Search results

Arts-integration is a promising approach to building students’ abilities to create and critique arguments with data, also known as informal inferential reasoning (IIR). However, differences in disciplinary practices and routines, as well as school organization and culture, can pose barriers to subject integration. The purpose of this study is to describe synergies and tensions between data science and the arts, and how these can create or constrain opportunities for learners to engage in IIR.

The authors co-designed and implemented four arts-integrated data literacy units with 10 teachers of arts and mathematics in middle school classrooms from four different schools in the USA. The data include student-generated artwork and their written rationales, and interviews with teachers and students. Through maximum variation sampling, the authors identified examples from the data to illustrate disciplinary synergies and tensions that appeared to support different IIR processes among students.

Aspects of artistic representation, including embodiment, narrative and visual image; and aspects of the culture of arts, including an emphasis on personal experience, the acknowledgement of subjectivity and considerations for the audience’s perspective, created synergies and tensions that both offered and hindered opportunities for IIR (i.e. going beyond data, using data as evidence and expressing uncertainty).

This study answers calls for humanistic approaches to data literacy education. It contributes an interdisciplinary perspective on data literacy that complements other context-oriented perspectives on data science. This study also offers recommendations for how designers and educators can capitalize on synergies and mitigate tensions between domains to promote successful IIR in arts-integrated data literacy education.

This article draws on longitudinal research into the establishment of co‐principalships. It discusses this innovative approach to school management in relation to women’s negotiations of their motivations, aspirations and strategies for career advancement and work/life balance. Longitudinal case studies of three primary school co‐principal initiatives were carried out between 1995 and 2000. Repeat interviews and observations with co‐principals, board chairpersons and school staff were conducted. Interviews were also undertaken with parents; students; and representatives of state education agencies, national governing boards, principals’ associations and teacher unions, alongside analysis of school and state policy documents. The resulting case study narratives described how each co‐principalship was initiated and either established or dis‐established. A discourse analysis of these narratives then examined how links between discourse, knowledge and power were being negotiated and challenged, as the new subject position of “co‐principal” was being constructed in New Zealand. This article analyses the significance of the similarities and differences in the women’s career backgrounds, motivations and strategies for moving into management positions. As they initiated their co‐principalships, the women variously went “against the grain” and/or co‐opted elements of the new public management corporate executive model for school leadership, which was introduced within the radical state restructuring during the late 1980s and early 90s in New Zealand.

The decision of the Council of the Library Association not to hold a Conference this year will surprise only those who are not satisfied with the present progress of the library movement in this country. If we ventured to judge by the absence of complaints at this decision our conclusion would necessarily be that by far the greater number of librarians are thus satisfied. It is only when a comprehensive glance at the whole movement is taken that doubts arise in our mind that we should like to see resolved. We are to rest in acquiescent contentment with the present silence and apparent inactivity. Other bodies, probably possessed of less wisdom—professional associations, trades unions, and similar organizations—are meeting with a certain eagerness and enthusiasm which, in the circumstances, must be rather bewildering to our placid Council.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Tenn. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

THE CATEGORICAL TABLES of the S.C. which are used entirely for the sub‐division of subjects have only been criticized for two reasons, and neither is very serious. It has been said that in many cases they make the notation too cumbrous and the numbers too long; and someone has objected to these tables for including subjects which are already in the main schedules. A lengthy symbol is almost inseparable from minute classification, because it is impossible without enormously increasing the main tables to provide for the many forms and standpoints which require expressing if an attempt is to be made to get right up to the specific subject. An example of enormous expansion will be found in the uncompleted Library of Congress Classification, in which no fewer than 7,079 numbers are used for music, a subject which in the S.C. is even more fully detailed in 332 numbers. For instance, there is no place in the Congressional scheme for the viol family of instruments, in connection with which there is a very large literature, so that, in spite of its great array of numbers, it appears that it is possible to miss important headings even in the most ambitious scheme. This inflation is caused by the constant repetition of forms, localities, and other categories, which in the S.C. are expressed once and for all in separate tables, by numbers which always mean the same thing. Thus:—

WHILE there is no doubt that the system of issuing books at “net” prices is of great benefit to booksellers, there is also no doubt that, unless care is taken, it is a serious drain upon a limited book‐purchasing income. A few years ago the position had become so serious that conferences were held with a view to securing the exemption of Public Libraries from the “net” price. The attempt, as was perhaps to be expected, failed. Since that time, the system has been growing until, at the present time, practically every non‐fictional book worth buying is issued at a “net price.”

WE are confident that our readers will approve our use of the amount of space we have given this month to the memory of Dr. Arundell Esdaile, whose death we announced briefly in July. As Mr. Berwick Sayers writes, there must be many of his old Students who revere his memory, and many others who have directly or indirectly benefited from his work for our profession.

Few issues in recent times have so provoked debate and dissention within the library field as has the concept of fees for user services. The issue has aroused the passions of our profession precisely because its roots and implications extend far beyond the confines of just one service discipline. Its reflection is mirrored in national debates about the proper spheres of the public and private sectors—in matters of information generation and distribution, certainly, but in a host of other social ramifications as well, amounting virtually to a debate about the most basic values which we have long assumed to constitute the very framework of our democratic and humanistic society.

THE central question of librarianship now and in the past is that which occupies some of our pages this month. Reading with purpose and with system, Matthew Arnold declared, was the last service to be rendered to education; and in various manner librarians and their committees have been endeavouring to do this for many years; it has indeed been a guiding principle of the best libraries that they presented to the community only good book's. Lately, however, more generous (or lax, according to the standpoint) ideas have been allowed to condition the admission of books; there are not wanting those who object to any exercise of judgment on the part of the librarian; if people want certain books they must be served, as they pay for them. This argument was exploded long ago, but its revival is justified if the librarians are unequal to their pretentions as guides to readers. And to be guides requires ever‐increasing knowledge, not only of all work done in bibliographies and reference books, but, as our writers indicate, of people and their manifold relations and reactions to books. This is enormously difficult in any community but is manifestly so in large cities. As a small illustration we may point to a librarian who, when a branch librarian was appointed to his staff, gave him a month of freedom from library work proper in which he was to walk every street of his branch area, interview the clergy, teachers, leading traders, and the secretaries and committees of local societies. He thus came to his work with at least an elementary notion of the community he had to serve. Such study must have its effect on book‐service; and this is the sort of study that must be pursued in the manner Dr. Waples has advocated and practiced (or some such manner) if we are to arrive at a science of book‐selection applicable to the areas a library serves.

THE L.A. Conference can be said to have finished off the summer, albeit somewhat ingloriously. Frankly it was not a very inspiring affair. However the papers and atmosphere are well described in this number by Mr. Jack Dove and in this column we will confine ourself to that excitement‐packed Annual General Meeting which now probably holds the world record for the shortest A.G.M. of a serious professional institution. The opportunity to express an opinion or ask a question on any aspect of the affairs of the library profession comes only once a year, but the only persons who spoke at the Annual General Meeting were the Chairman, the proposer of the Hon. Auditors, the Mayor of somewhere inviting the Association to hold the Conference there next year and a mover of a vote of thanks to something or other. It makes you wonder. After all the past year has not been entirely without interest to librarians. There are some, we know, who are heartily sick of the sound of the word Roberts but is there no one sufficiently moved to express an opinion on the recommendations contained in the report of the Roberts Committee? It is simply astounding that there was not one motion on the agenda on any aspect of that report. At the time that the agenda was prepared, it was not known that there would be a general election immediately after the conference but surely it is important that the profession as a whole should manifest its view of the recommendations of the committee so that the government could prepare legislation which would have our support. Only one of the major political parties has announced in its manifesto to the electorate that legislation will be introduced in a new Parliament to improve the public library service but of course no details of its proposals have been given. We must know that there is no end to the possible stupidities which could be incorporated into an Act—unless all the bodies concerned impress on the Minister the confirmed opinion of their members. The Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association have not been slow in making their views known. The Library Association Council presented evidence to the Committee which enjoyed (sic) the support of the membership but it cannot be said that the recommendations have the same support. But does anybody care? Apparently not. We shall grumble when new legislation is presented and then spend the rest of our lives blaming “them”. Is it any wonder that in the words of a London Town Clerk, “librarianship is a depressed profession”? Which leads us nicely to that other apparently unimportant event of the past year.