Technology Literacy

The Technology Literacy Quality Enhancement Plan is designed to strengthen students’ digital competence and confidence in using digital tools that support academic success, workplace readiness, and lifelong learning. The program will implement digital literacy modules created by faculty that can be incorporated within first-year courses to address uneven preparation, reduce barriers to success, and improve student confidence and resilience in academic and professional tasks. Micro-credentials will be granted for completion of modules, course-level demonstration of skills, and hands-on workshops leading to academic credit for students. Progress will be measured through completion rates, assessments, course performance, and retention data.   

What is the proposed QEP topic? 

Technology literacy: Improve students’ competence and confidence in using digital tools that support academic success, workplace readiness, and lifelong learning. 

What is the “big idea”? Why does this topic matter to GHC? 

Every student in the region, regardless of prior exposure, should possess essential technological understanding and skills that can empower them to succeed academically and professionally. GHC serves a broad population, and students’ digital preparedness has varied and often been insufficient for the needs of the modern college environment, leading faculty and staff to set aside extra time on a regular basis to help students catch up. To prepare students for the occupational expectations, we propose the purposeful integration of digital skill-building into the early college experience as well as optional training courses for faculty and staff. By using available technology to work on underlying tech-adjacent skills, the hope is that students will become more proficient with current technological expectations and more adaptable to a still unfolding digital future. 

Why this idea & why now? 

We are at a digital crossroads right now with the introduction and growth of AI. Unfortunately, many students, faculty, and staff are still making their way through the previous crossroads of the internet and the digitization of processes and knowledge. The rest of the world (including businesses, hospitals, government agencies, other rural regions, your grandparents, and criminals) are actively moving ahead with digital literacy whether we do or not. This is the right time for this topic. Whether or not we use this as our QEP, tech literacy will still be a prerequisite for student persistence because of our reliance on digital learning tools. Whether or not we use this as our QEP, employers will continue to raise their baseline expectations for digital fluency. Whether or not we use this as our QEP, faculty will still need to have some tough, complicated conversations about how AI and digital learning are changing their classrooms. Whether or not we use this as our QEP, all of us outside of school and work are going to need to be aware of our digital footprints and the ever-evolving schemes of digital criminals. A strong foundation of technology literacy will make students, faculty, and staff (as well as many of our friends and family) more resilient, more adaptable, more aware, and more able to seek quality information while the world rapidly changes. 

What problem or opportunity does it address? 

Education and employer expectations have both shifted significantly in recent years, making technological fluency an essential skill set. GHC serves a diverse population, including students with limited prior exposure to digital tools. Many arrive with incomplete foundational digital skills needed to navigate institutional systems, complete assignments, solve problems with digital tools, and engage effectively in online or hybrid courses. Currently, students often need to overcome these gaps on their own and assistance is inconsistent or difficult to find. This barrier to learning contributes to early academic struggles and breaks confidence in future success. Without intervention, students risk falling behind academically, withdrawing early, and entering the workforce at a competitive disadvantage. 

How does it align with the mission and student success goals?  

Mission Goal #4: “Utilize appropriate technologies and practices to advance programs, services, and operations to support teaching and learning.” 

This QEP promotes the effective use of technology in the classroom, equitable access to digital tools, and improved student readiness to participate fully in academic programs. 

What impact do we expect on student learning or success? 

  We expect to see improvements across faculty, staff, and both new and returning student populations. Through a variety of trainings that would result in micro-credentials for students to list on their resumes, gain course credit, etc. With these in-person and virtual trainings, we aim to increase student abilities to navigate GHC technologies. These technologies will include our LMS (D2L Brightspace), Office365 (OneDrive, Outlook, etc.), Respondus Lockdown Browser, Library Databases, and more. By improving proficiencies in the aforementioned technologies, we hope to see an increase in student retention, critical thinking skills, digital communication skills, and overall student resilience. The goal of this QEP also hopes to reduce technological barriers, shrink the digital divide, and expand the career readiness initiatives currently in-place throughout the USG. 

At a high level, what might implementation look like? 

At a high level, this would be implemented as a series of learning modules that can be assigned as part of introductory courses for credit, orientation and faculty professional development to support technology literacy needs. For students, completing a series of these modules will lead to the award of course credit and micro-credentials. For faculty, developing, teaching, and taking modules can count towards professional development goals. These modules will first focus on fundamental topics and technologies already used in our introductory courses, such as Microsoft 365 programs, and deployed online using current systems such as D2L or the Library’s Asynchronous Interactive Modules (AIM) and in-person in the form of workshops as needed. 

Who would it affect most directly in terms of implementation? 

Implementation of this tech literacy training will mostly affect teaching faculty who will need to consider how to incorporate technological literacy into their courses. While the ideal circumstance is for faculty to have the tech training as well in order best to assisttheir students, at the very least faculty need to be aware of which mini-courses exist and which would be best suited to their courses. For instance, an English composition course could benefit from a mini-course on formatting in Microsoft Word or on proper use of AI in the research process. Further, creating mini-courses could count towards tenure and promotion portfolios as scholarship or service with a student success focus. Students will also be affected as they move through the mini-courses and transfer that knowledge into their respective courses. 

At a very high level, what resources or support would be needed? 

Regarding software: specialized sessions where faculty/staff/students are presented with information/education regarding how to leverage modern technological advancements or equipment they encounterdaily. This can range from how to fundamentally understand AI agents to how a classroom AV system works. These sessions can be hosted as part of Faculty Senate/Staff Council/Orientation/Charger Kickoff-type events, D2L shell content, RT articles shared via GHC Inform, Continuing Education classes, etc. In other words, a slight expansion on things provided by GHC to increase awareness while keeping monetary costs low.  Regarding hardware: a thorough vetting of any newer equipment to ensure it can maintain the standard of use GHC requires while remaining secure and innovative. Expanding Library loaner laptops for both Windows and Mac users to provide students with more resources. Keeping classrooms/event spaces to a technological standard while simplifying setups for easier diagnostics and modularity. 

How would we measure progress? What are the intended outcomes? 

Progress will be measured in four ways. First, Knowledge and skills will be assessed with pre- and post-assessments of digital competencies. Second, academic success can be tracked through monitoring LMS engagement, performance and pass rates in gateway courses, and reduced early-term withdrawals. Third, student engagement can be monitored through surveys on self-efficacy, module and workshop completion, and completion of credentials. Finally, long-term success can be measured through monitoring retention rates between first- and second-year courses. Further measurement could be acquired by requesting employer feedback on the technological skills readiness of recent graduates. 

What challenges/downsides does this topic pose? 

Students enter GHC with a high variability in skill and will be resistant to some of the required digital tasks. Therefore, they will require differentiated support to reach early milestones and motivate further learning. In addition, student access to technologies is variable. Therefore, some investment in infrastructure and tech support/maintenance will be needed to support all students in completing their required modules and tracking success.  

This plan emphasizes “in-house” development, which will necessitate work from GHC faculty and employees. This effort will need to be completed without significantly increasing the workload of faculty. In addition, faculty may feel like their academic freedom is being encroached upon, and some classes could bear an undue burden of modules compared to others. Faculty will need to be incorporated from the beginning in order to plan the program’s integration into their classes to meet their needs as well as the program’s goals.