Minutes from Student IT Fluency task force meeting 4/3/01

     JoAnn M Burke ,
     *Julie Long ,
     Julie Storme ,
     Karen Chambers ,
     Tom Bonnell ,
     *Dan Mandell ,
     Doug Tyler ,
     Gerry Gingras ,
     *Peter Smith ,
     Patrick White ,
     Georgeanna Rosenbush ,
     *Mary Connolly ,
     *Sue Wiegand ,
     *Dick Jensen 

The meeting opened with a review of the materials we intend to distribute to the liaisons. The cover letter was approved with the following changes:

1. Change "constantly growing" to "dynamic" on first line of paragraph two.
2. change "list of fluency expectations" to "glossary of IT identifiers" in paragraph three.
3. modify paragraph four to change the reference to "list of fluency expectations" to "glossary of IT identifiers." We might omit the phrase, "while in no way exhaustive."
4. Put a comma after e.g. at bottom of paragraph 4.
5. Change "courses for the 2001-2002 academic year," in paragraph five, to "2001-2002 academic-year courses."
6. Add the clause "from the glossary of IT identifiers" after "identifier code" near the bottom of paragraph five.
7. Insert the date April 27, 2001 in the final paragraph.

We discussed the role of the Suggested Fluency Expectations sheet and decided that it might be counterproductive to give it to the liaisons right now. It was more a statement of fluency goals whereas we need the faculty to identify specific technology outcomes in their courses for the resource list. It should be very helpful in the next two phases of our plan (see below) when we need to convince faculty to agree to a process where students can demonstrate and be recognized for their IT fluency improvements.

I have reprinted below a summary of our four-stage plan for improving student IT fluency.

1. empower each student to self assess her fluency level in dialog with her advisor and to set goals for herself establishing the level she wants to attain by the time she graduates;
2. provide the student and her advisor with the knowledge to lay out a plan to reach her goals by inventorying the curricular and cocurricular opportunities available at the college for moving up the fluency ladder;
3. provide ways that a student can demonstrate her competence with IT fluency;
4. provide a recognition system for those who have reached their fluency goals.

There were no changes suggested for the glossary of IT identifiers.

We decided to open the liaison meeting with a brief description of our plan and the role that the resource list of curricular and cocurricular opportunities will play in its implementation. We will briefly describe the survey form and the role of the glossary in filling it out, and then ask each liaison to choose a course he or she is currently teaching and complete the form for the chosen course. This should spur questions whose answers will better prepare the liaisons to help faculty in their departments fill out the survey.

We closed the meeting with a brief discussion of the benefits of a Teaching and Learning Center which would gather together faculty development specialists (CFAI), information specialists (librarians), and IT specialists under the same roof. It appears that the College has been awarded a grant to make this happen.

We decided not to meet again until after the 27th when the survey forms from faculty are due.

If there are any additions or corrections to these minutes please contact me.

Peter