[LM_NET] TAR: When is an encyclopedia not an encyclopedia

[Steven Patnode <Sun85@AOL.COM>]

From time to time,  teachers assign students a unit topic with  a
print resource requirement excluding encyclopedias.  Although I  take this
to mean excluding World Book, Britannica, etc., the teachers often mean  any
reference books in a series.

Our library holds (as we all do) some great 3-, 4-, 5-book or more  reference
sets from Gale and other quality sources, but at times
the teachers feel these are too "encyclopedic".  They prefer that the
students
find information in a single book, but the collection being what it is, I
can't
have expensive up-to-date multi-volume sets AND a single non-fiction  book
on every topic under the sun.  So at times the students use a single  book
source with a minor reference to their topic to fulfill their book  citation
requirement,  rather than a multi-volume reference book  with 4-5 pages on
the same topic, because the multi-volume seems to be in a gray
"encyclopedia" area (even when the sets are not identified as
encyclopedias).

Have you had to argue the distinction between traditional  encyclopedias
and reference sets?  Or are they really the same and I am off  base?

Thanks -
Steve


Steve  Patnode
Grades 7-12 SLMS
Chazy Central Rural School
Chazy, NY  12921
sun85@aol.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------
All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law.
To change your LM_NET status, e-mail to: listserv@listserv.syr.edu
In the message write EITHER: 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET  2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL
3) SET LM_NET MAIL  4) SET LM_NET DIGEST  * Allow for confirmation.
LM_NET Help & Information: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/
Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/
EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://elann.biglist.com/el-announce/
LM_NET Supporters: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ven.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------