A Quality Picture Dictionary Is Worth A Thousand Words
I signed up for this course because it was a core course and required for the completion of the Teacher Librarianship Diploma at the University of British Colombia (UBC). The topic seemed interesting, but apart from a vague understanding of reference material that I had gleaned from my summer job as a page at our local community library, I had not given reference material much thought. As the weeks passed, I came to an understanding about the value of reference resources and started looking with interest for my school library’s reference materials. To my dismay, they were out of date, obsolete and all were scattered around the library like paper sheets in a windstorm. Once they were reunited, they formed a very sad and very embarrassing reference collection.
From this very limited reference resource section, I selected the Dorling Kindersley Ultimate Visual Dictionary for the purposes of this paper. I was drawn to evaluate this resource because it looks to be in quite good condition. This intrigued me for either the reference was very new, or it has remained in such good condition because it had not been used very often by the student population. It took just a moment to turn over the front cover and find the date of publication and confirm my suspicion; this reference source had been added to our library in 1994.
https://www.amazon.com/Dorling-Kindersley-Ultimate-Visual-Dictionary/dp/0751310506
This inspired a series of follow-up questions: What was the reason for its underuse? Is this picture dictionary an un-helpful reference resource? What quality made it un-helpful (pictures, size of text, level of English)? Were the students aware of its existence? Did the teachers research assignments rely on different, better resources in this library instead? Did the school librarian simply forget about this resource and not refer students to it during the reference interview? Many of these questions will remain unknown to me as I am out of step with the reasons behind many of the organizational and purchasing decisions made by the former teacher librarian. Instead of these unanswerable questions, I will focus on the questions the assignment pose, endeavor to evaluate the usefulness of the picture dictionary I selected and ascertain if it should be replaced.
The Evaluation Rubric
To help me in this task, I created an evaluation rubric. I decided to combine criteria that I have encountered throughout the course thus far. From Riedling, I echoed her section headings and included the criteria of Authority, Age, Currency, (p.59) as well as Bias, Arrangement and Presentation, and Diversity (pg. 23,24). From this assignment’s description of Part 1, I included the criteria of Efficient Use of Space, Curricular Connections and Purpose. I drew on the list from the guide: Evaluating, Selecting and Acquiring Learning Resources (p. 80) to include Breadth/Depth of the Resource, Canadian Content, Frequency of Use, Cost, and Format. Finally, I was inspired by the acronym MUSTIE shared by my classmate Elizabeth Elliot on a blog post. I was curious if the shorter evaluation criteria would be give a similar result even though it was more limited in scope. I included it to see if a numerical system of evaluation would echo the findings of my more in-depth system. I also felt that it highlighted the needs and interests of my specific community which was valuable information to consider.
I purposely did not attribute a number value or start rating system to this evaluation system as I believe that each of these criteria should not be weighted equally and filtered through the experience and trained expertise of a Teacher Librarian. Accessibility, Authority, Currency are more relevant in the selection process than age of the resource. After all, a resource being old, does not mean it no longer holds relevancy to the community and the students. By filling in the chart, I have allowed the teacher librarian to engage in a conversation with each of these criteria. This could be done alone or in collaboration with other stakeholders. As Reidling reminds us “the selection is not completely the responsibility of the school librarian…[but] also belongs to administrators, teachers, students, parents, and community members” (p.20). The conversations occurring as each of these boxes are filed in will supply a cohesive picture of the overall value this reference resource is providing to the school community.
The Candidates for Replacement
My first challenge when selecting a potential replacement for this reference source was its classification. Reidling defines a dictionary as “a reference resource containing words systematically arranged along with information about their forms, pronunciations, funcitons, etymologies, meanings and syntatctical and idiomatic uses (p. 57)”, or as “a reference source alphabetically listing terms or names important to a particular subject of activity, along with discussion of their meanings and applications” (p.57). Both of these defenitions are very word focused and seem to exclude the picture dictionary from the category. Given its pairing of words and visual information, one could make a case that it could be included as a highbred of an encyclopedia and a dictionary.
Riedling does not dedicate much time talking about how to evaluate a good picture dictionary, but does mention them briefly on p.61 in her list of suggested print materials. Here she names two quality examples: Merriam-Webster’s Visual Dictionary and American Heritage Picture Dictionary. Therefore, because Reidling lists examples of Picture Dictionaries under a heading of English Languge Dictionaries (p.61) I decided to follow her lead and respect the title of the book by evaluating and classify it as such.
I then started looking in greater depth for other picture dictionary options starting with Quill and Quire and CM: Canadian Review of Materials as well as other online sites. I did not find many that would match the length or detail of information contained in the original source. For a brief moment, I discovered the Oxford Picture Dictionary at McNally Robinson Booksellers and considered it as an alternative. It looked very comprehensive and promising, but I soon found the disclaimer “Beginner-level ESL picture dictionary for mature or adult learners” (https://www.mcnallyrobinson.com) which quickly eliminated it from consideration for my elementary school library. For this reason, I respected the professional recommendation of Riedling and included Merriam Webster’s Visual Dictionary (2nd Edition) in the evaluation chart below.
https://www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/merriam-websters-visual-dictionary-second/9780877791515-item.html
I also included a website in my evaluation chart because I was curious if there was a non-book alternative to this reference resource. I found this even more difficult to select since Riedling does not give any concrete suggestion for this. A simple Google search revealed over 96 000 results and after the first page of scrolling, I noticed that the websites were of questionable authority and visually cluttered by ads. Of all the possibilities, I selected one I found to be the least objectionable.
Selection of New Resource
I’ve included my evaluation chart below which summarizes the results of all three picture dictionaries:
Criteria | A) Existing Resource | B) Proposed New Resource (Book)
| C) Proposed New Resource (Website) |
| Dorling Kindersley Ultimate Visual Dictionary ISBN 1564586480 | Merriam Webster’s Visual Dictionary 2ndEdition ISBN 0877791511 | http://www.visualdictionaryonline .com /index.php |
Age | - Out of date (Published in 1994) | - Published in 2012 | - Updated last in 2020 |
Authority | - Reputable Source (Dorling Kindersley) | - Reputable Source (Merriam Webster) | Merriam-Webster and link can be found on main page of Merriam-Webster website: https://www.m-w.com |
Purpose | - Research and general interest | - Research and general interest | - General Interest - Naming of parts - No additional information in paragraphs provided - pronunciation of words provided - definition of words provided - links to other similar topics of interest |
Currency | - Out of date in areas of technology, Pluto and scientific classification systems | - Currently most up to date version from this publisher but may soon be replaced | - Continually updated |
Curricular Connections | - Many connections | - Many connections | - Many connections |
Efficient Use of Library Space | - Takes up little space | - Takes up little space | - Online therefore takes up no shelf space |
Condition | - In acceptable condition | - In pristine condition (if purchased) | - Always in good condition as it is not physically handled and an online resource |
Breadth/Depth of Resource | - Covers many topics - 640 pages | - Covers many topics - 1152 pages | - Extensive though not as many details provided |
Canadian Content | - Not specifically Canadian | - Not specifically Canadian | - Not specifically Canadian |
Frequency of Use | - Undetermined but last taken out in 2002 | - Undetermined as not yet purchased | - Undetermined |
Cost | $39.95 in 1994 | $56.95 | Free |
Arrangement and Presentation | The pictures are inviting and in colour but the text is small | The pictures are inviting and in colour but the text is small | - Small text (but with the ability to zoom) - Ad clutter |
Format (Physical or Digital) | - Easy to navigate by students - Assumes students can navigate an index - print is small for beginner readers | - Easy to navigate by students - Assumes students can navigate an index - print is small for beginner readers | - Easy to navigate - Search feature is not intuitive - Easy to end click on a link and end up off the website - Table of Contents are interactive and easy to navigate |
Diversity | - People shown are predominately white | - Undetermined based on online sample of the book | - BIPOC represented in images |
Bias | Does not include Indigenous perspectives or feature other cultures | Undetermined based on online sample of the book | - Features foods and clothing from other cultures |
MUSTIE Misleading Ugly Superseded Trivial Irrelevant Elsewhere | M - Yes U - No S - Yes T – No I – No E – Yes
3/6 | M – No U – No S – No (but may soon be) T – No I – No E – Yes 5/6
| M – No U – No S – No T – No I – No E – Yes
5/6 |
In summary, the original Picture Dictionary (A) was very problematic. It was inaccurate in the areas of technology, system of classification and astronomy as each of these subjects have evolved and have had recent discoveries since 1994. The resource is 26 years old and does not show evidence of frequent use. I recognize that it is meant to be an abridged reference, but this reference has consistently chosen to exclude the sports, everyday objects and musical instruments of other BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Colour) peoples.
The proposed replacements were not perfect either. Although the Merriam Webster’s Visual Dictionary was a suggested resource by Reidling (p.61), given that I have no school library budget, I am cautious to spend any money on a resource that is nearly 10 years old and may soon be replaced by a newer edition. The Visual Dictionary Online has some amazing attributes such as it being continually updated, more representative of BIPOC peoples and offering additional information such as pronunciation and definitions. On the other hand, it was easy to accidentally click an ad or a link and end up on another website, the search feature was no intuitive and it did not provide as much information as the print materials did. It also requires the use of a computer and the prior knowledge of how to navigate a website and manipulate a mouse which some young learners may not have developed at this stage of their education.
Conclusion
Riedling reminds us that the “the good reference source is one that serves to answer a question” (p. 17) and for the collection to be “useful and alive, and active … [a] continuous program of weeding [must be] maintained”(p.17). This process of clearing out materials which no longer buttress the curriculum and support the information-seeking processes of the students, has not been regularly occurring in the library in which I work. The presence of these older resources doubly hinder by becoming a roadblock for students to overcome. Their time is therefore wasting as they evaluate the usefulness and accuracy of the information presented, but also the library space is wasted as these outdated resources fill shelves which would otherwise be dedicated to helpful resources.
For the above reasons, and the results of the MUSTIE evalutation which echoed the more in-depth evaluation rubric included above, I have decided to remove the Dorling Kindersley Ultimate Visual Dictionary from the reference section of the library. I propose that the school replace this picture dictionary with the Merriam Webster’s Visual Dictionary but I will wait until the 3rd edition is published. In the meantime, I will promote the online dictionary as a stop-gap measure until the 3rd edition becomes available and keep looking for alternatives as I learn more about the book buying resources available to me as a teacher librarian.
References:
BCPS Weeding Guidelines. (October 10, 2020). MUSTIE Acronym. https://bcpslis.pbworks.com/w/page/103157212/Collection%20Maintenance%3A%20Weeding%20and%20Inventory
Canadian Library Association (CLA) (2014). Leading Learning: Standards of Practice for School Library Learning Commons in Canada. Retrieved from http://llsop.canadianschoollibraries.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/llsop.pdf
Evaluating, selecting and acquiring learning resources: A guide published by the BC Education Resource Acquisition Consortium (BC ERAC).
Riedling, A. & Houston, C. (2019). Reference Skills for the School Librarian: Tools and Tips (4th ed.) [eBook edition]. Libraries Unlimited.
Hi Suzanna,
ReplyDelete"To my dismay, they were out of date, obsolete and all were scattered around the library like paper sheets in a windstorm. Once they were reunited, they formed a very sad and very embarrassing reference collection." When I read the following I felt the same when I walked into our reference section. We have very few reference resource, more for teacher than students. I think students can find value in both physical and electronic references. There are pros and cons for both. Electronic forms as you said can be accessed everywhere although not everyone has access to a device. Physical copies can be shared with students and we can teach them how to search through a dictionary and find what they are looking for. The school I work at has a number of ELL students would you add any picture dictionaries in different languages to your school library?
Luisa T.
ReplyDeleteHi Suzanne, thank you for sharing your post. Your writing is superb and clearly explains your findings. I liked how you included MUSTIE in your rubric. I am also just learning about this acronym for weeding resources. Like Olivera, I too, work at a school with a large number of Early English Language Learners. I can see the huge benefits of print copy visual dictionaries in the library but also in each classroom. In my own classroom, there have been many times when a visual dictionary would have come in handy while trying to communicate with a student with no English whatsoever. Yes, I can use my computer to quickly pull something up and communicate with them, but then, once the conversation is over, I take back my computer. On the other hand, bringing out a print visual dictionary would leave me the option of allowing the student to explore the pages of the dictionary for their own interests after our conversation is finished.
Luisa