my school in particular would give to a TL in resourcing (and budgeting) the curriculum with the school having multiple different curriculum standards, and some subjects with no standards and thus new units created every year (Seewald, 2021, Jan 6_Forum 3.1).

Thirdly; of particular note is the changing nature of the collection in regards to digital information and the quickly evolving nature of the information landscape. This presents new challenges for the TL in collection development and management (Newsum, 2016, p. 100). There are no hard and fast rules about the balance between physical and digital resources (O’Connell et al., 2015, p. 203) although the collection needs to reflect local context. We have amazingly fast internet in South Korea and a healthy budget for school library use. We are indeed fortunate to have a wide range of e-books, web-based resources and databases but I know others do not have access to such resources. Anecdotally, the majority of our middle school students want a ‘book in hand’ rather than an e-book, while our high school students are heavily dependent on databases and other web based resources for research.

While we need to prepare our students and thus our collections for 21st century learning, this must be done in a thoughtful manner. Newsum (2016) states that “collection development has become a technology integration activity in and of itself” (p. 101) and this serves to highlight our digital, interconnected world. However, I did smile when I read McEwen’s comments defending physical non-fiction books; “everyone knows how to operate a book” (McEwen, 2018, p. 52). He makes a good point. Databases, e-books and web-based resources can contribute enormously to the collection, but not if you cannot access them. Thus easy access to digital and networked resources must be ensured. These are areas that should be reflected in the selection criteria within the CDP.

Fourthly, there is some debate as to whether digital and networked resources should have their own specific selection criteria. I believe that they should (Seewald, 2021, Jan 18_Forum 6.1). The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions argues this too (Johnson et al., 2012, p. 7). The complexities encountered using digital resources (for example licencing, copyright, confidentiality, access, ownership, technical services) warrant careful planning and consideration and thus, specific selection criteria. Kennedy (2005) takes this one step further and argues for a completely separate CDP.

So many things to consider! I have a long way to go in my TL learning journey, but ETL503 has given me a strong foundation upon which to build.

References

Braxton, B. (2018). Sample collection policy. 500 Hats. https://500hats.edublogs.org/policies/sample-collection-policy/#deselection

Easley, M. (2017). Personalized learning environments and effective school library programs. Knowledge Quest, 45(4), 16-23.

Fleishhacker, J. (2017). Collection development. Knowledge Quest, 45(4), 25-31.

Hazen, D. C. (1995). Collection Development Policies in the Information Age. College & Research Libraries, 56(1), 29-31. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_56_01_29

Hughes-Hassell, S., & Mancall, J. C. (2005). Collection management for youth: Responding to the needs of learners. American Library Association.

Johnson, P. (2018). Fundamentals of collection development and management (4th ed.). ALA Editions.

Johnson, S., Evensen, O. G., Gelfand, J., Lammers, G., Sipe, L., & Zilper, N. (2012). Key issues for e-resource collection development: A guide for libraries. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions.

Kennedy, J. (2005). A collection development policy for digital information resources? The Australian Library Journal, 54(3), 238-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2005.10721761

Kimmel, S. C. (2014). Developing collections to empower learners. American Association of School Librarians.

McEwen, I. (2018). Trending now: Nonfiction. Teacher Librarian, 45(3), 50-52.

Newsum, J. M. (2016). School collection development and resource management in digitally rich environments: An initial literature review. School Libraries Worldwide, 22(1), 97-109.

O’Connell, J., Bales, J., & Mitchell, P. (2015). [R]Evolution in reading cultures: 2020 vision for school libraries. The Australian Library Journal, 64(3), 194-208. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2015.1048043

Snow, R. (1996). Wasted words: The written collection development policy and the academic library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 22(3), 191-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-1333(96)90057-9

Assessment 3: Part C_Reflective Practice

Bradley, P. (2012). Library warning poster. [Photograph]. Flicker. https://www.flickr.com/photos/52965040@N00/8073524689

I have been on a journey into the role of the teacher librarian (TL), information literacy and inquiry learning models. Even the ‘basics’ prove challenging, such as the ever growing definitions and types of literacies to be aware of! (Seewald, 2021, Jan 9).

Recently I read Lutpon’s Adding value: Principals’ perceptions of the role of the teacher-librarian (2016), and was pleased to read the positive attributes of the TL as described by the principals. Categories such as curriculum leader, manager, superperson, and connector were assigned (Lupton, 2016, pp.59-61) and it was encouraging to read about the recognition given to great TLs. The TLs were regarded so much more than what Harzell (cited in Farmer, 2007) has described as merely “responsive helpmates” (p. 60). I witnessed the above stated categories (particularly ‘superperson’) in my current school, with a former TL, Judith. I wrote about the teaching of “wisdom” (Sternberg as cited in the Oregon Technology in Education Council, 2007) in my blog (Seewald, 2020, Nov 26). Judith took on this ‘wisdom’ role too. As stated in my very first blog post, working with Judith “had a profound impact on my understanding of the role of a TL” (Seewald, 2020, Nov 22). However, I now realise that this was just the beginning in my exploration of the roles and responsibilities of a TL.

A couple of points from Lupton’s research hit home. The majority of the principals valued the “T” in the TL much more than the “L” (Lupton, 2016, p. 58). Skilled teaching, (particularly in the area of inquiry and ICT) as well as resourcing the curriculum with understanding and insight were highlighted. So much so, that Lupton (2016) has warned that some TLs may “find themselves redundant” (p. 58) if they are focused more on library management rather than on teaching and integrating themselves within the curriculum. As Herring (2007, p.32) states, information literacy is the key role of a TL, and it is educational, as opposed to administrative! This is such an important point to note. It links really well with what Bonanno (2011) has been saying; TLs need to get out there and (not so quietly) show what they can do!

I am still musing over the role of the TL in inquiry teaching. I’ve not seen this done at all, in any of the international schools I have worked at, beyond the occasional stand alone lesson about ‘how to reference’ (Seewald, 2021, Jan 7). I’m struggling to reconcile the expectations of a TL in this area and what I have witnessed in over 20 years of teaching. Most of our readings point to an expectation that the TL is hands-on with inquiry/information literacy teaching. Not an “it’s the icing on the cake if they do this” approach, but more a ‘this is a huge part of the role’.

Why haven’t I seen more of this in practice then? Have I just missed the opportunities? I have always been pretty self sufficient in teaching research skills because they are embedded in my subject criteria of MYP Individuals & Societies, so I have always taken on that responsibility, as outlined in a recent blog post (Seewald, 2021, Jan 9). Have I not seen a TL/subject teacher partnership because of the IB framework I have always worked in – one which expects subject teachers to teach inquiry-based lessons as the ‘norm’ not the ‘exception’? Or is it because we as teachers have really pigeon-holed the role of the TL, with more of the emphasis put on the “L” in “TL”? I suspect it is more of the latter. And that is what I have found so challenging in the past few weeks – confronting what I thought a TL was and recognizing that, in part, my own beliefs have hampered the TL / teacher relationship, of what we could do together in a collaborative partnership.

Another light-bulb moment for me was learning about the information literacy models that I had never heard of before (Seewald, 2021, Jan 9). I would really value working with a TL to implement an agreed upon framework to provide a consistent approach (Seewald, 2021, Jan 10). I can only take students so far with my little ‘Research Booklet”! In addition, the realisation that TLs can be involved in their own research, such as using the SLIM Toolkit (Todd et al., 2005) really brought home to me the wide ranging skills a TL can offer and the importance of evidence-based practice.

References

Data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. (2007, February 27). Oregon Technology in Education Council. Retrieved January 16, 2021, from https://otec.uoregon.edu/data-wisdom.htm

Farmer, L. (2007). Principals: Catalysts for collaboration. School Libraries Worldwide, 13(1), 56-65.

Herring, J. (2007). Teacher librarians and the school library. In S. Ferguson (Ed.), Libraries in the twenty-first century: Charting new directions in information. (pp. 27-42). Chandos Publishing.

Lupton, M. (2016). Adding value: Principals’ perceptions of the role of the teacher-librarian. School Libraries Worldwide, 22(1), 49-61.

Todd, R. J., Kuhlthau, C. C., & Heinström, J. E. (2005). SLIM: A toolkit and handbook for tracking and assessing student learning outcomes of Guided Inquiry through the school library. Centre for International Scholarship in School Libraries at Rutgers University. Retrieved January 16, 2021, from http://eclipse.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2014/03/slimtoolkit.pdf

Weeding the Collection

I’d never thought of collections as a kind of living/breathing element. I really liked the garden metaphor used in “weeding” a collection and it got me thinking about the collection as a whole organism. Before the start of this course, the resources in the library to me were just…..resources in the library. I knew the TL ordered resources as requested by teachers and if it fit within the budget. I had no idea of how resources were managed beyond this. I guess I just thought they turned up magically and were then handled over magically (really just a scan when they were borrowed…) I’m a little embarrassed to admit I did not think beyond this!
Scrappy Annie. (2014) A corner of my back garden. [Photograph]. Flicker. https://www.flickr.com/photos/14903992@N08/14574464013

Johnson’s (2018) usage of words such as “growth, preservation and conservation, storage” (p. 241) also kind of fit into the garden metaphor as well.

Last year, the TL came and said she had some history books she would like to weed and invited me to take a look just in case we still used/needed them. Of course, I was horrified at the stack. Surely we could use these…….sometime? There were a few I could let go, and then there were a few that I couldn’t. They are sitting on the bottom shelf in my classroom at school. I’m never going to use or reference them. Just couldn’t bear the thought of throwing them out. I’m going to need some helping weeding in the library for sure!

Reference

Johnson, P. (2018). Fundamentals of collection development and management. American Library Association.

Guided Inquiry Design: An initial perspective

Ramberg, M. (2006). Questions? [Photograph]. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/40021607@N00/185508448

Disclaimer:

Oh no! I wrote out this rather lengthy post in response to a prompt in Module 5. However, it’s only now that I realise I was supposed to use my TL hat in doing so. But my hat is only in the design stage at the moment, as I’m such a newbie and always seem to revert to my classroom teacher space. I’m sorry Liz, I don’t want to delete it so here it is:

The subjects closest to my heart are MYP Individuals & Societies (I&S) and DP History. Both have heavy research components. As I have taught vertically through the MYP and DP, I notice that those students who have not grasped effective research skills really struggle in DP History, particularly in their Internal Assessment papers and their Extended Essays. MYP I&S’s Criterion B (Thinking Critically) provides the rubric we use for assessment. By the end of Year 10, students should be able to:

Formulate a clear and focused research question and justify its relevance
Formulate and follow and action plan to investigate a research question
Use research methods to collect and record appropriate, varied and relevant information
Evaluate the process and results of the investigation (Individuals & Societies Guide, p. 38)

Criterion B was pretty daunting to teach towards when I first started in the MYP. It seemed like a mountain to climb – how to provide the steps? I was in an IB MYP workshop when a fellow delegate shared a document with processes he had put together in order to reach the above listed goals. I took this document, thanked him profusely and after many modifications, still use it. It’s called the Research Booklet (yes, I know, scintillating title). I’m pretty attached to it by now! The best thing is that it keeps all of the student processes (including the evaluation) in ONE document. It’s then easy to check up on where kids are at, without having to sort through many papers (physical and digital) per student.

After reading through Module 5 about Information LIteracy Models (ILM), I had a bit of a revelation. I was trying to scaffold kids into better research skills with my humble booklet. Great, but without any framework or base to guide me.

I have just started reading about the Information Search Process / Guided Inquiry Design Process (ISP/GID). I absolutely love the fact that the GID is embedded in the research of the ISP, giving it a very strong evidence based practice leaning. The stages of Kuhlthau’s ISP make total sense to me – I have seen it over and over again in students (and myself!) without ever putting a name to it. It was so refreshing to read about the ISP – because it acknowledges the affective component of researching – which if the frustration becomes overwhelming – stops the research process altogether. To see student’s thoughts, feelings and actions captured in one model and how they “interplay across time within the context of a traditional research assignment” (Kuhlthau & Maniotes, 2014, p. 10) was very powerful. Finally, someone was listening to the kids and trying to see and understand the process through their eyes!

I obviously need to read deeper about GID. My initial thoughts in regards to it include an appreciation that the GID stages are thoughtful and don’t skip straight to formulating questions. Too often I have seen this with students as they rush to ‘nail’ their research question – often having to revise it later (and not due to further deeper research, but due to the rush at the start!)

I could definitely adapt my booklet to reflect the steps provided by GID. I feel then that I would have a solid research base behind me for the sorts of questions others ask – why are you doing it like that? For me, I can see an easy switch. The challenge would be to convince others. This wouldn’t be too hard in my own subject area (especially if I did all the work to prep a unit based on GID as an example!) BUT introducing this across the whole middle school or high school would be much more difficult. I’m not sure how I would even start to do that. Maybe here is where the role of the TL could come in? Would a presentation/information/invitations to Heads of Departments and the Principals be effective? It would definitely have to involve the MYP and DP coordinators, although I think they would be very much on board. We are a very inquiry orientated school, but we lack consistency in our approaches. So why hasn’t this already been done? For years we have struggled with some subjects teaching research skills, and others not, and the ones that do – all do it differently. I’d love to see a consistent approach, with the TL driving this supported by a well researched ILM.

References

FitzGerald, L. (2001). The twin purposes of guided inquiry: Guiding students inquiry and evidence based practice. Scan, 30(1), 26-41.

International Baccalaureate. (2013). Individuals and Societies Guide. International Baccalaureate Organization. https://resources.ibo.org/myp/subject-group/Individuals-and-societies/resource/11162-32902/?lang=en

Maniotes, L.K., Kuhlthau, C.C. (2014). Making the shift. Knowledge Quest. 43(2), 8-17.

Information Literacy: Who is responsible for what?

I’m trying to wrap my head around the TL’s role here. As my subject (MYP Individuals & Societies) has embedded research skills into its criteria, I have actively taught research skills for a long time. I think I’m one of the odd few who absolutely love teaching them, so I have not requested help from a TL to do this. I’m not saying this is a good idea, or that the TL has little to offer – in the moment I just didn’t feel like I needed help AND I didn’t really see the TL role in that light, beyond a ‘stand alone’ research session. (Of course this is now beginning to change.) I have seen TLs do ‘stand-alone’ lessons on how to reference or what databases are available to students, but if they are not linked to the unit specifically, I rarely see the information sink in. Kids switch off as soon as you say “Here’s how to reference properly….” particularly if they have not developed a relationship with the person who is delivering this information. In other subjects that have research components, (but the skills aren’t mandated to be assessed within the criteria) – I see a “brush off” and have heard teachers say “oh, you should have learnt that in English or I&S”. There doesn’t seem a consistent approach.

Who is responsible for what? If your subject has skills embedded and assessed, is this solely the teacher’s responsibility then? If your subject doesn’t have these skills embedded, and there is no pressure then to ‘assess’ them, how do your students progress in research skills in that particular content area? Does the TL become more involved in these subjects then? I don’t think we can isolate research skills just to one subject. I guess, in a perfect world, these questions would be considered and addressed at a school wide level, with the role of the TL highlighted. Although I would say that at my school, we are highly collaborative and inquiry focused, but in our setting, we have not utilized the skills of a TL to their full extent. We are not there yet. And – if this is not an expectation from senior management – what happens then? I also think the personality and drive of a TL has a big role to play here. I’m guessing that a TL who feels content and ‘safe’ within the physical walls of the library will not push for a change in that perceived role. Other TLs, who have the drive and desire to push the school forward will be out and about, being visible, making connections outside of the library. (It’s the same with classroom teachers too!) So there are many factors to consider here.

The right TL for the job + an open minded leadership + teachers willing to collaborate = better research skills for our students?

Literacy and its meanings

Wilson, S. (2013) Digital Literacies Peacock. [Photograph]. Flicker. https://www.flickr.com/photos/52926035@N00/8506818215

I enjoyed reading the Module 5 material on literacy. That list of different types of literacies seems ever growing! I stumbled upon one more (not on the list), that of “global literacy”. I found it in a thesis paper, with the title of “The Qualities that Inform Global Literacy Teaching in the U.S.” (Olabisi, 2020). Within it, Olabisi cites a definition from Reimers et al. “global literacy is the information and skills a person needs to successfully function in a globalized context”. I’m presuming this would have elements of international mindedness/intercultural awareness, global citizenship etc.

In the above context, it would seem that the word ‘literacy’ refers to a descriptor – in terms of competency. I don’t think the use of the word ‘literacy’ in this way means a dilution of the term. I think it adds depth and richness to the more traditional meaning of literacy (reading, writing, speaking, listening and viewing). However, it is really important that we use ‘literacy’ as it befits our context and purpose, so we need to be more intentional, more nuanced when using the word. This seems like a simple point, but the more I think about it, the more important it becomes. Maybe we should start challenging each other when we hear the word ‘literacy’ used in an ill defined manner. For example,

What does the assistant principal mean when she says literacy rates have flattened when looking at the latest round of Grade 7 MAP scores?
What goals, skills and concepts is another teacher referring to when he says that he wants to create a new “visual literacy” unit for Individuals & Societies?
When collaborating with the English teacher on an interdisciplinary unit, what do we mean we want to assess “critical literacy”?

On another note, I am concerned with the pervasive idea that students are so comfortable with technology, that therefore they must know how to use it. Yes, they use it very well in social networking and gaming (I see my son gaming online with friends, two computer screens plus one phone propped up so he doesn’t “miss anything!”) When it comes to research skills, it is a completely different matter and I seem to see the same patterns year after year with the next group of students. I totally resonated with Coombes’ (2009) article in which she outlined the popular perception that just because our students are ‘tech-savvy’ doesn’t necessarily mean a correlation between being comfortable with the internet and exhibiting strong information finding skills. I’d like to extend these thoughts in my next post, once I have read about information literacy and the various models we can use.

References

Coombes, B. (2009) Generation Y: Are they really digital natives or more like digital refugees? Synergy, 7(1), 31-40.

Olabisi, J.E. (2020). The Qualities that Inform Global Literacy Teaching in the U.S. [Dissertation, University of Phoenix]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Teacher and TL collaboration : a forum discussion post

The following is a modified response to an original discussion thread for Module 4.2.( in regards to the challenges of teacher / TL collaboration). At a later date, and hopefully when I am in a TL position, it will be interesting to reflect upon this issue ‘from the other side’. I’ve also just realised that it was my turn to post to my blog re: the discussion schedule. So I hope that my forum response will also be acceptable as a blog post too.

Hi Elyse

Thanks for your thoughts! I think we may be a little further along in our school but it has been hard work to get there. There is a professional expectation that comes from the top down, that we are to be collaborative. We meet 2 times per cycle in the high school (we have an 8 day cycle) as subject/grade level teams – it’s scheduled in. In middle school, grade level subject teams meet on an informal basis almost every day to plan/prep/co-mark and moderate assessments. Once again, they can, because the time is protected for them to do it.

Despite this, there are teachers who still really don’t want/refuse to collaborate. I understand a few of the reasons they give, and don’t understand many others. I do know that co-teaching or working closely in a situation where personalities clash is absolutely awful. On the flip side, my best teaching experiences have been based in a close, collaborative team where different styles and methods are respected and shared, and there have been strong interdisciplinary connections made.

Although a pretty strong model of collaboration exists in our school, there have been very few times when the TL has been invited to these meetings. Thus I have realised reading through this module, that we have a long way to go with this. The TLs in the middle and high school will come and do stand-alone research/’how to reference lessons’ but I’ve noticed that these lessons are only really successful if teachers have included them in on the background – the inquiry questions of the unit, what the kids are doing – so they can link in practical, task-specific resources and examples of how to research/reference.

I think we as teachers, also need to be more proactive here in reaching out to the TL, as well as the other way around. But as you have also commented – there is a misunderstanding (from classroom teachers) of what a TL can do so they are overlooked. I know my own classroom teacher perspective in regards to TLs has really been flipped on its head just since beginning this degree. Even though I have worked with an absolutely fantastic TL previously (who inspired me to do this course) – I realise now that I just barely scratched the surface of what the professional relationship could have been.

At the end of the day – it’s all about the students and if we just keep chipping away in this direction, in whatever role we have, I hope we keep moving forward.

Ang

Accession & Acquisition: a few thoughts

I’ve just turned a recent discussion forum post into a blog post (see below). I want to make sure these thoughts are captured and stay on my blog, because it may be interesting to see in the coming year how my thinking develops. At least, (I hope), I’ll be more knowledgeable and confident in the library management side of the TL combination! Collection development, management, budgeting appear pretty daunting to me – I’m just so outside of my comfort zone. I really appreciated the simplicity of the templates provided in ALIA’s A manual for developing policies and procedures in Australian school library resource centres, they de-mystified things somewhat. I’m also going to ask our high school TL what model of budgeting (as explained in ALIA, 2007, pp. 12-13) she does and what challenges and opportunities she faces in this area. For sure, I totally see myself in Debowski’s (2001) comment: “many users only see the small aspect that directly supports their needs, and often fail to see the overall scope of the library collection” (p. 126) – and indeed what goes into the management of a library.

I’m really aware though that I may become somewhat annoying with pestering our TLs with my newbie questions. We are a tight expat community who lives and works closely together and I just need to tread with care.

In regards to budgeting…we were asked in Module 3 the question “Is it preferable that the funding for the school library collection be distributed to teachers and departments so they have the power to determine what will be added to the library collection?”

Let’s be honest, as classroom teachers, any amount of small control we can have over our everyday school life is usually welcomed 🙂 So when I first read this question, I thought, for sure teachers and departments should have the power to determine what resources they need to stock the collection. Then I reflected on my experience of being Head of Department for Individuals and Societies (Grades 9-12) and it was hard enough getting a consensus around the table about small things, let alone agreeing on resources 🙂 And then I remember the times when I tripped merrily down to the library to ask for a resource to be ordered and I was, on occasion, shown very SIMILAR resources that were already in stock that could also fit the bill quite nicely. Based on these examples, I’m going to err on the side of……give the TL access to curriculum and let them know of pertinent resource needs…..but let the TL (in conference with the principal) decide! It will be interesting to see if my thoughts change on this or not.

Response to Discussion Forum 3.1: Using output measures as tools for purchasing

It made me really think about my usage (as a classroom teacher) of the library collection. From my (limited) understanding, we have a pretty healthy budget for the high school library. But I do wonder about wastage. Whenever we get an email in regards to new possible subscriptions, I’m always in – especially as so much stuff/content can fit somewhere under the banner of MYP Individuals & Societies. But I can think of some subscriptions that in the past I have indicated to the TL that I will use for sure use….and then really haven’t. I too wonder how this usage is tracked. Jason spoke of reports generated by Clickview, I’m presuming this would be available on other platforms too – but I think they may only sometimes be available under the more expensive ‘premium’ or upgrade of a licence. The threads in this discussion prompt have made me more aware of my own usage (and lack of).

I also wonder about resourcing our current MYP units in our international school. Some subjects do follow standards, so are less prone to changing units (for example, MYP Science uses Next Generation Science Standards – US based, Math uses Common Core, the British section of the school uses the English National Curriculum (gosh we really are a hodge-podge) but I&S doesn’t follow set standards. It’s fantastic in some ways – it gives flexibility, teacher and student directed units etc. But if a teacher leaves and another comes in with a very different set of ideas (which still meet the MYP criteria and makes sense regarding vertical alignment) but requires alternate resources, then there are funding issues here. I wonder how our TL handles these requests.

References

Australian School Library Association & Victorian Catholic Teacher Librarians. (2007). A manual for developing policies and procedures in Australian school library resource centres. http://www.asla.org.au/policy/policy-development-manual.aspx

Debowski, S. (2001). Collection program funding management. In K. Dillon, J. Henri & J.McGregor (Eds.). Providing more with less: collection management for school libraries (2nd ed., pp. 126-136).

ETL401 & INF447: Meeting in the middle with evidence-based practice

ETL401 Module 3.4 : Accountability in Practice

ETL401 Module 3.4 fits well with what we are learning in INF447 Research in Practice. I found our first written assessment in INF447 really challenging – evaluating, comparing and contrasting two research articles. A lot of new terminology: paradigms, methodology, methods, frameworks etc. Throw in analysing statistics and it really freaked me out! I may not be comfortable with the nuts and bolts of research but I am for sure now developing an appreciation for its necessity. Bonanno’s (2011) extortion to make sure TL rhetoric is heard by the right people – without evidence based practice, how can we expect school leadership to take us seriously? In my ETL401 discussion essay on genrefication vs the DDC, it was clear that not enough research has been done on the sustainability of genrefication (Gray, 2019). I’m sure this is one of many areas that could be a place for TL practitioners to delve into.

It was encouraging to read Valenza’s article (2015) because it made me realise that a lot of the tips and practices she talked about – really – are the basics of research – the data gathering as such. They are accessible to me, and some of the tools I actually use extensively in the classroom already. Maybe I don’t have to be an uber researcher to collect and analyse data – I just need practice, a good role-model and a little more confidence?

We moved to using Google Classroom in the middle and high school about two years before Covid hit. We are pretty well versed in what it offers and use its companions (such as Google Forms) extensively. We had to teach virtually from March 2020, with a brief period of a hybrid physical school/virtual learning model, then back to full virtual in December 🙁 We had to upskill pretty quickly with a range of online formative assessments/feedback platforms. I recognise a few applications/programs that Valenza summarized. I have used Padlet and Flipgrid a lot for formative assessment/feedback – Flipgrid is great when your class is just sick of writing 🙂 I also use Go Formative, Edpuzzle, NoRedInk and Sutori. I can see these all working for a TL, with the exception of maybe Sutori which is really geared towards History and Individuals & Societies.

I’m usually on the lookout for any tips and tools, so really appreciated Valenza’s article and have bookmarked many of her suggestions to explore further.

References

Bonanno, K. (2011). A profession at the tipping point. [Keynote speech]. ALSA Annual Conference.

Gray, M. (2019). Genre fiction collections in Australian school libraries. Scan: The Journal for Educators, 38(10), 18-25. https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/professional-learning/scan/past-issues/vol-38–2019/genre-fiction-collections-in-australian-school-libraries

Valenza, J (2015). Evolving with evidence: Leveraging new tools for EBP. Knowledge Quest. 43(3), 36-43.

Are school librarians an endangered species?

A one hundred word summary of Karen Bonanno’s keynote speech at the ASLA conference, 2011

“The Glass Half Full” by Cayusa is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

We could be, but only if we allow it. With what has been described as an ageing, invisible profession, the path of least resistance would be to view the future with a ‘glass half empty’ attitude (Bonanno, 2011). However it is up to the drive and passion of TLs who understand our own worth, to ensure we match the rhetoric of our contribution, with the right audience (Bonanno, 2011). Bonanno suggests using the 5-finger approach in order to maximize our presence, efforts and relationships:

Strength of character
F.O.C.U.S
Brand
Relationships
And the little things that count (Trump & Kiyosaki, 2011)

References

Bonanno, K. (2011). A profession at the tipping point. [Keynote speech]. ALSA Annual Conference.

Trump, D.J. & Kiyosaki R.T. (2011). Midas Touch: Why Some Entrepreneurs Get Rich-And Why Most Don’t. Plata Publishing.