It is widely thought and believed that word processors-especially MS Wordare software, which everyone can use. However, if we take a closer look at the documents we find that the picture is not at all that clear. In most of these documents even the basic rules of word processing are broken. The question is how it is possible that most of the users are satisfied with their performance, and do not realize that they only use a less noisy typewriter, and not able to take advantage of the opportunities offered by these software. In the search of clearing this misunderstanding I found that there are no publicly available sources, which would clearly set the rules to determine when the documents are properly formatted. Here I set three maxims which, together, are able to control the tools applied in word processing in order to create properly formatted texts. In summary, they state that the layout of a properly formatted text should be invariant to modification, that is, any modification of the body of text should not initiate its re-formatting. To prove that these maxims work and to show that we desperately need them I give examples of works of professionals from the administration, of those who passed ecdl exams, of teachers of various subjects, and finally of teachers of Informatics.

Abstract. The Testing Algorithmic and Application Skills (TAaAS) project was launched in the 2011/2012 academic year to test first year students of Informatics, focusing on their algorithmic skills in traditional and non-traditional programming environments, and on the transference of their knowledge of Informatics from secondary to tertiary education. The results of the tests clearly show that students start their studies in Informatics with underdeveloped algorithmic skills, only a very few of them reaching the level of extended abstract. To find reasons for these figures we have analyzed the students' problem solving approaches. It was found that the students, almost exclusively, only consider traditional programming environments appropriate for developing computational thinking, algorithmic skills. Furthermore, they do not apply concept and algorithmic based methods in non-traditional computer related activities, and as such, mainly carry out ineffective surface approach methods, as practiced in primary and secondary education. This would explain the gap between the expectations of tertiary education, the students' results in the school leaving exams, and their overestimation of their knowledge, all of which lead to the extremely high attrition rates in Informatics.

Research in spreadsheet management proved that the overuse of slow thinking, rather than fast thinking, is the primary source of erroneous end-user computing. However, we found that the reality is not that simple. To view end-user computing in its full complexity, we launched a project to investigate end-user education, training, support, activities, and computer problem solving. In this project we also set up the base and mathability-extended typology of computer problem solving approaches, where quantitative values are assigned to the different problem solving methods and activities. In this paper we present the results of our analyses of teaching materials collected in different languages from all over the world and our findings considering the different problem solving approaches, set in the frame of different thinking modes, the characteristics of expert teachers, and the meaning system model of teaching approaches. Based on our research, we argue that the proportions of fast and slow thinking and most importantly their manifestation are responsible for erroneous end-user activities. Applying the five-point mathability scale of computer problem solving, we recognized slow thinking activities on both tails and one fast thinking approach between them. The low mathability slow thinking activities, where surface navigation and language details are focused on, are widely accepted in end-user computing. The high mathability slow thinking problem solving activities, where the utilization of concept based approaches and schema construction take place, is hardly detectable in end-user activities. Instead of building up knowledge which requires slow thinking and then using the tools with fast thinking, end-users use up their slow thinking in aimless wandering in huge programs, making wrong decisions based on their untrained, clueless intuition, and distributing erroneous end-user documents. We also found that the dominance of low mathability slow thinking activities has its roots in the education system and through this we point out that we are in great need of expert teachers and institutions and their widely accepted approaches and methods.

No abstract

No abstract