I am posting a copy of this to my own blog for future reference in case something happens to make it inaccessible from Stephanie’s blog in the future.
Module 2.1 Selection in the school context
Definitions of selection
Hughes-Hassell, S. & Mancall, J. (2005). Collection management for youth: responding to the needs of learners [ALA Editions version]. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/lib/csuau/detail.action?docID=289075
Review the model (p. 34) developed by Hughes-Hassell and Mancall (2005) – Chapter 4, Selecting resources for learning.
Note that it presents selection as a series of YES or NO decisions. In reality, many selection decisions are not this black and white, and involve a process of prioritising across a range of criteria.
Attempt to draft your own selection decision-making model or flowchart that considers a more complex set of choices and criteria.
Resource being considered —>
Test 1: Apply selection criteria regarding Curriculum Relevance and Authority and Fit —> 90 – 95% = hold for second look, < 90% = NO
> or = 95% on Test 1 —> Test 2: Apply selection criteria regarding resource fitting the needs of the learning community (fits program units/themes/priorities) —> 75 – 85% = hold, , 75% = NO
> or = 85% on Test 2 —> Test 3: Apply selection criteria regarding learner characteristics, reading levels, scope, appropriateness of language, illustration, etc. —> 85-90% = hold, <85% = NO
>or = 90% on Test 3 —> Test 4: Consult teachers regarding whether resource fits into their teaching-learning context, fitting pedagogical and methodological planned usage —> < 90% = NO
> or = 90% on Test 4 —> Test 5: Value and budget testing —> check cost relative to budget, compare with scores received by resource going through various tests and enthusiasm of teachers for resource… if within budget and rated well for value, recommend — if not, bring to committee for further comparison with other resources, if beyond budget or scored low along the testing for value and low on teacher enthusiasm = NO.
Reflection on information and information behaviour – 2.1
What I have learned in Module 2.1
The first section of Module 2 (Coombes & Fitzgerald, 2016) has prompted me to consider the definition of information and primed me to make myself aware of how an author is defining information in any readings that I do on the topic. I have learned that a common definition for information in the library field is actually a hybrid of the two main theories of information – the semantic and the classical – and requires an item to both contain meaning and to be transmitted between users (whether biological, electronic or mechanical) to be designated as information. This hybrid definition of information fits on a continuum running from chaos – a state of items existing with no organisation, transmission or meaning – through to wisdom – where items are not only organised, imbued with meaning and transmitted but also processed and applied.
Additionally, various attributes of information have been posited that can be used to evaluate behaviours pertaining to information use. These attributes focus mainly on the fact that once you have received information you have it for keeps. It is the cake that you can have and eat too. Processing, implementing or transferring information can be done by a receiver while continuing to retain the information. However, any alteration to information, whether revision, addition, combination with other information or even truncation, changes that information and creates new information if it is then transmitted to another receiver.
How does the behaviour of information affect how we communicate, learn and use information?
I am treating this task as an informal thought experiment rather than a formal academic communication and including it on my blog as part of my reflective journal record.
As an exercise for ETL503, we were asked to find a definition of collection management or collection development or a statement regarding resourcing the curriculum, preferably from a governmental authority with which we are familiar, and compare it to those provided in the learning module. This was to be posted in the Discussion Forum for Module 1 into the embedded Padlet app.
It took me at least three tries to get my work into the app to my satisfaction, hopefully my cross-posting to the blog will be easier as it is gradually becoming a familiar process. Without further ado, the record of the task for my personal archive: