What is computer literacy?
tay...@hplabsc.uucp
Any medium powerful enough to extend man's reach is
powerful enough to topple his world. To get the medium's
magic to work for one's aims rather than against them is to
attain literacy... Familiarity (knowing the "grammar") is
not enough.
Computer literacy is a contact with the activity of
computing deep enough to make the computational equivalent
of reading and writing fluent and enjoyable. As in all the
arts, a romance with the material must be well under way.
If we value the lifelong learning of arts and letters as a
springboard for personal and societal growth, should any
less effort be spent to make computing a part of our lives?
"Computer Software", Alan Kay,
Scientific American, Sept. 1984
Adam Osborne (among others) has predicted that soon most
computers will be "hidden" within the devices that they direct and
many commentators have taken these statements to mean that computer
literacy is unnecessary. On the other hand, analysts like Alan Kay and
A. P. Ershov (whose keynote address to the third World Congress on
Computers and Education was entitled "Computing:the Second Literacy")
have pointed out that the impact of the technology of information on
our society will require certain new conceptions. ("Require" is
perhaps too strong a word. It might be better to say that those who
pursue these understandings will have a decided advantage.)
What is it that will be needed? What concepts, if taught to new
users, will give them the greatest chance at success in using the
technology for their own purposes?
This article comes as a result of being called to account for a
statement that "so much computer training is taught so badly." In
part, this statement reflects a teacher's view of the ability of an
amateur to prepare and present a curriculum with proper appreciation
of educational needs and values. However, it also manifests an ongoing
attempt to define to my own satisfaction what computer literacy *is*.
To begin with the easiest topic, there is no particular reason
why it should be expected that an accountant or a programmer will have
the ability to teach well. Teaching is something that we all
automatically assume we can do, but it requires a unique set of
skills, some of which can be aquired and some of which may well be
innate. It is, for (only one) example, easy enough to determine from a
good explanation whether a student understands the material *and* has
the ability to communicate it. More difficult is the task of
identifying from a poor explanation whether the student is deficient
in understanding or verbal skills. Most difficult is the job of
determining from an incoherent statement of non-comprehension *what*
it is that the student does not understand.
I won't say that I need not outline the competencies required by
teachers: in fact I can not. No one ever has. Every teacher will have
some idea of what is required. Every teacher will have some
similarities and some differences in comparing his list with that of
any other teacher. The fact is, though, that, maligned as they are,
faculties of education have collected *some* wisdom with regard to
what it is that good teachers should know. These skills and concepts
are not necessarily taught in MBA school, CA school or network design
seminars. Nor should they be.
One skill which seems particularly lacking, and particularly
important, is curriculum design. Ultimately, a curriculum in any field
defines the field, and I have already said that I am not ready to do
that yet, but certain fairly straightforward points can be dealt with
immediately.
First there is over-specificity. In the flyers that I have
gathered from various institutions providing computer training in
Vancouver there are any number of "Word Processing" courses, all of
which are subtitled "using Wordstar" or "with Easywriter". The
operation of word processing is *not* apparent from the examination of
any single program, and I have found trained "experts" on a given word
processor who did not know a function on that word processor which I
knew *had* to exist because it was a word processing function. Having
learned the operations of word processing in general, one is better
able to work, and solve problems, with any given word processor,
regardless of specific training.
The second point to consider is the law of the hammer (subtitled
"give a hacker Procomm and everything looks like a Qmodem bug.") The
computer is not really a single tool as much as an entire toolbox.
While working for the government I was asked for advice on how to
sort, select and insert records using Lotus 1-2-3. While 1-2-3 is
capable of performing those functions, they are more appropriate to a
data base, and I pointed this out to the staff of that office. What
had happened was that the manager, knowing only that Lotus was the
answer (sorry, what was the question again?) to everything had
specified what he wanted done, and that he wanted it done on Lotus.
Neither he nor the rest of the office really understood the general
functions of information processing, and which programs are most
suitable to which functions.
What then do I say computer literacy is? Sorry, I haven't got a
final answer. It is a more general curiculum than is currently taught.
I would suggest, in opposition to many, that it must contain an
element of programming. Programming provides certain insights into
what computers can, and particularly cannot, do. Even an element of
assembly or machine language programming and digital electronics has
been invaluable to me. I am *not* a programmer or hardware engineer,
but I have found that an understanding of how the "guts" of the
machine operate has helped me understand, and fix problems in,
communications systems, word processors, "baulky" printers and many,
many others. It has been absolutely essential when I have had to deal
with the integration of different programs and systems, to make them
work effectively together.
(Since I started this piece, Dave Taylor's "Literacy vs Computer
Literacy has come over the Computers and Society Digest. As a
sidelight to this, and relating to his piece, I recently was teaching
a number of people to use a word processor. It was interesting to note
that they would often fail to read instructions or information that
appeared on the screen. One of the group suggested that they couldn't
be expected to do too well since they were "computer illiterate". My
response was that the problem appeared to be less related to computer
illiteracy than to illiteracy itself.)
tay...@hplabsc.uucp
and who has helped my intuitive, artistic mother become computer
literate, it's time to jump in to this discussion. For the most part I
agree with this article, but there are a couple of things I'd like to
comment on, and then I have some contributions to "What is computer
literacy?"
I agree with the points made that amateurs are neither the best
curriculum designers nor the best teachers, at least not in a formal
setting. This has nothing to do with computer literacy, but more with
teaching and training or, if you prefer, education vs. training.
> One skill which seems particularly lacking, and particularly
> important, is curriculum design.
Agreed, as far as it goes. Actually, curriculum design is another
problem-solving skill, with exactly the same steps as engineering
or community development or any number of disciplines (more later).
However:
> First there is over-specificity. In the flyers that I have
> gathered from various institutions providing computer training in
> Vancouver there are any number of "Word Processing" courses, all of
I agree with the point made, which is that "seminars" don't teach
general understanding. I hold, though, that short seminars should
*not* teach general skills - most of these classes are training, not
education. The purpose of training is to teach specific skills - which
buttons to push, if you will - *not* general understanding or
knowledge. If those flyers are from seminar companies, I submit that
those companies are doing exactly what they should; if, however,
they're from local colleges, the colleges are falling down on the job.
All of which begs the question of what computer literacy is and how
people are getting it, of course, but let's not mix up training and
education as well. I'd be glad to correspond further on this topic
off-line.
Where the average person is getting it these days is mostly from these
training companies, who are not geared to provide general understanding,
or from self-teaching. Some, of course, are getting it from various
colleges, but the colleges are so swamped, or pressured by companies with
whom they are in partnership, that they, for the most part, are not
providing education to beginning computer users, either - they're
providing training. So someone goes off and learns to operate Lotus, or
Wordstar, or whatever, and the skills don't transfer. (Companies contribute
to this by limiting education budgets (time and money), too - it's all
too common to find someone who can "only" spend 8 hours learning such and
so because of either money or time away from the job. And we wonder
about American competitiveness? But that's another story...)
I can't encompass the whole term "computer literacy" yet, but I think
there are two aspects of it without which a person can not be called
computer literate.
The first is an absence of fear - of the machine, of the software, of
the technology, of doing something wrong, of blowing things up... I
would add perhaps a sense of adventure, but that may be going too far.
Is this a teachable skill? I'm not sure, but I don't think so.
Second, computer literacy encompasses problem-solving skills, such as
those discussed in Polya's _How To Solve It_, and not necessarily with
reference to computers. Analyze the problem, identify possible
solutions, select the best, implement, and evaluate whether it solved
the problem. Unfortunately, the only place such skills are taught in
school is in math and maybe science courses. Most everyone intuits
these skills, some better than others, and computers are an item that
are not very susceptible to intuition, not at first.
Also, a person is never going to *become* computer literate without
motivation. Unless someone sees why it matters to them, in their life,
at this point, all the teaching in the world is so much hot air to
them.
One final point: would you expect anyone to become "literate" in a
nonsense language? We may be at this point with computers - there
are few consistencies from program to program, machine to machine, no
language to become literate *in* yet. So computer literacy may not be
definable at all yet.
Barbara Zanzig