Seoul Learning – Page 4 – A journey towards Teacher-Librarianship

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.

Response to Module 3.1_AITSL Standards

We have been asked to consider how we might use the ASLA evidence guides or the AITSL Standards for Teacher Librarian Practice in our own practice.

I was thinking of combining 7.3 (engagement with parents/carers) as well as 4.1 (supporting student participation). Very early on in this unit I thought about how library spaces within our school could be used for showcasing student products, and / or evidence of learning. Preferably these physical displays would be linked to specific units that the TL had been involved in. Students of ALL ages (and I teach the big ones!) will stop and look at well designed physical displays with lots of visuals….particularly if it has anything to do with their own class 🙂

I don’t see a lot of parents or people from the wider school community in our libraries but I think a Google classroom school library website highlighting new books and student/teacher activities could be a way of getting information out there. We get emails from the TLs updating us in regards to resources, but I am unsure whether anything goes to the wider community; I would have to check. Invitations to come and browse in the libraries, with a book chat and a cuppa at the end may be able to ‘hook’ interest from the community. They may not be overwhelmingly attended, but from classroom experience, it only takes one or two parents to get excited about something to get the word out and gain knowledgeable support from the community. I wonder if there could be a culture of “that area is for the students and I don’t want to interrupt” and that is why we don’t see it used often by others or ? (Time to get out the INF447 Introduction to Research skills!)

I also looked through the IFLA school library guidelines, as I am in an international setting. I appreciated how they gave world-wide practice examples of many of the guidelines.

References

Australian Library and Information Association. (2014) AITSL standards for teacher librarian practice. https://www.alia.org.au/sites/default/files/AITSL%20Standards%20for%20teacher%20librarian%20practice%202014.pdf

Australian School Library Association. (2014). Evidence guide for teacher librarians in the proficient career stage. https://asla.org.au/resources/Documents/Website%20Documents/evidence_guide_prof.pdf

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. (2015). IFLA school library guidelines. http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/school-libraries-resource-centers/publications/ifla-school-library-guidelines.pdf

Module #3: Discussion Forum Response

As I am aware that the our contributions to the discussion forums won’t last forever, I wanted to record my response for Module 3. Let’s see if I become more comfortable and confident with reviewing research papers for paradigms, methodology and methods towards the end of the course! This is my first attempt, even before INF447 Assignment #2. It’s all a little confusing and at this stage I feel like I am just picking out the obvious and am worried that I have even the obvious wrong!

I reviewed two papers that looked at the development of positive reading cultures in schools.

Module #3: Discussion Forum Response

Merga and Mason (2019) and Loh et al. (2017) provided solid abstracts and provided a list of keywords. Both provided comprehensive introductions and both studies were given a place of purpose within literature reviews of other studies. Merga and Mason (2019) states that there is a dearth of research regarding the factors that contribute to the active building of reading cultures in Australian schools. Thus the purpose of their research was to investigate what teacher librarians (TLs) considered as constraints and opportunities to the building of a positive reading culture. Loh et al. explored what factors contribute to a reading culture by focusing on a single case study (in Singapore), but widened their net by including not only the views of the teacher librarian, but the principal and students as well.

Loh et al.(2017) clearly stated that they undertook a mixed-methods study drawing upon both quantitative and qualitative tools of data collection, such as surveys, interviews, field notes and observations of the library space including still photography and timelapse photography. They described this as a “nested case study approach” (Loh et al., 2017, p. 33). I found this mix really interesting. Merga and Mason (2019) used “an exploratory qualitative approach” (p. 176), due to the lack of previous research in the area. Interviews were thus conducted with 30 teacher librarians across 30 different schools.

Both papers provided quite extensive findings/discussion sections. Merga and Mason (2019) were explicit in the limitations of their research. Gathering their sample was challenging due to a lack of official data on TL staffing so recruitment for the research was done through professional organisations, email and word of mouth. A limitation was that some sectors were under-represented (or not represented at all), for example, there were no TLs to be found in a public primary school in Western Australia. They also specifically mentioned the lack of generalizability, as they only looked at schools that had a TL, which they reported as then more likely to have stronger reading cultures anyway. Loh et al. (2017) did not specifically mention any limitations. Both papers acknowledged the need for further research with Loh et al. (2017) providing a few specific questions that could be further explored.

I hate to sit on the fence, but I enjoyed reading both these articles; they were both coherent and logical. They provided slightly different perspectives on the same topic, with some very practical considerations to think about.

References

Loh, C. E., Ellis, M., Paculdar, A. A., & Wan, Z. H. (2017). Building a successful reading culture through the school library: A case study of a Singapore secondary school. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, 43(4), 335-347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035217732069

Merga, M. K., & Mason, S. (2019). Building a school reading culture: Teacher librarians’ perceptions of enabling and constraining factors. Australian Journal of Education, 63(2), 173-189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944119844544