There are so many things to be said in response to this question. I feel good about where my literacy has taken me in life. I’m happy to be in school, receiving an education and working toward a degree. I feel that I am motivated enough of a person to pursue knowledge on my own outside of school and feel literate enough to do so without trouble.

As for my satisfaction in regards to my education I would have to say that I have mixed feelings. I will always feel some degree of uncertainty with regards to my choice in academic path. I’ve changed my mind so many times, I feel there are so many things that interest me, but finances and the academic system prevent me from exploring interest beyond my own academic plan. I feel that some courses have gone over my head all together. I missed the point of Philosophy of Logic and Urban Anthropology, but oddly enough International Political Economics and Planetary Geology struck a cord with me. I will never forget those relevant lessons I learned in Biology regarding tomato plants, considering my diseased one at home. I feel that this class in particular, being my first with any relation to education has been very relevant to me as a future educator and someone who currently works with children seeking their own path to literacy. I feel that I can’t recall many lessons that I learned in the past, though there are certain things that will stick with me forever. I can’t really say whether I feel wholly satisfied of unsatisfied with my education. I am anticipating my further dive into the world of education and am hoping that I find a happy home in the field until then, this question lingers. Thanks for the great discussion questions! Happy Winter!

I think that for many people, the writing process itself has changed. People no longer have to worry about sifting through books for research or crossing out, erasing, and rewriting in order to edit a paper. That being said, the way most writers write probably has also changed. I feel as though writers may not put as much effort (for lack of a better word) into their work because they can simply go back and delete and write over something any time they wish by simply putting the word or phrase into the “find” box. When writing was all done with a pencil and paper or a typewriter, authors would have to reread the document in order to find the areas they want to change, which I believe made them more familiar with their writing.

I know I personally re-wrote my “Future of Literacy” essay and used the computer to find books, but physically checked them out and flipped through them for information. I also have a bad habit of saving 10 drafts of something because I’m never sure which version/wording I like better. I’m sure many authors still do this, but I definitely think the “save” button has become a writer’s best way to ‘permanently’ erase any mistakes they made or get rid of anything they didn’t want to say.

These hidden costs are present in multitasking, too. You already listed one of them–the quality of the paper. Although some would argue with this assumption, I think it is fair to say that a paper written with deep attention will be more cohesive and coherent than one written with hyper attention. Allowing the brain to focus on one activity a time helps the writer remember the argument being presented, maintain a consistent flow and tone, and reduces tautology that occurs when the writer forgets what he’s already said.

Another hidden cost is the mental state of the writer. You ask the question, “What person would take 30 minutes of pain over 2 hours of pleasure?” but this question, I think, misunderstands the nature of writing a paper. From my understanding, prolonging the time with multiple activities will not increase happiness, but will actually result in more suffering.

I can use my roommate as an example, as he typifies exactly the type of person we are describing. Whenever he writes a paper, even a two page mini-essay, he stays up all night. He plays videogames, IMs with friends, surfs Facebook, and between those activities manages to squeeze out a (usually) poorly written, patch-work piece of writing. He is a very smart person, but his writing habits stab him in the back every time. The worst part of the experience, from times I’ve talked with him, is the omnipresent fact that he’s got to write this paper. So instead of spending an hour or two banging it out, he draws it out further and further, turning what could be akin to a quick, painful shot into a full-fledged session of self-torture. In this analysis, guilt is the hidden cost of multi-tasking, because the writer will always be thinking, “I’ve gotta write this paper.”

One final hidden cost of this situation is sleep. I hear a lot of my peers say, “I never have time to sleep.” When inquired about their homework habits, they inevitably say, “No, I don’t just do homework. I listen to music, stalk people on Facebook, watch movies on youtube, watch TV, etc.” The end result is less sleep, which is not a pleasurable thing for most people.

Something I should point out is that this argument assumes that most multi-tasking is not actually multi-tasking, in the sense of accomplishing several useful activities at once, but actually a euphemism for procrastination. Procrastination is great in moderation, but if we’re going to procrastinate we should at least call it what it is instead of putting big, floppy ears on a rat and calling it a bunny rabbit.

Another aspect of my literacy that I feel does and always will need improvement is my writing. Writing is one of those skills that needs constant fine tuning due to its many various facets. With so much going into it (i.e. grammar, vocabulary, style, fluidity, etc.) there are so many opportunities for continued improvement. While my high school did not do a horrible job of teaching academic writing, I do feel that my writing skills have improved tremendously throughout my three and a half years of college. Yet, as I have already intimated, they could always use a boost and I anticipate further improvement as I move on to graduate school.

Overall, I feel that personal literacy constantly evolves (and in, perhaps, some cases devolves) depending on many different factors. Also, one’s own view of their literacy could differ wildly from someone else’s views of the same literacy.

In addition to that, I also had problems with the multiple sweeping generalizations he made about educated and young people. For example, my jaw almost dropped when I read, “My guess is that the more educated and literate we are (in the tired twentieth-century sense), the more of these [ideas and needs amenable to programming solutions] we have.” I really don’t see the relation between education and programming solutions–uneducated people need to drive and look at maps also.

He also says that more and more people will be “programming” in the future, but then he gives an example of someone accessing a pre-made program to fit his need for a project. If enough programming-savvy people are creating programs for enough uses, why would the rest of us want to get involved? Which leads to another issue I had with his argument–the assumption that people in the future will have the time to grapple with relatively difficult material when there is only a marginal benefit in their lives. I’ve often contemplated learning Python, but every time I go to learn it, the original program I had in mind to create seems less and less important as I confront the challenge of learning another foreign language. Granted, people in the future may simply grow up “multilingual” in their mother language and several programming languages, but I see difficulties in envisioning this as well.

The author also seems to assume that computer systems are going to get more and more complex, but I see the exact opposite happening with the popularization of the Mac. The Mac requires only basic knowledge of computers in order to function effectively. If this trend of simplification continues, the author’s envisioned future will probably not happen.

Unless, of course, like literacy the concept of programming will be expanded to include every manipulation of a machine, which the author is trying to do in this article. In that case, he should be writing about machine manipulation, not programming literacy.

Another assumption the author makes is that educators should try to teach this new form of programming competency to students. In fact, it is probably the younger generation who will end up teaching the teachers. I laughed out loud at the idea of a teacher attending classes on how to teach Flash to children who probably knew more about it than she did. If this is the case in the future, school will become even more irrelevant that it already is today.

One final assumption the author makes is that technology will continue to develop unchecked for the next ninety years. Although he treats it nonchalantly, this assumption is incredibly controversial, as anyone informed about the current global energy situation would know. Although economists would have us believe the opposite, cheap energy and rapid development are not guaranteed in the future, nor should they be. Our resources are finite, and our thinking about issues such as the one presented in this article needs to begin reflecting this understanding.

Although the previous few sentences were not in “Standard English”, I suspect you had no trouble reading them (apart from those of you who cringed at the thought of students writing this way). The way that children interact with texts today is changing and literacy along with it. As mentioned in the above response, words like “defriend” are entering the English language. I doubt that I’ll convince you in this blog post that these changes are acceptable; however you should consider the following:

http://www.nosweatshakespeare.com/resources/shakespeare-words.htm

This link shows a list of common words in our daily vernacular that were first documented by Shakespeare’s writing. If he is allowed to create words that have meaning why can’t we?

Additionally, consider the accessibility of literacy that these online resources provide. It is estimated that 73.8% of American homes have internet access. How many of these homes do you think have extensive collections of classic novels?
Though I certainly didn’t answer the posed questions, I think these are some things to evaluate as we condemn the way that the internet is affecting literacy.

If you’re interested, here’s an article on NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112334449

On a personal level, I’ve noticed dramatic differences between the time it takes me to write a paper single-tasking and multi-tasking. I learned back in high school that I work best when I shut out all distractions and come face-to-face with whatever I’m trying to write. Now when I compare my habits to friends who are constantly changing music on Pandora, IMing friends, scanning facebook, watching TV, eating, all at the same time, I consistently finish pages hours before they’ve even written the first paragraph. I don’t think I’m any smarter than my friends, but my writing habits are definitely more focused. There are myriad reasons for this discrepancy, but I think I can illustrate it pretty simply by comparing it to eating pie, or rather, three pies.

Say you want to eat pie, but aren’t sure which flavor you want, blueberry, pecan, or pumpkin. Instead of eating one pie, you alternate between taking bites from each of them in a fixed order. Assuming that your rate of consumption is the same (that is, your bites per hour), how long will it take you to finish one of the three pies? The answer is three times as long! Actually, it would take even longer because you would have to switch your fork from one pie to the other.

Now imagine you are trying to write three papers at the same time, working on each paper a little before moving to the next. Assuming you work on each of them for the same amount of time, how long will it take to finish one paper? Maybe three times as long, but probably a lot longer. Every time you switch to another paper, you have to remember your previous train of thought, remember what you’ve already said, etc. The paper probably won’t flow as well, either.

Now imagine you are working on one paper, due tomorrow, while engaging in “multi-tasking” like checking your e-mail, writing on facebook, and watching TV. I can’t predict how you would distribute your time between these activities, but I bet the paper would only get a third, if not less. Thus, after one hour, you’ll have written a third of what you could have written had you not been “multi-tasking,” and all of the disadvantages of the previous example will still apply.

I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a pretty crappy deal to me.

As to the thought that not multitasking will make us less efficient or less competitive or less out of touch with the world, I think anyone who believes this needs to re-examine his or her time management practices and decide what the priorities are: writing applications to graduate school or growing fake crops on a computer screen.