1. 1 HAS CYBERSPACE REPLACED US?
DJ Howell, May 2016
A WORLD RICH IN INNOVATION
Through Adam and Eve, we humankind “asked one too many questions.”
– Abby Smith Rumsey
Innovations Are Forever
“Recorded information lasts only as long as the medium on which it lives.”
– Rumsey
According to Abby Smith Rumsey, four innovations associated with the written word
have altered the historical trajectory. They are the “development of writing in Mesopotamia for
administrative and business purposes”; development of libraries by the ancient Greeks advancing
“cultivation of knowledge for its own sake”1
; The recovery of Greek and Roman writings in the
Renaissance coupled with the “invention of movable type”; “refashion[ing] of knowledge into an
action verb—progress—and exand[ing]” state responsibilities “to ensure access to information”
(10).
To those ancient Greeks Rumsey attributes contributions to the expansion of human
memories that continues today: techniques of memorization, libraries serving “as centers of
learning and scholarship” in addition to mere storage of administrative records, and “recognition
of the moral hazards of outsourcing the memory of a living, breathing, thinking, and feeling
person to any object whatsoever” (33).
Those traditions were espoused by Thomas Jefferson, who from an early age believed
curiosity to be a natural desire and that “whatever was natural was good” (63). In fact,
“centuries of technical innovation . . . have been energized by a natural desire for knowledge that
could be put in the service of the moral instruction of man and the improvement of his condition”
(65). The “desire to read Nature’s archives drove—and still drives—the invention of new
technologies to observe, measure, record, play back, analyze, compare, and synthesize
information” (102).
And so the cyber-innovations2
in today’s information technology can be presumed to
1
. For the Greeks knowledge was valued for “its ability to effect change in the world. It acquired an
aesthetic dimension, serving to give pleasure and meaning to individuals” (Rumsey 33).
2
. For purposes of discussion, “digital” is a shorthand used here for the array of computer technologies
effecting and affecting transmission of information.
-1-

2. advance these same – or at least – comparable missions. But do they?
That question arises in two contexts: the nature, presentation, and quality of the
information presented by digital technologies and how they affect those who work with them.
Rumsey would add the matter of just how “permanent” digital records will prove to be. Much of
the contents of the ancient libraries were lost, and Jefferson’s extensive personal library burned.
The question for Rumsey, then, is how we are “managing our personal memory and assuming
responsibility for collective memory” in the digital age. (139) She is optimistic. Those of us
who have lost documents through computer malfunctions, corruption of files, obsolescence of
“peripherals,” and other digital woes may not share her “pie in the sky” expectations.
Today: Between Yesterday and Tomorrow
We of a certain age (personal and societal era)
see books as natural facts. We do not see them as memory machines with lives of
their own, though that is exactly what they are. As soon as we begin to print our
thoughts in those hard-copy memory machines, they begin circulating and
pursuing their own destinies. Over time we learned how to manage them, share
them, and ensure they carried humanity’s conversations to future generations. We
can develop the same skills to manage and take responsibility for digital memory
machines so that they too outlive us . . . . Whether we do or not is now in our
hands (177).
In 2016, Rumsey is insisting, “Today the pursuit of curiosity for its own sake is hailed as
the bedrock of our culture of knowledge” (19). Moreover, “the more we care about the future,
the more we need a rich, diverse, accessible record of the past. Because memory is not about the
past, it is about the future” (125). “[T]o lose one’s memory means losing the future. Because
imagination is the future tense” (127). Presumably, digital media are serving and protecting that
pursuit of curiosity. But are they?
It can be illuminating to place the generation we are now encountering in the context of
their predecessors, as characterized in Don Tapscott’s text:
The Baby Boom (1946-1964)
The Baby Boom Became the TV Generation (17)
The Baby Bust (1965-1976) (19)
The Baby Boom Echo (1977-1997) (20)
The Echo Becomes the Net Generation (22) This is what Tapscott calls the “N-Gen.”
The associated statistics are telling. In 1983 7% of US households owned computers; in 1997
44% overall did, 60% of households with children; and in 1996 15% of those households had
access to the Internet and Worldwide Web. (22) More than a billion Net users was predicted by
2005. (23) There can be little doubt that we are in the midst of a paradigm shift (24), inevitably
-2-

3. provoking discomfort along with its promises. Proponents of the Internet claim searches
“force[] children to ‘develop thinking and investigative skills’” while critics ask, “Which Web
sites are good? How can I tell what is real and what is fictitious . . . ?” Tapscott assumes the
equivalent of a debate or scholarly convention ensues. (26) But does it?
PIE IN THE CYBER-SKY
The neutral questions are whether “N-Gen children think differently.” Do their activities
on “interactive media affect their minds?” Is “the way they process information . . . for the
better” (85)? Susan Greenfield3
warns that the screens of digital technology “might be driving
our thought processes in an unprecedented direction” (214). The crucial question, then, is
whether we have pie and if so whether it is quiche or mud-pie. Or could it be the inedible mud
pies?
The Pie
Proponents of digital technologies claim all is “enhanced in an interactive world. When
children control their media, rather than passively observe, they develop faster” (7). It may be
hard to argue that point, especially in specific contrast to television, but what of the Internet?
And how do the digital media compare to print media with respect to childhood development?
Even when enjoying the prospect of a good piece of pie, the question of quiche versus mud-pie
and, worse, mud pies intrudes.
According to Tapscott, “Because they have the tools to question, challenge, and disagree,
these kids4
are becoming a generation of critical thinkers. . . . They accept little at face value . . .
” (88). Furthermore, “it appears that by using digital media, children become more able to
ignore inappropriate sources of information and concentrate on the information which is essential
for doing something, such as completing a task” (109). He claims that the resultant new model
of learning is one “based on discovery and participation” (127).
Greenfield takes a more moderate stance: For increasing numbers the virtual world “can
seem more immediate and significant than the smelly, tasty, touchy 3-D counterpart: it’s a place
of nagging anxiety or triumphant exhilaration as you are swept along in a social networking swirl
of collective consciousness” (3). And so the question seems to be whether we are sitting before
an intellectual meal of quiche, mud-pie – or mud pies.
3
. Greenfield’s personal progression took her from classical philosophy to brain research. (xi)
4
. A symptom of his breezy tone and blithe attitude is persistent reference to youngsers as “kids.”
-3-

4. Quiche or Mud-Pie?
Tapscott and the far more cautious Jane M. Healy both were writing in the “gee whiz” era
of digital media. In our consideration of the quality of the claims made by Tapscott as a
representative of proponents of learning via digital media, the first step might well call his
premises into question. Specifically, he sees today’s alternatives to digital tools as “broadcast
learning” (129), in short, Paulo Freire’s banking: top down pedagogy via “lecture, textbook,
homework”; authoritarian (129), one-size-fits-all” (130). For us who favor problem-posing, the
implication is that digital media are all he claims for them and the only alternative to banking.
Healy found herself “surrounded by unquestioning acceptance that technology is now the
way to do everything, from playing games with children at home to teaching reading” (79-80).
Her question is why the digital technology is better than “books, pencils, teachers,” and she
wonders who is answering or even asking that question. (80) In the context of complex issues,
Greenfield points out that oversimplification if not frank misinformation can be rapidly spread.
(30)
For better or worse, N-gens are “spending their formative years in a context and
environment fundamentally different from their parents” (Tapscott 15). And critics may well ask
the Tapscotts just what form that cyber-pie is taking. Is it a really the nutritious quiche he
perceives? Is it a mud-pie, tasty but quickly too much of a good thing. Or is it just a mud pie,
not for the eating?
It can come as no surprise that here as elsewhere, it is a matter of how tools are used.
Healy applauds one learning community (students, teachers, parents) using technology
effectively, specifically as one tool chosen for the right job in service of “agreed-upon goals”
(101). She observed a complex, problem-posing project in progress. (102-103) A poster
promoted “Lifelong Learning Standards,” expressly listing complex thinking, effective
communication, information processing, habits of mind, collaborative worker/community
contributor. (103)
Among the crucial questions are: “Will computers make human beings smarter—or will
they erode important forms of thought? How will interacting with artificial brains influence our
ideas about what constitutes ‘intelligence” (18)? What about creativity? “Will, or should,
emerging technologies change our concept of education” (19)? Bill Mckibben in The Age of
Missing Information “laments . . . children’s separation from nature and real-life lessons such as
patience and limits learned from interacting with the physical world” (Healy 30).
-4-

5. COOL THOSE CYBERSPACE JETS
For every complex problem there is an answer
that is clear, simple, and wrong. – H.L. Mencken5
According to Healy, “Technology shapes the growing mind. The younger the mind, the
more malleable it is” (17). That reality alone should suggest a cooling of our cyberspace jets and
– to mix metaphors – asking whether we are dealing with an intellectual steak or just its tempting
sizzle. She asks what “software applications and educational technology . . . may be harmful
and why” (18).
Sizzle or Steak?
The issue is whether computers facilitate or stifle creativity, including scientific
creativity, and what effect they have on imagination. (163, 164) Physicist Ron Haybron6
is
concerned about too much exposure “‘to too many contrived, controlled versions of reality rather
than nature as its raw, untidy self’” and expresses a “‘need [for the] real world in the wild, not
just the illusionary world of computer reality’” (qtd Healy 164). Those seeking work with high-
tech firms should expect a demand for “innovation, teamwork skills, flexibility, and innovative
thinking” (165).
Tapscott does acknowledge general complaints about the mores of the N-Gen. He cites
unease regarding use of digital technology and poses a series of questions, presumably to
indicate more steak than sizzle. Are youngsters benefitting? Can digital technologies “improve
the process of learning?” On the contrary, are they “dumbing kids and misfocusing”? What
about children’s social skills? He further notes the such questions are raised by “reasonable and
well-meaning people” as well as by “cynics, moralists, and technophobes” (6). The steak, he
claims, includes motor and language skills, cognition, and reading. He is less concerned with the
possibility some of the steak is more sizzle than nourishment. On the one hand he claims these
“kids” are “alert, aware, focused, . . . in control” (85); on the other hand he concedes, “[I]t is
impossible to know to what extent the[ir] psychological characteristics . . . are affected . . . ”
(86).
Controversies
Digital technologies are eroding the age-old constraints of space and time” (Greenfield
10). Benefits include speed, efficiency, and ubiquity, but we now expect “constant availability
of international communication” with instant responses and immediate replies. (11) Are there
repercussions? If so, what are they?
A major controversy is posed by the impression that the N-Gen has the “attention span of
5
. Quoted in Greenfield at 24
6
. Of Cleveland State University
-5-

6. a gnat,”7
attributed by critics to the propensity for multi-tasking (108), itself a controversial
development. Tapscott claims that research fails to support this contention and posits what he
characterizes as the more thoughtful view8
, which notes that “kids hate to be bored,” leading to
shorter attention spans9
, and they are “‘used to a diet of highly stimulating visual information.”
They seek instant gratification and possess “‘less patience for delay of any kind’” (Miller qtd
Tapscott 108-109).
Assuming all these points to be accurate reflections of the situation, the question would
seem to be whether these changes should be accepted, encouraged, mitigated, or even reversed.
Greenfield asks “how much information can be retained, and how efficiently” (214) and warns
an inability to filter out the irrelevant in the classroom can lead to lower comprehension of
subject matter. (217) Healy notes, while learning can be fun, “it is also hard work” (54).
Today’s students expect entertainment, lack patience, and want instantaneous results. According
to one social science teacher, “‘If they can’t see results right away, they have no interest in
what’s being discussed’” (unidentified teacher qtd Healy 145). Significantly, the jury is out on
the issue of the “value of pervasive digital technology in education” pending 2015's preteens’
entry into their first jobs. (Greenfield 233).
Cautions
For all his glowing accounts of the benefits of digital media, Tapscott does concede, “I
am the first to admit there are thorns on the rose” (x) but declines to address the effects of those
media on how students learn. Publishing within a year of Tapscott and more cautious, Healy
tempers her enthusiasm with “concern about the development of [youngsters’] brains, bodies,
and spirits” and warns that our “children are the subjects of a vast and optimistic experiment”
(17). Expectations are that “technology will improve the quality of learning and prepare our
young for the future, but are digital media a magic bullet or a quick fix in a “journey sometimes
shocking, often disheartening, and [only] occasionally inspiring” (18)? She points out that the
Internet is not truly interactive: a key is pressed and something is shown. (48)
For those who perceive higher education (primarily) as the way into remunerative
employment, a specific warning is sounded: employers complain that new hires “can’t solve
problems that require initiative, persistence, and independent thinking” (145).
Healy calls for accountability and common sense (21-22) and advises, “Experience
7
. As revealed by Calvin of Bill Watterson’s Calvin and Hobbes fame (or notoriety) when Calvin
explains to his tiger companion, “As far as I’m concerned, if something is so complicated that you can’t
explain it in 10 seconds, then it’s probably not worth knowing anyway.” Besides, he asserts, “My time is
valuable. I can’t go thinking about one subject for minutes on end. I’m a busy man.” Calvin’s
preference is television, with its great “short attention span.” When Hobbes observes that Calvin has
been sitting in front of the TV for three hours, Calvin gloats, “At six thoughts a minute.” (Undated,
downloaded from Facebook May 13, 2016)
8
. Attributed to demographer Eric Miller
9
. Also noted by Greenfield at 14
-6-

7. suggests we should temper our enchantment with a critical look at whether anything educational
is really being accomplished” (24). She goes further in lamenting “a generation that has become
cynical before it has learned to think critically” (40). Furthermore, our “children are
overpowered with data and special effects,” while teachers report they are having trouble
following a logical train of thought or linking ideas together” (54). Additional questions include
“how much to allow visual learning to override verbal” and how teachers, often baffled, are “to
evaluate intellectual integrity in new media forms” (142). Gavriel Salomon10
expresses mixed
feeling as new technologies “change the meaning of knowledge from something we possess to
something we have to access.” Fear is expressed with regard to the “preference for free
association and a quick-paced, undisciplined, chaotic way of handling information” as
manifested in “web surfing” (143).
“RESISTANCE IS FUTILE”
We could . . . become “tools of our tools.” – Henry David Thoreau11
We must consider “how to prepare our children for life
in an information-loaded but depersonalized landscape.”
– Jane M. Healy
Those who frankly applaud digital media claim our children “are so bathed in bits that
they think it’s all part of the natural landscape” (Tapscott 1) and that they know more about
technology than adults do. (1-2) Such proponents tend not to comment on whether linking digital
data to the natural landscape is a positive or negative situation or to mention the quality of the
content provided. Instead, a Tapscott observes that the move has been from television to the
Internet, from “broadcast to interactive” (2, 3). In the late nineties when Tapscott was published,
a decade of computers “creeping into classroom” had passed with teaching “starting to change
the way learning occurs, rather than using computers as fancy texts or testing devices” (5), again
without tendering any judgment. Ever the optimist, he asserts, “Rather than hostility and
mistrust on the part of adults, we need a change in thinking and in behavior on the part of . . .
educators,” among others. (7).
The Return of the (Human) Brain
The human brain has survived and flourished because its plasticity enables it to
adapt in wondrous ways to changing environments. Electronic worlds will
inevitably influence its functioning, whether for better or for worse depends on
decisions we make now. Mental habits, once formed stick with the individual and
also with the general society. Likewise, skills such as literacy or the ability to
reflect deeply, if lost to a generation, may not be regained. Using computers to
10
. Of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University
11
. Quoted by Healy at 30
-7-

8. enhance abilities is one thing; allowing them to replace our intellectual value
systems is quite another. (Healy 167)
According to Greenfield, at the very least, if we place our adaptable brain “in an
environment where there is no obvious linear sequence, where facts can be accessed at random,
where everything is reversible, where the gap between stimulus and response is minimal, and
above all where time is short, then the train of thought can be derailed. (13) Among the potential
losses: the ability to move “from the literal to the metaphorical” (238).
It is worth noting at this juncture that while digital circuits are on or off (yes or no),
analog counterparts allow continuous variations. The human brain is a hybrid of the two.
(Rumsey 116) It is further worth noting with Rumsey that
[w]e have to interpret facts and impressions in the context of our environment in
order to make sense of them. Facts have no intrinsic meaning. It is culture that
creates expectations of what makes sense and what does not. If all the mind does
is create literal representations of the external world, then all cultures all times
and all places would have exactly the same working models of the world (124).
Obviously, cultures of differing eras and places are different; the mind is complex. What
does that reality mean for the manner in which digital information is presented? Healy considers
the critical and sensitive periods of the brain that require specific kinds of learning environments,
activities, and stimulation in forming lifelong intelligence and “habits of mind.” “If we waste or
subvert these developmental windows, the losses may be irrecoverable” (27). She argues that the
fullest development of intelligence includes creative uses of the mind. “Whether and how early
computer experiences expand or contract creativity is one of the most important issues in today’s
research agenda” (163).
In keeping with our pedagogy, Greenfield asserts that “real intelligence requires a
synthesis of facts, context, and meaning that encompasses far more than accurate responding”
and that access and regurgitation are hardly “the pinnacle of intellectual endeavor” (238).
Healy cites Douglas Rushkoff12
as pushing for “traditional educational priorities” such as
linear thought (written text, planning ahead, cause-and-effect reasoning) that is yielding to a
“holistic flow of living in the moment.” In fact, “today’s youngsters . . . represent an
evolutionary leap in human consciousness because they aren’t bound by old-fashioned ideas of
order but rather thrive in the state of chaos found on the Internet” (29). Physicist Fritjof Capra
disagrees, asserting that “information technologies [are] totalitarian . . . eliminating alternative
views of reality” (30).
Healy goes on to assert that the new technologies are altering society as they are
“changing [individuals’] mental skills and even . . . brain organization” (32). She calls for
consideration of “how new technologies interact with important aspects of human thinking and
12
. Author of Playing the Future
-8-

9. learning,” notably, changing definitions of intelligence, cognitive efforts, learning styles, and
how brains respond to technology use. (128) At the time of publication, there were no studies
“on direct links between computer use and children’s brain activity” despite plenty of studies on
how and when brain developments occur.13
(132) On that basis she advocates the “widest
repertory possible” to allow the brain to “deal with multiple eventualities” (133). Notably, the
stages move from “concrete learning” to symbolic representations to abstract thinking (135),
from data to information to knowledge to understanding to wisdom. In short, “[a]ssembling
information is a foundation but not a goal” (139). It is worth asking which of those three steps
are reinforced by the digital media.
Can the same be said of all comparable advances in the human capacity to transmit
information? Is the current paradigm shift no more than one more admittedly phenomenal
advance in human communication or is it something far more profound with far more profound
consequences?
When Polarities Shift
(Positives Become Negatives)
A question that seems to be answered in the affirmative by proponents and critics alike is
whether the N-Gen is “beginning to process and reason differently than the rest of us” (Tapscott
102). Such a situation should be giving all of us, especially educators, pause. If we accept the
claim that digital media “free humans from linear thinking” (103), how are we to respond to this
novel intellectual milieu? Healy warns that we are “spending far too much money with too little
thought” (18) and takes note of an 11-year-old who finds books boring because they take too
long, who finds the web faster and more fun, citing sounds of dolphins and a video of sunken
Titanic’s bow. (32) Even though the child makes a valid point regarding the multi-media
capacities of the digital world, they are often no more than the delightful sizzle and pie. Some
steak is in order to enrich the intellectual repast.
A complaint that has become common is that individuals decline to concentrate for more
than a few seconds, lack patience, and are without strategies for solving problems.14
(46)
Students seem to be more interested in getting it over with than in finding answers and pursue
more trial-and-error approaches than sequential steps (146, 149). “Entranced by the pictures,
cut-and-paste-text, amusing noises, and animation, students (and even adult authors!) are
tempted to flit over the harder work of reading, writing, and reasoning” (151).
13
. In this chapter, The Growing Brain Meets Artificial Intelligence, Healy proceeds to provide
considerable detail on the latter research with specific reference to how it adjusts to its
environment: “Brains tend to become custom-tailored for skills that the environment promotes”
(133). Computers should capitalize on the stages of its development, if only because “open
windows can also close” (134). The whole chapter is well worth perusing.
14
. Healy’s reference appears to be primary school students in particular, but the grade level is not
specified.
-9-

10. CYBER-PEDAGOGY
Why Formal Education?
Healy finds it necessary to ask, “Do I risk being stoned in the public marketplace if I
suggest that the purpose of education is not to make kids economically valuable, but rather to
enable them to develop intellectual and personal worth as well as practical skills?” In any event,
she notes, “Some of the best jobs in the corporate and professional worlds still go to the literature
or history majors. Why? Because they know how to think” (106).
A legitimate consideration at this juncture is what purposes are to be served by formal
education. Most of us acknowledge the basics of necessary “banking” coupled with Paolo
Freire’s “problem posing.” Neil Postman15
adds that students should understand that we are
stewards of the earth. Formal education should “cure the itch for absolute knowledge and
certainty.” Inter alia, it should encourage critical thinking along with the “ability to disagree and
argue” and diversity without negating standards. (133) Tapscott argues that “broadcast
learning” (banking) does not serve those goals while N-Geners are already moving toward them.
(134) We might well argue we in the First Year Writing program have been moving toward
them all along, with or without digital media. For us, those media may be useful tools, but they
are neither necessary nor sufficient to support our mission. How many of our students find them
exclusively sufficient?
We can, however, agree with Tapscott when he acknowledges, “Writing is like a muscle;
it requires exercise.16
These kids are developing a powerful muscle [through electronic/social
media] that will serve them well in future work environments” (134-135). The power of that
muscle has been called into question by the performance and attitudes of a daunting number of
our students.
A 1995 survey of parents, teachers, leaders, and the general public lists important skills;
“reading, ’riting, and ’rithmetic”; good work habits, computer skill, and far below on the list:
history, geography, and the classics. “Brain building” is called into question. (Healy 20) The
assumption has been that digital media will result in “highly imaginative and stimulating . . .
use,” but findings have revealed “little creative or academic outcome” and no favoring of natural
imagination that had been assumed. (21).
15
. Identified by Tapscott as a “social critic and technology skeptic” (133)
16
. See also Greenfield at 56 – her phrase is “use it or lose it,” also comparing the brain to muscle.
-10-

11. Has the Time-Space Continuum Left Us in Its Cosmic Dust?
Those of us concerned about what is happening to the brains and minds and overall well-
being of our young people as they enter college are hardly alone, as the array of relatively recent
books and scholarly articles suggests. Even the popular news media have become involved, as
represented by Jason Gay’s Who Is Ready for Baseball’s Robot Umpires? He notes a movement
to “roll back our tech dependency[], [to] try to untether for small slivers of time . . . .” With a
mildly jocular tone, Gay notes,
All of us know people who have drastically shed tech from their lives. Their skin
glows, their hair shimmers, they have better sex, and they start and finish jigsaw
puzzles on vacation. Their testimonials arrive, unprompted: My life is so much
richer without a smart-phone. I gave up my iPad, built a canoe and restored a
Buick Roadmaster. I quit Twitter, and had a conversation with another person.
Out loud. (Emphasis in original)
Gay may be speaking for us when he reports general concern “about dependency and the
clammy feeling of human action avoided. It’s been said a million ways, but a device that
supposedly connects you to everyone instead can make you feel disconnected and alone.” (We
might be of the impression that our entering students are so bound to cyber-space that they do
not even detect any such disconnection or isolation.) Gay’s suggestion from the sports world: “If
you’re sitting courtside or behind home plate and get caught looking at your phone during game
action, you must relinquish your seat to a kid.”
Accept? Resist? Adapt?
For educators it is hardly an amusing situation. Many educators are calling for a change
in their roles “because today’s students are increasingly difficult to teach. Their learning habits
have been shaped by fast-paced media that reduce attention, listening, and problem-solving skills
as they habituate the brain to rapid-fire visual input” (Healy 40). (Query: Is this situation no
more confounding than that of the era when teachers in Kindergarten and the early primary
grades encountered children brought up on television’s enduring Sesame Street?)
Worse, we who work with young people entering post-secondary education are in no
position to stave off the losses many of us perceive when young people are thoroughly, even
excessively, immersed in cyber-worlds. We are facing a fait accompli – receiving young people
already indoctrinated as the N-Gen virtually from birth. The questions before us, then, are
whether we can persist in our pedagogy and specific programs. If not, in what ways can and
should we alter either or both? And to what extent?
-11-

12. WORKS CITED
(The books cited are all in print versions found in the Arnold Bernhard stacks.)
Gay, Jason. Who Is Ready for Baseball’s Robot Umpires? The Wall Street Journal, May 9,
2016, B6.
Greenfield, Susan. Mind Change: How Digital Technologies Are Leaving Their Mark on Our
Brains. New York: Random House, 2015.
Relatively neutral stance with questions raised to elicit answers to contemporary
controversies; representative chapters include Mind Change: A Global Phenomenon,
How the Brain Changes, The Screen Is the Message, Thinking Differently
Healy, Jane M. Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect Our Children’s Minds – For Better
and Worse. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999.
An optimistic yet cautious approach; representative chapters and sections include From
Techno-Pusher to Critic: A Journey of Puzzlement; Changing Technology, Changing
Brains; The Growing Brain Meets Artificial Intelligence; Different Learning Styles in the
Digital World; Computer Influences on Habits of Mind for Lifelong Success; some of the
content outdated or in effect too late, e.g., Planning for Technology
Rumsey, Abby Smith. When We Are No More: How Digital Memory is Shaping Our Future.
New York: Bloomburg Press, 2016.
Generally neutral if not a positive stance acknowledging digital innovations as the next
step in humankind’s ability to transmit information; focus on permanence of records
stored on hard-drives, external drives, or the cloud
Tapscott, Don. Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1998.17
Virtually unqualified praise for the roles being played by digital media in youngsters’
lives, including their formal education; representative chapters: The Net Generation,
What Is Happening to Our Children? Child Development in an Interactive World, two
chapters addressing the “N-Gen” minds and one on N-Gen learning along with The
Future of Schools and Colleges and what is called The Digital Divide
17
. It is worth noting that this text and that of Healy were published at about the time our incoming
freshmen were born. They have grown up with computers in much the same way some of us grew up
with televisions and others of us with radios.
-12-

13. A SAMPLING OF ARTICLES
(All found in Bernhard’s JStor Database)
Hanafin, Michael, Kathleen Hannafin and Bruce Gabbitas. Re-Examining Cognition during
Student-Centered, Web-Based Learning. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 57 (6). Special Issue on Cognition & Learning Technology (Dec., 2009),
767-785.
Mason, Lucia, Angela Boldrin, and Nicola Ariasi. Searching the Web to Learn About a
Controversial topic: Are students Epistemically Active? Instructional Science 38 (6)
(November 2010), 607-633.
Rekart, Jerome L. Taking on Multitasking. The Phi Delta Kappan 93 (4) (December
2011/January 2012), 60-63.
Scharra, Erica. Making a Case for Media Literacy in the Curriculum: Outcomes and
Assessment. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 46 (4) (Dec., 2002 - Jan., 2003),
354-358.
Tzu-Bin Lin, Jen-Yi Li, Feng Dang, Ling Lee. Understanding New Media Literacy: An
Explorative Theoretical Framework. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 16 (4)
(October 2013), 160-170.
-13-