Eric Kilian

11/22/96

Sauer

76-100M

When one mentions the term "computer literacy," the meaning of said term is not always clear. As the term "literacy" has dozens of meanings, so it springs forth that "computer literacy," as well, has at least as many. There are those people such as Professor Charles R. McClure who suggest that the term "computer literacy" implies a different sort of literacy than that which we are used to. There are those such as William Costanzo who hold that computers are changing the very face of literacy as we know it. And there are also those such as Patricia Kuntz, who seem to suggest that while the definition of literacy remain at the status quo, it is computers which are greatly enhancing our desire and ability to become literate. This paper will attempt to delve into the many variations on the topic of "computer literacy" and determine that which is the best.

To many of us, "computer literacy" implies familiarity with the appearance and workings of computers. "Computer literacy" is to a certain extent an extension of literacy itself, a whole new brand of "literacy." Rather than concerning itself with language and the learning of such, it concerns programs found on the computer. As opposed to a language, in which one is said to be literate when one has mastered the reading and writing of said language, computer literacy and the programs it encompasses are on a much broader spectrum. Computer literacy, in this school of thought, is said to be a sort of extension of "traditional" literacy; according to Professor Charles R. McClure, computer literacy is "requiring that individuals can complete basic tasks on a computer such as word processing, creating and manipulating data on a spreadsheet, or using other types of software" (McClure 117). This is somewhat of a far cry from the more traditional definitions of literacy. In this school of thought, perhaps we can generalize and say that the term "literacy" implies familiarity, rather than reading and writing skills of a particular language, as it was once thought of. This is further illustrated when McClure refers to the term "network literacy", which he holds is different from the aforementioned "computer literacy". McClure holds that people need traditional literacy, technical literacy (computer literacy), media literacy, and, finally, network literacy (McClure 118). According to McClure, this "network literacy" builds off of the three previous literacies. So, obviously, the term literacy does not always refer to a language, but in some cases a familiarity with the workings of a certain subject. Computer literacy, therefore, can be seen as a sort of familiarity with the workings of computers, their software, and their many capabilities.

There is another school of thought, one not directly related to the first but indirectly. The term computer literacy to this school might otherwise be thought of as computer-assisted literacy, as the main path of thinking here is that computers promote literacy as we know it. As opposed to the first, which feel that computer literacy is an entirely different path of thought than literacy, and the last, which feel that computers are revolutionizing the field of literacy, the middle is exactly that, somewhere in the middle of the two. A glaring example of this school of thought is found in Patricia S. Kuntz's study of SWAHILI-L, an electronic mailing list whose purpose is to encourage the development, maintaining, and teaching of literacy in Swahili, an African language. The study suggests that this list should serve as a model for those who would wish to promote literacy in other, uncommon African languages (Kuntz 255). Indeed, this would seem to be a boon to the school of thought. Computers, while not possessing a "literacy" of their own, do succeed in simplifying the task of encouraging widespread literacy in a variety of languages.

Then there is the revolutionary school of thought, one displayed most prominently by William Costanzo, who believe that literacy itself is changing because of computers. Costanzo brings to the forefront a variety of theories, among them the fact that electronic text differs considerably from everyday physical texts in a variety of ways. Mr. Costanzo goes so far as to say "computers are altering the way many of us read, write, and even think" (Costanzo 11). In general, this school believes that computers are in the process of changing the forefront of literacy. Still using the traditional definition of literacy, this school goes on to say that it is this traditional definition that is changing, due to the everyday influence of computers. The processes of reading and writing are being altered.

Now, when examining the three schools of thought, one immediately sees that they differ from each other considerably. The first emphasizes computer programs, the second everyday "literacy," and the third a revolutionized literacy. Among the three, I would take issue with Mr. Costanzo's statement that computers alter the way we think, read, and write (Costanzo 11). Although it may alter the medium on which we perform said actions, I hardly think it can be said that our thought processes are changing as computers develop in the everyday world. Perhaps it can be said that our thought processes adapt to the idea of seeing text on a screen, and being able to move it at will. However, I think really, the idea of computers and textual communication is one of increased efficiency, not revolution. Costanzo states "An electronic text always seems open to change. And because no permanent copies need be made of any version, computers blur the boundaries between drafts" (Costanzo 14). I might take issue with this statement. After all, the act of revising on a computer is analogous to crossing out and inserting hand-written text into a hand-written document. The difference is in the speed with which this action can be performed. With regard to computers in general: yes, we can move text at will, and receive e-mail in minutes that would have taken days or weeks before the advent of computers. Yes, text on the computer is not fixated in any given fashion (except, it would seem, the limitations of the screen before us, which can only display so much text at once). And yet, all this seems to point to one thing: increased speed. It is most obvious with the phenomenon of e-mail. Precisely the same as writing a letter, except it is any number of times faster than regular mail. So much so that folks familiar with the ways of computers often refer to said regular mail as "snail mail." The outlining and editing processes simplified to such a degree on the computer as opposed to horribly complex and wasteful procedures on a physical medium, I think, again point to the idea of efficiency rather than change. We are still doing almost precisely the same thing, just much faster than would have been done otherwise. Costanzo also states that the very nature of writing on a computer tends to make it a more social experience (Costanzo 14). Here I might tend to agree with him. However, he also says that "electronic texts have no set boundaries" (Costanzo 12). The idea of text on the screen having no boundaries I find to be pure foolery. When one is reading an electronic document, one still has to page down through the material, much as one would when reading a book. Yes, you can skip down any number of lines, but, one could do precisely the same thing with a book…it would just take longer. Again, we come back to the idea of efficiency. So, if we relegate Mr. Costanzo's argument to one of efficiency, we are left with the two other schools of thought. These two are so radically different as to negate any possibility of combination. "Literacy," in the terms that the first school uses it, is being used to describe familiarity with a broad range of topics, whereas literacy in the second sense is dealing rather with the common perception of literacy. No real argument can be made to deny the first school its assumption, save that perhaps the term "literacy" is being applied incorrectly. Literacy, in the common definition, or "traditional literacy", is an ability to read, write, and speak a certain language. In the terms of this school of thought, however, literacy in the definition of "computer literacy" means a sort of familiarity with computers, their programs and software, and their capabilities. There is an extreme conflict between these two definitions. After careful consideration, I would most likely say the second "metaphor" is the most likely of the three. Computers do promote and enhance literacy, through this efficiency phenomenon we spoke of earlier. Perhaps we should relegate the first school to a standing of "computer knowledge," or something of the like, rather than comparing it to the concept of literacy. Thus, in conclusion, it can be said that the first and the last schools of thought assign characteristics to the term literacy that simply are not present. The first school of thought holds that literacy can be used to describe familiarity, which is not necessarily the case, and the last school of thought has some inherent misgivings about the way computers in general have affected literacy. The second school of thought seems the most feasible, and seems to be the most accurate representation as to what computers can do regarding literacy. That is, they promote literacy due to their unparalleled efficiency.

1. Idea taken from Scribner's Literacy in Three Metaphors

Scribner, S. (1984). 'Literacy in Three Metaphors.' American Journal of Education, 93, 6-21.

Costanzo, William. "Reading, Writing, and Thinking in an Age of Electronic Literacy"

Kuntz, Patricia. (1994). 'Swahili-L: The Internet Promotes Literacy.' Computers and Education, 24, 3-177.

McClure, Charles R. (1994). 'Network Literacy: A Role for Libraries?' Information Technology and Libraries, 13, 115-25.

Shashaani, Lily. (1995). 'Gender-Differences in Computer Experience and Its Influence on Computer Attitudes.' Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11, 4-347.