Student IT Fluency Initiatives

Notes from Teaching, Learning and Technology Roundtable meeting,
October 17, 2002

Presenters: Stan North Martin and Sarah Noell

Sarah Stein began by giving an overview of upcoming TLTR sessions (see http://www.ncsu.edu/tltr/RTagenda.html) and by introducing the topic of the day’s session: “Update and Exploration of IT Fluency Initiatives.”  Sarah mentioned that issues surrounding student IT literacy are considered an important aspect of the university’s current Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) re-accreditation process. SACS now requires that each institution submit and implement a 10-year Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), and NC State deans, department heads and administrators have chosen “Learning in a Technology-Rich Environment” (LITRE) as the focus of the university’s QEP. The LITRE Team and Work Groups have begun meeting.  TLTR is identified as being an important part of the public forums for the planning process; Sarah encouraged campus involvement.  Sarah is on the LITRE Team as is Stan North Martin [Stan is the ITD representative and is facilitating the “Student Information Fluency” Work Group.]

Before the presentation began, Sarah reflected on the recent discussion on the TLTR list about ADA laws and Web accessibility. Although the debate seemed at times heated and polarizing, Sarah observed that there was bedrock agreement on promoting student learning as the primary value and goal. She also pointed out that the TLTR was formed as a grass-roots response to a sense of “disconnect” between technology decisions being made and those who are affected by them. She suggested that the TLTR would be a good forum for more discussion of the perceived disconnect between Web accessibility guidelines being issued and the means (or lack of means) of implementation. Henry Schaffer mentioned that the TLTR subgroup on accessibility was useful for dialogue when active several years ago with Greg Holden as lead; if there is enough interest, perhaps the subgroup could be brought back.  Henry also said that other issues and decisions are coming up that faculty need to be aware of and, ideally, involved in. He mentioned the recent Multimedia User Group meeting on synchronous course management, teaching and learning tools and the issue of whether all courses offered on campus should have a Web presence and if so, how and what kind. These issues also relate to accessibility, learning styles and new options for teaching, he pointed out.

Sarah turned the meeting over to the ITD IT Fluency Team:  Stan North Martin, ITD’s coordinator of student computing programs, Sarah Noell, ITD education coordinator and Laura Grady, ITD computing support specialist. Stan led the presentation. The slides are available online.

The presentation included an overview of the why and how ITD began its involvement in student IT competency issues; attempts to get additional funding through both compact planning process and grants; the ongoing partnership with first year college; research/assessment efforts and findings; and current orientation, training and publication activities aimed at assuring students have or can gain the knowledge they need to use technology resources for learning at NC State. Stan placed his presentation in larger contexts:  national efforts to define and plan for information technology fluency (e.g. National Research Council’s, http://stills.nap.edu/html/beingfluent/); and the campus’ Quality Enhancement Plan for Learning in a Technology-Rich Environment (http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/accreditation/qep.htm). He outlined the likely next steps in IT fluency efforts on campus. Stan also offered a preliminary picture of possible partnerships among units and overlapping areas of expertise: the diagram included NCSU Libraries, LTS, FCTL, SCC and ITD; college (curriculum and faculty) involvement and expectations were positioned as central.

Roundtable participants raised a wide range of questions and discussion points, including the following:

• The need to be mindful of faculty IT competence as well as what skill levelsfaculty are assuming their students are bringing to courses - The suggestion was made that faculty have access to the same resources as students.
  
  
• The contents and focus of the Computing Essentials CD that is distributed to all students at new student orientation - The focus is on the campus computing environment and basic information on computing account resources. The CD includes the Eos/Unity manual from Engineering and some basic tutorials produced by ITD. See http://www.ncsu.edu/it/essentials/.The CD is also a popular means of distributing Norton AntiVirus; Dan McWhorter of CVM requested that the unmanaged version of  Norton AntiVirus also be included on the CD for NCSU students, faculty and staff living off-campus.
  
  
• How IT Fluency efforts take into account the diversity of computing platformsand expectations among colleges – A big concern.  ITD’s work with First YearCollege students, who make up about 25% of new students and attend courses in all colleges, has been set up to help students gain needed skills in whatever curriculum. One assumption for the general IT training has been that all students will need certain basic skills  (e.g. word processing, e-mail attachments, the concept of shared file space, updating software, configuring and managing their own files and computers, etc.)  Stan observed that determining what IT knowledge each college actually expect students to have both when entering courses and when graduating remains a critical challenge for the next phases of campus IT fluency efforts. 
  
  
• The purposes of the student IT focus groups and other studies being done by ITD – They include assessing the usefulness of the CD, and other ITD training efforts; what resources students are actually using; faculty expectations from students’ perspectives. Recent student self-assessments indicate most students enter university feeling they have the basic skills they need; surveys seem to indicate that many students (if not most)  have not attained some of the higher-level concepts, critical thinking, and  problem solving skills that make up IT fluency, Stan said.
  
  
• The extent to which Information Literacy and IT fluency overlap - Megan Oakleaf, Cindy Levine, and Linda Saunders discussed the NCSU Libraries’ long-standing student  information literacy efforts,  the partnership with the English Department with these efforts, and the completely revised LOBO (Library Online Basic Orientation), which focuses on research skills and resources, many of which are digital. (See http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/lobo2/ ) In these efforts, the Libraries focus on teaching students how to find, evaluate and use information.  The Libraries also work to educate students about the ethical use of information, which overlaps considerably with aspectsof the ethical use of technologies. 
  
  
• Models and methods for helping faculty integrate information literacy andinformation technology fluency in courses in all curriculum – Both the Libraries and ITD have programs where faculty can call and ask for customized training in their classes. These services seem to be underutilized because faculty simply don’t know about them. (See http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/risd/instruction/ for NCSU Libraries instruction services; for ITD in-class instruction, send e-mail to sarah_noell@ncsu.edu )
  
  
• The suggestion that the broad concept of accessibility be included as an area for partnership in IT fluency areas – Henry Schaffer noted that according to what he has read recently,  20% of students have a disability, including learning disabilities. Ellen McDaniel spoke for foreign students who may have no technology skills, in addition to second language issues. Their situation is similar to students with disabilities, she observed. Without some help, they can’t succeed.
  
  
• Additional units/areas for partnership - Stan suggested, in addition to DSS, other partners, like the Tutorial Center for inclusion. The Office of Student Conduct was also mentioned as a potential partner not listed. Stan said the key would be getting all potential stakeholders to the same table. Stan asked for feedback on areas where ITD could be collaborating better on IT fluency issues - both basic skills and helping coordinate student access to broader IT fluency issues, such as the courses in CHASS on the social implications of technology.
  
  
• Concerns about keeping students informed about technology environment changes in sophomore to senior years - Dan McWhorter suggested that the new ITD-published “Computing @ NC State” be distributed to all students. Sam Averitt indicated that the issue was money. Ellen McDaniel mentioned that the issue was the same for the Guide to Eos/Unity Computing manual . . . useful, but expensive to produce in paper. Both publications are online, but many students don’t seek them out.
  
  
• Transfer students – Andrea Irby mentioned that as a group, transfer students can have additional difficulties getting familiar with campus computing resources, because not all colleges have orientation sessions for transfer students, and many come from regions of the state where Internet access is poor or non-existent. She suggested that some of the tools developed for technology skill assessment and training be offered to Community Colleges. She suggested that this would not be a big burden on the Community Colleges, but could be a big help for transfer students needing to acquire the skills needed for the technology-mediated learning they will encounter at State. Distance education learners were mentioned as being in a similar situation: Even though they may have basic PC skills, the Unix environment or their Unity account file management may be completely new to them.
  
  
• The issue of appropriate and ethical computing behavior – Many students come to campus without a clear idea of what is legal or acceptable online behavior, what is cool and clever and what is cheating or virtual theft.
  
  
• The issue of faculty technology awareness – For example, some faculty have not done their homework on new methods of technology-enabled cheating. Sarah Stein emphasized that the issue of student technology literacy has to be closely linked to faculty technology literacy. Although most departments have faculty meetings, it remains a challenge on how information gets distributed on campus.
  
  
• Other basic IT skills – Sarah Stein mentioned the heightened importance of all students developing critical thinking and analytic skills for evaluating the credibility of online materials. Hal Levin said that his introductory philosophy courses were low-tech, but he spent a great deal of time teaching students how to search for information and how to tell what sources are authoritative and which are not.
  
  
• A tutorial on recognizing authoritative sources – This was mentioned as a good idea for students in all curricula.
  
  
• Need to teach students the limitations of technology – as well as possibilities for responsible and appropriate uses of technology.
  
  
• Bringing students into the computing community by insisting they use campus e-mail – This was also mentioned as a way to avoid some difficulties with bounced messages to students.
  
  
• Teaching students how to think about technology.
  
  
• Need for a mechanism to require that students have the basic technology skills they need to succeed before they enter classes.
  
  

Slides from this session [PowerPoint] | ITD IT Fluency | TLTR | NCSU

Content last updated 30 Oct 02 jd/snm
Page last modified November 3, 2006 by cawalker