Due to my schedule, I skimmed some of these sections in my preparation for the first assessment task and did not thoroughly work through the activities. The sheer amount of time and effort involved in completing both the annotated bibliography and the assessment task for ETL401 ended up putting me somewhat behind schedule. I am working on catching up now and, while I see the benefit of some of these practical exercises, I think they will be more relevant with more of a particular context. I am putting off completion of some of them until I have more time and will continue to make progress with the modules so that I will be prepared for the final assessment task.
Activity
The examples given of selection aids comprise only a small sample of those available. Examine at least two of the examples given of each type covered above and compare their strengths and weaknesses. The examples provided are largely Australian selection aids.
Try and identify at least one further selection aid in each category. Preferably ones of relevance and interest to you. There are a large and growing number of selection aids available online. For example, the following website indicates the variety of school-related selection aids available in and pertinent to North American schools.
Resources for School Librarians – Selection Tools
What criteria do you feel a particular selection aid should meet before it is used, trusted and valued? How would these criteria vary, if at all, between the different types of selection aids?
Identify selection aids which have particular relevance and value to your school or a school with which you are familiar. What are the characteristics of these selection aids which make them of particular relevance and value in selecting for the library collection?
National bibliographic databases
SCIS and Trove were given as examples in this category.
I cannot access SCIS without signing up for a 10 day free trial and am concerned that doing so for the purposes of this exercise would be a waste of that opportunity.
I cannot figure out how to get reasonable information from Trove in the manner suggested by the SCIS blog article.
I would find it very helpful if this Module actually demonstrated how to use Trove as a selection aid.
Subject lists
Given that I feel my annotated bibliography assessment was weak in the Software area, I decided to compare the two technology lists provided:
* iPads for education (Department of Education and Training, Victoria)
* New Zealand TKI Software for learning
I found that the link for the Victorian resource led to a “Page not found” error. The correct address for the home page is: http://www.ipadsforeducation.vic.edu.au/planning/ipads-for-learning/ipads-for-learning.
The iPads for Learning site was helpful for providing information about how to choose and review apps, but as an aid for actually finding apps its value was only in the external links to review sites. Even many of these sites were either information on how to evaluate apps or fairly old, such as the link to a September 2014 article on the best apps to use with the SAMR model: https://www.educatorstechnology.com/2014/09/the-best-ipad-apps-to-use-with-samr.html (NAME, 2014).
It certainly was not somewhere that you could go to easily search for recommendations of software that would support a particular curriculum priority.
The NZ TKI page was also more related to providing evaluation information. Again, I think this is a valuable educational resource but I am really not clear how it would function as a selection aid.
Once again, I am in the position of wishing that instead of just dumping these on a list and telling me to go evaluate it someone had actually provided instruction on how to use this resource as a selection aid.
A webpage with a “subject list” relevant to apps/software that I found as a potential selection aid (in the manner I understand selection aid – a resource that assists me in identifying resources that I might want to select for use in my school library) was: http://www.thetechedvocate.org/tech-edvocates-2017-list-116-best-teaching-learning-apps/ . While the author and website are US based it is a good starting point, even if not all of the products are available in Australia.
To be continued . . .
Activity
Select a resource and evaluate it according to the criteria listed above.
Consider which is the more appropriate approach for determining the general selection criteria to be used in a school, the general approach employed by many school libraries, or the alternative proposed by Hughes-Hassell and Mancall?
Can you suggest an alternative approach which would incorporate the teaching and learning environment within the key general selection criteria?
TO be done at a later time
Search and share
Search a variety of sources for criteria which could be used to select e-resources. Many lists will have common criteria.
Collate these common elements and post to Forum 2.7 with a short explanation of why the criteria is important for e-resources
To be done at a later time.
Read (essential)
Jenkinson, D. (2002). Selection and censorship: It’s simple arithmetic. School libraries in Canada, 2(4), 22. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.csu.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=7277053&site=ehost-live
Consider his comments on self-censorship in Canadian school libraries. Do we face the same challenges?
I think we face similar challenges. All school libraries are part of a larger community context that has its own set of explicit and implicit standards, values and biases. Each of us also has our personal set of standards, values and biases. We need to be aware of these in order to consciously set aside our personal criteria and evaluate for selection based on the criteria in our selection policies.
I think that it is acceptable to consider appropriateness of thematic material in terms of developmental and even cultural contexts. I would not support controversial material being automatically removed from consideration for selection. I would, however, support an internal review process that evaluated the material and the context first-hand rather than relying completely on external review sources in cases where controversy within the community was likely to be a concern.
Read (essential)
Moody, K. (2005). Covert censorship in libraries: A discussion paper. Australian Library Journal, 54(2), 138-147. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/ehost/detail?sid=c0a1a5f0-a3ea-4888-b507-0f8826668fa1%40sessionmgr4002&vid=1&hid=4209&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=lih&AN=18032663
Lukenbill, W.B. (2007). Censorship: What do school library specialists really know? School Library Media Research, 10. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aaslpubsandjournals/slr/vol10/SLMR_Censorship_V10.pdf
School Library Research Journal. (2016). Controversial books survey. Retrieved from https://interact2.csu.edu.au/bbcswebdav/courses/S-ETL503_201730_W_D/SLJ_ControversialBooksSurveyReport_2016.pdf
How does the discussion in these articles relate to your experience in school libraries?
I don’t really have experience in school libraries to compare to these readings.
Read (essential)
Johnson, D. (2010). Censorship by omission. Library Media Connection, 28(4), 48-49. Retrieved from http://www.doug-johnson.com/dougwri/censorship-by-omission.html
What is the Internet filtering policy in your organisation/education department/sector and what is the rationale for the policy? Find it.Reflective practice & discussion
What other strategies can you identify, or find in school library management texts, that could assist in dealing with a complaint from a community member about a resource in a school library collection.
Share your thoughts on Forum 2.8.
To be done at a later time.
I also found that Trove is not an effective selection aid, although useful to look up bibliographic data to source a book that someone mentioned in passing. Dead links are a constant battle both in this course and in real life. Even in the time we have been completing this course, some of my links no longer point to their intended pages due to the redesign of the SCIS website.