User Instruction Issues for Databases in the Humanities

IN ORDER TO TEACH HUMANISTS how to search effectively the variety of information technologies available to them, librarians should reassess traditional instruction techniques. Teaching methods must be considered in view of the special characteristics inherent in humanities disciplines, humanities databases, and the humanist’s own attitudes and learning styles. This article analyzes the attitudes that humanistic students and scholars typically display toward technology, and places those attitudes and behaviors in the context of the humanist’s information needs and available information formats. A discussion of concepts, topics, and skills which should be taught to humanists for effective computerized literature searching is followed by a consideration of various instructional approaches. INTRODUCTION Until recently, bibliographic instruction for humanities scholars and students was fairly straightforward. Beginning students were shown how to use and interpret the library catalog and the major printed index in a particular humanities discipline, such as Historical Abstracts or The Modern Language Association ( M L A ) International Bibliography. Humanities scholars generally knew which sources served their specialty best, having set their own patterns of research in graduate school, and rarely asked for help or brought their advanced students to a librarian for library instruction. Researchers felt they were the best ones to teach the next generation of scholars about information sources and research methods in the humanities. Mara R. Saule, President’s Office, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405 LIBRARY TRENDS, Vol. 40, No. 4, Spring 1992, pp. 596-613 @ 1992 The Board of Trust& University of Illinois SAULE/ISSUES FOR DATABASES IN THE HUMANITIES 597 Since the growth of end-user computerized literature searching, scholars, students, and librarians alike have had to face the special challenges presented by electronic information sources. Issues of question analysis and selecting the appropriate databases for particular research questions, understanding command and search language protocols, interpreting search results, and finding cited materials are increasingly difficult to address as the number, scope, and types of databases grow and as the user population becomes larger and more dispersed. New publishing and information technologies offer greater research possibilities across a spectrum of disciplines, with much of the greatest recent growth being in the humanities. Local, national, and international networked databases, databases created and shared by individual scholars, machine-readable texts, graphics and audio databases, and bibliographic databases-all in a variety of technological formats-converge to give the scholar and student a remarkable array of information on which to base study and research. The scholar’s workstation, providing information beyond the library’s walls, is now a reality for some. But, in order for researchers and students in the humanities to be able to use this confluence of technologies successfully, librarians need to design effective, creative, and attractive instructional programs-and overcome some of the instructional challenges inherent in dealing with humanists. Librarians giving instruction must understand the unique characteristics of both humanistic research and of the humanist in order for instructional programs to be most effective. One would expect researchers and research methods in discrete disciplines todiffer, just as the structure and information patterns of the disciplines differ. Assessing both individual and discipline-specific user characteristics is essential for designing effective instructional approaches. Linda Brew MacDonald (1991) outlines six questions that the instruction librarian should ask in order to determine learner characteristics for teaching electronic information sources: What is the educational level? What common background do learners have? Is there a preferred learning style? What are learners’ attitudes toward automated sources? Are learners motivated? and, Can the instructor adopt the learner’s perspective (pp. 32-34)? While an advanced educational level and background in humanities scholarship may be easily assessed and can provide a common base of understanding on which to build user instruction, humanists’ cautious attitudes toward automation and their lack of substantive motivation for using technologically based sources directly affect which teaching methods will be successful. 598 LIBRARY TRENDVSPRING 1992 THEDIFFERENCE IN THE HUMANITIES The central difference between research in the humanities and research in other disciplines is the importance of the text and of the analysis of language in all aspects of humanistic scholarly and creative pursuits. Although individual humanities disciplines may be viewed as content areas not unlike scientific disciplines-such as art history or archaeology-the underlying unifying theme for humanists is that “the humanities have something to do with texts and their longevity” (Baron, 1985, p. 251). It is this reliance on the text that dictates many of the attitudes that humanists have about computers and alternate nonprint versions of texts and thus about the language used to search computerized databases. In addition to serving disciplines in which the study of texts is preeminent, humanistic research may be defined as “a method of analysis, as a way of looking at a subject matter” (Baron, 1985, p. 251). This method generally involves a great deal of judgment and attention to nuance which excludes quantification and “logical clarity,” approaches not generally found in scientific research: “Humanistic knowledge is more open-ended, requiring complex philosophical and aesthetic judgments, and their disciplines are not normally organized in the hierarchical fashion of the sciences” (Atkinson & Walker, 1989, p. 24). The lack of hierarchical structure in the humanities appears to be duectly opposed to the binary structure of computers and databases. Humanities research also has interdisciplinary implications, even though many humanities scholars do not reach beyond sources in their own discipline. Margaret Stieg (1981) discovered that historians tend to follow established research patterns and that their knowledge of a wide range of sources is limited (p. 551). Nonetheless, a research question in literary history of ten may include concerns closely related to political history, economics, philosophy, and potentially the en tire range of humanities disciplines from musicology to archaeology. How the humanities differ from the sciences and social sciences may affect how humanities scholars view technology. The centrality of the text, the analytical approach, and the interrelationships among the content areas all work against the humanist accepting technology into the research process. ATTITUDES TOWARD TECHNOLOGY Humanists, as scholars and teachers, are of ten characterized as unwilling to embrace new information sources and technologies. Many have theorized about the reasons that some humanists are skeptical regarding the computerization of information and texts. Scott D. Stebelman (1981) conjectures that the reason humanities users SAULEIISSUES FOR DATABASES IN THE HUMANITIES 599 view the computer as just “another inscrutable and potentiaIly demeaning machine” is rooted in childhood and adolescent negative experiences with a variety of machines (p. 444). He also points out philosophical reservations that some humanists have about computer use: “Because the computer can do so many things that we cannot, such as process large amounts of data quickly and dispassionately, humanists fear that computers will become the psychological prototype for the new man or woman” (p.445). Although Stebelman’s observations may be overly psychoanalytical, many humanists do, indeed, view computers and computer-aided research differently than their counterparts in the sciences or social sciences. In fact, B. J. Rahn (1987) explains that it takes humanists longer to learn computing skills “because they don’t make certain kinds of automatic assumptions that pure scientists and social scientists do” (p.59). Rahn also points out that humanists “lack the conceptual framework and language common to professionals in these other fields” (p. 59). Language and its clear use, which is so important to scholars in the humanities, is often “abused” by computer professionals in jargon-laden documentation and discussion: a humanist who interfaces with cybernetic processing is accessing a miniworld containing parameters of linguistic inelegance that possess the undeniable potential of arousing various negative responses ranging from a certain degree of suspicion to outright anger. (Crawford, 1986, p. 570) Given the inscrutable terminology and diction of many computer manuals, it is no wonder that humanists are put off by the language used by members of the computer and information technology industry-including librarians. Naomi S. Baron (1985) focuses on some of the specific concerns that humanists have about computers and technology. She outlines three essential fears that humanists display regarding computerized information sources. First, humanists are concerned about the elimination of nuance and judgment inherent in humanistic research that may come with over-reliance on electronic, mechanized analysis: “[ Wlith the increased presence of computers in higher education, students may come to believe that there are no shades of grey worth worrying about in human affairs” (p. 259). Baron even implies that, because of the judgment and interpretation required in humanities disciplines, students may gravitate instead to courses and disciplines (such as chemistry) in which the logical approach to the discipline“yes/no” binary logic-approximates the computer’s own processing systems (p. 259). Several theorists agree with Baron’s (1985) second observation concerning the reasons that humanists are skeptical about 600 LIBRARY TRENDSISPRING 1992 automation: that computers signal the potential end of the book, “that computers will violate our notion of the centrality of the text” (p. 260). This fear relates to the importance attributed to handwritten or printed texts in humanities disciplines. The manner in which humanists do their research of ten depends on the fortuitous discovery of connections between ideas and words found through browsing and “stumbling across” information (p. 259), whether it is by examining the card catalog, scanning titles of books in the stacks, or leafing through a book. Marilyn Schmitt (1990) echoes this concern in addressing the negative ramifications of using intermediaries to search bibliographic and textual databases: “What will happen in this environment to the essential role of browsing, of wandering until you find what you are looking for, and, more important, what you did not expect to find” (p. A44)? Some humanities scholars feel that one cannot browse through a computer file with the same results as browsing through tangible cards or pages. Thus, they may think that computers will be counterproductive to successful research in the humanities. The “hit-or-miss techniques” used by humanists may be inefficient by librarians’ standards of information retrieval but are nonetheless ingrained in established research patterns (Stern, 1985, p. 163). Finally, Baron cites perhaps the greatest fear humanists have about the computer: the fear that i t will render the humanities themselves irrelevant, and that we will all come to ask, Who needs the humanities (p. 259)? The corollary question, of course, is Who needs humanists? particularly humanists who do not use or exalt the computer? It is the humanist’s own feeling of inadequacy in dealing with new technologies and new information publication and storage formats that is reflected in this deep concern. Baron implies that this concern is fed also by the prestige that science and the scientific method have been given by the public and by the larger scholarly community (Baron, 1985, p. 252). The perceived threat to the future of humanistic research and the rise in prestige of science can be traced to the modern valuingof technology over the humanities as an essential part of economic progress. Other philosophical and practical issues also affect humanists’ attitudes toward using computerized databases. One of the most often cited concerns is that of cost. Stebelman (1981), Mackesy (1982), Stern (1988), and Lehmann and Renfro (1991) all point out that humanists are put off by the idea of paying for information. Humanists often feel that association memberships should include access to databases, such as the MLA International Bibliography (Mackesy, 1982, p. 150). SAULEASSUES FOR DATABASES IN THE HUMANITIES 601 Furthermore, humanists have lesser research money available to them through university or grant funding than their counterparts in other disciplines. Humanists also resist being restricted to the location of a machine in order to do their research. Lehmann and Renfro (1991) found that connectivity, “getting the scholar to the resource with a minimum of effort on his or her part” (p. 411), was a key in overcoming humanists’ negative attitudes toward technology. In addition to the need for technical assistance in using computers and networks, many humanists do not have the time or patience to invest in learning computerized literature searching. Another interesting impediment to searching is discussed by Sandi Kirkham (1988). She observes that the lack of librarian-searchers in the humanities may exacerbate the humanist’s reluctance to use computers (p. 98). Compared to the number of business, trade, and science librarians, there are fewer humanities librarians skilled in providing access to the range of information technologies now available in humanities disciplines. Furthermore, Kirkham indicates that some who go into humanities librarianship do so in order to get away from information technology (p.98). Humanities librarians, then, and the researchers whom they serve, may work together to keep technology at a distance from humanities research. It is the responsibility of humanities librarians to learn about appropriate databases and technologies and, by overcoming their own fears, help their humanist patrons as well. Although the attitudes, fears, and concerns that Baron and others ascribe to humanists may apply to many in humanities disciplines, these attitudes are becoming less pervasive as increasing numbers of scholars use word-processing programs to write their own books and articles, and as many humanists are using computer programs to analyze quantitative information (Stern, 1988, p. 162). Concerns about the future of the text persist, however, and many humanists who are computer users still rely on manual methods for research and analysis. Stern (1988) observes that humanists even feel some sense of “satisfaction with comfortable and familiar, if haphazard and inadequate, research methods” (p. 163). NEEDSVERSUSTECHNOLOGY In many respects, humanists’ information needs are not best fulfilled by information technology or even by librarians. Like the structure of humanities disciplines and humanistic research itself, the content, language, and methods of access used to search computerized databases differ significantly from those in the sciences. 602 LIBRARY TRENDWSPRING 1992 Content The basic differences between what computerized databases contain and what humanists need contribute to the humanist’s skepticism about the effectiveness of computers for humanistic research. Stephen Lehmann and Patricia Renfro (1991) point out that “the most fundamental distinction between researchers and librarians is perhaps the emphasis on content by the one and on access by the other” (p.410). Librarians are most interested in how information is organized and retrieved and thus see the inherent value of online systems; the humanist, on the other hand, “after checking for his or her own publications, looks for that seminal work published in Belgium in 1937 and wonders what the use is of a system that does not include it” (Lehmann & Renfro, 1991, p. 410). Database content concerns center on the number of suitable subject files, the general lack of primary sources either cited or provided online, and the reliance of bibliographic databases on current journal literature rather than retrospective journals and monographic coverage. Stebelman (1981), Mackesy (1982), Stern (1988), Atkinson and Walker (1989), and Lehmann and Renfro (1991) all have pointed out the discrepancies between what is available online and what is needed by humanists for their research. Although the number of humanities databases is growing-in full-text, bibliographic, and data formats-many scholars are unfamiliar with the range available and are unaccustomed to using any sources other than the standard index in a field. For example, while literature scholars have available to them databases other than the M L A International Bibliography online, they have relied on the printed M L A International Bibliography nearly exclusively for their own research and, thus, often do not expand their online or printed sources to include Arts and Humanit ies Citation Index or Humanit ies Index. Humanities scholars also need to find primary and book materials from which to work. Online sources rarely include citations to any primary sources, much less the often obscure and unstudied sources that a humanist might need. Related to the general lack of primary materials is the lack of references to monographic material, particularly retrospective material. Atkinson and Walker (1989) indicate that “humanistic scholarship has strong historical dimensions, such that books are at least as important as journal material, and retrospective coverage even more vital than currency” (p.35). Lehmann and Renfro (1991), in studying the use of the RLIN database at the University of Pennsylvania, found that the availability of references to older monographic literature in the RLIN database greatly enhanced its usefulness to humanities researchers (p. 411). SAULEASSUES FOR DATABASES IN THE HUMANITIES 603 In fact, both the RLIN and OCLC databases have special appeal for humanities researchers because they include citations to older materials, monographic items such as books and pamphlets, and primary sources that current bibliographic databases do not include. One of the most basic characteristics of humanistic research is the need to use secondary and primary sources that reach back in time beyond what is commonly available on computerized systems. Humanists are much less concerned with currency than they are with retrospective research. While earlier scientific results may be superseded by current research, humanities research can stay vital for decades (Mackesy, 1982, p. 149). The lack of retrospective online information has changed little since 1982 when Eileen Mackesy observed that, “of the databases currently available, only Philosopher’s Zndex has available online all the material that has also been published in printed form” (p. 149). Even though critical databases, such as the MLA Znternational Bibliography, now have expanded their backfiles considerably, some humanists dismissed their usefulness early on at a time when those databases only covered a few recent years and are still skeptical about searching those databases again. The lack of historical coverage in online databases will be eased over time as more retrospective literature is included in database files. Regardless of how far back databases eventually reach, however, the issues of full-text primary source availability might only be addressed by the increased building of personal textual databases by individuals and individual institutions. As Lehmann and Renfro discovered, database content is the single most significant determinant of database use-surpassing connectivity, user-friendliness, and cost. Language and Access The differences between how humanists use language and how computers retrieve words and citations create significant conflicts for humanities scholars. Mackesy (1982) observes that “computer searching...forces scholars who work with ideas and concepts to define their language carefully in a way in which they are not accustomed” (p. 150). The ambiguous language used in article titles, language which is sometimes “cute and meaningless” (Mackesy, 1982, p. 150), causes particular problems for searching bibliographic online files in which little information beyond the title is provided. Furthermore, humanities articles can be difficult to abstract since they often discuss a range of time periods, historical and literary figures, named persons, trends, and topics-all of which can be referred to by a variety of acceptable terminology that may or may not appear in the title or abstract (Stern, 1988, p. 162). Stebelmann 604 LIBRARY TRENDVSPRING 1992 (1981) gives the example of the literature scholar trying to research character development in the Victorian novel: the searcher may need to enter into the computer the names of all major characters in all Victorian novels and indicate the Victorian period using both the term “Victorian” as well as a range of years. Stern (1988) points out that germane dates are not always discussed in articles and that imprecise terminology is of ten used (e.g., “medieval,” “19th-century,” “early modern”) (p. 162). It is not surprising that many humanists feel that scanning the printed MLA International Bibliography may, in fact, be easier than trying to outsmart the computer’s terminology. While the use of controlled vocabulary can alleviate some of these confusions, inexact humanistic language and discipline structures prevent controlled vocabulary searching from being entirely accurate. Stebelmann (1981) neatly summarizes the three major issues surrounding the vocabulary used in humanistic research: “[Tlhe vocabulary is softer and less easy to control or predict than in other disciplines; relevant research is of ten subsumed under broader or narrower concepts than the user anticipated; language limiting is nonexistent in a key data base, as is effective period limiting in others...” (p. 449). In other words, the language of humanities scholarship comes in direct conflict with the language and search structure of computerized databases. WHATTO TEACHUMANISTS Given the nature and structure of humanities scholarship, attitudes of humanists toward technology, and the information needs of humanists, what should librarians attempt to teach humanists about computerized literature searching in order to make their research more efficient? Establishing Need Before librarians can teach anyone anything, they must establish a need for instruction in the potential searcher, particularly in humanities scholars who may not see the value of changing their teaching or research patterns to include computerized databases. This is, of course, part of the essential marketing mission of instruction librarians. The common use of demonstrations, newsletters, library signage, and word of mouth can all work to attract humanities scholars and students to computerized literature searching. Educating humanists about which databases are available in their field, including special attention to type of material contained in the databases and range of years covered, can help to overcome some of the concerns about database content that humanists express. Special attention SAULEASSUESFOR DATABASES IN THE HUMANITIES 605 should be given to databases which both undergraduate and graduate students might use effectively for their own papers. In this way, the researcher too can learn how database searching improves the quality and quantity of research. Concepts and Skills Once humanists have found a research need for using information technology, librarians must decide what to teach humanities scholars and students. On the one hand, the humanist could be taught only searching skills that are based on an analysis of a system’s particular functions. The searcher can be taught which keys to press in a specific systemto achieve a desired result. Or, librarians could teach conceptsthe general principles of database construction, selection, searching, and evaluation of results. Giving scholars this conceptual framework provides the basis for understanding any database or any computerized information retrieval system. Teaching concepts such as information structure and research strategy will help humanities users to overcome fears about technology use and to approach new retrieval systems with confidence and curiosity. Librarians, and computer system educators in general, are recognizing the importance of teaching concepts over skills. Nancy Ide (1987) refers to teaching concepts as the “Holistic View” of computer instruction, which she defines as: the Holistic View is most concerned that the knowledge, concepts, and skills taught in computers and the humanities courses provide adequate understanding of the formal methods underlying computer implementation, as well as substantial foundation for the acquisition of new knowledge and skills that may be relevant to the field in the years to come. (p. 211) The “Expert Users View,” on the other hand, seeks “to familiarize students with existing tools and provide sufficient skills to enable them to automate phases of fundamentally traditional humanities research” (p. 211). Ide feels that too many humanities computing courses focus on the Expert Users View rather than the Holistic View (p. 211). Both approaches are important, and users should have the option of getting the broad view of computing in the humanities in addition to practical search training. Key Concepts In order to understand how automated information retrieval systems work, humanists need to understand several key concepts in database structure and search software design. To address the humanist’s unique concerns for history and con text, the librarian should share an overview of the history of computing with searchers. 606 LIBRARY TRENDS/SPRING 1992 Tannenbaum and Rahn (1984) explain why this understanding of history is so important: [Humanists] should ...know something of the history of the computerwhich is really intellectual history-so that they can appreciate the significance of its invention in the development of Western civilization and be able to assess, in part at least, the enormous cultural impact of the computer on society as well as gain some vision of the computer’s implications for the future. (p. 19) Thus, the humanist can place computing in a historical context and set the philosophical basis for learning more about computer use. The practical concepts that humanist searchers, like other searchers, need to understand begin with what is meant by the term database, particularly as it applies to their disciplines. Elements that should be specially addressed include the range and variety of databases available to them, the subject areas and types of materials covered, ranges of dates covered, relationship of the computerized database to any print counterparts, and research situations in which the databases are appropriate (Lippincott, 1987, pp. 186-87). A searcher also needs to understand how a database is constructed and how it might parallel a familiar printed source. The basic unit of a database-whether i t is the bibliographic record or the text of a poem-should be explained carefully. Record structure, including the concept of fields, should be the focus of general database orientation. It is particularly important to explain to humanists the differences in searching full-text, data, and bibliographic databases. Search Strategy Humanist researchers should be encouraged to construct a careful search strategy. Since some searchers may be skeptical of the computer’s ability to help in their scholarly work, attention to a search plan that is likely to get satisfactory results is critical in the early learning stages. At the heart of a good search plan is thorough analysis of the research question. No matter how antithetical to the novice humanist searcher the idea of “thinking” like a computer might be, the librarian should lead the scholar in identifying key terms and relationships in the research question, and in listing synonyms or related words for these key terms. Attention to different ways of expressing historical or literary time periods, movements, and concepts will help the search be more relevant. The concept of controlled vocabulary and the use of database thesauri may be introduced to facilitate searching. In addition to analyzing the research question, the searcher must group common elements of the research question into sets and be able to manipulate those sets effectively using Boolean operators. Although set theory and Boolean logic is not necessarily easy to SAULE/ISSUES FOR DATABASES IN THE HUMANITIES 607 understand, humanists will expect computer logic to be straightforward. Crawford (1986) observes that “a humanist, no matter how uninitiated, is likely to believe that the logical operations involved in reading a bibliographic database should appear simple, resembling those required for reading a card catalog” (p. 571). The current proliferation of machine-readable texts, such as the ARTFL (American and French Research o n the Treasury of the French Language) and Thesaurus Linguae Gruecae, places special demands on the ability to navigate through large amounts of text using Boolean and free-text searching. The final element of search strategy construction is database selection. The librarian should spend ample time teaching the humanist how to match the research need with the appropriate databases. Databases, such as RLIN and OCLC, provide the retrospective coverage of monographic and other publication formats that humanists need. Public access to these systems should be made available to researchers; special instructional materials should address the unique characteristics of these search systems. Since humanities disciplines-and thus many humanities research questions-are interconnected, multifile searching should be explained. In fact, Atkinson and Walker (1989) discovered that, for humanities searchers, one system and one database does not lead to the most effective search results (p. 29). Unfortunately, humanists often are unwilling to search databases with which they are unfamiliar, Middlebury College librarians recently experimented with the WILSONDISC demonstration CD-ROM disk to teach cross-database searching and thus teach a broader view of the research process. The WILSONDISC demonstration disk contains six months of sixteen different databases. Working with librarians, tutors in the college writing center searched one subject through several of the databases on the demo disk to show students writing research papers the interconnectedness of databases and to give them an understanding of the interdisciplinary nature of some areas of study (MacDonald, 1991, p. 15). This same multifile, cross-database searching approach can be used with more advanced humanities students and with humanities scholars using advanced research databases such as Arts and Humanities Citation Index, M L A International Bibliography, PsycLIT, and Historical Abstracts. Searching Skills Of course, a successful search is based not just on the searcher’s conceptual understanding of information retrieval systems. Once the humanist has a solid foundation in database concepts and strategy, he or she needs to be shown the technical skills of searching. The 608 LIBRARY TRENDS/SPRING 1992 commands to begin searching, to execute a search, to combine and truncate terms, to view and print results, and to get help differ with each system and thus must be addressed on a system by system basis. Lippincott (1987) lists the specific features that a searcher should be shown for each system: logging on and off the system, including system security; keyboard mechanics; and input and output procedures (p. 189). Teaching the technical aspects of searching necessarily must include telecommunications issues. In addition to remote access to local catalogs and databases, a variety of bibliographic and full-text databases for humanists are now available through Internet and other national and international networks. Lehmann and Renfro (1991) discovered that issues of connectivity, including the understanding of network connections and the use of hardware and software, were second only to database content concerns as impediments to effective searching (p. 411). Librarians can help the technologically hesitant humanist to learn how to make connections from his or her office, classroom, or from wherever the information need is felt. In addition to system-specific and technical searching skills, humanists also have expressed a desire to learn other types of computing skills, such as the use of computer graphics and statistical packages (Estabrook & Hunter, 1987, p. 69). There has been much discussion outside of the library literature about the specific computing skills and knowledge of applications software that humanists might need. Denley (1990) outlines four kinds of teaching that fall within the purview of those involved in humanities computing: word-processing skills; basic computing skills; disciplinespecific computing skills; and discipline-specific computing skills with the help of a computer (use of computer-aided instruction, expert systems) (p. 19). Further specific skills that the humanist researcher should learn include relational database analysis, modeling and simulation, data acquisition, process control, and computer-aided instruction (Tannenbaum, 1987, p. 221). As humanists become involved in creating and managing their own databases of citations or text, many may want to learn the principles of programming and the applications of computers to disciplines outside the humanities. Tannenbaum (1987) cites four fundamental reasons for teaching humanists how to program: a) to understand the potentials and limitations of software; b) to make simple modifications to programs to meet their special needs; c) to communicate effectively with a professional programmer working with them on a project in their discipline; and d) to evaluate software for possible use in their discipline. (p. 218) SAULEASSUES FOR DATABASES IN THE HUMANITIES 609 While most librarians are not qualified to teach specific programming skills or applications software, they should be aware of the humanities-specific resources available to scholars if they should choose to learn more about computer programming and applications