FEATURE - American Library Association

FEATURE

E7 Knowledge Quest | Coteaching — Online Exclusive

Over coffee, we were discussing the qualities of good

curriculum materials when a lightbulb went on. In a moment of sudden clarity, we had a vision and knew how to achieve it. The school library as the school’s learning lab: the place where the action occurs; where students go when they have a problem, a question, or a burning desire to learn; where classroom teachers and school librarians work together to create critical thinkers and lifelong learners; the portal to information literacy in the twenty-fi rst century. A school library that is not only the heart and soul of the school, but the central nervous system—energizing students, classroom teachers, and curriculum. How will this grand vision be accomplished? Collaboration, of course! To be specifi c, the seven E’s of inquiry-based collaboration (see fi gure 1). Inquiry-based learning, a pedagogical process, needs strong collaborations analogous to

instructional partnerships. Just as student learning is motivated by materials that are easy-to-use, encouraging, elevating, engaging, effective, enjoyable, and that exercise skills, collaborations with the same qualities invigorate the entire school, provide sharing opportunities for classroom teachers and school librarians, and make the school library program central to student success.

Inquiry-based collaboration is predicated on the idea that learners build new knowledge by refl ecting on their experiences and making connections to prior learning. Inquiry-based collaborations foster such construction by offering authentic, real-world experiences as well as cognitive and skill development. Using essential questions, research models, formative and summative assessments, and refl ection, school librarians and classroom teachers guide students through a process that takes into account their prior knowledge, information-seeking behaviors, multiple intelligences (Gardner 1983, 1993, 2006), and learning styles (Kolb, Boyatzis, and Mainemelis 2000). By addressing information

literacy and technology standards, as well as state content standards, collaboration moves students from lower- to higher-order thinking skills while challenging them to solve real-world problems.

While many educators, citing lack of planning time, shy away from collaboration, collaborative units benefi t classroom teachers as well as students. Because in collaborative units school librarians and classroom teachers share equal responsibility for planning, teaching, and evaluating each unit, most teachers fi nd they have additional time and freedom to try new pedagogies and innovations. Teachers use released time for planning more effectively and effi ciently. Teaching is reinvested with creativity as classroom teachers and school librarians guide students to new knowledge, technologies, and ways of learning. Collaborative units break up the monotony of day-to-day drill and test, and infuse the curriculum with energy and interest. Although the fi rst collaboration may be challenging, as is any new approach, repeated experience reveals that elements inherent to good collaborations make them easy to use, reuse, and recycle.

Figure 1. The seven E’s of inquiry-based collaboration.

Because in collaborative units school librarians and classroom teachers share equal responsibility for planning, teaching, and evaluating each unit, most teachers fi nd they have additional time and freedom to try new pedagogies and innovations.


EASY TO USE

“Two heads are better than one” and “many hands make for light work” are clichés that gain new meaning when applied to collaboration. When classroom teachers and school librarians work together, each carries fewer burdens for planning, implementing, and evaluating a unit of study. Devices that are common to good collaborations smooth the process.

Planning tools: The Unit-of-Study Planning Guide (fi gure 2), completed by the classroom teacher and school librarian together, identifi es content, information literacy, and technology standards to cover within the unit; material needs; organization of instruction; teaching methods; objectives; key activities and strategies; and the form of the fi nal student assignment. In the Collaboration

Grade: __________________________________

Classroom teacher: _______________________

Subject: _________________________________

Unit: ____________________________________

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ASSIGNMENT:

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

LEVEL OF INSTRUCTION:

Introduced / Reinforced / Expanded

_________________________________________COMMENT

MATERIALS:

Text / One source / Multiple sources

_________________________________________COMMENT

ORGANIZATION OF INSTRUCTION:

Large group / Small group / Individual

_________________________________________COMMENT

PRIMARY TEACHING METHODS:

Computer-based (e.g. subscription databases) / Desk work / Lecture / Discussion / Independent study / Programmed (incl. learning stations) / Project / Report

_________________________________________COMMENT

NATIONAL AND / OR STATE TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS:_________________________________________

_________________________________________

STATE CONTENT STANDARDS:

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

Number of Sections: ______________________

Number of Students: ______________________

Total Periods of Instruction: ________________

Calendar Quarter: _______________________

ASSIGNMENT OUTPUT:

(Could combine traditional with authentic)

Test / Observation / Short written report / Oral report / Physical project / Digital project / Describe briefl y (attach any handouts):

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

OBJECTIVES FOR THE ASSIGNMENT:

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

KEY ACTIVITIES FOR THE ASSIGNMENT:

1. ______________________________________

2. ______________________________________

3. ______________________________________

AASL STANDARDS FOR THE 21ST-CENTURY LEARNER:

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

COLLABORATION TIMELINECOLLABORATION TIMELINECOLLABORATION TIMELINECOLLABORATION TIMELINECOLLABORATION TIMELINECOLLABORATION TIMELINE (Class period is ______ minutes)(Class period is ______ minutes)(Class period is ______ minutes)

WEEK 1WEEK 1WEEK 1 Day 1Day 1Day 1 Day 2Day 2Day 2 Day 3Day 3Day 3 Day 4Day 4Day 4 Day 5Day 5Day 5

A. Location (class meeting A. Location (class meeting A. Location (class meeting place: LMC, classroom, place: LMC, classroom, place: LMC, classroom, computer lab, other)computer lab, other)computer lab, other)

B. Responsibility (who teaches): B. Responsibility (who teaches): B. Responsibility (who teaches): Either classroom teacher or Either classroom teacher or Either classroom teacher or school librarian could take school librarian could take school librarian could take the entire given time or they the entire given time or they the entire given time or they could divide the time.could divide the time.could divide the time.

C. Text(s), Unit Supplements, C. Text(s), Unit Supplements, C. Text(s), Unit Supplements, Lab Packs (chapters Lab Packs (chapters Lab Packs (chapters or page numbers)or page numbers)or page numbers)

D. Activities and Strategies D. Activities and Strategies D. Activities and Strategies

E. Materials and ResourcesE. Materials and ResourcesE. Materials and ResourcesE. Materials and ResourcesE. Materials and ResourcesE. Materials and Resources

FIGURE 3. COLLABORATION TIMELINE.EXAMPLE OF DIVIDED TIME:

A. Location: Classroom

B. Responsibility:20 Min. = classroom teacher20 Min. = school librarian

C. Unit of Study Text

D. Activities and Strategies: Focus on Prior Knowledge & Use of KWHL Chart: classroom teacher

E. Materials and Resources: (The How of KWHL): school librarian

FIGURE 2. UNIT-OF-STUDY PLANNING GUIDE.

Reprinted with permission from Collaborating for Inquiry-Based Learning: School Librarians and Teachers Partner for Student Achievement by Virginia L. Wallace and Whitney Norwood Husid. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited. Copyright © 2011.


Timeline (fi gure 3), the classroom teacher and school librarian specify who has responsibility, what will be taught, where the lesson will be taught, and the activities and materials to be used.

Research models: Research models teach students information literacy skills by combining information literacy, as identifi ed by AASL’s Standards for the 21st-Century Learner, with information-problem-solving skills. School librarians collaborate with classroom teachers to contextualize information problem solving with curricular content (Newell 2009). By repeatedly using one research model, whether it is the Big6 (Eisenberg and Berkowitz 1987), Simple Four (ICTS-SC n.d.), Organized Investigator (Loertscher and Woolls 2002) or some other model, students learn a method that they can easily apply in any

setting to any question throughout their K–12 studies and across their life spans. They internalize the model when used often enough.

Pathfinders: Pathfi nders are school-librarian-created guides to print and digital resources. When digitally based, pathfi nders include links to websites and databases, and can be easily updated and accessed on any device with Internet connectivity. Useful for students and faculty, pathfi nders can be specifi c to each collaborative unit, or can align with scope and sequence for each subject in each grade.

Rubrics: Constructed as grids or tables, rubrics are rating systems for determining levels of profi ciency. Students may receive more than one per unit of study for use as formative evaluations throughout the process and for summative purposes at

unit’s end. Typically, rubrics list target skills or indicators (criteria) down the left side and levels of profi ciency across the top. Rubrics should have at least three criteria, each with at least three levels of profi ciency. Criteria and levels must be clearly and explicitly defi ned and explained. Criteria include mastery of subject content, cross-curricular requirements, and inquiry-based skills. Distributed at the onset of the unit, rubrics provide students with an advanced organizer and easy-to-understand requirements for success. When used formatively, rubrics guide the instructional process, and help classroom teachers and school librarians focus on essential knowledge, skills, and processes. Improving communication with students, parents, and other educators, rubrics facilitate specifi c, concrete, and useful feedback (see fi gure 4).

CRITERIACRITERIACRITERIA 1 PT.1 PT.1 PT. 2 PTS.2 PTS.2 PTS. 3 PTS.3 PTS.3 PTS. TOTALSTOTALSTOTALS

Thesis statement is clear Thesis statement is clear Thesis statement is clear and succinct.and succinct.and succinct.

No thesis statement No thesis statement No thesis statement included or thesis statement included or thesis statement included or thesis statement vague or irrelevant.vague or irrelevant.vague or irrelevant.

The thesis statement contains basic The thesis statement contains basic The thesis statement contains basic but not positional information.but not positional information.but not positional information.

Clear, succinct thesis statement of Clear, succinct thesis statement of Clear, succinct thesis statement of student’s position. Nicely done.student’s position. Nicely done.student’s position. Nicely done.

Webquest website 5-step Webquest website 5-step Webquest website 5-step evaluation form is complete.evaluation form is complete.evaluation form is complete.

Fewer than 3 steps of Fewer than 3 steps of Fewer than 3 steps of form completed.form completed.form completed.

3 to 4 steps completed.3 to 4 steps completed.3 to 4 steps completed. All 5 steps completed.All 5 steps completed.All 5 steps completed.

Wiki is well-organized Wiki is well-organized Wiki is well-organized and uses subtitles.and uses subtitles.and uses subtitles.

No subtitles or websites No subtitles or websites No subtitles or websites not listed under not listed under not listed under appropriate subtitles.appropriate subtitles.appropriate subtitles.

Organization and subtitles were Organization and subtitles were Organization and subtitles were done well for 7–9 websites. done well for 7–9 websites. done well for 7–9 websites.

Both organization and subtitles Both organization and subtitles Both organization and subtitles complete. Websites listed under complete. Websites listed under complete. Websites listed under appropriate subtitles. Good job.appropriate subtitles. Good job.appropriate subtitles. Good job.

Wiki includes at least 10 websites.Wiki includes at least 10 websites.Wiki includes at least 10 websites. Fewer than 7 completed.Fewer than 7 completed.Fewer than 7 completed. 7–9 completed.7–9 completed.7–9 completed. 10 or more completed. 10 or more completed. 10 or more completed.

For each website, a For each website, a For each website, a link is provided.link is provided.link is provided.

Fewer than 7 provided.Fewer than 7 provided.Fewer than 7 provided. 7–9 provided.7–9 provided.7–9 provided. 10 or more provided.10 or more provided.10 or more provided.

For each website a brief, useful For each website a brief, useful For each website a brief, useful description is provided.description is provided.description is provided.

Fewer than 7 descriptions Fewer than 7 descriptions Fewer than 7 descriptions provided.provided.provided.

7–9 brief, useful descriptions that 7–9 brief, useful descriptions that 7–9 brief, useful descriptions that accurately summarize content of accurately summarize content of accurately summarize content of websites provided or descriptions websites provided or descriptions websites provided or descriptions provided for 10 websites; provided for 10 websites; provided for 10 websites; provided for 10 websites; provided for 10 websites; provided for 10 websites; however, one or more do not however, one or more do not however, one or more do not however, one or more do not however, one or more do not however, one or more do not accurately summarize website(s).accurately summarize website(s).accurately summarize website(s).accurately summarize website(s).accurately summarize website(s).accurately summarize website(s).

10 brief, useful descriptions 10 brief, useful descriptions 10 brief, useful descriptions that accurately summarize that accurately summarize that accurately summarize content of websites provided. content of websites provided. content of websites provided.

Wiki includes a brief two-Wiki includes a brief two-Wiki includes a brief two-paragraph refl ection on learning: paragraph refl ection on learning: paragraph refl ection on learning: both evolution and web searching.both evolution and web searching.both evolution and web searching.

No refl ection. or Refl ection No refl ection. or Refl ection No refl ection. or Refl ection does not address either does not address either does not address either evolution or web searching. evolution or web searching. evolution or web searching.

Has refl ected on learning Has refl ected on learning Has refl ected on learning Has refl ected on learning Has refl ected on learning Has refl ected on learning for either evolution or web for either evolution or web for either evolution or web for either evolution or web for either evolution or web for either evolution or web searching, but not both. searching, but not both. searching, but not both. searching, but not both. searching, but not both. searching, but not both.

Good two-paragraph refl ection Good two-paragraph refl ection Good two-paragraph refl ection on learning; one paragraph on learning; one paragraph on learning; one paragraph refl ects on evolution; the refl ects on evolution; the refl ects on evolution; the other, on web searching.other, on web searching.other, on web searching.

Grammar, spelling, and Grammar, spelling, and Grammar, spelling, and punctuation are all correct.punctuation are all correct.punctuation are all correct.

3+ errors 3+ errors 3+ errors 2 errors2 errors2 errors 1 or no errors1 or no errors1 or no errors

GRADING SCALE:GRADING SCALE:GRADING SCALE: A: 22–24 points / B: 19–21 points / C: 15–17 pts / F: 14 or fewer points. A: 22–24 points / B: 19–21 points / C: 15–17 pts / F: 14 or fewer points. A: 22–24 points / B: 19–21 points / C: 15–17 pts / F: 14 or fewer points. A: 22–24 points / B: 19–21 points / C: 15–17 pts / F: 14 or fewer points. A: 22–24 points / B: 19–21 points / C: 15–17 pts / F: 14 or fewer points. A: 22–24 points / B: 19–21 points / C: 15–17 pts / F: 14 or fewer points.

FIGURE 4. RUBRIC FOR WEBQUEST ON EVOLUTION.


Although the first collaboration may be challenging,

as is any new approach, repeated experience reveals

that elements inherent to good collaborations

make them easy to use, reuse, and recycle.

ENCOURAGING

When inquiry-based collaborations address students’ individual needs, they encourage student success. Students vary widely in their intellectual abilities, preferred learning modalities, and information literacies: media, digital, and reading. Some may be gifted while others may have specifi c learning challenges. A thorough needs assessment enables school librarians and classroom teachers to craft a unit that supports student learning, provides equitable access to all students, and fosters positive dispositions toward future independent inquiry. Students receive encouragement and gain confi dence when lesson plans, materials, resources, and technologies address their multiple intelligences, learning styles, and cognitive strengths. Students aspire to greater achievement when formative assessments provide constructive feedback on progress.

Student success and achievement encourage classroom teachers and school librarians to continue collaborating. The excitement generated when students are absorbed in lessons with real-world implications inspires educators to improve pedagogy and seek innovation. The benefi ts of partnership—including shared responsibility, expanded funds of knowledge, and creative growth—promote further collaborations.

EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT

Effectively and effi ciently preparing students for the demands of the 21st-century workplace, inquiry-based collaborations simultaneously address multiple standards (core or state content, information literacy, and technology). Partnership for 21st Century Skills advocates curriculum and instruction that merge content knowledge; competency with information, media, and technology; and learning skills such as critical thinking, communication, and creativity (2006). Collaborative units uniquely empower educators to meet this goal by incorporating each of these foci into the unit of study.

Collaboration enables classroom teachers and school librarians to use classroom and planning time more effectively and effi ciently. Collaboration affords school librarians a functional way to teach information literacy skills by embedding them in curriculum lessons with real-world (constructivist) applications. Library resources are aligned more thoroughly with the curriculum. School librarians powerfully demonstrate the worth and vitality of the school library program to administrators, classroom teachers, and parents. Budgetary decisions are favorable when the community of users and supporters sees the school library as essential to student success.

ELEVATING

By defi nition, inquiry advances student learning and elevates cognition. “Inquiry is the process of seeking knowledge, raising questions, searching for answers, evaluating information, and asking new questions based on new understandings” (Wallace and Husid 2011, 21). Inquiry-based collaborations promote critical-thinking skills by eschewing foundational, fact-fi nding questions—such as who, when, and where—for complex investigations based on essential questions. Essential questions (EQs) address universal concerns including the meaning of life, mankind’s relationship with nature, and the origin of life. Essential questions look at what if, how, and why, and/or compare and contrast. They never settle for “yes” or “no” answers. Because EQs promote development and use of critical-thinking skills such as formulation, appraisal, prediction, synthesis, and justifi cation, EQs require students to move beyond knowledge to higher levels of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (Anderson and Krathwohl 2001).

Refl ection at the conclusion of collaborative units contributes further to the development of higher-order thinking skills. A form of metacognition, refl ection is part of a constructivist process in which people think carefully and deeply, and connect new learning to old to create complex and interrelated knowledge. When students engage in refl ection, they consider not only what they have learned, but how they have learned, and how the process has changed them. They raise new questions or open new areas for investigation.


tools they love: computers, mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, and webcams, to name a few.

Collaboration engages classroom teachers. Working with a partner who assumes equal responsibility for student learning affords them freedom and time to innovate. Instead of merely meeting content standards, classroom teachers focus on the calling of their profession: teaching children how to think and preparing them for future leadership. School librarians demonstrate their skills, knowledge, and expertise. They have something to teach beyond the Dewey Decimal System: information, technology, and media literacies; research methods; ethical use of information; problem solving; and higher-order thinking skills. The school library buzzes with activity as students and classroom teachers

The excitement generated when students are absorbed

in lessons with real-world implications inspires

educators to improve pedagog y and seek innovation.

The benefits of partnership—including shared

responsibility, expanded funds of knowledge, and

creative growth—promote further collaborations.

When classroom teachers and school librarians refl ect, they consider the effectiveness of teaching methods, encouragement of student learning, and effi ciency for working together to promote student growth. The collaboration elevates classroom teachers from mere purveyors of facts to mentors facilitating student exploration and development. Collaboration transforms school librarians from clerks or support staff to educators—equal partners in the educational process.

ENGAGING

Inquiry-based collaborations captivate students because they are learning what they want to know. Essential questions provoke thought and curiosity. Based on classroom discussion that draws from students’ prior knowledge and experience, classroom teachers and school librarians guide students toward creating questions about what they want to investigate. Their questions become the basis for classroom activities, information searches, and inquiry with applications beyond the classroom. Authentic assessments using Web 2.0 interactive software and technology’s range of hardware permit students to use the information and production

engage with books, online resources, print materials, technology, learning, and each other.

ENJOYABLE

Simply put, collaborations are fun! Students, classroom teachers, and school librarians enjoy working on collaborative, inquiry-based units that bring creativity and imagination back into the school.

Students relish opportunities to use technology and Web 2.0 applications. Oftentimes, students are more comfortable with technology than are their teachers. Real-world connections make learning relevant and help students see how they can make a difference. Mastering content through authentic projects is much more exciting than completing worksheets, taking paper-and-pencil tests, and writing reports.

Classroom teachers and school librarians take pleasure in seeing student learning fl ourish. They value the camaraderie of collaboration. Collaboration allows time and opportunity for professional development and permits imagination and inventiveness. School librarians, especially, appreciate how their time, skills, knowledge, and enthusiasm power the school library program and inspire the whole school.

Visit <www.ala.org/aasl/knowledgequest> to fi nd many additional resources such as additional online bonus content, webinars, essential links, podcasts and an electronic calendar.


EXERCISE

Easy-to-use, encouraging, effective, elevating, engaging, and enjoyable—inquiry-based collaborations are exercises; they are practical processes for developing skills and honing cognition. For most students, information-seeking skills are not innate. The Big6 (Eisenberg and Berkowitz 1987), Simple Four (ICTS-SC n.d.), and Organized Investigator (Loertscher and Woolls 2002), for example, offer logical research models to follow when conducting any kind of investigation. When students repeat research models over time and across the curriculum, they have many occasions to practice task identifi cation, planning, information evaluation and use, communication, and refl ection (Newell 2009). Students exercise their critical-thinking aptitude, develop

multiple literacies (information, technology, and media), and work to specifi cations based on assignment directions and rubrics.

When students work in pairs or groups, they increase the collaborative skills modeled by classroom teachers and school librarians. Collaborations transform the school library into a working laboratory. As a working lab, school libraries become teaching and learning environments that produce 21st-century critical thinkers.

Using equal parts of inquiry-based collaboration, school librarians and classroom teachers’ partnerships remind all involved that everything done well follows process. Inquiry-based learning is one such winning process!

Newell, Terrance S. 2009. “Examining Information Problem-Solving Instruction: Dynamic Relationship Patterns Mediated by Distinct Instructional Methodologies.” School Libraries Worldwide 15, no.2, 49–76.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. 2006. Results That Matter: 21st Century Skills and High School Reform. <www.p21.org/tools-and-resources/publications/204> (accessed January 9, 2012).

Wallace, Virginia, and Whitney Norwood Husid. 2011. Collaborating for Inquiry-Based Learning: School Librarians and Teachers Partner for Student Achievement. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

———. 1993. Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York: Basic Books.

———. 2006. Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons. New York: Basic Books.

ICTS-SC. n.d. “The Simple Four.” <http://icts-sc.pbworks.com/w/page/10507141/The-Simple-Four> (accessed December 26, 2011).

Kolb, David A., Richard E. Boyatzis, and Charalampos Mainemelis. 2000.

“Experiential Learning Theory: Previous Research and New Directions.” Perspectives in Cognitive, Learning, and Thinking Styles. Robert J. Sternberg and Li-Fang Zhang, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 193–210.

Loertscher, David. V., and Blanche Woolls. 2002. Information Literacy: A Review of the Research: A Guide for Practitioners and Researchers, 2nd ed. San Jose, CA: Hi Willow Research and Publishing.

Works Cited:

American Association of School Librarians. 2007. Standards for the 21st-Century Learner. <www.ala.org/aasl/standards> (accessed December 26, 2011).

Anderson, Lorin W., and David R. Krathwohl, eds. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.

Eisenberg, Michael B., and Robert E. Berkowitz. 1987. “Introducing the Big 6.” <www.big6.com/kids> (accessed December 26, 2011).

Gardner, Howard. 1983. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Virginia Wallace

has a doctorate in

distance education and

instructional technolog y.

Recently retired from the

University of South Carolina School of Library

and Information Science, she continues her

participation in professional organizations and

consults on the role of the school librarian in all

teaching/learning environments.

Whitney Norwood

Husid has a doctorate

in clinical psycholog y.

She is currently working

on her Master of Library

and Information Science at the School of

Library and Information Science at the

University of South Carolina. With Dr.

Wallace, she is coauthor of Collaborating for

Inquiry-Based Learning: School Librarians

and Teachers Partner for Student Achievement

(ABC-CLIO 2011).

As a working lab, school libraries become teaching and learning

environments that produce 21st-century critical thinkers.


Documents

FEATURE - American Library Association