New ACRL Discussion Group—Library Support for MOOCs
Libraries in the Time of MOOCs
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/libraries-time-moocs
issues related to MOOCs, such as intellectual property rights, privacy issues, and state regulations.
MOOCs have arrived on the scene at a time when many institutions of higher learning are in extreme financial crisis
OCLC conference, “MOOCs and Libraries: Massive Opportunity or Overwhelming Challenge? http://www.oclc.org/research/events/2013/03-18.html
The MOOC movement might change this copyright-ownership contract between university and faculty.
Stephens, M. m., & Jones, K. L. (2014). MOOCs as LIS Professional Development Platforms: Evaluating and Refining SJSU’s First Not-for-Credit MOOC. Journal Of Education For Library & Information Science, 55(4), 345-361. http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dllf%26AN%3d99055676%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite
xMOOCs. Using centralized learning platforms (e.g., Coursera),they emphasize individual learning usingautomated assessment tools.In contrast, cMOOCs stress the relationship between course content and a community of learners. Social learning, in thecase of cMOOCs, is emphasized through uses of distributed tools (e.g., a combination of a course site, student blogs, andsocial etworking sites) to build networks of knowledge and learners. Unlike their xMOOC counterparts, the role of an in istructor in a cMOOC is to be a “guide on the side,” a facilitator of the knowledge making process who uses connectivist learning theory (Siemens, 2004; Siemens,2012)
Learning 2.0 programs, also known as“23 Things,” have offered online technology-focused professional development for library staff and could be considered an early version of LIS-focused MOOCs (Stephens, 2013a). Utilizing concepts such as self-directed learning, play, and an emphasis on lifelong learning, these programs have been offered for individual libraries as well as consortial and state level iterations to reach thousands of library staff.
The course structure of the MOOCversion of the HL incorporated content updated from the SLIS course by the coinstructors. Ten modules were scheduled over a twelve-week “semester.” Students
could earn a certificate of completion, if they finished three of five artifact-based assignments of their choosing, in addition to blogging and participating in an end-of-course virtual symposium. The weekly schedule is available in Appendix A, and assignment descriptions are available in Appendix B
utilizing concepts such as self-directed learning, play, and an emphasis on lifelong learning, these programs have been offered for individual libraries as well as consortial and state level iterations to reach thousands of library staff. Benefits to staff include increased comfort with emerging technologies and an increased desire to continue learning (p. 348).
Acquisitions and partnerships are a cornerstone of Byju’s early learning programs: It bought Palo Alto-based Osmo in 2019, which combines digital learning with manipulatives, an approach the companies call “phygital.” For instance: Using a tablet’s camera and Osmo’s artificial intelligence software, the system tracks what a child is doing on a (physical) worksheet and responds accordingly to right and wrong answers. “It’s almost like having a teacher looking over you, My note: this can be come disastrous when combined with the China’s “social credit” system.
By contrast, Byju’s FutureSchool (launched in the U.S. this past spring) aims to offer one-to-one tutoring sessions starting with coding (based in part on WhiteHat Jr., which it acquired in August 2020) and eventually including music, fine arts and English to students in the U.S., Brazil, the U.K., Indonesia and others. The company has recruited 11,000 teachers in India to staff the sessions
In mid-July, Byju’s bought California-based reading platform Epic for $500 million. That product opens up a path for Byju’s to schools. Epic offers a digital library of more than 40,000 books for students ages 12 and under. Consumers pay about $80 a year for the library. It’s free to schools. Epic says that more than 1 million teachers in 90 percent of U.S. elementary schools have signed up for accounts.
That raises provocative questions for U.S. educators. Among them:
How will products originally developed for the consumer market fit the needs of schools, particularly those that serve disadvantaged students?
Will there be more development dollars poured into products that appeal to consumers—and less into products that consumers typically skip (say, middle school civics or history curriculum?)
How much of an investment will giants such as Byju’s put into researching the effectiveness of its products? In the past most consumers have been less concerned than professional educators about the “research” behind the learning products they buy. Currently Gokulnath says the company most closely tracks metrics such as “engagement” (how much time students spend on the product) and “renewals” (how many customers reup after a year’s use of the product.)
How will products designed for home users influence parents considering whether to continue to school at home in the wake of viral pandemics?
Most professors we hear from want to assess their students on higher levels and that if current assessments kept student at the lowest level of Bloom’s Taxonomy, they wouldn’t feel rewarded as educators.
However, assessment is by far the most labour-intensive part of teaching. Assessment plans and rubrics must be prepped. Test questions must be written. Every student needs a mark, personalized feedback and a road-map for improvement. The larger the class, the more work for the instructor. Add in formative assessments like weekly assignments and exercises that precipitate subtle, ongoing tweaks to the syllabus and it’s easy to see why many faculty opt to stick with what they know: An accumulation of easy-to-grade summative assessments that almost inevitably rely upon memorization and the most basic understanding of concepts
Curation Activities can be one of the most effective teaching strategies to help students compare what they’re learning in the classroom with real-world examples, and gain insight into how they can relate to each other.
Curation Activities can apply to all disciples, such as Business, Arts, or Sciences.
When students explain what they’ve learned to other students, they help consolidate and strengthen connections to those concepts while simultaneously engaging in active learning Find more project ideas here.
By actively engaging with their classmates and applying their own evaluative skills to feedback they’re delivering to their peers, students are developing lifelong critical thinking and creative analysis skills. Additionally, peer assessment is proven to be effective in getting students faster feedback from diverse sources, increases meta-cognition, independence and self-reflection, and improves student learning. These are all important skills that provide value far beyond the classroom. More details on the benefits of peer assessment here.
Firstly, we need to resolve the so-called digital divide
Secondly, this will mean that teachers must reconsider all their methodologies and prepare them for this new, blended learning environment.
Thirdly, institutions, both educational and normative, must understand that, in this new context, some ways of teaching no longer make sense.
Online teaching will not consist of turning a handle while students learn on their own. On the contrary: it will require teachers to engage more than ever, who will spend many hours in forums moderating conversations and opening new threads.
1. Determine what the customer craves and deliver it. In the case of college and university students, there are limits. Balancing student wants and desires with what they actually need to be successful students and engaged citizens can, in fact, be extremely challenging. “The customer is always right” philosophy practiced by many businesses simply does not fit with the mission of postsecondary institutions. Instead, the role of educators is to advance and apply knowledge, facilitate the exploration of ideas, foster cognitive dissonance, prepare students as lifelong learners and productive workers, and even, hold them accountable for their actions or inactions. Ideally, the college experience should be transformational—helping students become the best person they can be. With that said, failing to align teaching methods, curriculum, academic programs, and institutional services with the needs and expectations of students is a perilous path.
2. Create unexpected value. Incumbent institutions tend to focus on known problems (e.g., student attrition causation factors, poor service delivery, cumbersome processes, undersubscribed programs, insufficient class availability). True disruption seldom occurs in this space. Creating value where it did not exist before or was not expected spawns disruption. In the private sector, such intuitive value ideation is seen in Disney’s “Imagineering” the attractions in its theme parks, Apple’s invention of the iPhone, and Airbnb’s alternative to staying with the multitudes at expensive, disturbingly uniform hotel chains. This is what the authors of Blue Ocean Strategy characterize as swimming in the “blue ocean”, where there are few, if any, competitors (Kim, W. C. & Mauborgne, R., 2005). No disruptor is found in the “red ocean” crowded with similar competitors.
3. Avoid being average. If your school is one of the elite, well-known few, with highly selective admissions, it is not average. However, the vast majority of colleges and universities do not fit this profile. They have to find other ways to distinguish themselves. A capstone student experience, an innovative curriculum, guaranteed internship placement or study abroad, digital career portfolios, or a unique pricing model represent just a few examples. While it would be ideal to find something that makes your institution distinctive throughout the nation or the world, that is highly improbable. A more attainable goal is to position your institution uniquely among your direct competitors.
4. Identify the potential for expansion. As it relates to student enrollment growth, expansion opportunities are usually found within one or more of four domains: (1) thorough penetration of your existing primary market, where the institution and its academic programs have a strong presence, (2) the introduction of new programs into your primary market, (3) promotion of the institution and existing programs in a new market, and (4) diversification—new programs and new markets. Each domain has inherent risks and potential rewards. Risk levels are illustrated in Figure 1 and are described here.
Primary market penetration possesses the lowest risk, requires the least investment of resources, and has the fastest return on investment. Depending on an institution’s primary market, this domain also may produce only modest new enrollments. Option two, mounting new programs in an institution’s existing primary market has risks associated with conducting the proper market research to determine student and industry demand as well as market saturation. Another common risk relates to the degree to which new program offerings are adequately promoted. An obvious upside to this domain is that the institution already has visibility in the market. Takingthecurrent program array to a new marketrequires the time and resources to develop a presence where none has previously existed. Sending recruiters to a new territory once or twice a year is woefully insufficient. Creating such visibility requires a sustained physical presence with area recruiters or alumni volunteers, targeted advertising, networking with schools and other organizations in the region, and strategic partnerships. Finally, diversification carries with it the highest level of risk because it involves assuming all the risks of launching new programs in a market with no prior visibility. If executed effectively, however, this domain can generate an abundance of new students.
5. Disruption always comes at a cost. It is true that your institution may create a disruption by leveraging existing technologies and human capital. Yet, no organization can avoid the cultural and real costs associated with unlearning old ways, creating new programs and business models, scaling innovations, or marketing a new approach. These costs must be weighed judiciously against potential benefits of such a paradigm shift. Once a decision is made to pull the trigger, the change process must be managed carefully with the upfront inclusion of key stakeholders.
6. Equate disruption with innovation, not extinction. The rise of educational disruptors can be unsettling. If disruption is simply perceived as a threat to the way of life in the academy or ignored, the results will be devastating for many higher education institutions. Conversely, if disruption pushes college leaders and enrollment managers out of their comfort zone and they reinvent their institutions, the educational experience of students will be greatly enhanced. In a time of creative destruction, the winners are those who exert extraordinary efforts to go beyond traditional norms, which is not always the early adopters of a new educational model or practice.
7. Successful disruptors pursue four disciplines simultaneously. The four disciplines translated into the higher education lexicon include low costs, relational connections with students, program innovations, and rapid time-to-market. Of these, student connections is the only discipline college and universities excel at consistently. To thrive in a future with a seemingly infinite number of nimble disruptive innovators, educators must compete in the other three disciplines as well.
the Center for the Advanced Study of Technology Leadership in Education – CASTLE
Vision
If a school’s reputation and pride are built on decades or centuries of “this is how we’ve always done things here,” resistance from staff, parents, and alumni to significant changes may be fierce. In such institutions, heads of school may have to steer carefully between deeply ingrained habits and the need to modernize the information tools with which students and faculty work
Too often, when navigating faculty or parental resistance, school leaders and technology staff make reassurances that things will not have to change much in the classroom or that slow baby steps are OK. Unfortunately, this results in a different problem, which is that schools have now invested significant money, time, and energy into digital technologies but are using them sparingly and seeing little impact. In such schools, replicative uses of technology are quite common, but transformative uses that leverage the unique affordances of technology are quite rare.
many schools fail to proceed further because they don’t have a collective vision of what more transformative uses of technology might look like, nor do they have a shared understanding of and commitment to what it will take to get to such a place. As a result, faculty instruction and the learning experiences of students change little or not at all.
These schools have taken the time to involve all stakeholders—including students—in substantive conversations about what digital tools will allow them to do differently compared with previous analog practices. Their visions promote the potential of computing devices to facilitate all of those elements we now think of as essential 21st-century capacities: confidence, curiosity, enthusiasm, passion, critical thinking, problem-solving, and self-direction. Technology doesn’t simply support traditional teaching—it transforms it for deeper thinking and gives students more agency over their own learning.
Fear
Another prevalent issue preventing technology change in schools is fear—fear of change, of the unknown, of letting go of what we know best, of being learners again. But it’s also a fear of letting kids have wide access to the Internet with the possibility of cyberbullying, access to inappropriate material, and exposure to online predators or even excessive advertising. Fears, of course, need to be surfaced and addressed.
The fear drives some schools to ban cellphones, disallow students and faculty from using Facebook, and lock down Internet filters so tightly that useful websites are inaccessible. They prohibit the use of Twitter and YouTube, and they block blogs. Some educators see these types of responses as principled stands against the shortcomings and hassles of digital technologies. Others see them as rejections of the dehumanization of the education process by soulless machines. Often, however, it’s just schools clinging to the past and elevating what is comfortable or familiar over the potential of technology to help them better deliver on their school missions.
Heads of school don’t have to be skilled users themselves to be effective technology leaders, but they do have to exercise appropriate oversight and convey the message—repeatedly—that frequent, meaningful technology use in school is both important and expected. Nostalgia aside, there is no foreseeable future in which the primacy of printed text is not superseded by electronic text and multimedia. When nearly all information is digital or online, multi-modal and multimedia, accessed by mobile devices that fit in our pockets, the question should not be whether schools prepare students for a digital learning landscape, but rather how.
Control
Many educators aren’t necessarily afraid of technology, but they are so accustomed to heavily teacher-directed classrooms that they are leery about giving up control—and can’t see the value in doing so.
Although most of us recognize that mobile computers connected to the Internet may be the most powerful learning devices yet invented—and that youth are learning in powerful ways at home with these technologies—allowing students to have greater autonomy and ownership of the learning process can still seem daunting and questionable.
The “beyond” is particularly important. When we give students some voice in and choice about what and how they learn, we honor basic human needs for autonomy, we enhance students’ interest and engagement, and we truly actualize our missions of preparing lifelong learners.
The goal of instructional transformation is to empower students, not to disempower teachers. While instructor unfamiliarity with digital technologies, inquiry- or problem-based teaching techniques, or deeper learning strategies may result in some initial discomfort, these challenges can be overcome with robust support.
Support
A few workshops here and there rarely result in large-scale changes in implementation.
teacher-driven “unconferences” or “edcamps,” at which educators propose and facilitate discussion topics, can be powerful mechanisms for fostering professional dialogue and learning. Similarly, some schools offer voluntary “Tech Tuesdays” or “appy hours” to foster digital learning among interested faculty.
In addition to existing IT support, technology integration staff, or librarians/media specialists, some schools have student technology teams that are on call for assistance when needed.
A few middle schools and high schools go even further and assign teachers their own individual student technology mentors. These student-teacher pairings last all school year and comprise the first line of support for educators’ technology questions.
As teachers, heads of school, counselors, coaches, and librarians, we all now have the ability to participate in ongoing, virtual, global communities of practice.
Whether formal or informal, the focus of technology-related professional learning should be on student learning, not on the tools or devices. Independent school educators should always ask, “Technology for the purpose of what?” when considering the inclusion of digital technologies into learning activities. Technology never should be implemented just for technology’s sake.
Eyal, L. (2012). Digital Assessment Literacy — the Core Role of the Teacher in a Digital Environment. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 37-49.
Common to all is a view of the level of literacy as a measure of the quality of human capital of a society or a particular area. Literacy develops in interaction with the environment (Vygotsky, 1987).
digital assessment literacy refers to the role of the teacher as an assessor in a technology-rich environment.
Learning Management Systems (LMS) benefits and limitations
Measurement allows quantitative description of a particular characterization of an individual, expressed in numbers.
the combination of assessment and measurement provides a thorough and accurate picture, based upon which practical conclusions can be drawn (Wagner, 1997). A test is a systematic process in which an aspect of student behavior is quantitatively evaluated (Suen & Parkes, 2002).
For several decades this system of assessment has been criticized for a variety of reasons, including the separation between the teaching-learning process and the evaluation process, the relatively low level of thinking required, and the quantitative reporting of results, which does not contribute to students’ progress. In the last decade, the central argument against the tests system is that their predictability is limited to the field and context in which the students are tested, and that they do not predict student problem solving ability, teamwork, good work habits and honesty.
teachers mistakenly believe that repeating lessons will improve students’ achievements.
To evaluate how well the goals were achieved, objective measurement methods are employed (Black, et al., 2004).
Eshet- Alkalai (2004) offered a detailed conceptual framework for the term ‘digital literacy’ that includes: photo-visual thinking; reproduction thinking; branching thinking; information thinking; and socio-emotional thinking.
Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93–106.
Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Chajut, E. (2009). Changes Over Time in Digital Literacy. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(6), 713-715. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0264
two major patterns of change over time: (a) closing the gap between younger and older participants in the tasks that emphasize profi- ciency and technical control and (b) widening the gap between younger and older participants in tasks that emphasize creativity and critical thinking. Based on the comparison with the matched control groups, we suggest that experience with technology, and not age, accounts for the observed lifelong changes in digital literacy skills
Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Soffer, O. (2012). Guest Editorial – Navigating in the Digital Era: Digital Literacy: Socio-Cultural and Educational Aspects. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 1.
a wide range of technological, cognitive and social competences—collectively termed “DigitalLiteracy.” Users thus must become “digitally literate” in order to cope effectively with the complex sociological, cognitive and pedagogical challenges these technologies pose. These skills include, for example, the ability to operate computers and navigate the net effectively, to cope with large volumes of information, to evaluate the reliability of information, and to critically assess what seem to be natural (and not ideologically biased) technological tools. In a different way from the spirit of modern print, learners construct and consume knowledge in non-linear environments. They need to learn, collaborate and solve problems effectively in virtual (non face-to-face) learning environments, and to communicate effectively in technology-mediated social participation environments.
It is important to note: digital literacy, then, is not limited simply to computer and Internet operation and orientation. It also relates to a variety of epistemological and ethical issues arise due to the unique characteristics of digital technologies and that are often overlapped with trends related to the post-modern and post-structural era. These include questions regarding the authority of knowledge, intellectual property and ownership, copyright, authenticity and plagiarism. Furthermore, issues such as self-representation, virtual group dynamics, and on-line addiction also arise.
What is the difference between education and training?
Don Fitchett☆☆☆☆☆ Industrial Automation Training – Industrial Training software to Maintenance, Engineering, Manufacturing.Top Contributor
Schools and companies commonly use the word “Training” when actually all they are delivering is scholastic education. Our company clearly distinguishes between the two which increases our effectiveness and to differentiate what we deliver to customers (what most call students) from others like colleges. I thought it would be interesting to get this group’s members opinion on the difference between “Training” and “Education”, and to get group members thinking about it.
Director of the UPCEA Center for Online Leadership and Strategy – and – UIS Associate Vice Chancellor of Online Learning
This is one of those questions, the answers to which will be easy to pick apart. But, I will venture a beginning:
Training is task-oriented. It is circumscribed by circumstances such as location, goal, job, career. Training’s intent is to master a task, method or approach.
Education is a broader activity that spans locations, goals, careers. Education’s intent is life guiding, life changing and lasting.
Training can have lifelong import. But, the focus is on a specific task or goal.
Education often includes task-learning.
Enough. A more important task now demands my attention – breakfast – I have been trained well for this lifelong task.
When asked the difference between education and training, a 4-star general replied…do you want your daughter to have sex training or sex education? Nearly everyone in the audience (1,000+) fell out of there seats. After the laughter subsided, the general went on to reply “fundamentally, education is focused on developing critical thinking skills (know why) that help enable creative solutions, whereas training is about developing specific skill sets (know how) for consistently reliable results.” That said, while there is a large grey area between training and education, per se, when does education stop and training begin, the outcome of both is learning. As a former Air Force flight instructor, I told my students they are educated in the aerodynamics of flight, but trained on how to fly.
I just finished reading The Eden Conspiracy: Educating for Accomplished Citizenship by Joe Harless (1998). He explains (p. 157): “Training and education are often differentiated by saying education is to provide knowledge for unpredictable circumstances; training is for predictable circumstances.”
He also states education is provided in school, (K-college) and training is provided after school (knowledge and skills provided on-the-job). Since Harless published this book, the delivery options of education and training has changed, thanks to the Internet. Education and training can occur anywhere, and without proper context, someone can mix the labels and confuse being trained for a specific task with being educated about something they can use to determine if they should use the task they’ve been trained on.
Harless, J. (1998). The Eden Conspiracy: Educating for Accomplished Citizenship . Wheaton, IL: Guild V Publications.
The term has been conceived in many different ways and across all academic departments (Mihalidis, 2008).
Media literacy is central in a broader concept of access (Sourbati, 2009).
The relationship between visual competencies and the notion of media literacy have not been fully explored or adequately specified (Griffin, 2008).
Media literacy interventions refer to education programs designed to reduce harmful effects of the media by informing the audience about one or more aspects of the media, thereby influencing media-related beliefs and attitudes, and ultimately preventing risky behaviors. Positive effects of media literacy interventions were observed across diverse agents, target age groups, settings, topics, and countries (Jeong et al, 2012).
Media literacy, information literacy and digital literacy are the three most prevailing concepts that focus on a critical approach towards media messages
The 21st century has marked an unprecedented advancement of new media. New media has become so pervasive that it has penetrated into every aspect of our society. New media literacy plays an essential role for any citizen to participate fully in the 21st century society. Researchers have documented that literacy has evolved historically from classic literacy (reading-writing-understanding) to audiovisual literacy to digital literacy or information literacy and recently to new media literacy. A review of literature on media literacy reveals that there is a lack of thorough analysis of unique characteristics of newmedia and its impacts upon the notion of new media literacy. The purpose of the study is to unpack new media literacyand propose a framework for a systematic investigation of new media literacy
HTML is not dead. QR codes are only one new technology, which can revive it. But:
WordPress might be preferable to Adobe Dreamweaver.
PPT is not enough. Prezi does not replace it. Then what? Desktop/lpatop versus tablet (Stampsy). Or the Cloud m(VoiceThread)? Does Media skills = presentation skills?
iMovie | Movie Maker (local) versus YouTube (Cloud)
Flickr (Cloud) versus Photoshop (local).
Sources:
Mihailidis, P. (2008). Are We Speaking the Same Language? Assessing the State of Media Literacy in U.S. Higher Education. Simile, 8(4), 1-14. doi:10.3138/sim.8.4.001 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=40303609
Hobbs, R. (2011). EMPOWERING LEARNERS WITH DIGITAL AND MEDIA LITERACY. Knowledge Quest, 39(5), 12-17. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=61819923
Koltay, T. (2011). The media and the literacies: media literacy, information literacy, digital literacy. Media, Culture & Society, 33(2), 211-221. doi:10.1177/0163443710393382 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=59569702
“Victor” CHEN, D., WU, J., & WANG, Y. (2011). Unpacking New Media Literacy. Journal Of Systemics, Cybernetics & Informatics, 9(2), 84-88. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=83259046
Sourbati, M. (2009). Media Literacy and Universal Access in Europe. Information Society, 25(4), 248-254. doi:10.1080/01972240903028680 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=43050924
GRIFFIN, M. (2008). Visual competence and media literacy: can one exist without the other?. Visual Studies,23(2), 113-129. doi:10.1080/14725860802276255 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=33944793
Jeong, S., Cho, H., & Hwang, Y. (2012). Media Literacy Interventions: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal Of Communication, 62(3), 454-472. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01643.x http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=76349359
Yates, B. L. (2002). Media education’s present and future: A survey of teachers. Simile, 2(3), N.PAG. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10537377
Technology Literacy is the ability to responsibly use appropriate technology to communicate, solve problems, and access, manage, integrate, evaluate, and create information to improve learning in all subject areas and to acquire lifelong knowledge and skills in the 21st century.
Technology literacy is the ability of an individual, working independently and with others, to responsibly, appropriately and effectively use technology tools to access, manage, integrate, evaluate, create and communicate information.
“Technological Literacy is the ability to use, manage, assess, and understand technology” (Gallop Poll, 2004, p. 1). “Technological literacy encompasses three interdependent dimensions: (1) knowledge, (2) ways of thinking and acting; and (3) capabilities” (Technically Speaking, 2006, p.1).
Comprehension of technological innovation and the impact of technology on society — may include the ability to select and use specific innovations appropriate to one’s interests and needs.
ICT literacy, which is increasingly referred to as the fourth literacy, is neither as well defined nor as readily assessed as reading, writing, and arithmetic (Mirray and Perez, 2010).
The importance for the public and educators to be proficienttechnology users since technology literacy is one of the important skills in the 21st century (Eisenberg et al, 2010).
Technology literacy is hampered by well-intentioned educators who are trying to develop checklists and tests (Miners, 2007).
Pérez, J., & Murray, M. (2010). Generativity: The New Frontier for Information and Communication Technology Literacy. Interdisciplinary Journal Of Information, Knowledge & Management, 5127-137. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=58079824
Eisenberg, M., Johnson, D., & Berkowitz, B. (2010). Information, Communications, and Technology (ICT) Skills Curriculum Based on the Big6 Skills Approach to Information Problem-Solving. Library Media Connection, 28(6), 24-27. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=50728714
Miners, Z., & Pascopella, A. (2007). The NEW Literacies. District Administration, 43(10), 26-34. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27024204
NAEP Will Include Technology Literacy in 2012. (Cover story). (2008). Electronic Education Report, 15(20), 1-7. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=62828392
Heller-Ross, H. (2004). Reinforcing information and technology literacy. College & Research Libraries News, 65(6), 321-325. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13541089
—————————————————————-
Do you have ideas and materials regarding Media and Technology Literacy and Skills? Pls contribute…
