Evaluation Process
In the book Riedling gives us 6 steps to go from, p19/20 in evaluating the materials:
1) Content Scope
2) Accuracy, Authority, Bias
3) Arrangement and Presentation
4) Relation to similar works
5) Timeliness and Permanence
6) Cost
The general talk in the posting is what I echoed in my posting when I commented on Tammy's post. She used the word "springboard" as a way for these suggestions to start us out as beginners and get in in the right direction. Riedling fails to mention things like looking at the school. Cristal's comments on Feb 2 sum up most of what the class was agreeing on. The school's mission statement needs to be considered and is that item still being used. So Riedling was correct on basic starting points, but was missing the detail that depends on the individual school.
I'm not so sure about using a mission statement, but I am sure about the individuality of a school. For eg. if a school were named after a significant person in history, I'd make darn sure that I had extra material on that person. When I was the TL in a Catholic school I worked really hard to have material on famous saints because it's a recurring topic. So, you really have to know your school. If my administrator was a hockey nut, I'd make sure he(she) got the first kick at "Hockey News". The point I'm trying to make is that there are certain commonalities but you have to accommodate the differences, too.
ReplyDelete