The range of debate over the term computer literacy in the educational press covers just about every conceivable notion of the term but that debate is heavily weighted towards developmental-modernizationalist approaches and instrumental solutions. The dialog is replete with ambiguous, general statements: "Every student should have first-hand experiences with both the capabilities and the limitations of computers through contemporary applications" (Mathematics Teacher, 1978:468).

The most simple of these discussions are guilty of assuming that their readers understand and agree with their author's goals. For these people computer literacy usually consists of "an understanding of uses, advantages and limitations of computers" (Adams 1984:96,7) or computer literacy means "developing skills to use computer applications which bear on persistent life situations such as communications, education, governance, consumerism, entertainment, and employment (`"Eisele 1980:84). The most extensive are huge, unmanageable lists of goals and objectives drawn from surveys of a wide variety of computer literacy curriculums and which try to incorporate every aspect of every course surveyed.[3] They provide a kind of encyclopedia of contemporary computer literacy thinking, but would be almost useless for trying to establish a curriculum because of their complexity. They might be useful if one were trying to set up an independent school to produce computer scientists with a liberal arts background.

A general overview of the majority of work in computer literacy shows a number of "universal" understandings for computer literacy programs. These include: [4]

• A knowledge of computer theory, including some knowledge of how computer hardware makes possible and constrains the things a computer can accomplish (Adams 1984, Inskeep 1982, Tannenbaum and Rahn 1984, Uthe 1981).
• Learning hexadecimal and binary number systems (Price 1978, Steen 1984).
• knowledge of algorithms and data structures, where "one who is truly computer literate must be able to 'do computing' - to conceptualize problems algorithmically, to represent them in the syntax of a computer language, ... and to express computational ideas clearly ... and with a high degree of organization and readability (Arthur Luehmann in Douglas 1980:97).
• These skills are said to provide the basis of an "educationally sound preparation for the information age" (Steen 1984:517).
• A knowledge of the history and development of computers (Inskeep 1982, Tannenbaum and Rahn 1984).
• A knowledge of what a computer is and what it is capable of doing (Adams 1984, Inskeep 1982, Wilburn 1989, Uthe 1981).
• Some programming ability, usually in BASIC, Pascal or Logo. This is usually characterized as a lesson in "structured thinking" which the student is supposed to get from exposure to programming (Adams 1984, Inskeep 1982, Wilburn 1989).
• The ability to apply computer skills to information retrieval and communication in the process of problem solving, and decision making (D. Levin 1983). This includes the ability to use computers to access information that is unavailable or difficult to access via other means.
• The ability to choose software and applications in support of some defined objective. Includes the ability to distinguish between applications that suit one's needs and ones that don't (Inskeep 1982, D. Levin 1983, Shore 1984, Wilburn 1989).[5]
• The ability to apply computer skills and tools to the problems of everyday life at work and in the home. Here, computer literacy means "the ability to process information in support of the decision-making process" (Shore 1984:329) (Adams 1984, Eisele 1980, Pickert and Hunter 1983, Wilburn 1989).
• An understanding of the "social impact of computers", by which some mean that computers are sometimes used to "steal money and information" (Johnson, David et. al. 1980:95) and that computers have both positive and negative social impacts (Adams 1984, Eisele 1980, Pickert and Hunter 1983, Tannenbaum and Rahn 1984, Uthe 1981).
• The ability to control a program and a computer to achieve a variety of personal, academic, and professional goals (Tannenbaum and Rahn 9184).

Finally, many of the articles in the debate about computer literacy that ostensibly set out to either define computer literacy or illuminate our understanding of the issue, instead merely talk about how one goes about teaching computer literacy, what computer literacy course content should or might look like or they talk about how one might talk about the notion of computer literacy (Bowman 1986, M. Johnson 1980, D. Levin 1983, Longstreet and Sorant 1985).

The length of the David Johnson et. al. list notwithstanding, no one author has done a thorough job of defining the term computer literacy. Perhaps Albert Goldberg has it right when he says that terms like computer literacy "mean whatever one wants them to mean, applied to whatever educational environment one works in, institutional or otherwise" (Goldberg 1984:34 - italics in original).

What all of these definitions have in common is that none of them incorporates any critical understanding that moves beyond computers themselves. What critical understanding there is - calling for an appreciation of the "ethical and legal implications of computer usage" (Adams 1984:97) - never challenges the assumption that computers are part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Additionally, many of these definitions are completely focussed on computer technology and ignore the goals and objectives of the people involved. They assume that computers are amoral, benign devices, something to be known objectively. In general, their view of computer literacy is one that glorifies computers. It is one that exhorts computer literacy programs to train entry-level computer operators. It is not one that would produce students who are critical of the activities in which they are engaged. In short, for the majority of the educational press, computer literacy is simply the ability to deal with the computer itself in terms that it understands. Any other uses for computers grow out of and are incidental to these skills.

There is a sharp contrast between the clarity of the goals and means to those ends when educational authors talk about the technical-rational part of computer literacy and when they are discussing the socio-political actions and consequences of computers. The discussion is quite sharp, with little in the way of ambiguity, when these authors are discussing how computer language training should take place. Completely the opposite is true when they begin talking about how students should come to understand the impact(s) of computers in society. In most cases, this topic is dismissed with a few, general comments, calling for "an understanding of X," and then moving quickly to the point of the article, which is usually to elaborate some notion of how computers are useful for increasing a student's technical-rational problem solving skills.

All these definitions are both right in some senses and completely wrong at the same time. They are correct in that, given that it is highly unlikely that computers will somehow disappear from society, everyone should know something about them, even if they do not own one or even expect to do so. On the other hand these definitions are seriously problematic because they are basically technologically determinist.

This view of computer literacy as focussed on the applications end of the use of computers is not, as has been noted, one pole of the argument, offset by a different view of computer literacy as programming ability. It is rather, the logical progression of the development of the idea as those who sought to define the concept tried to keep pace with the developments in the computer field itself. By the mid-1980's, definitions of computer literacy came to focus more and more on the abilities of users to extend themselves into the world at large with the help of a computer. Computer literacy was no longer defined as just the ability to write programs and understand how computers themselves work. The definition was being expanded to include the ability to pick a proper software applications package, modify it if necessary (although not necessarily by modifying the code internally) and put it to work to solve problems. In one sense, the notion of computer literacy was being expanded to include the "degree of competence required to function in today's world" (Longstreet and Sorant 1985:118). Note that this extension is not away from computer-centered activities. There is no mention of using computers to exchange information the way that books are used to build a bridge for ideas across time and space. These definitions see the computer and its applications packages as the central organizing tool. What these definitions of computer literacy fail to note is that a computer is a tool that places constraints on the work being done by virtue of the kinds of problems it is capable of addressing and "solving."

As the debate about computer literacy moves into the future it looks more like a codification than an argument. That is, the same issues - students need to be computer literate - constantly come to the surface and the same debates - computer literacy as programming vs. applications knowledge - go around while little gets added to anyone's understanding.

http://communication.ucsd.edu/bjones/comp_lit_paper.html