From Papyrus to Cyberspace
When one considers, as Dr. James O’Donnell and Dr. James Engell did in their 1999 podcast, “From Papyrus to Cyberspace”, the ways in which new and continually changing technologies create changes in the ways we communicate with each other and within our world, it is evident as they point out, that there are both costs and benefits; losses and gains. While the world has seen significant change in the sixteen years since their podcast was recorded and many of their predictions did not become reality, there are still many truths in what they asserted which are evident in our society today. In a sense, many people now have, quite literally, the world at their finger-tips; however, how many really know what to do with that knowledge? How does one appropriately use that knowledge? How does one teach the next generation not to abuse that knowledge? In the words of Dr. O’Donnell, “We need to know who we are, we need to know what our values are, we need to understand the changes we’re going through well enough in order to understand the technologies, understand our world, and make rational choices and rational applications of technology…” (O’Donnell & Engell, 1999).
In areas of the world where digital technology is prevalent, young people are often both more knowledgeable and more experienced than their elders; a significant shift in modern society. At the time of the podcast, Engell stated that “…most students in higher education tend to be as or more literate than many of their professors, so it’s the case in which a number of students are actually teaching or helping to teach…and almost forcing the change in the role of students and teacher.” (O’Donnell & Engell, 1999). This concept of a generational divide where the young teach the old not just continues today, the divide is much wider in many cases than it was sixteen years ago. One sees also a deepening divide between those who are comfortable adapting to and applying new technologies within their lives, and those who are unaccepting of, skeptical of, or even afraid of, the new technologies presented to them. Many children are growing up in an environment where access to digital technology begins at an early age. It is there with them when they are very young and grows as they grow. What is there to be afraid of when one grows up with it? A recent Forbes magazine article draws attention to the fact that the younger generation not only successfully learns and applies new technologies today, but is able to excel in a way that was impossible in the past. “If you have used Facebook, Uber or GoPro, you have helped some of the globe’s most youthful billionaires build their ten digit fortunes. Of the 1,826 members of the Forbes Billionaires ranking, 46 are under the age of 40, and just under half of them owe their fortunes to technology.” (Forbes, 2015). While no one can argue that there are incredible advances in technology, have technologies like Facebook truly contributed positively to our society? Or do we, as Dr. O’Donnell pointed out, live in a “…broader, but at the same time, less intimate community perhaps than before” where one can create an online group based on similar interests, rather than having to seek-out and adapt to people face-to-face (O’Donnell & Engell, 1999). In contrast, what happens to children who do not have access to those same technologies? How does the inequality of access to technology deepen the divide between those who are successful and those who are not in our society?
Today, technology is changing so rapidly that many struggle to keep up with the changes, while others, who are able to adapt and embrace the changes, can find great success that was not possible in the past. While Neil Postman in Technopoly argued that, “The schools teach their children to operate computerized systems instead of teaching things that are more valuable to children.” (Postman, 1993), it is evident in today’s society, twenty-two years later, that if one does not learn to navigate the digital world, he or she will be at a great disadvantage when compared with peers who are comfortable not just with technology, but with ever-changing technology. Engell asserts that technology “already has transformed education” and has in many instances, in the case of higher education, become a “necessity” (O’Donnell & Engell, 1999). While Engell was referring to 1999, the same is true to an even greater extent today. Educators and students alike have changed to adapt to the technological advances in our modern world. These advances have given both students and teachers what we tend to term greater ‘choice and flexibility’. Unfortunately, those who are unable to change and adapt with the times, will be left behind; baffled by the same technology that is propelling others quickly forward.
One concern I have as a teacher is in the fact that students have begun in the last few years to use abbreviations, increased slang, and limited attention to grammar not just in their daily social media communication with their peers, but in their formal writing as well. When I began teaching, only twelve years ago, students had a much stronger grasp of formal language. O’Donnell points out that many ‘slangs’ come and go. They will be used for awhile and then discarded. I found comfort in O’Donnell’s point that most abbreviations (for example, lol, btw, and yolo) are generally only used in written language and will not truly be integrated into the English language as people generally do not insert “btw” into daily conversation opting instead to use the entire phrase (O’Donnell & Engell, 1999). I find this point continues to be true today; however, despite that, I have had more than one student use an abbreviation such as “lol” in a formal essay. Needless to say, I increased my conversations about colloquial/abbreviated language following that. What I really found concerning was O’Donnell’s comment that eventually we may replace email messages with voice messages, which today I would assume to mean voice to text technology, which creates in my mind a whole new set of concerns. If we begin to use voice command/voice to text programs to replace the physical act of writing or even typing, how long will it take before people begin to lose a sense of proper grammar and formal writing altogether? In addition to this, what will be the consequence in coordination development, brain development, and the maintenance of these two things?
Ultimately, we are now living in a world where life in general, not to mention the technology we are using, is moving so quickly that we find ourselves constantly working to stay caught up. Technology is developing to aid us in this race to make money, care for friends and family, care for the earth, invest in personal growth opportunities, and still have some time left over to relax at the end of it all. In today’s world, do we fight to keep English language as it is, or do we embrace new technological advances that propel us forward, even if it is at the expense of the language and world we now live in? Or is the world changing so drastically that the skills considered essential in the past will no longer seem essential in our future?
References:
Engell, J. & J. O’Donnell. (1999). “From Papyrus to Cyberspace” [Radio Broadcast]. Cambridge Forum. Retrieved 18 September 2015 from: https://connect.ubc.ca/bbcswebdav/pid-2913588-dt-content-rid-12927273_1/courses/CL.UBC.ETEC.540.64A.2015W1.63074/module01/papyrus-cyberspace.mp3.
Postman, Neil. (1993). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books.
Robehmed, Natalie. (2 March 2015). “The World’s Youngest Billionaires 2015: 46 Under 40.” Forbes. Retrieved 18 September 2015 from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/natalierobehmed/2015/03/02/the-worlds-youngest-billionaires-2015-46-under-40/.
Hi Mary! Thank you for your post, it remind me of something that I read recently and I think it resonates with some of your questions. I will only say that in terms of technology, we often find ourselves in the edge between awe and concern. And very often that uncomfortable in-between dissipates over time, or when the technology is confronted with its potential. Anyways, if you find the time skim through this article.
Mary, there is a lot of great things to think about here. In particular, you mention O’Donnell’s comment about the possibility that text will cease to exist and that we will move to voice as we have voice commands and voice messages. This reminded me of an article I read this summer titled “Remove smartphones from the hands of under-18s and maybe they will grow up to be less dumb” (http://goo.gl/GUGVrf). The title is probably an over-exaggeration, but maybe not much! The key point in the article that caught my eye is this quote: “My friends with teenagers complain their children have lost the power of speech . . . that they watch television while texting and commenting online, and spend hours just staring at tiny screens.”
At the time it made me wonder if in a digitally literate culture we run the danger of becoming a ‘post-oral’ culture in which no one speaks, we just type. (We don’t even write, which removes almost all of the ‘physically creative’ task of communication. Yes, I know that, too, is an over-exaggeration!) In many ways, that’s what we do in online courses. It wouldn’t surprise me if I never hear the voice of anyone in our class. How does that profoundly affect the way we interact? Not only is grammar affected, but so also is oral communication.
Now, this is different from what you suggest because you raise the issue of moving from written communication to voice only. I’m not sure which would be a better situation! (Not that we have to choose between these two.)
You highlighted the fact that students are growing up in an environment where access to digital technology begins at an early age. I had an interesting conversation with my 8 year old niece today regarding the use of technology in her classroom. She complained that her new teacher loves technology, and spends up to 4 hours of the day using the SmartBoard to teach the class while the class has to sit on the carpet in the dark during this time. She then went on to say that at the end of every day her eyes hurt, and she feels really tired. She told me that she wished she could have more time to write stories. The only creative writing she gets to do is use the word of the week in a paragraph, and then submits it to her teacher, whose feedback consists of telling her the paragraph is “fine”. She complained that there is no opportunity to share her writing with her classmates.
When I reflect on my conversation with my niece I think about James O’Donnell’s (1999) concern evolving around the idea of exclusion and living in a broader, less intimate community, and James Engell’s (1999) concern that our ability to deal with language is going downhill, and that technology only gets you so far. It is unfortunate that my niece is not afforded a number of different approaches to learning in her classroom, and that she is developing a negative attitude towards technology at a young age.
Resources
Cambridge Forum (Producer). (1999). From Papyrus to Cyberspace [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from https://connect.ubc.ca/webapps/blackboard/execute/displayLearningUnit?course_id=_75468_1&content_id=_2913588_1&framesetWrapped=true