240 likes | 343 Views
Using Journals to Build Information Literacy Skills. Violet H. Harada University of Hawaii vharada@hawaii.edu ACEI Annual International Conference April 16, 2003. Targets for session. Background. Context. Methodology. Analysis. Key findings. Implications. Driving questions.
E N D
Using Journals to Build Information Literacy Skills Violet H. Harada University of Hawaii vharada@hawaii.edu ACEI Annual International Conference April 16, 2003
Targets for session • Background. • Context. • Methodology. • Analysis. • Key findings. • Implications.
Driving questions • How do we move students from the mechanics of the research process to making meaning from information gathered?
Driving questions • How do we develop teaching practices that nurture deeper understanding?
Beliefs • Information seeking and use is a PROCESS. • Skills involved in this process are teachable. • Librarians and teachers are partners in planning and teaching.
Information search process • Presearch • Focus and presentation planning. • Collection and organization of information. • Presentation,evaluation of performance and of process.
Action research team • School - grade 5/6 teacher, librarian. • University - graduate research assistant, myself.
Research questions • What understandings and problems do students describe as they engage in research? • What feelings do they express? • How can journal writing inform our teaching? • How does it impact student-instructor interaction?
Why journal writing? • Reveals thinking and reasoning. • Demonstrates what students know and don’t know. • Allows for expression of personal feelings.
Context • School: Shafter Elementary • Subjects: 17 students, ages 10 and 11. • Learning context: 2 research assignments over 11 weeks.
Methodology-- What students did • Journal entries, twice a week. What the teacher and librarian did • Lesson plans and reflections. • Anecdotal logs. What the university team did • Field observations and interviews. • Content analysis of student journals.
Analysis-- • Coders: UH graduate student, myself. • Entries independently coded. • Each entry analyzed for cognitive and affective content. • 91% agreement between raters.
Coding - cognition • Information unrelated to concept, skill. • Disjointed recall of concept. • Accurate restatement of concept, limited support. • Accurate restatement concept, elaborated support.
Coding - affect • Initial optimism. • Growing doubt, frustration. • Increasing confidence. • Satisfaction or dissatisfaction based on results.
Findings: Presearch phase Assignment 1 • 70% were unable to explain why they were exploring the broader topic. Assignment 2 • 88% able to articulate purpose of exploring the larger topic before selecting a focus.
Findings: Focus phase Assignment 1 • 90% selected focus solely on interest. Assignment 2 • 76% identified multiple criteria including • Availability of resources. • Readability. • Relevance. • Personal interest.
Findings: Collection phase Assignment 1 • 50% able to vaguely describe the note taking process. Assignment 2 • 90% able to identify major elements and elaborate on them.
Findings: Evaluation phase Assignment 1 • 24% were able to identify one or two aspects of the research process. Assignment 2 • 100% able to identify major steps. • 95% could elaborate on them.
Implications for instruction • Spend more time on presearch phase. • Identify sub-skills and provide direct instruction. • Incorporate graphic organizers to teach keyword identification, organizing and synthesizing information.
More implications • Engage in extensive modeling. • Incorporate thinkaloud strategies. • Involve students in developing assessment tools. • Do more debriefing on process.
Benefits: instructors • More interaction with students. • More precise identification of problems. • More informed judgments about instructional modifications.
Benefits: students • Deeper understanding of their own insights and problems. • More open expression of feelings throughout the process. • Greater confidence in raising questions.
For a more detailed rendition of this study refer to the following: Harada, V. H. (2002). Personalizing the information search process: A case study of journal writing with elementary-age students. [Online] School Library Media Research. Available at http://www.ala.org/aasl/SLMR/vol5/ search/search.html