Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Whats Wrong With Online Reading

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 141 Ad

Whats Wrong With Online Reading

Thanks in part to efficient search engines such as Google, on-line reading has become for many the primary way that people read. This talk will discuss how a wide range of research in web usability, psychology, education, and communication theory provides corroborating evidence that on-line reading is transforming cognition, learning, and the very nature of knowledge in some disturbing ways.

Thanks in part to efficient search engines such as Google, on-line reading has become for many the primary way that people read. This talk will discuss how a wide range of research in web usability, psychology, education, and communication theory provides corroborating evidence that on-line reading is transforming cognition, learning, and the very nature of knowledge in some disturbing ways.

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (19)

Similar to Whats Wrong With Online Reading (20)

Advertisement

More from Randy Connolly (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Advertisement

Whats Wrong With Online Reading

  1. 1. What s What’s wrong with online li reading? May 2010
  2. 2. AND
  3. 3. Young “digital natives” possess sophisticated IT based IT-based skills … … and education needs to change to meet them them.
  4. 4. “It’s not what you know that It s really counts; it’s how y y ; you navigate in the digital world, and what you do with the information you discover” y “Net Geners, immersed in digital technology, are keen to try new things, often at high speed. They want school to be fun and interesting.” Don Tapscott, grown up digital (McGraw Hill, 2009), p. 135
  5. 5. New reading?
  6. 6. “Books are machines for transmitting authority”… authority … while h hil hypertext “ b i l t t “obviously creates empowered readers” readers G.P. Landlow, Hypertext 2.0: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology (John Hopkins Press, 1997)
  7. 7. Hypertext encourages “metacognitive yp g g awareness that recognizes alternate forms of organization for information” … g and “offers the opportunity to extend literacy skills – such as associative logic, visual rhetoric and interactivity.” M. Sorapure et al, “Web literacy: Challenges and opportunities for research in a new medium,” Computers and Composition 15 (1998) Burbles and Callister, “Knowledge at the cross‐roads: Some alternative futures of hypertext learning environments, Education Theory 46 (1996)
  8. 8. However However
  9. 9. These claims “h Th l i “have been subjected to little critical scrutiny, are scrutiny under theorized, and lack a sound empirical p basis.” Sue Bennett et al, “The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence,” British Journal of Educational Technology 39 (2007)
  10. 10. Discuss how recent research in web usability, psychology, physiology, cognitive science, science political science media studies science, studies, and education provides a great deal of corroborating evidence that online reading is not nearly as g y good as it seems
  11. 11. “Reading is the key intellectual and g y cultural foundation of literate societies, societies and the fundamental activity of scholars … …yet we hhave li l k little knowledge l d of how the way we experience information is modified in new media environments.” Claire Warwick et al, “Codex Redux: Books and New Knowledge Environments,” Books Online ‘08 (October 2008)
  12. 12. In fact, the evidence convinces me that is d th t it i downright i ht dangerous for our cognitive powers and for the future of democratic society society.
  13. 13. It all began with my father … … and his Alzheimer’s Alzheimer s
  14. 14. about f g tti g, b t forgetting abo t concentrating, about about sustained reading b t
  15. 15. Then I read something that reduced my anxiety…
  16. 16. “I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the g web or in print.” p Nicholas Carr, “Is Google making Us Stoopid,” The Atlantic (July/August 2008)
  17. 17. According to survey data: “an overwhelming majority of an academics (64 per cent) [claim they] are not reading as deeply and reflectively as they used to.” y Heather Menzies and Janice Newson, “No Time to Think?” Academic Matters (Winter 2006)
  18. 18. “Instead the majority Instead, indicated, they are skimming sources for useful bits of information. information ” Heather Menzies and Janice Newson, “No Time to Think?” Academic Matters (Winter 2006)
  19. 19. What b t Wh t about
  20. 20. Five Things Wrong with online reading di
  21. 21. Comprehension p
  22. 22. Reading studies
  23. 23. “young people scan online pages very rapidly ( y especially) and click p y (boys p y) extensively on hyperlinks – rather than reading sequentially … they tend to move rapidly from page to page, spending little time reading or digesting information.” I. Rowlands and D. Nicholas, Information Behavior of the Researcher of the Future (2008)
  24. 24. “our empirical study seems to indicate … that hypertext degrades the q yp g quality y of reader’s engagement during reading. reading ” David S. Miall and Teresa Dobson, “Reading hypertext and the experience of literature,” Journal of Digital Information 2 (2001)
  25. 25. “hypertext presentation resulted in a lower comprehension p p performance.” Rouet et al, “Effects of online reading on popular science comprehension,” Science Communication 25 (2) 2003.
  26. 26. Readers with low domain knowledge comprehend significantly better with p g y highly coherent texts (books). Readers with high domain knowledge comprehend significantly better with low coherent texts (i.e., hypertext). L. Salmeron et al, “Reading Strategies and Hypertext Comprehension,” Discourse Processess 40 (2005)
  27. 27. “the net total effect of the web is actually to reduce learning compared y g p to print presentation.” Eveland and Dunwoody, “An investigation of elaboration and selective scanning as mediators of learning from the web versus print,” Journal of  Broadcasting & Electronic Media 46 (1) 2002.
  28. 28. In a longitudinal study comparing digital literacy in 2002 and 2009 across generations: Improvements in technical li I i h i l literacy amongst the older cohorts h ld h Big decreases in tasks requiring creative and critical thinking amongst younger cohorts “For the “F th more critical and creative skills … iti l d ti kill experience and exposure to [online] information seem t h i f ti to have a negative effect ti ff t on the user’s performance.” Eshet‐Alkalai, “Changes over time in Digital Literacy,” CyberPsychology & Behavior 12 (6) 2009
  29. 29. Both user control theory and structural isomorphism theory ( (communication/learning theories) g ) predicted that reading comprehension g p would be improved online in comparison to p p print. Eveland and Dunwoody, “User Control and Structural Isomorphism or Disorientation and Cognitive Load,” Communication Research 28 (1) 2001.
  30. 30. didn’t thi happen? did ’t this h ?
  31. 31. Scanning Scanning
  32. 32. Usability experts have observed that over past 5-6 years the nature of web usage has dramatically changed.
  33. 33. Most web usage has switched from Surfing to Information Foraging 39
  34. 34. Information f I f i foragers are seeking very specific prey
  35. 35. Information foragers rely on search engines to get to the “information patch information patch” Because search engines make it easy to f d patches, h k find h foragers will spend little time looking for prey.
  36. 36. “learning to use the Internet is a process of transitioning from casual ‘looking’ to more focused searching for an answer to a ‘specific question’.” Howard + Massanari, “Learning to Search and Searching to Learn”, Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication (2007)
  37. 37. “the fact that online reading comprehension always begins with a question or problem may be an important source of the differences between online and offline reading.” ffli di ” Leu et al, “What is new about the new literacies of online reading comprehension”, Secondary School Literacy: What Research Reveals for  Classroom Practice (2007)
  38. 38. is this important?
  39. 39. Because… Because …of the velocity of web usage of usage.
  40. 40. long do you spend viewing your average web page?
  41. 41. 25% of all web pages are displayed for less than p y four seconds! Weinreich et al, “Off the Beaten Tracks: Exploring Three Aspects of Web Navigation”, IW3C2 2006
  42. 42. 52% of all visits are shorter than ten seconds! Only about 11% are visited for more than 2 minutes. Weinreich et al, “Off the Beaten Tracks: Exploring Three Aspects of Web Navigation”, IW3C2 2006
  43. 43. Weinreich et al, “Off the Beaten Tracks: Exploring Three Aspects of Web Navigation”, IW3C2 2006
  44. 44. “users most often spent p approximately 10 seconds viewing those documents that they eventually h h ll identified as relevant and also those that they eventually did not mark as relevant.” Diane Kelly and Nicholas J. Belkin, “Reading Time, Scrolling and Interaction: Exploring Implicit Sources for User Preferences for Relevance  Feedback”, Proceedings of the 24th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (2001)
  45. 45. Are academics any different?
  46. 46. In a very interesting study comparing the y g y p g time spent reading a paper-based academic article and the on-line equivalent, the researchers f h found that d h “a “ very l large proportion i of [online] full-text views full text were extremely brief and possibly cursory.” David Nicholas et al, “Viewing and reading behavior in a virtual environment”, ASLIB Proceedings: New Information Perspectives 60 (2008)
  47. 47. Average reading times for 10+ page p g g p g printed academic paper varied between 22 to 45 minutes based on the discipline. Average reading times for on-line version averaged about 74 seconds. Yet academics reported that they spent between 5-15 minutes reading the online version (even though they didn’t). David Nicholas et al, “Viewing and reading behavior in a virtual environment”, ASLIB Proceedings: New Information Perspectives 60 (2008)
  48. 48. Average for academics: 74 seconds g Average for students: 100 seconds Average for life science academics: 112 s Average for business academics: 60 s Average for computer science academics: 55 s Research-university faculty spent longer than teaching university teaching-university faculty. David Nicholas et al, “Viewing and reading behavior in a virtual environment”, ASLIB Proceedings: New Information Perspectives 60 (2008)
  49. 49. is this happening?
  50. 50. SCANNING
  51. 51. The vast majority of j y web pages are scanned and not read d t d by b most users t
  52. 52. The focus on usability this decade has succeeded in achieving broad acceptance of conventions in the design of web sites
  53. 53. Eye-tracking stud es ye t ac g studies
  54. 54. The Poynter Institute, Poynter EyeTrack07: A study of print and online news reading (2007)
  55. 55. The Poynter Institute, Poynter EyeTrack07: A study of print and online news reading (2007)
  56. 56. Word Skipping: Implications Eye movements in reading are characterized by short periods of steadiness (fixations) followed by fast movements (saccades). Saccades are needed to bring new information into the centre of the visual field where acuity is best; fixations are required to recognized words. … Some words are q g fixated more than once, some are initially not fixated but immediately afterwards regressed to, and some are not fixated at all. Marc Brysbaert and Francoise Vitu, “Word Skipping: Implications for Theories of Eye Movement Control in Reading,” Eye Guidance in Reading and  Scene Perception (Elsevier Science, 1998)
  57. 57. Zambarbieri et al, "Eye Tracking Analysis in Reading Online Newspapers," Journal of Eye Movement Research 2(4) 2008.
  58. 58. Nielsen Group, “F‐Shaped Pattern For Reading Web Content,” http://www.useit.com/alertbox/reading_pattern.html (April 17, 2006)
  59. 59. Notice the large mass of text not read, (even when subjects being tested f “ di g”) ( h bj t b i g t t d for “reading”) Shrestha, “Eye Movement Analysis of Text-Based Web Page Layouts,” Usability News 2009 (11)
  60. 60. Lorigo et al, “Eye Tracking and Online Search: Lessons Learned and Challenges Ahead,” Journal  of the American Society for Information Science and technology (2008)
  61. 61. http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/070312ruel/
  62. 62. “F is for fast “ i f f . That s That's how users read your precious content. In a few seconds, seconds their eyes move at amazing speeds across your website s website’s words in a pattern that's very different from what you learned in school ” school. Nielsen Group, “F‐Shaped Pattern For Reading Web Content,” http://www.useit.com/alertbox/reading_pattern.html (April 17, 2006)
  63. 63. Notice Red areas show only first two words in headlines are scanned Nielsen Group, “Email Newsletters: Surviving Inbox Congestion,” http://www.useit.com/alertbox/newsletters.html (June 12, 2006)
  64. 64. More recent research shows Use s ead only the st Users read o ly t e first eleven characters of an online h dli f li headline (forget about the body text). More recent research shows … 12345678901 Nielsen Group, “First 2 Words: A Signal for the Scanning Eye,” http://www.useit.com/alertbox/nanocontent.html (April 6, 2009)
  65. 65. “The human brain is in the early stages of reading, …
  66. 66. … but it has a long evolutionary past in adapting cognitive t it f swift d ti iti traits for ift processing and responses to audiovisual cues.” ” Grabe et al, “Informing Citizens: How people with Different Levels of Education process Television, Newspaper, and Web News,” Journal of  Broadcasting & Electronic Media 53 (1) 2009.
  67. 67. Reading is unnatural unnatural, but scanning is not. Humans are hard-wired to excel at fast scanning
  68. 68. Eye-tracking studies y g have shown that scanning is also an g important part of newspaper reading. p p g
  69. 69. 1991, 1994 “a mere 25% of all [newspaper] articles are seen, and only 12% are read deeper than half their length. length.” Garcia and Stark, Eyes on the News (Poytner Institute, 1991)
  70. 70. 1960 1980 1995 2009
  71. 71. Print newspapers 55% Eye fixations = reading Online newspapers 44% Eye fixations = reading Holmqvist et al, “Reading or scanning? A study of newspaper and net reading,” The Mind’s Eye: Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement  Research (2003)
  72. 72. “The correlation between The proportion of reading and time spent on [an online news] page is only 0.25” y Holmqvist et al, “Reading or scanning? A study of newspaper and net reading,” The Mind’s Eye: Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement  Research (2003)
  73. 73. “Our results showed that in Our fact net paper readers scan more and read less than newspaper readers ” readers. Holsana, “Cognition, multimodal interaction and new media,” Philosophical papers Dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowicz (2007)
  74. 74. Selectivity
  75. 75. Selectivity f S l ti it refers to users t c oos g select g choosing/selecting what they read/view.
  76. 76. What could be wrong with the freedom to choose … your o r reading material?
  77. 77. Excessive selectivity is y associated with a variety of negative outcomes:
  78. 78. Decreased news awareness D d Decreased political knowledge and participation Decreased diversity of opinion y p and higher political polarization
  79. 79. “Online readers of the Times appear to pp have read fewer national, international, and p , political news stories [than readers of print version] and were less likely to recognize and y g recall events that occurred during the exposure p p period.” Tewksbury and Althus, “Differences in knowledge acquisition among readers of the paper and online versions of national newspapers,”  Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 31 (2006)
  80. 80. “preference-based gaps [i.e., selectivity]… p g p [ , y] are self-imposed as many people abandon the news for entertainment simply because they like it better. Inequality in political knowledge and turnout increases as a result of voluntary, not circumstantial, consumption decisions.” Prior, “News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout,” American Journal of Political  Science 49 (3) July 2005
  81. 81. “the net paper readers read stories p p thematically close to their own specific p profession or interests. … The newspaper readers in our study … were much less selective. They read (parts) of text on all the different pages … including a wide variety of genres and topics.” Holmqvist et al, “Reading or scanning? A study of newspaper and net reading,” The Mind’s Eye: Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement  Research (2003)
  82. 82. “We found that there was a significant difference in the extent of selective diff i th t t f l ti scanning .. with the least scanning in the print condition … and significantly more i t diti d i ifi tl scanning … in the web conditions.” Thus, while the quantity of information on the web should increase learning it in fact “decreases learning through increased selective scanning compared to traditional print.” Eveland and Dunwoody, “An investigation of elaboration and selective scanning as mediators of learning from the web versus print,” Journal of  Broadcasting & Electronic Media 46 (1) 2002. Eveland and Dunwoody, “User Control and Structural Isomorphism or Disorientation and Cognitive Load,” Communication Research 28 (1) 2001.
  83. 83. “Political talk that centers on reinforcing a g shared viewpoint does little to encourage deliberation on multiple viewpoints.” “people tend to cultivate homogeneous interpersonal networks, and those with strong networks partisan networks are particularly likely to be surrounded by similar others.” y “Our findings suggest that media are far more important than interpersonal net orks in networks exposing people to views unlike their own.” Mutz and Martin, “Facilitating Communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media,” The American Political Science  Review 95 (1) March 2001
  84. 84. “This study predicted that selectivity should lead to extremity in candidate evaluations. The data strongly supported this hypothesis.” “…selectivity on the Web was a significant predictor of extremity in candidate evaluations” evaluations “As “A a result th t d t b lt they tend to become extreme and t d polarized when making political decisions.” Kim, “Issue Publics in the New Information Environment: Selectivity, Domain Specificity, and Extremity,” Communication Research 36 (2) 2009
  85. 85. Google have anything to do with selectivity?
  86. 86. Google search and res lt pages result account for almost a quarter of all pages f ll Weinreich et al, “Not Quite the Average: An Empirical Study of Web Usage”, ACM Transactions on the Web (February 2008)
  87. 87. It facilitates the quick scanning and foraging behavior of contemporary web usage.
  88. 88. Google is so good that … g g 75% of users stick to first page of SERP 50% of users click on 1st choice 20% of users click on 2nd choice Majority behavior if not clicking on first two choices? Reformulate search Nielsen + Loranger, Prioritizing Web usability, 2006
  89. 89. “Into the potentially problematic category we would place the p unquestioning attitude about the search engine, Google, g , g , which many students see as the total answer to all their information needs.” Kiili et al, “Students evaluating Internet Sources,” Journal of Educational Computing Research 39 (2008)
  90. 90. “Students in this study seemed to y have a great deal of confidence in their abilities to distinguish g the good sites from the bad.” Yet “Students are also not consistently able t diff i t tl bl to differentiate ti t between advertising and fact.” Graham and Metaxis, “Of Course it’s true; I saw it on the Internet,” Communications of the ACM (2003)
  91. 91. “Overall only about 1 in 6 searchers … Overall can consistently distinguish between paid and unpaid results ” results. Pew Internet and American Life Project, “Search Engine Users,” (2005)
  92. 92. Remember scanning behavior!
  93. 93. Usability analyst Jakob Nielsen calls it: y y Google g Gullibility Nielsen Group, “User Skills Improving, But Only Slightly,” http://www.useit.com/alertbox/user‐skills.html (Feb 4, 2008)
  94. 94. Online selectivity is narrowing scholarship
  95. 95. “Collectively, the models presented illustrate that ill t t th t as j journal archives came l hi online … citations became more concentrated within fewer articles ” articles. “by enabling scientists to quickly by reach and converge with prevailing opinion, electronic ili i i l t i journals hasten scientific consensus” James A Evans, “Electronic Publication and the Narrowing of Science and Scholarship,” Science 321 (July 18, 2008)
  96. 96. Power Law Distribution rules the web (and more). http://www.congo‐education.net/wealth‐of‐networks/figure‐7‐4.gif p g g g
  97. 97. http://www.hitwise.com/datacenter/main/dashboard‐10133.html http://www.searchenginelowdown.com/uploaded_images/Hitwise%20July%202005‐719785.JPG
  98. 98. Whether you look at the web y as a whole or any subsection within it (blogs, political sites, sports sites, etc) you (bl liti l it t it t ) see power law distributions.
  99. 99. “We introduce a new term to describe the organizational structure we find: ‘ googlearchy ’ – the rule of the most heavily linked.” Matthew Hindman et al, “’Googlearchy’: how a few heavily‐linked sites dominate politics on the web,”  Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, 2003
  100. 100. I prefer the phrase (following Robert Michel): The Iron Law of Googlearchy
  101. 101. Michel’s 1911 iron law of oligarchy is a political theory that t t that ll forms of organization will eventually th t states th t all f f i ti ill t ll and inevitably develop into oligarchies. My iron l law of googlearchy states that all f f l h h ll forms of search- f h optimized web-based information will eventually and inevitably develop into oligarchies in which a small y p g number of sites absolutely dominate the discourse on any given subject.
  102. 102. Environment i
  103. 103. Some studies say that datacenters account for between 1.2 to 2.0 percent of the electricity consumed in the United States. By some estimates, if you were to view datacenters as an industry unto themselves, U.S. datacenters would be approaching the top five industries in terms of energy use. http://technet.microsoft.com/en‐us/magazine/2007.10.green.aspx
  104. 104. US data centers thus produce higher g p g gas emissions than the countries of Argentina and the Netherlands. Even worse, these numbers did not include Google’s power usage. Google s usage
  105. 105. Q: How much does it take to power a Google data center? A: It's none of your business. Google considers power usage to be a trade secret http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/datacenter/?p=118
  106. 106. One O estimate: i Every time y search Google y could y you g you power an 11-watt light bulb for an hour. http://www.gimmiethescoop.com/data‐center‐power‐consumption‐global‐warming‐will‐the‐web‐crash
  107. 107. These numbers did not include data center power usage. Moberg et al, "Screening environmental life cycle assessment of printed, web based and tablet e‐paper newspaper," Reports  from the KTH Centre for Sustainable Communications, 2007
  108. 108. Cognitive impairment C g iti i i t
  109. 109. This is the key one … but is still under-studied
  110. 110. Is li I online reading di actually changing our cognitive abilities, bl perhaps for the worse?
  111. 111. There are plenty of grumpy old teacher stories about kids nowadays…
  112. 112. “The research literature on young people’s use of information technology in their learning suggests that in the case of assignment completion at least, what was more important than entertainment or interest was to finish by the expending the least amount of effort.” British Library/JISC Study, Information Behavior of the Researcher of the Future (2007) “The popularity of Google is facilitating The laziness, poor scholarship, and complacent thinking.” Tara Brabazan, the University of Google: Education in the (post) information age (2007) Tara Brabazan the University of Google: Education in the (post) information age (2007)
  113. 113. I have tried to provide a range p g of evidence that suggests we should be worried about cognitive impairment.
  114. 114. Yet there have been some claims that in fact the new media environment is making us smarter. g
  115. 115. These claims are mainly founded on y the Flynn Effect (Q (IQ test scores have been rising 3-5 points g p per decade since 1930s) This growth has however been in scores below the median, not above it. Sundet et al, “The end of the Flynn effect?” Intelligence 32 (2004) Strangely, mean SAT score results since 1950s have steadily declined declined. Flynn, “The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978,” Psychological Bulletin, 95,
  116. 116. “almost all of the almost modest gain between g 1988 and 1998 derived from the g geometric figures g test of spatial ability.” bilit ” Teasdale and Owen, “A long‐term rise and recent decline in intelligence test performance: The Flynn Effect in reverse”  Intelligence 39 (2005)
  117. 117. Recent research indicates Flynn Effect has reversed in the th past d t decade. d Sundet et al, “The end of the Flynn effect?” Intelligence 32 (2004) Teasdale and Owen, “Secular declines in cognitive test scores: A reversal of the Flynn Effect” Intelligence 36 (2008) ( ) Teasdale and Owen, “A long‐term rise and recent decline in intelligence test performance: The Flynn Effect in reverse”  Intelligence 39 (2005)
  118. 118. Leisure paper-based reading paper based still remains one of the strongest correlates of post- secondary success. Gallik, “Do they read for pleasure? Recreational reading habits of college students,” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 42 (1999) Kaiser Family Foundation, Generation M (2005)
  119. 119. National Endowment for the Arts, http://www.arts.gov/research/ReadingonRise.pdf (January 2009)
  120. 120. Recap: p Five Things Wrong with online reading
  121. 121. Poor comprehension Too T much scanning h i Information Selectivity Environmentally unsound Cognitive impairment
  122. 122. should we do?
  123. 123. WARNING Philosophy ahead … h d
  124. 124. “To behold, use or perceive , p any extension of ourselves in technological form is necessarily to embrace it.” “To listen to radio or to read the printed page To is to accept these extensions… into our personal system and to undergo the closure or displacement of perception that follows automatically ” automatically. Marshall McLuhan, “The Gadget Lover: Narcissus as Narcosis,” Understanding Media (1964)
  125. 125. “It is this continuous embrace of our own technology … gy that puts us in the Narcissus role of … numbness in l ti to these i i relation t th images [ t i ] of ourselves.” [extensions] f l ” Marshall McLuhan, “The Gadget Lover: Narcissus as Narcosis,” Understanding Media (1964)
  126. 126. We W are th t numb t recognize th t thus too b to i that “Man in the normal use of technology … is perpetually modified by it.” p p y y As such, we tend to be unconscious of the real effects of technology on the individual. Marshall McLuhan, “The Gadget Lover: Narcissus as Narcosis,” Understanding Media (1964)
  127. 127. we are going t i to WAKE FROM this numbness numbness…
  128. 128. “You must change your life”
  129. 129. We need to push students (and ourselves) back to the printed page. page
  130. 130. Changes? 1. Reduced bibliographic expectations, but print-based e.g., 2 print-based refereed articles, three chapters in book, etc 2. No research, but fixed, substantial, printed-out readings e.g., provide students with substantial number of readings from which they have to read a percentage. 3. Teach and re-teach how to evaluate information Don’t expect the high schools to do this for you! 4. Print out and read, don’t read scan from your monitor Even if you think you’re reading, you probably aren’t.
  131. 131. 5. Resist those continual calls to cheerfully adopt the technology of the digital generation in your teaching. The role of the University is to preserve and promote real learning, not to push our students into a new dark age of voluntarily-chosen ignorance in the th name of relevance or f hi f l fashion.
  132. 132. Randy Connolly Dept. Computer Science & Information Systems Mount Royal University, Calgary rconnolly@mtroyal.ca y y

×