Fellow blogger, ghostlibrarian recently posted about preparations for teaching ICTs in primary school and the special considerations when conditions are not of the textbook sort here and here. Shortages of computers and lack of collaboration between teachers and TLs are situations many TLs must work around. And there are ways to do this as well as resources to help.
Our small library has only two computers, one of those is used for circulation and is the main catalogue search computer. When I did my original SWOT analysis at the beginning of the year I listed this as one of the library’s weaknesses. I wanted to teach cybersafety to all the grades in first term. If I wanted better computer odds than 10:1, I needed to move Library sessions out of the library and into the classroom. And why not? It lowered the ratio to 4:1 and had the added bonus of the teacher often coming in at the end of the session and seeing what was happening, sometimes even being a bit involved. It also set the stage I think for the system to begin thinking more flexibly about the LRCs best resource, the TL. Why shouldn’t we be as ‘borrowable’ as the books? I’d like to bring the administrative thinking around to me being reserved/booked for work in the class with the teachers during project times to support both teacher and students in their information searches and ICT use.
A 4:1 ratio of kids to computers may still not sound ideal, but after watching Sugata Mitra’s video on Ted’s Talks called “How Kids Teach Themselves” you may change your mind about breaking up that little clump of kids that hang around behind someone on a computer. There is a lot more going on than I first assumed. Mitra’s project proves that children are natural collaborators and are another great resource that we often overlook.
I’m very lucky to be part of OZTL_NET an online forum for Teacher Librarians and other information specialists. They are the most generous group I’ve ever met, there is nothing they don’t know or can’t immediately assist each other to find/access. Recently a member brought to our attention the work of Andrew Churches in NZ. He has been working with Bloom’s Taxonomy to create Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy. Here’s a brief quote from the synopsis of his paper:
The Original taxonomy and the revised taxonomy by Anderson and Krathwohl [2] are both focused within the cognitive domain. As a classroom practitioner, these are useful but do not address the activities undertaken in the classroom. This Digital Taxonomy is not restricted to the cognitive domain rather it contains cognitive elements as well as methods and tooling. These are the elements that as a practitioner I would use in my classroom practice. Like the previous taxonomies, it is the quality of the action or process that defines the cognitive level, rather than the action or process alone. (Churches, 2008, p.2)
Churches’ take on Bloom’s Taxonomy is an invaluable resource for people like me trying to decide how to assist primary students to use ICT at levels appropriate to their development. There is a lot of information out there for students in highschool. Those students are ready for the challenges of higher order thinking skills. But for children in primary/elementary, developmentally just on the start of their thinking journey, there are far fewer resources available to guide us. As Kuhlthau (1995, p. 8 ) points out, the age of a child will make a difference in the way they are able to deal with information. Before the age of 11 or 12 children are still not able to deal with abstract notions and will need to concentrate their research efforts on concrete topics and problems. This means they are still operating mainly in the lower areas of Blooms Taxonomy and this will affect how ICT will be planned and carried out .
Churches’ new Blooms Taxonomy is well worth a look for teachers and TLs/LMSs wanting to get the right tools to the right kids at the right times. After looking at Andrew Churches paper, you may also wish to access more of his resources through his wiki ” Edorigami“.
_______________________________
Kids Hand on a Computer: http://www.flickr.com/photos/16873103@N05/1819182353/
Churches, A. (2008). Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/file/view/bloom%27s+Digital+taxonomy+v2.12.pdf
Kuhlthau, C. (1995). The process of learning from information [Electronic version]. School Libraries Worldwide, 1(1), 1-12.
1 response so far ↓
I know some school library media specialists who have a completely fexible schedule. Teachers sign up for the days and times they want their class to work with the librarian. This is supposed to be the best way to collaborate with the classroom teachers and make library instruction meaningful to students. However, it’s not perfect. Some teachers sign up often others don’t sign up at all making library instruction hit or miss. Somehow there needs to be a balance. Another problem can be the perceptions of administrators as far as student contact time. If you are not scheduled it appears that you are not working. Of course, we know that there are plenty of library administrative things to do but others don’t always understand this.
I’m fortunate that I see all the students at least once a week. Sometimes the teachers are there other times they are working with another group of students. Teachers have told me that they like to stay if they can because they sometimes learn things too, which is wonderful to hear.
I’m very interested in Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy and may have seen it before. Since I’m traveling right now I couldn’t get the page to load here in the motel and will have to look at it when I’m home.
[Reply]
Leave a Comment