As reported in my earlier post, the General Education Council at Oswego has been reviewing and approving, or not, computer and information literacy infusion plans for our major programs.
The infusion of the "basic operations of personal computer use" learning outcome was nearly taken for granted because of the widespread use of word processing, online searching, spreadsheets and computer-based presentations. The only issue was whether our faculty are prepared to assist students and provide constructive feedback in the use of tools that are not always well used by faculty.
In trying to make sense of the other SUNY General Education learning outcomes (1999) for Computer and Information Management, the Council resolved that the main reason to set the outcomes about research practices apart from related outcomes in Writing and Critical Thinking in 2013 is to emphasize the use of computers in those practices, especially in regard to managing and analyzing data. In one extreme case, the Council used the terminology "numerical data, be it quantitative or qualitative." In the sciences and social sciences, this presented no problems, and in fact the elegance of some of the science plans probably inspired this position.
However, this insistence on the use of computer tools for analysis of data has made it almost impossible for programs in the humanities to officially infuse computer literacy in their courses, even though they have information literacy practice integrated into almost all of their courses and use computers widely for searching, reading and writing (and viewing and presenting). The offering of a digital humanities version of our Computer Science 101 course has made it sensible and attractive for the history and criticism programs to simply require that course instead of getting approval for an infusion plan. That is because the primary source material for history and criticism can be easily and meaningfully digitized even when the scholars are mainly benefitting from the digital projects rather than engaged in the digitizing as a part of their own professional practice.
The one discipline that is left hanging is Philosophy. It is not that important connections and collaborations between philosophy and computing don't exist--logic, artificial intelligence and cognitive science can be all about philosophy and computing. It's that the work of philosophy is theory and does not at its core work with the kind of data that scientists use, or even with the kind of accurate and authentic representation of texts and objects that are important in history and criticism. Philosophy's counterpart to data appears to be arguments that are to be analyzed on their own. Any computer assistance to that analysis is very simple and merely a help. Computer use is ancillary and remains far from the authentic practices of philosophers. It remains to be seen how Philosophy and the General Education Council will deal with the Computer and Information Literacy requirement.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Entering the 21st Century: SUNY GER, ACRL Standards, Middle States and 3 DirectionsWe have redesigned our General Education program at Oswego to infuse information literacy into our curriculum. I served on the General Education Council throughout this process and encountered two happy surprises: the 3 Directions conceptualization of information literacy is a settled issue among our faculty and taken for granted; and the only way to concieve of basic computer use at this time is in terms of digital literacy, with disruptive outcomes in the disciplines. Background on information literacy in our General Education follows an explanation of my surprises.
First Surprise: Information Literacy as a settled issueAt the beginning of deliberations on infusion I shared with the Council my earlier post on "Integrated Literacy Across the Curriculum," and a continuing re-statement of my position that information literacy broadly-concieved encompasses reading and writing and thinking as well searching for sources, and necessarily incorporates the SUNY GER categories for Writing and Critical Thinking as well as Computer and Information Literacy. This is an ax I have been grinding here for over a decade with no clear success, at least until I saw this sentence in the Council minutes:
To begin, there is no little degree of overlap between the third learning outcome in Computer and Information Literacy, the third learning outcome in Writing, and the learning outcomes for Critical ThinkingThis is not the revolution, but my feeling that my position is not only accepted by the Council but also more broadly by the faculty was reinforced when we began to review the infusion plans from the departments. Most of the plans documented how students met the information literacy outcomes in the context of learning to do research and write in their disciplines. In fact most departments found this easy to document, leaving the computer literacy outcome as the primary point of failure.
I am beginning to feel that the conceptualization of information literacy as the broad ability to use information for learning, life and work is almost taken for granted at SUNY Oswego. That is better than a revolution--it means that information literacy is becoming an institution.
Second Surprise: Re-inventing "basic operations of personal computer use" as digital literacy in the disciplinesWe quickly encountered problems in how well our faculty could address computer use in their programs. It certainly seems quaint to me to be concerned about "personal computer use" as a college level learning outcome in 2013.
- Capacity of faculty to teach and assess digital presentation
- Variation in use of computers in the disciplines especially in regard to data in the humanities
BackgroundI arrived in Oswego in August 2000, just in time to greet the 21st Century on January 1, 2001. Oswego State had just started a revised general education program based on the 1999 SUNY GER (General Education Requirements) which included an information literacy requirement under the guise of Computer and Information Management.
- perform the basic operations of personal computer use;
- understand and use basic research techniques; and
- locate, evaluate, and synthesize information from a variety of sources."
Then three years ago SUNY began to be more flexible about the implementation of SUNY GER and at Oswego we took advantage of that to improve our program, in part by simplifying and streamlining the program through reducing the required courses by a third. As a result Oswego's General Education program now requires that Computer and Information Literacy be met by infusion. Departments then had to either document how the learning outcomes would be achieved in the required courses for each major, or revise their programs to require a course, usually in Computer Science, that is determined to include the learning outcomes for Computer and Information Literacy.
This past year, then, the General Education Council reviewed proposed infusion plans from almost all our departments, negotiated with departments that were not quite on the mark, approved most of the plans, and coordinated with the Academic Policies Council to approve a handful of program revisions.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
This prospectus from the ACRL task force charged with revising the ACRL Information Literacy Standards (2000) highlights the likely introduction of 'threshold concepts' and 'metaliteracy' as features of the new statement of standards. They frame these two elements with the idea of a holistic view of educated information use and the idea of lifelong learning as opposed to a skill set that can be taught and "learned once and for all." In a coming post I will speak in more detail as to what we are doing at SUNY Oswego in regard to threshold concepts and metaliteracy, and also how our work on a Cognitive Apprenticeship approach strengthens learning through continuous practice. I want to emphasize the holistic aspect but for now will only point out that other things on this blog already address that thoroughly.
Also For Now
About threshold concepts: "They are the central concepts that we want our students to understand and put into practice, that encourage them to think and act like practitioners themselves." (Hofer, Townsend, and Brunetti, 2012, 387-88 quoted by the ACRL task force.)
At Oswego we have been coming at this from the perspective of situated cognition which calls for explication of the landmark or guidepost concepts and then implicit or tacit learning of details and refinements of practice. Related work on Cognitive Apprenticeship calls for "focus on conceptualizing the whole task before executing the parts." (Collins, Brown and Holum, 1991.) The outcome of our work is the Question-Discover-Use conceptual framework of the research process. In short, this framework shows students how posing a question, finding expert sources and using those sources to build new knowledge will involve them in growing participation in a community (discipline) of scholarly or professional practice.
And about metaliteracy: "Metaliteracy expands the scope of traditional information skills…to include the collaborative production and sharing of information in participatory digital environments… " (Mackey and Jacobson, forthcoming quoted by the ACRL task force.)
We have also anticipated this development in creating Question-Discover-Use. We have tried to pair words for traditional literacy with terms that are more open to a wide range of media and formats. So Reading/Understanding, Writing/Sharing, and Thinking/Creating. We also work to emphasize the social and personal elements of research by suggesting that one's question should interest others; that sources are persons with names and expertise, not just a book object; that one's own work is a disciplined contribution to knowledge; that integrity is a matter of respect for others and oneself; and that a student researcher is joining a network of professionals.
And For Later
In a future post I will report on how we developed Question-Discover-Use in part as an attempt to update our past uses of the ACRL Standards and how we are using the framework in improving information literacy learning through the principles of Cognitive Apprenticeship.
Also, we hope to offer an early exemplar of what the new Standards could look like in practice.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Review of Michael Billig, 'Learn to Write Badly: How to Succeed in the Social Sciences' | Inside Higher Ed
Communities of linguistic practice exposed.
Monday, May 20, 2013
We are in the midst of considering what we might create in terms of a credit course for developing information literacy practices. I wonder how we could let the students crowdsource the course for themselves.