- Email: [email protected]
Prioritizing computer literacy topics
Comput. Educ. Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 9 13, 1985 Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0360-1315,'85 $3.00+0.00 Copyright ,~ 1985 Pergamon Press Ltd
PRIORITIZING COMPUTER LITERACY TOPICS TINA T. CHENG a n d DOROTHY J o STEVENS Center for Curriculum and Instruction, 214C Henzlik Hall, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, U.S.A. (Received 17 October 1983; revision received 5 March 1984) Abstract--This article presents a process of prioritizing selected computer literacy topics as an initial step in implementing computer literacy programs for secondary schools. Ninety-five Nebraska educators formed the sample. A 45-item questionnaire was developed as the instrument. Educators were asked to choose more preferable topics among other topics for teaching secondary school students about computers. Thurstone's Law of Comparative Judgment was used to scale or locate educators" opinions about computer literacy tol6ics on an interval level continuum. A general knowledge about computers was emphasized by educators surveyed. Hands-on experiences were viewed as necessary for students who want to be competent in using computers. Programming skills were suggested but not essential for computer literate students. Findings of this study provide implications of integrating computer literacy with existing curriculum. Results also provide guidelines for curriculum planners and persons responsible for the acquisition of hardware, software and staff development.
INTRODUCTION Computer technology has reshaped human lives. The immense impact of computer technology in education has resulted in the acceptance of computers in the schools [1]. The responsibility of educating all students to be computer literate forces educators to seek guidance in deciding what and how to teach computer literacy [2]. Many attempts have been made to define computer literacy as a blueprint for curriculum planning, teacher training and student assessment [3]. As a result, a wide variety of computer literacy definitions have evolved. Stevens [4] concluded that the definitions selected by educators influence how computers are integrated with curriculum and instruction. Computer literacy is perceived as a cultural phenomenon [5]. The definition of computer literacy is relative and holds true for a given culture at a given time. Horn and Poirot [6] identified computer literacy as an everchanging entity. Therefore, the requirements necessary for a computer literate vary according to technological development. Hansen et al. [7] further suggested that computer literacy definitions differ among people at various positions and among different subject areas. Therefore, the lack of a consistent definition of computer literacy is understandable [8]. There are two approaches to achieve the goal of presenting computer literacy curriculum in the schools. The top-down approach first identifies a computer literacy definition, then determines teaching topics accordingly. Despite the fact that this is the widely used approach, vigorous arguments precede the adoption of any agreed upon definition of computer literacy. The bottom-up approach, on the other hand, presents a more practical procedure. Computer literacy teaching topics are identified as a priori step in teaching computer literacy. The concept of computer literacy will be solidified based on topics selected. This study was designed to establish a working definition of computer literacy for secondary school students in the State of Nebraska. The bottom-up approach was adopted to determine topics for secondary school computer literacy curriculum. A procedure of prioritizing a series of ten selected topics about computer development and use was demonstrated in this study. Educators in the State of Nebraska with basic computer knowledge were invited to provide information about the order of importance of these Computer literacy topics. Thurstone's Law of Comparative Judgment [9] was used to locate ~ educators' opinions about computer literacy topics on a continuum. The Law of Comparative Judgment transforms ordinal judgment into an interval scale by analyzing the proportion of time each topic was judged more important than another by the educators surveyed. The results showed the rank order of topics and their relative relationships between and among others.
10
TINA T. CHENG and DOROTHY Jo STEVENS
L I T E R A T U R E REVIEW A search of the literature shows that there are many definitions of computer literacy. According to Gress [10], the objective of computer literacy is to teach students about computers rather than to teach programming skills or to provide computer-based education. Hunter [11], Seidel [12] and Murphy [13] identified programming skills as an indispensible element for computer literacy in their respective definitions. One definition, "whatever a person needs to know about computers and, be able to do with computers in order to function completely in a society" [14], is comprehensive by inclusion of most possible factors. Despite the wide range of the computer literacy definitions, certain themes remain constant [8]. Two themes, awareness about computers and competency required to use computers [13, 15], are widely accepted. Affective attitudes about computers [2, 11. 14] is a third theme. Basic reading and writing abilities using computer terminologies have been suggested as essential for a person to be considered computer literate [16]. Contrasting to the general acceptance of communication abilities, programming skills receive vigorous argument [3]. Whether to include programming skills within the scope of computer literacy, and how to balance the appropriate weight on programming skills are still unsettled issues. Several computer literacy topics, can be derived from existing definitions [3-16]. B!oom's [17] Taxonomy was adopted as a guide in presenting these topics from lower level cognitive knowledge to higher level application and synthesis. These topics include: the evolution of computers, the anatomy of computers, computer software and hardware, the ability to write computer programs, computer usages and applications, the strengths and limitations of computers, the social impact of computers, individual attitudes and value judgment toward computers. The breadth of these topics further indicates the multifaceted nature of computer literacy. PROCEDURE Selection of topics
Ten computer literacy topics appeared most frequently in the literature were selected for this study. They were categorized under the themes of awareness and competency. A number code from 1 to 10 was assigned to each topic for easy identification in the following statistical analysis: I. Awareness about computers the history of computers (1) computer terminology (2) parts of computers (3) having positive attitudes toward computers (4) understanding the impact of computers on society (5). II. Competency in using computers being able to run a computer which includes running computer software (6) having basic math concepts (7) being able to write algorithms or draw flowcharts when using computers to solve problems
~8) knowing programming language commands (9) being able to write computer programs (10). Sample
Ninety-five Nebraska educators were randomly selected from the student rosters of an Instructional Computing course offered at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln (UNL) as the sample of this study. Among them, 40 were females and 55 were males; 59 teachers were from all levels and various subject areas, 16 administrators were from different school districts, 14 students were in the Teachers College, UNL and 6 others were State officials who were decision-makers on various issues. They represented a body of educational personnel with basic computer knowledge. Instrumentation
With the ten existing topics, a 45-item questionnaire ((~:) = K ( K - 1)/2) was developed [9]. Items were randomly arranged on the questionnaire, the positions of topics on each item were also varied
Prioritization
11 r-
Q
T ¢n
o4
"
3
I
I
00
062
,~
I 0 75
I
I
088
408
X
o
I
t
I
I
116
1,36
4 49
1,61
I 4 93
Fig. 1. Linear transformation of topics.
so that a topic was paired with the others, sometimes occupying the first and other times the second position. A computer program written in Apple II BASIC was used to systematically generate comparisons between all pairs of topics. Forty-five parallel questions were presented taking the same format as follows: In teaching C o m p u t e r Literacy, which topic do you think is more important? __ Computer terminology __ Being able to write computer programs Because of a concern for the nonindependent responding a m o n g topics, each question was printed on a 3 x 5 in. paper. The independent presentation of each item minimized the interruption and influence of other questions. The complete questionnaire was a stapled stack of 45 paper slips with questions printed on them. Data collection
The questionnaire was sent to the 95 Nebraska educators 3 weeks before the spring semester ended in the academic year of 1982-1983. Educators were asked to select the more favorable topic on each comparison considering secondary school computer literacy programs. Three questionnaires failed to reach the subjects because of wrong addresses. Sixty-seven educators responded to this survey within 1 month which constituted a satisfactory return rate of 0.73. The responses were coded into IBM computer data for statistical analysis. A program call Comparative Judgment was used to analyze the data*. METHODOLOGY A 10 x 10 Incidence Matrix was constructed to tally the choices of perference consistent of column over row. Zero counts were placed on the diagonal. The Proportion Matrix was formed by computing the relative proportion of topic selections to the m a x i m u m possible selections in each cell. The value of 0.50s were placed on the diagonal. The two halves of the matrix, of course, appeared compensatory to each other. The proportion values were then transformed to a Z distribution corresponding to the following rule: Pi =
f
zi 1 ~~ %
exp ( - X 2/2).
,
The ten Z-scores on each column were summed up and mean scores were calculated relatively. Ten averaged Z-scores were sorted in an ascending order for linear transformation. The topic with the smallest averaged Z-score was designated as the anchor [9]. The series of average Z-scores were adjusted by subtracting the anchor value from every term of the sorted Z-scores. This process guaranteed the initial constant on the continuum to be zero. Finally, a Linear Transformation of these ten topics (Fig. 1) was obtained by plotting the adjusted Z-scores on a continuum individually. This scale not only reveals the rank order of the importance of computer literacy topics but also provides meaningful interval distances among topics. *Program Comparative Judgment was written by Tina Cheng using PASCAL Language. The program is now available on the UNL IBM 370 computer system.
12
TINAT. CI-IENGand DOROTHYJo STEVENS RESULTS
The Linear Transformation of Topics shows that the competency for public school students to operate computers ranked the highest on the scale with a standardized score of 1.93, which indicates that all ten topics will be scattered within 1.93 score units. Knowing computer terminology ranked the second highest with a score of 1.61. The distance between how to operate computers and knowing computer terminology is 0.32. Understanding the history of computers ranked lowest with an initial score of zero; math concepts also scored low. The distance between history of computers and math concepts is 0.64, which takes one-third of the magnitude on the scale. Besides running computers and knowing the history of computers, the rest of the eight topics are clustered together within a range of less than one score unit. Having positive attitudes and computer impact on society are both located on the upper half of the scale while the ability to write algorithms and programs obtained lower scores. LIMITATIONS There are limitations in this study. The sample was not a true representation of the population. If this research is to be replicated, then it is recommended that the sample size be increased within and between groups to provide a stronger statistical procedure. The increased sample size would allow the-ra~adomization of subjects to reduce the possibility of selection error. Besides, individuals at different positions may perceive the level of importance of each topic differently. The rankings of selected computer literacy teaching topics are expected to be varied between computer literate persons and those who have no computer trainings. The emphasis of teaching topics will be different after educators' level of computer literacy increases. Therefore, the involvement of teachers, administrators, students and parents in identifying prospective computer literacy teaching topics while devising the questionnaire seems to be a reasonable recommendation to increase the validity of the study. Furthermore, the result of this study is generalizable only to high school computer literacy programs in the State of Nebraska.
CONCLUSION Findings of this study concur with findings reviewed in the literature. Participating educators agreed with Gress [10] and Anderson et al. [16] that general knowledge about computers was the major focus for secondary school computer literacy programs. The two-theme assumption proposed by Murphy [13] and Martin and Heller [15] was supported by the fact that topics for the awareness of computers and the competency in using computers were intertwined with each other without distinguishable sequence. Anderson [2], Hunter [11] and Jay's [14] idea of considering affective attitudes as an important element in teaching students about computers was also reinforced by educators surveyed. Individuals need to have independent judgment as to various uses of computers in society in order to become active decision makers on relevant issues. By understanding both the strengths and limitations of computers, students will be motivated to pursue continuous learning about computers as well as to anticipate future progress of computers. Again, hands-on experiences stressed by Nebraska educators coincided with Luehrmann [3] and Jay's [14] conclusion. Thus, adequate computer hardware and quality software are necessary for providing students on-the-line practice. The low rankings of programming skills indicated the lack of agreement among educators on the issue of programming skills. The inclusion of programming skills within computer literacy curriculum may still remain a controversial issue. One contradiction, however, appeared on the topic of computer history. The lowest ranking of computer history on the interval continuum negated the general acceptance of computer history as one of the fundamentals in computer literacy. Educators in this study apparently challenged the teaching strategies adopted in the schools and the way teaching materials were delivered. The recollection of computer developmental events and the memorization of historical contributors were not endorced by educators. Instead, the instillation of philosophical significance of computer technology will more effectively enable students to appreciate computers as a useful tool.
Prioritization
13
Regardless, c u r r i c u l u m p l a n n e r s need to p r o v i d e s t u d e n t s o p p o r t u n i t i e s to b e c o m e c o m p u t e r literate b a s e d on a set o f well defined c o m p e t e n c i e s c o m m e n s u r a t e with the p o p u l a t i o n served. A flexible c o m p u t e r literacy c u r r i c u l u m p l a n is essential to meet the c o m p u t e r literacy needs o f a c h a n g i n g t e c h n o l o g i c a l society. O n e a p p r o a c h to identify initial c o m p e t e n c i e s o r to m o d i f y existing c o m p e t e n c i e s w o u l d be to involve a variety o f p a r t i c i p a n t s to r a n k c u r r e n t c o m p u t e r topics using T h u r s t o n e ' s C o m p a r a t i v e J u d g m e n t process as e x p l a i n e d a n d d e m o n s t r a t e d in this study. Results c o u l d then be used to design a n d i m p l e m e n t a c o m p u t e r literacy p r o g r a m , a n d p r o v i d e a basis for the a c q u i s i t i o n o f a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f h a r d w a r e , software a n d personnel. F u r t h e r m o r e , staff d e v e l o p m e n t p l a n n e d to meet specific objectives w o u l d be m o r e efficient a n d effective. A c o n t i n u o u s e v a l u a t i o n system is r e q u i r e d for p r o g r a m m o d i f i c a t i o n s a n d s t u d e n t assessment. Because o f the m u l t i f a c e t e d n a t u r e o f c o m p u t e r literacy, no single test can s t a n d alone as an e v a l u a t i o n device. A n on-line d e m o n s t r a t i o n a n d an a t t i t u d e i n v e n t o r y s u p p l e m e n t a r y to a well designed cognitive e x a m i n a t i o n will assess s t u d e n t s ' t o t a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g a b o u t c o m p u t e r s a n d their c o m p e t e n c y level in using c o m p u t e r s . A C o m p u t e r L i t e r a c y E x a m i n a t i o n : C o g n i t i v e A s p e c t is being d e v e l o p e d at U N L . F i n a l r e p o r t will be p r e s e n t e d p u b l i c l y after the v a l i d a t i o n process is complete. REFERENCES 1. Deringer D. K. and Molnar A. R., Key components for a national computer literacy Program 1980. Computer Literac3, , pp. 3-9. Academic Press, New York (1982). 2. Anderson R. E., National computer literacy, 1981. Computer Literacy, pp. 9-17. Academic Press, New York (1982). 3. Luehrmann A., Computer literacy--what it should be? Math. Teach. 74, 682-686 (1981). 4. Stevens D. J., Computers, curriculum, and careful planning. Educ. Technol. November, 21-24 (1981). 5. Witt D., Education for citizenship in a computer-based society. In Computer Literacy: Issues and Directions for 1985 (Edited by Seidel R. J., Anderson R. E. and Hunter B.), pp. 53-68. Academic Press, New York (1982). 6. Horn C. E. and Poirot J. L., Computer Literacy: Problem Solving with Computers. Sterling Swift, Texas (1981). 7. Hansen T. P., Klassen D. L., Anderson R. E. and Johnson D. C., What teachers think every high school graduate should know about computers. Sch. Sci. Math. 81, 467-472 (1982). 8. Gawronski J. D., Computer literacy and school mathematics. Math. Teach. 74, 613-614 (1981). 9. Thurston L. L., A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 34, 273-286 (1927). 10. Gress E. K., A computer-literacy module for the junior high school. Arith. Teach. 29, No. 7, 46-49 (1982). 11. Hunter B., What makes a computer literacy College? Ninth Conference on Computers in the Undergraduate Curricula, pp. 217-226 (1978). 12. Seidel R. J., On the development of an information handling curriculum: computer llteracy a dynamic concept. Computer Literacy: Issues and Directions 1985, pp. 19-23. Academic Press, New York 1980. 13. Murphy E. J., Developing computer literacy in K-12 education. Comput. Teach. May, 43-48 (1982). 14. Jay T. B., Computerphobia: what to do about it? Educ. Technol. January, 47-48 (1981). 15. Martin C. D. and Heller R. S., Computer literacy for teachers. Educ. Leader. October, 46M7 (1982). 16. Anderson E. A., Klassen D. L. and Johnson D. C., A defense of a comprehensive view of computer literacy--a reply to Luehrmann. Math. Teach. 74, 687-690 (1981). 17. Bloom S. B., Taxonomy o f Educational Objectives: The Classification o f Educational Goals Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. David Mokay Co., New York (1964).
0360-1315,'85 $3.00+0.00 Copyright ,~ 1985 Pergamon Press Ltd
PRIORITIZING COMPUTER LITERACY TOPICS TINA T. CHENG a n d DOROTHY J o STEVENS Center for Curriculum and Instruction, 214C Henzlik Hall, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, U.S.A. (Received 17 October 1983; revision received 5 March 1984) Abstract--This article presents a process of prioritizing selected computer literacy topics as an initial step in implementing computer literacy programs for secondary schools. Ninety-five Nebraska educators formed the sample. A 45-item questionnaire was developed as the instrument. Educators were asked to choose more preferable topics among other topics for teaching secondary school students about computers. Thurstone's Law of Comparative Judgment was used to scale or locate educators" opinions about computer literacy tol6ics on an interval level continuum. A general knowledge about computers was emphasized by educators surveyed. Hands-on experiences were viewed as necessary for students who want to be competent in using computers. Programming skills were suggested but not essential for computer literate students. Findings of this study provide implications of integrating computer literacy with existing curriculum. Results also provide guidelines for curriculum planners and persons responsible for the acquisition of hardware, software and staff development.
INTRODUCTION Computer technology has reshaped human lives. The immense impact of computer technology in education has resulted in the acceptance of computers in the schools [1]. The responsibility of educating all students to be computer literate forces educators to seek guidance in deciding what and how to teach computer literacy [2]. Many attempts have been made to define computer literacy as a blueprint for curriculum planning, teacher training and student assessment [3]. As a result, a wide variety of computer literacy definitions have evolved. Stevens [4] concluded that the definitions selected by educators influence how computers are integrated with curriculum and instruction. Computer literacy is perceived as a cultural phenomenon [5]. The definition of computer literacy is relative and holds true for a given culture at a given time. Horn and Poirot [6] identified computer literacy as an everchanging entity. Therefore, the requirements necessary for a computer literate vary according to technological development. Hansen et al. [7] further suggested that computer literacy definitions differ among people at various positions and among different subject areas. Therefore, the lack of a consistent definition of computer literacy is understandable [8]. There are two approaches to achieve the goal of presenting computer literacy curriculum in the schools. The top-down approach first identifies a computer literacy definition, then determines teaching topics accordingly. Despite the fact that this is the widely used approach, vigorous arguments precede the adoption of any agreed upon definition of computer literacy. The bottom-up approach, on the other hand, presents a more practical procedure. Computer literacy teaching topics are identified as a priori step in teaching computer literacy. The concept of computer literacy will be solidified based on topics selected. This study was designed to establish a working definition of computer literacy for secondary school students in the State of Nebraska. The bottom-up approach was adopted to determine topics for secondary school computer literacy curriculum. A procedure of prioritizing a series of ten selected topics about computer development and use was demonstrated in this study. Educators in the State of Nebraska with basic computer knowledge were invited to provide information about the order of importance of these Computer literacy topics. Thurstone's Law of Comparative Judgment [9] was used to locate ~ educators' opinions about computer literacy topics on a continuum. The Law of Comparative Judgment transforms ordinal judgment into an interval scale by analyzing the proportion of time each topic was judged more important than another by the educators surveyed. The results showed the rank order of topics and their relative relationships between and among others.
10
TINA T. CHENG and DOROTHY Jo STEVENS
L I T E R A T U R E REVIEW A search of the literature shows that there are many definitions of computer literacy. According to Gress [10], the objective of computer literacy is to teach students about computers rather than to teach programming skills or to provide computer-based education. Hunter [11], Seidel [12] and Murphy [13] identified programming skills as an indispensible element for computer literacy in their respective definitions. One definition, "whatever a person needs to know about computers and, be able to do with computers in order to function completely in a society" [14], is comprehensive by inclusion of most possible factors. Despite the wide range of the computer literacy definitions, certain themes remain constant [8]. Two themes, awareness about computers and competency required to use computers [13, 15], are widely accepted. Affective attitudes about computers [2, 11. 14] is a third theme. Basic reading and writing abilities using computer terminologies have been suggested as essential for a person to be considered computer literate [16]. Contrasting to the general acceptance of communication abilities, programming skills receive vigorous argument [3]. Whether to include programming skills within the scope of computer literacy, and how to balance the appropriate weight on programming skills are still unsettled issues. Several computer literacy topics, can be derived from existing definitions [3-16]. B!oom's [17] Taxonomy was adopted as a guide in presenting these topics from lower level cognitive knowledge to higher level application and synthesis. These topics include: the evolution of computers, the anatomy of computers, computer software and hardware, the ability to write computer programs, computer usages and applications, the strengths and limitations of computers, the social impact of computers, individual attitudes and value judgment toward computers. The breadth of these topics further indicates the multifaceted nature of computer literacy. PROCEDURE Selection of topics
Ten computer literacy topics appeared most frequently in the literature were selected for this study. They were categorized under the themes of awareness and competency. A number code from 1 to 10 was assigned to each topic for easy identification in the following statistical analysis: I. Awareness about computers the history of computers (1) computer terminology (2) parts of computers (3) having positive attitudes toward computers (4) understanding the impact of computers on society (5). II. Competency in using computers being able to run a computer which includes running computer software (6) having basic math concepts (7) being able to write algorithms or draw flowcharts when using computers to solve problems
~8) knowing programming language commands (9) being able to write computer programs (10). Sample
Ninety-five Nebraska educators were randomly selected from the student rosters of an Instructional Computing course offered at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln (UNL) as the sample of this study. Among them, 40 were females and 55 were males; 59 teachers were from all levels and various subject areas, 16 administrators were from different school districts, 14 students were in the Teachers College, UNL and 6 others were State officials who were decision-makers on various issues. They represented a body of educational personnel with basic computer knowledge. Instrumentation
With the ten existing topics, a 45-item questionnaire ((~:) = K ( K - 1)/2) was developed [9]. Items were randomly arranged on the questionnaire, the positions of topics on each item were also varied
Prioritization
11 r-
Q
T ¢n
o4
"
3
I
I
00
062
,~
I 0 75
I
I
088
408
X
o
I
t
I
I
116
1,36
4 49
1,61
I 4 93
Fig. 1. Linear transformation of topics.
so that a topic was paired with the others, sometimes occupying the first and other times the second position. A computer program written in Apple II BASIC was used to systematically generate comparisons between all pairs of topics. Forty-five parallel questions were presented taking the same format as follows: In teaching C o m p u t e r Literacy, which topic do you think is more important? __ Computer terminology __ Being able to write computer programs Because of a concern for the nonindependent responding a m o n g topics, each question was printed on a 3 x 5 in. paper. The independent presentation of each item minimized the interruption and influence of other questions. The complete questionnaire was a stapled stack of 45 paper slips with questions printed on them. Data collection
The questionnaire was sent to the 95 Nebraska educators 3 weeks before the spring semester ended in the academic year of 1982-1983. Educators were asked to select the more favorable topic on each comparison considering secondary school computer literacy programs. Three questionnaires failed to reach the subjects because of wrong addresses. Sixty-seven educators responded to this survey within 1 month which constituted a satisfactory return rate of 0.73. The responses were coded into IBM computer data for statistical analysis. A program call Comparative Judgment was used to analyze the data*. METHODOLOGY A 10 x 10 Incidence Matrix was constructed to tally the choices of perference consistent of column over row. Zero counts were placed on the diagonal. The Proportion Matrix was formed by computing the relative proportion of topic selections to the m a x i m u m possible selections in each cell. The value of 0.50s were placed on the diagonal. The two halves of the matrix, of course, appeared compensatory to each other. The proportion values were then transformed to a Z distribution corresponding to the following rule: Pi =
f
zi 1 ~~ %
exp ( - X 2/2).
,
The ten Z-scores on each column were summed up and mean scores were calculated relatively. Ten averaged Z-scores were sorted in an ascending order for linear transformation. The topic with the smallest averaged Z-score was designated as the anchor [9]. The series of average Z-scores were adjusted by subtracting the anchor value from every term of the sorted Z-scores. This process guaranteed the initial constant on the continuum to be zero. Finally, a Linear Transformation of these ten topics (Fig. 1) was obtained by plotting the adjusted Z-scores on a continuum individually. This scale not only reveals the rank order of the importance of computer literacy topics but also provides meaningful interval distances among topics. *Program Comparative Judgment was written by Tina Cheng using PASCAL Language. The program is now available on the UNL IBM 370 computer system.
12
TINAT. CI-IENGand DOROTHYJo STEVENS RESULTS
The Linear Transformation of Topics shows that the competency for public school students to operate computers ranked the highest on the scale with a standardized score of 1.93, which indicates that all ten topics will be scattered within 1.93 score units. Knowing computer terminology ranked the second highest with a score of 1.61. The distance between how to operate computers and knowing computer terminology is 0.32. Understanding the history of computers ranked lowest with an initial score of zero; math concepts also scored low. The distance between history of computers and math concepts is 0.64, which takes one-third of the magnitude on the scale. Besides running computers and knowing the history of computers, the rest of the eight topics are clustered together within a range of less than one score unit. Having positive attitudes and computer impact on society are both located on the upper half of the scale while the ability to write algorithms and programs obtained lower scores. LIMITATIONS There are limitations in this study. The sample was not a true representation of the population. If this research is to be replicated, then it is recommended that the sample size be increased within and between groups to provide a stronger statistical procedure. The increased sample size would allow the-ra~adomization of subjects to reduce the possibility of selection error. Besides, individuals at different positions may perceive the level of importance of each topic differently. The rankings of selected computer literacy teaching topics are expected to be varied between computer literate persons and those who have no computer trainings. The emphasis of teaching topics will be different after educators' level of computer literacy increases. Therefore, the involvement of teachers, administrators, students and parents in identifying prospective computer literacy teaching topics while devising the questionnaire seems to be a reasonable recommendation to increase the validity of the study. Furthermore, the result of this study is generalizable only to high school computer literacy programs in the State of Nebraska.
CONCLUSION Findings of this study concur with findings reviewed in the literature. Participating educators agreed with Gress [10] and Anderson et al. [16] that general knowledge about computers was the major focus for secondary school computer literacy programs. The two-theme assumption proposed by Murphy [13] and Martin and Heller [15] was supported by the fact that topics for the awareness of computers and the competency in using computers were intertwined with each other without distinguishable sequence. Anderson [2], Hunter [11] and Jay's [14] idea of considering affective attitudes as an important element in teaching students about computers was also reinforced by educators surveyed. Individuals need to have independent judgment as to various uses of computers in society in order to become active decision makers on relevant issues. By understanding both the strengths and limitations of computers, students will be motivated to pursue continuous learning about computers as well as to anticipate future progress of computers. Again, hands-on experiences stressed by Nebraska educators coincided with Luehrmann [3] and Jay's [14] conclusion. Thus, adequate computer hardware and quality software are necessary for providing students on-the-line practice. The low rankings of programming skills indicated the lack of agreement among educators on the issue of programming skills. The inclusion of programming skills within computer literacy curriculum may still remain a controversial issue. One contradiction, however, appeared on the topic of computer history. The lowest ranking of computer history on the interval continuum negated the general acceptance of computer history as one of the fundamentals in computer literacy. Educators in this study apparently challenged the teaching strategies adopted in the schools and the way teaching materials were delivered. The recollection of computer developmental events and the memorization of historical contributors were not endorced by educators. Instead, the instillation of philosophical significance of computer technology will more effectively enable students to appreciate computers as a useful tool.
Prioritization
13
Regardless, c u r r i c u l u m p l a n n e r s need to p r o v i d e s t u d e n t s o p p o r t u n i t i e s to b e c o m e c o m p u t e r literate b a s e d on a set o f well defined c o m p e t e n c i e s c o m m e n s u r a t e with the p o p u l a t i o n served. A flexible c o m p u t e r literacy c u r r i c u l u m p l a n is essential to meet the c o m p u t e r literacy needs o f a c h a n g i n g t e c h n o l o g i c a l society. O n e a p p r o a c h to identify initial c o m p e t e n c i e s o r to m o d i f y existing c o m p e t e n c i e s w o u l d be to involve a variety o f p a r t i c i p a n t s to r a n k c u r r e n t c o m p u t e r topics using T h u r s t o n e ' s C o m p a r a t i v e J u d g m e n t process as e x p l a i n e d a n d d e m o n s t r a t e d in this study. Results c o u l d then be used to design a n d i m p l e m e n t a c o m p u t e r literacy p r o g r a m , a n d p r o v i d e a basis for the a c q u i s i t i o n o f a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f h a r d w a r e , software a n d personnel. F u r t h e r m o r e , staff d e v e l o p m e n t p l a n n e d to meet specific objectives w o u l d be m o r e efficient a n d effective. A c o n t i n u o u s e v a l u a t i o n system is r e q u i r e d for p r o g r a m m o d i f i c a t i o n s a n d s t u d e n t assessment. Because o f the m u l t i f a c e t e d n a t u r e o f c o m p u t e r literacy, no single test can s t a n d alone as an e v a l u a t i o n device. A n on-line d e m o n s t r a t i o n a n d an a t t i t u d e i n v e n t o r y s u p p l e m e n t a r y to a well designed cognitive e x a m i n a t i o n will assess s t u d e n t s ' t o t a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g a b o u t c o m p u t e r s a n d their c o m p e t e n c y level in using c o m p u t e r s . A C o m p u t e r L i t e r a c y E x a m i n a t i o n : C o g n i t i v e A s p e c t is being d e v e l o p e d at U N L . F i n a l r e p o r t will be p r e s e n t e d p u b l i c l y after the v a l i d a t i o n process is complete. REFERENCES 1. Deringer D. K. and Molnar A. R., Key components for a national computer literacy Program 1980. Computer Literac3, , pp. 3-9. Academic Press, New York (1982). 2. Anderson R. E., National computer literacy, 1981. Computer Literacy, pp. 9-17. Academic Press, New York (1982). 3. Luehrmann A., Computer literacy--what it should be? Math. Teach. 74, 682-686 (1981). 4. Stevens D. J., Computers, curriculum, and careful planning. Educ. Technol. November, 21-24 (1981). 5. Witt D., Education for citizenship in a computer-based society. In Computer Literacy: Issues and Directions for 1985 (Edited by Seidel R. J., Anderson R. E. and Hunter B.), pp. 53-68. Academic Press, New York (1982). 6. Horn C. E. and Poirot J. L., Computer Literacy: Problem Solving with Computers. Sterling Swift, Texas (1981). 7. Hansen T. P., Klassen D. L., Anderson R. E. and Johnson D. C., What teachers think every high school graduate should know about computers. Sch. Sci. Math. 81, 467-472 (1982). 8. Gawronski J. D., Computer literacy and school mathematics. Math. Teach. 74, 613-614 (1981). 9. Thurston L. L., A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 34, 273-286 (1927). 10. Gress E. K., A computer-literacy module for the junior high school. Arith. Teach. 29, No. 7, 46-49 (1982). 11. Hunter B., What makes a computer literacy College? Ninth Conference on Computers in the Undergraduate Curricula, pp. 217-226 (1978). 12. Seidel R. J., On the development of an information handling curriculum: computer llteracy a dynamic concept. Computer Literacy: Issues and Directions 1985, pp. 19-23. Academic Press, New York 1980. 13. Murphy E. J., Developing computer literacy in K-12 education. Comput. Teach. May, 43-48 (1982). 14. Jay T. B., Computerphobia: what to do about it? Educ. Technol. January, 47-48 (1981). 15. Martin C. D. and Heller R. S., Computer literacy for teachers. Educ. Leader. October, 46M7 (1982). 16. Anderson E. A., Klassen D. L. and Johnson D. C., A defense of a comprehensive view of computer literacy--a reply to Luehrmann. Math. Teach. 74, 687-690 (1981). 17. Bloom S. B., Taxonomy o f Educational Objectives: The Classification o f Educational Goals Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. David Mokay Co., New York (1964).