Monday, December 8, 2014

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.



No comments:

Post a Comment