HU2642 post #10
Reading: "Literacy and Computer Literacy: Analyzing the NRC's Being Fluent with Information Technology" by Kate Williams
Williams seems at first to take the approach of critiquing an existing paper with the intention of shooting it full of holes, but after reading into it somewhat, I think it takes more of the flavor of trying to fill in the holes that already exist. Which isn't to say that I necessarily began to find it any more interesting, but at least it was somewhat less disagreeable.
I took a break from reading this in the middle, and during the interim a friend mentioned something that made something I'd read stick a little better. I can't seem to find it again, but there was some discussion about the context of literacy being relevant to how it is learned. My friend mentioned having taken some computer programming classwork and finding it completely uninteresting, but when the classes in his major (i.e. ones he wanted to take) started asking him to write programs to solve problems in that context he really got into it. The language to write the programs was essentially the same, but he wasn't motivated to become fluent in it until he saw a clear purpose on a personal level.
The only other thing I really had a comment about was near the end of section 9 where Williams argues for "computer literacy for everyone, without narrowing the focus to any social elite." While this is a very admirable sentiment, it works contrary to every technology in history. Whether we like it or not, new stuff is expensive, and it therefore it comes to the wealthier class first. This sets the stage for the inevitable cultural and historical access issues that Blackmon discussed in a previous reading.
Williams seems at first to take the approach of critiquing an existing paper with the intention of shooting it full of holes, but after reading into it somewhat, I think it takes more of the flavor of trying to fill in the holes that already exist. Which isn't to say that I necessarily began to find it any more interesting, but at least it was somewhat less disagreeable.
I took a break from reading this in the middle, and during the interim a friend mentioned something that made something I'd read stick a little better. I can't seem to find it again, but there was some discussion about the context of literacy being relevant to how it is learned. My friend mentioned having taken some computer programming classwork and finding it completely uninteresting, but when the classes in his major (i.e. ones he wanted to take) started asking him to write programs to solve problems in that context he really got into it. The language to write the programs was essentially the same, but he wasn't motivated to become fluent in it until he saw a clear purpose on a personal level.
The only other thing I really had a comment about was near the end of section 9 where Williams argues for "computer literacy for everyone, without narrowing the focus to any social elite." While this is a very admirable sentiment, it works contrary to every technology in history. Whether we like it or not, new stuff is expensive, and it therefore it comes to the wealthier class first. This sets the stage for the inevitable cultural and historical access issues that Blackmon discussed in a previous reading.