Introduction:

Historically, universities have endeavored to insure that their students are able to command basic literacies in languages, including the language of mathematics and science, and to demonstrate fluency in particular areas of importance or specialization. More specifically, universities have worked to insure that their students are able to identify the need for knowledge, to know where to find it, to evaluate critically what one finds, and to use it effectively and even creatively— that is, universities have always taught what we now call information literacy.

Today, rapid technological change and an explosion of information resources have created a plethora of new technology tools, applications, and resources; we are experiencing what many find to be a crisis of managing information unlike anything since the advent of print. This current complex information environment has led universities to re-evaluate the ways in which they are educating their students in information literacy. Universities have never played a unique role in informing students; indeed independent artists, scientists and humanists, public journals and other periodicals, institutions from churches to foundations to unions have always provided people with multiple sources of information outside the university — we do face at least two particular concerns for our students: that they be able effectively to access information made available to them in whatever form it presents itself and that they be able to apply the same rigorous and critical scrutiny to these new resources that the University has always encouraged them to apply to the materials they study.

There is, therefore, a need to revisit our standards for information literacy and to promulgate goals for information technology literacy. These are linked abilities: on the one hand, to be information literate today, one must be able to access electronic information; on the other, there is little point in being able to access electronic information unless one can use it critically and creatively. Still, it is useful to provide a separate working definition of each. By information literacy, we mean the ability to recognize what information is needed independent of its format, to know where to find it, and to be able to evaluate it and then use it critically and creatively. By information technology literacy, we mean the ability to become proficient in new technology applications as they become available for learning and the production of knowledge. Both kinds of literacy are common to all the disciplines and to all levels and styles of learning. Both kinds of literacy are essential if our students are to be lifelong learners able to grow with a changing technological environment and to exercise within it the critical, self-directed, open and free inquiry we associate with a liberal education. We also wish to make clear our working definitions of literacy and fluency. By literacy, we mean those abilities we wish our students to possess, ideally by the time they complete their first year at the University; these are abilities that are needed across disciplines and that make up part of the education of any well-rounded CU-Boulder student. By fluency, we mean those more advanced abilities that may be specific to particular disciplines or groups of disciplines or to higher levels of learning. Our literacy goals should be common across the campus; our fluency goals should be designed specifically to meet the particular needs of students following particular paths of study and should be forward-looking in the sense that they supply students with the requisite skills, concepts, and capabilities for at least the entry-level of their chosen career paths. Additionally, these definitions are nested in so far as the literacy goals provide a foundation that the fluency goals then build upon.

As this report makes clear, the Group recommends that CU-Boulder should adopt as high academic priorities a set of information literacy and information technology literacy goals and establish a common process by which disciplines and departments may arrive at standards for fluency. We will only accomplish our goals of making our students literate and fluent users and producers of information & information technology through a broad-based, course integrated approach. We are not a training school providing an abstract set of skills but an institution of higher learning providing a broad and deep education where digital literacy and fluency are connected with the knowledge students acquire and produce. Simply put, digital literacy and fluency are the responsibility of the faculty as a whole. With this said, a clear system of incentives and rewards should be established to encourage faculty participation in this program. Moreover, it is important to recognize that we have some powerful experts on campus that can help lead and coordinate this effort: the University Libraries, Information Technology Services, the Program for Writing and Rhetoric, FTEP, and the QRMS program. Working together, we can make certain that our students have not only the technological skills they need to succeed but also the conceptual understanding of information and of how to use it well.

Core Recommendations:

1. The CU-Boulder campus should establish strong goals for digital literacy and should facilitate the creation of strong goals for digital fluency within disciplines and departments. The literacy goals should be the task of the campus as a whole; the fluency goals should be formulated by particular disciplines and departments.
2. The Group recommends that the CU-Boulder campus endorse the digital literacy goals (see list below).
3. The Group recommends that the CU-Boulder campus adopt the process for arriving at standards for digital fluency. The Provost's office should create incentives for departments to complete this process in a timely fashion. In order to insure that all departments arrive at fluency goals, completion of this process should be mandated as part of PRP.
4. The campus must recognize that, as we establish strong digital literacy and fluency goals for our students, we create a need for faculty development as well. The Group recommends that the campus build on existing programs and resources such as the Distributed Technology Coordinators (DTC's), the ITS short courses, FTEP, and the libraries resources. In addition, given the faculty's need for just-in-time solutions to particular problems and given the efficacy of peer-based mentoring, we suggest the creation of a group of Provost Technology Scholars, modeled on the President's Teaching Scholars. These Technology Scholars would be identified leaders who effectively integrate digital in their teaching and/or research and would agree to be available to help their colleagues resolve their information & information technology problems.
5. The campus must be able to assess whether our students are in fact achieving the desired digital literacy and fluency. Since the Group believes that such literacy and fluency is best achieved through a course-integrated approach, we also believe that the assessment regularly carried out in those courses will provide our best measure of our student's current abilities and their promise for future success. Put simply, students will be evaluated through their course work. However, to ascertain the efficacy of our efforts to achieve digital literacy by the end of the freshman year, we recommend doing sample testing. The program's overall effectiveness in providing our students with both literacy and necessary fluency will also need to be evaluated.
6. Recognizing the desirability of continuing and strengthening the collaboration between ITS, the Libraries, FTEP and PWR, the Group recommends that these parties consider a collocated facility, which might be physical and/or virtual, centralized and/or distributed.

digital Literacy Goals:

1. Students will be able to recognize, articulate, and define what they need to know as they approach a problem, project, writing assignment or other research task.
2. Students will be able to access needed information effectively and efficiently independent of form or format.
3. Students will be able to evaluate information and information sources critically.
4. Students will be able to use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose as well as to retain selected information as part of their accumulated knowledge.
5. As electronic documents become a major way in which CU-Boulder students present their work, students will be able to create structured electronic documents that efficiently and effectively express their ideas.
6. As part of their acquisition of mathematical and scientific literacy, students will be able to use (relevant) electronic tools for analyzing quantitative and qualitative data.
7. Recognizing the need for visual and aural technology literacy, students will be able to use graphical and multimedia technologies.
8. Students will be able to use electronic communication to aid them in collaborative work.
9. As one way of communicating their work to others, students will be able to use technology to enhanced presentations.
10. Students will be able to use databases and spreadsheets to manage information.
11. Students will be familiar with major legal, economic, social, ethical, privacy, and security issues in information technology.
12. Students will have a working knowledge of hardware and software as well as be familiar with computing and information resources offered at CU-Boulder.