Nonfiction:
Pets/ Domestic Animals 636 Applied Science
Pets are an immensely popular topic students
love to explore. Children are all
naturally curious to learn about domesticated animals and their relationship to
them. Much of the information in this
section has not changed over time, with the exception of Veterinarian practice,
acceptable training methods and various breeds of popular pets (Boone 2012). Important changes that have been taking place
are the ways in which students interact with information. Students are taught to make use of nonfiction
text features and photographs to make connections that help access prior knowledge
in order to construct new understanding. Many of the existing resources available in
this section are lacking the use of nonfiction text features and are inappropriate
reading levels for students and teachers in an elementary school setting.
 |
| Prior to evaluation and weeding |
The collection located
in nonfiction Dewey placement 636, consists
roughly of 140 nonfiction texts. It has become visually unappealing with worn,
outdated books and is affecting student learning. Teachers are challenged by this section when
they are conducting research in their classrooms because the majority of reading
levels available do not support student or instructional needs. The subset is not responsive to all students
in the school. There are more titles with
reading levels suitable for experienced readers and fewer for those who are emerging. The subset is heavy with dog content and lacking
breadth in other pet animal and farm animal types such as horses, sheep,
chickens, pigs, cats and smaller pets including guinea pigs, gerbils and
rabbits. Many books are so slim in their
width that they do not stand out with a sturdy spine and title and therefore, become
overlooked by browsers. Students have
difficulty finding materials that respond to their interests and information
needs and as a result, many requests have been made for more current, interesting
books. This subset has demonstrated the need for
evaluation, weeding and selection “to enhance the library’s
reputation for reliability and up-to-datedness” (Boone 2012).
Prior to this
weeding project, the collection was analyzed by Follett titalwave.com library
solutions. The Dewey sections were
broken up by 100’s and again into smaller sections of 10’s to show a more detailed
analysis. This provided a way of
conducting an inventory of this small section to find out which books are
actually on the shelf compared to what should be. An important first step according to the Mardis
article when calculating dollars that should be spent on replacement
materials. The analysis showed the
publication dates in this section to be between 1971 to 2018 with the majority
of titles printed in the 1990-2000 range.
One resource published in 1971 was not found and could have either been lost
or selected for discard without being deleted from the catalogue. Either way, it was my first candidate for the
weeding pile. If a similar but updated
formula was applied to our subset, then books needing replacement would cost roughly
$187 (143 nonfiction texts x 0.05= 7.5 needing replacement @$25 each=$187.50 a
realistic amount to set aside for this project.
 |
| Examples of outdated and irrelevant resources with dense text that will be weeded |
According to the teacher
librarian’s handbook, items in this section should be weeded according to use,
outdated information and theories (Anderson, 2007). The CREW method for weeding gives the formula
of 5/2/MUSTIE (publication over
5years old, over 2 years since last circulation and then adhering to the MUSTIE
acronym). The formula doesn’t work to
guide the weeding for this subset due to sheer number of resources in the
collection that have a much older publication date. If this formula was adhered to, there would
not be much left to choose from. This weeding and replacement project will begin
immediately but not all weeded resources will be replaced this winter until
funds are received. An additional amount of $500 is to be donated by the PAC to
improve upon this area as well as the sport section which is necessary and much
appreciated.
The majority of resources that
need to be culled have been identified and have each been evaluated for relevance,
purpose, currency and connections to the curriculum. Some will be weeded immediately while a
handful of others will be weeded once a more suitable replacement can be selected.
Resources that will be weeded
immediately are old, contain dense sections of text with small font and are
lacking nonfiction text features that help students navigate and comprehend
information. Resources that may be
weeded at a later date, might be dated, but have high circulation statistics,
or may be at appropriate reading levels for our students.
 |
| Surrey Public Library 636 Pet section for comparrison |
40 nonfiction texts have
been selected for the initial weed of this collection. Although the number of books is higher than
required by the assignment, this is a necessary step in order to make this
section match the needs of the patrons. Resources
selected are 20 years of age and older. The
same collection at the Surrey Public Library (above) has publication dates
ranging from 2004 to current. In order
to provide up to date, reliable and reputable information in our school
library, similar measures must be applied.
Many resources are dated handbooks that give detailed information about raising
very specific domesticated animals such as turtles, that are no longer popular
among our community. Some are misleading and contain irrelevant illustrations and photographs
as well as text that is too advanced for many of our readers. One title that will be discarded immediately contains
outdated methods for approaching dogs. A
guest from the SPCA recently came to teach safety around dogs and this alerted me
to look for resources with misleading information.
 |
| Spreadsheet used for evaluation of this subset |
 |
| Follett list created by analysis broken down into 10's to be weeded |
Educators rely on quality
nonfiction resources when teaching students to read and interact with information,
pictures and text in a circular way rather than by cover to cover. Many resources in this subset are not suitable
in an elementary school setting as they are outdated, have inappropriate
reading levels and no longer sustain the interests of our students. Many resources that will be weeded have not
been circulating for years and should not be passed onto classroom libraries. If there are any worth holding onto for other
purposes I will display them at our next staff meeting, but the majority of these
will be sent for shredding or recycling.
In general, teachers understand the need for weeding but many times try
to save discarded resources for their classroom. There are times when this is reasonable, but
in this situation, I will not be communicating with staff about the items
removed.
In selecting new materials that
will enhance the subset for all patrons the Follett analysis provided a helpful
tool to locate current recommended titles as replacements. Clicking on a particular title we currently
have in the collection allowed me to view detailed information about it such as
publication date, reading and interest level.
It also showed additional current resources available as possible
replacement material including publisher, publication date, price, binding,
pages and suggested Dewey number. Linked
to each of these, were reviews made by School Library Journal, Kirkus Reviews,
Library Journal and Publishers Weekly. This
tool helped me to find and save resources to a working list. It allowed me to then compare my selections by
various criteria and by reading reviews made by reputable organizations. I have selected 11 titles that could work as replacements
for this project.
1. Initial inventory compared
from Follett analysis what is on the shelf with what should be on the shelf
2. Remove all items in subset from
the shelf to a separate working area where each title can be evaluated.
3. Using weeding checklist or
evaluation rubric and CREW/MUSTIE guidelines as a gage look for currency,
relevancy, curricular connections, student interest, circulation statistics etc.…
4. Delete resources that need
to immediately be removed stamp with DISCARD and remove or cover over other library
identification marks
5. Pack them up in a district
labeled recycling box and have transport pick them up.
6. Order new titles to replace
7. When new titles arrive,
finish weeding other resources that stayed on the shelf while awaiting better
options for replacement.
 |
| Current state of pets before new resources arrive |
Works Cited:
Boone, Belinda.
“ Weeding with the CREW Method.” Satanta | TSLAC, 2012,
www.tsl.texas.gov/ld/pubs/crew/index.html.
Mardis, Marcia A. The Collection Program in Schools: Concepts and Practices, 6th Edition : Concepts and Practices. Vol. Sixth edition, Libraries Unlimited, 2016. EBSCOhost, ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1164331&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Anderson, Stephen, et
al. “Collection Development.” Teacher-Librarian Handbook, School
District No. 36 (Surrey), 2007,
www.surreyschools.ca/sites/TF83DFQJB21/Documents/TL%20Handbook.pdf#search=weeding%20policy.
Witowich, Kelsey. “South Meridian Sch Library Collection.” TITLEWAVE | Follett School Solutions, 2018,
www.titlewave.com/titlewise/dispsingle?caid=3163199.
Bredenkamp, Paige. “Weeding the School Library Collection.” YouTube, Wyoming State Library, 23 Sept.
2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRdSSMHL61o.
Baumbach, Donna, and
Linda Miller. “Less Is More: A Practical Guide to Weeding School Library
Collections.” Creating Policies for Results: From Chaos to Clarity |
ALA Store, 2006,
www.alastore.ala.org/content/less-more-practical-guide-weeding-school-library-collections.
No comments:
Post a Comment