In this first Tips for Teachers of the semester, we read and discussed “Is Google Making us
Stupid?” by Nicholas Carr, in the July/August 2008 Atlantic Magazine, and which can be found
online at http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google
We started our discussion by talking about how the article mentions that Google aims for precision and efficiency, and yet this does not leave room for us to contemplate the sorts of ambiguity that we sometimes come across when reading books. From here we discussed about the impact that Google and the Internet might be having on our brains, and how this was the subject of a recent Brian Lehrer show on WNYC. Some of us admitted to feeling scattered when reading, but wondered whether this was also because of our busy lives and responsibilities, in addition to MTV, video games, channel surfing and so on.
One member present talked about the implications that this technology has on the election process, wherein we have quick sound bytes and no sustained information about which we can make some accurate assessments.
We talked about how freshmen today, born in 1990, were born into the Internet Age, and have generally been in the habit of looking for information online. Many are therefore quite unaccustomed to the types of long readings that they are asked to do in Expository Writing.
Another member present mentioned a film called Cheap, Fast and Out of Control, which asks the basic question as to what is wrong if we all start to function like efficient robots. This was answered by the view that if we behave as robots, we deny room for emotions, which are, amongst other things, an essential part of the learning process. This was countered by some information that some robots are now being programmed to simulate emotional reactions, and indeed that computer scientists think it is acceptable to mimic nature, even to the extent of emulating emotions.
Viewed from another perspective, one member present sad that this article about Google’s impact was analogous to people’s reactions to fast food. Fast food favours efficiency over enjoyment, and she mentioned how in some European countries there is now a re-emphasis on ‘slow food’ and enjoying the dining experience in a leisurely way. And so, on this basis, perhaps it would be better to return to ‘slow thinking’ as well. This would give us time not only to contemplate knowledge, but leave room for an emotional reaction to it as well.
We mentioned how, when going to the library, a person has the opportunity to browse and see what else might be interesting or useful on adjacent shelves. It was thought, in contrast, that when online, students don’t explore but read to confirm a priori knowledge and only look for quick, small sound bytes. Certainly there are some who will explore more online, but the problem is that many have not learned how to be discriminatory about the value of different sources. It was felt that many students have learned to ‘satisfice’, which is that they will stop as soon as they reach the minimum requirement as they do not want to exert more effort. There seems to be a pressure to do things quickly.
To counter this, though, some expressed the feeling that perhaps it has always been this way; that only a small subset of the population has ever been deeply curious. Additionally, to continue with the fast food analogy, perhaps no time is really saved after all and this is only an illusion; is it really that much faster to drive in one’s car to the fast food restaurant than to take out a pan and cook the food directly oneself?
We also wondered about the social impacts of being online. Even though the Internet gives us global links, are we still not isolated in physical space in front of our computer? But this was countered by one member’s remark that isn’t reading, whether books or online, the most isolating thing that humans do? In response to this, one member suggested that perhaps we read in anticipation of having a good discussion about it later, and also that reading might give us awareness of all sorts of other life situations. Also it gives us perhaps necessary time to turn inwards and day dream and become immersed.
Returning to the topic of whether our brains have actually adapted to our use of the Internet, one member commented that students’ learning is non-linear, and visual, and also some students now put their Ph.D.s online, and in place of footnotes they have video. And current freshmen are likely to think that even e-mail is old fashioned, and want more immediacy as is provided by Instant Messaging.
Another member commented on the fact that they were reading the Belkin article in a 100 class, which does not mention the fate of the sick children in the study, and during the class one student looked up the information on his computer and said that one of the children had died. Although it was impressive that the student immediately researched this, the teacher was concerned that students might not be interested in going beyond the facts to think about the implications, rather than just wanting immediate evidence.
We wondered if the medium is the message, and to that end questioned whether it would be better for students if we put The New Humanities Reader online. But some expressed concern that students would not read in depth online, and would be tempted to keep visiting other sites. Perhaps it would be best, we thought, if the NHR stays as a book, and that students use Google judiciously to complement their analysis and understanding.
It was said that years ago, before much of the technology which is now a part of many of our lives, we had to pay more attention. If we were driving somewhere, for example, we would have to think how to navigate rather than relying on an electronic device. And another said how he no longer needs to rely so much on his memory, as if he forgets something, he merely turns to Google to look it up. But another countered any lament about this by saying that aren’t we glad for medical advancements that have enabled patients to have artificial limbs, so why not also be able to change the brain?
Perhaps ultimately what we are discussing, we thought, is a generation gap, since our students have grown up with technology and we are immigrants to it. So maybe this in turn causes a communication gap. And hasn’t this occurred throughout history, such as when the printing press was invented? Maybe we are just confronting a paradigm shift, and with time things will adapt and be smoothed over, as has happened throughout history.
We wondered about the future of books and if indeed they have a future. One member asked her students across both sections of Expository Writing, and found that 6 out of 44 students said they were reading books. Then we moved on to look at the Jenkins article that the new teachers are using in their first sequence, and all of its implications about adolescents having read the Harry Potter novels. One teacher said that only two students in his class had not read any Harry Potter books. But we wondered whether the increased reading that many children of both genders embarked upon with Harry Potter books was continued and whether this gave them a love of reading more books in general.
Perhaps students are reading more than before, but are mostly reading through a different medium of the Internet and video games. And perhaps video games are good in that they are interactive and not passive as is watching TV. One member said that in the past parents objected to children reading comic books, but later it was discovered that comic books actually improved children’s vocabulary as they used many sophisticated words. And perhaps reading online is beneficial as generally we insert many other activities alongside reading a piece, and perhaps this is being productive and not distracted.
The fascinating question was brought up as to whether this article that formed the basis of this discussion, and which was online, was actually read online or as a print-out, and every single one of us present said we printed it out. The reason for this, many of us said, was because if we only read it online we would not remember it, but if we printed it out we could write marginal comments on it and therefore directly interact with it. Of course we could have read it online and hand written notes on it on a piece of paper, though.
Generally we concluded that we are being adapted to the technology that we create. Even time is understood differently online, as we might become frustrated by a 30 second delay in a page loading, whereas that might be a very insignificant amount of time if we are, say, waiting for our dinner to arrive. Expectations and behaviour, then, are different when online and when reading a book, but perhaps, we thought, it’s best to teach students that the Internet is a wonderful resource, and one that should be used hand-in-hand with books.
