Karl Marx once stated that the worry for the workers of the world was that they may alienate themselves from what they create. The machines they used were in danger of becoming "appengages" to the human being. With an extensive use of the machines, the worker and his work stood on the precipice of losing any "individual character." Is there any technology in this our modern age that we might come close to considering nearly literally being an "appendage" than a cellphone, or ipod, or whatever mode of adjunct to the body part may be your choice? Unlike, say, a loom, these things are always "on" us. However, the very organ I might say these things are standing in for is arguably the very nerve center (literally and figuratively) so important to organic life and acquirement of knowledge: the human brain.
I have surely mentioned more than once somewhere within a sea of blogs that I am concerned not so much with technology as a tool, but rather it's expediency as a tool. On the face of it, this should sound like a positive. I believe it can be one (I chuckle at how often I hear people exclaim they cannot imagine life before cell phones but I rarely hear it lamented that they cannot imagine a time when they couldn't look up a useless information at the drop of a hat). But I also chuckle at my local bar and a random bit of useless trivia is thrown out there as a challenge to the collective know-how. This is usually in the form of some sports trivia of a sort. Heads come up and away from beer rims like lions lapping up lake water only to hear or smell some tasty prey. It’s then that cellphones collectively come out at the ready with all the aplomb of taking out a chewing gum packet and thumbs begin to genuflect wildly in contrast to faces frozen in stony stares at their little screens. The race is on for the answer. Is this a good thing? Well, why not? There should be nothing wrong for a ‘quest’ for knowledge and there should certainly be nothing that hinders the honest competition in acquiring that knowledge. It may be all fine and well for getting lackadaisical men from pulling their heads from out of a beer mug, but is this what we want, for example, in our classrooms? No doubt the acquirement of knowledge especially at the click of a button seems appealing but there are dangers beyond the seemingly educational allure.
The problem with this is it might foster the ‘habit’ of being able to find information without the time worn need to also distill, absorb, and remember the information. If there’s a study that says otherwise, I don’t know of it. However, in my own travels, I’ve found that students are infinitely cheery at answering a question right but sadly cannot expand or improve on what they’ve answered correctly.
As an example of this, imagine I'm having a discussion with a friend over some rich and tasty coffee. Somehow, and for some reason only known to him, my friend is gripped with a desire to remember a quote by the the Rennaissance painter and sculptor, Michelangelo Buonarotti. He says between sips: "I'm thinking of that wonderful quote by Michelangelo but I can't remember it for my life! What was it? I know he said it around the time he was painting the Sistine Ceiling. When was that?"
I'm glad to oblige. I do this by firing up the phone, punching the mini keyboard with the words google, then I'm off on my own quest. I get my info rather easily. "He started it in 1508 but didnt finish for another four years," I say matter-of-factly. This helps jog my friends memory. He's on the trail thanks to my hint. He says, "Yes! Yes! It was something to do with the nature of genius. It was said around that time. This I remember!" This is all I need, or, more to the point, all google will need. I punch in Michelangelo, then 'quotes,' then simply the word 'genius.' After some of the least amount of research, I've found it! "He said, 'Genius is eternal patience,'" I might declare proudly. My friend is content. But what have I done? Well, for one I have used the phone as appendage, as a stand in for my brain. It may be argued that this is analogous, or merely a stand-in, for an anthology or thesaurus on art. There's no doubt this analogy holds weight. But, the expediency of the cellphone has become part of the usage of the thing. It's become an essence. If you own an anthology on art, it should be unlikely that you would carry it around on your person waiting for any questions to do with the Rennaissance, or the Baroque Period, or any other art movement. You will hopefully read it and get to know it intimately so that the knowedge gained becomes just as intimate with you.
But the real problem here is that I have only become a distiller of information. What if he then asks me my opinion on the more esoteric meaning of the chronological layout of the Sistine Ceiling? What if he asks why he placed a Sybil here and a saint there? What if he asks my opinion on his theory of form and function? Is there enough room on my little screen? Is there enough time before a second cup of coffee? I might be embarrassed. My only recourse to him may be a sheepish, "My little machine did all that." Of course, this will depend on if I pretended all along I knew what I was talking about. Admittedly, this little problem, though still associated with how I got the information, may have more to do with my attitude and my honesty about it. But, if I did pretend I knew what I was talking about, it should then have been my responsibility to expand my knowledge beyond mere trivia.
This is why it seems more than ever, it is a teacher's duty to demand that expansion. Herein lies the danger of something like a Wikipedia. When I was a student I well remember the ire of the teacher when she finally came to the conclusion that a student was merely regurgitating (without feeling or understanding, mind you!) some those 'notes' that were a mere distillation of a story to a book that was meant to be a companion to a work and not its replacement. Might Wikipedia be the “Cliff notes” of the present? In this case, an answer does not even have to be memorized! One merely has to call it up on a laptop or phone and an answer is provided immediately. The danger in English (and I might even argue math) is that the expediency is eroding the critical thought that goes with finding new information. Ones work is done once something is cited. No need to keep it. It was all in a moment. What's next is next. The other problem with such rapid information gathering is the thrill of the find seems to be lacking. As a psychological motivation, with much digging comes more interest and hence, more passion into the quest for knowing.
I remember well when young, and in hindsight as slightly older, the thrill of the search for knowledge. At the time, it seemed deeply frustrating but in lovely retrospect, I now see the importance of pushing myself to finding it was something so essential to the desire of attaining and finding knowledge. When one works for it, one holds it dearly. As an analogy, imagine the polar bear in the zoo who is fed daily, something he never received in the wild. Why then does he seem so depressed? Quite simply, because, in the wide stretches of the years, nature has placed in him the need, the very desire, to find his own food. His very 'raison d'etre' was not eating alone. It was finding it. I sometimes wonder if we are putting on a brave face but we might be feeling just as dejected as the imprisoned but well-fed polar bear.
This also applies to college students who use websites as a way to facilely cut and paste information expected to pass as their own paper. The laziness is near unforgivable but the ignorance of the severity of such a crime cannot be comprehended.
We must teach children that, despite the speed that new information can be called up, it is still just a tool for reference and the topic called up must still be thoroughly examined and, most importantly, must be compared to other information as a way of cross referencing facts and ideas for the best possible educational outcome.
Googling is fine for at the bar when you want to acquire the number of strikeouts Andy Petite has achieved on every odd number month of a lunar eclipse. But for a student who wants to deeply understand Homer’s “The Iliad,” it should be a tool that requires further human thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment