Weak IL skills among students
October 31st, 2006 Stewart Posted in Uncategorized |
The Chronicle: 10/27/2006: Students Fall Short on ‘Information Literacy,’ Educational Testing Service’s Study Finds (link only good for a few days)
So the results of the ETS’s information literacy skills assessment are in and they are bleak. One shocker for me:
When searching a database of journal articles for a research project, 63 percent of students identified reasonably relevant materials.
This statement was listed by the ETS as “good.” Frankly, I find that percentage pretty appalling. I know that IL skills are not given the time or emphasis in the curriculum that they should be given, but for only a bare majority of students to be able to determine “reasonable relevance” of materials — a skill that more appropriately falls under “reading literacy” rather than “information literacy” — indicates a basic lack of understanding beyond the scope of IL instruction to correct.
In other words, 37 percent of the testers don’t know how to relate what they read to their knowledge needs. To my mind, that’s a marker of basic illiteracy.
In the recent Millennials talk in Corning, one participant commented on how Millennials do enjoy reading, but that they won’t read anything that is assigned to them — possibly because it isn’t interesting, or that they perceive such readings as “busy work,” or something similar. The ETS article, though, raises another possibility: Millennials cannot comprehend the relevance of such readings nor apply them in any meaningful way to their learning. They aren’t wired that way. They cannot learn from reading.
Thoughts?
November 1st, 2006 at 5:30 pm
I, personally, have another issue with ETS results, in that what I’ve seen of the instrument doesn’t inspire confidence that it is measuring information literacy in the sense of critical engagement with information sources.
I understand that the instrument has been through rigorous testing, but again, I don’t think it measures “information literacy” at all. The ways in which search strategies are assessed, for example, seem insufficient for measuring creative search strategies, or those that use more specific (or more discipline-relevant) terms. I also am concerned about some of the ways quantitative and symbolic reasoning are measured–I personally believe that the way it is done could penalize students who like to experiment before making a final decision. Is that really what we want our college students doing–training themselves to limit inquiry in order to get a better “score”?
So, Stew, I agree with you that anything close to 37% illiteracy is appalling. However, the situation may be more bleak, or not as bad, as that. I don’t believe ETS’s data is the best measure, even if it currently is one of the only ones available.
November 4th, 2006 at 4:00 am
I hear what you’re saying, Sarah. I have not seen much about the ETS test — I know that there was some librarian involvement, but I never heard to what extent. If the test doesn’t measure IL accurately, then it certainly throws my analysis, and everyone else’s, right out the window.