I have arthritis in my shoulder; consequently, investigating the reference section of my school library proved hazardous to my health.
Riedling (2019) defines a good reference source as “one that serves to answer questions and a bad reference source is one that fails to answer the questions” (p. 21). If a book is too heavy for a student to even lift, chances are, they’re not going to use it to answer their questions.
In my investigation of my school references section, I selected the behemoth below:
*Pop can for scale
Anecdotally, I began my assessment of this resource by showing it to some students in the library and asked them if they would use it as a resource. The most generous response I received was, “If my teacher made me.” The least generous response I received was laughter. I interpreted that as an emphatic “No.”
I created the attached rubric and will use it to evaluate the resources:
Purpose: This category addresses how a resource would be used. What goals does it help us meet? In determining if a resource will be purposeful for instruction in the school, it is valuable to work in a collaborative role with the teachers in the school (Asselin, 2003, p. 24). Teachers in different subject areas have the expertise to judge the accuracy of a resource and assess what purpose it fills in their teaching goals (Riedling, 2019, p. 17).
In consultation with Social Studies teachers at my school, their response was that this set is “minimally useful” due to its age and layout. Their intention as teachers would be to include it in their “continuum of skills” (Riedling, 2019, p. 105), particularly in engaging students in inquiry. Part of their teaching includes helping students build base knowledge as well as developing students’ information literacy skills (Asselin, 2003, p. 26). They judged it as not useful in meeting these key goals, as it is not student-friendly and is outdated.
There is value in print resources for students who find the graphical layout of websites overwhelming and benefit from simplicity (Beaudry, 2024). This resource, however, has dense text and few images. It would therefore be more overwhelming than most digital resources.
Relevancy: This category addresses the resource from the lens of meeting the students’ needs. I have specifically separated the diversity of student needs from the information needs. The needs of diverse learners overlap with the intended purposes of teachers. Those who prefer print because of its simplicity, would not find that with this print resource (Department of Education, 2008, pp. 10-11). Relevancy also includes student interest (is the source relevant to their lives?), and this old, dense, text-heavy artifact is downright off-putting to students.
A considerable disadvantage for this resource (and other print resources) is that students’ information needs go beyond the walls of the school (Asselin, 2003, p. 32) and this resource can only be accessed Monday-Friday, 8:30-3:30.
An important part of the selection process is understanding the community needs and preferences (Riedling, 2019, p. 107) and how users of the library seek information. Our community is an affluent one with good access to technology, both in school and at home. Furthermore, we are home to an iPad-based program, so the learners in our school are very much technology-oriented and prefer digital options to meet their learning needs.
The aesthetic value also matters (Department of Education, 2008, p. 10). Just look at that thing!
Currency: Riedling (2019) makes recommendations for optimal “shelf lives” for different focus areas. She says 15 years is when a Social Studies resource becomes outdated (p. 18). This resource was published in 1988, 36 years ago. Our perspective on history and culture has evolved considerably. In fact, there is no section on Residential Schools!!!
Curricular Connections: This category looks to consider how well this resource serves the school in terms of the provincial curriculum and how many students might have opportunity to engage with or need of this resource (Department of Education, 2008, p. 5). Because this resource is useful for Social Studies at all levels , and it is mandatory for four years of high school, this kind of resource would be useful for the curricular needs of all students. However, because it is so outdated, as described above, this particular resource does not support the curriculum well.
Collection Considerations: This category acknowledges the budgetary reality of libraries and looks to balance ⚖️ the value of a resource versus its hit to a limited budget. This is where print resources like this one lose out. They are really expensive, and considering how less likely students are to use print resources, it feels hard to justify the expense. It is nice to have a “one-stop shop” resource of Canadiana; however, that shop ought to be appealing and current. Otherwise it’s just a dust collector using space that could be more appropriately used.
The Canadian Encyclopedia was revolutionary when it was introduced in 1985. It “plays an essential role in providing Canadians and others with accurate, updated information about our people and country” and “a bilingual, national edition produced by, for and about the people of a single country, charting its events, culture, history and landscape, remains rare” (Historic Canada, 2024). However, as an accurate document of our culture, the decision to go digital in 2001 made sense.
So that is my choice to replace this dinosaur of a resource. I would recommend replacing the Canadian Encyclopedia (dead tree 1988 version) with The Canadian Encyclopedia (online constantly updated version). Not only is this a tremendous upgrade (see rubric below), but it is FREE!
Purpose: Not only would my Social Studies teachers use it, they do use it! Whereas the print version misses the mark as a tool for developing students’ inquiry capabilities, they stated that this resource is very useful: it is easy to navigate, the layout is clean and simple, and the articles are accessible for most readers- reasonably chunked and interspersed with images. Furthermore, students who need it, can use adaptive technology to have the articles read to them. Plus, within the articles, there are links to allow students to explore related topics with a simple click and go deeper with their understanding of a topic.
Relevancy: As outlined, this source meets the learning needs of diverse students; it is so much easier to use. Students can either browse 👀 the helpful topics or input their subject of query into the search function. Furthermore, it is in line with the community preference for digital tools. It allows students to look for information how they actually look for information. Finally, the digital platform has allowed The Canadian Encyclopedia to continually expand, and it now hosts over 25 000 articles, meaning it conceivably offers information on whatever our students are looking for. The website also allows for regular feature updates to reflect current areas of interest and highlight diverse sections of the resource. For example, there is currently a curated section honouring Black History Month.
Currency: It’s constantly updated.
No more gaping holes in our collective history:
Curricular Connections: This maintains the “every student learns Canadian history, geography and culture in Social Studies” advantage, while shedding the “how can I teach Canadian history with no mention of Residential Schools” problems.
Collection Considerations: This resource, when included in the purposely curated school digital learning commons, adds tremendous value. It gives students that reliable “one stop shop” for Canadiana, updated, and AT NO COST- just some TL time to add it to the LibGuides and promote its use.
Needless to say, it is beyond time to get rid of this artifact of a bygone era and a bygone Canada. No one uses it. And why would they?
I used this set when I was in high school. And as I said, I’m now old enough to have arthritis.