Inquiry+Reflection

=**Inquiry Reflection**=


 * EDES 542 Assignment #3 – Inquiry Reflection**
 * Kirsten Morozov**
 * Due August 3, 2010**

Refworks Discussion

Organization Tool Discussion

Personal Response


 * Refworks Discussion**

I tried out Refworks in the first course I took (EDES 540). I found though at that time that a) Refworks seemed to have some issues creating APA references properly (such as not including journal homepages when no DOI is present) and b) because our students use Noodletools, it was important to me that I become proficient at its use, so I abandoned Refworks in favour of Noodletools.

For the purposes of this current assignment, however, I decided to explore Refworks again. I believe that once the user has a better understanding of how APA references are built, Refworks is a wonderfully convenient tool with far more features than e.g. Noodletools. Obviously, Refworks main attractant is the fact that it takes seconds to click on a database document’s citation feature, and have the (probably) correct citation in its entirety pop in my Refworks account, although there are databases that do not provide a download to Refworks feature (thus necessitating the use of the manual input). I can then create folders in order to organize these citations, and share these folders if I so wish with others.

A disadvantage to this convenience is that it does not provide the opportunity for students to learn how a reference is constructed, whereas in a program such as Noodletools, all references must be built by inputting all of the various elements of the reference into Noodletools via prompts and examples, whereupon this program will then create the reference. Refworks does have a manual input feature, but while it has a greater variety of prompts one may add information too, it has very few clarifying examples compared to Noodletools. An additional feature of Refworks, which is both a bonus (to the seasoned referencer) and a curse (to those still learning) is that even if I e.g. type in title of a book with each word capitalized, Refworks will automatically correct the capitalization for APA. Noodletools, on the other hand, will merely remind you that you may have typed the title incorrectly and provide suggestions as to how you may want to fix it. Asides from the sharing abilities of Refworks, I was excited to discover the Write-N-Cite feature, which, in theory, inputs parenthetical references directly into text. As currently configured on my computer, however, the citations are incorrect. I did some research and discovered a remedy that should fix this problem, but have not yet had time to fiddle around with this (it is not very straightforward). Noodletools, on the other hand, provides a pop-up window with the correct parenthetical style, which can be cut and pasted into the text. Finally, two other feature of Refworks I hope to experiment with in the future are: RefGrab-It, which finds additional bibliographic information from web pages, and RefMobile, for use accessing references from hand-held devices.


 * Organization Tool Discussion**

I had some difficulty deciding which tool to discuss because I found that both Evernote and Diigo have some outstanding potential for research work. Ultimately however, I decided to focus on Diigo because I found that for the purposes of the initial research stage, I was using it the most, even if I spent much more time exploring and commenting on Evernote. Essentially, I came to see Diigo (collects web pages) as a parallel of Refworks (collects database resources). In regards to my inquiry question though, what I want to know is, “When will this all become one, integrated application (hello Google? Do you hear me? I love what you’ve done so far – now take all this other stuff and add it in to your suite and simplify my life…)?”

I was also thrilled to discover that Diigo will largely solve a significant problem I have been having at work. That is, I’ve been having trouble determining an effective way to organize and store the web resources that I discover for students and faculty at my school. Now I realize I can put most of them on Diigo in organized lists and tagged for searching by subject, topic, and grade level, and then provide easy access to these lists on the Moodle pathfinder pages I have been creating. Our resident techie-inclined teacher had been pushing me to use the Drupal site he’d been creating, as you can create resources links searchable by tags on this. But frankly I think I’ve one-upped him now, because it is FAR easier and more flexible to create tags and lists in Diigo, and Diigo is much more user-friendly for those searching for materials via lists and tags. Plus, unlike the Drupal site, collaboration is easily facilitated, both in terms of access to materials and the ability to annotate sites by various group members.

Further to my thoughts that are behind my inquiry question, I also appreciate the ability to move and duplicate materials I find into different lists and categories, and add tags to them, as I (or others – nothing like a fresh set of eyes) discover new or heavier uses for resources.


 * Personal Response**


 * Introduction**

This early-stage inquiry assignment was a profoundly useful exercise. While I have obviously “inquired” in the past, I have not thought directly how such experiences impact my understanding of what students need in terms of tools, techniques, skills, and attitudes. This assignment highlighted why process is as product, and was a prime example of building knowledge through an assignment.

My inquiry question and inspiration, after some feedback from my classmates and professor, was: "How can teacher-librarians develop an overarching framework for the purposes of modeling and supporting life-long learning, for the whole school community, the use of a variety of tools and techniques for the management and organization of information, research, inquiry, acquired knowledge, personal learning networks, etc.?"

The need to answer this question came about both as a result of my personal frustrations with the learning curve I am undergoing, as well as my need as an educator to assist others with “a major feature of the concept of lifelong learning [which] is developing the capacity of ‘learning to learn’” (Knezek, Voogt, Norris, Soloway, Gibson, and Searson, 2010, p. 2).

A mere sampling of what I didn’t know: • I had only a basic understanding of the Refwork features. • I never really used Diigo before except to experiment with the annotation feature. • How to use Evernote. • That LC, Dewey and Sears all have different subject headings. • I could turn my iphone into a scanner

What I did know (at a limited level): I already knew a few things that were relevant to this task, but usually at a fairly shallow level. Therefore, this assignment provided me the opportunity to develop deeper knowledge and skills through further exploration of: • Bloggers • The use of databases and which databases were most relevant. • Search techniques • Dewey Decimal call numbers, Library of Congress call numbers, subject headings etc., and where to potentially find help with this.

Anyway, these experiences provided me with a strong understanding of both the optimism and frustration of stages in e.g. Kuhlthau’s Information Search Process (as cited in Kuhlthau, Maniotes, and Caspari, 2007, p. 19). It also reminded me of my job as a teacher-librarian to assist students through this process so they can focus on the task at hand. I also came to a better understanding if those students who, despite being frontloaded with information, find it difficult to come up with an inquiry question.


 * My experiences with finding resources**

This process was initially onerous and slow going, as I did not yet have a strong sense of where I should be looking and which search terms I should be using. There was a lot of trial and error involved. Ultimately, this process would likely have been faster had I’d made a plan and asked for more assistance.


 * Some of what I learned as part of this process:**

• Certain search terms will get me so far, and then introduce me to new ones that may be relevant. The trick though is not to get too side-tracked. • I preferred database services such as ERIC and EBSCO Host rather than individual databases. Using these services was much faster than going through individual databases, and they provided numerous ways to narrow my search, although because I haven’t used ERIC in years, the learning curve was a bit steep. • Much of what I found, particularly in the information sciences categories, was quite technical, and many of the resources had some relevant elements, but were not necessarily tied to education. Therefore, I may need to transfer and apply the concepts contained within some of these articles to the education field.

Planning to organize materials and work with students and staff: While keeping in mind standards for the 21st century learner as a backdrop (AASL, 2007), here is a sampling of the my realizations of the way I need to plan to organize for inquiry:

• Assist students in planning the information search (Harada, 2005, page 12). • Provide opportunities for students to develop their Personal Learning Networks for both group work and individual work so that they may gain the benefits of discussing and learning from and with others, but also minimize the sometimes overwhelming nature of an online PLN by helping students take advantage of the fact that networking “convergence is emerging, to some extent, with new media devices…” (Hogan, 2009, p. 215) • Provide lots of support for the frustrations inherent in the inquiry process. Not only do teacher-librarians need to teach these skills as well as provide resources in many cases, but they also need to help students figure out how to recognize and deal with the frustrations involved, such as by asking others, taking a break from that particular problem for a bit, or trying to approaching it from a different angle. • Encourage recording the use of search terms, call numbers, databases etc. tried so students don’t repeat their work unnecessarily. • Teach students to track their resources effectively and immediately as it can be challenging to try and backtrack for this information. I always tell my students to keep a browser window with Noodletools open while conducting research, to plug in resources as they find them. • For organizing research: limit the number of tools I teach to younger kids in order to limit overwhelming them, and expand tool options as they get to higher grades and competencies. I found though that it is helpful having a central, collaborative place, such as wiki, to place information and materials of various kinds. • Teach students how to create and organize “notebooks”, folders, and lists using standard subject headings and tags in all management tools they use. • As a teacher-librarian, I need to organize materials that I provide based on age grouping and zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86), and taking advantage of the opportunity to teach how to find materials using book bibliographies and website tags of materials I do provide to them. Student responsibility for finding materials can gradually be increased as competency allows. • Guide students to go through the materials they have initially collected and ditch the ones that aren’t really relevant, as well as determine which ones are actually valid sources of information. • Encourage students to ask for help from librarians and their PLN. • Teach students how to reduce distractions, and how to get back on track after getting sidetracked. For instance, if they find something interesting/important but unrelated to the inquiry at hand, they can add it to a list in e.g. Diigo to which they can return at another time. • Teach students time-management skills (with which I still have issues) using e.g. collaborative calendars such as Google calendars for group inquiries. • Model, model, model!!! Provide plenty of examples and work through inquiry process problems in front of students and with them. • Help students assess self-progress throughout the information search process (Harada, 2005, page 12).

As a result of this reflection, I have decided that what this all means when I think about teaching and learning in schools and school libraries is that a) I must work to create a culture that recognizes that the learning commons is central to the inquiry process, and b) the learning commons, both physically and conceptually, is probably the overarching framework that I am looking for as the main element of my inquiry question, and this realization will provide my inquiry with a better focus as I possibly reach the clarity of Kuhlthau’s Formulation stage (as cited in Kuhlthau et al., 2007, p. 19).


 * References**

American Association of School Librarians. (2007). Standards for the 21st century learner [Pamphlet]. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/aasl/standards

Harada, V. H., & Yoshina, J. M. (2005). Assessing learning: Librarians and teachers as partners. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Hogan, Bernard J. (2009). Networking in everyday life (doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto). Retrieved from http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2009/09/12/sometimes_i_fee.html Knezek, G., Voogt, J., Norris, C., Soloway, E., Gibson, I., & Searson, M. (2010). The international handbook summit call to action for learning with technology in the 21st century. Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific 2010, 1-5. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org

Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2007). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/