Pre-Searching Round Two: Moving Toward a More Specific Topic for Research and Inquiry

presearch round 2students

After introducing students to some basics of information evaluation, we began our second phase of pre-searching on Monday, October 6.   Our learning targets included (based on our district content area standards and the AASL Standards for the 21st Century Learner):

  • I can use prior background knowledge as context for new learning.
  • I can find, evaluate, and select appropriate sources to answer questions.
  • I can read widely and fluently to make connections with self, the world, and previous reading.
  • I can use my library time wisely to think deeply on my work and stay on task.

We began the conversation by discussing how this next-round of pre-search was going to be a little more strategic and structured since our first phase had given us a topic commitment and now it was time to start “cropping” the big picture to narrow our topic (hat tip to Pegasus Librarian for this wonderful metaphor and to my friend Kristin Fontichiaro for pointing me to it).

We then introduced our structures , steps, and resources for helping us go more deeply into our pre-search to help us read and reflect more intentionally while evaluating our information sources.

pre-search round 2 directions

 

We required students to print or create a hard copy of any information sources they were using so that they could highlight and annotate the text.  We then took time to discuss strategies for annotating informational text and how annotations help us think more deeply and purposefully about a text.  We drew heavily from reading and literacy expert Cris Tovani to create this handy “help” sheet on annotating texts for our students:

Annotating Text Strategies

We then shared with the students how the text annotations would be the bridge to our modified KWL for pre-search and how this reflective thinking, while time intensive for the present, would be essential and instrumental to building our existing knowledge of the topic so that we could hone in on a more specific focus.

On the backside of the hard copy of this chart was the information source evaluation checklist we had worked with the previous week in our research/inquiry circles.   We explained how we would use the CRAAP test and our assessment tool to evaluate the information source.  Once students had read and annotated an article, completed a KWL for that article, and completed the information evaluation assessment tool for that article, we asked them to staple that together as a “packet” and then add the information source to their EasyBib working bibliography.  We ended with a short EasyBib refresher and pointed students to specific tutorial videos we’ve created for a variety of resources.  

tempcheckWe then turned the students loose, and they began immersing themselves in the work.  Over the next few days, the primary role for Sarah, Jennifer, and me as instructors was to facilitate; most of our efforts were spent answering 1:1 questions and individual conferencing to help students keep moving forward or adjust their searching.   After doing a “temperature check” on Friday, October 10, we realized students needed one more additional day for searching, reading, annotating, and doing their metacognitive work with the KWL and information evaluation tool. This was an opportunity for students to wrap up their work while others took advantage of the extra day to get some additional  intensive and extended 1:1 help—most requests were related to search terms and techniques.  For these students, the personalized help was beneficial in moving them from a place where they felt stuck to discovering new sources.

The content in these pre-search “packets” will be the fodder for helping us move forward with the next step in narrowing topics:  mindmapping. We formally started this process of mindmapping today, and I’ll be writing more about that soon as well as the assessments and self-assessments we’re designing to think about where we are in our learning before moving forward into our next phase of inquiry!

Follow our journey:

Hashtag:  #rustyq

Our LibGuide

Blog post 1:  Inquiring with Students: What Do or Can “Good” Research Projects Look Like?

Blog post 2:  Beginning Our Research and Inquiry Experiences with Pre-Searching

Blog post 3:  Sticky Notes as Formative Assessment for Information Literacy Instruction: Coding Student Responses

Blog post 4:  Collaborative Information Source Evaluation: Research/Inquiry Circles and the CRAAP Test

Collaborative Information Source Evaluation: Research/Inquiry Circles and the CRAAP Test

info evaluation activity collage

Last week, students completed the gentle entry-level phase of pre-search (see the end of this post for more detailed reflections); teacher Sarah Rust and I felt it would be helpful to introduce information and source evaluation skills to our students before moving forward into the next round of pre-searching.    We grouped students into collaborative “research” or “inquiry” circles based on their initial topic interests.  We plan to use these research circles as a medium for workshopping with small groups as we move deeper into research and inquiry; these groups will also help us move into collaborative learning experiences.

On Thursday, October 2, we grouped students and then introduced them to the CRAAP test with this terrific video from the Academy of Art University; while this structure for evaluating information originally was designed for online resources, we discussed how it was important to evaluate ALL forms of information, including ones traditionally considered authoritative.    We talked about the messiness of information evaluation and context  of authority using the framework of the CRRAP method. Using the recent Secret Service security breaches as our research topic, students then were asked collaboratively look at seven different information sources we posted on our project LibGuide and to work together to evaluate each information source using the CRAAP test as their guide.   We asked them to use this checklist to guide their assessment and to tally their scores for each source.  Students worked together all period and for about the first quarter of class on Friday, October 3.

After students finished up their assessments on Friday, we instructed each group then posted their score on a dry-erase board on our Verb easel; we labeled each whiteboard with a sticker for the source so that the “parking lots” for their scores would be easy to post.

Each group then came up to the easel and shared/defended their assessments of each source.

As they did this, I took rough notes about how each group scored sources and notes of any comments or reasoning they shared.  You can see my notes below:

Sarah, Jennifer, and I were fascinated by the students’ responses.  Just a few things some students/groups noticed:

  • Databases may be great, but if they are only providing background information and not answering one’s research question, the content there may not always be the best fit.  We were impressed they made this distinction.
  • One group commented that they would like to know if the journalists for the Washington Post article had previously written about problems with the Secret Service security issues or if this was their first effort on writing about that topic.  Again, we were happily surprised they were this discerning in their evaluation.
  • Several groups noted that just because a source was government publication, it was not necessarily credible since they might be interested in putting a certain spin on the value and integrity of the Secret Service; this level of questioning could be a reflection of previous instruction elsewhere that values interrogating all sources, but we also wondered if that stance might also be a reflection (at least, in part) of the politically conservative nature of the community.
  • Discussions emerged about different news publications and outlets and how their reputation to lean left or right might impact the objectivity of the articles or news videos.
  • Several students indicated they would like GALE to include more information about the authors of reference articles in databases like Opposing Viewpoints in Context.
  • Scores were pretty consistent from group to group within specific class periods and across both class sections.

We were incredibly happy with the way students engaged with each other and the assessment task as groups.  Our goal was for them to have an opportunity to debate and wrestle with their evaluation of each source within their groups and to share that thinking out loud with the larger class; this approach accomplished that outcome.  I definitely would introduce information evaluation in this way again, and this springboard activity seemed to fit a wide range of prior experiences with these concepts.  As we’ve engaged in pre-search “phase 2″ this week, we’ve incorporated this CRAAP framework into their metagcognitive learning activites.  I’ll share more about those processes in a new blog post next week.

Follow our journey:

Hashtag:  #rustyq

Our LibGuide

Blog post 1:  Inquiring with Students: What Do or Can “Good” Research Projects Look Like?

Blog post 2:  Beginning Our Research and Inquiry Experiences with Pre-Searching

Blog post 3:  Sticky Notes as Formative Assessment for Information Literacy Instruction: Coding Student Responses

Conversation 3: Student Reflections on Inquiry, Choice, Participatory Learning, Information, and Digital Literacy

Last week, we held a large group share/think/brain dump/reflect session with our Media 21 students over a series of four days after students completed initial written self-assessment and summative reflections.  This video is the first of a series of conversations in which students share their summative reflections about their experiences in a collaboratively taught English course by Susan Lester, English teacher, and Buffy Hamilton, school librarian in 2011-2012.    I’d like to thank our students for their willingness and permission to share with a global audience as well as their participation in these conversations.   While these are lengthy conversations, I hope the thoughts and insights they share will be helpful to other teachers, librarians, students, administrators, and community members in thinking about the possibilities of learning and libraries and the potential of the collaborative partnerships we can forge.  I’ll be following up this series of video conversations with a written post highlighting the insights, reflections, and self-assessments shared by our students.

In this discussion, Ella and Cynda discuss information literacy standards they’ve mastered, how participatory learning has built their confidence as students, and the decisions behind their multigenre, transmedia learning products.   You can see Ella and Cynda’s work by clicking  here.

Resources:

Conversation 2: Student Reflections on Inquiry, Choice, Participatory Learning, Information, and Digital Literacy

Last week, we held a large group share/think/brain dump/reflect session with our Media 21 students over a series of four days after students completed initial written self-assessment and summative reflections.  This video is the second of a series of conversations in which students share their summative reflections about their experiences in a collaboratively taught English course by Susan Lester, English teacher, and Buffy Hamilton, school librarian in 2011-2012.    I’d like to thank our students for their willingness and permission to share with a global audience as well as their participation in these conversations.   While these are lengthy conversations, I hope the thoughts and insights they share will be helpful to other teachers, librarians, students, administrators, and community members in thinking about the possibilities of learning and libraries and the potential of the collaborative partnerships we can forge.  I’ll be following up this series of video conversations with a written post highlighting the insights, reflections, and self-assessments shared by our students.

We also appreciate your patience in the viewing of this video as we had some interruptions from the PA system, and one student had to exit early because of a state mandated end of course test.  Thank you to our students for their patience and humor in dealing with the interruptions!

Resources:

Conversation 1: Student Reflections on Inquiry, Choice, Participatory Learning, Information, and Digital Literacy

Last week, we held a large group share/think/brain dump/reflect session with our Media 21 students over a series of four days after students completed initial written self-assessment and summative reflections.  This video is the first of a series of conversations in which students share their summative reflections about their experiences in a collaboratively taught English course by Susan Lester, English teacher, and Buffy Hamilton, school librarian in 2011-2012.    I’d like to thank our students for their willingness and permission to share with a global audience as well as their participation in these conversations.   While these are lengthy conversations, I hope the thoughts and insights they share will be helpful to other teachers, librarians, students, administrators, and community members in thinking about the possibilities of learning and libraries and the potential of the collaborative partnerships we can forge.  I’ll be following up this series of video conversations with a written post highlighting the insights, reflections, and self-assessments shared by our students.

Resources: