Ken Kwalik

Argument 76-100 o

Geoff Sauer

5/2/97

Defining How Literacy and

"Computer Literacy" are to be Taught

To avoid this waste of precious little school funds, we must start over in our analysis of exactly what the term "computer literacy" means when people say it should be taught. The term itself is critically flawed-much like the term "literacy," it is difficult to assume a standard for computer skills when the term is used. (Scribner, 71, McMillan 161) Alone, the term "literacy" is difficult to define, as it is a term that can be subdivided into other, more specific divisions like cultural literacy, functional literacy, scientific literacy, but yet can never really be clearly and universally defined in itself. (McMillan 162) Based on the ideas of several authors, the point of this paper is to strive to develop a good definition of literacy, one which can then be clearly characterized into further divisions detailing certain levels of literate abilities, and in turn develop a definition of computer literacy. With such definitions, we can be clear and specific in regards to discussing issues relating to computers, literacy, and other related topics. We can eliminate the vagueness of the statement "we should teach computer literacy." In this way we will be able to propose better ways and lay a groundwork for how to approach "computer literacy" in school.

In Seamus McMillan's essay "Literacy and Computer Literacy: Definitions and Comparisons," he proposes an alternative to the traditional terms of literacy and computer literacy. McMillan says that both terms simply are unable to "accommodate" such a wide range of possible meanings, which is reason for the misunderstanding and lack of clarity associated with the terms. Both terms, he says, demand "ruthless clarity" (McMillan 164).

McMillan says the terms can be renamed into categories of letteracy, (in respect to literacy) and comperacy (in respect to computer literacy). McMillan notes that there are still more breakdowns of the original terms, but they are mostly "broader, socio-political" areas of definition. (McMillan 164) The "new" terms of letteracy and comperacy serve the purpose of breaking down the actual function of being literate into distinguishable descriptions of different levels. From here, "Öthe subsequent development of taxonomies of literacy and computer literacy could be used to further define the interrelationships of these various elements." (McMillan 164)

First we will look at letteracy. McMillan's breaks down letteracy into Systematic letteracy, Situational letteracy, Operational letteracy, Principal letteracy, and lastly, Jargon letteracy. (McMillan 164) A brief description, taken from p. 166 of McMillan's essay, is as follows:

Systemic Letteracy: Physiologically capable of acquiring at least one other level of letteracy.

Situational Letteracy: Confident in the use of spoken native language but unable to read or write.

Operational Letteracy: Able to read and write in one's native language.

Principal Letteracy: Able to read and write in the primary language of one's country of residence.

Jargon Letteracy: Able to read and write in a specialized sub-vocabulary of the primary language of one's country of residence, which pertains to a particular area of expertise, and that would not be used or understood by those without that expertise. Examples of such sub-vocabularies might include medical terminology, the terminology of computer operations (RAM, ROM, etc.), tax accounting, etc. (McMillan 166)

McMillan then defines his various forms of comperacy, listed as follows from page 167:

Systemic Comperacy: Physically and cognitively capable of acquiring at least one other level of comperacy.

Situational Comperacy: Can perform simple data entry functions (text or numbers). Unable to respond to system error messages but can re-enter data in response to a message declaring the last entry invalid. Has no knowledge of internal computer operations.

Operational Comperacy: Can work confidently with at least one interface and operating system (e.g. Macintosh, DOS, Windows, UNIX, etc.). Able to respond appropriately to most system error messages generated in the particular operating system.

Principal Comperacy: Able to handle computer management tasks such as back-ups, network file transfers, disk formatting, optimization and repair and related functions.

Application Comperacy: Able to work confidently in several application programs; for example a word processing application and a spreadsheet program. (McMillan 167)

This structure is vital in our discussion of literacy and computer literacy. These terms provide us with definite classifications of abilities. Discussion of new plans and their objectives can be much more detailed and specific. McMillan importantly notes "Öthat the relationship between comperacy and letteracy will also continue to evolve over time as comperacy becomes less and less dependent on pre-existing letteracy skills." (McMillan 169) So while interfaces and inputs change over time, educators can adapt to them. Computers are a rapidly changing medium; schools must change with them.

Now that we have a foundation to refer to, it's time to take a look at what people are doing in education about letteracy and comperacy. Norman Weston and John H. Ingram, in "Whole Language and Technology: Opposites, or Opposites in Harmony?" talk of a future classroom in which sixth grade children can put together information on an Australian animal, put together movie clips and edit them with music, and publish this report on the web. (Weston & Ingram, 83) They talk of how President Clinton stressed that children must become "literate in the 'new literacies' of technology." (Weston & Ingram, 84) They say that English teachers should forge what they want to teach with the concepts that the business world wants from its future employees, stressing on the need to synthesize materials, create, and apply information and knowledge, and communicate effectively. (Weston & Ingram, 89) Creative learning, learning aided by the teacher but mostly driven by the student's curiosity and creativity, is what Weston & Ingram say will bring about an ability to problem-solve for the real world.

Weston & Ingram propose very nice-looking, idealistic plans for what the benefits are of computers and the worldwide web, and what the potential can be. Well prepared, they might be able to raise eyebrows, and possibly even some small funding for their ideas. But the practical side is often ignored in proposals such as these. In Wayne M. Carroll's "Technology and Teachers' Curricular Orientations," the practical side is brought out. He states clearly in his introduction that while computer prices (microcomputers in particular) have gone down considerably, and use of computers has increased dramatically, computers have made minimal impact on schools-"Öthe instructional impact of the microcomputer is still only marginal in most schools." (Carroll 66) One of Carroll's reasons for this view is the pure purchasing of the computer hardware and software. He makes the point that many schools do not have enough money to get the needed technology, or update it when it needs updating. Some schools buy the latest technology, but without much thinking-they buy first, then look for ways to incorporate the technology into the curriculum. (Carroll 67) Buying something because you think you may need it does not ensure its actual use. Carroll stresses that teachers will often then be stuck with this equipment and told to teach with it, with no understanding of the process behind the technology. The focus instead is on just the product-the software and hardware, and it is difficult to learn from this point of view. (Carroll 67)

Before technology is shoved into classrooms, Carroll suggests that educators first question what is worth teaching, what are the objectives and goals, and how can the technology available to us get us closer to these goals? The answer to these questions, he says, are often answered by one of three schools of thought-the traditionalist, the experimentalist, and the mainstream social behaviorists. (Carroll 68-69) The traditionalist is more focused on old tradition, classic works of art and literature, and places little or no emphasis on computer technology. The experimentalist is the radical opposite-in favor of doing all but making the teacher an accessory to the role of the computer as the student's mentor, as the primary goal of their system is to figure out the special talents and interests of students and focus on those. The social behaviorist represents sort of a middle ground. This group tries to teach what they feel is a good compromise between what employers want, what parents want, and what regulating officials (such as boards of education) want. Carroll stresses that this group has its roots in traditionalist means of teaching, but that they are also the best "fertile ground" for education that incorporates technology. Their greatest obstacle, he says, are the administrators (the local state boards), whom hinder experimentation and creativity due to the stress and importance of state objectives, which normally reflect whatever it takes to get higher standardized test scores, thus making the schools look better and this in turn increases the property values of the local homeowners. (Carroll 70) Politics definitely play a part here. Often, hard numbers are the only thing that gets noticed by the people in power, as pointed out by Carroll: "I fear that improving the quality of education for students has become confused with efforts to raise test scores, as if the latter necessarily represents the former." (Carroll 70)

Carroll offers suggestions to making teaching comperacy work. He says that the key is to "emphasize increased efficiency and effectiveness." (Carrol 71) Some possibilities would be to have texts and other needed materials placed on disks, thus eliminating the cost of consistently replacing old, worn, and outdated texts. He suggests that computing could be accessible to all students but at their own pace, with individual help from teachers in a central location that allows for opportunity and exploration in various areas by students, and teachers would be there to aid, without the "Ösheer weight of the bureaucratic institutions in which they work." (Carroll 71) He even suggests future technologies such as virtual reality could eliminate the need for traditional labs. Programs could be set up with colleges that give teachers not only the knowledge of a particular new application or program, but the help they need to integrate the technology into their particular curriculum and get results. This can be done through summer sessions. Overall, Carroll believes that the entire approach should be teacher-centered-"Ömeeting the teachers on their own ground, accepting their curricular orientations, and working with them to discover and implement the possibilities of technologyÖ" (Carroll 72) This approach, admitting certain difficulties, yet working with them and focusing on implementing the technology to smoothly fit the curriculum, is the kind of approach more educators must take. It is a major part of the correct approach toward technological integration-it focuses not just on the wonder of technology but on its practical implementation, so more funky screen-savers aren't the only thing we see.

Van E. Cooley echoes some of the concerns discussed by Carroll in his essay, "Technology: Building success through Teacher Empowerment." Cooley strikes somewhat the same tune when he says "The flashiest technological bells and whistles will not be heard if educators do not know how or are not motivated to use them." (Cooley 73) Cooley uses some hard facts as well, citing a recent study done by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in which it was determined that there were over 5.8 million computers in schools today, a figure that comes out to one computer for every nine students. (Cooley 73) However, the study said that the computers were often used only for purposes such as word processing, videos, and routine drills. (Cooley 73) Very little attention was given to desktop publishing, CD-ROM operation, email, or simulations, Cooley says. The conclusion was that "a lack of vision and confusion over the goals of technology resulted in increased teacher frustration." (Cooley 73) Cooley's main point is that building a technological base on which to teach children comperacy skills not only takes money (of course) but a common understanding and networking of everyone involved in the process-teachers, boards, administrators, etc. Organizational goals must be understood by everyone. (Cooley 73) Furthermore, Cooley tends to echo Carroll again by stressing the empowerment of teachers through "transformational leadership." Since teachers are the ones that will be interacting directly with the equipment, they must be the ones with the most influence as to decision making regarding the technology and the curriculum. He illustrates his point when he talks about the Westfield (Indiana) School District's implementation of "one of the most sophisticated technological platforms in the country." The platform included such advances as VCR's, still video players, 35mm slide projectors, filmstrip projectors, CD-I players, computers with CD-ROM drives, and satellite programs. (Cooley 74) However, the technology sadly went unused for the simple reasons of teachers and administrators not being on the same levels. This is why Cooley stresses a different organizational structure that emphasizes the empowerment of teachers through training and other programs. Above all, there has to be a clear incorporation of the teacher into the entire process, for that is the key to true implementation and eventually, results. Cooley follows the theme of organization, teacher empowerment, communication, and planning into his conclusion, where he sums up simply, "The human infrastructure is more important than the technological infrastructure." (Cooley 77) Cooley's essay brings up to us the critical view that technology is useless without the backup of the people who actually do the teaching-this, often due to the political reasons discussed earlier, can be easy to forget at times when numbers, results, and flashy potential is all that is stressed. We must never forget the aspect of the teacher.

More of an overarching theme is reflected in William E. Drugger, Jr.'s essay "Technology for All Americans: Providing a Vision for Technological Literacy." In his introduction Drugger asks what computer skills will every American need to know for everyday living, and how to teach these skills in school. (Drugger 97) He says the answers can be found in the TAA (Technology for All Americans) project's report. The TAA is a federally funded commission whos purpose it is to "develop a direction and a plan for the future of technology education." (Drugger 97) The focus here is all-encompassing, aiming at levels from K-12. The terms, such as technological literacy, are rather vague-"the ability to use, manage, and understand technology"-but the point of the TAA attempting to set broad standards is understood. (Drugger 98) Part of the proposal's standards is the requirement of technology as a subject at all levels. The focus is on the "universals" of technology, on all processes from the design and development to actual use. The suggestions outlined in the report are not curriculum requirements, however, they are merely a framework how school systems should begin to change their curriculum. According to Drugger, the TAA exists to provide standards for schools to achieve as they integrate more technology and computer based themes into their curriculum. The TAA, in essence, can serve as a benchmark in education.

After reading the different opinions and stances of just a very few of the many opinions on this subject, the first answer to the question of how to teach comperacy in schools would seem to be the old clichÈ--very carefully. There are so many things to consider when discussing education, especially when dealing with such a complex and changing subject such as computer skills. But it can no doubt be done, with attention to detail. Using new terms such as comperacy and letteracy, national organizations such as the TAA can set broad standards that reflect forward thinking designed to bring our everyday citizens to a new level. On state and local board levels, the officials can help to further set guidelines according to local conditions and circumstances. And then, within the schools, teachers, principals, and administrators can work with the budgets they have to develop curricula that will not only reflect the goal of forwarding comperacy skills overall, but that are feasible within the limitations of the classroom, and the letteracy abilities of the students of the class. Focus should intense on the teacher's input. Exactly what comperacy levels are to be taught are to be determined by the school as a whole which then deals with teaching this level to the children depending on the students level of letteracy, and the available technology, using extensive contact with teachers and faculty. A strong network of communication among all involved is crucial. All in all, with careful analysis, input from everyone, (in particular the teachers) detailed objectives using clear terminology that specifies certain levels for different student bodies, and national standards, we can approach our goals of significantly increasing our comperacy levels among the next generation. Flashy potential, the thrills of high technology, and excessive spending will not give us anything. Putting all the themes together, we can say that only with clear objectives, active participation of all involved, and careful attention to detail can we achieve our goals, and truly give our children the opportunity to gain a good sense of comperacy.

Works Cited: