Site BlogPerhaps you’ve wondered why it’s taking so long for us to begin adding content to this site in the form of textbook and resource reviews. There are several reasons, of course, but one has to do with my desire to build the appropriate infrastructure so that our content (which I dream will be extensive one day) can be sorted and browsed easily and powerfully by visitors. Such an infrastructure involves creating pages that are highly organized and pieced together from content stored as specific data fields rather than as one large body of free-form text.
The Subject-Topic index that we’ve discussed recently is an example of just two of the data fields for which specific values would need to be applied to each review (web page). These data fields are called “Custom Fields” in WordPress, the content management system (CMS) that we are using. As I have perused and studied lots of different resources over the last year, I have been thinking a lot about what “chunks” of content might be stored as as values in custom fields. Of course, each review will contain a block of free-form paragraph text, but lots of useful parameters can be captured in data fields.
So, without further adieu, here is my full list of proposed custom fields. Data fields whose code names are followed by an asterisk have a defined list of values. Proposed values for these predefined lists are numbered 1-5 if they represent a rating (1=worst, 5=best). Proposed predefined values that are lettered are neutral (A is not better than D).
| Data Field (code name) |
Description/Value-list |
|---|---|
| Snippet (snippet) |
A meta-description (less than 240 characters) for the review, based on the reviewer’s Intro-Summary paragraph. |
| Citation (text_citation) |
Complete and properly formed citation for the item; substitutes for dynamically generated citation from component custom fields (see next several rows) until those are fully populated and built into the page template. |
| Title (text_title ) |
Title of the book or resource |
| Series title (text_title_of_series) |
Title of the book or resource series |
| Author(s) (text_author) |
Names of authors; (Last name, Initials); separate multiple by semicolon |
| Publisher (text_publisher ) |
Name of the publisher [= pub_name] |
| Location (text_pub_city) |
City and state of publisher |
| Edition (text_edition) |
Edition of the book reviewed |
| ISBN (text_ISBN) |
International Standard Book Number(s); separate multiple by semicolon |
| Medium (text_media_form) |
Format of the primary content being reviewed: (textbook, book, article, speech, lecture, sermon, short video, motion picture, television program, software program, website). Is it possible to develop a formal list? |
| Supplied as (text_media_supplied) |
Primary forms in which content is available: (book, file download, streaming, CD, DVD, satellite feed, website). Is it possible to develop a formal list? |
| Accessories (text_media_accessories) |
Format of accessories to the primary content being reviewed: (workbook, lab book, study guide, CD-ROM, DVD, etc.). Is it possible to develop a formal list? |
| Length (text_length ) |
Number of pages (book) or time (CD or DVD) |
| No. of lessons (text_number_lessons) |
Number of lessons (i.e., assuming a normal daily class period) |
| Questions? (text_questions_YN*) |
Does the text include problems, review questions, or discussion questions of some kind? |
| Answer keys? (text_answers_YN*) |
Are answer keys included or available (Y/N)? |
| Solution keys? (text_solutions_YN*) |
Are solutions to problems included or available (Y/N)? |
| Test banks? (text_quizzes_YN*) |
Are quiz- or test-banks provided for the teacher (Y/N)? |
| Teacher guides? (text_teach_guides_YN*) |
Are guides or resources available for the teacher (Y/N)? |
| Price (text_price) |
Approximate list price of the book or resource |
| Subject (subject_main*) |
Main science subject |
| Topic(s) (subject_topic) |
List of specific topics within the subject (most important for books about or a few topics only, e.g., magnetism) |
| Curriculum intent (curric_type) |
Classifies how comprehensive the resource is as a learning tool for the given subject or topic:
|
| Curriculum duration (curric_duration) |
Length of time the curriculum is designed for: (year, semester, month, week, day) |
| Target setting (target_setting*) |
As stated by the author or apparent from style, this describes the main schooling context for which the text was written: (Homeschool, School classroom, Small group, Individual self-study) |
| Target audience and purpose (target_audience*) |
As stated by the author or apparent from style, this describes the main audience for which the text was written:
|
| Target grade (grade_target) |
The target grade level, assuming a traditional sequence of subjects: (K-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-10, 11-12) |
| Target range (grade_range) |
The lowest and highest grade-levels for which the text might be applicable. |
| Christian? (text_author_Xn_YN*) |
Is the author a Christian (Y/N)? |
| Evangelical? (view_Xn_evang_YN*) |
Is the author an Evangelical (Y/N)? |
| Self identification (view_Xn_self_describe) |
Authors will be allowed to write a brief (140 character) description of their religious belief and denominational affiliation, etc. This would be displayed as a quotation. |
| Church affinity (view_Xn_church_affinity) |
Stated or apparent church or denominational persuasion of the Christian author |
| Theology (view_Xn_theol*) |
The Christian author’s stated or apparent theological disposition:
|
| Origins (view_Xn_origins*) |
The Christian author’s stated or apparent view of origins:
|
| Bible-Science (view_Xn_bible_sci*) |
The author’s stated or apparent view of authority of scriptural revelation (with regard to science):
If this category is applied to secular authors, too, then also add:
|
| Self Identification (view_secular_self_describe) |
Authors will be allowed to write a brief (140 character) description of their religious belief and denominational affiliation, etc. This would be displayed as a quotation. |
| Science-Religion (view_sci-relig*) |
Author’s stated or apparent view of the compatibility of science and Christian theism:
|
| Denomination affiliation (affil_denom) |
Formal denominational affiliation of the author, either by virtue of the publisher or expressly stated. |
| Institution affiliation (affil_institut) |
Institution of the author (college or organization). |
| Department affiliation (affil_dept) |
Department of the author |
| Amount of religious content (rate_relig_amt*) |
(0-5) Amount of religious content in the text: 0 = none; 1 = very little mention; 5 = prominent throughout |
| Quality of religious content (rate_relig_quality*) |
(0-5) Quality of the religious content that is present: 0 = absent; 1 = very poor; 5 = excellent |
| Conformity to consensus science (rate_sci_consensus*) |
(1-5) Conformity to well-established, consensus (mainstream) science:
|
| Scientific accuracy (rate_sci_accuracy*) |
(1-5) Accuracy of the scientific content and explanations:
|
| Completeness (per benchmarks) (rate_sci_comprehensive*) |
(1-5) Comprehensiveness, with respect to topics considered, as assessed against a basic list of national benchmarks and standards: 1 = very incomplete; 5 = comprehensive |
| Homeschool usability (rate_homeschool_usability*) |
(1-5) Overall assessment of the ease-of-use and adaptability to the homeschooling situation (mostly for resources, not official curricula), whether or not that was the target setting. This rating summarizes the overall effects of several other categories: 1 = way too expensive or not adaptable or practical for homeschool use 5 = excellent and affordable for homeschool use. |
| Overall rating (rate_overall_rating*) |
(1-5) Reviewer’s overall rating: 1 = very poor; 5 = highly recommended |
| Reviewer name (reviewer_name) |
Name of the ASA member reviewer |
| Link to Reviewer’s bio. (reviewer_pageID) |
Link to a dedicated page describing the qualifications and other short biographical information about the reviewer. |
I’m fairly confident that this basic structure and list of custom fields is adequate for the task. As I said, I’ve put a lot of thought into it, so it would take a lot to convince me to rethink the entire thing. And I don’t wish to quibble over minutia, either. We can refine wording later (for example, we could change “consensus” science to “mainstream” science). In fact, I envision creating a “glossary” to define and explain what we mean by certain terms and descriptions. (For example, evolutionary creationism (EC) has come to mean something slightly different from traditional theistic evolution (TE). The latter includes Deists, the former does not.)
Even so, I might have overlooked something. Is there a category of information that you think would be important to collect so that it can become the basis for sorting, filtering and comparing reviews?
Wow. That looks great.
I have two immediate questions. 1. Which fields are required and which are optional? 2. Which fields allow multiple entries?
I have two additional fields to be considered. Both are related to ‘Target setting’, but different in intent. 1. Should there be a field about teaching technique used (Deductive (traditional), Inductive, Programmed). 2. Should there be a field about the school model the curriculum is designed for (Charlotte Mason, Classical, Unit Study, traditional).
I will save minor quibbles for later. But it looks great.
I haven’t decided which ones are optional and which ones we’d try to at least take a guess at. Right now, my plan is to try to collect an “answer” all data fields (within reason – some just won’t apply to particular resources) during the review process. We can always decide which data to show on the page (i.e., which data fields to auto-report onto the page with the page-template). It’s quite possible that some data fields just won’t be possible to capture for enough resources to make it worth showing, but at least this gives us options.
My plan is to design the template so that it just doesn’t report certain fields if they are blank (i.e., not applicable). For example, an author’s views on origins is nearly always irrelevant to Electricity and Magnetism. For that matter, one’s entire religion and worldview are often irrelevant to that topic. Other data fields would only apply (and show) if the author/publisher is Christian, so those additional fields would only apply in those cases. I haven’t entirely worked this out yet, since that can be done later (and changed at any time). The important first step was/is deciding what information we want to capture.
I like your the two additional fields you suggest. I’m not an expert on those topics, so I’d need help recognizing and finalizing a distinct list of possible values for each of them. Perhaps Kimberly could respond, or one of our education experts.
–Doug
Patrick- Re: 1. “Teaching technique- inductive, deductive,…” are not the terms that I encountered when researching science curricula. Constructivism (Cognitive vs. social), Inquiry-based or problem-based learning, Behaviorist or Traditional approaches….are the raging-debate terms I encountered. Some scope and sequence terms are immersion and spiral approaches. I will give you a detailed, more thought-out list when finals are over in ten or so days if you and Doug decide it is worthwhile. I am not sure that homeschoolers would search for “true and false tests” or “constructivism” and like terms. What homeschoolers are really interested in is “what happens when I use this curriculum”: Rote memorization vs. analysis?, true false or fill-in-the blank tests vs. essay-type tests?, research papers required?, are the recommended experiments quality, do they teach the child proper technique in preparation for high school or college, and do the experiments actually teach the child anything?…. These questions should be answered in textbook reviews. Perhaps having any of the above teaching technique labels as search terms complicates our work with little benefit, unless we are also trying to be a resource for teacher trainees and schools of education with this project, in which case I would include these descriptors. If you wish, I can try to develop a teaching technique search term list and hope one of our education experts can review it for contemporary accuracy.
Re:School model fields: We would have to use the curriculum’s own description as not everyone agrees on what is “Classical”, or :Charlotte Mason”, etc.. Quite a few describe themselves as doing a little of everything, so the ability to input multiple tags would be useful. For instance, Jeannie Fulbright’s Exploring Creation series uses “notebooking”, “textbook”, “Charlotte Mason”, and “immersion science” as self-descriptors. Again, I will be glad to draft a list for you after finals. If we are going to add school model fields for searching, should we also include related self-descriptors such as Catholic and Seventh Day Adventist?
Kimberly
Catholic and Seventh Day Adventist might fit better under Church Affinity field Doug developed rather than school model field.
Thanks for those ideas Kimberly. A teaching/learning style data-field is a good idea, but I agree with you that it should be in terms that homeschoolers would use and it should be very general (i.e., broad categories rather than very specific, especially since few curricula will be perfectly only one style). We would expect that reviewers would describe noteworthy aspects of the curriculum style in their discussions (i.e., the main body of each review). The data-field categorization is just a very rough way to classify things.
I also agree that we should accept the author’s/publisher’s own description about their intended style. This is probably not our area of expertise. The main focus of our reviews (i.e, by scientists) is the quality of the science and it’s presentation relative to Christian belief. Our focus (and expertise) is not so much to perfectly categorize or critique the learning styles. That’s why we need to keep our comments on this area very general.
Yes, Kimberly, I’d appreciate it if you could propose a list of values for this data field when you have time. Thanks!
–Doug
Douglas Hayworth,
1. Under the Theology data field (view_Xn_theol*) you list as one of the dispositions “Armenian/Open theist” (option E). I am not convinced that people from Armenia are necessarily open theists; I suspect you might want to change that to “Arminian,” the eponym for the teachings of Arminius.
2. It is curious that you group open theism with Arminianism, rather than with process theism. What would be the reason for rejecting “Open/Process theist” as the grouping instead?
3. What is the distinction between Calvinist and Reformed here?
4. Under what options would Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox fall?
Thanks, David. Sorry for the long delay in approving and responding to your comment.
I made the correction.
1. Yikes! Misspelling Arminian is embarrassing. I know better; can I blame it on auto-correction in OpenOffice?
2. I place Open Theism with Arminianism, in keeping with the definition given by Pinnock, et al. in The Openness of God. They argue for Open Theism but are strongly opposed to Process Theism.
3. I suppose there isn’t a distinction between Calvinist and Reformed; by Reformed I was trying to make room for Lutheranism (using Reformed in the sense of Reformation). Others had the same confusion, so I guess I need to rethink that one.
4. I might add Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, or I might just leave those to be specified in the “Other” category.
I have to admit that I am not very happy the options for this particular question. It seems like a useful thing to know about a given resource (publisher or author), but in reality there aren’t simple discrete categories.
–Doug