T carse ESOL_October_2013_3D_Research_presentation

Engaging Secondary Students in

“Three Dimensional Research”

“How to fit a square peg in a round hole”. . .

successfully.

Tim Carse

Secondary Librarian, Cairo English School

ESOL Dubai Professional Development Conference, 2013

Where we need to go today . . .

My goals and outcomes for our

time together:

1. My Presentation

What is Research? A look at the past and present.

How does today’s digital classroom force

educators to reevaluate basic research methods

and desired outcomes?

The information process model

Information Literacy Models


time together:

2. Your discussion, in small groups . . .

1. Generate personal definitions of research;

2. Document brief statements of group members own experiences with secondary students and research and;

3. Record any “best practices” and pedagogical tips that have worked for teachers in their own classrooms.


time together:

3. Our Collective Reflections . . .

We reconvene and share the information as a

large group. We will document reflections for

everyone using Google docs Conclusions

How educators can leverage today’s technology

to mentor, teach, and engage students to conduct

quality and effective research.


time together:

4. Any collective conclusions?

A list of teaching strategies, ideas, and pedagogy

to assist us in achieving the goal of engaging

students in quality “three dimensional” research.

Our Online Resource for

this presentation:

http://3dresearch.weebly.com/

Finding a way to fit a square peg

in a round hole . . .

Changes in the way we do research

We used to . . .

Have card catalogues

Books made only of paper

No Internet or easy world-wide

communication

No electronic databases

And inter-library loans were costly

and took time (physical books

loaned and moved about)

Changes in the way we

do research

Today we have . . .

Card catalogues that are in the cloud

Print and non-print media in various formats

The Internet and instant communication world-wide

Powerful electronic databases

Electronic means of sharing information

And our students have changed too . . .

Source: http://thesocialmediatrainee.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/digital-natives-

vs-digital-immigrants/

Source: http://thesocialmediatrainee.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/digital-natives-

vs-digital-immigrants/

How does all of this impact, or change,the nature of students’ research?

The Pew Study: How

Teens Do Research in the

Digital World

The Pew Institute conducted an online survey between

March 7 & April 23, 2012:

2,462 middle and high school teachers

1,750 were from a sample of AP teachers

712 from a sample of Nat’l Writing Project teachers

Teachers from the USA, Puerto Rico, and US Virgin

Islands were surveyed

Also online and in-person focus groups of teachers,

grades 9-12 (Nov. 2011 and Feb. 2012)

From the Pew Study Summary

of Findings

¾ of AP and NWP teachers believe that the

Internet and digital search tools:

Have a “mostly positive” impact on students’

research habits

But, 87% stated these technologies are “creating

an easily distracted generation with short

attention spans

And, 64% say today’s digital technologies “do

more to distract students than help them

academically”

Source: Page 3 of the report


of Findings

Emerging concerns of some teachers about their

students (p. 3):

An overdependence on search engines

Difficulty judging the quality of online information

General level of student literacy

Increasing distractions “pulling” at students

Poor time management skills

Diminished critical thinking capacity

Ease of borrowing from the work of others


of Findings

The Internet has changed the very meaning of

“research” – A few key comments by teachers

regarding some of the effects of today’s digital

environment:

The nature of “research” has changed

What it means “to do research” has changed

For many students today, “research” = Googling


of Findings

And some teachers report that for today’s

students:

. . . “doing research” has shifted from a

relatively slow process of intellectual curiosity

and discovery to a fast-paced, short-term

exercise aimed at locating just enough

information to complete an assignment.

Source: Pew report, pgs. 3-4.


of Findings

And on the following slide:

In descending order, the sources teacher

in our [the Pew] survey say students are

“very likely” to use in a typical research

assignment . . .

Source: Pew report, p. 4.

Google or other online search engine (94%)

Wikipedia or other online encyclopedia (75%)

YouTube or other social media sites (52%)

Their peers (42%)

Spark Notes, Cliff Notes, or other study guides (41%)

News sites of major news organizations (25%)

Print or electronic textbooks (18%)

Online databases such as EBSCO, JSTOR, or Grolier

(17%)

A research librarian at their school or public library

(16%)

Printed books other than textbooks (12%)

Student-oriented search engines such as Sweet Search

(10%)

Google or other online search engine (94%)

Wikipedia or other online encyclopedia (75%)

YouTube or other social media sites (52%)

Their peers (42%)

Spark Notes, Cliff Notes, or other study guides

(41%)

So what do these statistics

suggest relative to the majority of

Digital Natives,

News sites of major news organizations (25%)

Print or electronic textbooks (18%)

Online databases such as EBSCO, JSTOR, or

Grolier (17%)

A research librarian at their school or public

library (16%)

Printed books other than textbooks (12%)

Student-oriented search engines such as

Sweet Search (10%)

. . . when juxtaposed to these statistics

that may relate more to Digital Immigrants

(and a minority of digital natives)?

So what does this actually information suggest?Do digital immigrants v. natives have different thinking and

philosophies?

Are teachers’ just wrestling with the place of technology in

education?

Is this a generational trend?

What about “easy” research v. “hard” research?

Our increasing dependency on technology?

Is there a lack of traditional research resources?

A look into the research process

The basic Input, Process,

Output (IPO) Model

InputA

process

Some type of output

The basic Input, Process,

Output (IPO) Model in the ideal

educational world . . .

Inputs: digital, printed, multi-media, other

Students use some type of information

model

Output: an authentic, genuine, research artifact

The basic Input, Process, Output

(IPO) Model in the real educational

world . . .

Inputs Process Output

Less than

desirable; does

not promote

student

learning

From only one

source:

Google? Worth

of sources?

Hormones

Adolescence

Research-

Anxiety

Student Apathy

Carol Collier KuhlthauProfessor II Emerita

Department of Library and Information Science, Rutgers University

Center for International Scholarship in School Libraries (CISSL)

A pioneer researcher in the

area of understanding the

information search process and

the emotive aspects of student

research and learning

Kuhlthau’s Information Search

Process (ISP) Model

Noted as one of the most significant contributions in

teaching the process approach to student reserach

The only theoretical model that has been empirically

tested

Value of her model has been demonstrated for over 20

years

Subsequent research has identified gender differences

Kuhlthau’s ISP Model

Source: http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~kuhlthau/information_search_process.htm

7 Stages of the ISP Model

1. Task Initiation

2. Topic Selection

3. Topic Exploration

4. Focus Formulation

5. Resource collection

6. Presentation

7. Assessment

Source: Nancy Pickering Thomas, et al. 2011. 3rd ed. “Information Literacy and

Information Skills Instruction.” Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited, p. 136.

The ISP Model focuses on the

emotive aspects in process research

(1):

Affective Level: Feelings that parallel ISP

Model



1. Anxiety; uncertainty

2. Optimism3. Confusion;

frustration; doubt

4. Clarity; interest

5. Confidence6. Satisfaction;

relief; disappointment

7. Positive or negative feelings



(2):

Ambiguity Specificity

Cognitive Level: Thinking Activities





(3):

Seeking Relevant

Information

Seeking Pertinent

Information

Behavioral Level: Actions





(4):

Moods

Invitational Indicative

Source: Nancy Pickering Thomas, et al. 2011. 3rd ed. “Information Literacy

and Information Skills Instruction.” Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited, p.

136.

A brief look at a few Information Literacy Models

Irving’s 9-Step Model for Assignment Completion

The Big6

The Super3

REACTS

I-Search

Yucht’s FLIP-IT

Source: Thomas, “Information Literacy, 3e,” p. 59-76. [slides recreated from figures in Chapter 4]

Ann Irving’s 9-Step Model1. Defining Tasks “What do I need to do?”

2. Considering Sources “Where do I go?”

3. Finding Resources “How do I get the information?”

4. Making Selections “Which resources shall I use?”

5. Effective Use “How shall I use the resources?”

6. Making Records “What shall I make a record of?”

7. Making Sense “Have I got the information I need?”

8. Presenting Work “How should I present it?”

9. Assessing Progress “What have I achieved?

Big6 Skills and the Super3 –

Eisenberg & Berkowitz

• 1. Task Definition

• 2. Information-seeking strategies

1. Plan

• 3. Location and Access

• 4. Use of Information2. DO

• 5. Synthesis

• 6. Evaluation3. Review

REACTS by Barbara K. Stripling & Judy M. Pitts

Level 1 Fact-Finding Reporting on the information Recalling

Level 2 Asking and

Searching

Posing who, what, where, and when

questions and finding answers

Explaining

Level 3 Examining and

Organizing

Posing why and how problems and

organizing information to fit the

project

Analyzing

Level 4 Evaluating and

Deliberating

Judging information on the basis of

authority, significance, etc.

Challenging

Level 5 Integrating and

Concluding

Drawing conclusions and creating a

personal perspective based on

information obtained

Transforming

Level 6 Conceptualizing Creating original solutions to

problems posed

Synthesizing

I-Search by Joyce and Tallman

• Explanation of I-Search Process; Webbing activities to pinpoint student interest; preliminary investigation of library resources; conferencing w/ teacher/librarian; sharing topic choice with peers and parents

Step 1: Topic Choice

• Generating research questions; background reading; Preparing bibliographies; in-depth reading; interviewing

Step 2: Finding Information

• Highlighting text; double-entry drafting; reflecting and conferencing; using learning logs

Step 3: Using information

• Using the first person; telling about search; using learning logs; editing by peers; transferring the research

Step 4: Preparing the I-Search Product

FLIP IT! by Alice H. Yucht

Focus• FOCUS: What is the real

question/problem I need to work on at this time?

Links • LOGISTICS: What "connections" can I use to make this activity as efficient and effective as possible?

Input • IMPLEMENTATION: What really needs to be done? and how will it need to be accomplished?

Payoff

• PROOF: What should the final results be? and it! is shorthand for IF/THEN: the fundamental question which underlies every other decision and activity in this process.

Additional Source: Yucht, Alice H. 2000. STRATEGY: FLIP IT! For Collaborative Planning

Strategies. Teacher Librarian, Sept 2000, Vol. 28 Issue 1, p48. 3p.

Relationships among the models

Source: Milam, P. (2004). A Road Map for the Journey. Library Media Connection, 22(7), 20.

Evaluating Websites and

Online Sources

A template for evaluation purposes

WWWDOT

Criteria to use in online information

evaluation

Suggested criteria to be evaluated:

1. The authority of author

2. The website content

3. Evidence of bias

4. Evidence of the authenticity of information,

5. The quality of presentation, and;

6. Currency [of information: Is it up to date?]

Source: Zhang, Shenglan, Duke, Nell K., & Jimenez, Laura M. (2011). The WWWDOT Approach

to Improving Students' Critical Evaluation of Websites. The Reading Teacher, Vol. 65 Issue 2 pp.

150–158 DOI:10.1002/TRTR.01016

Applying the Template: The WWWDOT Model1. Who wrote this and what credentials do they have?

2. Why was it written?

3. When was it written?

4. Does it help meet my needs?

5. Organization of the site?

6. To-do list for the future.

Source: Zhang, Shenglan, Duke, Nell K., & Jimenez, Laura M. (2011). The WWWDOT Approach to Improving Students' Critical

Evaluation of Websites. The Reading Teacher, Vol. 65 Issue 2 pp. 150–158 DOI:10.1002/TRTR.01016

Your thoughts, opinions, war stories, and feedback is needed!

What do you think?

Our observations and thoughts will be

added to our Website for all to see

after this class.

Thanks for signing up and participating!

Have a great time for the remainder of our inaugural

PD conference!

Date post:	11-Jul-2015
Category:	Education
Upload:	timcarse
View:	291 times
Download:	1 times

T carse ESOL_October_2013_3D_Research_presentation

Education