Google/Library Research

I really did not find the article, “In Google We Trust”, to be interesting, but instead informative. It was research based and scientific. Basically a study was created using eye monitoring devices to determine how students utilize Google and rely on its service as one would definitions in a dictionary…meaning to say that the first one is the most commonly used and is therefore a more reliable source. This conclusion is based on Bing Pan’s article, “In Google We Trust”. In addition to this, Nicholas Carr, in his article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, further discusses Google’s goal of equipping people with the ability to be their own search engine somehow literally connected with Google.
This is indeed a frightening thought. Once I asked in class whether or not this new language and emergence of instance messaging technology could physically change a person’s brain networks. This article seems to be answering my question in the affirmative. I found it rather daunting and unbelievable how so many people professed how constant engagement in technology (i.e. on-line reading) has disallowed them to think and process long works of literature. Someone who actually was a literature major confessed to no longer being able to sit down and read a book in its entirety. Their brains just don’t work like they used to do while they would read. The unsettling part is learning that one of Google’s goals is to implant some type of device that will enable its users to download information directly in their brains. As the article indicates, this type of technology will make us stupid. If this article has any- merit to it and can be backed up by credible research, then it’s no wonder why our students have such a hard time reading passages on the End of Grade Test. They want technologically advanced schools, but at the same time they may very well be producing less sophisticated humans. The brain is already its own intricate CPU. I say don’t mess with what God already created; you might end up with something that you wish you’d never had.
The article, “It Wasn’t Me Was It?”, by DeVoss and Rosati focused on the issue of plagiarism. It was rather lengthy and boring. However, it discussed the fact that plagiarism should be taught to students in two different ways. First, students need to understand why it’s wrong and how it’s wrong. Not only do they need to understand that it is not honest, but they also need to know when they are being dishonest. The article mentions how one professor was confronted by a line of students, most of which were perfectly innocent, did not know for sure whether or not they were guilty of plagiarism. That brought up the fact that students have to be taught how to properly research and site sources. They have to be taught the difference. The article also recognized how the use of plagiarism can be used as a teachable moment. Tips on how to best address this topic are provided and on-line research is also encouraged. Michelle Sidler’s article “Web Research and Genres I Online Databases…” also encourages the use of the Internet as a primary research tool. While this tool is efficient and accessible, she explains how it does come with its costs. Before students can use this tool, they have to be fully aware of and abreast to the academics of on-line researching tools from the Web address to the Web page itself. Students have to be familiar with what was described as Web language or terminology as well as what to keep and what not to keep. This text was informative more than interesting. I guess I feel this way because it was an article to be more as a source for on-line researching than for entertainment.