Computer Literacy in 1972





Related resources:


 * William Atchison.
 * Sylvia Charp.
 * Arthur Luehrmann.
 * Precollege Computer Literacy. A 1983 booklet by David Moursund.

Andrew Molnar 1972
Computer Literacy is a term that has been attributed to Andrew Molnar in the early 1970s.See http://ethw.org/Oral-History:Andrew_R._Molnar. Quoting from http://hcle.wikispaces.com/Andrew_Molnar.):


 * He [Molnar]recalls:


 * "We started computer literacy in '72 [...] We coined that phrase. It's sort of ironic. Nobody knows what computer literacy is. Nobody can define it. And the reason we selected [it] was because nobody could define it, and [...] it was a broad enough term that you could get all of these programs together under one roof". (Cited in Aspray, W., (September 25, 1991) "Interview with Andrew Molnar," OH 234. Center for the History of Information Processing, Charles Babbage Institute, University of Minnesota ).

Two Publications in 1972
The following two articles published at about the same time in 1972 help to define the terms computer literacy and computing literacy. These are the earliest print reference to the terms that David Moursund (original author of this Web Page) has been able to find.


 * Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (April 1972). Recommendations regarding computers in high school education. Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences Committee on Computer Education. Retrieved 10/5/09: http://i-a-e.org/downloads/doc_download/200-recommendations-regarding-computers-in-high-school-education-1972.html.


 * Luehrmann, Arthur (Spring 1972). Should the computer teach the student, or vice versa? Spring Joint Computer Conference Proceedings. Vol. 40, AFIPS, Montvale, NJ. Retrieved 10/5/2009: http://www.citejournal.org/vol2/iss3/seminal/seminalarticle1.pdf.

Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences
The April 1972 Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences 27 page booklet was produced using funding from the National Science Foundation. At that time, Andrew Molnar and Arthur Melmed were National Science Foundation program offers working to move use of computers into mainstream precollege education. The committee doing the work consisted of:

Edward G. Begle, Chairman Stanford University

William F. Atchison University of Maryland

Sylvia Charp Philadelphia Public Schools

William S. Dorn University of Denver

David C. Johnson University of Minnesota

Jacob T. Schwartz New York University

The authors were all distinguished math educators. They were all involved in the field of computers in math education. Quoting from the booklet, here is a summary of their recommendations.


 * In this section we summarize our recommendations concerning computer education in secondary schools. The recommendations themselves, in somewhat more detail, and our rationales for them, will be found in the later sections of this report.


 * For the most part, our recommendations are addressed both to the mathematical sciences community, urging that certain educational projects be undertaken, and to the National Science Foundation, urging financial support for them. A few, however, are concerned with the way a project should be conducted.


 * A1. We recommend the preparation of a junior high school course in "computer literacy" designed to provide students with enough information about the nature of a computer so that they can understand the roles which computers play in our society. [Bold added for emphasis.]


 * A2. We recommend that the process of preparing the text materials for the above course be such as to provide wide and rapid dissemination of information about the availability and feasibility of the course.


 * B. We recommend that text materials for a number of other courses be prepared, including an introduction to computing, as a follow up to the computer literacy course, some modules which integrate computing into high school mathematics courses, and other modules which utilize computers in simulating the behavior of physical or social phenomena and which enable the use of computers in the study of courses outside mathematics. (Note: While materials exist for use in mathematics and science, the module-problem nature of the recommendation reflects a quite different approach--for a more complete discussion see sections 4 and 5 of this report.)


 * C. We recommend the development of special programs for high school students showing unusual aptitude and promise in computer science.


 * D. We recommend a major effort aimed at making vocational computer training more generally available and at the same time improving the quality of such training.


 * E. We recommend that the National Science Foundation provide financial support for the development of a variety of programs for the training of teachers and of teachers of teachers of high school courses involving computers.


 * F. We recommend the establishment of a clearinghouse for information about high school computer education.

Chapter 2 of this booklet is titled: A Universal Computer Literacy Course.

Art Luehrmann
Here is a quote from Luerhmann's article, "Should the computer teach the student, or vice-versa?"


 * Mass computing literacy is not an agreed-upon educational goal. Today very few courses at any educational level show students how to use computing as an intellectual tool with applications to the subject matter being taught. Oh, there are a few isolated, subject-matter-free courses in computer programming; but their market is largely restricted to vocational-education students, at one end of the spectrum, and future computer professionals at the other. It is true that most schools consider it prestigious to have a large and powerful computer facility; but the fact of the matter is that such computers are usually the captives of research and administrative interests and operate on a pay-as-you-go basis. Ironically, it is in the most prestigious universities that students are least likely to be permitted to use those prestigious computers. It is a rare secondary school, college, or university that budgets and operates its computer facility in the same way that it budgets and operates its library. … In the main, literacy in computing simply is not an educational goal at many schools. Most educators seem to find bizarre the suggestion that accreditation agencies examine schools for the quality of their educational computing facilities, just as they now do with libraries. [Bold added for emphasis.]

It is interesting that the term computing literacy was soon replaced by the term computer literacy. A great many people wrote about and talked about computer literacy. Indeed, Luehrmann started a company named Computer Literacy Press. The term computing places the focus on the processes, while the term computer places the focus on a machine.

Here is another quote from the 1972 Luehrmann article. It includes Luehrman's ideas on what constitutes computer literacy.


 * If the computer is so powerful a resource that it can be programmed to simulate the instructional process, shouldn’t we be teaching our students mastery of this powerful intellectual tool? Is it enough that a student be the subject of computer administered instruction—the end user of a new technology? Or should his education also include learning to use the computer (1) to get information in the social sciences from a large database inquiry system, or (2) to simulate an ecological system, or (3) to solve problems by using algorithms, or (4) to acquire laboratory data and analyze it, or (5) to represent textual information for editing and analysis, or (6) to represent musical information for analysis, or (7) to create and process graphical information? These uses of computers in education cause students to become masters of computing, not merely its subjects. [Bold added for emphasis.]

Some Pre-1972 History of Computers in Education
Both the Conference Board article and Luehrman's article provide so insights into the early history of computers in education.

History from Conference Board Report
The following is the Preface to the 1972 Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences report.


 * The Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, its Council and several of its member organizations have for some years had a continuing interest in questions of computer education, and especially computer education at the secondary school level. As early as the Fall of 1967 a knowledgeable member of the CBMS Council estimated that high school courses on computers and computing already numbered in the hundreds, and that over 1,000 digital computers were by then being used by secondary schools or by school administrations. With such activities sharply on the rise, it was already clear that there would be rapidly mounting pressures on secondary-school teachers to teach something about computing, and that the character and quality of what was to be taught would depend heavily on the guidance and materials available to these teachers.


 * Prior to 1965 essentially no such materials were available, apart from private notes and commercially prepared computer manuals, from which little of pedagogical value has survived. In 1966 the first versions of two experimental high-school computer courses appeared, one [1] sponsored by the Commission on Engineering Education and the other [2] by the School Mathematics Study Group. Although these courses were intended to serve quite different purposes and followed sharply different approaches, both had academic and pedagogical value and both have since been modified and have continued to exert influence. By 1968 there had appeared a growing variety of efforts relating to high-school computer education sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the Association for Computing Machinery, the Association for Educational Data Systems, the U.S. Office of Education and other organizations.


 * At the January 1968 meeting of the CBMS Council, its Committee on New Areas in the Mathematical Sciences appointed a Subcommittee to study and make recommendations regarding a possible CBMS Committee on Computer Education. This Subcommittee met in May 1968 and drafted a report recommending the formation of such a Committee and the investigation of specific tasks. While the Committee was not to be confined to questions of high school computer activities, it was felt that these constituted an area of urgency where the Committee's initial efforts might well be concentrated. In response to this recommendation the CBMS Council at its meeting of August 1968 authorized the appointment of a Committee on Computer Education. The Committee was appointed that fall and has operated since 1969 under a grant from the National Science Foundation to make a study and recommendations concerning high school computer education.


 * This Committee, consisting of William F. Atchison, Edward G. Begle (Chairman), Sylvia Charp, William S. Dorn, David C. Johnson and Jacob T. Schwartz, has brought to the problems of computer education at the high school level an impressive concentration of expertise, knowledge and experience. As individuals, all have participated in one or more of such activities as the direction of major high school computer curriculum projects, the writing of textbooks involving computer use in high schools, the pre-service and in-service computer training of high school teachers and the supervision of computer education in large urban school systems. In addition, two are directors of computer centers at major universities, and several have played leading roles in the high school computer education projects of professional societies and non-profit organizations, including the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the Association for Computing Machinery, the American Federation of Information Processing Societies, the International Federation for Information Processing [3], the Association for Educational Data Systems, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [4] and others.


 * The Committee would like to acknowledge its debt to numerous publications, background materials and special studies, only some of which are listed in the bibliography of the present report. A special acknowledgment is due the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and especially Mr. Charles R. Darby, Jr. of the Washington office of that organization for making available to the Committee the October 1970 pre-publication draft of AIR's extensive report to the National Science Foundation, A Survey of Computing Activities in Secondary Schools [5]. Mr. Darby was also helpful earlier in briefing the Committee on the progress and preliminary results of that massive Survey. Using the AIR Survey as a guide, the Committee itself made or commissioned site visits to several areas of especially interesting or intensive high school computer activities, including the areas of New York City, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Denver and San Francisco Bay.


 * The Committee owes particular thanks to Professor Richard Andree of the University of Oklahoma and Dr. George Heller of the Association for Computing Machinery, who made reports at a meeting of the Committee concerning the high school computer education activities of those organizations and offered other useful information and advice. The Committee is also grateful for special courtesies, information and materials to Mr. John Guerrieri, Jr. of the Data Processing Management Association, Dr. Carl Hammer of the Accreditation Committee of the Association for Computing Machinery, and Mr. Donald Lund of TIES (Total Information for Educational Systems).


 * Finally, the Committee would like to express its deep appreciation to the Office of Computing Activities of the National Science Foundation for the grant which supported the present study, and especially to Dr. Arthur S. Melmed and Dr. Andrew R. Molnar of that Office for attending several of the Committee's meetings and furnishing valuable information.


 * Edward G. Begle April 1972 Chairman, Committee on Computer Education

A Parable from Luehrmann's Article
Luehrmann's article begins with a parable that is several pages in length. Ideas from this parable are frequently used by other writers and speakers. The are as fresh and relevant now as they were in 1972. Here is the start of the parable:


 * Once upon a time in the ancient past there was a nation in which writing and reading had not yet been invented. Society was as advanced as possible, considering that it had no mechanism for recording the letter of the law or of writing agreements, contracts, or debts. Nor was there a way of recording the heritage of information and knowledge that had to be passed on from generation to generation.


 * As a result, a great fraction of the total effort of the society was spent in oral transmission of information. Master teachers, who themselves had been taught by older master teachers, lectured before children and young people of the society. Training a master teacher was a long and expensive process, and so the society could not afford many. For reasons of economy the curriculum was quite rigid and lectures were on a fixed schedule. Teaching, obviously, was a labor-intensive industry based on skilled, expensive talent. Education, per force, was a luxury that could be afforded by the elite classes only.


 * Then, one day, writing and reading were invented. Not surprisingly, the first application of this new technology was to business and government. Money was printed; laws were encoded; treaties were signed. In response to these needs, a reading and writing industry grew up. Within a few years it was able to offer a broad range of reading and writing services to its customers. The customers found this to be a convenient arrangement, since hiring readers and writers from service vendors eliminated the need for each customer to invest in an expensive R & D effort of its own. The customers remained illiterate.

The parable continues with the development of Writing Assisted Instruction (WAI). Note how this lays the groundwork for Luehrman's thesis discussing computer-assisted instruction (CAI) versus studetns learning to make use of computers to help represent and solve problems. Quoting from later in the parable:


 * Finally, government, business and some members of the education establishment decided to mount two or three large-scale demonstrations of WAI in order to show publicly the advantages of the new educational technology. For a period of several years curriculum experts collected information on a few key courses of lectures by assorted master teachers. The reading and writing experts wrote down the best series and read them aloud to the curriculum experts, who would criticize them and make improvements. The reading and writing experts would then incorporate the improvements in the next draft. Then came the field test. Readers began to read the drafts aloud to actual classes of students, and this led to further revision by the curriculum experts and rewriting by the reading and writing experts. At the end of a few more years a summative evaluation of the projects was undertaken by an independent, reputable educational testing organization, whose mission was to compare the cost and effectiveness of WAI with conventional education. The parable is nearing its conclusion now. Actually it has two alternate endings, one happy and one sad. The sad ending, which follows now, is brief.


 * The educational testing organization reported that the projects were a complete vindication of Writing Assisted Instruction. It found that students taught by WAI performed even better on standardized tests than students taught by the average master teacher, that the student liked WAI better, and that the total coat of WAI was about a fourth that of conventional instruction. These pilot projects were imitated on a grand scale and education was revolutionized. Special institutes turned out vast numbers of readers and within ten years they were reading courses of lectures aloud to masses of people who could never have been educated before the new instructional technology arrived. The nation grew and prospered and thanked the day that the reading and writing industry was founded.

Notice this 1972 "dig" at the emphasis on improving test scores. This emphasis on test scores remains a major driving force in our current educational systems.

The following is quoted from the end of the parable. It is a happier ending.


 * To use that resource as a mere delivery system for instruction, but not to give a student instruction in how he might use the resource himself, was the chief failure of the WAI effort, they said. What a loss of opportunity, they exclaimed, if the skill of reading and writing were to be harnessed for the purpose of turning out masses of students who were unable to read and write!


 * WAI advocates responded that it was well and good that a few elitist schools teach their students the difficult skill of reading and writing; it was enough that WAI teach lesser skills to masses that might otherwise remain uneducated and unemployable.


 * How much longer, asked the WAI opponents in rebuttal, will an illiterate person be considered educated? How long will he be employable and for what jobs if elitist schools are turning out competent readers and writers by the hundreds? The more visionary advocates of mass literacy told of foreseeing the day when students would spend more hours of the day reading and writing than listening to lectures. Small research libraries had indeed sprung up at some schools, but they were expensive operations limited to a few specialists who had to raise funds to pay for their use. Such people were particularly incredulous at the suggestion that every school ought to adopt as an educational goal the establishment of a significant library open freely to all students. School administrators were at first appalled at the idea that the library should not be on a pay-as-you-go basis but should be budgeted as part of the general institutional overhead costs.


 * But as time went on and even school administrators became competent and imaginative users of the skill of reading and writing, all schools gradually accepted as a mission the bringing of literacy to all students. Accreditation agencies examined the quality of libraries before approving schools. Books began to appear all over and finally even in people’s homes. WAI did not die out altogether, but continued as a cost-effective alternative to the lecture. But as books reduced dependence on lectures, students made less use of both WAI and lectures and spent more time on their own reading and writing projects. The nation grew and prospered and wrote poems in praise of the day that reading and writing were discovered and made available to all people.

Author or Authors
The original version of this document was developed by David Moursund