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 app, 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 sign 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 OverLaptop Note Taking.”
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 further 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. 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.
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 criminals in the area, people end up becoming immune to that kind of
notification and ignoring it the second they see “WARNING!!” or any other
desperate attempt to capture people’s attentions.
An article by Jared Misner posted on The Chronicle of HigherEducation, 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. 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.
Photo courtesy of Morguefiles
No comments:
Post a Comment