ETL 402 – Part B – Learning through reflection

For a very long time

I was convinced that

literary learning

meant

learning how to read. 

 

BOY was I WRONG! 

 

This is my journey to enlightenment.  

geralt / Pixabay – Enlightened at last…

 

I wrote Once upon a time before this session even started.  I find it interesting to reflect on my journey and see how my understanding has evolved since then.  

What did I learn?

Anemone123 / Pixabay

I learned that: 

  1. Stories are more than just tall tales, they are humanity’s way of imparting information, values and language (Macdonald, 2013, p.2). 
  2. Our ability to understand language is intrinsically linked to our own literacy identity (Anstey & Bull, 2006).  
  3. Literature’s  greatest value is from the discussion that it stimulates (Allington & Gabriel, 2012). 
    1. Student learning outcomes are around a shared reading experience (Fisher & Frey, 2018). 
  4. Genre variety is important as it increases discourse and efficacy in understanding nuances within literature (Tobin, 2012).  
    1. Afterall, how can we expect students to understand the differences between memoirs and biographies, expository texts to essays or picture books and graphic novels if they are not exposed to them? 

  5. We need to equip our students with the skills and strategies for navigating and analysing hypertext and multimodal literature in our classroom practice (Rowberry, 2018).  Their ability to be active citizens in the 21st century depends on those decoding and analysis skills to utilise literature in all its formats – digital, audio, graphic novel, and picture books.  

So what does this mean for my understanding of Literary learning?

Literary learning (as I discovered after wading through

module readings, packets of choccie biscuits and journal articles) is the pedagogical practice of using literature in a social context to teach the curriculum (Derewianka, 2015).

It requires: 

  1. Good quality literature with strong curriculum links in a variety of genres and formats (Derewianka, 2015)
  2. Age appropriate reader response strategies: 
    1. Book Bentos,
    2. Book Trailers 
    3. Literature circles
    4. Story mapping
    5. Word clouds

 (Derouet, 2020)

 

 

I did not know which ones to do…

so I asked for help (and I wrote a gazillion blog posts. Check them out!)

 

  1. Murphy (2020) pointed out that literature circles are ideally suited to the history curriculum in his forum post.
  2. Thurling (2020) argued that the social aspect of literature circles is often undervalued. 
  3. Armstrong (2020) suggested that book trailers suit visual learners and embeds technology effectively into learning in her blog.  
  4. My work colleague advised that teachers could incorporate both strategies together as part of a guided inquiry unit. 

I realised that it was all correct!

  1. Students participate in a Literature circle to analyse the text, 
  2. And then use that analysis to make a book trailer (or another creative piece), to show their understanding of the topic whilst using technology.  WINNING!

  Now that I have had my revelation about the value of discourse…… I wonder, what does that mean for my role as a teacher librarian?  It is clearly obvious that my role is no longer just the promotion of reading, and but has now morphed into the advocacy of literature in classroom practice to promote READING to LEARN !

This means I need to:

Work with classroom teachers to plan their units of work with literature at its core.
2.     Collaborating with colleagues to embed literature throughout the curriculum.
3.     Be willing to team teach using digital literature and digital technologies.

Why?

After all, you cannot have literacy without literature.  Its just ‘racy otherwise.  

Get it??

stux / Pixabay

 

 

 

 

 

References:

Allington, R., & Gabriel, R. (2014). Every child, every day. Educational Leadership, 69 (6).  pp.10-15. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=af8a4fab-9b19-447e-835f-78f39f145c0b%40sdc-v-sessmgr02&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=73183256&db=ehh

Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing times, changing literacies . Newark, Del.: International Reading Association.

Armstrong, K. (2020). Book Trailers – Promotion tool or pedagogical tool for literary learning.  Musing and Meanderings. CSU Thinkspace. Retrieved from https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/karenjarmstrong/2020/05/12/book-trailers-promotion-tool-or-pedagogical-tool-for-literary-learning/

Derewianka, B. (2015). The contribution of genre theory to literacy education in Australia. In J. Turbill, G. Barton & C. Brock (Eds.), Teaching Writing in Today’s Classrooms: Looking back to looking forward (pp. 69-86). Norwood, Australia: Australian Literary Educators’ Association. Retrieved from https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2620&context=sspapers

Derouet, E. (2020). Assignment 2 Questions : Examples of literature response strategies. ETL402 Discussion Forum. Retrieved from https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/discussionboard/do/message?action=list_messages&course_id=_44234_1&nav=discussion_board_entry&conf_id=_88815_1&forum_id=_181934_1&message_id=_2891282_1

Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2018). Raise reading volume through access, choice, discussion, and book talks. Reading Teacher, 72(1), 89-97. doi: 10.1002/trtr.1691

McDonald, L. (2013). A literature companion for teachers. Marrickville, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association PETA.

Murphy, D. (2020). Thread 6.3 Literature circles in history. ETL402 Discussion Forum. CSU. Retrieved from https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/discussionboard/do/message?action=list_messages&course_id=_44234_1&nav=discussion_board_entry&conf_id=_88815_1&forum_id=_181940_1&message_id=_2937474_1

Rowberry, S. P., (2018). Continuous, not discrete: The mutual influence of digital and physical literature. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. pp.1-11 DOI: 10.1177/1354856518755049

Thurling, D. (2020). RE: 6.3 Literature circles in history. ETL402 Discussion Forum. CSU. Retrieved from https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/discussionboard/do/message?action=list_messages&course_id=_44234_1&nav=discussion_board_entry&conf_id=_88815_1&forum_id=_181940_1&message_id=_2937474_1

Tobin, M. (2012). Digital storytelling: Reinventing literature circles. Fischer College of Education. 12. NSU. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=fse_facarticles

Academic integrity – more than just plagiarism.

Tumisu / Pixabay – Right or Wrong?

 

Academic integrity is often espoused and bandied about across educational institutions, especially in the first few weeks of every scholastic year. 

La Trobe university describes it as shared values and behaviour that includes but is not exclusive to honesty, fairness and responsible practices. This concept of honesty in academia is a two way street.  Educational institutions such as schools and universities are obliged to award credit and acknowledge honestly conducted work. Students are responsible for ensuring that their work meets the required standards mandated (LaTrobe, 2019).  The onus of practices that promote academic honesty need to be equally addressed by students, staff, executive and organisations. It is not simply the role of a student to avoid plagiarism, but also the role of education to provide them with the skills and knowledge to do so.  Additionally, society needs to realise that academic integrity does not start and finish with plagiarism.  Plagiarism is just an aspect of authentic academia. Other practices include the creation of assessment tasks that limit the risk of dishonest practices and organisations to adequately address infringements in their policies with appropriate levels of censure that are age and stage appropriate.  The role of teacher librarian is multifaceted when it comes to academic integrity. Due to their dynamic position, a TL is able to address academic honesty from a student and classroom teacher (CT) lens and from a department and school perspective.   

Academic honesty starts with the classroom teacher.  If teachers continuously utilise reputable sources in their teaching and learning, as well as consistently reference them correctly; then they are modeling good practice. Students (and teachers) need to be aware that academic honesty is not just for assessment tasks.  Its for all tasks. Like all skills, good research behavioural practices such as using databases, encyclopaedias and journal articles are essential in formulating evidence based assertions. Using disreputable sources does not bode well for your postulations. W. Edwards Deming was quoted in Forbes (2016) that “without data you’re just a person with an opinion”.  My experience as a scientist holds me in good authority in championing this point. In the fields of science and mathematics, opinions hold little value. It is the data from rigorously run experiments that define our thinking process. Poorly run experiments with inconclusive data have no value; as do opinions with no justification and evidence. Opinions are fine when limited to coffee preferences but not in academics. 

The other aspect of academic integrity within the TL’s and or CT’s realms, is the explicit teaching of information literacy.  Information literacy is defined by the ability to find, seek, use and create information and traditionally the domain of TL area of expertise (Kuhthau et al, 2012).  IL needs to be taught and then subsequently assessed in order for students to reach proficiency (Jacobson et al. 2018; Qayyum & Smith, 2018, p257; McGrew et al. 2018).  It is not passively acquired by the act of completing a research task – but rather, these skills need to be integrated into daily practice to boost competency (Kong, 2014).  Part of these practices include the direct instruction of correct referencing techniques.  As mentioned before, plagiarism is AN aspect of academic honesty, it is not the entirety.

Whilst it teaching information literacy and the finer points of referencing is essential, it is important to note that the assessment task itself can be a liability to honest practice.   Introducing mandatory evidence of progress, drafts and log books are other useful methods in ensuring authenticity of work. Assessment tasks that are repeated at yearly intervals for indefinite periods of time are also very problematic.  This is due to the fact that its simplistic to assume that students do not try to seek aid from older siblings and or cousins. Having a maximum time frame of 2 years allowed for a particular task reduces the likelihood of younger relatives plagiarising from older siblings.  Another point to note is that nuances of language in assessment task construction can reduce the likelihood of plagiarism. Requesting students to analyse, justify and relate to their community requires higher order thinking skills and is harder to successfully pass off as own work due to the nature of the questions.  TL can be of great assistance to teachers in the construction of assessment tasks. Ezard (2019) pointed out that co-creation and collective capacity is the fundamental basis of true collaborative practice (cited in Templeton, 2019). Collaboration between departments and the library can result in a positive sharing of expertise and knowledge resulting in tasks that elicit deep understanding and truly engage the student. 

Departmental heads and school administrators have the last word on academic honesty in a school situation.  The school policies are the framework in which the academic integrity of the staff and students is based upon.  Therefore it is up to the executives to ensure the policies are current with contemporary practices which includes the rapid evolution of technology and the challenges that it brings.  They are also responsible to clearly define what constitutes minor, moderate and major infringements and their appropriate consequences. Staff need to realise that a major infringement in middle school is not the same as a major infringement in senior school.  A suggestion would be construct a hierarchy of violations that is clearly distributed to students and teachers. This transparency reduces the likelihood of students citing ignorance in their defence. An example of such a hierarchy from ANU, Canberra and Andrews University in Michigan are available for your perusal.   

Much has been said so far about how teaching staff can do to promote academic honesty.  But in all honesty, students need to also be aware of their role in this dual relationship.  Students need to follow the referencing guidelines set by their institution. Whether it be APA, Harvard or MLA citation styles, students need to conform.  They also need to refrain from reusing earlier work and badging it as new work. Many students feel that this cannot be plagiarism as its their own material.  But what they are unaware of is that they can reference previous works. The most common ways in which students are academically dishonest is collusion and unequal group work.  Collusion as Monash University (2019) points out is the “unauthorised collaboration on assessable work with other people”. Frequently unauthorised partners include parents, older siblings, tutors and friends.  It is dishonest to present the collaborative efforts of multiple people off as individual work. Group work is a minefield where academic honesty is concerned. It is very common for one or two people in a group to carry the team.  This unequal distribution of work is often due to a participant’s absenteeism and or disinterest. Unfortunately, there is no suggestion I can offer as I have been guilty of doing too much in past group assessments in order to pass/complete a task.  In my opinion, (no facts), I believe that group tasks should not be used for summative assessments tasks due the inequitable nature of collaborative groups.  

Academic honesty is not just for students to follow when submitting their assignments.  Rather it is a mindset, a code of conduct, developed during schooling years and manifested in adulthood.  As a code of conduct, infringements of this nature need to be treated similarly to infringements of other conduct related behaviour.  Simply assigning punitive measures is not conducive to learning and reducing future occurrences.  Instead, it is more productive to create a situation in which academic integrity is the norm and best practice for both students and teachers.  Academic honesty is more than just plagiarism.  Its is the authenticity of your work and the extension of self. 

References

Ezard, T., (2019) Leading the Buzz in your school. ASLA 50th Conference. Canberra

Jacobsen, R., Halvorsen, A., Frasier, A., Schmitt, A., Crocco, M., and Segall, A. (2018). Thinking deeply, thinking emotionally; how high school students make sense of evidence. Theory & Research in Social Education. 46, 232-276. DOI 10.1080/00933104.2018.1425170

 

Jones, M. & Silberzahn, P. (2016) Without an opinion, you’re just another person with data. Forbes – Media and Entertainment. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/awsmediaandentertainment/2019/09/12/how-to-thrive-in-todays-disrupted-media-markets/#7862807770ed

 

Kuhlthau, C., Maniotes, L. & Caspari, A. (2012). Guided inquiry design: A framework for inquiry in your school. Libraries Unlimited. USA.

 

Kong, S. (2014). Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practicing flipped classroom strategy. Computers & Education. 78, pp.160-173,  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.009

 

Latrobe University (2019). Academic Integrity. Student Administration. Retrieved from https://www.latrobe.edu.au/students/admin/academic-integrity

 

Monash University (2019). Academic integrity, plagiarism and collusion. Student Administration. Retrieved from https://www.latrobe.edu.au/students/admin/academic-integrity

 

McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., Ortega, T., Smith, M., and Wineburg, S. (2018). Can students evaluate online sources? Learning from assessments of civic online reasoning. Theory & Research in Social Education. 46, 165-193, DOI 10.1080/00933104.2017.1416320

 

Qayyum, M., &  Smith, David. (2018). Changing research behaviours of university students with progression through a course. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association. 67: 3 pp256-277 DOI: 10.1080/24750158.2018.1502243

Templeton, T. (2019). Co-existing or co-operating. Trish’s trek into bookspace [blog]. Retrieved from https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/trish/2019/04/18/co-existing-or-co-operating/