Reflective Blog No. 2: Instructional Strategy

Determining the instructional strategy that will be tested in both the non-technology and technology enabled assignment was a lot more difficult than I imaged it would be. As I pondered why I was having so much trouble, I determined there were several factors making my task hard to do.

First of all, although I've "taught" many library instruction sessions, I'm realizing that I have never approached these sessions with any sort of formal lesson plan. Rather, I've always approached these sessions as outreach where my primary task was promoting the library, its services, and vast number of resources. Having never put together a formal lesson plan has proved to be more daunting than I'd like to admit.

Secondly, after completing my Theory of Action diagram for my previous blog, I realized that the scale of my action plan was more appropriate for an entire course as opposed to a single lesson. So even before beginning to piece together my plan, I've learned that its scope is important. But this really shouldn't have been a surprise. The first step to doing action research as outlined in Action Research: An Educational Leader's Guide to School Improvement (Glanz, 2003) is "select a focus" (p. 24).

So what will my focus be? This question must be answered before I can attempt to address my instructional strategy. As someone who has approached teaching in a  much less formal manner, I am not accustomed to this amount of planning. But as planning is just as important as focus as stated by the Heath brothers, authors of Made to Stick, "The planning process forces people to think through the right issues" (Heath & Heath, 2007).

Based on the need to focus, I've changed the direction of my lesson plan. Instead of the following learning objective: To find scholarly articles on an education-related topic by constructing a successful search strategy in ERIC using controlled vocabulary, truncation, and Boolean operators; I am going to design lesson plans with this new objective in mind: Students should be able to (1) identify scholarly journal articles based on their characteristics, (2) differentiate between scholarly and poplar journals, and (3) locate scholarly journals using an online research databases.

Now that I've selected a focus, I can determine the instructional strategy that I plan to use. For the non-technology based assignment, students will be presented with approximately twelve characteristics of scholarly journal articles. They will also be presented with the characteristics of trade and professional journals as well as popular periodicals. Finally, they will be shown how to locate these types of journal articles using online journal article databases. Their assignment will be to select a research topic and to find one scholarly journal article, one article from a trade journal, and one article from a magazine on their chosen topic. They must identify the similarities and, most importantly, the differences between the scholarly journal article and the articles from the trade journal and the popular periodical by simply marking/highlighting the printed articles themselves.

For the technology enabled assignment, I will also have the students select a research topic and find one scholarly journal article, one article from a trade journal, and one article from a magazine on their chosen topic. But instead of simply marking the printed articles, I plan to use one of the data collection tools highlighted in Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works. The second technology I plan to incorporate is summarizing/note taking using organizing and braining storming software also highlighted in the text. At first glance, the example that seems most fitting is the character trait note-taking template created in Inspiration which could easily be adapted to capture the characteristics of each journal article type.

Why did I chose these two instructional strategies? For two reasons: (1) Because they have the largest average effect size on student achievement as reported in Figure 3 (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, 2007); and (2) because they complement the lesson plan and desired learning outcome. I was excited to learn more about guided note taking and the affect have on students' achievement. According to Konrad, Joseph, & Itoi, guided notes "[have] been found to improve the accuracy of students' notes, increase the frequency of student responses, and improve students' quiz and test performance" (p. 131).


Konrad, M., Joseph, L. M., & Itoi, M. (2011). Using Guided Notes to Enhance Instruction for All Students.  Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 3, 131-140.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., Kuhn, M., Malenoski, K. (2007). Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works. Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

*****

Reflective Blog No. 1: Theory of Action

I'd like to start my third blog post with my favorite quote from "An Introduction to Action Research: It's Not All That complicated" that I found most reassuring at this point in the course, "Any graduate student is capable of readily applying sound research strategies to solve real problems in schools. Don't avoid research simply because it seems complicated. It's really very simple..." (Glanz, p. 22).

As a librarian who has responsibility for teaching bibliographic instruction sessions to CMU off-campus and online courses, I am interested in applying action research to my instruction practices. But where to begin? The text provided a simple, straight-forward approach outlined in four steps: (1) select a focus, (2) collect data, (3) analyze and interpret data, and (4) take action (Glanz, p. 24).

Selecting a focus has proved to be a somewhat difficult task so I was appreciative of the following questions for reflection (Glanz, p. 29):

1. What concerns me?

One of my most pressing concerns is based on my observation that many, if not most, graduate level students are unaware of how to construct success search strategies to find scholarly journal articles. 

2. Why am I concerned? 

During a typical instruction session, off-campus librarians highlight all of the library services and resources. When visiting an education course, I'll show students the best education-related databases for finding journal articles on education-related topics (e.g., ERIC, Education Abstracts, etc.). But I fear we spend too little time actually teaching them how to use these resources. As with any educational technology tool, students need to know what they're doing in order for the technology to enhance what you're doing. If they don't know how to construct a solid search strategy, the database won't do it for them.

3. Can I confirm my perceptions?

I should be able to confirm my perceptions by administering pre- and post-tests in order to measure students' level of understanding before and after instruction sessions.

4. What mistakes have I made?

I touched on these mistakes when addressing my concerns: Librarians spend too much time promoting their services and resources, and not enough time on teaching solid research skills.

5. If I was able to do it again, what would I do differently?

First, I'd assess students' level of research knowledge and then I'd focus more time and attention on how to construct a good search strategy before introducing the databases. Finally, I'd assess what they learned from the session. And most importantly, I'd get the students involved with hands-on exercises instead of simply "showing" them how do things via a boring lecture.

6. What are my current options?

Because bibliographic instruction sessions are only a one-time, one hour event, time is extremely limited. With so many options for instruction, I have to be focused in my approach. Covering everything isn't an option. So I must focus on building a strong foundation.

7. What evidence can I collect to confirm my feelings?

I can collect data on students' perceived success rate when searching before and after an instruction session. I can also collect data on specific research-related activities such as students' use of controlled vocabulary, truncation techniques, and use of Boolean logic.

8. Who might be willing to share their ideas with me?

I've already spoken with a colleague of mine who teaches a one-credit library course on-campus at CMU. We've discussed ideas for lessons plans which I am considering.

9. What have been my successes?

My biggest success is always those students who express excitement about the library services and resources available to them. I also count as a success comments like "wow, this is awesome" or "I wish I had known about this sooner". 

10. How might I replicate these success?

I'd like to hear these comments more frequently and might be able to do so by implementing technology that would enable me to reach more students at their point of need.

The following keywords resonated with me as I read the text. Hopefully, they will guide me as I conduct my own action research: problem-solving, self-reflection, decision-making, and user needs. The importance of reflection was perhaps one of the biggest takeaways. As someone who easily gets bogged down in the daily grind, I will follow the advice given and set aside time at the end of each day to reflect upon problems to be solved, successes gained, opportunities for improvement, and ways to get there!

Glanz, J. (2003). Action Research: An Educational Leader's Guide to School Improvement (2nd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.

*****

Wikipedia

When contemplating the "Wikiality" assignment, my first inclination was to do option A: "Select a non-education related entry on Wikipedia.org and 'modify' the entry with incorrect information" noting if and when a correction was made to my change. This sounded simple enough. The entry I chose was the United States Constitution because the dates and facts associated with this topic are well-known and indisputable in that they can be traced back to original, historical documents. Thus, any change made with incorrect information would surely be corrected within the three days the assignment allotted. Or so I suspected. But alas, I will never know. Why, you ask? Because I was way more uncomfortable making such a change than I thought I would be.

As a librarian, I belong to a profession that places a high value on the credibility and authenticity of information. A librarian's purpose, if you will, is connecting accurate, reliable information with those who seek it. So option A was out of the question.

Once I determined option A was not for me, I dove into option B by comparing the Wikipedia entry on school voucher to the same entry found in the Encyclopedia of American Education, Second Edition. What I found surprised me and changed my point of view. I am librarian who, until now, thought that most librarians were generally opposed to Wikipedia. But its reputation is apparently changing.

According to my own boss, Timothy Peters, Director of Information Services at Central Michigan University, "Wikipedia should be treated like any other source...People should look at the sources the author cites and see if they did their homework" (After 10 Years, Wikipedia Changes Research Scheme, Central Michigan Life, para. 4).

Armed with an opened mind, I examined the Wikipedia entry and the encyclopedia entry from a librarian's perspective, paying close attention to: (1) scope, (2) authority, (3) ease of use, and (4) currency. This is what I discovered:

Wikipedia's scope: Extensive with the following categories: Background, History, Definitions, Controversy (Proponents and Opponents), Implementations (Chile, Europe, Hong Kong, United States), Legal Challenges, and Political Support. Lists of Further Reading and External Links were also included.
 
Encyclopedia's scope: Surprisingly limited scope with only two paragraphs.

Wikipedia's authority: I didn't expect to find as many cited sources as I did. Based on what I found, I was pleasantly surprised. There were sixty-six (66) references in total. Also lending credibility was a disclosure stating that the information was from the United States’ point of view rather than a worldwide view of the subject.
 
Encyclopedia's authority: The brief entry was followed by a mere three references one of which appeared to be rather biased based on its title alone, "Educational Vouchers: The Private Pursuit of the Public Purse" (Butts, NYT, September 1979).

Wikipedia's ease of use: Hyperlinks to related entries throughout made for easy cross referencing and the overall entry was well organized with seven main categories.

 Encyclopedia's ease of use: The index contained "school voucher" and listed four page numbers which were dispersed among all three volumes. Three of the four entries were only related topics.

Wikipedia's currency: Page last modified on 21 January 2011 at 10:52.

Encyclopedia's currency: Published in 2001.

Until now, my use of Wikipedia has been limited to personal use and to gather background information on a topic when a student's request is a little spotty, lacking context, or is simply difficult to understand. But based on my comparison of these two entries, my viewpoint has changed. Instead of treating Wikipedia as an unreliable source, I will begin to use it more frequently. But I'll use it responsibly; verifying the sources cited. It’s an excellent starting point and one that I’ll be using with less hesitation in the future: an educational tool to enhance my future research.

School Voucher. Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher

Tighe, M. (2011, January 21). After 10 Years, Wikipedia Changes Research Scheme. Central Michigan Life.

Unger, H.G. (2001). School Voucher. In Encyclopedia of American Education (Vol. 3, pp. 948). New York: Facts on File.

Plagiarism

As a new student in Central Michigan University's Educational Technology program, I approached the first assignment with a mixture of excitement, anticipation, and -- to be honest -- a bit of trepidation. As a librarian at CMU, I am very familiar with the reality that plagiarism is a growing concern on most college campuses today. But aside from assisting students with APA style questions, I had no previous experience using educational technology tools such as SafeAssign to detect plagiarized content. So the question of whether or not an essay made up of 90% plagiarized content could "trick" SafeAssign by assigning a score less than 90% was intriguing.  

Although multiple submissions were allowed in order to reach a score below 90%, I was pleasantly surprised to find that my essay -- which contained the required 90% of plagiarized content -- yielded a score of 44%. Perfect! No need to resubmit my essay and wait for a new score. But the implications of this score quickly began to take on new meaning. My score wasn't perfect at all. Far from it. Much to my surprise, nearly half of my plagiarized content was undetected by SafeAssign!

The SafeAssign report revealed a total of seven suspected sources, including an international newspaper, a university's web page, three different blogs, and another student’s paper. Although I obtained none of my plagiarized content from any of these secondary sources, nearly all seven suspected sources referenced the same primary source. Which begs the question: which source should be cited? It's not always easy to tell.

When considering this dilemma, I was reminded of a student who called the library to get help in understanding the concept of plagiarism. But instead of insisting that “everything belongs to everybody” (Fish, 2010, para. 11), he couldn’t grasp why he shouldn’t cite his entire paper. Because not even the ideas were his own. Unfortunately, as concerned as this student was, he seems to be the exception.

As I pondered how easy it was to cut and paste blocks of text to "create" an essay, I began to give more credence to what seemed at first like an oversimplified statement by Gabriel (2010), "Digital technology makes copying and pasting easy…But that is the least of it. The Internet may also be redefining how students...understand the concept of authorship and the singularity of any text or image" (Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age, para. 7). But he might be onto something. If students' understanding of authorship is changing, then too must their understanding of how their work is assessed. 

SafeAssign might not be fool-proof as evidenced by the fact it was "tricked" when 46% of my plagiarized content went undetected. But maybe that's not the point. Perhaps if students were made aware tools like SafeAssign, they might be persuaded to think twice about the importance of citing their sources.

Fortunately, for the librarians at CMU's Off-Campus Library Services, the number of APA style questions is increasing. Suggesting that even though students don't always know how to properly format a citation, at least they are aware of the fact that a citation is needed. Let's hope the trend continues!


Brownrigg, K. (2010, May 24). Plagiarism and the Web: A Blunt Look at How the 'Net Redefines Ethics. Herald de Paris. Retrieved from http://www.heralddeparis.com/plagiarism-and-the-web-a-blunt-look-at-how-the-internet-redefines-ethics/89940

Fish, S. (2010, August 9). Plagiarism Is Not a Big Moral Deal. Exclusive Online Commentary From The Times. Retrieved from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/plagiarism-is-not-a-big-moral-deal/

Gabriel, T. (2010, August 1). Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/education/02cheat.html

*****