Great library 2.0 – Threat to human memory?
Listening to the CBC Ideas episode, “The Great Library 2.0” and the comparison to the Library of Alexandria got me thinking about Plato’s Phaedrus and how if writing was considered to be a threat to human memory in 370 BC, what would they think of how Google and the internet are “weakening the mind”. Author Ong writes about Plato and the view that writing will change mind. (Ong, 1982, p78)
The amount of knowledge that Google is amassing through their Google Books and Google scholar is staggering. The great library of Alexandra had tens of thousands of books and by comparison Google had 12 million book by 2012 and plans to add 129 million more by 2021 (Jackson, 2010). This number seems staggering to me so I did a quick Google search 😉 By comparison the largest current library in the United States is the Library of Congress, I was blown away to find that the Library of congress has 34 million books (Where Is the Largest Library in the United States?). Way more than I thought, but a far cry from 129 million.
So back to Plato, if in 370 BC the fear was that writing would destroy memory and make people more forgetful, then what is all the worlds’ knowledge at your fingertips do for the human memory. I can tell you from experience that all of this easy to access knowledge is already changing the way we teach. No longer do we emphasis dates and fact, but instead focus on teaching concepts and big ideas. The BC curriculum has shifted to Core Competencies such as Creative, Communication, and Personal and Social as key learning skills in a digital world (BC Curriculum, 2017)
In my surfing of Google to find information about how Google is destroying memory…. I know, some irony here…. I can across an article called “Scientists say Google is changing our brains”, it basically said what most of us know already. Gone are the days of remembering information, finding an encyclopedia or asking someone knowledgeable, now we just Google it. We no longer need to remember what we used to; Post –its and reminders can be stored on our phones, information is a click away and we don’t even need to know where we are because we can just map it. I wonder what Plato would say about that?
Zale
References
Thomson, S. (2016). Scientists say Google is changing our brains. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/how-google-is-changing-our-brains/
Engell, J. (Presenter) & O’Donnell, J. (Presenter). (1999). From Papyrus to Cyberspace [radio broadcast]. Retrieved from https://canvas.ubc.ca/courses/4290/files/609973/preview
Ong, W. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen
Jackson, J. (2010, August 06). Google: 129 Million Different Books Have Been Published. Retrieved from https://www.pcworld.com/article/202803/google_129_million_different_books_have_been_published.html
Building Student Success – BC’s New Curriculum. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/
Kennedy, Paul. “The great library – 2.0.” Prod. Sean Prpick. CBC: IDEAS. 28 Feb. 2011. CBC Radio Broadcast. https://canvas.ubc.ca/courses/4290/pages/forking-path-link-to-digital-age?module_item_id=202524
Where Is the Largest Library in the United States? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://wonderopolis.org/wonder/where-is-the-largest-library-in-the-world
Jo
May 28, 2018 — 11:25 am
Hi Zale,
Thanks for your post on the Great Library 2.0. I listened to this CBC podcast with interest also. To relate directly to your post, I feel there is a real responsibility for educators and designers of curriculum to take note of the research you alluded to regarding how Google is changing our brains. Not being an educator in K-12 I take comfort in reading here that the BC curriculum is evolving to teach Core Competencies to provide students with key learning skills in a digital world.
Cognitive Offloading – the act of relying on search engines such as Google to find answers to questions, rather than using our memory to search our own “internal database” (Thomson, 2016) has become a part of our daily lives. As you point out, research has shown that Google affects the way our brains work (Sparrow, B., Liu, J. Wegner, D.M., 2011) however, the jury is still out on whether these changes in brain activity are positive or negative.
So, is this evolution of how are brains are working due to Google a problem? Some argue it is, that our memories will be affected negatively, that being unable to recall facts may affect our critical thinking, that cursory reading online promotes distracted thinking and superficial learning. Others, as you mention in your post, argue that our brains are adaptive and they have been adapting to changes in text technologies throughout history and that we are just moving from storing knowledge in books and on paper to storing it in our phones.
For me, more research needs to be done on whether our brains are affected negatively due to this new way of searching information. The most important thing in the meantime though, is that we make sure curriculum evolves at the same time to take these changes into account.
References:
Thomson, S. (2016). Scientists say Google is changing our brains. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/how-google-is-changing-our-brains/
Sparrow, B., Liu, J. Wegner, D.M. (2011). Google effects on memory: cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776-778.
Zale Darnel
May 28, 2018 — 5:40 pm
Hi Jo
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I am always curious to see how people outside the education system look at what is going on currently. I agree with you that the change may not be a bad thing, but we will have to adapt and change for it to be successful. No longer can we just continue status quo as educators. Interestingly I am replying to this from my phone at the airport which just highlights the fact that learning can take place anywhere and that the world is a very digital classroom.
Zale
amy
May 28, 2018 — 12:45 pm
Hi Zale,
I really enjoyed reading your post and I couldn’t agree with you more when you mentioned that “[n]o longer do we emphasis dates and fact, but instead focus on teaching concepts and big ideas” (Darnel, 2018). I feel that with the advancements in technology we now have access to an infinite amount of information and knowledge than ever before. To the point where it is not about how much information we can remember and repeat. Rather it is about how efficiently we can find and use the boundless amounts of information available to us, as the wealth of knowledge is vast and unlimited.
Which brings into question, does advancements in technology make for better and smarter students or the latter? The world is full of proof that as a civilization we are far more advanced than our predecessors. From sending up astronauts to outer space to organ transplants, we are more knowledgeable than we have ever been before. However, as Postman points out “[e]very technology is both a burden and a blessing” (1992).
I myself have created a paperless classroom this year. Students can email me at all hours if they need help or have a question and my students no longer submit paper copies of assignments, but rather Dropbox it to me. However, I find that a large number of my students still do not submit their assignments on time. Has creating an online forum for discussion and submission made them better learners? Or has it come at a cost? O’Donnell states that with every move towards advancements in technology “we find there is both loss and gain” (1999). With students being more skilled in technology, it has given them greater abilities at an even earlier age than before. However, I haven’t necessarily seen my students’ core abilities in reading and writing improve. In fact, I’ve see quite the opposite, whereby students’ reading levels have declined and they are unable understand grammar concepts or even spell at their respective grade levels.
The act of passing along information from teacher to students, from learned to learner can be improved with technology, but not if we don’t also make adaptations according to the environment and or situations that it is delivered within. In the end, as educators we need to keep in mind that technology can amplify teaching, but cannot replace it.
Amy
References
Darnel, Zale. (2018, May 27). Great library 2.0 – Threat to human memory? [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540summer2018/2018/05/27/great-library-2-0-threat-to-human-memory/
Engell, J. (Presenter) & O’Donnell, J. (Presenter). (1999). From Papyrus to Cyberspace [radio broadcast]. Retrieved from https://canvas.ubc.ca/courses/4290/files/609973/preview
Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Books.
Zale Darnel
May 28, 2018 — 5:42 pm
Hi Amy
Thank you for your comment. I have to tell you it was fun to see my name cited ????. It sounds like you are doing some amazing things in your class!! I would love to hear more. Interesting point about kids learning to meet deadlines as I think we all struggle with that and I wonder what the solution is?
Zale
Cathy Miyagi
May 30, 2018 — 8:40 am
Thanks for your post. You bring up a good point about how writing (as a technology) can be a threat to human memory or a weakening of the mind. This got me thinking about cause & effect. Another peer pointed out how human influence seems to be viewed more as result rather than a cause of technological change.
An overdue discussion is taking place in Canadian society today with regards to the country’s indigenous peoples whose many cultures exhibit oral traditions which have been lost. One should ask, was this loss due to technology or human influence?
The following point on the psychodynamics of orality demonstrate this: “Sound exists only when it is going out of existence. It is not simply perishable but essentially evanescent…There is no way to stop sound and have sound (Ong, 31-32).” This characteristic draws striking parallels to the state of language and culture of indigenous communities. In comparison to literate societies, or in other words (pun intended), “when the market for a printed book declines, the presses stop rolling but thousands of copies may remain. When the market for an oral genealogy disappears, so does the genealogy itself, utterly (65).”
In completing the following exercise, I have to agree with Ong that freeing ourselves of chirographic and typographic bias in our understanding of language is very difficult (75):
Characteristics of Oral societies:
* Additive – use of “ands” for continuity
* Aggregative – use of overarching terms, phrases, clauses, epithets
* Redundant for retaining memory
* Conservative, traditional language
* Humanistic and personal – more show & tell
* Agnostic
* Empathetic and participatory
* Simple – words don’t have multiple meanings like dictionaries do
* Situational, not abstract – I think this is better described as physical (eg. “tree”
vs. “concrete”), something an illiterate person can mimic action on
* Reliance on memory and semiotic (relating to body motions & activities)
* Audience is physically present
Characteristics of Literate societies:
* Analytic
* Chirographic (writing) and typographic (print) culture
* Autonomous – detached from its author, cannot refute text
* Sense of permanence but paradoxically associated with death of memory
* Writing is in as much a technology (use of tools: inks, paints, brushes etc.)
* Not the same as semiotic markings; but rather, a coded system of visible marks
(Ong, 83) including pictographs, ideographs, rebuses, charts, etc.
* The writer’s audience is always a fiction (Ong, 99).
References:
Ong, Walter J.. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word, RoutledgeFalmer, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ubc/detail.action?docID=181644.
scott pike
June 3, 2018 — 11:24 am
Great post, Zale,
I am certainly split both ways on this issue. In the reading I have done, I have come to value basic cognitive tasks such as memory, particularly as way to stave off cognitive deterioration as I get older. If Google – or whatever else – takes care of most of the memorization my brain needs to do, what will replace that mental activity that is supposed to be good for me?
Yet as an English teacher, I don’t feel the threat of this “cognitive offloading” as much. Sure, my kids can Google any word they want (or use another technological giant, The Dictionary), but simply finding the information won’t tell my kids how to use the information. I think that in any subject, the simple retrieval of information doesn’t necessarily inform us of that information’s significance within a situated context.
And thanks to Google, it is this situated context that I am constantly trying to create and recreate. I long ago abandoned the idea of using certain resources and assignments I found online, because I knew that many students would just look there for the same information. I was forced to consider how I could take the information that everyone had access to, and use that information to create something new. Is that the intent of technology, to fuel innovation and encourage us to do something with this information we have stored, besides simply retrieving it? As Thompson points out, “we’ve actually been outsourcing our memory for a long time” (2016); could we have come this far without memory hacks like pens, paper, and post-its? The Rhodes scholar Joe O’Shea mentioned at the end of The Great Library podcast – the one who is making an impressive academic career out of using Google Book Search exclusively – might say no.
Sources:
Thomson, S. (2016). Scientists say Google is changing our brains. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/how-google-is-changing-our-brains/
Engell, J. (Presenter) & O’Donnell, J. (Presenter). (1999). From Papyrus to Cyberspace [radio broadcast]. Retrieved from https://canvas.ubc.ca/courses/4290/files/609973/preview
Ong, W. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen
Kennedy, Paul. “The great library – 2.0.” Prod. Sean Prpick. CBC: IDEAS. 28 Feb. 2011. CBC Radio Broadcast. https://canvas.ubc.ca/courses/4290/pages/forking-path-link-to-digital-age?module_item_id=202524
sally bourque
June 5, 2018 — 8:08 am
Hi all,
Ong makes a lot of sweeping categorizations about oral vs. literate societies. One is that “…writing and print isolate. There is no collective noun or concept for readers corresponding to audience…the spoken word forms unities….” (Ong, p. 72) One broad and extreme way to interpret this categorization might be to suggest that the shift from oral to literate society will destroy community. I can imagine someone suggesting that, because individuals may choose to stay home and read or write they will be absent from traditional community gatherings and hence their voices will be lost from the organic, immediate experience of community. This sounds rather terrible! However, on the other hand, we also know (looking back) that writing helped to spread Christianity, and is therefore partially responsible for the creation of a wider, vaster community.
I think there’s a certain romantisization that comes with all change. Change is disconcerting and it’s easy to look to the past and think “things were so much better then”…but were they?
Don MacIintosh in one of his presentations at the World Online Learning Conference, 2017 said ” There’s a myth of interactivity being perfect in face-to-face classrooms. The reality is that students tune and are too shy to speak…” (MacIntosh, 2017) Yet, it is so easy to forget these kinds of challenges as we face the new ones presented by online learning.
With that said, I also agree, and think that, in some ways, we are all like children when it comes to new technology. I certainly remember going through several years in my 20s where my new smart phone was always with me and I shamelessly checked it while I was sitting with friends. (In fact, I felt left out if I didn’t have a cell phone to at least pretend to be checking.) Now, however, I make a conscious effort to leave my phone in my pocket or purse when I am with people. It was hard at first, but now I prefer it and I feel a little frustrated by someone who absolutely refuses to stay off their phone during a conversation. It’s a bad habit, I think, only sometimes excusable.
MacIntosh, D. (2017) Exploring the Potential: Innovative uses of Technology for Teaching and Learning1 [live presentation] http://onlinelearning2017.ca/en/presentation-schedule/exploring-the-potential-innovative-uses-of-technology-for-teaching-and-learning-1/
Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality & literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
sally bourque
June 5, 2018 — 8:15 am
AND I posted this to the wrong discussion thread!
Zale, can you please delete my post that starts with “Hi all, Ong makes a lot of sweeping categorizations about oral vs. literate societies…”.
I will post the correct response under it. :-s
Sorry, as per Mattermost- I think the original poster needs to delete. (I couldn’t figure out how to edit or remove.)
sally bourque
June 5, 2018 — 8:16 am
PLEASE LEAVE THIS POST- it’s the correct one for this thread. :-s (That’ll teach me to compise multiple responses offline and try to post them all at once.)
Hi Zale (and all).
There’s an episode of Hidden Brain called “Lost in Translation” that explores how the languages we speak shapes the way we think. Lera Boroditsky, a cognitive science professor at the University of California, San Diego, shares a story about working in an Aboriginal community in Australia where the local languages had no words for “left” or “right” and instead used cardinal directions. “So the way you say ‘Hi’ in one of the languages spoken is to say ‘Which way are you heading?’, and the answer should be ‘North but North-East in the far distance, how about you?’ So, quite literally to get past hello you have to know where your heading.” (Boroditsky) Small children in the community were able to locate themselves (ie: Point out cardinal directions) in ways that very competent adults in our culture cannot. Boroditsky also relates a story about an epiphany she had after about a week of struggling to stay oriented and how a new window appeared in her minds eye, where she saw herself as a dot on a birds eye view of area she was travelling. She suggests that learning a radical new way of navigating the world is quite easy for humans if there’s a reason.
So, to bring this back to concepts of transactive memory, library 2.0 and our changing brains…it seems inevitable that tools such as writing, language and the internet will change the way that we perceive and interact with the world. As Sparrow, Liu and Wegner point out, there is some evidence that “where” in memory is beginning to be prioritized when “what” is forgotten. (P. 778) and this seems comparable to Boroditsky’s example because just like the tool of language forced her brain to figure out a new way to navigate, the tool of the internet is also forcing our brains to think in different ways. I wonder what kind of super-human abilities (akin to excellent navigation) will manifest as a result of navigating the web?
Something else that strikes me as comparable to the advent of library 2.0 (on a much smaller scale) is the switch from Windows 8 to Windows 10. (Has anyone held off doing it yet?) One thing I tell new users is “Just use the ‘search’ function for everything”, which is a very different way of finding information on your computer compared to previous versions. I remember feeling frustrated switching to windows 10 because it took me much longer than it should have to realize how I had to adjust my strategies for finding and organizing information on the new system.
Sparrow, B., Liu, J. Wegner, D.M. (2011). Google effects on memory: cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776-778.
Vedantam, S. (2018). Lost in Translation. [podcast] Hidden Brain. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2018/01/29/581657754/lost-in-translation-the-power-of-language-to-shape-how-we-view-the-world [Accessed 4 Jun. 2018].
Zale Darnel
June 5, 2018 — 7:52 pm
Hi Sally
Good thing i was slow in reading that and didn’t delete 🙂
Thank you for your very informative post.
Zale