Post by: sandbox on May 28, 2006, 12:05:02 AM
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/24/0125200
It generated thought outside my box of sand........
Post by: Klaus1 on May 28, 2006, 06:31:55 PM
QUOTE(sandbox @ May 28 2006, 06:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
...........does anyone have any recommendations for computer literacy goals, and how to measure them?"
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/24/0125200
It generated thought outside my box of sand........
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/24/0125200
It generated thought outside my box of sand........
From your link: "Unfortunately for too many, it means being able to use Microsoft products, and that's all."
For me, it means NOT having to use Microsoft products, not wanting to use Microsoft products, and not allowing into your house any computer running a Microsoft OS!
Post by: RHPConsult on May 28, 2006, 07:04:09 PM
And just a little more . . . off the top of my head.
The opening post in that thread (and the, so-to-speak, obverse of it as stated here) points to a larger "goal", methinks.
"It" means accomplishing a task, not operating a machine, which implies being able to see what a machine can do and then doing it, well in excess of some minimal manipulation.
One can hold a pencil with knowing how to write. One can write an alphabet without knowing how to spell. Being able to write a subject + a predicate does not assure that a reader will learn, or enjoy, or be moved by an idea. Being really "literate" seems to me to require far more than mechanics.
Computer literacy should mean more than knowing how to boot a machine or spell check a declarative sentence.
That's my story (for now) and you're stuck with it!
Hey, SB, fascinating thread . . . in its possibilities.
Post by: sandbox on May 28, 2006, 09:32:28 PM
Yesterday while in the ER, at the local A+ hospital, I observed a Nurse, a Practitioner, and attending Doctor try to access a Microsoft application on a wall mounted Dell monitor with a flip-up keyboard, tied into every piece of human system analysis equipment in that cubical and not one of them were able to go beyond the password.
When asked, not one of them could explain what the computer did, but knew how to do their job without it. To me, it's much harder to qualify for their positions as medical professionals than it is to run a single program on a computer, but that's just me I guess.
On a grand scale how could these medical professionals operate in a real crisis if they become dependent on that program, but unable to operate it? According the the Practitioner, the system is down more than it's up and the only way around it is the have IT come to he cubical and fix it. When asked "how do they fix it?" the answer was "I don't know!" Of course my next question would have been "why not?" But they had more pressing things to do.
If your job requires you to drive, then it would also require you to have a license to do so. I suspect that anyone required to operated a computer as part of their job should also obtain a license.
Multiply this inefficiency around the world and the cost is insurmountable, maybe even the cost to life?
and I haven't even approached the cost of that Custom Dell system hung on the wall.
Post by: Gregg on May 29, 2006, 08:35:52 AM
Post by: Paddy on May 29, 2006, 12:23:04 PM
When I go to get my car repaired, they can put in my name and phone number and quickly pull up the entire repair history; yes, you could do that on paper, but think of the storage! And it is quick, so again, it depends. The library can quickly print out a list of everything we've borrowed, after they very quickly scan it all in using the barcodes, so I can stick the list on the fridge for easy reference when it comes time to find and return it all. (If you saw how many books we already have in this household, you'd see why this is essential!!) These are all things that are accomplished MUCH faster and more accurately than we'd be able to do without the computer.
Of course, when any of this decides to malfunction, things tend to grind to a crashing halt. "The computer is down" is NOT something that you want to hear when you're standing in line at the airport check-in desk, 10 minutes before the cut-off to board your flight!!
I do know that I sure as heck couldn't get my taxes done in three hours without a computer!!!
Post by: sandbox on May 29, 2006, 01:39:32 PM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on May 29, 2006, 04:57:41 PM
The "computer" doesn't have to be on a desktop/cubicle/etc. One of our churches secretaries was given a Kodak digital camera by her out-of-town Daughter after she dropped her old point and shoot film camera. Not sure how long she;d had it, but she gave it to me, still in the sealed box and asked me to look it over and then show her how to use it. I don't remember the exact model, but it was designed to be used pretty much by anyone who can see what's in the view finder or LCD screen.
Also has dozens of manual and special settings for various types of scenes and types of occassions. But it really will satisfy her needs by just turning a switch to on and pressing the button. The only real difference between it and her old camera was that she didn't have to turn the old one ON. OTOH, she had to remember to wind it to the next available piece of film...But this new camera was "DIGITAL" which meant there was a COMPUTER involved! And to her, that meant work, trouble, strange interactions, not knowing what was going to happen with any kind of button push! I did look through the manual, but I told her not to worry about any of the fancy possibilities that were built in. I suggested that she simply 'play' with the camera for a while, taking pictures of everything and anything that attreacted her attention. Then I showed her how to view the images she had and how to remove the ones she didn't like. Once she realized that taking pictures was just as simple as using her old camera, she became more interested in the new one. And when she realized she could now get rid of any 'bad' ones, she really like it! The 'trick' was not mentioning any of the details about what was inside the camera ( a computer!
).However, a 'small' stumbling block appeared when I told her that I had arranged for a PC 'weany' to install any needed software on her home computer. She causually remarked that she didn't have a computer! Said she 'hated' computers! Wouldn't have one for any reason! I suspect that what she really hates is what she sees happening with Word and the church related software she must use daily. She understands what she has to do but only the bare minimum. There is no concept about what might be on the hard drive or that there is even a hard drive in that box! It's all a big mystery! It's just something that these strangers come and installed and that she writes a check to some company a check each month for 'software support'. ( How/when/why that 'support' might be is also a mystery to her [and most of the other staff people ] ).
We also have a new temporary secretary; mainly works with the interim Pastor and types up a Wednesday night Prayer list and the Sunday bulletin. The Prayer list is a compilation of at least 8 different fonts in several sizes, with all list types in bold and underline! Tabs are an unknown function, cut and paste is still a mystery, apparently ( lists or in no way alphabetized ).
Last week, I saw her trying to re-size an image. Naturally, she could make it wider, shorter, taller, and narrower. But she realizied that the image was being distorted each time. While I've never used MS Publisher, I suggested she press the shift key and then click on one of the corner 'handles' and see wahat happened. "Wow! It stays looking 'normal'!" Another staff member overheard the instruction and the consequences and said he had never heard about that 'trick' before, either!
All the above is related to computer 'illiteracy, in my opinion. Most people over 40 are afraid to touch the keyboard because they think they may 'break' something. And I feel most of that is from poorly designed software that doesn't consider what the user may/could do. ( Probably also the cause of warning labels telling people to hold a knif only by the handle! )
If most of these people had had some minimum 'training' on what the software would be doing and some time to 'play' with it, I think their fears would be much less of a problem. Likewise, having some minimum instruction about what is inside the box and how the parts work together would also help. Lastly, helping them realize that their fears/problems are natural and should have been considered by the people who created the machines and software might also give them more of a feeling of being in control of instead of being controlled by the machine.
Enough, it is hard for me to be patient with those who believe there is no difference between one computer maker and another. After all, all cars run on gasoline don't they?
Post by: Epaminondas on May 30, 2006, 11:06:07 PM
I have seen reports of one hospital where the administrator and the IT staff and the nurses computerized the hospital without involving the physicians in the process. The physicians tried to use the new equipment but it took and extra five minutes per patient, even when used ideally. That was fine by the administrator and the IT staff – they still went home on time. But it meant that overworked physicians had to work as much as an extra two hours a day for no benefit. The nurses were paid by the hour – they didn't care.
The doctors rebelled and refused to use the equipment.
The doctors are the ones who refer patients to the hospital - and there are other hospitals in town.
The administrator and their IT bumkins gave up for now - still convinced that they are right.
The doctors, on the other hand, know that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
Diving head first into an empty swimming pool, for example.
A friend started up his solo practice five years ago. He is an efficiency freak. Lean and mean. Small office. One receptionist. One nurse. Patients seen judiciously – the waiting room is small and is typically almost empty.
He carefully considered the alternatives and his records are all on paper. The only computer in the office is for accessing hospital lab reports - and that computer belongs to the hospital.
He is doing very well, thank you.
He has a colleague who is very computer literate and who recently, after countless tales of computer woe, has closed his office and moved on.
When you are using computers to deal with your patients' medical records, your practice is entirely at the mercy of the computer software people.
They keep you in constant crisis mode. Y2K upgrades that cost $30,000 for a system that originally cost less than that. HIPPA upgrades. Software upgrades, which require hardware upgrades. Etc. Etc. Etc.
It is one crisis after another.
That is their marketing model.
On the other hand, when a physician keeps his patient's records on paper, he controls those records completely.
And paper filing systems have become extraordinarily efficient over the years.
They just work.
No software glitches. No hardware glitches. No technical fees to speak of.
No crises.
There are almost no forced upgrades.
He needs a file - and it is there.
Every time.
That is the kind of physician you want to have.
There are some things you do not want to do by computer.
Ever looked at a computerized house of the future?
You can control the lights in the bathroom from a computer console in the kitchen.
Now - why in the world would you want to conrol the lights in the bathroom from a computer console in the kitchen?
Computerizing medicine is like that.
The ones who want to computerize medicine are administrators and IT people and entrepreneurs and politicians.
Everyone, that is to say, but the physicians, themselves.
Best regards,
Epaminondas
Post by: sandbox on May 31, 2006, 12:12:05 AM
I think a computer 101 course should start with pictures of everything that will be discussed, so when they read port, they don't think "port wine" or when they read mouse they don't think "rodent". or web "spiders" internet "hair-net" Ram "Dodge" Server "Cocktail Waitress" and the like.
Literacy is communicating, via language, language over wires or through the air and if your the only guy in Dodge that can understand this language, then....well your not communicating.
Speaking of acronyms, often times this field of computing is the first time the general population is so exposed to them, which means, they have to look up the meaning of every one, every time they come across it, or until such time that they sink-in. On that note it's a wonder that they can read through paragraph of instruction without a technical dictionary.
Computer Literacy to me meant that I could operate the equipment in my office without assistance. I could do preventative maintenance to assure my confidence. I had no idea what i was getting into.
Back to the medical aspect of this issue.
the doctors use of a computer means that s/he will be doing the work usually done by nurses or secretaries, this shifts the work load, and streamlines the duties. Nurse Practitioners are taking the places of the Doctors duties in many aspect of medicine, leaving the doctor to be more or less a consultant, (that's what they want)
They are resisting the computerization of the medical system, but resistance is futile. Federal Law (the Borg) is requiring that all medical records be computerized by 2010 +/- .
Post by: kbeartx on May 31, 2006, 01:20:37 AM
Some thoughts / musings / ramblings / responses of mine:
IMO, Computer Literacy is certainly NOT the same thing for different ppl in different circumstances.
If a person works in a business that uses computers, then for them to be comp.lit. they should know how to use the computers [HW & SW] for the typical functions of that particular business.
IMO, my kids are computer literate - they know how to use 'em for their games and other typical tasks, such as email, IM, or web browsing - but they're not particularly knowledgable [they confuse RAM w/ hard drive space, for example, no matter how many times I've 'splained it to 'em].
I think this level of 'expertise' is pretty common - it encompasses most computer users.
Then, there are the phobic, reluctant users [as mentioned by others].
Then there's us - those contributing to this thread and others like us - ppl who generally have a better grasp of the underlying technology and principles involved - I dunno have any goal or conclusions in mind here, just doing some brain dumping, thinking 'out loud'...
Regarding the failure of computerization of medical functionality, either in hospitals or doctors' offices, I am reminded of an observation I made several years back, after working in the IT sector for a while -
There is a pervasive, yet largely unexamined, assumption that kills or emasculates many IT projects and that is:
"If you put a bunch of Smart People together on a project, they can successsfully design a system [or systems] for some other group of people without consulting [or getting lots of input from, throughout the project] that other group of people."
This type of thinking is completely specious and results in computerized systems that work less well than the systems they were developed to replace [and 'streamiline']. Unfortunately, many IT projects are based on this assumption, and consequently fail miserably.
There. I'm 'dumped out'.
- KB
Post by: krissel on May 31, 2006, 10:26:47 PM
Just being in the ICU after her open-heart surgery was an amazing experience. All those machines keeping her going were dependent on a computer to record and analyze the input and summon help when needed. And the balancing of drug dosage was made easier as well.
Not to mention the internet which allowed me to go to an online site to discover a drug that a doctor had prescribed in a rehab center that was causing her severe problems. Demanding the drug be stopped immediately possibly saved her from serious or fatal consequences. Now if only the rehab staff had used a computer to check first...
Then there is the universal problem of doctor's handwriting...
Post by: Gregg on June 01, 2006, 07:42:43 AM
QUOTE(airbusdriver @ May 29 2006, 04:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
.......
If most of these people had had some minimum 'training' on what the software would be doing and some time to 'play' with it, I think their fears would be much less of a problem.
If most of these people had had some minimum 'training' on what the software would be doing and some time to 'play' with it, I think their fears would be much less of a problem.
Just wait. All the computer illiterate folks will have to retire someday.