Assign+4+-+Weeding

Assignment #4 – Weeding

When analyzing the resources for first level senior high Biology, I found that the majority of resources currently used by teachers and students were recommended websites. It is not surprising that this format is appealing and engages students while from a teacher’s perspective can offer a variety of supports and reinforcements for students with varying learning needs. To refer back to my community analysis we have 17% of our school’s population with an identified exceptionality and this does impact the choices the TL should make with respect to building a collection which supports the students and the curriculum as well as professional development materials for our teachers.

On average we will have between 3-4 teachers teaching the first level multi-discipline science course (which biology is one of four modules), while we usually have 2 of these teachers assigned to the first and second level biology courses, which translates to approximately 140 Level 1 biology students. I mention this as it is feasible to tap into the expertise of these teachers to help with more difficult decisions with respect to items to be weeded from the collection and their recommendations for additions and what format they would think would be of most benefit for the students, given the fairly high percentage of students that present with the need for additional support through quality resources. However, it is important to note that teachers are often very busy and that a request for their recommendations should not be onerous.

Through assignment #3, the collection evaluation, I was shocked at the high percentage of out-of-date books found on the shelves, and not surprising the low and in some cases non-existent circulation of these resources which sat “comfortably” filling up the stacks. Approximately 82% of the biology print resources had a publication date of 1989 or older.

============================================================================== With respect to my School district and school policy on weeding and collection development I was surprised that I was not able to find a policy as such. I did locate some local examples which indirectly refer to the process of weeding.

**Example 1:** The following is on our district’s website: [] Eastern School District Code **(KE)** Section: School Community Relations **//Public Complaints//** //Authority: Eastern School Board Date Approved by the Board: August 17, 2005 Legal Reference: Date of Amendments: November 1, 2006 Cross Reference: The Schools Act, 1997 Page 2 of 2// 3.4 Complaints involving curriculum resource materials should be reported to the school principal.

The Eastern School District manages 119 schools which includes the Janeway Hospital School. In the Eastern School District, there are approximately 40,000 students, and approximately 4200 teaching and support staff. For a district this big I was very surprised to have not found a policy.

I did however find a reference to weeding from minutes of a school council meeting within my district it read as follows: An update was provided regarding school council’s request for volunteers to assist with the library. A memo that went home to all parents increased volunteers from 8 to 25-30. ** A written update was also provided to committee members by Michael W., Learning Resources Teacher indicating that re-shelving of books and weeding of older books has begun. ** A book exchange has also resumed with students from all grade levels. Elaine explained that they might explore a plan to open the top two shelves of each bookcase to display artwork and competitions that take place at the school throughout the year. I liked the fact that weeding was discussed at the school council meeting and felt this type of communication set a positive and natural tone for the process of weeding, I think I will adapt this for my school when I begin weeding the Fall. In addition, I found that our medical library does a very nice job of explaining the purpose of weeding and inviting input, I am planning to incorporate this type of tone into my communication about weeding our resources in our high school library. Although I am not sure I will be offering books I have weeded on a first come first served basis – as I predict most of my resources that will be weeded especially during my first round of weeding will fall into the “spoiled milk” category! Over the spring and summer of 2011 staff ** will be conducting library a major review of the Health Sciences Library's book and media **
 * B. Resource Centre: **
 * i. Request for Volunteers: **
 * Weeding the Health Sciences Library Book Collection **
 * [[image:http://ubclibe463.wikispaces.com/site/embedthumbnail/placeholder?w=200&h=50 width="200" height="50"]] ||
 * collections. **** Like your home garden, the library collections work better for our users when they are "weeded" occasionally ** . The last major weeding review was conducted in 2001. ** This current review will target publications from 1996 and before. Items which have become obsolete or replaced by more current editions will be withdrawn from the library's collection. ** ** Items of continuing or historical interest will be kept. **


 * Example 3: **

referrals, student behavior, student academic plans, student attendance
 * An Eastern School District’s School development plan **** 2011-2012 **
 * Goal 1: To increase student achievement in Language Arts, Math and Science **
 * ** Objective 1.1: Increase student averages in Language Arts ** || ** Objective 1.2: Increase student averages in Math ** || ** Objective 1.3: Increase student averages in Science ** ||
 * ** Strategies: **
 * 1.1.1 Offer Language Arts tutorials (T1) **
 * 1.1.2 Strengthen student vocabulary through use **
 * of WordWall and participation in CanWest Spelling Bee (T2) **
 * 1.1.3 Institute classroom libraries (Relax and Read program) (T2) **
 * 1.1.4 Bolster resource center library (T2) **
 * 1.1.5 Offer a media literacy unit focusing on informational text (T3) **
 * 1.1.6 Offer a cross curricular unit in Science and **
 * Language Arts (biographies of scientists) (T3) **
 * 1.1.7 Maximize use of instructional support **
 * teacher based on needs of school population. (T3) ** || ** Strategies: **
 * 1.2.1 Offer Math tutorials (T1) **
 * 1.2.2 Emphasize the importance of practice (T1) **
 * 1.2.3 Use a differentiated instructional approach **
 * (game boards, interactive whiteboards, challenge **
 * questions) (T2) **
 * 1.2.4 Maximize use of instructional support teacher **
 * (T3) **
 * 1.2.5 To use common assessment format questions **
 * at all grade levels (T3) ** || ** Strategies: **
 * 1.3.1 Offer a cross curricular unit in Science and **
 * Language Arts (biographies of scientists) (T3) **
 * 1.3.2 Use in-school common assessment format **
 * questions at all grade levels (T3) **
 * 1.3.3 Use a differentiated instructional approach (video, interactive whiteboards, learning centers)(T2) ** ||
 * ** Indicators of Success: **
 * 1.1.1 Tracking tutorial attendance and **
 * performance scores of those attending **
 * 1.1.2 Utilization of WordWall vocabulary on a **
 * daily basis as well as Grade 7s and 8s **
 * participation in the CanWest Spelling Bee **
 * 1.1.3 Classroom libraries established. Create a **
 * reading log for classroom library usage **
 * 1.1.4 Continuous addition of titles, polling **
 * students to determine desirable titles, weeding old **
 * material **
 * 1.1.5 Participate in informational text assessments **
 * 1.1.6 Cross curricular assessments **
 * 1.1.7 Use data from academic tracking, office **
 * referrals, student behavior, student academic **** plans, student attendance ** || ** Indicators of Success: **
 * 1.2.1 Record of tutorial attendance and **
 * performance scores of those attending **
 * 1.2.2 Record of individual students practice **
 * 1.2.3 Record of participation and pre-session **
 * qualification **
 * * ** 1.2.4 Use data from academic tracking, office
 * 1.2.5 record of common assessments used ** || ** Indicators of Success: **
 * 1.3.1 records of/examples of the cross-curricular **
 * units **
 * 1.3.2 record of common assessment format **
 * questions **
 * 1.3.3 Use data from academic tracking, office **
 * referrals, student behavior, student academic **
 * plans, student attendance ** ||
 * *As a result of my learning through this course I would add use quantitative (automated system statistics) and qualitative data (teacher and student discussion) to review usage and perceived effectiveness as a way of indicating success. **
 * *As a result of my learning through this course I would add use quantitative (automated system statistics) and qualitative data (teacher and student discussion) to review usage and perceived effectiveness as a way of indicating success. **

So even though there is no specific policy written about weeding either at the government, district or school level, I have found instances where it is assumed or needed for weeding to occur to achieve some of the goals which school councils, or school development plans have prioritized for their schools. I am surprised that such an important aspect of collection management does not have a written policy, however, I know that I will be creating one for my school for the upcoming school year. ===================================================================


 * DESELECTED MATERIAL AND RATIONALE: **

Using CREW subjective and objective criteria as well as other considerations that were discussed in various readings I developed a checklist which could serve as a guide for my decision to deselect particular resources. I kept the MUSTIE acronym rather than Dickinson’s, (2005) MUSTY as I feel there is a significant differentiation between “irrelevant” and “elsewhere” not necessarily for deselection but for collection planning and therefore saw the data gathered through the process of weeding as better able to inform planning if this distinction was made.

The numbers will represent the corresponding book listed below – a dot will show why I feel this book should be deselected.
 * ** Criteria (subjective) ** || ** 1 ** || ** 2 ** || ** 3 ** || ** 4 ** || ** 5 ** || ** 6 ** || ** 7 ** || ** 8 ** || ** 9 ** || ** 10 ** ||
 * ** M - Misleading ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || || ||
 * ** U - Ugly ** || || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || || ** * ** || || || ** * ** || ** * ** ||
 * ** S - Superceded ** || || ** * ** || ** * ** || || || || || || || ||
 * ** T - Trivial ** || ** * ** || || || ** * ** || ** * ** || || || || || ** * ** ||
 * ** I - Irrelevant ** || || ** * ** || || || ** * ** || || || ** * ** || || ||
 * ** E - Elsewhere ** || || || || || || || || || || ||
 * ** Criteria (objective) ** || || || || || || || || || || ||
 * ** AGE - Publication date/copyright date **
 * (* from class notes – health info. out of date after 5-10 years, much that is older than 30 years is often wrong or incomplete) ** || ** * 971 ** || ** * **
 * 1980 ** || ** * **
 * 1978 ** || ** * **
 * 1976 ** || ** * **
 * 1980 ** || ** * **
 * 1974 ** || ** * **
 * 1967 ** || ** * **
 * 1967 ** || ** * **
 * 1985 ** || ** * **
 * 1979 ** ||
 * ** USE - Circulation statistics – not in the last 5 years ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** ||
 * ** PHYSICIAL CONDITION: dirt, stains, mold, pages missing or torn ** || || || || || || || || ** * ** || || ||
 * ** CURRENCY OF CONTENT: ** || ** * **
 * ** Out-of-date: misleading information ** ||^  ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||
 * ** Out-of-date: titles, images words ** ||^  ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||
 * ** DUPLICATION – Multiple copies ** || || || || || || || || || || ||
 * ** CURRICULUM INTERGRATION – does not meet current curriculum objectives ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || || ** * ** ||
 * ** APPROPRIATE TO THE CURRICULUM – Reading level ** || || || || || || || || || || ||
 * ** BIAS - Offensive material: stereotypes, racist, ageist, words, titles, images or **
 * presenting a bias viewpoint. ** || ** * ** || || || ** * ** || || ** * ** || || || || ||
 * ** OBSOLETE FORMATS - ** || || || || || || || || || || ||
 * ** Out-of-date: misleading information ** ||^  ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||
 * ** Out-of-date: titles, images words ** ||^  ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||^   ||
 * ** DUPLICATION – Multiple copies ** || || || || || || || || || || ||
 * ** CURRICULUM INTERGRATION – does not meet current curriculum objectives ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || ** * ** || || ** * ** ||
 * ** APPROPRIATE TO THE CURRICULUM – Reading level ** || || || || || || || || || || ||
 * ** BIAS - Offensive material: stereotypes, racist, ageist, words, titles, images or **
 * presenting a bias viewpoint. ** || ** * ** || || || ** * ** || || ** * ** || || || || ||
 * ** OBSOLETE FORMATS - ** || || || || || || || || || || ||
 * ** OBSOLETE FORMATS - ** || || || || || || || || || || ||

=================================================================== Using some of the data collected as I performed the collection evaluation assignment, I realized there were many biology books that were pre-1995, (at least 17 years old) and most resources had not been taken out within the last five years, so I knew this section was in desperate need of review and weeding.
 * 1) Race and Races, by Richard A. Goldsby, copyright 1971. Several references to Negros vs. African-American as well as measuring intelligence and race by using IQ tests, this information while tempered somewhat in the book is in my opinion misleading and offensive. Black and white pictures only. Never taken out.
 * 2) The Genetics Explosion by Alvin and Virginia Silverstein, copyright 1980. Scientific thought has added greatly to this field since 1980, black and white illustrations only. Information not complete and out-of-date with respect to today’s scientific thought. For this topic alternate formats such as DVD’s, websites, or highly visual and appealing print materials would be more desirable. Last taken out in 1989.
 * 3) The Ozone War by Lydia Dotto and Harold Schiff, 1978. Out-of-date (inside cover states “until a few years ago, most people had never heard of ozone.”, clearly not applicable today. No illustrations. Last taken out n 1994.
 * 4) Nuclear Energy; The Unforgiving Technology, by Fred H. Knelman, copyright 1976. Last taken out 1997. Very few illustrations and tables, mostly text. Ideas were quite sensationalistic or alarmist. Information is out-dated.
 * 5)  The Stop Smoking Book for Teens, by Curtis W. Casewit, 1980. Numerous statistical references which are out-of-date, black and white illustrations. While information would not be considered necessarily misleading, it is limited and out-dated in terms of the research and medical interventions now used to help people stop smoking. Last taken out 1995.
 * 6)  The New Genetics by Margaret O. Hyde, copyright 1974. No illustrations. Information is out-dated in terms of scientific advances as well it presents a narrow view of societal norms today for instance “Commercial sperm banks exist for artificial insemination of humans when a husband cannot act as father....” this imposes the societal norms of the day but is not relevant to same sex couples, single parents, etc. Out-dated interpretations, values and attitudes. Last taken out 1994.
 * 7)  Viruses and the Nature of Life, by Wendell M. Stanley and Evans G. Valens, 1967. Numerous illustrations but black and white only. Information is out-dated in terms of scientific advances. Well organized book for its time. Last taken out 1976.
 * 8)  New Worlds through the Microscope, by Robert Disraeli, copyright 1967. Numerous illustrations however, all in black and white and no electron or scanning microscopes used (they were not developed at the time). Information and illustrations out-of-date and limited in terms of today’s common scientific thought. Last taken out in 1977.
 * 9)  Beginning Science Biology by B.S. Beckett, copyright 1985. While most of the information is still pertinent, the black and white illustrations are not appealing by today’s standards and expectations. In addition, websites or DVD’s would be a better choice to display this type of information for students today. Never taken out.
 * 10)  Women & Sports, by Janice Kaplan, copyright 1979. No illustrations. Ideas of feminism and female sexuality, and the new image of being female is out-dated. While some of the discussion could still hold interest today, an updated version would be of more value and appeal. Last taken out 1990. Not relevant to curriculum.

I physically went to the shelves and eyeballed the books for a dated look, dust and general topics that may flag out-of-date material. Then I made up a checklist using the CREW’s subjective (MUSTIE) and objective criteria, Baumbach & Miller (2006) to base and legitimatize my choice to deselect.

It was easy to take books off the shelf for consideration as many were old and fairly unattractive by today’s standards. Little or no color illustrations, print was small, organization of material was dated in terms of titles, headings, sub-titles. Information was presented in a dry fashion, with little references to everyday experiences or familiar examples. Having the CREW objective and subjective criteria to refer to made the process easier to start and move forward with – in essence it allowed the process to become less daunting.

Once I had the books off the shelf I found myself examining the material, and even though it seemed dated and irrelevant, I felt an argument for keeping the resource could be argued. The voices of “should you really be getting rid of this” became louder in my head. However, knowing that there are criteria which are professionally accepted as being credible reasons for deselecting material gave a rational voice and helped me make the decision to weed or not to weed. Dickinson’s article, (2005), //Crying Over Spilled Milk//, conveyed that she understood the trepidation a TL inexperienced with weeding may feel as they venture into the process. It was helpful when I read from this article that much health and nutrition information from the 1960’s and 1970’s is false and that changes in scientific thought has changed our perception of the world and therefore currency is very important criteria to consider. As well Dickinson considers the format of the resource and discusses that some formats have disappeared from use and as such should be considered for deselection.

I found the actual disposing of the resources very difficult even after I knew I had made a thoughtful decision. Even after reading Dickinson (2005) who discusses various means of disposing of resources including the trash can and from Weeding Library Collections – From Library Success: A Best Practices wiki, I still grappled with how to do this sensitively. Given that this round of weeding culled only the most obvious choices for weeding, resources that really would not be a use to anyone else, I simply removed the items from the system, removed markings and placed in a box marked discard and taped it up and placed it for disposal in our outside school dumpster. I predict that as weeding goes on that there may be resources that others may benefit from i.e. duplicate copies and I will work to further develop my policy and procedures to address how to best discard these type of resources.

Once I had a loose policy or at this time it was a checklist of criteria, I felt more at ease and confident to make a decision to deselect a resource, knowing that I could articulate professionally my rationale. Knowing that I have gone through the Biology section and weeded some of the most obvious choices, has provided me with the experience to do more weeding as well as identify gaps that should be planned to be narrowed with this specific section of the collection. Beyond feeling that I know this aspect of the collection better, I also feel more in control of its future direction. Jo Anne Moore supports this idea when she discusses the integral part that weeding (CREW method) can play in building a relevant, reliable, accurate, and up-to-date collection, and how using CREW generates information, identifies strengths, weaknesses, gaps, and saturation points. I agree with Dickinson (2005), in that I have learned the collection, caught miscatalogued and (mis-shelved) items and noticed changes in the way certain resources would be classified today if I were entering them into the system.

Things that I would do differently next time would include becoming more familiar with what resources may be available for inter-library loans with the public library system and the university library. Bring the weeding process to the attention of the staff and general school community something like what was done by the medical library I mentioned earlier. As a result of having gone through a weeding process, next time my perspective and experience will have changed. Increased confidence would be gained and my policy and rationale would be enhanced with firsthand knowledge of specific examples in our library that needed to be weeded. I will definitely discuss the weeding process with my staff and explain the importance of having reliable, relevant and appealing resources rather than “full” shelves of materials which sometimes mask materials they would want to use. My understanding of the strengths and gaps in the collection would be more finely tuned so that my approach to weeding and planning for selection of resources would be more balanced throughout the curriculum.


 * REFLECTION: **

Reflecting upon the readings such as Dickinson (2005) and going through the process of determining criteria for weeding and then deciding if a book (or any resource in general) should be weeded I definitely believe it is made easier if there is a guideline or policy to follow and also can serve to explain to others how the process is carried out in a systematic and thoughtful manner. This assignment will form much of the foundation for my weeding process for the upcoming year, but I realize that this policy should be regarded as fluid and be added to or modified as I become more familiar with this process. Having inherited a library from a TL who was there for 22 years (and who didn’t like to weed), my first few years I rationalized that I wouldn’t start weeding until I knew my collection. I now know that I hesitated to begin the process because I felt unqualified and in some sense unsupported as there was no policy to base my decisions. I feel more confident to begin and share the rationale of the process with my coworkers, as the policy will be based on reasonable criteria and best practise as discussed in the various readings.

I now also have a better appreciation of what it means for a collection to be current and dynamic, and how it is a continuous process to keep it responsive to curriculum changes and supportive to the teachers and students. Becoming familiar with the concept of CREW (Continuous, Review, Evaluation & Weeding), Dickinson (2005), Baumbach & Miller (2006), has empowered me to begin this process with a confidence that it doesn’t and shouldn’t be done in secret or behind closed doors – something you hope you can get away with- even though you are trying to do the right thing! It was therapeutic to read Dickinson (2005).

I have found I find it easier to discuss deselection, Baumbach & Miller (2006), as opposed to weeding; it seems to imply more of a professional process rather than just chucking resources. The word deselection evokes the context of careful consideration (the same level of consideration you would use to select a resource) but the opposite.

Approaching weeding as a continuous and natural professional responsibility, Dickinson, 2005, is a new and helpful way for me to view this process. Taking 15-20 minutes a week for weeding is doable and will translate into a cyclic and natural feel for this important aspect of maintaining a reliable, relevant and appealing collection.

While this assignment only asked to consider a specific section of curriculum, I have also gained a good working criteria for deselecting fiction materials through Dickinson (2005), article. She suggests Merle Jacob’s List which uses: Duplicates, Poor condition, Obscure Genre and Short Stories as some guidelines to base a deselection decision. I really liked the simplicity of her three step approach however, I was uncertain as to whether or not I would incorporate turning weeding into an instructional event with the students as Dickinson (2005), mentions. However, including feedback from students in terms of what materials they find useful or missing would be advantageous to building a responsive and effective collection.

As a result of my library of being in such a great need of weeding, I feel a subject based approach to collection analysis and weeding is the most beneficial for collection planning and my prioritization of purchases to build a balanced collection. I don’t really see evidence of any weeding being done in the last 30 years of more with the exception of our magazines which are kept for the last four years. We have encyclopaedias from the mid-eighties and early nineties. I have to accept that currently my school’s collection is dated and not as useful as it should be for my students and teachers. This opinion is certainly supported by the circulation statistics gathered from our automated system and from my physical spot check of the stacks themselves. While reading Weeding Library Collections: A Selected Annotated Bibliography for Library Collection Evaluation, it underscored for me the importance of beginning the weeding process with writing a policy (guideline) and applying the policy. Will Manley is quoted by saying that “...collections that go unweeded tend to be cluttered, unattractive, & unreliable informational resources”, this is where I tend to feel many of my sections are currently however, gives me a focus to move forward. My resource center does feel crowded and space for new materials is limited, weeding will help with this as well as provide space to highlight useful resources for my students and teachers. This is especially true with respect to obsolete equipment for resources now longer used. Jo Anne Moore said “When there is only one useful item among a shelf full of books, the student will soon tire of the hunt”, I believe this to be true. Students should find useful information easily, I hadn’t really thought about weeding as a process as a way to increase access but it can.

I agree with the B. C. Ministry of Education Document - Evaluating, Selecting & Managing Learning Resources: A Guide when it discusses that regular weeding maintains value and relevancy ensuring space and equipment are used effectively and efficiently. While reviewing the Achieving Literacy source, our collection’s current status with respect to the biology section which I have analysed would have to be rated at below standard “resources generally not current and may be in need of repair or replacement”. Achieving Literacy also describes under school library collections: Accessibility & Currency Acceptability that materials should support much of the curriculum, copyright dates should be within the last 10 years for 50 – 70 % of the collection and that most materials are complete and in good repair (Table 7).

I think I will have to look at the curriculum needs and objectives for the specific subject area and review what we currently hold, evaluate our holdings using accepted criteria (establish a school policy), discuss needs with specific teachers and make note of gaps for purchasing or inter-library loans. I feel given where I will be started from this will be the most organized and effective way to plan for establishing a well balanced and effective collection with both short and long term goals. With any goal knowing where you want to go – allows one to make the important decisions to get there! Each decision becomes a question of; does this decision bring me closer or further from my ultimate goal.

Also, considering the impact that technology (Larson) has made on the format that various resources are now available in also demands an evaluation of all resources, including audiocassettes, VHS tapes, filmstrips, etc. However, for this assignment I did not have access to all the other types of resources for actual weeding as they were in teachers classrooms and unavailable because it was exam time.

I have found great benefit in the readings on this particular theme. The readings helped me to; realize my hesitancy was not unique to me, become aware of criteria to base a policy for deselection of materials, as well as appreciate weeding as a continuous process and is a professional responsibility. I was particularly struck by Jo Anne Moore’s comment that “Information explosion, ...speeds the obsolescence of the nonfiction collection & necessitates more frequent weeding than may have been common in the past”, now is the time to embrace and commit to this process.

I will develop a policy to address weeding, a timeline and type of approach as well as the disposal of deselected resources & equipment. In addition, I will prepare short statements about weeding to present to staff and school council. I also want to organize how data collected from the weeding process (i.e. strengths, weaknesses, gaps, saturation points) will be identified and recorded with respect to the curriculum and supporting students and teachers.

Achieving Literacy B. C. Ministry of Education Document - Evaluating, Selecting & Managing Learning Resources Baumbach & Miller (2006), Less is more: A practical guide to weeding school library collections. Bishop (2007), The Collection Program in Schools (2007) Dickinson, Gail (2005), Crying Over Spilled Milk Handis, Michael W. (2007) Practical advice for weeding in small academic libraries”, Collection Building, Vol.26 Iss: 3, pp. 84-87. Larson, Jeanette (2008) CREW:A Weeding Manual for Modern Libraries. [] Moore, Jo Anne, Guidelines for Collection Evaluation and Weeding Weeding Library Collections: A Selected Annotated Bibliography for Library Collection Evaluation Weeding Library Collections – From Library Success: A Best Practices Wiki
 * References **