This week, having summarised our final findings and discussions for our FLCs and Institution, we have been given the task of mapping our data onto different competency frameworks.

The process of discovering how exactly we were to do this was a laborious one- we were unsure whether to stick with our original methodology of Belshaw’s 8 elements of digital literacies, or whether to take an entirely new standpoint. At first we attempted to map our data, in the form of Belshaw’s 8 elements, onto the frameworks to see if this was a potential road to go down. After realising that this method could hinder our objective, we returned to considering our raw data.

The framework that I am evaluating is SCONUL’s 7 Pillars of Information Literacy through a Digital Literacy ‘lens’. Unlike Jo’s framework, this framework is set out using a series of 7 columns, or 7 ‘pillars’ of literacy. At this current moment in time, I am directly half way through my mapping- I have so far completed the mapping of our Engineering & Design FLC and our Management FLC. The first was decidedly more difficult to map given that it was my first FLC, and I was unfamiliar with the SCONUL framework. However, on completing the mapping for Management, this became easier and I was even able to summarise my findings using some of the elements of Doug Belshaw’s model!

Although I have not yet completed all of the work, I can say for now that I can already see similarities between how the data from each FLC is mapping out across the framework, and, some further similarities in what statements have not fitted so easily into any of the pillars. If I remember correctly, ENG&DES and MAN were two FLCs that shared some likeness in some areas when we were looking at our data through Belshaw’s 8 element lens in colourful pie chart form- I am intrigued to know if these patterns that are beginning to appear will be the same for Science and Humanities & Social Sciences.

Posted in Digital Literacies Statements | 3 Comments

Mapping our Faculty Data to Competency Frameworks

This week I am tasked with mapping the Attributes, Practices & Skills data from our Pyramids onto the Vitae Research Development Framework (RDF) for each Faculty Learning Community (FLC).

First steps were easy, and a blast from the past, as I grabbed my daughters compass kit and set to re-create my own blank version of the RDF ‘descriptors’ diagram. One circle, four Domains – and within each Domain, three sub-domains. Like drawing a pizza really!

Compass kit neatly away and the hard work began. Returning to each FLC Pyramid, the Attribute, Practices and Skills statements were mapped over to the appropriate Domain and sub-domain. This took time, but in reality was quite a straightforward task, probably due to the careful way the data was collected from the start. The language, concepts and meaning behind the statements fitted well to the Domains.

As I started on the second FLC it became obvious how the mapping of the data felt so different with each Faculty. What an incredibly fascinating process! As the mapping for the last FLC came to an end I couldn’t wait to scan over the four diagrams to assess the obvious and not-so-obvious differences and similarities. Where are most of the statements mapped? Which Domains and sub-domains featured really poorly in the FLC data? Why?

On top of this level of mapping I also decided it was a golden opportunity to map the perceptions of priority onto the statements. I identified and highlighted those statements that had been given a priority 1 or 2 by the FLCs. What would this show us?

I can’t give too much away before the beginning of next week, but what I can tell you is that there are significant patterns and differences across the FLCs. Cognitive Ability is significant across all FLCs, whilst Engagement and Impact of research appears consistently low.

All will be revealed in good time…

Posted in Digital Literacies Statements | Leave a comment

Some colourful observations

At our meeting on Friday the PriDE team at the University of Bath reviewed the observations and informed assumptions that we had made during the week for our Institution and FLCs. 

Last week, we divided the Faculty Learning Communities between the two of us. We were confident that we had reached a point in the process at which we could both quickly recognise the colour coding system that we had set up for each element and also understand the meaning of each element. This would allow us to not only observe patterns in the data with more ease, but make some informed assumptions about the data in relation to each FLC.

We had each taken 2 FLCs: Jo had Humanities and Social Sciences, and I had Engineering & Design and Management. As Jo has mentioned, we found that some elements of DLs that had revealed similar patterns across the Institution, but others were more specific to each FLC, or even to each skills/practices/attributes level.

Interestingly enough, the two FLCs that were in my care, Engineering & Design and Management, started to show similar patterns in terms of distribution of elements across the skills/practices/attributes levels. These patterns were easy to see due to our colourful pie chart coding system. It will be interesting to find out why this might be in terms of the nature of these two FLCs and whether the fields of employment that they expect their graduates to enter differ on a digital, technological level.

During the next week Jo and I intend to condense the observations and informed assumptions that we made last week into some more concise Institutional and FLC findings and discussions. We have already begun updating our Wiki, so next week already looks promising!

Posted in Digital Literacies Statements | Leave a comment