Supporting Documentation for Standard Five

From selfstudy
Revision as of 16:25, 19 February 2008 by Pederses (Talk | contribs) (Required Exhibits:)

Required Exhibits:

  1. Printed materials that describe for students the hours and services of learning resources facilities such as libraries, computer labs, and audio-visual facilities.
  2. Policies, regulations, and procedures for the development and management of library and information resources, including collection development and weeding.
  3. Statistics on use of library and other learning resources.
  4. Statistics on library collection and inventory of other learning resources.
  5. Assessment measures utilized to determine the adequacy of facilities for the goals of the library and information resources and services.
  6. Assessment measures to determine the adequacy of holdings, information resources and services to support the educational programs both on and off campus.
  7. Data regarding number and assignments of library staff.
  8. Chart showing the organizational arrangements for managing libraries and other information resources (e.g. computing facilities, instructional media, and telecommunication centers).
  9. Comprehensive budget(s) for library and information resources.
  10. Vitae of professional library staff.
  11. Formal, written agreements with other libraries.
  12. Computer usage statistics related to the retrieval of library resources.
  13. Printed information describing user services provided by the computing facility.
  14. Studies or documents describing the evaluation of library and information resources.


Appendix I: Information Technology Literacy as reported in End of Program Reports

The survey asks faculty to describe their inclusion of information technology in programs. While the descriptions and definitions are idiosyncratic, it is still possible to track patterns of technology use across planning units. The table below portrays response rates for information technology sorted into five categories and organized by planning unit or interdisciplinary status (core and interarea programs). Other than library research, the categories distinguish between in-depth disciplinary tools used almost exclusively by one or two planning units (media production and specialized scientific applications) and more basic, cross-curricular entry-level tools which might reasonably be taught in a wide array of contexts (presentation media and basic computer applications such as Excel, social software or courseware, or simple webpage creation). The two categories of cross-curricular tools (presentation media and basic computer applications), might be considered common components of basic information technology. Extremely widely utilized applications such as word processing are not considered at all, as they are nearly ubiquitous and thus rarely appeared in the reports.

End of Year Program Reviews: ITL
Planning # programs Research Presentation Basic Comp Media Prod Spec. Comp.
Unit  %  %  %  %  %
CTL 70 27 39% 8 11% 6 9% 13 19% 0 0%
Exp Arts 35 15 43% 9 26% 9 26% 22 63% 0 0%
Env S 55 31 56% 27 49% 17 31% 1 2% 11 20%
SI 48 17 35% 22 46% 8 17% 2 4% 23 48%
SPBC 45 27 60% 17 38% 13 29% 6 13% 1 2%
EWS 83 40 48% 17 20% 38 46% 13 16% 8 10%
CORE 38 21 55% 7 18% 11 29% 11 29% 2 5%
Interarea 54 34 63% 14 26% 12 22% 21 39% 3 6%
Totals 428 212 50% 121 28% 114 27% 89 21% 48 11%
*Includes Powerpoint, Illustrator; manipulated playback
**Includes Excel, classroom management applications, program blogs, tserv, webpages

What emerges from this study is a picture of how faculty teach or include information technology literacy according to the content of their programs. Clearly, no single definition of appropriate information technology literacy applies across any significant portion of the curriculum. The data provides some insight into how students develop information technology experience at a college where there are no requirements or ITL standards. What follows is a summary of the various emphases and interests in information technology expressed through end-of-program reports, with an emphasis on planning units and curricular structures:

Predictably, the CTL planning unit reported the least involvement with information technology, even including library research. At 39% of programs reporting library research, CTL is lowest of all planning units except SI. More unexpectedly, CTL reports media production work at 19%, which is higher than either presentation technology or other forms of basic computer use. Obviously, a significant portion of CTL faculty focus on close reading and thoughtful engagement with assigned texts, avoiding the search for external authorities. They also are more likely to use media production as a vehicle for storytelling, analogous to texts.

SI also places less frequent emphasis on library research, with 35% of programs reporting involvement. Perhaps original research—fieldwork and labs-- might supplant an emphasis on library research in some programs. The culture of the science planning unit may also presume that students are able to independently research their topics.

Despite a strong focus on non-scholarly and non-print texts and expression, Expressive Arts nevertheless works with library research in a respectable 43% of programs.

Core programs, where one might expect strong emphasis on basic academic skills development, report only 55% engagement in library research.

Remaining planning units report library research in between 50% and 63% percent of their programs

Inter-area programs, on the other hand, have the highest attention to research, at 63%

A different picture emerges when planning units were surveyed about their use of more specialized media production and computer applications. That is, 63% of expressive arts programs report use of media production; and 48% of SI programs report use of specialized computer applications. Not surprisingly, SI reports 4% use of media production while expressive arts reports 0% scientific applications. There is modest use of media production in other areas (19% in CTL; 13% in SPBC) and almost no use of specialized computer applications in planning units outside of SI and EA.

Media production appears outside of its disciplinary home in Core and Inter-area programs. As faculty from EA move into interdivisional teaching, media production appears in 29% of Core programs and 39% of inter-area programs. Scientific computing appears in only 5% of Core and 6% of inter-area programs. EWS programs offer 16% media production and 10% scientific computing in their \more specialized classes. Although team teaching is one of the college’s strongest faculty development tools, specialized media or scientific applications do not appear to be spreading via team teaching. Media Production disseminates more than specialized scientific computing.

To summarize, planning units show clear preferences. For instance, SI focuses heavily on a combination of presentation media (often Illustrator posters) at 46% and on specialized computing with less use or at least less mention of more basic computer applications. ES and SPBC are the most balanced in use of basic information technology tools. ES uses presentation media heavily (49%) and a fair amount of basic computer applications (39%). SPBC also uses presentation media in a substantial number of programs (38%) with basic computing in 29%. EA reports 26% of each basic technology, showing a commitment to using many types of information technology.

The interdivisional curriculum and the broad EWS programs show a different pattern. With a more distributed student body and with shorter class sessions concentrated in off-hours, EWS strongly depends on basic computing to support communication outside of the classroom (46%). Surprisingly, Core reports low use of presentation media (18%) and modest use of basic computing (29%). Inter-area programs are a bit more ambitious, with 26% use of presentation media and 22% use of basic computing, although media production is fairly well represented in inter-area programs at 39%.

Overall, 42% percent of programs work in both presentation media and basic computing. In general, this work happens more in advanced curriculum than at Core, where faculty focus on basic reading and interpretation. On the other hand inter-area programs provide more opportunities to develop a wider range of IT skills, presumably because students are better prepared and more experienced. A significant majority of programs use media and computing information technologies, from general to specialized applications.

Off-campus programs are not represented in the table, although they were surveyed about how they used information technology as a tool for communicating and for accessing academic resources. When Tribal programs were asked, “To what extent has your Evergreen experience contributed to your growth . . . using computer technology to present work, find information or solve problems, students responded, "Quite a bit" 44.8% of the time. In stark contrast, all other categories of students ranked computer use as last or 20th of 24 categories [Exhibit: question 19]as a skill developed at Evergreen.

Presumably, students in more conventional settings feel that they come to college with their use of computers well established, or they developed their use outside of the curriculum. In addition, a larger percentage of faculty teaching off-campus programs leverage the on-line collaboration tools such as Learning Management Systems (LMS) and eportfolios to facilitate communication within the planning unit outside of class time. This brings a technology focus to the forefront for off-campus students. The Tacoma program, which reports out as a single program, but represents many tracks for hundreds of students, always includes a research and a media production component.

How does this spread of information technology instruction and use across the curriculum correlate to the teaching and support provided by library instruction? Library workshops for 2003 through 2007 show that although Core program focus is not particularly frequent (55%) compared to much of the curriculum, yet library faculty work heavily with that part of the curriculum. Librarians gave workshops to 40 core programs over the time period, the highest commitment other than to EWS, with its very high number of individual programs and classes. Thus while library research may not be as heavily covered in the Core curriculum as might be expected, faculty in core teams are reaching out for assistance in this aspect of the work very actively and the library is providing strong support.

Inter-area and social science curricula are also well supported by library instruction with 26 and 22 programs served. Self-reported library research in programs (63% and 60%)correlates well to library-based instruction. Thus while one might expect that interarea programs are able to include more information technology in their programs, this is not simply because students are already prepared or assumed to be prepared in basic skills such as library research. There might also be recognition that library research at the core level will be very different from what is expected in subsequent years.

The science and environmental studies curriculum show lower use of library instruction, with 12 and 15 programs requesting workshops. CTL, an area which reported comparatively little use of library research in programs, also utilized very little library instruction: librarians provided workshops to only four CTL programs.

Supplemental Materials