The Decline of Tech Literacy and What We Can Do About It

[purelyconstructive]

@Manatee

I don’t want to get off topic, but YES. I passed two college-level chemistry classes, but learned almost nothing about chemistry. It was all so theoretical, and I had nothing in the real world to tie it to. I just went through the motions without understanding why.

I’m sorry you went through that! That is precisely the type of thing that I would like to prevent when it comes to sharing information. Motivation matters and must be acknowledged from the outset. When we know why we are doing what we are doing, then it is easier to learn and apply that knowledge dynamically. Similarly, people stop learning when they are frustrated by explanations that don’t make sense to them or that they find unrelatable.

@solaria

On the topic of high school education, I feel like something more practical to students in chemistry classes would maybe be standard cleaning supplies, why they work on their respective surfaces, what not to mix them with and why, basically stuff they will use regardless of career and keep them safe. Soap making might be an interesting lab project as well.

Yes, this is exactly the type of stuff that I had in mind! Basic procedures with commonly encountered substances (e.g.: recognizing them, understanding how they are derived from the environment, how to safely handle them, the tools and measurements associated with them, etc.). Only then can we start to connect them in a meaningful way to the jargon, scientific principles, equations, and models that are used to describe them. It becomes both familiar and useful because it is grounded within our day-to-day experience. This is the type of knowledge that stays with people throughout their lives and inspires them to do more!

@solaria

And now back to technology education. In school I had “technology” classes once a week until highschool, but I remember it mostly being ms word, power point, and educational games. I don’t remember learning about the actual computer itself. I’m honestly not sure how feasible it would be to teach kids all that they should know considering there’s A Lot.

The few classes that I had involving computers were similar. I agree that it may not be feasible to go in-depth on every subject or cater to every student’s individual interests; many teachers are probably already short on time and attention. However, I do think things can be taught in a way that gives a student a better sense of what their tools are capable of. Lessons can iterate on the same topic, approaching it with more depth each time. For example, take a program like Inkscape, which is used for making vector graphics…

• The first few lessons with the program can demonstrate how to navigate and do basic tasks by clicking with the mouse. It is made clear what the buttons on the toolbar do and how various options can be accessed from the menus. A paint bucket icon fills in an area with color, the copy option makes a duplicate of something, etc.
• The next few lessons with the program can show how to cut down on mouse usage with keyboard shortcuts. It is made explicit that one can press a key combination instead of clicking on a button or menu to do a particular action. ctrl-C, ctrl-V, etc.
• The next few lessons can show how to do the exact same tasks as the previous ones, but completely from the command line. It is made explicit that the GUI is just a visual representation of computer processes that can be accessed in other ways, in this case, by typing --action commands within terminal. Why bother? In the same way that keyboard shortcuts sped up what was done with the mouse, a few commands can batch process a ton of files at once.
• The last few lessons can show how to write a simple script or macro to chain several actions together, showing how a lot of repetitive work can be automated. One doesn’t have to spend hours opening up one file after the other and clicking on all of the options that they need.

…I find this kind of approach useful. Everything is linked together in a way that makes logical sense and which facilitates memorization. Further, since it builds upon itself, each student can choose how deep they want to go. Only want to understand how to use the basics of an application? We got you. Already have an understanding of how to use it and want to leverage that knowledge to learn how to program? We also got you.

@marc

I also think we can design software that avoids broken metaphors which actively hinder people’s understanding of how things work. Good example is how we today speak of "AI"s as sentient, and use metaphors that are rooted in how we humans work (like “hallucinate” and “Siri”). I think this causes a lot of confusion. I also think we can provide explanations as to how the software they use work, where data goes, what the user can do with the software, what their rights are.

Telling someone that their computer isn’t actually sentient, that we are just using statistical analysis to make associations that could be useful, is not mysterious enough to be profitable. We want to evoke a rush of excitement through sci-fi-esque imagery here!

…I am kidding of course, but the marketing and software engineering are at cross-purposes when one aim is undermining the other. Those are good points though.

@eladnarra

I might be overgeneralizing, but it feels like a lot of folks introduced to computers are hesitant to do anything because they’re worried about messing it up. And sure, it’s possible to delete a file accidentally. But there’s very little you can’t undo when you’re doing basic tasks. So I wonder if people need to be taught just enough skills to feel more confident (in fixing things or just asking for help) and then encouraged to try things, even if they make mistakes.

That is a big reason why I liked @brisray 's game idea. It acts like a sandbox, a safe environment in which to learn and tinker around, but it simulates the actual thing well enough so that the skills are transferable.