This graphic came out of a reflection on the many powerful ideas presented by Stephen Krashen in “Compelling Reading and Problem-Solving: The Easy Way (And the Only Way) to High Levels of Language, Literacy and Life Competence.”
Building a library is fundamentally a hopeful endeavour. This hope is not based on a collection of books that are themselves hopeful. Hope is embedded deep in a collection that represents diverse perspectives and a breadth of human creativity. In bringing a collection together that gives voice to an array of ideas, beliefs and values, the fires of public discourse are fanned into life. Librarians will not enjoy, agree with or even like many of the titles hosted in the library but this is how it should be. The library does not represent the perspective of one person or institution but represents a diverse range of ideas that can be studied, examined, debated, disliked or loved. The library is a community space where the light of public scrutiny and discourse can wrestle with challenging concepts. Continue reading Libraries = hope
Everything the school library does is in the service of student learning. Learning is change. For the most part, we are not consciously aware of all the changes that occur in our brain and body when we are learning. We can often describe observable aspects of learning such as an improvements in our accuracy in kicking a ball through the goal posts, the ability to solve a challenging math problem, a new way to fold the worlds best ever paper plane, or a new historical insight but the neurological and physiological changes in our bodies are hidden. These new skills or new knowledge may indicate that learning has occurred however they are far from providing a complete understanding of the change that has taken place. This is where understanding the embodied mind can lead us to a more holistic view of learning. Learning that we can directly observe, test or that we are conscious of is only the very tip of the iceberg. Learning is a process that involves the entire body in a complex system of interdependent subsystems. The brain is a dominant arbiter in the learning process however the brain only functions within the context of the body – as Guy Claxton explains, the “brain and the body function as a single unit” (Claxton, 2015 p 89). Continue reading The embodied library : learning to read
Whenever I consider the concept of student agency I am always drawn back to “Choice words : how our language affects children’s learning” by Peter H. Johnston, 2004. In particular, chapter 4 “Agency and becoming strategic”, in a very concise & practical way clarifies what student agency is, what it looks like and how we can have a powerful impact on learning.
“Children should leave school with a sense that if they act, and act strategically, they can accomplish their goals. I call this feeling a sense of agency.”
“The spark of agency is simply the perception that the environment is responsive to our actions, and many researchers argue that agency is a fundamental human desire.”
“This desire for agency persists throughout life and is so powerful, that when people feel there is no relationship between what they do and what happens, they become depressed and helpless.”
“Teachers’ conversations with children help the children build the bridges between action and consequence that develop their sense of agency. They show children how, by acting strategically, they accomplish things, and at the same time, that they are the kind of person who accomplishes things.”
Information literacy is dehumanising if it is not dialogic. In the same way that a fluency in a language is gauged through dialogue, information literacy has meaning when it is participatory, connected, responsive and dynamic. Fluency with information is demonstrated through participation in civic dialogue where individuals connect and knowledge is shared, refined and remoulded into new meaning for each participant. This is not merely an expansion of the term information literacy by definition but it is an expansion through action.
Why understanding trends in publishing and book sales matters to school libraries.
A few weeks ago I wrote a post titled “The Post Digital Library: Toward the Hybrid Library” that was aimed at challenging the assumption that print is becoming increasingly irrelevant in an increasingly connected world. I would like to take this idea a little further to dig deeper into the data that underpinned this initial post. I fully recognise that the moment this post is published that the data will be outdated however the big idea is that we need to beware of our assumptions when making decisions about the future of our libraries. Up until this point, this is data that has not been brought into discussions about the role of the library in the school setting. This is a profound oversight that we can begin correcting now. While much of the data I present is based on the Nielson Bookscan research the initial prompt to find data about book sales came through information feeds I follow from a broad range of sources in the publishing sector that seemed to be indicating that the digital revolution has not changed publishing in the way we may have expected a decade ago. The more I read, the more I came to realise that the digital and print information landscape is far more nuanced than I imagined. This spurred me into searching more deeply to find definitive information to determine if the general impressions I was detecting were in fact real. The Nielson research I present therefore represents a concise summary of the trends in publishing and book sales that I have noticed both in my own experience within our own school library and within reports from around the world.
One important caveat is that to extrapolate the data I present too far would also be in error. I hope to simply present the numbers as published from a range of sources to challenge the assumptions we may have and cause us to reconsider our understandings about the role of the library. There are endless methodological issues, causal factors and compounding elements that account for the details of the data I present however it is not my intention to critique the data, simply to present it. If you find some of the data particularly interesting, the links provided will give you the opportunity to dig a little deeper. This post will also deliberately steer away from a discussion of the nostalgic features of print that these conversations will often include because, while I could write much about this (see my post on books as concept manipulatives), in management discussions where budgets are on the line and big decisions about the development of the school library are being made, appealing to emotional arguments can (rightly or wrongly) undermine the credibility of a proposal for further investment in the library.
My hope is that you will find this data reassuring but also challenging and inspiring. By presenting data that makes us stop and think for a moment, I hope that this post will stimulate a vibrant discussion about the role of the library in schools. Let’s begin.
This post will not be surprising coming from a librarian but still, it needs to be said. I call it Fast Food Literacy (#FastFoodLiteracy). I am talking about the prepackaged and heavily marketed reading programs produced by the big educational publishers. They are attractively packaged and so convenient that a school can purchase a large levelled reading set or online program at the push of a button. In contrast, to build a library collection of a similar size takes many hours of carefully reading reviews by trusted sources and researching authors to ensure the very best of what the world has to offer in literature is available to the students when they need it. A library collection built in this way is also tailored to suit the unique needs of that school community. How could a generic levelled one-size-fits-all reading package possibly meet the needs of every school community around the world?
The analogy with fast food seems so obvious when reading sets arrive in their brightly coloured cardboard prboxes with the easy access flip-lid.
This corporatisation of education is extremely concerning on many levels. The pleasure of reading is transformed into a literacy commodity purchased for consumption. Students are placed on a conveyer belt in production line of literacy education. The sell is that it is personalised or differentiated with the subtext that if you are really serious about literacy education, regardless of what you are doing now, you need the proprietary package. The branding instills a sense of security that is based on marketing strategies rather than a deeper concept of literacy. Schools earnestly striving to demonstrate that they take literacy seriously are drawn to this sense of security in a brand because it is a tangible but this security is shallow and false. The approach of Jim Cummins builds a far more sophisticated view of literacy and language that has relevance to a world wrestling with multiculturalism, plurilingualism and diverse semiotic codes. Among the most worrying concerns is that the corporately driven programs turn the focus from building student agency to a model where students are programmed. Student agency is replaced by response to stimuli (at best). Literacy is removed from the learning environment and diced up into fragmented chunks. There are so many unchallenged assumptions in this approach that it is hard to know where to start (or finish). I would also bundle textbooks in with these fast food curriculum resources but that is another discussion. In contrast, reading that is embedded in rich contexts of inquiry ensures that meaningful understandings are built and endure. “Learning happens best when learners construct their understanding through a process of constructing things to share with others.” (Jonan Donaldson). This is entirely absent in the fast food reading programs and textbook curricula.