Blending Computer Literacy with Computer Science R. Hatch and J. Somervell Math and Computer Science Department, The University of Virginia’s College at Wise, Wise, VA, U.S.A. Abstract— Computer Literacy type courses are almost universally hated by faculty and only slightly less hated by students. They are typically not challenging for anyone involved and are tedious to offer. Canned lectures and rote learning contribute to a sense of boredom with the course. Students are simply engaged in rote memorization and the volume of grading is often overwhelming. We describe a different approach to Computer Literacy topics at a Liberal Arts school that shifts the onus to the students and allows for more interaction and creativity. We report on a pre/post survey of the students of the new course offering and describe faculty response to the course change. This work is intended to show other schools how they might change similar course offerings while still providing certain competencies for their students. Keywords: computer literacy, hands-on learning, CS0 education

1. Introduction Prior to the fall of 2009, the University of Virginia’s College at Wise offered a service course (CSC 1100 - Computer Literacy) that provided students with basic knowledge of word processing, spreadsheets, presentation, and database software products; as well as fundamentals of computers and computing. Topics like the Internet, networks, computer hardware, software, and ethical considerations are included. This course provided students the opportunity to meet the college’s required proficiencies in Technology Competency, as per the State Council for Higher Education in Virginia’s requirements. Recently, an increasing number of students are arriving at the college as freshmen with most of these skills, and the course was considered "boring" and "not challenging" by the students. Furthermore, the faculty teaching the course complained about the structure and format. The topics were mundane to the Computer Science faculty who offered the course and it was mainly a chore (granted, an easy one) to offer the class and was often used to ease new faculty into teaching. It seemed that neither group (teachers and students) was happy with the course. In addition, the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science (which offers the Computer Literacy course) was seeking ways to boost enrolment. Meetings with its Advisory Board and internal departmental discussions suggested that the Computer Literacy course could be used to "recruit" some majors, with the idea being that freshmen who take the course and get exposed to some computer science concepts

may in fact decide to major in computer science. Some research in the field suggests students may opt to change their majors after taking such courses [5], [3]. In an effort to make the course more interesting for everyone involved, and to possibly increase majors; members of the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science revamped the Computer Literacy course. The remainder of this paper discusses some related works, describes the old and new versions of the course, describes a short pre/post survey used to ascertain effectiveness, and provides discussion.

2. Related Work Prior work has been accomplished in retooling a CS0 course for several different reasons, ranging from retaining students from CS0 to CS1 courses, to changing the presentation of the course from something of a traditional lecture to a more "hands-on" approach, to change the image of the course, as well as a department to a friendlier, or more interesting course, and one that might be a recruitment tool for students who have preconceived notions of what a Computer Science degree involves. Purewal notes that there are four main objectives for a CS0 course: 1) a service course that teaches some practical computing knowledge; 2) a course that improves retention and success in other Computer Science courses, one of which is CS1; 3) a course that is designed to recruit a more diverse group of students to Computer Science; and 4) a course that prepares students to analyze and address the current "ethical, social, and legal implications" of increased reliance and "ubiquity" on technology [9]. Previously our CS0 course (named "Computer Literacy") fell primarily under the first of these objectives. With the tweaks made to the course, our department is hoping to touch on each of the four objectives in some capacity. One way to achieve this is perhaps through the introduction of fun or engaging assignments, in which students will try to go beyond the basic requirements and have some fun with assignments [13]. Brady, Cutter, and Schultz view CS0 in a similar light for a liberal arts school – the course is geared toward students who do not intend on majoring in Computer Science; it is a service course [2]. Perhaps the most relevant related work to our project can be found in Cliburn’s work [5]. Cliburn notes that the majority of students come to college with a "limited exposure to computer science" at a liberal arts institution. These students, therefore, do not have a true understanding of what a degree in computer science involves, beyond

computer literacy (the students can surf the Internet and write papers with some word processor) and exposure to information systems. Cliburn writes about a course that addressed a variety of Computer Science topics and encouraged students to work in pairs on assignments, had the students present on topics in Computer Science, and had debates on ethical issues, where students took sides on topics, such as employers’ monitoring the Internet usage of their employees. This CS0 is not a requirement for a Computer Science major, but it is encouraged for those without any programming experience. It is open for other majors, too. Brady, Cutter, and Schultz suggest a similar strategy to the one outlined by Cliburn; the overriding idea is to have hands-on activities [2]. The class begins with the discussion of the Internet, where everyone is on the same level. Other topics can then be addressed, such as interface design and using technologies to spruce up web pages. Between the lectures and the hands-on activities, topics move to more discussion of the internals of computers. Purewal offers a different take on how to gain student interest in Computer Science through the offering of a course called "Social Networking." The name alone captures interest, because many students can provide a definition of social networking. From there, other concepts can be discussed, ranging from practical web 2.0 technologies, to mathematical models of social networks, to security and privacy online, and ethical and social issues. One of the interesting findings was an increase in interest in the CS0 course, with just a name change – from "Communications Technologies and the Internet" to "Social Networking" [9]. Malan also discusses introducing some of the geek culture to Harvard’s CS50 course by showing LOLcats with linked lists [11]. Mullins, Whitfield, and Conlin discuss using Alice in an introductory programming course [12]. Alice "engages students with 3D animation, a direct manipulation editor for instantiating objects, simple event handling mechanism, (multimedia) capabilities, a simple parallel processing mechanism, and ‘syntax-free’ IDE." In using Alice for instruction, it can demonstrate some of the basics for algorithms study, such as searching sorting, and even recursive algorithms. It can also show examples of event-driven programming, as well as demonstrate some of the facets of JumanComputer Interaction (HCI). The assignments for the course vary between submitting a storyboard to requiring methods, functions, or behaviors for library objects. This class has led to an increase in enrollment, as well as fewer withdrawals in this course and the subsequent course. Others (Ludi, Cliburn and Miller, Anewalt) suggest the use of Alice or MIT’s Scratch (Malan) as a suitable means to ease students into the discussion of programming or Computer Science concepts [10], [6], [1]. Cliburn and Miller suggest that students might have greater success in understanding concepts through giving assignments that are game-based; the requirements

are well-defined and students can determine when they have finished; they prefer assignments that have structure to them [6]. Another issue to consider in the recruitment of students is attempting to recruit a diverse student population. Purewal notes that while interest continues to grow, minorities’ and females’ interest in the subject does not match interest growth [9]. Part of this, as explained by Carter, can be attributed to the fact that students do not understand or realize what "Computer Science" means or involves [4]. In a survey conducted by Carter, the "vast majority" of respondents did not have an understanding of what the field was or involved [4]. Further, male students majored in Computer Science because of their exposure to video games; female students enrolled in the major to use in conjunction with some other field. Carter suggests reinforcing that Computer Science could be a part of a multidisciplinary program, where the field could be combined with another field [4]. The motivation of such an adjustment would be to dispel that Computer Science is just "programming all day long," as well as bring more females into CS [4]. Some females believe the major to be "too boring" and "overly technical," with no room for creativity [14]. By extension from Carter’s research, perhaps faculty could present the students with material that would show them how Computer Science works with other fields, perhaps through the presentation of areas such as HCI. With the discussion of HCI, computer science is present, but the field also interacts with psychology and graphic design, among others, to show diverse fields working together. Women and minorities, according to desJardins and Littman, might be more interested in helping people as the focus of their career [8]. A "Great Insights" of computer science course has been taught at both Rutgers and UMBC, and allows students to acquire an "appreciation for the capabilities and limitations of computing." The intent of the course is to give the students in the other backgrounds (besides CS) some exposure to "scientific principles and mathematical aspects of computer science" [8].

3. Case Study First we describe the old course in a little more detail. Next we provide an extensive description of the new course and provide a comparison. Then we describe a simple pre/post test to gauge student interest in our majors.

3.1 The Old Course The old version of the Computer Literacy course followed a highly structured, hands-on approach to officelike products. Textbooks devoted to learning how to use word processors, spreadsheets, presentation software, and databases were used heavily – with the books even showing graphically where and when to click with a mouse. Students completed canned projects from the textbooks, using each

type of software during class time, with additional homework assignments for further practice. Prepared slides from the publisher were often used to provide information on the other topics (networks, hardware, software, etc), with short quizzes or multiple choice tests (again provided by the publisher) to test the students. Often the test questions from the test banks would be obscure usage questions: To center text on the screen use the — shortcut. a. CTRL+L b. CTRL+E c. CTRL+R d. CTRL+1 The course was universally dreaded by the faculty because it was boring, yet work intensive (grading); and students complained about the course. It offered no challenge to either the instructors or the students.

3.2 The New Course Any changes to the course needed to be done internally, while still meeting the required technology competencies of the college. The new course we created still covers the same types of material as the old course, but in a different way. To overcome the "boring" approach of the old course, the new course relies more heavily on creativity and student oriented work. Instead of using a specific text to teach the office concepts, we adopted a hands-on, active-learning approach in which the students use the products to solve some other problem. For example, to help students learn word processing techniques we might assign a short (23 page) research or opinion paper. The student must use some word processor (we do not specify a specific piece of software) to create their report. We also take the opportunity to introduce other useful concepts like creating PDF versions of documents and creating zip archives. In addition to having the students use the software in a meaningful way, we also make sure the students are exposed to alternative software packages. For example, we ask the students to use two different software packages to solve the problems, then write a report on the students’ preferences. Our students have chosen packages like Microsoft Office, Open Office, and Google Docs, among others. We shift the onus of presenting various technology topics to the students. We ask them to work in pairs or teams of three to present certain topics to the rest of the class. Example topics might include the history of the Internet, social networking, e-commerce, and identity theft. The student teams research their topics and present their findings to the class. This also reinforces their office skills because they must write a report and create a presentation. An added bonus of this approach is the exposure to in-class presentations and a chance to work on oral communication skills. We also added a hands-on hardware component. Students are divided into teams of 4 or 5 and provided with all of the

components of a desktop computer: the chassis or tower, a motherboard, a processor and fan, memory modules, power supply, hard drive, and optical drive (DVD). The students then assemble the computer and install a new operating system (we chose Ubuntu). The students seem to enjoy this aspect of the class and many have noted a boost in confidence with working with hardware. To introduce some important ethical considerations we have the students research and defend, either for or against, some controversial topic. A specific example is the idea of Net Neutrality. Students who are supposed to argue for Net Neutrality would present ideas about freedom of expression, equal access, privacy, etc. Students arguing against Net Neutrality would present ideas about capital investment, quality of service guarantees, law enforcement, etc. Topics are discussed in class using a debate style approach. The students seem interested and motivated, and usually have strong opinions about these topics. A final change to the course is the inclusion of basic computer science concepts. Traditionally the course provided no introduction to computer science. We wanted to expose the students to the basics of problem solving using a computer. The last few weeks of the course involve an introduction to problem solving and algorithmic approaches through simple programming. We use the Alice programming language and environment [7]. The goal is to provide some idea of what computer science is about and get the students excited about creating their own programs. Typical assignments include creating environments, and simple animations. The focus is on identifying the steps needed to solve a problem and applying basic programming concepts, like sequencing, selection, and repetition, to solve the problems.

3.3 Comparison The new course is significantly different from the old one. The entire presentation approach now relies on heavy student input as opposed to a passive, lecture style. Students have ample opportunities for creativity throughout the course, instead of working on canned projects. We shortened the focus on office skills and included materials on ethical considerations, building computers, and programming. We also encouraged the students to attend a local technology symposium by offering extra credit for attending sessions and writing short reports on those sessions. We feel the new course more accurately matches what a "Computer Literacy" course should be. In addition, the new course is well-received by the faculty. The new course is more flexible and allows each instructor to choose the specific topics to be covered. This means that the course is no longer "boring" for the instructors. While we do not have quantitative data, we also expect that students find the new course more interesting, useful, and challenging than the older course. We feel the new course is an improvement

over the old and we plan on using the new model in future offerings.

3.4 Pre/Post Test To ascertain whether the new course changed students’ opinions about majoring in Computer Science we performed a simple pre/post survey. On the first day of classes we had the students complete a survey asking about their opinions of computing and majoring in computer science. Questions addressed student opinion on working with computers and interest in Computer Science, Software Engineering, and Management Information Systems. We used Likert-type questions with a 5-point scale. In addition, we asked open ended questions about the amount of computer usage and for what purposes. The following list provides the questions from the pre-test: 1) How often do you use computers (hours per day)? 0-2 2-4 4-6 more than 6 2) For what purpose do you use computers most? work school socializing entertainment other(specify) 3) How do you feel about working in technology related fields? 4) I find computers boring. (strongly agree to strongly disagree for scale) 5) I think working with computers is more of a "geek thing." 6) I enjoy working with computers. 7) I feel that learning about computing is important. 8) How interested are you in Computer Science? (not interested to very interested for scale) 9) How interested are you in Software Engineering? 10) How interested are you in Management Information Systems? The post-test differed only slightly by the addition of the following question: Please tell us how this course has changed your opinions about Computer Science, Software Engineering, and Management Information Systems.

4. Findings 4.1 Pre-Test Twenty-four students filled out the pre-test questionnaire. The average age was 19.4 with a median age of 19. Fourteen students were male, 8 were female (2 did not specify). All students used a computer on a daily basis with 35% using a computer 4-6 hours per day. Forty-five percent of the students specified work or school as the main reason for computer usage. Seventy-five percent of the students had a positive attitude towards working with computers. The average response to the statement, "I find computers boring" was "disagree" with no major differences between males and females. Similarly students disagreed with the

Fig. 1: Female and male perception changes from pre to post test.

statement, "I think working with computers is more of a geek thing" with no differences across gender. Gender played no roll in opinions of working with computers and learning about computing (with average responses on both questions as "agree"). In terms our specific majors, Computer Science, Software Engineering, and Management Information Systems; students mainly "did not know" what their interest level was.

4.2 Post-Test Twenty-nine students filled out the post-test questionnaire. The average age was 19.5 with a median age of 19. Fifteen students were male, 13 were female (one did not specify). Computer usage was greater than reported on the pre-test with 67% using a computer more than 4 hours per day. Again the major usage for the computer was school or work with 64% indicating those areas. Interestingly, only 43% of the students reported a positive attitude towards working with computers after taking the course. This is down from the 75% reported in the pre-test. Responses to the questions probing opinion of computing were comparable to the pre-test findings. Specifically the average student response to the statement, "I find computers boring" was "disagree." Males actually had a lower average of "strongly disagree" than the females. This was a change from the pre-test. The response to the statement, "I think working with computers is more of a geek thing" remained the same, "disagree," with no differences across gender. The response to the statement, "I enjoy working with computers" was "agree," and again no change from the pre-test. One interesting finding is that the average responses about interest level for the majors went down. It is not a statistically

significant difference, but interest in all three majors dropped from the pre-test to the post-test (dropping from "do not know" to "slightly disinterested." The interest level for females dropped more than for males. Please see figure 1. The extra question on the post-test was intended to glean the students’ opinions about the class and how it changed their outlook on computing. To analyze the responses, they were categorized into positive and negative comments. Positive comments mentioned something good about the course or a positive outlook towards computing. Negative comments typically had a complaint or a negative outlook towards computing. Nineteen of 21 responses were positive (seven students did not provide a comment). Some example positive comments include: "[It] helped me understand how computers are used in today’s society" "[I] learned a lot about programming and building a computer" "Very informative and helpful, I can say I have put a computer together" The two negative comments we received were complaints: "Get rid of Alice and let her go to Wonderland" "[I] like the class for knowledge, but busy work was frustrating"

focus the course on security threats, steer ethical discussions towards password sharing or identity theft, and include social engineering techniques as examples. Second, the course requires students to take charge of a significant portion of the course. Either individual or team presentations are required on current topics in computing. Example topics might include security and threats, digital copyright, personal data access at work (Facebook while at work), Internet technologies, etc. The students are responsible for researching their assigned topic, creating a presentation, giving a lecture (a whole class period), and leading discussion. This allows the instructor to focus on the content and engage the students rather than on planning lectures. In sum, instead of rote learning, where students memorized definitions for exams; the students were charged with providing content to the course, making them active learners. Third, the inclusion of programming topics has increased faculty buy-in. The course is no longer just "teaching how to use Microsoft." It is now a chance to introduce some fundamental problem solving skills through algorithm design and implementation. The Alice programming environment is fun and supports creativity. Instructors are allowed to choose any projects they wish, with the caveat that the students will need help and training in how to solve them.

4.3 Discussion

5. Conclusion and Future Work

Comparison of pre- and post-test data indicates that students’ opinions of Computer Science, Software Engineering, and Management Information Systems changed slightly in the negative direction. It is believed that the students gained a clearer understanding of what those topics involve and gave more accurate answers. Instead of simply choosing the vague "I don’t know," they chose the more accurate answer of "disinterested." This is disheartening because a goal of the change was to try to increase majors. We do not currently have data to determine if the new course has generated more majors over the prior course. The high rate of positive comments from the students indicate that they typically enjoy the new course. That knowledge is comforting and coincides with our goal of making the course more interesting and student centered. Unfortunately, that is the extent of what we learned from the students. What we learned from the faculty is much more interesting and salient.

The transition from a traditional lecture style course with canned projects to a more interactive, student-centered approach has been a positive change. The most salient change is the increased satisfaction reported by the faculty. The pre/post test did not show any significant changes in attitude by the students. Most of the students came to the class with no intention of majoring in Computer Science, Software Engineering, or Management Information Systems, nor having a clear understanding as to what each field involves. The course did not seem to change those intentions. However, the course seemed to be well received by the students and the new course methodology will continue. In terms of future endeavors and continued evaluation, more detailed studies of faculty response are planned. Specifically, a more quantitative assessment of faculty opinion are required to more fully ascertain the strengths and weaknesses of the new approach. Also, new ideas will be considered to attempt an increase in majors who come from this course and quantitative data will be analyzed to determine matriculation rates.

Faculty Response Through interviews with the faculty who taught the course, it was determined that the new course offering was "better." First, the course is highly individualized to the professor who teaches it. This requires some preparation but the benefit is that the topics, tone, and outcome of the course will match an individual instructor’s desires. For example, an instructor interested in computer security could

References [1] K. Anewalt. Making cs0 fun: An active learning approach using toys, games, and alice. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 23(3):98–105, Jan. 2008. [2] A. Brady, P. Cutter, and K. Schultz. Benefits of a cs0 course in liberal arts colleges. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 20(1):90– 97, Oct. 2004.

[3] R. Bruce and S. Reiser. Introduction to technology for general education. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM Southeast Conference, pages 274–279, Kennesaw, GA, USA, Mar. 2005. [4] L. Carter. Why students with an apparent aptitude for computer science don’t choose to major in computer science. In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 27–31, Houston, TX, USA, Mar. 2006. [5] D. C. Cliburn. A cs0 course for the liberal arts. In Proceedings of the Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2006), pages 77–81, Houston, Texas, USA, Mar. 2006. [6] D. C. Cliburn and S. M. Miller. Games, stories, or something more traditional: The types of assignments college students prefer. In Proceedings of the 39th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 138–142, Portland, OR, USA, Feb. 2008. [7] W. P. Dann, S. Cooper, and R. Pausch. Learning to Program with Alice. Pearson,Prentice Hall, 2009. [8] M. desJardins and M. Littman. Broadening student enthusiasm for computer science with a great insights course. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 157–161, Milwaukee, WI, USA, Mar. 2010. [9] T. S. P. Jr. Social networking: The new computer fluency? In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 112–116, Milwaukee, WI, USA, Mar. 2010. [10] S. Ludi. Active-learning activities that introduce students to software engineering fundamentals. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, pages 128–132, Monte de Caparica, Portugal, June 2005. [11] D. J. Malan. Reinventing cs50. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 152– 156, Milwaukee, WI, USA, Mar. 2010. [12] P. Mullins, D. Whitfield, and M. Conlin. Using alice 2.0 as a first language. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 24(3):136–143, Jan. 2009. [13] P. M. Mullins and M. Conlin. Engaging students in programming fundamentals using alice 2.0. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGITE Conference on Information Technology Education, pages 81– 87, Cincinnati, OH, USA, Oct. 2008. [14] R. H. Sloan and P. Troy. Cs 0.5: A better approach to introductory computer science for majors. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 271– 275, Portland, OR, USA, Mar. 2008.