1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
|
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Stop Saying ``Computer Literacy''!</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<H1>Stop Saying ``Computer Literacy''!</H1>
<CITE>Brian Harvey<BR>University of California, Berkeley</CITE>
<P>[A version of this paper was published in <EM>Classroom Computer
News</EM> in 1983.]
<P>As computers become more widely used in schools, educators have invented
many different ways to use them. The different uses for computers
are based on quite diverse models of what the purposes of computer
education should be. One very common approach is based on the notion
of ``computer literacy'': the idea that there is some basic familiarity
with computers which <EM>all</EM> students need in order to compete in
the job market, or to be informed citizens. The purpose of this paper
is to question whether that notion is valid.
<H2>The Importance of Metaphor</H2>
<P>Several educators have questioned the specific details of particular
``literacy'' plans, while accepting the overall concept. ``Computer
literacy doesn't mean X,'' they say, ``it means Y.'' For example,
Arthur Luehrmann says, ``[C]omputer literacy must also mean the ability
to <EM>do</EM> computing, and not merely to recognize, identify, or be
aware of alleged facts about computing.'' (Luehrmann, 1981) His
argument is that a computer curriculum should give students actual
programming experience, not just reading about computers in a book.
But Luehrmann accepts the concept of computer literacy itself, the
idea that there is <EM>something</EM> which every student must learn.
He questions only the details of just what this something is.
<P>What I would like to do is call into question the claim that there
is anything about computers which belongs in the school experience
of <EM>every</EM> student. I agree with Luehrmann that programming can
be a valuable experience. But the word ``literacy'' means more than
that; it means that everyone must have the experience in order to
be able to function at all in society.
<P>Many people, hearing me make this argument, have complained that it
is foolish to argue about a word. ``Call it something else,
then, and let's get on with deciding what it should be.'' This complaint
misses the point, and indeed could be said to prove the point. People
who have become accustomed to the ``literacy'' idea find it very difficult
even to entertain the question of whether there is any universally
required computer experience.
<P>The trouble is that the word ``literacy'' is a magic word, which conjures
up a very strong metaphor. Literacy in its original sense, knowing
how to read, really <EM>is</EM> universally required in our society.
Any educator who suggested eliminating reading from the curriculum
would be laughed at, if not tarred and feathered. Merely to say the
phrase ``computer literacy'' definitively answers a question which
has not explicitly been asked. It's like the classic ``When
did you stop beating your wife,'' but harder to recognize because
it is so widely used.
<P>One practical result of the literacy metaphor is that many decisions about
computer education have been made in a kind of panic. Parents call up the
school committee to ask why their children are not being trained for the
vital computer job skill. These parents may not know just what that skill
is, and neither does the school committee. But they do know that the
private school down the road has computers.
<H2>What Everyone Needs to Know</H2>
<P>It's quite true that more and more jobs involve the use of computers.
That's different from saying that these jobs involve computer
<EM>expertise</EM>. Let's look at some examples.
<P>A good example of a computer-using job
is that of selling hamburgers at McDonald's.
That machine behind the counter which looks like a cash register is
actually a computer terminal. When you order a Quarter-pounder with
cheese, instead of ringing up whatever the price is, the counter person
pushes a button which says ``Quarter-pounder with cheese.''
The computer displays the price, but it also keeps track of how many
of this item are sitting under the heat lamps. If they're running
short, the computer tells the cooks in the back to make more. The
same computer can tell the manager to buy more hamburger buns at the
right time. It's a pretty sophisticated system, and helps make McDonald's
a low-overhead operation.
<P>Now, what does the person behind the McDonald's counter need to know
about computers? He only needs to know that when you ask for a
Quarter-pounder with cheese, he should push the button which says
``Quarter-pounder with cheese.'' That's it. Nothing about input
unit, output unit, processor, and memory; nothing about programming
either.
<P>Perhaps a more common example is that of computer word processing.
The word processor involves a much more intimate interaction with
the computer than selling hamburgers. Still, the manufacturers of
word processing systems take pains to <EM>hide</EM> the computer, to
make the way you operate the machine as much as possible like operating
an ordinary typewriter. What skills does a word processing operator
need? For the most part, exactly the same skills a secretary needed
before word processing: good spelling and punctuation, touch typing,
being able to read the boss's handwriting. What the computer adds
is mostly a matter of pushing the ``paragraph'' button instead of
the carriage return and the tab.
<P>There are more specifically computer-related skills, of course, like
threading the fanfold paper into the printer. But that's the sort
of thing which is done differently for each specific model, and which
is part of a very specific job training program. It isn't what you'd
teach in a ``computer literacy'' course for everyone.
<P>Perhaps the point really is that there are too many <EM>different</EM>
computer-related skills to teach all of them to every student. Using
a spreadsheet program, for example, is very different from using a
word processor. Using a microprocessor-controlled automobile engine
tester is very different from either. Neither ``this is the return
key'' nor actual programming will help much with any of those job
activities.
<H2>An Analogy</H2>
<P>Virtually everyone in our society deals with automobiles. Each of
us would do well to know about what goes on under the hood, and many
people do. But many don't, and they function okay. When the car
breaks down, they call the AAA. Some people drive in unusual conditions,
far from help, and those people may need to be self-reliant in the
field of automobile repair. But it would be silly to require an auto
mechanics course for every student. It would be even sillier to require
an ``automobile literacy'' course in which students read about cars
without using one. Many students do find driver training worthwhile,
but even that isn't required. Some people don't drive; some grow
up on farms and start driving tractors long before the official driver
training age; some are taught by their parents.
<H2>Reasons for Computer Literacy</H2>
<P>I think the notion of computer literacy grew up in the first place
as an accident of history, because of the great speed with which computers
have become important. Curriculum developers are, by and large, 30
or 40 or 50 years old. They grew up in a world without computers.
Suddenly, they have had to face up to a shocking change in the very
nature of the world around them. In inventing computer literacy courses,
they have designed a curriculum <EM>for themselves</EM>, not for the
kids who have grown up with Pacman, automated bank tellers, and bar
code readers in the supermarket.
<P>Another, more sophisticated reason is a confusion about the role of
education in social mobility. Many people think that by learning
to program computers one can get a good job. The problem with this
idea is that what works for a few people stops working when everyone
does it. Many years ago, hardly anyone had a high school diploma.
Those who did have one could get the cream of the jobs. A few decades
ago, about half the population of the United States graduated from
high school. They didn't get the very best jobs--by then, you needed
a <EM>college</EM> diploma for that--but they did get decent and fairly
secure jobs. Now, almost everyone has a high school diploma, and
it's worthless.
<P>Similarly, the day of the matchbook-cover computer school as the route
to riches is already over. There are many openings for computer programmers,
but the jobs go to people with Computer Science doctorates, preferably
with experience. There is still room for the programming entrepreneur,
but the people who succeed in that role are not the product of computer
literacy courses. They are computer enthusiasts who do it <EM>because it's
fun</EM>, not because it's homework.
<P>I believe that the effect of the ``computer literacy'' movement will
be the opposite of what is intended. In the early days, when very
few schools offered such courses, their alumni really did have a competitive
edge in the job market. But as we approach the day when every school
offers ``literacy'' courses, a day eagerly sought by those who believe
in the literacy metaphor, there will be more ``literates'' than jobs.
Those who have taken the courses won't find easy jobs. But those
who <EM>haven't</EM> taken the courses will be completely out of luck.
Ironically, the literacy metaphor will become self-fulfilling, not
because there is any real need for such training, but because employers
will start demanding it as a filter for job applicants, just as there
is no <EM>real</EM> basis for requiring a high school diploma for many
jobs today.
<P>It used to be that computer companies like IBM ran their own training
program for their employees. A friend of my family was a high school
dropout who was hired by IBM as a keypunch operator, and through IBM's
training courses learned to program. She is now a very successful
senior programmer. That sort of opportunity isn't available any more;
you need both a diploma and data processing experience to get hired
at IBM. The poor and the black, who are disproportionately high school
dropouts, will find one more barrier to employment as ``computer literacy''
joins the list of school subjects which some people pass and some
fail.
<H2>Another Analogy</H2>
<P>For a moment, forget about the idea of survival skills, like reading,
and think instead about the high school newspaper. Some kids work
on the newspaper and some don't. For those who do, it is an incredibly
valuable experience. The value is <EM>not</EM> realized only for those
students who go on to become professional journalists. Everyone who
participates learns writing skills, critical thinking skills, and
the subtler skills of meeting deadlines, getting the job done, depending
on themselves instead of on some adult. I would recommend the experience
to any young person.
<P>But those who don't join the newspaper staff aren't unemployable.
There are other ways to learn the same skills. Also, some people
may not learn those skills at all, but may learn different skills,
in a different setting, perhaps even out of school.
<P>Now imagine that for some reason there grew up a national movement
for ``journalism literacy.'' Need I describe the results? Aside
from the economic and political disaster I've already mentioned, the
quality of the newspapers themselves would go down. The learning
experience would become a much less valuable one, intrinsically, job
status aside.
<H2>So What Should We Be Doing?</H2>
<P>If computer literacy is the wrong idea, what's the right idea?
<P>One right idea, I think, is suggested by the newspaper analogy. The
computer can be an appealing medium for learning for some students,
without being forced upon every student. Computers are a general-purpose
tool; they may appeal to different students in different ways. One
student may like graphics and animation. Another may like electronic
mail. Another may prefer video games. The architecture and scheduling
of a computer facility should encourage all these diverse uses.
<P>Another right idea is to make the computer available to students as
a serious tool, in their lives <EM>right now</EM>, not as something they'll
need later. Probably the most important example of this approach
is word processing. Students have to write many papers, for English
teachers, history teachers, and so on. Word processing can make the
mechanics of this task much easier, encouraging second drafts. Instead
of setting up a required course, try just letting students know that
this facility is available to them if they want it. But provide enough
printers to handle the load!
<P>Finally, for students who are interested, the computer can be valuable
not as narrow job training, but as a medium for developing problem-solving
skills. It can also be a medium for developing independence, since
not every student need be doing the same programming project at the
same time. This educational use of computer <EM>programming</EM> is
the central idea behind the Logo approach to computer education
(Papert, 1980).
<H2>Conclusion</H2>
<P>What's in a name? A great deal, when the name brings in a strong
hidden assumption about the sociology and economics of the job market.
``Computer literacy'' implies some skill or knowledge which is
necessary for every person to be able to cope with the computer-centered
society. This implication leads to certain specific policy decisions
about computer education; for example, it leads to spreading out the
available computer time (of which there is never enough) among a very
large number of students, some of whom aren't interested. The ones
who <EM>are</EM> interested then don't get enough time to pursue their
interest in any meaningful way.
<P>The model implied by the literacy metaphor is false. There are
<EM>no</EM> universally valuable computer skills, or universally important
facts about computers. Changing the definition of ``computer literacy''
to contain more programming experience, or more study of social implications,
or more study of binary numbers, is missing the point.
<P>The bad drives out the good. As more and more schools adopt the ``literacy''
metaphor, other schools are under terrible pressure to go along.
The day will come when the metaphor becomes self-fulfilling. To prevent
that, we must decide explicitly to reject this model
for computer education.
<H2>References</H2>
<P>Luehrmann, Arthur. "Computer Literacy--What Should It Be?"
<CITE>The Mathematics Teacher</CITE> vol 74 no 9, Dec 1981.
<P>Papert, Seymour. <CITE>Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas</CITE>
Basic Books, 1980.
<P><ADDRESS>
<A HREF="index.html"><CODE>www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh</CODE></A>
</ADDRESS>
</BODY>
</HTML>
|