Student IT Fluency task force meeting minutes for 11/1/00
To: Student Fluency Group -- *Joel Cooper ,
*Dan Mandell ,
*Douglas Tyler ,
*JoAnn M Burke ,
*Julie Long ,
*Laura J Sobieck ,
*Patrick White ,
*Rick Tarara ,
Cc: Teaching Learning Technology Roundtable
*Susan E Wiegand ,
*Peter Smith
Subject: Minutes from the Nov. 1 Meeting
The fluency task force met at 8:00am on November 1 to discuss the fluency
rubric: how it should be modified and used, who it should be presented to,
and where to go with it from here. The astericks before their names
reflect those in attendance.
We compared the rubric to a ladder which specifies the rungs that a
student can climb to reach higher levels of IT fluency. We asked if the
rubric was a single ladder for all students or was really many ladders,
one for each discipline. We agreed to push for the single ladder approach
since the multiple ladder theory was so complex that it seemed impossible
to define. In some sense the W and Advanced W specify a two-step
ladder. Concern was raised that a work load similar to that for the W's
will be placed on faculty if we are not careful in implementing an IT
fluency assessment process. It may be a violation of academic freedom to
push faculty to incorporate more exposure to deeper levels of technology
in their courses. We did agree that all students should leave the college
with a certain level of expertise in using technology so they can function
as confident knowledge workers in today's high-tech society. The problem
is how to accomplish this goal.
We asked the question what should the rubric be used for? Should it
represent guidelines to help students, their advisors (both academic and
non-academic), the Dean, the curriculum committee, the mission committee,
the Jubilee committees, etc., make plans to help each student reach her IT
fluency goals. My understanding of the sense of the meeting was that the
rubric should serve all the above constituencies. Technology needs to be
consciously considered in advising students, in constructing the
curriculum, in cocurricular activities, everywhere on campus. One of the
task force members told us about an excellent talk given by a student in
the Jubilee Technology committee about the technological levels at which
students find themselves when they come to the college and where they
should be when they leave. The other members hoped that this talk could
be put in writing and shared with everyone.
We asked how we should push IT fluency. A single course for all students,
perhaps an extension of the four week CPSC 101 experience that first-year
students take now was rejected as not providing continuous "Just-in
time" learning and as being very hard to set up and coordinate. Diffusing
IT fluency experiences throughout the curriculum, much like writing across
the curriculum, is very hard to assess because no one is accountable for
making sure the experiences are of high enough quality and that each
student avails herself of them sufficiently to achieve a high enough level
of fluency. The best home for the assessment of IT fluency seems to us to
lie with the advisors. We asked how the rubric might be used by advisors
-- i.e., as a talking point, or as a guideline, or perhaps a promise that
if a student reached the fluency level she and her advisor agreed was
optimal for her then she would be successful after graduation. It was
mentioned that IVY Tech actually backs up this promise with free tuition
for courses taken after graduation if a student does not find success.
If advisors are to take on the responsibilities mentioned above, they have
to know where in the curriculum and in the cocurriculum to find
opportunities for their advisees to grow their IT fluency, and there has
to be a strong support mechanism in place to help them give good advice.
If the rubric is to be really helpful to advisors and students as well as
the other constituencies mentioned above, it needs to be restructured so
it appears simpler. The following suggestions were made to that effect:
- Put the rubric in grid form. This will emphasize the fact that no one
finds herself totally at a single level in the rubric. At different times
and in different settings she can be at one level in attitude, another in
skills, etc.
- Change the "fluency level" label to "literacy level" since the whole
rubric is supposed to be assessing fluency.
- Take out the Critical Thinking label or replace it with something else
because all disciplines claim to be encouraging critical thinking whether
or not it is associated with technology.
- Replace several of the references to computers to a more general
reference to technology since we do not want to equate the two.
- Perhaps try to get a descriptive phrase for each section of the rubric,
e.g. novice, capable, etc.
- Move presentation software up to the competent level.
Most folks had to leave before we talked about meeting again. All agreed
that we need to meet face-to-face to make progress with the rubric and
through it to a definition of fluency. I will try to find a meeting time
late next week. If I have misrepresented our discussion or left out a
significant topic, please let us all know by responding to this list. I
will put the rubric grid on the web by the end of the week under
http://www.saintmarys.edu/~psmith/rubric.html
It would be too complex to try to put it in an email message.
Peter
Peter Smith
Professor, Mathematics Department
Saint Mary's College, Notre Dame, IN 46556
Minutes for 11/1 Meeting -- Revised 11/3/00