BFTP: Gianormous Projects

A weekend Blue Skunk "feature" will be a revision of an old post. I'm calling this BFTP: Blast from the Past. Original post May 4, 2007 

The old fix/flex debate often raises its scaley head in library discussions. More often than not, these discussions produce more heat than light and I do my best to stay out them since I've already said my piece (and probably too much).

One percieved benefit of a flexibly scheduled library program is that it allows students blocks of time to work on a project "in-depth." As one writer puts it: From my perspective, the problem with "working around" fixed schedules is that these schedules often do not allow for more in-depth inquiry/research/literature projects that impact student achievement and life-long learning. 

From both personal experience and from the comments of our district's LMSs, the elementary project that drags on, week after week while being worked on in 20- minute bits, is indeed frustrating for both students and teachers. Is having one or two gianormous reseach/tech projects a year the best way to teach information and technology skills in either a fixed or flexible schedule, especially at the elementary level?

From somewhere in my files I drug this up and it makes a lot of sense:

Brain research shows that permanent learning only takes place when research activities are assigned frequently enough that students can exercise and develop the essential skills of critical reading, writing, higher-order thinking, and presenting ideas and opinions with a purpose.

Brain research also shows that these activities must be related to student interests about their world and provide the opportunity for them to develop their own “reasoned opinions” based on researched facts and expert opinions. This desired learning is impossible to do for all students when schools depend on the “term paper” as their only research strategy.

A recent study of Social Studies teachers indicates that the age of the term paper is rapidly disappearing and being replaced by shorter and more frequent types of mini-research. Education Week – November 20, 2002.

One alternative to the semester-long project is by asking students to do "everyday problem-solving." In this earlier column, I wrote:

I am concerned that when we base our information problem-solving instruction around a single giant unit or two each year, students through lack of opportunity to practice also forget all these important defining, locating, accessing, synthesizing, communicating and evaluating skills. It’s why we seem to re-teach the use of the library catalog, search engines, website evaluation, online periodical databases, and even word processing commands year after year to the same group of students who seem to have once grasped them.

Practicing information problem solving needs to be a daily activity for every student in our schools, not just a biennial “event.” It’s easy to quickly brainstorm a whole raft of information problem solving mini-activities that can be done in either the media center or classroom:

• Use the Internet to check the weather forecast and make a recommendation about dress for the next day.
• Search and report an interesting fact about the author of the next story being read by the class. 
  
• Email students in another class to ask their opinions on a discussion topic.
• Recommend a movie or television show to watch the coming weekend using a critic’s advice.
• Find two science articles that relate to the current science unit. Evaluate the credibility of the sources of information.
• Locate a place from a current news headline or class reading on an online map resource like .
• Recommend a book to a classmate based on other books that classmate has read using the school’s library catalog or an Internet source.
• Update the class webpage with interesting facts from units studied and links to related information on the web. 
  
• Estimate the number of calories and fat grams in the meal served in the cafeteria that day.
• Find a “quote of the day” on a specific topic and use a graphics program to illustrate and print it out.

Note that most of these tasks take fewer than ten or fifteen minutes for a skilled information searcher to complete. Each has direct relevance to the student’s “real” academic or personal life. Reporting the results of the research is informal and interesting. Most of these activities are meaningful ones that adults do as well.

I'd hate to think that students would come to believe that the only time to do research is when they are in the LMC. That is is something done only for academic pursuits. That the end result is always a paper or presentation.

Aren't we all daily problem-solvers? Shouldn't our kids be as well?

Take one a day.

Rubrics for Restructuring 2012 - 3 & 4

Over the next few days, I will be updating my 2002 Rubrics for Restructuring. To see the originals and how they can be used read "Now that you know the basics."

III.     Information literacy skills using secondary sources (NETS III.A, II.C.) (NETS 1 b, 2 a, b, 3 d)
Level 1     I am not familiar with the term information literacy, nor do I know why such skills are important.
Level 2    As a part of my curriculum I have library research projects, and I support the library skills taught by the media specialist. I am aware that there are electronic resources available to my students. 
Level 3    My curriculum includes at least two information literacy projects, team-taught with the media specialist librarian. I understand the Big6 or a similar information literacy process and design student projects that require higher level thinking skills, use and cite electronic information sources, demand analysis of source validity, require the use of computer productivity software, and are authentically assessed. I ask students to use technology to help them collaborate and share the results of their research with others. I reinforce information literacy skills on a daily basis as opportunities arise. I help my students document their research using online tools such as wikis.
Level 4  My primary teaching method is based on authetic problem-solving activities. I am actively involved in curriculum planning teams and advocate for multidisciplinary units and activities that require information literacy skills. I share successful units with others through print and electronic publishing and through conference presentations and workshops.

IV.     Information literacy skills - primary sources (NETS III.A, II.C.) (NETS 1 b, 2 a, b, 3 d)
Level 1     When asking students to do research, I expect them to only use secondary resources like books, magazines, or reference materials.
Level 2    As a part of my curriculum, I have some units which require the collection and use of original data. I generally can predict the outcome of such experiments.
Level 3    My curriculum includes at least two information literacy projects that require the collection of original data to answer a genuine question. I may use tools to collect data like computerized probes and sensors, online surveys, interviews, or digitized sources of historical records, as well as tools to record, organize, and communicate the data such as databases and spreadsheets. I help my students document their research using online tools such as wikis. I ask students to use technology to help them collaborate and share the results of their research with others. 
Level 4    My primary teaching method is based on authetic problem-solving activities. I am actively involved in curriculum planning teams and advocate for multidisciplinary units and activities that require information literacy skills. I share successful units with others through print and electronic publishing and through conference presentations and workshops.

Note: Since 2002, research has moved almost completely online. The source of credibility has changed from individual experts to credibility based on mass consenus (Wikipedia). Documenting the research process is now as important as reporting a final outcome and online tools have helped this. The ability to gather and analyze primary source data has grown with social networking tools. Constuctivist-based classrooms provide a realistic alternative to stand and deliver content models and are teaching true 21st century skills. Yet librarians, the information literacy experts, seem to be declining in number. Is it because teachers are doing this teaching themselves?

Rubrics for Restructuring 2012 1 and 2

Over the next few days, I will be updating my 2002 Rubrics for Restructuring. To see the originals and how they can be used read "Now that you know the basics."

I.     Instructional software use (NETS III. A, III.D) (NETS 2 a, b, c, d)
Level 1     I do not use instructional software as a part of my instructional program, nor am I aware of any titles that might help my students meet their learning goals. 
Level 2    I use a few computer programs as an instructional supplement, as a reward, or with special needs children.
Level 3    I regularly use several programs (drill and practice, simulations, tutorials, etc.) chosen by my department or grade level to help all my students meet specific, identified learning objectives. The software and apps (applications on portable devices) allow me to teach and/or to reinforce concepts more effectively than traditional methods. When it is available, I use the software’s management system to help assess individual student performance. When expected, I use the school’s integrated learning system in a purposeful way and help assess its overall effectiveness. I am knowledgeable about game theory and know the role gaming can play in motivating and engaging learners.
Level 4    I seek out new programs for evaluation and adoption. I have found ways to use instructional applications on student owned devices to supplement my teaching.  I know sources of software reviews and keep current on developments in computer technologies through professional reading and conference attendance. I share my findings with other professionals. 

Note: Since 2002, gaming has received more attention but does not seem to have lived up to its promise. As gaming goes more social, will this change??? Integrated learning systems are standard in some schools - often those that serve lower socio-economic populations. The use of these programs needs to be carefully considered. Your take on this set of competencies?

II.     Using technology to improve student writing (NETS II.B.) (NETS 1 c, 2 a)
Level 1     I am not familiar any technologies that would allow me to help my students improve their writing skills.
Level 2    I ask that the final draft of some student writing assignments be word-processed. I do not expect or encourage my students to compose or edit using the computer.
Level 3    I help students use the computer in all phases of the writing process from brainstorming to editing to publishing. This may included the use of idea generators, graphic organizers, portable writing computers, personally-owned technologies, outlining tools, spelling and grammar checkers, desktop publishing tools, and webpage generators. Students use cloud-based tools such as GoogleDocs to do collaborative writing and peer editing work. I use technology to help students share their work for a wide global reading audience in safe and appropriate ways. I can find and use best practices data on improving writing with technology.
Level 4    I store portfolios of my students’ work electronically. I encourage students to build digital portfolios of their own work. I share successful writing units with others through print and electronic publishing, through social media tools, and through conference presentations and workshops. I look for specific technology tools for helping my students improve their writing skills.

Note: My sense is that at many schools, the hand-written paper is the exception rather than the rule. But are we yet using technology to improve the writing process? Should this rubric be renamed digital composition with the effective use of other media included? Your thoughts?