Are
Your Students Ready for College?
Technology Literacy at Georgetown College
Dr.
William S. Rafaill
Coordinator, Technology Literacy Program
Georgetown College
Georgetown College, Georgetown, Kentucky 40324
wrafail0@georgetowncollege.edu
&
Dr. Andrea C. Peach
Assistant Professor of Education and Instructional Technology Coordinator
Georgetown College
Georgetown College, Georgetown, Kentucky 40324
apeach0@georgetowncollege.edu
March 28, 2001
College students need to understand how technology is used to gather, manipulate, and communicate data and knowledge. In 1999, Georgetown College established the Information Technology Literacy Program that requires new students to demonstrate basic proficiencies in the use of information-technology resources as a requirement for graduation. Students are given a task-based technology assessment test within the first three weeks of their first semester. The test results are then used as an advising tool to determine if the student needs additional technology skills. A summary of the first two years of this testing data as well as specific trends are discussed.
Although it could be argued that there is a distinction between the terms “concept”, “proficiency”, and “skill”, for the purposes of this report, no distinction is made between them, they are treated as being synonymous.
The term “Internet” is used in its proper sense to include the World Wide Web, email, gophers, FTP, library research databases, and so forth.
The term “Intranet” is used to refer to the Georgetown College campus information network.
The terms “computer literacy”, “information literacy”, and “digital literacy” are often used synonymously. The authors feel that the latter two are more appropriate terms as each suggests a broader set of tools and skills than “computer literacy”.
During 1997-98, the Executive Vice President and Provost of Georgetown College, requested a recommendation concerning what constitutes computer literacy. The issue was based upon the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) requirements. SACS states, in section 4.2.2, Undergraduate Completion Requirements, that “The institution must demonstrate that its graduates are competent in … the basic use of computers”.
To address the issue of the SACS requirement, faculty, staff and upper-class students across a variety of academic disciplines were interviewed. Each interview began with two questions: (1) What technology proficiencies (or skills or concepts) are necessary, and should be required, of every graduate of Georgetown College? and (2) When is it most appropriate that we ensure that our students develop these skills?
Lastly, information was gathered from a number of other liberal arts colleges (Appendix A) to see how these schools addressed this issue. This information was obtained by reviewing academic catalogs as well as academic information posted online at the web sites of these institutions. If clarifying information was needed, an appropriate person was contacted by email or telephone.
At the heart of every discussion concerning information literacy is the point that all students, college or otherwise, need to understand how technology is used to gather, manipulate, and communicate data and knowledge. Students must be empowered to become knowledge gatherers by using technology along with, not instead of, more traditional tools. After all, technology is just another tool to be added to the process of gathering information.
According to Paul Gilster (1997), “Digital literacy is the ability to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide range of sources when it is presented via computers”. We believe that definition must be extended to include the ability to create information in multiple formats using a variety of computer tools and to then present that information via a computer and some output device such as a printer or projection system.
In addition, students need to learn that a certain body of programs, for example word processing programs, all essentially operate in a similar manner regardless of platform. Thus the process of building literacy is one of empowering students to have the confidence that, if and when they are confronted with a new application or a different platform, they will have the self-assurance to proceed.
It became clear that if Georgetown College was to fully educate its students, then the College must ensure that its students were digitally literate. Georgetown students must not only acquire the skills of being information gatherers in an increasingly digital world, but they must also acquire the skills to be information creators. It is equally important, in both the case of being a “gatherer” and a “creator”, that Georgetown students be able to discover and evaluate content before deciding how to put it to use. In short, the College must remember that information literacy is achieved not by mastering keystrokes but by understanding the impact of ideas.
To ensure that Georgetown College students become technologically literate, the College instituted the Information Technology Literacy Program in the fall of 1999.
Even though the SACS requirement is a graduation requirement, it was agreed that students must acquire these skills as soon as possible after matriculation, preferably prior to the beginning of their sophomore year. All of the skills are vital to the success of college students. Consequently, allowing students to postpone the development of these skills would be doing a disservice to the students.
Information technology proficiency is a requirement for graduation. Students must demonstrate basic proficiencies in the use of computers and related information-technology resources. Students may satisfy this requirement by passing a proficiency examination administered during the student’s first semester at Georgetown College. If proficiency is not demonstrated students may take the necessary technology workshops and then retake the examination, or successfully complete CSC120. Students are encouraged to satisfy the technology proficiency requirement during their first year at Georgetown College.
·· Internet
(search engines, etc.)
··
Library Web-Based Databases, Online Catalogs (Proquest, EBSCO, etc.)
·· Email
·· Word
processing
·· Spreadsheets
·· Databases
·· Presentations
The Technology Literacy Program Coordinator meets with new students during orientation to explain the purpose of the assessment test and the options they will have depending upon their test scores. In addition, the students receive assigned test times.
Students are tested in groups of ~40 at a time over the first two to three weeks of the new semester. All testing is done in the two computer labs in the College’s Learning Resource Center. Testing is done in the early evening, Sunday through Thursday. The test is not timed. Students are allowed to leave at any time after they complete the test. The average time it takes to complete the test is ~3.5 hours; some students complete all parts in less than two hours, while others take longer than five.
The assessment test covers the seven proficiency areas as noted previously; each area is tested separately with its own “sub-test”. The passing score for each “sub-test” is at 50%. Students must achieve a passing score in five or more areas out of the seven to be deemed “technology proficient”. Since the assessment test is rather rigorous, and since all seven of the “sub-tests” must be completed in a single sitting, it was felt that the minimum passing score for the assessment test should be less than the minimum passing grade (60%) for a class covering technology skills. In a technology skills class, the student has the opportunity to collaborate with a partner, to get help from fellow students, and to get help from the instructor. On the other hand, during the assessment test, the student is “on his (or her) own”. Lastly, the assessment test is viewed as setting the minimum baseline of technology skills for technology proficiency, not as setting the standard for technology proficiency.
The student is given the following options based upon his/her assessment test scores:
··
If the student passes 5, 6, or 7 out of 7, the student
is deemed “technology proficient” and no further technology work required of
the student
··
If the student passes fewer than 5 areas, then the
student is deemed “not technology proficient”. To become “technology proficient”,
the student has several options
··
she/he may take Application Software (CSC120)
· at the conclusion of each section of the course, the appropriate module of the assessment test is given.
· the student must pass this course with a “C” or better to be deemed “technology proficient”; the student’s grade is based upon homework exercises and performance on the assessment test.
· or s/he attend leader-directed, hands-on workshops and/or use online, self-paced tutorials.
In either case, the student must retake “failed” portions of the assessment test; there is no limit on the number of times the student can retake the test.
The assessment test that covers word processing, spreadsheets, databases, and presentations is an “online” test using SAM 2000™ from Course Technology/Thomson Learning <http://www.course.com/>. SAM is a real-time, task-based assessment as the student is presented with a variety of tasks in Microsoft Office 2000 while working live with Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Access (see Appendix B). Currently, the assessment test for Internet searching, the use of research databases, and email skills is done as a written test (see Appendix B). This test simply measures the student’s ability to recall information. Starting with next fall’s test, the plan is to use Blackboard™ from Blackboard, Inc. <http://www.blackboard.com/> to develop a task-based, online test for these areas.
The Information Literacy Program Web Site, <http://spider.georgetowncollege.edu/tlc>, was developed to serve as a central location for all of the information that the student needs regarding this program. Included at the site is a program description, workshop options and schedules, how to contact the Student Technology Mentors for assistance, assessment test study guides, the Technology Literacy Course Matrix, and so forth.
Although the process described above would deem that a student that passed five areas but failed two to be “technology proficient”, it is possible for such a student to be deficient in essential skills. For example, suppose that an intended business major passes all areas except presentations and spreadsheets. This hypothetical student would be deficient in essential skills required of business majors. Consequently, it was determined that students need to be advised as to the technology skills required in both their major courses as well as other courses. If we are going to designate students as being “technology proficient” based upon the results of an assessment test, we need to also ensure that they develop the correct skill set for their major.
To aid the advising process, a matrix showing the necessary technological skills for all courses offered was produced. This matrix represents a snapshot of what technology skills are utilized in the courses currently taught at Georgetown. The course matrix is updated on an annual basis. The courses were rated so that the student would know which technology skills were required for student success in the course and which were desired but not required for student success.
[1])
Male
42.9%
39.4%
45.1%
39.3%
40.0%
|
Lowest 10% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
|||||
|
White |
318 |
333 |
396 |
385 |
317 |
|||||
To date, the class of 2003 (entered Fall of 1999) and the class of 2004 (entered Fall of 2000) have taken the Technology Assessment Test. In each of the first two years of testing, less than 50% of the students that took the assessment test actually passed (see Tables 4, 5, and 6).
|
Table 4 |
|||||
|
Assessment Test — Overall Results* |
|||||
|
Class Entered |
# Pass |
% Pass |
# Fail |
% Fail |
No Take |
|
1999 |
151 |
68% |
70 |
32% |
56 |
|
2000 |
121 |
47% |
135 |
53% |
83 |
|
* These results include students that took the assessment test during orientation, students that returned to retake failed “sub-tests”, and students that passed CSC120 with the grade of “C” or better. Students who are no longer at Georgetown are not included even if they originally took the test. |
|||||
|
[2], why are a significant number of incoming Georgetown College students not “technology proficient”, at least based upon our assessment test? Why is the initial passing rate less than 50%? The low scores seem to indicate that the program is a needed and potentially valuable asset to the student’s success in college coursework. The Technology Literacy Program is designed to ensure that all new Georgetown College students begin their academic study at the same baseline with regard to technology. The assessment test administered when they arrive will ensure that all students will have the opportunity to achieve this baseline immediately should they be found deficient. The technology course matrix when used as part of the advising process will ensure that all students will know what technology skills are part of each course and the student, if necessary, can develop these skills using online tutorials or by taking a workshop. Furthermore, by removing the instruction of baseline technology skills from the academic classroom, instructors are now freed from having to do this instruction. Instead of taking vital class time to teach students how to do word processing, English instructors can instead concentrate on writing. Or, instead of taking vital class time to teach students how to make a spreadsheet, Accounting and Marketing instructors can instead concentrate on “what if” analysis. Several problems still need to be addressed, however. First is the length of the test. Many students seem to ‘give up’ before the testing is complete. A further analysis of the test questions may point out ways of shortening the test. Second, many students are not showing up for their testing appointment. Even though the test is required, students are putting it off beyond the freshman year. This defeats the primary purpose of the test and, for some faculty, creates a doubt as to the technology competency of all students. Third, students need continuing assistance on problem areas in technology. Some students that do not pass given portions of the test either do not choose to take the technology course. Others need additional support beyond what is taught in class or by tutorials. The college is working to address this problem by training students to act as technology trainers and help desk support. Furthermore, the assumption is that within the next five years or so, a requirement for a single, specified course will no longer be needed; workshops and online tutorials will still be needed but the bar that sets the baseline of skills will most likely be raised. Without exception, other schools found that initiating a required course and also initiating a concomitant faculty development program was a good first step. However, the second step after the program had time to work (in most cases, five years or less) was to drop the required course simply because it was no longer needed as a required course for all students. The reason was twofold: one, new students arrived on campus with more skills than those of previous students; two, as the skills of the faculty increased, more technology was integrated into the curriculum. As a consequence, the goals of the program were now being achieved not by offering a single course but by using the technology tools throughout the four-year curriculum in several courses in all departments. In either case, whether there is a required course or “technology across the curriculum” is a reality, the goals are still the same: one, to ensure that students acquire the skills of being both information gatherers and information creators; and, two, to be able to discover and evaluate content before deciding how to put it to use. ReferencesAuthor Unknown. (1998). An evaluation of the microcomputer standard at Colby College, subcommittee report of the information technology committee. [Online]. Available: http://www.colby.edu/committees/itc/micro/final_report/index.htm Author Unknown. (1998). National Educational Technology Standards for Students. An International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) initiative. [Online]. Available: http://cnets.iste.org/ . Author Unknown. (1999). Kentucky's Learning Goals And Academic Expectations. Kentucky Department of Education. [Online]. Available: http://www.kde.state.ky.us/oapd/curric/Publications/transformations/acadexp.html . Bardo, John W. (1998). Mandate for megabytes. Trusteeship, 6(5), 6-10. Bierman, Scott and Cathy Smith. 1995. Academic computing services: more than a utility. [Online]. Available: http://www.carleton.edu/campus/ACNS/CAUSE/ Cole, Shannon. 2000, November. Technology has Found Its Way into Our Schools …Now What?. TechTrends, 44(6), 23-27. Cooley, Donald H. and Jianping Zhang. 1998. Computer-based teaching and assessment of computer and information literacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 6(1), 11-22. Gilster, Paul. 1997. Digital Literacy. New York: Wiley Computer Publishing. Sherer, Michael. 1997. Equipping Ourselves to Thrive in the Information Era. [Online]. Available: http://www.goshen.edu/~msherer/convo.html Sorge, Dennis, James Russell, Susan Mandell, and Brandon Sorge. 1997. Implementing technology in education. Purdue Research Foundation. [Online]. Available: http://www.math.purdue.edu/highSchool/technology/ Umbach, Kenneth W. Teachers and a new educational technology, a fable of sorts (without talking animals). [Online]. Available: http://home.inreach.com/kumbach/CBT.HTML Valenza, Joyce Kasman. 1998. Information literacy is more than computer literacy. Philadelphia Online’s Schools Crossings. [Online]. Available: http://crossings.phillynews.com/archive/k12/infolit4_16.htm Wyrick, Jim. 1999. Kentucky Education Technology System 99/2000 Student & Teacher Workstation Ratios. [Online}. Available: http://www.kde.state.ky.us/oet/planning/techplans/profile.asp . Appendix A — List of Schools Surveyed for This StudyThe following schools were used for comparative purposes in this study. Dr. Garvel Kindrick, Director of Institutional Research, provided a list of the Georgetown College’s “benchmark” schools with data indicating how these BA1 Institutions were selected as benchmarks. Using that information, plus information about other liberal arts colleges that WSR was aware of, the following schools were selected. The Benchmark? column is coded as follows:
NOTE: This list was compiled during the 1997-98 academic year. The categorization of these schools may have changed since that time.
Appendix B— The Assessment Test TasksEach SAM test requires the student to perform a variety of tasks while using Microsoft Access, Excel, PowerPoint and Excel. The tasks for each of these tests is listed here. Access Tasks
Excel Tasks
PowerPoint Tasks
Word Tasks
Internet, Email & Research Data Base Questions
| [1][1] Mix/Match average is arrived at by taking the highest subscore from multiple test sessions and recalculating the ACT composite. RAP (restricted admits) students have been removed. [2][2] see “National Educational Technology Standards for Students. An International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) initiative” and “Kentucky's Learning Goals And Academic Expectations. Kentucky Department of Education” for examples of student technology standards. See "Kentucky Education Technology System 99/2000 Student & Teacher Workstation Ratios" as one form of evidence of technology expenditures in Kentucky K12 schools. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||