Computers in the Schools

Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research

ISSN: 0738-0569 (Print) 1528-7033 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcis20

Computer Literacy for the 1990s:

Betty Collis & Ron Anderson

To cite this article: Betty Collis & Ron Anderson (1994) Computer Literacy for the 1990s:,
Computers in the Schools, 11:2, 55-72, DOI: 10.1300/J025v11n02_06

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J025v11n02_06

Published online: 18 Oct 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wcis20

Download by: [University of Kentucky Libraries] Date: 11 June 2016, At: 14:46
 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY:
ISSUES AND INNOVATIONS
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 14:46 11 June 2016

Computer Literacy for the 1990s:

Theoretical Issues
for an International Assessment

COMPUTER LITERACY AM) THE COMPED STUDY

For over two decades there has been a conviction in education
that students should acquire some kind of information about and
skills with computers. In 1970, for example, IFIP, the International
Federation for Information Processing, called for all students and
teachers to participate in a "computer appreciation course" (Lewis
& Tagg, 1988, pp. II-7-11-11). In 1972 a similar broad-scale recom-
mendation was made within the USA for a junior-secondary school
course in computer literacy, defmed as an understanding of comput-
er capabilities, applications, and algorithms (Conference Board of
Mathematical Sciences, 1972). In 1978, Molnar's calling U.S. stu-
dents' lack of computer literacy a-national crisis" helped to stirnu-

BETTY COLLIS, Faculty of Educational Science and Technology, University of

Twente, Postbus 217,7500 AE Enschede, Netherlands.
RON ANDERSON is Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Minne-
sota, 948 Social Sciences Building, 267# 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN
55455.
Computers in the Schools, Vol. ll(2) 1994
O 1994 by The Hawonh press, Inc. All rights reserved 55
 56 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS

late a wave of debate about what should be happening with comput-

ers in schools and how well or how little it was happening.
Throughout the world, educators tried to find appropriate defini-
- - -

tions of computer literacy and develop strategies to measure how

much of it their students had. By 1980, interest in the topic was
intense enough throughout the United States to stimulate the Na-
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 14:46 11 June 2016

tional Science Foundation "to support a conference on computer

literacy in an attempt to identify issues, considerations, and barriers
to developing a national goal for achieving a computer-literate soci-
ety in the United States" (Deringer & Molnar, 1982, pp. 3-4).
The COMPED (Computers in Education) Study began in 1987 as
a major intemational study asking the questions: "How should new
information technologies be introduced in education, and to what
degree are the expected effects of policies actually being realized in
educational practice?" The Study, a project of IEA (the Intemation-
,a1 Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement), has
completed its fust stage, in which data from over 70,000 respon-
dents in 21 educational systems throughout the world have been
used to give an intemational overview of what is happening with
computers in schools (Pelgrum & Plomp, 1991). Teachers, comput-
er coordinators, and school principals were the foci of the first
stage. The second stage of COMPED is now under way (1991-1994)
and, in addition to the groups studied in Stage 1, also includes a
specific focus on students. What are students around the world
learning with respect to computers? What skills are they acquiring?
Are they computer literate? -
We have worked with the team asking this question within
COMPED Stage 2. To deal with the task, we have had to look
carefully at what it means to be computer literate in the 1990s. We
have had to consider if being computer literate has the same mean-
ing for students in different counties and cultures. We have helped
develop a test that can be used cross-culturally (presently, 13 coun-
tries are participating in COMPED Stage 2) to measwe students'
computer-related knowledge, skills, and insights. To do this, we
have had to look backward, to examine how computer literacy has
been measured in students during the last 15 years. Even more
fundamentally, we have had to think carefully about the goals of
education with respect to student computer use in schools.
 Educational Technology: Issues and Innovations 57

We discuss this in more detail elsewhere (Anderson & Collis,

1992); in this article we summarize what we see as some of the
main issues and ideas with respect to students and computer literacy
in the 1990s and reflect on the international applicability of the new
set of objectives for computer literacy articulated in the context of
Stage 2 of the COMPED study.
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 14:46 11 June 2016

RATIONALES FOR COMPUTERS IN EDUCATION

Before we can measure student achievement with respect to com-
puter literacy, we have to clarify the question, Achievement relative
to what goals? We also have to delimit our focus. By computers we
include all environments in which a computer is an integrated part,
thus now including "multimedia" and systems including cornrnu-
nications media, as weU as stand-alone computer units (Such a
broader focus would be called "information technology" in many
countries). By education, we here narrow our focus to elementary
and secondary schools. By computer literacy, we mean understand-
ings and skills directly relating to computers (in the broad sense as
described above) rather than skill development in other areas (math-
ematics, language, science, etc.), through the mediation of comput-
er use.
Within this framework of "computers in education" we need to
think about the rationales motivating computer use in an education-
al system before we can have a basis for measuring student comput-
er literacy in the 1990s. There are different ways to label and cate-
gorize such rationales (Hawkridge, 1991, and Willis, 1991, for
example, provide interesting approaches), but we see the following
seven:
Computer-Centered. The "computer-centered" rationale could
be said to motivate those who believe computers (and now, the
broader domain of information technology) a domain of sufficient
social importance that its study should be part of the school cunicu-
lum. The domain has a history; it is important to know about; its
impact and presence in society is without question. Historical con-
tent is important, as well as future dections in technology and their
application in society. This rationale is often packaged and pro-
moted at the elementary/secondary school levels as computer
 58 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS

awareness or a similar term (for example, in Europe, information

technology is used h place of the word computers). Whatever it is
called, this approach is frequently operationalized as an introduc-
tion to computer vocabulary, elementary computer-related con-
cepts, and a cursory review of computer-related history and applica-
tions in society. In many countries, what is most often understood as
"computer literacy" in the early 1990s reflects this rationale and is
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 14:46 11 June 2016

expressed through goals relating to experience with some comput-

er-interaction skills such as keyboarding, mixed with an awareness
of different simplified elements of "computer awareness."
Problem Analysis. The problem-solving rationale for computers
in education found its fust expression in terms of learning program-
ming. The most common rationale for teaching programming was
the logical discipline that came from such experiences in problem
analysis, or more generally, from the sort of systematic approach
required for computer-control competencies. Even though program-
ming itself has been called into question (in some, but by no means
a l l countries), the use of advanced software applications still re-
quires skills in systematic analysis. Proponents of this rationale
believe that a systems point of view and exercises in systems analy-
sis are useful for the development of problem solving generally and
in particular for the son of problem solving necessary for function-
ing in a technologically suffused society.
Human Capital. Many arguments for general computer educa-
tion in schools use terms such as enhancement of (eventual) labor
force productivity, global competitiveness, career advancement,
and training for the workplace as their conceptual framework.
Sometimes these arguments are focused on the individual-for ex-
ample, every student will need computer skills to be employable in
the future. Other times the focus is national-by our students becom-
ing more computer literate, we will eventually perform more com-
petitively in the world economic market. Sometimes the motiva-
tions intermix with motivations relating to stimulating technological
development in a country itself, by supplying the country with
appropriately trained workers or by stimulating its local hardware
and software industries.
Educational Reform. A very different perspective for general
computer education relates to technology's relationship with educa-
 Educational Technology: Issues and Innovations 59

tional reform. With this rationale, computers are seen as having the
potential to become the single most potent agent of change in
education during the twentieth century, fundamentally restructuring
not only its delivery methods but also its underlying paradigm
(Collis, 1991; Pogrow, 1983). Many educators have seen the pres-
ence of computers in education as an opportunity for bringing all
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 14:46 11 June 2016

kinds of reforms into education, including reforms relating to indi-

vidualization, interdisciplinary approaches, cooperative learning,
higher-order thinking, performance testing, restructuring, and so
on. Not only can education as a whole be reformed, but the scope
and depth of individual subject areas can also be affected by com-
puter infusion. However, in order for the computer to play a major
role in broad reform, all students will need to know enough about
and have enough skill to minimally use computer systems. Conse-
quently, general computer education is a prerequisite of reform
movements, at least in the short run.
Constructivism. For the past two decades there have been pio-
neers who have been vigorous advocates for various types of stu-
dent activities reflecting a constructivism philosophy, such as
LOGO programming, reasoning exercises, and cognitive mapping
(see, for example, Jonassen, 1991b, for a comparison of this genera-
tive approach with teacher (or computer) controlled learning).
Some of the constructivist advocates appear to have little interest in
general computer education. However, even while these constructiv-
ists concentrate upon specific, creative problem-solving activities
through the mediation of certain types of computer use, widespread
infusion of these constructivist approaches still requires attention to
entry level general computer skills such as keyboarding and even
more advanced skills associated with higher-order informatics (Per-
kins, 1991).
Functionality. The essence of this rationale is the ability to con-
trol one's resources in order to get things done. From this frame-
work, functioning with information technology requires certain
knowledge, skills, and attitudes, the specifics of which depend upon
one's environment and goals (see, for example, Trauth, Kahn, &
Warden, 1991, for an example of a textbook on "information Litera-
cy"). Current trends relating to teaching students to use computers
for writing, desktop publishing, on-line database searching, and
 60 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS

other information-handling work are certainly consistent with this

functionality philosophy. Carey (1992) cites goals of an information
processing cuniculum as including skill and insight development in
information selection, retrieval, management, analysis, interpreta-
tion, articulation, and communication. Teaching students to evalu-
ate and assess the outcomes of their use of computer applications is
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 14:46 11 June 2016

also consistent with this approach.

Empowerment. Empowerment could be seen as the social dimen-
sion of functionality. The term empowerment has roots in social
reform and is generally associated with attempts to equalize the
relative power of different social groups. A concern with inequity in
reference to computer access and skills is seen as an empowerment
challenge. This rationale may thus lead to the conclusion that gener-
al computer education is necessary to insure that women, minori-
ties, the disabled, and others are not excluded from the advantages
of using computing and other information technologies. Since much
computer learning occurs in the home and is therefore related to the
family's socio-economic circumstances, it can be argued with this
rationale that educational systems have a unique obligation to com-
pensate for socio-economic imbalances by providing for equitable
general computer education for all of their students within the
schools.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE RATIONALES

TO THE MEASUREMENT
OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
No educational system is motivated by only one such rationale in
its expectations for what will happen as the outcome of students-
computer experiences, but the emphasis a system gives to a particu-
lar rationale can help make sense of what "computer literacy"
would best mean in that system. A prioritization of rationales can
also help to provide a base for a relevant test of student computer
Literacy for the system. Clearly, a system influenced by persons with
a strong constructivist belief, for example, would look for different
behaviors and outcomes from its students with regard to computer
use in schools than would a system with a strong computer-centered
approach.
 Educational Technology: Issues and Innovations 61

A comparison of different expectations for student achievement

with computers shows this diversity. Some tests of computer litera-
cy have a strong focus on history and computer-related information;
others on programming or problem analysis; others on practical,
functional skills. In some countries however, especially those with
strong human capital or educational reform or empowerment phi-
losophies, the outcome of computer use in schools must be mea-
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 14:46 11 June 2016

sured more on the system level, not on the student-specific level;

thus, computer literacy is not so much what the individual student
knows and does but how the overall experience of students with
computers will eventually lead to change in other broader settings,
such as curriculum, educational organization, economics, national
productivity, or social justice.

STUDENT ASSESSMENT IN THE COMPED STUDY

Thus, in order to contribute' to the development of an intemation-
ally valid test relative to student performance and outcomes, for
Stage 2 of the COMPED project we had to consider indicators that
would best reflect the rationales for computers in education of the
different countries involved in the COMPED student assessment.
This, of course, is a complex task, since no country moves smoothly
along in the framework of only one rationale for computers in
education, and large systems will probably have all the rationales
represented within them. Also, the measurement of indicators rele-
vant to some of the rationales, would be beyond the reach of the
COMPED study. For example, indicators of a human capital ratio-
nale, as "society being better able to reap the benefits of emerging
technologies" or students being better able to deal with emerging
problem situations in their future workplaces.
After much discussion and analysis over a two-year period, with
particulir attention given to existing tests and measures, COMPED
participants met in Italy in October 1990 to deal with the issue of
the student assessment for COMPED Stage 2. The discussion did
not specifically revolve around articulated rationales for computers'
in education in the different counhies, but reflecting back on what
occurred, we believe certain rationales dominated what emerged. In
our opinion, much of the debate about the to-be-developed
 62 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS

COMPED student achievement test rested on finding a balance

among those seeing computer education in schools from the com-
putercentered, problem analysis, or functionality perspectives.
The nature of the task-to develop an individual student measure
for "computer literacy" that could be used in a standardized fash-
ion internationally and within the IEA framework of international
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 14:46 11 June 2016

assessment+gave dominance to the computer-centered, problem

analysis, and functionality perspectives. Robably, at a different
type of meeting, say of educational policymakers at a World Bank
or intergovernmental session, the task of defining relevant student
indicators would have represented more of the human capital and
empowerment rationales. At a meeting of curriculum experts, the
student outcomes may have been expressed more in terms of indica-
tors of reform in the educational system and subject-matter curricu-
l a At a meeting of learning theorists, measures relating to metacog-
nitive processing, such as those identified with a constructivist
approach, may have emerged, although it is possible that the diffi-
culties in tinding a protocol for international comparative assess-
ment within a constructivist framework would have led to the con-
clusion that such an approach to student assessment is both
philosophically and logistically not possible (see, for example, Jo-
nassen, 1991a, for a consideration of strategies for evaluating
constructivistic learning). However, at the COMPED meeting, stu-
dent-centered, directly measurable indicators were our task, i d the
participants apparently represented backgrounds and rationales arne-
nable to the idea of such indicators being expressible in a standard-
ized student test.
One major difference in rationale for computer education quickly
emerged at the COMPED meeting: the problem-analysis perspective
versus the functionality perspective (The computercentered ratio-
nale was represented in different ways in each of the problem analy-
sis and functionality groups). After much discussion, it was agreed
that the problem-analysis rationale for computers in education was
given such significantly different interpretations and priorities in
different countries that a test representing this perspective should be
a national option for COMPED rather than an overall student mea-
sure. However, most counmes agreed that a functionality rationale
motivated at least some of what they expected as student outcomes
 Educational Technology: Issues and Innovations 63

related to the presence of computers in education; thus, the func-

tionality rationale was chosen as a basis for the common interna-
tional student performance measure for COMPED Stage 2. Howev-
er, the so-called "computer-centered" rationale overlapped the
"functional" rationale in so many ways that it also contributed to
the theoretical framework for the COMPED student assessment.
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 14:46 11 June 2016

OBJECTIVES FOR FUNCTIONALITY

Given this functionality rationale (augmented by aspects of a
computer-centered approach), how could we translate such motiva-
tions into a test? First, we had to develop a set of measurable
objectives expressing the rationales in terms reasonable to the age
and experience base of the student cohorts for COMPED Stage 2.
Without a well-defined content for "functionality" to which we
could refer, we used the "connoisseur" strategy of asking ourselves
and the national experts present what we felt justified in predicting
what a 13- to 15-year old student who could "function well" in
terms of commonly occurring applications of computers would
know and be able to do, during the following period of about five
years. (The five-year period was established since the test being
developed in 1990 would take a number of years to go through
international validation, administration, and analysis before its re-
sults could be discussed; thus, the 1995 projection was necessary
and, of course, moved us farther away from standard methodologies
for test construction. We thus had to predict the future, not only of
the evolution of technology but of national rationales for the use of
the technology in schools.) We used a multi-source perspective-not
only relative to what might be taught formally in the school setting
but also what a "well-informed" young consumer might know who
occasionally visited computer stores, or read popular computer
magazines or absorbed other experiences from an increasingly
computer-suffused society. We took as ~ l e of s thumb for this con-
noisseur, predictive approach to test construction a number of prac-
tical, functional perspectives:
1. What would a voung adult need to know in order to have a
reasonable und&tGding of what was being referred to in a
newspaper advertisement for a local computer store?
 64 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS

2. What sort of trouble shooting insights and strategies might a

person have who now and in the next five years uses informa-
tion technology for various commonplace applications such as
word processing?
3. What are typical types of computer applications that are likely
to be seen in the school, office, home, and workplace?
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 14:46 11 June 2016

4. What are different strategies for getting started with a new

software package or for deciding how to proceed when some
computer-use situation is not working as expected?

Fully knowing that different cultural environments will have in-

fluence on what computer functionality will mean to their various
citizens, the test development team nonetheless took the assumption
that there was a certain level of universal similarity in the sort of
basic-level computer functionalities described by the above four
questions, so that a young person who was "functional" with gen-
eral computer applications in Singapore, would not, for example, be
surprised by what he or she saw in a computer store in Israel or saw
running on a workplace PC in Bulgaria, Norway, or Kenya.
Around this conception of functionality we identified three
themes (stated in wording appropriate for the target age group) for
measurable objectives and thus for items for the COMPED test:

1. The Computer as Pan of Information Technology: What Are

Computers and How Do They Operate?
2. Applications: What Can You Do with Information Technology?
3. User Strategies: What Are Your Computer-Handling Skills?

Following these distinctions and in an iterative fashion involving

other members of the COMPED team, we eventually developed a
set of objectives (Appendix) based on a functional rationale toward
information technology, hopefully internationally relevant for
young persons during the following half-decade. A comparison of
the new objectives with those developed a decade earlier for student
assessment (within the United States) by the Minnesota Computer
Literacy and Awareness Assessment (Sandman & Anderson, 1980)
shows both overlap and differences. Objectives related to factual
and conceptual understanding of computer-related hardware and
 Educational Technology: Issues and lnnovations 65

software and to common applications of computers occur in both

the Minnesota and COMPED approaches with, of course, updating
for technological changes over a decade. The portion of the Minne-
sota objectives relating to programming and algorithms, however, is
not reflected in the COMPED objectives and, conversely, the por-
tion of the COMPED objectives relating to personal computer-han-
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 14:46 11 June 2016

dling skills is little represented in the earlier Minnesota battery.

THE E1.T.T.

once we agreed on a list of objectives, the next step was test

development. We began to call the COMPED test the F.I.T.T.,
meaning Functional Aspects of Information Technology Test.
(FAITT didn't sound as good as FITT). The procedure of test devel-
opment went through many rounds of international pilot testing and
refmement. The final instrument contains 30 multiple-choice items
for the Population 2 (or about age-14 level) with variations for older
and younger age groups. The questions relating to Sections 1 and 2,
on the Computer and Applications, reflecting the objectives, are
fairly familiar in t e r n of computer literacy assessments, although
our efforts to project what would make items internationally rele-
vant five years in the future gave us a different dimension of diffi-
culty in item construction. The Using Computers component is the
most innovative part of not only the content objectives but also of
the emergent test, since it represented practical insight which, to our
knowledge, had not been included before on standardized student
assessments of computer literacy. A full technical discussion of the
student assessment procedures of COMPED Stage 2 will come
from the Project management and is beyond the scope of this ar-
ticle. Our purpose here is to reflect on how a system's underlying
rationales for computers in education influence eventual decisions
about the "success" of what occurs through the impact of those
computers and also influence what the system hopes to see happen-
ing in terms of student outcomes in the short- and long-term be-
cause of computers in education. We thus conclude with the follow-
ing reflections.
 66 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS

REFLECTIONS ON ASSESSING
COMPUTER LITERACY IN THE 1990s
The assumption we made in COMPED-that there is or will
emerge a cross-culturally valid framework for computer functional-
ity-is, of course, open to debate. Some will argue that functionality
is too much context-specific to be meaningfully expressed in an
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 14:46 11 June 2016

internationally administered test. Regardless of the test-validity as-

pect, however, we believe that it is important for those who are
involved with computers in education to understand the rationales
motivating themselves and others. We think a focus on rationales
can help in the challenging area of test development for student
assessment relative to general computer education. With schools
throughout the world investing heavily in computer resources and
in the support of computer (or information technology) activities
for their students, the importance of developing valid and reliable
procedures to assess student outcomes will-&more and more in
demand. This will be particularly the case from administrators who
must weigh many competing demands for Limited educational funds
and thus are starting to mention cost-effectiveness when consider-
ing on-going support of computer use in schools.
We believe that the approach indicated here-beginning with an
articulation of system-held rationales underlying computer use in
education, a translation of those rationales into domain objectives
that project forward' rather than backward in time, and repeated
community debate on both test items and underlying rationalesxan
provide a healthy strategy for developing "effectiveness" mea-
sures. These measures may be more than indices relative to what
has been accomplished in terms of short-term student outcomes.
They can also can be used to guide schools and system decision
makers in planning for the future with respect to the rapidly chang-
ing area of information technology.

REFERENCES
Anderson, R., & Collis, B. A. (1992, April). International assessment of function-
al aspects of information technology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Carey, D. (1992). A holistic view of information processing in education. Journal
of Computing in Teacher Education, 8(4), 19-28.
 Educational Technology: Issues and Innovations 67

Collis, B. A. (1991. November). The impact of computing on culture and educa-

tion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Develop-
ment of Computer-Based Instructional Systems '91, St. Louis, MO.
Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (1972). Recommendations re-
garding computers in high school education. Washington, DC: author.
Deringer, D. K., & Molnar, A. R. (1982). Key components for a national computer
literacy program. In R. I. Seidel, R. E. Anderson, & B. Hunter (Eds.), Comput-
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 14:46 11 June 2016

er literacy: Issues and directions for 1985 (pp. 3-7). New York: Academic
Press.
Hawkridge, D. (1991).Machine-mediated learning in third-world schools? Ma-
chine-Mediated Learning, 3 , 3 19-328.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991a). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational
Technology, 31(9), 28-33.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991b). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new
philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology, 31(5), 5-14.
Lewis, R., & Tagg, E. D. (Eds.).(1988). Informatics and education. Amsterdam:
North Holland.
Molnar, A. R. (1978). Computer literacy in the classroom. T.H.E. Journal, 5(4),
36-39.
Pelgrum, H., & Plomp, Tj. (1991). The use of computers in education worldwide.
Oxford, UK:Pergamon Press.
Perkins, D. N. (1991). What constructivism demands of the learner. Educational
Technology, 31(9), 19-21.
Pogrow, S. (1983). Education in the computer age. Beverly Hills: Sage Publica-
tions.
Sandman, S., & Anderson, R. E. (1980). Technical Report and Users Manual for
the Minnesota Computer Literacy and Awareness Assessment. St. Paul, MN:
MECC.
Trauth, E. M., Kahn, B. K., & Warden, F. (1991). Information literacy. New York:
Mamillan.
Willis, J. (1991). Graduate training in educational computing: Training the next
generation of technology leaders. Computers in the Schools, 8(1/2/3), 333-347.
 68 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS

APPENDIX
Objectives Stated in Measurable Form to Reflect an Internationally
Applicable "Functional" Rationale for Computer Literacy (Predicted
for the Period 19921995); Developed for Stage 2 of the COMPED
Study
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 14:46 11 June 2016

Part I. The Computer as Part of Information Technology:

What Are Computers and How Do They Operate?

Obj. 1.1: General Vocabulary:

Distinguish between:
a. hardware and software,
b. computers and peripherals

Obj. 1.2: General Concepts

Obj. 1.2.1: "lnput-Processing-Output" Model

(a) Show comprehension of the essential functions, relative to input,
processing, and output, of information processing systems,
(b) Evaluate at the conceptual level the most likely sources.of un-
successful program operation relative to the "input-processing-out-
put" model of computer operation.

Obj. 1.2.2: Program-related concepts and vocabulary

(a) Be aware that a program directs a computer to carry out certain
functions-related to input, processing, or output-in logically related
steps,
(b) Be aware that programs are written according to the syntax of
programming languages; for example, BASIC, Logo. Pascal, and C.

Obj. 1.2.3: Concepts related to processing

(a) Know that processing occurs in a special unit (the CPU) that can
be located in a user's own terminal or in a "remote" computer sys-
tem.
(b) ' ~ i s t i n ~ u i sbetween
h information being processed in the active
(working) memory of the computer and information saved on stor-
age media.
 Educational Technology: Issues and Innovations 69

Obj. 13:Characieristics of Components of Computer Systems

Obj. 1.-?.I:
Input devices
Identify common input devices for computers, such as keyboard,
mouse, optical reader, and sensor.
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 14:46 11 June 2016

Obj. 1.3.2:Output devices

Be aware of different categories of the most commonly used output
devices-printers and monitors.

Obj. 1.3.3:Storage devices and media

(a) Identify some different forms of h e most currently popular stor-
age media for microcomputers: diskettes and hard disks,
(b) Identify different devices used to read information from c m -
monly available microcomputer storage media: external drives, hard
drives.

Obj. 1.4: System Sofiware (Operating Sys~en~s)

Identify major functions,of operating system (system software) with

respect to program operation and file management.
Obj. 1.5: Trends wirh Respect to Technical Developmen~s

Be aware of current trends in Ihe technical development of comput-

ers, such as:
(a) multimedia,
(b) reductions in size combined with increases in speed, power,
and storage capacity.

Part 2. Applications: What Can You Do with Information Technology?

Obj. 2.1: Cotnttron Applications of lnforrnarion Technology

Obj. 2.1.1:General categories and examples

(a) Identify some categories of activities for which information
technology,.and computers in general, are often used and some cate-
gories for which hey, as yet, have little application,
(b) Identify some of the applications of microtechnology in the
individual's daily life.
 70 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS

Obj. 2.1.2: Categories of commonly used sojiware applications

(a) Associate an appropriate category of commonly used software
(for example, word processing, database management, spreadsheet,
telecommunications, software for generating and manipulating
graphics, drawing, and other visuals; software for generating and
manipulating music and other sounds; software for the capture, dis-
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 14:46 11 June 2016

play and manipulation of data from scientific experiments; software

for process control and h e control of robotics; and software for
mathematical calculation) to a given task description,
(b) Show a general awareness of how to organize data for entry into
various categories of commonly used software.
(c) Show a general awareness of how to interpret the output from
various categories of commonly used software.
Obj. 2.2: Features and Functions of Common Applications Sofrware
Obj 2.2.1: Word processing
(a) Identify the functions of some of the basic features of word
processing:
creating a file
retrieving a file
entering text
editing kxt
saving a file
formatting a file
printing text or a file
(b) Describe "desk top publishing."
Obj. 2.2.2: Spreadsheets
(a) Identify the meaning of some basic vocabulary relative to
spreadsheets: rows and columns, cells, calculation formulas,
(b) Make basic decisions relative to the use of spreadsheets, such as
decision relating to:
entering and organizing data
determhbg and entering calculation models for data
displaying and interpreting the results of calculations.
Obj. 2.2.3: Databases
(a) Describe basic concepts of information organization,
 Educational Technology: Issues and Innovations 71

(b) Describe basic vocabulary relative to databases: file, record,

field; search, sort, print,
(c) Identify various functions associated with database manage-
ment, including search and sort strategies such as those based on
keywords, menus, or commands,
(d) Distinguish between different forms of databases: nonelectronic
and electronic,
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 14:46 11 June 2016

(e) Identify strengths and limitations of accessing information

through electronic databases.

Obj. 2.3: Telecommunications as a Computer Application

(a) Be aware of the components necessary for telecommunications

applications on a computer: modem, telecommunications software,
appropriate connections to other networks or computers,
(b) Be aware of some of the o w s e s for which telecommunications
is 'being commonly applied: elktronic mail, accessing of bulletin
boards, accessing of on-line data bases and other on-line information
sources, electronic file transfer.

Part 3. User Strategies: What Are Your Computer Handling Skills?

Obj. 3.1: Interacting with a Computer System

(a) Indicate awareness of general strategies for starting up and exit-

ing from a computer system,
(b) Indicate awareness of dealing with common access procedures,
such as those involving passwords or user identification codes,
(c) Indicate awareness of the general functions of the most common
special-purpose keys on the computer keyboard: cursor-movement
keys, backspace key, shift keys, function keys, control keys, enter
(return) key, and escape key,
(d) Indicate awareness of how to "find one's way" in a program
through interacting with menus,
(e) Indicate strategies for handling common peripherals such as
printers, modems, or a mouse.

Obj. 3.2: Disk Handling and Backing Up Data and Software

(a) Indicate awareness of the importance of backing up data and

software,
(b) Indicate awareness of procedures for backing up software,
 72 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS

(c) Indicate awareness of strategies for locating files on disks and

for doing common file-handling operation relating to copying, delet-
ing, and renaming files.

Obj. 3.3: Dealing wirh Common Problem

(a) Identify common problems that the computer user typically

Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 14:46 11 June 2016

faces such as problems relative to file incompatibility, operating

system incompatibility, program operation, interfacing with other
peripherals, and disk and hardware maintenance,
(b) Identify some strategies for dealing with common problems en-
countered by computer users.