taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (04/03/87)
- -
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.)taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (04/11/87)
As a software engineer with 5 years experience with computer training, 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
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (04/14/87)
Barbara Zanzig writes: >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. Absence of fear, perhaps plays some part, but only on a basic level. For instance, while I was a computer technician working on high voltage display tubes I had a big fear of getting zapped. This fear was a healthy fear, because it made me make sure I took of my watch and any other jewelry that would attract electrons. The reason why I did get zapped was I was not careful. I was more careful there after. Things like taking the plug from the wall before I put my fingers in a box were also second nature because I was zapped. In software I really do not have the same fear. It can not zap me the same way. The fear thats I do have is losing hours and hours of work. We do back ups nightly on our machines because of this. When working as SU, I also have fears. Fears like I might type in the wrong device name when making a new file system on a disk. This causes me to be very careful, and to review each command line before hitting return. Recently we got one of the new Vaxstation 2000s, and I put Ultrix on it. I found out that the floppy disk drive was called rx. So I wanted to back up some info on it. I said "tar cv /dev/rrx0a". It so happens that DEC, inspite of labeling their hard drives "rd", also label them "rx", so rx0a was really rd0a. Needless to say it destroyed the root file system. I managed to destroy the root file system again when trying to boot from a floppy I created. The floppy had enough on it to load to a certain point. All I wanted to do was to see if it would work. There must have been something in rom that it triggered, and the computer wrote on the hard drive. If we didn't have to borrow a MicroVax to build the system with, I wouldn't really care. I now fear that anything I might do, might destroy the root file system. Thus I will limit the activities I will do on that machine. That is until we get a better way to rebuild the OS. Mark [We're moving a bit off subject here, so can we try to tie it back in with the original discussion, please? -- Dave]
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (04/20/87)
Mark Edwards writes: > Absence of fear, perhaps plays some part, but only on a basic level. > For instance, while I was a computer technician working on high > voltage display tubes I had a big fear of getting zapped. This fear > was a healthy fear, because it made me make sure I took of my watch > and any other jewelry that would attract electrons. The only problem here is that your fear of get shocked had a very real basis. For most people who fear computers this is not the case. I work as a consultant on the campus network. While I do occationally get questions from experianced users who need to know some fine or obscure detail of the system, most of the people I help are new users with little or no knowledge of computers. The biggest single problem that most of them have is an irrational fear or distrust of the machine. In turn, most of this fear is simply due to the fact that it is something new to them. They jump when it beeps at them because they feel that it is yelling at them, they are afraid that they will mess something up, ect, ect. Helping them overcome this fear is basically a matter of boosting their confidence. No, it's not yelling at you, it's asking you for help. You can't mess anything up at this point, and so on. Showing and explaining that it isn't some monster out to trick them and eat their grade, but a tool to be used helps to remove some of that fear. As for the general discussion, I do think that this fear is a very big part of the difference between the computer literate and the computer illiterate. Once they start to overcome this fear there are still steps to go through. On a pragmatic basis, I draw the line at the point where people start using the online or printed manuals first before they come running to a more experianced user or consultant for help. At that point they have developed enough self-confidence and knowledge of the system to further their own knowledge. I think that this really is a form of literacy. Learning to understand a manual page definately requires a knowledge of an other language (especially a CMS help file :-). In addition, simply coming to understand the syntax of a system's commands is a language skill. I have had considerable success simply explaining that a command is a verb, sometimes it requires an object (the filename or pathname) and that the options are adverbs. The only real problem is that most (all?) operating systems that I am experianced with have the modifiers (the adverbs) separated from the verb and following it. This seems illogical to most English speakers when they first encounter it, since English uses pre-positions in most cases. Does anyone have experiance with teaching users whose first language is predominately post-positional? Do they find it easier to understand, say, UNIX command structure? Vnend