Bow and Arrow-Cursor: Connecting Technology, Literacy, and Discourse
I was in a middle school social studies class when the teacher asked the class, “What is technology?” Next to me, my friend Alex quickly answered, “Like computers and stuff,” and was just as quickly scorned by the teacher for not raising his hand. This would have been about the same answer that I would have given. The teacher, though upset that he didn’t raise his hand, gave him a nod and a, “Very good,” response. I would later find out on my own that it was not, very good , but rather ok.
Years have gone by since then and lately I have been very interested and intrigued by the thought of how literacy, discourse, and technology are related and coincide. The idea that these terms represent something different for everyone is a new notion than the usual belief that words come with set definitions and meanings.
This could pose a problem in society the way that the misuse of the word literacy has titled people as stupid by implying something that they thought was the simple word “illiteracy.” These words represent so many things by themselves, and together are arguably broader.
The broadness I first picked up on was when I learned that the word literacy has many different meanings, depending on who is defining it. I also learned that without discourse, all people would be the exact same; so it defines all of these people that could potentially have a different definition of literacy. James Gee describes discourse as defining a certain type of
“who” by them doing a certain type of “what,” or a add title here doing add same title here things (Gee). A problem was, however, that I was given a generic meaning for the word technology, made to make it seem less broad than it really is. I recently found out, according to the Oxford Dictionary, that the definition of technology is: the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes and the machines and devices developed from such scientific

knowledge (Oxford). Webster’s Dictionary notes that technology is the practical application of knowledge, especially in a specific area (Webster). This means that technology is just as broad as literacy, also meaning that technology is not even limited to the “stuff” that was mentioned by my friend, Alex, in the middle school class. If people were to analyze these definitions as much as I have, they would realize that technology can be, not just an object, but an idea that can be applied. For example, I was in the woods with my father one day and had the idea that a tree branch can be used as a lever to move a larger tree that was blocking a trail. I wouldn’t consider the tree branch a form of technology, more so I think the idea to use it as a lever is the
“application of knowledge.” This shows how much of a broad meaning technology can have as much as literacy and discourse.
I am looking deeper into topic because I feel the need to communicate what I know and believe to be true. I think that it could benefit people to know what I know. I believe it is interesting to look deeper than the average person, in that the words I talk about are broader than they are made out to be. I also became very interested in how these terms are connected, we spoke about these words, individually in class and did make connections to them, but we did it in a very narrow way; a way that we even talked about not being right when it came to literacy. In my class, we spoke of technological literacy and when asked to define it gave the simple answers of, “knowing how to use Facebook,” or, “knowing how to work a computer,” to which the teacher gave the same, “very good” response that my middle school friend was given. I simply want people to understand this the way that I do. I want them to be informed on the topic so that they do not misinterpret the meaning of technological literacy the same way that literacy is broadly misinterpreted.

To give an example or a way to understand my interpretation of technological literacy between discourses, I compare the technological literacy between an Alaskan frontiersman, and someone in the press in New York. I had thought of this idea while watching a television show a few days ago about an Alaskan frontiersman who was limited to “primitive technology.” I thought, immediately about our discussions in class about technology and realized that most of us were using the word in the wrong context. I watched as the man living in a small log cabin used simple tools such as a knife, a bow, and an axe, all types of the “primitive technology” that was described. I noticed that he wore animal skins and furs to keep warm, which is another idea that could be considered the technology of a coat. The Alaskan frontiersman has his definition of technology and literacy and does not need to worry about understanding how to use a computer, so he is technologically literate in his own sense. The same thing goes for the New
York man in the press who may be very good with computers and posting stories online, but not so literate when it comes to a bow and arrow.
That being explained, in my own words I describe the connection of literacy, discourse, and technology with a statement: The level of technological literacy someone has is based on the meaning of both technology and literacy within a discourse.
To give a personal example of an experience I had I take myself back to when I was on a mission trip to Mexico, to a primitive village of a group of Native Americans living very traditionally and away from civilization. I remember their fascination with my folding pocket knife. To me, that was a normal everyday thing to have a pocket knife and was no big deal.
However, to them a knife did not fold, their knives were simple and handmade with a blade and handle. I let one man in particular, the one who seemed the most unsettled by it, handle the knife. He was able to open it, seeing how it folded, but was unable to figure out how to close it,

since it had a lock for safety. This showed, in a slight way, how technological literacy can vary.
Something simple as the use of a pocket knife was a technological literacy. At the same time, there were many things that I would never be able to do as well as those people using their technologies. They had limited and primitive technology and managed to live of off being able to effectively use it.
I have come to understand the connections as well as the individual meanings of the three words: literacy, discourse, and technology. All three can have different meanings, or in the case of discourse, represent something different, depending on the person defining them. Literacy is broad and can no longer be limited to the idea that it simply means the ability to read and write.
Discourse is different to those who talk about it, in the sense that everybody’s primary discourse is different; discourses are what make us who we are. Finally, technology is not limited to the
“computers and stuff” that so many people believe; technology can be anything that was invented or innovated as well as an idea that can be used for a practical purpose. Technological literacy represents different things depending on how your discourse views technology and literacy.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/technology http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technology
Gee