Using Journals to Build Information Literacy Skills Violet H. Harada University of Hawaii ACEI Annual International Conference April 16, 2003

Targets for session  Background.  Context.  Methodology.  Analysis.  Key findings.  Implications.

Driving questions  How do we move students from the mechanics of the research process to making meaning from information gathered?

Driving questions  How do we develop teaching practices that nurture deeper understanding?

Beliefs  Information seeking and use is a PROCESS.  Skills involved in this process are teachable.  Librarians and teachers are partners in planning and teaching.

Information search process  Presearch  Focus and presentation planning.  Collection and organization of information.  Presentation,evaluation of performance and of process.

Action research team  School - grade 5/6 teacher, librarian.  University - graduate research assistant, myself.

Research questions  What understandings and problems do students describe as they engage in research?  What feelings do they express?  How can journal writing inform our teaching?  How does it impact student-instructor interaction?

Why journal writing?  Reveals thinking and reasoning.  Demonstrates what students know and don’t know.  Allows for expression of personal feelings.

Context  School: Shafter Elementary  Subjects: 17 students, ages 10 and 11.  Learning context: 2 research assignments over 11 weeks.

Methodology-- What students did l Journal entries, twice a week. What the teacher and librarian did l Lesson plans and reflections. l Anecdotal logs. What the university team did l Field observations and interviews. l Content analysis of student journals.

Analysis--  Coders: UH graduate student, myself.  Entries independently coded.  Each entry analyzed for cognitive and affective content.  91% agreement between raters.

Coding - cognition l Information unrelated to concept, skill. l Disjointed recall of concept. l Accurate restatement of concept, limited support. l Accurate restatement concept, elaborated support.

Coding - affect l Initial optimism. l Growing doubt, frustration. l Increasing confidence. l Satisfaction or dissatisfaction based on results.

Findings: Presearch phase Assignment 1 l 70% were unable to explain why they were exploring the broader topic. Assignment 2 l 88% able to articulate purpose of exploring the larger topic before selecting a focus.

Findings: Focus phase Assignment 1 l 90% selected focus solely on interest. Assignment 2 l 76% identified multiple criteria including Availability of resources. Readability. Relevance. Personal interest.

Findings: Collection phase Assignment 1 l 50% able to vaguely describe the note taking process. Assignment 2 l 90% able to identify major elements and elaborate on them.

Findings: Evaluation phase Assignment 1 l 24% were able to identify one or two aspects of the research process. Assignment 2 l 100% able to identify major steps. l 95% could elaborate on them.

Findings: Affect

Implications for instruction  Spend more time on presearch phase.  Identify sub-skills and provide direct instruction.  Incorporate graphic organizers to teach keyword identification, organizing and synthesizing information.

More implications  Engage in extensive modeling.  Incorporate thinkaloud strategies.  Involve students in developing assessment tools.  Do more debriefing on process.

Benefits: instructors  More interaction with students.  More precise identification of problems.  More informed judgments about instructional modifications.

Benefits: students  Deeper understanding of their own insights and problems.  More open expression of feelings throughout the process.  Greater confidence in raising questions.

For a more detailed rendition of this study refer to the following: Harada, V. H. (2002). Personalizing the information search process: A case study of journal writing with elementary-age students. [Online] School Library Media Research. Available at search/search.html