Literal Technology and Human Memory: Loss or Adoption?

Posted on September 28, 2013 by yuki

Review of “Orality and Literacy” Chapter Four (Ong, 1982)

Having been constantly immersed in a world of written letters and print, it is hard to imagine the condition of a completely oral culture. “Orality and Literacy” from Ong (1982) informs us of how people in the oral world think and act, with comparisons to the literal culture. He discusses that the invention of writing had a great impact on human communication and on the methods in how we convey and store information. In addition to these changes, Ong (1982) states that writing restructures consciousness. In his view, writing is a technology that holds responsible the transformation of human thought processes. It is notable that he mentions the repeated argument around newer technology and its possible disadvantage in human cognition. Ong (1982) identifies similarities in the criticism against writing by ancient Greek philosopher, Plato and the current critique on computers. Even today, the common debate is ongoing about whether literacy played a special roll in cognition shift or not (Eskritt et al, 2001). That is, Ong’s theory is criticized as “determinism” or the “great divide theory”. Has literacy interfered with human memory? Have humans lost their memory by relying on technologies? Ong’s (1982) chapter does not clarify how writing influences human consciousness in his chapter.

In “Phaedrus”, Plato interprets writing as a mechanical and inhuman way of processing knowledge, and as a result, destructive to memory (Ong, 1982). King Thamus concludes that writing will implant forgetfulness and cease to exercise memory because of the reliance of external marks (as cited in Goody and Watt, 1963). The same objection is put against computers in which modern technology is criticized as passive, unreal, and destructive to human memory (Ong, 1982). From this objection, the ancient people’s belief that writing acts as an absolute power on human memory is seen. Although Ong (1982) does not stand objectively against technology, commonly, he values literacy and technology as an origin of the drastic human change. He states, “technologies are not mere exterior aids, but also interior transformations of consciousness” (Ong, 1982). Furthermore, in his view, technologies enhance human life.

Due to his emphasis on the power of writing as a cause of transformation, Ong receives some criticism. One of the objections against Ong’s theory that is referred to as technological determinism takes the position that “technology is one of the mediating factors in human behavior and social change” (Chandler, 2000). In fact, Ong does not take cultural effect and other contextual effect into account when he analyzes thought processes with the study of letters from various cultures. In the process forming and fixing letters and their grammar rules, for example in the Japanese language, diplomatic factors and social context cannot be eliminated (Suwa, 2006). From the perspective of living in the Eastern culture and using the non-alphabetic language, his analysis of dividing alphabetic and non-alphabetic cultures’ cognition is too simplified. Nonetheless, invention of writing should have taken a major roll in our thought process. Indeed, in the current educational settings, writing or composing texts is almost equivalent to thinking.

According to Ong (1982), “writing is interiorized technology” that has “shaped and powered the intellectual activity of modern man”. If so, is it in exchange for externalizing our memory to technology? How? Neither Ong nor Greek philosophers clears this question, but some of today’s researchers do. Eskritt, Lee and Donald (2001) examined Plato’s hypothesis that writing as external memory would be detrimental to memory. Their research examined participants’ performance in a memory game by controlling participants’ note taking. The results suggest that literacy changes our memory strategy; rather than simply using writing as an external storage to lead us to become forgetful (Eskritt, et al, 2001). The findings suggest that when we write notes, we split the memory storage between internal and external memories (Eskritt, et al., 2001). Rather than storing all information in memory in our mind, we memorize only necessary information in order to use external written media. The authors suggest that the use of external memory aids is an active restructuring process of how information is distributed, and we are not passively downloading information (Eskritt, et al., 2001). This study was examined with card games, and they did not include literal recall tasks. However, the results give us an insight on the long-term argument on writing and its impact on human cognition.

The similar results are reported in a research examined memory and use of computer and the Internet. A study from Sparrow, Liu and Wegner (2011) suggests that when we expect to have access to information later on the Internet, we do not memorize the information itself. Instead, we memorize where to access the information. Similar to the study from Eskritt et al. (2001), the result suggests that when we use literacy and technologies, we shift our memory strategy, so that we effectively use them as external memory aids. Sparrow et al. (2011) suggest that the Internet is an external memory where information is stored collectively outside of oneself.

The two empirical researches support Ong’ s suggestion that technology takes a roll in shifting our consciousness. With opposition to Plato’s objection, in these studies, writing was not detrimental to our memory. By using written mediums and the Internet, our cognition appears to be connecting to “a larger distributed system” (Eskritt et al., 2001) as external memories. This collective system has added various mediums such as writing, printing, computer and the Internet. As the external cognitive aids become wider, the responsibility in choosing the right meaning is still up to each human. If we do not know the meaning of the information, we would not make the right decisions. We are expected to have a higher level of cognitive skills that comprehend, reflect and synthesize what the information says, rather than memorizing word by word. When future technology is added, if we follow Ong’s theory, our cognition will shift to utilize the new technology.

References

Chandler, D. (2000). Technological or Media Determinism. Retrieved from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tdet13.html

Eskritt, M., Lee, K. and Donald, M. (2001). The influence of Symbolic Literacy on Memory: Testing Plato’s Hypothesis. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55;(1), 39-50.

Goody, J. and Watt, I (1963). The Consequences of Literacy. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 5 (3).

Ong, W. (1982), Orality and Literacy:The technologizing of the world. London: Methuen.

Sparrow, B., Liu, J. and Wegner, D. (2011). Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertip. Science 333,776. DOI: 10.1126/science.1207745.

Suwa, K. (2006) Intercultural Communication and Kanji: Socio-cultural Evolution, Ryukoku International Center Research Bulletin 15. Retrieved from http://ci.nii.ac.jp/els/110005859309.pdf?id=ART0008104606&type=pdf&lang=jp&host=cinii&order_no=&ppv_type=0&lang_sw=&no=1380169649&cp=

Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Literal Technology and Human Memory: Loss or Adoption?

Postman’s Thoughts Looked at Through an Optimistic View

Posted on September 28, 2013 by dchrisman

In the first chapter of his book, Technopoly, Postman brings up several interesting points. Although he provides well thought out arguments for these, his arguments seem very one sided. As he quotes famous philosophers such as Plato, who often looked at both sides, he should also consider this. Although by his lack of doing so, maybe he is unwittingly proving Thamus’ point, that the written word is ruining true understanding, and rather just a misconstrued notion of knowledge.

Postman began this chapter with the story of Thamus, and bringing forth the point that it is important to consider both the pros and cons with regard to technology and its impact on society. Postman self-admittedly is a pessimist when it comes to technology, and continually points out how certain technologies are negatively impacting various environments which originally thought them to be benefits. However, I feel as though although technology does not always play out the way we would like it to, or expect it to, that these can still be seen as positive outcomes.

There is discussion about how new technology is an ecological force that changes the environment it is in. With new technology comes new words, and new meanings to current words. It would be wrong of us to only see this in its negative context. Ideas are constantly evolving, and this is not a bad thing. The evolution of ideas and knowledge allows us to better understand the world around us. For instance, there was once a time where the Earth was thought to be flat. It was as science and technology evolved that we were able to discover that the world was indeed round. I do not believe that this changed idea is bad, but rather that it is allowing us new, more accurate knowledge.

This ties into one of the points that I think Postman is way off the mark. He discusses that the advancements of technology (specifically television and the personal computer) will make teachers and their profession obsolete. He discusses that television is creating a new type of learner, who will not be seen as successful in today’s school system. Also, with these new technologies, teachers, whom he says jobs occurred because of the printing press, will be out of a job due to these new technologies stepping in and giving people a false sense of knowledge.

Although there is some merit it what he says, there has also been a lot of adaptation over the last several years in the education system. Technology is changing the landscape that we teach in, however, teachers as role models learn to adapt to this change and advocate the use of technology in the society. Rather than get rid of the teaching profession, it has given teachers a chance to improve their knowledge with technology to enable us to be “winners” rather than “losers”.

Technology is increasing at a rapid rate, where there is always new skills to learn. Teachers work hard to stay up to date on technology to provide our students with opportunities to learn the skills they will need to be successful out in the workplace. There are courses that are based on technology, and technology implementation into other courses is written into the curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2006).

Understanding the technology and how to use it is a skill that teachers have that they are passing onto their students. Rather than get rid of the teaching profession, technology has created more teaching jobs with regards to teaching how to use the different technologies. The real wisdom of how to use something, rather than just the idea that they are knowledgeable, is coming from the teachers, and is being shared with the students.

The other argument that Postman made with regard to the education system was that students would be seen as unsuccessful due to the fact that they would be more accustomed to the television, rather than text, which is mostly used in schools. This has been dealt with by school systems with a push to differentiated instruction and assessment, as well as scaffolding. The fact that students learn in various ways has become increasingly apparent to teachers over the past several years. Although that may be due in part to technology decreasing students’ attention span, and changing how their minds absorb information, the fact remains that these students are now learning in a different way.

Postman takes the negative viewpoint, that technology is to blame and that they will be seen as unsuccessful in school. However, really the technology is what allows us to change our teaching practice and reach every student. Students are achieving greater levels of success as teachers expand their teaching practice, and use technology to engage students in the learning. Technology may have created a different type of learner, but differentiated instruction allows teachers to motivate unengaged students (Jarvis, 2006), and this can easily be done through using technology.

One of the most important skills for individuals to be learning today is critical thinking skills, as many of the jobs that students will have, are not even created yet (Larson and Miller, 2011). By understanding how to use the technology to solve different problems, it may not seem that they have specific knowledge in an area, but they are adapting a far more important skill. They are learning how to problem solve. It is not possible to train students to solve problems that we do not even know exist yet. So perhaps, this mastery of knowledge that Postman discusses so readily, is not even the issue. We need forward thinkers to adapt to the changing environment, although he would argue, without new technology, we would not need this new knowledge.

Change is one of the most feared issues, but I do not think that we need to be as scared of technology as Postman suggests. Technology is improving the world around us, but like most things, improvements do not come without a few side effects. I find that for the most part, the good outweighs the bad, and although both should be considered, it is hard to turn down possible advancements, because until we do let it play out, there is no way for us to know the potential good that may come from it.

Jarvis, D. H. (2006). The impotence of being Ernest: Deskside reflections of a mathematics student at risk. Ontario Mathematics Gazette, 44(3), 30-35.

Larson, Lotta and Miller, Teresa (2011). 21st Century Skills: Prepare Students for The Future. Kappa Delta Pi Record; Spring; 47 (3), 121-123.

Ministry of Education (2006). The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 9 and 10: Business Studies, 2006 (revised). Available online: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/business910currb.pdf

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly. New York: Vintage Books.

Tagged | Comments Off on Postman’s Thoughts Looked at Through an Optimistic View

Ong: Orality as King?

Posted on September 28, 2013 by Jessica Dickens

Walter J. Ong’s book ‘Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word’ was written in 1982 and because of its age it reads often times as a historical artefact on the Orwellian fears of the time. Ong looks back onto the history of written literacy versus primary orality to expose the hidden truth that orality is the true original while the written word will always be the dependent: “Oral expression can exist…without any writing at all, writing never without orality” (p. 8). The lens of this work is trained toward hailing the oral as a part of language oft forgotten in the modern age.
In his first chapter entitled ‘The Orality of Language’ he seeks to explain both the importance of orality as well as the impossible quest we, as literate and scholarly beings, must embark upon to try and comprehend a truly oral language. He uses the analogy of a horse being explained to people that originate from an entirely vehicle-based culture. (p. 12) To these people the horse would only ever be not a vehicle, a wheel-less automobile; just as to a literate mind oral language is only ever not written. The irony of this work is, of course, that Ong is writing his condemnation of written literacy. If oral language is the vessel of the truly original and “writing tyrannically locks them into a visual field forever” (p. 11) why wouldn’t this work be attempted as an oral experiment? Perhaps because by the end of this chapter even Ong must admit “without writing, human consciousness cannot achieve its fuller potentials…orality needs to produce and is destined to produce writing.” (p. 14)
The age of this book becomes an issue quickly as Ong cannot be aware of the changing culture of writing. He claims that “it would seem inescapably obvious that language is an oral phenomenon” (p. 6) however at this point the internet and computers were too early to have any real impact on his way of thinking. One could argue that in the 21st century language has become increasingly written while orality has remained as a tool to share more written language. The advent of cell phones, social media sites, online journalism and the like have promoted an entirely written culture while also creating new language that has been shaped by writing alone. This is something Ong thought impossible as stated earlier because up to his point in history he stated: “language is so overwhelming oral that of all the many thousands of languages-possibly tens of thousands-spoken in the course of human history only around 106 have ever been committed to writing” (p. 7). A third option has been revealed in the past thirty years, written language from writing alone with leetspeak, SMS and the social media lexicon at the forefront.
Oral Literature is term disliked by Ong because it carries with it the baggage of the wheel-less automobile. To Ong the term is base and inaccurate: “we have the term ‘literature’ which essentially means ‘writing’…but no comparably satisfactory term or concept to refer to a purely oral heritage (p. 10). Ong postulates that the term ‘oral literature’ will die away soon to hopefully be replaced by a more fitting noun; however a quick Google search tells us that oral literature has only grown as a commonly used term to describe oral histories, folklore and other storytelling in various cultures around the world. That is not to say that his concern was incorrect, the term is essentially an oxymoron and the fact that we haven’t found a more fitting word would seem to support the claim of Ferdinand de Saussure that writing is too basic a form of language (p. 5). Perhaps writing is unable to explain or define orality and they should be seem as separate entities much like painting and dancing. The assertion of Saussure that writing is a complement to orality or Henry Sweet’s concept of words being a translation of sounds are both too simple to encapsulate the power of the written word. The divisive nature of this chapter should lead us perhaps to see them as unique rather than hierarchical.
Even as I write these words onto a computer I hear my own voice speaking them in my head. My written literacy is steeped in oral culture and vice versa. Like art which takes on so many forms that can influence and shape one another, perhaps literacy is capable of such interdisciplinary action. Why must we choose one to be the better? Ong and Saussure seem to agree that because orality was first everything else will pale in comparison. By this token all paintings would be superior to all films; all symphonies would reign superior over all new media. Age is not a prerequisite for greatness.
The popularization of the internet has certainly changed the modern, technologized world; whether this has been for the better as Edison might postulate, for the worse as Thamus would see it or neither better nor worse in the eyes of Freud has yet to be decided. Yet I believe even Ong would agree that written language has begun to asexually reproduce in a way he may never have thought possible. It remains to be seen if this will be the death of orality or simply a trend in the ever-evolving lexicons of the world. The future may hold written language entirely dependent on sound as Sweet had predicted, it may lead us into a world where texting is the norm and orality is long forgotten (a dystopia Ong may have long feared) or it may continue to allow both literacies to flourish. From Ong’s work, we should hope mainly for the latter as both oral and written language allow us unique ways to envision process and recreate the world around us.

References
Ong, W.J. (1982). The orality of language. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. (pp.5-15) London and New York: Routledge.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Phaedrus: muddling of medium and memory

Posted on September 28, 2013 by mwaters

Plato expressed many concerns about the potential harm writing would have on society. He viewed the use of this new technology as an inhuman way to process knowledge. It was mechanical, devoid of feeling. Interaction with text provided no feedback or response to queries. In addition, reliance on the external storage of information would be detrimental to memory and the ability to gather and retain data.

Oral language requires the infusion of patterns and mnemonic devices for the information to be successfully retained. “Metrical exigencies and the constraints of human memory compelled the oral poet to take recourse to formulae, standardized themes, epithetic expressions, stock or “heavy” characters, and a copious and repetitive style” (Biakolo, 1999). The need to reiterate and exaggerate details to account for the limitations of the human brain, restricts the amount and variety of detail permitted in oral productions. Written prose eliminates the need to retain all information, opening up the possibility for more intricate, and potentially creative compositions. According to Chafe and Danielewicz, “the level of written language is also higher because it is richer, less hedged and more explicit” (Biakolo, 1999). “The new way to store knowledge was not in mnemonic formulas but in the written text. This freed the mind for more original, more abstract thought” (Ong, 1982).

Chandler agrees that “clearly, there are fundamental technical differences between the medium of writing and the medium of speech which constitute ‘constraints’ on the ways in which they may be used” (Chandler, 1994). The reader and writer are often separated and do not interact. Both reading and writing are solitary actions and usually lack community involvement. “For Plato, only speech, not writing, can produce the kind of back-and-forth—dialogue—that’s needed to get at the truth” (Baron, 2009). In his dialogue with Phaedrus, Socrates states

And when they have been once written down they are tumbled about anywhere among those who may or may not understand them, and know not to whom they should reply, to whom not: and, if they are maltreated or abused, they have no parent to protect them; and they cannot protect or defend themselves (Plato, 1925).

An orator can immediately respond to their audience to provide clarification or expand on their dialogue. While the written word can reach a wider audience, the ability to communicate with the author and avoid misinterpretation becomes more challenging.

As the technology of writing has continued to evolve, newer inventions have facilitated dialogue between writer and reader. The ability to compose and send letters, editorial comments in newspapers and other written publications, email and text messages are some examples of how feeling and feedback can now accompany written communication.

Plato continues his critique of writing by outlining the negative impact it will have on brain function, most notably memory.

This invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them (Plato, 1925).

The weakening of memory does not need to be inherently evil. The need to memorize everything is minimized when information is accessible in print. Memory has instead become external and information and knowledge enhanced. The mind may focus on higher level thinking, synthesizing data and extending understanding. Where to access information and remembering where relevant data has been stored become more important.

Plato further iterates through Socrates that “in the garden of letters he will sow and plant, but only for the sake of recreation and amusement; he will write them down as memorials to be treasured against the forgetfulness of old age, by himself, or by any other old man who is treading the same path” (Plato).

There will always be those members of society who take things to excess and become immersed in the world of words. This is not the norm and entertainment is not the sole purpose for literacy. The ability to record findings and share research has led to countless discoveries and inventions. Communication has been expanded with writing. “Without modern literacy, which means Greek literacy, we would not have science, philoso- phy, written law or literature, nor the automobile or the airplane” (Biakolo, 1999). Ironically, the thoughts and criticisms of Plato would not be “remembered” if it was not for print, the invention of writing and his ability to communicate with paper.

References:
Baron, Dennis. (2009). A Better Pencil: Readers, Writers, and the Digital Revolution. Retrieved, 27 September, 2013 from: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ubc/docDetail.action?docID=10335207

Biakolo, E. A. (1999). On the theoretical foundations of orality and literacy. Research in African Literatures, 30(2), 42-65.

Chandler, D. (1994). Biases of the Ear and Eye: “Great Divide” Theories, Phonocentrism, Graphocentrism & Logocentrism [Online]. Retrieved, 20 September, 2013 from: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/litoral/litoral.html

Ong, Walter. (1982.) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.

Plato. (1925). Plato in Twelve Volumes. Vol.9, trans. Harold N. Fowler. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Phaedrus: muddling of medium and memory

Learning from Thamus

Posted on September 28, 2013 by Sabrina

The following commentary focuses on the opening chapter of Neil Postman’s book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. Postman (1992) urges readers to recognize the importance of developing an awareness that the introduction of new technology results in a blend of positive and negative effects on our modern day society. He does this through the retelling of the legend of Thamus. Postman compares the story of the negative reaction Thamus had to Thueth’s introduction of written communication to the release of modern technologies. The legend purports that Thamus reasoned that the introduction of writing would be only a burden on society as he feared that it would result the decline of intelligence, knowledge and effective use of memory.

Postman (1992) argues that it is vitally important not to fall into a narrow-minded mindset as Thamus did. He warns that “it is a mistake to suppose that any technological innovation has a one-sided effect. Every technology is both a burden and a blessing; not either-or, but this-and-that” (p. 4-5). The combination of burden and blessing brought to us through technological innovations are evident in social, ideological and cultural contexts if one chooses to closely examine both the positive and negative effects technology has had rather than blindly enjoying the convenience and wonder that technology has instilled in our lives.

Postman (1992) describes Technolophiles as those who , “gaze on technology as a lover does on his beloved, seeing it as without blemish and entertaining no apprehension for the future” (p.5). The author wrote this years before the average person carried a Smartphone, tablet or computer with them to enable continuous access to technology throughout the day for a variety of personal, social and business reasons. It has become a common occurrence to see people in social situations focusing on their technological tools or toys rather than embracing the multitude of opportunities for social interaction surrounding them. Technology offers the capability to engage people on multiple intellectual, creative and social levels however it is important to be cautious not to let ourselves get so wrapped up in technology that we suffer continuous disengagement in alternate meaningful experiences.

Postman (1992) urges decisions makers to carefully look at the potential risks or burdens that may accompany new technology as he cautions,

we may learn from Thamus the following: once a technology is admitted, it plays out its hand; it does what it is designed to do. Our task is to understand what that design is—that is to say, when we admit a new technology to the culture, we must do so with our eyes wide open. (p.7)

It is important for us to take a proactive approach towards technology and become aware of both the possible negative aspects of the technology in order to make informed decisions and weigh the benefits and costs before blindly accepting its presence in our lives. Postman argues that once the technology is introduced to society “it is not possible to contain the effects of a new technology to a limited sphere of human activity” (p.18). It would be reckless to release new technology without taking into account what aspects of life will be effected by it being available.

As educators, we must determine the positive and negative aspects of incorporating technology in education. Technology has become such a vital aspect of daily life that it would be foolish not to embrace the potential usefulness of technology in education. Postman (1992) states that “The schools teach their children to operate computerized systems instead of teaching things that are more valuable to children” (p.11). In the thirty years since Postman wrote this statement, the impact of technology in and out of classrooms has changed drastically. It would be naïve to believe that it is not valuable for children to learn to effectively and responsibly make use of technology.

However, we must avoid simply using technology for the sake of using technology. Any use of technology, like any other resource or tool, should be done with careful intent in the classroom. Postman (1992) states that “What we need to consider about the computer has nothing to do with its efficiency as a teaching tool. We need to know in what ways it is altering our conception of learning” (p.19). As technology is always changing, the focus should not be on how to use a specific form of technology rather educators need to ensure that students learn to be alert and aware of how technology can be used. One of the most vital skills that students will learn and rely on throughout their lives will be how to discern whether information presented to them is reliable or not. Technology has revolutionized how information is presented and spread. As a result, it is becoming increasingly important for educators to teach critical thinking skills in relation to technology to students of all ages.

As technology is already a dominant presence in our lives, it is too late to mourn what has already been lost or altered as a result of its introduction. Technology is constantly changing and the competition to release new technology manufactures a great deal of poor, mediocre and useful technology. Postman (1992) states that “another principle of technological change we may infer from the judgment of Thamus: new technologies compete with old ones—for time, for attention, for money, for prestige, but mostly for dominance of their world-view” (p.16). Technology has become an immense business in today’s market. Each individual must make decisions about which technologies are worth the input of time, money and effort it takes to implement them and whether the blessings of the technology outweigh the burden. In the classroom, educators must prepare students to make such decisions based on the critical examination of new technology rather than falling into the same trap of Thamus did in believing that technology is either a burden or a blessing.

References

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. United States: Vintage Books. Retrieved from http://books.google.ca/books?id=gYrIVidSiLIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Tagged | 1 Comment

The Virtual Library is Here

Posted on September 26, 2013 by helder

The concept of a “virtual library” sounds out of date in 2013 which is exactly what James O’Donnell is telling us would happen but I’m not sure if it is because the “virtual library” is now a reality or because we have finally agreed that it is unattainable. I have my hunches but I may be biased. What is the “virtual library”? Can we imagine something that contains within it a “vast, ideally universal collection of information and instantaneous access to that information wherever it physically resides”? (O’Donnell, 1994) Although the World Wide Web was present in 1994 when O’Donnell wrote this article, it was in its infancy. At the end of 1993 there were exactly 623 websites and at the end of 1994 there were 10 022. (Gray, 1996) Regardless of the exponential rate at which the World Wide Web expanded just in the course of the year O’Donnell wrote this article, he preemptively dismissed it.

Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Virtual Library is Here

Writing and the Nature of Learning

Posted on September 26, 2013 by lindsayn

The shift from exclusively oral communication to the use of text-based methods significantly altered the nature of knowledge acquisition, particularly human memory capabilities, information processing and collaborative learning. While the ability to write enables individuals to preserve their stories and ideas, it is a misconception that this capability serves as an effective memory aid. This formal commentary focuses and expands on the viewpoints expressed by Plato in Phaedrus. Plato (2008) theorized that writing would reduce memory capabilities, resulting from its lack of use and development. Sparrow, Liu and Wegner (2011) supported this hypothesis by demonstrating that the ability to retrieve written information from print sources reduces rates of memory recall. Their study showed that because individuals are cognizant they will be able to reexamine information, they remember where to find it instead of its content (Sparrow et al., 2011). Postman (1992) argued that schools support this phenomenon, by instructing students on how to use writing technology instead of on scholarly skills and knowledge. Educators teach children how to access and apply information from print sources, such as textbooks and the Internet, and place little emphasis on rote learning of academic content. The increased dependence on writing and reduced use of information recall has, consequently, negatively impacted individuals’ memory capabilities (Sparrow et al., 2011).

Although it is a valuable skill in contemporary society to know how to access materials and use print technology, the accessibility of information has decreased the importance of thoroughly comprehending academic subjects. Individuals are not developing a deep understanding of the information they read or fully processing its content. This is demonstrated because individuals are not remembering information (Sparrow et al., 2011). As Ong (2012, p. 33) argued, “you know what you can recall”. Individuals with a thorough understanding of content they have read are able to remember its essential themes and ideas. They have made connections with the material and have processed the information from their short-term to long-term memories (Oray, 2002). However, Oray (2002) claimed the inability to remember material is caused by a failure to retrieve information, not lack of memory. In the case of writing technology though, individuals are not fully processing information. As a result, it is not a problem with remembering content but developing a thorough understanding of the information, by effectively processing it and making connections with their prior understanding. This was not the case with oral cultures, which used cognitive and socioaffective techniques to successfully process knowledge (Ong, 2012; Oray, 2002). Conversely, with writing technology, individuals do not make an effort to remember information because they know where to access it and realize that it will remain available (Plato, 2008). In essence, they rely on it existence, rather than their understanding and memories.

It could be argued that the ability to remember information is no longer essential. Written information is continually available for most individuals through smart phones and other digital devices. This includes applications for note taking and reminders, which function as external memory storage banks. While this information can normally be accessed, in its absence or malfunction, individuals will lack the capacity to recall information (O’Donnell, 1999). This is because they did not develop a thorough, initial understanding of its content. They remember where to access the information rather than fully processing it in their long-term memories (Oray, 2002). As an example, if a computer’s hard drive malfunctions, individuals will not likely remember all of the content that was stored. In this case, knowing where to find the information becomes obsolete and the individual loses the stored knowledge. As such, even with the affordances of technology regarding information provision, the capacity to process and recall information remains essential.

In addition to affecting memory capabilities and knowledge development, writing technology impacts interpersonal learning. Print has changed learning from a collaborative group endeavor to an autonomous phenomenon. Plato (2008) compared print to paintings, by arguing that neither can participate in a dialogue with their viewers. Writing promotes individual learning, between the student and the text, instead of direct communication with another individual (Ong, 2012; Postman, 1992). Instructors use print or electronic textbooks to instruct students, which minimizes instructor-student interaction. While some educators use technological applications that enable individuals to communicate with others, such as wiki websites and blogs, education-oriented digital materials are typically unidirectional. This is particularly the case with electronic textbooks and journal articles. Since authors cannot respond to comments and queries, their readers can solely rely on their texts for information. They have no opportunity to further their understanding by engaging with the source of the material. Given this lack of communication, individuals do not have the ability to participate in debates about content. This is disadvantageous because academic discussions can further intellectual development and deepen understanding of content. As well as readers benefitting from engagement with writers, authors can develop their understanding by hearing different ideas and perspectives, and by justifying their arguments. The theory of distributed cognition, which academics have shown to be an effective learning strategy, supports the ability to interact with other people because cognitive properties differ among individuals (Hutchins, 2000; Khoo & Cowie, 2010). Given that skills and knowledge are distributed among societal members, person-to-person learning can increase each individual’s understanding. Print-based sources of information enable individuals to access another person’s knowledge. However, interaction with the others is needed for deep learning to occur, as expressed by Plato (2008). While written information serves as a source of societal memory, it does not function as group teaching and learning.

Print technology has significantly changed the process of learning, especially regarding the ability to remember and process information, and learn from other individuals. In order to develop a deep understanding of information, and for learning to occur successfully, it is crucial that individuals remember content, fully process written materials, and have academic interactions with others. As such, it is essential individuals use print information sources in conjunction with their personal memories and understanding, and in communication with other people.

References

Hutchins, E. (2000). Distributed cognition.

Khoo, E. & Cowie, B. (2010). A framework for developing and implementing an online learning community. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 15(1), 47-59.

O’Donnell. (1999). From papyrus to cyberspace [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgeforum.org

Ong, W.J. (2012). Orality and literacy. London and New York: Routledge.

Oray, M. (2002). Information processing. In M. Oray (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology.
Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Information_processing

Plato. (2008). Phaedrus (B. Jowett, Trans.). Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1636/1636-h/1636-h.htm

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. United States: Vintage Books. Retrieved from http://books.google.ca/books?id=gYrIVidSiLIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Sparrow, B., Liu, J. & Wegner, D.M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive
consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science 333, 776-778.

Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Writing and the Nature of Learning

Of Thamus and Theuth – Reflecting on the Self

Posted on September 24, 2013 by melburgess

I believe that writing has facilitated the “reflective self” and that this is both beneficial and detrimental for humanity. Writing allows humans the ability to capture ideas in a time capsule. In other words, literacy allows us to turn back the clock and reflect on meaning and purpose. When I read Plato’s Phaedrus, I imagine myself back in time, wearing a toga with olive branches in my hair; an observer from the marble amphitheater as Socrates confides with one of his colleagues. This “recreation” in my mind (however inaccurate it may be historically) is derived from layers of literacy. Without being present in the moment that Socrates delivers his analysis of literate practice, literacy itself allows me to recreate this event within my mind and outside of time or place.

Ong’s “Orality and Literacy” communicates how literacy facilitates thinking where the “self” is removed from the group and from the environment. Ong (1982) states how the literate culture is “analytic” and “dissecting” because it relies upon vision as its primary learning tool. This results in individuals, groups, and nation-states that see themselves as separate from others within their culture or an entity existing outside and separate from other cultures. Ong describes such literate cultures as, “foster[ing] internalized personalities” where activities are solitary and “throw the psyche back on itself.” I believe that this type of thinking has consequences both good and bad.

On the positive side, I think that within literate culture, the individual can separate his or herself from the group and rise above, investigating and exploring ideas or problems, and then re-trace steps undertaken during experimentation. The scientific method would be impossible without a literate culture. This way of thinking has led people to great discoveries and advances in fields such as medicine, art, and geography.

Literacy has also led to development of socialist and communist cultures, where (at least in theory) the nation-state has no class structure and people exist on a “needs” rather than a “wants” basis. Members of society work along a path which follows their desires and skill set, providing for themselves and the community.

Along a negative vein, I believe this style of thinking has led to individuals who describe themselves as learned, yet have little practical experience of the world – a condition within the individual bluntly described by Thamus:

… they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing. (Plato, n.d.)

As an example, an analytical literate mind utilizes deductive and inductive reasoning. When people from a literate culture listen to, or read a statement, they will make inferences based on incomplete information because it is part of the “game” of learning through literate means. We look for patterns and glean “educated” viewpoints from our interpretations, often independently from context. To illustrate, I had a student who was working on a Math problem related to deductive reasoning. The question stated,

Jim is a barber. Everyone whose hair is cut by Jim get a good haircut. Austin’s hair was cut by Jim. What can you deduce about Austin? (Canavan-McGrath et al., 2011).

The student and I laughed, and he guessed (according to the “rules of the game”) that Austin also received a good haircut, but we also discussed how removed from experience, how random, and how isolated this type of questioning is. We don’t know Austin or Jim. Perhaps Austin just couldn’t sit still in the barber’s chair and his haircut was a disaster. In exercises such as these we present ourselves as intelligent even though we may not be making decisions based on our personal experiences or practices.

In addition, literate thinking has led to consumerist ideals, and in its wake, the destruction of entire ecosystems and the continued polluting of our Earth. As an example, our techno-crazed North American culture demands that we update and upgrade our software and hardware gadgets at an astonishingly absurd rate. Corporate greed and marketing ploys persuade people to continuously purchase the next best thing in an effort to look better, be more efficient, be happier, and connect faster and more frequently. The amount of waste generated by this way of thinking has grown exponentially over the past decade and has changed our global climate. Within this literate culture, individuals see themselves as existing as a distinct entity and are in fact encouraged to be unique and stand out from the group (ironically, by fitting in with the rest of the group). I believe consumerist cultures, dependent on literacy to function, make decisions based on “self” and not on how decision impacts upon the entire group or the Earth. What is best for the “self” in the short term may not be what is best for culture, and our existence, in the long run.

In the end, literacy, like any new technology, represents a shift in culture, and as James O’Donnell and James Engel describe, for each “gain” there is always a “loss”. As culture adopts a new practice, something is shifted, modified, or lost completely, and often the unforeseen consequences of adopting technology can be far reaching, for better and for worse.

Canavan-McGrath, C. et al. (2011). Foundations of Mathematics 11. Toronto: Nelson, 31.

O’Donnell, J. J. (1998). Avatars of the word: from papyrus to cyberspace. Harvard University Press.

Ong, W. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologization of the word. London: Methuen.

Plato. (n.d.). Phaedrus. (Jowett, B, Trans.). Retrieved September 21, 2013 from https://connect.ubc.ca/bbcswebdav/pid-1529328-dt-content-rid-5277723_1/courses/CL.UBC.ETEC.540.64A.2013W1.28753/module02/m2-phaedrus.html

Postman, N. (2011, June 1). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. Random House Digital, Inc.

Socialism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2003). Retrieved September 21, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Mel Burgess.

Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Of Thamus and Theuth – Reflecting on the Self

Deduction or Induction

Posted on September 24, 2013 by maubanel

The course website that we are using applies a deterministic computer algorithm. This algorithm requires deductive reasoning. If A = B and B = C, then A must equal C. This top down reasoning allows for logical constructs where with the exact same inputs, the output of the computer program will be the same. This way the course designer constructs the course in a manner that we can all consume in a consistent manner. Most of the digital tools we use are built to behave deterministically.

I spent a large part of my career working in video games where we were creating overly simplified strictly deterministic representations of reality. Most computer software we use, thankfully behaves in a deterministic manner. Non deterministic behavior is seen as a “bug” or an error. This technological influx affects how we view the world and want to understand the human brain as a sophisticated computer. This empiricism carries over to a technological philosophical view that our brain can be deterministically controlled just like a computer “brain” can.

For a video game, this is essential, as the player needs to get better to complete objectives, so his input must be handled the same way every time. This makes video games very powerful and psychologically attractive to the end user as they are able to “control” a virtual world, as the real one cannot be so easily manipulated. It is easy to see why we try and impose this empiricism on the world around us, it helps us deconstruct and make sense of what we experience. It reduces the world to bite sized understandable “controllable” components.

If I react the same way to the same circumstances, then I have the illusion of control over the results. This works fine until we realize that the world cannot always be predicted. Non deterministic algorithms required a form of inductive reasoning where we look at probabilities. For example, rain usually occurs after a drop in atmospheric pressure. When the air pressure decreases there is a greater chance of rain. If we observe a large decrease in atmospheric pressure then we can say that there is a greater chance for rain. With inductive reasoning the output can be different than what we predicted, in fact can be wrong. We are surrounded by inductive and deductive truths. The dark clouds outside “look” like it is going to rain. I let go of my pen it “will” fall to the ground. I can predict one with much more certainty and authority than the other.

Technological determinism requires a view of the world, society and people as deterministic and that the output is fixed and repeatable, based on the input. New technologies change inputs therefore the output is changed. More dangerously, it suggests that it can be manipulated. Postman sees that with each new knowledge monopoly there is a changing of guards on who controls information in society (Technoploy, Postman, P. 10). This reductionist view eliminates inductive complexities and contradictions. It implies that there are those who are controlled and those who are in control.

Thamus, when confronted by Theuth, postulates that reading will reduce the effectiveness of memory and that people will become more forgetful. This is applying deductive reasoning to an inductive state. If I can write things down, then there is no reason to remember anything anymore. Is this true? We can influence memory, but can we predict its use or even control it? Do we know enough about how memory works in the human brain to even postulate an educated probability? I think we can safely say that there will be a response, and maybe even a probability to that response, but the output is unknowable and more importantly non deterministic.

Oral language, writing and culture are hard to look at deductively. They are a result of an evolutionary inductive process. This is why, when examining the richness of historical written forms, there were multiple evolutionary branches with Logographic, Syllabic and Logophonetic varieties (Lo, 2013). If it was truly deterministic, then there would be one “superior” language, it would be applied in a consistent manner with no local dialects.

Reversing deductive reasoning is dangerous as well. It is raining, therefore the air pressure must be low. This is not always true. Since we cannot go back in time and experience the changes that occurred when cultures shifted from oral to post-oral we are looking for cause and effect. What Ong is practicing, to a limited extent is reverse deductive reasoning. Changes in society based on the introduction of the technology of writing on its oral forefather is seen as deterministic.

In Technolopoly, Postman practices the same reductionism (Postman, 1992). He sees the classroom change with the introduction of the computer. He postulates a reduction in oral group constructed learning and sees a more insular selfish type of learning happening one on one with the computer and its text interactions. Again, he is applying deductive reasoning to a highly inductive situation. The computer (as it stands today) is solitary and passive. The classroom predating computers is oral and active. Therefore a classroom with computers will be more passive.

I am not claiming that the computer will not change the classroom either in a positive or negative manner, I am just stating that the outcome is unknown. The computer can influence the outcome differently depending on the environment, culture and teacher. To postulate that there is only one outcome is to imply a determinism that is not part of the classroom that I experience.

Of course inductive reasoning makes for less salacious argumentation and reading. Writing tends to bias deconstruction and deductive reasoning. There is an irony in looking at the effects of the written text on society, technological determinism and the cultural differences between oral and modern society in a computer-based, text laden online class. We need to be careful that we are all part of constructing the future for our students and recognize that technology is here with us to stay. No one is prepared to go back to preliterate, preoral times where we are just eating, breeding and sleeping. In fact, some of the oral traditions have re-emerged in this online age where the new town square is virtual and text is used in a more interactive and deliberative way than Ong postulated.

References

Lo, L. (2013). Types of writing systems. Retrieved from http://www.ancientscripts.com/ws_types.html.

Ong, W.J. (1982). Orality and literacy. New York, NY: Routledge.

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Deduction or Induction

Is Technology Turning Back Literacy Time?

Posted on September 23, 2013 by esarbit

In Orality and Literacy (1982) Ong documents the development of writing and its effect on culture by presenting a number of dichotomies between primary oral and “chirographic’ literate cultures. He states that writing transformed our society and re-structured our way of thinking. Ong suggests that it may be difficult for us, because of our present immersion in a chirographic society to comprehend the mechanisms of a primary oral society. While he predominantly notes the numerous benefits of written language and the advances its development has afforded our society, he also makes references to the solid foundation of oral culture and stresses the importance of rich, well-developed speech (or “orality”). He outlines the following characteristics of thought and expression in primary oral cultures:

  1. Formulaic Styling – oral cultures require information (specifically complex ideas) to be packaged memorably for ease of recall
  2. Additive rather than subordinative – oral cultures are less structured (e.g. grammar rules, organization into points and sub-points etc.) than literate cultures.
  3. Aggregative rather than analytic – oral cultures need to make use of formulaic expressions (e.g. mnemonics) to make ideas memorable.
  4. Redundant or copious – in order to ingrain thoughts in memory, oral cultures must repeat information many times.
  5. Conservative or traditionalist – oral cultures only retain important and pertinent information to make it more manageable, thus eliminating extraneous facts.
  6. Close to the human lifeworld – only information that is familiar and relevant to their surroundings and individual life experiences is recalled.
  7. Agonistically toned – orality engages individuals in verbal conflict and debate
  8. Emphatic and participatory rather than objectively distanced – Oral cultures interact more with their audience and community and places a greater emphasis on collaboration.
  9. Homeostatic – Information pertaining to a cultures current situation is retained as opposed to dwelling on past events
  10. Situational rather than abstract – ideas and concepts that actually exist are learned as opposed to nonconcrete complex thoughts

Due to the qualities listed above, Ong asserts individuals from primary oral cultures are unable to process complex topics and subject matters as they lack the thought processes developed through engaging in the reading and writing of text. In other words, it was the advent of written language that allowed people think in more multifaceted ways and as a result has increased both wisdom and cultural memory.

While digesting Ong’s work and reflecting on his outlined traits of primary oral cultures, I began to contemplate how 21st century technology is affecting literacy and our written language. With classroom teachers moving away from textbooks and towards the integration of multimedia, we see a diminished focus on written word. Students can be seen using iPods and iPads to listen to novels as opposed to primarily reading the text. The advent of texting has resulted in a weakened vocabulary and poor grammar amongst learners. Additionally, the integration of web2.0 technologies into the classroom is forcing a more “oral” and collaborative system of communication. If a culture versed with writing causes oral communication to be affected as Ong proposes, then what will happen to our written communication as we shift towards a collaborative digital world? If the move from orality to literacy caused an alteration of the way we communicate, think and learn, what will the result of this shift towards digital literacy be?

In thinking about digital literacy and its possible effects, I located the article titled “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” (Carr, 2008) Within his commentary, Carr contends that the shift towards a digital nature of reading is causing students to scan, skim and hurry through material. He postulates that this is causing students to have less patience and an impaired ability to think, reason, and process information. This shift sounds eerily similar to the reverse of the one Ong describes in his book. Are we as educators being too quick to adopt new technologies? Do we only see in retrospect how these tools are changing the nature of our thinking and learning? Will this shift have positive or negative effects on society?

An alternative perspective to the divide Ong describes aligns with that of Chandler (1995), Scribner and Cole (1981), who critique Ong’s depiction of a stark dichotomy between orality and literacy. Alternatively, they propose that although literacy does have a profound effect on individuals and cultures, this effect cannot be described in terms of changes in cognitive abilities and is not as exaggerated and clear cut as Ong describes. Taking these perspectives into consideration, perhaps the lines between orality and literacy are more blurred than Ong pronounces. Conceivably our digitally literate society could even land in the gray zone in-between, giving 21st century learners essentially the best of both worlds. While Ong’s book has proven to be helpful in understanding both literate and oral cultures and in reflecting on the distinctions between them, perhaps we should be concentrating more on the intersections between them and how our new technological world of electronic communications will fare.

References:

Carr, Nicholas. (2008). Is Google Making Us Stupid. Accessed Online: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/

Chandler, Daniel (1995). Great Divide Theories in Biases of the Eye and Ear. Accessed Online: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/litoral/litoral1.html

Ong, Walter. (1982). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the World. London: Methuen.

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books.

Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Is Technology Turning Back Literacy Time?