This article was downloaded by: [Thammasat University Libraries]On: 07 October 2014, At: 04:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Public Services QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wpsq20

Embedded Librarianship and TeacherEducation: A Neuroeducational ParadigmUsing Guided InquirySignia Warner a & Lolly Templeton ba Ely Library , Westfield State University , Westfield, Massachusetts,USAb Education Department , Westfield State University , Westfield,Massachusetts, USAPublished online: 25 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Signia Warner & Lolly Templeton (2010) Embedded Librarianship and TeacherEducation: A Neuroeducational Paradigm Using Guided Inquiry, Public Services Quarterly, 6:2-3,250-258, DOI: 10.1080/15228959.2010.497747

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2010.497747

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Embedded Librarianship and TeacherEducation: A Neuroeducational Paradigm

Using Guided Inquiry

SIGNIA WARNEREly Library, Westfield State University, Westfield, Massachusetts, USA

LOLLY TEMPLETONEducation Department, Westfield State University, Westfield, Massachusetts, USA

This article focuses on a course-embedded guided inquiry projectinitiated by a senior librarian and an education professor topromote an understanding of how the brain functions and toexperiment with brain-targeted teaching techniques. Informationliteracy instruction (ILI) takes place in the electronic classroomin the Educational Resources Center (ERC) located on the mezza-nine floor of the college library. Teacher candidates enrolled in theLearning and the Brain course meet in their regular classroom andparticipate in course-embedded information literacy sessions in theERC at critical stages of their research. During their final project,candidates use a neuroeducational paradigm to research and pre-pare math games to share with children in field-based settings.

KEYWORDS embedded librarianship, guided inquiry, informa-tion literacy instruction, neuroeducation, teacher education

INTRODUCTION

Librarians and teachers are interested in new discoveries in neuroscienceand eager to learn about possible applications to education. Kurt Fischerand his colleagues speak of creating a new field of mind, brain, and educationthat may transform schools and education by creating a scientific basisfor educational practice (Fischer et al., 2007). This article focuses on a

Received 10 March 2010; accepted 1 April 2010.Address correspondence to Signia Warner, Senior Librarian, Ely Library, Westfield State

University, Westfield, MA 01086. E-mail: swarner@wsc.ma.edu

Public Services Quarterly, 6:250–258, 2010Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1522-8959 print=1522-9114 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15228959.2010.497747

250

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

52 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

course-embedded guided inquiry project to promote an understanding ofhow the brain functions and to experiment with brain-targeted teaching tech-niques. The authors, a senior librarian in charge of education resources and aprofessor in the Education Department at a state college in New England havebeen collaborating for 15 years to support teacher candidates in their effortsto become competent lifelong information seekers and users (Warner &Templeton, 2006). The current embedded librarianship project is designedto explore neuroscience research and its implications for classroom teaching.The senior librarian has tenure and is a former teacher educator. The edu-cation professor has been working collaboratively with the senior librarianto assist teacher candidates in becoming astute consumers of information.Over the years, information literacy became progressively enmeshed in cour-sework content. The instructional team consisting of the librarian, professor,and public school teacher liaison began working on this intriguing project in2009 as a result of a needs assessment survey of elementary school teachers.

OVERVIEW

It is essential for teachers in the K–12 system as well as faculty and librariansat the college level to know how the brain learns and how to apply thisknowledge in practice. Smilkstein states that ‘‘. . . colleges of education donot, as a rule, teach their students how the brain learns and how to teachthe way the brain naturally learns. In short, what has been missing is aresearch-based, theory-based method to help educators know how to putwhat is known about the brain squarely and productively in the curriculumof every classroom’’ (Smilkstein, 2003, pp. 21–22).

Information professionals have become much more knowledgeableabout how the brain functions since the introduction of new brain imagingtechniques. Technological advances include Position Emission Tomography(PET), Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), and QuantitativeEncephalography (qEEG). PET scans measure the rate at which glucose ismetabolized in specific regions of the brain during various cognitive activi-ties; fMRI measures oxygenated hemoglobin blood flow to identify specificareas of metabolic brain activity; and qEEG produces maps of brainwavepatterns during learning activities. These and other technological advancespromote understanding of how the brain responds to learning activities.

Scientists are justifiably cautious about claiming direct applications ofbrain research to classroom practice. They are particularly wary of commercialproducts produced under the guise of brain-based education. In 1997, JohnBruer wrote, ‘‘Currently, we do not know enough about brain developmentand neural function to link that understanding directly, in any meaningful,defensible way to instruction and educational practice.’’ Breur, whose special-ties include cognitive science and the philosophy of science, concludes that

Embedded Librarianship and Teacher Education 251

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

52 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

cognitive psychology provides more helpful guidance for solving educationalproblems and designing instruction than the results of brain research.

Willis (2007b) also warns educators to be cautious when interpretingbrain research, but Willis and other contemporary scientists and educatorsargue that current brain research can and does inform educational theoryand practice. Neurologist and middle school teacher Judy Willis (2007a)writes, ‘‘Never before have neuroscience and classroom instruction beenso closely linked. Now, educators can find evidence-based neuroimagingand brain-mapping studies to determine the most effective ways to teach,as advances in technology enable us to view the working brain as it learns.’’

Kurt Fischer (2008), director of the Mind, Brain and Education programat Harvard University, believes ‘‘. . . it is essential to the future of educationthat teachers become involved in neurocognitive research and neuroscien-tists discover the great theoretical and practical challenges of working inschools.’’ The Dynamic Skill Theory developed by Fisher and his colleagues(Fischer & Bidell, 1998, 2006) sees direct classroom implications for provid-ing optimal levels of support for abstract skill development. They observedhow children and adults ‘‘routinely lower their activities’’ and ‘‘rebuild theirskills to fit the new task (Fischer & Yan, 2002, p. 299). Their research showsincreased functional levels for abstract skills with optimal levels of adultsupport (Fischer & Yan, 2002, p. 33).

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The setting is a state university in New England with a student body ofapproximately 5,000 students with nearly 900 students enrolled in initialteacher licensure programs. The information literacy instruction takes placein the Educational Resources Center (ERC) located on the mezzanine floorof the college library. The ERC maintains a collection of more than 14,000items available for use with children in preschool through grade 12. Anelectronic classroom at one end of the ERC is equipped with an instructor’sworkstation, projection equipment, a whiteboard, and two laser printers.Twenty Pentium III workstations are arranged around the perimeter of theroom and provide access to more than 150 library databases. In the centerof the room there are modular tables and chairs that can be rearranged toaccommodate learning groups.

The participants are 20 female elementary education teacher candidatesenrolled in an experimental preservice education course, Learning and theBrain. Students meet twice a week in a typical college classroom equippedwith a multimedia podium and projection system. The class meets for sched-uled research sessions in the ERC several times during the semester.

At the beginning of the project, classroom teachers were surveyed to findout what type of brain-targeted games they would like teacher candidates to

252 S. Warner and L. Templeton

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

52 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

present in their classrooms. The teachers decided they wanted teacher candi-dates to develop effective math games that would meet state standards andassess what students know and are able to do. Teachers recommended thatgames have a clear math focus, clear directions written in ‘‘kid language,’’and have multiple entry points. Teacher candidates were expected to modelthe game and check in often with students.

TEACHER CANDIDATE PERSPECTIVE

Teacher candidates studied the Hardiman (2003) six-stage Brain-TargetedTeaching Model. Hardiman suggests ways to apply advances in neuroscienceresearch to classroom practices. She describes the anatomy and functions ofthe brain to give students a background for more in-depth understanding ofhow the brain functions and how that knowledge can influence learning andcurriculum planning at all levels of education. The Hardiman model is basedon the following brain-targeted criteria:

. Setting the emotional climate for learning

. Creating the physical learning environment

. Designing the learning experience

. Teaching for declarative and procedural knowledge

. Teaching for extension and application of knowledge

. Evaluating learning.

INSTRUCTIONAL TEAM PERSPECTIVE

The instructional team, consisting of the course instructor, the librarian, andthe teacher liaison, adapted Carol Kuhlthau et al.’s (2007) model of GuidedInquiry for conducting research with teacher candidates in the Learningand the Brain course. ‘‘In Guided Inquiry, the main objective is to go beyondfact finding to synthesize and assimilate facts to construct new ideas anddeep understanding’’ (Kuhlthau et al., 2007, p. 22). It is not simply fact find-ing but also involves active interpretation and learning in a social context that‘‘emphasizes questions and ideas that motivate students to want to learnmore and create ways to share what they have learned’’ (Kuhlthau et al.,2007, p. 4). ‘‘In Guided Inquiry students, teachers, and librarians collaborateand work together on ideas’’ (Kuhlthau et al., 2007, p. 5). It differs from prob-lem based learning in terms of the guidance provided during critical points inthe learning process. Librarians and teachers learn to recognize and respondto critical moments when intervention is needed.

Kuhlthau et al.’s model of guided inquiry is consistent with Vygotsky’s‘‘Zone of Proximal Development’’ (Vygotsky, 1978) and with Kurt Fischer’sresearch on Dynamic Skill Development where adult intervention promotes

Embedded Librarianship and Teacher Education 253

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

52 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

optimal levels versus functional levels of development (Fischer & Bidell,1998). Kuhlthau builds on Vygotsky’s concept to postulate a ‘‘zone of inter-vention in which a student can do with advice and assistance what he orshe cannot do alone or can do only with great difficulty’’ (Kuhlthau et al.,2007, p. 23).

INFORMATION SEARCH PROCESS (ISP) MODEL

Initiation

The instructional team initiates the inquiry process in the college classroomusing a KWL Strategy Map with questions for guided inquiry. The ‘‘K’’ columnrepresenting what teacher candidates Know or Think They Know revealed thatteacher candidates knew how sleep affects the brain, the stages of learning,the young child has more dendrites, and that information is taken in by all fivesenses. The ‘‘W’’ column, or What Candidates Want to Learn about how thebrain works, included how the brain affects learning, how the use of brainresearch can inform teaching, and what triggers memory. The ‘‘L,’’ or Learnedcolumn, of the KWL survey was addressed throughout the semester ascandidates created new understandings of brain research.

Selection

During the second stage of the ISP process, candidates are introduced to thestructure and function of the brain through assigned readings in the Hardimanbook Brain-Targeted Teaching Model. Teacher candidates meet in the ERCand are encouraged to share prior knowledge of memorable activities fromtheir own learning experiences. An emotional link is established by tellingthe Phineus Gage story. Using a brain diagram, they are given a pretest onbrain structure to determine the extent of their knowledge of brain anatomybefore embarking on their research.

Exploration

During the third stage of the ISP process, candidates meet in the electronicclassroom of the ERC to explore neuroscience Web sites suggested by thelibrarian. They are encouraged to focus on links in the information retrievalprocess to areas of personal interest within the content presented on theacademic Web sites. As Kuhlthau suggests, the sources may be inconsistentwith the candidates’ preconceived notions about the brain, and as a resultthe candidates may be confused at this point of the information retrievalprocess. They may need help from the instructional team as they workthrough their own ideas and construct new knowledge.

254 S. Warner and L. Templeton

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

52 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Formulation

During the formulation stage of the ISP, candidates begin to focus onresearch projects to present in elementary school classrooms. They use bothelectronic and print resources available in the ERC for their research. Toinspire creative ideas for curriculum development, the teacher-in-residenceat the college conducted a hands-on workshop for candidates drawing onhis curriculum design expertise. Cooperating teachers suggested strategiesfor candidate projects to meet state education standards and accommodateindividual learners.

Collection

During the data collection stage, candidates used information retrieved toextend and expand on their own ideas. Working in pairs supports theirdeveloping expertise through social interaction. They collect lesson plansconsistent with their developing ideas and understandings about the neuroe-ducational paradigm. They incorporate neuro-logical activities to build con-fidence and understanding and to extend connections by extrapolatinginformation from their research (Willis, 2008, p. 118). Candidates researcheddifferent types of games during the collection stage. Although some teachersuse games in their classrooms, most do not, according to Marzano (2010),and even when games are used they may not be used to their full potential.

Presentation

The culmination of the guided inquiry process occurs during the presen-tation stage when teacher candidates have an opportunity to share theirresearch on games with others. They were generally satisfied with the waytheir ideas developed and with the response from the elementary childrenand classroom teachers with whom they shared their brain-targeted learningactivities.

Assessment

The assessment stage gives teacher candidates an opportunity to reflect onthe inquiry process and to think about what worked, the problems theyencountered, and what they would do differently. In the assessment stageboth candidates and the instructional team reviewed what they learned aboutcontent and process. This stage was a chance to assess the entire ISP researchmodel. Ongoing assessment is an essential part of the guided inquiry learn-ing process. The results of final surveys reveal a real sense of accomplish-ment on the part of the teacher candidates. There was clear evidence thatteacher candidates understood and used neuroeducational principles indeveloping their projects.

Embedded Librarianship and Teacher Education 255

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

52 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

As teacher candidates reflected on the research process involved inplanning instruction based on the neuroeducational paradigm, they gener-ated a list of lessons learned that included the following essentialcomponents:

. Time allocation

. Consultation with experts, faculty, and peers

. Preparation – engagement

. Rehearsal

. Novelty

. Pleasure

. Managing stress

. Benefits of small group instruction.

CONCLUSION

Teacher candidates presented their brain-targeted math activities in publicschool classrooms. Teachers and elementary students responded enthusiasti-cally to the math games created by teacher candidates. The instructional teamexamined these data gathered from teacher candidates and teachers. A list ofessential elements for implementing the neuroeducational paradigm wasgenerated:

. Choice

. Value prior knowledge

. Information literacy skills

. Reliable research sources

. Emotional climate

. Physical environment

. Teaching for application.

Marzano (2010) supports the use of student games to enhance studentachievement in his book Meeting Students Where They Are. He reviewed60 studies of the effects of games on student achievement and reported anaverage 20 percentile point gain associated with the use of academic games.Marzano found that in classrooms showing the greatest gain, teachers usedthe following instructional strategies: a) inconsequential competition, b)essential academic content, c) debriefing after the game, and d) opportunitiesfor students to revise their understanding of math concepts when theyfinished the game.

The study incorporated Marzano’s instructional strategies that he asso-ciated with high student gains in achievement. Teacher candidates createdmath games that were either noncompetitive or involved fun nonthreatening

256 S. Warner and L. Templeton

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

52 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

competition. Using state frameworks and Kuhlthau’s Guided Inquiry researchmodel helped teacher candidates focus their attention on essential mathcontent appropriate for the child’s grade level. According to Marzano, oneof the biggest mistakes teachers make is failing to debrief with students afterthe game. Teacher candidates in the current study had post game discussionswith children in the elementary school classroom, with classroom teachers,and in the college classroom. Teacher candidates also wrote detailed lessonplan reflections. Self-reports included triumphs, challenges, modifications,and next steps.

Teacher candidates’ reflections of the embedded librarianship project inthe elementary school revealed how they constructed new understandings ofthe connection between the mind, brain, and education. One candidatewrote, ‘‘This course made me think critically about how to engage the brainin learning. It made me aware of how the brain retains information. I learnedhow to make modifications and provide multiple entry points for my lessonplans and activities.’’ Another candidate commented that she began ‘‘to seehow learning is connected to the brain. It helped me learn about differentstrategies to use creative thinking in teaching. I learned how emotions affectlearning and I am going to add more novelty to my lesson plans.’’

REFERENCES

Bruer, J. T. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. EducationalResearcher, 26(8), 4–16.

Fischer, K. (2008). Dynamic cycles of cognitive and brain development: Measuringgrowth in mind, brain and education. In A. M. Battro, K. W. Fischer, and P. J.Lena (Eds.), The educated brain: Essays in neuroeducation. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. R. (1998). Dynamic development of psychologicalstructures in action and thought. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of ChildPsychology: Theoretical models of human development, Vol. 1 (5th ed., pp.467–561). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. R. (2006). Dynamic development of action, thought, andemotion. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.),Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical modelsof human development, Vol. 1 (6th ed., pp. 313–399). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Fischer, K. W., Daniel, D., Immordino-Yang, M. H., Stern, E., Battro, A., & Koizumi,H. (2007). Why mind, brain, and education? Why now? Mind, Brain, andEducation, 1(1), 1–2. doi: 10.1111=j.1751–228X.2007.00006.x

Fischer, K. W., & Yan, Z. (2002). Chapter 12. In D. J. Lewkowicz and R. Lickliter(Eds.), Conceptions of development: Lessons from the laboratory. New York,NY: Psychology Press.

Hardiman, M. M. (2003). Connecting brain research with effective teaching: Thebrain-targeted teaching model. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.

Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2007). Guided inquiry: Learning inthe 21st century. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Embedded Librarianship and Teacher Education 257

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

52 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Marzano, R. J. (2010). Using games to enhance student achievement. EducationalLeadership, 67(5), 71–72.

Smilkstein, R. (2003). We’re born to learn: Using the brain’s natural learning processto create today’s curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Warner, S., & Templeton, L. (2006). Weaving the threads of early childhood curricu-

lar approaches into practice: A course-integrated information literacy instructionmode. In D. Cook and N. Cooper (Eds.), Teaching information literacy skills toeducation and social sciences students and practitioners: A second casebook ofapplications. Washington, DC: American Library Association.

Willis, J. (2008). How your child learns best: Brain-friendly strategies you can use toignite your child’s learning and increase school success. Naperville, IL: Source-books.

Willis, J. (2007a). Brain-based teaching strategies for improving students’ memory,learning, and test-taking success. Childhood Education, 83(5), 310–316.

Willis, J. (2007b). Which brain research can educators trust? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(9),697–699.

258 S. Warner and L. Templeton

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

52 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014