College Freshmen Struggle With Tech Literacy

snow_man writes to mention an article on the E-Commerce News site about techno-literacy problems with incoming college freshmen. Some schools, like CSU, are planning on including a technology comprehension test alongside their English and Math evaluations for new students. From the article: "Not all of Generation M can synthesize the loads of information they're accessing, educators say. 'They're geeky, but they don't know what to do with their geekdom,' said Barbara O'Connor, a Sacramento State communications studies professor involved in a nationwide effort to hone students' computer-research skills. On a recent nationwide test to measure their technological 'literacy' -- their ability to use the Internet to complete class assignments -- only 49 percent of the test-takers correctly evaluated a set of Web sites for objectivity, authority and timeliness. Only 35 percent could correctly narrow an overly broad Internet search."

Comments

i have noticed this strange phenomenon

[treat]

At first I suspected it was because I've been doing searches since the days of archie. But more and more I've come to realize that some people just have no skill when it comes to doing a web search. I think it's primarily due to poor reading comprehension and poor reading speed.

These people who can't do searches, they click on results where the summary clearly shows that it is not the desired material. If they had read every word, it would have been clear.

It's a basic literacy problem. Americans have really poor literacy. The destruction of the concept that parents should educate their children, combined with an increasingly poor public education system, has left us with a generation too illiterate to do a web search.

Re:i have noticed this strange phenomenon

[ivan256]

The destruction of the concept that parents should educate their children

That's the entire problem right there. People have come to expect that the government is going to do that job for them, when really it is their responsibility to make sure their child learns. A typical child's success learning to read or write has little to with how much money the local school has, and everything to do with whether the parents culture is one of reading and teaching, and the parents career is one that allows for that.

Re:i have noticed this strange phenomenon

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you been to a public high school lately? Half the kids don't speak Enlish, much less read or write it. With 'no child left behind' the teachers have to cater to the slowest part of the class, while the rest are left to their own devices. A signle disorderly student (that belongs to a juvie hall) wrecks the educational process for 20-30 other people, and the teachers can do NOTHING (you can't use red pens anymore, much less give the turd a four-across-the-eyes or expell him, and their parents that should be doing the job just plain don't give a fuck).

Even worse, colleges will not take kids with poor education, preferring to enroll foreign students instead. Have you wondered why you see so many aliens on campuses? Well, that's because they are better than our failing public education system can produce.

And the poor American kids are left in a hole with only two ways out: army or meth cooking.

And it will take radical measures to fix this growing prlobem.

Re:i have noticed this strange phenomenon

[Venik]

People have come to expect that the government is going to do that job for them...

Sweden and Russia and two good examples of how a government can achieve excellent results by actively developing and implementing common standards in education. Parents, who themselves grew up in the TV-watching culture, are unlikely to encourage their children to read. Only the government, through a well-planned national campaign, can break this cycle. The way to a better public education system is not throwing more money at the problem. I agree with you here. I think the answer is in further standardization of curricula, textbooks, teaching and testing methods, introduction of uniforms in public schools, and a better system for evaluating professional competency of the faculty. Higher salaries for teachers is where the extra money should go.

Re:i have noticed this strange phenomenon

[cashman73]

Yes. Google has 9,160,000 links right here.

Re:i have noticed this strange phenomenon

[dangitman]

Those links (at least the first couple of pages) don't contain instructions on how to get out of a paper bag. They are just sites that refer to paper bags, or use the phrase "couldn't $$$$$ his/her way out of a paper bag." So, what is the magic Google-fu required to Google one's way out of a paper bag?

Re:i have noticed this strange phenomenon

[KingJackaL]

http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=%22get+out+ of+a+wet+paper+bag%22

...gives several examples on the first hit ;)

Re:i have noticed this strange phenomenon

[mangu]

But are you any more effective using Google when you search outside your own field?

Yes, I am. Inside my own field I have better options than Google, i.e. I have my own library, notes, etc. But for subjects with which I am less familiar, my favorite method is to look it up in Google, followed by the Wikipedia, although this order could be reversed. It's mostly the convenience in my browser (konqueror) where I can type "gg:" followed by the search string to go directly to Google that sets my preference.

The Propaedia, or outline of the EB, the Syntopicon, the index of ideas and themes which framed the Great Books of the Western World.

The Propaedia is the most useless book in my EB, I have never used it for anything. It could be useful, perhaps, if one wanted to start a methodical study of some subject, but that's what textbooks are for. Let's open the Propaedia at random, here we are: page 535, Division II, section 825-D The religions of Korea. I get ten pointers to articles, the first of which is 10:530-534, which is, naturally, "Korean Religion" in the Macropaedia. If I'm going to read that article, I'll certainly find other pointers to look over, I don't need the Propaedia for that.

I would generally classify an encyclopedia as a middle step between the web and a textbook. For a quick idea on a subject, I search the web, for a better understanding I read the Britannica, for in-depth knowledge I get a book. For me, the web is a much improved substitute to library catalog search.

Missing the point...

[Anonymous Coward]

This sort of topic has come up before, and the conclusion that should be drawn is the same -- this situation has little to do with technology, and a lot to do with lack of basic critical thinking skills.

As long as US schools (for what it's worth, I don't necessarily know if it's a lot better elsewhere) continue to fail in teaching critical thinking skills properly, early enough to make a difference that is, then people will continue to be clueless when it comes to the sort of problems highlighted. Again, it's not a technology problem, but an educational one, which in fact is basically a symptom of the current values of our society and their effect on education. But that's another story altogether...

Re:Missing the point...

[INT_QRK]

Reminds me of a political debate that I frequently found myself engaging to defend my funding when I ran a military technical school back in the 90's. The story went something like this: "Kids today are born knowing about computers! Classroom training is expensive and redundant! Computer based training is more efficient and cost effective!" The fallacy, of course is the opening gamut. Kids then and today (first hand experience -- I put three of my own kids through college) mostly know about how to manipulate a mouse and navigate basic menus -- not the same as "knowing about computers," as in, understanding architectures, languages, logic, etc.. Trial and error in redoing questions until "Thats right!" appears does not critical thinking make or even promote. Another problem is that kids often have trouble maintaining focus on text of length greater than about a half-web page. At least a good instructor can detect a confused look as s/he pans the classroom, ask a focused question to check for comprehension, and recursively present examples, anecdotes, and analogies that eventually may wear away the confusion. I concur completely with the need to reemphasize critical thinking in the schools -- first step is to get rid of the idea of the education major and have CS majors teach CS, math majors teach math, engineers teach...

Re:Missing the point...

[Descalzo]

first step is to get rid of the idea of the education major and have CS majors teach CS, math majors teach math, engineers teach...

In my state (Utah), you can not teach in a high school without a degree in the subject you are to teach. They have bent the rules, but in the past couple of years it has become much more strict. I understand that there is still some bending of the rules in small, rural schools, but it is still discouraged.

In Utah, if you major in education, you can teach grades 1-8. In practice (at least in my county) that doesn't include math. If you want to teach anything higher than Math 6 you have to go back to school and get an endorsement. Also, if you major in Special Education (usually dual major with Education) you can teach special classes K-12. Minors or emphases you take in college can count for something as well. For example, a Spanish minor might get you certified to teach up through grade 9 in Spanish, and a Math emphasis would certify you to teach Pre-Algebra (or maybe it's Algebra 1).

If you majored in Math or something like that and later decide to get a teaching certificate, you have to go back to school to take some Education classes. You learn about stuff like content area literacy, classroom management, and so forth.

So my point is that you already have what you want: CS majors are already teaching CS, etc., at least in secondary schools in Utah. I think implementing that sort of thing in elementary schools would be very difficult.

The Next Generation...

[__aaclcg7560]

Generation M is what? I thought Generation Z was up next. At least, it's not Generation 2.0+ (TM).

Re:The Next Generation...

[lifebouy]

Generation M is a five issue (Marvel X-men spinoff) mini-series written by Paul Jenkins and pencilled by Ramon Bachs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_M/

Easy.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is so hard about "porn -midget -horse -gay"?

Re:Easy.

[__aaclcg7560]

It's bad for the horse.

Re:Easy.

[KermodeBear]

You mistyped that a bit. Let me help you:
"porn -midget +horse -gay"

What about non-internet sources?

[dircha]

I would be surprised if freshmen were much better at evaluating and weighing objectivity and authority in traditional sources such as books, journals, and newspapers.

And I would like to know the criteria for the "correct" evaluation of the objectivity and authority of these sources.

"Only 35 percent could narrow an overly broad internet search"

Yeah, and what percent of incoming freshmen new how to narrow an overly broad search using whatever ancient, proprietary electronic card catalog system the school useswithout being taught? Probably less than 35%.

Technoliterate? Pah!

[Atlantis-Rising]

Sadly, however, it is not techno-literacy that's the problem. The real problem is that I know people who have come out of graduate programs who can't write a letter. When I was in university, I would easily say that seventy-five percent of my graduating class could not write a proper thesis statement, to say nothing of any particular other style that might be required.

Let's not screw around with these modern ideas of technology- we have to go back to the basics; reading and writing. Let's make sure people can read a newspaper before we ask them to read code. Let's make sure they can multiply before we ask them to write it. Our society depends on these things. Not knowing how to find the 'start' button or what a network stack is lags an extremely distant third, if at all.

Which CSU?

[Corvaith]

Is it really too much to ask to actually write out the full names of universities? I realize it's a short way into the article, but seriously. I live in Ohio. CSU is Cleveland State, to me. KSU is Kent State. Elsewhere, KSU might be Kansas State (and is, as far as domains go), and CSU is apparently California... but especially as summaries go, I can't psychically know that you mean California. USC is more commonly the University of Southern California... but it's also the University of South Carolina.

Nobody's fingers are at risk of falling off from those few additional letters, are they?

I know, it's not *that* important, but it makes me peevish.

Hmmm I wonder why

[MikeRT]

Could it be that most students today have no ability to critically think? When I took a Poli Sci class to see how the other half lived in college, I wasn't surprised. I was met by peers who were largely spoon-fed political propaganda and could regurgitate it, but couldn't actually rationally justify it. For me it was like clubbing baby seals because I have frequently subjected my own views to a level of introspection that they would never do.

Why doesn't this surprise me? Because the public schools don't teach a bloody thing anymore unless you live in a rich district. Even there, they generally teach only math or science very well. There are some very worthy things about the classical education model with its three phases which happen to correspond pretty closely with recently observed brain development in most people.

Re:Hmmm I wonder why

[Sigma 7]

Could it be that most students today have no ability to critically think?

Actually, the ability to critically think is continuously supressed in the public "regurgitation" school system. These systems train students that there is exactly one correct answer to questions, and that they have to be done in a specific method. The supression of the theory of evolution is one example.

The only way to develop the skill is to follow the concept of He Said, She Said - find a topic (e.g. Is capital punishment acceptable?), and write two opposing viewpoints. As much as you hate the rigid 5-paragraph essay, it is ideal for keeping your two opposing arguments balanced enough. Here's a scaled down version (i.e. two 5-sentence paragraphs) of such an argument:

+ Capital punishment is necessary in the criminal justice system. When criminals commit severe crimes, they remain in jail for the rest of their life, leeching from the rest of society. Capital punishment will significantly reduce the overall cost by cutting down the number of years such criminals can remain a burden. In addition, this punishment can also be utilized as a method to encourage reformation (similar to parole) where produtive prisoners are permitted to enjoy life for a longer period. This economic advantage can help both society and prisoner reformation.

- Capital punishment is the bane of society. The current justice system is inaccurrate with a large quantity of false convictions. These false convictions, which include charges "worthy" of capital punishment, can be composed of fabrication of evidence, political motivation, Confessing Sams, or general mistakes. A direct result of such blunders is a loss of an innocent life. To prevent such unnecessary loss, capital punishment must be avoided at all costs.

As you take a look from both sides of an argument, you become better developed in handling suspect claims. While you may initially have an emotional feeling concerning something not being "right", this will change into being able to detect the exact arguments that are causing the problem.

Objective Sources?

[d2_m_viant]

Call me cynical, but I question what they define as "objective" and "an authority". As I near the end of my senior year, I can't help but think back over the last four years and think of all the professors who tried drilling into us the notion that Wikipedia was the worst source of information on the 'net, and while their arguments may hold some facticity, I don't believe it's any less objective than some of the traditional sources of information. Not when you have:

• Dan Rather's debacle with the Word documents
• 920 Reuters images being pulled because they're suspected of being altered
• the Jayson Blair situation over the course of many years

The point is, adults in this nation think these traditional institutions are objective, so why are we faulting the youth for their assumptions?

the education fraud

[nido]

That's the entire problem right there. People have come to expect that the government is going to do that job [educate their children] for them, ...

Ah yes, the classic bait-and-switch technique. Government: "we're going to educate the children now, so every child gets a chance at developing to their full potential." Meanwhile, they're building an alternate set of "education railroad tracks" that lead to a land where illiteracy is the norm and 'the masses' (We the People) are easy to trick and control. Government goons take over the train's engine and throw the switch, all while proclaiming that all their schools need are a few superficial fixes to make them work right.

Maybe if I hadn't wasted all that time in the government's schools my analogy would be more coherent. John Gatto is very articulate in his trashing of the government school concept. Be sure to read (if you can, that is) /The Underground History of American Education/, and The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher.

Re:the education fraud

[dangitman]

Maybe if I hadn't wasted all that time in the government's schools my analogy would be more coherent. John Gatto [johntaylorgatto.com] is very articulate in his trashing of the government school concept.

So, we trashh the government schools. What then? Who educates the people who can't afford a private education?

Re:the education fraud

[nido]

Who educates the people who can't afford a private education?

My mother's parents couldn't afford to send her to Kindergarten (in 1950's Texas, Kindergarten cost extra), so they sent her to a caretaker's instead. It was cheaper than kindergarten, in that it allowed her mother to work full time.

Mom was bored out of her little mind at the caretaker's. With a little help from some slightly older children, she taught herself to read. But she learned a much more important lesson: If there was anything at all she wanted to learn, it was her responsibility to teach herself.

Government schools hurt children because they teach children that all knowledge comes from a higher authority.

Gatto gives examples of notable americans who educated themselves in an early chapter in his Underground History.

Re:the education fraud

[dangitman]

The poor will still be able to go to school, but the schools are no longer government owned.

So, how would the ownership being private make any difference to the quality of education? It would probably just end up costing the government a lot more money, and a bunch of shonky institutions would spring up to suck off the government teat, with little concern for quality education.

It also raises problems - like government money being spent on schools which might violate separation of Church and State, for example. What's wrong with improving government schools? I don't see why the concept of the government owning schools is bad in itself. Privatization is also not a guaranteed cure for poor education. There are plenty of terrible private schools out there.

Re:the education fraud

[jb.hl.com]

In the UK, they rejigged the NHS a bit, introducing an "internal market", where hospitals would be in competition with one another and would bid against each other for things.

From Wikipedia:
In 1990, the National Health Service & Community Care Act (in England) defined this "internal market", whereby Health Authorities ceased to run hospitals but "purchased" care from their own or other authorities' hospitals. Certain GPs became "fund holders" and were able to purchase care for their patients. The "providers" became independent trusts, which encouraged competition but also increased local differences.

What happened was that nobody provided the best healthcare, they provided the cheapest healthcare possible, fund holders bought that healthcare (where corners had obviously been cut) and the hospitals got less funding because they could "provide" "healthcare" so cheaply.

If you want another example of private ownership completely fucking up a formerly public service in the name of profit, then I invite you to read up on British Rail and its dismantling, and its replacement with a system of about 348420 "competing" train companies sharing the same track and none of the maintenance duties, where train companies run services in the cheapest possible way (usually meaning hell for passengers) and collect government subsidies for fucking up the service even further.

Did "competition" help the NHS or British Rail? No, it fucked them up, subjecting them to undue internal and external pressures. My point is this: FREE MARKETS AND COMPETITION ARE NOT A PANACEA. If you are providing a public service then trying to fit that public service into a free market model, or trying to make it make a profit, simply will not work without some drastic corner cutting.

Re:the education fraud

[Conanymous Award]

Finland, with its public schools, has one of the best literacy rates and most lauded school systems in the world. The problem is not the fact that it's the gummint that runs things. It's just how they run it. You can do things well or you can fsck it all up.

Re:the education fraud

[porkchop_d_clown]

Again, where are underprivileged kids going to get access to materials and mentorship?

Wow. you're really struggling with the whole parenthood concept, aren't you?

I was reading before kindergarten; my dad drove a truck and my mother was a waitress. But they still made time to focus on helping me learn.

Oh, and they have these wacky inventions in most cities? They're called libraries they let you read books for free.

I lived in ours.

Re:the education fraud

[ConceptJunkie]

The problem is that the government solutions tends to sacrifice the good of the many to solve the problems of the few. Some people can't or won't educate their kids? Then create crappy mandatory government schools where no one gets a good education. Then vilify anyone who thinks we should have an alternative.

Another example: You used to be able to buy little pills to dissolve in distilled water to create contact lens cleaning solution. It seems some people were too stupid to do this right, so you can't buy them any more and you have to buy premixed solution, which of course is much more expensive.

I won't even mention jarts.

The government can't solve these kinds of problems because it simply can't create solutions that will be efficient, effective and have a reasonable cost for all people. In fact, if you can get one of these three for more than a quarter of the target population, you're lucky.

Of course, the government should be providing education to those who can't provide it for themselves. The problem is that it needs to be a good education, and those people who are in the worst socioeconomic situations usually have the worst schools. But even if the government wanted or could to fix the problem, the teachers' unions have too much to lose if the status quo is disrupted.

Literacy

[ShakaUVM]

What on Earth does Technological Literacy have to do with being able to evaluate a web site's authority and timeliness?

Seriously, that's more of library science issue, or whatever you call it. Technological literacy is the ability to use technology to get stuff done. Website criticism isn't really much part of that.

Re:Uh...

[Lord Crc]

Just because they use "tech" devices does not mean they understand how they actually work. A calculator is an example. Many are taught how to use one, but have no concept of the math involved.

Indeed. Here in Norway, there's an ongoing debate about the rather appalling math level of our school kids. I'm certain it has a LOT to do with calculators. All they learn now is how to punch numbers into a calculator and get some result.

I saw this first hand when I tried to help my girlfriend take some slightly more advanced math. If she encountered an assignment where she was unsure of how to proceed, she would grab the calculator and examine each and every button on it, trying to find that "magic button". In most cases the assignment could be solved perfectly without a calculator.

I like my previous math professor's attitude. When solving some problem on the blackboard, he could say "and then you can punch this into a calculator and get some number, but that's not the important part".

I do that often

[mangu]

People would go to Google, type in a website url to search for, and click the link

Unless you know the exact url, that's usually the quickest way to find a site. A notorious example: try to get the Nissan car company website in the USA.

You can't google out of a paper bag

[mysticgoat]

I just checked with several variations. The most successful was
"find his way out of a paper bag" instructions

Basically there's lots of info about paper bags and what goes into them and crafty little things you can do with them.

But there is no way to google yourself out of a paper bag. Can't be done.

Funny story

[vga_init]

I'm reminded of the time I was an aide in my high school's computer lab. Usually the lab was used for drafting and design classes, so you'd expect the kids to have some experience with computers (if you've got to learn AutoCAD, you already know some basic functions).

So one day the teacher in charge asks me to help one student that is trying to log in. He can't figure out what the problem is, and the teacher doesn't want to fix it until he knows what is going on.

I go over there, and the kid just sits there, staring at the login screen. He asks me what to do, so I just read the screen to him; "Enter your username. Enter your password. Click OK." Pretty soon a window pops up that says "incorrect password."

So this kid isn't using the right password, and he can't figure it out even though it says so right on the screen. After I see the message, I try to inform him: "It looks like you don't know your password." The kid hears this and gets angry, "Yes, that IS my password." Actually, it's not his password--the proof was right on the screen. Upon hearing his complaint, I quickly rephrase my statement: "Oh, I'm sorry... the computer doesn't know your password." That makes sense to him, and I go have the password reset by the administrator.

True, lots of people are not "technologically literate" or whatever, but I think for a lot of people the problem is a little deeper than the mere fact that a computer was involved.