In 1935 Erwin Schrodinger proposed a thought experiment in which a test subject can be in two different states of being.  To my understanding, in this thought experiment a cat is (hypothetically) placed into a box with a vial of poison.  The vial of poison can break open at any time and kill the cat, but until the box is open the cat can be thought of as both alive and dead.  It is our curiosity that forces us to open the box and thus our own curiosity kills the cat.

What does this anecdote have to do with literacy?  Absolutely nothing.  That is until you, the reader, ask me about it, and we converse.  That is the beginning of literacy learning.  If you were to ask me about physics and                                I could easily tell you that my knowledge of physics stops at this: it is spelled with a /ph/ not an /f/.  Interestingly my first encounter with Schrodinger’s Cat came from an episode of the popular television show                                      in which the question is posed as to whether a relationship will be successful or not.  The character explains that, similar to Schrodinger’s Cat, the relationship can be thought of as both good and bad.  It is here that my true intent of this anecdote becomes clearer, because at this point I think of educational technology as both good and bad.  Educational technology is my “Schrodinger’s Cat.”

I worry that with the progression of technology and the gadgets that make life easier we are creating both a good and bad system for our children.  I am torn between the extensive value of technology, and the negative effects it is having on basic skills such as reading, writing and editing.  I fear that dictionary skills will become obsolete, as well as map skills and cursive writing.  I fear that there will come a time when “universal remote” really does mean “universally do everything for you.”  I fear that instant gratification will become expected.  But most of all, I fear that the next generation will have no interpersonal skills without a technology “buffer.”  On the other hand, technology has advanced the ease of communication throughout the world, and created a variety of experiences with webcams, Skype, and ease of access to world-wide information.  The good and the bad – dead and alive – helpful and harmful.

The future, like the state of Schrodinger’s Cat, is an unknown, but I have every intention of teaching as if literacy will continue to be necessary in every aspect of life.  In the past literacy may have meant only one thing: can you read and write?  But times have changed and technology has advanced us beyond print and paper texts. So our definition of literacy must adapt.  As I advanced through the master’s degree program, the concept of literacy became progressively more vague. I affectionately call this my “concretely abstract” theory of literacy. I know now that I will never be able to create a hard line definition of what literacy means and have accepted that literacy will continue to evolve and change with society’s trends.  In my current state I believe that literacy is reading and writing, but it is also viewing and envisioning, thinking and talking, and above all things it is using society’s multiple forms of language to think critically about effective communication.  Authors, illustrators, directors, painters, poets etc. can present the information to the audience, but it is up to each member of an audience to interpret that presentation and fit it into his or her own life however they see fit. It is my future goal to show students that literacy will continue to be relevant as there will always be some form of communication that must be “read” and interpreted in order for it to make sense to you as an individual.  Before beginning the master’s program with a literacy concentration, I would have thought it would be crazy to tie "The Big Bang Theory" television show into a course about literacy, and yet, here I am basing an entire essay on the connections that I have drawn between the two.  This is the benefit of good literacy practices. Being able to connect what you are learning to what happens in your everyday life; that is literacy in the 21st century.  This is why I now believe that literacy is based on understanding and connecting, not just reading and writing.

The experiences I have had throughout the master’s program here at Michigan State have reformed my vision of what it means to be “literate.”  I believe that in order to be “literate” you must be able to understand what you are seeing or hearing, not necessarily just whether or not you can read it.  Here I must go back to “Schrodinger’s Cat” and my knowledge of physics.  I consider myself a fairly educated individual with a (soon to be) master’s degree, but I do not consider myself literate in physics.  I can read the text, and view the images of the atoms splitting – sure – but I do not understand, and therefore I do not consider myself literate in that content.  The same idea holds true for every communication technique.  Some people may be very literate in audio recordings or music. These people can interpret each sound effect and explain exactly what it means, and yet they may not be able to read printed words.  I do not think that makes them in general “illiterate,” it makes them literate is some areas and not so in others.  My view of literacy forces each individual to analyze different communication techniques as completely separate entities in which you can be literate or illiterate.  With so many different styles of communication this, in my view, is the only realistic way to interpret literacy in today’s society.  Part of my personal literacy profile could be considered this way:        

                                  Reading mystery novels: literate
                                  Reading poetry: illiterate (it says one thing and means something totally different!)
                                  Writing: literate
                                  Physics: illiterate
                                  Comedy Movies: literate
                                  Horror Movies: illiterate (just don’t get it)
                                  Photos: literate
                                  Paintings: illiterate (It sure looks pretty though)
                                  Microsoft Word: literate
                                  Web design: illiterate (but improving)
                                  Blogging: illiterate

Using a profile that is broken down into subcategories like this allows the user (in this case myself) to engage effectively with different literacies.  I can use this data to interpret and analyze the effectiveness of different types of communication in order to fulfill my own needs.  Heading into the future I plan to take my literacy subcategories and my new “concretely abstract” definition of literacy with me as I consider pursuing my PhD.  Even though I am sure my feelings about literacy will continue to develop, of this I am sure: I can now model how to interpret and analyze different forms of present communication techniques and literacy practices.  I can even allow students to practice with different types of technology in order to see which type of literacy practices will be most beneficial to them as an individual.  I cannot predict how the next generation will choose to integrate technology and literacy into their lives, and with the continuing trend of rapid technology growth I cannot expect these current literacy practices to continue for long.  But I can show the future generation how to interact with literacy for years to come.  Is technology helping or hurting literacy practices?  I suppose that depends on how you use the technology.  I am, for all intents and purposes, caught in “Schrodinger’s Technology Paradox.”