Ann Riedling's approach to evaluating materials is consistent with the evaluation process in Surrey and, as Roberta mentioned, to the provincial standards. The extent of Canadian content is a consideration. The Ministry also places an emphasis on providing materials from a variety of cultures and perspectives. Riedling's criteria seem appropriate for print and non-print reference resources.
Content Scope: What is covered and in what detail? I think the evaluator needs to consider what gaps of information might exist not only in the resource but also in the library as a whole.
Accuracy, Authority, and Bias: the teacher-librarian needs to be cautious in considering who actually produced the resource and whether the material will be trusted by the academic community. As Riedling noted, electronic resources might require more diligence in determining authorship/authority.
Arrangement and Presentation: User friendly material will expedite the research process. Electronic resources might be easier to search provided the searcher uses appropriate key words. I like to lay out print resources and compare material but as others have already mentioned, students tend to want to go the electronic way.
Relation to Similar Works. Consider how this resource will complement what is already available.
Timeliness and Permanence: Material that is out of date and therefore erroneous should not be purchased and if on hand should be thrown right into the garbage. Is it not patronising to give away sub-standard material??
Cost: Always a factor. In Surrey, the District has purchased World Book Online, Thomson Gale and Ebsco databases. Unfortunately many teachers do not even realize that the District has made the databases available and their students continue to rely on Google for their quests.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment