The Google Effect: Its relationship to social skills, and my approach for the classroom
Discussion:
The “Google Effect” was a term that became prevalent in modern society around 2011. It describes a phenomenon defined as “digital amensia,” or otherwise the event of humans forgetting information which could be easily accessible through the internet (Bohannon, 2011). An example of this would be a person forgetting the phone number of his or her significant other—if indeed they took the time to learn it in the first place. The “Google Effect” refers to all of information that is accessed through all of modern technology. In the same example, a woman might know that the phone number of her spouse is stored in her smartphone; and as such, she does not need to remember it at all. In other cases, two people can share their contact information sometimes by simply having their digital devices in close proximity to one another. These and other social constructs are direct results of the “Google Effect.” Because our brains have evolved to rely on social conventions and communications, the “Google Effect” may have adverse results in our capacities to understand ourselves, the world around us, and each other.
There are even some studies to suggest that we evolved to have social relationships because we rely on that information for group survival. In a digital age, this poses the problem of losing out on information having deep psychological effects. Our brains once might have released a pleasurable cocktail of chemicals for forming bonds and intimacy—a biochemical “reward” for making/keeping relationships that would keep us “in the know” in regards to the latest, greatest method of fending off a sabertooth tiger or even migratory patterns of buffalo (Medina 2018). Never needing to remember a birthday, phone number, or migratory pattern of buffalo also means never needing to remember the history of a culture, the things that we have in common as a people, and less and less frequently any other reason why we are more alike than we are different. In an age where humans rely on devices for the same information, the loss of an internet connection can feel psychologically the same as having to be far away from a close friend (Sparrow, 2011). Since information is abundant and freely available, whereas people need the right circumstances and efforts in order to be considered allies, the contemporary question becomes; Who needs friends when one has Google?
Another consequence of the Google Effect was unforeseen in the initial stages of the Information Age. This consequence saw the majority of the population preferring to communicate using new machinery and technology, such as smart phones, instead of communicating with each other directly. What is more, access to information means the population can have a biased interest in communication. In other words, not only are we communicating more often digitally, the vast majority either communicates with his or her own interest groups, or not at all (Sikdar, 2018). If this is the case, Medina’s position on the ever-evolving human brain is in real trouble. Since “human social interactions have likely shaped brain evolution and are critical for development, health, and society” (Bilek et al, 2015), a result of limiting those social interactions to one system of belief, opinion, or idea could result in the evolution of an unbalanced brain—an evolution that is happening at the speed of information in a digital age.
Although the Google Effect makes the need to develop memories seem obsolete, there are still ways in which these new technologies can help the brain continue to evolve and improve. LTC Corey Harris, for example, works in the armed forces—a field traditionally (and sensibly) where individuals must be performing at their best, with a high-stakes environment not tolerant to mistakes. Harris explored the Google Effect in a 2016 article, in which he described the ultimate goal of technology as being able to “do more with less” (Harris, 2016). However, Harris also posed that users of technology must also be aware of the purpose for which they are using technology. According to Harris, users must also possess the acumen within their field to be able to think critically and analyze results—especially if tech-generated results do not match expectations (Harris, 2016). With a standard of holding ourselves accountable for information, regardless of the innovation of the source, it is possible that the human mind can benefit from the greater access to information.
In thinking about the students I am preparing to help in my career as an educator, it is clear that I must spend adequate time in consideration of these challenges posed to the brains and minds of my future students, and I use both terms with respect; the Google Effect and other parts of the digital age affect both the equipment (brain) and the capacity (mind).
Observation and Proposal:
My proposal is to utilize restorative practices within my classroom. In my own observations, students who have relied on digital information too much often lack collaborative skills. These skills will clearly be important to them, since Google and other methods of instant information are not going anywhere; learning things by rote is no longer as high a priority as being able to synthesize original ideas and work collaboratively. Upon reflection, I believe restorative practices lie within the Constructivist approach to learning. This is due to the element of personal experience students have in regards to building relationship skills, as well as the fact that they are working collaboratively by nature. Peer review is the assessment for restorative practices; a relationship is either strengthened or not, and only a student’s peer would be able to say. Restorative practices appeal to me because they initially understand that students lack social skills needed to form a community. Social skills were difficult enough before the internet, as I well remember from personal experience. I can only imagine how much more challenging they would be to build in contemporary classrooms. It is therefore a wise perspective to assume inexperience in regards to social skills. This means that students need a framework for learning interpersonal boundaries and respect—something restorative practices provides (Goldys, 2016). In a population of students who have natively developed a predisposition toward technology, it is common sense that mistakes will be made in regards to building relationships and creating communities. Restorative practices will help provide a framework for cultivating and repairing relationships within classroom communities. Time will tell if this also will expand to society at large, and eventually, will remediate and possibly improve how we use our minds and how our brains evolve from this point.
References:
Sikdar, S. (2018). Artificial intelligence, its impact on innovation, and the google effect. Clean
Technologies and Environmental Policy, 20(1), 1-2. doi:http:/
dx.doi.org.nuls.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s10098-017-1478-y
Bilek, E., Ruf, M., Schäfer, A., Akdeniz, C., Calhoun, V., Schmahl, C., … Meyer-Lindenberg, A.
(2015). Information flow between interacting human brains: Identification, validation,
and relationship to social expertise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America, 112(16), 5207–5212. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas
1421831112
Harris, C. (2016). The “Google” Paradox: Is Technology Making Us Smarter? The Armed Forces
Comptroller, 61(1), 8–10. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview
1799578099/
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. (2011). Google effects on memory: cognitive consequences of
having information at our fingertips. Science (New York, N.Y.), 333(6043), 776–778.
Bohannon, J. (2011). Psychology. Searching for the Google effect on people’s memory. Science
(New York, N.Y.), 333(6040), 277. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.333.6040.277
Medina, John. (2018). Brain Rules: rule #2. Retrieved from:
Goldys, P. (2016). Restorative Practices from Candy and Punishment to Celebrations and
Problem-Solving Circles. Journal of Character Education, 12(1), 75–80.
No comments:
Post a Comment