Month: August 2004

I hate it when someone takes a term I think I understand and links it with something else in a way that confuses me. “Literacy” is a good example. It seemed to me that there used to just be “literacy.” Now there is “computer literacy” “media literacy”, “digital literacy”, and “information literacy.”

What confuses me even more is when the same new term seems to mean multiple things. A link (Mandate for Digital Literacy) that I encountered today is a good example. Digital literacy is described in this source as the computer skills competency of an individual to function in the workplace. This link, describing the work of the Global Digital Literacy Council, commercial enterprises (e.g., Certiport , and ISTE is pressing for “digital literacy” standards and assessments.

Here is what confuses me – what this group describes sounds like what I understand to be “computer literacy” – hardware, software basics, productivity apps (word processing, spreadsheet), Internet basics, etc. “The GDLC, or Global Digital Literacy Council, is playing a lead role in the development of desktop application standards and professional competence certifications, and is garnering the collective wisdom of experts worldwide to help drive work towards a general Information Technology (IT) literacy definition.”

On my bookshelf is a 1997 book entitled “digital literacy” (Paul Gilster). Is this book about hardware, software, and productivity apps? No. It is about it about Internet “information” and what makes this source of information unique and what skills are necessary to use information in this form productively.

Maybe this is one of those “political coalitions” attempting to work together to get their skills listed among the required standards.

Are these skills related? Well, kind of, but so is writing and penpersonship.

Following the Olympics? The Official Olympic Web Site provides a window on the games. The Official USA Site provides a more focused perspective.

Most of us recognize that the Internet operates under few constraints and recent events have revealed just how groups with diverse and competing agendas use the web.

Educators are concerned that students will find “information” that will promote beliefs inconsistent with the common educational agenda. Some are unfamiliar with the reality of such concerns. An article from the Guardian provides comments about such sites.

EdTech types seem less interested in gender issues than used to be the case. Perhaps it is now assumed that there is no longer a “digital divide” in this area.

There is clearly at least one exception and that concerns the interest in “Computer Science.” Newsweek offers a recent article on this topic.

I am presently working on the development of content concerning the use of electronic portfolios. Cindy will be working with College of Education faculty next year to assist them in making the transition from a “paper” portfolio review process to the use of LiveText (a commercial on-line portfolio system). A year or so from now local experiences and my literature review will likely result in a new section for the “Integrating technology …” text.

An issue that has always interested me is how “groups” of individuals focus on a topic and develop a special vocubulary to communicate within the group about this topic. Across groups this specialized vocabulary may obscure what really are commonalities. I have noticied that “teacher education types” are very fond of the word “reflection.” As in, “this assignment seemed to require a lot of good reflection” or “where is evidence of your reflection.” This word appears very frequently in discussions of the value of portfolios. I pulled two “ed psych” texts off my shelf and did not find the work “reflection” included in the subject index of either one. I would guess we might use terms like improve metacognition or self-regulation or in some cases “identify personal experiences that may relate to this concept”. I would guess that counselors or clinical psychologists also have some term to describe the “thinking” that clients do as part of the therapy process.

If you are interested in this topic and are searching for resources, I would recommend web sites maintained by:
1) Dr. Helen Barrett
2) American Association For Higher Education

I also recommend edited book “With portfolio in hand” from Teachers College Press (1998) for some very useful articles. Try the even handed analysis by Lee Shulman (I tend to value analyses that clearly outline both the positives and negatives). While a strong proponent, Shulman raises a list of concerns that make great sense to me. “Trivialization” is an example. Shulman contends that once we commit to a specific type of assessment we then allow this form of assessment to move us along a path of least resistance. I interpret this to mean that portfolios will be likely to contain certain types of artifacts and learners will be asked certain predictable types of questions about these artifacts. Such products and answers will not necessarily address the issues that should be addressed. Shulman mentions MC tests as an example of trivialization. I happen to still feel there is some hope for MC questions, but I do agree that MC items tend to be a great example of the path of least resistance. I think fact questions are easy to ask and worse easy to defend (students have a hard time claiming that the right answser is not THE RIGHT ANSWER). Questions that address capabilities other than recall (see Bloom taxonomy) are much more difficult to construct and more open to complaint. I guess I have strayed of topic again.

Anyway, I am always looking for good resources and would welcome suggestions to extend this list.

I recently created a post providing information about the TEACH act. I just came across another site providing information on this topic – Technology in the Classroom.

A number of high-tech companies and other organizations are cooperating to push for the development of what they define as 21st Century Skills. The work of this coalition has resulted in a web site and several useful resources:
1) ICT-Literacy Map – a pdf document outlining standards and expectations by grade level
2) An interactive guide intended to help those who use the guide define priority skills.

I have heard organizations such as this criticized for what may in the long run be self-promotion – i.e., Apple, Dell, Cable in the Classroom, Time Warner have something to gain by the position that students need to be prepared to learn from new media sources and develop new information literacy skills suited to this new environment. However, I suppose the counter-argument would be that those institutions and companies invested in the status-quo also have a perspective to protect.

These materials contain some concrete language identifying the skills the coalition feels need additional attention and some good examples of classroom activities providing opportunities to learn these skills. I find this combination of specific skills and related activities is a useful way to understand what some feel need to receive greater attention.