One of the main concepts of Guided Inquiry is that learning should be authentic and not isolated pieces devoid of student relevancy. Kuhlthau et al have stressed that in Guided Inquiry, students "locate, evaluate and use information while learning the content of the subject area" (94). That learning in context will likely include building information technology skills in the search stage, but that does not mean that students should not be prepared to make the most of their information retrieval time. Focus on Inquiry suggests that:
Students will be more successful in inquiry when teachers provide, in the context of classroom activities, opportunities for students to:
- refine and develop a list of search terms, keywords and subject headings prior to searching
- use online library catalogues to locate materials in school and public libraries
- use the Online Reference Centre (www.LearnAlberta.ca)to locate information
- use full-text databases (e.g., SIRS, eLibrary)
- use indexes to locate print, nonprint and electronic information
-learn how to efficiently use the Internet to locate information
develop and practise interview questions and techniques (FOI)
In my practice I have found that introducing all of these skills at once is counter-productive. For example, I once worked with a teacher-librarian who had created a little booklet in order for students to be introduced to/review the kinds of skills listed above. Although this was a grade 10 course, many students struggled with numerous aspects of the booklet. The teacher-librarian and I should have planned better. Kuhlthau has addressed the shift in teachers and librarians:
"They are especially careful not to give too much too soon and to assist in pacing the use of resources by suggesting strategies for exploring information to form a focus for research. Librarians planning instructional sessions describe being more cautious about offering one-shot sessions where students are expected to learn everything at once. Instead they are accommodating the user's constructive process by giving a series of instructional sessions spread over a period of time aimed at different tasks in the stages of the ISP. Once aware of the ISP, teachers also change the way they design assignments to give more time for exploring and formulating. They are acknowledging the learning process and finding new ways to access and evaluate the construction process of students."
Focus on Inquiry states that students will learn to: "understand that successful retrieving depends on preplanning" (57), but I do not think that we gave learners enough direction in that area. The skills were being taught for a specific purpose, so we tried to make the learning relevant to the subject at hand. We also tried to increase engagement by allowing students to choose their topics, but many of them they did not have enough prior knowledge to make their search fruitful. Students also did not have enough time to explore and to reflect upon their learning. We were rushing students through each lesson/skill without sufficent time and guidance.
In short, it was a learning experience for me. I wish I could have referred to Cecile McVittie's Planning: the foundation of Guided Inquiry beforehand. The next time I teach these skills, I will not devote one week of classes to important researching strategies and skills. If possible, I will devote proper time to each aspect prior to beginning guided inquiry, so that we can do a review before a more encompassing bout of information retrieval is begun. If we cannot do that before beginning guided inquiry, I will ensure that students are given sufficient time in the information retrieval stage of the inquiry.
References
Alberta Learning (2004). Focus on inquiry: A teacher’s guide to implementing inquiry-based learning. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Learning. Available at http://www.education.gov.ab.ca/k_12/curriculum/bySubject/focusoninquiry.pdf
Kuhlthau, Carol C. (1999) "Accommodating the User's Information Search Process: challenges for Information retrieval System Designers." Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 25, no 3, 1999. Available from: http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Feb-99/kuhlthau.html
photo by Casey Serin
photo by frerieke
My essential question in my first blog post was:
What are some of the ways the role of a teacher-librarian or teacher change or grow within the context of the information retrieval process of guided inquiry learning?
In the process of creating this presentation, I have found that educators need to:
*become collaborators, not only with other educators, but with students as they use creativity and imagination to construct meaning
*allow sufficient time for exploration, prepare and plan for students to do so much more than a quick search; think of little details in order to sequence teaching searching strategies as well as organizational skills pertaining to searches
*prepare for reflecting pieces along the search process, guide students in metacognitive strategies
My questions for you: what are some of the other key role changes you see for educators embarking on guided inquiry information retrieval processes with students?
What elements of/skills and strategies for retrieving information are are not taught explicitly enough by teachers (or even teacher-librarians!)? Why do you think that is the case?
Camilla Gagliolo wrote a brief-but-good article entitled Help Teachers Mentor One Another, in which she states:
“Powerful learning takes place when teachers teach other teachers in a peer-to-peer network. The creation of a cadre of teacher leaders serving as peer coaches will help power up the professional learning community and provide differentiated professional development offerings.”
I know when I think about PD that I found helpful and continued to use, the times when I learned it on a one-on-one basis come to mind immediately. I felt much more comfortable learning from a colleague that I was friendly with, or even one I was slightly acquainted with, and it makes sense – just as my teaching is more helpful when I know my students, my mentor can skip what he knows I can already do and go right to the essential learning – no need for unnecessary repetition, going off on irrelevant tangents to my learning goals, and so on. Gagliolo goes on to give few suggestions, and here’s one I really like:
“[C]onsider creating a set of laminated “keys” on a key ring containing information on expert mentors/coaches in the learning community. Each key lists the name of an integration tool and the name of the teacher/mentor who is the local expert.”
Cool idea!!!!!! As a teacher who has worked in different schools on terms as short as two weeks to a year for the past three years, I am constantly asking, “Who the local tech guy/gal?”
The idea of creating PD that works for the learner needs to be much more in the forefront of those creating PD opportunities – that’s why I see collaboration and mentorship as offering many more chances for individualization and success. Judi Harris has created a series of articles outlining the need for learner-driven PD under the banner of “One Size Doesn’t Fit All”. In the first article, Harris notes that PD creators need to “know your teacher-students' professional learning needs and preferences”, as well as stating that educators need:
-continued on-site support as they experiment with new tools and techniques in their classrooms to ensure continued and productive use of new tools and ideas.
-30 hours of focused professional development on average to change teachers' professional practice.
In the second article, Harris echoes Gaglio’s suggestion for teacher technology mentoring:
Collaborative learning ETPD also can take the form of mentoring, in which someone knowledgeable in a particular content area or instructional approach works with individuals or small groups of teachers wishing to learn more in the mentor’s area of expertise. Peer coaching, also with either individuals or groups, can similarly occur either face-to-face or online.
And finally, Harris asserts that teacher professional development needs to be teacher-oriented:
“One of the keys to effective ETPD design is to match models to goals and both to participating teachers’ needs, preferences, and characteristics.”
I believe that collaborative learning, especially mentoring, is a great way to help teachers move towards more productive educational technology professional development. I’ll leave the last word to a report from the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory:
“A professional development curriculum that helps teachers use technology for discovery learning, developing students' higher-order thinking skills, and communicating ideas is new and demanding and thus cannot be implemented in isolation (Guhlin, 1996). In addition to working in pairs or teams, teachers need access to follow-up discussion and collegial activities, as required of professionals in other fields (Lockwood, 1999). Teachers also need time to discuss technology use with other teachers, whether face to face, through e-mail, or by videoconferencing (David, 1996). A networked computer on every teacher's desk can allow for greater interaction between educators. The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (1996) suggests that school districts find creative ways to build teacher networks so that teachers have additional opportunities to discuss the new instructional methods that technology promotes.”
© © © © ©
Copyright. Intellectual Property. Intellectual freedom. How many of us think about these issues on a regular basis, or even rarely?
I know some people do. A few years ago I ran across an article I had written which had been copied and posted, unattributed to me, on someone else’s site. I sent an email that said something simple like, “Hey, I noticed you have an article I wrote on your site.” The webmaster wrote back, apologizing, asking which article it was and assuring me that I would be credited properly. In fact, I wasn’t worried about getting credit at all, I was only interested in making a connection with a person who thought enough of my work to post it online. I understand that some people in my shoes may have been hankering for attribution or credit or payment, but I wasn’t. The article was originally published in a magazine that had a limited readership, so I was just stoked that someone had the gumption and ingenuity to prolong the piece’s viewing lifespan and widen readership. It had been published a few years earlier and I had already been paid and received my byline, so if someone could learn or be entertained by it in a new format, more power to the webmaster.
What this incident illustrated to me is that some people placed more importance on crediting others’ work (at least the early years of the World Wide Web) than I did, even when it was my work being copied and pasted. My original article and the magazine it was published in contained little or no opportunity for someone to contact me and request permission for republishing. No harm, no foul.
Fast forward to today, when sharing information, collaborating, and learning in an online setting all offer a myriad of opportunities to steal, plagiarize, copy and paste and generally act irresponsibly (or illegally). Simple guidelines for what constitutes fair use and what is copyright infringement are either not easily accessible or at least not-so-simple for most students or educators.
I have touched in a previous blog on the attitudes and learning habits of digital natives. But today’s computer users and their attitude to copyright and intellectual property deserve a closer examination. David Pogue has related with dismay that according to his very informal research, many digital natives have no compunctions when it comes to downloading music or movies without paying for them. Should it be a surprise that many people today don’t find it necessary to pay for what they find online or worry about attribution or giving credit to others? In fact, the vehemence with which downloaders justify their actions is evident in our wired world, and there are many examples to be found on YouTube. Here’s a short one:
Yet music companies are suing downloaders (and winning!), and anti-piracy ads from the film industry have become ubiquitous. It seems that these real-life instances aren’t affecting peoples’ attitudes about copyright and intellectual property, so the need for direction from educators is clear. Although it may seem that it’s tough to figure out where to begin, Mike Ribble’s Passport to Digital Citizenship could be one place to look at first. The article offers readers a definition of digital citizenship, 9 elements of digital citizenship, and a 4-stage Technology Learning Framework for Teaching Digital Citizenship. One important component of Ribble’s article is that he stresses that because of the disconnect in what is being done in schools and what is done by students in their free time, parents need to be aware of issues within digital citizenship if there is to be some success in helping foster good choices.
And of course aside from downloading music and movies, what are many of those students doing in their free time? Checking out Facebook and MySpace, of course. Annette Lamb’s article Intellectual Freedom for Youth: Social Technology and Social Networks includes some very eloquently stated points. For example, Lamb asserts that social technologies “test the boundaries of intellectual freedom precisely because they provide an open forum for ideas”. It seems like a simple point, but I hadn’t thought of it in that way previously. If we are filtering or blocking social networks in our schools and libraries, are we hindering intellectual freedom? I touched on filtering a few weeks ago on this blog, but Lamb points out that students need to be aware of digital citizenship and copyright as well:
“While social technologies can support the creation of original poetry, music, and scientific data, it also can be a source of negative content, including gossip, violent images, and misinformation. Teens may use adult mediasharing Web sites such as Flickr for photos or YouTube for video. If so, it is essential to help them act responsibly in a social environment not intended for children. Students need to understand how to evaluate Web content, follow copyright laws, and develop effective methods of communication to make optimal use of this environment.” Therefore, if we ignore social networking sites, we may not only be impeding intellectual freedom, but we may be putting student digital citizenship on the backburner.
Also, Helen R. Adams has written about goals for school library media specialists, such as: “Guard against barriers to intellectual freedom, such as age or grade-level restrictions, limitations on access to electronic information, requirements for special permission to use materials and resources, and restricted collections.” If intellectual freedom means that young people should be allowed to access social networks such as Lamb suggests above, then Adams is arguing against filtering. It seems to me we have a long way to go before filtering ends in North American schools.
So what kinds of things can we do to help students learn more about their intellectual freedom and copyright? I think we need to create more resource lists like this one – it helps students find images and sounds that aren’t illegal or morally suspect.
I’m also really excited about the possibilities of Creative Commons, which is described as “a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making it easier for people to share and build upon the work of others, consistent with the rules of copyright.” I’ve been using images from Creative Commons for a while now, and the possibilities for students to find pictures, music, written works, and so on and use them responsibly are great. Now, it’s also time for educators to take the idea even farther and help their students to be a part of that community that shares, guiding learners to upload and make the resource banks even larger and richer.
I, and I suspect many others, also need to learn more about what constitutes fair use. Alisa Burch cites North Carolina State University’s copyright tutorial as telling readers that fair use allows the limited use of copyrighted material without prior permission of the copyright holder if the use is a fair one based on these four factors:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. The nature of the copyrighted work;
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
In his article Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad ©?, Doug Johnson hit the nail on the head when he wrote that few subjects “spark more disagreement and confusion than copyright. As an information professional, I’m often not certain that I have a firm grasp of it.” I’m not an information professional and am only starting to wrap my head around copyright and the issues surrounding it such as fair use and intellectual freedom. In fact, once you start thinking about copyright and the number of mistakes you or your students may have made, inadvertently or otherwise, it’s easy to go too far the other way and handcuff yourself into not taking advantage of the wide world of resources at your fingertips. Johnson gives an intersting anecdote about looking for permission or assuming permission is not given:
“A Singapore educator once told me that in his country, people tend to suffer from NUTS—the No U-Turn Syndrome—and Americans don’t. When no signs are posted at an intersection, Singapore drivers assume U-turns are illegal; United States drivers assume the opposite. He felt that our “assume it’s OK” attitude gives our country a competitive edge.”
Johnson’s anecdote relates to a fear of what’s “not allowed” and connects to the first of four points:
Change the focus of copyright instruction from what’s forbidden to what’s permitted. When there’s doubt, err on the side of the user. Be prepared to answer questions when a law makes little sense, seems inconsequential, is widely ignored, or when breaking it may serve a higher moral purpose. Teach copyright from the point of view of the producer, as well as the consumer.
To me, Johnson’s greatest point is that as educators, we can help change the focus from what’s “forbidden” to what’s “permitted”; we can be positive about what is legally and morally stable, create lists and links to sites that offer attributed use such as Creative Commons, steer learners to free easy-to-use online citation guides like Noodlebib, and encourage dialogue between students on all of the topics above. The Digiteen Global Project looks like a pretty good start for focused authentic learning. The creators say that Digiteen is a “digital citizenship global project…where schools and classrooms from around the world will discuss issues, research and take action to do with being online in the 21st century. The project also has an Digiteen Ning where students and teachers connect, interact, share multimedia and reflect on their experiences throughout the project”. Wow! Sounds like some educators and students are already tackling most of the tough issues surrounding copyright and digital citizenship.
While we’re feeling pretty positive about the possiblities of using Web 2.0 tools such as Digiteen does become more informed better digital citizens, I’ll leave you with a short video clip that made me stop and think. Although the video is funny (and also unfortunately contains some inappropriate language), it is also poking fun at attempts to curb online movie or music piracy. Aside from pointing out the absurdity of how the word “piracy” is used in this context, the video also mirrors how seriously many people feel about the issue. Don’t you think?
Posts
All Comments
