Shallow learning--is technology making us regress?

Is technology making our generation regress? There is no doubt that the question of “whether the constant and continuous development of technology at an unbelievable pace is hindering the human mind of its full capacities” is a hot topic amongst renowned scientists at the moment. Humans’ levels of intelligence have become increasingly scrutinized with the release of new technologies that make our daily tasks much easier, and thus, inevitably require less brainpower. It seems as though technology has changed our lives so much that completing the simplest of tasks without using it is a head-scratcher for the most of us. It is safe to say we are at the point of no return.

Simple tasks, such as getting from point A to point B without a GPS, or calculating the appropriate tip for a restaurant bill have become tasks we rely on technology to carry out for us, making our brains rather lethargic and activating them into inactive mode. It is a given that we are nowhere near as likely to even try to solve a math problem mentally as we are to pull out our phones, open up the calculator application, and have the solution at the palm of our hands in a heartbeat, without exerting a single joule of energy on our brains. But to what extent does this necessarily signify that we are becoming less intelligent as technology is on the rise, showing no signs of slowing down?

A classic but prominent example of this is the study that tests whether laptop note taking is more or less effective than traditional longhand note taking. Pam Mueller and Daniel Oppenheimer carried out a series of studies, in which they tested for the most effective method of taking notes, titled “The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking.”

Photo courtesy of Morguefiles

The arguments in favor of laptop note taking—usually solely supported by students—include the greater amount of information from a lecture that a student will be able to retain in writing, and the fact that typed work is often times considerably more organized than handwritten work. The arguments against laptop note taking include the idea that laptops are distracting, and generate shallower learning, as compared to physically writing out a piece of information, which requires more excessive processing.

Both seem valid claims, but in the overall conclusions, laptop note taking was detrimental to learning as students who used it were inclined to write the lecture verbatim, instead of processing it, interpreting it for themselves, and rephrasing it in a way that worked for them personally. Laptop note taking limited the creation of helpful mnemonics and compromised the information in the long run. Mueller and Oppenheimer’s conclusions were summarized as “we found that participants using laptops were more inclined to take verbatim notes than participants who wrote longhand, thus hurting learning.”

It is safe to say that in this particular case, technology is indeed affecting the way we learn negatively, making us regress, and making our generation significantly more lazy than previous ones who did not have access to as much technology as we do today. The idea of shallow learning is outlines in Oppenheimer’s study. It is inaccurate to generalize the study’s results and claim that it is a worldwide phenomenon that applies in every case. However, the idea of shallow learning—learning material solely on surface-level, without much depth—is the cause for long-term memory being compromised. Shallow learning goes hand in hand with not storing the information.

A different angle to assess the question of technology debilitating us from completing the simplest tasks is that the abuse of technology, specifically focusing on the technology of notifications/automated alerts on smartphones, causes people to not take them seriously anymore. Instead of reaching the desired outcome of warning people of dangers such as weather hazards or criminal activity in the surrounding area, people end up becoming immune to that kind of notification and ignoring it the second they see “WARNING!!” on their screens, or any other desperate attempt to capture people’s attentions.

An article by Jared Misner posted on The Chronicle of Higher Education, titled “Too Many Campus Alerts?” tackles this issue precisely. There is no doubt that having technology that enabled these kind of alerts has had a positive effect on society. There are plenty of times where I would be unable to foresee a tornado were it not for the “tornado warning” message alerts I get from campus emergency services. However, the abuse of this kind of technology has caused the inverse of the desired outcome. A student interviewed in Misner’s article claimed that, “the idea behind them is that they’re for emergencies, but because a lot of the times it’s about ‘it could rain this afternoon or it might storm later,’ a lot of the time I just don’t care to read them.” A technology that was intended for progress and quick spreading of information might be causing us to regress due to overuse.

It seems as though these modern technologies are playing with the status quo, and the way it has always been done is no longer the way to do it. The school newspaper is shifting from producing printed copies thrice a week to being completely online. There is no doubt that this saves paper, labor, and resources, but does it reach as many people as it would if there were also printed copies circulating around campus? Are the benefits of these technologies enough to cover the opportunity cost of applying them?

There is as much debate being pushed forth for either sides of the issue. There is strict evidence to backup the idea that laptop note taking hinders learning, as students who took notes on a laptop scored significantly lower on conceptual-application questions. However, laptop note takers took more notes on average than those who did it by hand, and the students who took more notes tended to perform higher as well. It is not an exact science, and not a single conclusion can be applied to every individual.

Analytical Reflection

Though the composition of my blog in its entirety was a compilation of all the critical texts, examples and class discussion combined, the two texts I kept in mind constantly while writing it were “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts,” by Jeanne Fahnestock and “Blogging: Digital Media and Society Series” by Jill Walker Rettburg.

Rettberg’s text discussed the fine line between blogging being considered a medium or a genre. She claims that “scholars have suggested that, rather than looking at the Internet as a single medium, it makes more sense to consider different authoring software as providing different media” (Rettberg 32). She explains that the actual blog itself is the medium, however, what is written on the blog determines the genre of it. With that in mind, I intended for my text to be in the blog medium, evidently, and in a “science for the general public” genre. That is what I aimed for as I wrote it, and I attempted to make sure I satisfied those characteristics. Rettburg’s text was important for maintaining clarity and forcing me to make decision early on, which I carried out throughout the entire post.

Furthermore, Fahnestock’s text that touched on accommodating science to better fit the public sphere resonated with me as well. Fahnestock was much more lenient in her rigidity about accommodating science to fit broader, less knowledgeable than the counter-part article we read, “Ecospeak: Rhetoric and Environmental Politics in America” by M. Jimmie Killingsworth and Jacqueline S. Palmer. This was useful for me as, though I am not a scientist myself, I instead made myself knowledgeable on the topic at hand by reading extensively on it, and this does not strip away my rights to write about it.  Fahnestock claims that “the science accommodator is not telling an untruth; he [she] simply selects only the information that serves his [her] epideictic purpose” (Fahenstock). Thus, I chose to remember and apply her principles as I was writing my blog. I am not a scientist, or even a science-inclined person. With that said, I attempted to find a topic that I was comfortable and knowledgeable enough to speak about, without compromising my credibility to my audience. I believe I helped put things into perspective for a public audience, while not mimicking or simply reiterating the concepts I read about.

Grant-Davie’s article was crucial to the build up of my blog as well. I consistently asked myself what my exigence, constraints and audiences (all kinds) were, and if I was using the proper terminology and syntax to target the intended audience. "The rhetorical situation" as described and elaborated on by Grant Davie was the backbone of my post. At points I would stop and check if I could still identify the 5 constituents just by what I had already written down. 

The actual primary source I used was the main focus of my blog post. Although the source was a series of studies on whether taking notes on a laptop was more or less effective than by hand, I decided to broaden that topic as a whole, and adapt it to a more public sphere. In order to do this, I generalized it, as Fahnestock’s article claims tends to happen when adapting a scientific article. My new main idea was that technology is hindering our generation from learning, and that doing things manually has its benefits, despite the lack of convenience in doing them.

Works Cited

Fahnestock, Jeanne. "Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts." Sage Publications, 1986. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.

Grant-Davie, Keith. "Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents." Rhetoric Review, Spring, 1997. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.

Misner, Jared. "Too Many Campus Alerts? Officials Worry That Students Tune Them Out."The Chronicle of Higher Education. 19 Sept. 2014. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.

Mueller, Pam, and Daniel Oppenheimer. "The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking." Psychological Science. Sage Publications, 23 Apr. 2014. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.

Wikipedia Project Analytical Reflection

Composing the definition and lead sections for our class Wikipedia article on “Public Sphere Writing” was quite the challenge. For starters, I had never even edited a Wikipedia article before this class required me to do so, much less written one of my own from scratch. Having a solid and predetermined group was definitely helpful. We would keep each other in check with what we added on to the article.

The most difficult part for us was how little we felt we had to work with. “Definitions” are extremely broad, and although defining “Public Sphere Writing” was a given, the rest of the words and terms we were to define were not set in stone. My group ended up in a way having to wait it out on everyone else, and then build definitions from what their sections focused around.

The rhetorical velocity introduced in Ridolfo and Rife’s text is visible here. Texts that are delivered digitally are easily “readily available to mix, mash and merge” (Ridolfo 229). I found this to be specifically true in terms of this assignment. As I was editing one thing through the original GoogleDoc, and later through the Wikipedia sandbox, my group could almost immediately see it and give their input; whereas had it been a few years back without this recent technology of digital delivery, the rhetorical velocity would have been interrupted.

In Handa’s The Multimediated Rhetoric of the Internet she mentions how the Internet has affected culture, and this concept become obvious not only throughout out projects semester-long, but especially and with a heavy emphasis on this project in particular. Wikipedia is in its entirety Interned-based. Because of its public-sphere, multi-editor nature, it cannot exist without the Internet. Killingsworth’s appeals to time played a role when doing this project as well. For one, an appeal to time was important when composing this article, as it is a timely entry. Although encyclopedias usually hold entries on everything, no matter the timeliness of it, the term we did our class Wikipedia project on was one that was not previously on the platform, and I believe it is important that we changed that as a class. With today’s rhetorical velocity of the digital age, writing in the public sphere is common. It’s crucial that Wikipedia holds an entry on the ins and outs of the practice of public sphere writing.

Furthermore, the most obvious text that resonated with me throughout the composition of this Wikipedia article were Porter’s theories of “intertextuality.” The sandbox itself was the epitome of intertextuality. One text grabbed from another which led to a sequence and webbing of borrowing bits and pieces of information to eventually form a new text, able to stand on its own. "Examining texts 'intertextually' means looking for 'traces,' the bits and pieces of Text which writers or speakers borrow and sew together to create new discourse" (Porter 34). Wikipedia’s structure involved linking from one Wikipedia page to another as it becomes appropriate and relevant in the original text. This leads to visible intertextuality. In our article alone, several other pages were linked to, and eventually, our page will be linked in other articles too.

All in all, if I were to think hard enough I feel like this project encompassed every critical text we have gone through as a class throughout the length of this semester. The aforementioned are the ones that stood out to me most clearly.

Porter, James E. "Intertextuality and The Discourse Community." Rhetoric Review. 1st ed. Vol. 5. London: Taylor & Francis, 1986. 34-47. Autumn, 1986.

Ridolfo, Jim and Martine Courant Rife. “Rhetorical Velocity and Copyright: A Case

Study on Strategies of Rhetorical Delivery.” 223-243. Web.

On Wiki-editing

This Short Assignment has, in my opinion, been the most useful and has taught me the most. Getting to actually edit a real Wikipedia article and watch my edits be published was, not only a learning experience, but also very cool. 

When I clicked on the Edit History of the Wikipedia article I chose to edit, the one on Genre, I could see all the edits that have been made to this page. It was impressive to see people editing the same article I was editing, and finding countless errors or areas that needed improvement. I myself found a few and edited them. For example, there was a mention of a "tragicomedy" in the Genre article, and it was not linked to the Wikipedia page on Tragicomedy, so I linked it. I used other words that had been linked to their appropriate page, such as "literature" as reference on how to appropriately link. As it turns out, simply adding brackets around the word does the trick. 

I now get the sense that the more editing a Wikipedia article has gone through, the more editing eyes its seen, the closer to perfect by Wikipedia's standards it will be, considering that the editors do a thoroughly good job. The most relevant critical text from those we've studied this semester in my opinion was "Intertextuality and the Discourse Community" by Porter. When I think of the term "intertextuality" itself, I automatically envision a sort of web, which connects every piece of writing and information together. With Wikipedia, this becomes even easier to envision. The article on genre linked to literature which linked to plot which linked to climax. Many things can web out from a single article on a single term, and I believe that is the epitome of the "intertextuality" referred to by Porter. Everything is intertwined and comes from a past source. "Examining texts 'intertextuality' means looking for 'traces,' the bits and pieces of Text which writers or speakers borrow and sew together to create new discourse" (Porter 34). Wikipedia is the perfect example of that.

As a relative newcomer to the Wikipedia editing community, I recognize there is still much for me to learn. The task was difficult, and I am certain that I did not catch every copyediting or inline citation mistake that I could have. 

According to Ridolfo’s text and a study by him and Danielle Nicole DeVoss, today’s digital delivery is different because new elements are very “readily available to mix, mash and merge” (Ridolfo 229). “Rhetorical velocity: strategic concept of delivery in which a rhetor theorizes the possibilities for the recomposition of a text based on how they anticipate how the text might later be used” (Ridolfo 229). Rhetorical velocity is at play, and at full force in the Wikipedia platform. Texts via this media can be recomposed almost immediately as information becomes available. I remember googling Robin Williams about 3 minutes after his death was confirmed. His Wikipedia page was already updated with the time, place and speculations of his death. Rhetorical velocity at full blast. 

Strengths and flaws in Wiki bios

Short Assignment #5

Part 1:

Compare and contrast author biographies:

Marshall McLuhan & Michelle Citron:

            As far as structure, Michelle Citron’s Wikipedia biography had a one-liner as the opening paragraph. It was straight to the point and read: “Michelle Citron (born in Boston, Massachusetts) is a film, video and multimedia artist, scholar and author.” On the other hand, Marshall McLuhan’s Wikipedia biography’s opening paragraph was more packed, and included much more information. When I see a one-liner opening on Wikipedia, I have the bad habit of assuming that either not much is known about the person or subject that the article covers, or that they are not as influential or important as someone with a thicker first paragraph in their Wikipedia biography. The article on McLuhan was also notably longer in structure than Citron’s. It had headings and subheading, and sub-subheadings, while Citron’s had few sections. A big on structure-wise was the lack of a picture in Citron’s biography. Whenever there is not at least a stock photo in a Wikipedia page, I am inclined to not be as interested because I assume the subject is not well known or interesting.

            In terms of kinds of information contained/linked to, in Michelle Citron’s biography the only information linked to other Wikipedia pages were the universities she attended. Marshall McLuhan’s biography linked to a world of other things, including but not limited to Wikipedia pages dedicated to his major works, and biographies of other authors’ biographies with whom McLuhan collaborated. This reinforces the idea that he was more prominent and/or more well known than Citron. McLuhan also had an extensive list of over 88 references, while Citron’s had a meager 8. The tone of McLuhan’s biography praised him a bit, while Citron’s was minimally informational. In a research project I would probably only use McLuhan’s as there is sufficient information. If I needed information on Citron I would go elsewhere because this Wikipedia page seems incomplete and depthless.

Henry Sidgwick Wikipedia & Henry Sidgwick Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

            Henry Sidgwick’s biography on Wikipedia was entirely different from his biography in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. There were the obvious structural differences such as the common Wikipedia layout versus a text-heavy page in the Stanford Encyclopedia biography, but there were also differences in the types of information presented. As I expected, the Wikipedia biography included more outline information and little in-depth, while the Stanford Encyclopedia biography went in depth about Sidgwick’s epistemology, views on religion, economics, politics, and education.
            If I was looking for just quick information on who he was and why, more or less, he was important, I believe the Wikipedia biography would be thorough enough. However, if this were a research project, I would go to the Stanford Encyclopedia biography. It mentions who influenced Sidgwick, and has extensive paragraphs on his views on each issue. Though they are both useful, these biographies serve different purposes. The Wikipedia page has one section for his “major works” but does not include any of the books he published, while the Stanford Encyclopedia does not have a “major works” section, but instead it incorporates his major works within the sections divided by subject. For example, in the “Economics” section, it mentions The Principles of Political Economy, a work published by Sidgwick.

Part 2:

Featured article: Same-sex marriage in Spain

            When ran by the featured article criteria, the “Same-sec marriage in Spain” Wikipedia article has its strengths and weaknesses. I am not an expert in the topic so I do not know if it neglects major facts or details, but the article is comprehensive and concise. It is also written from a neutral standpoint and includes quotes both from those in favor and from those against gay marriage.

            As for style guidelines, the lead is concise and summarizes the topic well. Though it was a bit text-heavy in comparison to other Wikipedia leads, there was nothing that could have been crossed out, or that I deemed unimportant. The Table of Contents was present and clear, with hierarchical section headings. Citations were appropriate, with footnoted in-text citation, as well as a list of references at the end. Style-wise the article was strong, and stuck to the guidelines for Wikipedia featured articles from the lead to the references.

            Another guideline that this featured article followed thoroughly was he media specifications. I went through the images on the article, and they all have the appropriate citation, and some even include copies of the emails asking for permission, and the response of the person who owns the image granting permission for it to be used in this article. They are all captioned and labeled accordingly.

            As for my own expectations, the article fulfilled them as well. Though I would have cut the first section and made it only one paragraph long, that is not exactly a rule but more of my own stylistic preferences. I prefer it when the first section is quick and to the point, simply because it’s easier on the eye. The subheadings and information found in them were pertinent and relevant to the topic, without becoming abundant. All in all, this was a strong article judging by Wikipedia’s featured article criteria.

Analysis:

            The Wikipedia Criteria for featured articles is thorough and I support every aspect of it. I believe that when making composing decisions about what to include in this kind of public sphere writing, contributors must keep the criteria in mind. Violating any copyright laws by using images that you are not allowed to use can be detrimental and can make a relevant, useful and timely article void simple because of the violation of copyright. I thought about Ridolfo and Rife, and how they made the point that Maggie’s picture was being used by Michigan State University out of the context that she intended. In the specific case of the featured article that I chose to analyze, the images were actually not being used out of context. There were images of a protest in Spain about same-sex marriage, and the article was about that, precisely. It made me wonder how Ridolfo/Rife would feel about it in this case. What if the people in those images decided that they did not want their picture being used, but they were protesting in a public place, and, at least for this Wikipedia page, the images are not even being used out of context. Would the same legal, ethical and contextual issues still apply here?

            Based on what I observed through this assignment, in both analyzing the biographies and the featured article based on the criteria, I have realized that my group for the Wikipedia project will have to make stricter decisions than I intended. What concerns me the most are the images/media. I know that there are certain stock photos that are in the public domain and that anyone can use them, but I am wondering how my team will get permission to use another image if we feel like it would add to our Wikipedia article. I am also now considering how to make it a good read. I did not know that was part of the actual criteria—for the article to be well-written and not just informational. We will need to find a way to make our topic engaging, without adding too much flowery language that will just end up deviating from out topic and diminishing our credibility.