Computer Literacy as Ideology

Conclusions

In this paper, we have tried to bring a critical perspective to the examination of "computer literacy" as an ideological form. We have tried to show that, despite its vagueness, and its attempt to appeal simultaneously to the various traditions and goals of education, its message is primarily one of adjustment to an inevitable future of vocational and marketplace automation. By talking directly to students and teachers in schools, our research project found expressions of both acceptance and resistance to this message. Resistance was often expressed in contradictory ways, but nevertheless raised important issues for consideration by educators: Is the ideology of computer literacy being imposed on schools unnecessarily? Is it, as it claims, serving a broad range of genuinely educational purposes? Or are the real purposes of classroom computer use perhaps even primarily ideological? Are computers being introduced to schools for the main purpose of conditioning students to accepts them as part of their everyday lives, whether they find them beneficial or not? Is it possible that their chief purpose is to promote acquiescence, to encourage acceptance of forms of technology and automation which benefit employers, at the expense of employees?

What we are suggesting is that teachers and policy-makers should become more critical of the purposes of computerized education, and begin to insist on a more serious role in defining and directing the appropriate use of information technology in their classrooms. Though admittedly scanty, the evidence presented here points toward a number of possible new directions for educational policy. First of all, an effort could be made to ameliorate the myth of inevitability. Even within the vocational tradition, we need realistic portrayals of future job markets which would recognize that the number of high-tech jobs which will actually demand intensive computer knowledge will be a small minority of those available. Instead, a certain minimal ability to work with computers as tools will characterize the bulk of jobs that use computers at all. The implication of this recognition is that instead of the broad-based computer literacy programmes being advocated, a more focused - and for most students, a generally much lower - level of computer use in classrooms may be appropriate.

There may also be an acceptable role for computers within the developmental and pedagogic traditions. Several exciting experiments in multi-media education and networked learning are currently under way - experiments which concentrate on using computers as tools for the furtherance of exploration and dialogue, not for isolated exercises, or purposes of "attitudinal conditioning". We must be cautious, however, that the ideology of computing does not blind us to the costs, the difficulties, and the trade-offs involved in these experiments. Whatever the strengths of high-technology learning aids, they must be combined with meaningful human interaction in order to further the development of complete human beings.

Most importantly, educators need to question whether in fact they themselves have accepted the ideology of computer literacy uncritically. The pressure comes from many sides: from industry representatives anxious to sell computing hardware; from parents who think their children need to be equipped with computer skills in order to compete, both in school and at work; and from other teachers and administrators who want to feel that they are modern and up-to-date (or who are carving themselves a profitable career niche as a "specialist"). All of these forces may conspire to push computerized learning into places where it does not contribute to the larger goals of the school. Teachers and administrators need to ask themselves whether the vocational argument need apply to all subject areas, including art, geography, and English. They need to question the assumption that all computer training results in a smooth ascent up an imaginary ladder of skills. And they need to question whether students who find, for whatever reasons, that they do not get along well with computers, must be penalized for that distaste, or whether they have an equal right to a place in school and in society.