Blog 8: Write a response that synthesizes (brings together) ideas from earlier in the course in relationship to technology. In other words, what are you seeing in terms of changes? Does technology change literacy or learning literacy?

 Technology makes literacy possible.  Technology drives everything in our world.  The way we study, the way we eat, the way we drive, the way we exercise; anything we do is technology driven.  As we evolve, technology does also.  The idea of literacy began with the ability to communicate with one another.  In ancient times various languages evolved so people could share their thoughts and ideas.  Eventually, the spoken word was accompanied by the written word (or picture).  This type of communication was long lasting and able to be seen by people generations later.   Books were written after paper came about.  Books were collected and passed amongst people, spreading literacy; spreading knowledge. 

With the invention of the printing press, literacy changed immensely.  The printed word spread like wildfire to more people than ever before.  Knowledge poured in to people.  Inventions of things like the telephone also changed literacy.  People were able to communicate long distances instantaneously. 

Most recently computers (email, internet, and websites) came in and shook everyone’s idea of literacy and communication around a bit.  Books were made available on the internet.  Papers and articles and essays could be downloaded to your computer in minutes.  Ideas could be typed and sent across countries in seconds. Instant messenger services changed business meetings. 

Now we have cell phones.  Everyone is connected to the world at every second of every day.  People can be reached anywhere in the world.  Text messaging is taking over the way people communicate with one another.  I began reading a new book yesterday.  I saw an advertisement for the book while I was online shopping.  I decided I wanted to read the book.  I did not go to the store to buy it.  I did not go to the library to check it out.  Instead I downloaded a virtual copy of the book from “Amazon” and now I have access to it on my iPad of my phone. 

I have a book with virtual pages. Of course technology changes learning and literacy.  The article ranting about the changes to the dictionary is proof that technology can change anything.  The students in the 5^th grade class I am observing use computers every day to assist in their homework assignments (typing letters), to help learn math facts (online math websites), and to make presentations (PowerPoint). I went to a piano bar downtown, and one of the piano players was reading sheet music off of his iPad.  My math instructor uses his iPad in class to help with teaching.  Technology has revolutionized learning.

As long as we understand that all of our new gadgets (cellphones, iPods, etc.) and slang speech have a place, and that place is out of the classroom, I think all of our advances in technology have helped literacy to make huge strides.  I agree with the article on the new technology.  People are writing more than they ever have in the past.  Most people probably did leave college and if it wasn’t required for their job, they never ever constructed a real paragraph again.  Technology keeps us sharp (for the most part) (this is where I will ignore the fact that anytime I have a question I will simply Google it...rather than actually learning anything) That is for a different blog!

Position: Technology is revolutionary.

Post 21: What issues does this “The New Literacy” address for you that you think are important?

I think this article brings forth many great points.  That people today are always writing for an audience is a truth I’d never thought of before.  Whenever I ‘update my Facebook status’ or post a ‘tweet’ on Twitter, I am immensely aware of my audience, and it almost always has a point or an opinion.  As the article says, “For them, writing is about persuading and organizing and debating, even if it's over something as quotidian as what movie to go see.” Moreover, I structure my Facebook posts (where family will see them) in a much different way than my tweets (strictly for friends), and those are both very different from my private blog that only a few select friends read.  Furthermore, all of these mediums of communication are radically different from the way I email or write personal letters and especially different from the way in which I construct an academic post or paper. 

The point of this article was RELAX! We know our audience. It is not difficult to switch our tone depending on our targeted audience.  I agree that there is some danger of text speak or other slang creeping into academia, but only if teachers fail to weed it out early on.  My honest opinion is that parents should be able to handle the explanation of when certain vocabularies are acceptable, however teachers are the gatekeepers.  It is the teachers express job in elementary school to show students Standard English in all of its’ glory and teach students when and why it is important and appropriate to use. 

It is my humble belief that once learned, it will never be forgotten.  Students who learn the rules of language usage early will use it adequately thenceforth.

I completely agree with Clive Thompson when he says, “We think of writing as either good or bad. What today's young people know is that knowing who you're writing for and why you're writing might be the most crucial factor of all”.

Post 20: In the two short essays I have given you, the idea of text messaging in education is addressed. What do you think about this? Do you agree/disagree with the authors?

I have mixed feelings on the texting language.  I text. I text often. It is my primary mode of communication with over half of the people I am in regular contact with.  I find it simple and convenient.  I can communicate with people without interrupting my daily routines. 

One of the articles we read made mention to people not wearing the same clothes out on a Saturday night as they would while doing yard work.  This is a perfect example of how I feel. 

I think it is important for children to learn Standard English.  I think the structure of the language should be upheld. Children are going to talk to their friends in slang.  Children are going to text.  They are going to post on Facebook.  They are going to shorten words.  The rule for all of these things is: there is a time and a place for everything. 

I do not speak to my mother the way I speak to my friends.  I do not speak the same way around my infant as I do my coworkers. 

I think learning situational literacy should be part of school curriculum.  As technology changes, so will the way we interact with words.  Our literacy is changing now just as it has throughout history.  Teachers simply need to teacher students how to interact with words.  Some are only appropriate in certain settings.  

Technology is awesome for learning today.  Computers make information available exceptionally fast with exceptional clarity.  Learning can be interactive and individualized in computer games.  Technology does shape how we learn and what we learn. 

I believe it is wonderful and we should embrace it.  Our world is ever changing, and being able to roll with the punches is important.  We just need to learn when it is okay to use slang and when it is important to be eloquent with our language.

Post 19: Where do you stand on this issue? Do you think Google is making us “stupid”? How do these arguments play into literacy (or ideas of what literacy is as we move to thinking about technology?)

I do not necessarily think that Google is making us stupid.  I think that the internet and Google has transformed our society completely. Rarely is there a question that I have that goes unanswered.  I have a smart phone, and iPad, a laptop and a desktop.  I have access to the internet wherever I go.  Anytime I have a question, I must admit I Google it. Then, pop, I have an answer. 

Google is a wonderful tool.  It provides limitless information readily at the fingertips of the masses.  The detriment of Google and any other search engine is that in my opinion it impedes our ability or desire to remember anything.  My retention of information is sub-par. It seems that this is just a cycle though.  When people were beginning to write, there was uproar of how it would destroy our minds.

When print occurred and newspapers and books were readily available to the public, there was an outcry saying it would hurt our minds.

Now, here we are in the midst of internet everywhere. Information superstores are at our fingertips anytime of the day.  If we do not like what we see right away, we can simply click on another choice and it will be immediately in our faces.  That is where the scanning of articles and the necessity of headline writing comes into play.  We don’t have to read deeply into articles to understand the main points.  We can simply scan an article over, and if we do not get enough information, we can click a few times on our mouse and be trying out a new article. 

With every new development, literacy changes.  This is another shift in literacy.  The internet and Google has changed our access to written works.  We are certainly taking shortcuts.  Everything must be faster to survive.  The internet is a convenience that will only become more powerful and more integrated in our lives. 

Baron

Much the same as Ong suggests that we cannot in our society visualize a concept or a thing without visualizing the word in and of itself, Baron says that now that we have computers and have digitized text, he cannot write well without the amenities of technology.  Ong says that written words are now essential to our understanding and functionality of literacy, and Baron says that technology is essential to our production of writing.

I think both of these authors evoke a fundamentally mind altering thought process that alters my understanding of literacy.  I use technology to transform my thoughts and feelings into text every day.  After typing it up, I typically put it in some form on the internet and share it with my friends and family.  The days of penning letters are few and far between.  I remember having a pen pal in elementary school once. Other than that, when I hand write things: letters, lists, papers...anything, I am doing it for the sport of it, not out of necessity.  A couple of summers ago, I remember having to write "Thank You'" notes to 200 people after my wedding.  It was truly a chore.

On a daily basis, I usually update my Facebook status with some witty retort about traffic or some other easily relatable irritant.  I share photos via text message to my in-laws and siblings. And I tweet about something funny.  Technology has revolutionized the way I communicate with my friends and family.  It has transformed literacy.  Before bed tonight, I will read a few chapters of a novel on my iPad. I have no use for going to the library any more.  My library allows me to virtually check out books and download them to my iPad. 
The merge of literacy and technology for me is liberating and exciting.  It makes life easier and communication possible that would not have occurred otherwise. 

I have really focused over the past day on Ong's assertion that people who write and read written words visualize their spoken sounds and ideas in words.  We think in words. It is crazy.  It makes me feel like I am in the middle of the 'which came first (chicken or egg) dilemma'.  Do I think of the actual thing first? Or the words? Are they synonymous? Ah! It makes my skin crawl!  Very interesting topic.

Discussion Post for April 3rd

Ong tell us that writing is inhuman.  There is a disconnect between the spoken word and the written word.  We cannot visualize a thing without at some point thinking of the written form of the thing.  Cultures that are oral communicators only, do not have that issue. Ong highlights many other points from Plato as well such as “writing destroys memory. Those who use writing will become forgetful, relying on an external source for what they lack in internal resources” (Ong 21). A calculator is an example of this.  Based on this excerpt, I am confused at the overall point.  Seemingly many negatives are highlighted for the use of technology and writing, especially with the Plato examples.  However, Ong then points out that Plato was in fact using writing (this horrid thing) to broadcast his critiques of writing itself.  And, we wouldn’t know of his critique today without the existence of writing. Ong then says, “To say writing is artificial is not to condemn it but to praise it” (23).  I think he is saying that writing is a tool.  It perhaps weakens the mind, but it strengthens the depth and reach of information, opinions and lore.

Literacy certainly changes with technology.  Technology is an amazing tool for acquiring and transmitting facts and information more quickly and efficiently than ever. However, retaining of the information learned is no longer a necessity because it is always available at our fingertips, whether it is a mathematical problem that needs solved and I grab my calculator, or if I need to know the answer to seemingly any question, I can always just “Google it”.