Technological Dependency and the Dive Below the Surface
I remember reading a story in the fourth grade about little computers. Everyone had one: a pocket-sized portal to unlimited knowledge. Slowly, people began to depend on their computers for everything. Soon children stopped going to school because learning became unnecessary; anything you needed to know was in the palm of your hand. At the time this technology seemed like some sort of magic. Now, with the birth of the iPhone and other smart phone technology, nonfiction has become reality. We are immersed in a culture of technological innovation, constantly exposed to new and more efficient ways of attaining information and performing our everyday tasks. But has it gone too far? What effect does technology have on our ability to be productive thinkers? Is technology a hindrance or a contributor to creative thought and writing?
In Nicholas Carl’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” he explores the idea that “the more pieces of information we can ‘access’ and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers.” Speed as a measure of productivity seems to be an inaccurate relationship. It fails to take into account the stark contrast between breadth and depth. Which one is more important? The Internet definitely facilitates an acquaintance with a wide breadth of material, but how deep is the engagement there? Understanding material is more than just getting the “gist”. Almost any information we want can be found with the click of a button. We no longer have to put time and energy into the learning of facts. We skim, rather than read. As Carl’s so eloquently stated, “Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.” I think this mindset that technology fosters is in partly negative; it encourages a superficial understanding of information without real interaction with the material.
Although technological advancement has limited our mental processes in some ways, it seems that it can expand our mental capabilities in other ways. I think that technology can in fact increase creativity. Originality is not so much a measure of discovery as it is a unique interpretation. Think about how painting has changed over the centuries. At first, painters were thought to be creative when they captured reality in their work. However, as technique became more and more common, and as the ability to portray reality became the norm, creativity had to be measured by something else, something abstract. Painters began to demonstrate unique perspectives. Think of Pablo Picasso and Monet. These creative interpretations came after a database of techniques allowed them to push the limits of their craft further than before. Now that technology has made information so readily available, we know the facts. We can capture reality by conducting a search on Google. It is what we do with those facts that makes writing creative. It is the unique and perhaps abstract perspective with which we interpret these facts that determines creativity.
In the writing center, technology is almost always part of the process. Students generally type their papers using Microsoft Word or some other word processor. One student writer came into the writing center with an essay that her professor had revised. She was baffled by the numerous red marks all over the pages. Reading through the paper, I soon realized that the errors were all inappropriate word choices and lack of agreement between verbs and nouns in multi-clause sentences. Her ideas were actually very creative, drawing upon various resources that she was able to encounter online, but the mistakes greatly undermined the intelligibility of her ideas. Eventually, discouraged, she said, “I don’t understand. I used spell check and an online thesaurus. Why do I have all these mistakes?” I suddenly understood her strange word choices and unconventional sentence structures. The writer depended too much on technology. Skimming over word choices without an appropriate understanding of connotation of their use resulted in awkward phrasing. Like Carl on a jet ski, unable to understand the complexity of the ocean below, the writer had no real grasp of the depth of these words. Her reliance on spell check also inhibited a deep engagement with the grammatical structures of the text. IT seems that we, as writing center tutors, may in some situations be challenged by the “efficiency” that technology provides intellectuals.
As tutors, what are we to do when technology invades the realm of clarity? In these situations, I think we should create what technology may not: a depth of understanding. We should explain the connotations of words and discuss the other options and their connotations. We should not only help correct, but also explain the rationale behind grammatical structures. When technology promotes a Jet Ski ride, we should challenge our writing peers to dive below the surface.
In Nicholas Carl’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” he explores the idea that “the more pieces of information we can ‘access’ and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers.” Speed as a measure of productivity seems to be an inaccurate relationship. It fails to take into account the stark contrast between breadth and depth. Which one is more important? The Internet definitely facilitates an acquaintance with a wide breadth of material, but how deep is the engagement there? Understanding material is more than just getting the “gist”. Almost any information we want can be found with the click of a button. We no longer have to put time and energy into the learning of facts. We skim, rather than read. As Carl’s so eloquently stated, “Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.” I think this mindset that technology fosters is in partly negative; it encourages a superficial understanding of information without real interaction with the material.
Although technological advancement has limited our mental processes in some ways, it seems that it can expand our mental capabilities in other ways. I think that technology can in fact increase creativity. Originality is not so much a measure of discovery as it is a unique interpretation. Think about how painting has changed over the centuries. At first, painters were thought to be creative when they captured reality in their work. However, as technique became more and more common, and as the ability to portray reality became the norm, creativity had to be measured by something else, something abstract. Painters began to demonstrate unique perspectives. Think of Pablo Picasso and Monet. These creative interpretations came after a database of techniques allowed them to push the limits of their craft further than before. Now that technology has made information so readily available, we know the facts. We can capture reality by conducting a search on Google. It is what we do with those facts that makes writing creative. It is the unique and perhaps abstract perspective with which we interpret these facts that determines creativity.
In the writing center, technology is almost always part of the process. Students generally type their papers using Microsoft Word or some other word processor. One student writer came into the writing center with an essay that her professor had revised. She was baffled by the numerous red marks all over the pages. Reading through the paper, I soon realized that the errors were all inappropriate word choices and lack of agreement between verbs and nouns in multi-clause sentences. Her ideas were actually very creative, drawing upon various resources that she was able to encounter online, but the mistakes greatly undermined the intelligibility of her ideas. Eventually, discouraged, she said, “I don’t understand. I used spell check and an online thesaurus. Why do I have all these mistakes?” I suddenly understood her strange word choices and unconventional sentence structures. The writer depended too much on technology. Skimming over word choices without an appropriate understanding of connotation of their use resulted in awkward phrasing. Like Carl on a jet ski, unable to understand the complexity of the ocean below, the writer had no real grasp of the depth of these words. Her reliance on spell check also inhibited a deep engagement with the grammatical structures of the text. IT seems that we, as writing center tutors, may in some situations be challenged by the “efficiency” that technology provides intellectuals.
As tutors, what are we to do when technology invades the realm of clarity? In these situations, I think we should create what technology may not: a depth of understanding. We should explain the connotations of words and discuss the other options and their connotations. We should not only help correct, but also explain the rationale behind grammatical structures. When technology promotes a Jet Ski ride, we should challenge our writing peers to dive below the surface.