The development of new means of communication has historically been a cycle of hope and disappointment. To use a specific example, one of my older college professors told me that there had once been high hopes for TV as a vehicle for education. I had my doubts about this, but it did make for a good story when he contrasted the hope against the reality. This was back in the 1980s and TV is an even emptier vessel of entertainment now than it was then.
When the public was able to access the internet, there were also high hopes for it being a vehicle of education and enlightenment. However, the reality turned out (as it always does) to be rather more empty and sordid. It is an exaggeration to say that the net is a vehicle for porn and malware, but it is only a small exaggeration. Of course, the web does provide some things of educational value (and not just education about porn).
Interestingly, there are those who contend that our interaction with the internet is robbing us of our capacity for thinking deeply. The most famous work on this is, of course, The Shallows. Rather than discuss this work, I will focus on two topics. The first is the impact of the net on my thinking and the second is the impact of the net on my students.
Since I grew up and went to school in a pre-web world (I first used email in grad school) my habits were rather well formed before the internet hit it big. I did, however, notice the obvious: the internet is a distraction machine. In the days of dial up and before the web, its power was rather limited. However, the always on access and the rise of the web has meant that the power of the net to distract is very great indeed. When I first got broadband, I found that it had a significant impact on my focus when writing. I would write for a while, and then be led astray by the net. Then I found that I was spending way too much time surfing the web. Realizing that this was a major waste of time, I worked hard to ensure that I was using the net in a purposeful manner rather than just surfing about. Using it as a tool rather than becoming its victim seems to have enabled me to keep up my depth of thought (which might have not been all that deep to begin with).
Almost without exception, my students grew up with the internet and have smart phones. First, a bit about the internet and internet connected smart phones. As phones became smarter, I noticed that my students spent more and more class time with their attention on their phones. I also noticed the obvious: students who spent more time focusing on their phones generally did worse than students who paid attention in class. I have also noticed that students who are smart-phone obsessive seem to excel at focusing on their phones (although they are constantly switching between texting, watching videos, Facebooking and so on) but generally do worse when trying to focus on anything else (like a test or lecture). This distraction extends beyond the classroom, of course. For example, when I go to the movies at Florida State (they have a really good theater) I see smart phones lighting up like fireflies all through the movie.When students are not using their smart phones, they are often using their computers and typically being distracted by Facebook and other time devouring sites. In short, many students seem to exist in a perpetual state of distraction. Such distraction, obviously enough, is not conducive to reflection or deep thought. This becomes especially obvious when students write paper using the texting abbreviations.
Now that tablets are all the rage, I expect things to only get worse. After all, while some smart phones are essentially tiny tablets (or tablets are big smart phones), they have even more to offer in terms of distraction. Worst of all, they provide the perfect cover: a student taking notes on her tablet looks just like a student posting on Facebook.
Second, a bit about Google. On the one hand, Google does provide an excellent research tool. I use it myself and have found it incredibly valuable. On the other hand, some of my colleagues have complained that Google makes research too easy and also provides too much crap (which is a general criticism of the internet as well). The main concern about it being too easy is not merely “old folks” complaining about how easy kids have it. Rather, a legitimate concern is that students might not develop critical research and assessment skills in terms of sources and content. There is also the obvious fact that Google is a cheater’s delight in that it makes plagiarism amazingly easy. Of course, the flip side to this is that it also makes catching plagiarism very easy (I catch 2-3 students per class every semester using Google). Interestingly, the percentage of students I have caught plagiarizing has remained fairly steady. When Wikipedia first became available, I did see a spike in plagiarism. However, this dropped off-at least in my classes. However, I could be an exception since I take a very proactive approach to plagiarism.Obviously enough, the ease with which people can plagiarize can have a negative impact on thought.
There is also the concern that the ease with which people can look things up also impedes thought. After all, rather than working through something oneself, a person can just use Google to find the answer or solution. As the metaphor goes, the mind is like a muscle in that it needs to be used in order to grow stronger.
Yet another concern is the fact that people can easily find enclaves of people who agree with them on the net. This encourages people to simply stick with their pre-existing beliefs rather than subjecting them to criticism and thought. This, of course, can contribute to shallow thinking.
There is also the concern that shallowness is rewarded and depth is punished. For example, lengthy blog posts on complex subjects generally do not get much attention. As such, people are more inclined to create shallow things, thus making them and their audience even more shallow in their thinking.
Finally, while the internet and associated technology provide an incredible distraction and can lead people to shallow thinking, it is also important to consider other factors as well. After all, the internet is not the only change in recent years. For example, college has become increasingly expensive while (somewhat paradoxically) college budgets are being cut. As such, students are often distracted by work and are often taught by faculty (or adjuncts) who are increasingly overworked and underpaid.
Excellent post.
A few points:
1) “Since I grew up and went to school in a pre-web world (I first used email in grad school) my habits were rather well formed before the internet hit it big.”
I think this is an important point. My hypothesis is that using the internet during developmental stages has a bigger imapact on the brain. As such, it amy be a bad idea for schools to give laptops to every student. The distractions during the day are myriad.
2) “When I first got broadband, I found that it had a significant impact on my focus when writing. I would write for a while, and then be led astray by the net.”
I’ve experienced this, too, and your assessment is in line with what The Shallows (as I understand it) says. I’m going to buy the book…
3) I’ve noticed that many of the younger, educated people I work with have a difficult time writing and understanding deeper concepts. From them, I get blank stares when I talk about my counterinsurgency theories, but from the older educated people I work with, there seems to be a greater level of understanding. Maybe my concepts aren’t very deep, but I would at least expect some sort of intellectual debate on why I’m wrong.
4) The Shallows says that reading a book has a different impact on the brain than net-surfing; reading a book helps deeper thinking.
While I am all for technology, one generally concern I have (which is not original to me) is that we can become dependent on machines in ways that actual impair our capabilities. To use an obvious example, the car has made it rather easy for people to become more unfit. It seems reasonable that machines that do some of our mental activities for us would have a similar impact.
Current information technology seems to be optimized for lack of depth: text abbreviations, short clips, surfing, and so on.
“lengthy blog posts on complex subjects generally do not get much attention” — Indeed.
And Magnus71: Thanks for sharing The Shallows. I’ll be looking into it!
I agree with what you stated about the Internet. However, there may be a solution to deal with students who misuse their equipment in class.
The lectures and presentations in class, and the examinations, could be designed so that students who failed to pay attention in class couldn’t do well on examinations. A few Ds and Fs might change their behavior.
While it makes sense to think that the consequence of bad grades would impact behavior, this is often not the case. I’ve lost count of the students who come to me and say “I know I’ve been doing badly, but I am really going to turn it around” and never do.
True, but surely there are some who do “turn it around” and greatly improve.
I remember one class in which I got a “D” on the first test and finished the class with an “A”. Exceptional, perhaps, but it can happen.
I have seen that happen in a few cases. I even did it it myself. But, it is rather rare.
When I was in college, my history prof gave us these one page assignments on historical figures. Some of her favorite texts were no longer in print and some of the answers could only be found in these books. She put her own copies on reserve at the library for the class. Every time I needed one someone else had it checked out.
So I resorted to the internet. There was no Wikipedia at that time and is was a much smaller place. I did find information about the person assigned online. One article. The first half of the article was very well researched historical information. So I did the one page assignment per the instructions. I then did a second page identifying it as the dangers of using internet sources. I followed the same instuctions for the first page but using the information from the second half of the article. Which assert that this individual became a vampire after death and went on to narrate his history after his un-death.
And no, it wasn’t Vlad. For years I didn’t trust any internet source without verifying facts from book and periodical research first.
Sometimes it is difficult to determine the accuracy of Internet sources. When possible, it is helpful to examine several Internet sources and compare them. It can also help to get more information about Internet sites; if a site has multiple articles, it is often possible to tell whether it has an axe to grind. Sometimes an Internet site will have an introduction explaining its purpose and outlook. If an Internet site is sponsored by a respected university, it MAY be more reliable.
Books and periodicals aren’t always reliable either. Probably students should be taught techniques for verifying the reliability of sources, although there is no totally foolproof way to do so.
“. . .although there is no totally foolproof way to do so.”
Teach techniques or verify reliability . . .or both 🙁 ?
???
Teach techniques to determine reliability of sources, to the extent that reliability can be determined. Actually, many people who have had experience with the Internet are well aware of the problem of determining whether sources are reliable and have figured out ways, though imperfect, to determine whether sources are reliable.
Probably a class on getting information from the Internet should be like a seminar with students discussing how they use Internet sources and determine reliability.