Thoughts on From Papyrus to Cyberspace (1999)
As with any shift in our society, we are scared of what we don’t know; the “computer age” was (is) no exception to this rule. O’Donnell and Engell voiced several concerns to our imminent digital revolution in their discussion on the Cambridge Forum in 1999. Their concerns included the externally obvious, such as hackers and easy accessibility to pornography, but also go much deeper to include changes in “democratization” and the inevitable power shifts that have historically emerged as a result of new information and communications technologies. O’Donnell matter-of-factly discusses that all new technologies come with “gains” and “losses” (a “price for the benefits we receive”), with Engell adding on that new technologies are never fully embraced with a complete disenfranchisement to the old (O’Donnell & Engell, 1999). Rather, they are adopted in conjunction with one another, blending old with new, such as writing down a recipe that was found online.
In relation to education, the gains of digitized technologies were (and are!) enormous. In the context of media and the classroom, O’Donnell asserts that we have been “victims of 100 years of monologue”, and that through the Internet, we would “discover the power of dialogue” . The web would bring educators, learners, and scholars a “wider world of discourse than we ever could have lived in” before, and with it, bringing “enormous democratic influence” (O’Donnell & Engell, 1999). Today, this influence should not to be perceived only in the broader context of our society, but also should be considered in the classroom context, where digitized media allows for increased student choice, collaboration, personalization, and differentiation of academic content, not to mention changes in the learning vehicles of assignment of assessment. Additionally, O’Donnell’s (1999) allusion to a “fair amount of [online] trash” continues to be true in our online world today, resulting in the need for a more critical eye for both teacher and learner.
Engell discusses the generational differences in technology users as the adoption of digitized environments became more prolific in higher education. (I’m sure that he couldn’t imagine the nature of our UBC MET program and course blog at that time!) Some 16 years later, I still see examples of educators across the entire K-12 and higher education world who fail to grasp simple things such as dealing with email and digitizing files, both examples Engell gave in 1999. However, it should be noted that my experience is not confined to a single generation; i have encountered educators young, old, and in between to struggle with these tasks. Unfortunately, the lack of time and resources to support educators continues to constitute for a loss in the adoption of new technologies in school systems.
Despite any of the gains and losses encountered then and today, it is clear that the way that we access texts and information is changing, and quickly. The abundance and availability of information requires us to change the ways in which we digest that information. With it yet to be named, O’Donnell (1999) referred the modern use of transactive memory; we needed to know where and how to access information, while maintaining “an ability to navigate information that continues to multiply”. This skill negates a need to memorize information, but rather, to recall the spaces in which we can access specific information.
O’Donnell and Engell’s (1999) remarks about computer technology in the Cambridge Forum, as well as those of the audience, whether fortunately or unfortunately, continue to be relevant questions in today’s educational world. As many more “gains” and “losses” have presented themselves with the advent of social media, collaborative tools, and learning management systems, the digital environment continues to move at a supersonic speed, leaving us unable to possibly keep up to it all. The question is now not only to know how to filter information, but also how to filter and choose the appropriate tools that help us to create, store, and share that information. The concerns of the “computer age” continue to thrive!
-Victoria
References
O’Donnell, J. & Engel, J. (1999). “From Papyrus to Cyberspace” [radio broadcast episode]. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Forum
“The question is now not only to know how to filter information, but also how to filter and choose the appropriate tools that help us to create, store, and share that information.” Right. It seems that the promise of cyberspace more than 15 years ago was mostly oriented towards reading and analysing, instead of writing and producing. Later in the course this shift will be discussed, but I think is great that you raised this issue right now.
Thank you, Ernesto. I think that the pairing of vast amounts of sometimes accurate, sometimes inaccurate information paired with the incredible amount of tools to choose from creates anxiety from adults who are learning to reside in the digital domain. I actually do believe that in the shift to Internet adoption, people begin by reading and analyzing (lurking as it now called), and are often reluctant to begin sharing, writing, and producing, even today! I see it all too many times through correspondence with a PLN and working with teachers who are new to adopting technological tools into their pedagogical practice.
[Spoken]: Great post, Victoria, and really interesting TEDTalk, Ernesto.
[Written]: It makes me reflect on the fact that often online, when typing in a box like this, I’ll dispense with proper writing conventions. Here however, (a word often written, seldom spoken) knowing I am writing for a graduate level university course, I must remember to adhere to certain formalities.
Thanks, Randy!
Hi Victoria,
I really enjoyed reading your post and I think you brought up some very interesting points. One section that resonated with me was your comments regarding transactive memory and how the abundance of information available to us has changed the way in which we process and remember new information. When I think of how we seek knowledge, our reliance on search engines, such as Google, is evident. When asked a question we don’t know the answer to, we’re quick to reply “just Google it” rather than trying to recall information from within ourselves (from past experiences, prior knowledge that can be applied to solving the problem, etc.). As you mentioned, transactive memory enables us to store information externally and as a result, we have become better at recalling where information is stored rather than recalling the information itself (Sparrow, et. al., 2011). While some may argue that this change is hindering our ability to remember, I believe we are simply prioritizing information differently as a way to manage large amounts of information that is so readily available to us. However, given our rapid impulse to “Google” things, issues regarding the validity of the information obtained have certainly increased, as many people can now easily be creators of online content.
Students often blindly accept the information they find on the Internet because they haven’t been taught how to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. Therefore, it is important for students not only learn how to navigate the digital world, but also how to critically evaluate the information they find. Engell & O’Donnell (1999) caution us to the “fair amount of [online] trash”, which I believe warrants attention. However, I also believe that having vast amounts of knowledge at our fingertips is a benefit that far exceeds the losses, as it can expand the platforms for research and education. Therefore, it is imperative that students learn how to narrow online search inquiries, evaluate the information, and seek broader perspectives on the topic.
Engell J. & O’Donnell J. (1999). From Papyrus to Cyberspace. [Audio File]. Cambridge Forums.
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips. Science, 333, 776-778.
Available online: http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6043/776.abstract
Willinsky, J. (2002). Education and Democracy: The Missing Link May Be Ours. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 367-392.
Thanks for commenting Rachel! I am personally conflicted with transactive memory at times; I feel like it also lends itself to our need for immediate gratification. I really make an attempt to balance out what is necessary to have stored externally and that which I should recall on my own. I agree as well that the validity of information accessed in a search engine might be questioned, but transactive memory can also apply to existing knowledge that is perfectly valid. For example, when we write these posts and refer to our reading/listening materials, we may know we read or heard something, and we know at which point it is in the book or recording, but we need to return to find the exact quote or context to include within our own work. It is knowing where information is, but not knowing exactly what the information communicates.
But you’re right: in a world where kids are turning only to the internet for the answer to every question (never mind assigned materials from a teacher!), they need to have their “trash detectors” on, alive, and well. There are great sites and curriculum out there that help to aid in this. Check out this site on the fictional (but convincingly real!) Northwest Tree Octopus: http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/, and of course, the Common Sense Media Scope & Sequence is always a great addition, too.
I really enjoyed reading your post Victoria. There are so many thoughts where I agree with you. I really liked how you looked at the progression of technology as “gains and losses” as O’Donnal did. This recording resonated with me as well, it as recorded the year I graduated high school, so many of the changes they were discussing were ones that I encountered as I went through university, in high school we were just starting to be able to cite internet sources as such, and even the first few years of my initial degree, much of the information that we require for sources were still book based, or were beginning to be found in online journals. We stored all our information on floppy disks and we thought we were so advanced. When I look at this experience and compare it to when I later went back to school to complete my Ed degree and now with my masters, the amount of information that we have to sift through has increased exponentially. Sure, we have access to “better” information, but sometimes I think we have search so much harder to find it. This information overload is our students reality. Our current students will undoubtedly have to sift through more information in their lives than ever before. They will also have to learn how to decide what is good information, what is inaccurate information, and what is the mindless drivel of a raving lunatic and they will need to do so at record speed. So another gain with a loss
Thanks Anita! I, too, used floppy disks in high school, and remember vividly getting my first 1GB USB drive in 2005. It was a marvel that it was so tiny and could store so much (one GB!) information! 🙂 It makes me shake my head just thinking about it. Storage of information is changing so rapidly that companies like Google, through their Apps for Education branch, is offered unlimited storage in the cloud. We couldn’t have even imagined that 10 years ago!
I still believe, even with the digital advancement in our students’ lives, that there needs to be an appreciation for balance between digital and print media. We use people, experiences, books, and other printed materials to gain information, not just digital sources. While digital source credibility comes into question, I always impress upon my students that they have to use the best tool for the job. While this can frequently be a digital device (we don’t know what we don’t know), I also encourage them to consider and analyze other media to explore learning. This way, they begin to identify that books can be out of date (just as websites can), and we can draw parallels between those two as a result.